Skip to main content

IICSA published its final Report in October 2022. This website was last updated in January 2023.

IICSA Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Accountability and Reparations Investigation Report

Annex 1: Overview of process and evidence obtained by the Inquiry

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investigation will incorporate case specific investigations and a review of information available from published and unpublished reports and reviews, court cases, and previous investigations in relation to the delivery of reparations to the victims and survivors of child sexual abuse.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

Counsel to this investigation:

Peter Skelton QC
Lois Williams
Tim Cooke-Hurle
Gideon Barth

Complainant core participants:

AR-A31, AR-A7, AR-A6 (deceased 2018), AR-A9, AR-A11, AR-A28 (deceased 2016), AR-A27, AR-A13, AR-A5, AR-A34, AR-A25, AR-A3, AR-A194, AR-A36, AR-A79, AR-A96, AR-A14, AR-A41, AR-A44, AR-A15, AR-A78, Peter Smith, Paul Connolly, Colin Watson, James (Thomas) Harding, Paul Sinclair, Mark Gray, Nigel O’Mara, Forde Park Survivor Group and Stanhope Castle Survivor Group
Counsel Christopher Jacobs
Solicitor David Enright, Howe and Co Solicitors
Peter Robson
Counsel N/A
Solicitor David Greenwood, Switalskis Solicitors
AR-A23, AR-A21, AR-A24, AR-A26, AR-A29, AR-A30, AR-A46
Counsel Stephen Simblet
Solicitor Billhar Singh Uppal, Uppal Taylor Solicitors
AR-A1, AR-A19, AR-A2
Counsel N/A
Solicitor Alan Collins, Hugh James Solicitors
Robert Balfour
Counsel N/A
Solicitor Tamsin Allen, Bindmans
AR-A87
Counsel Aswini Weereratne QC
Solicitor Peter Garsden, Simpson Millar
Karen Gray (Not legally represented)
Counsel N/A
Solicitor N/A
AR-A20 (De-designated as a core participant 14 December 2018)
Counsel Alan Barker
Solicitor Sarah McSherry, Imran Khan and Partners


Institutional core participants:

Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police
Counsel Jason Beer QC
Solicitor Tara Harrop, Joint Legal Services
Devon County Council
Counsel Paul Greatorex
Solicitor Jan Shadbolt, Devon County Council Solicitor
Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary
Counsel Alan Payne QC
Solicitor Stephen Mooney, Deputy Force Solicitor
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (MPS)
Counsel Jason Beer QC
Solicitor Metropolitan Police Services’ legal services directorate
Chief Constable of Merseyside Police
Counsel Graham Wells
Solicitor Caroline Ashcroft, Force Solicitor
Middlesbrough Council
Counsel Steven Ford QC
Solicitor Michael Pether, BLM
Municipal Mutual Insurance
Counsel N/A
Solicitor Chris Webb-Jenkins, Weightmans LLP
Ministry of Justice
Counsel Neil Sheldon QC
Solicitor Judith Cass, Government Legal Department
Chief Constable of North Wales Police
Counsel Graham Wells
Solicitor Philip Kenyon, Force Solicitor
Royal & Sun Alliance
Counsel Jonathan Hough QC
Solicitor Alistair Gillespie, Keoghs LLP
Zurich Insurance PLC
Counsel Nigel Pleming QC
Solicitor Andrew Lidbetter, Herbert Smith Freehills


3. Evidence received by the Inquiry

Number of witness statements obtained:
121
Organisations and individuals to which requests for documentation or witness statements were sent:
All victim and survivor core participants listed in 2 above
Alistair Gillespie, Keoghs LLP
Alistair Smith, Watson Woodhouse Solicitors
Andrea Ward, DAC Beachcroft
Anglesey County Council
Association of British Insurers
Billhar Singh Uppal, Uppal Taylor
Browne Jacobson
Cheshire Constabulary
Cheshire West & Chester Council
Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
Crown Prosecution Service
Daniel O’Malley
David Knapp
Detective Constable Dawn Clark, Durham Constabulary
Devon & Cornwall Police
Devon County Council
Durham Constabulary
Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel QC
Flintshire County Council
Graham Needs
Gwynedd County Council
Henry Witcomb QC
Home Office
Kevin Daymond
The Law Society
London Borough of Havering
London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Lord Faulks QC
Malcolm Johnson, Hudgells Solicitors
Merseyside Police
Metropolitan Police Service
Michael Pether, BLM
Middlesbrough Council
Ministry of Justice
Municipal Mutual Insurance
National Crime Agency
NHS England
Nicholas Fewtrell
Nigel O’Mara
North Wales Police
Paul Durkin, Switalskis Solicitors
Penelope Ayles (now District Judge Penelope Taylor)
Peter Garsden, Simpson Millar Solicitors
Rape Crisis England & Wales
Royal & Sun Alliance
Salford City Council
Sarah Erwin-Jones, Browne Jacobson
Simon Bailey, National Police Chiefs’ Council
Simpson Millar Solicitors
Solicitors Regulation Authority
The Survivors Trust
Therese Classon, WBW Solicitors
Tracey Storey, Irwin Mitchell
Watson Woodhouse Solicitors
WBW Solicitors
Zurich Insurance


