Howe+Co
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Recruitment
  • Services
    • For Companies
    • For Individuals
  • News
  • Contact

IICSA Nottinghamshire

4/10/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
​David Enright,  along with the other solicitors representing all of the survivor core participants in the Nottinghamshire councils investigation today expressed outrage at the failure of Nottingham city council to send any senior representative to hear the accounts of abuse of the victims and survivors. 
 
Although senior representatives of Nottingham county council and Nottingham police attended to hear the harrowing accounts of the victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, Nottingham city council failed to send a representative. 
 
David Enright (Head of Howe & Co's Inquiry Team) said:

This is the largest public  inquiry in British legal history. It has, for the first time come out of London,  as a result of the constant campaigning of brave victims and survivors in Nottingham. Although on Monday Nottingham city Council apologised to victims and survivors; their representatives then left the Inquiry And did not wait to hear the astonishingly appalling accounts of abuse that many of the victims and survivors gave to the Chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. ​

​This is not good enough, the Council Leader should be here to listen and to lean; but most importantly, to pay respect to those the city failed and continue to fail
Nottinghamshire Live reported on the hearings being heard outside of London - here

Howe and Co continue to provide expert legal representation before a number of Inquiries. See our Inquiry page here

0 Comments

IICSA - Bishop Ball Investigation

24/7/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
​Howe & Co’s dedicated team continue to represent victims and survivors across many of the investigations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA).
 
For the past two weeks Howe & Co’s David Enright played a leading role in the Children in Custodial Institutions investigation.
 
This week, the IICSA begins a further week long hearing into the Anglican Church; in particular into former Bishop Ball and his purported relationship with the then Archbishop of Canterbury, the Prince of Wales  and other high profile figures. Justin Welby (former Archbishop) was examined today by the Inquiry and a statement from Prince Charles will be read into the record on Friday. Today’s Times reports:

​“At the time of the initial police inquiry into Ball in 1992-93, police and prosecutors received 24 letters from prominent figures — including senior clergy, MPs, an appeal court judge and public school headmasters — lobbying on his behalf.

​Ball exploited his royal and establishment connections in a voluminous letter-writing campaign in which he pressed, with success, for his return to Church duties. He was given permission to officiate at services and between 1996 and 2002 preached at 25 schools.”
​Links to reports regarding this weeks hearing can be found here:
 
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-44924297
 
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-charles-tried-to-keep-links-to-paedophile-bishop-peter-ball-private-q78xhscnr
 
The Times reported: 
​The Prince of Wales staged a lengthy legal fight against demands from a public inquiry for him to provide evidence about his long friendship with a paedophile Anglican bishop, it has emerged.
 
Lawyers for Prince Charles protested that requests for evidence from the child abuse inquiry about his connection with Bishop Peter Ball were beyond its powers, unfair and a breach of the prince’s human rights by seeking to obtain “intensely private and confidential” material.
 
Alexis Jay, chairwoman of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), issued a statutory notice requiring the prince to provide evidence but met continued resistance from Clarence House.
​If you are affected by issues related to child abuse, particularly in an institutional or religious setting, contact Howe & Co’s dedicated team at IICSA@howe.co.uk
0 Comments

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse Interim Report published 25th April 2018

25/4/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
​David Enright (Howe & Co.’s child abuse team lead) attended a preview meeting to review the IICSA’s interim report this morning (25th April) along with Sam Stein QC of Nexus Chambers who represents many survivors before the Inquiry. The following is their initial reaction to the Inquiry’s Report; a further and more in depth response will follow.


Shocking Scale of Child Abuse
The Interim report pulls back the veil on the shocking scale of child abuse in England and Wales. The Report reveals, at pages 30 and 31 that:

“According to the 2015 – 16 Crime Survey for England and Wales, 7 % or people aged between 16 and 59 reported that they were sexually abused as a child…. latest police data shows that the number of sexual offences against children under 16 in England and Wales more than doubled between 2013 and 2017, increasing from 24,085 to 53,496” 

However, the Report goes on to find that, “…the operational data will always underestimate the scale of child abuse. …. the Children’s Commissioner for England, which found that only 1 in 8 sexual offences against children come to the attention of the police or local authority.”

Therefore, if only 1 in 8 offences are reported, this means that there were at least 425,000 child abuse offences in 2017.
 
Howe & Co.’s impact on Inquiry’s recommendations
Chapter 7 of the Interim Report sets out the Inquiry’s current recommendations. It appears that submissions made by Howe & Co on behalf of its clients have had a significant impact upon the Inquiry’s recommendations.
Howe & Co has repeatedly and publicly argued that the Inquiry should make recommendations for a redress scheme for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, where local or national government failed in their duty of care for children.
The Inquiry, in its recommendations in the Child Migrant Programme Investigation, recommends

“…establish[ing] the financial redress scheme without delay and expects that payments should start being made within 12 months…”

In relation to the Inquiry’s recommendations on the much needed overhaul of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme; the three recommendations are all consistent with recommendations that Howe & Co have repeatedly called for including:

  1. That claims to the CICA not be automatically rejected in circumstances where an applicant’s criminal convictions are likely to be linked to their child abuse,
 
  1. That claims to the CICA relating to child abuse are only considered by caseworkers who have specific and detailed training in the nature and impact of child abuse,
 
  1. That the CICA Rules are amended so that victims who’s claims were previously rejected solely under the ‘same roof’ rule, should be entitled to reapply to the CICA for compensation
 
These and other recommendations, for example in relation to the recommendation that Department of Health and Social Care, Education, Home Office and Ministry of Justice work together to establish current levels of public expenditure, and the effectiveness of that expenditure on services for child victims and adult survivors of child abuse in England, are to be welcomed. However, there are some areas where the Inquiry could and should have done better at this stage.

