Is a Royal Commission the solution to conducting a credible child abuse inquiry?

Today the UK media is full of controversy about the suitability of Fiona Woolf as Chair of a Home Office-sponsored allegedly "independent" inquiry into child abuse.

The inquiry currently proposed by the Home Office is a non-statutory inquiry which, supposedly, can be converted into a statutory inquiry (under the Inquiries Act 2005) at a later date.

I, for one, don't believe that it will be lawfully possible to convert the currently formulated child abuse inquiry into a statutory inquiry, not least because it seems to me that several Panel members wouldn't credibly pass the tests set out in Section 9 of the Inquiries Act 2005.

Further, the Home Office-sponsored inquiry will cover only England and Wales.

It cannot cover Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Nor, importantly, can it cover Crown Dependencies. At least that's my understanding.

Among other "Elephants in the room" (see A draft proposal for a credible, definitive inquiry into UK child (sexual) abuse ), there are persistent allegations that the late Prime Minister Edward Heath was a paedophile and used, so it is alleged, his yacht for child abuse in or around Jersey.

As a result of the allegations regarding the late Edward Heath, it seems to me that a credible child abuse inquiry must, at a minimum, include the Crown Dependency of Jersey.

A Home Office inquiry, whether ad hoc or statutory, cannot do so, so far as I understand the position.

The only mechanism of which I am aware that could allow a genuinely overarching child abuse inquiry to include Jersey is a Royal Commission.

It seems to me that survivor groups and others could usefully give serious thought to scrapping the inadequate, shambolic Home Office inquiry and seek a Royal Commision into Child Abuse.

A Royal Commission is an ad hoc inquiry.

It seems to me to be possible for the Letters Patent to allow for the "total transparency" and "Public Panel" that I seek. See my draft proposal of a few days ago for background I consider potentially relevant:

A draft proposal for a credible, definitive inquiry into UK child (sexual) abuse

It seems to me that only a Royal Commission can address key issues relating to Crown Dependencies.

Perhaps there are seemingly intractable problems with a proposed Royal Commission. Those who see such problems are welcome to leave a Comment on this post.

Letter to Home Affairs Select Committee re further possible associations of Fiona Woolf

Below is the text of a letter sent earlier today to Keith Vaz MP and the Home Affairs Select Committee re further possible associations of Fiona Woolf, Chair-designate of the UK Child Abuse Inquiry.

As stated in the letter any such associations, should they exist, may be entirely innocent.

Nonetheless, in the interests of public scrutiny of Mrs. Woolf's suitability, I believe that the Committee should ask these questions of Mrs. Woolf.

31^st October 2014

To:

Keith Vaz MP, Home Affairs Select Committee

Dear Mr. Vaz,

UK Child Abuse Inquiry

Fiona Woolf: Further possibly relevant associations

I write to draw your attention and that of the Home Affairs Select Committee to further possible associations of Fiona Woolf which seem to me to raise further questions about the suitability of Mrs. Woolf to chair the UK Child Abuse Inquiry.

I wish this letter, and my letter of 26^th October 2014 regarding limitations on transparency, to be treated as Written Evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee.

I further ask that the Committee gives careful thought to these further possible associations when it considers on 4^th November the possible need to recall Fiona Woolf to give further Oral Evidence to the Committee.

Further possible associations

I have identified four possible associations of Mrs. Woolf about which I believe appropriate questions should be asked by the Committee:

1. Daniel Janner
2. The late Henry Hodge
3. Lady Justice Arden
4. Mr. Justice Tugendhat

The mention of Lady Justice Arden and Mr. Justice Tugendhat in this context may surprise the Committee.

Each has, so I understand, in the recent past banned the publication of books which relate to (alleged) child abuse. The effect of such bans, it seems to me, may be to conceal child abuse or conceal its cover-up by public officials.

Any or all of these seeming associations may be innocent. However, given the pervasive alleged nature of the cover-up of child abuse, I believe that Mrs. Woolf should be asked by the Committee about the nature of any such association with the four named individuals.

