Website of the Department of Health

10.29  This last witness was obviously not the only member of the staff who witnessed assaults by Wilson. Robert Jones was one who did report at least two incidents involving Wilson but no effective action ensued. Nicholls[103] also said in evidence that, after he had rescued a boy from an assault by Wilson, he reported the fact to Stritch, who told Arnold. Nicholls does not recall anything being done about the assault but Wilson was later moved to largely garden work rather than normal care work. Other members of staff did not report Wilson's conduct because, for example, they considered themselves to be too junior to make a complaint or did not know how to pursue the matter beyond their immediate line manager. On the other hand, the Deputy Principal in charge of education, Maurice Matthews, said that he did speak privately to Wilson about his treatment of children although he never spoke to him officially and did not feel it necessary to tell Arnold.

  10.30  Wilson himself said in evidence that he quite enjoyed his time at Bryn Estyn because he was involved in outside pursuits. There were quite a few hard "knocks" (the witness meant "nuts") there but there were also some really nice lads who he did not think should have been there. When he first joined the staff it was clear that the boys in Bryn Estyn were coming from the courts but as time went on more and more young people with family problems were being admitted. There used to be comments such as "you come in as a child maybe with no criminal background but you will go out as a thief".

  10.31  Wilson said that he had never read a memorandum from Clwyd about corporal punishment[104] and he was not aware of any written rulings on the subject. He learned the ropes about discipline from colleagues who worked with him. He had come from disciplined areas before so he just carried on in the same way. They had to deal, for example, with boys running away, severe fighting in the dining room and boys under the influence of glue and petrol, which was quite widespread and a regular occurrence. By way of restraint he would clamp a boy severely round the waist, locking his arms, to protect the boy or himself; and sometimes the boy's legs too had to be locked. He said also that he had never denied that he had clipped boys on the ear or back of the head or punched an arm to remind them to stay in line and that he was there, seeing what they were doing. He was aware that complaints were being made against him because he was interviewed by the police on one occasion and by the Officer-in-Charge on maybe a few occasions, but it was an everyday occurrence, not just with him. With 40 to 50 young people there, who did not want to be, the staff were "going to get a little bit of resentment, so complaints were part of the system".

  10.32  Wilson accepted that the "most criticism" that was made of him was that he was a bully but denied that this description of him was justified: he was a disciplinarian who was firm in his job and believed in discipline. He admitted that he had lost his temper at times and become angry but he denied that he had ever gone beyond "a clip or a slap" in anger. He was asked about most of the incidents to which we have specifically referred but he could not now recollect even incidents in respect of which the police and/or his union branch organiser had become involved. In general, the allegations were totally untrue and the most that he might have done by way of punching or the like was to thump or punch a boy on the arm sufficiently hard to cause a bruise, which he had seen other named members of the staff do, including Arnold on one occasion.

10.33  This witness agreed that, when interviewed by the journalist, Dean Nelson, and asked about physical punishment, he had said:

"If you are asking me if young people were thumped by members of the staff, it has been, I'd be lying if I said some kids didn't receive physical punishment. But this was always something which was talked about in a quiet, subdued manner. No one boasted that a kid had been knocked about. There were occasions where certain young people were hard to control and certain members of staff would be asked to go and sort it out."

  When he was asked by Leading Counsel to the Tribunal whether that statement was true, he said that it was and he agreed also his later answer to the journalist:

"There was no guideline to say if a child steps out of line you must go and batter that child. Certain members of the staff who felt threatened by a group of young people would possibly sort out the troublemaker and deal with him privately away from any form of supervision or where they could be seen."

  10.34  We have no doubt that Wilson was rightly convicted of the offences to which he pleaded guilty in November 1994 and that they represented only a very small sample of a long catalogue of similar offences that he committed during his period of ten years at Bryn Estyn. What is both dismaying and astonishing is that he was allowed to survive as a Residential Child Care Officer for so long and then to move on to similar employment in another community home, despite his reputation and the number of occasions when he was the subject of complaint.

  10.35  The history of Wilson at Bryn Estyn that we have summarised underlines the absence of any realistic complaints or whistleblowing procedure. Equally lamentable was the failure of Clwyd's Social Services Department to carry out any adequate investigation of the few complaints that did get beyond the walls of Bryn Estyn. If the police or the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute, the decision was regarded as absolving the alleged abuser and in no case was the complainant given a proper opportunity to be heard. It is readily understandable, therefore, that any potential complainant, whether a resident or a member of staff who disapproved of a colleague's conduct, was discouraged from proceeding with an "official" complaint.

  10.36  In our judgment a substantial share of the blame for this failure to act in respect of Wilson must be borne by Arnold and Howarth, who threw a protective cloak over Wilson and also gave the firm impression to other members of the staff that they were ready to shield him for reasons that will never now be known. This does not wholly exculpate the staff generally from blame for failing to take effective action to have Wilson removed. Matthews, for example, as a Deputy Principal, clearly ought to have gone beyond speaking unofficially to Wilson himself on a couple of occasions, and more junior members of staff might have been more effective, despite Robert Jones' experience, if they had protested collectively, even though they lacked the forum for doing so that regular meetings of the care staff would have provided.

  10.37  We deal with the responsibility of Clwyd's field social workers and higher officials in a later chapter[105] but we must say at once that the Social Services Department was greatly at fault in failing to respond appropriately to the complaints of Wilson's bullying behaviour. If they had investigated them conscientiously, they would have found evidence to support them and would have been driven to the conclusion that Wilson was not a fit person to be employed as an RCCO.

  10.38  That is our own conclusion on the evidence that we have heard. It would not be unfair to say that Wilson should never have been appointed to the post at Bryn Estyn and that there was inadequate consideration of his references and record. Even if one condones his appointment because of the exigencies of the time, however, subsequent monitoring and supervision of his performance and consideration of the complaints about him ought to have demonstrated starkly his unfitness for the work that he was given. No doubt he had a degree of charm, which was discernible when he gave evidence, and probably he could get on with a proportion of the boys who were sufficiently robust to withstand his eccentric behaviour. But for very many residents he caused or contributed to substantial distress and unhappiness that have lingered, in some cases, for as long as two decades.

  10.39  In fairness to Wilson it should be said finally, however, that when he was sentenced on 28 November 1994 to a total of 15 months' imprisonment, the sentencing judge, His Honour Judge Gareth Edwards QC, decided to suspend the sentences for a period of two years. The judge made that decision not only because of Wilson's pleas of guilty and the time that had elapsed since the assaults had been committed but also because of the good character that Wilson had established in the intervening years. After referring to the positive aspects of Wilson's work on outside activities at Bryn Estyn, he said "I also take into account that since you have become a mature man you have done much on a voluntary basis for youngsters in the Chirk area, giving up many hours, indeed many days, of your time to work with them, with the result that you have fully earned the warm testimonials which have been presented to the Court by parents, and by persons in responsible positions in North Wales, who know of the work you have done".

David Gwyn Birch

  10.40  David Birch has already been referred to briefly in Chapter 8[106] of this report because he was acquitted on 12 January 1995 of two counts alleging serious sexual offences by him. Those two counts had been severed for separate trial from six other counts. The latter alleged four offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (two of which involved an alleged victim who had died) and two offences of cruelty to a child. In respect of these other counts the prosecution decided to offer no evidence and verdicts of "not guilty" were accordingly registered in respect of each of them, but the Court record is confused and appears to be incorrect as a result of the re-numbering of the two counts tried by the jury.

  10.41  The decision by the prosecution not to offer any evidence against Birch on the non-sexual charges was based partly on the death of the complainant referred to and publicity given to another complainant. It was said also by Leading Counsel for the prosecution that the offences did not involve the "more serious variety of violence" and that only two witnesses (victims) were available to be called.

  10.42  We have some sympathy with Birch's protest now that he has had to face a form of "double jeopardy" in the proceedings before the Tribunal. Although he was never tried by a jury in the conventional sense in respect of non-sexual matters he was acquitted of all the charges laid against him and, it is said on his behalf, he should not be "re-tried" on any of them now. However, the Tribunal is aware that 17 former residents of Bryn Estyn, including the four named in the six non-sexual charges in the indictment, have complained of physical assaults by Birch during the period of five years when he was working as an RCCO at Bryn Estyn and we have received the evidence of 13 of these complainants, seven of whom gave oral evidence to us. It is necessary, therefore, that we should at least reach some conclusions about the evidence of 11 of them who were not named in the Birch indictment when assessing the scale of abuse at Bryn Estyn.

  10.43  Before dealing with these allegations it is necessary to add a little to what has been said about Birch in paragraph 8.37. He had left school after O levels at the age of 16 years and had then taken a two year course in physical education before working for two years or so as a labourer. His contact with Bryn Estyn was through rugby football because he knew both David Cheesbrough[107] and Robert Jones of Wrexham RFC and it was through them that he applied for a post at Bryn Estyn. After an interview with Howarth and then with Arnold he was taken on as a temporary houseparent on 21 May 1979 at the age of 21 years, and he was appointed as an established RCCO with effect from 1 August 1979, following a formal interview on 9 July 1979. He remained an RCCO at Bryn Estyn until he was offered employment as a supernumerary RCCO at Park House Community Home on 22 June 1984, in anticipation of the closure of Bryn Estyn. He continued to live in a flat at Bryn Estyn until 31 October 1984, the day before he became an RCCO at Chevet Hey; and his post June 1984 history is dealt with later in this report[108]. It will have been noted that he had not received any social work training before his appointment to Bryn Estyn. Whilst he was there he was offered secondment on an In-Service Course in Social Care (ISCSC) starting in September 1980 at Cartrefle College but he did not take this up because of "ill health at the beginning of the course".

