Julian Clary on St Benedict's

In an interview in the Times Magazine today (behind paywall), Julian Clary has spoken out about his time as a pupil at St Benedict's School.

Like the parents of so many comedians, his too are Catholic. They were delighted when young Julian won a scholarship to St Benedict’s – they wouldn’t have been able to afford it if he hadn’t. The burden of his good fortune weighed on him, however, when life at school began to take an unpleasant turn. “School was very, very tricky.” Years later, he told them what really went on, although the truth could not have escaped them for ever. In 2009, Father David Pearce, the school’s former head, was jailed for eight years for abusing five students. Then, last October, it emerged that the Vatican had ordered an inquiry into similar allegations involving other staff. Father Laurence Soper, the now 80-year-old former Abbot of Ealing Abbey, was arrested, but jumped bail. He is still being sought by police.

Julian Clary lives, he says, “in a village”, but even in his Lexus 4x4 with blacked-out windows it would take ten minutes to reach the nearest pub. Which is fine by him. “I’m not one for mixing and mingling,” he says in his tart, poised, quiet drawl, a soothing voice honed over many months as a young teenager in defiance of some of the monks at St Benedict’s, Ealing Abbey. They used to come after Clary and his best friend, Nick, with canes and miniature cricket bats. “Each one had his weapon of choice,” he says, with quiet disparagement.

His schooldays were horrible. How satisfying it must be to see one of the monks, David Pearce, getting his comeuppance for crimes committed at the school – very serious crimes, of child abuse. We will return to the monks and Clary’s wretched schooldays later. Suffice to say for now that Clary believes the high camp of his act and, more importantly, his urge to succeed, was a retaliation: “It’s my revenge on being bullied at school and on the monks and on that repressive situation [to become] the most outrageous, amusing character, that people actually like.”

“Even though I was only 12 and I was never molested, we knew something funny was going on. We knew there was something strange about this monk [Pearce]. He used to sort of waft around and had this grin on his face. And he was always hanging around outside the boys’ toilets. I’m fascinated that it went on for so long. And the damage that has been done to these boys who are now men is… unforgivable.”

One can imagine that his immunity to all this lay partly in his angry exhibitionism. Quentin Crisp inspired the teenage Julian and his friend Nick to camp up their voices. They became deliberately provocative, effeminate, homosexual; “mincing around. And I quite enjoyed that.” The monks did not, and often said so. Clary’s tutor would frequently take him to one side and utter the ominous phrase, “You bring it on yourself.” “But he would never say what ‘it’ was.” What does Clary think “it” was? With disdain, he replies: “The persecution.”

It is this kind of oppressive atmosphere which provides a cover for the crimes that Pearce and others committed.

£50,000 settlement

A former pupil has reached a settlement with Ealing Abbey concerning abuses committed against him by Father David Pearce. The victim, whose identity is protected by court order, is one of the five whom Pearce admitted abusing when he pleaded guilty to 10 indecent assaults and 1 sexual assault in August 2009. The former pupil will receive £50,000 in compensation.

The website of Bolt Burdon Kemp has more details. The story has also been covered in The Times (behind paywall).

In my view it doesn't reflect well on Ealing Abbey that this former pupil has had to wait two and half years for compensation since Pearce pleaded guilty to the offences against him.

I've heard that there are still a considerable number of claims against Ealing Abbey still outstanding concerning sex abuses committed by Pearce and others.

Father David Pearce

Yes, at the time of writing he is still Father David Pearce. He's due out of prison fairly shortly, having served half of his five year sentence. If he hasn't been laicized by the time he leaves prison, the church will have a responsibility to house him, since he will still be a priest.

I asked Peter Turner whether Pearce had been laicized yet, and if not, whether he would be by the time he left prison. He has written the following in reply.

It is anticipated that by the time of his release from prison Fr David Pearce will be laicised.

Anticipated. Not certain. Especially as it is up to Rome, not the church in the UK. I have a sneaking suspicion that he will still be a priest on the day he comes out of prison. I'll keep you posted on anything I learn on the subject.

UPDATE 10 February
I have just received an email from Peter Turner in which he says "I can now confirm that the laicisation process regarding David Pearce is now completed."

Good.

Carlile Report analysis - 1

This is the first in a series of articles I shall be writing on the Carlile report. As I mentioned before, it is a substantial document and I felt it deserved a measure of reflection before I wrote in detail about it.

Paragraphs 1-4 deal with the background and history of the school and contain nothing contentious.

Paragraph 5 briefly describes the circumstances of Carlile's appointment, but neglects to mention what I at least regard as a significant issue and which I raised at the press conference.

Carlile accepted this appointment as a barrister, and was therefore instructed by a solicitor, this being the normal way of things in the law. His instructing solicitor was the school's solicitor Mr. Anthony Nelson of the firm Haworth and Gallagher.

At the time Carlile took the instruction, Nelson was also acting as the defending solicitor for Father David Pearce, not only for his appeal against sentence (successful in that it was reduced from 8 years to 5), but also for Pearce's second trial this summer along with John Maestri.

At the press conference I asked Lord Carlile how the apparent conflict of interest was managed between Nelson acting on behalf of Pearce while at the same time commissioning an inquiry which would inevitably in part be an investigation into Pearce's criminal activities. Carlile replied to the effect that there was no conflict of interest, in that he had made it clear to Nelson and the Abbey that he would conduct the inquiry in his own way, and would not provide any of the documents he received or the notes he made to Nelson, these would all go into his own personal archive at his chambers and not be made available to the abbey.

I've no criticism of Carlile in the way he has approached the task, but it seems to me that by saying this, he has tacitly accepted that there was a potential conflict of interest on the part of Nelson which needed to be guarded against by the precautions Carlile described.

I'm astonished that, even after he pleaded guilty to multiple crimes against pupils of St Benedict's, Pearce has continued to be represented by the school solicitor. I'm even more astonished that the Abbot thought it appropriate at the same time to use Nelson to instruct Carlile. I realise that Nelson and Carlile have worked together before and that there is nothing at all wrong with that. I accept that provided that everybody concerned is happy that Nelson is able to compartmentalise his mind, he can continue to represent these different clients with potentially conflicting interests.

But politically it stinks. Carlile is perfectly well aware of the need for independence in such matters not only to exist but also to be seen to exist, and in the press conference he criticised the conduct of the Apostolic Visitation, in that he felt in particular that Abbot Richard Yeo ought not to have been appointed to it because he has too close a prior connection with Ealing Abbey and its monks. I agree with him on this point, and I feel that the same issue applies to the involvement of Mr. Nelson in the Carlile inquiry. This doesn't sound like an example of the openness and transparency that the Abbot and Mr. Cleugh have been banging on about recently.

Just how acute those conflicts might turn out to be was demonstrated at the trial of Pearce and Maestri this summer. One of the arguments used by the defence was that the alleged victim had mistakenly identified his abusers and had in fact been abused not by either Pearce or Maestri, but instead had been abused by Father Laurence Soper. While that line of argument was a perfectly valid one for the defence to use, it showed how the interests of Pearce and of the abbey and the other monks are no longer necessarily the same.

Paragraphs 6 & 7 mention the status of Pearce and Hobbs at the time of the inquiry, and paragraph 8 describes his agreement to conduct the inquiry "on the understanding that this report would be published on the School and Abbey websites, and made available in printed form on request to the Abbot or school Headmaster".

That concludes the introductory "Background" section of the report.

Sins of the Fathers

The Times has an editorial today about Ealing Abbey (behind paywall) concerning the Carlile Report. It is worth quoting and commenting on a few bits of it.

It should be read, especially, by those few who may still believe that Catholic bodies have been unfairly tarnished these past few years. For it was commissioned, and published, by Ealing Abbey itself. And its findings are entirely shocking.

I think it worth noting that a number of people have suggested that this blog is merely a self-serving grab for publicity, that it is motivated by virulent anti-catholicism or violent secularism, and that I have been blowing things out of proportion. Well, think again.

