Two men have appeared in court charged with hunting offences after foxes were killed during the Fitzwilliam Hunt.
George Adams (65) and John Mease (44) appeared at Peterborough Magistrates’ Court this morning (Wednesday). Both men are charged with hunting a fox with dogs on New Years’ Day this year, while Mease also faces a count of causing unnecessary suffering to a fox, when a golden eagle killed the animal in November 2013. Both men pleaded not guilty to the charges, and will stand trial later this year. Sam Wooley, prosecuting, told the court:
“These are two separate offence.
“The first offence took place on January 1 2016, when the defendants were with the Fitzwilliam Hunt. “It is said that the hunt used hounds to kill a fox. It is said the hounds were not called off quickly enough, and they killed the fox. “We say Mr Adams’ role was he was leading the hunt. He was the person who gives commands to the hounds.”
“The second offence relates to the use of a golden eagle by Mease. It is said the eagle killed the fox in an inhumane way.” The court was told there would be two trials covering the matter - one for each offence. The trial involving both men will take place at Peterborough Magistrates’ Court on Monday, December 5. The trial only involving Mease will take place at the same court on Thursday, December 8. Both men were granted bail by District Judge Miller until the trial date.
Read more at: http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/crime/two-members-of-fitzwilliam-hunt-in-court-charged-with-hunting-offences-1-7554105
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
Post-Rotherham, whistleblowing in social care needs an urgent review
By Martin Morton
from 204 but more relevant today, methinks.
When Community Care wanted to revisit the topic of whistleblowing within social care, I was informed by the journalist reporting that, as a social worker who was prepared to speak openly about my experience, I was a rare case. The resulting report’s title said it all: “Fear of bullying prevents social workers from whistleblowing”.
Now following the harrowing revelations of child abuse and exploitation in Rotherham, it appears to me from reading the Jay report that whistleblowing remains anathema within social care.
Findings from the report that “the environment at the council was described as macho, sexist and bullying” and “within social care the scale and seriousness of the problem was underplayed by senior managers” were infuriatingly familiar.
What struck me, as these type of revelations always do, is how Rotherham Council and other agencies involved in safeguarding vulnerable children managed to keep serious concerns hidden for so long, when it was clear that many social workers and their managers knew there was a serious issue of abuse, and had known for a very long time.
As sure as night follows day, I discovered that Unison had made claims of widespread bullying within the social services department of Rotheram council in 2010. A survey by the union shows that 75% of its members thought bullying in their department was a “serious” or “very serious” problem.
As this publication wrote in 2012: “Despite the existence of laws designed to protect those who speak out against malpractice, whistleblowers still risk their careers by doing the right thing.”
“On one hand social workers are bound by their professional code of conduct to protect service users, but on the other some employers and organisations use the unspoken threat of personal and professional ruin to keep them schtum.”
In the face of savage cuts to services, I can’t think of a profession that needs to whistleblow more – especially about the impact on the most vulnerable people in our communities and the risks to health, wellbeing and indeed lives. However the issue of bullying is only part of the answer to the question: “why don’t social workers whistleblow?”.
Is it because social workers are not listened to or because they don’t whistleblow loudly or shrill enough?
Might it have something to do with the fact that social work training steers away from the controversial but absolutely vital area of how to safely raise concerns?
Or is it that some of our institutions are now so fundamentally broken that social workers’ ability to speak up to those in power, in the name of protecting children and safeguarding vulnerable adults, is now fatally compromised?
I believe there was an opportunity to raise some of these – admittedly big – questions with the setting up of an independent review “Whistleblowing in the NHS” chaired by Sir Robert Francis QC. The review intends to provide independent advice and recommendations to ensure that:
It is also significant that social care is excluded from this review.
In consideration of reports emanating from Rotherham, Rochdale and other places the fact that the review does not consider whistleblowing issues relating to social care is, regrettably, not only a missed opportunity but an extremely telling statement of the way social care remains the “poor relation” of healthcare.
Martin Morton is a social worker who blew the whistle on the overcharging of disabled adults in Wirral council and was forced to resign.
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2014/09/08/post-rotheram-whistleblowing-social-care-needs-urgent-review/
from 204 but more relevant today, methinks.
When Community Care wanted to revisit the topic of whistleblowing within social care, I was informed by the journalist reporting that, as a social worker who was prepared to speak openly about my experience, I was a rare case. The resulting report’s title said it all: “Fear of bullying prevents social workers from whistleblowing”.
Now following the harrowing revelations of child abuse and exploitation in Rotherham, it appears to me from reading the Jay report that whistleblowing remains anathema within social care.
Findings from the report that “the environment at the council was described as macho, sexist and bullying” and “within social care the scale and seriousness of the problem was underplayed by senior managers” were infuriatingly familiar.
What struck me, as these type of revelations always do, is how Rotherham Council and other agencies involved in safeguarding vulnerable children managed to keep serious concerns hidden for so long, when it was clear that many social workers and their managers knew there was a serious issue of abuse, and had known for a very long time.
