Department of Health

Website of the Department of Health

Please note that this website has a UK government access keys system.

Lost in Care

You are here:

Chapter 13: Bersham Hall, 1974 to 1993

13.01  Bersham Hall is a large red brick house set in just over an acre of land in a small village about one and a half miles from the centre of Wrexham, and, within its grounds, is a small three bedroom cottage with its own garden. It is believed that the house was occupied as a family residence until it was acquired by Denbighshire County Council with the intention of providing an observation and assessment centre for up to 12 boys to be used by the six North Wales counties (and Radnorshire) under the 1971 Regional Plan. It was to be a community home with education, described as a secure/semi-secure observation and assessment centre, and was to be available for use from August 1972.

13.02  It is convenient to consider the history of Bersham Hall in two distinct phases, namely, from 1974 to 1980 and from 1980 to 1993, because its function changed in 1980 and it closed for a short period at that time. It re-opened as an assessment and reception centre for up to 21 boys and girls, taking over many of the functions performed until then by Little Acton Assessment and Reception Centre. As we understand it, however, the assessment process was limited to girls[181]. At this time the cottage began to be used as an independent training facility for children of school leaving age. Education continued to be provided on the premises until 1990, by which time the majority of residents had been provided with school places locally. The teaching staff at Bersham Hall, however, were employed by Clwyd Social Services Department until 1987, when they were transferred to the Education Authority.

  13.03  The community home closed in September 1993 but it was re-opened the following year as a private (registered) children's home called Prospects, which we visited on 19 March 1997, when we met its co-director, Stephen Elliott.

The Observation and Assessment Centre, 1974 to 1980

  13.04  It seems that comparatively few alterations were carried out to Bersham Hall before it was opened as a community home in August 1972. In a report to the first meeting, on 10 December 1975, of the Management Committee established by Clwyd County Council for Bryn Estyn, Bersham Hall and Little Acton Assessment Centre it was stated that it was obvious that the washing and cooking facilities, cloakrooms, dormitories, dining and education facilities and staff rooms were all "much below" the required standard. Building work was, therefore, to begin in March 1976 with intended completion in September 1977, and would provide a new block containing dormitory and ancillary accommodation for 16 boys, a staff flat and a duty officer's flat and, on the ground floor, the Superintendent's office, a new dining room and kitchen and secure accommodation. The existing house was also to be adapted and up-graded to provide improved educational facilities, domestic facilities, a library and lounge, a conference room and additional staff and student accommodation.

  13.05  The remodelling of Bersham Hall was virtually complete by January 1978, apart from some outside work and the extended educational unit was opened in April 1978. It had been hoped that the secure unit would be put into operation then but, as in the case of Bryn Estyn, the official view was that the unit was never approved for actual use because the required staffing level was never achieved. The Officer-in-Charge, William Tunnah, reported to the Management Committee on 16 November 1979 that Welsh Office SWSO Smith, had visited the centre on 14 September 1979 and had approved the use of the unit "when the staffing levels are correct". However, the Secretary of State's approval was given by letter dated 26 September 1979 without any express mention of this condition[182]. The letter stated that the maximum number of residents to be accommodated in the unit at Bersham Hall was two.

  13.06  The reports to the Management Committee by successive officers-in-charge indicate that the need for the secure unit was felt by staff to be urgent because of the difficulty of dealing with some of the more disturbed residents. A report by the Teacher-in- Charge, John Morris, in January 1979, for example, showed that, of 27 boys admitted in the preceding five months, 19 were said to be maladjusted, ten psychotic/needing isolation, 20 violent or extremely disruptive and 22 had learning difficulties. The delay of nearly 18 months in completing the secure unit was due to physical defects or omissions in the work carried out. The 1979 Regional Plan envisaged 13 assessment places at Bersham Hall, including four secure places, available to the whole of Wales[183]. But there does not appear to have been any impetus after 1979 to provide the staff necessary to man the secure unit. The reference to accommodation for two residents in the Secretary of State's letter is also mystifying because our understanding is that the unit provided one secure room (in the sense of a cell) and three other rooms suitable for intensive care as planned originally. The subsequent use of the unit between 1980 and 1993 is dealt with later in this chapter[184].

  13.07  It was unfortunate that there were frequent changes of senior staff at Bersham Hall between 1974 and 1980. In that period there were no less than six different Officers-in-Charge successively and five Deputies. One Deputy was promoted to Officer-in-Charge and one Officer-in-Charge for a short period was then downgraded to Deputy so that there were nine senior officers in the period of six years. It is only necessary, however, to name three for the purpose of our narrative. Richard Ernest Leake was Officer-in-Charge when Clwyd County Council assumed responsibility on l April 1974 and had held that position from the opening of Bersham Hall in August 1972 but he departed in June 1974 to take an appointment with Care Concern[185]. Michael Barnes, who had been Third-in-Charge from September 1972 and then Deputy Officer-in-Charge from 1 August 1973, became Acting Officer-in-Charge for six months from June 1974, reverting to Deputy until he became Acting Officer- in-Charge again from 15 February 1976. He was made substantive Officer-in-Charge from 1 June 1976 and he remained in that post until the end of 1978 when he took over at Little Acton as previously related, having been responsible for both homes from 21 April 1978[186]. For the last 12 months of its existence as an assessment centre for boys the Officer-in-Charge of Bersham Hall was William (Bill) Tunnah, now deceased, who had served blamelessly on the care staff at Bryn Estyn for eight years and who had been intended to have immediate charge of the secure unit there.

  13.08  There is one other senior officer to whom reference must be made, namely, Michael Taylor, the predecessor as Deputy of Michael Barnes. He was Deputy Officer-in-Charge for ten months, from 26 September 1972 to 31 July 1973, before Clwyd County Council took over the home. He was nearly 31 years old when he was appointed and had been an Anglican Franciscan friar for four years before starting residential care work in 1965. Between 1965 and 1969 he had worked as a houseparent, latterly as a senior housefather in Warwickshire, before taking a two year course in residential care work at Enfield College of Technology. At the time of his appointment to Bersham Hall, he had been employed for just over a year as Deputy Superintendent of a reception centre for children in Islington and he received fulsome testimonials in respect of that work. He left Bersham Hall because he had been offered an appointment as a lecturer at South Cheshire Central College of further education but he stayed at Chevet Hey Children's Home for a short period until his college accommodation became available.