This report is not only an acknowledgement of a catalogue of terrible abuse — which began in the 1940s and continued up until 2007 — but also of the long-running failure to address this abuse, or even to acknowledge it as being of suitable severity to be addressed. It was only commissioned long after The Times had begun reporting on a series of allegations of sexual abuse at St Benedict’s, prompting more victims to come forward.

It is inevitable that there will be even more victims who come forward, simply because even if we could wave a magic wand and absolutely guarantee no abuse happens at St Benedict's ever again (something I acknowledge to be impossible), because it can take decades for a victim to acquire the will and courage to come forward, there is going to be a trickle of cases which will probably last for the next 30 years or so.

Lord Carlile recognises primary and secondary fault, with the first belonging obviously to the abusers themselves, and the second being shared between the school and “the monastic community, in its lengthy and culpable failure to deal with what at times must have been evident behaviour placing children at risk”.

All perfectly correct. But I happen to be of the opinion that the secondary fault isn't all that secondary. Paedophiles will be paedophiles, and occupations which involve the care of children will inevitably be attractive to paedophiles. The Catholic priesthood is one such occupation. You can't recognise a potential child sex abuser at sight. As Catherine Pepinster has found out in the case of Father David Pearce, you can know an active abuser very well and still not realise. So, it is inevitable that abusers will get into the priesthood from time to time. The same applies to the teaching profession.

What matters is minimising the number of victims, and minimising the harm done to them. The only way that you can find out that somebody is an abuser is from actual reports of abuse. So these reports, from victims and witnesses are the primary weapon in the fight against abuse. They have to be taken seriously, they have to be passed to the authorities who have the knowledge and training to investigate them properly, and they have to be acted on in so that when abuse is discovered, the abuser is immediately and permanently removed from a position supervising children.

All this Ealing Abbey failed to do. Victims were accused of maliciously accusing their abusers, abusers were permitted to remain, when the complaints got too loud abusing priests were moved to different duties and abusing lay teachers were quietly sacked and sent on their way with a good reference so they they could continue to abuse elsewhere.

All these actions, carried out for the most part by people who weren't abusers themselves, could hardly have been better at maximising the number of victims and the extent of the harm done to them had they been designed with that especial objective in mind. And these action contributed hugely to the overall duration of the abuse and the number of victims, which just at St. Benedict's School must by now number in the hundreds.

Even when Lord Carlile began his report, he writes, another monk banned from working with children was still living there. “The Abbot has accepted that another dwelling has to be found for any member of the monastic community falling within the categories described,” he writes. “This must continue as a permanent policy.”

It stretches credulity that such a thing could even need saying. The fact that it does is indicative of the problems which Lord Carlile highlights, and sheds light upon the Church’s continuing inability to police itself.

In fact, when Lord Carlile began his work, there were two monks living at the Abbey under restrictions, Father Stanislaus Hobbs and Father Gregory Chillman. At the insistence of the Department for Education and over the energetic objections of the Abbot, Father Stanislaus Hobbs was moved to a care home outside the diocese earlier this year. But the Carlile Report lists Chillman as still living at the Abbey under restriction, and the Abbey website also lists him as a monk resident at the Abbey. I believe he has only very recently moved out.

It is this kind of obstructive, grudging response to obviously sensible suggestions for child protection which leave me of the opinion that the abbey and the school cannot move on under their present management.

Back in the beginning

The Daily Mail article has prompted me to take a look back at the first article about Ealing Abbey that I wrote here, way back in August 2009, Catholic clerical abuse at Ealing Abbey and St. Benedict's School.

I think it is worth re-emphasising the main points I made in that original article.

• I made it clear that I did not blame the ordinary Catholics who attend Mass at the Abbey, I acknowledged that they had no idea what was going on.
• I suggested that the Abbey's records on all matters of complaints or allegations of sexual abuse connected to the Abbey should be independently reviewed.
• I suggested that provisions should be made for counselling and pastoral care to be provided to victims, including those who had not yet come forward.
• I suggested that a full and unreserved public apology be issued.
• I suggested that the parish and the schools review their child protection policies.
• And finally, I hoped that those involved in putting things right avoid getting into a siege mentality.

In my naivity back then, it seemed to me that this was a very reasonable and moderate set of suggestions, which no reasonable person, Catholic or otherwise, would have any difficulty with, given the awful truth that had recently come to light about Father David Pearce.

I wasn't asking for the school to be demolished or for the monastery to be dissolved. I wasn't branding all catholics as child abusers or suggesting that the pope was the Antichrist. All I was asking was that the mistakes of the past be acknowledged, the victims be apologised to, and measures be taken to make sure that this can never happen again.

It is now 2 years and 2 months since that original article. Had there been a determination on the part of the Abbot to do so, almost all these things could have been achieved 2 years ago. Each passing month lessened my respect for Abbot Martin and increased my conviction that he was deliberately hiding matters that had not yet come to light, and hoping that it would all blow over.

In December 2009, the Charity Commission published the report of its two Statutory Inquiries into Ealing Abbey. I had no hand in them being set up, they started before I ever became aware of the issue. Publication of the reports had been delayed until after the trial of Pearce had been concluded. The local MP Andy Slaughter said that he had never seen such a damning and critical report from the Charity Commission

In February, what purported to be the report of an "Independent Review" commissioned by the Abbot was published. I later learned who had conducted the inquiry, and a friend of mine spoke to him concerning the circumstances under which it had been carried out. It turned out that:

• the terms of reference were the Abbey only, not the school, 
• it was a paper-only review, nobody was interviewed.
• the reviewer visited for only half a day
• the review addressed only the period covering the abuse of Pearce's last victim, when Pearce was already under restrictions
• the reviewer was not told about the duration and number of Pearce's other known crimes, though he inferred that other crimes not disclosed had been committed.

Despite this, the report was placed on the school website as being the fulfilment of the Abbot's promise of an independent review.

As my concerns increased, and as more facts came to light, I wrote to the Independent Schools Inspectorate and the Department for Education expressing my concerns. The DfE's response was to order the ISI to make an additional unannounced inspection, which resulted in a critical report the like of which had never previously been published by the ISI. This inspection took place at the end of April 2010, six months after my original blog article.

That report was published in July 2010, but not sent to parents until September. In the meantime of course, the cheques for another term's school fees had been sent to the school and banked. By this time, publicity was growing, there had been articles in the Times and there was a degree of restiveness among parents. So a Parental Forum was held, at which two mutually contradictory lines were pursued by the Abbot and headmaster. The first was that the abuse was all in the past, nobody involved with the abuse had any current connection with the school, all was now well and parents had no reason to be concerned. The second line was that this was all so serious that the school had decided to commission Lord Carlile to conduct an independent review.. (The earlier review was conveniently forgotten.)

The first approach was holed below the waterline when a perceptive parent asked if there had been any recent allegations of abuse against monks or members of staff apart from those mentioned in the ISI report. There was dead silence in the room for several seconds, before the headmaster admitted that a current member of staff was at present suspended following allegations of misconduct. (That member of staff was subsequently returned to duties, and the headmaster wrote to all parents on his return. The letter didn't state whether the allegations had been substantiated, but did say that the staff member concerned had been given training in "communication skills". The staff member has since been given additional pastoral duties.)

In June last year, I learned of the connection between Father Gregory Chillman and St. Augustine's Priory School. I also learned of allegations of misconduct by Father Gregory in his role as Chaplain there. There had already been allegations made publicly in the comments of the blog dating from his days as a teacher at St. Benedict's. I took a look at the school's child protection policy on the school website, and saw that it was so bad it made the St Benedict's policy look like a model of thoroughness and diligence in comparison. So I wrote again to the ISI and DfE, passing on the allegations I had received and requesting that they look into it. As it happened, St Augustine's had recently joined the Independent Schools Council, and had just had an ISI inspection in March, and the report had not yet been issued.

The ISI's final report was as critical of St Augustine's as the report of the special inspection had been of St. Benedict's. But rather than accept the report and make the necessary improvements, Mrs Gumley Mason sought Judicial Review of the report in the High Court. Judicial Review is a hard thing to obtain. In order to get an administrative decision by a public body overturned on Judicial Review, you have to demonstrate that the original decision is so perverse that no honest and reasonable person with two braincells to rub together could possibly have reached the original decision. Nearly a year after the original inspection, the report was finally published, still containing all the criticisms the school had complained about.

