​https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/dec/29/fa-child-protection-work-celia-brackenridge?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

There is an excellent article in the Guardian yesterday, written by David Conn on the subject of child abuse in sport. I was interviewed by David prior to Xmas, and provided some guidance on the state of the law relating to child protection in football in the 70's and 80's.

My article on the 30th November 2016 examines that subject. 

http://childabuselawyer.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/football-in-crisis.html

Mr Conn's article talks about the work of child protection expert, Celia Brackenridge. She says that UK sport was beset by a "culture of ignorance and denial" until the 1990's, but that matters have very much improved. 

In 2001, the NSPCC formed the Child Protection in Sport Unit and this led to a radical improvement amongst sporting organisations. The CPSU developed mandatory safeguarding structures for all the UK's main sports. 

Another contributor to the article is Sue Ravenlaw, who worked for the National Coaching Foundation before moving to the Football Association to work on implementing child protection procedures. She is now head of equality and safeguarding at the organisation. She says that the Football Association became alarmed at the convictions of sports coaches in the 1990's and initiated the development of proper procedures. 

In 2003, the Football Association was required to apply for criminal record checks. A research team, headed by Celia Brackenbridge analysed 132 cases of investigations run by the Association between 1999 and 2002. They found that 16 involved people operating in youth football, who had, or were alleged to have, a record of sex or violent offending. In 60% of those cases, the allegations were of physical, emotional abuse and bullying accounted. A NSPCC report in 2011 found that 29% of young people playing sport had suffered either sexual harassment and 3% sexual abuse. 

Sue Ravenlaw makes the crucial point that criminal records checks constitute child protection. This only safeguards against people who have previously offended. Robust child protection policies, and the determination to implement those policies are key.  

The present Disclosure and Barring Service works not only on the basis of people who have criminal conviction, but also on the basis of people who are considered to be a risk to children. 

The article lends some support to the Football Association's claim that football is safer than ever. However Celia Brackenbridge and a colleague, Daniel Rhind point out that the sport should not believe that it can eradicate abuse or abusers. 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/dec/29/fa-child-protection-work-celia-brackenridge?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

There is an excellent article in the Guardian yesterday, written by David Conn on the subject of child abuse in sport. I was interviewed by David prior to Xmas, and provided some guidance on the state of the law relating to child protection in football in the 70's and 80's.

My article on the 30th November 2016 examines that subject. 

http://childabuselawyer.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/football-in-crisis.html

Mr Conn's article talks about the work of child protection expert, Celia Brackenridge. She says that UK sport was beset by a "culture of ignorance and denial" until the 1990's, but that matters have very much improved. 

In 2001, the NSPCC formed the Child Protection in Sport Unit and this led to a radical improvement amongst sporting organisations. The CPSU developed mandatory safeguarding structures for all the UK's main sports. 

Another contributor to the article is Sue Ravenlaw, who worked for the National Coaching Foundation before moving to the Football Association to work on implementing child protection procedures. She is now head of equality and safeguarding at the organisation. She says that the Football Association became alarmed at the convictions of sports coaches in the 1990's and initiated the development of proper procedures. 

In 2003, the Football Association was required to apply for criminal record checks. A research team, headed by Celia Brackenbridge analysed 132 cases of investigations run by the Association between 1999 and 2002. They found that 16 involved people operating in youth football, who had, or were alleged to have, a record of sex or violent offending. In 60% of those cases, the allegations were of physical, emotional abuse and bullying accounted. A NSPCC report in 2011 found that 29% of young people playing sport had suffered either sexual harassment and 3% sexual abuse. 

Sue Ravenlaw makes the crucial point that criminal records checks constitute child protection. This only safeguards against people who have previously offended. Robust child protection policies, and the determination to implement those policies are key.  

The present Disclosure and Barring Service works not only on the basis of people who have criminal conviction, but also on the basis of people who are considered to be a risk to children. 

