Website of the Department of Health

Cartrefle, 1990

  51.34  This investigation began on 17 June 1990 and was conducted from 25 June 1990 by Detective Inspector Donald James Cronin, who was responsible for the management of crime investigation in the Mold and Deeside Sub-Divisions and who returned from leave that day. During the intervening week Detective Sergeant Rees had been in charge of the investigation and there had been close co-operation with the Social Services Department through the Area Office at Hawarden. Although the established Child Protection procedures had not been followed in some important respects, there had been full discussion about arrangements for interviewing the resident children at Cartrefle, which began on 19 June 1990. There were four social workers in the team provided by the Social Services Department and Detective Sergeant Rees, who continued to take part in the investigations, had two detective constables working with him. Norris was first arrested, interviewed and charged on 4 July 1990, after which he was released on bail. He was again arrested, interviewed and charged on 15 August 1990, from which date he was detained in custody.

  51.35  We have outlined the history of this investigation in paragraphs 50.20 and 50.21 and little further detail is needed because the only substantial criticism of the North Wales Police in connection with it is that they failed to widen their enquiry into Norris' activities to include his period of service at Bryn Estyn. Cronin's evidence to the Tribunal about this was that he considered looking into Norris' background but that there was no pointer to earlier misconduct on his part. Raymond Bew[817], a former member of the Bryn Estyn staff, had been interviewed but he had proved to be a difficult witness and would not make any relevant criticism.

  51.36  The police officers did not have access to headquarters files. Cronin said that he was and is satisfied that the social workers involved in the investigation worked with the police in good faith and provided all the necessary information to enable the police to trace former residents of Cartrefle and former staff there. Like the police officers, however, those social workers did not have access to the headquarters files. The police, had to rely upon "social services management through Mr Wyatt" to search those files and to communicate the information in them accurately. Cronin himself had direct contact with John Llewellyn Thomas[818] and Michael Barnes[819] as well as Geoffrey Wyatt[820]; and he understood that Wyatt had assumed personal responsibility for examining the relevant files. By the time that he gave evidence to us, Cronin had been informed that the Social Services files did contain information, at the time of the Cartrefle investigation, about Norris taking young boys from Bryn Estyn to his farm but he was not told about this when he was making the investigation. He said that, if the investigating team had had that information, they would have regarded it as "manna from heaven".

  51.37  We have seen copies of some minutes of meetings of the internal Departmental Co-ordinating Group set up by Clwyd Social Services Department to deal with the problems arising from the Cartrefle disclosures. These minutes relate to meetings held on 3 and 17 August and 7 September 1990, at the second and third of which there was discussion of widening the investigation. The police were not represented at these meetings. On 17 August the question discussed was whether the police were going to widen their investigative trawl to include the full period of Norris' appointment. A social worker reported that the police were not keen to do so: if this was felt necessary, the Department would have to undertake their own enquiries. At the meeting on 7 September the same social worker reported that the police had decided that they did not wish to extend their enquiries further so that it was necessary to consider whether Social Services themselves wished to do so. Wyatt commented that there would be a danger (in extending the enquiries) that the matter would be forever investigated and never concluded. However, later in the meeting there was a consensus that an inquiry should be held but that Wyatt should discuss with the Welsh Office the appropriate form of inquiry.

  51.38  Sir Ronald Hadfield's view[821] is that Detective Inspector Cronin took the investigation as far as could be expected at that time. A full indictment for serious offences was preferred against Norris; there were no complaints emanating from Bryn Estyn, which had been closed for six years; the Social Services Department gave no indication that Norris might have committed offences at Bryn Estyn; and the cost and delay of an extended inquiry, coupled with the desirability of a speedy prosecution in the interests of the known victims at Cartrefle, were factors that would have had to be considered before any decision in favour of such an extension could have been made.

  51.39  Sir Ronald's conclusions are persuasive. His last reason was not mentioned by Cronin but it raises issues that would have had to be addressed at a high level if there had been a move to extend the investigation. The weak link was that the police did not have access themselves to headquarters files and that Wyatt was disinclined to probe further; but, on the evidence before us, those files would not, at that stage, have revealed sexual misconduct by Norris at Bryn Estyn or his practice of inviting young boys to his farm.

