"I ….came to the view that it would not be possible [to carry out the Review] without looking at what had actually happened to those children and how those children had expressed it. I had thought, in the beginning, it might be possible (particularly early on – before the criminal trial had not been proceeded with). But I realised that it was not going to be possible, because a core issue for the parents was simply going to have to be ignored".

Yet later in her evidence she appeared to be saying that she only reached that state of mind ("where it became crystallised") at the time when the Review Team asked to see the video interviews (in 1996).

1) The Claimants had been acquitted in respect of 11 specific offences relating to the six indictment children.

2) There was no one legally qualified on the Team.

3) They were sitting in private.

4) There was no framework set up by the Review Team to operate within the well known "Salmon" principles.

5) Neither Christopher Lillie nor Dawn Reed was notified of the "charges" which the Team had taken it upon themselves to investigate.

6) Christopher Lillie and Dawn Reed were not represented or offered any legal assistance.

7) They had no opportunity to cross-examine, challenge or test the evidence relied upon by the Review Team for their conclusions; they did not even know what the evidence was.

8) The Review Team had no power to compel witnesses or documents.

9) The Review Team adopted as a policy the "child protection approach", so that they would not challenge or probe "evidence" from witnesses. As Moira Luccock expressed it on 1 March, "You are not challenging the person. You are actually accepting that they certainly believe what they are telling you, and you have no reason to doubt that as the investigator".

10) This policy even applied to police and social workers (not least because the police had warned them that they had no power to trespass on the area of police complaints, which was governed by statute, and asked them by a letter not to upset PC Helen Foster who had conducted some of the crucial interviews with children).

11) The Review Team had decided to adopt what Ms Jones described as an "impressionistic" approach to the evidence, rather than analysing individual cases of alleged abuse.

"I have to say this was not primarily set up as a process for considering the guilt or innocence of Christopher Lillie and Dawn Reed. I agree – were that to be the prime purpose, you probably would not start here".

"… there was an intention that they should be treated as fairly as other witnesses in relation to the matters set out. But, if I may add, it was not a review which was set up primarily to determine whether or not Mr Lillie and Miss Reed were guilty of these offences. It was a review set up to deal with complaints and concerns raised by parents, which included matters at the nursery…

The question of their culpability, therefore, I suppose would either have to be assumed (which the City Council had done, on the basis of the disciplinary proceedings it had undertaken) – so I suppose, thinking about your question, the fact that the Review Team had almost in effect re-considered it ….

What I am struggling with, I think, is that … the City Council had started from the perspective that they had dismissed Christopher Lillie and Dawn Reed for gross misconduct, associated with the abuse, and it was on that basis that the Review Team had been set up. So, in a sense, what the Review Team were doing, by considering again the evidential matters, [was] almost having another look at it. So I suppose, in a sense – I had not thought about it in this context before you asked the question – they gave a fresh opportunity to Mr Lillie and Miss Reed’s case to be considered. I had not thought about it until you put the question to me".

"I asked him … how we would actually deal with the issue of responding to individual complaints and also producing a public report when those complaints were likely to be about people who had been dismissed but already been declared not guilty in court. So he said that we would need to keep coming back to that and see how we progressed. I think he used the words that we were in "uncharted waters".

"Not every infringement or excess of terms of reference would operate to deprive the occasion of publication of the privilege it would otherwise have attracted. However, this was an infringement of a nature and on a scale that fundamentally affected the character of the Report. The Review Team’s findings of sexual abuse of children by the Claimants were not incidental or ancillary. The findings completely dominated the Report".

"… for legal reasons we were advised that the processes, determined by the City Council prior to our appointment, had to be followed, as they were a guarantee of both natural justice for all those involved, and the independence of the Review Team".

"I hope it did not predetermine me to make any decision in relation to them, but I would be clear that I was aware of it."

Miss Page had to battle on and a little later there was the following exchange:

"Miss Page: I understood you earlier to say that you did take into account the fact that they had been dismissed. Are you now saying you did not take into account the fact that they had been dismissed for sexually abusing children?

Professor Barker: If I have misled you, I do apologise. I was aware at the start that they had been dismissed. We then found, when we interviewed people, the reasons for which they had been dismissed. We interviewed people who had been involved in the disciplinary, and looked at the documents in relation to the disciplinary. When it came to us making our findings at the end of the process in which we were involved, those processes then played a part. If we had found, in the course of that, that it was our judgment that they had been inappropriately dismissed, on the wrong grounds, we would have said so".

"We find that there is evidence which suggests that the children were sometimes filmed when they were being abused outside the nursery and we have drawn the conclusion that Chris Lillie and Dawn Reed were procuring the children of Shieldfield nursery for pornographic purposes as well as their own motivations.

In the absence of being able to interview them we have been unable to find either Chris Lillie or Dawn Reed’s personal motivations for their abusive behaviours. However, the indications from the children were that Chris Lillie took every opportunity to abuse them, and Dawn Reed was a party to abuse in particular situations, including during filming".

"As well as enquiring into what had happened, we were also interested to discover evidence – which included opinion – about how and why events had happened. For the most part, we were thus seeking to adopt an inquisitorial, rather than adversarial approach, as such we have adopted an approach similar to that outlined subsequently by Sir Ronald Waterhouse in relation to the North Wales Tribunal:

‘We are not a jury. Our duty is to enquire and our procedure will be inquisitorial rather than adversarial – subject to the important qualification that any person against whom criticism or allegations are made will have a full opportunity to answer’"

"Question: You also lied did you not, in those passages of the Report at pages 20-23 which we looked at this morning in which you set out all the procedures of fairness to witnesses which did not apply, did they, to Chris and Dawn?

Answer: If you are saying there is linguistic ambiguities, if you are saying we were economical with the truth, if you are saying that we lied, you are entitled to say those, but it is my belief that when I read the final Report that we had written and when I read the complaints letters, it is my belief that I honestly believed what we had written.

Question: You did not care what they had to say, did you, because you were going to label them as abusers come what may; is that not the position?

