Response from the Head Master

[Leeautemps]

Presumably Charles the school has been told by the insurers to admit nothing and agree nothing in case it is construed as an admission of liability.

Agreed.
Sad that the financial side precluded them getting out in front of this from the start.
Maybe there is a business case to be made to the insurers about their conduct moving forward.

[richardb]

Charles will have a better sense of the scale of the insurers' exposure than me, but the claims are likely to exceed £1 million.

[robert totterdell]

Thanks all

There were house choirs and we had a competition each Mich term. I had to conduct I think twice and performed once.

But this is not what I am looking at.

I will come back to you on this.

Rob

[Otter]

Presumably Charles the school has been told by the insurers to admit nothing and agree nothing in case it is construed as an admission of liability.

My response will be unpopular and maybe insensitive, and I apologise unreservedly but feel the point needs to be made.

The victims of course deserve all the support from the school that they can get - financial, legal, medical, psychological.

But cases like this, involving innumerable victims, can and have seen disgusting people jumping on board for the money who in reality have nothing to do with it. It happened after 9/11 with people claiming they were there when they weren't. Look at Carl Beech earlier this week. Anyone who was at CH at the same time as any of the convicts could say in a civil claim that they were abused when they were not, in an effort to get something.

These people of course make it immeasurably worse for true victims, and cause a pervasive culture of not being sure whether to believe a complainant. Fabricated allegations are rare but do exist.

I guess this is why the school has said nothing in this regard. I am not a lawyer or an insurer and would have no idea how to proceed, but it is a sad fact of life that fraudsters will come out of the woodwork and it is in everyone's interest that only the victims are compensated and no one else. You can't just admit liability unconditionally up-front to everyone who comes forward.

[richardb]

I don't have in mind an unconditional admission of liability by the school.

But where individuals have reported events to the police, made statements and helped secure convictions, I believe that the school should be paying for counselling and therapy without question.

Those people without doubt are victims and not bandwagon jumpers.

[stage crew]

I’m not sure if the posters in this thread have read this: https://www.christs-hospital.org.uk/chr ... 202019.pdf

It would seem that the school seems willing to support victims/survivors without limit? (or at least claim to be doing so).

[sejintenej]

I don't have in mind an unconditional admission of liability by the school.
But where individuals have reported events to the police, made statements and helped secure convictions, I believe that the school should be paying for counselling and therapy without question.
Those people without doubt are victims and not bandwagon jumpers.

Whatever the judge might say do you really believe that a witness' identity would be kept secret?
Alternatively, if the judge imposes secrecy would the police inform the school of the witness' identity.?

I can readily understand people being concerned about their future if they come forward.

[Otter]

I don't have in mind an unconditional admission of liability by the school.
But where individuals have reported events to the police, made statements and helped secure convictions, I believe that the school should be paying for counselling and therapy without question.
Those people without doubt are victims and not bandwagon jumpers.

Whatever the judge might say do you really believe that a witness' identity would be kept secret?
Alternatively, if the judge imposes secrecy would the police inform the school of the witness' identity.?

I can readily understand people being concerned about their future if they come forward.

Richard can answer much better, but if by witness you mean victim/complainant, then anyone who reports being a victim of a sex offence has lifelong anonymity by law, even if there are no arrests, no charge, or the accused is acquitted. The school can’t go naming people, and anyone who does faces prosecution. This is why it was so egregious of Sillett to suggest to a victim that she risked being publicly named. He either was unaware of the law, which is shocking for someone in his position, or knew the law and lied (to sweep the issue under the carpet?), even more disgraceful.

As far as I’m aware, the complainant can only be legally named if they voluntarily reveal their identity or if a judge permits it after they are later charged with something relating to fabricating their claim, as we’ve seen in the high-profile case this week.

[J.R.]

I don't have in mind an unconditional admission of liability by the school.
But where individuals have reported events to the police, made statements and helped secure convictions, I believe that the school should be paying for counselling and therapy without question.
Those people without doubt are victims and not bandwagon jumpers.

Whatever the judge might say do you really believe that a witness' identity would be kept secret?
Alternatively, if the judge imposes secrecy would the police inform the school of the witness' identity.?

I can readily understand people being concerned about their future if they come forward.

Richard can answer much better, but if by witness you mean victim/complainant, then anyone who reports being a victim of a sex offence has lifelong anonymity by law, even if there are no arrests, no charge, or the accused is acquitted. The school can’t go naming people, and anyone who does faces prosecution. This is why it was so egregious of Sillett to suggest to a victim that she risked being publicly named. He either was unaware of the law, which is shocking for someone in his position, or knew the law and lied (to sweep the issue under the carpet?), even more disgraceful.

As far as I’m aware, the complainant can only be legally named if they voluntarily reveal their identity or if a judge permits it after they are later charged with something relating to fabricating their claim, as we’ve seen in the high-profile case this week.

Your last paragraph Stephen is absolutely correct. I'll let Richard expand.

[richardb]

A victim of almost every sexual offence has lifelong anonymity in the media in respect of any publication about the offence(a) committed against him/her.

