Website of the Department of Health

The regime from 1978 to 1980

  12.21  Bird's successor as Superintendent of Little Acton Assessment Centre was Michael Barnes, who had been in a senior position at Bersham Hall from September 1972 and who was asked to take over at Little Acton from 21 April 1978 in the difficult circumstances surrounding Bird's suspension from duty. He did so initially as Acting Officer-in-Charge until 31 December 1978, whilst remaining Officer-in-Charge of Bersham Hall. From 1 January 1979, however, he became Officer-in-Charge of Little Acton and gave up his Bersham Hall responsibility. He too had begun work in residential care at an approved school. That was at the age of 19 years in 1967, when he was appointed a houseparent. Thus, he was still only 24 years old when he went to Bersham Hall, having served at a reception centre and then a school for maladjusted children after the approved school. He had also obtained the CRCCYP at Portsmouth Polytechnic in 1972, together with the college's diploma in residential social work. At Bersham Hall he had progressed from Third-in-Charge to Deputy Superintendent in September 1973, on the resignation of Michael Taylor, and then to Officer-in-Charge from 15 February 1976 (in an acting capacity for the first three and a half months). When Little Acton closed in May 1980 Barnes returned to Bersham Hall as Centre Manager for seven years interrupted by a two year course at Keele University for the CQSW, which he gained with a university commendation in 1984. His subsequent career as Officer-in-Charge at Chevet Hey and then at higher levels is dealt with later in this report.

  12.22  Carl Evans' successor as Deputy Superintendent at Little Acton Assessment Centre was Christopher Ian Thomas, who also came from Bersham Hall. He was three years younger than Michael Barnes and had intended to become a teacher when he attended Bangor Normal College between 1970 and 1972 but had then changed direction in favour of social work. He was employed as a medical emergency driver and then as a trainee residential social worker at Ealing before becoming a supervisor at Bersham Hall in September 1974. He progressed to Acting Deputy Superintendent in April 1978, having obtained the CRCCYP at Salford College of Technology in December 1976 and his appointment as Deputy at Little Acton was from 1 February 1979 until it closed on 21 May 1980. Like Barnes, he then returned to Bersham Hall, becoming Deputy Officer-in-Charge and ultimately Centre Manager from 1 January 1988 to 22 March 1994, when he resigned. He had also been Acting Officer-in- Charge of Bersham Hall from 1 October 1982 to 31 July 1984 whilst Barnes was attending Keele University.

Complaints to the Tribunal

  12.23  We have not received any evidence of alleged abuse by Michael Barnes in the period from April 1978 to May 1980 or by Christopher Thomas between February 1979 and May 1980, that is, when they were respectively employed at Little Acton. In the case of Thomas we are not even aware that any such complaint was made about him as Deputy Officer-in-Charge there. As for Barnes, we do know that there were six complainants at one time or another but none have come forward to give oral evidence to the Tribunal or even to provide written statements. It must be said also that at least two of these complainants were not at Little Acton during the period when Barnes was there. Finally in relation to this period, we do not know of any allegation of abuse against any other identified member of the staff at Little Acton whilst Barnes was in charge.

  12.24  Having regard to the findings of the investigation team in 1978, it is perhaps surprising that we have not received more complaints than we have about the earlier "Bird" period from 1974 to early 1978. Our estimate is that there were about 275 admissions to Little Acton during that period but we are aware of only 15 residents who have made complaints against members of the staff and four of them were unable or unwilling to identify the member of staff concerned. The complaints by the other 11 involved only seven members of the staff and we received evidence from nine of these complainants. We have not been given full details of the intended staff establishment and there were difficulties in recruitment throughout. However, there were 13 care staff in post in December 1975 and three teachers in addition to a full complement of nine domestic staff and there were frequent staff changes thereafter. It follows that complaints have been made against only a small proportion of the total number of staff employed at Little Acton from time to time.

  12.25  We have already dealt with the major complaint against Leslie Wilson in respect of which he received a custodial sentence[173]. The only other allegation against him before us was made by a witness whose evidence was read because she is currently undergoing psychiatric treatment, allegedly because of her experiences at Little Acton in the summer of 1977. Her allegation was that Leslie Wilson actively condoned the actions of two fellow girl residents who ill-treated her when she returned after absconding. Wilson told her that she was going to get what she deserved and that there would be no point in complaining to the Officer-in-Charge; she was then dragged by the two girls to a bathroom, where she was forced to sit in cold water in her clothes, and subsequently had her shoulder length hair cut by the same girls in the presence of Wilson, who laughed.

