1. Definition of scope
The Protection of Children Outside the United Kingdom investigation is an inquiry into the extent to which institutions and organisations based in England and Wales have taken seriously their responsibilities to protect children outside the United Kingdom from sexual abuse.
The scope of this investigation is as follows:
“1. The Inquiry will investigate the extent to which institutions and organisations based in England and Wales have taken seriously their responsibilities to protect children outside of the United Kingdom from sexual abuse. The investigation will incorporate case specific investigations, a review of information available from published and unpublished reports and reviews, court cases, and investigations.
2. In investigating the extent to which institutions have taken seriously their duty to protect children abroad, the Inquiry will consider, in particular:
2.1. whether government departments, public authorities, private and/or charitable institutions based in England and Wales have taken sufficient care to protect those children they may have sent or placed abroad;
2.2. whether the armed forces, government departments, public authorities, private and/or charitable institutions based in England and Wales have taken sufficient care to ensure that their employees do not pose a risk to children living abroad and/or whether they have taken appropriate steps in response to allegations that their employees were involved in the sexual abuse of children abroad;
2.3. whether the responses of government departments based in England and Wales to reports of institutional failures to protect children from sexual abuse in overseas territories and crown dependencies have been appropriate;
2.4. whether law enforcement agencies, the criminal justice system, and any other public authorities have been effective in preventing foreign travel by, or notifying foreign authorities of, individuals known to the UK authorities as posing a risk to children.
3. The inquiry will consider the appropriateness of the statutory and regulatory framework relevant to child sexual abuse abroad, including in relation to:
3.1. the operation of the statutory vetting and barring regime by organisations recruiting individuals to work abroad;
3.2. monitoring of child sexual abusers by the criminal justice and law enforcement agencies in England and Wales;
3.3. civil orders, including sexual offences prevention orders, foreign travel orders and risk of sexual harm orders provided by the Sexual Offences Act 2003; and sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders provided by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, as amended by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
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 the protection of children outside of the United Kingdom for whom institutions in England and Wales may have some responsibilities.”[1]
The first phase of this investigation was a case study on the Child Migration Programmes. The Inquiry published its report on this phase on 1 March 2018.[2]
In March 2018, the Inquiry published an update note announcing that the second phase of this investigation would investigate:
“the adequacy of the civil framework for the prevention of, and notification to foreign authorities of, foreign travel by individuals known to the UK authorities as posing a risk to children”.[3]
In August 2018, the Inquiry published a decision on scope expanding the scope of the second phase of the investigation to include:
“issues related to the statutory vetting and barring regime, and issues related to the use and efficacy of section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003”.[4]
This phase of the Protection of Children Outside the UK investigation therefore considered three broad issues:
2. Core participants and legal representatives
Counsel to this investigation:
| Henrietta Hill QC |
| Julia Faure Walker |
| Antonia Benfield |
Independent core participants:
| Every Child Protected Against Trafficking UK (ECPAT UK) | |
|---|---|
| Counsel | Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC and Keina Yoshida |
| Solicitor | Zubier Yazdani, Deighton Pierce Glynn |
| Child Redress International (CRI) | |
| Counsel | Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC and Keina Yoshida |
| Solicitor | Silvia Nicolaou Garcia, Simpson Millar |
Institutional core participants:
| Home Office | |
|---|---|
| Counsel | Nick Griffin QC and Amelia Walker |
| Solicitor | Daniel Rapport, Government Legal Department for the Treasury Solicitor |
| National Crime Agency | |
| Counsel | Neil Sheldon QC |
| Solicitor | Sarah Pritchard and Hilary Dyer, NCA Legal Department |
| National Police Chiefs’ Council | |
| Counsel | Stephen Morley |
| Solicitor | Craig Sutherland and Matthew Greene, East Midlands Police Legal Services |