Answer: I feel that in some ways without sounding patronising there would have been – we had to find out what we had to find out, not what we were determined to find out. We had to try and find out what had probably happened and draw conclusions. In terms of my career as a social worker and an academic who is also a social worker, as someone who trained to be a teacher, as someone who has done research into child care, it saddened me that in the case of Christopher Lillie it appeared to be the case in relation to information that we had that a child, an adolescent who had spent time in care had ended up in a position where he had abused children, because I do believe that children and young people who have been through the care system in Britain have to cope with disadvantages subsequent to being in care and sometimes have to cope with quite difficult circumstances when they are in care, and I find it very unappealing to believe that the care system can damage children, but I know that it does. So actually my personal inclination is to feel sympathy without I hope being patronising in relation to people who have been in care. So had I been biased I would have been inclined to have wanted to find information that minimised or reduced the responsibility of your client in that respect".

"Question: At this stage in the process Christopher Lillie and Dawn Reed were, as far as you were concerned, second class citizens in terms of the fairness procedures that you thought you owed to witnesses, were they not?

Answer: When we were appointed the very first meeting I had had with Henry Warne and Bob Hassell, I think in the minutes of that meeting the agenda shows that one of the first items that was on that agenda was the need for us to have independent legal advice. It took some time for us to have what we considered independent legal advice. That is no disrespect to the lawyers who were employed in the Newcastle Law, which at that point was the arms length legal service of Newcastle City Council. They had gone for, I think, what was called at that time a purchaser–provider split. So that the initial discussions we had with Mr Warne was that Newcastle City Council understood and appreciated that we wanted to have independent legal advice.

Question: Why do you need to resort to discussions about independent legal advice in order to answer my question, Professor Barker?

Answer: Because if we were desirous of having independent legal advice to pursue our processes, in relation to key items of correspondence, it is appropriate for you to know that we took appropriate advice.

Question: You were conducting this inquiry; you had a duty of honesty; you had a duty of fairness. You accept that, do you not, Professor Barker?

Answer: I accept that we had a duty of fairness to do what we had to do and also to take account of appropriate advice. Had we not, it is my belief taken account of appropriate advice, I could have been criticised and the Review Team could have been criticised for saying ‘well, it is clear, is it not, that you did not take advice?’

Question: Do you understand the concept of fairness? Do you understand the concept which surely is steeped in you as a citizen of this country that before somebody is condemned they should have a full opportunity to defend themselves and to know what it is they are defending themselves against. You do not need legal advice to know that, do you, Professor Barker?

Answer: If you carry on with these letters….

Question: Just answer the question. Can we have a question about you and what you understood?

Answer: That is rather like saying ‘who is going to win the race?’ when you are half way through it.

Question: Do you have an understanding of the concept of fairness, Professor Barker, Yes or No?

Answer: It is my belief that the documentation that is in front of me in relation to the correspondence which Christopher Lillie and Dawn Reed, which we wrote based upon appropriate advice, was appropriate and was fair".

"Thank you for your letter dated 18 April.

I am prepared to disclose in advance the complaints made against your client so that he had adequate notice of the position and is given a full and fair hearing about matters upon which I will be required to report.

I enclose of [sic] copy of the Independent Complaints Review Team’s Terms of Reference which will give you an idea of the range of issues we shall have to cover and you will see from the questions below those which are relevant.

The main complaints from parents are that your client, together with Dawn Reed physically and sexually abused children, whilst the children were attending Shieldfield Nursery; and that the children were taken out of the nursery without permission or oversight.

We would also like to ask questions about how your client was selected and recruited to the Social Services Department, how he was managed and supervised and how he came to work with Dawn Reed.

It would be interesting to hear his views on his earlier contact with the Department and about his prior employment experiences.

I am anxious that in no way is the criminal trial re-visited. Our approach is inquisitional rather than adversarial with the hearing held in private. Interviewees can be accompanied by a friend or legal adviser.

The Review Team will be producing a public report after it has considered the evidence presented to it. I hope that your client will feel able, with your help, to meet with the Team and help further our consideration of matters relating to our Terms of Reference.

(signed)

DR RICHARD W BARKER

TEAM LEADER"

"Question: Professor Barker, that sentence in that letter: ‘I am anxious that in no way is the criminal trial re-visited’, I suggest to you is nothing less than a lie?

Answer: I would have no reason to lie honestly. There is no reason, in my mind, that I could think of why I would want to lie. I was not on a vendetta. I did not know the two people concerned. I did not have any aspiration to overturn a properly made judicial decision, as far as I know. I was simply trying to deal with a complex and difficult situation where a large amount of material had to be dealt with in relation to the terms of reference that had been laid down by us and try to be involved in moving those through those processes in a fair and appropriate way and reach a conclusion that could then be appropriately written up, (1) in a report that would then be made available to Newcastle City Council and (2) in relation to complaints letters that we were empowered and required to complete. So, I honestly do not feel that it would have been any benefit in me trying to do what you are suggesting and it is honestly is not a lie in my opinion".

"No one other than those that perpetrated that abuse can provide definitive knowledge as to how this was carried out and those perpetrators that we know of have declined to talk to us. Therefore what follows can only be speculation based on those aspects of the situation that we do know about placed within a theoretical framework of what is known about perpetrators of child abuse".

"The Report has been checked for accuracy and consistency. Where particular people have been significantly criticised, where possible this has been raised with them in their interview or they have been forewarned prior to publication and allowed a chance to respond".

It is clear that the Claimants received no warning whatsoever. If that is not a "lie", I do not know what is. All these general claims of fairness made in the Report are obviously false so far as Mr Lillie and Miss Reed are concerned. On 22 February, Mr Wardell said that it was the responsibility of the City Council to give advance notice to them of the conclusions. He thought there was an agreement with Mr Warne, Mr Scott or Mr Poll to this effect. He was clearly wrong about that. I am not suggesting that he was dishonest in this respect. I think he was trying to persuade himself that there must be some honourable explanation for having got themselves into this untenable position.

"We have a very interesting picture here, because it is not one that to think is easily explicable, in the sense that ‘why would they need to be in a couple relationship when they were already in a relationship?’ (although a different sort - working in the nursery). They knew each other".

She added:

"They were in a relationship where they knew each other over a long period of time, and none of us knows what goes on within that relationship. They could have been having a relationship that nobody knew about. Who knows? I don’t know".

"The fact that they apparently did not have a relationship outside the nursery is not significant. There is no research evidence to show that such a relationship would have been an inevitable or necessary part of their jointly abusing children, and the way they could come and go from the nursery during work time almost at will meant that they had sufficient time and opportunity both outside and inside the nursery to pursue their abuse of the children together" (emphasis added).

