Website of the Department of Health

Introduction

36.01  This community home (hereafter "Queens Park") is situated in a fairly large council estate, near the centre of Holyhead. It was opened by the former Anglesey County Council in 1960 as a family group home and was designated in the 1971 Regional Plan for Wales as a community home providing accommodation for up to eight boys and girls. In the 1979 revision of the Plan the age range for those boys and girls was put at 0 to 18 years but only up to five children were accommodated after the Children Act 1989 came into operation. The home remains open and it has been run since 1 April 1996 by the new Anglesey County Council.

36.02  The council estate in which the home stands comprises terraced and semi-detached houses and small blocks of flats or maisonettes. There are broad grass verges, giving open play spaces, in the approach road. Queen's Park Close itself is a large cul-de-sac, which gives a large open space as the home's outlook and which is used mainly for parking.

  36.03  Queens Park had, during the period under review, five quite spacious bedrooms for residents (three double, two single), all on the first floor. On the ground floor there was a sitting room and a dining room for residents; and at the front and rear of the building there was a small garden and a small yard respectively.

  36.04  The evidence before us about the succession of Officers-in-Charge at Queens Park is incomplete but our attention has been focussed mainly on the period between 1984 and 1988 to which most of the complaints known to us relate. It is not necessary to go back beyond 1 January 1978, which was the date when Valmai Haf Morris[510] became Officer-in-Charge. She had been appointed as a houseparent at Queens Park in 1970 and remained in the employ of Gwynedd Social Services Department until 1986, when she left to seek work nearer her home because of her father's illness. Haf Morris was Officer-in-Charge of Queens Park until 6 April 1981 when she was transferred to Y Gwyngyll as a Senior RCCO and became Acting Officer-in-Charge there during Dyson's illness.

  36.05  It seems that there was a gap of about three months before Theresa Ryan, then a Senior RCCO at Y Gwyngyll, moved to Queens Park as Acting Officer-in-Charge. She was then 24 years old and had been employed for about two years by Gwynedd Social Services Department, for about nine months as Deputy Officer-in-Charge at Ty Newydd in its first phase and then at Y Gwyngyll from 6 May 1980. It follows that Theresa Ryan had only just taken over at Queens Park, on what was described as secondment from Y Gwyngyll, when the Dyfed inquiry team visited Queens Park in July or August 1981[511].

  36.06  The Dyfed team were strongly critical of the condition of Queens Park at that time. They said:

"The physical state of the Home was deplorable. The playroom was a disgrace; the kitchen unkempt and disorderly; the downstairs toilet was dirty and out of use; the laundry room was unkempt; the inadequate grounds were unkempt and did not provide for outdoor recreation.

The personal files of the children and the other paper work within the Home was in a state of complete disarray. We would recommend that urgent steps be taken to improve record keeping at the Home and to standardise records throughout all the Children's Establishments and also to ensure that they are inspected regularly by an officer from headquarters."

  36.07  Theresa Ryan remained at Queens Park until October 1982, when she left to gain experience as a field social worker before undertaking a CQSW course at Cardiff and she did not return to residential child care work. She made it clear that she was not prepared to work under Nefyn Dodd because she did not approve of his attitudes to staff and children and it appears that this was a factor in her transfer to Queens Park, for which he did not have responsibility at the time. Ryan's line manager there was Lucille Hughes, who was then Principal Assistant Director and who took over responsibility for children's services from the Deputy Director (D A Parry) from about July 1981.

  36.08  The next Officer-in-Charge, from 11 October 1982 to 31 December 1984, was Karen Olwen Owen. She had begun work as a care assistant in Gwynedd in August 1980, when she was nearly 27 years old. After a brief placement at Ty Newydd, she had worked at Ty'r Felin until February 1982 and then, on promotion, at Pant yr Eithin. She resigned her post at Queens Park at the end of 1984 because she wanted a career change.

  36.09  Owen's successor, Beryl Anne Condra, had been employed at Queens Park from 1981. She had been married twice and has now three grown up children and eight grandchildren. She was not professionally qualified but, before going to Queens Park, she had about six years experience of part-time work as a child care officer for Dr Barnardos in Derbyshire. She was made a permanent RCCO (non-residential) at Queens Park from January 1983 and then Acting Officer-in-Charge two years later for a period of two months before she was confirmed as permanent head of the home from 11 March 1985. Condra did not retire from that position until June 1997, but she was off sick from September 1996.

  36.10  There was no Deputy Officer-in-Charge at Queens Park but there were occasions when Condra was ill and someone else had to act in her place. Thus, Emma Rogers (formerly O'Brien) performed this function between October 1985 and February 1986, when she was 19 years old, on secondment from Ty'r Felin. At that time there were about five children in residence. Peter Gadd[512] was another who performed this role but he did so after he had been transferred from Y Gwyngyll to Queens Park as Senior RCCO in the autumn of 1986. He was Acting Officer-in-Charge from 6 November 1986 to 22 January 1987 and then remained at Queens Park as a Senior RCCO until 1 July 1988.