  12.26  This last witness alleged also that she had been raped by another named member of the staff at Little Acton with the result that she had to have an abortion in a South Wales hospital later. This allegation was apparently first made 19 years later in a psychiatric unit but the police have been able to find a record of the abortion which was carried out at East Glamorgan Hospital on 29 December 1977. The medical evidence suggests that the conception occurred after the witness left Little Acton in August 1977 and it is to be noted that the witness made a statement for the North Wales Police in August 1992 to the effect that she had not been physically or sexually abused by any member of the staff at Little Acton. In these circumstances it is clear that this witness has not substantiated her allegations of rape satisfactorily and her evidence about other matters has to be approached with caution. We have received persuasive evidence from other witnesses, however, that bullying by residents was rife at Little Acton and that staff turned a blind eye to it. We accept, therefore, that bullying by residents was condoned by staff far too often, although it would be inappropriate to single out Leslie Wilson for blame in this respect.

Peter Bird

  12.27  Three complainants, each of whom gave oral evidence before us, alleged that they had suffered physical assaults on them by Peter Bird. The first of these, who was a ten year old boy at the time, in late 1974 and early 1975, said that he spent a lot of time in the "lock-up" because he kept running away. He recalled a specific incident when, after he had tried to "sneak out" of the unit, Bird behaved like a lunatic and slapped him across the face and all over the room. The other two complainants were girls who were both 14 years old when they were at Little Acton, the first in the Spring of 1976 and the second almost exactly two years later. The former alleged that residents would run upstairs after school to have a smoke in the bathroom. On a particular occasion when this happened, Bird picked her up and threw her into the bath with the result that she cracked her head and suffered bruising. Finally, the other girl complained of being falsely accused by Bird of stealing a purse (it was recovered later from an older boy) and of being made to search for it fruitlessly in the grounds whilst Bird watched her. On another occasion he lifted her by her hair with the result that her head was tender for a week and, at least twice, he flung himself against a door as she was going through a doorway after an argument, causing painful bruises.

  12.28  Bird himself denied these allegations and said that the semi-secure unit was only used for disciplinary purposes on three or four occasions: it was normally occupied by girls (who were mainly from South Wales) and a resident would not be locked in her room. There was no corporal punishment and he believed that was one of the standing orders of the County Council but he did not recall a memorandum to that effect circulated in June 1974. He said also that the girl questioned about the purse had insisted on searching for it and had found it. However, we are satisfied that these three complainants have not invented these allegations and that Bird did use violence of the kind that they have described on occasions. He believed in a strict regime and neither he nor the staff under him had any clear understanding that corporal punishment was prohibited or of the proper boundaries of restraint.

Huw Meurig Jones

  12.29  We heard perturbing complaints also about the conduct of Huw Meurig Jones from three witnesses. The former boy resident who alleged that he had been slapped across the face by Bird claimed also that a member of the staff called "Hugh" had made advances to him immediately after the Bird incident, when he was in "the secure unit" sitting on his bed. "Hugh" had kissed him on the neck and "tried to have sex" with him after removing his pyjamas. He had not succeeded but afterwards he had bathed the witness for no apparent reason. On another occasion the same man had driven the witness home and had tried to make the witness masturbate him in the car outside the house, threatening the boy that he would not go home again if he told anyone. The witness had not mentioned these allegations to the police in 1992 because he had not wanted to get involved. Another witness, who was at Little Acton about a year later described Jones as a "pure faggot" who used to walk around the units blowing kisses and nipping backsides. He said that Jones had frequented a cafe and public lavatories in King Street, Wrexham, "hanging around with all the kids" after the witness had left care.

  12.30  Counsel on behalf of Jones questioned the identification of him by the first of these witnesses because (a) he thought that "Hugh" was about 40 years old and (b) Jones was known as "Hughie/Huwie" or "Mr Jones" and not as "Hugh/Huw". We are not aware of any other member of the staff with the name Hugh/Huw at the time[174], however, and we are satisfied that the witness was referring to Huw Meurig Jones, who was in charge of the semi-secure unit in his capacity as Deputy Superintendent.

  12.31  Another witness who made a complaint about Jones, whom she referred to as the Deputy Superintendent, thought that he was in his late 40s. She described him as swarthy, with a big face and a beer belly and also losing his hair (a description largely confirmed by Peter Bird in cross-examination). This witness was 14 years old when she was at Box Lane from January to April 1996. She knew Jones as "Hughie" and she had discussed her position with him and another male member of the staff when she thought that she might have become pregnant as a result of sexual intercourse with boys in the open unit in which she was then housed. In consequence, she was transferred to the semi-secure unit, which was occupied by girls only. Her complaint against Jones was that, after an occasion when she had absconded with another girl and they had been returned to Little Acton by the police, they were taken into an office by Jones with another man and Jones shouted that they were going to be made to pay for what they had done. Jones then pushed her against a large central heating pipe and punched her heavily in the stomach. The other girl was then taken down by the two men to the recreation room and was seen by the witness the following day to have "one or two black eyes" and bruises.

