The child abuse cover-up: the use of false names in court

It is widely believed that child abuse has been covered-up for years.

What is not often discussed is what techniques might have been used to cover-up child abuse and other child sexual offences.

In this post I'd like to examine one potentially important cover-up technique: the use of  false names in a Court of Law.

First, let's look at a case in which the matters at hand don't directly relate to concealment of child abuse or other sexual offences.

Maple v Maple

Recently I drew attention to Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss's assigning of a false name of Maple to the King of Saudi Arabia in a case in which she was the judge.

See
Does Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss have an instinct to protect the powerful?

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss's judgement was subject to an appeal.

The judgement of the Court of Appeal is here:
Harb v King Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz

In paragraph 31 of the judgement Lord Justice Thorpe makes the following comment:

The Family Justice system needs to be cautious of adopting fictions such as Maple v Maple that its critics can label as deceitful or designed to shield its workings from public scrutiny.

There is no suggestion that  Harb v King Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz relates to child abuse but it illustrates the discretion of the judiciary at least to attempt to conceal the identity of a party to court proceedings.

In Harb v King Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz one party to the proceedings objected to the fiction.

What happens in situations where such a fiction is not challenged by a party to the proceedings?  

I am aware of two cases which relate to child abuse and/or other alleged sexual offences where the identity of a witness or a party to the proceedings have, allegedly, been concealed.

Sir Peter Hayman

Sir Peter Hayman was identified as "Mr. Henderson" during the prosecution of what I understand to have been members of the Paedophile Information Exchange.

I am unaware of any evidence casting doubt on Sir Peter Hayman having been identified as "Mr. Henderson" in those court proceedings.

What are the effects of such legal fictions? 

If Sir Peter had not been given a false identity what would the effect have been of the name "Sir Peter Hayman" appearing in public court proceedings?

It seems to me that the media would have had cause to inquire closely into Sir Peter's behaviour.

As a result it is possible, perhaps very likely, that Sir Peter's paedophile activity and that of other paedophiles would have been exposed, stopped and prosecuted.

As a result of that exposure of powerful paedophiles an unknown number of victims would have potentially been spared abuse, in some cases horrific abuse.

The issue of concealment of names in court is not one of merely academic interest. Children have suffered horribly as a result of such fictions in Court.

The second case is much less firmly based in evidence. In fact it is primarily based in persistent rumour, at least some of which has reached the Internet.

I'm referring to the (alleged) case of "Charles Lynton".

"Charles Lynton"

The case of "Charles Lynton" is much less secure in terms of evidence than that of "Mr. Henderson" but it seems to me that if it is true it is of far greater consequence.

Briefly the rumours (and they are presently no more than rumours) indicate that one "Charles Lynton" was convicted on one occasion (or possibly two) of sexual offences which may have been with underage individuals.

The suggestion is that "Charles Lynton" is, in fact, one "Anthony Charles Lynton Blair".

In other words the rumours suggest that a former United Kingdom Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had,  prior to his public prominence, one or more convictions for sexual offences which he, his friends and/or the Court concealed by the use of the name "Charles Lynton".

I emphasise that I do not know if the stories suggesting that Tony Blair had one or more convictions for sexual offences are true or are merely Internet rumour.

If the rumour has any truth at all the potential for blackmail of Tony Blair is evident.

The possible effects of the alleged convictions are enormous.

Could, for example, Tony Blair have been blackmailed into the illegal Iraq War because of his past alleged convictions which, if revealed, would have ended his political career?

Could, if the rumours are true, hundreds of British soldiers have died due to a series of events tracing back in time to the alleged convictions for sexual offences of "Charles Lynton"?

It's difficult to imagine a more important question.

In my view this question is one of such potential and far-reaching importance that it ought formally to be investigated both by the Police and by the UK Child Abuse Inquiry.