1. Definition of scope
The child sexual exploitation by organised networks investigation was a thematic investigation into institutional responses to the sexual exploitation of children by organised networks.
The scope of the investigation was as follows:
“1. The Inquiry will investigate the nature and extent of, and institutional responses to,sexual exploitation of children by organised networks incorporating case specific investigations alongside a review of information available from published and unpublished reports and reviews, court cases and previous investigations. In doing so the Inquiry will consider the experiences of victims and survivors of child sexual exploitation by organised networks.
2. The Inquiry will examine the extent to which:
2.1. children who were subjected to child sexual exploitation were known to local authorities and other public authorities such as law enforcement agencies, schools and/or the NHS;
2.2. the relevant public authorities, acting alone or working together, effectively identified the risk of child sexual exploitation in communities and took action to prevent it;
2.3. the response of the constituent parts of the criminal justice system was appropriate in cases of child sexual exploitation;
2.4. recommendations in previous reports and reviews have been implemented effectively in the wide range of relevant public authorities at national and local levels;
2.5. effective strategies have now been implemented to prevent child sexual exploitation in the future, and to monitor the safety of vulnerable children including missing children;
2.6. the applicable statutory and regulatory framework relevant to child sexual exploitation is effective in protecting children from sexual exploitation, including in respect of
- (i) taxi and other relevant licensing regimes; and
- (ii) other forms of noncriminal intervention such as the civil prevention order regime under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.”[1]
2. Core participants and legal representatives
| CS-A2 | |
|---|---|
| Solicitor | Kim Harrison (Slater and Gordon) |
| Parents Against Child Exploitation (Pace) | |
| Counsel | William Chapman |
| Solicitor | David Greenwood (Switalskis) |
| Margaret Oliver | |
| Counsel | Christopher Jacobs |
| Solicitor | David Enright (Howe and Co Solicitors) |
| John Wedger | |
| Counsel | Christopher Jacobs |
| Solicitor | David Enright (Howe and Co Solicitors) |
| Centre for Women’s Justice | |
| Counsel | Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC and Mary-Rachel McCabe |
| Solicitor | Harriet Wistrich |
| Sarah Champion MP | |
| Solicitor | Haafiz Suleman (Clifford Chance) |
| Durham Constabulary | |
| Counsel | Alan Payne QC |
| Solicitor | Stephen Mooney (Evolve Legal Services) |
| Durham County Council | |
| Counsel | Steven Ford QC |
| Solicitor | Kamila Coulson-Patel (Durham County Council Legal Services) |
| South Wales Police | |
| Counsel | Alison Hewitt |
| Solicitor | Louise Emmitt (South Wales and Gwent Police Joint Legal Services) |
| Warwickshire Police | |
| Counsel | Samantha Leek QC |
| Solicitor | Katharine Grasby (Warwickshire and West Mercia Police Legal Services) |
| Warwickshire County Council | |
| Counsel | Andrew Sharland QC |
| Solicitor | Victoria Gould (Warwickshire County Council Legal Services) |
| St Helens Council | |
| Counsel | Rory Dunlop QC |
| Solicitor | Mark Fisher (St Helens Council Legal Services) |
| Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Metropolitan Police Service) | |
| Counsel | Christopher Butterfield |
| Solicitor | Metropolitan Police Service’s Directorate of Legal Services |
| London Borough of Tower Hamlets | |
| Counsel | Cleo Perry QC and Andrew Powell |
| Solicitor | Jill Bayley (London Borough of Tower Hamlets Legal Services) |
| Avon and Somerset Police | |
| Counsel | Elliot Gold |
| Solicitor | Shahzad Hamid (Avon and Somerset Police Legal Services) |
| Bristol City Council | |
| Counsel | Jane Rayson and Charlotte Baker |