As sure as night follows day, I discovered that Unison had made claims of widespread bullying within the social services department of Rotheram council in 2010. A survey by the union shows that 75% of its members thought bullying in their department was a “serious” or “very serious” problem.
As this publication wrote in 2012: “Despite the existence of laws designed to protect those who speak out against malpractice, whistleblowers still risk their careers by doing the right thing.”
“On one hand social workers are bound by their professional code of conduct to protect service users, but on the other some employers and organisations use the unspoken threat of personal and professional ruin to keep them schtum.”
In the face of savage cuts to services, I can’t think of a profession that needs to whistleblow more – especially about the impact on the most vulnerable people in our communities and the risks to health, wellbeing and indeed lives. However the issue of bullying is only part of the answer to the question: “why don’t social workers whistleblow?”.
Is it because social workers are not listened to or because they don’t whistleblow loudly or shrill enough?
Might it have something to do with the fact that social work training steers away from the controversial but absolutely vital area of how to safely raise concerns?
Or is it that some of our institutions are now so fundamentally broken that social workers’ ability to speak up to those in power, in the name of protecting children and safeguarding vulnerable adults, is now fatally compromised?
I believe there was an opportunity to raise some of these – admittedly big – questions with the setting up of an independent review “Whistleblowing in the NHS” chaired by Sir Robert Francis QC. The review intends to provide independent advice and recommendations to ensure that:
- NHS workers can raise concerns in the public interest with confidence that they will not suffer detriment as a result
- Appropriate action is taken when concerns are raised by NHS workers
- Where NHS whistleblowers are mistreated, those mistreating them will be held to account.
It is also significant that social care is excluded from this review.
In consideration of reports emanating from Rotherham, Rochdale and other places the fact that the review does not consider whistleblowing issues relating to social care is, regrettably, not only a missed opportunity but an extremely telling statement of the way social care remains the “poor relation” of healthcare.
Martin Morton is a social worker who blew the whistle on the overcharging of disabled adults in Wirral council and was forced to resign.
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2014/09/08/post-rotheram-whistleblowing-social-care-needs-urgent-review/
Saturday, August 27, 2016
The Militant Tendency in Liverpool: Books, Pictures, and Videos.
The Militant Tendency in Liverpool: Books, Pictures, and Videos
Michael Parkinson, Liverpool on the Brink: One City’s Struggle Against Government Cuts(Policy Journals, 1985); Peter Taaffe and Tony Mulhearn, Liverpool: The City That Dared To Fight (Fortress Press, 1988); Diane Frost and Peter North, Militant Liverpool: A City on the Edge (Liverpool University Press, 2013); Dave Sinclair,Liverpool in the 1980s (Amberley Publishing, 2014).
https://thoughtsofaleicestersocialist.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/the-militant-tendency-in-liverpool-books-pictures-and-videos/
Friday, August 26, 2016
Named: Scots police chiefs linked to disgraced ‘Spycops’ unit.
The identities of senior police officers in Scotland linked to a secret Metropolitan Police division under investigation are revealed today by The Ferret, prompting renewed calls for the Pitchford Inquiry to be extended to Scotland.
A Police Scotland response to questions submitted under Freedom of Information legislation reveals the names of high ranking Scottish police officers who attended meetings of the Association of Chief Police Officers’ Terrorism and Allied Matters Committee, aka ACPO TAM.
ACPO TAM is responsible for counter terrorism and oversaw the UK’s national domestic extremism units whose activities are being investigated by Lord Justice Pitchford.
The committee’s remit covered undercover officers with the Metropolitan Police who infiltrated campaigning groups and spied on animal rights activists and environmentalists, among others deemed domestic extremists.
The Ferret – publishing this information today in tandem with the Daily Record – also obtained details of Police Scotland’s command structure for the G8 Summit at Gleneagles in 2005 when the undercover Met Police officer Mark Kennedy was operating in Scotland with colleagues.
Kennedy was one of several undercover police officers who entered into relationships with women during covert operations.
Another called Bob Lambert fathered a child with a woman he was spying on and the actions of officers with the disgraced Met Police unit led to the Pitchford Inquiry being set up.
The public inquiry will investigate the policing of domestic extremism and also alleged miscarriages of justice linked to police spies in England and Wales.
However, revelations that undercover Met Police officers – including Kennedy – also worked north of the border led to calls for Pitchford to cover Scotland too.
Senior officers in Scotland who met with ACPO TAM included Sir Willie Rae, former Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police, and Paddy Tomkins, former Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police.
Sir Stephen House – who stepped down as Chief Constable of Scotland last year – also attended ACPO TAM meetings.
Former Assistant Chief Constables Colin McCashey and Ronnie Liddle – both now retired – were also listed in the Police Scotland FOI reply.
DCC Iain Livingstone still serves with Police Scotland and was also named as having attended ACPO TAM meetings.
Senior officers were members of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) which ceased to operate on 1st April 2o13 when Police Scotland was established.
The Police Scotland FOI reply also said that DCC Livingstone, along with Sir Stephen House, ACC Ruaraidh Nicolson and new Chief Constable of Scotland, Phil Gormley, have all attended ACPO TAM meetings since the formation of Police Scotland.