What is this Report
This interim report is exactly what it says, and perhaps could be retitled as a ‘stop-check’ or a  ‘work in progress’. Although the report contains a number of compelling findings and some excellent recommendations, which we will return to below, the Report has missed opportunities to make important recommendation now. For example, the Inquiry did not tackle the operation of the Limitation Act 1980 in child abuse case in this report but has put this off till a later date. At page 56 of the Report the Inquiry finds:

“The Limitation Act 1980 was identified as an obstacle to accessing justice as some victims and survivors of child sexual abuse are prevented from making a civil claim because too much time has elapsed since the abuse took place. This is an important issue that the inquiry will consider further, particularly as other jurisdictions, including Scotland, have legislated to exclude limitation considerations from child sexual abuse claims”.

Roman Catholic Church
The Inquiry has clearly felt that it cannot set out any conclusions in the areas where there have been some public hearings but these are incomplete. For example the Inquiry says of the English Benedictine Congregation hearing into Ampleforth and Downside Abbey Schools that (p.45):

“The inquiry is still considering its findings in relation to this public hearing and these will be published in a separate investigation report later this year”. 
Although the Inquiry has a number of further hearings on the Catholic Church in which we are representing many of the survivors; we do feel that the Inquiry could have indicated some findings now and trailed recommendations that may follow.
 
Culture Change
The overall theme of this interim report can be found in its emphasis on the “need for a culture change in relation to attitudes towards child sexual abuse, the role of leadership in supporting this culture change and issues relating to staff practise and safe recruitment”.

We have found from working within this area for many years that the survivors of abuse agree with the need to refocus on abuse, understand better that the abused child’s life can be destroyed, or at least very badly affected by the abuse, and that stopping the abuse requires putting children first, and always first.
The Inquiry’s emphasis on a need for a change in culture can clearly be seen throughout the Interim report and the Report’s recommendations. This is to be welcomed.
 
Child Migration
Within the area of child migration the Inquiry recommends that an apology be provided by the Institutions who have failed the child migrants. The Inquiry recommends that a compensation scheme be established for child migrants without any regard to any other payments of compensation.

This may be a helpful pointer in the direction of a wider compensation fund which Howe & Co have and will continue to argue for within the Accountability and Reparations investigation which is due to start it public hearing this year.

Civil Justice System
The Civil Justice System is targeted by the interim report, which recommends that all witnesses in the civil courts have the same level of vulnerable witness protection, as they would do within the Criminal Justice system. Perhaps the interim report should have gone further and recommended that the be a joint scheme for the civil courts and criminal courts so that evidence which should be given by the Survivor should only be given once and used in both civil and criminal cases.

Police Service
The police service is considered by the Interim Report. Some of the Inquiry’s recommendations are welcome. For example, the proposal for a better recognition of the importance of having worked within the area of CSA and that such work and training should be a pre-requisite for advancement into senior ranks in the Police. This is a very sensible recommendation and should serve to guarantee the importance of understanding CSA throughout the ranks of the police service.

Clearly there is more work to be done in this area as the report is ‘light’ on the need to ensure that complaints to the police are dealt with carefully and added to by appropriate referrals to the support services that may be suitable. This again will need to be developed in future submissions that Howe & Co will make on the question of police engagement with survivors, first contact with the police and any other agency who received complaints; plus the shameful lack of funding (and withdrawal of funding) for the support networks who assist people who have been abused, such as refuges.
 
Awareness
The Report’s theme of making sure that there is an increased awareness of the prevalence of abuse and the need to take steps to protect children is also strong in the Interim report. The Report argues for a referral of any adverse finding on fitness to practise in any area to be kept by a central register. This again will be a point Howe & Co will be taking up on behalf of survivors; as the question of whether there has been an adverse finding needs to be considered across the board and into areas where there is not a professional body that can act or intervene. Further there is a need to understand and agree what is an adverse finding? Often evidence builds up and across employment areas. It may be that an adverse finding might be made or a conclusion reached without there being a formal hearing. This question of sufficiency of evidence and build up of likelihood requires further work and attention.
 
Conclusion
In the short time we have had to consider the Report we see positives, negatives, good intentions and further work to be done.

We can appreciate the work that has been done by the Inquiry and we can applaud the clear good intentions to make changes that the Report signals. However, the pace of the this Inquiry’s work remains too slow, and we recognise that for many survivors that the frustration of having this ongoing and lengthy inquiry brings back such difficult memories and a burning desire for action and change.

Funding is not targeted by this Interim Report despite its recommendation for changes and changes in attitude towards CSA. There needs to be an up front recognition that without adequate funding and resources being provided then recommendations will remain just recommendations.

However, our view is that this report provides the foundations for our future submissions; including that anybody who works with children must be better trained, better recognised and better supported. There is a need to recognise that some people want to work with children because they want to abuse children. So far this report has not identified best practise in identifying potential abusers before they gain access to children.

If we stitch together the themes from this report we can see that it is beginning to grasp the need, which all survivors have understood for too many years, that children must be protected first and always. However the end game for this Inquiry is still some time away.
​
We must welcome the positive elements of this report, point out where it is lacking and press on to get the very best outcomes, protections and support for child victims and adult survivors.

The full interim  report can be found here
 
David Enright – Howe & Co
Sam Stein QC – Nexus Chambers

0 Comments

The Roman Catholic Church will not reform itself - reform must be imposed. By Sam Stein QC and David Enright of Howe & Co

6/3/2018

1 Comment

 
Picture
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) commenced its investigation into the Anglican Church on Monday the 5th of March, following its hearings into the Roman Catholic Church in December 2017.
​
David Enright (head of Howe & Co Solicitors Public Inquiry team) and Sam Stein QC represent a number of survivors of abuse by monks of the English Benedictine Congregation (EBC), the Comboni Missionaries and the Christian Brothers, who were Core Participants in the Investigation.
 
