HJ Talks About Abuse

In this week's episode of HJ Talks About Abuse, we look at the important topic of online child sexual exploitation. This is a major issue that has come to light over recent years. We look at some cases that highlight the problem, how it is being dealt with currently and what can be done to improve the way we deal with the problem, not just at a national level, but internationally too.

In May 2019, former army officer Andrew Whiddett was sentenced to 3 years and 2 months in prison for 6 child sex charges.

The National Crime Agency has confirmed that Whiddett made 49 payments totalling £8,584 between January and July 2017 to set up and watch child abuse.

Whiddett targeted Filipino children abroad and even proposed visiting the Philippines to abuse a child in person.

As put by the NCA officer Gary Fennelly, "Whiddet thought he could get away with abusing Filipino children from the comfort of his own home" but this is not the case.

The BBC has reported Whittet directed the live-streamed abuse over Skype with known child sex abuse facilitators.

As a result, he pleaded guilty to arranging the commission of a child sex offence and attempting to cause or inciting a nine year old girl and another girl under the age of 16 in sexual activity.  He was convicted in relation to other charges.

This case represents a modern day form of sexual abuse which has become tragically all the more common in our society.  The armchair pedophile is now able to use the internet to further their perverse sexual desires and ruin the lives of vulnerable children in disadvantaged countries and communities. 

Whilst the risk of travelling sex offenders, or “child sex tourists”, still exists and remains a serious risk to children abroad, the sad fact is with the use of the internet, the dark web and crafty cyber criminals, some of those sex offenders do not even need to leave their own homes to commit sexual abuse.

In respect of child sex tourists who travel abroad to disadvantaged countries to offend against children, the abuse team at Hugh James appeared on behalf of Father Shay Cullen of PREDA, a charity helping children affected by sexual abuse in the Philippines, at the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and the hearing into the Protection of Children outside the UK. 

The thrust of Father Cullen’s submissions went to the prevention of this kind of sexual abuse abroad. The best way to do so in our view is investment into local prosecutions in the UK for offending which occurred abroad, which requires further budget to be allocated to the collection of evidence in those countries. Further, the confiscation of the passports of known child sex offenders to cut off their ability to travel to such countries from the outset. We hope the Inquiry will make meaningful recommendations to help in reducing this harm causes by child sex tourists.

Today we will discuss this concerning issue of online abuse, the involvement our team has had in such work in the past and the potential civil liability which, in our view, should follow such conduct.

To illustrate the seriousness of this problem, we note the following data collected by the Internet Watch Foundation (founded by Microsoft) in May 2018.  The UK report is titled “trends in online child sexual exploitation: examining the distribution of captures of live-streamed child sexual abuse”.  During this study, 2,082 images and videos were examined to generate some results and trends. The results, frankly, are disturbing.

The images were divided up into three categories, those categories are as follows:

• Category A: images involving penetrative sexual activity with an animal or sadism.
• Category B: images involving non-penetrative sexual activity.
• Category C: other indecent images not falling into categories A or B.

The results are as follows:

• 96% depicted children on their own, typically in a home setting such as their own bedroom.
• 98% of imagery depicted children assessed as 13 years or younger.
• 96% of the imagery featured girls.
• 40% of the imagery was Category A or B.
• 100% of the imagery had been harvested from the original upload location and was being redistributed on third party websites.
• 4% of the imagery was captured from mobile-only streaming apps.
• 73% of the imagery appeared on 16 dedicated forums with the purpose of advertising paid downloads of videos of webcam child sexual abuse.

The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Command Unit at the NCA has published some helpful definitions which assist in differentiating between abuse and exploitation.

The NCA states that:

Child Sexual Abuse involves forcing or enticing a child to take part in sexual activity, whether or not the child is aware of what is happening. This may include activities such as involving children in looking at, or in the production of, sexual images, watching sexual activities, encouraging children to behave in sexually inappropriate ways or grooming a child in preparation for abuse

Child Sexual Exploitation is a form of CSA. It occurs where an individual or group takes advantage of an imbalance of power to coerce, manipulate or deceive a child or young person under the age of 18 into sexual activity (a) in exchange for something the victim needs or wants, and/or (b) the financial advantage or increased status of the perpetrator or facilitator. The victim may have been sexually exploited even if the activity appears consensual.

Whilst Online Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation s used throughout this information resource to capture all types of offence. Online offending can take a number of different forms which include:

1. Online grooming: The act of developing a relationship with a child to enable their abuse and exploitation both online and offline. Online platforms, such as social media, messaging and live streaming, can be used to facilitate this offending.
2. Live streaming: live streaming services can be used by Child Sex Offenders to incite victims to commit or watch sexual acts via webcam. Child Sex Offenders also stream or watch live contact sexual abuse or indecent images of children with other offenders. In some instances Child Sex Offenders will pay facilitators to stream live contact abuse, with the offender directing what sexual acts are perpetrated against the victim.
3. Online coercion and blackmail: The coercion or blackmail of a child by technological means, using sexual images and/or videos depicting that child, for the purposes of sexual gain (e.g. to obtain new IIOC or bring about a sexual encounter), financial gain or other personal gain.