Daniel Janner

I understand that Daniel Janner is the son of Lord Janner (formerly Greville Janner MP) about whom child abuse allegations were made in 1991. Further, it appears that Police investigation into Lord Janner’s conduct was “live” as of a few weeks ago (Chief Constable Simon Cole, personal communication).

I understand that both Mr. (Daniel) Janner and Mrs. Woolf are (or have been) benchers of the Middle Temple.

It seems to me to be pertinent to establish whether or not Mrs. Woolf has had any contact with Lord Janner or his family, given the social circles in which she moves.

I believe that Mrs. Woolf should be asked the following questions:

1. Have you ever met Daniel Janner? If so, what is the extent and nature of your association with him?
2. Have you ever discussed with Mr. Janner the child abuse allegations which exist with respect to his father, Lord (Greville) Janner or any other matters relating to child abuse?
3. Were you aware, before your appointment, of the child abuse allegations about Lord (Greville) Janner?
4. Have you ever met Lord (Greville) Janner? If so, what is the extent and nature of your association with him?
5. Do you consider that any association with Mr. Janner or Lord Janner casts doubt on your suitability to chair the UK Child Abuse Inquiry?

The late Sir Henry Hodge

I understand that the late Sir Henry Hodge was a senior figure in the Law Society, as was Mrs. Woolf.

The late Henry Hodge was the husband of Margaret Hodge MP. Serious concerns persist with respect to child abuse in Islington during a period when Mrs. Hodge was, so I understand, in a position of responsibility.

I believe that Mrs. Woolf should be asked the following questions:

1. Did you ever meet the late Sir Henry Hodge? If so, what was the extent and nature of your association with him?
2. Did you ever discuss with the late Sir Henry Hodge, the allegations relating to child abuse in Islington relating to the period when his wife, Margaret Hodge MP, had some responsibility for such matters?
3. Were you aware, before your appointment, of the child abuse allegations with respect to Islington?
4. Do you consider that any association with the late Sir Henry Hodge or his family casts doubt on your sutiability to chair the UK Child Abuse inquiry?

Lady Justice Arden

It is reported that Lady Justice Arden recently banned publication of a book about abuse by “a VIP” using an arcane piece of English Law.

The media report which came to my attention to Lady Justice Arden’s banning of the book is located here:

http://davidhencke.wordpress.com/tag/lady-justice-arden/

It seems to me that the predictable effect of Lady Justice Arden’s ban is to suppress knowledge of child abuse of a person who, it is said, became “a VIP”.

I believe that Mrs. Woolf should be asked the following questions:

1. Have you ever met Lady Justice Arden? If so, what is the extent and nature of your association with her?
2. Have you ever discussed any matter relating to child abuse with Lady Justice Arden?
3. Were you aware, before your appointment, of the role of Lady Justice Arden in banning a book about child abuse?
4. Do you consider that any association with Lady Justice Arden casts any doubt on your suitability to chair the UK Child Abuse inquiry?

Mr. Justice Tugendhat

Mr. Justice Tugendhat in January 2013 banned publication of a book entitled “From Hillsborough to Lambeth” and, so I understand, caused a Web site formerly located at

http://lambethchildabuseandcoverup.com/

to be closed down.

Mr. Justice Tugendhat’s judgement is recorded here:

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/212.html&query=lambeth+and+tugendhat&method=boolean

Mr. Justice Tugendhat’s judgement raises serious questions about Mr. Pead’s conduct but it is, in my view, a matter of concern that a High Court judge should ban publication of a book on child abuse allegations relating to Lambeth.

It may be nothing more than coincidence but Julia Tugendhat, who I believe is Mr Justice Tugendhat’s sister in law, was, like Fiona Woolf, one of the limited number of sponsors (44) of Lady Brittan’s fun run. See

http://www.doitforcharity.com/DBrittan

It does raise the possibility that Mrs. Woolf, the Brittans and the Tugendhats are part of the same social circle.

I suggest that Mrs. Woolf is asked the following questions:

1.       Have you ever met Mr Justice Tugendhat? If so, what is the extent and nature of your association with him?

2.       Have you ever discussed any matter relating to child abuse with Mr. Justice Tugendhat?

3.       Were you aware, before your appointment, of the role of Mr. Justice Tugendhat in banning publication of a book relating, so it seems, to alleged child abuse in Lambeth?

