Skip to main content

0800 917 1000   Open weekdays 9am-5pm

IICSA Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

The residential schools Investigation Report

Contents

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

1. Definition of scope

This investigation considers the sexual abuse and exploitation of children in residential schools. Its scope is as follows:

  1. 1. The Inquiry will investigate the nature and extent of, and institutional responses to, child sexual abuse in residential schools, including schools in the state and independent sectors and schools for children with disabilities and/or special educational needs. The inquiry will incorporate case-specific investigations, a review of information available from published and unpublished reports and reviews, court cases, and investigations, and a consideration of the Inquiry's own commissioned research.

  2. 2. In conducting its investigation, the Inquiry will consider the experiences of victims and survivors of child sexual abuse in residential schools, and investigate:

    1. 2.1. the prevalence of child sexual abuse in residential schools in England and Wales;

    2. 2.2. the policies and practices adopted by residential schools in relation to safeguarding and child protection, including considerations of school culture, governance, training, recruitment, leadership, reporting and investigation of child sexual abuse, disciplinary procedures, information sharing with outside agencies, and approach to reparations;

    3. 2.3. the responses of residential schools, law enforcement agencies, prosecuting authorities, and other public authorities or statutory agencies to allegations of sexual abuse in residential schools;

    4. 2.4. the response of residential schools to suspected abusers, including:

      1. a) the use of disciplinary procedures;

      2. b) the use of compromise agreements;

      3. c) references provided to subsequent employers of suspected abusers;

      4. d) subsequent employment of suspected abusers by other schools or institutions in England and Wales and abroad.

    5. 2.5. the extent to which residential schools sought to investigate, learn lessons, implement changes, and/or provide support and reparations to victims and survivors, in response to:

      1. a) allegations of child sexual abuse by individuals associated with the school;

      2. b) criminal investigations and prosecutions and/or civil litigation in relation to alleged abuse by individuals associated with the school;

      3. c) reports, reviews and inquiries into child sexual abuse and/or safeguarding, including internally-commissioned reports and reports by external authorities, inspectorates or agencies;

    6. 2.6. the adequacy of inter-agency reporting and information sharing between institutions in relation to child sexual abuse in residential schools;

    7. 2.7. the adequacy of inspection and regulatory regimes; and

    8. 2.8. the appropriateness of statutory regimes in relation to vetting and barring.

  3. 3. As part of the investigation of the issues set out above the Inquiry will:

    1. 3.1. commission preliminary and further research as to the issues set out in paragraph 2;

    2. 3.2. identify a number of case studies for a closer investigation of the issues set out in paragraph 2.

  4. 4. In light of the investigations, the Inquiry will publish a report setting out its findings, lessons learned, and recommendations to improve child protection and safeguarding in England and Wales.[1]

2. Core participants and legal representatives

Counsel to this investigation:

  • Fiona Scolding QC
  • Anna Bicarregui
  • Zoe Nield
  • Mary Robertson

Complainant core participants:

Core participants and their legal representatives:
Alex Renton, RS-A1, RS-A2, RS-A3, RS-A4, RS-A5, RS-A8, RS-A14, RS-A26, RS-A27, RS-A28, RS-A29, RS-A30, RS-A42 (Phase 1)
Solicitor Richard Scorer (Slater and Gordon)
RS-A6, RS-A7, RS-A13 (Phase 1)
RS-A299, RS-A300, RS-A301, RS-A328, RS-A334, RS-A337, RS-A345 (Phase 2)
Solicitor Kim Harrison (Slater and Gordon)
RS-A207 (Phase 1)
Solicitor Marie Forbes (Verisona Law)
RS-A189 (Phase 1)
RS-A10, RS-A11, RS-A12, RS-A46, RS-A47, RS-A48, RS-A49, RS-A50, RS-A51
(Closed residential schools account)
Solicitor Charles Derham (Remedy Law)
RS-A31, RS-A32, RS-A33, RS-A34, RS-A35, RS-A36, RS-A38, RS-A39, RS-A40, RS-A41
(Closed residential schools account)
Solicitor Molly Horsley Frost (Jordans Solicitors)
RS-A43 (Closed residential schools account)
Solicitor David Enright (Howe & Co)
RS-A54, RS-A55, RS-A56, RS-A57, RS-A58 (Closed residential schools account)
Solicitor David Greenwood (Switalskis)