  13.09  Bersham Hall suffered from chronic staff shortages at lower levels throughout this period and the absence of staff on courses further complicated the picture. It is not possible, therefore, to give a realistic estimate of the number of staff, including temporary and part-time staff, who were involved in the care of the children between 1974 and 1980. Morris did, however, remain the Teacher-in-Charge of the education unit from 1 September 1975 until about the end of April 1980, when admissions to Bersham Hall ceased for a period and he transferred to the assessment unit within Bryn Estyn at Cedar House for a few months before being appointed Teacher-in-Charge of the Hawarden Educational Centre in July 1980. The establishment for the education unit appears to have been only one teacher throughout, despite persistent representations to Clwyd County Council and to the Regional Planning Committee; and Morris was refused permission to attend Cardiff University in order to qualify for a Master's degree. The pressure for an increase was exerted most forcefully when refurbished accommodation was opened for use in April 1978 but Morris was provided with only part-time help by firstly, Jane Pearce, now deceased, and then Jim West, who transferred from Bryn Estyn. Pearce went on to Cedar House, Bryn Estyn with Morris when Bersham Hall closed in 1980.

  13.10  We estimate that about 375 boys were admitted to Bersham Hall between April 1974 and the end of April 1980. This figure is based on the details supplied to the Management Committee for periods from 1 April 1975 to 31 January 1980. Admissions were at a higher rate up to about the spring of 1977 but building work intervened at about that time and the average occupancy dropped from the range of nine to 14 to six to eight thereafter, remaining fairly level at about nine in the final year. It was intended that children should stay as residents at the centre for only eight weeks but many stayed longer (one for as long as 174 days), usually because of difficulties in obtaining placements.

  13.11  Observation and Assessment Centres have to deal with a high turnover of children, many of whom are offenders referred by the courts following stressful proceedings whilst others are transferred from equally stressful home or care placements that have failed; and the actual observation and assessment processes involve psychiatric and other interviews and tests which may well put pressure on those undergoing them. Children at such centres are likely therefore to be both damaged and in an emotional state, uncertain about their future. Potentially explosive situations between such children and between children and staff are to be expected and there is a need for stricter rules and a more controlling regime than would be appropriate in other community homes. Nevertheless, SWSO Smith was able to record in his report of visits to Bersham Hall in April and May 1978, "The visit to Bersham gave a favourable impression of staff relationships and team work approach under good leadership".

  13.12  One of the weaknesses of Bersham Hall to which Morris drew attention was the lack of facilities for training adolescents who had already left school (in 1977/1978, 20% were in this category) and it does not appear that the cottage was utilised for this purpose before 1980[187]. Until late 1976 a majority of the children admitted were on remand to the courts but the proportion fell progressively and children who were the subject of care orders became equally prominent.

Complaints against members of the staff

  13.13  We are aware of 19 complainants who have made complaints of abuse suffered prior to May 1980 at Bersham Hall. However, seven of these referred only to incidents before Clwyd County Council came into existence and another referred partly to incidents in that earlier period.

Michael Taylor

  13.14  The main subject of these eight complaints was the conduct of Michael Taylor, the Deputy Officer-in-Charge from 26 September 1972 to 31 July 1973. There were three complainants who alleged sexual abuse by Taylor and all of them gave oral evidence before us. There was a complaint also by a former resident of Chevet Hey Children's Home that Taylor had indecently assaulted him when Taylor was staying there briefly in the summer of 1973 whilst waiting for his college accommodation to become available; and that witness too gave oral evidence before us. All the allegations were of indecent assaults, usually committed in the witness' bedroom, involving masturbation of the witness under the bedclothes and mutual masturbation, and often in circumstances in which Taylor was purporting to comfort the witness; and we are fully satisfied that the complaints are true.

  13.15  One of these witnesses was heard complaining about what Taylor had done by a member of staff at Bersham Hall, who reported the matter to the Officer-in-Charge, Richard Leake. The latter interviewed the boy but requested the Matron to be present, to the boy's embarrassment. In consequence, the boy did not disclose the full details of the assault and wrongly admitted lying to other boys about the extent of the assault. Taylor made a signed statement saying that he had merely tidied up the boy's disarranged bed clothes. Leake reported the matter by letter dated 2 July 1973 to the Director of Social Services for Denbighshire, Emlyn Evans, and stated that both he and the Matron were of the opinion that there was no substance in the allegations. However, the Principal Social Worker (Residential Services), R W Dixon, did interview Leake three days later and his subsequent memorandum of 10 July 1973 to the Senior Assistant Director (Residential Services) is revealing about the attitudes of both Leake and Dixon to the matter. The relevant parts read:

"Mr Leake was adamant from the outset of our discussion that the reason he conducted interviews with those concerned was to clear up any suspicions created by a conversation between boys, which was overheard by a member of staff, Mr J Blackman. Mr Leake stated that he did not consider the accusation being true even before he began his interview . . . and was convinced the incidents had been exaggerated when he completed his investigations. Mr Leake mentioned that the importance of his investigations was due to the constant vulnerability of staff working with disturbed children and therefore it was his intention to prove to staff and resident boys alike that suspicions of any kind within the Unit tended to cause anxieties which, by some discussion between the parties involved would help in the restoring of confidences. In discussing the report with Mr Leake certain irregularities came to light regarding lines of communication, procedures of administration etc. We fully discussed the report and its shortcomings and I issued appropriate directives and suggestions to the Superintendent for further reference.

The points which were particularly relevant included the fact thatMr Leake had interviewed the boys and member of his staff without another senior member of the Department being present and committed the error of having a junior member of his staff as his witness throughout the interview. Secondly his lines of communication were at fault. Thirdly, his report would seem to have been written in haste and over dramatised thereby conjuring up some unintended suspicions.

In closing the interview both Mr Grant and I felt confident that the Superintendent had acted in good faith."