In June this year, I wrote to the new Papal Nuncio. I summarised my concerns regarding the abbey and both schools, providing brief histories of the key people involved. When I met the Nuncio at the end of July, he told me that he had been so concerned about the letter that he had researched the matter, and as a result had contacted Rome. Cardinal Levada, head of the CDF, had ordered an Apostolic Visitation, which would start in September and be conducted by Bishop John Arnold (auxiliary bishop of the diocese of Westminster) and Abbot Richard Yeo (Abbot President of the English Benedictine Congregation).

So this isn't just a matter of some sad obsessed individual with a grudge against the school (which is how the Abbey has portrayed me to journalists recently). My concerns were well-founded, the authorities agreed with me and have conducted investigations, the results of which so far have borne out my concerns.

In his prizegiving day address in September 2010, Mr Cleugh used the occasion to express his belief that the recent publicity seemed "hell-bent on trying to discredit the School and, at the same time, destroy the excellent relationship between School and Monastery",and speculated that it was "part of an anti-Catholic movement linked to the papal visit". This is not the attitude of a man who thinks that there is any need for improvements.

If I were as anti-Catholic as Mr. Cleugh appears to suggest, I would be taking no trouble at all over the safety of Catholic children. It is after all mainly the children of Catholics who attend Catholic schools. If I were anti-Catholic, I would say that it served them right and leave them to stew in their own juice. But in fact, I believe that the children of Catholics have as much right to be safe in their schools as any other children.

The next chapter will open next week, with the release of the Carlile Report. I very much hope that this will finally set the abbey and St Benedict's School on a new path where the evils of the past are acknowledged and apologised for, and work is finally started in earnest to ensure that this cannot happen again. I do not wish to see the closure of the school. For as long as there are parents who wish for a private Catholic education for their children, the existence of independent Catholic schools is entirely valid. All I expect is that those schools provide the highest standards of safeguarding for the children in their care.

More in the press

The Daily Mail has a piece about Ealing Abbey today.: Predators at the Abbey.

The Mail describes the ghastly experiences of a boy it calls Jeff (not his real name), and then goes on to describe an even more shocking incident.

In an apparent fit of despair, one of his friends in the middle school, Lewis de Luca, shot himself in the temple with an airgun at 16. It took 13 months for him to die.

An inquest heard that he had become depressed after being accused — falsely, he insisted — of stealing a tennis racquet at St  Benedict’s, and expelled on the eve of his O Levels. Jeff is convinced it was the paedophile masters who really drove him to his death.

At 13, he says, Lewis had been one of the school’s most popular boys — outgoing, handsome and a champion athlete. Then he was summoned to a monk’s office where it seems he was violently assaulted. Jeff saw him emerge white-faced and trembling with his trousers soiled.

‘Lewis was terribly abused; broken down,’ he told me. ‘You just knew. I left the school at 13, and lost touch with him, and then one day I heard he was dead. I am absolutely convinced it had something to do with what happened to him at that school.’

Having followed the unfolding scandal at St Benedict’s, Lewis de Luca’s mother Rosalind harbours the same suspicions.

The experience of losing her teenage son was so devastating, she told me, that for many years she blanked out many memories. But now she remembers how he came home one day and told her someone, a teacher, had ‘made a pass’ at him, and he had made it clear he wasn’t interested.

She hadn’t thought this incident to be serious, but now wonders whether it was a hint of something far more sinister. ‘It’s very disturbing for a mother to think he might have been subjected to abuse and couldn’t tell me about it,’ she said. ‘It’s such a horrible feeling. In those days, I’d heard about Gay Dave, but I thought the boys were making it up. I didn’t think it was happening. They were priests. Men of God. I just didn’t believe they could go around doing that sort of thing.’

Mrs de Luca, I don't know if you will ever read this blog, but if you do, please realise that if Lewis was sexually abused, it is no surprise that he was unable to tell you at the time. Because of the psychological manipulations carried out by their abusers, many victims are unable to tell anybody at all for many years, and a significant proportion feel unable to come forward until both their parents are dead, because they cannot bear the distress it would cause to those they love the most.

If Lewis couldn't tell you it is not because you are a bad parent, almost certainly it is because you are a good parent and he was trying to protect you as well as he knew how.

I have heard of other suicides amongst pupils and former pupils of St. Benedict's. It is of course impossible to prove that those pupils were abused or that there was a connection between the abuse and the suicide. That is something known only to their abusers, and they aren't likely to admit it, even to themselves. It is to prevent more pupils going through the experiences described by Jeff, and to reduce the risk of suicides such as Lewis's that I will not rest until I am satisfied that the child protection measures at the school and Abbey have been made a model of best practice, and that there has been a complete change of culture there, from the denial that exists now to one of awareness and education in these issues.

From a parent

Below is an open letter about St Benedict‘s School from a parent of a child who attended this school between the age of 7 and 18. For entirely understandable reasons the parent wishes to remain anonymous.

=====================

The revelations about the child abuse that went on at St Benedict’s School for a period of about 40 years are distressing. As a parent one attempts to do the very best for one’s child; this included a Catholic and Christian education at what was then known to be an excellent private Catholic school in West London. The struggle to find the fees was thought to be well worth while for the prize of a place at St Benedict’s.

My son was taught religion by Father David Pearce and Father Pearce was also his form master. As “Captain David” he ran the Cadet Corps which involved going away to camp in Wales. This priest, as we all now know, is serving 8 years, (now reduced to 5 years) imprisonment for child abuse. One trusted these priests and the lay teachers, as one consigned to their care, the most precious commodity – a child.

My son did not really achieve what he should have done at St Benedict’s, although with much parental support and help he has turned out to be a model and responsible citizen, with a good career and a happy marriage. His success in life has come through his own efforts with strong family support and not, I regret to say, from his time at St Benedict’s which made him under achieve and with left him with a contempt for authority. I now understand why.

When the news broke about Father David, my son’s reaction was “Oh, I am not surprised it’s him, but there was one monk, much worse that has not been mentioned”. I had had no inkling at all before this that anything inappropriate had gone on. My cousin’s son, also a pupil at St Benedict’s at about the same time, similarly never raised with his family any inappropriate behaviour, yet both boys were obviously aware that “things were not right”. I suppose some strange code of schoolboy behaviour prevented them from saying anything. 

My son, regularly returned home from the Rugby field, dressed in two shirts (possibly not his) no socks or two pairs of socks and clothes thrown on any old how; my reaction to that was that boys did not care, and paid no attention to how they dressed. Now I learn that Father David appeared in the changing rooms complete with ciné camera and, with hindsight, I now realise the need for speedy dressing. It never dawned on me at the time that anything could be wrong; my son never complained. 

Likewise my cousin’s son mentions a group of boys going up to one monk’s office to stand outside and make a noise, whilst one of their friends was inside being “chastised”. This was their effort to ensure that the headmaster knew they were there, so nothing “inappropriate” might happen to their friend. My worried question to my son “were you.....?” was answered by “don’t worry Mum, I knew enough to keep out of his way”. Really? Is this the best St Benedict’s could offer its children? 

My question to the monks and lay teachers at St Benedicts is this: How over a period of nearly forty years did all this abuse go undetected? Within any organisation, especially one as close-knit as an abbey, can no-one else, ever have raised or had any suspicion about what was going on? I am afraid it beggars belief.

Careful wording of documents issued from the abbey can confuse the issue. Does one need to know “officially” about child abuse before deciding to take action? Letters stating that “I am sorry you feel you were let down” puts the blame on the victims. Fathers, we don’t just feel we were let down. Five or six child abusers in one school? We were let down and badly. 

We now hear that Father Lawrence Soper, has failed to turn up for police questioning or “jumped bail” as eloquently reported in the national press a few days ago. It is a wild stretch of the imagination to believe that this 80 year old, known to the boys as Father Florence, has simply gone on the run. Obviously someone, somewhere is looking after him, caring for him and giving him succour. I only hope and pray that this won’t turn out to be a Benedictine monastery or convent somewhere in Europe.

