Telford’s MP, Lucy Allan, has confirmed that an independent inquiry into alleged child sexual abuse in the town, will be held, after calls from Allan and other politicians to establish an investigation. The abuse, which took place during the 1980’s up to the present day, may have led to as many as 1,000 children being groomed and sexually exploited. 

The investigation is likely to be paid for by affected local authorities in the area, after the Home Office declined to fund the inquiry.

It’s not yet clear what form the inquiry will take, though it could be similar in style to Rotherham’s pioneering child abuse investigation produced by Professor Alexis Jay, the current chair of the nation’s independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. Miss Allan is keen to use Rotherham’s model as a jumping off point for Telford’s own investigation:

“All parties are now agreed that an inquiry is necessary and this can now go ahead… While it would be expected that such an inquiry will take the form of a ‘Rotherham style’ inquiry, as this is a tried and tested model, there may well be alternative models that would work just as well… What really matters is that an independent inquiry is going to take place. This is vital for the victims, their families and our community. It will enable us to find out why this happened.”

Telford’s MP says that since the abuse hit the headlines, she has been inundated with calls from victims.  The scale of abuse in the town has led to the media calling it Britain’s worst ever child grooming scandal.

Image: ITV News

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has confirmed that it will not be reopening the investigation into toddler Poppi Worthington’s death. The decision comes after the CPS could not find enough new evidence to press charges.

Poppi suffered multiple injuries, and was sexually assaulted shortly before she died in 2012. The case hit the headlines after a serious catalogue of blunders was exposed, resulting in important evidence being lost or ignored. Justice Jackson ruled that Poppi’s father was almost certainly responsible for her fatal injuries, though he is now unlikely to ever be charged, in large part because of the serious local authority and police failings.

Poppi’s mother wanted to have the case reopened, after three separate judgments confirmed that Poppi had been sexually assaulted before she died. She has also called out the right to remain silent rule, which she says was responsible for frustrating the coroner’s inquiry into Poppi’s case. Under the right to remain silent rule, an individual has the right to not answer a question or specific questions put to them during criminal proceedings, which include coroners’ inquests. The lawyer acting for Poppi’s mother told Sky News:

“[Poppi’s mother] was… left disappointed that Poppi’s father chose to rely on his right not to answer many questions which may incriminate him at the inquest… While she understands he was entitled to do this, she considers that the coroner’s inquiry was frustrated by this.”

The case raises important questions about evidence gathering and getting the balance right between individuals’ and defendants rights as set against the rights of victims. Whilst the right to remain silent protects another concept – innocent until proven guilty – adverse inferences can be drawn if an individual chooses not to answer a question during a hearing. There are specific instances where this applies, and certain conditions need to be met before an adverse or negative inference can be drawn.

The right to remain silent becomes even more contentious within the context of cases which have to rely heavily on verbal evidence from witnesses because other forms of evidence are either severely limited or nonexistent, like Poppi’s case.

Our heart goes out to Poppi’s mother.

In a predictable move, government ministers have shut down the idea of implementing legislation that would make it compulsory for child welfare professionals to report suspected child abuse, after reviewing a consultation on the issue.

The consultation was published today, though unusually, no formal announcement was made.

The Department For Education, which currently oversees all child protection matters, says in its summary that the government, “has considered the issues objectively and from the point of view of what would likely be best for children – informed by, but not bound by the result of the consultation.” 

An article in Care Appointments (linked to above), tells us that the consultation received “over 760 responses from social workers, police officers, local government, children’s charities, educators and health professionals, victim support groups, and other members of the public,” and that “the majority of responses disagreed with the concept of introducing new statutory requirements.”

The NSPCC, which made a submission, has been anti mandatory reporting since 2016, but as a government arm (it literally manages almost every aspect of child welfare policy for the government), that’s to be expected. And whilst our social work sector remains ultra defensive about implementing this duty –  see chief social worker for children and families, Isabelle Trowler’s statement on the government’s response, the decision not to implement compulsory reporting has nothing to do with the evidence submitted to the consultation, and everything to do with the impact it would have on some survivors’ abilities to sue councils for child sexual abuse, which is part of a wider move by the government to stem claims, which are crippling the social care sector.

A legal duty to report suspected child abuse would mean that if a professional failed to report a suspicion, a visible line between state and survivor could be drawn, allowing the victim to sue, and claim substantial damages.