Parallels between Anglican and Catholic Church
The similarities between the recent Catholic Church hearing and the current Anglican one are numerous. The Catholic Church’s official media outlet, The Tablet, reported that as of August 2014, the number of Anglican Priests who had become Catholic Priests stood at 400; and now represent 10% of Catholic Priests in all of England and Wales.

The IICSA’s “Scope” of the Anglican Church Investigation and the Catholic Church Investigation are identical in large part. The parallels between the two churches and two investigations are obvious. 
Below is an account of the three weeks of the Roman Catholic Hearings of the IICSA at which we represented a large group of core participant survivors. The evidence was deeply disturbing and revealing. The early reports from the current and ongoing IICSA Anglican Church hearings indicate that strikingly similar issues will arise.

First Catholic Church Hearing
During the recent three weeks of the English Benedictine Congregation (EBC) hearing at the IICSA we learnt time and time again that the neither the EBC nor the wider Roman Catholic Church has changed. 
​During this hearing we heard of dark passageways leading to a secret room, police officers informed that monks had connections with VIPs, monks representing a potential danger to children kept at a monastery on school grounds, brown envelopes of complaints kept away from investigators, Abbots who apparently obstruct investigations by the police and who seek to keep back material about abusers. Also a past Abbot President of the EBC, Richard Yeo, who preferred the flawed wisdom of an Abbess who, on being asked to shelter a suspected abuser stated she did not want to know the details as she trusts the monk concerned.
Throughout the hearings the evidence pointed very strongly to a policy of “Church First” in cases of child abuse and how it was reported, investigated and responded to.
While we awaited the start of the Catholic Church public hearing we heard daily in the news of the trial and subsequent conviction of a “sadistic” former abbot who sexually abused young boys in the 1970s and 80s. Andrew Soper, 74, the former Ealing Abbot at St Benedict's School, was found guilty of 19 charges of indecent assault and buggery on December 6. St Benedict’s is another EBC school.
There appear to be many issues which underlie the prevalence of abuse within the Roman Catholic Church, and all of these have been addressed many times before. We are also all aware that the literal cradle to grave coverage of the Church, and its 2000 year history, compels the laity to treat priests and monks with greater respect or deference than we would anyone else.
 
In fact their very status in society would tend to mean for most of us that they should be held to a higher standard and show us the way. But respect must be earned and for the English Benedictine and the Roman Catholic Church from what we have seen in the IICSA’s three weeks of investigation there is a  long way to go until respect can be their due again.
 
One of the problems with the Roman Catholic Church is its inflexibility and resistance to change caused by the lack of governance and line management. Of course there are many other difficulties caused by the confessional rules, inherent misogyny and other issues.
 
Father Paul Smith, current president of the Conference of Religious, which is a gathering of Religious Superiors, in his statement read on the 28th November 2017 said that “….the Conference of the Religious has no power over any Congregation of its independent leadership in any matter pertaining to their internal leadership”. Then later “….the Conference of the Religious does not have any regulatory powers over its membership” [p.24].
 
Dom Richard Yeo (recent former president of the English Benedictine Congregation) in his evidence described the EBC in the following way:
 
“Among the Benedictines, the basic unit is not the order as whole. The basic unit is the individual monastery and rather than having an order divided into provinces, you have monasteries which group together into congregations….I wouldn’t say they operate under the Abbot President. They operate and the Abbot President attempts to assist those monasteries where appropriate and where possible”
 
In our questioning of Abbot Yeo on the 28 November 2017 we learnt that the survivors of the abuse by monks at Fort Augustus, which included one of our clients, are due to be getting some compensation from the money gifted to the EBC flowing from the closure and sale of Fort Augustus. In his evidence it was made clear that the EBC recognises it has a moral, but not an actual or legal responsibility, to the survivors of child abuse by the paedophile monks at the now closed Fort Augustus.
 
But what of the survivors of abuse by the paedophile monks at Downside or Ampleforth or St Benedict’s Abbeys? Because of the claimed-for autonomy of the Monasteries nothing has been done by the EBC or the Roman Catholic Church to set up a fund or redress scheme for them.
 
Post-Nolan and Cumberledge
 
The National Catholic Safeguarding Commission and CSAS (previously COPCA) were put in place as a result of the Nolan Report and then Cumberledge. But if the culture and the type of men involved have not changed then all the systems and guidance in the world will not change them.  
 
Mrs Eileen Shearer gave her evidence on the 30th of November 2017, former director of COPCA, a professional social worker with 37 years’ experience and for many years a manager and supervisor.
 
Mrs Shearer’s view was clearly expressed when she said:
 
“Priority seemed to be given, often, too often, to protecting the institution from open scandal and to dealing with things in-house, a mistrust of the statutory authorities and there seemed to be a lack of awareness of their own lack of knowledge in a way so that they were not open to acting on advice or receiving training and development. And a preference to acting locally. There is often a reference in the evidence I have read about the fact that the child protection polices nationally were not mandatory, which was not the intention, I believe of Lord Nolan…”
 
A Mr Molesworth gave his evidence on the 1st of December. He holds a master of science in Social Work, and is a child care social worker with huge experience of safeguarding. In his evidence he referred to other matters but perhaps most memorably he said that of Piers Grant Ferris, a paedophile monk, that in his view “we had four abbots who knew about his behaviour from 1975” and that they “didn’t get safeguarding, they didn’t get child protection”. This was despite the fact that Father Wright had commissioned the Mann’s (experienced psychologists) to do risk assessment and it was a “classic example of you need to take action, you need to take action now…..but for reasons I don’t understand he chose to ignore them”.
 