The article lends some support to the Football Association's claim that football is safer than ever. However Celia Brackenbridge and a colleague, Daniel Rhind point out that the sport should not believe that it can eradicate abuse or abusers. 

The BBC reported tonight in London that the London Borough of Lambeth has decided to set up a compensation scheme to compensate former residents of Shirley Oaks Children's Homes. The leader of Lambeth Council, Lib Pecks admitted liability. The announcement by the local authority follows the publication of a report on abuse at the former children's home by the Shirley Oaks Survivors Association.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38330622

The council leader said:-
 
"The investigation by the Shirley Oaks Survivor's Association has shone further light on the suffering of those entrusted into the council's care. Lambeth Council is preparing a new, far reaching redress scheme for survivors of historical abuse in the borough. It will allow them to secure compensation quickly whilst minimising legal fees."
 
Shirley Oaks has been the subject of a number of police investigations over the years, and claims for compensation including one that I handled around fifteen years ago.
 
However, this is an astonishing step for a local authority to take. Lambeth has given a full and frank apology and announced that substantial resources will be diverted to compensate former residents of the home. It also appears that the local authority has made this decision, after receiving a report compiled by the Shirley Oaks Survivors Association, which was "unofficial" but nonetheless highly effective. 
 
When I handled the St Leonard's Cottage Homes litigation against the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in 2002, the local authority did make substantial concessions in the litigation and people who brought claims received offers of litigation very swiftly after joining the group. In particular, Tower Hamlet arranged for treatment for survivors of abuse. Nonetheless the local authority reserved the right to require the Claimants to prove the abuse that they had suffered, and limitation was still technically an issue.
 
As yet the details of the redress scheme are not known, but they will be published in March 2017. It is reported that the level of payments will be rise depending on the seriousness of the abuse, and that the idea is to keep legal fees to a minimum.
 
Very possibly the scheme may be similar to that operated in Eire under the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002. Under that Act, an award could be made to a person who had suffered abuse in a residential institution, which award would be calculated dependent on four factors:-
1.      The severity of the abuse and injury
2.      Additional redress in exceptional cases
3.      Medical expenses
4.      Other costs and expenses - including the cost of legal representation

​However if an Applicant accepted an award, they could not then bring a compensation claim against the institution where they had been abused. 

There was also a redress scheme of sorts set up by the NHS, the BBC and the Jimmy Saville estate, to deal with the various claims made in relation to alleged abuse by the former TV entertainer. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority operates a "tariff" scheme, but I suspect that many of the former residents of Shirley Oaks would find themselves excluded from compensation, on the grounds that their claims were out of time, or there were no convictions. The CICA scheme has become increasingly restrictive over the years.
 
Abuse payments in civil compensation claims (that is litigation claims against Defendants in England and Wales) are generally made up of an award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, together with the costs of treatment. It is possible to obtain a further sizeable award for loss of earnings and/or loss of earning capacity. As time has gone on, the awards in these case have got larger, and so it is quite common to see awards of over £100,000.
 
One of the aims of Lambeth is to try and limit legal fees. The Historic Abuse Litigation Forum, which I am helping to coordinate (see my blog of 4th December 2016) is tackling the issue of legal costs. It is quite common to see costs exceed damages. In one case I handled against a local authority, which settled on the day before trial, damages were around £15,000 but the costs were several times that figure. Courts are trying very hard at present to limit these costs by "budgeting" the amount that can be spent on a case, and limiting the amounts that can be recovered. The Forum is looking at ways in which costs can be kept down and cases speeded up. 

The St Leonard's litigation proved that compensation can be obtained by survivors of abuse very quickly, if the local authority is determined to take that course. This seems to be what Lambeth is about, and they are to be applauded for adopting an honest and frank approach.  This cannot be an inexhaustible pot and so limiting legal costs may well leave more money for survivors. 

This brings me onto the question - could football set up such a redress scheme? In my blog of the 13th December 2016 I suggested that clubs set up a treatment fund for survivors of abuse. However would the Football Association persuade the clubs to sign up to a redress scheme, which compensated survivors of abuse quickly without incurring huge lawyers' fees. 

