Website of the Department of Health

14.31  We do not have sufficient evidence to comment authoritatively upon Wyatt's conclusions in respect of Ellis Edwards' general performance as Officer-in-Charge of Chevet Hey because our inquiry, within our terms of reference, has been directed to the scale of abuse on children there. In those terms Chevet Hey would scarcely have merited separate consideration in the period 1972 to 1986 but for the activities of Marshall Jones. Ellis Edwards was clearly not a strong leader and the warning in his reference that he lacked initiative was plainly justified. His major fault that is relevant to our inquiry was his failure to control the activities of Marshall Jones and to report upon him appropriately to his superiors. He was probably less to blame in relation to Wilson and it is to his credit that he refused eventually to agree to Wilson returning to Chevet Hey. More generally, it is very questionable whether Ellis Edwards ever possessed the necessary attributes to be a successful Officer-in-Charge in the full sense, but he and his wife did at least provide a setting that most residents recognised as a home, which was a paramount need for children in care.

Jacqueline Elizabeth Thomas

  14.32  It is necessary to deal with Jacqueline Thomas here because her conviction on 5 August 1986[219] related to events that occurred when she was employed as an RCCO at Chevet Hey. She was only 20 years old when she was appointed from a short list of four with effect from 26 February 1979. She had left school at 16 years with eight CSEs and two O levels and had about 18 months' experience of residential care after working initially with persons with learning difficulties for a short period.

  14.33  Two former residents of Chevet Hey complained in their evidence to the Tribunal of sexual abuse by Jacqueline Thomas. The first, who was a 16 years old boy when he was at Chevet Hey for just over seven weeks in the late summer and early autumn of 1979, alleged that Thomas indulged in sexual play with him a few times in his bedroom, the bathroom and her motor car. In his bedroom, she came in and ended up on top of him. He alleged that sexual intercourse had occurred and oral sex once. This witness alleged also that he had sexual intercourse at Chevet Hey with two other members of the women care staff there, who were both in their 20s, and earlier with a woman care officer at Bryn Estyn.

  14.34  The other complainant was a later girl resident of Chevet Hey, who was there from 15 August 1982 for over three years, initially because her brother, who was three years older than her, was also there. She described how the atmosphere was completely different from Bersham Hall and that she was happier at Chevet Hey but she complained 'inter alia' about Thomas displaying herself when they were on a camping holiday at Harlech, referring particularly to her scant night clothing and posture at breakfast time in mixed company in a tent.

  14.35  Thomas denied these allegations but admitted having sexual relations with two young boys, one of whom was in care at the time. She formed a friendship with the first (G) when she used to take him from Chevet Hey to a youth club. Ultimately, she did have sexual intercourse with G on two occasions but not until he had moved on to Bersham Hall and was 16 years old. The other boy (S) was not in care and she had become romantically involved with him only after she had stopped him committing suicide. Sexual intercourse with him had occurred only once, in the late summer of 1985, when she thought that he was 19 years old, although his actual age was 16 years (in fact, he was then 15 years old); and this preceded the other sexual relationship.

  14.36  Thomas' conviction was for an indecent assault on a male person aged under 16 years, namely, S, in August 1985, for which she received a suspended sentence of three months' imprisonment on pleading guilty in Wrexham Maelor Magistrates' Court. The police investigation had been triggered, however, by disclosures made by G (rather than S) on his return to Bersham Hall following Christmas leave in December 1985.

  14.37  Without going into unnecessary detail, G had been required to return early because of increasing concern about his behaviour during home leave. He was interviewed at length during the evening of 27 December 1985 by Michael Barnes, the Officer-in-Charge of Bersham Hall, in part with a houseparent present, and one of the matters of concern was a report that G had sold a gold bracelet to a local jeweller. G admitted eventually that he had obtained the bracelet from Thomas' flat at Gwersyllt, to which he had ready access. This led on to admissions about his relationship with Thomas, including sexual intercourse with her and staying overnight at her flat. Geoffrey Wyatt was informed and visited Bersham Hall with the Area Officer the following morning; the police were informed and G was interviewed by them that afternoon with the result that David Gillison became involved in the police investigation.

  14.38   David John Gillison[220] is a long standing family friend of Thomas and was then employed by Clwyd County Council as a social worker for the physically handicapped at the Rhuddlan area office. The allegation that emerged was that he had stayed the night of 24 December 1985 at Thomas' flat in the company of G and S and a former resident of four Wrexham community homes, William Gerry, then aged 20 years; and that homosexual activity of various kinds had occurred between them that night and during the following two days. It was alleged also that Thomas had been present on the Christmas Eve and had taken part in "group sex" with G and S and Gerry.