The Department For Education, and The Home Office, which also oversaw the consultation, are well aware of this.

The decision though, flies in the face of a growing trend towards mandatory reporting.

In 2016, we wrote a piece for Lexis Nexis, in which we outlined the growing number of countries implementing the duty, and the body of research which highlights clearly the positive impact of such a duty.  In America, around 48 states enjoy this legal duty, with some extending their lists to include even more professionals bound to report suspected abuse – a new Bill in Ohio is being considered this month which wants to include police officers, and California, which has also implemented the duty to report, continues to encourage reporting, off the back of its success in reducing child abuse.

Always ahead of England these days when it comes to enacting excellent child welfare legislation, Ireland made the duty to report abuse compulsory, in December of last year. 

Calls to make reporting abuse a legal responsibility have come from several corners of the UK. Survivors abused by priests have backed the duty, which would be particularly effective in safeguarding children in this context, as religious organisations have been notoriously poor at protecting children from paedophiles within their ranks. The duty would also prevent the Church and other religious groups from claiming that confidentiality remains a god given privilege for abusers within a religious setting.

A BBC documentary about girls who were sexually abused in Rochdale also led to some social workers exploring the idea of a duty to report, and an ITV expose last month about abuse within boarding schools called on the government to make reporting a legal requirement within schools.

And the research in favour of a duty to report is overwhelming. Research produced in 2016 by researchers based in the State of Western Australia, which currently has a duty to report too, looked at the impact of the legislation over a seven year period. The study concluded that after a short adjustment period, not only did the duty to report not create an added strain on the state’s child welfare sector and police force, but it actively helped to detect and prevent genuine cases of child abuse.

The government summary on the consultation tells us that the system already has everything it needs in place to protect children from abuse and that it’s doing just fine.

Who do they think they’re kidding.

A trial involving a paedophile who claims ‘top political people’ asked him to kidnap young girls from care homes so they could rape them, is ongoing.

Media reports this week suggested that a final hearing had taken place on13th February and a verdict handed down for the defendant, Gihan Muthukumarana. We can now report that this is not the case.

Researching Reform spoke with Southwark Crown Court this afternoon, who confirmed that the case was only part heard, and was currently on their warned list. Warned lists feature a selection of cases that can be heard at short notice. The cases are listed for trial to start on any day within a set window of time, rather than a specific date. Judges decide which cases go on the list.

Southwark Crown Court told Researching Reform that the case was likely to be heard within the next two weeks.

As of today, there is no listing for this case, but we will keep checking The Law Pages for any developments.

Very many thanks to the kind and helpful clerk we spoke with at Southwark.

Southwark Crown Court has heard a case in which a paedophile has claimed that millions of pounds could be made raping children on camera for ‘top political people.’

The hearing took place this month, though no English mainstream media outlets appeared to have covered the trial, which concluded on 13th February, 2018. Only Court News UK,  Breitbart and The Scotsman, have commented.

Gihan Muthukumarana, who has been charged with facilitating sexual activity with a child and three counts of possessing indecent images of children, told an undercover police officer that the film could be sold for as much as £10 million if the girls were then killed and their bodies were disposed of, which he suggested should be done using vats of acid.

Muthukumarana was reported to police after he told an escort about his plans, in a bid to secure her involvement with the making of the video, and that he had the contacts to carry out the plot. He also told the escort that he had slept with a 12 year old girl and encouraged her to think about sleeping with young girls herself.

The Prosecutor for the case told the court:

“He initially introduced himself to Donna as a facilitator who recorded girls and that he had a proposition for her.

He told her he would make her millions of pounds, he also told her that she would be protected because those buying the film were top political people.

Young teenage girls would be filmed by a woman called Angelie in a secure room and filming them “being f*cked up” and these would be watched by others.”

As well as offering up details about where the abuse would take place, Muthukumarana also told the undercover police officer that she should take alcohol or drugs beforehand because ‘it makes you extra heartless’.

The court also heard an extract from a recorded phone call in which he claimed that, ‘the people paying us to do what we’re doing are very high up political people. We will be masked up and it will be on webcam.’

Muthukumarana told the court that the plot was a fantasy, and denied any knowledge of the indecent images found on his computer’s hard drive.

There appears to be no follow up of this case, and no judgment to access. We think this case is a public interest matter, and will be asking for immediate release of the judgment.

Very many thanks to Maggie Tuttle for alerting us to this case.