Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse Update - FAQs
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse Update - FAQs
- What is a statutory inquiry?
- What is meant by 'child sexual abuse'?
- What is a core participant (CP)?
- How far back will the Inquiry look?
- Can participation be anonymised?
- Will the hearings be televised?
- When is the outcome of the Inquiry likely to be announced?
- Are further investigations likely?
- Will an organisation's own investigation prevent inquiry scrutiny?
- Should we refer victims and survivors to the inquiry?
- What should we do to prepare?
- Which records should be retained?
- How long will we have to respond to inquiry requests for information?
- Should we be contacting former staff and pupils to ask them about their experiences within our institution?
- What action should we take if rumours about a member of staff are brought to our attention?
- Should we self-report our organisation to the inquiry?
- Where can we find out more?
- What should we do if we have received a request for information from the Goddard Inquiry?
- What if we are aware that a member of school staff or a student has previously been convicted of child sexual abuse but we have not yet received a letter?
- What if we are outside the stated scope of an investigation, but are asked for information?
- What constitutes sexual abuse? Can physical chastisement and voyeurism constitute sexual abuse?
- What if we cannot comply with the inquiry's deadline?
- Can we seek an extension of time for complying with a request for information?
- If we are a charity, do we need to report our involvement in the Inquiry to the Charity Commission?
- Should we disclose documents which concern alleged sexual abuse which has not been established?
- How should we treat allegations which took place outside the organisation's grounds?
What is a statutory inquiry?
It is an inquiry under the auspices of the Inquiries Act 2005, supplemented by the Inquiry Rules 2006. Such an inquiry has the power to compel the production of documents (save those which attract legal privilege) and the attendance of witnesses, and it is an offence to fail without reasonable excuse to do anything ordered by notice from the inquiry.
The inquiry will not determine liability. However it may make findings which will be relevant to liability in future proceedings.The Chair must also consider arrangements to make sure that members of the public (including reporters) can attend the inquiry or view simultaneous transmissions of proceedings and to obtain evidence provided to the inquiry.
The largest and best known statutory inquiry until now is the Leveson inquiry into phone hacking (July 2011). You may recall that the hearings were televised and most evidence (in the form of documents, statements and attachments) were made available on the inquiry website.
What is a core participant (CP)?
Core participant status is a defined term under the Inquiries Act 2005. It is akin to a properly interested person in inquest proceedings. Such status allows a person or organisation to be more closely involved in the inquiry.
However, the costs of such status are significant and it is unlikely that the inquiry will fund the costs for institutions (as opposed to individuals). Possible applications need to be considered carefully and we would recommend legal advice on this. The inquiry invites applications for core participant status for each investigation within a short specified period. It will not consider applications outside of these timeframes unless there is good reason to do so.
The Chair alone decides who should be designated a CP in each investigation. In considering whether to designate CP status, the Chair must consider the criteria set out in rule 5 of the Inquiry Rules 2006, namely, whether:
- the person played, or may have played, a direct and significant role in relation to the matters to which the inquiry relates
- the person has a significant interest in an important aspect of the matters to which the inquiry relates
- the person may be subject to explicit or significant criticism during the inquiry proceedings or in the report, or in any interim report
The preliminary hearings provide us with a helpful insight into to the panel's application of the above criteria to applications for CP status.
Whilst CPs have no statutory right to disclosure, Mr Emmerson has stated in each of the preliminary hearings which have taken place so far, that 'fairness is likely to lead to a core participant being granted disclosure of relevant documentation in relation to those parts of an inquiry in which they have a clear interest'. CPs will also be entitled to seek leave to ask questions of a particular witness if legally represented.
Those granted CP status in the Lord Janner, Anglican Church, Rochdale and Lambeth Council investigations were announced on 22 April 2016. The majority of CPs in each case are individual complainants, victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. However, CP status has also been granted to government departments (such as the Home office and Secretary of State for Education), the Chief Constable of the local area to which the particular investigation relates, local authorities; the Crown Prosecution Service, in the case of the Anglican church investigation, the insurance company for the majority of Anglican churches in England, and in the case of Lord Janner, the Labour Party.