  14.39  Thomas, who had been on duty at Chevet Hey on Christmas Eve and had slept the night there, strongly denied the allegations against her that are summarised in the preceding paragraph. However, there was evidence that she had been absent from Chevet Hey for two substantial periods in the course of the evening and ultimately to 1 am; and she had been visited at Chevet Hey by Gillison and G earlier on.

  14.40  In the event the prosecution did not proceed with any charge against Thomas in respect of her alleged participation in group sex on 24 December 1985. Instead, she pleaded guilty to taking part in a more limited form of group sex at her flat in August 1985 involving only herself, G and S.

  14.41  Gillison and Gerry appeared at the Magistrates' Court on the same date as Thomas, Gerry being charged with offences of buggery and gross indecency and Gillison with gross indecency. They were later committed for trial at Mold Crown Court, where Gillison pleaded guilty on 16 January 1987 to two offences of gross indecency against G, for which he received three years and three months' imprisonment. Gerry, who had never been employed by the Social Services Department, was sentenced at the same time to two years' imprisonment for buggery with G and four offences of gross indecency involving both G and S.

  14.42  Thomas had been warned earlier by Ellis and Irene Edwards, and probably by other members of the Chevet Hey staff, about the developing relationship with G. She was suspended from duty on 3 January 1986 and she resigned on 6 August 1986. Gillison, who is discussed further in Chapter 52, was also suspended on 3 January 1986 and he was dismissed on 19 January 1987. Gerry, as stated earlier[221], committed suicide on 1 December 1997.

  14.43  The sentencing judge at Mold Crown Court on 16 January 1987, the Honourable Mr Justice Mars-Jones, requested that an investigation should be carried out by the Social Services Department of Clwyd County Council into the circumstances in which Thomas and Gillison had come to occupy the positions that they held. This task was undertaken by the County Secretary, Roger Davies, but it was not until October 1990 that his report was presented to the Social Services (Child and Family Services) Sub-Committee of the County Council. Davies' only explanation for this extraordinary delay was that the investigation had been carried out quickly to the final draft stage but that the report had not been presented then due to an oversight: it was not signed until 8 October 1990. Davies' conclusion was as follows:

"I have concluded that the appointments. . .were made in the normal way by experienced officers. In fact neither was appointed to a permanent post until there had been practical experience of temporary short term appointments. References were called for and read satisfactorily.

The procedures of Circular 86(44) were not available at the time of the appointments. If they had been, they would have disclosed no criminal convictions.

No officers interviewed said they were aware of any improper conduct by either."

  Davies did, however, add that some officers interviewed had said that they would appreciate clearer guidelines on "befriending, complaints procedures and staff assessment procedures, particularly in the residential field". He said also that correct professional relationships between residential and field staff also caused concern through lack of clarity.

  14.44  Although Davies' report did address the precise question formulated by the judge, the investigation was, in our judgment, superficial because it did not probe the many closely related questions that the judge must have had in mind and the underlying problems raised by the requests of some officers for greater clarity in their instructions. The documents before us suggest, in particular, that several members of the staff at Chevet Hey (and possibly some at Bersham Hall) were aware of and concerned about the relationship between Thomas and G as it developed but were unsure about how they ought properly to respond to it when initial warnings were ignored.

  14.45  There are strong grounds for believing that Thomas' misconduct went well beyond the limited admissions that she made in her evidence to the Tribunal and it is notable that she does not even accept now the facts relied upon by the prosecution on the charge to which she pleaded guilty, saying that, at the time, she had been through "near enough a nervous breakdown" and that all she wanted to do was to plead guilty. With hindsight it is clear that more effective steps should have been taken earlier to terminate her relationship with G but there is no evidence that members of the staff knew of her friendship with S. It is to the credit of Mr and Mrs Edwards and other members of the staff that Thomas was warned about consorting with G and the history illustrates well the need for (a) vigilance in monitoring relationships of this kind and (b) clear guidelines about "whistleblowing" and allied procedures to enable members of staff to act confidently when presented with similar problems. We accept also that continuing and periodical staff assessments would be helpful as part of the monitoring process.

Other allegations of abuse during this period

  14.46  We heard evidence from only four complainants of alleged abuse by four other members of the staff who have not been named in this section. These allegations do not, however, affect the general picture that we have given of Chevet Hey between 1979 and 1986 and do not call for separate discussion. We should, however, record that there was one other instance of a sexual relationship developing between a boy resident at Chevet Hey and a female care officer employed there. This occurred in 1982 and the boy involved, who had left school and was going out to work, had his 17th birthday in July that year. The care officer was interviewed by Geoffrey Wyatt, then Assistant Director (Residential), and another headquarters officer in the presence of Marshall Jones on 13 September 1982. The boy, who was the subject of a care order had admitted having an affair with the woman and having spent the night with her at her flat and there was other evidence of their association together. When interviewed she declined to comment on the allegations and was told that she would be suspended pending an investigation of the matter but she resigned the following day.