Independent core participants:

Independent core participants:
Andrew Leverton (Phase 1)
Solicitor Richard Scorer (Slater and Gordon)
RS-H2, RS-H3 (Phase 2)
Solicitor Kim Harrison (Slater and Gordon)

Institutional core participants:

Institutional core participants:
Boarding Concern (Phase 2)
Solicitor Richard Scorer and Kim Harrison (Slater and Gordon)
Independent Schools Inspectorate (Phases 1 and 2)
Counsel David Wolfe QC
Solicitor Sarah McKimm (Independent Schools Inspectorate)
Ecclesiastical Insurance Office (Phase 1)
Solicitor Anna Senter (Eversheds Sutherland)
Clifton College (Phase 2)
Counsel Samantha Leek QC
Solicitor Tabitha Cave (Veale Wasbrough Vizards)
Secretary of State for Education (Phases 1 and 2)
Counsel Cathryn McGahey QC and Galina Ward
Solicitor William Barclay (Government Legal Department)
East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Closed residential schools account and Phase 2)
Counsel Steven Ford QC
Solicitor Helen Brown (Weightmans)
Ofsted (Phases 1 and 2)
Counsel Sarah Hannett and Alice De Coverley
Solicitor Beth Forrester and Juliette Smith (Ofsted Legal Services)
North Somerset Council (Phase 2)
Solicitor David Milton (BLM)
Bristol City Council (Phase 2)
Counsel Jane Rayson
Solicitor Nancy Rollason (Head of Legal Service and Deputy Monitoring Officer)
National Police Chiefs’ Council (Closed residential schools account)
Counsel Stephen Morley
Solicitor Craig Sutherland (East Midlands Police Legal Services)
Chetham’s School of Music (Phase 1)
Counsel Steven Ford QC
Solicitor Garry Dover and Michael Pether (BLM)
The Yehudi Menuhin School (Phase 1)
Counsel Genevieve Woods
Solicitor Alice Cave (Farrer and Co)
Wells Cathedral School (Phase 1)
Solicitor Emily Part (Farrer and Co)
Southlands School (Phase 1)
Solicitor Laura Pennells (Trowers & Hamlins)
Sherborne Preparatory School (Closed residential schools account)
The Seashell Trust (Phase 1)
Counsel Kate Gallafent QC
Solicitor Tabitha Cave (Veale Wasbrough Vizards)
The Purcell School for Young Musicians (Phase 1)
Counsel Reka Hollos
Solicitor David Smellie (Farrer & Co)
Chief Constable of Dorset Police (Closed residential schools account)
Solicitor Alasdair James (Joint Legal Services, Devon & Cornwall and Dorset Police)

3. Evidence received by the Inquiry

Number of witness statements obtained:
250

Organisations and individuals to which requests for documentation or witness statements were sent:

  • Anne Rhind (Phase 1)
  • Anthony Halford (Phase 2)
  • Association for the Education and Guardianship of International Students (Phases 1 and 2)
  • Avon & Somerset Police (Phase 2)
  • Boarding Schools’ Association (Phases 1 and 2)
  • Bristol City Council (Phase 2)
  • Care Inspectorate Wales (Phase 2)
  • Charity Commission (Phases 1 and 2)
  • Children’s Commissioner for Wales (Phase 2)
  • Dame Christine Lenehan (Phases 1 and 2)
  • Christopher Hood (Phase 2)
  • Clifton College (Phase 2)
  • Crown Prosecution Service (Phase 1)
  • David Herring (Phase 2)
  • Delyth Lynch (Phase 2)
  • Denbighshire County Council (Phase 2)
  • Department for Education (Phases 1 and 2)
  • Disclosure and Barring Service (Phases 1 and 2)
  • Ecclesiastical Insurance Office (Phase 2)
  • Education Workforce Council (Phase 2)
  • Estyn (Phase 2)
  • Headlands School/East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Phase 2)
  • Humberside Police (Phases 1 and 2)
  • Independent Schools Council (Phase 2)
  • Independent Schools Inspectorate (Phases 1 and 2)
  • Joanne Newman (Phase 2)
  • Karl Anthony Marsh (Phase 2)
  • Marcus Erooga (Phase 2)
  • Mark Moore (Phase 2)
  • Michelle Bamford (Phase 2)
  • National Association of Head Teachers (Phases 1 and 2)
  • National Association of Independent Schools & Non-Maintained Special Schools (Phase 1)
  • National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (Phases 1 and 2)
  • National Education Union (Phases 1 and 2)
  • National LADO Network (Phase 2)
  • Nick Tolchard (Phase 2)
  • Norman Hall (Phase 2)
  • North Somerset County Council (Phase 2)
  • North Somerset Safeguarding Children Board (Phase 2)
  • North Wales Police (Phase 2)
  • Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) (Phases 1 and 2)
  • Paul Redding (Phase 2)
  • Penny Jones (Phase 2)
  • Peter Emery (Phase 2)
  • Peter Middleton (Phase 2)
  • Roger Trafford (Phase 2)
  • RS-A7 (Phase 1)
  • RS-A299 (Phase 2)
  • RS-A301 (Phase 2)
  • RS-A334 (Phase 2)
  • RS-A337 (Phase 2)
  • RS-A345 (Phase 2)
  • RS-H1 (Phase 2)
  • RS-H2 (Phase 2)
  • RS-H3 (Phase 2)
  • Sarah Bone (Phase 2)
  • Dr Stephen Rogers (Phase 2)
  • Susan Bolt (Phase 2)
  • Teaching Regulation Agency (Phases 1 and 2)
  • Dr Tim Greene (Phase 2)
  • Timothy Ross (Phase 2)
  • Tony Oliver (Phase 2)
  • Welsh Government (Phase 2)

4. Disclosure of documents

Total number of pages disclosed: 51,595
Phase 1: 30,589; Phase 2: 15,460; Phases 1 and 2: 5,546

5. Public hearings including preliminary hearings

Preliminary hearings Phase 1
1 16 January 2019
2 25 July 2019
Preliminary hearing Phase 2
1 14 January 2020
Public hearing Phase 1
Days 1–5 30 September–4 October 2019
Days 6–10 7 October–11 October 2019
Public hearing Phase 2
Days 1–5 16 November–20 November 2020
Days 6–10 23 November–27 November 2020