  36.11  The inspection by representatives of the Social Work Service of the Welsh Office referred to in paragraph 33.52 took place in the autumn of 1988, when there were four children in residence. At that time there were three care workers under Beryl Condra, one of whom was an acting Senior RCCO; and none had more than three years' experience. Condra had by then attended the national in-service pre-qualifying course in residential care but none of the other members of the staff had received any similar training. Condra had asked to be permitted to take a CSS course but had been told by Nefyn Dodd that "she had got there" without it. The report on the inspection stated that children were admitted to the home for the stated purpose of assessment but added that "this activity could not be carried out by this number of people even if all had been professionally qualified".

  36.12  The SWSOs commented quite favourably, however, on the premises generally. The house was said to be pleasant and fairly large and indistinguishable as a children's home from other houses in the estate. The main criticisms of it were summarised as follows:

"It would be somewhat cramped when at full occupancy and there was little provision for private leisure and study. The sleeping accommodation was pleasant and adequate but some of the furniture was in poor condition. The bedrooms had been personalised by the young people who had obviously made themselves at home. The washing and toilet facilities were not of the same standard as the other living quarters. There was a lack of imagination in the wall decoration."

Complaints of sexual abuse

  36.13  Three former residents have complained to the police that they were sexually abused whilst they were at Queens Park. The first of these was there for a substantial period in the 1970s when he was very young and his allegation was that an older male fellow resident attempted to bugger him on two occasions. He was unable, however, to identify the culprit to the police, except by his Christian name, and he did not make a complaint about the assaults for many years, albeit for understandable reasons. He did not suggest that any member of the staff was aware of what occurred.

  36.14  The second complainant (A) was at Queens Park much later, that is, from 12 August to 20 November 1985. It was during this period that Emma Rogers became Acting Officer-in-Charge from a date in October 1985, when she was seconded temporarily from Ty'r Felin. The subject matter of the complaint, which was that a woman member of the staff (X) had had sexual intercourse with A, did not come to light, however, until Beryl Condra returned to work as Officer-in-Charge at the beginning of February 1986. By this time A had been transferred to Ty Mawr at Abergavenny, a community home with education that had formerly been an approved school.

  36.15  A, who was nearly 16 years old at the time of the relevant events, told the Tribunal in his oral evidence that it was his habit at Queens Park to stay up talking to the staff on 'sleeping in' duty. He had spent the night with X on a couple of occasions when she had followed him into his bedroom at about 3 am, five minutes after he had gone up to bed. She had stayed with him until it was time for her to awaken the other children and sexual intercourse had occurred several times.

  36.16  A was transferred to Ty Mawr on 20 November 1985 and remained there until 14 February 1986, apart from a visit to North Wales for Christmas. In his evidence to the Tribunal he said that his transfer there was "to try and keep (his) mouth shut about the fact that (he) was sleeping with (X)". However, A did not indicate how anyone with sufficient authority to arrange his transfer could have known of his alleged relationship with X by 20 November 1985. Moreover, he advanced a rather different explanation later in his evidence to the effect that he had been present when X was beating another boy resident's head against a bedroom wall. He continued:

"I threw her off, I threw her across the room and told her to lay off him because there was no need for it, and I didn't talk to her after that. Within a fortnight I had been moved down to South Wales."

  36.17  It was on 2 February 1986 that Beryl Condra was told by a girl resident that X had been having sex with A. Condra was told at the same time by a youth (B), who visited Queens Park quite frequently to see his brother, that the same thing had happened to him; and he agreed to put his allegation in writing, which he did, calling it "his confession". Condra was unable to speak to Nefyn Dodd that evening but she did so the following morning. She spoke also to the Deputy Director of Social Services because the Director was not available. Later that day X was interviewed by Larry King[513] and Nefyn Dodd at Queens Park in the presence of a representative of the Director. X denied the allegations and King wrote a long report based on his notes of the interview and what was said by Condra and the girl resident, who were also questioned.

  36.18  King's comment on the interview with X was:

"I was quite impressed by the open attitude of this young woman. She was obviously disturbed by the allegation and it is not possible to see how, in the absence of an eye witness or an admission on her part, that we shall be able to come to any conclusion other than on the balance of probabilities."

 He was dubious about the timing and motivation of the girl resident's report to Condra and the way in which B had been brought into the matter.

