This item was first published on the FACT website on 1st November 2004
Teacher wins court order restraining indecency trial
A national school teacher yesterday won a High Court order restraining his trial on eight counts of indecent assault on a male pupil allegedly committed in the late 1960s. In the ruling the High Court strongly criticised psychological evidence called by the State to explain a delay of more than 30 years in making complaints of indecent assault
The complaints against the teacher were made in 1999 after the man in question saw RTE's States of Fear, which dealt with abuse in institutions. Yesterday Mr Justice Kearns noted that psychologists were often asked to give reports in such cases at very short notice and received "very modest remuneration" for their work. He said such unsatisfactory circumstances emphasised how difficult it was for any psychologist to provide useful assistance to any court in relation to explaining reasons for delay.
The complainant was one of three former pupils of the same school who, between , 1997 and 1999, had made complaints of indecent assault against the applicant. All of the charges relating to one of those complaints were withdrawn in 2001, and the DPP had also chosen not to show cause in relation to a second complainant. The only charges which then remained against the teacher were those made by the third complainant. Mr Justice Kearns noted that the complainant was aged between 6-8 years at the time of the alleged offences and that the applicant teacher is now on leave of absence as a result of the charges. The complainant made his first complaint in 1999, alleging sexual abuse on dates between 1967 and 1968. The complainant said he had told the school principal at the time what was done to him, but received "a sharp box" to the head and was told never to mention the matter again.
because of this, he had never mentioned the assaults to his parents, siblings or wife. As a young adult, he began to drink heavily, lost a number of jobs and also became divorced.
In his decision, the judge said complainants in such cases were required to give an explanation for the delay in making complaints where as, in this case, the delay was substantial and inordinate. It was for that reason that the State called the evidence of psychologists. There had been many judgments where trenchant criticism had been made of inadequate psychological evidence, he said. In this case, the psychological evidence failed virtually every requirement set out in those judgments. There was no psychological evaluation or assessment of the complainant, obvious leads were not followed up and a very brief period of time was allotted to the entire exercise.He was equally satisfied with the applicant's complaints that his right to a fair trial was prejudiced due to the delay.
In a second and separate case, Mr Justice Kearns also granted an order preventing the trial of a man on charges of rape and indecent assault of his first cousin, a female who was aged between 10 and 12 years when the alleged offences occurred on dates between 1966 and 1968.
Mary Carolan (further details on Let Our Voices website)
This item was first published on FACTs website on 4th November 2004
JUDGE FOR YOURSELF
HOW MANY ARE INNOCENT – LOCAL AUTHOR’S GUIDE TO THE BRITISH LEGAL SYSTEM’S APPALLING NUMBER OF MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE PROVES TO BE A STARTLING REVELATION
Launch party & signing: 11th November 2004, 5pm onwards
Hammicks Book Shop, 191-193 Fleet St. London
Paddy Joe Hill (Birmingham 6), Paul Blackburn & Michael Mansfield QC in attendance
Monday 1ST November 2004: Roots Books, a UK publishing house dedicated to documenting the political and social aspects of injustice in Britain is proud to announce the release of London writer, L A Naylor’s debut book Judge for Yourself. Guest speakers at this special launch event will also include Michael Mansfield QC, Paddy Joe Hill and Paul Blackburn who was locked up when a child of 15 years old, for 25 years. Blackburn has always denied guilt of the attempted murder for which he was convicted. The Criminal Cases Review Commission has just referred his case back to the Court of Appeal.
On this day the Court of Appeal will also hear an appeal against the conviction of Graham Huckerby, who was convicted of being the inside man in a major Securicor robbery in Salford, Manchester in 1995. The case - by bizarre coincidence - was the first Jill Dando featured during her time on the BBC’s Crimewatch programme.
Huckerby and his co-accused, Shay Power, were both sentenced to 14 years imprisonment for their involvement in the biggest theft of cash in transit since the great train robbery of 1963. Graham Huckerby is included in a significant list of alleged miscarriage of justice victims in the book. Strong, fresh psychological evidence has been presented to the Court of Appeal - if Huckerby wins then it will clearly demonstrate how the criminal justice system can sometimes punish the victims of crime, whilst letting the offender go free.
This well researched layperson’s guide to the British legal system’s appalling number of miscarriages of justice proves to be a startling revelation. Even more interestingly, it is an exploration of how such mistakes are allowed to continue and how, despite a blatant lack of evidence against them, many people have been and still are languishing in jail for crimes they did not commit.
‘Perhaps the strongest message to emerge is that there is no peace without justice. Anyone interested in Britain, social justice and human resilience should read this book.’ Simon Hattenstone, the Guardian.
‘What this timely book demonstrates with telling clarity is that the risk of miscarriage has not diminished and that the human cost involved is incalculable.’ Michael Mansfield QC
‘The public still don’t understand just how easy it is to be put in prison for a crime you didn’t commit. It could happen to anyone. Anyone interested in truth, law and justice should read this book.’ Paddy Joe Hill, Birmingham 6
‘A well written polemic that pulls no punches.’ Dr. Michael Naughton, Bristol University
For interviews with the author, directions and further information visit website: or email:
Launch details:
11th November 2004, 5pm, Hammicks Book Shop, 191-193 Fleet St. London.
Tel: 07903 458703
This item first appeared on the F.A.C.T. website on the 10th November 2004
Dear All,
As reported in our previous mail shot, the next step of the INUK initiative is to appoint an Executive Board, to be supported by an Advisory Council. The Board will draw from the knowledge and experiences of members of the Advisory Council, to be constituted by representatives from campaigning organisations against miscarriages of justice, forensic scientists, academics, investigative journalists, and criminal appeal lawyers. We are also looking for suitable patrons.