The major North Wales investigation, 1991 onwards

  51.40  This was planned as a large scale investigation from the outset in response to the request made by the County Secretary on behalf of Clwyd County Council in his letter dated 17 July 1991, which was accompanied by several helpful lists, including lists of relevant persons convicted, of persons whose activities gave rise to suspicion and of others about whom there were queries. Detective Superintendent Peter Ackerley was appointed Senior Investigating Officer at the suggestion of the Chief Constable.

  51.41  A separate investigation began in Gwynedd in October 1991, under Acting Detective Superintendent E G Jones, in response to a written request by Lucille Hughes dated 30 September 1991 that the North Wales Police should investigate allegations of abuse in children's homes in Gwynedd made in an HTV television broadcast of "Wales this Week" four days earlier.

  51.42  The two investigations were merged from 2 December 1991 when it was agreed that both should be put on the HOLMES computer system[822]. By that date 54 statements from witnesses had been recorded in the Gwynedd inquiry. Thereafter, the merged investigation covering the whole of North Wales was managed by Ackerley with Detective Inspector John Rowlands as Deputy SIO; and, according to Ackerley, his inquiry team received full co-operation from both Clwyd and Gwynedd County Councils and their officers and staff.

  51.43  In December 1991 it was decided to tackle the Clwyd part of the investigation in four phases beginning with Bryn Estyn and ending with Clwyd County Council's queries list. For Gwynedd there were to be three phases covering Ty'r Felin, Queens Park and Y Gwyngyll successively. Initially it had been decided to record witness statements only from former residents who had complaints to make but on 16 December 1991 this policy was discontinued and thenceforth statements were taken from all persons interviewed, whether "negative" in content or not. By 19 December 1991, according to Ackerley, the broad outline of a major inquiry had been established and the necessary resourcing decisions had been made, including the identification and posting of the officers necessary to carry it out.

  51.44  On 2 January 1992 a training and briefing meeting for the team members was held at Colwyn Bay. The object of this meeting was to bring together the full team, some of whom had already been involved in the investigation from its inception, to brief them fully on the background and to provide guidance and discussion on various aspects of the investigation. Of particular importance was the need for sensitivity in dealing with potential complainants and for special victim care; and directions were given as to the manner of interviewing witnesses and ancillary matters, including the need for liaison with other agencies.

  51.45  In his written statement to the Tribunal, Ackerley provided a stage by stage account of the progress of the investigation from then on until June 1994 but it is unnecessary to repeat the details here in view of the limited number of criticisms of it that have been canvassed before us. The decision to scale down the inquiry was taken in August 1993 and Detective Inspector Rowlands took over the lead role from the beginning of the following month. The reduction in scale is illustrated by the fact that about 360 statements were taken in the following three years or so whereas about 3,500 statements had been recorded in the first two years.

  51.46  Although various questions were raised in cross-examination of the senior police witnesses about the selection of officers for the investigating team and the adequacy of the initial briefing session, we do not think that any substantial criticism of this preparatory work by the North Wales Police is appropriate. We should add that we are satisfied, on the basis of all the evidence that we have heard in the course of 14 months' hearings, that this investigation was carried out both thoroughly and efficiently. We have received no evidence to justify any suggestion that there was a "cover-up" in respect of any part of it or to cast doubt upon the good faith of the police throughout the inquiry. On the contrary, confirmation of the reliability of the police investigation has been provided by the following facts:

(a)  almost all the complainants who provided statements to the Tribunal attested that the complaints made in their statements to the police were true;

(b)  few of them said that they had additional complaints to make against relevant individuals;

(c)  despite the publicity given to the Tribunal and the Tribunal's own trawl for additional witnesses, we received few fresh complaints from witnesses who had not been seen by the police in the course of their investigation.

  51.47  There were some critics of the method of approach to witnesses that was adopted in the investigation but such criticism was probably unavoidable, having regard to the nature of the inquiry. The decision taken was that potential complainants should be sought out and spoken to privately without prior warning; and the basic reasons for this were that, in most cases, the witnesses' personal circumstances were unknown to the police and that they were likely to be reluctant to talk about their experiences in care. It was envisaged that spouses, partners or others close to such witnesses might be unaware that they had been in care and were likely to be ignorant of any abuse, particularly sexual abuse, that they had experienced. Such knowledge could affect their current relationships radically and letters addressed to potential witnesses might have led to forced and embarrassing disclosures.

  51.48  Sir Ronald Hadfield's view is that he too would have chosen to arrive unannounced in the circumstances of this inquiry. His only qualification to this statement is that "there must always be the case for an exception". Sir Ronald points out also the problems of written notification in an investigation of this kind, including the difficulty of obtaining accurate addresses and the real danger that a letter may be opened by someone other than the addressee.

