IICSA Inquiry (Preliminary) Rochdale Investigation
1
2
3
4
1
Wednesday, 27 July 2016.
(11.45 am)
Preliminary remarks by THE CHAIR
THE CHAIR: Yes. Good morning and welcome to this second
27 July 2016
represented today by my learned friend Mr Alan Payne.
2
THE CHAIR: Mr Payne.
3
MR EMMERSON: The Crown Prosecution Service, as in other
4
hearings, is represented by my learned friend Mr Brown.
5
preliminary hearing in the Inquiry's investigation into
5
THE CHAIR: Mr Brown.
6
Cambridge House, Knowl View and Rochdale.
6
MR EMMERSON: Rochdale Borough Council is represented by my
7
7
With me on the bench today are the other members of
8
the Inquiry Panel, Professor Sir Malcolm Evans, Ivor
learned friend Mr Ford.
8
THE CHAIR: Mr Ford.
MR EMMERSON: And the Secretary of State for Education by my
9
Frank, Professor Alexis Jay and Drusilla Sharpling.
9
10
It is, of course, our collective responsibility to
10
11
consider all of the material that will come before the
11
THE CHAIR: Ms McGahey.
12
Inquiry, to determine the facts as we find them, to make
12
MR EMMERSON: As is well known, in May 1979 the
13
recommendations and to deliver reports with our findings
13
14
and recommendations to the Home Secretary.
14
it alleged that in the 1960s Cyril Smith used his
learned friend Ms McGahey.
Rochdale Alternative Press published an article in which
15
Having made that preliminary introduction, I would
15
position to get boys between the ages of 15 and 18 to
16
like to call on Counsel to the Inquiry, Mr Emmerson QC,
16
undress in front of him so that he could spank them or
17
to address this hearing on the business of today.
17
give them what purported to be a medical examination
18
involving the touching of their testicles. The boys
19
involved had been resident at the Cambridge House Boys'
20
Hostel on Castlemere Street in Rochdale. It was not
21
a children's home. It was intended to be a hostel for
22
working boys, but Rochdale Council placed some children
who were in its care at the hostel.
18
19
20
Mr Emmerson?
General remarks on the progress of the Inquiry into
Cambridge House, Knowl View and Rochdale by COUNSEL TO THE
21
22
INQUIRY
MR EMMERSON: Madam Chair, Members of the Panel, this is the
23
second preliminary hearing in the investigation into
23
24
Cambridge House, Knowl View and Rochdale. The
24
25
investigation arises out of allegations of sexual abuse
25
Smith had been instrumental in setting up the hostel
in 1961 and appears to have taken a keen interest in
Page 1
Page 3
1
in institutional settings that have received significant
2
publicity on account of the alleged involvement of the
3
late Sir Cyril Smith MP. However, the investigation
4
goes much wider than the specific allegations against
5
Smith.
6
Today's hearing is primarily by way of a general
7
update on the investigation and the work that has been
8
done, although there will be some specific submissions
9
addressed to you, in particular in connection with the
10
terms of the restriction order and guidance. Today's
11
hearing also provides an opportunity for
12
core participants to make any other submissions that
13
they may wish to make in connection with anonymity and
14
related issues. In attendance at today's hearing are
15
Clair Dobbin --
16
THE CHAIR: Ms Dobbin.
17
MR EMMERSON: -- and Alasdair Henderson, the supporting
18
junior counsel in this investigation, and the
19
representation of core participants is as follows.
20
21
The individual victims and survivors represented by
Slater & Gordon will be represented today by
22
Mr Richard Scorer.
23
THE CHAIR: Mr Scorer.
24
MR EMMERSON: The Chief Constable of Lancashire Police and
25
the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
some of the boys who resided there. The hostel closed
down in 1965. After the allegations about Smith's
conduct at Cambridge House were put into the public
domain by the Rochdale Alternative Press, they were
repeated by Private Eye magazine in May of 1979.
Knowl View was a residential school for boys with
emotional and behavioural difficulties, which opened in
1969 and, after a period of temporary closure, closed
permanently in 1996. Again, Smith was said to have been
a key player in the setting up of the school. It became
the focus of local and national reporting entirely
unrelated to Smith in the early 1990s. At that time
a local AIDS unit produced a report which contained
accounts from Knowl View staff about the sexual abuse of
children in their care. This included information that
children from the school were being sexually exploited
by men in public toilets and that men were travelling
considerable distances in order to engage in this
systemic abuse.
Press reports around this time also referred to
a report prepared by Valerie Mellor, a clinical
psychologist then based at Booth Hall Hospital, which
referred to up to a quarter of the pupils at the school
having been involved in serious sexual incidents, as
well as to the fact that a known sex offender had been
Page 2
Page 4
1 (Pages 1 to 4)
DTI
(+44)207 4041400
www.DTIGlobal.com
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2DY
IICSA Inquiry (Preliminary) Rochdale Investigation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
able to gain access to the school on an overnight basis.
It was not until 2012 that allegations were made
that Cyril Smith may also have been involved in the
sexual abuse of children at Knowl View. Press attention
focused on allegations of a former resident, that he had
been sexually abused by Cyril Smith whilst living at
Knowl View. Further reports at this time suggested
knowledge on the part of MI5 and local police forces as
to Smith's interest in boys and a possible attempt to
protect Smith by closing down investigations into him.
Amid a growing concern as to what had happened to
children who resided at Cambridge House and Knowl View,
Rochdale Council set up an independent Inquiry in
April 2014, chaired by Neil Garnham QC (now
Mr Justice Garnham). That Inquiry was charged with
reviewing all the information available to the council
which suggested that during the period of 1961 to 1995,
sexual or physical abuse of children took place firstly
at premises owned, managed or operated by the council
and, secondly, at premises where the abuse involved
pupils or resident under the age of 18 attending
establishments funded by the council.
