On the 4th April 2005 Claire Curtis Thomas (Crosby, Lab) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what types of investigations other than historical sex abuse police use (a) trawling and (b) dip-sampling.
Answer
Hansard Reference
On the 5th April 2005 Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby, Lab) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what disciplinary procedure a police officer who breached the Association of Chief Police Officers' guidance on anonymity until the point of charge for individuals accused of abuse would face.
Answer
Hansard Reference
On the 7th April 2005
Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby, Lab) asked the k the
Secretary of State for the
Home Department
-
what further safeguards have been built into the dip sampling process since 2003;
-
how compliance with the "The Investigation of Historic/Institutional Child Abuse: The SIO handbook" is assessed
-
what role the Inter-agency Strategic Management Group has in historic sex abuse operations;
-
if he will make a statement on the use of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales in historic sex abuse investigations;
-
what discussions his Department has had with the
Association of Chief Police Officers regarding the documentation and written recording of police interviews with complainants and other significant witnesses in historical sex abuse cases; and what the outcome was of those discussions;
-
what research he has conducted into (a) SCAN and (b) other techniques for assessing the validity of statements for use in historical sex abuse cases;
-
if he will make a statement on the advice provided by the Association of Chief Police Officers Investigative Interviewing Group to police forces on statement validity analysis techniques for use in historical sex abuse investigations;
-
what changes have been made to the guidelines for investigations into historical sex abuse, to take account of the establishment of the National Centre for Policing Excellence.
Answer
Hansard Reference
Donna Anthony
Item first appeared on the F.A.C.T website on 12th April 2005, and was submitted by Graham
DONNA Anthony is the fourth woman to walk free after cases which relied on the key evidence of Prof Sir Roy Meadow.These allegations are similar to many FACT cases, in that there is no evidence to reach a conclusion of guilt other than the allegation. There is no conclusive evidence as to the cause of death. Just as in the cases of historic abuse there is no other evidence than the claims of the alleged victim. These are very emotive issues, and repulsive alleged crimes for the jury to consider in an objective manner The conviction of Donna Anthony depended upon the opinion of an expert witness and a willingness by the jury to believe that on the balance of probability Donna Anthony killed her children, that probability was then given the weight of beyond reasonable doubt required for a conviction. Prof Sir Roy Meadow was the expert witness used by the CPS to support the case. To strengthen the case he was required to harden his views into a remote statistical chance of accidental death. Prof Sir Roy Meadow is not a statistician, a parliamentary select committee have warned of the dangers of accepting expert witness statistics. Expert witness evidence counter to that of Sir Roy’s always existed but it is obvious that to remain a Police expert witness you are required to provide evidence to support prosecution, if you will not supply that evidence then you will be quickly discarded for another who will support the prosecution case.
Using the adversarial system of justice, the CPS and the Police are concerned with securing a conviction, not necessarily exposing the truth and will use expert witnesses accordingly. If it were not the expert witness Prof Sir Roy Meadow who provided the required view then it would be another sought out by the police. The alternative view of these cot deaths always existed but none were willing to speak out against Prof Sir Roy Meadow until the legal and public view of these cases had changed. Jurors were willing to accept the evidence of Prof Sir Roy Meadow without question I believe that the view of local authorities who pay vast sums for unproven allegations of historic abuse without question, the public, and hence juries, is that those who alleged historic abuse are always telling the truth. The willingness to believe allegations without evidence has resulted in unjust convictions of many. The adversarial system, with pressure to secure conviction, as a measure of both police and CPS efficiency is, out dated; it does not secure the truth. The jury system that makes no check on intelligence, literacy, nor language fluency of its members is flawed. Emotive cases leave the jury with the sense of wanting to avoid making a mistake and releasing a guilty person. This neurosis secures the guilty verdict which is not bases on logical reasoning by a jury who unlike other judicial bodies are not required to give the rational behind their decisions
Thankyou Graham for submitting this - what do other people think ? Email the news editor
This item first appear of the F.A.C.T website on 18th April 2005
My attention has been drawn to a web site where you can contact your local Councillors, MP, MEPs, MSPs, or members of the Welsh and London Assembly Members. The site also provides a very quick guide to politicians at all levels of government in your area.
This item first appeared on the F.A.C.T website on 16 April 2005
Those of you following the Laurehill School dispute might be interested to know that questions were asked in the House regarding this matter.