The problem here is that football does not come under one organisation or association. We have the Football Association Premier League, which runs the top flight of English football, the Premier League. This is essentially a commercial organisation. We then have the Football Association which has a number of roles, including the administration of the FA Cup. Conflict has been reported between the two bodies. At the same time, there are of course hundreds of different clubs, both professional and amateur, at which abuse is alleged to have taken place. 

Nonetheless Lambeth has taken a bold step. Perhaps football can learn from it. 

1. Today, the Times reported that a failed inquiry into a teacher’s alleged abuse of boys at Ampleforth College may be reopened after four new witnesses came forward. The report says that the college failed to report alleged abuse in 1989 when children complained of being touched inappropriately by a teacher. He was asked to leave but police were not told and he was given a good set of references. 

On the 25th August 2016 I wrote a blog on how the Education Reform Act 1988, which placed a duty on schools to report "misconduct" by a teacher to the authorities. This Act did not apply to private schools until 1994.
 
The story demonstrates two features, that we have already seen in the football coach abuse scandal, which is steadily unfolding in English football.
 

1. The fact that abusers are convicted by the criminal courts does not mean that the allegations made against them at that time, represent all the allegations that will ever be made against them during their lifetime. Survivors of abuse do not magically appear, all at the same time and in relation to the same abuser or group of abusers.Disclosure is a process, not an event, and it is a road down which many cannot travel. 
2. The law of child protection, and in particularly mandatory reporting of "misconduct" has developed piecemeal over the decades and in 1989, it was a still a rudimentary system. See my blog on the 30th November 2016 on this subject.

The Sunday Times carried a short piece about the English Cricket Board calling in a former police chief to review child protection procedures. Apparently some nine coaches have been "unmasked" as paedophiles. There had been convictions of football coaches prior to the disclosures that broke around a month ago.
 
The BBC today had a series of stories on the abuse of children in other sports, including karate and tennis.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38164810
 
Should we therefore prepare for a flood of disclosures from other areas of sport?
 
The answer to this is that football figures very large on the national stage, not only in terms of adult and child players, but also by reason of the huge amount of money that flows in and out of the sport. Other sports have less of a profile, although abuse in any sport is a serious concern. In some way, smaller sports clubs will also be vulnerable where lack of resources can sometimes make it difficult to comply with the law. It is these kinds of small organisation that abusers will target.
 
In any event, the extent of the problem in football can only become more apparent. There is now a challenge for football clubs to open their doors, and being offering support to those who were abuse whilst under their care. This can be done without the club having to admit liability for what has happened.
 
I saw that approach adopted many years ago, by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets when they dealt with the group action brought by former residents of St Leonard's Cottage Homes. Survivors were offered therapy at the Tavistock Centre in London, and many took this offer up. I have also seen the Catholic Church adopt the same policy, and it can be very beneficial.
 
At the same time there must be enough money in football to set up a treatment fund, delivered directly to those who need it, and supervised by qualified therapists. Individual clubs could keep survivors updated with information as to what they are doing in relation to any ongoing police investigation or an internal investigation.
 
Chelsea put out a comprehensive statement of what they were doing on the 3rd December 2016.
 
http://www.chelseafc.com/news/latest-news/2016/12/chelsea-board-statement.html
 
Crewe Alexandra have put out a short statement to the effect that they are launching an internal inquiry into the way that historical abuse allegations have been investigated.
 
http://www.crewealex.net/news/article/2016-17/crewe-alexandra-club-statement-3438016.aspx
 
More needs to be done. Clubs need to reach out to survivors. They should never walk alone.

​I read an article in the Observer today by Daniel Taylor, Football Writer of the year.

Mr Taylor challenges the claim made by football clubs, that the game is as safe for children as it can possibly be.
 