  14.47  We did not receive any complaints about illicit sexual relationships between residents at Chevet Hey but one former girl resident did make a complaint that arose from such an association. She had been in and out of care from the age of 13 years because of family difficulties and was placed finally at Chevet Hey from 10 March 1978 to 31 December 1979, when she was discharged from care because she had attained the age of 18 years. Whilst at Chevet Hey she formed a relationship with a boy resident from Sierra Leone, who used to visit her in the girls' quarters, contrary to the rules. In consequence she became pregnant at the age of 17 years. Her complaint was that, when she told Irene Edwards, who already knew of the relationship, that she was pregnant, Irene Edwards ultimately advised her that she must have an abortion, arguing that, if she gave birth to the child, it would affect the putative father's appeal against deportation (he was subsequently deported) and threatening that the girl would be sent to a secure unit in South Wales and locked up until she reached the age of 21 years. The complainant said that, because she had been brought up as a Roman Catholic, she did not think that it would be right to undergo an abortion. Nevertheless, when examined by a doctor and asked if that was what she really wanted, she replied "Yes" because she felt that there was nothing else that she could do; and the abortion took place on 12 February 1979.

  14.48  Irene Edwards was not called to give evidence because this was the only criticism of her by any resident of Chevet Hey so that we do not have her version of the advice that she gave. We refer to the matter in order to emphasise the importance of making independent counselling and advice available to children in care in circumstances of this kind. The complainant was a girl who presented quite severe behavioural problems at the time and there was a background of some earlier promiscuity (her main complaints related to Little Acton Assessment Centre) but she was of above average intelligence and clearly needed careful and sensitive handling; her religion was an additional very important factor.

The period from April 1986 to June 1990

  14.49  This period can be dealt with quite shortly because the main persons about whom complaints are made have already been discussed quite fully and the volume of complaints was reduced as they left. On the departure of Ellis Edwards to Cherry Hill Michael Barnes was asked to fill the role of Acting Officer-in-Charge and he did so until 31 December 1987, when he was promoted to the rank of Principal Social Worker. His Deputy at Chevet Hey was still Irene Edwards until 30 November 1987 but she was on sick leave for much of Barnes' time there so that Frederick Marshall Jones was effectively his Deputy for substantial periods.

  14.50  Barnes was not replaced as Officer-in-Charge until 27 June 1988, when Michael Nelson succeeded him for the last two years of Chevet Hey's existence. Thus, Marshall Jones appears to have been left in charge for the first six months of 1988 and he then reverted to Acting Deputy until Christine Chapman was appointed Deputy from 1 October 1988, a year before Marshall Jones left, during which time he reverted to his established position as Third Officer-in-Charge.

  14.51  Michael Barnes said in evidence that he found the staff at Chevet Hey fragmented and the children disruptive and unsettled when he took over. He was not shown Wyatt's report or informed of Wyatt's conclusions but he wrote a report in November 1986, intended for the Director's eyes, in which he painted a very gloomy picture of the standard of child care at Chevet Hey. Having dealt in brief with various administrative deficiencies, including poor record keeping, he continued:

"Within weeks of my arrival my concern shifted away from administrative routines to staffing matters. I was struck by the staff's lack of cohesion and lack of commitment. There was considerable evidence of poor skills and a noticeable poverty in training. It was very apparent that the Home had failed to adjust to an influx of redeployed staff and that there were serious differences within and between the various staff factions. At a senior level there were serious gaps in communication and open conflict over management styles and leaders' roles, At least three factions of staff were identified - staff indigenous to Chevet Hey, ex-Bersham staff, and ex-Bryn Estyn staff. Conflict within and between these groups was also compounded by major differences between senior staff. There was a noticeable lack of leadership. Seemingly, under threat from increased staff numbers and a more militant element (ex-Bryn Estyn) senior staff had basically opted out leaving care staff to do almost as they pleased. Only the Third in Charge offered any resistance and aimed at the prospect of uniting the staff."

  14.52  Barnes went on to deal specifically with child-care and supervision in the following passage:

"Throughout my stay I have been particularly concerned about standards of child-care and supervision. Delinquency has become institutionalised and staff attitudes to sexuality are poor. Parenting is weak and there is little commitment to social work practice. Despite low numbers and, for the most part, good staff ratios the majority of staff have been very unwilling to exercise proper supervision of and/or to work therapeutically with children. Relationships between some staff members and children are non-existent and with others quite rejecting. Only a minority of staff have pleasing relationships with the residents. I have been appalled by the rejecting nature of some staff and by the way the majority opt out of child-care contact and control - a trait which has bedevilled Chevet Hey for many years."