It emerged last weekend that Chief Constable Gormley is expected to give evidence during the Pitchford Inquiry.
In 2006, his role at the Met Police included oversight of both the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit(NPOIU).
Both of these now defunct units investigated domestic extremism and will be scrutinised during the Pitchford Inquiry.
Mr Gormley was head of Special Branch when the SDS was running Carlo Neri, an undercover officer who had relationships with two women who are now taking legal action against the Met.
Campaigners calling for the Pitchford Inquiry to be extended to Scotland said senior officers should have known that Met Police spies were operating in Scotland and should be questioned.
Senior officers leading the policing of the G8 Summit at Gleneagles in 2005, when the SDS was in Scotland, included ACC Ian Dickinson who was closely involved in counter terrorism.
Paddy Tomkins was also involved in policing the G8 Summit. He was awarded the Queen’s Police Medal for Distinguished Police Service.
Donal O’Driscoll, of Undercover Research Group, has been researching and exposing police spies while calling for Pitchford to cover Scotland.
He said: “This information shows that through ACPOS, Scottish police officers played a role overseeing undercover police officers such as Mark Kennedy and cannot deny knowing about their activities, including in Scotland.”
“We know that many of the spycops were active in Scotland or holidayed there with the women they targeted for relationships. For those most affected by these injustices it is vital for the full story of the abuse to come out, and for this reason alone the Pitchford Inquiry must be extended to Scotland.”
Labour MSP Neil Findlay has also campaigned for the public inquiry to cover Scotland. He said: “Evidence of Scottish involvement in the undercover policing scandal grows by the day.”
“We now must have all of this brought out in the open with a full public inquiry in Scotland. We cannot have people in England and Wales having access to justice but people in Scotland denied.”
A Police Scotland spokesman said: “We do not routinely comment on covert policing operations.”
“It is a matter for the public inquiry into undercover policing who is called to provide evidence and that request will be considered if received by Police Scotland.”
The Scottish Government has said it would explore the possibility of extending Pitchford to Scotland with the Home Secretary, Theresa May.
When asked what progress had been made a spokesperson for the Scottish Government, said: “Discussions concerning extending the Pitchford Inquiry to cover the activities of the Metropolitan Units in Scotland are ongoing.”
In January, The Ferret revealed that Ronnie Liddle – Scotland’s former counter-terrorism chief– was seconded to a controversial undercover Met Police unit now under investigation.
Mr Liddle was head of CID at Lothian and Borders Police before being appointed to lead counter-terrorism in Scotland in May 2012.
But he was seconded to the Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Intelligence Unit (CTIU), responsible for undercover police, seven months later.
Part of his remit was overseeing domestic extremism, including officers spying on protest groups in Britain.
Mr Liddle’s secondment to the Met Police was detailed in the minutes of a Lothian and Borders Police Board meeting in 2013.
It says Liddle was: “Temporarily promoted to Assistant Chief Constable from 23/4/12 upon secondment to CTIU for the period 23/4/12 to 15/12/12.”
Part of his remit at CTIU included responsibility for national domestic extremism.
Last month, more than 100 people signed a letter demanding that the Met Police revealed the fake names used by police spies ahead of the inquiry beginning.
The 133 signatories also called for a list of protest groups infiltrated by undercover officers to be made public.
The people who signed the letter will each play a key role in the Pitchford Inquiry.
People who signed the letter include Harry Halpin who told the Sunday Mail that an undercover officer called Mark Kennedy duped him into allowing access to his personal computer.
At the time, Haplin was a climate change activist studying for a PhD at the University of Edinburgh.
Another signatory was Jason Kirkpatrick, an activist who befriended Kennedy and suspects the officer interfered with his media work during the 2005 global summit at Gleneagles.
Kate Wilson also signed the letter. She successful sued the Met after being duped into a relationship with Kennedywho was in Scotland working undercover on 14 occasions.
The letter was published on a website called Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance (Cops).
In our view, the police’s ‘neither confirm nor deny’ policy is less about protecting individuals and far more about blocking exposure of misdeeds.CAMPAIGN OPPOSING POLICE SURVEILLANCE
It begins: “Dear Lord Justice Pitchford, As 133 of the inquiry’s core participants, we write to share our collective view that a fundamental requirement for the inquiry’s success is to instruct police to disclose, as soon as possible, a list of names of all the organisations about whom intelligence was gathered; the cover names (not the real identities) of the individual officers responsible for infiltrating and reporting on activists and campaigns; and the individual Special Branch reports for each core participant group or individual.
“Core Participants and other current and potential witnesses are likely to struggle to provide testimony as long as there remains inadequate or non-existent information available to them.”
“We are deeply concerned that a unique and historic opportunity may be lost unless the inquiry is able to provide the vital details we seek.”
The letter criticises the Met Police for failing to reveal the names used by undercover officers, accusing the force of obstructing the inquiry to serve its own interests.
It says: “We appreciate that the police will use every possible argument against providing greater openness and transparency, although there is no evidence that the public exposure of any undercover officer to date has either placed them at personal risk or posed any threat to national security.”