  10.44  When assessing Birch's conduct at Bryn Estyn it is necessary to remember that he was very young, inexperienced and without any formal training throughout his period there. He was assigned to a team, working at various times under Phillip Murray[109] and Len Stritch and for substantial periods with Margaret Elizabeth (Liz) Evans[110], who said in evidence that she had good memories of him and that he got on well with the boys, like an older brother to them. He gravitated naturally to the "rugby set" of mainly care staff who all played for Wrexham at various levels whilst they were at Bryn Estyn. This set included Phillip Murray, Robert Jones, Anthony Nicholls and the teacher David Cheesbrough (who played elsewhere between 1981 and 1985) as well as David Birch himself; Liz Evans was also a member and supporter of the rugby club.

  10.45  Probably the most serious allegation made against Birch was that on one occasion, after the deceased complainant named in the indictment had broken a light bulb, Birch rubbed his face in the remnants of the bulb. A log entry about the complainant dated 22 March 1984 but only recently found (and therefore not put to Birch) reads:

"Refused to wash his hands for Mr Birch at tea time. He was told he'd have his tea as soon as he did, but he still refused. Peter said he didn't want any tea and went out of D/room. I found him later in the kitchen waiting for Cook to make him some toast. When he was told he couldn't have any he stormed back into the D/room and smashed a light bulb, which he refused to sweep up."

  10.46  Having regard to this contemporary record, we are fully satisfied that there was an incident involving the complainant and Birch and a broken light bulb. We do not think that it would be right to make an adverse finding against Birch in respect of the matter in view of the verdict recorded at his trial and the fact that he did not have an opportunity before the Tribunal to refresh his memory from the log entry (Birch said in evidence to us that he had no recollection of the incident). Another difficulty is that the deceased complainant gave a different version of how the light bulb breaking had occurred. In two of his ten statements to the police he gave quite detailed accounts of how another resident, who was a bully, had been calling him names when they were in the dining room. He had picked up a chair with which to hit the bully but, as he had swung it over his head, the chair had caught a chandelier, smashing all three light bulbs in it. It was then that he had refused to sweep up the bits because he considered the incident to be the bully's fault. After his face had been rubbed in the broken glass of the bulb he was so angry that he smashed six or eight small panes of glass in the sliding door of the dining room with his fists. This was the only incident involving light bulbs that he recalled.

  10.47  Other allegations made against Birch are rather diffuse and, in the main, comparatively minor. Two matters do, however, call for specific mention. The first is a complaint by one witness, P, whose evidence was read to us, that Birch and Nicholls had forcibly removed a ring from his nose, cut off his "mohican" hair and made him run the gauntlet. Nicholls had grabbed hold of his hair and Birch had grabbed his legs whilst he was lying on his bed. Nicholls had then placed his forearm across the victim's throat whilst Birch "pulled" the ring out of P's nose with the result that "It hurt a lot and was bleeding". P had been kicking and shouting whilst this was happening and he was then told to go downstairs, where he was made to sit on a chair, Birch then pulled his head back whilst Nicholls cut his "mohican" hair off with a pair of scissors and then handed the cut hair to him. P complained also that, later that day, he was forced to "run the gauntlet" in the television room, that is, to run between two lines of about 20 boys in all and Birch and Nicholls, whilst he was punched about the body by the boys as he ran between them and then punched once more by Nicholls (but not by Birch).

  10.48  According to P this was the second occasion when he had been required to run the gauntlet by Nicholls. On the previous occasion he and another boy had absconded and on returning both had been made to run the gauntlet in a similar manner in turn and he and the other boy had both been punched by Nicholls about the body and face at the end of the run.

  10.49  P said that he complained to both his social worker and to his mother after each of these two incidents of running the gauntlet; and after the second time, ie the hair occasion, he complained to Arnold the next day in the latter's office about the way in which the ring had been pulled out and his hair cut. Arnold told him, however, that it was his own fault and that standards had to be maintained. He did not seek any treatment for his injuries.

  10.50  When Nicholls gave evidence to us he said that he and Birch had taken part in removing the nose ring but had done so on the instructions of Arnold: Nicholls had held P in a bear hug whilst Birch had removed the attachment to the nose ring. The boy himself had removed the actual prong and they had refused to do that. The boy, who was an early "punk rocker" had not consented. Nicholls said also that they had joked about the colour of P's hair but he denied cutting it: the boy would wash out the colours himself. The practice of running the gauntlet was known to the staff and he assumed that they approved it. He had witnessed it only once, however, and he denied punching any boy who had had to undergo it. Nicholls accepted a police caution in respect of P but he said that it was for tipping P out of bed and not in respect of the nose ring incident.

  10.51  David Birch himself was an unimpressive and unhelpful witness. He denied taking part in the removal of P's nose ring when he gave evidence to us and, when Nicholls' evidence about it was put to him, he said that he remembered P returning to Bryn Estyn with a ring in his nose and the staff being concerned about it but he did not witness its removal. His memory of the mohican hair was of seeing it sellotaped to P's bed.

  10.52  This summary of the evidence about the nose ring and hair incident illustrates the difficulties of reaching firm findings about specific incidents over 15 years after the event (P spent about four months at Bryn Estyn in 1982). We are sure, however, that at least part of P's nose ring was forcibly removed by Birch and we see no sensible reason to doubt that his hair was cut against his will and that he had to run the gauntlet after that.

  10.53  The other specific matter that calls for comment in relation to Birch is an allegation made by two former residents that Birch forcibly removed their new tattoos by scraping them with the abrasive side of a matchbox. This is an allegation that has been made against Nicholls and Wilson also but all three of them deny it and there was some confusion and hesitation in the evidence about the identity of the member of staff doing the scraping. It is clear that tattooing was against the rules at Bryn Estyn but that some boys experimented from time to time in tattooing themselves with Indian ink. In a letter to the Tribunal written after she had given evidence, because she had not been asked about the matter in the course of her evidence, the former Matron (Isabel Williams) said:

"It was said in the newspaper (regarding the boys' self inflicted tattoos) that staff rubbed them off with matchboxes. This is quite wrong.The boys themselves rubbed them off when they tired of the poorly executed tattoos, leaving a weeping site which I or a housemaster treated. Seldom was it necessary to refer these to Dr Wilkinson."

  10.54  Williams may well be correct in her recollection, in general terms, even though she is unlikely to have witnessed herself any scraping of tattoos. That does not necessarily discredit the evidence of the witnesses who allege that two boys had it done to them. It may well be that one or both of the complainants was or were punished, in effect, by removal of the tattoos as described but we cannot be sure on the evidence that Birch did so.

  10.55  The other allegations against Birch at Bryn Estyn have been largely of random assaults, usually under provocation. The general tenor of most of the complaints has been of over-reaction by Birch to incidents in the course of which he punched or slapped or sometimes kicked a boy. One witness, almost uniquely, did allege that he complained to Birch that Howarth had interfered with him sexually, whereupon Birch called him a liar, slapped him and threw him into a pond. These complaints cannot be dismissed lightly on the ground that, individually, they are not corroborated. In our judgment there is a discernible pattern to them and the evidence is credible because most of the relevant complainants admitted provocative behaviour and did not try to exaggerate the effect upon them of Birch's response.

  10.56  It follows that, in our view, David Birch was at fault from time to time in using physical force to boys when he should not have done and on other occasions in using excessive force when some physical action by way of restraint was permissible. It would be wrong to be very harsh in one's strictures upon him personally, however, bearing in mind the matters that we have already referred to[111] and the general climate of violence in which he was working. We shall say more about this climate in the next section of this chapter. Birch was the youngest member of the rugby set and he said in his own evidence that he received no instruction in how to restrain boys physically and that he learnt from older care workers. We deal briefly in Chapter 14 with Birch's subsequent record over a period of five years at Chevet Hey but it is noteworthy that only five complainants have alleged physical abuse by him there. One of them, for example, said of Birch that he was a decent bloke; his trouble was that he was a big man who did not know his own strength. There were, however, other criticisms of Birch at Chevet Hey, notably by Michael Barnes when Acting Officer-in-Charge.

  10.57  In the event Birch has suffered substantially as a result of his employment at Bryn Estyn. He had to endure a long wait before his trial on charges of which he was acquitted and, since then, he has felt unable to work with children, which was work that he loved according to his own evidence, and there was some adverse publicity about him prior to the setting up of this Tribunal.

The other members of the rugby set[112]

  10.58  It is convenient to deal here with these members of the staff for a number of reasons. One is that they were regarded by some other members of the staff and many residents as a rather elite group who tended to keep together and were sympathetic to each other. Secondly, although the complaints made against them are not very numerous, they are of a rather similar kind. Thirdly, unlike Birch, who was a taciturn witness, the other male members of the set all gave helpful general evidence about conditions at Bryn Estyn as they saw them, which has assisted us significantly in assessing the overall picture.