  36.19  It was clear that the investigation would have to be pursued but, according to King, he was by-passed thereafter by Dodd. Dodd's own evidence was that both he and King made a request by telephone to Ty Mawr early on 4 February 1986 that A should be "interviewed regarding the allegation that he had sexual intercourse with X, within the confines of his bedroom whilst he was a resident client at 5 Queen's Park Close". According to Dodd, this produced a response, at 11.38 am the same day, from the Deputy Headmaster of Ty Mawr at the time, one Phelan, who was said by Dodd to be well known to him.

  36.20  Dodd's account of the oral report by Phelan was set out in a two page hand-written document, headed "Report of enquiry made on behalf of Gwynedd Social Services", bearing the date 4 February 1986 and signed by him as Principal Officer Residential Services Children. It read as follows:

"(1)  The youth completely 'REFUTES' the allegation, and disclaims any knowledge of any illicit staff/client relationships whilst in residence at the Holyhead Community Home.

(2)  A admits to a relationship with another client girl, but again he denies any sexual involvement with her, despite at one time absconding to London with her. In referring to (her), "I got fed up with her she was in the habit of fantasising and telling stories about anyone to get her own way".

(3)  Mr Phelan then informed the boy "if you're still feeling bitter about the staff having had you sent to 'Ty Mawr' here is a good chance to right an injustice if you want to". A replied "I got on with all the staff . . . and any way unlike Ty Mawr 5 Queens Park Close is only a couple of rooms and everyone would know if there was anything going on".

(4)  When questioned regarding B, A it was claimed, said "Oh he is a daft old b----- always bragging about his affairs with girls, I can tell you now he hasn't had sex with anyone either, he only came to see his brother . . ."

(5)  Mr Phelan stated "I am thoroughly convinced that A is telling the truth and that the whole affair is pure fabrication". The Deputy Officer then went on to relate to Mr Dodd, as to the very 'Positive' levels of functioning presented by A to date at 'Ty Mawr', and the very sound relationship that the boy had formed with himself.

(6)  Mr Phelan was thanked on behalf of the Director for his 'punctilious' action on behalf of the Gwynedd Social Services Department."

  36.21  It was not, in our judgment, appropriate to leave the questioning of A to a senior officer of a distant establishment, armed with only a telephone briefing about the allegation and the surrounding circumstances. More seriously, however, we are left in some doubt as to whether A was interviewed at all at Ty Mawr about the matter. Christopher Phelan, who gave oral evidence to the Tribunal, was the Principal of Ty Mawr at the time (he had been from 1984) and not the Deputy Headmaster as Dodd recorded in his note. Furthermore, he remembers A and the circumstances in which A was admitted to Ty Mawr, about which a letter of complaint was sent by Ty Mawr. Phelan told us that he could state categorically that he had never discussed any allegations or any details of inappropriate behaviour with A; and it was absolutely false to state that he had "claimed to have thoroughly investigated the allegation with A over a protracted period of time". Dodd might have visited Ty Mawr when he (Phelan) was Deputy Headmaster but he could not recollect ever meeting Dodd and they were not well known to each other.

  36.22  A also denied that he had been questioned by Phelan about his relationship with X or that he had discussed the matter with Phelan. He did say, however, in his oral evidence to the Tribunal that he was called to Phelan's office on one occasion and asked whether members of the staff at Queens Park had been having sex with each other but that was by way of casual conversation and Phelan "did not make a big deal of it".

  36.23  A was interviewed by the North Wales Police in Caernarvon on 18 February 1986 and by the Arfon Area Officer and a Senior Social Worker on 21 February 1986. His statement then to the police is not now available but we have seen a memorandum, dated 26 February 1986, by the Area Officer in which A's up-to-date position was summarised. It seems clear that he was repeating his own allegations against X at that point and had no intention of retracting them. X was interviewed by the police then and again in 1992 but she denied the allegations and there was no prosecution.

  36.24  The upshot of all this was that no other adverse action was taken against X, who repeated her denials of any improper behaviour with A or B when she gave oral evidence to the Tribunal. Dodd acted on the alleged retraction by A and reported it to Condra. Her recollection was that he showed her an A4 piece of paper and said that it was a statement by A that nothing had happened but that she never actually saw the statement. King did not apparently play any part in the subsequent events. As for the Director of Social Services (Lucille Hughes), her attitude appeared to be set out in a memorandum dated 27 February 1986 to the Arfon Area Officer in her name, in response to his report on his interview with A and his complaint that he had not otherwise been informed of the matter.

  36.25  In that memorandum, apparently drafted by Gethin Evans, it was said:

"When the rumour of events at 5 Queen's Park came to lightI immediately decided to investigate, primarily because time was of the essence since a member of staff was involved. I had no wish to delay the matter and cause unnecessary grief to the staff member.

This was done and I was satisfied that there were no grounds to the rumour. I did not therefore feel that there was any reason to widen knowledge within the department of the incident--this to include you at Area. Unfortunately the matter did not rest there as you now know."