This is a spurious and trumped up justification, after the event, for their failure to address the point. It is hardly likely that there would be any published research on the issue. No one suggested once, during 79 days of this trial, that there was any precedent for a man and a woman engaging in child abuse together when they were not in any kind of "couple" relationship. There was therefore nothing to which research could be directed.

"I am speaking for myself in that, as I say, I honestly do not recall seeing the medical, and my view would be that I would have wanted to seek further information in relation to that…. I think, in looking at any of the children, we would have wanted to look at the whole range of information that we had available to us, and obviously the medical would be an important part of that…. We had difficulties getting access to a whole range of information and amongst that we had difficulties getting access to a range of medical information. It was not in our discussions with the people who commissioned us, or in the advice that we sought from a range of people, that necessarily the medical information of itself would be pivotal because obviously medical information can describe a variety of things, and that is why we did what we did".

If any of these outpourings are intended to suggest that there was any difficulty about seeing Child 4’s medical findings, that would be manifestly untrue. As it was, Miss Page’s point remained unanswered, because it was unanswerable.

"The only people who really know what happened to the children of Shieldfield nursery are those who perpetrated the abuse. It is highly likely that even the children who experienced that abuse will have some accurate knowledge and some distorted knowledge. This distorted knowledge is likely to have been deliberately implanted by the perpetrators. The implanting of distorted knowledge is a strategy that abusers describe using. This tactic is particularly successful with very young children who have limited knowledge and understanding of the world and thus, when experiencing situations they cannot make sense of, they are likely to accept an abuser’s interpretation of those experiences. As a result of such distorted knowledge, when children try to disclose their experience, they are often not believed as, along with accurate knowledge gained through their own senses, they relate false or distorted information gained from the abuser/s. This distorted information is likely to refer to not only what happened to the child but also, who did it, to whom, where it was done and who had known about it and given permission for it to happen."

This is simply bare assertion or theory. It is not based on any evidence relating to this case. But it seems to have been resorted to by the Team as a reason for explaining inconsistencies among the children’s accounts.

"Another one of our officers had now been contacted by yourselves, requesting her attendance at an interview on a date to be arranged in 1997. The purpose in writing to you at this stage is twofold. Primarily my concern is for the welfare and wellbeing of the officer concerned. I have been made aware of the effects this particularly onerous and stressful investigation had on her, both physically and mentally, and I would question whether, having interviewed the Force Child Protection Co-ordinator and then made arrangements to interview the female officer’s direct supervisor who was, in effect, the officer in charge of the case, there is any benefit in resurrecting this matter as far as WPC Foster is concerned.

If it is considered important to conduct such an interview, and mindful of the consequences on the officer’s health, I would wish that, to enable the officer to prepare herself both physically and mentally, you provide at least one month prior to the proposed interview, a detailed set of questions you propose to put to her, which specifically include any possible complaints that have been made.

The reasoning behind my request is that the incidents referred to occurred approximately three to four years ago; the officer has been involved in many large investigations since and the quantity of material to which she would be obliged to refer precludes any spontaneous answers to detailed questions".

"I can well understand the potential distress that recollections of past events can cause in cases such as this, and can assure you that the team is sensitive to the needs of those who it wishes to interview.

We do however feel that the valuable lessons that would potentially be drawn from WPC Foster’s evidence warrant interviewing her; particularly given her sympathetic approach to the children she interviewed which many parents have commented upon.

It is our policy to provide in detail in writing the areas which we wish to discuss with witnesses, and a witness can choose to be accompanied by a lawyer if they wish".

"… and it somehow seems terribly important to a lot of them that actually we see the pain that the children went through, because it feels so long since those events, to them, and the pain that has gone on throughout that time; somehow the pain of the children at the time became quite lost and the statements that the children made may have become quite lost, with the court denying the children the right to actually say that. So, in some ways, although we cannot re-try Dawn and Chris (and there is no way we would even begin to even want to do that), what the parents are virtually saying is that ‘my children said something important, and it has just been lost, and never been heard or seen’. I think, for the parents, that is really what comes across. That is what they want me to do. So that, if we can say in our report that we have had access to the video-tapes, where we saw for ourselves the children … and this has had a profound effect on us".

That has all the hallmarks of Professor Barker’s style.

"So if we were to say that the focus of our attention is the child and not the way they were interviewed?"

Although he prevaricated for a while on the subject, I eventually asked Professor Barker to say Yes or No to whether there was a quid pro quo for seeing the videos that the Review Team would not criticise the police, to which he replied "My memory is that there probably was".

"Many aspects of the children’s evidence that could be verified and were checked out, proved to be accurate".

Further, at page 269, they claimed that they had been told by police that they had found evidence relating to one of the identified individuals which "was not strong enough to be used in court".

"…..is it not the case that at least one of the police, although they said they could not find proof, believe that the children had been abused by other people outside the nursery and implied that they believed that Lillie and Reed [were] involved in some pornographic creation type activity which involved some type of sexual activity?"

Thus it seems that any police confirmation for these two serious allegations (the paedophile ring and pornographic filming) rests on unspecified "implication".

"Question: Now that is readily comprehensible without legal advice as well, is it not?

Answer: Given the way we were dealing with it, given the way we were looking at matters on the basis of a balance of probability, given the information that we had and without any disrespect to this ruling, obviously we did have information – we did have information that Mr Justice Holland, if that is the right way to describe him, did not have. We had information from the nursery that he had never seen; we had information from witnesses that he had never seen; we had medical information that he had never seen and I am not – in saying that – I am not being disrespectful or wishing to comment critically on his ruling because it is my understanding, it is a perfectly proper and appropriate ruling in relation to those videos and in a sense for me to say it was perfectly proper is in a sense overstepping the mark because I am not legally qualified, which is precisely why we needed the advice that we did – not to smuggle anything out into the public domain under the cover of inappropriate cover but to try and deal with it appropriately with the appropriate advice".

1. If a child says that she has been raped, or had a knife stuck up her vagina, and yet she has an intact hymen and no signs of abnormality, one just resorts to the proposition (in general terms, of course, unassailable) that the absence of physical findings does not mean that abuse has not taken place;
2. If a child makes no allegations about anyone abusing him or her, then it is probably explicable on the basis of terrorisation by the supposed abuser;
3. If a child exonerates a person voluntarily, despite pressure and leading questions, then she is saying the opposite of what she means (i.e. that the person exonerated actually did abuse her);
4. If a child is peppered with leading questions over three hours of interviews, then one can include in one’s report the cavalier and unsupported conclusion that there was no evidence of leading questions;
5. If a child says that she was taken out and abused at Christopher Lillie’s house accompanied by another member of staff, and that is not borne out by that member of staff, then it probably means that the abuse took place in the nursery in the absence of that member of staff.

