F.A.C.T.

Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers

Fighting injustice – lobbying for change

What is Happening to our Justice System ?

An article by George Jensen

What is happening to our Justice System? The ability to differentiate between reliable
evidence and what is, in many instances, nothing more than ‘make believe’, appears to
have been completely lost. “Evidence”, which contains little, if any, reliable source
material and which, not many years ago would have been consigned to the waste bin, is
nowadays presented before juries.
The hysterical attitude of the child protection industry, which has permeated throughout
the country, is based on little more than the often unsupported opinions of so-called
‘expert witnesses’. When this attitude has been coupled with the police ideology of
‘there must be an offender’ in which there is a total lack of genuine examination of the
material placed before the court, they have undoubtedly led to convictions. With a little
common sense and proper investigative procedures the outcome would probably been
very different.
In answer to a question asked in Parliament by Claire Curtis-Thomas M.P., the police refer
to “victims”, (Police Statistics supplied by the Association of Chief Police Officers, July
2001). The correct term should be “persons making allegations”. This is an example of
an attitude clearly discernable in the approach adopted by the Police in their
investigations and procedures. Other examples of such attitudes on the part of the Police
and the Crown Prosecution Service can be seen in the number of cases referred by the
Police to the CPS whose initial proposal was to proceed against a defendant with some
twenty or thirty charges, and then either withdraw all charges, or alternatively, offered
‘evidence’ in only a very small number.
In paragraph 44 of the Government’s reply to the Home Affairs Committee’s report, the
point is made that The Crown Prosecution Service is presently faced with a difficult task
when reviewing past cases of institutional child abuse. However the sheer volume of
such cases which are rejected by the CPS, seems to indicate that it is applying a
sufficiently robust review to sift out weak cases.”
Some of these factors warrant closer examination:
If the CPS are rejecting the number of cases suggested by the Government’s reply. One
must necessarily ask the question, “Is the Police evidence so deficient that it is
unacceptable to the CPS? If so, why?” Data taken from the statistics referred to above (in
answer to the Parliamentary question), show that between 1993 and July 2001, (i.e.
between the earliest date given and the date of the Police reply) the Police referred 1222
persons to the CPS who proceeded with 205 cases. Of the 205 cases, 39 were acquitted,
thus 166 cases would appear to have been successfully prosecuted. However, the
number of successful prosecutions listed by the Police is in fact 119, (9.8%).
In addition to the figures, the statistics also show that a further 193 persons were not
referred to the CPS after investigation, thus reducing the successful prosecutions as a
percentage of the total number of persons investigated to 8.5%.(It should be further
Page 1
noted that the vast majority of these men are adamant in their claims of innocence, and
indeed, several have already made successful appeals.)
Thus it would appear that the Police themselves are utterly confused over the statistical
details of their own activities. One must also query the Government’s claim that the CPS
are “applying a sufficiently robust review to sift out weak cases,” in the light of certain
typical cases brought the Courts.
On June 30th 2000, a case was brought before Sir Richard Curtis at Cardiff Crown Court
after twenty months of police investigation. The CPS decided, only at this juncture, not to
continue with the evidence of one witness - when the Judge declared him to be totally
unreliable!
In another case at Cardiff Crown Court, a claimant stated that he and a group of boys
were taken for a day out to a local beach where the member of staff killed and buried
one of the boys, who had never been missed.
The Police appear to have accepted this claim without investigating it, but in court, the
learned Judge described the witness as “A fantasist”. He added that, “Where checks
could have been made they would have, if carried out, proved positively that the
allegations could not have happened.”
The learned Judge also described various statements by claimants as “Flying in the face
of common sense” and “Evidence that was wholly nonsensical.” He also stated “No jury
could convict on the evidence that was fundamentally untrue” and in another situation,
“It would have been dangerous to proceed further due to a possibility of a miscarriage of
justice.”
Almost weekly in the cases brought before courts, Judges have remarked on the
extremely poor quality of the evidence being presented before their courts. At Chester
Crown Court, one witness stated that the defendant had forced a crowbar into his anus
for some considerable length, and then twisted it. There was no medical evidence of the
assault, nor had he received any medical treatment! Similar preposterous ‘evidence’ has
been presented in courts throughout the country which has resulted in men being
convicted and imprisoned for many years.
Thus, one must ask, “If”, as the Government states, “The CPS is applying a sufficiently
robust review”, how on earth does such ‘evidence’ get to court? One must however
acknowledge that some measure of review does take place, when the CPS has rejected
61.7% of referrals by the South Wales Police alone. “What then is the totality of the
evidence which is presented by the Police, prior to the ‘robust review’ applied by the
CPS?”
It would appear that not only do the Police unquestioningly accept the most implausible
allegations, they also experience considerable confusion regarding their own statistical
