Lillie v Newcastle City Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Eady |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWHC 1600 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ9903605, HQ9903606 |
| Date | 30 July 2002 |
[2002] EWHC 1600 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Eady
Case No: HQ9903605, HQ9903606
Miss A Page Q.C. and Mr A Speker (instructed by S.J. Cornish) for the Claimants
Mr G Bishop, Mr I Christie and Ms S Mansoori (instructed by Wragge & Co) for the Newcastle City Council and the Review Team
Hearing dates : From 11 th January 2002 to 20 th June 2002
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
The Hon. Mr Justice Eady
INDEX
Para. No.
1. The factual background
The events of April 1993 1
The widening of the investigation 11
The disciplinary process 17
The criminal proceedings 24
The steps taken by the City Council meanwhile
56
2. Christopher Lillie and Dawn Reed 77
3. The Review Team's Report published on 12 November 1998 114
4. Media coverage of the Case
The Newcastle Chronicle 141
Other media coverage 294
5. The issues raised in the litigation 322
6. What is the correct approach to justification? 354
7. The expert evidence relevant to child abuse
Introduction 381
Dr Jane Watkeys and Dr Kathryn Ward: The paediatric evidence 383
Professor Maggie Bruck and Professor William Friedrich: The
“disclosures” 401
Dr Sandra Hewitt and Dr Hamish Cameron: Child Behaviour 473
8. The evidence of multiple abuse
General Introduction 503
The evidence of Dr Camille San Lazaro 540
Child 1 559
Child 2 588
Child 3 604
Child 4 614
Child 5 623
Child 6 634
Child 7 643
Child 8 663
Child 10 672
Child 11 711
Child 12 726
Child 14 737
Child 15 803
Child 17 807
Child 18 822
Child 19 827
Child 21 840
Child 22 860
Child 23 900
Child 24 921
Child 25 949
Child 26 969
Child 27 981
Child 28 997
Child 29 1008
Child 30 1020
Child 31 1034
9. The evidence called for the claimants on the abuse issue 1051
10. The privilege issues for the Review Team 1085
11. The Review Team's Terms of Reference 1096
12. The evidence of the Review Team defendants. 1129
13. Findings on the allegations of malice against the Review Team 1284
14. The privilege issues for the Newcastle City Council 1400
15. The City Council's evidence on qualified privilege and malice
General Introduction 1452
The “one-off” approach to publishing the Report 1459
Mr Dervin 1466
Mr Lavery 1478
Mr Bell 1488
Mr Arnold 1492
Mr Flynn 1502
Mr Poll 1513
Mr Scott 1523
Overall Conclusion 1532
16. Compensation 1534
17. A brief summary of findings 1552
Mr Justice Eady:
1) The factual background
The events of April 1993
1. In the first week of April 1993 a young man called Jason Dabbs pleaded guilty at Newcastle Crown Court to nine counts of indecent assault, and asked that three other similar offences be taken into consideration. All the offences admitted related to children at a local nursery and he was sentenced to seven years imprisonment. He was at the time a student and the offences had occurred while he was on a placement during the course of his studies. This naturally attracted wide publicity and caused anger and concern amongst the public generally, and especially among the parents of young children. The offences had apparently been committed while he was on the nursery premises and indeed in the presence of other adults (who were not in any way implicated in the offences or aware of what was going on). Those particular circumstances were surprising to say the least, and few people had previously addressed the possibility of such abuse taking place within a nursery environment (although, as early as 1987, the report of an inquiry into abuse of primary school children in Cornwall had been published, under the title Child Abuse in Schools).
2. An inquiry was commissioned by the Newcastle City Council pursuant to s.81 of the Children Act 1989, and carried out by an experienced practitioner, Mr Peter Hunt, who made findings and recommendations in September 1994 with a view to avoiding such abuse in the future. Mr Hunt (now His Honour Judge Peter Hunt) pointed out the limitations of his inquiry and specifically that he was not in a position to make findings of abuse on any wider basis than the offences to which Jason Dabbs had pleaded guilty. Nevertheless, he was able to conclude (para. 2.6.27) that the busy atmosphere of a nursery class can provide opportunities for determined paedophiles to abuse their charges without being noticed. This would no doubt be contrary to most people's intuitive response to such allegations which would, at least up to that time, have been one of incredulity. It is right to say, however, that Mr Hunt's findings in this respect were consistent with experience of abuse in day nurseries in the United States (see e.g. Nursery Crimes by David Finkelhor, 1988).
3. Meanwhile, within days of Jason Dabbs’ court appearance, and the publicity it attracted, the mother of a small boy at another nursery situated in the centre of Newcastle, Shieldfield, complained to the police that he had been abused by one of the staff at that establishment. The person concerned was Mr Christopher Lillie, who was then a qualified nursery nurse and had been working there, either on a temporary or permanent basis, since 1988. The boy has been referred to throughout these proceedings as either “Child 22” or “the Index Child”.
4. It is probably fair to say that this referral to the police triggered the long and complicated chain of events which unfolded over the succeeding months and years and led, eventually, to the trial of these libel actions over no less than 79 days in 2002. I must now attempt to summarise those events.