  51.49  In the event most of the complainants who were asked about the matter said that they were dealt with sensitively and properly by the police; and very many of them were interviewed on more than one occasion. Those who were likely to be called to give evidence in criminal trials agreed also that they were kept reasonably informed about the progress of the cases in which they were involved. An independent NSPCC telephone help line was established at the NSPCC office in Wrexham from 4 December 1991. This was intended initially to provide a confidential service for former residents of Bryn Estyn but the service was extended to cover all persons involved in the inquiry.

  51.50  The difficulty of the investigation is illustrated by the fact that in respect of Bryn Estyn, for example, 28 potential witnesses were traced and seen but refused to make statements; and 30 traced persons failed to reply to repeated calls. Moreover, at least seven of the complainants who gave oral evidence to the Tribunal said, when cross-examined about their failure to make complaints of abuse to the police when first interviewed, either that they had been too scared or that they had been too embarrassed or that they just did not want to be involved.

  51.51  The small number of complainants who did criticise the approach of individual police officers to them did so mainly to explain their failure to mention specific complaints. They said, for example, that "the police were only interested in sexual abuse", "I was not given the impression that they were interested in the actual physical abuse", and another alleged that the police had "brushed off" his complaint of being indecently assaulted. We did not find these explanations persuasive, however, and the more credible (and understandable) explanation is that they were reluctant to speak about these matters when interviewed and had pushed them to the back of their minds for a substantial period.

  51.52  The most eloquent critic of the lack of prior warning of the approach by the police was a woman complainant who described it as hard hearted and insensitively carried out. She continued "After informing me that my name was taken at random, they systematically prodded me with names and places of which I had long since put into a place of safety in my mind, in order to get on with my life with some dignity". She ended her statement on this "To simply walk into a person's life, extract deeply intimate and painful memories with no concern for the consequences for that person was, in my opinion, outrageously insensitive, the cost for me was to have had the floodgates of these memories prised open for reasons unknown, without any support to put back the pieces of my life in order to feel safe once again".

  51.53  We have sympathy with the witness' views and it may well be that, in her case, an alternative method of approach should have been adopted as soon as it became known that she was upset. She was, however, in a very small minority of persons who made such complaints and the response of the large majority was much more robust.

  51.54  We deal finally under this head with more serious complaints that police officers were aggressive towards witnesses, put pressure upon them and, in some cases, that officers suggested that compensation would be available or recoverable if they complained that they had been abused. This last suggestion was a recurring one made particularly by or on behalf of some members of the staff of Bryn Estyn. Only about three actual witnesses endorsed it, however, and it was denied by the police officers to whom it was put.

  51.55  The most persistent critic of the police was the witness referred to as B in Chapter 9 of this report[823]. As we have said in paragraph 9.33, B made many complaints about the way in which he was dealt with by police officers in the course of his interviews and on other occasions. In relation to the interviews, his allegations were levelled against three police officers and referred mainly to events shortly before and after his wife's death. He said, for example, that they were abrupt and abusive when his wife was ill, and that they refused to leave the house when he and even his wife asked them to do so. The most senior of the officers, a detective inspector, used particularly crude language also when questioning B. On a later occasion, when B's wife had died and he himself was living in the Midlands, officers called at his former house uninvited and refused to leave, when he spoke to them by telephone, until he had agreed to meet them later. On yet another occasion, B alleged, one of the three officers pinned him against a wall at the Colwyn Bay Police Headquarters and threatened him, apparently to deter B from complaining to senior officers about that officer's behaviour.

  51.56  Other more general complaints made by B were that the police officers were only interested in allegations against the persons whom they named and that they would not allow him to give additional information. According to B, there were long discussions, which were not recorded, despite B's requests that they should be taped, and he "just signed statements to get them (the police) out of (his) hair". Moreover, he makes the specific allegation that six written statements made by him to the police in the full course of the investigation have not been produced in evidence by them.

  51.57  There are many difficulties about this part of the evidence before the Tribunal. As we have explained in Chapter 9, the process of disclosure by B was exceptionally long drawn out and most of his allegations against the police in respect of his interviews appear to have been put forward by way of explanation (at least in part) for the lateness of some of his major allegations of physical and sexual abuse whilst in care. Another problem is that he did not make any written complaint to senior officers about his treatment by the police although he does say that he made repeated oral complaints about it whilst the investigation continued. His response to this criticism was that he was never asked to put his complaints in writing and was not handed a document on how to do so until after 1993, maybe as late as 1995.