Known perpetrators are not excluded from applying for CP status and Bishop Peter Ball is the first named perpetrator to be awarded CP status (in the Anglican church investigation).
What is meant by child sexual abuse?
The inquiry will not be investigating:
- neglect or non-sexual abuse (such as physical or emotional abuse)
- purely familial sexual abuse where there is no allegation of institutional failure
- child sexual abuse outside England and Wales
How far back will the Inquiry look?
There is no start date for the remit of the inquiry. It is therefore important for organisations to understand how far back their current records extend. The inquiry will not apply the safeguarding standards in place today retrospectively. It will seek to establish whether or not institutions dealt with safeguarding concerns to the standard required at the relevant time and reach findings in that regard.
Can participation be anonymised?
It is possible for core participants and/or witnesses to be anonymised although this was unusual in Leveson. In this inquiry, the Chair has postponed the consideration of issues of anonymity until July.
Will the hearings be televised?
Given the requirement for the Chair to consider this and to facilitate it where reasonable to do so, we consider it likely that the final hearings of the Public Hearings Project for the investigations will be televised.
When is the outcome of the Inquiry likely to be announced?
It is envisaged that some investigations (and interim reports about them) will be completed within 18 months but others may take several years. It is hoped that there will be an interim report in 2018 and a final report by 2020.
Are further investigations likely?
The inquiry has so far announced a total of 13 thematic and institution-specific investigations. Those already underway are only the start of the inquiry - further investigations are likely to be announced as it progresses.
The total number anticipated is unclear. In the Chair's opening statement, reference was made to the selection of at least 5 modular inquiries per work stream (25 in all) that appear to the inquiry to be illustrative of the pattern of institutional failings alleged in the area under consideration and it is likely that this means there will be at least 25 investigations.
Each may relate to a particular institution or group about which the inquiry has received apparently credible information of institutional failure to protect children from sexual abuse. It may be the case of a particular individual in a position of influence who appears to have been enabled to commit sexual offences against children through multiple institutional failings. Or it may be a national organisation that appears to have exhibited repeated or systemic failings over a number of years.
The criteria for the selection of investigations guidance states that in selecting situations suitable for investigation, the panel will apply the following criteria:
- there are credible allegations of child sexual abuse in an institutional setting or by a person who has exploited an official position in order to perpetrate child sexual abuse
- the institution appears to have facilitated or failed to prevent it, whether through an act, policy or omission
- the institution or a person acting in an official capacity appears to have failed to respond appropriately to allegations of child sexual abuse
The panel will select situations which appear to be:
- typical of a pattern of child sexual abuse occurring in that sector or context
- practically capable of detailed examination through oral and written evidence
- to involve no significant risk to the fairness and effectiveness of any ongoing police investigation or prosecution
- likely to result in 'currently relevant' conclusions and/or recommendations
How will the inquiry select case studies?
The inquiry panel has identified case studies for some of the broader investigations underway. The methodology for the selection of these case studies is not clear, although they should meet the criteria for the selection of investigations and be illustrative of the scope of the investigation in question.
Will an organisation's own investigation prevent inquiry scrutiny?
We do not know the extent to which the inquiry will take account of an organisation's own efforts to investigate historic child sexual abuse, whether undertaken internally or by an independent expert. However, it is interesting to note the Chair's comments in response to the announcement by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner that he had asked Sir Richard Henriques to lead an independent review concerning non-recent sexual allegations in this context.
Hon. Dame Lowell Goddard said:
'The Henriques review announced by the Metropolitan Police this week is separate to the ongoing work of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. The Inquiry will proceed with its own statutory investigations into the extent to which institutions have failed to protect children from sexual abuse. These include allegations of child sexual abuse and exploitation involving people of public prominence associated with Westminster. This investigation will consider allegations of cover-up and conspiracy and will review the adequacy of law enforcement responses to these allegations…
As well as providing support to victims and survivors in sharing their experiences, we will make recommendations that will help prevent the sexual abuse and exploitation of children in the future. We will consider the adequacy and appropriateness of any police investigation as part of this work.”
This suggests that such internally commissioned reports will not prevent inquiry scrutiny, but the fact of the internal investigation and its findings will be taken into account.
