Landmark
decision in the High Court
http://www.bfms.org.uk/site_pages/frameset.htm
BFMS
- 30th July 2002
Margaret
Jervis writes: The victory of the two falsely accused Newcastle
nursery nurses in the High Court in London on 30th July 2002 is
a landmark decision for investigative reliability in child abuse
accusations. After a trial lasting 74 days, Dawn Reed and Christopher
Lillie were each awarded £200,000 in maximum damages for having
been maliciously libelled by a Newcastle City Council-appointed
review team of three social workers and one psychologist. "I
am quite satisfied that each of the Claimants [Chris and Dawn] have
merited an award at the highest permitted level", said the
trial judge, Mr Justice Eady. "Indeed, they have earned it
several times over because of the scale, gravity and persistence
of the allegations and of the aggravating factors."
In his 400
page judgment, (available in three parts [1],
[2] &
[3]).
the judge highlights the intellectual dishonesty of the review team
in compiling their report, Abuse in Early Years. The report, published
in 1998, had branded the two innocent former nursery workers as
bizarre and dangerous paedophiles who were abusing young children
both in the nursery and in the local area in concert with others
in an unknown 'paedophile ring'.
The full
judgment is a model critique of the flawed investigative techniques
and theories that arose in the 1980s in tandem with the 'recovered
memory' methodology which affected so many families in the 1990s.
Dawn's original solicitor contacted the British False Memory Society
in 1993 as the case against her and Chris mushroomed along similar
lines as the notorious McMartin and Kelly Michaels daycare cases
had done in the US.
At that
time, the susceptibility of young children to the creation of false
narratives by virtue of the beliefs of the investigators, was already
recognised in the United States. The research by Stephen Ceci and
Maggie Bruck into children's suggestibility formed the basis of
an authoritative amicus brief - a consensual opinion by leading
psychologists to help the Court - that became the linchpin in quashing
the conviction against Kelly Michaels in New Jersey.
Ceci and
Bruck's research discredited the application of Roland Summit's
accommodation theory which was being used as a potent and dangerous
diagnostic and investigative tool in suspected cases of sexual assault.
The Summit theory postulated a whole range of symptoms as evidence
of 'hidden' memories of severe abuse. Even an absence of symptoms
could be taken as an abuse indicator. Absolute denial or gradual,
often contradictory, disclosure, according to Summit, needed to
be nurtured through play props such as anatomically correct dolls,
in order that the presumed psychological trauma could be exposed
thus allowing the 'victim' to be 'healed'. The 'accommodation theory'
was the therapeutic engine which drove the Shieldfield allegations
way beyond the criminal pre-trial acquittal of the nurses in July
1994. New allegations were still being made as a result of therapy
even as the review team, by then appointed by Newcastle City Council,
started to examine the case in 1996.
Because
it was aware of the damage caused by the defective methods and beliefs
employed in the investigative process, the BFMS sent the review
team the Kelly Michaels amicus brief and other information about
the US cases, including the Ceci and Bruck research. This should,
at least, have alerted the team to the similarities between the
cases on both sides of the Atlantic, but when the Abuse in Early
Years report appeared, not only was the tainted police and social
services investigation upheld, but the key material sent by the
BFMS was denigrated as being 'unsolicited' and irrelevant. This
implied smear was made not only against the BFMS but included psychologist
Dr Bryan Tully, a BFMS advisory board member. Dr Tully, a defence
expert for the criminal case, had offered to give evidence to the
review team; evidence which he maintains would have helped the team
to come to entirely different conclusions, but the team deliberately
chose to refuse to hear his evidence.
This biased
hostility arose again at the libel trial when counsel for the review
team tried to insinuate that Chris and Dawn had been pushed into
bringing the case by the BFMS - an accusation which had no foundation
in fact. The BFMS does however stand by its commitment to provide
relevant and accurate scientific information in the interests of
justice.
Through
his careful judgment, which rejects the investigative methodology
of both the review team and the initial police and social services
inquiry, Mr Justice Eady highlights the fact that the team ignored
the relevant scientific knowledge, some of which had been provided
by the BFMS. But what was not revealed during the trial was why
it might be predicted that certain members of the review team would
take a blanket oppositional stance to both the BFMS and any other
objective analysis which could have been provided to the team.