  13.16  Leake's comment about this in his oral evidence to the Tribunal was that he remembered that meeting with considerable difficulty. The only thing that he remembered about it was that it was rather heated and that he came away from it with the belief that both Dixon and Grant were annoyed that he had not contacted them but had sent his correspondence to the Director of Social Services. Leake thought that the criticism was more political than professional.

  13.17  Dixon did, however, receive direct a report from the Officer-in-Charge of Chevet Hey about the incident there that occurred two months later. Dixon's note of the report, dated 10 September 1973, reads as follows (the errors in it are reproduced):

"Mr M J A Taylor   Mr Ellis Edwards reported to me that a boy resident in Chevet Hey, "A", had made an accusation against Mr Mike Taylor, referring that Mr Taylor had interferred with him whilst lying in bed. On my instructions, Mr Edwards made enquiries of the accused and asked him to leave the premises.

Mr Edwards reported that Mr Taylor left remarking that he denied the accusation; in his opinion, by leaving, he was at least ceasing to be an embarrassment to the Home."

  13.18  No further action was taken in respect of either of the reported complaints.

  13.19  Taylor was later convicted on 26 June 1980 in the Wrexham Magistrates' Court of two offences of indecent assault on a male under 16 years of age and asked for two similar offences to be taken into consideration. He was placed on probation for two years. The offences were committed in Shropshire and were wholly unconnected with the matters that we have related in the preceding paragraphs.

  13.20  In the course of the major police investigation in 1991/1993 into the matters with which we are concerned, Taylor was interviewed extensively on 13 August 1993 and made very full admissions about the four complaints to which we have referred, all of which had by then been particularised in statements by the complainants to the police. The file was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service both before and after the interview with Taylor. The decision of the Crown Prosecution Service was that Taylor should be cautioned rather than prosecuted and on 24 September 1993, he accepted cautions in respect of offences of indecent assault against four named former residents of Bersham Hall, Chevet Hey and two un-named victims.

Other allegations of abuse

  13.21  The other allegations of abuse at Bersham Hall prior to 1980 are more difficult to deal with because they are much more diffuse and consist mainly of complaints by single individuals against single members of the staff. Moreover, seven of the 19 complainants were unable to identify the member or members of staff against whom complaints were made and another three were unable to do so in part. Of the rest, it is sufficient to say that there were four who alleged physical assaults by Michael Barnes, (one of these complainants was in Bersham Hall before 1974) and two alleged physical assaults by Nefyn Dodd[188] (again, one before 1974). One complainant, for example, who was there in mid-1974, alleged that he had been punched by Barnes on three or four occasions and had seen him assault other boys. The same witness said that he had been physically assaulted by Nefyn Dodd on many occasions but the word "many" is of uncertain meaning in this context. A pre-1974 witness claimed to have been punched in the stomach, thrown to the floor and spat on by Barnes and yet another, at Bersham Hall in 1975, said that he had been picked up by the scruff of the neck, kneed in the back and thus thrown into a corridor by Barnes, after fighting with another boy. He complained also that he had been put into ill-fitting clothes by Barnes after absconding.

  13.22  We will defer comment upon these allegations against Barnes until later in this chapter when we will deal with the full picture of the allegations made against him in his senior posts at Bersham Hall. As for the limited allegations against Dodd in the short period of nine months to 1 August 1974, before he moved to Bryn Estyn, it is sufficient for us to say that, in our view, the evidence does not add anything of substance to the later picture that we have given of him during his period at Bryn Estyn[189].

  13.23  The individual allegations of physical abuse against other members of the staff, named and un-named, were of a similar character but they do not suggest that violence by members of the staff was characteristic of the regime at Bersham Hall prior to 1980. We should add also that we were not persuaded by the evidence of one complainant about a single incident in the baby pool of a swimming bath that he had been intentionally indecently assaulted by a member of the staff who was giving him a swimming lesson. The most serious allegation of physical violence during this period was made against a field social worker rather than a member of the residential staff and was to the effect that his nose was fractured by a punch on the face when he tried to run away on being delivered by the social worker to Bersham Hall; the boy himself, however, had physically attacked a teacher at his day school and was being admitted to Bersham Hall for that reason. His allegation is categorically denied by the social worker and by the two staff witnesses alleged to have been present.

The Children's Centre, 1980 to 1993

  13.24  The re-naming of Bersham Hall as a Children's Centre was adopted by the Social Services Committee in or about May 1980 on the initiative of Barnes, who became its Officer-in-Charge again at the same time. He envisaged the future role of Bersham Hall as that of a multi-purpose unit, specialising in short term care and offering some assessment facilities[190]. In 1984 Barnes gave a "pen picture" of the scope of the centre's operations. It was then, essentially, a centre for boys and girls in the age range of 13 to 16 years who had more complex needs or were otherwise more difficult to place. The Centre had to cope also with emergency admissions and the assessment of children involved in current court proceedings. In addition to catering for residents it had to provide also day care as a prelude to admission or as part of a rehabilitation scheme. Its educational facility was available for residents but was also offered on a day basis as a support service to other residential establishments and to the Local Education Authority. This diversity of roles reinforced the need to which we have referred earlier for a more controlling regime[191].

  13.25  As we have said earlier[192], Michael Barnes returned to Bersham Hall as Officer-in-Charge in May 1980. He remained in that post from 21 May 1980 to 31 December 1987 but there was an interruption from 1 October 1982 to 31 July 1984 whilst he took the CQSW course at Keele University. To complete the picture further he was also Acting Officer-in-Charge of Chevet Hey from 1 April 1986 to 31 December l987. Christopher Thomas[193] went with Barnes from Little Acton to Bersham Hall as Deputy Officer-in-Charge and remained there until it closed. He acted as Officer-in-Charge during Mr Barnes' absence at Keele University and then succeeded him in the senior post from 1 January 1988 to 22 March 1994, when he resigned because of allegations that he had misappropriated some of the Centre's funds. On 25 October 1995 in Wrexham Maelor Magistrates' Court, he pleaded guilty to theft and was ordered to undertake community service for 120 hours in addition to paying £1,500 by way of compensation. The Centre had closed in September 1993 but Thomas appears to have retained his post for six months longer because he was on prolonged sick leave and/or because of the police investigation into the misappropriations.