evidence.
Replying to a question by Mr. David Winnick, when giving evidence to the Home Affairs
Committee Enquiry into historical allegations of abuse in Children's Establishments,
Claire Curtis-Thomas M.P., quoted figures given by the Solicitor-General's Office in
response to a Parliamentary Question. She referred to the documentary evidence given
by a senior police officer from the Merseyside “Operation C.A.R.E.”, in which he stated
that 50% of defendants who went to full proceeding had pleaded guilty. Other police
statistics for Merseyside similarly show that out of359 suspects, 181 were referred to the
CPS, 59 of whom were taken forward by the CPS. Of these,20 had pleaded guilty; 7 who
originally pleaded innocence were convicted; 3 were acquitted, 3discontinued and 3
stayed.
By contrast, according to the details supplied by the National Police Statistical Analysis
dated July2001, (referred to above), the details for Merseyside for that time show 697
‘victims’; of 547suspects, 86 were both arrested and referred to the CPS; there was no
Page 2
further action was taken against 73; there were 29 successful prosecutions and 8
acquittals. These details may have undergone a slight change in the intervening period
and moreover, the figures tend to be ambiguous. However, the figures quoted by the
Merseyside Police and the Solicitor General were substantially different when compared
with the statistics supplied by the Association of Chief Police Officers and do appear to
have deliberately inflated the incidence of abuse convictions.
There is little doubt that Society as a whole has been affected by the sometimes
hysterical attitude of the ‘Child Protection Industry’, Police methods and investigatory
processes have also undergone drastic changes in response to such reports as that in
the Daily Telegraph which states that William Wong is campaigning to bring Satanists
responsible for ‘hundreds, if not thousands’ of sexual assaults and murders to justice; or
psychotherapist Valerie Sinason, on record as saying that Satanists breed babies for
ritual murder; Lee Moore, of the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers is quoted in the
social work magazine ‘Community Care’, as saying ,”We have had 40cases of child
abuse, involving cases of cannibalism, of people eating children’s hearts.” She adds,
“One in five people have been abused.” If one relates this 20% figure to the population
of Britain, it would amount to an incredible twelve million people!!
In 2002 the BBC announced that there were 200,000 pedophiles in the U.K. We had the
Cleveland abuse panic when an ‘expert medical witness’ interpreted a quite natural
response to ascertain stimulant as proof of abuse and caused great anguish by the
removal of children from their homes. This was followed by the ‘Satanic Abuse’
phenomena in the Orkney Islands, where social workers ‘discovered’ that children were
being sacrificed on the altars of witches!
Whilst previously unthinkable occurrences do occasionally happen and shock the nation,
can society honestly believe such claims? Have we taken leave of common sense? If we
accept that such figures are correct, one is forced to enquire why it is that they only
come to light when the police start their investigations. Surely, if abuse was that rife
within society, it would come to the forefront by means of copious spontaneous
allegations, whereas, particularly in the case of so called institutional child abuse, rarely,
if ever, does an allegation arise spontaneously. Could the mendacious actions of the
Police, when investigating allegations of abuse, be a direct result of the child protection
hysteria?
During “Operation C.A.R.E.” on Merseyside, in one establishment with a staff of around
100people, virtually every male employee was the subject of charges of sexual abuse. In
South Wales, “Operation Goldfinch” investigated 83 Homes, and ‘discovered’ 1613
allegations against 581members of staff. Throughout the Country, some 30 Police Forces
have conducted over 80separate inquiries into the alleged sexual abuse of children in
residential establishments. The Police claim that they are investigating allegations that
have arisen spontaneously. The Merseyside Police state that they investigated 106
establishments. Had they really received 106 spontaneous complaints? The reality is that
virtually every police inquiry has arisen by virtue of their own initial inquiries, supposedly
identifying abuse.
In criminal investigations, the normal procedure is that a crime is reported to the police,
who then proceed to investigate in order to identify the offenders and bring them to
justice. In cases of alleged child abuse, the opposite prevails in that the police decide on
a suspect and then attempt to find the crime for which to bring charges. The police
forces have undoubtedly investigated residential homes without any evidential
justification.
At a public meeting held on January 7th 2002, at Dinas Powys in South Wales, the Chief
Constable at the time, refused to answer questions regarding the investigation methods
adopted by his officers, despite having received prior notice of the questions. His
response being, “After thirty-three years as a policeman, I will not be intimidated by your
lobbying.” It would appear that it was the now ex-Chief Constable who was doing the
Page 3
intimidating. It is interesting to examine the terminology used here when quite
reasonable questioning is interpreted as ‘intimidation’. Why?
Had the ex-Chief Constable of the South Wales Police Force something to hide? Like no
doubt regarding the dubious nature of the investigative procedures adopted by members
of his force? It would not be the first occasion that such had been the case. Indeed, the
results of South Wales Police investigations have been called into question on a number
of occasions. Following his acquittal on charges of child abuse, one defendant wrote to
that same ex-Chief Constable, making no fewer than fourteen complaints, ranging from