  12.32  When he gave evidence to the Tribunal, Huw Meurig Jones denied all these allegations but he was an unimpressive and uninformative witness. It must be stressed that the only allegation of physical abuse made against him of which we are aware is that summarised in the preceding paragraph and we are unable to make any confident finding about it at this distance of time in the absence of any corroboration. The perturbing aspect of Jones' case is the history of sexual complaints against him in the period of his employment in residential care and then as a social worker in Clwyd.

  12.33  Jones' history during this period between 1 February 1972 and his resignation on 29 July 1981 has already been summarised briefly in paragraph 12.03. He was first suspended on 19 December 1980 in connection with sexual allegations made by two former Bryn Estyn residents (one of whom is now dead); and he was suspended for a second time on 12 June 1981 in connection with a police investigation of sexual complaints by another former Bryn Estyn resident. In respect of both investigations files were submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions and we have been told that charges were preferred in respect of the second investigation, but in neither case was a prosecution pursued (findings of not guilty were recorded in the Wrexham Magistrates' Court in respect of the latter). A further complaint of sexual abuse by Jones was made in evidence to us by a fourth former Bryn Estyn resident[175]. It is apparent also that Jones was interviewed very extensively by police officers in the course of the major police investigation in 1992 about at least one additional sexual complaint.

  12.34  It is obvious that we are unable to make findings in relation to police investigations in respect of which we have not heard the primary evidence; and we do not consider that it would be justifiable to make adverse findings against Jones on the two sexual complaints that have been made before us, coupled with the more general evidence of a third witness. These complaints were made very belatedly, about 20 years after the event, and there is no corroboration in law of either of them. Nevertheless, having studied the full record of Jones' interviews with the police in 1992 and heard his own evidence, we are fully satisfied that he is not a suitable person to be employed in residential care or more generally in social service work involving children. We have reached that conclusion having regard to his admissions about his own sexual orientation, his associations, particularly during the period when he was at Cartrefle College and later when taking a "skills course", and his activities generally outside working hours. In our judgment it would be impossible for the public, with knowledge of the facts, to have the degree of confidence in his judgment and probity that is essential for employment in social work involving the care of children.

  12.35  It has been important for us to face this issue because, despite his resignation in July 1981, Jones was subsequently involved in residential care work, although he was not given any helpful reference by Clwyd County Council. He was unemployed for substantial periods following his resignation but he did serve briefly as Deputy Officer-in-Charge of a private holiday home in Talacre and then for some months as senior care officer at Clwyd Hall School[176]. There followed an appointment as head of care for about two years at a private school in Powys until it closed down. Since then Jones has been employed in quite different work in the London area but he did apply unsuccessfully for an appointment as Officer-in-Charge of Chevet Hey Children's Centre in November 1986 when, according to the particulars that he supplied, he was still employed at the private school in Powys.

Carl Evans

  12.36  We have already referred in paragraph 12.12 to the allegations by fellow members of the staff about Evans' allegedly inappropriate behaviour towards girl adolescents who were resident at Little Acton. Major complaints were that he spent long periods of time alone with some girls (when he claimed to be "counselling" them) and that there was excessive physical contact between him and some of the girls. It was alleged, for example, that he had spent the whole evening at a Christmas party in 1977 dancing closely with one girl. That girl (R) subsequently made an allegation on 8 January 1978 that Evans had had sexual intercourse with her at Little Acton during the Christmas period. When interviewed by two members of the staff on 9 January 1978 R wrote a letter withdrawing the complaint but later in the afternoon she told a member of the staff that the complaint was true and it was referred to the police. This was the police investigation referred to in paragraph 12.13, which led to Evans' suspension from duty from 13 January 1978. On 20 March 1978 the Chief Superintendent of the North Wales Police wrote to the Director of Social Services informing him that the Director of Public Prosecutions had advised that no Court action should be taken but Evans' suspension continued to 9 October 1978 during and after the inquiry by the social services investigating team[177].

  12.37  The investigating team did formulate charges against Evans in respect of R on the basis that he had behaved unprofessionally towards her and, specifically, that his behaviour towards her at the disco party on 21 December 1977 had amounted to misconduct but no evidence in support of these charges was put forward at the disciplinary hearing and they were dismissed.