The conduct of course also includes the possession of indecent and prohibited images of children.

Today, we will largely speak about the second of those acts, live streaming.

The abuse team at Hugh James has dealt with one notable matter which involved the sexual abuse of children abroad.  This is the case concerning the sexual abuse committed by UK national Douglas Slade.

The Claimants, all anonymised due to the nature of the proceedings, are Filipino children in the Angeles City area who attended a local school. The school was next to Mr Slade’s then residence and Mr Slade preyed on the relative poverty of the Claimants and their families by luring the Claimants into his house with the promise of money, chocolates and drinks. Reprehensibly, Mr Slade took advantage of the vulnerabilities of the local children and sexually abused them when they were present in the house.

The abuse team at Hugh James issued proceedings against Mr Slade in the High Court of England and Wales for the abuse perpetrated by Mr Slade abroad.  The Claimants remained in the Philippines and the abuse was committed in the Philippines but we were able to convince the High Court the matter should be heard in London.   Overall, we obtained a verdict of £127,000 for the Claimants. This illustrates the viability of being able to bring a claim in England and Wales despite the conduct having occurred overseas.

An often overlooked consequence of the abuse occurring overseas is despite a prosecution which may occur in the UK for such conduct, the child is very often left with absolutely no recourse to compensation. It is highly doubtful countries like the Philippines have a criminal injuries compensation authority or similar scheme to compensate victims of crime. So the victim is left without access to essential services and perhaps still at the mercy of the facilitator who arranged the conduct to occur.

This doesn’t need to be the case. Where a user in the UK causes a child to be sexually abused abroad and watches through a live streaming service – that is a crime. It is also a tort – a wrong. In English law this is an assault or a battery which is an actionable wrong for which you sue the person who committed it for damages.

In Sea Shepherd UK v Fish & Fish Limited [2015] UKSC 10 the UK Supreme Court found that a defendant can be jointly liable for a tortious act of the principal if:

1. The defendant acts in a way which further the commission of the tort by the principal which is greater than de minimis; and
2. The defendant does so in pursuance of a common design to do or secure the doing of acts which constitute the tort.

In our view, taking Whittet as an example, it would be logical to argue he (as the defendant) should be jointly liable with the person who committed the abuse (or facilitated it) because Whittet commissioned the tort (clearly – this is what he was convicted of doing) and he did so in pursuance of a common design to commit the abuse of the child. 

Further, it arguable that Whittet could be vicariously liable for the criminal actions of the person who committed the abuse (or facilitated it) as his agent.  Whittet has paid that person to commit this crime, or facilitate it; he directed this person to commit the act and the person did so. It seems to us to be fair just and reasonable for Whittet to be vicariously liable in these circumstances.

If the defendant has assets sufficient to satisfy a judgment then the children who suffered the sexual abuse have a shot at obtaining some financial redress for that harm.

The fact the abuse occurred abroad but at the behest of a UK citizen in the UK does not protect that person from criminal liability and in our view, it should not protect them from civil liability either. The victims of such conduct need to be provided with the means to recover also, and this shouldn’t be different because the victims are not in the UK.

Former youth football coach Bob Higgins has been jailed for 24 years and three months for abusing young players.

Higgins sexually touched and groped 24 victims, most of the trainees at Southampton FC and Peterborough United.

He was found guilty at a retrial of 45 counts of indecent assault between 1971 and 1996. He was convicted of another count last year.

Judge Peter Crabtree called Higgins a "predatory, cunning" serial sex abuser who "carefully groomed" the teenagers.

Higgins' victims told Winchester Crown Court of suicidal thoughts and relationship problems later in life.

An emotional statement, read by Dean Radford on behalf of the victims on the steps of the court, said Higgins' "arrogance was his downfall".

"You can call us brave, you can call us courageous - we were not - we were the unlucky ones for falling into the entrapment of Higgins' manipulative, deceitful and sexual behaviour," it said.

During Higgins' trial, prosecutors told the court he was "idolised" by trainees, who viewed him as a mentor and father figure.

Victims said they were abused during post-exercise soapy massages, in Higgins' car while he played love songs on the stereo and at his home where he cuddled with boys on his sofa.

Judge Crabtree said Higgins had shown "not one jot of remorse".

"They believed you held the key to their futures," he told the defendant.

"You normalised cuddling and stroking, which paved the way for more intimate abuse.

