Next in line for the Inquiry's criticism is Mr. Christopher Cleugh.
Christopher Cleugh, during his time as headmaster of the school between 2002 and 2016, repeatedly minimised questions of child sexual abuse to teachers and to external institutions and parents, to the point of materially misrepresenting significant facts. Although he told the Independent Schools Inspectorate that one of the monks had been charged with an assault on a pupil doing work experience in the monastery, he did not tell them that Pearce had been under restrictions at the time, nor did he tell them about the successful civil action against Pearce. He did not address safeguarding issues openly and proactively; when answers were given, he was defensive. One former teacher, Peter Halsall, said the previous culture of cover-up and denial at the school was “followed … by passing the buck”
Later the report goes on to say.
As headmaster, he set the tone for staff, pupils and parents in terms of how child protection concerns were dealt with. Mr Cleugh also had a principal role in addressing, from the school’s perspective, the danger posed by monks identified as risks and placed under restrictions. He was responsible for the school’s interaction with external institutions and its child protection policy. Mr Cleugh’s leadership in all of these areas was inadequate.
The report mentions his "misrepresentations".
For example, in a draft letter he wrote to parents in late August 2010 to respond to the publication of the ISI’s follow-up inspection that month, he emphasised that the school had been deemed fully compliant by the ISI in its earlier November 2009 report. This was despite the fact that the ISI’s latest report found it not to be so. He also wrote that the ISI had advised him that the child protection policy was “an exemplar of excellence” when it had not.
Cleugh did not welcome safeguarding concerns being raised.
Mr Halsall said that “When Cleugh became head, I attempted to make him aware of past issues with Pearce and others. He did not welcome this.”
Ms Ravenscroft said that after she had raised the allegation of abuse of RC-A418, “the new headmaster, Mr Cleugh, was obviously unhappy” and said he treated her like a traitor.
Ms Mortemore said that when Pearce was being investigated, Mr Cleugh “called a meeting and told us not to talk to anybody outside the school”. Mr Cleugh admitted this, although suggested that it was “advice”.
And he was similarly defensive towards the outside world.
The same defensive approach, painting Ealing Abbey and St Benedict’s as the victim, was apparent in a prize-giving address Mr Cleugh gave in 2010. He disparaged media coverage and a blog run by the campaigner Jonathan West:
“Recent media and blog coverage seem hell-bent on trying to discredit the School and, at the same time, destroy the excellent relationship between School and Monastery. Is this part of an anti-Catholic movement linked to the papal visit? I do not know, but it feels very much as if we are being targeted."
About Pearce and RC-F41 the report says
Mr Cleugh also did not give due thought to the risks posed by Pearce and RC-F41, despite knowing of the allegations made in respect of them and that they resided next to the school. He raised no concerns about their proximity internally or externally, including to the Charity Commission.
Mr Cleugh showed a lack of concern in respect of RC-F41 when allegations were made in 2005 and restrictions were imposed. He said he had never seen the Tregaskis report and was not aware that RC-F41 had accepted that there might be a sexual motivation to his having inserted his finger into RC-A421’s anus. He told us:
“Q: Do you feel at all that you were kept in the dark about some salient information [about RC-F41] that you should have known?
A: Well, I think – I’ve admitted that I actually knew the information. I hadn’t properly thought about it in that particular sense."
The inquiry found that he was less than entirely open towards external institutions.
For example, he told ISI inspectors at a preliminary visit in July 2009 that one of the monks had been charged with an assault on a pupil doing work experience in the monastery, but omitted that this had occurred while Pearce was under restrictions. He also did not inform them that there had been a civil action in 2006 when substantial damages had been awarded to RC-A6 and abuse found proven in respect of two others, nor about the abuse of four other boys dating back to the 1970s which had resulted in Pearce being convicted. In his evidence, Mr Cleugh referred repeatedly to the information being “all in the letter” to parents dated 2 October 2009, which was also provided to the ISI. He told us that the letter “actually cite[d] the number of cases that he was accused of going back 25/30 years”. However, that letter, written by Abbot Shipperlee, does not provide the detail suggested; it merely refers to there being more than one victim:
“Fr David Pearce, who taught at St Benedict’s from 1976–1992, pleaded guilty on 10th August to serious criminal offences against children and has now been sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.”
And they found that the school safeguarding policy for which he was responsible was deficient.
We have not seen any of St Benedict’s child protection policies prior to 2009. However, there are significant defects in the September 2009 version. Most seriously, paragraph 23 provided that allegations of child sexual abuse would not always be referred to the local authority designated officer (LADO) at Ealing social services, or the police, when they should have been:
“A referral to the [Ealing LADO] or police will not normally be made where:
– the complaint does not involve a serious criminal offence; and
– a referral would be contrary to the wishes of a pupil complainant who is of sufficient maturity and understanding and properly informed, and contrary also to the wishes of the complainant’s parents; and
– the case is one that can be satisfactorily investigated and dealt with under the School’s internal procedures, the parents being kept fully informed, as appropriate."
This specific paragraph is among those that
I raised with Cleugh in 2009, and I received a brush-off from him. he claimed at the time it was compliant, and Cleugh in evidence said that "he had been satisfied that it was compliant". However it wasn't, as the report states.
The statutory guidance, however, explicitly stated that the LADO must be informed whenever there is an allegation that a teacher or member of staff has “behaved in a way that has harmed a child, or may have harmed a child; possibly committed a criminal offence against or related to a child; or behaved towards a child, or children, in a way that indicates she or he is unsuitable to work with children”.
There was no requirement that the allegation involve “a serious criminal offence” (which was itself undefined in St Benedict’s policy).
The discretion afforded to St Benedict’s under its own policy not to report an allegation, and to conduct an internal investigation, contradicted the statutory guidance. As a result, the threshold for external reporting was too high and wrongly subject to discretion.
St Benedict’s definition of sexual abuse was also unsatisfactory in the light of statutory guidance.
The inquiry's overall conclusion was.
Christopher Cleugh, headmaster of the school between January 2002 and August2016, repeatedly minimised questions of child sexual abuse to the point of materially misrepresenting significant facts. He did not address safeguarding issues openly and proactively, and when questioned by external bodies was defensive.
"Materially misrepresenting significant facts" can be expressed more concisely. He lied. The inquiry has not been able to find any justifiable reason for those lies.
No comments:
Post a Comment