  14.53  The immediate fate of this report is not known but it is noteworthy that Barnes followed it up with a letter to the Director two months later, after Mr Justice Mars-Jones had dealt with Gillison and Gerry. In his letter of 28 January 1987 he said 'inter alia':

". . .As the person mainly responsible for bringing these matters to light and seeing at first hand their impact on the clients and staff caring for them I must say that I share the judge's view that these matters call for a thorough investigation.

. . .

There are, I believe, a number of lessons to be learned from these events. It is of vital importance, especially in residential care where the capacity to damage is very much greater than in field work that we face up to the need to learn from past mistakes.

I very much hope that the Department will take up the judge's recommendation and will not only consider why the staff members came to be employed by the Social Services Department but will also examine why cases of this sort are becoming such a common feature of local residential provision."

  This letter makes it all the more remarkable that the investigation at the judge's request was so superficial and the report upon it so long delayed. Barnes was seen later by Roger Davies, the author of the report, and Raymond Powell, Assistant Director (Children and Family Services), in the course (it seems) of the investigation but was severely reproved by Powell when he said that, unless something was done, the problem would recur.

  14.54  No specific action appears to have been taken by senior management in response to Barnes' report but he recollects that he had a meeting with John Llewellyn Thomas, the Principal Officer (Children) at the time, at which it was "recognised" that there should be a planned closure of Chevet Hey, that a new home should be opened in its place and that the home required a permanent Officer-in-Charge

Further complaints of abuse

  14.55  The formerly "lax" regime of Ellis Edwards was replaced by stricter discipline under Barnes, with the co-operation of Marshall Jones, but we have not received any complaint about Barnes' behaviour at Chevet Hey save for one witness, who said in his oral evidence that Barnes had once thrown him on to a couch and then pushed him after which Marshall Jones had put his knee into the boy's chest; he recalled seeing Barnes give slaps across the ears also; and he expressed the view that Barnes turned a blind eye to Marshall Jones' abuse: Barnes was two-faced and lied.

  14.56  These allegations were put to Barnes in cross-examination and he denied emphatically that he had ever manhandled the particular complainant or cuffed him. He denied also turning a blind eye to abuse by Marshall Jones, saying that the record would show that when concerns were brought to him, by staff or by children, he acted upon them. Bearing in mind that the complainant himself agreed in cross-examination that he had no real cause for complaint against Barnes and that he is the only witness who has alleged such misconduct by Barnes at Chevet Hey, we do not consider it likely that Barnes used excessive physical force against this complainant[222].

Frederick Marshall Jones

  14.57  The complaints against Marshall Jones in respect of his conduct from April 1986 until his departure from Chevet Hey on 30 September 1989 followed a similar pattern to those made in respect of the preceding six and a half years. We are aware of six complainants about him who were at Chevet Hey in the later period, of whom three gave oral evidence to the Tribunal. Assaults with the bunch of keys continued and all three complained about them. One of the witnesses said that he was given 'dead arms' and 'dead legs' by Marshall Jones with the latter's fists and that he was also hit on the forehead by fist: sometimes there was a reason for it and sometimes it was supposed to be in jest. The witness said of himself that he was a 16 year old with a 'severe chip on his shoulder' and agreed that he could be "quite a handful"; he received sporadic violence and sometimes it went too far. As for the other two complainants who gave evidence, they complained of bullying generally by Marshall Jones; they too described how they were given 'dead legs' and 'dead arms' countless times. It was not a joke: it was just Marshall Jones' way of showing that he was "the boss".

  14.58  On 21 August 1987 a member of the staff at Chevet Hey reported to Michael Barnes that reports were circulating amongst the residents that Marshall Jones had been treating individual boys in a rough and physical manner. She said that she had no direct evidence of the alleged rough handling but that she, with another member of the care staff, had listened to a group discussing a number of grievances in a sensible and serious way. The general complaint was of an over-zealous approach to discipline but one boy alleged that his shoulder had been injured by Marshall Jones. Barnes carried out a series of interviews in the presence of the Acting Third Officer-in-Charge, Raymond Bew, as a result of this report and two of the residents whom he interviewed were witnesses referred to in the preceding paragraph. One of the two told Barnes that he had no complaints against staff but the other did complain that, after he had broken into a nearby school, Marshall Jones had pulled his hair and squashed his neck. This boy told Barnes that he was satisfied with his treatment in care and that he had no complaints about Marshall Jones, although the latter did get "a bit rough" in the incident that he described.

  14.59  Other boys interviewed by Barnes described incidents of rough handling by Marshall Jones but Barnes' view was that they all did so "in the context of an otherwise positive relationship with him" (ie Marshall Jones). The boys were told by Barnes to report any future incidents that concerned them to senior staff and to discuss the matter with their respective social workers if they thought that would help.