  10.59  The senior man in this group in terms of experience and training was Phillip Murray, who began work at Bryn Estyn on 1 May 1978, just before his 28th birthday, and who remained there as a senior houseparent until 30 September 1984, when he began a two year course for the CQSW at Cartrefle College, as a prelude to field social work. When he applied for a post at Bryn Estyn, in response to an advertisement published nationally, he already possessed the CRCCYP as a result of training at Salford College of Technology and he had served at an observation and assessment centre for 11 to 16 year olds in the Wigan area. His appointment at Bryn Estyn was to replace David Cheesbrough, who had been transferred from the care staff to the teaching staff with effect from February 1978; and Murray thereafter lived with his wife and two young children in a tied cottage 100 yards from the entrance.

  10.60  Murray was critical of aspects of the Bryn Estyn regime but said that he never felt that he was facing a nightmare there, whereas he had hated his earlier posting because of the very strict regime. Amongst his criticisms of Bryn Estyn were that Howarth had a very autocratic style; quite a few staff were taken on at very short notice; there was no in-service training; they never had any staff meetings; and there was friction between teaching and care staff. Murray complained also that there was a lack of support and monitoring by County Hall: he was not sure who was responsible for this and he thought that Arnold felt frustrated about it. The relationship with the Wrexham Area Office was also not good and field social workers very rarely visited the premises, except for statutory reviews.

  10.61  Murray said that broadly speaking, there were three types of children in the mixture of boys from North and South Wales at Bryn Estyn in his time, namely:-

"(i) Delinquent children with a range of behavioural problems;

(ii) A small group of 5 or 6 boys with behavioural problems, dumped at Bryn Estyn because there was nowhere else for them . . .

(iii) A small group of non-school attenders who should not have been at Bryn Estyn."

  Commenting on (ii), he added that, with the experience that he had subsequently gained as a specialist mental health worker, he would consider that those boys had a potential for mental illness/mental health problems in adulthood.

  10.62  Despite this motley collection of different types of children, Murray described the atmosphere at Bryn Estyn as relaxed and informal and he denied that there was any "culture of fear". He accepted that a "pecking order" was part of the culture but said that it did not involve preferential treatment and that too much should not be read into it. Nicholls, however, was more realistic in his evidence when he said that there was a "top lad" system. In his time it was Q, who controlled the other boys in very loose terms and who used his size and influence to do so. Other boys saw Q as their mentor.

  10.63   Anthony Nicholls is three years older than Murray but he did not have any experience of or training in care work before he took up employment at Bryn Estyn on 21 March 1981. The circumstances were that the company for which he had worked for 16 years, starting as an apprentice toolmaker, went into liquidation in 1979 and he learnt of possible employment at Bryn Estyn, like Birch, from David Cheesbrough. Nicholls had by then risen to a managerial post with his former company and this seems to have been regarded as a sufficient qualification because he was invited by Arnold by telephone, without any interview, to start work the next day. In the event he remained at Bryn Estyn as a Residential Child Care Officer until 30 April 1982, when he resigned because of disillusionment. He has now been manufacturing manager for a US pharmaceutical company for many years.

  10.64  Nicholls formed a fairly poor view of the way in which Bryn Estyn was run early on. There appeared to be no structure and poor managerial skills were evident. Arnold seemed to be counting the days until his retirement whilst Howarth was bullish and aggressive and Nicholls regarded Wilson as an out and out bully. The witness believed that the aim of Bryn Estyn was to rehabilitate and assist those boys who were in care, with a view to making a better future for them. Regrettably, however, owing to the lack of leadership and direction from the top, he felt that this aim was not achieved. There was a lack of proper organisation and there appeared to be no basic strategy on how the place should be run.

  10.65  Nicholls worked throughout in the main building at Bryn Estyn and lived out. He had married in 1967 and lived with his wife and two young children. For the latter part of his period at Bryn Estyn, Howarth was away with ankle trouble and Nicholls reported to Len Stritch, the Third-in-Charge. His team leader at first was Robert Jones, until September 1981, when the latter started a two year CQSW course at Cartrefle College; and Nicholls then worked under John Rayfield.

  10.66  The third member of this trio of rugby playing care staff was Robert Jones, who was only 24 years old when he began work at Bryn Estyn on 1 May 1978. His own recollection is that he began work there as an assistant houseparent in 1976 and this may be correct but the records before the Tribunal show that he was appointed as a houseparent from 1 May 1978 and promoted to senior houseparent from 1 June 1979. He had qualified as a physical education teacher in 1975 but had then worked on an oil rig in Scotland before being told of the Bryn Estyn vacancy, again by Cheesbrough. He saw Howarth for an hour and was telephoned two hours later with an invitation to start work the following week, initially in a temporary capacity for two weeks. As will be apparent, he had no prior experience, or training in child care work but he was seconded eventually from September 1981 to July 1983 to Cartrefle College for the CQSW course. On completion of that course he returned to Bryn Estyn until the end of 1983, when he was transferred to field social work for Clwyd County Council. He remained with Clwyd until 1987 and then secured employment in a higher grade in Shropshire.

  10.67  Robert Jones also was critical of the Bryn Estyn regime. He thought that it was very restrictive and that the home was run like an approved school. Placements there seemed to be made with little consideration of the needs of the particular child or the character of the residents already there. They often involved children being far from their homes and were frequently made at very short notice with minimal warning. The result was that the residents of Bryn Estyn were an inappropriate mix of boys and adolescents with differing and conflicting problems. Bullying by boys varied but was endemic. A pecking order was part of the regime and it was seen as an overall means of control.

  10.68  Whilst he was at Bryn Estyn, Robert Jones became particularly friendly with another member of the care staff, Elizabeth (Liz) Evans, with whom he shared a flat on the campus for a time. She had undergone teacher training at Cartrefle College with the intention of becoming a primary school teacher. Whilst there she had met Robert Jones and had visited him several times at Bryn Estyn with the result that she had become interested in care work. After working as a supply teacher in her home area of Mid Glamorgan she began work at Bryn Estyn as a temporary houseparent on 30 April 1979, when she was about to be 23 years old, and she became an established RCCO Grade 2 from 1 August 1979. Liz Evans remained at Bryn Estyn until late September 1984, when she was redeployed to a day care centre in Wrexham briefly before being transferred to Bersham Hall with effect from 15 October 1984. She remained there until September 1987, when she was seconded to Cartrefle College for a CQSW course; and, on completion of that course, she secured an appointment as a social worker from 4 September 1989 in Clwyd's Delyn area. She remained in the employ of Clwyd County Council until it ceased to exist and is now a senior social worker for Flintshire County Council.

  10.69  Evans, who was rather less frank than her colleagues most recently named, accepts that Bryn Estyn may have been a frightening experience for some of the more vulnerable young people who were placed there but she does not remember an atmosphere of intimidation and was not aware of a regime of physical violence or a climate of fear. She was not given any training or specific instructions or any job description but she realised what was expected of her from her earlier visits. Her own method was to treat the boys with respect and she expected the same treatment in return. In some ways she found tasks were easier for her than for some men: for example, if there was a physical confrontation, she would call in a man.

  10.70  In the context of the Bryn Estyn history as a whole, we have heard relatively few complaints of physical abuse by the four members of the rugby set discussed in this section. The other member, apart from David Birch who has already been discussed in detail, was David Cheesbrough and he is more appropriately discussed with the other teaching staff because virtually all the complaints about him refer to events after February 1978, when he transferred to that part of the staff.

  10.71  In all, 15 of the witnesses whose evidence we heard (ten gave oral evidence) alleged some form of physical abuse by one or more of the four members of the rugby set discussed in this section, but we have not been persuaded that severe criticism of them would be justified. The overall tenor of the evidence has been that each one of them was essentially a decent person, who established a good relationship with the boys. If, on occasions, they over-reacted to a situation, the reaction was momentary and no physical harm was done. None of them, therefore, can properly be categorised as an abuser.

  10.72  Only three witnesses made allegations against Phillip Murray, despite the fact that he was at Bryn Estyn for over six years. One alleged that Murray spanked him for throwing knives but he did not blame Murray for doing so. The latter's own recollection is that this was the only occasion when he smacked a child: the boy had thrown milk bottles at people during the dinner time so Murray had chased and caught him and then smacked him once over his trousers. They had got on "brilliantly" after this and the boy had visited him for many years after he had left Bryn Estyn. The other witness alleged that Murray had punched and kicked and jumped up and down on him in his dormitory probably after a bed-wetting incident when the witness had been verbally abusive to Murray, but he added "but strange thing is, he wasn't you know, he wasn't a bad guy really". He agreed also that he got on well with Murray: Murray just had bad teachers really and went with the flow. Moreover, the witness had given a different venue for the incident when talking to Dean Nelson, the journalist, so that his recollection of it appears to be faulty. Murray, on the other hand, denies that he ever assaulted the witness. Finally, the third witness spoke only in general terms in his written evidence of being punched and kicked by Murray and three others at Bryn Estyn (apart from Wilson) but he did not refer to any specific incident involving Murray.