4.       Do you consider that any association with Mr. Justice Tugendhat casts doubt on your suitability to chair the UK Child Abuse inquiry?

Distribution

Exceptionally, I have placed my letter of 26^th October 2014 on my UK Child Abuse Inquiry blog here:

http://ukchildabuseinquiry.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/when-does-presumption-of-maximum.html

And I intend to publish the present letter similarly.

I appreciate that, in theory, such publication by myself of Written Evidence before publication by the Committee is arguably a contempt of parliament. I very much hope that you will agree that the exceptional circumstances relating to this matter are a full and satisfactory explanation of my actions.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Jim Hood MP mentions allegations of "improper conduct" with children against Leon Brittan

Last night, in the House of Commons, Jim Hood MP made allegations under Parliamentary Privilege regarding "improper conduct with children" in the 1980s by Lord Brittan.

It seems to me that this matter must be the subject of investigation by the UK Child Abuse Inquiry.

It seems to me that there are several points that merit more detailed consideration:

1. There are allegations of "improper conduct with children" in the 1980s by Lord Brittan What did the alleged "improper conduct" consist of? When did it allegedly take place? Where did it allegedly take place?
2. Those allegations were expressed by miners in open court. On which occasions? In which courts?
3. The media, so far as I'm aware didn't report the accusations at the time. Why was the media (seemingly) silent on the matter?.
4. Was the Home Office aware of those allegations when it set up the Wanless/Whittam review? Were Wanless and Whittam told of the allegations? Is there evidence that Home Office files weren't simply "lost" but were, possibly with authorisation at the highest level in the Home Office, systematically destroyed? Was that question addressed by Wanless/Whittam?
5. Why has the Home Office been silent about those allegations?
6. Why has the Home Affairs Select Committee been silent about those allegations?

A barrel of worms (not merely a can of worms) has been opened for public discussion by Jim Hood's comments.

It seems to me that full investigation of the allegations regarding Lord Brittan is essential.

Below is the Hansard record of what Mr. Hood said from the termporary link at
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/todays-commons-debates/read/unknown/661/#c661

That is a temporary link. Once a permanent link is available to what was said in the House of Commons I intend to post it on this blog.

criminals because of what happened in that miners’ strike?

Mr Hood:

I was born a miner. Mining communities were the most law-abiding communities one could wish for. During the miners strike, people were put in prison who had never seen a prison even from afar.

Much has been written about violence on picket lines. The 30-year rule on publishing Cabinet papers needs to be examined, and the conduct of the Home Secretary in directing police and courts must be disclosed. By the way, the current exposé of Sir Leon Brittan, the then Home Secretary, with accusations of improper conduct with children, will not come as a surprise to the striking miners of 1984, as many of them—

Conor Burns:

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Mr Hood) has just made profoundly serious accusations against a noble Lord. Is that in order?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle):

In fairness, I did not hear as I was talking to a Whip. It is up to each Member to decide what they say, and they must make that decision.

Mr Hood:

I will repeat part of the point that I am making. The rumours that Sir Leon Brittan was involved in misconduct with children do not come as news to miners who were on strike in 1984, because when miners were going into the dock in magistrates courts we were aware and miners were declaring—

Matthew Hancock:

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Hood:

No, I will not give way. I will give way when I have finished my point.

Miners were saying in the dock in all the magistrates courts throughout the strike that they objected to the instructions coming from the Home Secretary when there were reports of child abuse linked with that same Home Secretary.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle):

Order. It is up to each Member, but we have to be very careful about what we say. We must consider what we are saying and what the implications are.

Mr Hood:

Obviously, I accept what you say, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am just repeating what I read in the papers—

Mr Deputy Speaker:

Order. Time is up. Five minutes have gone. I call Mr Mark Spencer.

Acknowledgement from North Yorkshire Police re report regarding former Archbishop of York, David Hope

A few minutes ago I received an acknowledgement from North Yorkshire Police of my letter of 26th October 2014 expressing my suspicion that David Hope, former Archbishop of York may have committed the offence of misconduct in public office with respect to failures to report to the Police child abuse by Robert Waddington.