  14.60  The report by Barnes did not deal with Marshall Jones' version of these events because he had not been asked for it up to then. He had, however, questioned the motive of the care officer because he himself had earlier reported a staff member for slapping a child across the face. Barnes concluded his report with the following comment, after noting Marshall Jones' positive relationship with the boys:

"There is clear evidence that the group merely wanted note taken of their concern rather than direct action against the staff member. Clearly this matter will need to be discussed with Mr Jones and until then no further action is intended. Regardless of any subsequent findings, Mr Jones will need to be advised that conducting disciplinary interviews with children alone is not to be recommended."

  14.61  It does not appear that any formal disciplinary action was taken against Marshall Jones as a result of this report by Barnes. The report was addressed to the Social Services Department but we do not have any evidence as to when it was received or what was done about it but it did not impede Marshall Jones' promotion to the post of Assistant General Manager at Bersham Hall from 1 October 1989. Before then there was a further complaint about him by a woman member of the care staff at Chevet Hey, who had served for substantial periods at Bryn Estyn and Bersham Hall before starting work at Chevet Hey in January 1988. This staff member saw an incident on 23 December 1988 between a boy resident and Marshall Jones in which the latter appeared to handle the boy roughly. She made an appropriate entry in the incident report book and the boy subsequently made a complaint after she had counselled him to do so. The incident was fully investigated by Michael Nelson, who interviewed several witnesses and concluded that there had merely been inappropriate horseplay. He subsequently warned Marshall Jones of the dangers of horseplay with children and the need to be aware of the views of other members of staff about it. This investigation and an incident between Marshall Jones and another member of the staff on 23 February 1989 suggest that a marked deterioration was occurring in relations between him and his colleagues but he received a full testimonial from Nelson later that year in support of his application for the Bersham Hall post.

  14.62  We have already summarised Marshall Jones' response to the allegations of physical abuse made against him[223]. Speaking of his later period at Chevet Hey, he said that he was given great support by Michael Barnes and he denied the allegations to which we have referred. In our view, however, the later evidence is consistent with the overall assessment of him that we have given in paragraph 14.19.

David Gwyn Birch

  14.63   David Birch was transferred to Chevet Hey with effect from 1 November 1984, having worked briefly at South Meadow and Park House in Prestatyn as a supply officer on leaving Bryn Estyn in June 1984[224]. He remained at Chevet Hey until 14 January 1990 when his resignation took effect. It seems that he ranked immediately below Marshall Jones in seniority so that he was Acting Deputy Officer-in-Charge for a short period in 1988 after the departure of Michael Barnes until Michael Nelson became Officer-in-Charge on 27 June 1988. He was probably Acting Third Officer-in-Charge when Marshall Jones was Acting Deputy[225]. Nevertheless, he had a chequered career at Chevet Hey from 1986 onwards.

  14.64  We are aware of five complainants who alleged physical abuse by Birch at Chevet Hey and three of them gave oral evidence before us. The first was the witness who agreed that he was "quite a handful" at the time[226] and he complained that Birch used excessive violence in restraining him on two occasions. The first of these incidents occurred in late January 1987, about six weeks after he arrived at Chevet Hey and he complained about it quite promptly to Marshall Jones and then to a woman member of the staff. It seems that there had been permitted bonfires that evening and the witness refused to co-operate in putting them out at the appropriate time. An argument or altercation with a male care officer ensued and in the end both Marshall Jones and Birch were involved in an exchange of blows with him in the office. His complaint against Birch was that Birch had then used an armhold around his neck to restrain him with the result that he was choking and passing out.

  14.65  That incident was investigated by Barnes, who interviewed the witness in the presence of Birch, when his allegations against Birch were repeated and he accused Barnes of "mental harassment". This interview took place, however, against a background of further alleged misconduct by the witness and the dispute seems to have died down following a pre-arranged family meeting, despite the witness' threat to complain to the police.

  14.66  The second incident occurred on 1 May 1987, when the witness was 17 years old, and was much more serious but his criticisms of Birch about this were comparatively mild. In short, the witness was involved in a further altercation with the same relief houseparent who had featured initially in the first incident and whom the witness claimed to despise. Angered by "a snide remark" by this houseparent, the witness, who had a leg in plaster at the time, punched him in the face, "jumped" and headbutted him with the result that his forehead was cut and his face and neck bruised. The witness then stormed into the office where he was restrained by Marshall Jones and Birch, who held him down on the ground so forcefully that he could not breathe, whilst he shouted "blue murder"; he was restrained thus until the police arrived. In his oral evidence the witness said that, with hindsight, he recognised that he would have hurt as many people as he could, if he had not been restrained. He said also that Birch was "a decent bloke" generally, echoing his earlier statement to the police in which he had said of Birch that "he was really a sound bloke but he was too strong and I don't think he really understood his own strength".

