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.
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:
- You cannot lawfully be
appointed as Chair of the Inquiry
- You gave an answer to the
Home Affairs Select Committee which is demonstrably untrue or
unsustainable
- The process of the
pre-appointment hearing is irredeemably tainted
- You cannot legitimately
conduct an inquiry into certain areas of interest to the Child Abuse
Inquiry
- 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:
- H.M. Queen
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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
- 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.
- The Home Office failed, so
it is suggested, properly to investigate (or have investigated) allegations relating to paedophilia at
Buckingham Palace.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- The attempt by Mr. Vaz to
change the Law with the predictable effect that allegations of child abuse
would be concealed.
- 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.
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 11th 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
I ask you to give careful consideration to each of the
following matters:
- Whether your proposed
appointment as Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry is lawful in the context
of the Inquiries Act 2005
- 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
- Whether your candidacy as
Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry is tainted by the undeclared (or
inadequately declared) interests of Keith Vaz MP
- 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.
- 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)