4. Disclosure of documents

Total number of pages disclosed: 25,751


5. Public hearings including preliminary hearings

Preliminary hearings
1 29 July 2016
2 28 March 2017
3 8 May 2018
4 25 September 2018
Public hearings
Days 1–5 26–30 November 2018
Days 6–10 3–7 December 2018
Days 11–14 10–14 December 2018
Day 15 – additional hearing day 15 January 2019


6. List of witnesses

Forename Surname Title Called/Read Hearing date
AR-A21     Called 27 November 2018
AR-A1     Called 27 November 2018
AR-A24     Read 27 November 2018
AR-A23     Read 27 November 2018
Charlotte Ramsden Ms Read 27 November 2018
Neill Anderson Temporary Assistant Chief Constable Called 28 November 2018
Phillip Marshall Mr Called 28 November 2018
Billar Singh Uppal Mr Called 28 November 2018
Gareth Owens Mr Read 28 November 2018
Alistair Gillespie Mr Called 29 November 2018
Edward Faulks Lord, QC Called 29 November 2018
David Nichols Mr Called 29 November 2018
Robert Balfour Mr Read 29 November 2018
AR-A78     Read 29 November 2018
AR-A13     Called 30 November 2018
AR-A41     Called 30 November 2018
AR-A27     Read 30 November 2018
AR-A6     Read 30 November 2018
AR-A31     Read 30 November 2018
AR-A14     Read 30 November 2018
Paul Sinclair Mr Read 30 November 2018
AR-A44     Read 30 November 2018
AR-A11     Read 30 November 2018
AR-A3     Read 30 November 2018
AR-A7     Read 30 November 2018
AR-A9     Read 30 November 2018
Deborah Marsden Temporary Assistant Chief Constable Called 3 December 2018
Rod Luck Mr Called 3 December 2018
Emily Wilkins Ms Read 3 December 2018
Christian Papaleontiou Mr Read 3 December 2018
AR-A19     Read 3 December 2018
AR-A20     Read 3 December 2018
AR-A30     Read 3 December 2018
AR-A29     Read 3 December 2018
AR-A26     Read 3 December 2018
Paul Connolly Mr Called 4 December 2018
Daniel O’Malley Mr Called 4 December 2018
Craig Turner Detective Chief Superintendent Called 4 December 2018
Steven Tinkler Mr Read 4 December 2018
Richard Baldwin Mr Called 4 December 2018
Malcolm Johnson Mr Called 5 December 2018
Tracey Storey Ms Called 5 December 2018
Sarah Erwin-Jones Ms Called 5 December 2018
AR-A87     Called 5 December 2018
AR-A36     Called 5 December 2018
AR-A15     Read 5 December 2018
AR-A79     Read 5 December 2018
AR-A2     Read 5 December 2018
AR-A194     Read 5 December 2018
Darren Martland Acting Deputy Chief Constable Called 6 December 2018
Serena Kennedy Detective Chief Constable Called 6 December 2018
Peter Garsden Mr Called 6 December 2018
Paul Durkin Mr Called 6 December 2018
Normandie Wragg Ms Read 6 December 2018
Stephen Bellingham Mr Called 7 December 2018
Carolyn McKenzie Ms Called 7 December 2018
AR-A34     Called 7 December 2018
AR-A25     Read 7 December 2018
Peter Robson Mr Called 10 December 2018
David Orford Assistant Chief Constable Called 10 December 2018
James Bromiley Mr Called 10 December 2018
Rod Luck Mr Called 10 December 2018
AR-A5     Read 10 December 2018
James Thomas Harding Mr Read 10 December 2018
Peter Smith Mr Read 10 December 2018
Mark Gray Mr Read 10 December 2018
Colin Watson Mr Read 10 December 2018
AR-A96     Read 10 December 2018
Alistair Smith Mr Called 11 December 2018
Nigel O’Mara Mr Called 11 December 2018
Lee Eggleston Ms Called 11 December 2018
Fay Maxted Ms Called 11 December 2018
Emma Barnett Assistant Chief Constable Called 12 December 2018
Philippa Handyside Ms Called 12 December 2018
Melissa Case Ms Called 12 December 2018
Linda Brown Ms Called 12 December 2018
Gregor McGill Mr Read 12 December 2018
Penelope Ayles (now known as Taylor) District Judge Called 15 January 2019


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]

Back to top