"For many, the impact extended to their performance on the field or to turning their backs on a football career. Some of them suffered severe psychological harm."

In the USA there have been several very high profile cases.

Former USA Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar, the former doctor whose serial sexual abuse of girls and young women has shaken the gymnastics world was sentenced in February to a prison term of 40 to 125 years behind bars for molesting young athletes at an elite Michigan training centre.

Nassar pleaded guilty to penetrating girls with ungloved hands when they sought treatment for injuries at Twisters, a gymnastics club that was run by a 2012 US Olympic coach. Nassar has already been sentenced to 40 to 175 years in prison in another county and to a 60-year federal term for possession of child abuse images. He worked for Michigan State University and USA Gymnastics, which trains Olympians.

He has been accused of molesting more than 100 female athletes during the three decades he worked with USA Gymnastics.

Olympic gold medallists McKayla Maroney, Aly Raisman and Gabby Douglas are among the members of the USA Gymnastics team who have said they were sexually assaulted by Nassar.

Nassar's case was part of a wide-ranging scandal which forced the resignation of USA Gymnastics chief Steve Penny in March. Penny was accused by victims of failing to quickly notify authorities about abuse allegations.

USA Swimming was engulfed in scandal in 2010 when a television news investigation revealed myriad cases of sexual misconduct of various forms by coaches.

Cases uncovered included Andy King, a coach who was sentenced to 40 years in prison after authorities discovered a pattern of sexual abuse that stretched over three decades at clubs up and down the West Coast and involved more than a dozen teenaged female victims - one of whom said she had an abortion after he got her pregnant when she was 14.

Another case involved a coach who installed a secret camera to film young women swimmers showering.

While more than 100 coaches were eventually banned for life from working for USA Swimming-affiliated clubs, the federation was blasted for an inadequate response to complaints that in some cases allowed coaches to evade their accusers and authorities, moving to new cities and gaining coaching jobs at new clubs where they continued predatory behaviour.

King, who was sentenced in 2010, had passed a USA Swimming background screening in 2008es the large numbers of victim s and potential victims.

Returning to the UK and the Higgins case it is reported that 741 victims have come forward to detail allegations against some 276 figures according to Operation Hydrant.

Sport provides an opportunity for sex offenders to isolate and groom their victims. It is no different from any other situation, for example, education, where the young person is effectively entrusted to another for their care and well-being. Education has simply made rapid progress in safeguarding and child protection, and it seems that the world of sport has to act fast to ensure that confidence in its institutions is not lost. What the recent sports cases reveal is that the offenders are quite brazen, and often their gossip about their behaviour which should have meant the red lights were flashing but if they were they were ignored.

The cost of child abuse in sport is immense both in human and financial terms. There is reputational damage as well as the damage suffered by the victims which sadly is often considerable and lifelong. The clubs will too often be vicariously liable for the actions of the offenders viz the abusers and will be required to pay compensation to the victims. Even if they are insured the cost still has to be met.

Oxfam has been in the news for all the wrong reasons. It’s an internationally recognised charity famous for humanitarian work often in some of the most troubled and dangerous parts of the world.

Oxfam has been severely criticised by the Charity Commission for the way it dealt with claims of serious sexual misconduct by its staff in Haiti.

In 2018 Oxfam was accused of covering up claims staff sexually exploited victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake.

Claims first emerged in The Times last year that Oxfam employees, including former country director Roland van Hauwermeiren, used young prostitutes while based in Haiti after the earthquake.

An internal Oxfam investigation in 2011 led to four people being sacked and three others resigning, including Mr Van Hauwermeiren. But a report published by Oxfam after the investigation failed to mention sexual exploitation.

The charity commission said the incidents in Haiti identified in 2011 were not "one-offs", with evidence of behavioural issues as early as June 2010.

The commission said there was a "culture of poor behaviour" at the charity, and issued it with an official warning over its "mismanagement".

Oxfam accepted the findings, saying what happened in Haiti was "shameful".

There were also issues at some of the charity's UK shops - the report highlighted 16 serious incidents involving volunteers under the age of 18.

"What went wrong in Haiti did not happen in isolation," Charity Commission chief executive Helen Stephenson said.

"Over a period of years, Oxfam's internal culture tolerated poor behaviour, and at times lost sight of the values it stands for."

The Charity Commission said Oxfam should have tried harder to substantiate the claims at the time, despite the lack of evidence.

In our experience of representing victims of sexual exploitation in developing countries there simply is not the structure or mechanisms in place to enable them to report wrong-doing or simply to get advice. If you are in a refugee camp you are intent on survival and are unlikely to be thinking about legal issues. Those who find themselves on the margins of survival are particularly vulnerable to exploitation. There are sadly too many cases of food and water being bartered in return for sex.