Three months into his work at Ampleforth Abbey Mr. Molesworth was motivated to write:
 
“Stepping further back, I find myself questioning whether the community has either the mechanisms, the understanding or even a basic willingness ….. To properly deal with child protection matters……”
 
How did Mr. Molesworth summarise matters? He said:
 
“There was no external accountability, no sanctions, a complex legal framework” and later he conclude by saying “a lack of effective oversight”
 
Former Detective Superintendent Honeysett give evidence on the 4th of December 2017 and put the matters in the following way that he:
 
“didn’t think that Abbot Timothy was applying the principle of Nolan as we understood them….The fact was that children were at risk because two priests were still in and around the school or the communities there weren’t proper risk measures in place and in terms of the principle of paramountcy for child welfare was not to the fore; that much of what Abbot Timothy was talking about in relation to the priests was about their rights and about looking after themselves..”
 
Jane Dziadulewicz who gave evidence on the 6th of December 2017 is a safeguarding consultant with over 30 years’ experience with many years of work as a child protection social worker and senior social worker for Local Authorities and London boroughs. She worked at the Clifton diocese not long after COPCA had been set up. This was the witness who was surprised by the hidden room which as she said:
 
“our suspicions were raised as why in such an opulent environment would two or three individuals wish to go down a concrete flight of steps through a dimly lit room have a key that other people did’ have access to and have two or three armchairs seated opposite a TV screen”
 
It is important to remember that Ms. Dziadulewicz was speaking from a much broader experience of the Catholic Church than just these two schools and that is what the IICSA is all about not just the EBC and from that perspective she, in summary, said:
 
  • There is a huge problem with accountability.
 
  • There needs to be some way of making religious and bishops accountable. I think if you don’t do that things aren’t going to change.
 
  • There needs to be some kind of body that holds the church accountable. There is nothing. The church ultimately doesn’t have to do these things if they don’t want to.
 
  • If nothing happens, once the inquiry is over the church can continue in the way that its continued for years and so people can  - will be able to access the services that the church has offered to children  and families for years and the same problems will arise again where offenders will be able to target children and abuse again.
 
The former first lay head of Downside Abbey School, Dr. James Whitehead, summarised the issues in the following way on the 7th of December:
 
“Accountability is the fundamental problem. The members of the monastic community are not accountable unless they commit a criminal offence, obviously. But they are not accountable to anyone…..I think that the points that were made in terms of the mandatory reporting I think are good ones and I think that the testimony that was given yesterday arguing for a body which oversees more accountability within this area, I think, I would fully support”
 
The evidence seen and heard by the Inquiry strongly indicated that Dr Whitehead was removed from his position as head of Downside as a result of his determination to improve safeguarding at Downside and to remove safeguarding from the control of the Abbey and its monks.
 
Detective Constable White suggested there should be a:
 
“Team to oversee religious sectors, to look at and deal with these” and he said “as much as we talk about the offenders in this and the suspects in this, there was clearly, over time, people that had knowledge of what happened. There is no repercussions on them at all”. He continued “we have the laws in place to prevent the incidents happening but it is about a way of trying to enforce the safeguarding and protection of the vulnerable and children that are the victims of these accounts.”
 
Adrian Child, another highly experienced social worker in the area of child protection gave evidence on the 13th of December and said:
“There is nothing mandatory and nothing enforceable, there is no accountability within safeguarding in the Catholic Church It is all on a goodwill basis”
He went on to say:
 
 “They haven’t got it right and that’s in a 15 year period. So I don’t see any value in tinkering around the edges……I think there needs to be accountability in some kind of mandatory requirement”.
 
Father Aiden Bellenger’s comment in a letter is worthy of mention before moving on (he gave evidence on the 11th of December), he said: “At the heart of the darkness in the community is the issue of child abuse which was tolerated by all my predecessors as abbot” in this letter he also refers to what he called the attempt by Dom Richard Yeo, the former Abbot President of the EBC, to protect paedophile monks.
 
Survivors put it the following way:
 
“It really hurt that I have had to listen to the old boy network trash what I had been through…..There is a lot of anger out there about what happened in their communities, there is a lot of anger to the victims. There is a lot of anger to people like the safeguarding professionals and the police. These old boys and parents of children in the school should be grateful to these people. It is the police and the safeguarding that have made these children safer, not the men running these schools I believe you need third parties overseeing this and that safeguarding should be mandatory”
 
Another survivor said:
“Just to say that I hope this leads to something. I see on the Downside website that they have – they are declaring that they are welcoming the chance to scrutinise. Part of me thinks “well of course they would say that, because they are being hauled in front of an independent inquiry”. I just don’t want there to be just another raft of apologies”.
 
Conclusions
So what can we conclude from the first of the IICSA hearings into the Roman Catholic Church? The answer will not be found within the church as there is no evidence of any internal movement or desire to change its management and governance.
In fact the evidence was that the Church continues to cling to its historic structures  in which senior members of the Religious communities in the monasteries and abbeys are autonomous structures run as independent fiefdoms of the Abbots and Abbesses, in the same way that within a diocese a Bishop rules supreme.
For Safeguarding and Child protection to have a chance of being effective within the Church we have argued that the IICSA must recommend that safeguarding is removed from the Church and put it into the hands of an entirely independent ‘non church’ body. This must be accompanied by mandatory reporting which will then be monitored, regulated and overseen by the new regulator. The funding for this will need to be paid for by the Church.  
In the coming weeks the IICSA will hearing disturbing evidence of child abuse and cover up in the Anglican Church.
It is and will remain our position that in every institution in the UK, including the Churches, the bottom line must not be Church first, but children first.
1 Comment

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse has now published their first complete report into child sexual abuse in respect to child migration module.

5/3/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture


​The full report is here:
https://www.iicsa.org.uk/keydocuments/4265/view/Child%20Migration%20Programmes%20Investigation%20Report%20March%202018.pdf
 
The IICSA report is quite critical of Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) and focuses on the policy of allowing children to be sent to Australia, New Zealand and Zimbabwe, where many were subjected to physical and sexual abuse and little if anything was done to protect them.
 
Most importantly, the primary recommendation is that there should be a financial redress scheme established and that redress should be paid urgently and within a year, as many survivors are now very elderly.
 