  51.58  B's allegations of mistreatment by police officers have all been denied by them and we are unable to make precise findings about what occurred between them and B in the absence of any independent evidence. As for the alleged missing statements, we accept Ackerley's evidence that two statements by B made before the major investigation (one at Bryn Estyn and another at Wrexham Police Station) were destroyed in accordance with the police force's normal destruction policy; but, in our judgment, B is mistaken in alleging that four others are missing and we can see no reason why the police should have suppressed them. On the other hand, we think (with the benefit of some hindsight) that it would have been wiser if B had been seen by police officers who were not known to him beforehand. It appears that at least one of the three police officers had had previous dealings with B and it is likely that this did affect their approach to him. He must have been known to be a difficult man and we accept that there was probably a degree of insensitivity in their approach to him, bearing in mind that they were unaware of the gravity of his wife's problems at the time. B said in evidence that he asked to be interviewed by a woman police officer and it may be that some of the difficulties about his evidence would have been avoided, if that request had been granted earlier than it was.

  51.59  There is one other potential criticism of the investigation from 1991 onwards with which we should deal before concluding this section. It may be suggested that, if the investigation was truly thorough, it is surprising that the number of prosecutions that followed it was small in comparison with the volume of complaints. As we have already said more than once, scrutiny of decisions whether to prosecute named individuals is expressly excluded from the Tribunal's terms of reference. We should say, however, that in the course of the evidence presented by the North Wales Police to the Tribunal, we were shown lists (covering the period of the investigation to the end of November 1993) of individuals in respect of whom files were submitted to the Chief Prosecuting Solicitor. Those lists indicate the names of suspects in respect of whom recommendations to prosecute were made, those in respect of whom no recommendation either way was made and those against whom the police recommended that no proceedings should be taken. It is sufficient for us to say that there is nothing in these lists to cast doubt upon the thoroughness of the investigation or the willingness of the police to prosecute.

The demands for an investigation by an outside force

  51.60  There were recurring demands during the final police investigation for another police force to be called in to take over the investigation and the Chief Constable at the time, David Owen, has been criticised for refusing to agree to this. It is necessary, therefore, that we should give a brief history of the demands and the reasons advanced for them from time to time.

  51.61  There was no suggestion in the letter of 17 July 1991 from the County Secretary of Clwyd to the Chief Constable, which initiated the investigation, that it was necessary for, or desirable that, an independent police force should be called in to conduct it. However, on 26 July 1991 Councillor Dennis Parry, the leader of Clwyd County Council, referred to allegations of corruption within the North Wales Police at a meeting of the North Wales Police Authority. These allegations and other rumours mentioned on 20 July 1991 by Andrew Loveridge, then the Assistant County Secretary, to a senior police officer, which emanated from similar sources, did not involve any suggestion of child abuse. It transpired that the allegations referred to by Parry had been made by two former constables through another former constable and related to disciplinary issues rather than alleged criminality. They were investigated and subsequently withdrawn.

  51.62  On 1 December 1991 the Independent on Sunday newspaper published an article on the child abuse investigation in North Wales[824]. In that article Councillor Parry was said to have accused the police of mounting a cover-up to conceal the failure of senior officers and social services executives to reveal the extent of abuse in the children's homes. He was quoted as saying: "I want to know why the police didn't uncover all the stuff that is coming out now". It appears also that at about the same time Dr John Marek, Member of Parliament for Wrexham, wrote to the Rt Hon Earl Ferrers, Minister of State at the Home Office, asking him to order an "independent inquiry" but we have not seen the request or the basis for it. Brief correspondence ensued between the Home Office and the Chief Constable but the request for an inquiry does not appear to have been pursued at that stage. The Home Office was told that the Crown Prosecution Service had advised against any prosecution on the basis of the earlier investigations in Gwynedd but that current enquiries were continuing and that the evidence would be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service. Parry was seen by Ackerley and Rowlands, the senior officers responsible for the current investigation, on 16 December 1991 and does not appear to have pursued his allegation of a cover-up. He confirmed that he had never witnessed any offence against a child in care and that he was not in possession of any evidence of such an offence; he was told that the police investigation was confidential but that liaison with the County Secretary and the Director of Social Services would continue.