On the 30th November, I wrote a blog about how the rudimentary system of police checks that existed in the 1970's and 1980's, and which was used by social services and other statutory agencies, did not cover football clubs. I also made the point whilst the level of awareness of child abuse was much less than it is today, this was by no means a crime that was invisible to the public.

It is important to realise that checks on new people coming into clubs are only one part of the story in child protection. Clubs need to have robust child protection policies, which are closely followed where a concern arises. Database checks will not stop an abuser with an unblemished record from getting access to children. All too often, reports, disclosure and rumours of inappropriate are disregarded, or an organisation with the care of children, prefers to try and deal with the matter with "the minimum of fuss." This is how abuse continues unchecked.  
 
So what is the present system of vetting in football clubs?
 
To answer that question, we need to look at the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, which was amended by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2010. The 2006 contains the basis of our modern child protection systems.

Following the murders of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells by Ian Huntley (a school caretaker) in 2002, the government commissioned an Inquiry by Sir Michael (now Lord) Bichard which reported in June 2004.This report identified systemic failures in vetting and barring systems. These included inconsistent decisions being made by employers on the basis of CRB disclosure information, disclosure information going out of date and inconsistencies between the old databases which were used to identify people who might be a risk to children. 

It was also felt that the then barring system was reactive to harmful behaviour rather than preventative and that there were inconsistencies between police authorities in the disclosure of police information. The Inquiry Report recommended, amongst other things, that a registration scheme, administered by a central body, should be established for those wishing to work with children or vulnerable adults.

The 2006 Act provides the present legislative framework for a Vetting and Barring Scheme for people who work with children and vulnerable adults and builds on the provisions of Part V of the Police Act 1997. The new arrangements it introduced, replaced those provided for under the Protection of Children Act 1999, the Care Standards Act 2000, the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, and the Education Act 2002. 

The 2006 Act covers England and Wales (although there are provisions for the registration of offences perpetrated in other countries). The provisions of the Act are mirrored in Northern Ireland in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 and in Scotland by the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007.

The original purpose of the 2006 Act was to minimise the risk of harm posed to children and vulnerable adults by those that might seek to harm them through their work (paid or unpaid). It sought to do this by barring unsuitable individuals not just on the basis of referrals but also at the earliest possible opportunity as part of a centralised vetting process that all those working closely with children and/or vulnerable adults need to go through.

The Act put in place a new system for vetting persons seeking to work with children or vulnerable adults, and for barring those considered to be unsuitable for such posts, whether in paid employment or voluntary work. The Act originally established what is now the Disclosure and Barring Service ("DBS") as a non-departmental governmental body sponsored by the Home Office, to consider relevant information about individuals wishing to work in these areas, and to take all discretionary decisions on who should be barred. 

Organisations that work with children and vulnerable adults are required by law to use the DBS for people who want to work within their organisations, whether on a paid or voluntary basis.

There are two barred lists - one for those who are barred from engaging in regulated activity with children (the “children's barred list”), and one for those who are barred from engaging in regulated activity with vulnerable adults (the “adults' barred list”). These lists replaced from the 12th October 2009 the lists previously used in England and Wales for protecting children and adults, the Protection of Children Act list, the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list and List 99.

There are four routes to inclusion in one or both barred lists:

(i)     automatic inclusion in one or both of the barred lists without the right to make representations or to appeal. Inclusion in the lists on this basis happens only where a person has been convicted of, or received a caution in relation to, one of a list of specified offences, or meets other prescribed criteria (such as being subject to an order, foreign order or direction of a prescribed description, or being included in a specified foreign barred list) that indicate, of themselves, that any offender would pose such a high risk to vulnerable groups that they simply could not make a case as to why they should be allowed to engage in regulated activity i.e. working with children; 

(ii)    automatic inclusion in one or both of the barred lists with the right to make representations as to why the person in question should be removed and a subsequent right of appeal following inclusion. Inclusion in the lists on this basis will happen where a person has been convicted of, or received a caution in relation to, one of a further list of specified offences or as a result of having met some other prescribed criteria;