Howe & Co represents a very large proportion of the victim and survivor core participant in the IICSA. We have been pressing the Inquiry since March 2017 to make recommendations on reparations for survivors on an urgent basis, given the age of many victims and survivors.
 
The IICSA Child Migration Investigation Report recommendations are:
 
Recommendation 1: Financial redress
 
1. HMG was, over many years, the institution primarily responsible for the post-War child migration programmes: it established the legal framework within which the sending institutions operated, it provided essential funding, it facilitated relations with overseas Governments and it operated, to a very limited degree, a system of regulation and oversight.
 
2. However we have found that post-War child migration was a fundamentally flawed policy, and that HMG failed to ensure that there were in place sufficient measures to protect children from sexual abuse (as well as other forms of abuse and neglect). Thus the children were placed in environments where they were exposed to a range of risks, including the risk of sexual abuse, and where sexual abuse was less likely to be prevented, identified, reported or stopped. We have also found that HMG failed to respond appropriately to the reports it received about the welfare of the children, by either stopping migration and returning the children, or putting in place other measures to reduce the risks to the children.
 
3. HMG has not yet made any financial redress directly to individual former child migrants. Most former child migrants have died. This means that in many cases HMG has missed its opportunity to offer redress to those who were affected by its failure. However, around 2,000 child migrants are alive today, and the Panel considers it essential that all surviving former child migrants are offered such redress.
 
4. As a result, the Panel recommends that HMG establishes a Redress Scheme for surviving former child migrants, providing for an equal award to every applicant. This is on the basis that they were all were exposed to the risk of sexual abuse. Given the age of the surviving former child migrants, the Panel urges HMG to establish the Scheme without delay and expects that payments should start being made within 12 months.
 
5. We also propose that no regard be had to any other payments of compensation that have been made in particular cases. This is because we consider that this scheme is driven by the need for the HMG to make redress for its policy failings in this context, and it has not done so to date. Given that this is the rationale for the scheme, the establishment of the Redress Scheme should not be used as a reason for reducing funding for the Child Migrants Trust or the Family Restoration Fund, which funding serves different purposes.
 
6. The Panel has not specifically recommended that other institutions involved in the child migration programmes participate in the Redress Scheme. This is not because we do not consider that these institutions failed the child migrants: our report makes clear that we think they did. Rather, it is because we consider that HMG was primarily responsible and because we are keen to ensure that the Scheme is a simple one, in the hope that it can be effective soon, and make a real, immediate and lasting difference to the lives of the former child migrants. If HMG wishes to look to those other institutions for a contribution to the Redress Scheme, it will no doubt do so.
 
7. We make it clear that we are recommending the setting up of a Redress Scheme because of the particular context of the child migration programmes. One aspect of these programmes which makes them unique was that HMG failed to take steps to respond to the fact that the children were sent abroad, to countries where they would not have the protection of UK law. Different considerations may apply to contexts where the protection of UK law continues to apply to children.
 
Recommendation 2: Further institutional apologies
 
8. We are troubled by the amount of time it took successive British Governments to acknowledge the full responsibility of HMG for the fate of the child migrants. It has taken years for the former child migrants to have the truth of their experience recognised. This truth was clear from the Government’s own documents, kept in the National Archives.
 
9. Through the national apology given in 2010, the evidence provided to the Inquiry and the apologies repeated before us, the British Government has now accepted the failings of the child migration programmes including in part with respect to the risk of sexual abuse. We do not consider it appropriate to recommend that they make any further acknowledgement of or apology for the failings that took place.
 
10. However we do consider that implementing the Redress Scheme is an essential component of the British Government continuing to accept responsibility for the abuses suffered by child migrants, including sexual abuse.
 
11. As we have set out in the institution-specific sections of the report, some institutions have still not apologised for their role in the child migration programmes. We recommend that they do so, as soon as possible. We recommend that they make such apologies not only through public statements but specifically to those child migrants for whose migration they were responsible.
 
Recommendation 3: The preservation of child migrants’ records
 
12. As we have set out earlier in the report the Inquiry’s ability to investigate allegations or evidence of sexual abuse within child migration programmes was hampered at times by the failure of some institutions, notably the Royal Overseas League and the Sisters of Nazareth, to have preserved the contemporaneous documentation.
 
13. The inability to access their records in a straightforward manner, or at all, has caused some child migrants yet further distress and an ongoing lack of clarity over their identity.
 
14. We therefore recommend that that all institutions which sent children abroad as part of the child migration programmes should ensure that they have robust systems in place for retaining and preserving any remaining records that may contain information about individual child migrants, and should provide easy access to them.
 
Conclusion
 
Howe & Co welcomes this first IICSA report and its recommendations. We urge the Inquiry to move quickly to issue further reports and recommendations in the interests of children currently in care and in the interests of victims and survivors who were previously abused in care.

0 Comments

Days four to eight of the Inquiry

7/12/2017

0 Comments

 
Day four to eight of the Inquiry continue to hear the most compelling evidence of the widespread failures to protect vulnerable individuals. Some of the most compelling and distressing evidence was heard in camera and not allowed to be streamed. David Enright and Sam Stein QC continued to represent the victims and survivors of some of the most serious child sexual abuse.
​
David Enright said of the evidence that he heard that:
​“I have spent the last 8 days at the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse public inquiry (Roman Catholic Church Module), 7 more days to go. This morning a disabled woman gave evidence of the abuse she suffered at the hands of a senior Benedictine Monk. Her evidence was beyond words. As parts of her statement were read out to the Court she involuntarily put her hands to her ears and rocked in her seat. I wept as I listened. I can only hope that this public inquiry, the latest in a long line, finally draws a line.”
David also noted that the BBC reported similar issues continuing to this day – report here

The transcripts of the hearing can be found here
​

Howe + Co continue to represent a large number of Core Participants, not just in the Roman Catholic Inquiry but also in the wider Inquiry. 
0 Comments

Second and Third day of the IICSA

30/11/2017

0 Comments

 
David Enright of Howe+Co, along with Sam Stein QC continue to represent a  large number of Core Participants. Having opened as reported in http://www.howe.co.uk/news/first-day-catholic-church-hearing, the questioning started of the first witness, Dom Richard Yeo. 