| Solicitor | Nancy Rollason (Bristol City Council Legal Services) |
| National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) | |
| Counsel | James Berry |
| Solicitor | Craig Sutherland (East Midlands Police Legal Services) |
| Home Office | |
| Counsel | Sian Reeves |
| Solicitor | Daniel Rapport (Government Legal Department) |
| Ofsted | |
| Counsel | Mathew Gullick |
| Solicitor | Juliette Smith (Ofsted Legal Services) |
3. Evidence received by the Inquiry
The Inquiry also considered research it commissioned to explore the motivations and offending behaviours of perpetrators of child sexual exploitation who had been convicted alongside others.[1]
4. Disclosure of documents
Total number of pages disclosed: 40,797
5. Public hearings including preliminary hearings
| Preliminary hearings | |
|---|---|
| 1 | 2 May 2019 |
| 2 | 15 January 2020 |
| Public hearings | |
| Days 1–5 | 21 September–25 September 2020 |
| Days 6–10 | 28 September–2 October 2020 |
6. List of witnesses
| Surname | Forename | Title | Called, read, summarised or adduced | Hearing day |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CS-A12 | Called | 2 | ||
| CS-A371 | Called | 2 | ||
| CS-A317 | Summarised | 1 | ||
| CS-A372 | Summarised | 1 | ||
| CS-A373 | Summarised | 1 | ||
| Beckett | Helen | Dr | Called | 2 |
| Dean | Ian | Mr | Adduced | 2 |
| Hallett | Sophie | Dr | Called | 2 |
| Taylor | Sheila | Ms | Called | 2 |
| Dean | Ian | Mr | Adduced | 2 |
| Pearce | John | Mr | Called | 3 |
| Banks | Michael | Mr | Called | 3 |
| Orford | David | Deputy Chief Constable | Called | 3 |
| Ashton | David | Detective Superintendent | Adduced | 3 |
| Green | Adrian | Mr | Adduced | 3 |
| Quinn | Amanda | Ms | Adduced | 3 |
| Seebohm | Laura | Ms | Adduced | 3 |
| Thomas | Julie | Ms | Called | 4 |
| Richards | Daniel | Assistant Chief Constable | Called | 4 |
| Rees | Damien | Mr | Adduced | 4 |
| Khan | Shehla | Dr | Adduced | 4 |
| Maal | Joanna | Ms | Adduced | 4 |
| Jarrett | Andrew | Mr | Adduced | 4 |
| Holland | Sally | Professor | Adduced | 4 |
| CS-A2 | Called | 5 | ||
| Minns | Nigel | Mr | Called | 5 |
| Hill | Peter | Detective Superintendent | Called | 5 |
| Coleridge-Smith | Elaine | Ms | Adduced | 5 |
| English | Lawrence | Mr | Adduced | 5 |
| McKenna | Vikki | Ms | Called | 6 |
| Leivers | Jim | Mr | Called | 6 |
| Critchley | Ian David | Assistant Chief Constable | Called | 6 |
| O’Brien | Sarah | Professor | Adduced | 6 |
| Carr | Sally | Ms | Adduced | 6 |
| Ainsworth | Paul | Mr | Adduced | 6 |
| Bottomly | Martin | Mr | Adduced | 6 |
| Hardman | Jacqui | Ms | Adduced | 6 |
| Baldwin | Richard | Mr | Called | 6 |
| Williams | Sue | Ms | Called | 7 |
| Jones | Debbie | Ms | Adduced | 7 |
| Jones | Evan | Mr | Adduced | 7 |
| Thomas | Gary | Mr | Adduced | 7 |
| James | Ann | Ms | Called | 8 |
| White | William | Chief Superintendent | Called | 8 |
| Naylor | Amanda | Ms | Called | 8 |
| Cullen | Stephen | Assistant Chief Constable | Adduced | 8 |
| Powell | Ivan | Mr | Adduced | 8 |
| Scott | Rachael | Ms | Adduced | 8 |
| Papaleontiou | Christian | Mr | Called | 9 |
| Langdale | Sophie | Ms | Called | 9 |
| Heaney | Albert | Mr | Called | 9 |
| Ghaffar | Wendy | Ms | Called | 9 |
| Stanley | Yvette | Ms | Called | 9 |
| Benneyworth | Rosie | Dr | Called | 9 |
| Alexander | Simon | Mr | Called | 9 |
| Riley | Katherine | Ms | Called | 9 |
| McGill | Gregor | Mr | Called | 10 |
| Gibbons | Gill | Ms | Called | 10 |
| Ahmed | Zlakha | Ms | Called | 10 |
| Lewis | Rosie | Ms | Called | 10 |
| English | Lawrence | Mr | Adduced | 10 |
| Cockbain | Ella | Dr | Adduced | 10 |
| Beckett | Helen | Dr | Adduced | 10 |
| Scott | Rachael | Ms | Adduced | 10 |
| Riley | Katherine | Ms | Adduced | 10 |
| Afzal | Nazir | Mr | Adduced | 10 |
| Wistrich | Harriet | Ms | Adduced | 10 |
7. Restriction orders