“In our view, the police’s ‘neither confirm nor deny’ policy is less about protecting individuals and far more about blocking exposure of misdeeds.”
The Met Police has refused to release the names of undercover officers as they have a policy of protecting covert tactics and the safety of officers and their families.
https://theferret.scot/scottish-police-chiefs-spycops-pitchford-inquiry/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SVTF
Greville Janner invited me to sauna.
A Jewish historian gave evidence to police investigating allegations of sexual abuse against the late Lord Janner, it has emerged.
Gavin Littaur, a 66-year-old postal expert, was questioned by Leicestershire Police about a brief encounter he had with Greville Janner during the 1970s.
Mr Littaur wrote to the JC after reading an interview with Lord Janner's son, Daniel Janner QC, who suggested that the case against his father was backed by people who are "driven by claiming compensation".
When Lord Janner died last December, aged 87, he was facing a criminal hearing, accused of 22 charges involving 13 complainants between 1963 and 1988. A growing number of them have launched civil cases seeking damages from his £2 million estate.
While Mr Littaur, from Hendon, north-west London, does not claim to have been abused by Lord Janner, he recalled being propositioned by him during his early twenties. The politician was a close friend of Mr Littaur's parents and had been invited to the family home for dinner.
I thought it was right for me to approach the police
Mr Littaur said: "He was very charming, articulate and clever. While my parents cleared up, they said 'go and look after Greville in the lounge'.
"He was asking me about my life and what I did. I was asking him about the Jewish community and the law. We were chatting away and he seemed pleasant and talkative. But then very smoothly - as smooth as silk - he said 'would you like to come back to join me for a sauna?'"
Mr Littaur, who is heterosexual, unequivocally rejected the offer and immediately excused himself. When he told his parents, his mother was "very jumpy", but his father "was faintly amused".
While nothing further occurred, Mr Littaur said he had "absolutely no question" about the "improper and inappropriate suggestion" which left him feeling "imposed upon".
The two men never crossed paths again.
But Mr Littaur contacted police last year when he read about the accusations against Lord Janner.
"I believe bad things happen when good people stay silent, so on balance I thought it right to approach the police. I thought it was so long ago and they would think nothing of it."
Their response, however, surprised him. Two officers travelled from Leicester to spend two hours interviewing Mr Littaur.
They said his story "tied in" with the accounts of others. He has had no further involvement with the inquiry, but contacted the JC after reading Mr Janner's comments about those claiming to have been abused.
Mr Littaur: "I don't like aspersions cast on myself and possibly other people and I thought I should speak up.
"I have no agenda and no axe to grind - I just want the truth to come out, whatever the truth is."
Lord Janner's family have repeatedly denied he was engaged in any wrongdoing.
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/162354/greville-janner-invited-me-sauna
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
JUSTICE DENIED: Prof Alexis Jay Rotherham Cover-up
JUSTICE DENIED: Prof Alexis Jay Rotherham Cover-up: Alexis Jay curtesy of http://aanirfan.blogspot.com Professor Alexis Jay , a former social worker, has become the fourth chair of t...
Greville Janner: more alleged victims cleared to testify at sex abuse inquiry.
The independent inquiry examining sexual abuse claims against Greville Janner will hear testimony from a further six alleged victims, it was confirmed today.
Previously, the number of people understood to be alleging they had been sexually assaulted by the former Labour MP for Leicester West stood at 27.
However, the further six 'complainants' were granted core participant status by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, (IICSA).
Core participants will deliver their testimonies to the inquiry and be granted special rights, such as receiving documents, making legal submissions, suggesting questions and receiving advance notice of the inquiry's report.
That means a total of 33 alleged victims will testify they were alleged by the Labour politician.
According to documents released by the IICSA today, most allege abuse took place when they were living in children's homes.
Their lawyer said all six had contacted Leicestershire Police in the past but their allegations had not resulted in criminal charges against the politician.
The veteran Labour politician – who was accused of 22 sexual offences against boys between 1963 and 1988 – died, aged 87, shortly before Christmas.
His death ended the prospect of his alleged victims' evidence ever being tested in a criminal court.
The veteran politician's family says he was innocent of any wrongdoing.
The IICSA was created by the Government to ask whether efforts to try the former Labour MP for Leicester West for alleged child abuse when he was alive and well were "hindered or prevented" by public authorities.
The inquiry, which is conducting a number of separate investigations into alleged sexual abuse by people in positions of power, will issue a "finding of facts" report at its conclusion.
Leicestershire Police and the Crown Prosecution Service will be asked why the politician was not charged with offences against children when he was alive and well and what was known about his alleged sexual interest in children.
Leicestershire County Council, which was responsible for children's home in which abuse allegedly took place, is also to be asked to account for its actions.
Liz Dux, specialist abuse lawyer at Slater and Gordon who represents 16 of Lord Janner's alleged victims, including the six new complainants, said: "This is not a case of new alleged victims coming forward, but more those who have already made allegations of serious sexual assault wanting to have their evidence heard by the inquiry after suffering in silence and being ignored for so long.