  13.26  The Third Officer-in-Charge from 21 May 1980 was Angela Pritchard, who acted as Deputy Officer-in-Charge during the period when Christopher Thomas was Acting Officer-in-Charge. She left on 31 July 1989 and was replaced from 1 October 1989 until 30 June 1990 by Frederick Marshall Jones, of whom a full account will more conveniently be given in the next chapter[194].

  13.27  We have seen the reports on Bersham Hall that were submitted to the Management Committee between September 1980 and July 1984 but it seems that the Management Committee ceased to exist on the demise of Bryn Estyn. From these reports it can be seen that about 220 children were admitted to Bersham Hall between April 1980 and April 1984 but the admission rates were affected, for example, by prolonged industrial action between September 1983 and January 1984. From the second half of 1982 the cottage or lodge in the grounds was used as a hostel for up to three girls, to prepare them for independent living, and the normal occupancy of the main unit was regarded as 18. Provision was made also for individual children housed elsewhere to attend on a daily basis at the education unit for day care but the maximum number of "day care days" in any quarter recorded in the period was only 36. It is difficult, on the basis of these limited figures, to estimate the total number of children admitted to Bersham Hall between 1980 and 1993 but it is unlikely to have exceeded about 600, bearing in mind the progressive trend towards fostering in the second half of the period and the overall reduction in the number of children in care. Throughout the period the overwhelming majority of children admitted were from Clwyd.

  13.28  The staff establishment was gradually increased in the early 1980s so that by May 1985, when Barnes wrote an up-dated pen picture of the community home, there were the three managerial staff already named, two senior houseparents and ten houseparents, who, between them, provided "twenty four hour cover for 365 days per year". In addition, there were two teachers assigned to the education unit, who were employed by the Social Services Department until 1987, when they were transferred to the Education Department. The provision of education on the premises ended in 1990, after which the children were allocated to local schools (a policy that had earlier been pursued with some, but not all, of the children).

  13.29  Changes in staff were much less frequent from 1980 onwards than they had been earlier. Nevertheless, there were continuing staff problems. Barnes' own training course and his subsequent additional responsibilities for Chevet Hey interrupted continuity and the Teacher-in-Charge was absent for a year, whilst undergoing training at Cartrefle College, at the same time as Barnes. The second teacher was absent also during pregnancy and then maternity leave, after which she worked for only a short period before leaving. Thus, heavy reliance had to be placed on supply teachers. More generally, the incidence of sickness and injuries seems to have been above normal and there were prolonged absences by some members of staff with important responsibilities.

Complaints against members of staff, 1980 to 1993

  13.30  Although the period under review here was twice as long as the earlier period and the total number of children admitted was similarly larger, we have not received evidence of a similar increase in the number of complaints. We are aware of 24 former residents who have made complaints but 13 of these have not come forward to renew these complaints to the Tribunal and another gave oral evidence to us without renewing her allegation against a named member of staff. It must be said also that some of the allegations that have not been renewed were made against unidentified members of the staff.

Contemporaneous complaints

  13.31  It is convenient to refer firstly to the few complaints of which we know that were made contemporaneously, that is, at the time of or shortly after the alleged incidents. The first of these occurred on 27 September 1988 and involved a boy resident, one of the 13 referred to in the preceding paragraph, who is said to have been in a disturbed state at the time. The material events began at lunch time when a woman member of the care staff had agreed to play badminton with the boy. She alleged that, as she had leant forward to retrieve the shuttlecock, the boy had touched her indecently and that she had responded spontaneously by slapping his face. The boy had continued to be attention seeking in the course of the afternoon, brandishing a large tree branch, threatening to damage cars and eventually smashing two windows in a store room. The boy was taken to an office by a male member of staff to be dealt with by the Third Officer-in-Charge (in the temporary absence of her seniors) and the member of staff who had slapped his face. Another male member of staff, John Ilton[195], who had been re-deployed from Bryn Estyn to Bersham Hall from 1 September 1984 as a teacher, was asked to be present in the office because it was thought that the boy might become violent. When Ilton entered the room he found that the boy was in a agitated state and becoming aggressive towards Angela Pritchard. In a statement made the same day, Ilton said that the boy rose to his feet and advanced towards Pritchard in a threatening manner, whereupon he (Ilton) stepped between them and pushed the boy back into his chair. The latter then became abusive and threatening to Ilton, who felt that he was beyond reasoning with and slapped him once across the face.

  13.32  The incidents were fully investigated by Michael Barnes, who was by then Principal Social Worker (Child and Family Services) and who interviewed the boy personally at Bersham Hall in the presence of Christopher Thomas and his deputy. The facts were reported to the Assistant Director of Social Services, Raymond Powell, and instructions were given that the woman member of staff should be informed that "slapping children is not an acceptable means of control".

  13.33  When interviewed by the police on 7 September 1992 the boy said, "I do recall being slapped by John Ilton. However, as far as I am concerned, I probably deserved to get a slap as I could be very abusive. I have no complaint to make against John Ilton". Ilton was employed by the Education Department in 1988 and the incident was reported to that department. According to Ilton, he was visited by an education official, Alan Williams, who concluded that it had been "regrettable but understandable in the circumstances" and that no official action was necessary.

  13.34  We are aware of only two other complainants who made relatively minor allegations of physical abuse by Ilton during the period of eight years when he was teaching at Bersham Hall. The first of these was of pushing a boy with the result that he stumbled back and fell onto the floor. However, the boy admitted that he had been deliberately provoking Ilton and he said to the police in August 1992 "I don't actually blame Ilton for pushing me because, if I was in his position, I would have done the same. However, thinking back I think he should have just chucked me out of the classroom instead". As for the other "complainant", he did not allege that he had been assaulted himself and no evidence has been forthcoming from the two boys alleged by him to have been assaulted.