9th November 2004
Iris Robinson (Strangford, DUP)
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the South Eastern Education and Library Board has employed a public relations company to deal with public and media inquiries concerning the Laurehill School dispute and the boards deficit; and if he will make a statement.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North, Lab)
I have been advised by the Chief Executive of the South Eastern Education and Library Board that the board did not employ a public relations company in relation to the board's financial deficit. However, Laurehill Community College, on the advice of the board, engaged a public relations company to assist it to deal with the national media attention which arose as a result of industrial action taken by teaching staff at the school.
4th April 2005
Roy Beggs Sen. (East Antrim, UUP)
Education (False Sexual Allegations)
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements the South Eastern Education and Library Board made to educate a child at a private school as a consequence of a false sexual abuse allegation by the pupil against a teacher; whether a grant was paid to (a) the family and (b) a school; what the consequences were for the teacher who was falsely accused; whether the Department of Education or the Board have taken steps to rehabilitate the teacher; whether he will be paid compensation; and if he will make a statement.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North, Lab)
In the case to which the hon. Member refers, the teacher concerned pleaded guilty to assault of a pupil but not, I understand, a sexual assault. I am told by the South Eastern Education Board that, having considered a range of options and looked at what was in the best interests of the child, the decision was taken to secure a place in a privately operated school. The Board is paying the fees for the pupil's attendance at the school. While the teacher will not receive compensation, I can assure the hon. Member that his rehabilitation was a major consideration and that the Terms of Settlement of this dispute contain a section relating specifically to the teacher and his needs.
As a matter of principle I acknowledge the need to protect teachers from false allegations made against them. While we must of course listen to children and give primacy to their needs and welfare, the position of teachers also needs to be given due consideration in any investigative process. I am very much aware of the hugely damaging and lasting effect that false allegations can have on a teacher's professional and personal life. Our procedures must recognise teachers' rights to be heard, and to be protected against false allegations. In the coming months my Department will be undertaking a review of the way precautionary suspensions currently operate, with the aim of issuing fresh guidance to schools.
This item first appeared on the F.A.C.T website on 18th April 2005
The following article written by Belinda Sinclair and published in the NEW LAW JOURNAL 3rd November 2000, Vol 150 No 6958 p 1617, has been brought to my notice.
YOUR WITNESS -- REALLY
The interview is crucial to most investigations. Whether under caution or to secure witness evidence, few would dispute that police interview techniques have developed beyond recognition over the past 15 years. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act forced investigators to rethink their approach and refine strategies for exploration.
But that application is not universal. While suspect interviews generally meet expected criteria, witness interviews often come a poor second. Maybe the absence of judicial parameters or the readiness of victims to assist reduces focus, but determination to unearth the full story behind an incident seems less strong with witnesses than suspects.
Before the PEACE model was introduced in the early 1990s, interview planning was rare. PEACE advocated rapport and invited interviewees to explain and account for action, rather than to merely respond to questions. Cognitive approaches encouraged subjects to regenerate the feelings, impressions and observations present at the time of an event to probe hidden memory. Its facilitation through conversation management exposed a wider range of material for investigation.
Although these tools have since been absorbed into police culture, many witnesses are still questioned rather than debriefed. This means that only responses are considered in the investigation, leaving a huge resource of potentially relevant and valuable material untouched. It happens particularly during investigation into more common offences, leaving defence practitioners with virgin territory with which to introduce reasonable doubt.
Police concentrate on covering points to prove but rarely use all of the information at their disposal. Instead of proving, re-proving and then proving a point again, prosecutors frequently adopt a "we've got enough" policy. Valuable witness input is thus missed.
A common approach is to consider information obtained from a particular witness and then compare other contributions to it. While comparison is useful in identifying gaps, it also narrows the perspective and can steer subsequent interviews. This is where inadvertent contamination creeps in.
Unlike interviews with suspects, conversations with witnesses are not recorded and are rarely conducted in the presence of a legal advisor. So how then, can you guarantee that the process was conducted objectively with the witness uninfluenced by the interviewer? A facial expression indicating an unhelpful response to a question, a comment paraphrased or omitted, clarification sought out of context, or weighted -- all subtle ways of conveying displeasure, encouragement or suggesting the witness revises the information.
Yes, of course it has to be edited and sifted for hearsay, irrelevance and inconsequential digression, but without supervision or accountability, how safe is it to assume utmost propriety?
This danger increases where rapport has been established. It is very difficult not to try and help somebody whom you like or who is obviously trying to help you -- even if that means leaping from a point of uncertainty and landing in unambiguous territory.