  10.73  Six witnesses complained of incidents in which Anthony Nicholls was involved and we heard oral evidence from three of them. One of the witnesses whose evidence was read was the victim of the forcible removal of a nose ring described in paragraph 10.47, said by Nicholls to have been carried out on Arnold's instructions and no further comment is needed on that. The first of the oral witnesses complained about being tipped out of bed by Nicholls and of having his head put into a lavatory bowl and flushed; he alleged also that Nicholls had incited him to fight the "top dog" of the time. But this witness commented "If you didn't cross him, he was a fair, decent man", and he said also that, despite his complaints he liked Nicholls because "he treated us like grown ups generally". As for the "top dog", who also gave oral evidence, his only complaint was that he had been grabbed by Nicholls after giving Murray "a load of verbal". Nicholls said in evidence that the "top dog" had thrown a knife at Murray and he had merely done what was necessary. He admitted also that it was a practice of his (known as "flying lessons") to tip recalcitrant risers from their beds but boys were not injured by this; on one occasion only a boy's pyjamas had been torn. He accepted a caution from the police in respect of the admissions that he had made to them about the bed tipping and his involvement in the nose ring incident.

  10.74  We have no doubt that Nicholls did from time to time have difficulty in controlling boys when they were all assembled in the dining room because of his lack of training and experience, and this was confirmed by Murray, who was sometimes called in to help. Nicholls himself said that on one occasion he smashed a plate in order to regain control in the dining room. One witness alleged that on one occasion in the dining room, when a boy refused or failed to stop talking when ordered to do so, Nicholls threw a plastic topped chair across the room which struck the boy on the back of his head (the only other person who spoke of this in a statement to the police said that it was the previous witness himself who was talking and that he was struck by the chair on the shoulder). It may well be that an incident of this kind did take place, even though it is denied by Nicholls; if it did, it is regrettable, but we cannot be sure about the detail on the limited evidence before us. In any event there is no evidence that the victim, whoever he was, sustained any significant injury.

  10.75  The number of complaints that we heard about Robert Jones was rather larger but the favourable comment about him was at least as strong as that in relation to Murray and Nicholls. It must be remembered also that it was Robert Jones who intervened twice in relation to assaults by Wilson and who pursued his complaint about the second incident as far as Geoffrey Wyatt[113].

  10.76  Robert Jones enjoyed participating in outdoor activities with the boys and one or two of the complaints relate to minor incidents that occurred in the course of these. It is clear, for example, that on one occasion he was struck on the head by a paddle when canoeing and that he responded by ducking the boy who had wielded the paddle but he said that this was good natured and that there was mutual ducking. Other witnesses referred to occasions when Jones is alleged to have punched a boy in the stomach or on the arm or clipped him on the head and one referred to him breaking up a fight by "slamming" one of the combatant's head on the floor. The total number of these allegations, however, is very few and all appear to have happened either in horseplay or by way of fairly mild punishment. Thus, a witness who made many serious allegations about other members of staff at Bryn Estyn said only of Jones that he remembered being punched and kicked by him in the showers but that he, the witness, treated the incident as quite minor.

  10.77  Robert Jones himself denied mis-treating any boy when he gave evidence and we have not been persuaded that he consciously did so. It is notable that, despite Wilson's allegation that certain members of staff would "sort out" a troublemaker privately[114], no former resident has made a complaint to the Tribunal that a member of the rugby set acted individually or with others in that way.

  10.78   Elizabeth Evans would not require separate comment in this context but for the fact that her name was linked in the evidence with the rugby set and that she herself said that, if she was faced with a confrontation, she would call one of the men on the staff to deal with it. However, only one witness complained to the Tribunal of being dealt with in this way (he said he was given "a good smacking" and told "less of your lip to Liz") and only four witnesses mentioned Evans' name in the context of physical abuse. On the contrary, most of the witnesses who referred to her described her as a kind, caring and sympathetic member of the staff.

  10.79  Of the complainants, one said that Elizabeth Evans had kneed him between his legs when trying to prevent him from going up to his dormitory, after he had been told not to do so; and another said that she slapped him when he had been smoking in class. The worst allegation, made in a statement by a witness who could not be traced when he was due to give evidence, was that she had once spat on him, on being called names by him, when she was helping Norris and others to place him in the secure unit after absconding. Finally, one other boy, who described her as a good care officer, merely said that she was one of the members of staff who had seen him being assaulted by Wilson.

  10.80  In her evidence Elizabeth Evans made it clear that she disapproved of Wilson's conduct and said she thought that boys had reported him for it. She knew that Howarth was aware of his behaviour: there was a feeling that Wilson "led a charmed life" and she did not feel that she could report him above Howarth because she was too young and lacking in confidence. She had not actually witnessed any assault by Wilson. As for the other allegations, she denied slapping or spitting and did not think that her knee had made contact with the boy who was trying to go upstairs, but she probably had lost her temper with him.

  10.81  We do not consider that there is any acceptable evidence of physical abuse by Elizabeth Evans and we accept that she was regarded generally as a sympathetic and caring member of the staff.

The teaching staff

  10.82  We have already referred briefly to the teaching staff in describing the organisation of Bryn Estyn[115] and we deal with the failings of the educational regime in the next chapter. Some of the allegations of physical abuse, however, were directed at teachers and it is necessary to deal with them here.

  10.83  The head of the teaching section from 1 June 1977 was Maurice (Matt) Matthews, who was appointed to the new post of second Deputy Principal (Education) from that date. It seems that, in effect, he replaced Brynley Goldswain[116], who had left the previous year. Matthews was 43 years old and had spent 13 years in the Royal Navy on leaving school. He obtained his Certificate in Education in 1970 and his most recent experience had been as a teacher of general subjects for three years at a community home with education on the premises (Danesbury) in Hertfordshire, which was a former approved school. Prior to that he had been employed for two years on educational assessment, with some teaching, in a remand home at Enfield. Whilst at Bryn Estyn he took a three year part-time course at Bangor University leading to a CSS, for which he qualified in 1982. On the closure of Bryn Estyn he was redeployed briefly as a supernumerary until his appointment as Officer-in-Charge of Cherry Hill community home from 1 November 1984; but he retired early on 31 March 1986, giving as his reason "certain inflexibility in the staff I inherited, which has made it impossible to carry out my duties in the way I would wish".

  10.84  The most senior members of the teaching staff in post when Matthews arrived and who remained for a substantial period at Bryn Estyn afterwards were Norman Green, John Ilton and Gwen Hurst. Norman Green had been there from 1965 as the building instructor and he was in charge of an army cadet detachment at Bryn Estyn, ultimately in the rank of Captain, until he retired from the cadets on 24 September 1974. He remained at Bryn Estyn until the end of 1983 when he was redeployed to Clwyd's Shire Hall as a Residential and Day Care Officer.

  10.85   John Ilton also joined the staff when Bryn Estyn was still an approved school; he was there from September 1972 until 31 August 1984, after which he moved to Bersham Hall. He had had a varied career in factory and office work before obtaining his teachers' certificate at Cartrefle College at the age of 31 years in July 1971 after a three year course. He then had six months teaching experience at a secondary modern school. At Bryn Estyn he taught mainly english and mathematics to the older boys (15 and 16 years old) but occasionally taught other subjects including geography and art. In the mid 1970s he took a course in mountain leadership and between 1981 and 1983 a part-time course that led to an advanced diploma in the education of children with special needs.

  10.86   Gwen (Gwyneria) Hurst had joined the teaching staff at the age of 32 years on 1 September 1975 and she remained until the end of 1983, when she too was redeployed to Shire Hall as a Residential and Day Care Officer and then as Under 8s Officer for the South Division at Wrexham, before retiring in March 1995 because of disability in her back. She had gained a teachers' diploma in speech and drama and a general teachers' certificate and had then taught in junior and secondary schools in the Wrexham area. She was employed initially at Bryn Estyn to teach art, craft and drama but from 1977 she began to teach residents who were in need of remedial education. She was also involved in assessment work from about 1979 when and as Bryn Estyn took over this role from Bersham Hall.

  10.87  Members of the teaching staff who joined after Matthews and who figured quite prominently in the evidence before us were David Cheesbrough and Justin Soper. David Cheesbrough had been recruited as a temporary senior housemaster at Bryn Estyn from 13 October 1975 and had become established in the post from 31 January 1976; he lived in a cottage close to the premises from the end of that year. It was his first appointment on completion of his teacher training course at Bangor Normal College and he was then 22 years old.He transferred to the teaching staff on 4 January 1978, following an interview by a panel of five, when other short-listed candidates were interviewed; and he remained in that post until Bryn Estyn closed, whereupon he underwent further training before taking up an appointment at a Clwyd school for children with moderate learning difficulties, becoming Deputy Head of the junior school in September 1991. Cheesbrough told us that he taught general science at Bryn Estyn, emphasis being placed on basic skills but the notes that he produced show that he covered quite a wide range of subjects, including english and arithmetic. He was also much involved in outside activities, teaching physical education, running youth rugby activities and, for example, organising the annual sports day from 1978 to 1981 (if the notes of this are complete).

  10.88   Justin Soper, who was interviewed by the same panel as Cheesbrough, was also a newly qualified teacher, having gained a Bachelor of Education degree and teachers' certificate after four years at Cartrefle College; and before that he had taken a two year course at Shrewsbury School of Art. He began work at Bryn Estyn on 1 June 1978 at the age of 26 years, after a successful second interview, and by that time he had worked for nine months as a temporary senior housemaster at a Dr Barnardo's voluntary home for children near Oswestry. Soper remained at Bryn Estyn until it closed in September 1984. His appointment was to teach his main subject, namely, art and craft, up to CSE[117] level but, after about three years, he agreed to join Hurst in her assessment work, replacing a part-time teacher who had left. From then on Hurst and Soper operated as a virtually separate unit in Cedar House dealing with boys who were at Bryn Estyn for assessment or on remand and also teaching younger, smaller and less able boys who would have had difficulties in other classes. Soper puts the average number of boys in the unit at about 14 until the last 12 months, when it declined to about seven.