At the request of the Chief Constable of
Greater Manchester Police, who of course is
a core participant in this investigation, the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Cyril Smith. There is evidence that Knowl View was
targeted persistently by a known paedophile over
a number of years. There is also clear evidence of
ongoing sexual exploitation of children by men and
evidence that some children who resided at Knowl View
were at risk of abuse from other older children.
The investigation intends to explore the extent to
which this state of affairs was tolerated by public
authorities in Rochdale and what this tells us about the
care afforded to those children by organisations and
individuals who ought to have been protecting them.
Secondly, the information received by the
Garnham Review is clearly and inevitably incomplete.
This is, at least to some extent, simply a function of
the passage of time as older records may have been lost
or destroyed for entirely legitimate reasons.
The investigation has some evidence about the
establishment of both Cambridge House and Knowl View.
As regards Knowl View, however, the preponderance of the
documentary evidence is focused on events in the late
1980s and early 1990s and, in particular, information
about how the school and the local authority responded
to the events which culminated in the AIDS unit report
and the commissioning of the Valerie Mellor report about
Knowl View. We know, however that the sexual abuse of
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 July 2016
Page 7
Garnham Review ceased its work on 3 July 2014 in order
to avoid prejudicing the outcome of police
investigations into the very allegations that Mr Garnham
was considering.
On 1 August 2014, the Garnham Review submitted
a draft interim report to Rochdale, which recorded the
Review's non-contentious analysis of the evidence as at
that date. In the light of this Inquiry having
identified Rochdale as one of its investigations, the
council then formally closed the Garnham Review on the
basis that this Inquiry would pick up where Garnham had
left off.
Notwithstanding the fact that this Inquiry's remit
is significantly wider than the Garnham review, the
starting point for the investigation was naturally to
receive materials obtained and generated in the Garnham
process. We have subjected all of those materials to
our own independent analysis, having taken receipt of
them.
There are some observations which can be made
already about the evidence that was considered by the
Garnham Review. First, it highlights the scale of the
abuse that may have been taking place. There is plainly
a lot more to the story of sexual abuse of children,
particularly at Knowl View, than the allegations against
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
children at Knowl View started at a much earlier point
in time than that.
Operation Cleopatra was initiated in 1998 to
investigate child abuse at Knowl View and other care
homes across Greater Manchester. It ran for six years
and resulted in the conviction of seven individuals for
child sexual abuse offences. One of those convicted was
a former Knowl View School employee, who pleaded guilty
to 11 counts of indecent assault and gross indecency
with young pupils of Knowl View prior to 1971. Very
little information relating to this period is found in
the material given to the Garnham Review.
Thirdly, the material provided to the Garnham Review
lacks any detailed information on the individual
children who were thought to have been sexually abused
or who were thought might pose a risk to other children.
In the case of Knowl View, that may be linked to the
fact that it appears that allegations and information
about the sexual abuse of children were dealt with by
Rochdale Council's Department of Education, rather than
its Social Services Department. That, we say, is an
issue that the Chair and Panel may wish in due course to
explore.
On the basis of the information provided to the
Garnham Review, the Inquiry has made further disclosure
Page 6
Page 8
2 (Pages 5 to 8)
DTI
(+44)207 4041400
www.DTIGlobal.com
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2DY
IICSA Inquiry (Preliminary) Rochdale Investigation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
requests to Rochdale Council. In particular, the
Inquiry asked to inspect any Social Services records
which existed for a number of children who were named in
the papers as having been involved in events in the late
1980s and early 1990s. Those records were inspected by
the Inquiry legal team in May 2016. There were no
records for some individuals. Those that existed were,
in general, lacking in detail.
The state of the council's records may again be
an issue which the Chair and Panel wish to explore, but
it is not necessarily the case that each child would
have had a Social Services file with the council. Some
children may have been in the care of other local
authorities and those authorities are currently being
asked by the Inquiry to check if they hold relevant
records.
It suffices to say that analysis of records that
exist (limited as they are) nonetheless provides
important evidence to the investigation about the sexual
exploitation of boys in Rochdale. It raises issues as
to the sort of information that was shared between
Social Services, the Department of Education and
Knowl View and the role which social workers played in
the lives of some children at Knowl View.
The second category of material requested from the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
relating to civil claims which have been brought against
Rochdale Borough Council arising out of allegations of
sexual abuse at residential schools and care homes.
Madam, as with the case of the investigation into
institutional responses to allegations in connection
with Lord Janner, there is a concurrent police
complaints investigation on foot. Under the auspices of
the IPCC, Greater Manchester Police is engaged in
Operation Clifton, an inquiry into whether police
investigations into Cyril Smith were corrupted by
attempts to protect him.
Members of the Inquiry's legal team have met with
Greater Manchester Police in order to discuss gaining
access to materials which it has gathered in the course
of its investigation. Disclosure of Operation Clifton
materials is due to commence imminently.
I should make it clear that, as with our approach to
the Garnham Review, the investigation will analyse and
evaluate the materials gathered by Operation Clifton
independently and will bring its own judgment to bear on
the conclusions to be drawn from them.
In summary, then, the investigation is well
advanced, a draft witness list is complete and requests
for statements are likely to be made within the next
month. I anticipate that the hearings should be able to
Page 9
Page 11
1
council is any material relating to the possible sexual
2
abuse of children whilst they were resident at a wider
3
set of locations within Rochdale, including, of course,
4
Cambridge House, but also Foxholes Children's Home,
5
Elmfield Children's Home, Woodland's Children's Home,
6
Berwyn Avenue Children's Home, Red Bank and Poplar House
7
Children's Home.