Should we refer victims and survivors to the inquiry?
Allegations of abuse should be handled with reference to the appropriate statutory guidance for your organisation, such as Keeping Children Safe in Education. There is no obligation to report a victim and survivor to the inquiry, but you may wish to in the interests of openness and transparency. They can contact the inquiry in the following ways:
- the inquiry’s information line: 0800 917 1000
- email: contact@iicsa.org.uk
- through the inquiry’s website
What should we do to prepare?
The inquiry can consider the adequacy of the organisation's policies and procedures in relation to safeguarding and child protection over time. This could include considerations of governance, training, recruitment, leadership, reporting and the investigation of allegations of child sexual abuse, disciplinary procedures, information sharing with outside agencies and approach to reparations.
The inquiry has issued a clear instruction that institutions should review their current safeguarding policies to make sure that they are consistent with best practice, and take whatever steps they can to provide a safer environment for children now (and you should note the update to the latest iteration of Keeping Children Safe in Education, if applicable, from September 2016). Thereafter we recommend that the organisation consider its own records regarding allegations of child sexual abuse and how these were handled.
Further guidance can be found on our website.
Which records should be retained?
Any records which may be relevant to the inquiry must be retained.
The Chair has written to 243 institutions (including local authorities and religious organisations) on the subject of retaining records. At the opening of the inquiry, the Chair confirmed that the content of those letters should be taken to apply to all institutions who have had responsibility for the care of children.
Appendix A sets out the categories of documents to be retained, whether they are held in manuscript, paper or electronic form. These fall across staff and pupil files, safeguarding, insurance and claims records and we recommend a careful audit of the manner in which the organisation holds such records to ensure that they are retained.
How long will we have to respond to inquiry requests for information?
Some such requests have been made seeking a turnaround within 10 days, so we recommend that institutions prepare for a possible information request.
Should we be contacting former staff and pupils to ask them about their experiences within our institution?
The challenge to institutions urging proactivity extends to reviewing files, records and procedures voluntarily and to self-reporting instances of institutional failure. It does not extend to questioning former staff, trustees or governors or pupils.
However, if during the course of reviewing files and records concerns are identified, discussing them with the Head teacher in post at the time may help to determine what action if anything was taken.
What action should we take if rumours about a member of staff are brought to our attention?
You should consider your relevant statutory guidance. For example, all schools have a legal obligation to report allegations of abuse, whether they are current or historic as set out in Keeping Children Safe in Education.
Should we self-report our organisation to the inquiry?
The Chair has issued a clear challenge to institutions urging proactivity. This extends to reviewing files, records and procedures voluntarily and to self-reporting instances of institutional failure. Whether a particular institution should self-report will depend on its specific circumstances. The benefit of doing so is not clear, other than by reference to supporting the inquiry.
The nature and extent of an organisation's potential failings may impact on whether self-reporting is likely to be constructive. Where there is doubt, we recommend that you seek professional PR and legal advice.
Where can we find out more?
If you would like to sign up for regular updates and FAQs on the Goddard Inquiry, please email us.
The inquiry website contains much useful information, including updates, although it does not have an alert function.
In addition, many groups of institutions under investigation have set up working parties or steering groups to support their members. They may have specific guidance for your organisation. The ISC for example has published an introduction and guidance document on the inquiry.
Your professional advisers may also provide support and guidance.
What should we do if we have received a request for information from the Goddard Inquiry?
- Ensure the preservation of all records with any connection to a historic or current allegation of child sexual abuse within the school.
- Acknowledge the request and clarify any issues about which you are unclear.
- Convene a team to manage the request and plot a timeline.
- Consider whether you have insurance cover for the costs of dealing with the request.
- If you have not already done so, appoint a person within the school with specific responsibility for liaising with the inquiry and collating and submitting the requested information.
- Undertake a comprehensive, thorough and rigorous search for the requested information, whether in hard or soft copy form.
- Ensure that a record is kept of the searches carried out to gather the requested information and keep your own copies of any material provided to the inquiry. The inquiry may ask the school to provide a formal statement explaining the searches conducted at a later date.