  51.63  At this point, as we have made clear in Chapter 9, no witness had made a statement to the police alleging that he had been abused by former Superintendent Gordon Anglesea, who had retired in March 1991. The allegations against Anglesea began to emerge when the journalist Dean Nelson pursued his investigations in North Wales during 1992[825]. The first specific allegations of which we have heard were made by the deceased complainant referred to as A in Chapter 9[826] on or about 18 June 1992 to Nelson; and these were repeated to A's solicitors two months later. Very shortly after this, on 24 August 1992, B made his third written statement to the police in which he complained of being pestered by Nelson and said that "at no time did Gordon Anglesea ever sexually abuse me". It was not until September 1992 that B made allegations against Anglesea successively to John Jevons (2 September) Nelson (4 and 11 September) and the police (his fourth written statement, on 9 September).

  51.64  At the end of August 1992 the Observer newspaper began a series of articles about the allegations of abuse in North Wales children's homes, which appeared in five successive issues from 30 August to 27 September 1992. In the article of 6 September reference was made to the naming of four police officers as suspects and the same article reported comments attributed to the Chairman of the North Wales Police Authority, a Gwynedd county councillor familiar with Alison Taylor's allegations, in which it was alleged that an inquiry into one Gwynedd home had been "deliberately killed". In the following article these allegations were widened: it was said that a former police chief had been named as a prime suspect[827] and that detectives believed half a dozen serving and retired police officers and more than 300 victims to be involved (the alleged number of police officers involved grew to 12, of whom three were still serving, by 27 September). Moreover, Councillor Dennis Parry and John Marek MP were reported to be calling for the investigation to be taken over by an outside force to restore confidence in the North Wales Police. By that time, on 7 September 1992, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Welsh Office had announced that a public inquiry into allegations of abuse in North Wales would take place when the North Wales Police had completed their inquiries[828].

  51.65  It is necessary to explain here the reference to police officers other than Anglesea against whom allegations of abuse had been made. The evidence before us shows that there were three officers only against whom allegations of sexual abuse were made and that none of them had any known relevant connection with Anglesea. We have not referred to the allegations against them earlier because none of their offences was alleged to have been committed against a child who was in care at that time.

  51.66  All three of these police officers were serving in the Territorial Army and working as Instructors with Army Cadets when the alleged offences are said to have occurred. The complainant against two of the police officers, whom we will refer to as X and Y, was B, who was made the subject of a care order on 15 July 1977, when he was 14Ö years old. B had been encouraged by his father to join the Army Cadets and did so when he was about 11 years old. He remained a member until he was placed at Bersham Hall on 2 August 1977. He alleged that he suffered buggery and other forms of sexual assault at the hands of both X and Y in the course of his cadet service. These offences were committed separately by them; they occurred frequently in the cadet hut and on occasions in a police car.

  51.67  B first alleged to the police that he had been abused by X (who was discharged from the police on medical grounds on 30 June 1990) when he was interviewed on 24 August 1992. In his written statement made that day he said that he had no complaint to make with regard to Y but he made a further statement to the police on 13 October 1992 in which he made detailed allegations of sexual abuse by Y. Both X and Y denied that they had abused B.

  51.68  B did not make any allegations against the third police officer, Z, who was known to his family. The complainant against Z was another army cadet, who was not in care and who joined the Regular Army at the age of 16 years. He said that Z befriended him during his cadet service but that, on three occasions when he was about 15 years old, Z indecently assaulted him. This complainant never mentioned these incidents until the police got in touch with him in November 1992 and on 28 December 1992 he made a formal written statement recounting them. On 24 March 1993, when Z was no longer in the police force, he was given a written caution in respect of an offence of indecent assault against the boy, which he admitted.

  51.69  The North Wales Police Authority considered the call for an investigation by an outside police force at its meeting on 14 September 1992, at which the Chief Constable made a statement in the course of which he said that allegations had been made against three serving officers and two former officers[829] but that there were no allegations of sexual abuse being made against any serving police officer. He affirmed the intention of the North Wales Police to leave no stone unturned "in further pursuing these allegations (of abuse), irrespective of the political, social or senior position of any person involved". The Chief Constable mentioned also that matters had already been referred to the Police Complaints Authority for them to consider whether they should supervise the inquiry: so far, they had not seen the necessity to supervise but there would be further discussions with them. The Police Authority resolved that the allegations of abuse should continue to be investigated "as an internal matter within the Force".

