Request to Justice Lowell Goddard that she withdraw or resign as Chair (Designate) of the Child Abuse Inquiry

Today I am writing to Justice Lowell Goddard to ask that she give careful consideration to whether she withdraw or resign as Chair (Designate) to the Home Office Child Abuse Inquiry.

The text of the letter follows:

23rd February 2015

Justice Lowell Goddard,

Chair-Designate,

Child Abuse Inquiry,

2 Marsham Street

London

SW1P 4DF

Dear Justice Goddard,

Request that you withdraw or resign as Chair-designate of the Child Abuse Inquiry

I am writing to ask that you give serious consideration as to whether, in all the applicable circumstances, you should withdraw or resign as Chair Designate of the Child Abuse Inquiry.

You are, I think, aware to some degree of the complexity of the matters to be considered by the Child Abuse Inquiry.

I believe that there are several cogent grounds which mean that you cannot legitimately and/or credibly carry out the role of Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry.

Given the complex web of potentially relevant issues I will express a summary of some of the areas of concern under the following headings:

1. You cannot lawfully be appointed as Chair of the Inquiry
2. You gave an answer to the Home Affairs Select Committee which is demonstrably untrue or unsustainable
3. The process of the pre-appointment hearing is irredeemably tainted
4. You cannot legitimately conduct an inquiry into certain areas of interest to the Child Abuse Inquiry
5. Your use of language in your evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee

You cannot lawfully be appointed as Chair of the Inquiry

I ask you carefully to consider whether you can be lawfully appointed as Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry.

My view is that it would not be lawful to appoint you as Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry.

Section 9 of the Inquiries Act 2005 is expressed in the following terms:

9 Requirement of impartiality

(1) The Minister must not appoint a person as a member of the inquiry panel if it appears to the Minister that the person has—

(a) a direct interest in the matters to which the inquiry relates, or

(b) a close association with an interested party,

unless, despite the person's interest or association, his appointment could not reasonably be regarded as affecting the impartiality of the inquiry panel.

(2) Before a person is appointed as a member of an inquiry panel he must notify the Minister of any matters that, having regard to subsection (1), could affect his eligibility for appointment.

(3) If at any time (whether before the setting-up date or during the course of the inquiry) a member of the inquiry panel becomes aware that he has an interest or association falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1), he must notify the Minister.

(4) A member of the inquiry panel must not, during the course of the inquiry, undertake any activity that could reasonably be regarded as affecting his suitability to serve as such.

It seems to me that, in any reasonable interpretation of Section 9, you have a “close association” with two parties whose conduct will be, or ought to be, subject to investigation by any credible child abuse inquiry.

The two parties I refer to are:

1. H.M. Queen
2. The Home Office

Close association with H.M. Queen

It seems to me, on the facts as I currently understand them, that you have two “close associations” with H.M. Queen.

First, as I understand it you are a Dame and were granted that Honour by the Queen.

It thus seems to me that by virtue of receiving such a benefit from the Queen that you have a “close association” with her.

Second, I understand that you as a High Court Judge in New Zealand swore the following oath:

“I, [name], swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law, in the office of []; and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of New Zealand without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God.”

It seems to me that, by virtue of having (so I understand) sworn the above oath, that you have a “close association” with H.M. Queen.

I will briefly summarise some of the potential concerns regarding H.M. Queen.