  14.67  This witness did not return to Chevet Hey after his arrest on 1 May 1987. He was charged with unlawfully wounding the relief houseparent and was bailed to his parents' home. On 23 July 1987 at Wrexham Maelor Magistrates' Court he was convicted of the charge after contesting it. Sentence was deferred for six months and on 20 January 1988 he was ordered to perform 40 hours' community service.

  14.68  The second complainant who gave evidence was at Chevet Hey for 18 months from April 1987 to October 1988 and reached the age of 16 years in the middle of that period. He spoke favourably of Michael Barnes, whom he described as "quite calm", and said of the staff generally, "we all seemed to get on quite well together". His complaint against Birch was based on one incident towards the end of his stay when he returned to the home late after seeing his girl friend. Birch answered the door and then kicked his legs from under him, kneed him in the back and punched him on the back of his head. Birch then asked him why he was late and laughed before telling him to go to bed: he was in quite a lot of pain. The witness admitted that he had returned late on many occasions but said that he was only a couple of minutes late on the relevant occasion. In general, however, he did "get on" with Birch.

  14.69  The third witness, a girl who was at Chevet Hey for about three and a half years and left in or about March 1986, when she reached the age of 18 years, was critical of five members of the staff there in her time. She said that she got on reasonably well with Birch but that he had a habit of slapping children across the head with his hand. He did this to her once but she saw it happen also to others and it was a whack rather than a tap.

  14.70  None of these alleged incidents at Chevet Hey was the subject of a criminal charge against Birch subsequently. We do not think that any substantial criticism can be made of him in respect of the restraint incidents but he was clearly at fault, in our view, in the other matters. Birch told us that he had no recollection of the incident described in paragraph 14.68 and he was not asked specifically about the third witness but we have no reason to doubt the two witnesses' broad accounts of their dealings with him; and this conclusion accords with our wider assessment of Birch's record at Bryn Estyn[227].

  14.71  A notable feature of Birch's career at Chevet Hey, only indirectly relevant to the scale of abuse there, was persistent conflict between him and Michael Barnes, who was critical of his performance of his duties from 1986 onwards. It is unnecessary to go into great detail about these criticisms but they began with criticism of Birch's role in permitting Jacqueline Thomas to absent herself from Chevet Hey at Christmas 1985 for periods when she was supposed to be on duty. This criticism was associated with lingering doubts about Birch's veracity on the subject, to the extent that he provided an alibi for Thomas in respect of certain allegations of sexual abuse made against her[228].

  14.72  Other criticisms of Birch were pursued in 1986. They included allegations that he had taken a girl friend with him on a summer caravan holiday financed by the Social Services Department and on a day trip to Blackpool with residents of Chevet Hey; allegations of inadequate accounting for monies spent on the Blackpool trip; and alleged pressure on three residents to tell lies in relation to the costs incurred on the trip. In consequence, Birch was suspended for a short period in October 1986. On 24 November 1986, as we have already stated[229], Barnes wrote a long memorandum setting out his assessment of Chevet Hey, of which he was highly (and in our view, justifiably) critical. Paragraph 3 of that report dealt in detail with outstanding complaints against Birch, including absenteeism, poor timekeeping and disregard of procedures. On 29 January 1987 an inconclusive meeting to discuss the issues raised by the report and attended by Raymond Powell, John Llewellyn Thomas and six others, including Michael Barnes, took place at Shire Hall. No disciplinary action appears to have been taken and further complaints about Birch's timekeeping and absenteeism, including allegations that he played rugby for his club whilst on sick leave, were still being pursued in late 1987. Eventually, on 7 December 1987 the Director of Social Services, Gledwyn Jones, conducted a managerial interview with Birch, in the presence of the Deputy County Personnel Officer and trades union representatives, when Birch was informed by the Director that "under no circumstances would he entertain any further complaints such as the one that was made that he had been playing rugby whilst on sick leave from Chevet Hey and unable to attend work during September 1987".

  14.73  This was not an end of the matter because Barnes wrote to the Director on4 January 1988 requesting confirmation that the many other complaints against Birch particularised in his six memoranda written between April and September 1987 had been dealt with. The Director was also informed subsequently of further absences by Birch between 22 December 1987 and 5 January 1988 and there were fresh complaints of a similar kind by Marshall Jones but Birch continued to survive in post until his appointment by the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton from January 1990 as Deputy Officer-in-Charge of a community home or homes in Aintree Lane and Cherry Road, for which he received a favourable reference, apparently written by Raymond Powell and signed in the name of the Director of Social Services, dated 12 September 1989, in which the only mildly adverse comment was "He has some difficulty with administration but is able to cope quite adequately with this if he sets his mind to it".