  10.89  We should say at once that there is no basis for any finding that Goldswain, Green, Hurst or Soper were involved in the physical abuse of residents at Bryn Estyn during the period under review.

  10.90  Although a small number of serious allegations of abuse were levelled against Brynley Goldswain in respect of the period before 1 April 1974, only minor complaints were made by two witnesses in relation to the following two years during which he remained at Bryn Estyn. One of these complaints was of slapping by Goldswain but no specific incident of this was mentioned. The other was that Goldswain had a practice of making boys run around the gymnasium in the evenings whilst he swung a bamboo cane around, catching unwary boys painfully on the legs, but other evidence suggests that quite a few of them enjoyed this activity.

  10.91  The evidence about Norman Green was generally favourable: he was regarded by most boys as a good member of staff. We are aware of only one complaint against him, despite the fact that he was at Bryn Estyn for 19 years. That complaint was made by a witness who was at Bryn Estyn between 1977 and 1979 and who said that he did not attend Green's classes in bricklaying etc. because he did not like getting his hands dirty. Nevertheless, or perhaps because of this, he had the "odd tiff" with Green, who once threw a half brick at him. This is an allegation that must, at best, be dubious because it is common ground that Green took the witness to Matthews there and then and complained to Matthews that the witness had thrown a half brick at Green. The upshot was that the witness was not required to attend Green's classes and was transferred to work in the kitchen.

  10.92  The strong general tenor of the evidence about Gwen Hurst was that she was a much liked and respected member of the teaching staff, who went out of her way to help the boys that she taught and who would invite some of them to her home when it was appropriate to do so. She was also heavily involved, outside her working hours, in youth club activities for the benefit of the residents and other local young people. The only complaints of physical abuse that we heard against her were (a) that she dragged a witness by his hair after he had misbehaved "in some way" and (b) that she had given another boy some "whacks on the head with a brush" one bonfire night. The witness to (a) said, however, that Hurst was "not a bad person" and it is clear that the alleged victim in (b) had been drinking and was giggling with girls whom he had persuaded to accompany him to the bonfire so that Hurst was apprehensive about what they might do. Hurst denies using any physical force and specifically remembers what happened on the relevant bonfire night. Accurate recall at this distance of time, however, is unlikely. We are satisfied that both alleged incidents were minor and that they do not detract from the overall high esteem in which Hurst was held.

  10.93  We are not aware of any allegation of abuse against Justin Soper. He, too, was much involved in extra mural activities with Bryn Estyn boys, certainly in his first three years there. When he left he was given a memorable testimonial by Arnold, who said:

"He is truly an individual person, he was the only member of the teaching staff who managed to cope with very unhappy children on a continuing basis. He rarely lost hope, and when others would be rejective, he could still see possibilities."

  10.94  The main target of criticism amongst the teaching staff has been John Ilton. Many witnesses have given evidence of his excellent general character but there has been compelling evidence too that he was unsuitable for the work that he was undertaking in teaching mainly disturbed and recalcitrant pupils. In all, we are aware of 14 complainants who alleged assaults by him at Bryn Estyn: ten of them gave oral evidence before us and the statements of two others, now dead, were read. This is not a formidable body of evidence by itself, bearing in mind the length of the period under review, but we heard substantial evidence also from many other witnesses, including members of the staff that Ilton was, throughout his period at Bryn Estyn, a man with a "low fuse" who was liable to explode out of control when he was provoked.

  10.95  Two recurring themes in the evidence have been, firstly, that it was Ilton's practice to throw the blackboard dusters or rubbers (of a conventional solid type) at any boy who was misbehaving and, secondly, that he would also throw objects used in his body building exercises. His hobby was weight lifting, which he would practice from time to time with weights kept in the next door classroom and the objects referred to were dumb-bells and weights. In his own evidence Ilton said that he would put on an act of temper, shouting, banging and throwing books off his desk. He would bawl out children, hold and restrain them and he threw chalk but he did not recollect throwing board dusters. He added that you could not throw a dumb-bell weighing 15 pounds or a weight ranging from two and a half to 20 pounds. Whilst recognising the difficult conditions in which Ilton often had to teach we were unimpressed by his account of how he sought to maintain order in his class. He certainly had a very loud voice, to which many witnesses referred, but we are satisfied that he went beyond use of this and flinging pieces of chalk as his daily practice. The volume of complaint about his use of blackboard dusters and weights has compelled us to the view that his disciplinary methods were unacceptable by civilised standards. He ruled his classroom by fear and his methods were unlikely to benefit rebellious and disturbed adolescents.

  10.96  Unhappily, the allegations against Ilton have not been limited to shouting and throwing objects at his pupils. At least eight of the witnesses who gave oral evidence to the Tribunal described serious assaults by him on them and Matthews himself admitted that he had seen Ilton "clack" a boy on the head on two occasions. Matthews had said in a statement to the police that Ilton was a strict man, who was not afraid to "clack" a boy who was out of line. Matthews' view of the prohibition of corporal punishment was that it applied to the use of the "cane, taws, belt, strap" but not to "clacking"; and, until he was reminded of a 1974 Clwyd memorandum on the subject, Ilton's recollection (according to his statement) seems to have been that corporal punishment was available until 1987.

  10.97  The general picture of the alleged assaults by Ilton was that he would lose his temper when provoked and then lose all control of himself so that he, rather than the provoker, had to be restrained. One former resident, for example, who had already lived in the Far East for five years before his admission to Bryn Estyn, said in a geography class that Ilton had been incorrect in some information that he had given about Malaysia or Singapore and had laughed at him. Ilton started hitting the witness with his fists and later kicked and chased him to (what appears to have been) Cedar House, where the witness took refuge in an office whilst two members of the care staff restrained Ilton. The witness said that he still had a scar on his lip from the attack and at the time had bruises on his back, legs and hands as well as blood on his face. Ilton had gone berserk and the witness never attended his class again. Another witness spoke of Ilton going mad with him because of something he had done in the classroom (in a portakabin): the witness tried to get out but he just remembers being on the floor and being unable to breathe because he was being throttled until Green pulled Ilton off. A third witness described a prolonged attack on him which began with Ilton pulling the witness' scarf around his throat tightly and ended up with him having a swollen jaw and loosened teeth.

  10.98  Ilton, in his evidence to the Tribunal, denied all these allegations. Rather remarkably, he described his period at Bryn Estyn as marvellously happy and he had no criticism of any member of the staff there. Bullying was not prevalent. He regarded himself as very even tempered but he had the reputation of being a strict disciplinarian and he did not doubt that he had had confrontations with a lot of boys. It was not his practice to slap boys but he had slapped two in the face, one at Bryn Estyn and one at Bersham Hall, because both had been hysterical at the time. He distinguished "clipping" from slapping and accepted that he had clipped boys on occasions. More revealingly he said, "The boys at Bryn Estyn had been sent by the Court, they were anti- authoritarian, anti-school, disaffected, amoral". He could not recall any children being sent to Bryn Estyn who had not committed criminal offences and he regarded all of them as problem children sent by the courts; but he could not remember any of the boys being deeply disturbed emotionally.

  10.99  It would be wrong to be too harsh in criticising John Ilton bearing in mind his lack of prior training in dealing with children with special needs and the absence of firm guidance and supervision at Bryn Estyn itself. Moreover, we do not discount his positive contribution in, for example, playing an active role in accompanying residents during the week and at week-ends on outside trips that they enjoyed. Ilton did, however, contribute significantly, by his lack of self-control, to the damaging effect for many of incarceration at Bryn Estyn. We must infer also that some educational opportunities were missed for boys about to emerge from care because of his narrow, disciplinarian approach to his duties and his generalised assessment of the boys in his care.

  10.100  David Cheesbrough has already been referred to as a member of the care staff until February 1978 and as an active member of the rugby set[118], who recruited some of them to Bryn Estyn. When playing for Wrexham he was scrum half in the 1st XV. In his case too we have read impressive evidence of his general good character and, in particular, his notable work for rugby in North Wales and as a teacher since he left Bryn Estyn. There has been favourable evidence also about him at Bryn Estyn. Various former residents said of him, for example, "He treated me well", "I got on really well with him. He was a fair chap" and (from one complainant about him) "He was one of the fairer teachers there"; and a teacher, who left Bryn Estyn whilst Cheesbrough was still on the care staff, described him as "quiet, mild mannered and mild tempered".

  10.101  Nevertheless, we have heard some evidence of the use of manifestly excessive force on occasions by Cheesbrough and he was described by one complainant as "a big, violent bully". Furthermore, Matthews told the police in a statement that Cheesbrough (unlike Ilton) had a short fuse: "he would go all red and I would worry that he might have a heart attack", although he (Matthews) had no knowledge of Cheesbrough assaulting anyone. Matthews' office was next to the latter's classroom and he said in his oral evidence that Cheesbrough would lose his temper about twice a week: he would hear Cheesbrough shouting. But Cheesbrough himself said that he would lose his temper in "a controlled manner". To complicate the picture further, it appears that there was a period in the early 1980s when Cheesbrough and Ilton taught together in a team teaching experiment until the decline in numbers rendered the scheme unviable. In this experiment two classes, totalling between 16 and 20 boys, were combined under two teachers; one of the latter would teach and the other would go round the pupils helping with problems. Thus, both Ilton and Cheesbrough were involved in some of the incidents about which complaint is made.