A copy of the full day transcript for the 28 November 2017 is here

Howe+Co were granted permission to ask questions of Dom Yeo. It was confirmed that in respect to Fort Augustus, that a compensation fund was being discussed, but not in respect to Downside and Ampleforth. 

Sam Stein QC then took Dom Yeo to the Rule of Life of St Bendict, and the following was said: 
 Q. I am going to ask you some questions about the Rule of St Benedict and, madam, that has been set out in those issues that have been granted. I have asked the evidence handler to put up on the screen the Rule of St Benedict. Can we please go to rule or chapter 23 which our  evidence handler will find at page 18 of the Rule of St Benedict. Dom Richard, have you got the Rule of St Benedict coming up on your screen?
A. I do, yes. 
Q. I'm grateful. You're referring to something else. What is that you have in your hand?
A. The rule.
Q. So you have it both in hard copy form and on the screen? 
A. Correct.
Q. Help us, please, understand this. The Rule of St Benedict is the basic rule of life -- is that a fair way of putting it? -- that is followed by Benedictine monks?
A. Correct.
Q. In particular, it is the rule of life followed by English Benedictine monks within the congregation; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. We are going to be looking at the particular rules that are set out first of all, page 18, chapter 23. The first one sets out the question of excommunication for faults if a brother is found to be stubborn or disobedient or proud. It goes on to talk about that monk if he grumbles or in any way despises the Holy Rule and defies the orders of his seniors. It then sets out, as we understand the disciplinary procedure, he should be warned twice privately by the seniors. Would a senior in a monastery be a dean?
A. It means one of the senior -- one of the older monks. 
Q. So he should be warned twice privately by a senior in the way you describe in accord with Our Lord's injunction and there is then a biblical reference. Is that correct? 
A. Correct.
Q. "If he does not amend, he must be rebuked publicly in the presence of everyone. But if, even then, he does not reform, let him be excommunicated, provided that he understands the nature of this punishment. If, however, he lacks understanding, let him undergo corporal punishment." Is that still a current rule of the Rule of St Benedict?
A. The Rule of St Benedict was written in the 6th century,  so it is still part of the rule.
Q. Right.
A. But it doesn't follow that the precise material prescriptions of the rule are followed today.
Q. We are going to deal in a minute with the question of what is applied or not. I'm just going to go through some rules. Can I take you then to chapter 29, page 20 of the rule. This deals with readmission of brothers who leave the monastery, and it says: "If a brother, following his own evil ways, leaves the monastery but then wishes to return, he must first promise to make full amends for leaving." Then it says: "Let him be received back ..." I think the maximum number of times he can be received back, it looks like four times, "no more than three"; is that correct?
A. Three.
Q. Help us, please, understand that. Would that apply as an example to a child abuser monk?
A. No.
Q. Help us, please, where it says that within these rules? 
A. Because this belongs to a section, 23 to 30, which we normally call "The disciplinary code". That section of the rule contains wise spiritual advice, particularly, I would say, on excommunication, which is a different idea to modern ideas of excommunication, and also mercy, which you will find, above all, in chapter 27. Chapter 27 is a very valuable guidance for an abbot, how to deal with a brother who is misbehaving. So the spirit of the rule applies, but in the 21st century a lot of the material prescriptions which are suitable for the 6th century are clearly inapplicable.
Q. Help us, please, a little bit further with page 20, chapter 30. This particular chapter 30 refers to the manner of reproving boys. In relation to, it seems,  some misdeed of a boy, the rule states that "they should be subjected to severe fasts or checked with sharp strokes so that they may be healed". Help us, please, in relation to the applicability of that particular rule, as an example, being got rid of from the rules?
A. Again, you cannot get rid of it in the sense that you cannot amend the text which has been written in the 6th century, but that is one of the provisions which was presumably suitable for the 6th century and totally inappropriate for the 21st century, so it is not applied.
Q. Chapter 45, "Mistakes in the oratory". Page 28, please. This particular one sets out mistakes in the oratory: "Should anyone make a mistake in a psalm, responsory, refrain or reading, he must make satisfaction there before all." 5 Then it goes on to talk about the question of, "If he does not use this occasion to humble himself, he will be subjected to more severe punishment for failing to correct by humility the wrong committed through negligence. Children, however, are to be whipped for such a fault." Are you going to tell us that that is again a matter for the 16th century and not to be applied now. Is that what you are going to say?
A. 6th century, yes.
Q. And not applied now?
A. Indeed.
Q. Help us with these references to corporal punishment in relation to monks, first of all. Within the monastery of which you were part, was corporal punishment still used in relation to monks?
A. It wasn't, and it hasn't been used for several hundred 22 years.
Q. What about other monasteries?
A. I have a pretty wide knowledge of monasteries throughout the world, and I think I can be quite certain in saying that it is not applied anywhere.
Q. In relation to children, corporal punishment, when did that stop?
A. In this country, it has been illegal now for something like 20/30 years. I think -- I couldn't say for certain when it finished in each individual school, but it finished well before it became unlawful.
Q. Right. So you're saying the 6th century rules are no longer followed; in particular, the disciplinary system is to be regarded as a part of old rules not to be applied. Is that what you are saying?
A. I didn't say the disciplinary system. I said that these material applications. I'm saying the spirit of the rule is still important. The concept of excommunication, which is depriving a person of community life, and the concept of the abbot as a wise physician who knows how to cure spiritual ills, that is something which is very valuable, but I am saying that the material -- the provisions about corporal punishment, which you mentioned, are clearly inappropriate for today.
Q. Where are the modern rules that deal with the current disciplinary system in relation to monks? Where are they set out?
A. Above all, they would be in the customary of the monastery.
Q. So each of the customary of the monasteries, is this correct, contains a modern-day, up-to-date, as far as it can be done, disciplinary system for monks? Is that what you are saying?
A. I'm saying that -- for example, at the end you mentioned chapter 45 of the rule, what happens if you come late. I think must customaries will say, and if the customary doesn't say, the custom, the unwritten custom of the monastery does say what way a monk should do penance for arriving late.
Q. Arriving late for what?
A. For the oratory.
Q. For a reading; is that correct?
A. For a service in the church.
Q. What about more serious infractions of any particular rule, so a monk abusing children, as an example? Where is the disciplinary system set out in any rule that we can find, read, graph, talk to you about? Where is it set out?
A. That would be superseded by the law of the land.
Q. So is the answer to my question that there is no disciplinary system set out within a coherent written text for monks today? Is that the answer?
A. I think, as I have tried to say before, we find value in elements of chapters 23 to 30. I gave a series of talks about this to a group of nuns a couple of years ago, and was able to, I think, talk for about -- give at least three talks on the subject. There is a lot of spiritual value there. But if you are talking about a modern code of discipline, that's not the way a monastery today works.
Q. Is your answer that there is no written code of discipline that is applicable to EBC monks?
A. I'm saying that each individual monastery may have its customary and it may -- it will say some things about discipline, but it won't be a systematic disciplinary code in the way that you might have in civil legislation.
Q. When you were the Abbot President, did you enquire into these customaries, these disciplinary rules, to consider whether they were adequate?
A. We issued, in 2009, some guidance for the writing of a customary. Whether it spoke specifically of disciplinary matters, I cannot remember. But, again, it will have been the responsibility of each monastery to compose its own customary after considering the model which the congregation had given.
Q. So is, again, the answer that you, as Abbot President, did not look into the question of individual disciplinary codes written into the customaries within 2 monasteries?
A. I encouraged monasteries to write customaries. Customaries were often given to me at the time of visitations and I occasionally made a comment on them.