  51.70  It seems that discussion about calling in an outside force rumbled onthrough the autumn of 1992 but petered out by the end of the year.In September 1992 Donald Elliott, one of HM Inspectors of Constabulary and the Inspector responsible for North Wales, expressed interest in the investigation because of the possible involvement of police officers as potential offenders but was not concerned about the overall inquiry[830]. Then on 1 October 1992 both Elliott and the Chief Constable attended a conference of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and Elliott suggested informally to the Chief Constable that he should get in an outside force to deal with the investigation into child abuse. Elliott said that he had been thinking about the matter and felt that there were a lot of complications because of the interest of local politicians; if an outside force were to be invited to take over, it would resolve the issues.

  51.71  The Chief Constable pointed out in his evidence that Elliott had not had any previous discussion with him or any briefing about the investigation before tendering this advice; and Elliott did not seek any briefing. The latter wrote subsequently to the North Wales Police Authority to seek their views but it was clear from the Clerk's reply, dated 16 October 1992, that the Authority did not consider it necessary at that time to call in an outside police force. This was not stated expressly and the author of the letter (Roger Davies[831]) appears to have forgotten the Authority's resolution on 14 September but he did refer to a full discussion of the issues that had taken place on 23 September 1992 between the Chairman, the Clerk and the Chief Constable.

  51.72  Sir John Woodcock, HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary from 1 April 1990 to 30 June 1993 and a former Chief Constable of South Wales, visited the North Wales Police on 8 and 9 October 1992. It was a courtesy visit at a time when the Chief Constable was President of ACPO. In the course of that visit Sir John spent nearly two hours with the investigative team in the Major Incident Room that had been established in Colwyn Bay. In his written statement to the Tribunal he said that he was impressed by what he saw and heard that day and was delighted with the response that he received. He did not feel concerned about the conduct of the inquiry: it was obvious to him that the Chief Constable had a firm control on the inquiry and he wrote to the latter after his visit, saying how impressed he had been with the officers whom he had met.

  51.73  On the subject of the advice given by Elliott, of which he was aware, Sir John said that he thought that it had been good advice and that he would probably have given the same advice but he added that he could not say so definitely. Sir John stressed that the decision whether or not to call in another force was a matter for the Chief Constable to decide: he was responsible and answerable for his own actions and was in the best position to make a professional judgment on the advice given.

  51.74  Another visitor to the Major Incident Room was Mrs Causey, a member of the Police Complaints Authority; and Sir Leonard Peach, its chairman, also visited the North Wales Police at about this time. As Sir Ronald Hadfield, our assessor, has explained, however, all the serious allegations against police officers that we have discussed were outside the jurisdiction of the PCA so that supervision of the inquiry by that Authority was never a live possibility[832]. David Owen told us that he did refer "the matter" on a third occasion to the PCA following the allegation against Y in October 1992 but again received a negative response.

  51.75  The Chief Constable told the Tribunal that he regarded it as unnecessary and impracticable to call in an outside force to take over the investigation in the autumn of 1992, which was the first and only time that it was mooted on a credible basis. By that time the investigation had reached an advanced stage; very many statements had been taken by the investigating team of approximately 51 officers; and prosecution had been recommended in about a dozen cases. If an outside force had been called in, the investigation would have been set back by a year and the cost of the exercise would have been unacceptable. The Chief Constable had full confidence in the reliability and professional capacity of the Senior Investigating Officer and, in the former's view, the progress and ultimate outcome of the investigation justified that confidence.

  51.76  A further point made by the Chief Constable is that, although Gwynedd Social Services Committee joined in the call for an outside force in October 1992, the demands for this were otherwise restricted to a small group of people whose views had been publicised and he did not receive any correspondence from the general public in support of the demand. In an effort to assuage any anxiety felt by local politicians he arranged to meet Dr John Marek MP and Councillor Malcolm King with the Deputy Chief Constable in response to a suggestion of Earl Ferrers. At that meeting on 4 December 1992 the Chief Constable told them that, if they had a list of specific concerns, he would arrange for the responsible Assistant Chief Constable and Ackerley to meet them to try to resolve the issues. Accordingly, the further meeting took place on 17 December 1992 and it was continued on 26 February 1993, when Andrew Loveridge[833] attended in place of Dr Marek. We have seen what appear to be full notes of the subjects discussed at both of these later briefing meetings, most of which have been before this Tribunal. Our interpretation of the notes is that full and accurate information was given in response to the many questions that were raised.