  The writer added that, although technically it could be argued that the matter should be considered under the Child Abuse procedure, "given the boy's age, behaviour and attitude I feel its the staff member who has been abused".

  36.26  When she gave oral evidence to the Tribunal, Lucille Hughes said that she had never seen that memorandum at the time. She said also that she was not surprised to see now the highly critical comments made by the Area Officer(W Oswyn Rees) in his written response to the memorandum and, in particular, to the suggestion that it was X who had been abused. Gethin Evans appended the following note to the Area Officer's response in his own hand-writing:

"Spoke to AO--no written reply to memo. Matter now closed so far as Area concerned apart from general supervision of (A). AO unhappy that they had not been informed of original accusation."

  36.27  The history of this matter was further confused by Lucille Hughes' oral evidence to the effect that she oversaw the initial investigation. She said that it was she who instructed King and Dodd to interview X on 3 February 1986. She said also that she had regarded the matter as "very urgent"[514] and that it was she who had telephoned "Mr Davies" at Ty Mawr to ask him to interview A to see what had happened and to get information from A. She was adamant also that she had received a call back from Davies, who told her that the boy completely denied anything to do with it and withdrew the allegation completely. To add to the confusion, the Deputy Director (Glanville Owen), told us that it was he who asked King and Dodd to investigate the allegations although he did not receive any subsequent report back.

  36.28  Our conclusion is that, although Phelan was an honest witness, the balance of probability is that he did speak to A at Ty Mawr about his relationship with X and that A may have denied to him that he had had sexual intercourse with her. We have however grave reservations about the way in which Phelan is alleged to have reported his conversation according to the note prepared by Dodd. We regard it as remarkable that no written statement was obtained from A and that Phelan was not asked to confirm in writing his oral report. Lucille Hughes is clearly mistaken in her recollection of her own role in the matter and there was no Davies in a senior position at Ty Mawr at the time. The method of dealing with the matter, however, was very inappropriate and motivated by an improper desire to bury the allegations as quickly as possible in the interests of X and no doubt36.30  Before leaving this subject it is necessary for us to make two further comments. The first is that Phelan's protest about the way in which A was transferred from Queens Park to Ty Mawr was, in our view, fully justified. According to A, he was not given any prior warning of the move: he was simply told after finishing his tea that he was moving and must pack his belongings. He was then placed in a taxi without being told the reason for the move or where he was going (except that he was told "Abergavenny" by one of the two men in the taxi). On his arrival at Ty Mawr "he was locked in a cell overnight", and the next morning he was held in a chair whilst his hair (in Mohican style) was cut off. Phelan was not on duty when A arrived but he was aware that A was deposited at the door of Ty Mawr at 10.30 pm by two men, who said that they were taxi drivers and who handed over a large envelope. No social worker accompanied A. Phelan complained also that A was dressed in "punk" fashion with a lavatory chain and studded dog collar around his neck, two studded belts around his waist, obscene badges on his jacket and similar graffiti covering his jeans, all of which made him an immediate object of ridicule by residents. Phelan's letter stated that King had arranged with a Gwent Social Services Department officer for this transfer to be made and this is likely to be correct, although King told the Tribunal that he does not recollect doing so. We have not heard evidence that enables us to say who gave the instructions as to how the transfer was to be carried out.

  36.31  The second comment is that, in our judgment, it was an error to appoint Emma Rogers as Acting Officer-in-Charge of Queens Park, even for a short period, bearing in mind her age, her lack of training and experience, the ages of the residents and staff for whom she was to be responsible and the geographical remoteness of Nefyn Dodd or any other supervisor. The appointment appears to have been made on the ground of expediency alone and was recognised by Gethin Evans subsequently to have been a mistake.

  36.32  The other complaint of sexual abuse at Queens Park has an unhappy background on both sides. The complainant (C) was admitted to the home in August 1990, when she was just 14 years old, after a short period in foster care, and she remained as a resident of Queens Park until March 1994, attending school in Holyhead until she was 16 years old and later a college at Bangor. It is clear that during her stay she became particularly close to one member of the care staff (Y). C must, however, have been a particularly difficult child to deal with because she had already started drinking alcohol and smoking cannabis before she was admitted to care and her drink and drugs problems increased whilst she was at Queens Park. According to her oral evidence to the Tribunal and her written statement she took speed, gas, magic mushrooms and acid and was smoking heroin by the age of 15 years; and she developed an eating disorder. She drank also and was permitted in her last year to have vodka, gin and cider mixed with lager in her bedroom. Y discouraged her from drinking at first but later drank with her on occasions. C used to tell Y about her drug taking. If other members of the staff were present, Y would say that C should not do it but, if they were alone, Y would just laugh.