GH v The Catholic Child Welfare Society (Diocese of Middlesbrough) and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | His Honour Judge Gosnell |
| Judgment Date | 21 December 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 3337 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 21 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 5DW01675 |
[2016] EWHC 3337 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
The Combined Court Centre, Oxford Row Leeds
His Honour Judge Gosnell
Case No: 5DW01675
Ms Kama Melly QC and Ms Susannah Johnson (instructed by Switalskis LLP) for the Claimant
Mr Michael Kent QC and Mr Nicholas Fewtrell (instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 31 st October to 21 st November 2016
The Claimant GH was born on 5 th February 1970, he is now 46 years of age. He had a difficult upbringing and was born into a poor family, the youngest of five siblings. His father was a mechanic and his mother struggled to cope with such a large family. He started to misbehave at school and from the age of ten would truant and commit minor offences. On 29 th June 1981 at the age of 11 1/2 he was made the subject of a care order for an offences of burglary. He was initially placed at Broomlands Assessment Centre and then Elm Tree Farm Community Home but on 28 th March 1985 at age 15 he moved to St William's School in Market Weighton in the East Riding of Yorkshire where he stayed until a date in June 1986. This case is about what happened to him during his stay at that school.
St. William's School
St William's School was founded in or about 1865 as a reformatory school for boys. In 1933 pursuant to the Children and Young Persons Act and the Approved School Rules 1933 it became an Approved School. Boys could be placed or detained there for a maximum of three years up to the age of 17 if: they had been convicted of a criminal offence and received a custodial sentence; or they were found to be in need of care or protection; or they were not attending school regularly. In 1973 St William's became an Assisted Community Home and thus became part of a co-ordinated planning system for children in the care of local authorities who placed such children there under care orders. The school was operated by the De La Salle Order and was situated in a rural setting near to Market Weighton including a residential facility. Various local authorities in the vicinity placed boys there where there were extensive grounds. It had classrooms, workshops, a place of worship, a swimming pool, recreational facilities and a working farm. The children were accommodated in separate group units known as houses.
The Defendants
The Defendants fall into one of two categories: firstly those connected with or representing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Middlesbrough, responsible for the management of St William's (variously referred to as the "Diocese of Middlesbrough" or the "Middlesbrough Defendants") and secondly the representatives and/or members of a lay Catholic teaching order, the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools (De La Salle), (variously referred to as the "De La Salle Institute" or the "Institute"). The Institute had a community of brothers living at St William's some of whom worked as teachers at the school alongside lay teachers. Most but not all of the alleged abusers had been members of the Institute.
The group claims
A number of former pupils at the school alleged that they had been sexually or physically abused by teachers or members of staff at the school. Proceedings were issued and a Group Litigation Order was made by His Honour Judge Hawkesworth QC on 5 th September 2006 in relation to approximately 170 Claimants. I am told there are now 249 Claimants. There were preliminary issues in the group action which substantially delayed the progress of the claims. On 3 rd November 2009 the issue of whether both sets of Defendants were potentially vicariously liable for the abuse allegedly committed by their employees, servants or agents was tried by His Honour Judge Hawkesworth QC. He found that only the Middlesbrough Defendants were potentially liable. The Claimants and the Middlesbrough Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal and the appeal was dismissed in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2010] EWCA Civ 1106. The Middlesbrough Defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court and on 21 st November 2012 the court granted the appeal and found that both the Middlesbrough Defendants and the De La Salle Institute could be held vicariously liable for the abusive acts of the Brothers even though the Institute was not technically responsible for the management of the school: Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society and others [2012] UKSC 56.