1. The Wanless-Whittam review disclosed a document relating to paedophilia at Buckingham Palace dating back a number of years. To the best of my knowledge those concerns were never publicly investigated. The matters which may have been covered up and the Queen’s potential role in any such cover-up require to be comprehensively and publicly investigated.
2. The known paedophile Sir Peter Hayman was granted an Honour which, so I understand, is in the personal gift of the Queen. It is a matter of public record that Sir Peter Hayman’s paedophilia was concealed from public knowledge. I believe that the Queen’s possible role in such a cover-up of Hayman’s paedophilia requires to be publicly investigated.
3. Sir Anthony Blunt was, so I understand, employed by the Queen in relation to the Royal art collection. Blunt also received an honour which, so I understand, was In the personal gift of the Queen. It is suggested that Blunt concealed activities relating to the late Duke of Windsor and the Nazi party. Blunt is listed as an attendee at the notorious Elm Guest House (where former Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, was also listed as an attendee). Did the Queen participate in any way in the cover-up of Blunt’s activities?
4. There are longstanding allegations regarding the late Lord Mountbatten to the effect that, among other sexual preferences, he was a paedophile. There are, further, allegations that Lord Mounbatten was an attendee at the notorious Kincora home in Northern Ireland. It is known that the late Sir Michael Havers closed down an investigation into Kincora. Did he do so, at least in part, to avoid embarassment to the Queen and the Royal Family? Did the Queen intervene in the matter?
5. There are concerns relating to the Prince of Wales, in part relating to the supposed “mentor” role of Lord Mountbatten and to other issues such as questions about the nature of the relationship between the Prince of Wales and the late Jimmy Savile and the Prince’s relationship with a churchman currently, so I understand, due to be tried for alleged child sexual offences. It is suggested that the late Princess of Wales banned the churchman in question from contact at Highgrove with her children but the Prince of Wales held a contrary view. Why did the Prince of Wales potentially put his children at risk?
6. You will, I imagine, be aware of recent allegations regarding the conduct of the Duke of York (Prince Andrew). It appears that the Buckingham Palace spokesman has gone on record as stating that there is no truth in the allegations. It is inconceivable that the Queen did not authorise those denials. Is it proper for the Queen to do so (given that the allegations relate to the private conduct of the Duke of York) or do the denials form a minor part of a longstanding pattern of cover-up and denial by the Queen and Buckingham Palace with respect to (alleged) sexual impropriety?

The foregoing expresses some of the allegations and concerns which have swirled round the Royal Family for decades.

It seems to me that any credible Child Abuse Inquiry must openly address such issues.

To do so credibly it seems to me that the Chair of any such Inquiry must demonstrably have no “close association” with the Queen.

My view is that you do have such a “close association” with the Queen and that you cannot lawfully be appointed as Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry.

Close association with the Home Office

It seems to me, on the facts as I understand them, that you have (or shortly will have) a “close association” with the Home Office.

You will shortly be appointed as Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry by the Home Secretary.

Your salary, I assume, will come directly or indirectly from the Home Office.

It seems to me that this constitutes a “close association” of the most obvious kind.

Again, I will briefly summarise some of the potential concerns regarding the Home Office

1. The Home Office provided, so it is alleged, a safe haven for an official of the Paedophile Information Exchange around the time that the late Leon Brittan was Home Secretary.
2. The Home Office failed, so it is suggested, properly to investigate (or have investigated)  allegations relating to paedophilia at Buckingham Palace.
3. The former Home Secretary, the late Leon Brittan, was, so it is alleged, a paedophile. Given the existence of such allegations a full inquiry into the potential improper distortion of the functioning of the Home Office during Lord Brittan’s tenure as Home Secretary is needed.
4. The former Home Secretary, the late Lord Whitelaw, set up, so I understand, the “short sharp shock” process. This facilitated extensive abuse at institutions such as Medomsley. Was the “short sharp shock” a cover story for a premeditated system of abuse? Or did the seeming absence of awareness of the Home Office of the time in relation to the Medomsley offences represent a failure with respect to a duty of care?
5. The Home Office of 2014 was still, in my estimation, actively concealing wrongdoing including within the Police and Independent Police Complaints Commission. For example, in 2014 Mr. Chris Blairs refused to initiate an inquiry into concerns regarding alleged unlawful conduct by Dame Anne Owers, Chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. In my view Mr. Blairs’ refusal to have Dame Anne Owers conduct investigated was improper and unlawful. There is evidence, unavailable to me when I wrote to Mr. Blairs, indicating that one aspect of the alleged Police and IPCC corruption relates to child sexual offences covered up by the Metropolitan Police, including the Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe and a former Head of Professional Standards, Commander Allan Gibson, and the current Head of Professional Standards, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Fiona Taylor.
6. Allegations exist that MI5, a Home Office Agency, participated in the cover-up of child abuse at the Kincora home. It is further alleged that MI5 may have actively acted so as to facilitate imroper leverage over public figures.

With respect to point 5. above I am copying this letter to an individual who, for legal reasons, I refer to as “Mr. X” who has more detailed knowledge of the alleged child sexual offences allegations which I believe to have been covered up by the Metropolitan Police Service and the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Judicial Review

Technically, given the wording of Section 9 of the Inquiries Act 2005, Judicial Review is, I think,  possible only after your provisional appointment as Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry is confirmed by the Home Secretary.