(iii)    inclusion at the DBS'  discretion, on the basis that the person in question has engaged in “relevant conduct” i.e. broadly, that they have behaved in a way that has harmed a child or vulnerable adult, or could have done so, or in a way involving child pornography or inappropriate sexual behaviour. In this case, the relevant individual will have the opportunity to make representations before they are included in a list and will have a subsequent right of appeal;  

(iv)    inclusion at the DBS' discretion, on the basis that the person in question seems to the DBS to pose a risk of harm to children or vulnerable adults. Again, in this case the relevant individual will have the opportunity to make representations before they are included in a list and will have a subsequent right of appeal. 

The Times today carries a two page report on Chelsea Football Club, who are investigating the activities of a former scout, Eddie Heath who died in the late 1980's. The report says that at that time that Mr Heath was working for the club in the 1970's, there were rumours circulating about his abuse of children, and warnings passed down from older to younger players.  

Heath was dismissed from Chelsea in 1980 but he took them to an employment tribunal. Chelsea said that his scouting was unsatisfactory and that he did as he pleased. There was no mention of child abuse. Heath won his case on procedural grounds and then went to work for other clubs.

The report makes the point that a number of football coaches were actually convicted of abusing children in the 1990's, but that the Football Association carried out no wide ranging investigation as to whether other children might have been victims, or whether children were still at risk. The BBC reported that in 2003 the Association actually scrapped a project set up to protect children.  This is particularly galling for survivors of abuse, given the huge amounts of money washing around football. 

The picture that is coming across from all of these appalling reports is that football had a "blind side" to abuse in common with many other institutions, such as care homes, the church and schools. Matt Dickinson writes in the Times that "....it is about a public institution - the national game - properly facing up to its responsibilities". Let us hope that they do so.

At the same time, evidence is mounting that the abusers acted as Jimmy Saville did. That is - they were carrying out their abuse in plain sight. 

The scandals in the Catholic Church did enormous damage to their image in the eyes of their congregation. The result is bound to be the same for football. 

Apparently Chelsea settled a child abuse compensation clam brought by a former trainee. The payment was made with a confidentiality clause. 

Such agreements are commonly made in compensation claims, although I have only ever settled one such case with such an agreement. They are designed to stop Claimants talking to the media about the matter, but in reality they may be of little use to an institution such as Chelsea, if the matter is investigated by the police or social services. They will not be bound the agreement. Arguably a further victim of the same abuser, could still open up the details of the first victim's case in order to find "similar fact" evidence to assist his own civil claim, by making an application to the court. The court is likely to grant that application if the evidence is relevant to the case.  

I find the whole idea of a confidentiality agreement an uncomfortable one, but if the client wishes to obtain their hard won compensation and move on with their life, then they are sometimes a necessity. One cannot blame survivors for wanting to control the details of these matters.  

Chelsea's experience demonstrates the limitations of this particular agreement, as it is now being reported in the national press. It also transpires that this agreement should have been reported to the Football Association. 

There is also a wider question as to whether Chelsea reported the matter to the police. All robust child protection procedures recommend that the police and/or social services should be involved if there is a credible report of child abuse. The death of an abuser does not necessarily mean that the matter is closed. There are always lessons to be learned. Regrettably the mistake that is often made by organisations is to fall back on the easier method of "sorting it out" internally. This can have disastrous consequences many years on. 

Moreover, there is substantial evidence that abusers sometimes work together, across different areas of the country. So an allegation made against someone who is long deceased, may still throw up current child protection issues. 

Recently I handled a claim, where a residential social worker from one local authority, who was convicted of possession of child pornography in the 1980's. He mysteriously appeared in the statement of another witness in a different case, which was quite unrelated apart from this link. He was described in the second case as visiting the children of a private residential home at around the same time, as he was working for the local authority. 

Chelsea's experience is one that is bound to be reported from other football clubs. ​