Another example of disciplinary action

  14.74  One other example of the response of senior management to a complaint of abuse during Barnes' period as Acting Officer-in-Charge was brought to our attention. The relevant incident occurred on 15 July 1987 when a member of the care staff slapped a 16 year old boy resident across the face. The boy then complained to Marshall Jones, who reported the complaint to Michael Barnes. When the care worker was seen she admitted the slap but alleged that she had been provoked by the way in which the boy had demanded a drink of water and the exchange of words between them that had ensued. A meeting was arranged between the two, in the presence of Marshall Jones and with Barnes' approval, when mutual apologies were made but some differences of opinion remained. The care worker was then seen by John Llewellyn Thomas (Principal Officer, Children and Family Services) and Barnes on 23 July 1987, after which a formal warning letter dated 30 July 1987 was sent to her in the name of the Director of Social Services. After acknowledging that she bitterly regretted her action, the letter concluded:

"It was noted that this resulted from provocation but this cannot be an excuse for striking a child in our care which is a matter of the gravest concern. I am satisfied that you will have learnt from this experience but nevertheless I must warn you that any repetition of such behaviour will result in disciplinary action."

The Nelson regime

  14.75   Michael Nelson took over as Officer-in-Charge of Chevet Hey, which had become a Group 1 community home[230] on 1 January 1988, from 27 June 1988 until it closed in June 1990, when he became Centre Manager of Gladwyn Children's Centre, Gresford, until 1993. He was 41 years old when he took on the Chevet Hey appointment and had nearly 20 years varied experience in residential child care, most recently as a team manager for Liverpool Social Services Department working in the secure unit at Dyson Hall. He had attended a full time one year course in residential child care in 1971 and had subsequently attended conferences and seminars on case management and sexual abuse as well as a short course on restraint provided by the prison service prior to his employment in the secure unit. He is now a group manager in residential services for children employed by Wrexham County Borough Council.

  14.76  Nelson said in his written statement to the Tribunal that he never witnessed any physical assault upon a child at Chevet Hey (or subsequently at Gladwyn). We are aware of only one complaint against him at Chevet Hey but that was made by a boy who admitted to a member of the staff that he had fabricated a complaint against Marshall Jones and he did not pursue his complaint against Nelson by providing evidence to the Tribunal. The only incident involving Nelson directly of which we have evidence occurred when he was at Gladwyn and on an occasion when he had to restrain a violent boy. The boy sustained a bruised shoulder but the incident was fully investigated at the time and the boy told the police in June 1993 that he accepted that there had been a full internal investigation after he had reported the matter to his social worker and that the injury had been accidental as concluded by a case conference. Although that witness ran amok with a knife at the end of his stay at Gladwyn, he told the police that he had been treated fairly there.

  14.77  One or two of the complaints against Marshall Jones related to events between June 1988 and September 1989[231]. It is necessary to mention also one other member of the residential staff during Nelson's period, namely, Andrew Humphriss, who served as a residential care worker at Chevet Hey from 1 May 1988 to 25 September 1989, interrupted early on by four weeks' detachment to Bersham Hall to replace a member of the care staff who was on sick leave and later by his suspension from 25 April 1989 onwards. He was 27 years old when he was appointed and had served for about six years in the Metropolitan Police, as a cadet and then constable, after leaving school at 15 years old. He had then become a residential social worker for the London Borough of Newham in 1982 and had obtained the CSS qualification. However, he became disillusioned with his work at Chevet Hey and resigned in late September 1989, after which he took a degree course in Education at Cartrefle College, graduating in 1993. For the past four years he has been a teacher in Cheshire.

  14.78  There were a number of problems in the course of the 11 months or so that Humphriss actually spent at Chevet Hey. Although he did well at his appointment interview with Barnes, Marshall Jones and one other in March 1988, his staff appraisal in December 1988 showed that reports on his progress had been mixed and Barnes, who conducted the appraisal with Nelson and Humphriss himself, wrote "If Mr Humphriss was subject to a probationary period aspects of his work would be earmarked for improvement". Then in January 1989 several allegations of physical abuse by Humphriss were made by the first of the two boys referred to in paragraph 14.76. These allegations involved not only the boy himself but also his brother and another boy. On investigation by Nelson, however, these complaints were not substantiated and the boy, who was causing problems because of his unruliness, asked to withdraw his complaints. On 23 February 1989 Humphriss had a serious altercation with Marshall Jones about the content of a report written by Humphriss to which Marshall Jones objected and it is clear from Humphriss' evidence to us that he disapproved of Marshall Jones' methods: he described the latter's general approach to children as robust, loud and verbally aggressive and he alleged that it was Marshall Jones' practice to amend reports after they had been written, including reports written by others, to put himself in a favourable light. On the other hand, Marshall Jones was equally critical of Humphriss, alleging that he had lied and had also tried to head butt Marshall Jones.