My letter to David Jones, Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police is here:
Report to North Yorkshire Police regarding David Michael Hope, former Archbishop of York

The acknowledgement assigned the reference number 1341014 to the matters I raised.

The acknowledgement was not clear whether the foregoing reference number was a Crime Reference Number nor did it indicate what action Chief Constable Jones proposed to take to investigate the matter.

 I hope to post updates in due course when North Yorkshire Police communicate further.

Draft suggested format for submissions to the UK Child Abuse Inquiry

There are many serious questions yet to be answered about the proposed UK Child Abuse Inquiry.

I am among those who have serious doubts about the current Chair, Fiona Woolf, the current Panel members and the current Terms of Reference.

As a consequence of similar concerns, some survivors are suggesting a boycott of the Inquiry until, for example, Fiona Woolf resigns as Chair.

Despite my grave reservation about Fiona Woolf, the Panel and the Terms of Reference, I believe that those who have concerns about child abuse and its cover-up would do well to make formal written  submissions to UK Child Abuse Inquiry, while being aware that major changes in personnel and Terms of Reference of the Inquiry are possible.

Where should submissions to the UK Child Abuse Inquiry be sent?

The contact information to allow submission of written evidence to the Inquiry is located here:
Contact: Independent Panel Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Given the likely vast amount of information that ought, in my view, to be submitted to the Inquiry finding a sensible structure as early as possible has significant potential advantages in terms of the Inquiry avoiding becoming bogged down in a morass of unstructured information. 

Here is a draft structure that I suggest might be useful.

1. Personal details of the informant (ncluding contact details)
2. Is permission given to disclose informant's identity on Child Abuse Inquiry Web site?
3. Issues of concern (Express allegations of which you have information to the best of your ability).
4. Organisation(s) whose conduct is of concern
5. Individual(s) whose conduct is of concern
6. Date(s) to which areas of concern relate
7. Do you want to give oral evidence to the Inquiry?

A structure such as this would facilitate creation of a database of information.


Such a structure would assist the Inquiry Panel, I think and would also assist the Public Panel (see A draft proposal for a credible, definitive inquiry into UK child (sexual) abuse ) should such a Public Panel be appointed.

It would make it easier to identify individuals or organisations whose conduct has caused concern on multiple occasions.

I'd suggest expressing causes for concern (allegations, if you like) in as factual a way as possible. Anger on the part of survivors is fully justified but often doesn't help the reader to understand what is being referred to.

I'd value comments about whether the proposed is helpful and whether it can be usefully improved.

The above structure is an initial proposal only. But I hope that its potential to assist the efficiency of the Inquiry will be obvious.

Do the Police have copies of the 114 missing Home Office files?

The Home Affairs Select Committee are concerned about 114 missing files at the Home Office which, directly or indirectly, appear to relate to child abuse.

Media reports from the period when Leon Brittan was Home Secretary indicate that at least some of the correspondence from Geoffrey Dickens MP was passed by the Home Office to the Police.

Has the Home Office asked the Police if they have copies of any of the missing files or documents?

Did the "investigator" in 2013 (who remains anonymous) contact the Police to establish whether copies of the Home Office files were held by Police?

Has the Wanless/Whittam review asked the Police if they have copies of the missing Home Office files or documents?

If Theresa May publishes the Report of the Wanless/Whittam Review it might become clear what approach they took to establishing whether copies of the so-called Dickens Dossier on child abuse exist in Police files.

Asking the Police if they have copies of any of the missing files seems such an obvious thing to do.

If it hasn't already been done, it makes me wonder whether there is genuinely a will to look for the files.

Acknowedgement from Home Affairs Select Committee re my concerns regarding limitations of scope of "maximum transparency"

Yesterday I wrote to Keith Vaz and the Home Affairs Select Committee asking that the Committee take evidence from Theresa May and/or Mark Sedwill regarding the scope of the promised "maximum transparency" in the promised Child Abuse Inquiry.

See
When does a presumption of "maximum transparency" not apply to the Home Office sponsored Child Abuse Inquiry
for my letter to Mr. Vaz and his committee.