"Question: You substituted your own view of the video evidence of this child and you completely suppressed any reference to what the Judge had said about it, did you not?

Answer: That was certainly not the intention.

Question: That is what you did, was it not?

Answer: That was certainly not the intention."

I am not sure what this means. If the omission was unintentional, that presumably implies that the Review Team intended to include reference to the Judge’s concerns but forgot. I have no doubt whatever that they were omitted deliberately because it would require careful analysis, on the basis of evidence, for those concerns to be satisfactorily answered. They knew that was impossible.

"I mean that seems to me to be something that it would be very difficult to do in this context."

"Question: You managed to do it; you managed to sum it up and convey it to the public. Are you not prepared now to account for how you arrived at that statement?

Answer: Well, the sum total, right. What the child said seemed – she seems to be a child that was able to distinguish truth from lies, she seemed to be a child with good verbal ability; she seemed to be a child who was able, over the course of those videos, to recount matters that a child of that age would not have known about; she seemed to be a child who could describe things that had happened to her. It was obviously the case that there was confusion in some of the things that she said and she did contradict herself at times and that had to be considered carefully. But if you looked overall at the three videos and related that to the medical information in relation to this child and you related that to the fact that abuse appeared to have occurred in the nursery and outside and probably other things I cannot call to mind now, but if you put all those things together it did appear that what the …. That what the child was saying was an account of her being abused by Christopher Lillie and to a lesser extent Dawn Reed".

"Yes, I think the way we were coming at it was in a sense that if that material had been presented to a child protection conference. So if the child protection conference was looking at whether or not – it is slightly difficult because it was not quite like that obviously, but if a child protection conference was looking at whether or not it was safe to leave a child with a family, it would look at it on the basis of the information that was presented and on that basis had the information on the videos been looked at by a multi-disciplinary child protection conference it was our view, and it was an honest view, that is what was the child was saying. So rather than wearing a criminal hat beyond reasonable doubt, we were looking at it in a child protection conference type basis".

"For instance, over three videos Child 14 gave some indications that she had been abused by Christopher Lillie and Dawn Reed which I noted, I also noted that she sometimes contradicted herself. She was also at times insistent that Dawn Reed had not done things to her. The videos were not conclusive one way or another".

"Question: …there is nowhere in the Report in which you refer to, as you do in your witness statement, this child’s contradictions, or this child insisting on Dawn’s innocence, is there?

Answer: Well, all four of us saw the videos of this child, so there is a sense in which the conclusions we drew in relation to this child and the videos were the product of all four of us seeing it in discussion rather than any one individual opinion".

"I think that what I would like to have done is to be able to ask the child more questions about some of those aspects that she was talking about. But I think, overall, they were very powerful statements, made by the child about things she had observed and things she had experienced within the nursery. I would like to have questioned her more on it. I do not think that they fully explored all the issues that could be [explored]. So, in some ways, they were inconclusive. But, overall, I felt that they were very powerful".

"The children also talked about other people’s involvement and mentioned the names of other staff from the nursery. This could be because these staff were also involved…"

"We have no evidence of other staff in the nursery abusing children with Chris Lillie and Dawn Reed. However, we find that during and after the abuse there was evidence to suggest that some staff were confused about their primary responsibility towards the children. We feel that this partly is a result of being subject to grooming to ignore or minimise the abuse".

"Answer: Yes, I mean, that is an interpretation which you are entitled to put, I do not agree with it. The extracts, for example – it kind of fits with the extracts which you have done in the blue document which we were given [Miss Page’s summary of child "disclosures"], which is there is a kind of slant on some of the things which appears to me to be wanting to prove your case – which obviously you are entitled to do, it is what you are supposed to be doing, obviously – rather than a neutral reflection of what happened… there are a range of explanations for a range of different things. You know, an explanation for example about why the child terminated the interview, could not – might be not that the child was thinking, ‘O my goodness, I have to tell a fib and do not want to do that’, but ‘O my goodness, the enormity of what I have to say is so difficult and painful that I do not want to do that’".

"My memory, my Lord, is that when I was being in a sense inducted into the Review Team process, I was told – because this was a child who was an important child in the case – not by those social workers concerned but by someone else who was inducting me, and I think it might have been Jennifer Bernard the Director, that in that video interview the video interview had had the problem that the child had left the room, had returned, had made certain disclosures, but then it had been discovered that in fact, as I recall it, the tape was not switched on, I think.

So then what happened is that the video interviewers, having discovered that, I think it was Police Woman Helen Foster, then had to go back into the video room and in a sense re-run what the child had said. So when I saw that video with Mr Wardell I knew that that was the explanation, and I think that if you look at my revisiting the video of last night, it did seem to me that you could see that in a sense the police woman was going through something that that explanation made sense".

"Question: … You can have, I suggest, no positive belief, because you did not make the right enquiries into the truth or falsity of these children’s allegations?

Answer: We did. We looked at a whole range of material from a variety of sources and drew the conclusions to the best of our ability based upon a range of official documents, witness statements, documents from the nursery, etc. etc.

Question: You were indifferent to the truth, you had no basis, as you knew, for any positive belief in your conclusions about Chris and Dawn. I suggest that you resorted to conscious misrepresentation in your report to give your conclusions the appearance of authority, honesty and fairness.

Answer: No. We attempted to illustrate in our report, in a readable way, what we had done, why we had done it and what our conclusions were.

Question: I suggest to you that the Report is a sham, corrupt document, which purports to have the appearance of authority, honesty and fairness when it absolutely did not.

Answer: No, that is not true."

"The police investigation dramatically improved after the appointment of DI Findlay to lead it. Children gave their parents detailed information about the venues in which they had been abused, and by whom, which appear to have been followed up e.g. children’s allegations that the ‘house with a black door where a man with a black beard had abused them’ were progressed, there proved to be – where they said - a house with a black door in which a man with a black beard lived, but we were told that the evidence was not strong enough to be used in court".

"It’s fascinating to talk to people who have met them. Not a lot of people have met them, other than their direct colleagues. Dawn Reed fascinates me in particular – women abusers, especially in those days, not quite as well known as now".