Following on from the United Against Injustice 3rd Annual Miscarriage of Justice Day Conference, 9 October 2004, Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, London, we can report that this stage of our development is underway with a formal invitation to UAI to nominate a member from each affiliated organisation to be a representative on the INUK Advisory Council. Approaches are also being made to other potential members.
It is envisaged that initially the Advisory Council will meet with the
Executive Board annually, with Special Meetings being called if necessary. We hope to convene the first meeting of the Executive Board and Advisory Council at the Annual Innocence Network Conference, taking place at the University of Leeds on (or around) July 8th 2005.
Another important matter if the INUK is to succeed relates to funding. INUK is currently self-financing and funds will need to be sought to ensure its growth and future success.
As the INUK's plans relate to the establishment of innocence projects in the UK, immediate plans will also focus upon developing university units on the causes and consequences of miscarriages of justice as a precursor to encouraging innocence projects in universities around the UK in the coming years.
A matter that needs urgent clarification is that the Innocence Network UK does not investigate individual cases. Cases will be only be investigated if and when innocence projects are up and running. It is vital that the proper foundations are put in place to ensure that
innocence projects can succeed. The future of the UK innocence movement should not be jeopardised by impatience!
It is just as vital that the goodwill and expressed desire of the
campaigning organisations and criminal appeal lawyers groups to collaborate continues. Without this, innocence projects will not flourish. Through such collaborations, and before the implementation of innocence projects is attempted, we need to determine the mechanisms by which innocence projects would operate. For example, how are cases to be referred to innocence projects? Should it be by the victims of wrongful conviction themselves, by campaigning organisations, or by criminal appeal lawyers?
How are cases to be assessed as eligible for investigation? Should
applicants in prison take priority over applicants who have served their
sentences but still assert their innocence? How do family support groups fit in? Who will have overall responsibility for cases? Will there be a conflict with the CCRC? What checks would there be on the efficiency of the projects? Will there be a complaints procedure?
These kinds of questions need to be considered and resolved by the
Executive Board to provide information and best practice guidelines, as well as working models, for those wishing to start innocence projects.
Best wishes,
Michael and Carole
This item first appeared on the F.A.C.T. website on the November 2004
The following article appears on the Inquisition 21st Century Website.
The victim activists in Ireland have hit back at a courageous woman who has been trying to defend nuns and brothers.
Ireland’s malicious victim activists.
The victim activists in Ireland have hit back in a potentially deadly manner at a courageous woman who has been trying to defend the nuns and brothers who ran residential homes for decades. Florence Horsman Hogan set up LOVE to defend falsely accused carers, and to the rage of the so-called ‘survivor groups’ began to claim that a huge number of the complainants were compensation seekers who were inventing the abuse and ruining the names of both living and dead carers.
Now the ‘victims’ have hit back with two allegations at Florence and her family, using the weapon they have at their disposal – claims of abuse and neglect. The first complaint was withdrawn, but the second, anonymous, was that Florence herself was neglecting her two children, aged 6 and 10. Disgracefully, social services, have responded, with the mantra that all reports of abuse must be investigated.
Sweden has already demonstrated how such draconian responses silence outspoken mothers of young children. In that country, there was no argument in similar cases: if the mother criticized the system, social services decided that her behaviour was ‘inappropriate for a mother’ and took her children away.
Florence Horsman Hogan has described herself as ‘a sitting duck’ for her enemies. She added: “The last few weeks have been hell on earth for me and my family. I have cried non-stop and I haven’t slept. Every allegation of child abuse must be investigated, but false allegations ruin families and reputations, and, once made, the presumption of innocence is thrown out the window.
“Once word of a complaint gets out, you are labelled and can’t escape the stigma. I am a paediatric nurse and a well known children’s rights activist. For me to be accused of child abuse is like calling Mother Teresa a pervert or the Pope a Protestant.”
Celebrity victim John Kelly who heads up one of the leading survivor organizations and is an arch enemy of Hogan, was quick to get on the bandwagon, using carefully selected weasel words: “I don’t think anyone would go so far as to deliberately make a false allegation against her.” He knows the allegations were made. He knows that social services took notice. So he must be saying either that it was an accidentally made false allegation or a true one. The latter is probably slanderous.
But his next comment is outrageous, coming from the leading spokesman for the sex abuse compensation industry. He said, “We wouldn’t like to see anyone falsely accused of abuse.”
This item was first published on the FACT website on 25th November 2004
Press Release
Subject: L.O.V.E Condemn Religious Orders in Indemnity Deal/Public Accounts Committee
Let Our Voices Emerge applaud the examination of the Indemnity Deal regarding the payment of compensation to genuine victims of abuse in Religious run, state funded Industrial Schools in Ireland.
We don't condemn the Religious Orders for giving funding towards the Redress Board Scheme at the time they did so believing it to be the least adversarial and least expensive approach to the issue of institutional abuse for their own members (most of whom plead their innocence!) and for the genuine victims.
What we do condemn them for is their ridiculous naivety in believing only genuine claimants would claim and in their failure to ensure the Redress Board Scheme would be adequately monitored, and in their failure to protect those of their own members who have been so horrifically falsely accused.
Although the Religious have been severely criticised for their apparently meagre contribution to the funding for compensation, we firmly believe that they have been more than generous with their efforts, and any attempt to extract more monies from them is farcical.
- Its generally accepted the State gave insufficient funding for the Homes. In order to receive more capitation funding more and more children had to be accepted.
- In spite of the insufficient funding, many children were accepted as 'charity cases' with no capitation given for them. (I myself came under this category!)
- The Religious workers in the Homes, cooks, laundry workers, supervisors received no pay for their work, and worked more than 70 hours a week constantly 'on the job'.
Florence Horsman Hogan
Chairperson LOVE (Let Our Voices Emerge)