8
9
10
11
That further disclosure exercise has been completed
and the additional materials provided are in the process
of being analysed by the investigation team.
Thirdly, a copy of police and CPS files on
12
Cyril Smith has been requested. These documents were
13
provided by Rochdale and set out the allegations first
14
made against Cyril Smith in relation to Cambridge House
15
in around 1970. The Crown Prosecution Service decision
16
not to prosecute on that occasion and the subsequent
17
reviews of the file by the police and CPS in 1998 and
18
between 2012 and 2013 will need to be investigated by
19
the Panel.
20
Fourth, the Inquiry is keen to consider disciplinary
21
records relating to two members of staff who were
22
accused, and in the case of the man called Dennis Leckey
23
convicted, of sexual abuse of children at Rochdale
24
care homes and special schools.
25
Lastly, the Inquiry is looking into material
27 July 2016
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
commence soon after the conclusion of hearings in the
investigation into institutional failings connected with
Lord Janner, although it is not possible at this stage
to set a precise or perhaps even ballpark date on when
that might be. We will in due course invite you to hold
a further preliminary hearing towards the end of this
year in order to fix those dates in a firmer way. Our
best estimate at present is that it ought to be possible
to inform core participants of a realistic estimated
start date by the end of October of this year.
The Inquiry has received 16 applications for
core participant status. Applying the principles
contained in the Inquiry rules, you granted
core participant status to 13 of them. One of the
applicants that you refused renewed his application at
the last hearing, but, having heard further submissions,
you maintained your original decision.
Madam, yesterday, of course, you heard a renewal
application in this and other investigations on behalf
of SOIA and that is not repeated today, although it
applies across the board.
You have made awards of legal expenses funding under
section 40 of the Inquiries Act 2005 to eight individual
core participants, who are all represented by the same
legal representatives, and those who are granted funding
Page 10
Page 12
3 (Pages 9 to 12)
DTI
(+44)207 4041400
www.DTIGlobal.com
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2DY
IICSA Inquiry (Preliminary) Rochdale Investigation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are A1, A2, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8 and A9.
Madam, alongside the preparation for public
hearings, the Inquiry's research team is drawing
together information about the demographics of Rochdale
from the 1960s to the present day. An appreciation of
the socioeconomic context and the challenges faced by
public authorities in Rochdale over the past few decades
will, of course, inform a proper analysis of any
failures there may have been to respond adequately to
the sexual abuse of children in care. We hope to gain
an understanding in particular of the changes in levels
of deprivation, the numbers of looked after children and
issues connected with ethnic diversity.
Research is also underway into which NHS
institutions may have had some knowledge of child sexual
abuse and exploitation in Rochdale over the same period.
The investigation has already identified the NHS bodies
which had responsibility for or potentially had
connections with children in various care settings since
1974. We intend to consider whether further inquiries
can usefully and proportionately be made of their
successor organisations.
The Inquiry is also in the process of instructing an
academic expert who has specialist expertise in
connection with children in care. It is intended that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Submissions on behalf of the Greater Manchester Police by
MR ALAN PAYNE
MR PAYNE: Good morning. It really is not so much
a concern. It is a suggestion.
THE CHAIR: Yes.
MR PAYNE: It relates to paragraph 9 of the draft order,
which is the mechanism by which the Inquiry can provide,
on terms of confidence, information as is necessary
about the identity of complainant CPs to other
core participants. The suggestion is that the Inquiry
may wish to consider whether it would be appropriate to
provide in paragraph 9 for the body or the
complainant CP -- I should rephrase that. I beg your
pardon -- the complainant CPs or the body that has
provided information that it is intending to disclose -THE CHAIR: Yes.
MR PAYNE: -- with prior notice that disclosure is being
considered. In that way, either the complainant CP or
the body that has provided the information is given an
opportunity to make submissions on whether in fact
provision of the information is necessary or whether
there might be alternative means for achieving the same
end.
THE CHAIR: So your concern is around the provision of the
information without notice that it is to be provided --
Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 July 2016
Page 15
the expert provide the Inquiry with an overview about
the national policies and guidance that were in force
from 1970s to 1990 for children in residential care.
The overview would set the scene for the status of
children in care generally during this period and how
they were dealt with by local authorities.
Core participants will be updated in full about these
developments as they emerge.
Madam, may I turn to the last area which is the
question of restriction order and redaction guidance.
As I explained this morning, a draft restriction order
has been circulated to core participants which proposes
to grant anonymity to complainant core participants in
all the investigations. We have also posted a redaction
protocol on the website and circulated redaction
guidance which reflects the approach on anonymity and
addresses a broader range of individuals whose
identities may be revealed in documentation.
The Inquiry has received written submissions on the
redaction protocol from the Greater Manchester Police
and from Rochdale Borough Council. I'm going to invite
Mr Payne for the Greater Manchester Police and Mr Ford
for Rochdale Borough Council now to address you on their
concerns.
THE CHAIR: Yes, Mr Payne.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR PAYNE: Yes.
THE CHAIR: -- so that you might make, for instance,
tailored submissions?
MR PAYNE: Focused submissions.
THE CHAIR: Yes.
MR PAYNE: Obviously if appropriate. I mean, in many cases
it won't be -- but without knowing which CP is going to
receive the information. It would also have the
additional benefit of enabling the body which has
provided the information or the complainant CPs to know
to whom and why the information has been provided and
effectively just to keep track on what is obviously very
personal information and where it is going and why.
