An inquiry into allegations of the sexual abuse and exploitation of children residing at or attending Cambridge House Boys’ Hostel, Knowl View School and other institutions where their placement was arranged or provided by Rochdale Borough Council.
A1 | |
---|---|
A2 | |
A4 | |
A5 | |
A6 | |
A7 | |
A8 | |
A9 | |
Counsel | Laura Hoyano |
Solicitor | Richard Scorer (Slater and Gordon) |
Rochdale Borough Council | |
---|---|
Counsel | Steven Ford QC |
Solicitor | Chris Webb-Jenkins and Chaitali Desai (Weightmans LLP) |
Greater Manchester Police | |
Counsel | Anne Studd QC |
Solicitor | Sian Williams (Greater Manchester Police) |
Lancashire Police | |
Counsel | Alan Payne |
Solicitor | Nitin Borde (Lancashire Legal Department) |
Crown Prosecution Service | |
Counsel | Edward Brown QC and Fraser Coxhill |
Solicitor | Alasdair Tidball (Government Legal Department) |
Secretary of State for Education | |
Counsel | Cathryn McGahey QC |
Solicitor | William Barclay (Government Legal Department) |
Organisations to which requests for documentation were sent |
---|
Rochdale Borough Council |
Greater Manchester Police |
Lancashire Police |
Crown Prosecution Service |
Security Services |
Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee |
The Cabinet Office |
Hempsons (Solicitors to the Garnham Review) |
Lancashire County Council |
Total number of pages disclosed
19,669
Preliminary hearings | |
---|---|
1 | 16 March 2016 |
2 | 27 July 2016 |
3 | 10 May 2017 |
4 | 20 September 2017 |
Substantive public hearings | |
Days 1 – 5 | 9 – 13 October 2017 |
Days 6 – 10 | 16 – 20 October 2017 |
Days 11 – 13 | 23 – 25 October 2017 |
Day 14 | 27 October 2017 |
Surname | Forename | Title | Called/Read | Hearing Day |
---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | Called | 2 | ||
A2 | Called | 3 | ||
A4 | Called | 3 | ||
A5 | Called | 6 | ||
A6 | Read | 12 | ||
A7 | Called | 6 | ||
A8 | Read | 7 | ||
A9 | Called | 7 | ||
Andrews | Brett | Mr | Read | 7 |
Bartlett | David | Mr | Called | 4 |
Bottomley | Martin | Mr | Called | 11 |
Bradshaw | Allan | Mr | Called | 5 |
Cantrell | CS | Read | 12 | |
Cavanagh | Diana | Ms | Called | 10, 11 |
Colley | Raymond | Mr | Read | 12 |
Davey | Ian | Mr | Called | 8 |
Dearnley | Ashley | Mr | Read | 13 |
Digan | Martin | Mr | Called | 6 |
Dobie | Elizabeth | Ms | Published | 10 |
Doyle | Deborah | Mr | Read | 13 |
Eaton | Duncan | Mr | Called | 6 |
Surname | Forenames | Title | Called/Read | Hearing Day |
Farnell | Richard | Mr | Called | 12 |
Fraser | Alison | Dr | Called | 7 |
Galpin | Janet | Ms | Read | 4 |
Green | Martyn | Mr | Read | 4 |
Henderson | DS | Read | 12 | |
Hill | Vince | Mr | Read | 12 |
Hodge | Selwyn | Dr | Called | 9 |
Hopper | Gail | Mrs | Called | 2, 4 and 13 |
Houghton | CS | Read | 12 | |
Jacques | Timothy | ACC | Called | 3 |
Joinson | Peter John | Mr | Called | 13 |
Jones | Sarah | Ms | Called | 5 |
Kershaw | Eileen | Ms | Read | 4 |
Lawley | William | Mr | Published | 10 |
Lynne | Liz | Ms | Read | 13 |
Marsh | Peter | Mr | Called | 12 |
McGill | Gregor | Mr | Called | 3 |
McKillop | Donagh | Mr | Published | 10 |
Mellor | Valerie | Ms | Called | 12 |
Morrissey | Tony | Mr | Published | 10 |
Pierce | John | Mr | Published | 10 |
Phillips | Eleanor | Ms | Called | 12 |
Price | Lyndon | Mr | Read | 2 |
Roberts | Bill David | Mr | Read | 12 |
Rowen | Paul | Mr | Called | 9 |
Scarborough | Christine | Ms | Called | 7 |
Seed | Michael | Mr | Read | 4 |
Shipp | David | Mr | Published | 10 |
Simpson | Marilyn | Ms | Published | 10 |
Shepherd | Phil | Mr | Called | 11 |
Tuck | Michael | Mr | Published | 10 |
Waller | Andrew | DI | Published | 12 |
Weeks | Janet | Ms | Called | 7 |
Woodward | Helen | Ms | Published | 10 |
On 15 August 2016, the Chair issued a Restriction Order under s.19(2)(b) of the Inquiries Act 2005, granting general anonymity to all Core Participants who allege that they are the victim and survivor of sexual offences (referred to as “Complainant CPs”).[iicsa-references:{"title":" /key-documents/791/view/restriction-order-15-aug... ","url":"","text":""}] The Order prohibited (i) the disclosure or publication of any information that identifies, names or gives the address of a Complainant CP 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.
On 24 October 2017, the Chair issued a Restriction order under s.19(2)(b) of the Inquiries Act 2005[iicsa-references:{"title":"/key-documents/3233/view/2017-10-19%20Restrictio... published%20on%20the%20Inquiry%20website%20during%20the%20Cambridge%20House%2C%20Knowl%20View%20 and%20Rochdale%20public%20hearing%20.pdf ","url":"","text":""}], prohibiting the disclosure or publication of the name of any individual whose identity has been redacted and/or ciphered by the Inquiry in connection with its investigation into Cambridge House, Knowl View and Rochdale and referred to during the course of the evidence. This includes, but is not limited to, the identities of individuals ciphered within the documentation or referred to in the transcripts published in the following ways:
a. On the ‘hearings’ and ‘documents’ pages of the Cambridge House, Knowl View and Rochdale section of the Inquiry’s website.
b. In any report of the Inquiry published in connection with this investigation, and any documents published with it.
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.
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.[iicsa-references:{"title":" www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/322/view/inquiry-protocol-on-redaction-of...","url":"","text":""}] 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; 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. 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 Case Study. Therefore, the Inquiry varied the Restriction Order and circulated to certain Core Participants a key to some of the ciphers.
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.