  12.38  R repeated her allegations against Evans in the course of the police investigation in 1992 and renewed them to the Tribunal in a written statement, which we have received in evidence. Evans, on the other hand, denied them when he gave oral evidence before us. There was some evidence, not now available, to suggest that R had been infatuated with Evans at the relevant time and two love letters that she had written to him were found in her room. Moreover, she was unwilling to give oral evidence to the Tribunal because of her present domestic responsibilities. There is no basis, therefore, on which we could properly find that her complaint to the Tribunal has been proved.

  12.39  We must, however, record our view that Carl Evans was very unsuitable for the responsibilities that he undertook as Deputy Superintendent of Little Acton Assessment Centre. His conduct in relation to other staff and discipline generally, coupled with his behaviour towards resident adolescent girls, demonstrated that he was temperamentally unfitted for the work; and he had no relevant experience in dealing with adolescent girls. He showed an alarming lack of judgment in many areas, most notably, by placing himself in a highly vulnerable position and it is not at all surprising that he became the target of allegations. In these circumstances we do not consider that he is a suitable person to be employed in the residential care of children.

Other members of staff

  12.40  Only two other identified members of the staff at Little Acton Assessment Centre were alleged, in the evidence before us, to have used physical (but not sexual) force to individual residents. One former girl resident, who described Little Acton as a "tense, pretty violent place", alleged that a male member of the care staff flew into a temper and assaulted her after she had spilt milk at breakfast but a general description of him was "aggressive but friendly" and "quite teasing, provocative, tormenting". The other complainant alleged that a woman houseparent, in the presence of Bird, singled him out as ringleader when he and others were "messing about" in their living unit: she dragged him into the bath room, swearing at him, and then pulled his hair, forcing him to the ground, whilst she slapped his face.

  12.41  Both the alleged perpetrators denied these assaults, as did Bird in respect of the latter and we have no satisfactory means of testing where the truth lies at this late stage. In any event we do not think that it would be appropriate, in general, to make findings against individual members of staff in respect of isolated complaints of this kind. The reality of the matter, in our judgment, is that Bird and those members of the staff who thought like him regarded the use of physical force, quite apart from restraint, as permissible and we accept that it was often used despite the County Council's prohibition of corporal punishment.

Other aspects of the regime at Little Acton Assessment Centre

The assessment process

  12.42  It seems clear on the evidence before us that Little Acton failed in its primary role as an assessment centre. The assessment process, such as it was, was carried out by largely untrained staff and the investigation team found in 1978 that it added little to the information already known about the individuals who were subjected to it. Moreover, the staff as a whole were insufficiently involved with the children to take full advantage of getting to know the children; and the centre suffered from lack of consultation with professionals with special skills, such as educational psychologists, psychiatrists etc.

  12.43  Another weakness of the system was that some children were left at Little Acton far too long. The period necessary for assessment was six to eight weeks and it was intended that residents would usually stay there no longer than ten to 12 weeks but there were frequent delays in making subsequent placements and the regime was not designed to cater for longer stays. There was too little effort to make the living units as homely as possible and children were likely to deteriorate if they were detained beyond the three months in such an institution.

  12.44  As we indicated in paragraph 12.01, it was originally envisaged that Little Acton would provide places for the assessment of 15 children attending daily as well as 15 residents but the demand for this facility proved to be far below expectations and there are very few references to daily attenders in the quarterly reports to the Management Committee. By 1978 the teaching staff had been reduced to two and a change of role from assessment centre to assessment/reception centre had been decided. This was reflected in a change of name to Little Acton Reception and Assessment Centre from about April 1978 onwards, shortly after Michael Barnes had become Acting Officer-in-Charge.

  12.45  This change of role, which may not have been implemented until about a year after the change of name, resulted in a significant rise in occupancy rates with the emphasis on reception. Thus, in the period from April to October 1979 there were only nine referrals for assessment (two of whom were originally admitted for reception) and 37 admissions on a reception basis; and over a longer period, approximately one third of the admissions were for assessment. The multi-purpose role intended for Little Acton by Barnes was not to be, however, and on 21 May 1980 it closed, following the transfer of its assessment functions to Bersham Hall for girls and to Bryn Estyn for boys[178].

Education at Little Acton Assessment Centre

  12.46  Educational facilities were of considerable importance at Little Acton, even though the intended duration of stay was short, and the teaching staff were expected to take part in the assessment process. The teaching function was particularly difficult for the staff because of the very varied levels of ability of the children admitted, some with long records of truancy, and the limited facilities and time available. The teaching staff did not participate in decisions about children admitted on a reception basis.