As for my son? His “caring” Catholic and Benedictine education has made him “not officially” a practicing Catholic. Not quite the hoped for result in sending him for a good Catholic education. With whom, Fathers, rests the responsibility for his lost Soul?

Catherine Pepinster

In her column in The Tablet, Catherine Pepinster has been lamenting the defilement of Ealing Abbey, which she regarded as "a very special home for me". I have a good deal of sympathy for her. I would like to address this blog article to Catherine Pepinster, going over some of the issues raised in her article.

Several years ago, I clearly remember being at Mass in my parish and thinking at the Consecration: imagine if the hands that held the host were the hands of someone who had assaulted a child. To those who are not Catholic, such a thought would be meaningless alongside the horror of a vulnerable child being abused. But it would make any Catholic shudder. Might I have had any inkling of what was to come? A short while later, a priest friend asked to meet me. Something was clearly up yet it never occurred to me - not once - that this Benedictine monk whom I'd known most of my life was to tell me that he was accused of abusing children.

Today, Fr David Pearce is in prison.

Catherine has previously gone on record as having been a longstanding friend of Father David, and I entirely sympathise with her shock about this. Clever career paedophiles are very good at polishing their outward appearance of respectability. The primary damage they do is to their child victims. But while it doesn't compare in seriousness to the damage done to children, it is worth acknowledging the damage done to the adults who were taken in by that outward show of respectability. Father David was the very epitome of this. What could possibly be more respectable than a monk, priest, teacher, former dentist, TA officer? All jobs which earn people's trust. There is no disgrace in having been taken in by such a very plausible liar.

Three of his fellow Ealing Abbey monks have been investigated as well. One has been restricted in his dealings with children; another was found not guilty but after his acquittal was asked to leave the monastery. The third, Fr Laurence Soper, is wanted by the police after failing to answer bail. He is thought to be somewhere in Italy.

I'm sorry to have to break this to you Catherine, but there are more than this. The ISI report last year mentioned six separate cases, five monks and one lay teacher. Four of the five monks are Father David Pearce, Father Gregory Chillman, Father Stanislaus Hobbs, and Abbot Laurence Soper. I have a good idea who the fifth is, (he no longer lives at the Abbey) but I haven't had sufficient confirmation yet to justify naming him.

But in addition to those five, and John Maestri (the lay teacher referred to in the ISI report), Father Kevin Horsey would very likely have been charged by now had he not died in 2006.

The fallout from this scandal continues, day after day, in Ealing. Monks who have given their lives to the Church, to their order, to their school, and to the parish, and who are innocent of any crime, are now viewed by some with suspicion.

That suspicion is understandable. Not only because people will be wondering whether somebody else will be charged with abuse, but because they will also be wondering who knew about the abuse, and covered it up.

The individual who was found not guilty of abuse was made to leave the monastery, under pressure from the diocese.

The way you have presented this suggests that you might have been misinformed about the circumstances. The monk in question is Father Stanislaus Hobbs, and he has indeed been moved out of the monastery. And I don't doubt that pressure from the diocese was a factor. But the primary insistence on this came from the Department for Education.

Hobbs was indeed acquitted in 2007 of the charge made against him. But in the course of police questioning, recorded and played during the trial, he admitted to a similar indecent assault on the same boy during a school trip to Italy. Because of the way the law stood at the time, that assault could not be prosecuted in the UK because it took place abroad. the defence argued that the victim had made up the story of the assault in the UK because he knew that the assault in Italy couldn't be prosecuted. The jury decided there was reasonable doubt and acquitted, as they had every right to do.

The Independent Schools Inspectorate, the Department for Education, Ealing Social Services and the diocese all formed the view that Hobbs on balance of probability was a danger to children, since there was a recorded admission of an assault on a child, even though no prosecution could result from it.

The ISI in its recent report on the school advised that the trustees should "Ensure that any staff or members of the religious community live away from the school, if they are subject to allegations of misconduct related to safeguarding or convicted of wrongdoing." On the basis of that recommendation and in the light of Hobbs' own admission, there was no way that his continued presence at the Abbey could be justified. And yet the Abbey fought tooth and nail to prevent his removal. Why?

And the monk you mention who "has been restricted in his dealings with children" by the same token also ought not still to be at the Abbey. He would hardly be restricted unless he too had been found to be a danger to children, and yet he remains at the Abbey, in defiance of the ISI recommendation. Have you attempted to find out why this is so?

There have been rows between parishioners with very different opinions, from those who think that a priest in prison is evil and should have no contact with any of us, not even a Christmas card, to others who refuse to believe that "Father" could possibly have done anything wrong and it's all a plot by the anti-Catholic media.

I can believe it. Those who claim it is all an anti-Catholic plot include the headmaster of the school Mr Christopher Cleugh, who used his prizegiving day speech in September 2010 to press that line. In front of several hundred assembled staff, pupils and parents, he said "Recent media and blog coverage seems 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." Has it occurred to you that at least some of those who complain most loudly about anti-catholic plots might be doing so in order to divert attention from genuine catholic abuses which they have committed, or at least know about?

There is also a great deal of suspicion about the past. When Fr Laurence Soper was abbot and suddenly resigned, we were never given any formal explanation. Then a story floated which seemed to stick: that he'd had a row with his brethren about the cost of the church extension. Or did he flee because there were already complaints about his behaviour towards young boys?

I think you are right to be suspicious. It is perhaps a pity that your suspicions weren't aroused earlier. One of the things school inspectors are supposed to be trained to do is regard any sudden departure of somebody from a school setting as worthy of detailed investigation, especially if it occurs in the middle of the school year, and even more so if it occurs in the middle of a school term. All such sudden departures are supposed to be checked during an inspection. The majority do have an entirely innocent explanation - a move to a better job at another school, a departure for reasons of illness or to look after a sick relative. But concealed amongst them can be departures that are actually for reasons of abuse, which the school has kept quiet about because they don't want the adverse publicity. This it seems is how John Maeastri's departure from the school was handled, it was put about that he had left for reasons of ill health. And for that matter, ill-health was also given as the reason for Father Gregory Chillman's retirement as a governor of St Augustine's Priory School last year.

If it turns out that Soper did skip town because of complaints about his behaviour (for instance, possibly at Feltham Young Offenders Institute, of which he was a visiting chaplain until he left for Rome), then the rumour put out about the row over the church extension must have been a lie, and known to be a lie by those who spread the story, and know to be a lie by Abbot Martin Shipperlee, who clearly did nothing to prevent the story from being accepted.

And what of Fr David: how long did other monks know of his activities? What secrets were kept hidden for so long

I can answer that for you. His abuses were kept secret for at least 15 years, and possibly considerably longer. He "retired" as Junior School Headmaster at the end of 1992, as a direct result of complaints about abuses. I have spoken to the victim concerned. But he wasn't removed from the Abbey, he was instead made Bursar of the school, and as far as I am aware remained associated with the Cadet Corps. Later, he was even given additional responsibilities within the Abbey, being appointed Novice Master in 2004. This was at the time the diocesan safeguarding adviser, Peter Turner, was advising the Abbey that Pearce should be placed on restrictions because there had by now been several independent and credible complaints against him. That advice was ignored by Abbot Martin Shipperlee.

In 2006, the boy known as "C" sued the Abbey and Pearce for damages resulting from Pearce's abuse of him when he was a pupil in the school in the period 1989-93. The Abbey fought the case and lost. Damages were awarded to the value of £43,000. I have been told by a number of parishioners that the story put out was that the case had been settled out of court, not because the abuse had occurred, but out of consideration for the claimant's fragile mental state. This was of course a complete lie.

But at least after this, the Abbot, under pressure from the diocese, did finally put Pearce on restricted ministry. But you appear not to have known that he had been put on restrictions - it seems that very few people did know that he had been restricted, and even fewer knew the real reason why. At the sentencing hearing of Pearce's trial in 2009, the prosecution read out part of a letter from Abbot Martin which stated that the restrictions were "to protect Father David from unfounded allegations", whereas in fact the allegations were all too well-founded, as Abbot Martin knew perfectly well.

