All this is incredibly sad

[Scazza]

Note to self : never send emails late at night.
Graham, I think you know me well enough to know that I tell it as I see it. I guess it is difficult to convince folk that terrible mistakes made in the past will not be repeated, but I do know the rigour and integrity that is now present at the school.
Your final comment is reassuring. I have been hurt and have at times thought that I have been wasting my time trying to convince those whose upset is so extreme that they have used this forum to denigrate CH at every opportunity. Like you I can see that for SOME this forum has been cathartic, but I have my doubts about the motivations of a few.
Might I recommend that someone contacts the Senior Leadership Team directly or the school's DSL to see if present protocols can be placed in a document in this forum. It will placate some and enlighten others.
Best wishes.

What terrible mistakes were made? Surely that is the starting point to ensure no recurrence?

Do you think it would be useful for the school to explain the lessons learned from the court cases? To explain unequivocally how these events could never happen again?

That would hearten me more than policies. They look good and get you through audits but we all know rules or procedures that aren't taken seriously, or are a pain to follow. The important stuff is sometimes lost in amongst the government noise, as Tim sortof alludes to.

[harryh]

Note to self : never send emails late at night.
Graham, I think you know me well enough to know that I tell it as I see it. I guess it is difficult to convince folk that terrible mistakes made in the past will not be repeated, but I do know the rigour and integrity that is now present at the school.
Your final comment is reassuring. I have been hurt and have at times thought that I have been wasting my time trying to convince those whose upset is so extreme that they have used this forum to denigrate CH at every opportunity. Like you I can see that for SOME this forum has been cathartic, but I have my doubts about the motivations of a few.
Might I recommend that someone contacts the Senior Leadership Team directly or the school's DSL to see if present protocols can be placed in a document in this forum. It will placate some and enlighten others.
Best wishes.

What terrible mistakes were made? Surely that is the starting point to ensure no recurrence?

Do you think it would be useful for the school to explain the lessons learned from the court cases? To explain unequivocally how these events could never happen again?

That would hearten me more than policies. They look good and get you through audits but we all know rules or procedures that aren't taken seriously, or are a pain to follow. The important stuff is sometimes lost in amongst the government noise, as Tim sortof alludes to.

Presumably the first two are rhetorical questions.
It would be useful, but I suspect the timing is not right with cases still outstanding.
I can understand your questioning of what is written down, but I have already spoken about rigour.

[michael scuffil]

I cannot recall CMES EVER visiting Col B, or hearing of him ever entering any house come to that.

I think he was too aloof for that sort of task.

Almost true.

There was one exception. He would always go to the house of the boy chosen to be senior grecian to tell him so. It would always be at around 6.45 pm. In fact, on three occasions this was how I knew who was going to be the next SG: Seaman entering a house at 6.45 pm zowards the end of the summer term. (I don't know why he did this, rather than summon the boy to the Headmaster's house or school study.)

[sejintenej]

I cannot recall CMES EVER visiting Col B, or hearing of him ever entering any house come to that.

I think he was too aloof for that sort of task.

Almost true.

There was one exception. He would always go to the house of the boy chosen to be senior grecian to tell him so. It would always be at around 6.45 pm. In fact, on three occasions this was how I knew who was going to be the next SG: Seaman entering a house at 6.45 pm zowards the end of the summer term. (I don't know why he did this, rather than summon the boy to the Headmaster's house or school study.)

Just imagine being summoned to appear at his door at 6.45 one evening. I was and, unaware of any crimes recently committed, attended in considerable trepitation.
No, I was not to be Senior Grecian, nor to get my behind wallopped. ]I got given a bible and sent hence

[Scazza]

Presumably the first two are rhetorical questions.
It would be useful, but I suspect the timing is not right with cases still outstanding.
I can understand your questioning of what is written down, but I have already spoken about rigour.

Not entirely rhetorical. This is the first time I've seen anyone connected to the school acknowledge that any mistakes were made. The school just said it was all very sad that it happened to occur there.

Agree it is important not to prejudice the ongoing cases. If there are unambiguous legal reasons why the school cannot comment yet, perhaps they could make a firm commitment to explaining the lessons learned, once proceedings are complete. I don't think that is the reason behind the silence, though, and understanding the lack of checks and controls at CH would be useful context for any jury.

Ref rigour. Perhaps the school could provide more information about the doing, not just the written policies. eg: examples of recent welfare issues and how they were resolved. That is far stronger evidence than just pointing to a stack of dusty policies.

Current safeguarding is not the key issue to historic abuses, though. Im confident that the school is very different these days, for a number of reasons, but repeatedly trotting out that line doesn't explain away or mitigate past failings. Victims and other old blues deserve an explanation of what went wrong, don't they?

Neither do I buy the other often quoted argument that 'things were different then'. Staff going back to the 50's presumably understood the rape of a woman was illegal. Why would the rape of a child be different?