"As a result we welcome them being made core participants."
Earlier this month Professor Alexis Jay replaced New Zealander judge Justice Dame Lowell Goddard, who stood down from the post of chairman of the inquiry.
Prof Jay led the groundbreaking public inquiry which uncovered the sexual exploitation of 1,400 young women in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, between 1997 and 2013.
Read more at http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/greville-janner-more-alleged-victims-cleared-to-testify-at-sex-abuse-inquiry/story-29643973-detail/story.html#V7Y4vrbO8wMZmhS8.99
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
Tape recording of an expert (a SHOCKING case).
Truly, absolutely shocking.
This was a set of care proceedings, transferred up to the High Court before Mr Justice Hayden. A consultant clinical psychologist, Dr Ben Harper, was instructed by the Court to assess the mother. The mother unknown to him, tape recorded their sessions. After the report of Dr Harper arrived, containing words set out in quotation marks attributed to the mother that she says she did not say, those tape recordings were transcribed and showed that she was correct.
Re F (A Minor) 2016
Here are the findings that mother’s team invited the Court to make – you’ll see that they are very powerful (perhaps even career-damaging stuff)
- Ms Taryn Lee QC and Ms Olivia Weir prepared a very extensive schedule prefaced by the following summary of the findings they invited the Court to make:
- 1. Dr Harper has either misread or exaggerated the mother’s presentation during the appointments. The recordings do not support the assertion that the mother was at any point agitated, abrupt, irritated, defensive or frustrated. Indeed in respect of (iii) and (v) the conversations never, in fact, took place.
2. Dr Harper misrepresents, inaccurately surmises and/or falsely asserts that the mother made comments listed in the body of the schedule. The comments set out and attributed to the mother were either (a) not said by her in those terms, or (b) other factual information provided by the mother has been re-interpreted by Dr Harper and presented as a quote of the mother with a negative or twisted emphasis attached to it. Dr Harper then uses these ‘quotations’ by the mother to form his conclusions and recommendations.
3. Dr Harper records that the mother reported/stated various facts and/or provided the accounts listed below when in fact there is no evidence during either appointment that the subject was even discussed or if the subject was discussed these comments were not made at any point. Dr Harper has fabricated these conversations/responses and has chosen to attribute negative comments to the mother including assertions that during the assessment sessions the mother called previous experts liars, which she simply has not done. Dr Harper has abused his position of trust as a professional and as a doctor and his actions in fabricating these conversations, comments and conclusions are abusive to this vulnerable mother and are a contempt of court.
4. Dr Harper states that he completed the following psychometric tests: It is not easy to discern at what point in the assessment sessions Dr. Harper states he administered these psychometric tests and he is invited to provide (a) all of the relevant guidance and assessment papers/questions and identify within the transcripts where the assessments were conducted.
5. Dr Harper suggests that the mother was reluctant and/or unable to provide information in the following matters: Dr Harper did not, in fact, ask any specific or structured questions to elicit a response to any of the matters that he then seeks to criticise the mother for and in respect of. Some matters that he suggests she refused to provide information/answer questions in respect of [they] were never at any point raised by Dr Harper.
6. Dr Harper misrepresents what the mother has actually said, in such a manner as to create a negative impression of the mother in the examples identified.
7. Dr Harper inaccurately quotes other experts’ reports in a manner that presents a negative impression of the mother.
8. Dr Harper then relies upon his own false reporting of what the mother is supposed to have said to reach his conclusions, which ultimately lead to a recommendation of separation of the siblings and adoption of the youngest two children.
9. It is asserted that neither Dr Harper’s handwritten notes nor his comments regarding the 6th April 2016 can be relied upon for the reasons asserted in the schedule.
- As these findings were particularised it became clear that the allegations extended to: ‘false reporting’; ‘inaccurate quoting’ designed to present the Mother in a ‘negative light’; ‘fabrication of conversations’ and deliberate ‘misrepresentation’. In cross examination Ms Lee accused Dr Harper of ‘lying’.
Holy wow.
Dr Harper was invited to intervene in the proceedings, and was represented by Fenella Morris QC.
The Judge did not approach the matter on the basis of the schedule of findings drawn up (that’s rather annoying for me, as it would have helped to look at such particularised findings, but that was a judicial decision)
- Whilst I am full of admiration for the industry which underpins the extensive schedule prepared by the Mother’s team and the equal energy expended in the detailed response document, I am bound to say that the two do not provide a user friendly framework to negotiate the contested issues. Partly for this reason but primarily because I consider it to be a distraction, I do not propose to address many of the minute allegations which, as I have indicated during the course of exchanges with counsel, are of varying cogency and forensic weight. What I propose to do is to analyse, in what I consider to be a proportionate manner, those allegations which it is necessary for me to determine in order properly to resolve the issues in the care proceedings. Thereafter I must consider a further important question: are the findings made out against Dr Harper sufficiently serious so as to render his evidence in these proceedings unreliable?