  51.77  Sir Ronald Hadfield said in his advice to the Tribunal[834] that he would only criticise the decision of the Chief Constable not to request that another police force should take over the investigation if it could have been shown to have been plainly wrong. In his view, there were many factors supporting that decision, as we have indicated in the preceding paragraph, and it follows that Sir Ronald does not criticise the way in which the Chief Constable exercised his discretion.

  51.78  Our own view is that the Chief Constable made the correct decision on the right grounds in difficult circumstances. The earlier Gwynedd inquiry had given rise to justifiable criticism and lack of confidence in the determination of the North Wales Police to investigate the allegations of child abuse thoroughly and impartially. By the autumn of 1992, however, the Chief Constable had substantial grounds for confidence that the new comprehensive investigation was being carried out with integrity and professional efficiency; and replacement of the investigating team, with all the attendant confusion, delay and expense, could not be justified. We should add that, in our judgment also, a review of the investigation by an independent senior officer at that stage would not have served any useful practical purpose in relation to the investigation itself but it is arguable that such a review would have helped to assuage public concern[835].

Conclusions

  51.79  To sum up, we consider that the first of the three police investigations that we have discussed in detail, namely, the investigation led by Detective Superintendent Gwynne Owen in Gwynedd between 1986 and 1988 was seriously defective for the reasons that we have indicated in paragraphs 51.29 to 51.32. As we have said there, it is a matter of speculation whether any criminal charges would have been brought if the investigation had been pursued more thoroughly and impartially by an adequate investigating team; and it is even less clear that such an investigation would have been widened to cover other children's homes. What is clear, however, is that the handling of the investigation did give rise to unease and dissatisfaction amongst a small but significant number of persons, including alleged victims of abuse, who had some knowledge of the circumstances. This in turn led to anxiety and adverse publicity about the North Wales Police when wider allegations of abuse came to be investigated about three years later.

  51.80  We do not think that any substantial criticism is justified of the later two investigations, bearing in mind particularly the scale of the last. No doubt there were errors in the approach to some witnesses but the volume of complaints under this head of which we have heard has been notably small. Nevertheless, there are important lessons to be learnt from all three investigations. One is the importance of appropriate training in advance of a sizeable group of officers in each police force to equip them to carry out inquiries into abuse with appropriate sensitivity, however stale the allegations may be[836]. Another is the importance of close liaison between the police and other agencies, particularly social services departments. There will often be complications about this because allegations may impinge directly or indirectly on officers or staff of those agencies but a clear working relationship has to be established and access by the police to all relevant documents is of paramount importance.

  51.81  It is common knowledge that, since this Tribunal was announced, there have been widespread investigations into the alleged abuse of children in care in several parts of the country on lines similar to that of the last North Wales investigation. It is strongly arguable, therefore, that the time has now arrived for a comprehensive inter-agency review of the conduct of such investigations, leading to the issue of appropriate guidelines, in the light of recent experience.

Footnotes:

807   See paras 2.12 to 2.15 and 50.15 to 50.17 for outlines of this investigation.

808   See para 36.09.

809   See paras 33.102, 33.103 and 50.15.

810   See paras 36.14 to 36.29

811   See paras 33.90, 33.91 and 34.17(8).

812   See paras 33.120 and 33.121.

813   Throwing the boy over "the goalposts" cf para 33.76.

814   Hughes had written to Owen on 3 March 1987 about the alleged activities of Alison Taylor's husband

815   See para 1.04 and Appendix 11

816   See Appendix 11, para 2.8.

817   See para 15.39.

818   See para 15.45.

819   See para 15.45.

820   See paras 28.24 and 28.38.

821   See Appendix 11, para 4.

822   Home Office Large Major Enquiry System.

823   See paras 9.05 and 9.32 to 9.34

824   See paras 2.25 and 2.26.

825   See para 2.33.

826   See para 9.29.

827   See para 2.27.

828   See para 2.36.

829   We do not know of any allegations other than those we have referred to.

830   Letter from him to the Chief Constable dated 16 September 1992.

831   See para 28.45.

832   See Appendix 11, para 8.

833   See para 51.61

834   See Appendix 11, para 7.

835   See also Sir Ronald Hadfield's comment on this: Appendix 11, para 9.

836   Note also Sir Ronald Hadfield's comments on assistance from a psychologist: Appendix 11, para 6