  13.35  John Ilton remained at Bersham Hall until March 1992, when he was arrested by the police in the course of their major investigation. After the decision not to prosecute him had been made by the Crown Prosecution Service in or about May 1992, he was on sick leave until he returned to teaching later that year at a day school for problem children known as Wrexham Unit. Finally, he was employed from 1 January 1993 at a special school in the Wrexham area, St Christopher's, until he was suspended again from 13 December 1993, as a result of further allegations about his conduct at Bryn Estyn. Although he returned to teaching at St Christopher's briefly early in 1994, the strain caused by the allegations against him and the surrounding local publicity had affected his health and he took early retirement on 31 March 1994, at the age of 54 years.

  13.36  Another incident that was contemporaneously investigated occurred on 20 November 1988 and involved a girl resident (S), who had very recently learnt that she was pregnant after absconding for several weeks. Most unusually for the time of year, there had been quite a heavy fall of snow, leading to a snowball fight outside amongst the boys, in the course of which some snow had been carried into the building. A male care worker dealt with this appropriately but a woman member of the care staff (T) came on the scene and was told by some of the boys that S had been responsible for some of the mess. There followed an unwise and unnecessary confrontation in S's bedroom between T and S, during which they fought on the bed and bit each other. Fortunately, another woman member of the care staff intervened and managed to separate the combatants, whereupon T left the bedroom and the intervener stayed to counsel S. Both S and T subsequently attended hospital separately: S had large bruising to the right wrist and a minor cut to the skin.

  13.37  The incident was not reported to Christopher Thomas, the Officer-in-Charge, until about 30 hours after it occurred but he then made full inquiries and wrote an undated memorandum on the subject, probably for Barnes. In the memorandum he referred to the fact that he had spoken to the Area Officer to advise the latter that he was extremely concerned about the incident and that he wished to discuss it further but that the Area Officer did not share his level of concern and had merely noted his observations. We are not aware of any disciplinary action taken against T but she ceased to be employed at Bersham Hall on 31 July 1989. In her statement to the police made in June 1992, S said that she had been treated well in care in the five children's homes in which she had lived during nine years from the age of seven years and that she had no complaint to make.

  13.38 A further incident investigated at the time occurred on 15 November 1989 and involved Frederick Marshall Jones. A disturbed boy resident (X) sustained an injury to his right thigh that day, in the early evening, whilst "play fighting" with Marshall Jones. The boy had called Marshall Jones "slap head" and had tapped him on the head, eventually causing some annoyance by his behaviour. Subsequently, when the boy was playing table tennis Marshall Jones kneed him (gave him a "dead leg"), causing him to sit down in tears. Christopher Thomas became aware that the boy's right leg had been injured two days later and the injury persisted, necessitating visits to a doctor on 22 and 29 November 1989 (visible symptoms were a swelling above the right knee and "massive bruising", according to one doctor). The boy was ambivalent initially about pursuing a complaint, because he did not want to get Marshall Jones into trouble, and there was evidence of varying unsatisfactory responses by Marshall Jones, including threats of another dead leg, telling the boy that he had hit the other leg and cajoling him generally.

  13.39  There were a number of unsatisfactory features about the handling of this incident: delay in arranging for the boy to see a doctor; failure to complete log and accident reports; the fact that Marshall Jones was not interviewed until 30 November. Finally, Thomas's detailed report of his investigation was not sent to Barnes until 11 December, almost a month after the incident.That report ended:

"In conclusion, I believe this is a most worrying incident which should now be handed over to a more senior officer for further investigation. X's parents are aware of the incident and the complaint and have been assured that it will be properly investigated. I have not been able to properly follow up with Mr Jones as he is currently on sick leave.It is essential that X, his parents and the staff group see that the complaint has been taken seriously."

  13.40  The subsequent investigation was hampered by the fact X was moved to Hindley Remand Centre and then to a psychiatric hospital for reasons unconnected with the incident and Barnes was advised that he should not be interviewed. Barnes did interview both Thomas and Marshall Jones and then drafted a memorandum to the Area Officer. This memorandum dated 26 January 1990, which was signed by Geoffrey Wyatt, stated (correctly), "More recently, X has re-asserted his original view that the injuries were caused accidentally and that he does not wish to pursue a complaint". It set out Marshall Jones' version of the incident, referred to the absence of contemporary records and listed X's concerns about Marshall Jones' behaviour towards him in the days following the incident. The conclusion read as follows:

"It is clear that X experienced injuries to his right thigh which have yet to be fully explained. Whilst it is possible that they were caused in the collision between X and Mr F M Jones, Mr Jones denies causing the injury in the manner stated. It is not therefore possible to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the injuries were caused in anything but an accidental fashion."

  13.41  The action in relation to Marshall Jones was recorded as follows:

"Mr Jones has been made aware of the risks of engaging in physical play and of the need to immediately report and log details of collisions with clients (however caused) and of the need to ensure that where as a result, injuries are caused they are reported on an accident form even if as in this case they only become apparent some days later."

Other complaints of abuse received by the Tribunal

Sexual abuse

  13.42  Turning to the complaints of abuse made in the evidence received by the Tribunal, only nine complainants referred to identified members of the staff. Allegations of sexual abuse were made by three women witnesses, only one of whom gave oral evidence. She alleged that, when she was at Bersham Hall for about seven months from 1 June 1980, a male member of staff (identified only by his first name), who otherwise treated her well and was "very charismatic", touched her and tried to kiss her, but she fought him off and he apologised, saying that he had been unable to resist her. She referred also, however, to "a snippet of memory of being behind a wall that was at the side of the building and having sex with him against a tree"; and she added that it was very vague, a snatch of memory, "and then walking up the stairs feeling like he had spoilt it". She did not complain to anyone because the man was her friend and she did not want to lose him because he was kind to her.

  13.43  The second witness, whose evidence was read because she was not prepared to give oral evidence, said in her Tribunal statement that she awoke in bed one night and felt a hand on her leg under the blanket. She screamed and ran out of the room, opening the alarmed door, which triggered the emergency lights so that she saw the male member of staff responsible and he told her not to tell anyone on pain of not being allowed home. This would have been during 1981, when she was at Bersham Hall from 20 January to 31 August. She did not mention the incident when she was seen by the police in September 1992 but did so in her Tribunal statement made in November 1996.