  12.47  Between 1974 and 1980 there were seven visits by Welsh Office SWSOs, all but one prior to October 1976. The summaries of these inspections before us are not very informative but the following points from them, with wider relevance than education only, are worth noting here:

(a)  On 13 February 1975 when SWSO Smith inspected on notice, Bird was absent. Smith noted that the centre had no access to an educational psychologist. He recommended that the SSD and LEA should co-ordinate on providing this service and also on support for teaching generally.

(b)  On 29 March 1976 Smith visited Little Acton with HMI Garrett. They were favourably impressed, in general, but questioned the wisdom of developing a post-assessment holding unit. They recommended training for the teaching staff but noted that the quality of work done in the classroom was "especially pleasing". Bird's attention was drawn to the need to support the teaching staff, the importance of adding "homely touches" in the children's bedrooms and the need to involve parents in the conferencing process.

(c)  On 26 September 1979 SWSO Myra Copleston found (amongst other things) that children could go for as long as six weeks after admission before being visited by a social worker. No information was available on additional measures of controlling residents. Admission documentation was often inadequate. Staffing levels in the educational unit were inadequate. Her conclusion was that "the experience of the first six months of operation as a reception unit suggests to me that a re-appraisal of various aspects of Clwyd's child care service is needed and that further thought needs to be given to the optimum use which can be made of the Centre's staff and facilities".

  12.48  We have not received any formal complaints about the quality of education at Little Acton, although several former residents, when asked in the course of their oral evidence about it, made critical comments to the effect that they had learnt nothing or had merely been given a book to read. The balance of the evidence before us, however, points to the conclusion that the teaching staff were dedicated in the work that they did with little support, no opportunities for special training and very limited facilities.

The semi-secure unit

  12.49  Little comment is necessary about this because it was neither designed nor intended to be used as a secure unit and we have commented earlier about the confusion arising from the use of the term "semi-secure"[179]. The unit at Little Acton was initially intended to house three girls on remand from the courts, but before Clwyd County Council assumed responsibility for Little Acton, it had been designated as an all-Wales regional facility for girls[180]. We have not received any complaints from former girl residents about its use as such. It appears that it was used mainly by South Wales counties to accommodate girls who were for the time being difficult to control but the unit was not locked. When it was not occupied by girls it was probably used on odd occasions to confine, for short periods, boy absconders or boys who were otherwise causing difficulty, but they have not complained that the use of the unit as such amounted to excessive restraint or physical abuse.

  12.50 It is clear, however, that the use of the two open units as mixed accommodation and the persistent difficulty in recruiting adequate night staff did give rise to problems of the kind indicated by the evidence of the witness referred to in paragraph 12.31.

Conclusions

  12.51  The brief and unfortunate history of Little Acton Assessment Centre underlines the paramount importance of the senior staff of community homes. If unsuitable officers are appointed, the consequences for resident children in their care are likely to be very grave. At Little Acton none of the persons initially selected for the senior posts had the necessary character, temperament, skills and experience to enable them to fulfil their responsibilities adequately and the quality of care between 1974 and 1978 was far below an acceptable standard. It is to the credit of Clwyd County Council that they appointed a team to investigate the home quite promptly when they became aware of some of the matters that were going wrong; and it is to be noted that two complaints of alleged sexual misconduct were referred to the police for investigation but the disciplinary proceedings that ensued in relation to Carl Evans were not concluded satisfactorily.

  12.52  The community home was conducted in a more satisfactory way in the last two years of its existence but the uncertainty about its future seriously weakened its effectiveness both as an assessment centre and a reception centre; and during this period neither the Welsh Office nor senior officials of the Social Services Department nor the Management Committee appears to have made any significant contribution to planning its future. It is regrettable that a purpose built institution with an important primary function should have remained in use so briefly and unsuccessfully.

Footnotes:

167   See paras 4.02(4) and 4.03.

168   See paras 4.12 to 4.13.

169   See para 2.07(2).

170   At paras 317 to 338 of the "Report of investigation into L.A.A.C. January to March 1978".

171   At para 339 of the "Report of investigation into L.A.A.C. January to March 1978".

172   At paras 340 to 356 and 365 of the "Report of investigation into L.A.A.C. January to March 1978".

173   See para 12.10

174   See, for example, Bird's report to the Management Committee in December 1975. Bird said in evidence that Little Acton Assessment Centre was not fully staffed until late 1975

175   It is one of those referred to in general terms in para 8.43.

176   See para 4.17

177   See para 12.14.

178   See paras 7.12, 13.02 and 13.09.

179   See para 11.23.

180   Extending (in area) the more limited use set out in para 4.02(2).