senior officers not correctly directing junior officers, to complaints of perjury by his
officers and by complainants. Despite the fact that some of the allegations could have
been verified by researching court transcripts, the reply was that there was no evidence
to support the complaints.
There are many other practices which require close examination. One defendant, a
teacher at a special school, stated,” I have taught a total of four hundred and thirty two
boys over a period of eighteen years”. The police, who interviewed hundreds of ex-
pupils, found only three who were prepared to make allegations against him. According
to the police evidence, no notes were taken during the interviews prior to the allegations
being made. Despite it being mandatory to make full disclosure of all evidence gathered,
seldom is the list of all persons interviewed by the police made available to the defence.
The rationale offered being that these interviews are irrelevant because they do not form
part of the prosecution case. Presumably, if only a tiny proportion of those interviewed
had made allegations, the remainder would refute the allegations made by the
complainants. The tactic adopted by the Police and CPS is to influence the jury by
claiming that the number of complainants prove that the defendant is guilty - GUILT BY
VOLUME. However, if the number of persons who did not complain were presented to the
jury by the defence, presumably they could equally claim INNOCENCE BY VOLUME.
One former teacher at an Approved School, who had been the subject of allegations and
whose case was stopped by the Judge because “…it would be unsafe to proceed
further”, has stated that he has evidence that the police interviewed some ex-pupils up
to fifteen times in an attempt to promote a complaint.
The question of the way police interviews are conducted, the manner in which they are
carried out and the dubious nature of some ‘techniques’ adopted, give cause for
concern. There is ample evidence that when interviewing complainants, names,
photographs, information about certain people being charged and of compensation
being available, have all been utilised by the police.
There is evidence of the police having used various inducements to persuade ex-pupils
to make complaints, including references of compensation of up to £80.000. The more
outrageous the complaints they made, the greater the compensation they have been
told they would receive. The police however deny such activity.
As previously noted, the Police appear to have a preconception when entering into an
interview situation with a person against whom allegations of abuse have been made.
One need only to consider the Baldwin Study after the introduction of PACE, when he
comments, “They”, (the police), entered the interview room with their minds made up,
and treated the suspects with unjustified scepticism.” However, a complaint made to the
relevant authority, Chief Constable, Solicitor General, Police Complaints Authority, will be
recorded under the name of the complainant and not under the heading of the nature of
the complaint. Since there are no overall listings, it is impossible to ascertain the number
of complaints made on any subject. Thus the authorities have no understanding of the
level of concern held by the public over any area of the Criminal Justice System
In December 2002, David Jones, The football manager, was acquitted at Liverpool Crown
Court when the judge stopped the case. Had the case not been stopped, Jones’s defence
team would have proved that three of his five accusers had admitted that they had lied
in making their allegations, in order to get compensation. The leading policeman was
Page 4
Detective Superintendent John Robbins who had led the “Operation C.A.R.E.” team for
four years during which he claimed that he had gained twenty convictions. Robbins has
since confirmed that he had told complainants and their solicitors not to make
compensation claims until after the trials.
Following his retirement, Robbins joined the law firm of Abney Garsden, McDonald of
Cheadle, who were at that time handling over seven hundred cases of alleged abuse in
order to claim compensation. He would be taking statements from many ‘clients’ who he
had advised to holdback claims when he was the investigating officer. He denies helping
to create conditions in which a jury might be misled. Is it any wonder that the Police have
lost a considerable amount of support from the general public when one sees senior
police officers involved in extremely dubious activities like this?
The Daily Telegraph reported on January 17th 2002, that the convictions of over one
hundred men, who had been ex-staff members of various forms of children's homes,
were to be reviewed. To date, two years after that announcement, these reviews have
not even commenced. Some men in prison, who categorically state their innocence,
have been granted leave to Appeal, but have had to wait many months, some even more
than a year, for their Appeal to be heard. This delay in the appellant process is now
further exacerbated by the large number of ‘cot death’ convictions which have been
identified as possibly unsafe. It would appear that the Appeal Court system is under
unprecedented pressure to consider the enormous number of cases in which it is claimed
that miscarriages of justice might have occurred. In spite of the Government’s claim, (in
their reply to the Home Affairs Report) to not understand the term “miscarriage of
justice”, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolfe, has stated that he has reservations about
the possibility of men being convicted of crimes that were never committed; such a
circumstance also applies to the mothers alleged to have murdered their children.
When abuse allegations are brought before a court, there are two elements about them
which could cause possible confusion in the minds of jurors.