  13.44  Finally, the third witness, who appeared at the Tribunal but felt unable to give oral evidence when she did so, made allegations of sexual misconduct by several members of the staff. She was at Bersham Hall for the first three months of 1988 and then for two years from March 1989. Her first statement to the police, made in March 1992, contained a long account of her relationship the previous month away from Bersham Hall with a member of staff there. She was then 18 years old and no longer in care. In her second statement to the police made in January 1993 this witness recounted an occasion when sexual intercourse occurred at Bersham Hall between two residents under 16 years of age allegedly to the knowledge of a member of the ancillary staff; she gave some account also of her non-sexual friendship at Bersham Hall with the member of staff referred to in her first statement; and she said that another member of the care staff had once touched her with his hand on her breast over her clothes but that she was not sure whether it had been accidental or intentional. Finally, in her third statement to the police made six months later, she complained that a third member of the care staff, when drunk, had touched her indecently with his hand and had lain upon her when she was in a sleeping bag in her tent on a camping trip with other residents and five members of staff from Bersham Hall. This was alleged to have occurred in the presence of another girl resident, who shared the tent with the complainant and to whom the member of staff exposed himself, according to the complainant. That girl denied to the police, however, that any of the incidents described by the complainant had occurred.

  13.45  These brief details illustrate the difficulty of making positive findings about any of the sexual complaints. Some, at least, of the incidents may well have occurred but all were denied and it is impossible to investigate them satisfactorily many years afterwards. Only one of the members of staff, namely, the first referred to in the preceding paragraph was subjected to disciplinary proceedings: he was suspended on 3 March 1992 and then dismissed after disciplinary hearings on 7 and 13 October 1992, but it does not appear that any of the charges against him were based directly on the allegations contained in the third complainant's first statement. Eight charges were found to have been proved and it was decided that the residential worker's name should be referred to the Department of Health Consultancy Service for registration on the Index. We heard evidence from Christopher Thomas that he had spoken to that staff member on three occasions and then written to him about the unwisdom of being alone with the third complainant, who had also been warned about the matter; and Thomas had also requested the relevant line manager to see the member of staff in that connection.

  13.46  We have no doubt that sexual intercourse between residents did occur at Bersham Hall from time to time and that there was some inappropriate conduct on the part of individual members of the care staff. The favourable side of the picture, however, is that the volume of complaints over the 13 year period has been very small and that no one has alleged persistent or habitual abuse of successive residents by any individual member of staff. Indeed, the only allegations of sexual incidents after 1981 are those referred to in paragraph 13.44.

Physical abuse

Christopher Thomas' view

  13.47  Rather similar comments are appropriate about the level of physical violence at Bersham Hall in the second period. Christopher Thomas was quite a frank witness about this. He said of the earlier period between 1974 and 1980 that children were treated firmly at the assessment centre and that there were aggressive undertones but that he never saw a child assaulted. There was a lot of physical horseplay with an element of the staff showing their power. He himself had reservations about this but he took part on occasions to let off steam. There was quite a "delinquent culture" the children were not as "streetwise" as their London counterparts would be but they included more serious offenders, who could be more difficult to control.

  13.48  Thomas described the environment at Bersham Hall after 1980 as a hotch potch, because of the Children's Centre's variety of functions, including the assessment of girls. The latter should not have been held for more than three months but, for some, their stay could be extended indefinitely. As for boys, it was intended to be a short term holding centre, pending further placement, but some were held for substantially longer periods. Barnes thought that six to nine months ought to be the longest period to avoid disruption. Other complicating factors were the alternating reigns of Barnes and Thomas as Officer-in-Charge, and Barnes' later additional responsibility for Chevet Hey; and the transfer to Bersham Hall from Bryn Estyn, when the latter closed, of several members of Bryn Estyn staff with their different views on and experience of discipline.

  13.49  Thomas, according to his own evidence, favoured a more relaxed regime, Barnes was, in his view, an odd mixture of permissiveness and authority: his attitude to residents was "You'll do what we say. It is not up for discussion". He could be physically intimidating also, scaring, and had an aggressive manner of speaking. More seriously, he permitted excessive forms of restraint to be employed. Thomas said that he would see with his own eyes two or three members of staff sitting on an individual child, residents joining in, and the restraint lasting for perhaps an hour. Thomas admitted that he himself may have behaved inappropriately in his early days: he had not targeted anyone deliberately but he had used excessive restraint on occasions after allowing a confrontation to occur.

  13.50  Thomas said also that there was "an element" of avoiding facing up to allegations: superficially they were taken seriously but the subsequent action taken did not do justice to the allegations (he cited particularly the incidents that we have described in paragraphs 13.36 and 13.38).

Michael Barnes

  13.51  Barnes did not accept the picture given by Thomas and said that the latter was relatively inexperienced on his arrival at Bersham Hall in 1974. Barnes himself could not think of anything that he had done that he would not have liked a police officer, parent or superior to see. He disagreed with the criticisms of one former member of the care staff that the children were not treated like individuals and he would not accept that the atmosphere of the place was oppressive. There were occasions when children were physically restrained: incidents might occur three or four times per month, averaged out, but he would be very surprised if the restraint exceeded a quarter of an hour in the worst case.

  13.52  Of the ten complainants who were at Bersham Hall between 1980 and 1993 and whose evidence we received, four complained of physical abuse by Michael Barnes in varying degrees. All these complaints, except one, refer to events alleged to have occurred within a year or so of his return as Officer-in-Charge in May 1980. The earliest in time of these was by a boy who alleged that, after absconding when he was 11 years old, he was taken into Barnes' office and asked why he had absconded. The boy raised his voice and shouted that he hated it, whereupon Barnes came round the desk and pushed him to the floor. He was then taken to the secure unit by Thomas, where they were joined by Barnes, who punched him on his arms and body. He was locked in that unit for three to four weeks in a cell like room with a mattress and blanket.

  13.53  The other complainant who gave oral evidence alleged that he was verbally abused by Barnes many times and physically abused by him a few times when he was at Bersham Hall in the latter part of 1980, at the age of about 12 years. He was a Wrexham boy who absconded several times when he first arrived and he alleged that on one occasion, after being returned by the police, Barnes grabbed him round the throat and chest and threw him into the office, where Barnes threatened to take him to "a semi-secure unit in South Wales". A similar incident occurred when he had absconded on another occasion but one of the care staff was also present on that occasion.