We have also found that unfortunately in many developing countries there is a perception that those from the “west” and particularly men are “powerful” and should be obeyed. It has been said that this somehow legitimised illegal behaviour.

Geography and circumstances make investigation and accountability extraordinary difficult. When there are attempts made to investigate it is very challenging to trace witnesses and victims for example in refugee camps. Where do you start? In investigating a Ugandan case we were fortunate to have the assistance of a charity worker who knew where the witnesses were likely to be, but even so, we could only go so far because of safety and security implications.

The United Nations needs to have a greater role in ensuring there is a minimum standard of investigation and accountability which hopefully would be legally binding on the international community. Offenders and those responsible for them should be held to account in any country. Nationality and legal jurisdiction should be irrelevant so that a victim of abuse, say in Haiti, should be able to ask the authorities in any country to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute. Likewise he or she should be able to hold them to account in any country.

Oxfam's chair of trustees, Caroline Thomson, said the charity accepted the findings, describing them as "uncomfortable".

"What happened in Haiti was shameful and we are deeply sorry," she said.

"It was a terrible abuse of power and an affront to the values that Oxfam holds dear."

Oxfam has also not been able to bid for government funding pending the outcome of the 18-month Charity Commission investigation.

The Department for International Development said decisions over its funding relationship with the charity would be made "in due course".

International Development Secretary and Conservative leadership contender Rory Stewart said the revelations about Oxfam had "shone a light on fundamental problems", adding that there were "no easy answers or room for complacency".

Maybe there are “no easy answers” but that should not prevent the UK government taking a lead on the international stage with an objective to ensuring that the vulnerable have enforceable legal rights no matter who they are or where they live.

That is the question that the Supreme Court has attempted to answer in the case of Poole Borough Council v GN [2019] UKSC 25

The two children who were the claimants in this case sought damages for the harm they suffered whilst living in a house provided by the Poole Borough Council (“the Council”). They were subjected to persistent anti-social behaviour on the part of a neighbouring family. It was several years before the Council rehoused the children and their parents, but in the meantime, they had suffered physical and psychiatric harm. They sought compensation from the Council.

The Council defended the case even though it knew that the children were in need, had social workers allocated to them, and knew of the harassment and abuse.

The Claimants’ case was that the Council had negligently failed to exercise its powers under the Children Act 1989 so as to protect them from harm.

The Supreme Court has ruled that local authorities do not owe a duty of care at common law merely because they have statutory duties to protect a child from harm. Nevertheless, they can come under a common law duty to protect a child where for example the authority has created the source of danger or assumed a responsibility to protect him or her from harm.

In this particular case, the Supreme Court held that the Council was not liable because it had not taken the children into its care, and assumed responsibility for their care, or had accepted any responsibility for their safety.

A local authority can be vicariously liable for its social workers but there will only be liability if there has been an assumption of responsibility to perform a function with reasonable care. Such a responsibility may exist where a particular task is to be undertaken which will have to be performed with reasonable care.

What does this mean in practice?

Merely because a child at risk of harm comes across social service’s radar does not make the local authority liable if he/she is later harmed.

If however social services having recognized that the child is at risk of harm, and for example places him/her on the at risk register, but the through a failure to adequately monitor his welfare, and suffers abuse as a result then the local authority could then be liable in negligence.

There is the argument that, perhaps, the judgment is too conservative given that Parliament has decreed in the Children’s Act 1989, and other legislation, what social services must do when it comes to the welfare of children? Surely it follows that if social services do not fulfil these statutory obligations they should be liable for the harm suffered regardless of whether what actions it took, if any, were reasonable or not?

Child abuse cases are invariably tragic, and the legal issues can be complex. This case demonstrates how fact specific they are when the courts are examining the issues of whether there was a duty of care, and if so whether it was breached.

These cases have pushed the legal boundaries of negligence and it is likely in years to come the Supreme Court will be asked to examine and rule on the question when are social services liable for the abuse of children?

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (the “Inquiry”) has announced a hearing into child protection in religious organisations and settings.

So, what does this mean?  The Inquiry has to date examined large religious institutions in the UK such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church, along with other religious instructions and state based organisations.

However, this has left quite a significant gap in the field as many religious denominations and other institutional religions have escaped scrutiny.

This is a welcome announcement given the figures released by the Truth Project indicate more than one in ten survivors who shared their account were abused in a religious institution, which equates to 11% overall, and of that group, almost a quarter, being 24%, were abused in institutions to be examined in the new hearing.

The first relevant question which arises is which religious institutions are subject to this hearing?