Today I received an acknowledgement from Andy Boyd, Senior Committee Assistant confirming receipt of my letter.

I very much hope that the Home Affairs Select Committee will see the seriousness of the issues raised and require Mrs. May and/or Mr. Sedwill to attend to give further oral evidence to the Committee.

I see it as crucial to the credibility of any Child Abuse Inquiry that the limits of the promised "maximum transparency" are identified.

Not least important is that the areas where "zero transparency" can be expected must be clearly  delineated and the likely consequences on the scope and effectiveness of the Child Abuse Inquiry of such "zero transparency" are clearly identified.

When does a presumption of "maximum transparency" not apply to the Home Office sponsored Child Abuse Inquiry

Today I wrote to Keith Vaz MP, Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee about my serious concerns that the Home Office-sponsored Child Abuse Inquiry may be tainted.

In her announcment of 7th July 2014 Theresa May stated that a presumption of "maximum transparency" would apply "where possible".

Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, has asked when the presumption of "maximum transparency" won't apply.

To my mind, that leaves open a huge "loophole" that could fatally compromise the credibility of the Child Abuse Inquiry.

Below is the text of my letter of today's date to Keith Vaz.

I hope that the Home Affairs Select Committee will act to ensure that the loophole is closed.

26th October 2014

To: Keith Vaz MP, Home Affairs Select Committee

Dear Mr. Vaz,

Limits on presumption of “maximum transparency” in Child Abuse Inquiry

When does “maximum transparency” not apply?

You are, I know, very much aware of public concerns regarding the presentation and the substance of the Home-Office sponsored Child Abuse Inquiry.

In her statement to the House of Commons made on 7th July 2014 (see https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-oral-statement-on-child-abuse) the Home Secretary stated “where possible” a presumption of “maximum transparency” would be applied.

To the best of my knowledge neither the Home Secretary nor the Home Office has disclosed the circumstances in which the presumption of “maximum transparency” will not apply.

Nor has the Home Affairs Select Committee inquired into the implications of this important limitation on the possible scope and effectiveness of any Child Abuse Inquiry.

I ask that, as a matter of urgency, the Home Affairs Select Committee requires the Home Secretary and the Permanent Secretary, Mr. Sedwill, to give oral evidence on this cause for serious potential concern.

Each time the principle of “maximum transparency” is not applied the potential exists for a further layer of cover-up.

The public, including survivors of child abuse, MUST know when “maximum transparency” is not to be applied.

Without such disclosure the proposed Child Abuse Inquiry is tainted to a degree whose seriousness is not disclosed to the public.

Where there is the potential for further cover-up it seems to me that the Home Affairs Select Committee has a duty to ensure that such potential for further cover-up by the Home Office and/or others is removed without delay.

In addition to inquiring into the scope of any limitation on the principle of “maximum transparency” I ask that the Home Affairs Select Committee inquire in detail into the consequences of such a limitation.

For example, would a hypothetical lack of access to MI5 documents preclude any meanginful investigation into the alleged role of MI5 in relation to child abuse at Kincora?

Further, I ask that the Home Affairs Select Committee requires the Home Secretary and the Home Office to justify any situation where the presumption of “maximum transparency” is to be disapplied and to consider whether action could be taken to limit or remove limitations.

Could, for example, a change in the Law be appropriate to allow “total transparency” in a particular circumstance?

If not, on what grounds are such changes in the Law excluded from consideration?

It seems to me that the Home Office has created a “loophole” which would allow the dishonest, whether inside or outside the Home Office, to conceal at least part of the truth about child abuse and its cover-up.

The Home Secretary should be asked to justify the loophole for a continuing cover-up.

In my view any credible Child Abuse Inquiry can only proceed on a basis of “total transparency”.

If something is hidden from the public the inevitable effect is that the public will suspect that something important is being hidden.

In other words at least some in the public will suspect that the Home Office “inquiry” is a further, more subtle continuation of the cover-up of child abuse which it purports to investigate. I look forward to your early reply.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Report to North Yorkshire Police regarding David Michael Hope, former Archbishop of York

When a senior churchman has failed (or is alleged to have failed) to report to the Police evidence of confirmed (or suspected) child abuse, it has been customary that the matter ends with some sort of personal or organisational apology.