  13.54  The two witnesses whose evidence was read were former girl residents. The first, who was at Bersham Hall in 1981 just before and after her 12th birthday, also complained of being grabbed by the throat by Barnes during her initial interview in his office, when she denied that she had been stealing from her grandmother. On that or another occasion she ended up on the floor with Barnes pushing her arms up behind her back. She was shouting but she was not hitting out at him in any way. Finally, the other witness was a frequent absconder from Bersham Hall in the second half of the 1980s. She complained of physical abuse throughout the period when she was in care from the age of 13 years onwards and before she was admitted into care, but in her statement to the police in September 1992 she said that she had never been physically or sexually assaulted and had not seen any person assaulted. In her Tribunal statements made in April and August 1997, however, she alleged that Barnes used to push her into the wall and bang her head. He had also tied her hand and foot on a bed and had beaten her up in the secure unit once.

  13.55  Barnes denied all these allegations and those that we have summarised in paragraph 13.21. We referred earlier to his general rebuttal of the criticism of his regime at Bersham Hall and, in his evidence to the Tribunal, he dealt with all the allegations against him chronologically, repeating his denial that he had ever used violence towards any resident except in necessary restraint. In reviewing the various criticisms of him we have had to consider not only his record at Bersham Hall but also the evidence about him at Little Acton Assessment Centre[196] and Chevet Hey[197] and his subsequent activities in more senior posts from 1988 onwards, which are described later in this report[198]. As we shall explain later, Barnes was a good communicator and he did provide intelligent ideas, for example, about the respective roles of the community homes for which he was responsible from time to time. His reports to the Management Committee were helpful and thoughtful and he produced to the Tribunal a wide selection of documents that he had written or helped to draft on a range of problems involving the welfare of children in care.

  13.56  It is noteworthy that Barnes' main involvement was with children who were being held on a short term basis for assessment or otherwise pending placement and it is reasonably clear that a high proportion of the children at Bersham Hall were seriously disturbed in one way or another. It may be for these reasons that Barnes did not attempt to develop close relationships with the children in his care and saw himself as a disciplinarian. Whatever may have been the reason, however, we are satisfied that Barnes was viewed by some of the residents as a remote, unfriendly and arrogant figure and that he was responsible for instituting, or at least maintaining, what they saw as an oppressive and authoritarian regime at Bersham Hall. One former resident did say that the place had a friendly atmosphere and that he was treated really well there and another said that the level of care was very good but the majority of those whose evidence we received were very critical. Thus, one referred to "a very hostile environment" and others described it as "strict and regimented" and "institutionalised". Three members of staff who had been transferred there from Bryn Estyn in or about 1984 were similarly critical, describing the regime as oppressive and John Cunningham described it as more so than Bryn Estyn.

  13.57  There does not appear to have been any significant softening in Barnes' general approach as a result of his CQSW course between 1982 and 1984 but it is right to say that the main allegations against him of personal violence pre-date that course. Although we regarded some of the comparatively small number of witnesses who complained of physical assaults by him as unreliable, we do not think that all the allegations have been invented and we are satisfied that he did, on occasions, use excessive force against residents both by way of restraint and in response to impertinence or indiscipline by them.

Allegations against Christopher Thomas

  13.58  Only three complainants gave live evidence of alleged physical assaults on them by Christopher Thomas. One of these was a former girl resident who alleged that, when she refused repeatedly to go to her room, Thomas dragged her there, shook her and threw her on the bed. The second alleged that he had been punched, kicked and sat on by Thomas as a punishment for smoking. The third witness claimed, that after he (the witness) had an altercation with a teacher who had attacked him, Thomas had intervened and dragged him away; Thomas had gone on to strike him and had then locked him in his bedroom for 40 minutes. Finally, a fourth complainant whose evidence was read, alleged that, after she had "accidentally spat" on Thomas' car, he had twisted or pushed up her arm behind her back, and "nearly broke" her arm. One other former girl resident said that she had seen Thomas assault a boy by punching and kneeing him in the back and that other members of the staff had then kicked the boy after he had set fire to a wardrobe in his room.

  13.59  Bearing in mind that Thomas was at Bersham Hall for nearly 20 years, apart from absence at Salford for the CRCCYP course and later for 15 months at Little Acton Assessment Centre, the volume of complaints against him is small. Although he was an advocate for a more relaxed regime than that imposed by Barnes, he admitted that, in the climate that obtained at Bersham Hall, he had on occasions used excessive force in restraining residents. Without accepting every detail of the allegations that we have just summarised, we have no reason to doubt their general tenor. There were, in our view, a small number of occasions when Thomas used excessive force in restraint and others when he responded with force to provocation, as when the girl spat on his car, but he was not an abuser of the children in his care.

Other allegations of abuse and the use of the secure unit

  13.60  The other allegations of physical abuse at Bersham Hall in this second phase of 13 years do not require separate discussion and do not affect the general picture that we have given. We are aware that about 12 other members of the staff were mentioned in such complaints at one time or another but only eight of them were referred to in the evidence before us, of whom only one was the subject of more than one complaint (in his case, two).

  13.61  Several of these complaints arose out of the alleged use of the secure unit at Bersham Hall[199]. Michael Barnes' evidence was that the secure cell was never used but that the remainder of the unit was used on about three occasions because of concern about the safety of a resident. He recalled that a girl suffering from anorexia nervosa had been placed there because a consultant psychiatrist had so advised on the ground that, if she ran away, she might die. For similar reasons, a girl suffering from a respiratory complaint requiring steroid treatment had been dealt with in the same way. Christopher Thomas remembered another occasion when a girl had been brought under police escort to Bersham Hall to be locked up overnight, on the instructions of Geoffrey Wyatt, because she had misbehaved on an aeroplane that was to fly her from Hawarden to South Wales and the pilot had refused to fly with her.