And problems with several monks from the same monastery: is that bad luck or symptomatic of a failure in leadership?

You don't get a mess like Ealing, with multiple abusers able to operate unchecked over a period of many years, without there having been serious management failures at many levels. The earliest account of abuse I have been told about dates back to the late 1940s. Here we are, over 60 years later, and the Abbey has not yet come to grips with the problem.

Yes, of course the Abbey's leadership has failed in the most catastrophic way imaginable. But the failings haven't ended there. The Abbot President of the English Benedictine Congregation is supposed to advise the Abbot. Whatever advice was given doesn't seem to have been effective. And the diocese of Westminster has known about abuses at Ealing for many years, and yet has neither obtained the Abbot's agreement to a diocesan inquiry nor made a request to Rome for an Apostolic Visitation. That request was made by me, and passed on by the Papal Nuncio, bypassing the diocese altogether. Archbishop Vincent Nichols had essentially washed his hands of the business, offering to do no more than pass my concerns back to the Abbot. There is plenty of blame to go round, enough for it to stick to a lot of senior catholic officials.

Time and again, the Catholic Church's response to calamity has been secrecy. Last weekend, I went along to a parish meeting at Ealing Abbey, wanting to know more about the abuse scandal and Fr Laurence's disappearance. But the parish priest refused to take any questions other than those submitted in advance. Those selected were about lighting, sound systems and the new translation of the Missal. Any other business would throw things off course, he said.

The conspiracy theorists will view this as a sinister attempt to conceal scandal. I suspect it is more to do with incompetence and the fears of people who are completely out of their depth.

I suspect that they realise that no honest answers will remotely justify their continued management of the school. And they also probably realise that any lies they tell may well be found out next week when Carlile publishes his report. So their only option is to say nothing and helplessly wait for the axe to fall. Carlile is due to publish next week.

Abbot Laurence Soper

The efforts to address the child sex abuse scandal at St Benedict's School yesterday descended from tragedy into farce.

Abbot Laurence Soper has gone missing.

He is wanted by police in respect of allegations of child sex abuse. He was due earlier this year to return to the UK for a police bail appointment. He did not make that appointment. According to The Times (article behind paywall) prosecutors are preparing a European Arrest Warrant for him.

So we have a monk on the run. Where's Robbie Coltrane when you need him?

The Times article is full of quotes from eminent churchmen, all saying that they don't know where Soper is, and that they are giving all possible assistance to the police. But consider this: Soper is in his 80s. He has been a monk for most of his adult life, he hasn't lived independently for at least 40 years. He's going to need help, and he's going to need an income. The only possible place that help could be coming from is within the Catholic Church. So somebody in the church knows where he is. Somebody, somewhere, is protecting him. Somebody within the church is knowingly shielding a fugitive from justice. Somebody in the church is putting the welfare of an abusing priest ahead of his abused victims.

The police are certainly of the opinion that he is an abuser. You don't go to the trouble of issuing European arrest warrants without a pretty good case. This is far more serious than Father David Pearce. Soper was Abbot of Ealing from 1991 to 2000. It is one thing for there to have been a paedophile monk at the Abbey, it is quite another for there to have been a paedophile Abbot running the place.

It is inconceivable that there would have been no rumours at all within the monastery concerning Soper when he was a teacher at the school, inconceivable (if the evidence in the hands of the police is strong enough to justify a European arrest warrant) that there were no complaints at all from parents or pupils at the time. And yet, even though there almost certainly were these rumours, the monks elected him in 1991 to be their Abbot. What on earth were they thinking?

As Abbot, Soper was in a position to shield other abusers. He was Abbot when David Pearce "retired" as Junior School Headmaster in 1993 as a result of complaints about abuse, Pearce being appointed Bursar instead. Soper was also Bursar when John Maestri quietly departed the school in 1984, ostensibly on grounds of ill health, but in fact because of complaints of abuse. It's not conceivable that he didn't know the real reason for Maestri's departure. Maestri was Soper's deputy when Soper was Master of the Middle School.

There is a name for a group of two or more paedophiles who know of each other's activities and protect each other. That name is a paedophile ring. It looks increasingly as if there has been a paedophile ring in operation at Ealing Abbey for many years.

Things are still not right at the school. I have had a detailed look at the latest version of the school's safeguarding policy, which came into effect in September this year. I shall be blogging about it over the next few weeks, going through it paragraph by paragraph, as I did the May 2010 version. It has been tweaked here and there, but it is not the comprehensive start-all-over-again rewrite that is necessary. It still contains weasel words concerning whether and how abuse will be reported to the authorities.

Over the last 18 months or so, the school has had fairly unremitting publicity and official attention on its safeguarding, both in terms of its past failures and its present procedures. And yet, they still haven't managed to come up with a written policy that actually makes it clear how allegations and incidents will be reported. In the circumstances, I have to say that there could still be abusers at the school or the Abbey, with the abuse going unreported. I don't know whether there is any abuse happening now or not - if I knew there was abuse going on, I wouldn't be blogging about it, I would be telling the police, without delay.

Mr Cleugh has written to all parents, pointing out that in his prizegiving day speech he had said that "it was likely that further allegations would be forthcoming about historical safeguarding matters here at St Benedict’s", knowing that Soper had missed a police bail appointment. You might care to recall that at the same time last year, Mr. Cleugh in his prizegiving speech had this to say about the publicity surrounding the scandal.

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.

I think Mr. Cleugh owes me an apology. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it though.

Ealing Abbey Trustees' Report

The Accounts and trustees' Report for the year to 31 August 2010 is now available on the Charity Commission website.

I have no doubt that the financial figures are all justified, having been through the auditors and all. But other aspects of the report are thoroughly dishonest, although the lies are mainly lies of omission.

Lets start with the list of Trustees on page 1.

Rt Revd Martin Shipperlee OSB – Chairman
Rt Revd Francis Rossiter OSB (resigned 30 April 2011)
Revd Alexander Bevan OSB
Revd Gregory Chillman OSB (resigned 29 March 2010)
Br Matthew Freeman OSB (appointed 30 April 2011)
Revd Timothy Gorham OSB (appointed 29 March 2010)
Revd Thomas Stapleford OSB
Revd Dominic Taylor OSB

Nowhere in the report is it mentioned why Revd Gregory Chillman OSB resigned as trustee - i.e. that he had been placed on restricted covenant, and barred from public ministry and from access to children. I would regard that as a significant lie by omission.

The report mentions the following about inspections carried out during the year.

The School was inspected in November 2009 and the results were highly successful. The published report stated that the School was highly successful in achieving its aims of providing good quality education and “teaching a way of living”. The pastoral care and personal development of the pupils are excellent. Teaching is strong, often excellent and at times inspirational.

No mention is made of the Supplementary Inspection carried out by the ISI in April 2010, which highlighted severe shortcomings in safeguarding procedures. Nor is any mention of the report of the Charity Commission's own two Statutory Inquiries, published in December 2009, which was highly critical of the trustees. This is a disgracefully partial report.

Then, the report makes this passing mention of safeguarding issues.

The School community was saddened for those affected by historical safeguarding issues. There were failures in the past and the School co-operated with the relevant authorities to help expose or punish those involved.

To be blunt, this is an insult to the victims and to the intelligence of all  those associated in any way with Ealing Abbey or St Benedict's School. The failures resulted in the conviction of Father David Pearce during the year being reported on, and this is apparently not considered worthy of any mention in the report at all. Second, it suggests that the abuse is "historical". Not so, incidents occurred during the year, which resulted in Social Services investigation, albeit not in any prosecutions. Thirdly, I notice weasel words in "the School co-operated with the relevant authorities", without mentioning whether the co-operation was pro-active, continuous or voluntary.