Should the matters relating to the “close association” between yourself and H.M. Queen come to judicial review it would be open to the Home Secretary to argue that neither your receipt of an Honour from the Queen nor your oath of allegiance to the Queen constitute a “close association” in the meaning of Section 9 of the Inquiries Act 2005 and/or that such close associations could not reasinably be seen as affecting your capacity to perform the role of Chair of the Child Abuse Inquir.

In my view such a possible line of argument by the Home Secretary would be so visibly preposterous as to remove any credibility with survivors that your proposed appointment currently has.

However, as I say, Judicial Review is a matter which likely comes into play only  should you decide to “tough it out” and persist in your candidacy for the post of Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry.

You gave an answer to the Home Affairs Select Committee which is demonstrably untrue or unsustainable

In your evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee the following interaction took place:

Q401   Chair: Mr Winnick mentioned the establishment. Would you regard yourself as being part of the establishment, Justice Goddard?

Justice Goddard: We don’t have such a thing in my country.

Mr Winnick: Lucky New Zealand.

Justice Goddard: I did have to ask carefully exactly what is meant by it so that I did understand what I was being asked to disclose. My understanding is: do I have any links into any institution or any person relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry? No, I don’t.

It seems to me that your answer is, at a minimum, unsustainable and may be a deliberate falsehood on your part.

Let me explain the reasons underlying my view.

You stated, in terms, that you have no “links” to any institution or person relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry.

If it is the case that the Home Office provided you with a list of individuals and institutions which might be subject of investigation by the Child Abuse Inquiry, it seems to me that H.M. Queen and the Home Office should have featured on that list, for reasons including those expressed earlier in this letter.

If you were told of allegations relating to H.M. Queen and the Home Office with respect to child abuse and/or its cover-up then your response to the Home Affairs Select Committee was, in my view, a deliberate falsehood.

If, on the other hand, you were unaware of the allegations regarding H.M. Queen and the Home Office then it seems to me that your response to the Home Affairs Select Committee is inaccurate and therefore unsustainable.

In that context I ask you to publish the list of individuals and organisations which, prior to giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, you had considered  and which forms the foundation to  your categorical answer to the Committee. If, as may be the case, you had seen no such list it seems to me that you knew, or ought to have known, that the answer you gave to the Committee was false.

I invite you to consider whether your categorical annswer to the Home Affairs Select Committee is, on reflection, sustainable and whether you ought to apologise to the Committee for giving a demonstrably unsustainable or untruthful answer.

Whether or not it is the case that you agree with my assessment that your appointment is unlawful, it seems to me that you have a duty to correct your demonstrably inaccurate evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee.

The process of the pre-appointment hearing is irredeemably tainted

You are, of course, aware that Keith Vaz MP chaired the Home Affairs Select Committee.

You may very well not have been aware that serious questions have been raised about Mr. Vaz’s past conduct

You may also be unaware that those issues were raised with Mr. Vaz and with the members of the Home Affairs Select Committee.

The issues of concern are the following:

1. The employment of Mr. Vaz as a solicitor with Richmond Council. It is alleged that a Richmond Council children’s home supplied boys to the notorious Elm Guest House.
2. The employment of Mr. Vaz as a solicitor with Islington Council. It is alleged that serious child abuse took place in Islington Council children’s homes and it is also alleged that children were supplied from those homes to Jersey where those children were abused.
3. The attempt by Mr. Vaz to change the Law with the predictable effect that allegations of child abuse would be concealed.
4. The possibility that Mr. Vaz may have intervened with respect to the Leicestershire Police investigation into Greville Janner MP (now Lord Janner).

I first raised such issues with Mr. Vaz in July 2014.

My letter of 1^st November 2014 to Mr. Vaz is online here: http://ukchildabuseinquiry.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/keith-vaz-must-make-public-statement-on.html

Given the absence of any response from Mr. Vaz to those questions over a period of approximately 4 months I wrote to express my concerns to the members of the Home Affairs Select Committee: http://ukchildabuseinquiry.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/is-it-wise-for-keith-vaz-to-chair.html

The Home Secretary was informed of my concerns about Mr. Vaz in a letter sent on 13^th November 2014: http://ukchildabuseinquiry.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-inquiry-panel-and-keith-vaz-must-go.html

It is worrying that Mrs. May should be party to a pre-appointment hearing chaired by someone who, in my estimation, has serious questions to answer and who, in my view, ought to be subject to investigation by the Child Abuse Inquiry.