The effect of this decision was that the Defendants were able to agree that they would be represented by one firm of solicitors and counsel instructed by them in any subsequent trials and the court need not be concerned with the respective legal responsibilities of the various Defendants. The court and both teams of lawyers then attempted to identify suitable cases which could be tried first in order to give some guidance about the conduct of future trial. This was achieved by agreement and eight cases were chosen as lead cases to be tried in May 2015. Just before they were due to be tried it was discovered that a new police enquiry had taken place and that two of the alleged abusers James Carragher and Anthony McCallen had been charged with a large number of new offences arising from their involvement with St William's school. Understandably the Defendants applied for the trials involving these witnesses to be adjourned until the prosecution was complete as they were unlikely to give evidence with a criminal prosecution pending. They were eventually tried between October and December 2015 and both found guilty of a number of serious sexual offences against pupils at St William's. They both received substantial prison sentences. Five of the eight trials had been adjourned pending this prosecution and the individual Claimants in the other three trials discontinued just before they were due to be heard. Arrangements were then made for the remaining five lead cases to be tried of which GH's case is the fourth to be heard. Through no fault of his own, therefore, GH's case has been delayed by many years due to the legal complexities of this litigation.
The Claimant's case
I intend to give a summary of the facts which form the background to this case. Many of them are uncontroversial although the facts surrounding the alleged abuse are all disputed. The Claimant has made three witness statements in these proceedings between June 2008 and September 2014. The following summary is taken from the Claimant's evidence together with the documents that were referred to during the trial. At the end I will give a brief summary of the evidence called by the Defendants.
The Claimant recalls being placed on a care order at aged 11 by Teesside Juvenile Court because he was missing school and committing offences. His first appearance before the courts was on 23 rd May 1980 when he was given a conditional discharge for theft. On 18 th July 1980 he was given a supervision order for taking a conveyance without authority and on the same date for burglary and theft a two year community service order. He then appeared before the courts again on 29 th October 1980 for burglary and was given an attendance centre order. It is perhaps significant that all of these convictions occurred when he was only ten years old. It is perhaps not then surprising that at his next appearance before the Teesside Juvenile Court on 29 th June 1981 he was placed in care for burglary, criminal damage and theft. The records which remain from his time at Broomlands Assessment Centre do not paint a positive picture with him being described as "sharp and cunning"… "abusive and rude"… "He does not accept authority"…"He is very attention seeking and manipulative and on occasions can be abusive and shows little respect for adults" [J2/D9/15–22]
The Claimant was allocated to De La Salle House and soon settled into the regime at St William's. Whilst he was a pupil at St William's he alleges that he was physically assaulted by Noel Hartnett and Gerard Kelly and sexually assaulted by Father Anthony McCallen. He later moved to St George's House.
The Claimant alleges that he suffered many physical punishments at the hand of Noel Hartnett who by this time was Deputy Principal of the school. He alleges that if he had done anything wrong in class or around the home he would be sent to Mr Hartnett's office where he would be extremely violent and punch the Claimant around the head and kick his shins. He would also use his knuckles to punch the top of his head and his chest. He described an occasion in paragraphs 11 and 12 of his first statement where he, with other boys stole a tractor to abscond and they were caught by the police having committed criminal offences. On his return he was given a "good hiding" by Mr Hartnett. This continued two or three times per week until he was sent to Kirklevington detention centre in about July 1985.
The Claimant alleges that he was also assaulted by Gerry Kelly who ran the farm at the school. He had done something wrong and Mr Kelly jumped over a desk, landing in front of the Claimant, punching him in the face and body. He was violent to the Claimant on other occasions. On another occasion after he had stolen a tractor Mr Kelly threw a clutch plate at him which narrowly missed him and he then slapped the Claimant about the face. The Claimant reported the matter to Ray Black a House Master who advised the Claimant to report it to Mr Hartnett. The Claimant did this only for Mr Hartnett to hit him for trying to report Mr Kelly.
Sometime after the physical abuse started the Claimant alleges that he was groomed by Father McCallen....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kimathi and Others v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office
...Ltd v Mundogas SA [1985] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1, 57. 46 AB [2016] EWHC 3334 (QB) ; CD [2016] EWHC 3335 (QB); EF [2016] EWHC 3336 (QB); GH [2016] EWHC 3337 (QB). 47 The judge as juror: the judicial determination of factual issues — Current Legal Problems 48 Bingham J regarded the credit of the w......