| Crown Prosecution Service | |
| Counsel | Zoe Johnson QC |
| Solicitor | Laura Tams, CPS Inquiries team |
| British Council | |
| Counsel | Aswini Weereratne QC |
| Solicitor | Alison Gale, British Council Senior Legal Advisor |
3. Evidence received by the Inquiry
| Number of witness statements obtained: |
|---|
| 56 |
| Organisations and individuals to which requests for documentation or witness statements were sent: |
| Action Pour Les Enfants |
| Association of Chief Police Officers Criminal Records Office |
| British Council |
| Catherine Spreckley (former Trustee and Chair of KISS) |
| Child Redress International |
| Child Wise |
| Christine Beddoe (freelance consultant and former Director of ECPAT UK) |
| College of Policing |
| Council of British International Schools |
| Council of International Schools |
| Crown Prosecution Service |
| Department for International Development |
| Disclosure and Barring Service |
| ECPAT International |
| ECPAT UK |
| ECPAT USA |
| Educational Collaborative for International Schools |
| Equations |
| Father Shay Cullen (founder and President of PREDA Foundation) |
| Foreign and Commonwealth Office |
| Gwent Police |
| Hertfordshire Constabulary |
| Home Office |
| International Taskforce on Child Protection |
| Lancashire Constabulary |
| Ministry of Defence |
| Ministry of Justice |
| National Crime Agency |
| National Police Chiefs’ Council |
| OU-A1 |
| OU-A2 |
| OU-A3 |
| OU-A4 |
| OU-A5 |
| OU-A6 |
| OU-X1 |
| Project Karma |
| South Yorkshire Police |
| Staffordshire Police |
| Voice of the Free |
| West Midlands Police |
4. Disclosure of documents
| Total number of pages disclosed: | 8,551 |
|---|
5. Public hearings including preliminary hearings
| Preliminary hearings | |
|---|---|
| 1 | 6 June 2018 |
| 2 | 31 October 2018 |
| Public hearings | |
| Days 1–5 | 11–15 February 2019 |
6. List of witnesses
| Surname | Forename | Title | Called, read, summarised or adduced | Hearing day |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OU-A1 | Summarised | 1 | ||
| OU-A2 | Summarised | 1 | ||
| OU-A3 | Summarised | 1 | ||
| OU-A5 | Summarised | 1 | ||
| Patel | Bharti | Ms | Called | 1 |
| Loseño | Sherryl | Ms | Read | 1 |
| Spreckley | Catherine | Ms | Summarised | 1 |
| Beddoe | Christine | Ms | Called | 1 |
| Samleang | Seila | Mr | Called | 2 |
| Smolenski | Carol | Ms | Read | 2 |
| Lemineur | Marie-Laure | Ms | Called | 2 |
| Cullen | Shay | Father | Summarised | 2 |
| Binford | W Warren H | Professor | Called | 2 |
| Hulley | Glen | Mr | Called | 3 |
| French | Cecilia | Ms | Called | 3 |
| Ray | Joyatri | Ms | Summarised | 3 |
| Jones | Robert | Mr | Called | 3 |
| Downey | Adele | Ms | Summarised | 3 |
| Price | Robert | Mr | Summarised | 3 |
| Skeer | Michelle | Chief Constable | Called | 4 |
| Cherry | Gillian | Police Sergeant | Summarised | 4 |
| Southern | Susan | Assistant Chief Constable | Summarised | 4 |
| Forber | Tim | Assistant Chief Constable | Summarised | 4 |
| Edwards | Joanne | Assistant Chief Constable | Summarised | 4 |
| Barnett | Emma | Assistant Chief Constable | Summarised | 4 |
| Jephson | William | Assistant Chief Constable | Summarised | 4 |
| Brain | Nicola | Detective Superintendent | Summarised | 4 |
| McGill | Gregor | Mr | Called | 4 |
| Davison | Gordon | Mr | Summarised | 4 |
| Gould | Matthew | Mr | Summarised | 4 |
| Reeve | Robert | Mr | Summarised | 4 |
| Jones | Peter | Mr | Called | 4 |
| Taylor | Peter | Mr | Read | 4 |
| OU-X1 | Read | 4 | ||
| Greer | Adrian | Mr | Called | 5 |
| Cooper | Mike | Mr | Summarised | 5 |
| Larsson | Jane | Ms | Called | 5 |
| Bell | Colin | Mr | Called | 5 |
7. Restriction orders
On 7 February 2019, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 granting anonymity to the witness known as OU-X1. The order covered (i) any information that identifies or tends to identify OU-X1 and (ii) any information that identifies or tends to identify the nature or details of work currently undertaken by OU-X1. The order prohibited the publication and disclosure to core participants, other than the National Crime Agency, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Home Office and the British Council, of the information covered by the order.[6]
On 1 April 2019, 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 and/or ciphered by the Inquiry, and any information redacted as irrelevant and sensitive, in connection with phase two of the Protection of Children Outside the United Kingdom investigation and referred to during the course of evidence adduced during the Inquiry’s proceedings.[7]
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).[8] 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 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.
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:
“(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.