THE CHAIR: All right. There are three things there: first,
the disclosure of the information; second, as to whom;
the third matter, as to why.
MR PAYNE: Yes.
THE CHAIR: I would have thought the second and third would
be self-evident because it will be to someone to whom it
is relevant.
MR PAYNE: Yes, they may wish to -- to be honest, my last
submissions were more about the consequence of giving
someone prior notice. Obviously the reasons why it is
deemed necessary to provide information or particular
information to a particular CP -- sorry
Page 14
Page 16
4 (Pages 13 to 16)
DTI
(+44)207 4041400
www.DTIGlobal.com
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2DY
IICSA Inquiry (Preliminary) Rochdale Investigation
1
2
core participant -- will change.
All I was saying was that, if people are given prior
3
notice -- if the complainant CP or the body that is
4
providing the information is given prior notice, they
5
know why it is proposed to provide the information and,
6
insofar as they have any submissions to make on
7
necessity or anything, they can make it. But even if
8
they do not make submissions, they know why a decision
9
10
has been reached.
THE CHAIR: All right. I hear your submissions. Thank you
11
very much. Without giving an indication and in the
12
absence of yet hearing from Mr Emmerson, I simply say
13
that, you know, the hallmark of everything is relevance,
14
of course; relevance to an issue and to the person --
15
MR PAYNE: Of course.
16
THE CHAIR: -- as to whether they have a proper interest in
17
a particular matter. So I am sure that, you know, in
18
terms of the usual rules surrounding evidence, that this
19
can be worked through between counsel. But I will hear
20
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
from Mr Emmerson.
MR EMMERSON: Again, Madam, we would like to consider the
22
implications of this which, on their face, have
23
significant potential logistical consequences.
Mr Emmerson?
MR EMMERSON: Again we will take that suggestion into
consideration in the process of reconsideration.
MR FORD: Thank you.
MR EMMERSON: So, as with all of the previous hearings, we
simply invite you to adjourn final consideration of the
redaction guidance and protocol until after the end of
this week's preliminary hearings.
THE CHAIR: Yes, well, I will adjourn both of those matters.
MR EMMERSON: So there are no further matters on which
I need to address you, Madam. I don't know if anybody
else wishes to say anything?
THE CHAIR: Any other counsel wish to be heard? No. All
right.
May I thank you all for your attendance today. The
Panel and I will now retire.
(12.14 pm)
(The hearing adjourned to a date to be fixed.)
INDEX
Preliminary remarks by THE CHAIR .....................1
General remarks on the progress of ...................1
the Inquiry into Cambridge
House, Knowl View and Rochdale
by COUNSEL TO THE INQUIRY
23
24
24
THE CHAIR: All right.
25
MR EMMERSON: Since all of the submissions that are being
Submissions on behalf of the Greater ................15
Manchester Police by MR ALAN
PAYNE
25
Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 July 2016
Page 19
made this week on the redaction protocol and guidance
will need to be considered together -THE CHAIR: Yes.
MR EMMERSON: -- we will, in due course, provide you with
submissions as to which of those are workable and which
are not and which are improvements and which are not.
THE CHAIR: Yes, thank you.
Now, Mr Ford?
Submissions on behalf of Rochdale Council by MR STEVEN
FORD QC
MR FORD: Mr Ford on behalf of Rochdale.
One very brief point arising out of the draft
redaction guidelines. It concerns the position of
elected members of Rochdale, or indeed the same point
would apply in relation to any other local authority
councillor. They are not employees and so they do not,
at the moment, fall easily into any of the categories of
individual identified in the guidance.
We, on behalf of Rochdale, are entirely happy that
they should be treated in the same way as employees
under the guidance, but we just feel it might be clearer