The Inquiry considers a religious setting or organisation to include:

1. Places where people gather to engage in collective rituals designed to bear witness or share collectively in  their religious faith (e.g. mosques, temples, festivals);
2. Places of tuition regarding one’s faith tradition or cultural matters related to religious observance or faith, such as preparation for rites of passage (e.g. Jewish yeshivas and chedarim, Muslim madrassahs, Christian Sunday schools); and
3. Places where children and young people gather in connection with their religious beliefs (e.g. youth groups, camps)

The Inquiry will focus upon those religious organisations with a significant presence within England and Wales, including but not limited to:

1. “Non-conformist” Christian denominations;
2. Eastern and Coptic Orthodox communities;
3. Pentecostal churches and independent charismatic and house churches;
4. The Church of Latter Day Saints;
5. The Jehovah’s witnesses;
6. Islam;
7. Judaism;
8. Hinduism;
9. Jainism;
10. Sikhism;
11. Buddhism

Given the scope of such a hearing, it is difficult to see how exactly the Inquiry will deal with such a prevalent issue across such a broad range of religions.

However, the way in which it will be dealt with can be gleaned from the scope, which is effectively the four corners of the hearing.   The scope indicates that the Inquiry will examine these institutions on a “thematic” basis focussing on management of child protection within religious organisations and settings including the training and understanding of child sexual abuse, policies and procedures, vetting and barring, responses to allegations of child sexual abuse and internal processes for auditing, inspection and oversight of child protection practices and procedures.

What this means is the Inquiry, unlike in previous hearings, might not have any specific case studies in respect of abuse in the past and the religious institution's response.  Whilst this is understandable given how unwieldy and time consuming it would be if each institution were to be examined both specifically by reference to case studies and broadly in respect of their practices and procedures, it must not be lost sight of, however, how important those case studies are.

The reality is that many of these religious institutions will publicly abhor child abuse and denounce it as a sin.  It would be outrageous not to. We do not suggest for one minute that individuals, leaders or even the institution is not genuine when publishing such material. The problem is in the implementation.

What we do know is that no matter how loud the protest against child abuse by religious institutions, the reality of dealing with sex offenders, allegations of child abuse and internal practices are often not reflective of those public positions.

This reflects a wider problem in these institutions, which is a reluctance and often a hatred of being governed by secular laws and society.  So the Inquiry has a real chance here to dig deep into these institutions and establish which ones have outdated practices which must change, whether by external legislation or from within, and which ones do not have proper safeguarding practices.

We believe the answer will be fairly predictable - mandatory reporting is required.   This will avoid ridiculous internal policies which exist to avoid reporting child sexual abuse to secular authorities and focus on dealing with it internally.

Whether the Inquiry should go further and adopt positions such as in Victoria, Australia and recommend failure to protect laws should also be considered by the Inquiry.

In Victoria, a criminal offence was introduced in 2015 which applies where there is a substantial risk that a child under the age of 16 under the care, supervision or authority of a relevant organisation will become a victim of a sexual offence committed by an adult associated with that organisation.

A person in a position of authority in the organisation will commit the offence if they know of the risk of abuse and have the power or responsibility to reduce or remove the risk, but negligently fail to do so. 

This offence encourages organisations to actively manage the risks of sexual offences being committed against children in their care to protect them from harm.

It is our view, that given the magnitude of the problem, this is a necessary step.  There is one sure-fire guard against child sexual abuse and that is to place in a person who is in a position of authority within a relevant institution criminal responsibility for negligently failing to take steps to protect a child from a known risk of abuse.

Sexual abuse by people in authority often involves the use of power by the predatory adult.  A teacher, of course, has often enormous influence over a pupil, but this issue is not limited to the teacher/pupil relationship. Abuse can happen in other settings where people work with young people too. It is very easy for young people to fall under that influence which is why, as we shall see, there are very strict laws prohibiting any kind of sexual activity between those in a position of trust and a young person (under the age of 18). Victims of grooming are often manipulated and what they may think is a relationship is, in fact, a twisted one, and a damaging one, that can have profound consequences.

Avid fans of the soap “Emmerdale” will be all too familiar with the current storyline of sexual impropriety between a teacher and her pupil.

Teacher Maya Stepney has been involved in an improper relationship with schoolboy Jacob Gallagher. She has been arrested and, no doubt faces being prosecuted for offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

The fictional case vividly exposes a number of issues.

The first issue is young people can be exploited by adults through a process where they are manipulated into a relationship that in turn leads to sexual abuse. This manipulation is known as grooming. On the soap, Maya has been grooming  Jacob for months and even made plans to flee the country with him. Maya tried to find a way out, taking Jacob with her, but she was reported to the police and finally arrested in front of him. Viewers were stunned when they previously saw Maya, who is Jacob’s teacher, have sex with him a few days after he turned 16.