  10.102  In all we are aware of eight residents who complained in their statements of physical abuse by Cheesbrough, of whom four gave oral evidence to the Tribunal and the evidence of one, now deceased, was read. Two other witnesses made complaints about him that were not in their statements. The most specific of all the allegations related to an incident on 19 April 1983, which, unusually, was dealt with quite fully in contemporary documents.

  10.103  The complainant (Z) in respect of this incident was then a youth aged 16 years, who had been admitted to Bryn Estyn on remand in October 1982 and whose stay was ultimately prolonged until 26 May 1983, when he was sentenced to a period of 63 days in a detention centre. The incident on 19 April 1983 occurred at about 1.30 pm and his signed account an hour later was as follows:

"I was walking down by a surgery door, before I got their" (sic) "I saw a member of staff and called her a nickname known to the boys. Which she either took no notice of or didn't hear me; but Mr Cheesbrough did. He then came towards me and grabbed me by the neck of me and started to throw me around the corridors. I banged my head on the surgery door knob and on one of the pillars. He then grabbed me and threw me on to the baskets which started to slide back and then I fell down the two sides, he then threw me to the right hand side of the corridor, then Mr Arnold came along, and Mr Cheesbrough walked on taking his group to the gym. I went into surgery after I felt a bit better and Mr Arnold put some ice and cream on my head and neck. Then the doctor had a look and took my blood-pressure."

  10.104  It appears that this statement was written by Z at the invitation of John Rayfield, the senior housemaster of the unit in which Z was placed, who acted on Arnold's instructions. Rayfield reported that Z did not wish to make an official complaint: Z was happy that the Director of Social Services and Arnold would receive his and Arnold's written statements. Z was seen the next day by Len Stritch and was reported to have stressed that he did not wish to make a complaint. In his oral evidence to the Tribunal Z confirmed the accuracy of his written account, subject to the qualification that he did not think that Arnold had come on the scene. Z said that Arnold was always in his office and that Z did not remember seeing him until the following day in that office. Z did add in his oral evidence that Cheesbrough's ring or a finger nail had caught him between the eyebrows, leaving a permanent mark, but this had happened as Cheesbrough had gone to grab him and was not the result of a deliberate punch.

  10.105  Despite the qualification by Z, we are sure that Arnold did come upon the scene. In his own statement dated 19 April 1983 Arnold said:

"I was walking down the corridor past the kitchens when I noticed a boy lying against the corridor wall. Preceding me were Mr Rutter and Mr Cheesbrough. Mr Rutter followed a group of boys who were going to the gym. I asked Mr Cheesbrough what had happened and he said there had been an upset I assumed this meant that some boys had had an argument and possibly a fight. I therefore instructed Mr Cheesbrough to carry on with his group of boys, and helped Z to his feet and into the Surgery. He did not appear very upset, but rather dizzy. I laid him on the Surgery couch and examined him, and found that there were some mild abrasions round his throat and that there was a perceptible lump behind his left ear over the mastoid area. I bathed his face and neck and applied a cold water compress to the lump . . . I asked Z what had happened and he told me that he had been walking down the corridor, had referred to Mr Cheesbrough by a nickname and that Mr Cheesbrough grabbed him and threw him around."

  10.106  It is clear that Arnold misunderstood what Z had said about the nickname, which was "sweaty Betty" and referred to a member of the domestic staff. Otherwise, Arnold's account appears to be reasonably accurate. The Bryn Estyn doctor was visiting that afternoon and made a note of his examination of Z, who was referred to him on Arnold's instructions. Dr Wilkinson examined Z at 1.45 pm and found a haematoma half an inch in diameter immediately behind Z's ear and contusions on his neck and round the whole of his neck consistent with firm pressure from a twisted T-shirt. There were similar contusions also on both axillae (armpits).

  10.107  Cheesbrough's own typed and signed account of the incident was forwarded to the Social Services Department a few days later, after he had consulted his union representative. That statement, which cannot fairly be summarised, read:

"Whilst taking a small group of boys to the Gym, some group members began shouting vulgar remarks when passing through an area attended by female domestic staff. The boys involved were reminded of where they were, reprimanded and asked to keep quiet. As the group made its way to the Gym one of the boys shouted a rather crude nickname at a particular member of the domestic staff.

Having just told the boys about their use of foul comments, I took the boy concerned, Z , to one side in order to give him a further reprimand. As I was doing this the boy continually tried to move away treating the whole episode as a huge joke. In order to make the boy realise that I was serious and since Z persisted in moving away, I was forced to try and make him stand still and accept my reprimand. I was forced to grab at his sweatshirt in order to keep him in the vicinity of the incident. The ensuing pulling and tugging as the boy tried to avoid a severe verbal reprimand resulted in Z's sweatshirt neck being pulled up and over his head. As the boy was obviously taking little notice and I could see some damage was being done to the boy's sweatshirt, I released my grip on it.

As I turned to retrieve a ball I had been carrying, Z deliberately overthrew a kitchen trolley, knocking two wheels off it. When told to replace the wheels, he point blankly refused with a mouthful of verbal abuse directly outside an office used by female personnel. For the third time in a matter of minutes I reminded him of his use of language and repeated that I wanted the trolley picking up and the wheels replacing. Z was ranting on about his rights and what I could and could not make him do, affirming that the only way to make him do as he was told was to hit him.

I pushed Z away from me against a pile of potatoes from which he rolled off and onto the floor. I then pulled him up from the floor and restrained the boy who was now acting hysterically and continually shouting abuse at me. As I continued to restrain him, Z threw himself onto the floor and remained there motionless. Suspecting the boy may have been feigning injury I pulled Z from the floor and placed him on a laundry basket in order to look him over. Within seconds Z rolled off the basket and back onto the floor.

At this point I noticed Mr Rutter standing by, he asked if I needed any assistance with the supervision of the rest of my group, having said 'Yes' I accompanied Mr Rutter to the back door in order to inform him who the rest of the group were. As I returned to attend to Z I met Mr Arnold who asked me what had happened, I told him there had been an upset, Mr Arnold went over to Z telling me he would take charge of the situation and said it was all right for me to join the rest of the group.

At the end of my supervision period I made a point of going to see Mr Arnold to find out what had ensued. He told me that Z had been examined by a Doctor and had abrasions around his neck and a bump on his head. He then told me that Z was now making a statement with Mr Rayfield and that he would give me a copy along with a copy of his own report later that afternoon. With that I returned to my class.

I tried to reprimand Z for his persistent anti-social behaviour and despite being severely provoked I did not throughout the incident hit Z with my fist or inflict actual bodily harm.

N.B. Earlier that day in a P.E. lesson in the gym, Z severely banged his head directly behind his left ear on a door jamb made of concrete, whilst trying to stop a goal. The boy seemed quite shaken and needed a few minutes rest before he could carry on with a lighter activity."

  10.108  In his oral evidence to the Tribunal Z described Cheesbrough's explanation of what had occurred as "rubbish". He denied throwing a trolley or knocking wheels off it and repudiated the suggestion that the bump on his head was due to an accident in the gymnasium. Z said also that he had not wanted to make a complaint because Cheesbrough had to teach him. He added "I would like to state he didn't speak to me for about three days after that incident and I ended up apologising to him. I was stupid you know. I felt I had done something wrong".

  10.109  Rutter's statement about the incident, made on 27 April 1983, did not throw any real light on the conflicting accounts because he merely said "As I approached I saw Z roll on to the floor". Len Stritch, however, made a statement that he had interviewed Z on 20 April 1983 "about the incident he had during P E on Tuesday morning 19 April 1983". Stritch said that Z had confirmed that he had knocked his head on the corner of the wall but had claimed that it was not the same bump that he had received later. Z had gone on to say that he had two lumps on his head. Stritch added that he had examined Z's head and had found it difficult to define two lumps behind his ear but had not pursued the matter because he knew that the doctor had examined Z after lunch the day before.

  10.110  On the evidence about this incident itself and evidence that we have heard about a small number of other incidents at Bryn Estyn, we have very grave misgivings about the way in which the suggestion that Z had sustained a bump on his head during P E in the morning of 19 April 1983 emerged. Moreover, our misgivings are not allayed by examination of the daily log in which a senior RCCO had made a later entry referring to a bump in the gym, which followed a note by the Matron on her examination of the boy, which made no reference to the gym. The upshot of the matter was that Geoffrey Wyatt interviewed Cheesbrough in the presence of Arnold on 9 May 1983 at Bryn Estyn. According to Wyatt's belated file note of this interview, he thanked Cheesbrough for his report and informed him that Wyatt accepted his explanation of the events and that "the matter was now closed".

  10.111  Whilst we are fully aware of the difficulty of reaching firm conclusions about specific incidents that occurred many years ago, this is one instance in which we are able to do so. We are satisfied that Cheesbrough did react excessively to Z's insolence and that he seized Z and threw him around with the result that he sustained the injuries that the doctor noted. Moreover, there followed an attempt to cover the matter up with Arnold's complicity: the alleged bump in the gymnasium was much too convenient a coincidence and ought not to have been accepted by Wyatt without further reference to Z. In any event the nature of Cheesbrough's reaction had been such that, at the very least, a formal warning should have been given to him and appropriate guidance for the future.