There is also a tendency to assume that police knowledge must be correct. Witnesses rarely challenge the prosecution viewpoint, perhaps for fear of appearing foolish, or not realising that even a small snippet can be crucial to an investigation. One particular case fell apart after weeks of work when a minor witness pointed out a mismatch between a day and date. A key witness had muddled the two and had inadvertently set the process off on a mystery tour.
Unlike suspects, witnesses are often consulted more than once; no time restrictions apply, so why not? Subsequent visits are made to check new information. But the practice can introduce yet more bias.
Consider meeting somebody for the first time without knowing anything of an incident. Relate that to meeting them after you have checked their background, heard from other witnesses or discovered something significant. Could you guarantee impartiality and objectivity? No, and nor can investigators. The bias might be unintentional but unless you ask a witness to break down when, where and how often points of evidence were discussed, how can you be sure that their statement reflects recall and not what they learned subsequently?
And what about learning points from case law? Their relevance is still not appreciated by police, even though the Intranet, an in-house Internet style database, offers pertinent material. While officers recognise the provisions of R v Turnbull and the ADVOKATE mnemonic in identification evidence, its application remains patchy.
Thus lessons from previous prosecutions are not observed; many of the same mistakes are repeated. Witness information is still not fully explored and safeguards derived from case law in respect of those interviews not conducted under the restrictions of PACE, fail to impact.
It is easy to assume police malpractice, but that requires effort and inclination. It is also time-consuming and dangerous. Unsafe evidence is far more likely to emanate from the restrictions of time, peer group pressure and lack of training to encourage skill development. Defence practitioners can turn that to their advantage but they still need to reassess their own practice. Rather than focusing on prosecution claims as targets to wobble, peripheral points are often better bets.
Police evidence may not be as thorough as assumed, so explore the full range of material. Conduct your own investigation before you focus on disproving what they identify as key points. Investigate the process of how witnesses were interviewed; ask them what they were told, how many investigators spoke to them, the relationship that developed, and any doubts or repercussions they discussed.
Ask them what they know about the case; it would be unrealistic to expect a witness not to have indulged some degree of curiosity and refrained from asking questions, but is their knowledge detailed? If so, it might just provide you with a basis to probe how much they gleaned while they were still providing information -- and how much they might have absorbed during that process but offered as their own evidence.
The prosecution is out to establish guilt and destroy innocence. Using the strongest points is fine, providing that all material is thoroughly examined. Selection of the most damming components for inclusion is all part of the legal gamble.
But if only portions of the material available for investigation are assessed, doubt arises. It implies secrecy; the withholding of snippets that could undermine the prosecution case. It falls to the defence to consider the full range independently, and not defer to suggestions imposed by police investigators.
NOTE: Belinda Sinclair is a former police officer, trained teacher and journalist. She used to teach legislation, procedure and evidence preparation to officers and civilians. She is now a freelance journalist
This item was first placed on the F.A.C.T. website on 19th April 2005
A few weeks ago we sent out a notice indicating that Richard Webster’s book "The Secret of Bryn Estyn - the making of a modern witch hunt" was now available. We suggested at the time that you either buy the book or ask your local library to obtain it for you.
Since this time we have received feedback from F.A.C.T. members and supporters who have read the book suggesting that we make it better known. They invariably describe it as "must read book" for anyone who has a concern about allegations of false abuse.
Have YOU read it, have YOU asked your library to stock it?
The book is a very powerful statement of how easy it is for the State and society in general to be hoodwinked into believing that child abuse in care homes (and residential schools) was (and is) common practice. If you need convincing about its merit read the reviews on the Orwell Press website or on Richard Webster’s website
The book is available direct from the publishers, from good book shops and internet outlets such as amazon.com. Get your copy now.
The Secret of Bryn Estyn - the making of a modern witch hunt.
Published by Orwell Press
Author: Richard Webster
ISBN 0 9515922 4 6
Price £25 inc p&p in the UK
Available direct from the publishers and from good book stores
This item first appeared on the F.A.C.T. website on 26th April 2005
Thanks to all those who participated in the San Lazaro vigil organised by F.A.C.T. at the General Medical Counsel hearing in Manchester on 25th April. It was good to see people from Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Cheshire, Yorkshire, Hertfordshire, and North and South Wales. The majority were care home cases but there were others from domestic and psychotherapy cases, a doctor - adult female patients case, a gay adult relationship recast as paedophilia case, and a employer - employee case.
The B.F.M.S. sent someone to report on the hearing and a woman was also there, whose daughter, whom she has not seen for many years, has appeared in the media saying she was satanically abused in caves and cellars by a witches coven which included her parents. There were also five former prisoners and someone awaiting sentence among us.