if the guidance were amended to make it express that
elected members were included within that category.
THE CHAIR: All right. Thank you for highlighting that
matter.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 18
Council by MR STEVEN FORD QC
Page 20
5 (Pages 17 to 20)
DTI
(+44)207 4041400
www.DTIGlobal.com
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2DY
IICSA Inquiry (Preliminary) Rochdale Investigation 27 July 2016
Page 21
alleged 2:2 3:14
alongside 13:2
A1 13:1
alternative 3:13 4:4
A2 13:1
15:22
A4 13:1
amended 18:22
A5 13:1
Amid 5:11
A6 13:1
analyse 11:18
A7 13:1
analysed
10:10
A8 13:1
analysis 6:7,18
A9 13:1
9:17 13:8
able 5:1 11:25
anonymity
2:13
absence 17:12
14:13,16
abuse 1:25 4:14,19
anticipate
11:25
5:4,18,20 6:23,24
anybody 19:11
7:6,25 8:4,7,19
appears
3:25 8:18
10:2,23 11:3
applicants
12:15
13:10,16
application 12:15
abused 5:6 8:15
12:19
academic 13:24
applications 12:11
access 5:1 11:14
applies 12:21
account 2:2
apply 18:15
accounts 4:14
Applying 12:12
accused 10:22
appreciation
13:5
achieving 15:22
approach 11:17
Act 12:23
14:16
additional 10:9
appropriate 15:11
16:9
16:6
address 1:17 14:23
April
5:14
19:11
area 14:9
addressed 2:9
arises
1:25
addresses 14:17
arising 11:2 18:12
adequately 13:9
article 3:13
adjourn 19:6,9
asked 9:2,15
adjourned 19:18
assault 8:9
advanced 11:23
attempt 5:9
affairs 7:8
attempts 11:11
afforded 7:10
attendance 2:14
age 5:21
19:15
ages 3:15
attending
5:21
AIDS 4:13 7:23
Alan 3:1 15:2 19:24 attention 5:4
August 6:5
Alasdair 2:17
auspices 11:7
Alexis 1:9
allegations 1:25 2:4 authorities 7:9 9:14
9:14 13:7 14:6
4:2 5:2,5 6:3,25
8:18 10:13 11:2,5 authority 7:22
A
DTI
(+44)207 4041400
18:15
available 5:16
Avenue 10:6
avoid 6:2
awards 12:22
11:3 13:10,19,25
14:3,5
case 8:17 9:11
10:22 11:4
cases 16:6
Castlemere 3:20
B
categories 18:17
ballpark 12:4
category 9:25
Bank 10:6
18:23
based 4:22
ceased 6:1
basis 5:1 6:11 8:24 Chair 1:3,4,22 2:16
bear 11:20
2:23 3:2,5,8,11
beg 15:13
8:22 9:10 14:25
behalf 12:19 15:1
15:5,16,24 16:2,5
18:9,11,19 19:23
16:14,18 17:10,16
behavioural 4:7
17:24 18:3,7,24
bench 1:7
19:9,13,20
benefit 16:9
chaired 5:14
Berwyn 10:6
challenges 13:6
best 12:8
change 17:1
board 12:21
changes 13:11
bodies 13:17
charged 5:15
body 15:12,14,19
check 9:15
16:9 17:3
Chief 2:24,25 5:23
Booth 4:22
child 8:4,7 9:11
Borough 3:6 11:2
13:15
14:21,23
children 3:22 4:15
boys 3:15,18,22 4:1
4:16 5:4,12,18
4:6 5:9 9:20
6:24 7:4,5,6,10
Boys' 3:19
8:1,15,16,19 9:3
brief 18:12
9:13,24 10:2,23
bring 11:20
13:10,12,19,25
broader 14:17
14:3,5
brought 11:1
children's 3:21
Brown 3:4,5
10:4,5,5,6,7
business 1:17
circulated 14:12,15
civil 11:1
C
claims 11:1
call 1:16
Clair 2:15
called 10:22
clear 7:3 11:17
Cambridge 1:6,20 clearer 18:21
1:24 3:19 4:3
clearly 7:13
5:12 7:18 10:4,14 Cleopatra 8:3
19:21
Clifton 11:9,15,19
care 3:23 4:15 7:10 clinical 4:21
8:4 9:13 10:24
www.DTIGlobal.com
closed 4:1,8 6:10
closing 5:10
closure 4:8
collective 1:10
come 1:11
commence 11:16
12:1
commissioning
7:24
complainant 14:13
15:9,13,14,18
16:10 17:3
complaints 11:7
complete 11:23
completed 10:8
concern 5:11 15:4
15:24
concerns 14:24
18:13
conclusion 12:1
conclusions 11:21
concurrent 11:6
conduct 4:3
confidence 15:8
connected 12:2
13:13
connection 2:9,13
11:5 13:25
connections 13:19
consequence 16:22
consequences
17:23
consider 1:11 10:20
13:20 15:11 17:21
considerable 4:18
consideration 19:3
19:6
considered 6:21
15:18 18:2
considering 6:4
Constable 2:24,25
5:23
contained 4:13
12:13
context 13:6
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2DY
IICSA Inquiry (Preliminary) Rochdale Investigation 27 July 2016
Page 22
convicted 8:7 10:23
conviction 8:6
copy 10:11
core 2:12,19 5:25
12:9,12,14,24
14:7,12,13 15:10
17:1
corrupted 11:10
council 3:6,22 5:13
5:16,19,22 6:10
9:1,12 10:1 11:2
14:21,23 18:9
20:1
council's 8:20 9:9
councillor 18:16
counsel 1:16,20
2:18 17:19 19:13
19:22
counts 8:9
course 1:10 5:24
8:22 10:3 11:14
12:5,18 13:8
17:14,15 18:4
CP 15:13,18 16:7
16:25 17:3
CPs 10:11,17 15:9
15:14 16:10
Crown 3:3 10:15
culminated 7:23