- Dr Harper’s report is dated 11th April 2016, it is 70 pages in length. At its conclusion it contains the following, now standard, declarations:
- i) ‘I have exercised reasonable care and skill in order to be accurate and complete in preparing this report’;
ii) ‘I understand that this report will form the evidence to be given under oath or affirmation’;
iii) ‘I am likely to be the subject of public adverse criticism by the Judge if the Court concluded that I have not taken reasonable care in trying to meet the standards set out above’;
iv) ‘I confirm that I have acted in accordance with the Codes of Practice for Experts’.
- Finally, the ‘STATEMENT OF TRUTH’ appears at the very end of the report. Familiar though it is, it requires to be repeated here:
- “I confirm that the contents of this report are true to the best of my knowledge and that I make this report knowing that if it is tendered in evidence, I would be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything that I would know to be false or that I do not believe to be true”
Responding directly to the schedule of findings sought by mother’s team, Dr Harper said this
- Responding directly to the schedule Dr Harper makes this concession:
- “12. There are a number of occasions where I have referred toMrs Mother as having said something by way of italicised text within double quotes. It is quite clear to me that anyone reading my report would have interpreted these as suggesting they were verbatim quotes. I did not, however, take verbatim notes and a number of sentences attributed to Mother are inaccurate.”
Yes, if I read a report from an expert that said
Mother said she was sorry for all the trouble she had caused
I would think that there was an apology along those lines but not that this represented a verbatim account but
Mother said “I’m sorry for all the trouble I’ve caused”
I would read as being, the expert is reporting the words that she used and is stating with confidence that she used those words.
So having remarks in quotation marks that mother did not actually say is a significant deficiency.
What did the Judge say about that?
- I have read this paragraph a number of times. It seems to me to do Dr Harper no credit at all. It is crafted in a way that seems designed to minimise the extent of the very significant failing it represents. When pursued in cross examination it was revealed that extensive parts of the report which purport, by the conventional grammatical use of quotation marks, to be direct quotations from the Mother, are in fact nothing of the kind. They are a collection of recollections and impressions compressed into phrases created by Dr Harper and attributed to the Mother. They convey to the reader of the report only one impression, namely that they represent the authentic voice of Mother herself. The quotations are also italicised and drafted in full sentences in the idiom of the Mother rather than in the formal argot of psychology which characterises the remainder of the report.Within the context of the evaluative exercise that the Court is involved in, during care proceedings, the accurately reported phrases and observations of the parties themselves are inevitably afforded much greater forensic weight than e.g. opinion evidence, hearsay or summary by a third party. It is very likely that a Judge reading such ‘quotations’ in the report of an experienced expert witness will at least start with the strong presumption that they have been accurately and fairly recorded. It is, to my mind inconceivable that a witness of Dr Harper’s experience, which I have taken care to set out in some detail above, would not have appreciated this. Indeed, it strikes me that it would be obvious to any lay party or member of the public. Moreover, I find the concession in the statement, where mention is made of ‘a number of sentences’ is a complete distortion of the reality of the document. The report is heavy with apparent reference to direct speech when, in truth, almost none of it is. Thus, the material supporting the ultimate conclusion appears much stronger than it actually is. Given the forensic experience of Dr Harper and his extremely impressive academic background I cannot accept that he would have failed to appreciate the profound consequences of such distorted reporting.
- In the course of the public law proceedings the Court authorised interviews between one of the children and Dr Harper. I very much regret to say that the purported quotations in that report i.e. presented as if they were the words of the child himself are also nothing of the kind. Dr Harper used the same approach there. They are in fact a jumble of phrases extracted from jottings and / or perceived recollection. Dr Harper voluntarily submitted his notes to scrutiny, they can properly be characterised as minimal. They prompted this submission on behalf of the children’s Guardian by Mr Cohen QC and Mr Edwards:
- “It is hard to know why Dr Harper has reported as he has. His methodology and minimal notes of the 3 meetings with the mother would have made it very difficult to accurately record what she had said. The court will form its own view as to his evidence. We do not suggest that he had an intent to mislead but he showed a carelessness which verged towards recklessness in making statements which he must or should have known were to be relied upon. His evidence may also have shown an overconfidence in his own professional judgment and ability that was indifferent to the correct assessment process.”
I am genuinely shocked by this. It undermines a lot of credibility of expert witnesses, if an expert attributes quotations to a parent and a child that they did not say, that were ‘impressions’ and that the note keeping was minimal.
As these ‘quotations’ were not present in the tape-recorded formal sessions, there was some consideration of whether they were instead conversations or discussions that took place at one meeting on 6th April, which appears to have been a contact session and two discussions on the way in and way out of the session
- Ms Lee and Ms Weir pitch the findings they seek very highly indeed, they are of the utmost gravity. It is for this reason that I required counsel to be very clear about the legal framework. Ms Lee has, in the proper presentation of her case, repeatedly impugned Dr Harper’s integrity and honesty during the course of her cross examination. It is alleged that he has fabricated the fact of the discussions between himself and the Mother and, says Ms Lee, where there is no written note of any topic of discussion it has been, in effect, invented by Dr Harper. There is no ambivalence in the way Ms Lee advances her case. In her closing written submission she asserts:
- “For the avoidance of doubt, it is submitted on behalf of the mother that Dr Harper’s account of the ‘discussions’ that took place on the 6 April is a lie. Likewise his handwritten note is a fabricated document (Finding 9) in which he has attempted to back-fill some of the gaps that he knew would come to light once he was alerted to the fact that the assessment sessions on the 15 and 23 March 2016 had been recorded; he of course being present at both sessions and knowing exactly what he discussed and what he did not. As such, it is submitted that his handwritten note can not be relied upon.”