5. Following the complaint about Child 22, made during the course of the Easter weekend, the matter was referred to Newcastle Social Services Department and also to the Police Child Protection Unit. A meeting took place on 14 April 1993 between the Child Protection Team, the mother and representatives of the Social Services Department. The next day the child was examined by Dr Neela Shabde. The child was at that stage complaining that “Chris” had hurt his bottom, but the examination revealed no signs of penetrative trauma.
6. On 16 April 1993, Child 22 was interviewed by a police officer attached to the Police Child Protection Unit, Helen Foster, who was to play a significant role in the extensive police enquiries over the next 12 months. On the same day, Mr Lillie was informed that he was suspended from duty pending a full investigation. This information was conveyed to him by Joyce Eyeington, who had responsibility within the local authority for the management of day nurseries. A further conversation took place between them on 20 April during which Mrs Eyeington told Mr Lillie that the medical examination of Child 22 had revealed no physical signs of abuse. In the event, Mr Lillie never returned to work.
7. It so happened that Mrs Eyeington's niece (by marriage), Susan Eyeington, was the officer in charge of Shieldfield Nursery. She was interviewed on 19 April. On 22 April, interviews took place with Susan Elsdon, the member of staff who had responsibility for Child 22 before he came into the care of Mr Lillie, and with Dawn Reed who had been working alongside Mr Lillie in what was known as the “Red Room”. That was where Child 22 had been looked after since 1 September 1992.
8. On 27 April, Joyce Eyeington interviewed the child's uncle and aunt who confirmed that he had told them that “Chris” had hurt his bottom and genitals.
9. Naturally, the suspension of Mr Lillie and the reasons for it presented the nursery management and the local authority with a real problem as to how the parents were to be properly informed about what was going on, given their limited state of knowledge at that time.
10. Meetings were organised at the Nursery at which parents were provided originally with only the barest of detail. They were told that a male member of staff had been suspended.
The widening of the investigation
11. During May 1993, two social workers, Vanessa Lyon and Marion Harris, were made available within the same building as the Nursery should any parent/carer wish to raise concerns. Within a short space of time, information had been obtained from 14 of the families. Accordingly, a “strategy meeting” was arranged for 26 May, for the purpose of discussing developments up to that point and what further action should be taken.
12. After what must have seemed to parents, at least, a long period of delay, a letter was written by Joyce Eyeington on 23 July inviting them to a meeting on 28 July. Thereafter, it seems that meetings were held on a regular basis to offer parents information and support.
13. As is well known, any local authority is under a statutory duty to take action for the protection of a child within its area where there is reasonable cause to suspect that he or she is suffering, or is likely to suffer, “significant harm”: s.47 of the Children Act 1989. There were in Newcastle at the time procedures in place to enable that obligation to be carried out. In particular, from time to time, case conferences would take place with respect to any child, or children, suspected of being at risk. In the early stages, it was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Gleaner Company Ltd and another v Abrahams
...v Rankin [2001] QB 272 and runs to a maximum of £200,000 for the most catastrophic injuries. As a result, Eady J said in Reed & Lillie v Newcastle Borough Council [2002] EW HC 1600 (QB) at paras 1547-1551 that there is now a ceiling of £200,000 for compensatory damages in libel 50 Their Lo......
-
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and Another and Another Appeal
...to injure the plaintiff as proof of malice, it is salutary to note the observation of Eady J in Lillie v Newcastle City Council [2002] EWHC 1600 (QB). There, he said, at I am not aware of any example of malice having been found (in a case where the judge or jury concluded that the relevant ......
-
Kinsella v Kenmare Resources Plc
...to the use of personal injury awards as comparators in defamation actions, the decision in Lillie & Reed v. Newcastle City Council [2002] EWHC 1600 (Q.B.), a case involving entirely untrue allegations of sadistic child abuse, is, I believe, of some relevance. In his judgment concerning the......
-
W v Westminster City Council
...v Atkinson [2000] 4 LRC 596, NZ CA. Law v Llewellyn [1906] 2 KB 306, [1904–7] All ER Rep 536, CA. Lillie v Newcastle City Council[2002] EWHC 1600 (QB), [2002] All ER (D) 465 Lincoln v Daniels [1961] 3 All ER 740, [1962] 1 QB 237, [1961] 3 WLR 866, CA. Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd (No ......
-
Table of Cases
...Lenormand v. State (Texas), No. 09-97-150-CR (Tex. Ct. App. 1998) ........................... 75 Lillie v. Newcastle City Council, [2002] EWHC 1600 (Q.B.)............................................................................................. 111, 167, 187, 189, 193, 198, 218 Maddox v.......
-
Science: Some Basic Concepts
...which is the rational determination whether or not the child has been abused as claimed. 61 60 Lillie v. Newcastle City Council, [2002] EWHC 1600(Q.B.), Eady J. at para. 399: “It is important for me also to bear in mind that much attention has been given over the last 15 years or so to the ......
-
Science and Psychiatric and Psychological Evidence
...coloured his whole approach. Everything he addressed was used as a pointer to child abuse. hat is the opposite of scientiic 21 [2002] EWHC 1600 (Q.B.). [167 ] Ex p e r t E v id e n c e i n C r imi n a l Law objectivity. It is simply a case of the very phenomenon of cross-contamination he wa......