- Ensure that your current safeguarding and safer recruitment policies and procedures are up to date and will comply with the latest iteration of KCSIE from September.
- Review records before they are uploaded to consider their relevance, status and confidentiality. The inquiry's Redaction Protocol states that un-redacted copies of documents should be provided. You may need to consider this carefully with reference to specific classes of documents.
- If there are specific matters that you consider should be redacted before onward disclosure, these should be highlighted on a separate copy of the material with an explanation for the requested redactions.
- Prepare a covering letter to accompany the documents to be provided.
What if we are aware that a member of school staff or a student has previously been convicted of child sexual abuse but we have not yet received a letter?
Plan for such a request and ensure that it is picked up over the school holidays. They are usually sent to the Head and Chair of Governors.
What if we are outside the stated scope of an investigation, but are asked for information?
It is possible that institutions where staff or pupils have been convicted for sexual offences will be approached for information even if they do not correspond to the category of institution being investigated.
We recommend that any institution in this position should, when acknowledging the inquiry's request, indicate that it does not believe it is caught within the remit of the investigation, and seek confirmation of whether or not this impacts on the request and or the stated deadline for disclosure.
What constitutes sexual abuse? Can physical chastisement and voyeurism constitute sexual abuse?
The inquiry has published its own glossary of terms. It has also explained that 'where there are existing definitions of these terms in the statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children 2015, the Inquiry adopts the same definition and will interpret those terms consistently with the guidance. This glossary may be updated during the course of the Inquiry as necessary.'
Child Sexual Abuse is defined widely as 'forcing or enticing a child or young person to take part in sexual activities. The activities may involve physical contact and non-contact activities, such as involving children looking at, or in the production of, sexual images, watching sexual activities, encouraging children to behave in sexually inappropriate ways, or grooming a child in preparation for abuse including via the internet'.
Child Sexual Exploitation is deemed to be 'a form of child sexual abuse involving exploitative situations, contexts and relationships where a child receives something, as a result of them performing, and/or others performing on them, sexual activities. Child sexual exploitation can occur through the use of technology.'
Physical chastisement and voyeurism could be deemed to constitute child sexual abuse, depending on the context.
What if we cannot comply with the inquiry's deadline?
The inquiry is requesting that information is provided as soon as possible and before a specified deadline. If you do not believe it will be possible to comply with the request, an explanation will need to be provided to the tribunal and an extension sought.
An extension is only likely to be granted if it can be demonstrated that the institution will comply to the full extent possible and has a valid reason to seek more time. If the inquiry's deadline is not met or the inquiry does not grant an extension of time, a notice may follow.
Can we seek an extension of time for complying with a request for information?
Yes, and in our experience, the Inquiry will treat such requests favourably, provided sufficient information is given about the steps taken to comply and the complexities the organisation is facing in dealing with the request.
If we are a charity, do we need to report our involvement in the Inquiry to the Charity Commission?
Any charitable organisation receiving a request for information from or deciding whether to self-report to the Inquiry should also consider whether to make a serious incident report to the Charity Commission pursuant to this guidance.
We would be pleased to advise the Trustees about this and/or draft any report(s) in order to minimise the risk of and associated with onward disclosure.
Should we disclose documents which concern alleged sexual abuse which has not been established?
Although the Inquiry's requests for information generally seek information about alleged child sexual abuse and seek clean copies of relevant materials (and organisations will want to cooperate with them so far as they can), we recommend caution in disclosing unredacted documents relating to allegations (as opposed to convictions) in response to a request, as they may contain sensitive personal data and/or may be subject to a duty of confidence.
How should we treat allegations which took place outside the organisation's grounds?
This will depend upon the detail of the request made by the Inquiry. However, we consider that the Inquiry is likely to want to hear of allegations which were an integral part of your organisation's activities and in which children were under your organisation's care, regardless of their location (such as a school field trip).
We are ably supported in our approach to the inquiry by Kate Gallafent QC of Blackstone Chambers and by Tim Toulmin of Alder Media (who himself gave evidence at the Leveson Inquiry and can give first hand guidance on involvement in a statutory inquiry). Both will be speaking at our Practical Strategies conference on 20 September.