One of the
social work experts appointed to the team was Judith Jones. Ms Jones,
together with her partner, journalist Beatrix Campbell, has been
a longstanding opponent of the BFMS. As part of a campaign to uphold
'recovered memory' theory, both Campbell and Jones have sought to
blacken the name of the BFMS over many years. The most flagrant
example of this was in their 1999 co-written book Stolen Voices
which sought to portray, through misinformation and misrepresentation,
the BFMS and other critics, as part of a 'paedophile's lobby'. Unsurprisingly,
the totally unfounded slurs in the book resulted in a queue of people
intending to take legal action. Responding to the first of many
potential claims, the publishers withdrew the book the day before
publication.
One facet
of Ms Jones' campaign against the BFMS was the setting up of a group
of therapists and 'recovered memory' clients, Daughters and Their
Allies (DATA). Based in Newcastle, the group's specific object was
to discredit the BFMS and promote 'recovered memory' claims. However,
very little is known about this shadowy organisation.
Ms Jones
was also, under her married name Judith Dawson, an instigator of
the 'satanic abuse' scare in Nottingham in 1989. Her pivotal role
in disseminating false information fuelled the Rochdale and Orkneys
abuse fiascos. The reckless approach adopted by Judith Dawson/Jones
in investigating these cases was identified by a joint police social
services inquiry in the JET report. However, having been accepted
by the police, and social services director, David White, planned
publication of the summary final report was successfully blocked
by Ms Dawson and her team who waged a campaign of slur and innuendo
against the authors of the report. The upshot was that belief in
satanic abuse and the unsound methods of investigation continued
to permeate the world of welfare professionals and activists, with
Ms Dawson retaining unjustified influence for many years.
The one
psychologist on the Newcastle panel, Dr Jacqui Saradjian, also had
an ideological axe to grind. A former teacher, she studied under
psychologist Helga Hanks at Leeds University. Dr Hanks was a supporter
of 'satanic abuse' and a member of the Leeds team that included
Drs Jane Wynne and Christopher Hobbs. Their promotion of the now
discredited 'anal dilatation' diagnosis of sexual abuse created
havoc and injustice in Cleveland in 1987 when it was applied by
Dr Marietta Higgs and others. Ms Saradjian, who has specialised
in women as abusers, is also a believer in the 'recovered memory'
method of accessing narratives that reinforce her ideology, including
her belief in 'satanic abuse.'
All that
was required to promote the production of a report which would,
in the words of the judge, include "fundamental claims [the
Review team] must have known to be untrue" was for Newcastle
City Council to appoint Dr Richard Barker, a social work lecturer,
as leader of the team. The judge stated that Dr Barker was a man
who "eschewed rational analysis in the approach to his task
from the outset". His evidence was so poor that the judge said
he "was unable to place reliance upon anything said by Professor
Barker, for any significant purpose, unless it was independently
corroborated". Acting as "a law unto himself" Barker
and the team were to "promulgate to the Council and to the
wider public what was recognised within days … to be a specious
and disreputable document".
Now that
the Shieldfield Nursery abuse fiasco has finally been laid to rest,
questions must be asked as to how it came to develop from the outset.
Close critical scrutiny needs to be paid to a wide range of welfare
services and the professionals involved, not least Dr Camille San
Lazaro, the consultant paediatrician who falsely diagnosed so many
children as having been abused. Mr Justice Eady said, "The
truth is that where physical findings were negative or equivocal,
Dr San Lazaro [who had trained with Dr Marietta Higgs] was prepared
to make up the deficiencies by throwing objectivity and scientific
rigour to the winds in a highly emotional misrepresentation of the
facts."
The fact
is that many of the key personnel in the Shieldfield case are part
of an ideological axis stretching back through Nottingham to Cleveland.
That it has taken nine years to nail the myth of Shieldfield indicates
that the misinformation this faction continues to promulgate within
the welfare, police and criminal justice systems continues to cloud
professional judgment. Unfortunately the media, as was seen in the
trial with the Newcastle Evening Chronicle and other mainstream
newspapers, all too often follows suit. It is therefore all the
more remarkable and gratifying that Mr Justice Eady has been able
to cut a swathe through their emotive, pseudo-scientific claims.
Anyone involved
in this field should read the full judgment; not only does it endorse
sound theory and practice in child abuse investigations, but it
calls for a return to the fundamental principles of natural justice,
reason and humanity.