6. List of witnesses

Surname Forename Title Called, read or summarised Hearing day
Phase 1
RS-A1 Called 2
RS-A2 Called 2
Vallins John Mr Called 2
Pace Ian Dr Called 2
Hullah Peter Mr Called 2
Moreland Claire Mrs Called 3
Coley Elizabeth Ms Called 3
Richards Kate Ms Called 3
Humphreys Helen Ms Called 3, 9
Bennett Helen Mrs Called 3
Tighe Alastair Mr Called 3
Hillier Richard Dr Called 4
Field Joanne Ms Called 4
Crook Peter Mr Called 4
Smallbone Graham Mr Called 4
Moore Margaret Mrs Called 5
Bambrough Paul Mr Called 5
Wigglesworth Yasemin Mrs Called 5
Wilkins Dale Mr Called 5
Lenehan Christine Dame Called 6
Povey Carol Ms Called 6
Robinson James Mr Called 6
RS-A6 Called 6
Dixon Kate Ms Called 6
Davies Clair Ms Called 7
Curtis Rachel Ms Called 7
Morgan Jonathan Mr Called 7
Hackett Simon Professor Called 7
Gaster Karen Ms Called 8
RS-A7 Called 8
Nash Richard Mr Called 8
Benson Derek Mr Called 8
Spielman Amanda Ms Called 9
McCall Jolanta Ms Called 9
Young Susan Ms Called 9
Smith Suzanne Dr Called 9
Dixon Kate Ms Called 10
Lara Almudena Ms Called 10
RS-A4 Adduced 2
RS-C2 (RS-A6) Adduced 6
RS-A7 Adduced 8
RS-C4 Read 7
RS-A7 Read 8
Phase 2
Erooga Marcus Mr Called 1
RS-A345 Called 2
Tolchard Nick Mr Called 2
Newman Joanne Mrs Called 2
Moore Mark Mr Called 3
Laird Nicola Ms Called 3
RS-A301 Called 3
Halford Anthony Mr Called 4
Rogers Stephen Dr Called 4
Marsh Anthony Mr Called 4
Herring Dave Mr Called 4
RS-A299 Called 5
RS-H2 Called 5
Hood Christopher Mr Called 5
Smith Sheila Ms Called 6
Bamford Michelle Mrs Called 6
Brown Amanda Ms Called 6
Roach Patrick Dr Called 6
Whiteman Paul Mr Called 6
Meyrick Alan Mr Called 7
Llewellyn Hayden Mr Called 7
Humphreys Helen Ms Called 7
Spielman Amanda Ms Called 7
Kennedy John Mr Called 7
Smith Suzanne Dr Called 8
Gibb Nick Rt Hon Called 8
Berridge Elizabeth Baroness Called 8
Heaney Albert Mr Called 9
Rowland Meilyr Mr Called 9
Poole Vicky Ms Called 9
Roberts Lesley Ms Called 9
Holland Sally Professor Called 9
Jones Chris Dr Called 9
Johnson Richard Mr Called 10
Williams Rhiannon Ms Called 10

7. Restriction orders

On 23 March 2018, 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 core participants’). The order prohibited:

  1. (i) the disclosure or publication of any information that identifies, names or gives the address of a complainant who is a core participant; and
  2. (ii) the disclosure or publication of any still or moving image of a complainant core participant.

This order meant that any complainant core participant 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 core participant may themselves disclose their own core participant status.[2]

On 27 September 2019, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005. This order prohibited the disclosure or publication of the name of any individual whose identity had 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 this investigation’s Phase 1 public hearing.[3]

On 12 February 2020, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 in relation to RS-F80.[4]

On 2 November 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 this investigation’s Phase 2 public hearing.[5]

On 17 November 2020, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 in respect of evidence relating to RS-A345 adduced on day 2 of this investigation’s Phase 2 public hearing.[6]

On 18 November 2020, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 in respect of evidence relating to RS-A301 adduced on day 3 of this investigation’s Phase 2 public hearing.[7]

On 19 November 2020, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 in respect of evidence relating to RS-A309 adduced on day 4 of this investigation’s Phase 2 public hearing.[8]

On 20 November 2020, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 in respect of evidence relating to RS-A300 adduced on day 5 of this investigation’s Phase 2 public hearing.[9]

On 20 November 2020, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 in respect of evidence relating to RS-A346 adduced on day 5 of this investigation’s Phase 2 public hearing.[10]

On 20 November 2020, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 in respect of evidence relating to RS-A320 and RS-H2 adduced on day 5 of this investigation’s Phase 2 public hearing.[11]

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 investigation was redacted, and where appropriate ciphers were applied, in accordance with the Inquiry’s Protocol on the Redaction of Documents (the Protocol).[12] 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. 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 was 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.

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 that:

  1. (1)
    The chairman may send a warning letter to any person -
    1. a. he considers may be, or who has been, subject to criticism in the inquiry proceedings; or
    2. b. about whom criticism may be inferred from evidence that has been given during the inquiry proceedings; or
    3. c. who may be subject to criticism in the report, or any interim report.
  2. (2) The recipient of a warning letter may disclose it to his recognised legal representative.
  3. (3)
    The inquiry panel must not include any explicit or significant criticism of a person in the report, or in any interim report, unless -
    1. a. the chairman has sent that person a warning letter; and
    2. 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.

Back to top