"… the Review Team examined the information available to consider whether there was any evidence to support an explanation that the disclosures were made by of [sic] the children as a result of the implanting of false information; pressure from parents; and/or by over-zealous or suggestive questioning on the part of social workers and/or police. The Review Team concluded that this could not be a viable explanation of the children’s evidence".

"I just said that it was unrealistic to expect children to play together like that and contaminate each other."

"There is an inevitability about the danger of contamination as soon as children speak to each other".

He shortly afterwards added:

"I know that Jacqui Saradjian was particularly concerned about things like contamination and how real it was – children speaking to each other".

Yet within a few moments he told Miss Page:

"I think you over-exaggerate the contamination thing. In my experience, children do talk like this – and yes, it is always there. You always have to be careful about it. But I do not think it is overriding".

"It is accepted that by mid–1994 the Yellow Room was a potential source of contamination. The Court has to consider disclosures made by children in the Yellow Room at this time very carefully to see whether the disclosures are being made because the children were abused or because the children are simply copying other children. The picture may be an unclear one, as even if a child has been sexually abused, some of their disclosures may be the result of contamination".

I would not quarrel with this warning now given to me, but it is unfortunate that it was not reflected in the Report itself.

"The parents, some of them, were going to support groups and had a lot of contact with each other and I’m sure they talked quite openly amongst themselves about what the child had said, how many interviews they had, even medical examinations, I’m sure they were not kept confidential….

A lot of things that the parents must have said to the children outside of the interview and came out in the interview – that came out in the interview itself. The bit about Chris and Dawn in jail and whatever. A lot of promises they might have made to the children about they were going to get if they told, like presents or trips. You would have been able to see that on the video. The parents want to be on the interview, want to take over the interview in an attempt to get the child to repeat what they had already said. That was difficult".

It is true that no other members of the Review Team were present, but they would have read those clear warnings on the transcript.

"2. As this is the second major child abuse investigation in the East of the city, it is felt that it is keeping professionals in the area from proceeding normally in relation to Child Protection. There are concerns that detection in this area will be seriously hampered or as is already happening if there are suspicions of sexual abuse in a family, professionals are in the first instance looking for a connection with Jason Dabbs or the Shieldfield Nursery.

3. Empowerment of Parents

Normally, the social work stance has been to empower parents and families. The Shieldfield investigation as well as the Jason Dabbs investigation, has made the investigating team believe that empowering individuals or families without the knowledge and information is dangerous. In both investigations, there are a small number of very vocal parents driven by their emotions. This is one of the most dangerous and worrying elements of this investigation."

"I think some of the information that has come across has been distorted, and in some instances tainted, by parents. I am not saying [the mother of Child 22]. There are other parents who, I think, use this to hide abuse within the family".

No doubt what he said was largely hunch, and intended to remain confidential. I am not in a position to conclude that his theory was correct, but it was surely something to give the Team food for thought and would confirm the need for careful research and analysis. (It is of interest to note that Dr San Lazaro was also conscious of this potential problem. She said on 14 May that she and her colleagues were aware that "children, where there is a scape-goat like Lillie or Reed established, are possibly more vulnerable to trauma by other parties".)

"If the court, having heard and seen all the evidence, including that from the Claimants themselves which they were not willing to provide to the Review Team, comes to the conclusion that the Review Team got some or all of their conclusions as to what occurred at the Nursery wrong and/or that the Review Team made other mistakes in the way that they carried out this inquiry and recorded their conclusions, the Review Team, will of course deeply regret that they have got it wrong, but the fact that they did not come to the same conclusion as the court and that they approached their task and the issues in a different manner does not and cannot make them malicious".

"44. At common law malice was presumed when the words published were false and defamatory. The presumption was however rebutted if the occasion was one of qualified privilege. The privilege could nevertheless be defeated if actual malice was proved by the plaintiff. What constituted malice was restated in Horrocks v Lowe [1975] AC 135, 149-150 by Lord Diplock, in what have since been regarded as authoritative terms. His reference in that restatement to carelessness, impulsiveness or irrationality not being equated to indifference must be read in context. The proposition does not qualify the preceding statements which cover lack of genuine belief and recklessness. Thus while carelessness will not of itself be sufficient to negate the defence, its existence may well support an assertion by the plaintiff of a lack of belief or recklessness. In this way the concept of reasonable or responsible conduct on the part of a defendant in the particular circumstances becomes a legitimate consideration. It can also be said that in the context of political discussion an irrational belief in truth is seldom likely to feature. It is for example difficult to envisage reliance on such an argument when a newspaper is defending its publication of false and defamatory material.

45. Recklessness as to truth has traditionally been treated as equivalent to knowledge of falsity, see for example Fleming on Torts (9^th ed: 1998) at 639. Both deprive the defendant of qualified privilege. We note as a relevant analogy the recent approach of the House of Lords to recklessness when their Lordships were considering the tort of misfeasance in public office: see Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Co of the Bank of England (speeches 18 May 2000). In particular Lord Steyn, when citing from the judgment of Clarke J at first instance, approved the view that recklessness involves a lack of honesty in the exercise of the power in question. He added:

This is an organic development, which fits into the structure of our law governing intentional torts. The policy underlying it is sound: reckless indifference to consequences is as blameworthy as deliberately seeking such consequences.

46. By the same token, it may be said that reckless indifference to truth is almost as blameworthy as deliberately stating falsehoods. Lord Diplock gave a helpful description of recklessness in the present field when he spoke of someone who publishes defamatory material "without considering or caring" whether it was true or false. Indifference to truth is, of course, not the same thing conceptually as failing to take reasonable care with the truth but in practical terms they tend to shade into each other. It is useful, when considering whether an occasion of qualified privilege has been misused, to ask whether the defendant has exercised the degree of responsibility which the occasion required.

47. What constitutes recklessness is something which must take its colour from the nature of the occasion, and the nature of the publication. If it is reckless not "to consider or care" whether a statement be true or false, as Lord Diplock indicated, it must be open to the view that a perfunctory level of consideration (against the substance, gravity and width of the publication) can also be reckless. It is within the concept of misusing the occasion to say that the defendant may be regarded as reckless if there has been a failure to give such responsible consideration to the truth or falsity of the statement as the jury considers should have been given in all the circumstances. In essence the privilege may well be lost if the defendant takes what in all the circumstances can fairly be described as a cavalier approach to the truth of the statement.