(1) The volume of allegations is seen as a volume of evidence. The fact that a number
of allegations are being made in no way indicates that there is a body of evidence.
Were each claimant’s allegations tested in the normal manner, under the rules of
evidence in court before a judge and jury, it is extremely doubtful whether many
of the cases would stand close scrutiny.

(2) There have been many cases brought before a court on the basis of what may be
best described as a ‘pick and mix’ concept. These cases are brought with several
claimants making allegations against some of the defendants in the dock, but not
against others. Thus a situation is created where there is a degree of confusion
regarding who is alleging what against whom. This confusion is deliberately
presented before the jury. The underlying intention being to create an atmosphere
where it appears, that a considerable number of allegations are being made
against each defendant. Again this situation could be easily avoided if each
claimant had to make his allegations separately and therefore submit his claims to
effective cross examination

It is apparent that such a system would not be appreciated by either the Police or the
CPS. The reason being that when they presented a case before court, they would have to
present a far superior case to obtain a conviction. Do not be mistaken in the belief that
this paper is in any way attempting to excuse the guilty of what are clearly despicable
crimes. It is simply asking that the methods of obtaining evidence and of resenting it
before a court should be more closely monitored; should be open to much closer

Page 5
examination; and should not be allowed to attempt to hide the basic inadequacy of the
evidence presented.
One Appeal Judge, recognising the difficulties inherent in the factors stated, There are
also problems that arise as a result of the fact that in many such cases a number of
allegations are tried together with the inevitable consequence that there is prejudice to a
defendant of what may appear to be the coincidence of similar allegations.”
There is another method of handicapping a defendant who is attempting to present a
defence case. This has been adopted in the Merseyside area and involves making every
male person who has worked in the same establishment as the defendant, subject to
‘police enquiries and investigation’, thereby effectively excluding them from appearing
to support the defendant. Once the trial has been concluded, the police determine that
there is ‘no case to be further investigated’ against those whom they had effectively
debarred from giving evidence.
In historical abuse cases, there is a provision for the defence to appeal to the presiding
judge to order “An Abuse of Process.” This is particularly appropriate in cases where
allegations date back twenty or thirty years and it is virtually impossible for the
defendants to mount any meaningful defence. Such requests have however, very seldom
been granted. In any case, whether relating to historical or recent allegations, it is
possible for the judge to find that there is a lack of meaningful evidence. In the case of
Mark Latta before Winchester Crown Court, April 20th 2004, accused of murdering his
baby, the judge ruled that while Latta could have inflicted the numerous injuries to the
child, there was no evidence to prove that he had, and the jury were instructed to clear
him of the murder. Yet in a considerable number of cases, the “evidence” has been
based solely on the word of the complainant, often a career criminal, or solely on the
word of a “medical expert”.
A further area of very great concern is that of the Family Court which is held in camera.
Quite frequently, the parents of children are not allowed to be present and not
infrequently, they’re told that they may not discuss the court’s proceedings. Often such
court hearings remove children from loving homes merely on the opinion of one
individual. In such circumstances,’ expert’ witnesses are able to present their theories as
if they were factual evidence. Such procedures should have no place whatsoever in the
process of law and justice. There are several alternative methods of examining the
evidence presented before a court, particularly in cases of an historical nature, or where
family welfare is concerned. These could perhaps afford the judicial system a preferable
methodology with which to ascertain the truth. Firstly, the possibility of statement
analysis. Such a procedure would subject each statement, made by a claimant or
witness, to independent academic scrutiny and any apparent inconsistencies or
inaccuracies critically examined. Such statements should be recorded from the first
occasion that the complainant or witness is interviewed, and a complete copy of each
recorded interview made available to the defendant. Such a course of action should
apply to every person interviewed. The argument that it would be too costly should not
prevail. How much is the cost of a man’s liberty.?
Secondly, justice would be better served, if all the information that is available when
allegations of child abuse or assault are investigated, were subject to exhaustive and
systematic analysis. This would identify and segregate true and false claims, thus being
fairer to both genuine claimants of abuse and to those being falsely accused of abuse.
The law in its present form, does not allow a person who has been the subject of false
and malicious allegations, by a person under the age of sixteen, to sue the young
person, or to claim financial redress. However, it is inevitable that, in cases of historical
allegations, those making false and malicious claims are now adults, and yet, are dealt
with as though they are still the children who suffered the alleged abuse.
Despite now being adults, and in numerous instances proven to be committing perjury in
the witness box, no action is ever taken against them. Surely the time has come to make
Page 6
these people face up to the damage they are causing to innocent men and their families
with their fallacious allegations. Should they not make appropriate reparation and also
face the judicial consequences of their actions?
It would be pertinent to consider the following points. Those innocent of claims of abuse
have little defence because:-