- Given that the earlier meetings were recorded and transcribed it must follow that the purported quotations from the Mother not covered on those sessions must therefore have taken place at the meeting at the contact centre on the 6th April 2016. This inevitably therefore has been the focus of the dispute at this hearing. The first conflict of evidence is as to the length of the meeting. There were in fact two meetings, one before the children arrived for an observed contact session and a second later encounter in the car park at the conclusion of the session.
- The 6th April was a day on which plans went awry. The Mother had been led to believe that her meeting with Dr Harper was to provide her with advice on how best to manage the eldest child’s challenging behaviour. On Dr Harper’s account he had decided to change the agenda and look at what he has referred to as ‘the inconsistencies of the Mother’s various narrative accounts’. He had, to my mind, settled on the view, for reasons that I will come to below, that this was the key issue in this case. The undoubtedly discrepant histories of her own childhood and relationships recorded from the Mother are, as Ms Morris QC (on behalf of Dr Harper) describes them, ‘polar opposites’ and ‘at a 180 degrees to each other’. Essentially, there is both a light and benign version of these issues alongside a dark and abusive account. In any event what is clear is that the Mother finds discussion of both these areas to be highly unsettling and distressing. That she would do so was anticipated by Dr Harper but nonetheless so important was this issue to him that he forced it through in circumstances which were, in my judgement, insensitive to the Mother. Of course it follows from this comment that I have accepted his account of the 6th April, at least in part. In fairness I should record that Dr Harper offered the Mother a further appointment which she did not take up.
- In addition, building work was being undertaken at the contact centre and it was necessary to shorten the contact. This had not been communicated to the Mother, Dr Harper or I assume the children either. The conditions both in which to observe contact and to undertake important features of the assessment of the Mother were inimical to constructive and fair assessment. I am satisfied that the Mother was understandably upset and that Dr Harper’s account of her as agitated is an honest expression of his perception.
- The second meeting in the car park was cursory and ended peremptorily in the rain. The first meeting was, on either party’s view no longer than 15 minutes. It is not necessary for me to resolve the conflict as to the duration of the meeting, there is very little between the Mother’s recollection and Dr Harper’s. What is significant is that in this period Dr Harper contends that he dealt with somewhere between 13 and approximately 20 significant points of assessment.
[That does not sound terribly plausible]
- From his notes of assessment it is clear that some of the issues were discussed. The notes are silent on other issues. In his analysis Mr Cohen submits that Dr Harper ‘has produced no satisfactory explanation of the inconsistencies nor is his credit enhanced by what seems to us to be an unwillingness to recognise the effect of his wrongdoing’. This leads Mr Cohen further to submit:
- “We suggest that as a result of his admissions the burden should shift to him to show that he has accurately reported the gist of what the mother has said in interviews. In light of the above this is a difficult burden for him to satisfy and he has failed to do so.“
- Ms Morris vigorously resists this approach, she contends that the burden of proof rests on the applicant and does not shift. I agree.Certainly Dr Harper’s admissions require him to explain his admitted misconduct but they do not cast upon him some additional burden of proving the accuracy of his notes of what he contends the Mother said to him in interview.
- I do not propose further to burden this judgment with a list of the various topics which Dr Harper contends were discussed on the 6thApril. In response to Mr Cohen Dr Harper accepted that there were 13 topics. I simply fail to see how this range of challenging and difficult material could have been covered to the extent that Dr Harper purports in such a limited time. It would have involved rapid fire question and answer on each topic. Given the circumstances and the nature of the material, such a process would have also required a degree of brutality or at least gross insensitivity. The subject matters ranged across e.g. domestic abuse, childhood experiences, sexual issues. Having listened to Dr Harper in the witness box he does not strike me for a moment as a man capable of such crassness. His work has been widely respected. I do consider that there was an enthusiastic effort by him to cover some of the material that day. I entirely accept his evidence that his notes are genuine and not fabricated, as Ms Lee contends, but I find on the balance of probabilities that some, though not necessarily all, of the material which is not corroborated by the notes was most likely drawn from other sources and incorporated into the report again as if it were direct speech from the Mother to Dr Harper.