48. No consideration and insufficient consideration are equally capable of leading to an inference of misuse of the occasion. The rationale for loss of the privilege in such circumstances is that the privilege is granted on the basis that it will be responsibly used. There is no public interest in allowing defamatory statements to be made irresponsibly – recklessly – under the banner of freedom of expression. What amounts to a reckless statement must depend significantly on what is said and to whom and by whom. It must be accepted that to require the defendant to give such responsible consideration to the truth or falsity of the publication as is required by the nature of the allegation and the width of the intended dissemination, may in some circumstances come close to a need for the taking of reasonable care. In others a genuine belief in truth after relatively hasty and incomplete consideration may be sufficient to satisfy the dictates of the occasion and to avoid any inference of taking improper advantage of the occasion.

49. A case at one end of the scale might be a grossly defamatory statement about a Cabinet Minister, broadcast to the world. At the other end might be an uncomplimentary observation about a politician at a private meeting held under Chatham House rules. It is not that the law values reputation more in the one case than the other. It is that in the first case the gravity of the allegation and the width of the publication are apt to cause much more harm if the allegation is false than in the second case. A greater degree of responsibility is therefore required in the first case than in the second, if recklessness is not to be inferred. Responsible journalists in whatever medium ought not to have any concerns about such an approach. It is only those who act irresponsibly in the jury’s eyes by being cavalier about the truth who will lose the privilege. Such an approach reflects the fact that qualified privilege is not a licence to be irresponsible: see McKay J in Television New Zealand Ltd v Quinn [1996] 3 N.Z.L.R. 24, 45".

"We found material and we found people’s opinions, that were very strongly expressed in some cases, that made us come to the conclusion we did".

"… But it is not like a situation in a courtroom where you are actually challenging. You are not challenging the person. You are actually accepting that they certainly believe what they are telling you, and you have no reason to doubt that as the investigator".

"If I had to distinguish… I would say that video 3 was less powerful, but not much so, only by degrees, purely because of the gap".

That was the understatement of the year.

"We had to be careful it did not. It is a bit difficult when you have seen it happen, but we set it to one side".

Earlier, he had said that they tried to behave as if the programme had not happened.

"When investigations were carried out, in many of these cases physical [i.e. clinical] evidence was found that validated the children’s testimonies".

What the reader is perhaps most likely to remember is the dreadful allegation that Child 4 had cutlery inserted into her vagina which caused bleeding. This striking example of cruelty (no longer pursued in these proceedings despite being "put" in cross-examination) can only have been included in the Report on the basis that the Review Team wished the readers to conclude that they had found it proved. The likelihood is that the reader will also assume that this grave allegation could not conceivably have been included in that section of the Report unless there was powerful evidence to corroborate it – including "physical evidence" of penetrative trauma. There was none.

"[Professor Barker] believes there may well be a real problem here. He believes, on the basis of their interview with Kevin Hattam that he believes that Dawn Reed is innocent. In his interview, Kevin Hattam said that this was the strangest disciplinary case he had ever been involved in, because there was no evidence. He indicated that he was happy to defend Dawn Reed and commented that she was either innocent or a brilliant liar. He went on to indicate that he did not feel he could have represented her if he felt that she was guilty. As a result of these remarks, Dr Barker believes that Hattam still has a strong personal bias in this matter and is therefore unsuitable for representing members of staff.

I pointed out that under the procedures staff can choose who they wish to represent them and I was uncertain as to what rights he had to refuse a particular representative. He pointed out that he could adjust the terms of reference and could create rules to deal with this situation".

"I certainly recall that it was an issue that Richard Barker felt should be aired … and there needed to be a resolution because members of staff were entitled to have a representative with them. So it needed to be resolved".

She agreed that it accorded with her memory that Professor Barker was objecting "because Kevin Hattam had represented Dawn Reed in disciplinary proceedings".

"The video interviewing of children by social workers and police was done in a professional and sensitive manner. In particular, we were struck by the quality of the work of Vanessa Lyon, Marion Harris, Helen Foster and Julie Kinghorn".

"The police officer had only undertaken the specialised training 6 weeks before, and had never actually interviewed a young child for evidential purposes; the social worker [Andrew Waterworth] had little experience in child sexual abuse and no experience in interviewing young children. Although it is not the individual workers’ faults, it is unfortunate that they did not have more expertise in working with children of this age".

