1. Definition of scope for the investigation

This investigation is an inquiry into the extent to which existing support services and available legal processes effectively deliver reparations to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

The scope of this investigation is as follows:^[1]

“1. The Inquiry will investigate the extent to which existing support services, compensation frameworks and the civil justice system are fit to deliver reparations to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. The investigation will incorporate case specific investigations and a review of information available from published and unpublished reports and reviews, court cases, and previous investigations in relation to the delivery of reparations to the victims and survivors of child sexual abuse.

2. The Inquiry will consider the experiences of victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and investigate:

2.1. what amounts to adequate reparation in the case of child sexual abuse, including a consideration of what weight should be attached to the right to an independent and impartial investigation, the right to truth, accountability, compensation, guarantees of non­recurrence, and support services;

2.2. to what extent support services, the civil justice system, and/or alternative compensation frameworks (including the criminal courts and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority) have delivered each of these elements to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, including consideration of:

a. the adequacy of support services provided by public, private and charitable organisations;

b. the extent to which the current civil litigation framework may have obstructed the delivery of some or all elements of reparation;

c. the extent to which the current model of insurance, and/or the practice of insurance companies, may have obstructed the delivery of some or all elements of reparation;

d. the extent to which other factors may have obstructed the delivery of some or all elements of reparation;

e. the extent to which any of the factors above may also have obstructed the implementation of effective safeguarding measures by institutions.

3. To investigate the issues set out above the Inquiry will identify case studies including, but not limited to, the experience of victims and survivors of sexual abuse at Forde Park Approved School and children’s homes in North Wales.

4. In light of the investigations set out above, the Inquiry will publish a report setting out its findings, lessons learned, and recommendations to improve child protection and safeguarding in England and Wales.”

The scope for the case studies is as follows:^[2]

“1. The description of scope for the Inquiry’s investigation into accountability and reparations states that it will examine two specific case studies: North Wales children’s homes and Forde Park Approved School.

2. The Inquiry has decided to add three further case studies in order to obtain as broad a range of evidence as possible. The additional case studies are: St Leonard’s children’s home, St Aidan’s & St Vincent’s children’s homes and the Stanhope Castle Approved School. The selection of these case studies does not prevent the inclusion of additional case studies at a later date.

3. The accountability and reparations investigation focuses on the aftermath of child sexual abuse. The Inquiry is limited by its terms of reference to considering experiences of child sexual abuse. It is not able to examine other forms of child abuse.

4. We will be seeking evidence on the following issues …

a. The process of making a civil claim for damages;

b. Criminal compensation schemes (criminal compensation orders; Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA), formerly Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CIBA) awards); and

c. Support services for victims and survivors who have disclosed child sexual abuse, whether or not they were involved in a criminal or civil case.

5. The investigation will not examine or resolve disputed factual issues relating to the underlying allegations of child sexual abuse.”

2. Core participants and legal representatives

Complainant core participants:

3. Evidence received by the Inquiry

5. Public hearings including preliminary hearings

7. Restriction orders

On 15 August 2016, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19(2)(b) of the Inquiries Act 2005, granting general anonymity to all core participants who allege they are the victim and survivor of sexual offences (referred to as ‘complainant CPs’). The order prohibited (i) the disclosure or publication of any information that identifies, names or gives the address of a complainant who is a core participant and (ii) the disclosure or publication of any still or moving image of a complainant CP. The order meant that any complainant CP within this investigation was granted anonymity, unless they did not wish to remain anonymous. That order was amended on 23 March 2018 but only to vary the circumstances in which a complainant CP may themselves disclose their own CP status.

8. Broadcasting

The Chair directed that the proceedings would be broadcast, as has occurred in respect of public hearings in other investigations. For anonymous witnesses, all that was ‘live streamed’ was the audio sound of their voice.

9. Redactions and ciphering

The material obtained for the investigation was redacted and, where appropriate, ciphers applied, in accordance with the Inquiry’s Protocol on the Redaction of Documents.^[3] This meant that (in accordance with Annex A of the Protocol), absent specific consent to the contrary, the identities of complainants, victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and other children were redacted. If the Inquiry considered that their identity appeared to be sufficiently relevant to the investigation a cipher was applied. Pursuant to the Protocol, the identities of individuals convicted of child sexual abuse (including those who have accepted a police caution for offences related to child sexual abuse) were not generally redacted unless the naming of the individual would risk the identification of their victim in which case a cipher would be applied.

10. Warning letters

Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 provides:

“(1) The chairman may send a warning letter to any person –

a. he considers may be, or who has been, subject to criticism in the inquiry proceedings; or

b. about whom criticism may be inferred from evidence that has been given during the inquiry proceedings; or

c. who may be subject to criticism in the report, or any interim report.

(2) The recipient of a warning letter may disclose it to his recognised legal representative.

(3) The inquiry panel must not include any explicit or significant criticism of a person in the report, or in any interim report, unless –

a. the chairman has sent that person a warning letter; and

b. the person has been given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the warning letter.

In accordance with rule 13, warning letters were sent as appropriate to those who were covered by the provisions of rule 13 and the Chair and Panel considered the responses to those letters before finalising the report.”^[4]