[sejintenej]

Not entirely rhetorical. This is the first time I've seen anyone connected to the school acknowledge that any mistakes were made. The school just said it was all very sad that it happened to occur there.

From Rob's last meeting nd those to come I think it is clear that at, least, the school is not denying them. I wonder if they even know the full extent - there seem to be more known cases to come to court.

perhaps they could make a firm commitment to explaining the lessons learned, once proceedings are complete. I don't think that is the reason behind the silence, though, and understanding the lack of checks and controls at CH would be useful context for any jury.

HarryH has given us access to the latest set of procedures intended to prevent any furure such failures. I have seen one typo pointed out and I have slight reservations about a few more but I think it is clear that the school has learned lessons from the past and is determined to avoid them in the future.

Ref rigour. Perhaps the school could provide more information about the doing, not just the written policies. eg: examples of recent welfare issues and how they were resolved. That is far stronger evidence than just pointing to a stack of dusty policies.

I very much doubt if thatr is possible. In any case the written details include the names of the "victim", the "assailant" (if that is the correct word) and everyone involved in the investigation.. In court the name and any identifiers of the rape victim is hidden from all except the prosecution, the defendant and the judge - should this not be the case for close to similar cases in the school?

Victims and other old blues deserve an explanation of what went wrong, don't they?

Victims on a case by case basis - yes. There are many victims whose names are hidden form the general population - they should be dealt with privately between them and the school - not in public.

Neither do I buy the other often quoted argument that 'things were different then'. Staff going back to the 50's presumably understood the rape of a woman was illegal. Why would the rape of a child be different?

In those days rape of a woman was technically a crime but virtually never prosecuted because to be namd in court was the end of any reasonable life for the victim - she would be thrown out of her family, probably her town and branded a harlot even if it ws not her fault.

[Golfer]

And even these days the appalling jury system means that only 1/3 of rape cases end up with a conviction - which is only a small percentage of the rape accusations that are made, which in turn are a small percentage of the rapes that take place.

[Foureyes]

"...the appalling jury system..."

I am sorry but I simply cannot agree with that. In my book the jury system is one of the brightest jewels in our democratic crown. We take twelve citizens - regardless of race, religion, gender, wealth, education, profession or status in the community - and present them with both sides of a case, which is then up to those twelve citizens to decide. With a very few individual exceptions they take their task seriously, listen intently to the evidence, and then discuss the case in private before coming to a conclusion.

Juries may occasionally make errors, or may be misled by a brilliant barrister, but it is not common.

Further, the accused knows that his/her case has been considered by his/her peers, not by some aloof professional sitting on the bench, or a faceless bureaucrat in an office. In other words, it is his/her fellow citizens that are finding him/her guilty - or not, as the case may be.

If 2/3rds of rape cases end in a 'not guilty' verdict, then that is the fault of the prosecution not making a strong enough case or failing to refute the defence's arguments. Or, perhaps, the juries simply consider that the accused was not guilty. You seem to be implying that if a rape case reaches a court then it is the bounden duty of the jury to find the accused guilty - is that really what you mean?

Are you suggesting that if the CPS feels a case is strong they (i.e., the CPS) should then declare the accused guilty without reference to anyone else? Perhaps they should decide the punishment as well? That would be bureaucratically very neat and save a lot of effort, time and expense. Or, perhaps, you want a professional judge, with or without supporting assessors - but they can be misled or misinformed, just as much as a jury.

If you find the jury system so 'appalling' then you need to propose a more effective and popular alternative.

David
PS I make no apology for the length of the above but I feel particularly strongly about this.

[graham]

Juries may occasionally make errors, or may be misled by a brilliant barrister, but it is not common.

Sexual assault may be one of those cases in which juries tend to show implicit bias. Case in point, a friend of mine served on a jury for the prosecution of a man who had sexually assaulted a young woman on her way home after a night out. She had been drinking, as one does, and was dressed up. That contact had occurred was not in question based on physical evidence. However one member of the jury, an older man, refused to acknowledge the evidence presented that the woman had not consented to any form of contact because a girl who drinks and dresses like she had was "looking for it". Lack of a consensus resulted in a hung jury and need for a retrial, which the prosecution may or may not have pursued (I don't know).

I agree with David that trial by a jury of your peers is a great idea. But finding peers who share the same set of values and respect for other human beings, regardless of their race, religion, gender, wealth, and education can sometimes be challenging, especially if you're a woman and / or minority.

[CodFlabAndMuck]

I have done jury service three times.

I wonder if Golfer has ever been called?

The vast majority.of jurors fulfil their public duty diligently and conscientiously.

On one occasion a young unemployed woman refused to engage in our deliberations as she was indignant at having to give up her valuable time and instead did aerobics. We eventually managed to talk her round by threatening to report her to the usher for contempt.

On another occasion a young black man said the police are all ba## ards, I'm not convicting him. The case was a slam dunk but we patiently went through the evidence and he finally came on side.