1. They suggested that there was evidence discovered by the police to confirm the involvement of the Claimants with other identifiable people in a paedophile ring, although it "was not strong enough to be used in court". The police had told them they had found no evidence to support this theory and that, had they done so, they would do something about it. This was a misrepresentation of the facts they were given (and they had not found any corroborative evidence themselves).
2. They intended the world to accept that there were good grounds to believe that Christopher Lillie and Dawn Reed were involved in pornographic filming of small children in their care and, in particular, with a named young man who was using a camcorder. The police had decided in 1993 that there were no concerns about him. The Review Team were told about this and had no reason to believe that anything had changed. It seems clear that Professor Barker’s "professional judgment" that Dawn Reed was motivated by financial gain (see paragraphs 1143-1144 above) is no more than a fanciful attempt to justify that unsustainable conclusion.
3. It was asserted that Child 14 had over three hour long video interviews detailed abuse of herself and others by Christopher Lillie and Dawn Reed (including the rape of herself by Christopher Lillie of which he had been acquitted in 1994) "and she also mentioned other nursery staff’s names". Her testimony was described as "extremely powerful and provided persuasive evidence of her abuse in the nursery and elsewhere". In fact, at least two of the Review Team (Professor Barker and Mrs Saradjian) considered the interviews "inconclusive" (no doubt partly because of the inconsistencies and contradictions which Holland J highlighted in his ruling of July 1994, and which the Review Team chose to omit). When they asked the police to view the interviews they expressly said that the reason they wished to do so was so that they could say in their Report that "this had a profound effect on us". This was at a time when they knew exactly what concerns had been spelt out by Sir Christopher Holland. Moreover, their objective was not in any way modified by seeing the tapes with all their blemishes or indeed their own conclusions that they were inconclusive.
4. They gave an assurance in the Report that the "evidential videos made by the children … would not support the view that the questions were in any way leading". They each knew that they were full of leading questions, but the readers of the Report had no way of knowing. They now admit their assurance was a bit "strong". That is obviously an inadequate response. It was demonstrably false. They must have assumed that the police would never release them to anyone else and that their assurances would never be exposed.
5. They drew attention to the fact that one of their own experts had warned them that young children could be "influenced by over-zealous questioning". They then claimed to have examined the information available "to consider whether there was any evidence" to support the explanation that any of the Shieldfield disclosures were made as a result of "over-zealous or suggestive questioning". They purported to conclude that "this could not be a viable explanation of the children’s evidence". They knew quite well that there were masses of "suggestive questions" and, what is more, they had been warned by the police officer in interview on 19 February 1997 that there was a risk of cross-contamination from parents discussing matters amongst themselves. She also reminded them that it was obvious from the videos themselves that in some cases the children had been promised "presents" or other rewards if they came up with allegations of abuse. It might theoretically be possible to go through the evidence in detail and satisfy oneself overall that (for example, because of independent corroboration) the evidence was nevertheless reliable. There is no evidence that the Review Team did this but, in any event, what they could not claim with any degree of honesty was that "this could not be a viable explanation". This they knew to be false.
6. They told their readers that they had been "robust" and that they had followed the recommendation of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper (The Guardian, 24 February 1997) to "exhibit self-confidence" that they had "uncovered as full a picture of the events under investigation as is humanly possible". What they did not, however, reveal is that they had reached a quid pro quo with the police that in exchange for being allowed to see the children’s video tapes they would not criticise the police or social workers in respect of their interviews. In accordance with a written request from Detective Chief Inspector Machell (only disclosed two months after the Review Team were cross-examined), Mrs Saradjian was unchallenging in her interview of Detective Constable Foster because she did not want to "upset" her. There were questions that she knew needed to be asked but she refrained from doing so. They knew that they had not uncovered a full picture at all, because they chose not to do so.
7. Not only did they prevent their readers from knowing of the inconsistencies, leading questions or other tainting influences, but they chose to praise the interviewers for their professionalism and to say that they were "struck by the quality of the work". This despite the fact that the viewing of most of the video tapes was left to Mr Wardell and Professor Barker in August 1996. There was thus no way in which Ms Jones or Mrs Saradjian could have been "struck" by the quality of the interviewing. I am also satisfied that Mr Wardell and Professor Barker could not honestly have been struck by the quality of the interviewing (which even their own expert was not prepared to defend and which Professor Bruck thought among the worst she had ever seen).
8. The team were told by a senior police officer that he had been through all the photographs and videos found at the flat Mr Lillie shared with his girlfriend and found nothing to suggest involvement in anything improper (i.e. pornography or paedophilia): "I did not find anything in those photographs that made me think he was a pervert and we spent hours going through them". The slant the Review Team put on this was that the hundreds of photographs were not evidence of any "crime", but that Mr Lillie’s explanation for them (which happened to correspond with that of his girlfriend, who has never been accused of anything) was "probably false". There was no evidence for this. It was not simply that they were disagreeing with the police. They had not seen the photographs themselves and were not in a position to form a view of their own. They also attribute to the officer (Mr Findlay) the statement that he "had concerns". That was false. He expressed no "concerns". He said that they were "not in any way, shape or form … indecent or suggestive" and the videos were "totally innocent". He also vouchsafed to them that police surveillance of Mr Lillie had revealed nothing suspicious – only that he was "a boring fart" who went to McDonald’s and read photographic magazines. The police had checked out the magazines and found them to be genuine and innocent. The Team now accept that this passage in the Report was inaccurate but Mr Bishop suggests that it reflects their "impression". What that submission is based on I do not know. But I do not find it credible.

"The actual interview process as well as the verbal output from the interviews of the Shieldfield children can be criticised for many reasons. For example, parents were present during interviews, leading questions were common, and the rooms were filled with distracting toys. In addition, the children that were interviewed were typically 2-3 years old. Not only are children of this age more likely to comply with suggestions/leading questions by adults, their expressive language was extremely immature …." (emphasis added).

"The senior and experienced detective in charge of the inquiry vigorously followed up every lead they were given by parents and social workers and found nothing to corroborate the involvement of the Claimants or any of the other identifiable individuals in a paedophile ring or in pornographic photography" (emphasis added).

"The position of Mr Marron Q.C. in this respect is curious. Although he associated himself with Mr Cosgrove’s observations, as prosecuting counsel he must have agreed with the CPS assessment that the chances of securing convictions against both Mr Lillie and Ms Reed were more than 50% and that a prosecution was in the public interest. If he thought the evidence in the case was more probative of Ms Reed’s innocence than her guilt then it is difficult to see why Mr Marron’s conduct is not also open to serious criticism".

Team may resent them, the comments of Mr Cosgrove (adopted by Mr Marron) were fully justified.

14) The privilege issues for the Newcastle City Council

"In these circumstances, I undertake that I will not copy the report. Nor will I share the report with any one except in so far as it is necessary for me to do so in order to be in a position to carry out my duty of preparing a report for members on the Report’s findings and recommendations. I will keep such further communication to the minimum necessary. I will keep a record of such communications. I will instruct the recipient not to make any further communication and I will advise him or her of the consequences should he or she make such further communication".

"The Team’s Report was delivered to the Council on the basis that it would not be published until 12th November 1998 and so it has not been possible to distribute the Report in advance of the meeting".

"Synopsis

The purpose of this report is to formally receive on behalf of the Council the Report of the Independent Complaints Review Team."

[100D Inspection of background papers

· · · · · · ·

upon payment of such reasonable fee as may be required for the facility.

1. to make copies of the Report available to members of the public present at the Panel meeting on 12 November (it being a sub-committee of the Council): ss.100B and 100E;
2. to supply copies of the Report on request to any newspaper: s.100B;
3. to make a copy of the Report available for inspection at its offices at all reasonable hours: ss.100B, 100C, 100E.
4. to supply copies of the Report to any person who required one: ss.100B, 100C, 100E, and 100H.

1) She draws attention to the fact that s.100B(6) provides for local authorities to make available at meetings, for use by the public "… copies of the agenda and … of the reports for the meeting". She submits that, whereas the reports submitted to the sub-committee by the various officers for the purposes of the 12 November meeting were "reports" within the meaning of that provision, the Review Team’s Report itself was no more than a background paper to the officers’ joint report.

2) So far as background papers are concerned, there is a discretion rather than a duty to provide copies to newspapers: s.100B(7). Thus, there would be a discretion to be exercised on the part of the "proper officer" with regard to the Review Team’s Report. Miss Page goes on to argue that there was in fact no exercise of that discretion, in this instance; alternatively, if the discretion was exercised, this was not in accordance with law.