  13.62  Thomas accepted also that it was not unusual for frequent absconders to be placed in the secure unit, as he told the police in 1992, although they were not locked in. Two witnesses, in particular, complained about their treatment there. A former girl resident, who was at Bersham Hall for the second half of 1980 and who had originally asked to be taken into care when 14 years old the previous year, said that she was placed in the secure unit twice: on the first occasion, in August 1980, it was for absconding and she was there for three days; and on the second occasion, about nine days later, she was kept there for two weeks. On the first occasion she was not told how long she would be there and, on the second, she was told she would be there for two weeks but was not told the reason, although she inferred that it was because she had sworn at a secretary. She alleged also that she had been placed in the "cell" on both occasions - for the whole period of three days in August and for the first week of her detention in September.

  13.63  The second complainant about the secure unit was the witness who said that he told Barnes that he hated Bersham Hall[200]. He was sick of being in care and absconded from Bersham Hall three times. The interview with Barnes took place on his return from the third absconding and he was taken from Barnes' office to the secure unit by Thomas, where he claimed to have remained for three to four weeks, as we have said earlier, in a cell like room with a mattress and blanket; and he alleged that he was locked in.

  13.64  We are satisfied on the evidence before us that the secure part of the secure unit was used thus on a few occasions to contain absconders, although the other part of the secure unit (the semi-secure part) was also used for this purpose. Its use as such probably occurred before 1983 when the formal approval of its use was expressly revoked. The reports on inspections by Welsh Office SWSO Copleston in November 1981 and May 1983 do not appear to have commented upon the use or non-use of the unit but a letter from the Welsh Office to the Chief Executive of Clwyd County Council dated 1 July 1983 stated that, as the unit was not in use and there were no plans to bring it into use, the Secretary of State was withdrawing approval for it to be registered as secure accommodation.

  13.65  The use of the secure unit in the manner that we have indicated was plainly contrary to law and the periods of detention referred to by the two complainants were certainly excessive. Moreover, the use of the woolly term "semi-secure accommodation" led to important infringements of liberty that ought not to have been tolerated. We do not minimise the problems facing those responsible for residential care when dealing with violent children or persistent absconders but it is essential that their powers and the limits of their discretion should be clearly defined and made known to all residential staff in order that breaches of this kind are avoided.

Conclusions

  13.66  Bersham Hall undoubtedly faced many problems during its comparatively short life as a community home. In the first period, between 1974 and 1980, there were too many changes of senior staff to enable it to settle down and the gradual withdrawal of its assessment function for boys was a further cause of unease. Then, in the second period there was continuing uncertainty about its role beyond the assessment of girls and as a short term holding centre for both sexes. In the event some children remained there for much longer periods than had been envisaged in 1980, although the regime generally was not suitable for long term care. Other disturbing factors in the later period were the influx of staff from Bryn Estyn in or about 1984, with a very different background of experience, and the differing outlooks of Barnes and Thomas, who alternated as de facto Officer-in-Charge for most of the decade from 1980. Overall also, there was no sufficiently clear policy from 1980 onwards governing admissions to the home with the result that much too wide a spectrum of children with problems had to be accommodated.

  13.67  We are not in a position to comment authoritatively on the adequacy of the assessment and educational facilities provided at Bersham Hall. Our remit has been to inquire into the abuse of children and we have not received any suggestion that children were abused at Bersham Hall in the context of education or assessment. Some former residents were critical, saying (for example) that there was only very poor basic education or that the schoolwork was too easy, whilst others complained that there were no classes for them or that they spent only odd days at school and the rest of the time gardening or making wooden pallets. The reports by successive Teachers-in-Charge to the Management Committee, whilst it continued, show however, that the teaching was designed essentially for children who were to stay for six to eight weeks only and much of it was remedial in character because a high proportion of the children were behindhand in the basic skills[201]. The Teachers-in-Charge were conscious of the need to widen the curriculum, as were the SWSOs who inspected on behalf of the Welsh Office, but with only two full time teachers and no prospect of increased resources little more could be achieved. Our judgment is that the teachers at Bersham Hall were fully dedicated to their work and did the best that they could in the prevailing circumstances. Moreover, it was a sensible policy to arrange for the admission of longer term residents to local schools as far as possible. In the event, after the Education Department had assumed responsibility for the education unit from January 1988, it survived for only two more years, after which all residents were assigned to local schools, whenever it was practicable to do so.

  13.68  The teachers were anxious as far as possible to participate in the assessment process but there were obvious difficulties about this when the establishment was limited to one full time teacher. When the establishment had been increased to two, some progress was made in teacher participation but we doubt whether the assessment process at Bersham Hall ever achieved a significantly higher standard than that at Little Acton Assessment Centre before it closed.

  13.69  In our judgment the quality of care generally at Bersham Hall fell below an acceptable standard. Sexual abuse was not prevalent, bearing in mind that the activities of Michael Taylor, in particular, occurred before the period under consideration. But, on occasions, there was an unacceptable reliance upon physical force for the purposes of discipline and restraint, attributable in part at least to the lack of a coherent admissions policy, and the County's prohibition on corporal punishment was frequently flouted. The controlled regime of Bersham Hall geared to short stays and a constantly changing population was not suitable for those children who remained there for long periods. For them the experience was damaging and the home failed to provide them with the quality of care essential to young teenagers. It is right to say however, that some former residents in the short stay category compared it favourably with other homes in which they had been placed, such as Bryn Estyn.

Footnotes:

181   See paras 7.12 and 12.45.

182   See paras 11.08 and 11.09

183   See para 4.02(1).

184   See paras 13.60 to 13.65.

185   See paras 4.12 to 4.16.

186   See para 12.21.

187   See para 13.02.

188   See para 10.148

189   See paras 10.149 and 10.150.

190   See minutes of the Management Committee meeting on 16 May 1980, para 4.

191   See para 13.11.

192   See para 12.21.

193   See para 12.22.

194   See paras 14.12 to 14.19 and 14.57 to 14.62.

195   See paras 10.85 and 10.94 to 10.99.

196   See para 12.23

197   See paras 14.49 to 14.54.

198   See paras 28.27, 28.31 and 28.44.

199   See para 13.06.

200   See para 13.52.

201   See eg para 13.06.

Access keys