Q. You have answered questions about the presence or nonpresence of a disciplinary code. You seem to describe the Rule of St Benedict to be genius. That's in your statement at paragraph 29, page 8. You describe the rule to be genius, or a genius rule.
A. I think what I said is I spoke of the genius of the rule, which is a slightly different thing from saying the rule is genius.
Q. I will read it out: "Inevitably, much of this detail suited to life in the 6th century is outdated today. But part of its genius is its flexibility which has enabled monks and nuns of different cultures, as well as different centuries, to use it as a guide to monastic living."  Do you stand by that?
A. Yes.
Q. You also say that monks spend a good deal of time studying the rule and that we, yourself included as a monk, have all been formed by the rule?
A. Yes.
Q. That's within your statement at paragraph; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Help us, please, understand the situation with a monk: where is it set out for a monk which chapters, which rules, within the Rule of St Benedict should be followed or not be followed?
A. It isn't, because we don't talk about not following rules -- not following individual chapters. We are talking about chapters which are -- where the material provisions are outdated and not applied, but nevertheless the context and the spiritual value is still there:
Q. You have worked -- "worked" may be the wrong description, but you have been the Abbot President of the EBC; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You have served on the Cumberlege Commission; is that also correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You are currently a representative of the Catholic Council, the body that's designed to support this inquiry; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You have worked as an adviser to the Conference of the Religious; is that also right?
A. Correct.
Q. Are you also a member of the NCSC?
A. No, I'm not.
Q. Right. Have you been?
A. No, never.
Q. Have you been in the past?
A. No.
Q. In relation to your senior roles within those organisations, what steps have you taken to advise, as an example, the NCSC, of deficiencies in the Rule of St Benedict?
A. I don't believe there are deficiencies in the Rule of St Benedict, so I haven't taken any advice -- any steps to inform the NCSC about them.
Q. You have mentioned in your evidence this afternoon that there is guidance that's been given to monasteries in relation to disciplinary matters. You said that already. Have you discussed that with the NCSC, as an example?
A. No:
Q. Did you discuss that with the Nolan Commission?
A. No.
Q. The Cumberlege Commission?
A. No.
Q. Now -- A. Mr Stein, maybe I can help you by reminding you of what I said in answer to one of Ms Karmy-Jones' questions, that the constitution to the congregation consists of two parts. The first part is the declarations on the rule which complement the rule and which, in many cases, describe the way in which the monastic life is lived today. Therefore, areas where the rule is clearly anachronistic will be complemented by what is written in the declarations.
Q. Is our understanding correct that there was a reapproval by the Holy See of the English Benedictine Congregation's constitutions in 2013?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there, first of all, a discussion about the disciplinary procedures in relation to monks' misbehaviour when the Holy See revisited the EBC constitutions in 2013?
A. Yes, because there was discussion of the way in which we should incorporate safeguarding into the constitutions and, following the discussion, matters about safeguarding were introduced into the constitutions.
Q. That's safeguarding. What about the disciplinary measures for monks who may, as an example, have abused 23 children? What discussion was conducted with the Holy See about the disciplinary measures that relate to those monks in the 2013 reapproval of the constitution?
A. That would not come into the constitutions. As I said before, that is largely superseded by national policies and procedures on safeguarding, and also by the rules set out by the CDF as regards the punishment of abusers.
Q. Do you accept that the English Benedictine Congregation bears a moral responsibility to those people that have been abused by its monks?
A. I accept that the monasteries of the English Benedictine Congregation have a responsibility which is both moral and in many cases may be legal. The Congregation as a whole, as I have said, regrets, is sorry for and is ashamed of abuse which has been committed in any monastery.
Q. Why don't you say that the EBC has a moral responsibility for the survivors of abuse? Why do you give an answer which says that, "Well, we are very sorry, but don't accept moral responsibility"?
A. Because I think that the primary responsibility must be with the individual monastery, and survivors must go to,  in the first -- well, I would advise survivors to go to the abbot of their monastery, of the monastery where they were abused. Now, as Ms Gallafent said yesterday, the Abbot President is very willing to hear any complainants who come to him. He has invited them to come to him. And I am sure he would express his sorrow at any abuse. But I think he would probably refer the matter eventually to the individual monastery where the abuse was suffered. I'm not certain that saying the EBC accepts moral responsibility -- I'm not certain what that means.
Q. You, Abbot President ex of the EBC, are saying that you don't understand what the words "moral responsibility" mean? Are you saying that?
A. I'm saying that I'm not certain what the EBC accepting moral responsibility implies.
MR STEIN: Madam, I'm aware that I have perhaps stretched the limit of the time. I accept that. May I just say, for those people who are listening to the question-and-answer sessions that are being conducted, that there is a limitation that is placed upon, if you like, more general cross-examination without leave. So for the purposes of those people who are listening, I am not allowed at this stage to go any further
On the 29 November 2017, questions continued of other witness and the full transcript is here.