currently 9:14
Cyril 2:3 3:14 5:3,6
7:1 10:12,14
11:10
deliver 1:13
demographics 13:4
Dennis 10:22
Department 8:20
8:21 9:22
deprivation 13:12
destroyed 7:16
detail 9:8
detailed 8:14
determine 1:12
developments 14:8
difficulties 4:7
disciplinary 10:20
disclose 15:15
disclosure 8:25
10:8 11:15 15:17
16:15
discuss 11:13
distances 4:18
diversity 13:13
Dobbin 2:15,16
documentary 7:20
documentation
14:18
documents 10:12
domain 4:4
draft 6:6 11:23
14:11 15:6 18:12
drawing 13:3
drawn 11:21
Drusilla 1:9
due 8:22 11:16 12:5
18:4
D
E
D 19:19
date 6:8 12:4,10
19:18
dates 12:7
day 13:5
dealt 8:19 14:6
decades 13:7
decision 10:15
12:17 17:8
deemed 16:24
E 19:19
earlier 8:1
early 4:12 7:21 9:5
easily 18:17
Education 3:9 8:20
9:22
effectively 16:12
eight 12:23
either 15:18
elected 18:14,23
DTI
(+44)207 4041400
Elmfield 10:5
emerge 14:8
Emmerson 1:16,18
1:22 2:17,24 3:3,6
3:9,12 17:12,20
17:21,25 18:4
19:1,2,5,10
emotional 4:7
employee 8:8
employees 18:16,20
enabling 16:9
engage 4:18
engaged 11:8
entirely 4:11 7:16
18:19
establishment 7:18
establishments
5:22
estimate 12:8
estimated 12:9
ethnic 13:13
evaluate 11:19
Evans 1:8
events 7:20,23 9:4
evidence 6:7,21 7:1
7:3,5,17,20 9:19
17:18
examination 3:17
exercise 10:8
exist 9:18
existed 9:3,7
expenses 12:22
expert 13:24 14:1
expertise 13:24
explained 14:11
exploitation 7:4
9:20 13:16
exploited 4:16
explore 7:7 8:23
9:10
express 18:22
extent 7:7,14
Eye 4:5
F
face 17:22
faced 13:6
fact 4:25 6:13 8:18
15:20
facts 1:12
failings 12:2
failures 13:9
fall 18:17
feel 18:21
file 9:12 10:17
files 10:11
final 19:6
find 1:12
findings 1:13
firmer 12:7
first 6:22 10:13
16:14
firstly 5:18
fix 12:7
fixed 19:18
focus 4:11
focused 5:5 7:20
16:4
follows 2:19
foot 11:7
force 14:2
forces 5:8
Ford 3:7,8 14:22
18:8,10,11,11
19:4 20:1
formally 6:10
former 5:5 8:8
found 8:11
Fourth 10:20
Foxholes 10:4
Frank 1:9
friend 3:1,4,7,10
front 3:16
full 14:7
function 7:14
funded 5:22
funding 12:22,25
further 5:7 8:25
10:8 12:6,16
13:20 19:10
www.DTIGlobal.com
G
gain 5:1 13:10
gaining 11:13
Garnham 5:14,15
6:1,3,5,10,11,14
6:16,22 7:13 8:12
8:13,25 11:18
gathered 11:14,19
general 1:19 2:6
9:8 19:21
generally 14:5
generated 6:16
give 3:17
given 8:12 15:19
17:2,4
giving 16:22 17:11
goes 2:4
going 14:21 16:7,13
Good 1:4 15:3
Gordon 2:21
grant 14:13
granted 12:13,25
Greater 2:25 5:24
8:5 11:8,13 14:20
14:22 15:1 19:23
gross 8:9
growing 5:11
guidance 2:10 14:2
14:10,16 18:1,18
18:21,22 19:7
guidelines 18:13
guilty 8:8
H
Hall 4:22
hallmark 17:13
happened 5:11
happy 18:19
hear 17:10,19
heard 12:16,18
19:13
hearing 1:5,17,23
2:6,11,14 12:6,16
17:12 19:18
hearings 3:4 11:25
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2DY
IICSA Inquiry (Preliminary) Rochdale Investigation 27 July 2016
Page 23
12:1 13:3 19:5,8
Henderson 2:17
highlighting 18:24
highlights 6:22
hold 9:15 12:5
home 1:14 3:21
10:4,5,5,6,7
homes 8:5 10:24
11:3
honest 16:21
hope 13:10
Hospital 4:22
hostel 3:20,21,23
3:24 4:1
House 1:6,20,24
3:19 4:3 5:12
7:18 10:4,6,14
19:22
inform 12:9 13:8
information 4:15
5:16 7:12,21 8:11
8:14,18,24 9:21
13:4 15:8,15,19
15:21,25 16:8,10
16:11,13,15,24,25
17:4,5
initiated 8:3
inquiries 12:23
13:20
inquiry 1:8,12,16
1:19,21 5:13,15
6:8,11 8:25 9:2,6
9:15 10:20,25
11:9 12:11,13
13:23 14:1,19
15:7,10 19:21,22
Inquiry's 1:5 6:13
I
11:12 13:3
identified 6:9 13:17 insofar 17:6
18:18
inspect 9:2
identities 14:18
inspected 9:5
identity 15:9
instance 16:2
imminently 11:16
institutional 2:1
implications 17:22
11:5 12:2
important 9:19
institutions 13:15
improvements 18:6 instructing 13:23
incidents 4:24
instrumental 3:24
included 4:15
intend 13:20
18:23
intended 3:21
including 10:3
13:25
incomplete 7:13
intending 15:15
indecency 8:9
intends 7:7
indecent 8:9
interest 3:25 5:9
independent 5:13
17:16
6:18
interim 6:6
independently
introduction 1:15
11:20
investigate 8:4
indication 17:11
investigated 10:18
individual 2:20
investigation 1:5
8:14 12:23 18:18
1:23,25 2:3,7,18
individuals 7:11
5:25 6:15 7:7,17
8:6 9:7 14:17
9:19 10:10 11:4,7
inevitably 7:13
11:15,18,22 12:2
DTI
(+44)207 4041400
13:17