The story has also exposed a lack of understanding of a sizeable proportion of the general public who apparently struggle to identify what constitutes sexual abuse. Research done for Barnardos by YouGov revealed that many adults have a severe lack of knowledge about sexual abuse. Barnardos has been working with Emmerdale’s producers on the current storyline, but despite witnessing Maya and Jacob sexting, the poll showed that 35% of people didn’t actually think an adult sending sexually explicit messages to a 16-year-old was illegal or abusive. When Jacob was still 15, scenes played out on screen of him kissing Maya in and out of school, however, 27% of people in the poll did not identify this as illegal or abusive.

There is also the uncommon perception that a teenage boy having sex is not harmful. Indeed there will be those who think that Jacob having sex with his teacher is a boy’s fantasy come true. The reality is that it is recognised this is likely to be harmful psychologically because of the manipulation and the abuse of power. The likelihood in the Jacob scenario is that he is being used for sexual gratification or to get some kind of power kick.  He is being used unwittingly and with that, the risk is that whilst he might be physically mature he will not be psychologically, and that is where the harm is possibly going to arise.

Turning back to the law although Jacob was over the age of consent when he and Maya had sex, it is a crime for an adult in a position of trust (such as a teacher or foster carer) to engage in sexual activity with a person under the age of 18, under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

If Maya is successfully prosecuted, she will face imprisonment. The courts take breach of trust cases very seriously.

In addition, Maya may be liable to pay compensation to Jacob for the harm she has caused him. The compensation could be significant if the damage she has caused is lifelong which is possible in cases such as this. Moreover, her employer may also be civilly liable to pay compensation if she was able to sexually abuse him as a direct result of her employment.

Sexual abuse of a minor by a person in position authority should be taken seriously by each of us and by society as a whole. Proper reporting and prosecution will not happen if people are not aware of just how damaging this kind of abuse can be. More importantly, without awareness, we will not be able to make strides toward preventing it from happening in the first place.

The May 2019 report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Adult Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse sets out some alarming facts regarding the impact of childhood sexual abuse, access to essential services, the demand for essential services and the gap in funding which allows many survivors to languish without proper treatment or support.

At the outset it is important to note the magnitude of this problem – 7% of people aged between 16 and 59 report they were sexually abused as a child.

This tells us many things, but most importantly, the impact of childhood sexual abuse is on a scale many would never imagine and it is not a vestige of a less civilised past, which many would consider the case. This is a 2019 report with recent data. The youngest persons surveyed are 16 years old and the oldest are 59.

You would be forgiven for thinking that recent awareness of this issue and great leaps being taken in safeguarding techniques, laws and procedures would reduce the incidence of childhood sexual abuse, but this data suggests otherwise.    

So this is something that can no longer be ignored, there is a human cost and an economic cost to society.  Taking this into account, the report asks a pivotal question – can adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse access justice and support?

In doing so 365 survivors of child hood sexual abuse were surveyed and the following alarming statistics were revealed:

• The average wait time for disclosure of sexual abuse is 26 years;
• 90% of respondents told the inquiry that the abuse has negatively impacted their intimate relationships;
• 89% of respondents told the inquiry their mental health was affected by the abuse;
• 81% of respondents told the inquiry their family life was adversely affected by the abuse;
• 72% of respondents told the inquiry their career was negatively affected; and
• 65% of respondents told the inquiry their education was negatively affected by the abuse.

Whilst these results are startling at first blush, it is not at all surprising.  One only needs to search the internet for similar studies conducted across the world to see the devastating and insidious impact of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse is pervasive, it invades the lives of those affected and can sit dormant for many years. We must then ask why this is the case?

It was been the position of society for decades that such things are best left unsaid, it was a secret which many institutions and organisations didn’t want let out of hiding.  The Catholic Church is a perfect example, it can now be said with some degree of certainty that this problem of epic proportions was known about, and covered up, for decades. Survivors were conditioned to feel it was their fault, to feel guilty, to hide it deep inside. This served one purpose – the protection of the institution and the abuser. Now we know this is not specific to the Catholic Church, but a problem which has touched nearly all facets of religion and government.

The effect is what we see in clear terms in the report – survivors take decades to report. This is not at all surprising given what they were conditioned to feel.

Moreover, the individual survivor disclosures in the report evidence a culture which surrounds childhood sexual abuse – often the people around you just want you to get over it.  A monumental task and one which those who haven’t been affected are ill equipped to understand.  It is this mentality which contributes to the 90% of survivors who report their intimate relationships being negatively impacted and the 81% of survivors whose family life was negatively impacted by the abuse.

Again, this is hardly surprising. The report details many survivors are unable to access good quality information about the impact of childhood sexual abuse – if the survivor is unable to access this information then how is a loved one or friend able to properly understand the devastating impact? This misunderstanding of how childhood sexual abuse pervades many aspects of a survivor’s life leads to a clear impact on relationships, a downward spiral, leading to further depression and less likely prospects of successful treatment.