3) Next, she submits that there was no statutory duty to make a background paper available for inspection if it contained "exempt information": s.100D(4). Alternatively, if the statutory duty arises to make "background papers" available for inspection by virtue of inclusion on the list referred to in s.100D(1), this would be contingent upon a lawful exercise of discretion with respect to the paper in question. Miss Page submits that no such discretion was exercised here (the Council not realising that there was a discretion) or, if it was, it was exercised unlawfully.

4) The sections relied upon in the defence, on behalf of the City Council, relate to "reports for a meeting" rather than to "background papers". Thus, the same reasoning would apply, Miss Page submits, as she has advanced at (3) above. Moreover, s.100H(2)(b) provides for persons to whom a document is available for inspection to "require" the Council to provide a copy; yet the distribution of the Review Team’s Report went beyond those actually requesting a copy.

5) Finally, Miss Page argues that if the Report is to be classified as a "report" for statutory purposes, rather than merely as a "background paper", the Council would still be bound to consider whether or not to make it available because it contained "exempt information". Again, either that discretion was not exercised at all or, if it was, it was exercised unlawfully.

"If the proper officer thinks fit, there may be excluded from the copies of reports provided in pursuance of subsection (1) above the whole of any report which, or any part of which, relates only to items during which, in his opinion, the meeting is likely not to be open to the public".

"(a) is supplied to, or open to inspection by, a member of the public, or

(b) is supplied for the benefit of any newspaper, in pursuance of section 100B(7) above".

"for the purposes of this section the background papers for a report are those documents relating to the subject matter of the report which –

(a) disclose any facts or matters on which, in the opinion of the proper officer, the report or an important part of the report is based, and

(b) have, in his opinion, been relied on to a material extent in preparing the report,

but do not include any published works".

1. There could have been no true exercise of discretion at all, because it had already been decided, well in advance of the receipt of the Review Team’s Report, that it would be published qua background paper.

2. Any true exercise of discretion was vitiated by the improper purpose for which the Council was acting; namely, as Miss Page would argue, that of "laundering" the Report through the sub-committee (or Panel) when knowing it to be fatally flawed, or being reckless as to its truth or falsity.

3. Any true exercise of discretion would be unlawful because, on any sensible view, the joint officers’ report was not actually based on the Review Team’s Report; nor had they relied upon it to any material extent for the preparation of their own report. They were concerned more with the availability of the Review Team’s Report rather than its content.

"The only thing that I am aware of with regard to this report, and the way in which it was handled, is that it attracted qualified privilege in the way in which it was received. That is all that I can say of my own knowledge".

As Mr Flynn confirmed in the witness box, the Council were concerned about the "victims", and that was that.

"The clear impression given is that Lillie and Reed were among the most disorganised and chaotic abusers in the history of child care, an unusual feature of abusive personalities".

"I am writing to him privately and confidentially, and I am preparing him here mentally and psychologically for him dealing with the massive compensation claims that I believe were coming next. So I am not preparing him for the Shieldfield Abuse Inquiry, which in a sense is over and done with as far as I am concerned. I am preparing him for what is coming next".

"… there are examples of men and women who are not married, are not together in a family sense, or in a personal relationship sense, who have killed children and abused children in a very bad way. So it is a well-known thing and many of them again were chaotic type people".

"I am not a lawyer, my Lord, but if I find something in the course of my work which my employer should know about, then I should tell my employer and here was a view that I had formed after extensive study".

"We felt the Report confirmed our suspicions. We saw no reason not to publish in those circumstances. It was, as I said earlier, the independent Review panel’s report. It was not the City Council’s".

"You are invited to attend a press conference at 10 a.m. tomorrow 12 November. The leader of the Council, Tony Flynn, will chair the conference and issue a press statement. David Bell and Tom Dervin will be in attendance. Copies of the Report and summary will be issued at 10 a.m.".

"Miss Page: You knew presumably when you met on 12 November that the Review Team had complied with the requirement to submit the Report to the City Council via the Chief Executive. Did you know that?

Mr Arnold: Yes.

Miss Page: It was for you, not the Chief Executive or his fellow officers, to determine its publication date, was it not?

Mr Arnold: That is correct.

Miss Page: In order to determine its publication date you needed to be fully informed, did you not, of the implications of publication?

Mr Arnold: Yes.

Miss Page: But you simply, in a 10 minute meeting on 12 November, rubber stamped a recommendation by your officers to publish it, did you not?

Mr Arnold: Yes.

Miss Page: You had not even read the document, had you, when you decided to publish it?

Mr Arnold: That is correct.

Miss Page: When you read it, you had some reservations, you say?

Mr Arnold: Correct.

Miss Page: Did you have an opportunity even to glance at it at the pre-meeting?

Mr Arnold: No.

……………………….

Miss Page: Did you know that it was going to result in the public of Newcastle, including parents of children who had come into contact with Christopher Lillie and Dawn Reed, [learning] that their children may have been subjected to abuse, including rape, buggery, cutlery in their vaginas, other objects up their bottoms, injections in order that they could be abused at locations by strangers? Did you know any of that before you launched this Report on the public of Newcastle?

Mr Arnold: No."

"My belief then was, and still is, that the public interest was served best by full disclosure of the recommendations of the Review Team."

"… the understanding with the Review Team [was] that it was their Report, that it was an independent Report that should be released to the Council at the same time as released to the wider public. The proviso the Council made was that the Q.C. should legally check the Report, so that it was not libellous and it would not place the Council in a difficult position".

"The records were not being disclosed to third parties. There was no question at any time of going to a court for an order for disclosure. The entire basis of the Review was for social work purposes…. It is a matter for the Social Services authority to decide how those records are used (provided they are used for social work purposes)".

"Miss Page: You lent Dr Barker the local government democratic system in order to put his report, naming them as paedophiles, into the public domain?

Mr Scott: We did not lend the system to Dr Barker. The process of publication in respect of that Report was the proper process. The Report had to come to a committee of the Council.

Miss Page: You lent it to him for the sole purpose of giving him the legal protection he required, and the Council required, in order to publish material that you knew… ought never to have been published?

Mr Scott: No".

"You did not care - you did not give a damn, did you, whether this Report was true or untrue about them, endangering their lives or otherwise; you simply did not care, you were totally indifferent to it, were you not?"

"We were not indifferent. We engaged a Review Team to investigate the circumstances in relation to these events over a long period of time".

17) A brief summary of findings