investigations 5:10
6:3,9 11:10 12:19
14:14
invite 12:5 14:21
19:6
involved 3:19 4:24
5:3,20 9:4
involvement 2:2
involving 3:18
IPCC 11:8
issue 8:22 9:10
17:14
issues 2:14 9:20
13:13
Ivor 1:8
J
Janner 11:6 12:3
Jay 1:9
judgment 11:20
July 1:1 6:1
junior 2:18
Justice 5:15
K
keen 3:25 10:20
keep 16:12
key 4:10
know 7:25 16:10
17:5,8,13,17
19:11
knowing 16:7
Knowl 1:6,20,24
4:6,14 5:4,7,12
6:25 7:1,5,18,19
7:25 8:1,4,8,10,17
9:23,24 19:22
knowledge 5:8
13:15
known 3:12 4:25
7:2
L
lacking 9:8
lacks 8:14
Lancashire 2:24
Lastly 10:25
late 2:3 7:20 9:4
learned 3:1,4,7,10
Leckey 10:22
left 6:12
legal 9:6 11:12
12:22,25
legitimate 7:16
levels 13:11
light 6:8
limited 9:18
linked 8:17
list 11:23
little 8:11
lives 9:24
living 5:6
local 4:11,13 5:8
7:22 9:13 14:6
18:15
locations 10:3
logistical 17:23
looked 13:12
looking 10:25
Lord 11:6 12:3
lost 7:15
lot 6:24
M
Madam 1:22 11:4
12:18 13:2 14:9
17:21 19:11
magazine 4:5
maintained 12:17
Malcolm 1:8
man 10:22
managed 5:19
Manchester 2:25
5:24 8:5 11:8,13
14:20,22 15:1
19:24
material 1:11 8:12
8:13 9:25 10:1,25
materials 6:16,17
10:9 11:14,16,19
www.DTIGlobal.com
matter 16:16 17:17
18:25
matters 19:9,10
McGahey 3:10,11
mean 16:6
means 15:22
mechanism 15:7
medical 3:17
Mellor 4:21 7:24
members 1:7,22
10:21 11:12 18:14
18:23
men 4:17,17 7:4
met 11:12
MI5 5:8
moment 18:17
month 11:25
morning 1:4 14:11
15:3
MP 2:3
N
N 19:19
named 9:3
national 4:11 14:2
naturally 6:15
necessarily 9:11
necessary 15:8,21
16:24
necessity 17:7
need 10:18 18:2
19:11
Neil 5:14
NHS 13:14,17
non-contentious
6:7
notice 15:17,25
16:23 17:3,4
Notwithstanding
6:13
number 7:3 9:3
numbers 13:12
O
observations 6:20
obtained 6:16
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2DY
IICSA Inquiry (Preliminary) Rochdale Investigation 27 July 2016
Page 24
obviously 16:6,12
16:23
occasion 10:16
October 12:10
offences 8:7
offender 4:25
older 7:6,15
ongoing 7:4
opened 4:7
operated 5:19
Operation 8:3 11:9
11:15,19
opportunity 2:11
15:20
order 2:10 4:18 6:1
11:13 12:7 14:10
14:11 15:6
organisations 7:10
13:22
original 12:17
ought 7:11 12:8
outcome 6:2
overnight 5:1
overview 14:1,4
owned 5:19
P
paedophile 7:2
Panel 1:8,22 8:22
9:10 10:19 19:16
papers 9:4
paragraph 15:6,12
pardon 15:14
part 5:8
participant 5:25
12:12,14 17:1
participants 2:12
2:19 12:9,24 14:7
14:12,13 15:10
particular 2:9 7:21
9:1 13:11 16:24
16:25 17:17
particularly 6:25
passage 7:15
Payne 3:1,2 14:22
14:25 15:2,3,6,17
16:1,4,6,17,21
17:15 19:24
people 17:2
period 4:8 5:17
8:11 13:16 14:5
permanently 4:9
persistently 7:2
person 17:14
personal 16:13
physical 5:18
pick 6:11
place 5:18 6:23
placed 3:22
plainly 6:23
played 9:23
player 4:10
pleaded 8:8
pm 19:17
point 6:15 8:1
18:12,14
police 2:24,25 5:8
5:24 6:2 10:11,17
11:6,8,9,13 14:20
14:22 15:1 19:24
policies 14:2
Poplar 10:6
pose 8:16
position 3:15 18:13
possible 5:9 10:1
12:3,8
posted 14:14
potential 17:23
potentially 13:18
precise 12:4
prejudicing 6:2
preliminary 1:3,5
1:15,23 12:6 19:8
19:20
premises 5:19,20
preparation 13:2
prepared 4:21
preponderance
7:19
present 12:8 13:5
DTI
(+44)207 4041400
Press 3:13 4:4,20
5:4
previous 19:5
primarily 2:6
principles 12:12
prior 8:10 15:17
16:23 17:2,4
Private 4:5
process 6:17 10:9
13:23 19:3
produced 4:13
Professor 1:8,9
progress 1:19
19:21
proper 13:8 17:16
proportionately
13:21
proposed 17:5
proposes 14:12
prosecute 10:16
Prosecution 3:3
10:15
protect 5:10 11:11
protecting 7:11
protocol 14:15,20
18:1 19:7
provide 14:1 15:7
15:12 16:24 17:5
18:4
provided 8:13,24
10:9,13 15:15,19
15:25 16:10,11
provides 2:11 9:18
providing 17:4
provision 15:21,24
psychologist 4:22
public 4:3,17 7:8
13:2,7
publicity 2:2
published 3:13
pupils 4:23 5:21
8:10
purported 3:17
put 4:3
renewed 12:15
repeated 4:5 12:20
rephrase 15:13
report 4:13,21 6:6
7:23,24
reporting 4:11
R
reports 1:13 4:20
5:7
raises 9:20
representation
ran 8:5
2:19
range 14:17
representatives
reached 17:9
12:25
realistic 12:9
represented 2:20
really 15:3
2:21 3:1,4,6 12:24
reasons 7:16 16:23
request 5:23
receipt 6:18
requested 9:25
receive 6:16 16:8
10:12
received 2:1 7:12
requests 9:1 11:23