A number of passers by gave support and provided tales of their own experience of false allegations.
The Daily Mail, three various press associations, three photographers and one unidentified journalist were there. The excellent briefing provided by someone in the North East was given to the press who had also been well-briefed by Gail. Photographs were take of the groups' banners and posters. A producer of a TV company who saw the demonstrations whilst on a bus also made contact
San Lazaro pleaded guilty to 15 of the 16 'heads of charges' some of them important others irrelevant. She pleaded not guilty to professional misconduct.
We intend to return for the ruling/verdict scheduled for about a fortnight from now and therefore are encouraging people to be there.
Please also do you best to attend the A.C.P.O. Vigil at the NEC on the 19th March commencing at 11:00am
This item was first placed on the F.A.C.T. website on 16th April 2005
Six months on from the Innocence Projects Colloquium, University of Bristol, it seems timely to provide an update of innocence project activity. It is still very, very early days yet, but as will be seen below, the signs are that the seeds are starting to be sown for a vibrant network of student participation in alleged wrongful convictions - fingers crossed!
Bristol
I am pleased to report that the University of Bristol Innocence Project held its first meeting 27 January 2005. The Project is very much in an embryonic phase at present. It comprises myself, Bharat Malkani - who is a 1st year postgraduate and the Postgraduate Director - and around 10 undergraduates, primarily 1st year students and a couple of second year students. It was decided that there would be little point in recruiting 3rd year students to get the Project up-and-running, as by the time they were in a position to handle a case they would have completed their studies!
We are meeting weekly in a training mode capacity to discuss key academic texts and other materials, i.e. films and made for television documentaries and dramatisations about wrongful conviction cases to provide vital background information to the students. The idea is that the students will take on their first case sometime in 2006.
In addition, 'guests' including victims of false allegations and wrongful convictions, case-workers from campaigning organisations, and the Criminal Cases Review Commission have agreed to visit to speak to the students about their various experiences and hold workshops on their expertise. In addition, representatives from a local criminal law firm with whom we have an association will train the students in interviewing clients and writing legal letters.
In the meantime, the University of Bristol Innocence Project is acting as a referral system for the INUK by inviting unassisted applicants to have their cases assessed by the Projects' solicitors. So far we have had an assessment of 15 cases by our solicitors for their merits, many of which will be explored further by the students. In addition, Bharat is exploring a case in his specialist area - International Human Rights Law - that was previously supported by the organisation Liberty - with a view to possibly drafting an application to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasburg. For more information contact Michael Naughton
Leeds
Since the Colloquium, Carole McCartney has also been busy putting the foundations in place for innocence project activity at Leeds. She has just returned from a fact-finding trip to the US Innocence Network about getting an innocent project started. She will, also, travel to Australia in the summer to learn more about the educational benefits of student participation on innocence projects. Carole has promised a report of these activities for the website. For further information contact Carole McCartney
The ingredients for an innocence project are also coming together in Manchester. Following approaches to the University of Manchester by members of INNOCENT and enquiries from locally based barristers who heard about the INUK through the University of Bristol Alumni Newsletter, a new appointee to the Law School with a history of activism against police misconduct will strive to develop the existing Legal Advice Centre so that students get involved in research on wrongful convictions. For more information contact Andrew Green
Hazel Keirle and Russ Spring (Miscarriages of Justice Organisation) have the basis of a formal agreement with the Law School for a pilot project. Hazel reports that initial protocols have been agreed and the case materials for the first case are in the process of being transferred to Warwick with a view to being operationalised later this year. To avoid Warwick being inundated with requests for assistance from alleged victims of wrongful conviction/imprisonment, Hazel and Russ are acting as a filter and will select appropriate cases and aspects of cases for students to research. For further information contact Hazel
London
A defence-orientated Chambers in London held the first meeting of the Innocence Group on the 25 March to explore the feasibility of utilising students on the Bar Vocational and Legal Practice courses to research aspects of alleged wrongful convictions. It was reported that there was an enthusiastic response from most of the members, but that there were also many questions about the practicalities and possible pitfalls of innocence projects. The INUK will endeavour to address the concerns of the Innocence Group and support the collaboration of legal professionals, students and local activists (London Against Injustice) to bring innocence projects activity in London to fruition.
All in all, then, things are shaping up for a meaningful 2nd Innocence Projects Colloquium around innocence project activity to take place - watch this space!
Submitted by Michael Naughton