Later on, the report makes mention of the "Independent Review"

Independent Review
As a result of the historical safeguarding issues mentioned above, and due to the hurt and damage that they have caused and continue to cause, the Abbot commissioned a full independent review of the Monastery and School by Lord Carlile of Berriew QC. As well as looking at the history of abuse allegations, the review is considering policies for dealing with such allegations and other reassurance. This is likely to include a recommendation to strengthen the governance of the School by separating it from the overall governance of the Trust. It is hoped that this review will report in the summer or autumn of 2011.

The report is dated 24 June 2011. It seems that even back then, they had seen which way Lord Carlile's mind seemed to be working, and they have as a result resigned themselves to a split in the governance between the school and the rest of the trust, as I recommended in my evidence to Lord Carlile.

But the paragraph is still lying by omission. It has neglected to mention the other "Independent Review" commissioned by the Abbot during the year being reported on, and especially has failed to mention the circumstances under which it was prepared.

It seems as if the Trustees are still operating in denial mode. They are minimising the extent of the problems, omitting as many inconvenient facts as they think they can get away with, and seem still to be liberally throwing whitewash in all directions. In view of the huge scale of the failures and the widespread damage to children at the school which has resulted, this is a pathetically inadequate report.

Safeguarding and School Inspections

At 12:29, a commenter on the Interregnum thread asked the following

Will you be looking at all Schools child protection or just fee paying schools?
If you have a child at a paying school you can just get up and change schools,(although I do not think your readers do) but at state schools you have no choice, or is it your view that child protection problems only happen in fee paying schools?

That's a very good and intelligent question, and deserves a fuller and more prominent answer than can be fitted into a comment.

I'm well aware that child protection problems can occur in any variety of school, for instance at Dormers Wells High School in Ealing there have been two recent cases, one concerning a former caretaker and  another concerning a learning mentor. I don't doubt that there were shortcomings in the child protection measures there, which were missed by the inspectorates.

But there is a particular problem with private schools, which you describe when you say "you can just get up and change schools".

In fact, it's not quite as easy to change schools as you might think, especially if lots of other parents are trying to make the same change at the same time. Just imagine for a moment how many places are available mid-year or at the start of a year that isn't a normal intake year at the other private schools in this area. I've heard that some of the other local private schools have been inundated with enquiries from St A and St B parents, far more than they could possibly accommodate.

That means if you are sufficiently dissatisfied with your child's private school, your choice may be limited to keeping him or her there or moving into the state system, were the authorities are legally obliged to make a place available. So once you are in a private school, you are essentially stuck in the event of a serious problem there, unless you decide that the state system isn't all that bad a choice after all.

The issue of the relative merits of the state and private systems could be the subject of a long debate, which I don't have space to address here. All I would say is that the psychological effects of child sex abuse can be long-term and devastating to the victim. Your child's life chances are probably much better following a state education not involving abuse than a private education where your child is abused. Therefore, whatever your opinion of the state system in general, if you have reason to think that your child is at risk of being abused in his or her current private school, I would strongly recommend a move.

But even given the difficulties of moving schools once a pupil is established, a paedophile case can be terribly bad for business at a private school. We have had comments on this blog from parents who were thinking of sending their daughters to St Augustine's, and who thought better of it as a result of reading the ISI report and the comments here.

So there is a tremendous temptation for private schools to look after their own short-term business interests by keeping incidents or allegations of abuse quiet and not reporting them to the authorities, and so avoiding the attendant publicity. In doing so, I've heard of cases where the school has pressured the parents not to make their own independent reports to the police or social services, on the grounds that there is no need to further add to the distress of the child by subjecting them to interrogation by social services.

And so the parents are robbed of precisely the support and advice that they need in order to look after the welfare and best interests of their child. If this sort of thing is not going to be common within private schools, it is an absolute necessity that the chance that the school will be found out is high, and the penalty for this kind of deception is prohibitive. At a minimum, failure to take proper child protection measures in response to an allegation of sex abuse should cost the people responsible their careers in teaching. If headteachers of private schools realise that they aren't going to to keep their £100k jobs very long if they try to hide abuse, then reporting will become much better.

Don't think of this issue as being limited to Catholic schools. Certainly there has been abuse at some Catholic schools, but it is by no means unique to them. Intelligent paedophiles seek out jobs involving care of children,and so all schools need to be on their guard about this. The documentary Chosen describes in harrowing detail the abuses perpetrated on boys at Caldicot School, a secular private boarding school. If you want to understand the dynamics of abuse in a private school, how the children are groomed, how the teachers' position of authority over both the children and their parents is used to suppress reporting, and the devastating effect of abuse on the subsequent lives of the victims, then I cannot recommend strongly enough that you view that documentary. The whole programme can be viewed online at the link I have provided. When I looked it the programme, I found that there were very strong parallels between the abuse and grooming techniques described there, and the techniques used by Father David Pearce, as described in the prosecution's statement at his sentencing hearing in October 2009.

You need to understand how it works if you are to recognise warning signs that it might be happening at your children's school. And you need also to have some idea what to do about it if the warning signs are there.

St. Benedict's and St. Augustine's are absolutely perfect case studies for this. We have a great deal of documentation, sufficient to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt how abjectly the inspectorates have failed the pupils of those two schools. I'm in regular touch with Tom Perry of Questions4Schools, one of the participants in Chosen. He is campaigning to have these failings addressed at a national level, and I'm very happy to help him in any way possible. The FOI information mentioned in the comments may help this process on, and I would be very grateful if the person who obtained it would contact me on a private and confidential basis.

Pearce and Maestri Trial - the verdict

On day 6 of the trial the jury acquitted both Pearce and Maestri. I've been busy with work since then, and so am a bit behind on getting the other days' reports out. I'll finish them as soon as I can.

Pearce and Maestri trial - day 4

At the beginning of the day, the defence gave a copy of my blog to the judge. They didn't ask him to do anything, just to be aware of what was out there. The judge reiterated his normal admonishments to the jury not to go looking for stuff about the case on the internet.

So, anyway, the jury came in. DC Christine Hobson still on the stand. Rather than play the recording of Maestri's police interview, she & the prosecuting barrister did a play-act, reading it out with each taking one part of the conversation.

In essence, Maestri's line of defence at the interview was that either the abuse didn't happen, or that it was Lawrence Soper who did it and the victim had got them mixed up, and that it couldn't have been him because at the time (1977-78) he he was an ordinary teacher and so didn't have the authority to administer corporal punishment. At the interview he gave accounts of two incidents that meant that he thought it might be Soper.

The two incidents he described regarding Soper were as follows:

• During a rugby festival, a boy had been recounting some episode involving Soper. But it wasn't specifically to him, but seemed to be being told to all around, including parents.
• On another occasion, he had gone to Soper's office to find Soper sitting in his armchair and the boy standing by him,. Something about the scene made him wonder if something untoward had happened.

The defence asked her if she had investigated the victim's financial status. She said no, the police don't do that. They asked if they had checked his computer for confirmation of the first date on which he had emailed anybody about the abuse. She said no, again they don't do that sort of thing. On re-examination the prosecution established that the police don't do that in any case, that Hobson had been  a police officer for 29 years and hadn't done that in any case.

They asked if the police had asked the school for relevant records, of punishments, of school reports, of class lists to see who Maestri might have taught at the relevant times. The police had asked, and the school had stated that they had kept no such records.

They asked if the police had followed up the idea that the abuse had actually been perpetrated by Soper rather than Maestri. She said no.

Then Maestri took the stand. And his evidence seemed to do more damage to himself than to anybody else. It largely consisted of him, at the direction of his own barrister, going through his police statement and recanting reveral bits of it, specifically the point that he hadn't had the authority to cane anybody at the time. In fact, he had been made "Master in charge of discipline" in the middle school in about 1974 when Anthony Gee had been made Master of the Middle School, and "Second Master" of the middle school when Lawrence Soper had been appointed Master of the Middle School in 1977 on Gee's promotion to Headmaster of the school as a whole.

In both roles he did have the authority to administer corporal punishment, contrary to his original statement to the police. But he says he didn't use or like the cane, he used a slipper. He also said he didn't like applying corporal punishment. He thinks it likely that he did beat the victim on more than one occasion, (in the police interview he had described him as an "obstreperous boy").