1. The shock of being falsely accused makes clear thinking extremely difficult.

2. Having nothing to hide, they made no provision to hide it.

3. With nothing to hide, the time specified in the accusations has no specific
significance in their working lives.

Those guilty of abuse would be more able to defend themselves because:-

1. Being a ‘recent’ abuser, they would always be half expecting a police visit and so
be somewhat prepared.

2. Being an ‘historic’ abuser, the amount of publicity regarding historic abuse would
alert them to the possibility of a police visit, so they would be somewhat prepared.

3. Whether the abuse was recent or historic, one assumes an abuser would have
prepared, at least mentally, some form of defence, alibi or excuses.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that, one who is innocent of abuse would be far less
able to offer a convincing defence than one who is guilty!
The greatest ‘danger’ to a person, who is accused of any offence against a child or
children, is the attitudes and procedures of the Police, Social Services and the CPS.
Although they will not concede the point, they assume a person’s guilt, even when the
‘evidence’ is outrageously unsatisfactory, such as that in the instances above.
The latest incident of the vindictive attitudes is recorded in the Robin Woodbury case,
(See Sunday Telegraph, Review, April 11th 2004), where one of his accusers claimed to
have been sexually assaulted by him, on board a yacht. There were ten people on board,
but not the person who had made the allegation. This clearly false accusation was used
in a variety of ways from September2000 until April 2003, despite the Police and Social
Services knowing it was false. Even after he was finally cleared of all charges, Social
Services wanted his name placed on the Protection of Children Act List.
My advice to any person accused of any offence of sexual or physical abuse against a
child or children is:-

1. DO NOT ENTER INTO ANY CONVERSATION OR DISCUSSION WITH THE POLICE

REGARDING ANY ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST YOU.

2. DO NOT ASSUME THAT BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOURSELF TO BE INNOCENT, THE

TRUTH WILL PREVAIL. In many instances there has been no evidence whatsoever
against the accused person concerned, only a vague allegation, but comments
made by the accused have been distorted, taken utterly out of context and used
as ‘evidence’ against them.

3. DO NOT USE THE SERVICES OF THE LOCAL SOLICITOR. (The one who did the
conveyancing on your house, for instance.) You require the services of a team of
solicitors who are thoroughly experienced and knowledgeable about the
machinations of those bodies against whom you will be pitted.

Page 7
 4. DO NOT ASSUME THAT THE PROSECUTION WILL GIVE FULL DISCLOSURE TO THE
DEFENCE TEAM AS REQUIRED BY LAW. In the case of Sally Clark, who served three
years imprisonment, it came to light at her Appeal that the Home Office
Pathologist who had examined her children after their deaths, had failed to
disclose vital information to other doctors involved in the case.

5. DO NOT EXPECT TO EXPERIENCE FAIR PLAY AT THE HANDS OF THOSE WHO CLAIM
TO BE CONCERNED WITH THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN. NOR SHOULD YOU
EXPECT THAT OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM WILL GIVE YOU A FAIR DEAL.

6. ANYONE WHO CONSIDERS THAT THEY MAY BE AT RISK OF FALSE ACCUSATIONS i.e.
Teachers; Care Workers; Scoutmasters; Youth Club Leaders; or indeed, anyone who
is, or has worked with children, and young people, should seek expert advice.

7. Finally, consider this: the involvement of any aspect of alleged child abuse, no
matter that the allegations may be extremely dubious, or even farcical, changes
the attitudes inherent in the law. No longer are you innocent until proved guilty.
Quite the reverse – you are guilty until you can prove your innocence - and in the
eyes of many, despite acquittal, you are still seen as guilty.

8. THE PUNISHMENT OF A CRIMINAL IS AN EXAMPLE TO THE RABBLE; BUT EVERY

DECENT MAN IS CONCERNED IF AN INNOCENT PERSON IS CONDEMNED. Jean de la
Bruyere (1645 – 1696)

George Jensen
2004

Page 8