On 23 March 2018, the Chair issued an updated 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 core participants’). 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 core participant. The order meant that any complainant core participant within this investigation was granted anonymity, unless they did not wish to remain anonymous.
On 17 September 2020, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 to prohibit the disclosure or publication of the name of any individual whose identity has been redacted or ciphered by the Inquiry, and any information redacted as irrelevant and sensitive, in connection with this investigation and referred to during the course of evidence adduced during the Inquiry’s proceedings.[2]
On 22 September 2020, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 to prohibit the disclosure or publication of information which is capable of identifying CS-A371 as specified at paragraph 2(a) of the Order.[3]
On 22 September 2020, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 to prohibit the disclosure or publication of information which is capable of identifying CS-A12 as specified at paragraph 2(a) of the Order.[4]
On 16 October 2020, the Chair issued two restriction orders under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 to prohibit the disclosure or publication of information which is capable of identifying CS-A1 as specified at paragraph 2 of the Orders.[5]
On 21 October 2020, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 to prohibit the disclosure or publication of information which is capable of identifying CS-B12 as specified at paragraph 2 of the Order.[6]
On 21 October 2020, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 to prohibit the disclosure or publication of information which is capable of identifying CS-A161 as specified at paragraph 2 of the Order.[7]
On 21 October 2020, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 to prohibit the disclosure or publication of information which is capable of identifying “School/College A” as specified at paragraph 2 of the Order.[8]
8. Broadcasting
The Chair directed that the proceedings would be broadcast, as has occurred in respect of public hearings in other investigations.
9. Redactions and ciphering
The material obtained for this phase of the investigation was redacted and, where appropriate, ciphers were applied, in accordance with the Inquiry’s Protocol on the Redaction of Documents (the Protocol).[9] This meant that (in accordance with Annex A of the Protocol), for example, absent specific consent to the contrary, the identities of complainants and victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and other children were redacted and 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.
The Protocol also addresses the position in respect of individuals accused, but not convicted, of child sexual abuse or other physical abuse against a child, and provides that their identities should be redacted and a cipher applied. However, where the allegations against an individual are so widely known that redaction would serve no meaningful purpose (for example where the individual’s name has been published in the regulated media in connection with allegations of abuse), the Protocol provides that the Inquiry may decide not to redact their identity.
Finally, the Protocol recognises that, while the Inquiry will not distinguish as a matter of course between individuals who are known or believed to be deceased and those who are or are believed to be alive, the Inquiry may take the fact that an individual is deceased into account when considering whether or not to apply redactions in a particular instance.
The Protocol anticipates that it may be necessary for core participants to be aware of the identity of individuals whose identity has been redacted and in respect of whom a cipher has been applied, if the same is relevant to their interest in the investigation.
10. Warning letters
Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 provides:
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.