This is the human cost.  It is undeniable.  But how is this treated and what can be done?  Whilst 47% of survivors found that the most important support to recovery is specialist voluntary sector counselling, the report demonstrates glaring holes in access to support and services due to a distinct lack of adequate government funding.

For example, SurvivorsUK which provides support and services for survivors has reported that in each of the past three years demand for services has increased by 30% year on year – a 90% increase – and their staff has grown by 300% but is still unable to meet demand.

So what does the report recommend to address this issue?  The key recommendations are as follows:

1. The Home Office should commission and publish research on the economic and social costs of child sexual abuse.
2. The upcoming Spending Review for 2020-2023 should create a discrete, cross-departmental strategic fund to transform Government response to child sexual abuse. This should fund core services to meet demand and recognise the value of the specialist voluntary sector.
3. NHS England should collect data on Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) expenditure on long-term therapeutic care for survivors, and consider ring-fenced funding as a way to ensure CCGs commission specialist voluntary sector services to meet demand.
4. Government departments should issue guidance to frontline professionals on how to respond in a trauma-informed way, developed in collaboration with specialist sexual violence and abuse voluntary sector umbrella agencies.
5. The Government should fund a nationwide public health campaign to raise awareness of the issues around childhood sexual abuse, highlight the potential impact on survivors, tackle social myths and stereotypes about sexual abuse and direct survivors and professionals to sources of support and information.

Whilst this is all welcome data and impactful advocacy – the question remains, what will the government do about this?  If there is a benefit to society, this may garner more support for change and funding. Whilst an unpalatable thought, it is likely to be the best shot we have to ensure survivors of childhood sexual abuse can access appropriate service and get on the road to recovery.

The Guardian has reported that MPs are to launch an inquiry into the record number of children missing from care in England.

The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Runaway and Missing Children and Adults has called for information for those who work in the area to provide their views and data as to the risks posed by children sent away for care.

The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Runaway and Missing Children and Adults seeks to raise awareness of the issues faced by children and adults who run away or go missing, as well as the families they leave behind. The APPG’s membership spans all of the main political parties in Westminster and both the Houses of Commons and Lords.  It is headed by Ann Coffey.

Coffey also wants to explore how many of these children are then lured into drug gangs as part of the so-called county lines phenomenon.

The Guardian noted the following troubling data:

• An increase of 1,000 children going missing from care homes since 2015, after being moved to new areas often miles from their homes, known as an “out of area placement”.
• Numbers have more than doubled from 990 in 2015, to 1,990 in 2018. This compares with a 31% increase for children who go missing from homes within their own borough.
• The government introduced measures in 2013 to reduce numbers in cross-boundary placements. But the inquiry notes that despite this 64% of all young people living in children’s homes now live out of borough, up from 46% in 2012.

These statistics are almost unbelievable and raise a number of very real questions about the appropriateness of out of area placements and the use of independent providers for care.

We discuss the legal framework behind this practice, the sordid history of out of area placements regarding the Bryn Alyn Community, whether any lessons have been learned from the Bryn Alyn scandal, whether the sending away of children is a proper discharge of the duty of care owed to children in care and whether this practice should continue.

In this week’s discussion we look at how the Court of Appeal in the case of R. v SB [201801802 B2] dismissed a sexual abuse victim’s retraction of her allegations post-conviction as lacking credibility. We discuss the details of the case and the broader implications of the decision.

The victim had alleged that she had been sexually abused by her grandfather who was successfully prosecuted and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment.

Following the sentence, the victim confided to her family that her allegations were false. She provided a statement to that effect that was then used by the grandfather in support of his appeal to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the verdict was unsafe.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Readers might think this surprising but the judges came to the conclusion that the retraction of the allegations lacked credibility. They suspected very firmly that the victim had a misplaced sense of guilt, feeling responsible for her grandfather’s imprisonment, and may have been subjected to some familial pressure.

The decision is a refreshing one in the sense that the judges have looked at the reality of the consequences of child sexual abuse. Survivors often express feelings of shame and guilt for what took place. This is, of course, misplaced, but is common amongst survivors, and they often feel responsible for the fate of their abusers. The judges have clearly been conscious of what may go through a survivor’s mind post-trial and the pressures that they come under.

The case may have wider implications because a defense often deployed in both criminal and civil courts is that due to the nature of the case, the evidence is flawed possibly through the lack of witnesses and/or the passage of time. It will be said that memories fade, evidence gets lost, and witnesses are unreliable. It will be argued that a fair trial is impossible and a judge should not attempt to decide fault or otherwise. This case it could be argued says that judges should look at reality and take into account the nature of sexual abuse and come to a decision. The Limitation Act 1980 says that claims for compensation should be brought within 3 years of the abuse, or in the case of a child within 3 years of their 18^th birthday but because of the damage caused by the sexual abuse this is all too often impossible, and so the survivor has to try and persuade the court to allow the case to proceed out of time. Maybe the case of R v. SB will provide some power to the survivor’s elbow where the evidence is contradictory and at first blush apparently unsafe, and argue that the court should look at the bigger picture.