He also admitted that he left the school in 1984 as a direct result of a complaint from a parent about abuse of another boy.

Maestri said he never caned anybody, he always used the slipper instead. He says he never took anybody's trousers down, and never rubbed them better after. Never gave "pastoral care" in terms of asking whether they still hurt from the last beating. He said he left all that kind of thing to the monks. He says he never touched his own genitals during or immediately after a beating

Neither Pearce nor Gee mentioned to him that any kind of complaint had been made against him.

Maestri was apparently a priest for a time before he became a teacher. The prosecution asked him why, at the time of the first abuse he committed, whether he knew it was wrong. he realised it was, but said he was naive, and didn't think it had really done any significant harm. He says that eventually he did admit it to one of the monks with a request that it be passed to the Abbot. He didn't say when, and the prosecution didn't ask. It doesn't seem to have caused him to stop teaching there.

He was asked if he still had a loyalty to the school, and he said that he had.

He was asked why he had fingered Soper rather than any other monk.He said because of the two incidents that he mentioned in his police interview.

He was also asked in respect of the two incidents regarding Soper he mentioned in his police report, why he hadn't reported it to anybody at the time, he said he thought it was common knowledge and so must have been being dealt with. At another point, he said he hadn't taken it seriously.

Maestri want on within a couple of years to teach elsewhere at a Catholic girls school in Berkshire. He said he couldn't remember the name of it.



Then Anthony Gee took the stand. His evidence was brief. he startyed teaching at St Benedict's in 1965. In 75 he was appinted master of the Middle School, and from 1977-85, was headmaster. he remained a monk until 1990 and subsequently left the order and married. He had no memory of any conversation with the victim of the sort that the victim had described. He had no knowledge at the time of any abuse going on at the school, though of course he had learned subsequently of the convictions of Pearce and Maestri. he denied theratening the victim with damnation, denies having threatened his family in any way when the boy left in the summer of 1981 on completing his O levels.

Gee also stated that he had no knowledge at the time of any abuse by Pearce or Maestri, though he had of course heard about it since.

Pearce and Maestri trial - day 3

As a precaution, this article was removed after reference was made to it by the defence at the trial. I decided that although the judge took no action, I didn't want there to be be any possibility of a mistrial being caused by the blog, even though the jurors had been specifically enjoined not to look for details of the case on the Internet. It is now being restored in its original form.

For most of the day the victim fielded questions from Maestri's counsel, Pearce's counsel and the prosecution barrister. The defence lawyers attempted to undermine his credibility and pick holes in his story. The victim presented himself well and remained calm throughout in spite of the way he was treated by the defence.

It was again suggested that the victim was simply after money and that he was on the "compensation wagon". He replied that he was not, and that if he had wanted money he would have taken his case to a civil court and not a criminal court.

The defence pointed out that since leaving the School, the victim had attended a funeral at the Abbey and a party at the School for a history master who was retiring. It was suggested that someone who had experienced abuse at the School would not have returned for these events. The victim said that the funeral was that of a friend and that he had a high opinion of the retiring history master.

A great deal of attention was paid to the rooms in which the abuse took place and the victim was asked to describe them in detail. In his original statement he had told police that the playground was visible from one of the rooms. In court one of the defence lawyers asked him if the playing fields could be seen from the window. The victim pointed out that the playing fields were in Perivale, about one and a half miles away.

Pearce's lawyer made great attempts to stampede the victim into giving specific dates for the abuse. It was claimed that Pearce had moved office at some point and the lawyer's strategy was clearly to try to get the victim to specify the wrong room. He went too far in his attempts and at this point the judge put him in his place very firmly.

Pearce's lawyer pointed out that the victim was fourteen when some of the abuse took place and asked, "why didn't you stand up for yourself?" He said that the victim claimed to have been abused by Pearce seven or eight times and found it strange that he returned to his office if he knew what was going to do be done to him. The victim talked about the controlling culture of the School and explained that in those days the boys were trained to be obedient to authority. He said that the abuse had petered out when Pearce lost interest in him and presumably turned his attention elsewhere.

Some of the issues raised on day two of the trial were revisited. There was further discussion of the interview with Fr Anthony Gee, and of this blog.

An email which the victim had sent to a friend was read in court, in it he described the abuse that he had been subjected to. One of the defence lawyers asked if it was true that he had been in trouble with the police as the result of a fight with another boy on a bus while he was a pupil at the School. The victim admitted that it was true, said that he wasn't proud of it, that he had had to pay for damage to the other boy's clothes and that his own father had been very angry with him.

The next witness to be called was DC Christine Hobson who had carried out the recorded interview of the victim, which was shown to the jury on day two of the trial. She was asked about the interview and in particular she was questioned as to why it was so short (about one hour) and why the victim made claims in later statements that he did not make at the time. She said that this was the way that things were usually done, that it was an initial interview and that the victim could not be expected to remember everything. The purpose of the interview was to establish an outline of the allegations any to determine lines of questioning for later interviews.

The case resumes at 10.15 a.m. on Tuesday.

Pearce and Maestri trial - day 2

As a precaution, this article was removed after reference was made to it by the defence at the trial. I decided that although the judge took no action, I didn't want there to be be any possibility of a mistrial being caused by the blog, even though the jurors had been specifically enjoined not to look for details of the case on the Internet. It is now being restored in its original form.

The jury were told that they would be shown a video of the victim telling police officers about the offences that Pearce and Maestri had allegedly committed against him. They were told that the victim would be appearing in court in person but would be shielded by partitioning.

The video equipment and the partitioning were set up and then the prosecution outlined the allegations that the victim would be making in the video.

The jury watched the video (it lasted for about an hour), after which Maestri's barrister was given the opportunity to question the victim.

Unsurprisingly he tried to find daylight in the evidence provided. Days, dates, differences in what was said. “Did you have friends at school?’ ‘Why did you not confide in them about the abuse?’. There were detailed questions about precisely when the abuse happened, the barrister seemed keen to get the victim to commit to certain months, but it was clear the victim could not remember specific dates.

Maestri's barrister asked whether the victim was motivated by a desire for financial compensation. The victim replied that although he was aware that others had been awarded compensation, he was not looking for money.

The barrister asked for details about the beatings that Maestri had given the victim:

• How many times had he been beaten?
• What clothing had he had to remove?
• Was the door locked?
• What was he beaten with?
• What was the temperature in the room?
• Was there central heating?
• Was anyone else present in the room?

The victim answered all of the questions and said that he believed Maestri had been masturbating while he beat him.

There were questions about the tea parties to which the victim and other boys were invited by Maestri. It seems that on these occasions the victim and Maestri were never alone together.

The barrister noted that the victim now made a living as a lifestyle counsellor and asked him if he had ever studied psychology. The victim said that he had.

Repeated mention was made of this blog, emails to me, and the report of the Times in April 2010.

The victim said that in spite of achieving good O-level results he decided not to go into St. Benedict's sixth form. His form master was surprised that such a capable pupil didn't want to stay at the school and sent him to see Father Anthony Gee (the headmaster). When Father Anthony asked him why he was leaving, he told him about Pearce and Maestri. Father Anthony became very angry and said that his stories were untrue and malicious. He threatened to blacken the names of the boy's father and grandfather if he repeated his allegations. The interview had ended with the victim and the headmaster shouting at each other.

The victim said that he was very fond of his father and grandfather and so he never told them anything about it. His grandfather is now dead.

The case resumes at 10.15 on Friday.

Pearce and Maestri trial - day 1

As a precaution, this article was removed after reference was made to it by the defence at the trial. I decided that although the judge took no action, I didn't want there to be be any possibility of a mistrial being caused by the blog, even though the jurors had been specifically enjoined not to look for details of the case on the Internet. It is now being restored in its original form.

The trial of Pearce and Maestri started today, a day late because a previous trial involving one of the lawyers overran.

Not that much happened today. Although no plea was formally heard from the defendants, it was clear that the "not guilty" plea they gave at the previous hearing was still applicable. So we have a trial.