  14.79  Finally, on 24 April 1989, a local councillor and postmaster reported to Barnes that he had witnessed Humphriss physically assaulting one of the Chevet Hey residents outside Gwersyllt Swimming Baths. Barnes interviewed Humphriss promptly the next day in the presence of Nelson and suspended him on full pay pending an investigation of the councillor's complaint, in the course of which the clinical medical officer's staff were involved. A disciplinary hearing was ultimately fixed for 16 August 1989 but either it did not take place or no decision was reached at it because Humphriss' resignation with effect from 25 September 1989 was accepted without any adverse finding being recorded against him. In his evidence before us Humphriss strenuously denied any assault upon the boy at Gwersyllt Swimming Baths. We did not hear any oral evidence in support of the allegation so that we do not express any opinion about it.

Conclusions

  14.80  The level of complaints and the evidence of abuse at Chevet Hey have been significantly less than at the other Wrexham community homes that we have discussed in detail; and the general picture that has emerged is that the atmosphere of the home was much better from the children's point of view. Most of the former residents there would probably say that they did not suffer any appreciable damage from their detention there. Nevertheless, there are many disquieting features about the history that we have related.

  14.81  Although the Ellis Edwards regime may have been acceptable to most of the residents at the time, it is clear that Wyatt's criticisms in 1985 were fully justified[232] and they were re-inforced by Barnes' broader survey in November 1986 of the shortcomings of Chevet Hey when he had taken over Ellis Edwards' responsibilities earlier that year[233]. There had been a general failure on the part of the staff to relate to the children in their care in a meaningful way, an absence of guidance and lack of parental concern; and no adequate steps had been taken to face the problems that arose from the demise of Bryn Estyn and the transfer of staff and residents from there to Chevet Hey. A fair share of the blame for these failures must be attributed to Ellis Edwards himself but he appears to have been given little support and guidance from senior management; and the weakness of the headquarters' leadership is well illustrated by their successive failures to discipline Wilson and by their later impotence in dealing with Marshall Jones and David Birch.

  14.82  Some improvements in child care practice were achieved under Michael Barnes and we accept that he did have a coherent vision of what a community home should try to achieve. We accept also that he had to face some intractable problems because of the wide range of difficult children of both sexes who were being admitted to Chevet Hey. But, in our judgment, he was better on paper than in practice. He had some defects of personality, which were counter-productive in his relationships with staff and children, and he appeared to condone the activities of Marshall Jones to some extent during his period in charge. We recognise, however, that he had great difficulties in securing an adequate response from headquarters when he sought assistance in dealing with his problems.

  14.83  In the end the most successful period was probably the final two years under Michael Nelson. Certainly, the level of complaints of abuse was by then much reduced and it is noteworthy that they appear to have been dealt with quite promptly because they were being made to the care staff (or in one case to a social worker) and investigated by Nelson himself. It was difficult by then to achieve more on the positive side because it had been decided, or at least "recognised", as early as 1987 that Chevet Hey would close and be replaced by another home.

Footnotes:

202   See para 4.02(5).

203   To enable local authorities to determine the appropriate salary scales for Officers-in-Charge of community homes it was considered necessary to distinguish and recognise homes with specialised functions by dividing homes into three main groups according to the difficulty of the tasks undertaken by them (in descending order of difficulty from 1 to 3).

204   See para 4.19.

205   See para 14.13.

206   See paras 12.03 and 12.29 to 12.35.

207   Previously mentioned in paras 13.38 to 13.41

208   See para 13.14.

209   See para 14.10

210   See paras 8.39, 8.40 and 10.04 to 10.39

211   See paras 4.12 to 4.14

212   See paras 13.26 and 13.38 to 13.41.

213   See para 8.27.

214   See paras 13.38 to 13.41, 14.57 to 14.62 and 15.51 to 15.61.

215   See paras 10.04 to 10.39.

216   See para 14.20.

217   See in particular, paras 10.37 and 10.38.

218   See para 14.18.

219   See para 2.07(5).

220   See para 2.07(6).

221   See para 2.07(6).

222   See, however, paras 12.23 and 13.52 to 13.57 for our earlier comments upon Barnes.

223   See paras 14.17 and 14.18.

224   His career at Bryn Estyn is dealt with in paras 8.37, 8.38 and 10.40 to 10.57.

225   See paras 14.49 and 14.50.

226   See para 14.57.

227   See para 10.56.

228   See paras 14.37 to 14.42.

229   See paras 14.51 and 14.52.

230   See footnote 2 to this chapter

231   See, in particular, para 14.61.

232   See paras 14.29 and 14.30.

233   See paras 14.51 and 14.52.