  10.112  The other allegations against Cheesbrough that we heard in evidence were much more general. Thus, one witness said that he had been punched, kicked and sworn at by Cheesbrough and others and that Cheesbrough and Ilton had once grabbed him by the arms and kicked him on either side of the chest but another witness, who alleged similar conduct by the two men towards him, said that it was only done in play and that he was never hurt. Moreover, the former witness said of Cheesbrough generally that "he was alright in the main but he could be heavy handed". Finally, a third witness said of him "He wasn't a bad guy. I was hit and kicked by him. Nothing drastic" and the deceased witness told of being chased by Cheesbrough with a cricket bat but described the incident as "horseplay".

  10.113  These allegations do not provide the basis for a finding that Cheesbrough was guilty of deliberate or habitual physical abuse of residents at Bryn Estyn. He was young, large, fit and strong and we have no doubt that he was heavy handed from time to time. He was also, in our judgment, prone to losing his temper from time to time, on which occasions his reactions to misbehaviour tended to be excessive but these failings could and should have been eradicated by firm and sensible leadership; and we are not aware of any similar complaints against him after he left Bryn Estyn.

  10.114  Maurice Matthews was a somewhat remote figure in the eyes of most residents at Bryn Estyn. His model railway hobby earned him the nickname "Choochoo". He spent much of his time in his office and taught only occasionally residents with special needs. At first he did all the educational assessments but Gwen Hurst took over some of this work and later it was done by individual teachers. It must be remembered also that between 1979 and 1982 he was taking the part-time CSS course[119]. He applied for another post in Nottinghamshire in 1980 and Arnold wrote of him then (on 19 May 1980):

"Mr Matthews has suffered somewhat at Bryn Estyn in that there are a number of very dominant and capable staff, both in care and education. This has made his task difficult, particularly in asserting his rightful position as Deputy Principal. His overall control of large groups of children, particularly when faced with a long spell of duty on his own, is not always of the highest, but he copes reasonably."

  10.115  We heard evidence of three main allegations of the use of force by Matthews to residents. To his credit, and in marked contrast to other witnesses, he admitted each of them. The allegation by the witness involved in the half brick incident with Norman Green[120] was that Matthews slapped him when Green reported the incident and told him to go to work in the kitchen. Matthews' own recollection of the matter appears to be patchy but he spoke in evidence of talking the matter through with the witness, who showed some remorse. Matthews admitted slapping boys on the head from time to time and that he did so on this occasion.

  10.116  Matthews admitted also grabbing another boy by the scruff of the neck in an incident that occurred on 7 November 1977, which was the subject of a report by Arnold to the Director of Social Services three days later. Arnold reported the matter because the incident had been observed by Clwyd County Council workmen and he thought that they might make a complaint about what they had seen. It is unnecessary to go into great detail about what happened. The boy involved, now deceased, whose statements to the police made in December 1992 were read to us, was a Howarth victim and did not mention Matthews. However, according to Arnold, the boy was upset about having to change from one teacher to another in the mid-morning and he became abusive and threatening, with the result that Matthews, in his office, heard the noise. When Matthews went out to investigate the boy started to run away towards the playing fields, whereupon Matthews "caught hold of his jersey to restrain and the boy voluntarily collapsed on to the ground, continuing to threaten and shout. Matthews restrained him, though in the ensuing scuffle he would be uncertain as to how he held or controlled the boy . . . As far as the boy and Matthews were concerned the incident rests there". In his evidence, however, Matthews accepted that his conduct had been "plainly over the top".

  10.117  The third incident occurred much later and was also the subject of a report by Arnold to the Director of Social Services, by now, (Daniel) Gledwyn Jones, which was dated 6 December 1983. A former resident of Bryn Estyn who witnessed the incident told the Tribunal that a boy called Matthews "Chooch" at tea-time as he entered the dining room through the double doors. Matthews then went straight to the boy, who was sitting at a table, and punched him four or five times directly in the face. The witness alleged also that Matthews brought the boy's head down on to his knee and then pushed the boy back in the chair. Arnold, however, wrote of "some sort of physical confrontation with Mr Matthews". The matter had been reported first by Howarth, who had come across the boy wandering over the playing fields to cool off. He was subsequently interviewed by Rayfield and alleged that Matthews had "banged his nose" but had said that he had no grudge against Matthews and that he did not wish to make any complaint against him. Arnold's recommendation to the Director of Social Services was that the matter should be left lying with no blame attached to either party and that recommendation was accepted ten days' later.

  10.118  We did not have the benefit of any evidence from the victim himself but Matthews admitted in his oral evidence that he had lost his temper, grabbed the boy and pulled him away from a table. He admitted also causing the boy's nose to bleed because it had hit a chair (in some unexplained way). It was put to him that he had committed an assault on the boy and that his behaviour amounted to "an excessive use of force" and he accepted both propositions.

  10.119  The only other complaints against Matthews before us are (a) by a deceased former resident that he was "laid into" and punched all over by Matthews after breaking into the latter's classroom in order to get petrol to sniff and being found in the classroom doing so and (b) by another former resident, who was unwilling to give oral evidence, that Matthews was one of several members of staff who had punched or kicked him in unspecified circumstances. Matthews denies (a), however, and has no clear recollection of the complainant in (b) so that neither of the allegations can be regarded as proved.

  10.120  We do not think that it would be right to characterise Matthews as an abuser of children on the basis of the three isolated incidents and in which it has been proved to our satisfaction that he used unjustified force. However, the fact that he felt able to do so when holding a very senior position at Bryn Estyn is a serious reflection on the general climate of the home. It supports the view that there was a grave lack of direction from the top and a regrettable lack of self discipline at times by some members of the staff.

The night care staff

  10.121  We are aware of 15 former residents of Bryn Estyn who have complained of the activities of one or other member of the night staff at Bryn Estyn, who seemed to be largely a law unto themselves, working as they did alone, subject only to intervention by Howarth, if he was called upon. The evidence before us about the arrangements for the night care officers has been patchy but it appears that one only would be on duty at any one time. The night shift would usually last from 8 pm to 8 am and each night care officer was expected to work three shifts per week. Other care staff would go off duty at 10.30 pm and would not be on duty until 7 am or 7.30 am so that there was a long period each night when the night care officer was on duty alone.

  10.122  The two night care officers employed at Bryn Estyn for most of the period under review were Arthur Stanley (Stan) Fletcher and Thomas (Tom) George Davies. However, a third man, John Ellis Cunningham, who had been employed as a temporary RCCO at Bryn Estyn from 13 June 1983 to 31 January 1984, was re-employed there as a night care officer from 22 March to 30 June 1984, due to absences of the other two on sick leave; and he then remained as an RCCO until 15 September 1984.

  10.123  We have comparatively little information about Stan Fletcher because he died on 24 December 1992. He was thought by some residents to have been a policeman formerly and he was employed as a night care officer at Bryn Estyn from 22 April 1974 to 30 September 1984 but it seems that he was probably absent because of sickness for about the last six months of this period. Only three of the witnesses who gave oral evidence to us made complaint about Fletcher. The earliest in time, who was at Bryn Estyn for 20 months from September 1977, said that Fletcher "would not think twice about hitting you" and complained of being hit with Fletcher's torch and punched when caught by him with another boy in the foodstore. The second and third, who were contemporaries at Bryn Estyn about four years later, also complained of Fletcher's use of force. One said that he would "give you the torch over your head" and the other said that he was given "a good hiding" by Fletcher on returning after running away. The latter witness said that he could not avoid Fletcher because Fletcher opened the door for him and, as the witness got upstairs, Fletcher hit him all over the face and head with fist and open hand. We do not know, however, what Fletcher would have said about these allegations, except that we do know that he told the police in March 1992 that during the whole of his ten year period at Bryn Estyn he had never once taken part in nor witnessed any acts of violence upon any of the boys at the home.

  10.124  Tom Davies was employed as a night care officer from 21 December 1976 to 25 October 1985 but was absent sick from 10 June 1984 continuously until his contract was terminated (he was awarded a life disablement gratuity by the DHSS from 22 September 1985 on the basis of 5% loss of faculty). The volume of complaints about Davies is greater than in respect of Fletcher but Davies in turn alleged that he himself was the victim of serious assaults by the residents[121]. In particular, he described a serious assault upon him by a deceased witness, including head-butting, on 9 June 1984, which (he says) was the direct and immediate cause of his inability to work and permanent disablement.

  10.125  Tom Davies was taken on initially as a temporary relief night care officer, after being interviewed by Howarth and Nefyn Dodd, and his appointment was made permanent from 31 August 1978. When he started the work he was nearly 47 years old and he had had varied experience as a regular army corporal in the King's Royal Hussars followed by 23 years as a fitter for an aircraft company; but he had no experience of dealing with children in care. Tiresomely, he regards himself as something of "a card" and this does not help assessment of his credibility. He described himself, for example, as the "George Best of the competition in the angling world" and as "God on The Flash" and he said of his first night on duty at Bryn Estyn "All I could see was 54 Clint Eastwoods looking at me". Davies' manner may be a reason, at least in part, why two witnesses described him as a "nutter".