On another occasion we didn't convict the defendants on the most serious charge, and one of the defence barristers swivelled around and nodded at us as the forewoman delivered our verdicts, even though he knew his client was going down for several years. It was recognition that justice had prevailed.

The Judge in that case was clearly biased (she'd seen their rap sheets) and wanted to throw away the key, but we got it right.

She didn't give them credit for time already served on remand, but was unable to sentence them for possession of a firearm, which clearly rankled.

One of the defendants actually nodded at us as he left the dock after sentencing.

Both sides are very careful what evidence is put before a jury so having people from different walks of life and life experiences is invaluable when trying to make sense of the many nuances.

Unless the evidence is there beyond all reasonable doubt, jurors will not risk messing up the rest of someone's life with a potential miscarriage.

They are also mindful that they cannot be led by the heart.

It's not a perfect system but it's better than the alternative of a panel of suitably qualified and sufficiently educated wise persons.

ps: most Judges will eventually accept a majority 10-2 verdicr or a decision from fewer than 12 jurors if someone has fallen by the wayside

[Foureyes]

Thank you CodFlabAndMuck. I hope that you won't mind me saying that your's is a very sensible and well-balanced comment. In particular, I respect your experience - three times, no less!
It is interesting how often one comes across the comment that a judge was biassed - sometimes one way, sometimes the other - and because of his/her position is able to make life very difficult for the barrister representing the side he/she opposes.

In one case I am studying (absolutely nothing to do with C.H. or Old Blues) the judge was clearly biassed in favour of the accused, who happened to be represented by a very glib and personable Irish barrister, whereas the prosecutor was not only a 'plodder' but had also stood in at the last minute (perhaps it was because he was a plodder that he was available?) Anyway, the defence ran circles around the prosecution and at the end of the prosecution case the defence submitted 'no case to answer' with which the judge, rather weakly, agreed, the accused was formally declared 'not guilty' and the case was closed. Of course, the jury had no say in all this and according to reporters at the trial were very pissed off.

As a result, the the defence was never called, which meant that the defending barrister was not faced with the dilemma of whether, or not, to put his client in the witness box. His client was a braggart, over-confident and many of his statements to the police bore little relationship with the truth. Even the less than competent prosecutor should have tripped him up. So, the accused walked free to join his mistress, and the body of his first wife has never been found.

So, if judges can be biassed (not all, of course, but a few) how much better to have twelve fellow citizens who as CFAM rightly points out, will discuss the evidence and come to a reasoned conclusion.

David

[graham]

It's not a perfect system but it's better than the alternative of a panel of suitably qualified and sufficiently educated wise persons.

I don't disagree with this statement at all, but I would not be so fast to dismiss the idea that implicit biases affect jury decisions. There are voluminous quantities of studies showing that the victim or defendant's race affect the way that they are perceived by an apparently impartial jury and that a sexual assault victim's sexual history, degree of inebriation or dress affect the amount of "blame" that is placed upon her for her own assault.

I don't agree with Golfer's characterization of the jury system as appalling. But while I don't know if his numbers are correct for the proportion of rape cases that end in conviction, it is undeniable that rape cases are hard to prosecute and at least in part this is due to the way in which victims are perceived. This, in turn, makes it harder for victims to come forward.

[CodFlabAndMuck]

Thank you FourEyes for your generous and considered comments.

You are absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of giving lay persons the final say rather than leaving it to Judges who sometimes do not follow the advice they impart to a jury during summing up.

[CodFlabAndMuck]

It's not a perfect system but it's better than the alternative of a panel of suitably qualified and sufficiently educated wise persons.

I don't disagree with this statement at all, but I would not be so fast to dismiss the idea that implicit biases affect jury decisions. There are voluminous quantities of studies showing that the victim or defendant's race affect the way that they are perceived by an apparently impartial jury and that a sexual assault victim's sexual history, degree of inebriation or dress affect the amount of "blame" that is placed upon her for her own assault.

I don't agree with Golfer's characterization of the jury system as appalling. But while I don't know if his numbers are correct for the proportion of rape cases that end in conviction, it is undeniable that rape cases are hard to prosecute and at least in part this is due to the way in which victims are perceived. This, in turn, makes it harder for victims to come forward.

I really hope that these preconceptions are less prevalent in our society, but I take your point, particularly when I look at the system of justice in the US and how it fails poor young black people.

In the last case I mentioned, all the defendants were black and clearly badduns, even before we heard their long list of convictions read out.

All the jurors were white.

We were totally focused on assessing the evidence, and talk of race never came up. I don't think it even entered anyone's mind for consideration.

[J.R.]

It is true that obtaining a conviction in a rape case is low. I seem to remember from training in the past that the crime of rape is recognised as the hardest to obtain a conviction.

The CPS obviously are aware of this and think long and hard before even proceeding.

It's a shame Richardb is taking a leave of absence. I'm sure he could enlighten us further.