The victim may waive that anonymity.

During the earlier stages of the proceedings against Carl Beech, he was given anonymity and was referred as Nick because he was still regarded as a victim. That anonymity was stripped away before he was convicted, which rather pre judged the issue.

[sejintenej]

. That anonymity was stripped away before he was convicted, which rather pre judged the issue.

I understand your point; there could be reasons to make anyone accused of a serious crime anonymous but ..... Worse, in some areas even the accused's poncy accent, residence, bachground could work against him/her.
Takes me back to Al Steiner's Martian rule of legal simplicity; did he do the crime or did he not do it? Forget the shimsham of the speed gun being at the wrong angle, he was not properly warned in front of 3 certified video cameras etc.etc. so there is one source of proof of guilt / innocence
Back at the time of the first IRA London bomb only 3% of the City was NOT covered by CCTV - Now that percentage must cover almost all of occupied Britain ...DNA shows a connection?; send him down with no argument. Case done, dusted in 30 minutes - call the next accused.

[richardb]

If only it was that easy...

[Otter]

There have been cases (including death penalty cases) in the US where DNA has cemented a guilty verdict, only for it to have later been found to be incorrectly identified/contaminated/planted. DNA is not gospel.

[RemedyLaw]

Presumably Charles the school has been told by the insurers to admit nothing and agree nothing in case it is construed as an admission of liability.

My response will be unpopular and maybe insensitive, and I apologise unreservedly but feel the point needs to be made.

The victims of course deserve all the support from the school that they can get - financial, legal, medical, psychological.

But cases like this, involving innumerable victims, can and have seen disgusting people jumping on board for the money who in reality have nothing to do with it. It happened after 9/11 with people claiming they were there when they weren't. Look at Carl Beech earlier this week. Anyone who was at CH at the same time as any of the convicts could say in a civil claim that they were abused when they were not, in an effort to get something.

These people of course make it immeasurably worse for true victims, and cause a pervasive culture of not being sure whether to believe a complainant. Fabricated allegations are rare but do exist.

I guess this is why the school has said nothing in this regard. I am not a lawyer or an insurer and would have no idea how to proceed, but it is a sad fact of life that fraudsters will come out of the woodwork and it is in everyone's interest that only the victims are compensated and no one else. You can't just admit liability unconditionally up-front to everyone who comes forward.

There is always the risk of 'bandwagon' opportunists, however, from experience these are relatively low in these types of circumstances.

The reasons being, is that there is no 'scheme' in place for tariff based awards, nor has there been the open admission of liability and so these cases whilst on the face of it to a layperson may seem cut and dry for all, they most certainly are not. this is where there is benefit of survivors having representation which ensures that this does not happen as if others approach, it if often very easy to ascertain as to whether the individual is a survivor.

I note that the recent CH update notes a redress group, and that some but not all are represented. This is very dangerous for all, as it may very well be those who do not fully understand the process are pushed to the sidelines and not afforded the true value of any claim simply because they do not understand the complexities of litigation. It is not uncommon on some of my cases to have three or four experts reviewing various aspects of the survivors life. I do not expect CH will be funding these, but hoping that referrals and basic counselling satisfies the majority.

I would anticipate that each case has a substantial value with attributed legal costs, it is not incomprehensable that 10 cases alone would not exceed £1million

[MrEd]

There have been cases (including death penalty cases) in the US where DNA has cemented a guilty verdict, only for it to have later been found to be incorrectly identified/contaminated/planted. DNA is not gospel.

FWIW, I was a geneticist in the University where DNA fingerprinting was invented, and to quote Sir Alec Jeffreys 'DNA creates associations', in that it links the person arising from that DNA to the DNA found at a location. There are various levels of sensitivity and the tests have been refined and improved over the years to provide an astonishing level of accuracy, but there are limits. Some tests are so sensitive that they are liable to cross-contamination, picking up DNA from skin or hair shed naturally or from innocent contact. Finding someone's DNA in their own home would hardly advance a case, but where a bodily fluid is found on or in a victim, or at a crime scene, and the DNA's person and the scene/victim (or victim's DNA on the suspect) are, according to the uncontested prosecution position, not otherwise connected, it makes it rather hard to maintain an alibi or other explanation for the finding, unless of course you have other evidence to indicate that even if the DNA test is accurate, it is not probative of anything.

e.g. if a bent copper gets blood from an alleged drunk driver to test the blood/alcohol level, and splashes a bit on the clothing of a murder victim, then you have an 'association' between the alleged drunk driver and the deceased, who has no explanation for how his DNA was found on the victim other than a supposition that it was planted, but perhaps an alibi that he was in the nick at the time after being caught drunk driving, so bent copper has to be careful and the defence watchful.

And there is the prosecutor's fallacy, e.g. if DNA shows that only 10 people on Earth have the DNA at the crime scene, and Joe Bloggs has that DNA, the chance is not 10/7,000,000,000 or one in seven hundred million that he was not there, but it is one in ten.