Hundreds of alleged abuse victims threaten to boycott Jay inquiry
|
Version 0 of 1. An independent inquiry into the sexual abuse of children has been dealt another blow after hundreds of alleged victims of abuse threatened to boycott it. Former inmates at Medomsley detention centre in Consett, County Durham, where abuser Neville Husband preyed on children and young adults over a 15-year period from the late 1960s onwards, have written to their lawyers stating that they want to withdraw from the inquiry after learning that it will not hear evidence from people who were aged 18 or over at the time they were abused. The inquiry has been beset by problems. This week Dame Lowell Goddard, the third chair to resign, sent a 10-page critique of its setup to the home affairs select committee, calling for a complete review and remodelling to focus it “more towards current events and thus focusing major attention on the present and future protection of children”. She said the scope of the inquiry, including every state and non-state institution, meant that “the terms of reference in their totality cannot be met”. On Wednesday the inquiry was further undermined when another group of victims, Shirley Oaks Survivors Association, threatened to pull out after suggesting that the independence of the inquiry had been undermined by the fact that the new chair, Prof Alexis Jay, had spent 30 years working in social services. Shirley Oaks was a children’s home run by Lambeth social services in south London where hundreds of children were allegedly abused in the 1970s and 1980s. Now the Medomsley group, who make up the biggest single strand of the inquiry, are demanding a separate public inquiry, and say the truth will only come out if all victims are heard. Husband, who ran the kitchens at Medomsley, was convicted in 2003 of sexually abusing five young inmates in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. He was jailed for 10 years and died in 2010. Following a Guardian investigation into Medomsley in 2012, many more of Husband’s victims came forward, and in 2013 Durham police launched Operation Seabrook, a “criminal investigation into allegations of sexual and physical abuse perpetrated by staff against detainees at Medomsley”. It is the biggest investigation the force has undertaken, with more than 1,350 former Medomsley detainees who claim they were abused having being interviewed. In May, Durham police announced that “all of the surviving main suspects, 31 in total, had been identified, interviewed and prosecution files submitted for advice.” Charges are likely to be brought in the near future. John McCabe, a spokesman for hundreds of the alleged Medomsley victims, said 80% of those interviewed by Durham police were aged 18 or over at the time they claim they were abused. In July he received a letter from the inquiry team stating that it would not be taking evidence from such victims as they “were not seen as children”. McCabe said the Medomsley victims could not be divided, and he has written to the 26 lawyers who represent the victims asking them to boycott the inquiry if it will not hear from the over-18 group. He pointed out that at the time he says he was abused at the centre, in 1983 when he was 18, the age of consent for gay men was 21. “We were sexually abused under the age of consent, so how can they say they cannot take evidence from more than 1,000 young people who were abused while in the care of the state?” he said. McCabe said he wished the inquiry well but “in its present format it is not fit for purpose and we are urging Medomsley victims to boycott it”. David Greenwood, of Switalskis Solicitors, who represents 300 former Medomsley inmates, said he was supportive of the child abuse inquiry but would argue that all Medomsley victims should be heard. “These young people were imprisoned by the state and were completely powerless at the time they were abused,” he said. “My clients are currently asking for a boycott. However, I will argue that the inquiry should take evidence from all Medomsley victims irrespective of their age at the time of their abuse. If the inquiry rejects my argument, my advice to my clients may change.” A spokesperson for the abuse inquiry said: “The inquiry is bound by its terms of reference, which are set by the Home Office. Under its terms of reference, a child means anyone under the age of 18. However, the panel will consider abuse of individuals over the age of 18, if that abuse started when the individual was a minor.” The Home Office has not responded to the Guardian’s request for a comment. |