A number of witness were examined by Counsel to the Inquiry. 
0 Comments

The Health Sector

4/9/2017

1 Comment

 
Home > News > The Health Sector
Howe+Co will attend this two-day seminar 26 and 27 September 2017, will examine whether current arrangements to prevent child sexual abuse in healthcare settings are effective.

Many of our Core Participants have reported to us that they as children did report matters to health care individuals and or were admitted to hospital with injuries that were clearly identifiable as being from a sexual assault. 

During the seminar, healthcare leaders and professionals from across England and Wales  will take part in discussions that will help the Inquiry understand the effectiveness of current practices to protect children from sexual abuse, and ways to ensure that children are better protected from sexual abuse while receiving health care and treatment. 

We will facilitate our Core Participants taking part in the seminar and asking relevant questions of those individuals. The timing and further details will be provided to our clients when released by the Inquiry. 

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/research-seminars/health-sector

1 Comment

THE DESPAIR WROUGHT BY THE DECISION OF THE IICSA CHAIR

1/8/2017

2 Comments

 
Home > News > THE DESPAIR WROUGHT BY THE DECISION OF THE IICSA CHAIR
In early 2016 I began working with a very impressive group of 12 men, all of whom alleged that the had suffered sexual abuse as boys in a Catholic Seminary College operated by the Comboni Missionary Order (previously Verona Fathers). I found these men to be mature, well educated and highly articulate. Their accounts of alleged abuse at the hands of priests of the Order were convincing and deeply troubling. Their accounts of the efforts they had made at the time of the abuse and over the many following years, to hold this international Catholic Religious Order to account were deeply impressive. 
​
Almost a million British Children attend schools run by or associated with the Catholic Church. It is therefore a matter of great importance to these men and to all right minded people that children are safe in schools.

In June 2016 I assisted these men to apply for core participant status in the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). This is a national public Inquiry into historic child sexual abuse, which is seeking to learn lessons so as to protect children in the future.

Read More
2 Comments

Catholic Decision - IICSA

31/7/2017

2 Comments

 
Home > News > Catholic Decision - IICSA
Picture
Howe+Co representing a large proportion of the victims and survivors who have been granted core participant status before the Independent Inquiry into child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), including approximately 25% of the core participants in the Roman Catholic church Investigation.
 
There have been grave concerns regarding child abuse in the Catholic Church in the UK and internationally for some years. The Catholic Church continues to operate and oversee the education of almost a million British children. This investigation is therefore very important for child safety in the UK.
 
On 28 July the IICSA published a determination by the Chair which appears to effectively sideline a very large proportion of all of the core participants in this important investigation.
 
Of the 54 Core Participants Howe+Co represent 13 of them,( twelve who alleged they were abused by members of the Comboni Religious Order). The remaining 40 core participants come from a number of different parts of the Catholic Church. A key case study selected by the Inquiry is the The English Benedictine Order, which is a monastery based Religious Order that is distinctly different from the wider catholic church in terms of management and child protection.
 
A large number of the Core Participants in this important investigation are now effectively excluded or sidelined  from this investigation because of the on going criminal trial (Ealing Abbey/ St Bendict’s School and potentially Worth Abbey). As such of the four Abbeys identified originally as case studies for this Investigation, 50% are now not going to be considered. The remaining Abbeys to be investigated are Ampleforth Abbey in York, and Downside Abbey in the West of England, both in relatively remote locations. This the Chair has indicated, will be the evidence representing the whole of the Catholic Church.s. These two remote and wholly unrepresentative Abbeys will be used by the Inquiry to make findings in regard of child safety in the entirety of the Catholic Church in England and Wales.
 
This decision by the Inquiry jeopardises the integrity and reliability of the whole Roman Catholic Church Investigation.
 
David Enright (had of Howe & Co’s Inquiry Team) said:

“Our clients are shocked by the Inquiry’s determination of 28 July. It effectively excludes a large proportion of the victims and survivor core participants, it reduces the breadth and depth of this investigation; and potentially fatally undermines this vitally important investigation. Almost a million British Children are educated in Catholic Schools; the parents of those children deserve to know if their children are safe.” ​
2 Comments
<<Previous
    In the Press
    Press Release

    Categories

    All
    Grenfell
    IICSA
    Immigration
    Legal Aid
    Litigation

    Archives

    November 2018
    October 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    January 2017

    Tweets by HoweAndCo

What Our Clients Are Saying

  Contact Us

SOMETHING WRONG?
Tell us
© 2019 Howe+Co Solicitors. All rights reserved | Privacy | Terms | Sitemap | Diversity  | Price | Complaints
Howe & Co is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, SRA registration number: 73646
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Recruitment
  • Services
    • For Companies
    • For Individuals
  • News
  • Contact