There was a bit of discussion between the judge and the lawyers concerning questions to be put to the prospective jurors. The first was whether any of them had any previous connection with St. Benedict's School. The second question was whether any of the jurors had read in the papers or on the internet any article which made any mention of sexual abuse at St.Benedict's School. The third question was whether any juror had a connection with anybody on a list of names read out to them. (I can't list the names here as most of them are protected by court order, so it would be contempt of court to publish them.)

There was also a bit of discussion involving timetabling and logistics for the trial. The delay to the start has played havoc with the timetable, and one of the lawyers has also been called away to another case for a day. It was agreed that the hearings would be on 7-8 July, and 12-13 July, extending into the following day if it should be necessary.

So the jury was selected and sworn, and the charges were read out, and the judge gave them the usual stern warning against talking to people about the case, or doing their own research on the internet. He mentioned the recent case of a juror in Manchester who had done that and had been sent to jail as a result.

The charges against Maestri are three counts of indecent assault against a boy under the age of 16, all occurring between 1st September 1977 and 31st July 1978. Similarly, the charges against Pearce are three counts of indecent assault against a boy under the age of 16, all occurring between 1st September 1978 and 31st July 1979.

The prosecution opening statement briefly described the alleged assaults by Maestri, when the boy was in the 2nd year of the Middle school, how when he moved up to the upper school he confided in Pearce who allegedly promised to sort it out, but swore the boy to secrecy, and allegedly abused him again. The same boy is the victim in all 6 counts. His name is protected from publication by court order (not that I would want to give it anyway).

The prosecution barrister made it clear that the three charges each are specimen charges, that the prosecution intends to show a pattern of repeated abuse lasting through both academic years, Maestri in the first year and Pearce in the second.

Two other brief statements were read to the jury, describing the occasion of the arrest and caution of each of the defendants.

And with that, the jury was sent home and told to return in time for a 10.15 start on Thursday. 

The Headmaster's Letter

The letter sent by the headmaster about the delay to the Carlile report has some interesting language in it. This sentence in particular.

David Pearce, a monk of Ealing Abbey and a former teacher at St. Benedict's School, is to stand trial on 4th July 2011, for alleged historical offences committed during his time at the school.

There are three things which strike me about that sentence.

First, the headmaster has started to distance Pearce from the Abbey by omitting his full clerical title. He is Father David Pearce and remains so unless and until he is removed from the priesthood.

Second, the headmaster has made no mention of John Maestri, Pearce's co-defendent in the forthcoming trial, who also was a teacher at St. Benedict's School at the time the alleged offences were committed.

And third, the headmaster has sought to minimise the case by committing the insult of calling it "historical" abuse. A murder committed some years ago is not described as an "historical" murder, it is still a murder, and is treated as being just as serious as if it had been committed last week. This habit of uniquely describing older child abuse cases as "historical" is an insult to the victims who suffer the effects to this day. It is anything but historical for them.

It seems that the headmaster would very much like the abuse to be consigned to history and not be considered to have any current relevance, but that is just not going to wash. It is the failings of the policies, procedures and overall institutional culture of the school which has permitted the abuses to go on for so long, and unless and until it can be shown that the policies and the culture have comprehensively changed, then this issue will remain very current.

They knew Carlile would be delayed

At the time the Carlile inquiry was announced in mid-September, it was already known that Pearce and Maestri had been arrested the month before.

The school's solicitor Tony Nelson was and is representing David Pearce. He would have attended police interviews and would have had a decent idea as to whether charges were likely. And in fact charges did follow in November.

But no mention was made by the Abbot or Headmaster as to the possibility of delays in the report from this cause at the safeguarding meeting. And there was no mention by anybody connected with the school of the possibility that the criminal prosecution of Pearce and Maestri might delay the report when they were in fact charged in November.

And there wasn't even any mention of the possibility of delays from this cause in the article in the Headmaster's Newsletter in February this year.

Tony Nelson must have known from the outset of the possibility that the report could compromise the trial. He's in the best possible position to know, since he commissioned Lord Carlile to carry out the inquiry and is representing David Pearce.

It must have also been pretty clear to Lord Carlile that charges were likely in the case of those who had already been arrested. In email exchanges I had with Lord Carlile before I met him in connection with the inquiry, he made it a condition of the meeting that it be kept confidential until after the report had been published. I pointed out that if publication were cancelled or unreasonably delayed, then that would put a obligation on me to keep the meeting secret for ever, which was not something I was prepared to accept. He eventually agreed that in the event of a substantial delay, I would be free to publish my own account, but he adamantly refused to put any kind of duration on what he meant by "substantial".

From our exchange of emails it is completely clear that even at the end of September Carlile was anticipating the possibility of a significant delay. He would have been most remiss in not advising his client accordingly, and I can only reasonably assume that he did give that advice. So the Abbot and the headmaster knew right from the start that the original estimates they gave of publication dates were wildly unrealistic. And even though Carlile knew that the publication dates being given out were unrealistic, he stuck to his cutoff dates for the Call for Evidence, as if the report were not going to be delayed.

But if the Abbot and Headmaster had told the parents at the meeting in September that the report would probably not be published for almost a year, tempers were running so high that there might have been a serious revolt amongst the parents. Doing nothing for a year is just not an acceptable response to a situation this serious. Doing nothing for a year while you are promising action somewhat faster is just plain lying. There is no better word for it. The evidence very much points to the conclusion that the Abbot and Headmaster have been lying to you. And remember that they delayed sending out the ISI Supplementary Report to parents until the school fees were safely in for the autumn term.

I'll leave it to you to decide how serious they are about making changes to the school.

Carlile Report delayed as predicted

As I predicted last month, publication of the Carlile report is being delayed. And the reason I stated is the one which has in fact been given.

The school has put a notice up on its website. The reason given for the delay is the need to avoid disrupting the forthcoming trial of Father David Pearce and John Maestri, on three charges each of indecent assault against a boy.

Let's get some dates sorted here. The trial of Pearce and Maestri is scheduled to start on 4th July and last for 4 days. If a conviction is obtained, there will almost certainly be an adjournment for sentencing, that is normally about 6 weeks. So sentencing would be sometime in mid-August.

But Pearce and Maestri aren't the only former priests and teachers against whom prosecutions might occur. Abbot Lawrence Soper was required to return to the UK and answer police questions.

And in the ISI Supplementary report on St. Benedict's, there is the the following item

(i) Legal action has been initiated in connection with a previous member of the religious community

I still don't yet know who that is. It isn't Pearce, Hobbs, Chillman or Soper, it is somebody else. And I don't know where the legal action has got to, but if it is or becomes a criminal prosecution, that's another trial that may occur.

So there are potentially a number of overlapping prosecutions that may yet happen. If a pending prosecution is a justification for delaying the report, it may be delayed for a lot longer than is currently anticipated.

But even with a publication date during the summer holidays, there is zero chance of any of Lord Carlile's recommendations being implemented before the end of this academic year. So for instance we are likely to have the current travesty of a child protection policy remaining in force for some time yet.

Remember, at the Safeguarding meeting held last September, Cleugh and Shipperlee seemed to try to express two mutually contradictory positions. First they claimed that all the abuse was "historical" and that there was no risk to current pupils. And at the same time they were claiming that the matter was so serious that it required that they get a Lord and a QC to come and make an inquiry about it.

And since then there has been a deafening silence on what improvements they consider might be needed in terms of their safeguarding policies and procedures. And now the Carlile report is delayed pending the Pearce and Maestri trial. There is nothing in the headmasters' letter which suggests any kind of interim publication which would enable the school to get on with taking measures to improve things.

There just doesn't seem to be any great urgency to do anything.

So if you are wondering whether to keep your child there next year (or even to start sending your child there in September), you can't count on any improvements having been made by the time the autumn term starts. You will be sending your children to a school where where there is a history of child abuse and where the current child protection policy is inadequate.

Parents, are you satisfied with this state of affairs? If you aren't, you need to get together and start deciding to do something about it. The school isn't going to help you. The ISI feels it has done its job in issuing the report and it thinks it is the DfE's job to insist on remedial action. And the DfE appears to be intensively engaged in looking the other way as hard as it can. You're on your own.