The Judge’s overall impression and his decision about whether Dr Harper’s report could be relied upon in the care proceedings :-
- The overall impression is of an expert who is overreaching his material, in the sense that whilst much of it is rooted in genuine reliable secure evidence, it is represented in such a way that it is designed to give it its maximum forensic impact. That involves a manipulation of material which is wholly unacceptable and, at very least, falls far below the standard that any Court is entitled to expect of any expert witness. It simply cannot be reconciled with those duties which I have pointedly set out above at para 10 and 11. Moreover, it is manifestly unfair to the Mother, who it should be emphasised is battling to achieve the care of her children whilst trying to manage life with diagnosed PTSD. Ipso facto this is a case of unique gravity and importance. Common law principles of fairness and justice demand, as do Articles 6 & 8 of the ECHR, a process in which both the children and the parents can properly participate in a real sense which respects their autonomy. Dr Harper’s professional failure here compromised the fairness of the process for both Mother and children. These are fundamental principles emphasised in Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 and Re A [2015] EWFC 11.
- Mr Rowley, on behalf of the Local Authority, submits that Dr Harper’s central thesis is probably correct. He summarises it succinctly thus:
- “Dr Harper’s concern about the mother’s inability to provide a consistent narrative about her relationship history and childhood experiences is again objectively valid. It cannot be sensibly argued that the mother has done anything other than provide wildly divergent accounts of such experiences. Whether this is, indeed, impression management or the consequences of her PTSD it robs the psychological professional of a baseline for diagnosis and thus prognosis and treatment recommendations. This makes it, as Dr Harper concludes, difficult (to say the least) for measurement and management of risk.”
- Mr Rowley may very well be right. He goes on to suggest that notwithstanding the significant criticisms made of Dr Harper, his report should be allowed to stand, with the Judge who hears the case entitled to give it such weight, if any, as he thinks fit. I disagree. These are such fundamental failures of methodology that I do not consider any Judge could fairly rely on the conclusions. Furthermore, there is an inevitable risk that were I not to order that a new expert be instructed the Judge might at the conclusion of the hearing find a lacuna in the evidence in consequence of his being unable to rely on Dr Harper’s opinion. That would result in further delay for the children in a case where I have been told the final hearing is now unlikely to be effective in any event. The delay in this case in already unacceptable, the harm caused to the children because of it is the responsibility of the professionals not, I emphasise, the Mother.
- I should say that my conclusions here are predicated substantially on my evaluation of Dr Harper’s evidence and the available written material. I have found myself unable to place a great deal of weight on the Mother’s own evidence even where my findings are essentially in her favour. I agree with Ms Morris, who advances the point sensitively and elegantly, when she says that the issue in the Mother’s evidence is ‘reliability’ not ‘credibility’. Her reliability is sadly compromised by her inconsistent accounts which may well be, as Dr Harper has postulated, a facet of her psychological distress. I have in mind Re H-C ( Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 136 and R v Lucas [1981] QB 720.
- Finally, there has been much discussion at the Bar as to how I should characterise Dr Harper’s professional failings. Ultimately I have come to the conclusion that the language or nomenclature is irrelevant. What matters is the substance of my findings and their impact on these children.
- Ms Lee is right to emphasise the observations of Butler-Sloss (P) in Re U: Re B (serious injury;standard of proof) [2004] 2 FLR 263 at para 23iv:
- “The court must always be on guard against the over-dogmatic expert, the expert whose reputation or amour-propre is at stake, or the expert who has developed a scientific prejudice”
- I do not consider that Dr Harper has developed a scientific prejudice nor that he is jealous to guard his amour-propre but I do consider that his disregard for the conventional principles of professional method and analysis displays a zealotry which he should recognise as a danger to him as a professional and, more importantly, to those who I believe he is otherwise genuinely motivated to help and whom he plainly has much to offer.
[I’m not sure why the Courts have felt that amour-propre is an expression in common use, but basically ‘reputation’ would do the trick just as well – the self-esteem that comes from the opinion of others]
It is a bitterly ironic twist that part of the disputed attributed quotations were Dr Harper stating that the mother had been critical of other (past) experts, calling them liars.
This concept of an expert taking an impression but then attributing quotations to the mother that she did not say and that the notes could have given no indication of her having said is a truly shocking one. As the Judge says, doing this gives the conclusions and recommendations of the report far more weight as it seems to come directly from mother, she condemning herself out of her own mouth, rather than the expert stating that he had the impression (which of course can be cross-examined as to the forensic basis of this)
Let us be honest – if the mother simply asserted that she had not said this, and had not tape-recorded the sessions, who would have been believed? We have to be able to trust experts – they may genuinely form the wrong opinion, and may be shifted in cross-examination, but there has to be trust that if a report says Mother said “X Y Z” that she actually said those things. Future of children is at stake here. We must demand higher standards from experts than we would of political journalists, surely.
(I’m reminded a little of the Overegging the Pudding case https://suesspiciousminds.com/2014/11/28/over-egging-the-pudding/ though of course this goes still further, from cherry-picking only the negatives to flat out creation of quotations that the mother did not in fact say)
It is also an interesting comparison, given that both were Hayden J to the criticism he made of the ISW in the radicalisation case (which were about competence rather than integrity) and the fairer process here where the expert had the opportunity to be represented and respond to the criticisms – in both cases they could have a serious impact on livelihood of the experts, for whom reputation is a vital component in them obtaining future instructions.
https://suesspiciousminds.com/2016/08/23/tape-recording-of-an-expert-a-shocking-case/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)