If you would like to talk to us about your experience with abuse or would like to suggest a topic for a future episode, visit the sexual abuse claims page.

Child abuse less “forgivable” than murder and rape – that is the conclusion reported by BBC to a ComRes survey. Today’s podcast is going to try and delve into this a little. The first point to make is that we are not survivors. We respect the thoughts and positions of survivors, and it is not for us to say who is right and who is wrong etc   What we want to do is explore and discuss the survey and what lies behind some of the findings.

Below are some of the findings from the ComRes poll:

---

Child abuse is considered “impossible to forgive” by nearly nine out of 10 British adults – more than murder and rape – a poll for the BBC suggests.

Eight out of 10 people said sexual abuse, including rape, was unforgivable compared with just over seven out of 10 for murder.

One in four women found infidelity unforgivable compared with fewer than one in five men.

One in 10 of the 2,042 polled by ComRes could not forgive social media abuse.

The poll for BBC local radio asked how willing people would be to forgive someone for actions ranging from swearing to child abuse.

More women than men found child abuse impossible to forgive, with 89% of women compared with 80% of men.

Women were also more likely to find sexual abuse, including rape, impossible to forgive, with 83% compared with 75% of men.

Fewer men found infidelity impossible to forgive, with 19% of those responding compared to 26% of women.

---

Society has decided that child abuse is wrong. There are very clear laws that reflect this. Punishment has evolved over recent years that reflects the gravity and serious consequences of CSA. Sentences are far tougher than say 20 years ago. Some might say not tough enough, which perhaps feeds into the possibility that forgiveness gets mixed up with punishment.

We have seen on twitter that survivors have a range of positions. Some have forgiven their abusers, others have said that they did not want them punished, others have said they could never forgive, and that prison was not punishment enough.

Murder victims, to state the obvious, are in no position to give an opinion, but their families are.  Murder carries a life sentence. It was once a capital offense which meant the murderer went to the gallows. Parliament against the wishes of the general public abolished the death penalty and the trade-off was a mandatory life sentence.  The loss of a loved one is profound. Those who have been involved in such cases are only too aware of the loss and the void that seems impossible to fill. Some are able to forgive, others come to terms, many do not.

Are the loss and the consequences the same in a CSA case? Are we in danger of comparing apples with pears?

Possible. It could be a futile comparison and an unjust one to compare the two. Both are tragic with profound consequences for those harmed, their families, and society too.

There is possibly an important difference in that, in a CSA case, there is hopefully a chance for the survivor to rebuild, or there should be. For a murder case there are no chances.

In any undertaking such as this one has to ask whether it is worth it and what it achieves?

The issue which first presents itself is who is being surveyed about what?  It is clearly not the murder victim given that the person is deceased.  Is it the family of that victim?  Is it the survivor of rape forgiving the perpetrator?  Is it society forgiving the murderer or rapist on the victim’s behalf (this seems perverse)? Or is it general attitudes as to which is worse arrived at by which is more forgivable?  It must be the latter.  But the confusion may affect the results.

Moreover, there is no explanation of what that individual considers the definition of “murder” to be.  This is a finely nuanced point and it is very likely your average person on the street when facing this question will be thinking of examples of manslaughter rather than murder and comparing it to rape.  Of course in such circumstances, the rape is worse.  For example, a classic thought will be of the battered wife who kills her abusive husband. Yes, the husband is killed, but the defense of diminished responsibility or loss of control might reduce the charge to manslaughter. Undeniably, a perpetrator breaking into a house and committing rape is worse. But it isn’t a comparison between murder and rape, it’s between manslaughter and rape. Ask the same person to compare the same exact circumstances – i.e. a masked perpetrator breaking into a house and committing rape or murder it’s likely the answer will be different.

Overall, this is surely not a very scientific survey and there may be some skewed results given an understanding of the legal definitions but nevertheless, it provokes interesting debate and almost certainly evidences a sea change in opinion as to CSA. The same survey taken 30 years ago would certainly have seen different results. One might think that religious beliefs and commitment to the idea of forgiveness would influence the results, but interestingly, two-thirds of British adults surveyed said they never attend religious services – surely another societal change from a survey which would have been taken 30 years ago!

One thing is for sure – a commitment to the safety of children and safeguarding ought to be a primary concern of government organisations, companies, charities, and religious institutions because quite clearly – people care.