This item first appeared on the F.A.C.T website on 17th February 2005
The closing date for submitting comments regarding the Government's proposal for dealing with allegations in schools has passed. F.A.C.T. have submitted a response which is available from the secretary. The response deals with specific questions set out in the Government's response form. In summary F.A.C.T's position is:-
F.A.C.T. appreciates being consulted on these matters. In general F.A.C.T. welcomes the Governments recommendations but with some reservations. We accept that the Government have a difficult balancing act to achieve - that of safeguarding the welfare of children, protecting the rights of staff, and minimising the disruption caused to other children and school staff.
F.A.C.T. accepts that on occasion carers and teachers sometimes abuse children. All we ask is that the Government (and others) accept that children (whether as young people or later in life as adults) sometimes make exaggerated, false or indeed malicious complaints of abuse, and that carers and teachers are especially vulnerable to such complaints. We believe there should be both zero tolerance of abuse AND zero tolerance of false accusations in schools and care homes. We believe more action needs to be taken by the Government, and by LEA’s/Governing bodies (and others) to achieve this.
Whilst we support the need for speedier outcomes the important issue is not one of time but of justice. Above all else, those accused want their cases to be fully and competently investigated. There is considerable evidence that this does not happen. Indeed F.A.C.T. has identified a worrying trend in that many of those LEA’s/LA’s who have adopted a speedier response have done so at the expense of the quality of their investigation. This serves no ones interests.
F.A.C.T. welcomes the Government’s decision to re-examine the arrangements for dealing with allegations against teachers and other staff. We recognise that all allegations made against staff of what ever position or rank MUST be fully investigated. We believe that the process of investigation should be uniformly applied to all settings but recognise that different ‘contractual’ situations may require different arrangements. Everyone has the right to defend themselves against any allegations that have been made against them, and the right to a fair and impartial hearing. We recognise that not everyone’s situation is the same, or will necessarily follow the same route or will lead to the same outcome. For example complaints made about a school governor, or a head teacher, a teacher, or ancillary worker may need to be treated differently simply to ensure public confidence in the investigation. Similarly complaints which fall short of alleged abuse or which do not warrant police involvement, or raise child protection concerns may need to be treated differently to others. The important thing is to have an agreed procedure and a system which both parties - those making the complaints AND those defending the complaints, have confidence in. At the moment the system of investigation (and adjudication) generally fails to meet this test.
For the reasons stated previously we caution against the use of performance targets which are related to time scales. We would much prefer a system whereby the person overseeing the investigation has the power to require the parties to complete certain tasks by certain dates - depending on the complexity of the investigation. Obviously it would, for example, be necessary to make allowances for the fact that historical allegations take much longer to investigate than other cases, and require more time in order to prepare ones defence to such allegations.
In our view the Government’s proposals do not go far enough. This initiative has a heavy slant towards child protection sometimes at the expense of an individual’s right to natural justice. We believe anonymity should be guaranteed up to the point of conviction, and should apply to all cases of alleged abuse and not just sexual abuse. We believe our view is consistent with the fact that publicity is more likely than not to lead to a miscarriage of justice, and is consistent with the general principle that a persons is innocent until proven guilty.
We are concerned that the proposed threshold for publicity – that of being charged with an offence is inadequate. If implemented all it would do is result in changing behaviour by the Police and Crown Prosecution Service. We are concerned charges might be brought more for tactical reasons, and in cases where that other wise might not be considered.
F.A.C.T. has been involved in some very tragic cases in which individuals accused of abuse have taken their life. In every case a lack of support and understanding from their employers has been identified as a contributory factor in these deaths. We therefore suggest the Government give greater emphasis to the need for employers to provide ongoing support to the accused throughout the investigative process.
We are concerned that there is a serious crisis of confidence emerging in the child protection system. Investigative standards are poor. Paradoxically child protection social workers are too concerned with agency protection than the pursuit of truth. We see no reason why child protection agencies cannot admit to the fact that sometimes they get things seriously wrong, and that sometimes children (and adults) are minded to make false allegations.
Far too often there is an over-riding presumption of guilt and a great reluctance to accept the need for a systematic, evidential based approach to enquiry. People who have been falsely accused have a right to be cleared and unless this need is recognised local authorities and others will continue to be involved in defending their actions for long periods of time and at great expense. F.A.C.T. is concerned that in wanting to address the problem of false allegations (which we believe the Government has seriously under-estimated) they run the risk that in making the system more efficient (in terms of speeding up the process) they increase the likelihood that justice will miscarry. More disturbingly, speeding up the process may well result in both sides having insufficient time to present their cases thereby increasing the likelihood that genuine abusers will not be caught and will remain free.
This is a summary of a much more detailed response. Grateful thanks are due to those members who offered suggestions for inclusion in our submission. If any FACT member would like to see the full submission please contact the secretary. 02920 777499