It seems to me that the matter ought not to end with a "mere" apology.

Where there is evidence suggesting that a criminal offence may have been committed it seems to me that the matter ought to be reported to the Police.

Further, it seems to me that the Police have a duty fully to investigate such reports of suspected criminal behaviour.

Below is the text of a letter sent today to Chief Constable David Jones of North Yorkshire Police with respect to failures by David Michael Hope, former Archbishop of York. In the Report of an Inquiry by Judge Sally Cahill QC serious failures by Mr. Hope were identified.

As indicated below Mr. Hope disputes at least some of those criticisms.

Given the seriousness of the potential effect of Mr. Hope's alleged failures it seems to me that the matter must be fully investigated by the Police.

26^th October 2014

To:

David Jones, Chief Constable, North Yorkshire Police

Possible misconduct in public office: David Michael Hope, Baron Hope of Thornes

I write to report to you in your role as a constable my suspicion that David Michael Hope, Baron Hope of Thornes, may have committed the common law offence of misconduct in public office with respect to his failures relating to child abuse perpetrated by the late Robert Waddington.

I ask that you record this matter as a suspected offence of misconduct in public office and that you notify me in writing accordingly.

It seems to me that you have a duty formally to investigate this matter to establish whether evidence exists that supports my suspicion that Lord Hope may have committed the offence of misconduct in public office.

Crown Prosecution Service Guidance

I understand that any possible prosecution of Lord Hope would be guided by the Guidance produced by the Crown Prosecution Service located online here: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/

I am unaware of any statutory offence that Lord Hope may have committed therefore I understand the Guidance to open the possibility of prosecution for misconduct in public office.

The CPS Guidance provides four criteria which must be considered in relation to any possible offence of Misconduct in Public Office:

1. A public officer
2. Acting as such
3. Wilful neglect or misconduct
4. Without reasonable excuse or justification

Was Lord Hope a “public officer”?

If a Court were to decide that Lord Hope was not a “public officer” then any possibility of a successful prosecution for misconduct in public office would evaporate.

Given that misconduct in public office is a common law offence there is no statutory definition. Case Law indicates that the interpretation of who might be a public officer is widely drawn.

It seems to me that an Archbishop of York is a public officer, not least with respect to the involvement of the Prime Minister of the day in the process of appointment of an Archbishop of York.

Did Lord Hope act as Archbishop of York?

I do not have access to the evidence underlying the recent Report by Judge Sally Cahill QC.

However, media reports indicate that reports of child abuse by Robert Waddington were made to Lord Hope in his role as Archbishop of York.

Was there wilful neglect?

In the final analysis this is a matter for a jury to decide based on more detailed evidence than is currently in the public domain.

On the face of it there is at least an arguable case that Lord Hope’s failures, including making a report to the Police, with respect to the child abuse by Robert Waddington were wilful.

It is clear that there was at least the potential for damage to other members of the public should the late Mr. Waddington continue his child abuse activities.

Was there reasonable excuse or justification?

Lord Hope has argued that Judge Cahill’s Report is “flawed”. The full range of Lord Hope’s concerns are not in the public domain, so far as I am aware.

I cannot, with certainty, comment on whether or not Lord Hope had reasonable excuse or justification for two reasons:

1. I do not have access to the full facts
2. It is, in any case, a matter for a jury to decide

In conclusion

In my view there is credible prima facie evidence suggesting that Lord Hope may have committed the criminal offence of misconduct in public office.

I ask that you record this matter as a suspected offence of misconduct in public office and investigate the matter fully.

I ask that you acknowledge this letter in writing and provide me with the appropriate Crime Reference Number and your formal assessment of this reported suspected crime.

In the interests of transparency I will place a copy of this letter on my UK Child Abuse Inquiry blog:

http://ukchildabuseinquiry.blogspot.co.uk/

Thank you

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

There is one typo in the letter that I'm aware of.

In

The full range of Lord Hope’s concerns are not in the public domain, so far as I am aware.

The word "concerns" should be replaced with "(alleged) failures".