It seems to me that the effect of the charade that was the pre-appointment hearing of 11^th February 2015 by the Home Affairs Select Committee is that your impending appointment as Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry is irredeemably tainted.

You cannot legitimately conduct an inquiry into certain areas of interest to the Child Abuse Inquiry

It seems to me that due to matters about which, in all likelihood, you were ignorant that you cannot legitimately investigate certain further matters which should, in my view, be subject to investigation by the Child Abuse Inquiry.

I speak of the concerns regarding the past conduct of Keith Vaz MP.

Given that the approval of the Home Affairs Select Committee, chaired by Mr. Vaz, was, in political if not legislative terms, an essential component of your prospective appointment you have, I suggest, a “close association” with Mr. Vaz.

There are four issues regarding Mr. Vaz which cause me concern:

1. Mr. Vaz’s past employment as a solicitor by Richmond Council at a time when boys were allegedly being supplied from a Richmond Council children’s home to the Elm Guest House.
2. Mr. Vaz’s past employment as a solicitor by Islington Council at a time when children from Islington Council homes may have been trafficked to Jersey.
3. Mr. Vaz’s attempt to have the Law changed so that allegations of child abuse made in open court would be concealed from public knowledge.
4. The possibility that Mr. Vaz intervened with Leicestershire Police with respect to allegations of child abuse by the then Greville Janner MP (now Lord Janner) made during the trial of Frank Beck.

If you hold the view that you can credibly investigate Mr. Vaz’s conduct during the Child Abuse Inquiry I would be interested to learn of how you feel you could justify such a position.

Your use of language in your evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee

I watched live your appearance before the Home Affairs Select Committee and have read the transcript of your evidence.

I am concerned at your use of language which, so it seems to me, to have the effect of making concerns evaporate.

It seems to me that your verbal dexterity could, in principle, enable you to conceal material facts during your prospective role as Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry and that, during your appearance before the Home Affairs Select Committee you used your verbal skills to conceal material facts.

Let me explain one aspect of my concern.

You were asked about the allegation that you in some way covered-up improper conduct by Judge Lance while you were Deputy Solicitor General of New Zealand.

You confirmed that information about the matter was withheld from public scrutiny, citing legal privilege as an explanation.

You denied that there was any cover-up. Yet you concealed many of the material facts.

If, as I understand to be alleged, Judge Lance conducted a court hearing in an improper manner I also find it worrying that you refer to his alleged failures merely as “shortcomings”.

This, so it seems to me, is a matter of grave concern with regard to your prospective role as Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry.

Further, it appears to be your position that if the Law requires it then you would not disclose information.

Let me give one example relating to MI5.

If, hypothetically, an MI5 operative gave an explanation that the Official Secrets Act required that some matter relating to child abuse not be disclosed then, according to your seeming use of language, there would be no “cover-up”.

Your mind seems to work along the lines of claiming if there is an arguable legal custom to withhold information then, even if information about matters such as child abuse is withheld from public scrutiny, there is no “cover-up”.

You may wish to object that I over-simplify your use of language but I have very real concerns that, in any final report produced under your chairmanship, that alleged “cover-ups” could be made (possibly illegitimately) to disappear given your use of language in your evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee.

In Conclusion

A copy of this letter will be put in the public domain on my UK Child Abuse Inquiry blog here:

http://ukchildabuseinquiry.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/request-to-justice-lowell-goddard-that.html

I ask you to give careful consideration to each of the following matters:

1. Whether your proposed appointment as Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry is lawful in the context of the Inquiries Act 2005
2. Whether your answers to questions from the Home Affairs Select Committee were accurate and sustainable or whether you have a duty to correct your evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee
3. Whether your candidacy as Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry is tainted by the undeclared (or inadequately declared) interests of Keith Vaz MP
4. Whether, given the endorsement by a committee chaired by Mr. Vaz of your candidacy as Chair, you can credibly investigate Mr. Vaz’s past conduct with respect to matters relating to (alleged) child abuse and its cover-up.
5. Whether, given your use of language in your evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, you can credibly be Chair of the proposed Child Abuse Inquiry.

Having done so, I ask you carefully to consider whether, in all the circumstances, it is appropriate, indeed necessary, for you to withdraw your candidacy to be Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry, or resign should your appointment as Chair be confirmed by the Home Secretary in the interim

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Cc “Mr. X” (re Home Office cover-up of Police and IPCC misconduct and corruption including that relating to alleged child sexual offences)