149. The primary purpose of civil claims for child sexual abuse is to obtain financial compensation. The courts cannot order defendants to give apologies or explanations for the abuse or assurances that it will not happen again. Billhar Singh Uppal said that, by the time litigation is commenced, it is too late for an apology.^[1]

150. Nevertheless, victims and survivors repeatedly emphasised the importance of receiving genuine and meaningful apologies from the institutions they saw as responsible for their abuse.

150.1. AR-A41 said “I wanted an apology. I want bloody Devon County Council and the Home Office to say sorry for what they’ve done to me, and mean it; not just say the word. Anybody can say the word, but really mean it. Really, really mean it. Not falsely.”^[2]

150.2. AR-A36 said the value of an apology would depend “where and how the apology came about to be honest. Words are meaningless.” He explained that the apology had to come from the “top of Nugent Care Society who run the homes and it’s got to be meant. Words are easy to say, but to actually mean it, and after so long … an apology needs to be a proper apology, face-to-face apology, not on a piece of paper. Anyone can say ‘I’m sorry’ on a piece of paper.”^[3]

150.3. AR-A5 said he wanted “someone in authority to acknowledge that what happened at Stanhope Castle did happen. I want it to be acknowledged that many, many children were sexually, physically and psychologically abused. I want an explanation for why no-one looked into what was going on at the time and why there has never been a proper investigation of the abuse of boys at Stanhope Castle. I want a real, genuine apology.”^[4]

151. For some victims and survivors, apologies were said to be more important than compensation.

151.1. AR-A24 said “I now realise that an apology or acceptance for what I had been through is worth more than any amount of compensation.”^[5]

151.2. Similarly AR-A6 said “I was not at all satisfied with the civil process or the outcome of the case. There was a payment of damages; however, there was no apology and my abusers were not held to account.”^[6]

152. Some victims and survivors wanted more than just an apology. For example, AR-A27 said, of his civil claim, “I was not happy with the outcome as I received no apology or acceptance of liability or responsibility.”^[7] He also told us:

“The main thing I wanted was to receive an acknowledgment from Devon County Council that they had failed us boys and to have an apology for what we had been put through. I also wanted to get assurances that children in care would be protected in the future.”^[8]

153. Although insurers told us that they are generally supportive of apologies being made by institutions, concerns remain as to the timing of such an apology and whether it might amount to an admission of liability.

153.1. David Nichols explained that the insurance perspective back in the 1990s would have been that an apology made by a local authority “could lead to admission of liability” and “would not therefore have been supported”.^[9] However, Zurich now supported apologies being made by local authorities at the outset of a claim. Its guidance permits its policyholders to make apologies which do not amount to admissions of liability.^[10] He said he had no experience of making the apology conditional, for example “we are very sorry if abuse has occurred”, but could not say that never happened.^[11]

153.2. Alistair Gillespie said that sometimes an apology is mentioned in the first letter from a claimant but not thereafter. He said that requests for apologies are made in only around 5 percent of cases. His insurance clients “have never stood in the way of an apology being made” in circumstances where a payment of money was also being made but “an insurer, in those circumstances, would have to flag up as a matter of caution that if any apology did amount to an admission, then there may have to be a further discussion between the insurer and the policyholder”.^[12]

153.3. Alistair Gillespie also said that, on a limited number of occasions, he had been able to facilitate meetings between claimants and defendant institutions so that assurances can be provided about how those organisations now operate. However, he cautioned that with non-recent claims the institution in question will have transformed out of all recognition since the abuse took place.^[13]

153.4. Rod Luck said that MMI “don’t have a problem with apologies” made by the local authority or the insured institution. However, he said MMI suggest that they work with their own legal advisers on the nature of the apology, and made clear that there “may be certain occasions and certain points in time when an apology can’t at that stage be offered”.^[14]

153.5. Philippa Handyside, General Counsel at the Association of British Insurers (ABI), stated that ABI’s guidance made clear that if an organisation wanted to do or say something that might amount to an admission of liability, they should liaise with their insurers. She acknowledged it was a difficult issue for organisations but thought it should be possible for them “to agree a sensible way forward that gives as much as can be given”. She accepted that a conditional apology was far from ideal; “A lawyer’s apology is not welcome”.^[15]

154. The Compensation Act 2006 affords defendants the opportunity to make apologies without necessarily compromising their defence of personal injury claims. The Act states that an apology, an offer of treatment or other redress shall not of itself amount to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty.^[16]

155. However, the Act only refers to negligence or breach of statutory duty, and not to vicarious liability, which is the main basis upon which child sexual abuse claims are now brought. David Nichols said that Zurich interpreted its provisions as extending to vicarious liability^[17] but other defendant witnesses such as Carolyn Mackenzie and Philippa Handyside said that this issue needed to be clarified.^[18]

156. The Inquiry heard that none of the victims and survivors in the case studies ever received apologies during the civil claims process from the institutions or those responsible for them.

156.1. In the Bryn Alyn litigation, the company that ran the homes was in liquidation by the time of the litigation.

156.2. In the Forde Park litigation, Penelope Ayles explained that because the defendants did not admit liability she could not secure an apology.^[19]

156.3. In the St Leonard’s litigation, Tracey Storey said that the only explanation given for the abuse came in the form of an admission of liability in the defence.^[20] It appears that Tower Hamlets made a statement expressing regret at what had happened and an intention to make amends but no formal apology.^[21]

156.4. In the North West Children’s Homes litigation, it is unclear whether any request for an apology was made by victims and survivors from St Aidan’s and St Vincent’s. Whilst Peter Garsden recalled making such a request in the early stages and being refused,^[22] Stephen Bellingham said that, from his review of the papers, he could see no evidence that a request for an apology was ever made of Nugent Care.^[23]

156.5. In relation to Stanhope Castle, we have not seen any evidence that an apology was sought by or provided to the claimants in the sexual abuse claims brought against Middlesbrough Council.

157. However, during the Inquiry’s hearings, apologies were made by Devon County Council, Tower Hamlets, Nugent Care Society and Middlesbrough Council, although the representative of the latter, James Bromiley, was unable to say whether or not sexual abuse had taken place at Stanhope Castle.