10.126  Davies' duties from 8 pm to 10 pm appear to have been rather ill-defined but 10 pm was bed-time and the residents were expected to settle down by 10.30 pm. They could go to their dormitories from 8 pm but Davies would on occasions play football with them. At 9 pm they were expected to change into pyjamas and were required to hand in their cigarettes and tobacco. Davies regarded it as one of his duties to prevent "kangaroo courts" being held in this period as a prelude to bullying but his principal and later duty was the counting of heads to ensure, as far as possible, that no one was missing. For this purpose he had to tour many dormitories, looking at each bed and ensuring that there really was a boy in it, unless his absence was for a known reason such as inclusion on Howarth's "flat list"[122].

  10.127  It is in connection with Davies' counting of heads and his later duty to ensure that silence reigned that many of the complaints about him have been made. We are aware that there were 12 complainants about him of whom six gave oral evidence before us and the statements of two were read; and six of these referred to Davies hitting them, or seeing him hit others, with a torch. Davies himself denied these allegations, saying that a victim would be decapitated if struck with the torch that he carried, which had a 12 volt battery and a handle and torch front, "which drops on to the battery" and is then screwed in place.

  10.128  The torch complaint is not one of the more serious complaints before us but it has been made repetitively against Davies and has been mentioned also against the two other night care officers, most seriously against Cunningham. We are satisfied that, in Davies' case, he did not wield it with the intention of causing any injury but we do accept that he used it, unwisely and misguidedly, to cause some pain in the course of his rounds, when he saw fit to do so. We reject the suggestion that this evidence has been manufactured by witnesses acting in collusion. In our view the strong probability is that Davies used the torch as the weapon in his hand to cause minor pain, usually in the victim's back. This was a means of reprisal to make a boy feigning sleep realise that his minor misdeed was known; and, on other occasions, the torch was used in rather foolish "horseplay", as one witness described it, or as a prank. It was said, for example, that he would crawl into the dormitory at night, thinking he was a commando.

  10.129  We have heard more serious allegations against Davies to the effect that he punched one boy in the face three times, knocking the boy unconscious, and that he had no fear at all of "punching lads in the face, nose, whatever". It was alleged also by two of the witnesses that Davies was frequently drunk on duty, one describing him as an alcoholic and alleging that he had put a fire hose in the witness' bed. On the other hand, Davies described serious attacks that he himself had experienced. He said that he had been threatened by a boy with a knife during his first week at Bryn Estyn. He was convinced that on another occasion a boy had attempted to poison him. Most seriously, in the early hours of 9 June 1984 he had been subjected to a vicious series of assaults by a now deceased complainant, involving head butts and punches with both hands to his face with the result that he himself was unable to work for at least 16 months[123]. Davies also denied the allegations that he himself had used violence to residents of Bryn Estyn and that he had been drunk on duty. He said that he was not a drinking man: he limited himself to two pints of mild beer when he did have a drink. Several members of staff gave evidence that Davies never came on duty drunk and some former residents also spoke well of him in their evidence, saying that they had never seen him assault anyone. Finally, even the witness who alleged that Davies had knocked him out described him as "a good bloke".

  10.130  We have not been able to find any contemporary documents that throw light on these allegations and counter-allegations but it is clear that Tom Davies did cease work on 9 June 1984 in the general circumstances that he alleges. The account of that incident given by his alleged assailant to the police on 8 January 1993 was as follows:

"Basically Tom Davies was alright but there was one occasion when I had a fight with him. This was when one evening we had gone to bed or at least were in our dormitories when he had gone off on his rounds and for his cup of tea. At the time I was in the dormitories known as Caradog. Since Tom Davies had gone off myself and the other boys had barricaded ourselves in our dormitory and had taken the handle off the front of the door so that he wouldn't be able to come in. When he eventually came back to our dormitory he couldn't get in but we subsequently allowed him in. The door was opened from the inside and because I was the nearest one to him he just picked on me and punched me to the head and face causing me to have slight bruising to my left eye and a cut to my nose. These injuries caused me some pain. I hit him back and I think he also had a bruised eye and a split lip. After this had happened he took me to the night office and we both got cleaned up and had a cup of tea when he just spoke to me as if nothing had happened. I am almost sure that Tom Davies would have entered this incident in the Daily Log Book. At this time I would have been about 15/16 years of age and it was about two weeks before I left Bryn Estyn . . . I cannot recall any occasion when Tom Davies would hit any of us with his torch."

10.131  That witness now deceased left Bryn Estyn on 12 June 1984 after being there for three and three quarter years continuously. In an earlier statement to the police, made on 14 April 1992, he had referred to seeing Davies in a corridor on another occasion when Davies was bleeding from the nose and mouth and there was blood running down the front of his clothing. It seems to be likely that this was immediately after the incident in which Davies is alleged to have punched a boy three times in the face and the suggested inference is that the boy had reacted by attacking Davies.

  10.132  Our overall conclusion about Davies is that, over the relevant period of seven and a half years, he probably did succeed in establishing a reasonable working relationship with most of the residents in his care at night. He had no training, however, in how to deal with the more rebellious boys, of whom there were a significant number, and it was virtually inevitable that he should become involved in confrontations with them from time to time. Without a close supervisor to guide him it is not surprising that he became involved in some fights and that he was sometimes worsted by the older and fitter boys. The reality of the matter is that he should never have been employed as a night care officer in the circumstances that prevailed at Bryn Estyn. As it was, he used physical force inappropriately from time to time. Most of these violent incidents would have been avoided by an experienced, trained man but we do not underestimate the difficulties of his job.

  10.133  John Cunningham was 35 years old when he first became a temporary houseparent at Bersham Hall in September 1981, after nearly 20 years' experience in heavy industry and a short period as a child supervisor at a Liverpool Education Committee boarding school near Mold. He served in all for about 21 months at Bersham Hall on successive short term contracts and then at Bryn Estyn from 13 June 1983 on a similar basis until 15 September 1984. As we have said earlier, he performed the duties of night care officer from 22 March to 30 June 1984, following a break from 31 January 1984 in his employment, and after his spell as night care officer he reverted to the work of an RCCO at Bryn Estyn. In the following years he was employed in varying grades as an RCCO at Chevet Hey, South Meadow and then Cartrefle until about September 1991.

  10.134  Two complaints were made about Cunningham at Bryn Estyn and the first, by one of the deceased complainants, was about an incident in the early autumn of 1983, before he took over night care duties. In short, the complainant (X) and others were taken by Rayfield and Cunningham on a trip to Blackpool, where X and another obtained a tin of glue to sniff. They sniffed the glue at the pier and continued to do so when they rejoined the bus. When told by Rayfield to get rid of the tin, X said that he would do so in a minute, whereupon Cunningham told Rayfield to pull off the main street and stop the bus in a minor road. Cunningham then went to the back of the bus, opened the door, grabbed the complainant by the neck and head-butted him in the face, causing his nose to bleed. His fellow glue-sniffer, who admitted being extremely difficult at Bryn Estyn, confirmed this incident in his oral evidence but Cunningham denied assaulting X. His account of the matter was that X had been kicked out of the minibus by the other boys in order to prevent Cunningham getting at the glue. Rayfield told the police in April/May 1992 that he had no recollection of this incident but he identified an entry in the main school log dated 23 October 1983, which fixes the date of the incident but does not throw any light on it.

  10.135  The other complainant (Y) gave oral evidence of an assault by Cunningham on 30 April 1984, about which we heard and read a great deal of evidence. Y (who had recently returned to Bryn Estyn) said that it was the first night that he had actually seen Cunningham, who came into the dormitory and charged him, grabbing hold of him and "whacking" him on the bridge of the nose, which started bleeding. Y picked up a butter knife and "stabbed" Cunningham twice but it just bounced off his belly.

  10.136  This assault was witnessed by at least three other boys whose evidence was put before us. One, who gave oral evidence, said that Cunningham hit Y in the face with a torch and also saw him fighting with Y on the landing outside the dormitory. Another, whose evidence was read, also alleged that Cunningham hit Y in the face with a torch and that "his nose exploded, there was blood everywhere", whilst the third, whose evidence also was read, said that Cunningham punched Y in the face and that his nose was bleeding.

  10.137  It is relevant to mention that this incident, which occurred at about 10.30 pm, followed a series of incidents the previous night and through the day in all of which Y was involved and "playing up". They included an incident involving Liz Evans when Y wanted to go upstairs, which has been referred to earlier[124]. Cunningham's own account of what happened at about 10.30 pm, as given in an undated statement made shortly afterwards, was that he had gone into the working boys' dormitory to check that they were all present. As he left he was abused verbally by Y, who came towards him with clenched fists and a glazed look in his eyes. Cunningham pushed Y back onto his bed, Cunningham having his torch in his right hand and a rolled newspaper in the other. He then left the dormitory and made his way onto the landing, closing the firedoor and dragging a chair to a position at which he intended to sit. He next heard the fire door open and saw Y advancing and shouting abuse, with a shelf board and a coat hanger, which Y threw at him. Cunningham managed to dodge these objects but Y picked up the shelf and tried to ram him with it, all the while mouthing abuse. Cunningham grappled with him to "physically restrain him" but Y's force as he lunged at Cunningham caused Y to go to the floor with his head between Cunningham's knees and with Cunningham's arms around his waist, and Cunningham's chin in the small of his back. Another resident called for Y to restrain himself, whilst other boys urged Y to overcome Cunningham. Y then stopped struggling, Cunningham released him and they both stood up. Matthews, who had been on the scene, had the shelf