12:11 14:19
recommendations research 13:3,14
resided 4:1 5:12
1:13,14
7:5
reconsideration
resident 3:19 5:5
19:3
5:21 10:2
recorded 6:6
records 7:15 9:2,5 residential 4:6 11:3
14:3
9:7,9,16,17 10:21
respond 13:9
Red 10:6
redaction 14:10,14 responded 7:22
14:15,20 18:1,13 responses 11:5
responsibility 1:10
19:7
13:18
referred 4:20,23
restriction 2:10
reflects 14:16
14:10,11
refused 12:15
resulted 8:6
regards 7:19
retire 19:16
related 2:14
revealed 14:18
relates 15:6
review 6:1,5,10,14
relating 8:11 10:1
6:22 7:13 8:12,13
10:21 11:1
8:25 11:18
relation 10:14
Review's 6:7
18:15
relevance 17:13,14 reviewing 5:16
relevant 9:15 16:20 reviews 10:17
Richard 2:22
remarks 1:3,19
right 16:14 17:10
19:20,21
17:24 18:24 19:14
remit 6:13
risk 7:6 8:16
renewal 12:18
Q
QC 1:16 5:14 18:10
20:1
quarter 4:23
question 14:10
www.DTIGlobal.com
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2DY
IICSA Inquiry (Preliminary) Rochdale Investigation 27 July 2016
Page 25
Rochdale 1:6,20,24
3:6,13,20,22 4:4
5:13 6:6,9 7:9
8:20 9:1,20 10:3
10:13,23 11:2
13:4,7,16 14:21
14:23 18:9,11,14
18:19 19:22
role 9:23
rules 12:13 17:18
17:23
significantly 6:14
simply 7:14 17:12
19:6
Sir 1:8 2:3
six 8:5
Slater 2:21
Smith 2:3,5 3:14,24
4:9,12 5:3,6,10
7:1 10:12,14
11:10
S
Smith's 4:2 5:9
saying 17:2
social 8:21 9:2,12
scale 6:22
9:22,23
scene 14:4
socioeconomic 13:6
school 4:6,10,16,23 SOIA 12:20
5:1 7:22 8:8
soon 12:1
schools 10:24 11:3 sorry 16:25
Scorer 2:22,23
sort 9:21
second 1:4,23 9:25 spank 3:16
16:15,18
special 10:24
secondly 5:20 7:12 specialist 13:24
Secretary 1:14 3:9 specific 2:4,8
section 12:23
staff 4:14 10:21
self-evident 16:19
stage 12:3
serious 4:24
start 12:10
Service 3:3 10:15
started 8:1
Services 8:21 9:2
starting 6:15
9:12,22
state 3:9 7:8 9:9
set 5:13 10:3,13
statements 11:24
12:4 14:4
status 12:12,14
setting 3:24 4:10
14:4
settings 2:1 13:19
STEVEN 18:9 20:1
seven 8:6
story 6:24
sex 4:25
Street 3:20
sexual 1:25 4:14,24 subjected 6:17
5:4,18 6:24 7:4,25 submissions 2:8,12
8:7,19 9:19 10:1
12:16 14:19 15:1
10:23 11:3 13:10
15:20 16:3,4,22
13:15
17:6,8,10,25 18:5
sexually 4:16 5:6
18:9 19:23
8:15
submitted 6:5
shared 9:21
subsequent 10:16
Sharpling 1:9
successor 13:22
significant 2:1
suffices 9:17
DTI
(+44)207 4041400
suggested 5:7,17
suggestion 15:4,10
19:2
summary 11:22
supporting 2:17
sure 17:17
surrounding 17:18
survivors 2:20
systemic 4:19
13:11
underway 13:14
undress 3:16
unit 4:13 7:23
unrelated 4:12
update 2:7
updated 14:7
usefully 13:21
usual 17:18
T
tailored 16:3
take 19:2
taken 3:25 6:18
targeted 7:2
team 9:6 10:10
11:12 13:3
tells 7:9
temporary 4:8
terms 2:10 15:8
17:18
testicles 3:18
thank 17:10 18:7
18:24 19:4,15
things 16:14
third 16:16,18
Thirdly 8:13 10:11
thought 8:15,16
16:18
three 16:14
time 4:12,20 5:7
7:15 8:2
today 1:7,17 2:21
3:1 12:20 19:15
today's 2:6,10,14
toilets 4:17
tolerated 7:8
touching 3:18
track 16:12
travelling 4:17
treated 18:20
turn 14:9
two 10:21
V
Valerie 4:21 7:24
various 13:19
victims 2:20
View 1:6,20,24 4:6
4:14 5:4,7,12 6:25
7:1,5,18,19,25 8:1
8:4,8,10,17 9:23
9:24 19:22
W
way 2:6 12:7 15:18
18:20
website 14:15
Wednesday 1:1
week 18:1
week's 19:8
welcome 1:4
whilst 5:6 10:2
wider 2:4 6:14 10:2
wish 2:13 8:22 9:10
15:11 16:21 19:13
wishes 19:12
witness 11:23
Woodland's 10:5
work 2:7 6:1
workable 18:5
worked 17:19
workers 9:23
working 3:22
written 14:19
X
X 19:19
U
understanding
www.DTIGlobal.com
Y
year 12:7,10
years 7:3 8:5
yesterday 12:18
young 8:10
Z
0
1
1 6:5 19:20,21
11 8:9
11.45 1:2
12.14 19:17
13 12:14
15 3:15 19:23
16 12:11
18 3:15 5:21
1960s 3:14 13:5
1961 3:25 5:17
1965 4:2
1969 4:8
1970 10:15
1970s 14:3
1971 8:10
1974 13:20
1979 3:12 4:5
1980s 7:21 9:5
1990 14:3
1990s 4:12 7:21 9:5
1995 5:17
1996 4:9
1998 8:3 10:17
2
2005 12:23
2012 5:2 10:18
2013 10:18
2014 5:14 6:1,5
2016 1:1 9:6
27 1:1
3
3 6:1
4
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2DY
IICSA Inquiry (Preliminary) Rochdale Investigation 27 July 2016
Page 26
40 12:23
5
6
7
8
9
9 15:6,12
DTI
(+44)207 4041400
www.DTIGlobal.com
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2DY