Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2011 3:32:09 GMT -5
Brilliant question. I would wonder why anyone there, who knows...ex teenager and others...what hinders you from doing the right thing? I don't think it is such a brilliant question. While not wishing to comment on the specifics of this particular case, I suspect that without the co-operation of a victim of abuse, the chances of a police investigation proceeding very far are slim. Knowledge of a crime is one thing; having information or evidence that would stand up in court is quite another. Hearsay is not generally admissable in courts in the UK. The duty to report a crime in Northern Ireland applies only where a person who knows or belives that an offence has been committed also has information which is likely to secure, or to be of material assistance in securing, the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person for that offence. There are also sensitivities involved. If your wife is beating you up every Saturday night you may not wish your next door neighbour to make it a police matter. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by emerald on Jul 12, 2011 6:15:10 GMT -5
Who's going to alert the authorities? If the workers won't deal with the man then the authorities must although I understand (and don't disagree) there are those that say the police should have been informed at the outset of the scandal blowing up. Since you seem to have all the knowledge why don't you alert the authorities? Excommunication! Really? I'm not anywhere near NI in order to make a statement. I'm hoping one victim is going to though. Edit: I see Matt10's reply now and learn that the police will have little interest in what I have to say unless I trail a victim or five with me. Thanks for the information Matt10.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2011 7:02:01 GMT -5
Since you seem to have all the knowledge why don't you alert the authorities? Excommunication! Really? I'm not anywhere near NI in order to make a statement. I'm hoping one victim is going to though. Edit: I see Matt10's reply now and learn that the police will have little interest in what I have to say unless I trail a victim or five with me. Thanks for the information Matt10. Emerald, it is not that the police will have little interest in what you have to say. They will investigate hearsay evidence as far as that can take them. If the victims or those with firsthand knowledge, ie evidence that will stand up in court, are not willing to co-operate then the matter generally ends there. This hampers police investigations throughout the world, not just in NI. The piece of legislation we are discussing appears to have been designed to tackle unwillingness to report very serious matters to the police during the savage days of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. It was drafted in 1969, in days where CSA by priests and workers was all lies and the figment of childrens' imagination. I have little doubt that nothing was further from the minds of those who drafted the legislation, than CSA. Today it places a legal duty on everyone with knowledge of a crime in terms of what Matt has outlined to report the matter to a constable within a reasonable time. In essence this act criminalises a 10 year old girl who is raped by a 60 year old man who for whatever reason fails to tell a constable within a reasonable time. In effect anyone who has been the victim of csa in NI since 1967 and has done nothing about it is likely a criminal in terms of this act, unless the offender has made restitution to the victim to the victim's satisfaction. The mind boggles. Designed with csa in mind? I don't think so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2011 10:09:07 GMT -5
Ram,
I think we need to be careful not to gine an impression that because the original 1967 Act may have been drafted with certain types of offences primarily in mind (or indeed without certain types of offences in mind) it has limited scope. It hasn't. It applies to all arrestable offences which meet the criteria specified in the Act and therefore includes arrestable offences relating to CSA.
It may also be worth pointing out the 'without reasonable excuse test'. (This is perhaps something I should have referred to previously.) It is not an offence to fail to report a crime if one has a reasonable excuse. This would ultimately be a matter for the prosecutor to consider and, should prosecution proceed, a matter for the court to determine. I think the court may take a different point of view of the leader of a religious sect who had information on CSA allegations made against one of his subordinates and a victim who decided not to come forward. I think that a victim's reluctance to revisit the ordeal would be deemed a reasonable excuse. Similarly the friend of a victim who expressly wished not to proceed with a criminal investigation would likely be deemed to have a reasonable excuse.
We also have to remember that it is one thing to commit an offence and quite another to be prosecuted for it. I regularly ride my motorcycle at 71mph on the motorway at night. Inevitably the public interest test will apply. I note also that any proceedings under that particular section of the 1967 Act can only be instigated with the consent of the attorney-general which indicates that any proceedings would not be taken lightly. However I still maintain that the particulars of the circumstances being discussed here whereby if the leaders of a religious organisation have information relating to an CSA (an arrestable offence) alleged to have been carried out by a subordinate against a child within the organisation they may be deemed to have a duty to report it under the law. I can’t think of a reasonable excuse not to. Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2011 11:48:51 GMT -5
Ram, I think we need to be careful not to gine an impression that because the original 1967 Act may have been drafted with certain types of offences primarily in mind (or indeed without certain types of offences in mind) it has limited scope. It hasn't. It applies to all arrestable offences which meet the criteria specified in the Act and therefore includes arrestable offences relating to CSA. Fair warning Matt. However, although this act applies to all arrestable offences it was clearly designed more to tackle problems faced with very serious offences which is evident by its principle provisions. My impressions are that (bearing in mind it was 1967 when this legislation was enacted) it was not well enough thought out to deal appropriately with matters like csa. This is understandable because csa was hardly public news back then. If anything it needs updated to provide for modern understanding.It may also be worth pointing out the 'without reasonable excuse test'. (This is perhaps something I should have referred to previously.) It is not an offence to fail to report a crime if one has a reasonable excuse. This would ultimately be a matter for the prosecutor to consider and, should prosecution proceed, a matter for the court to determine. I think the court may take a different point of view of the leader of a religious sect who had information on CSA allegations made against one of his subordinates and a victim who decided not to come forward. I think that a victim's reluctance to revisit the ordeal would be deemed a reasonable excuse. Similarly the friend of a victim who expressly wished not to proceed with a criminal investigation would likely be deemed to have a reasonable excuse. Here's a few rubs. Why should a ten year old girl need a reasonable excuse not to report a traumatic incident like being ravished or raped ? There are better ways of treating the reluctance of victims than offering them a reasonable excuse to avoid criminalisation. I cannot understand your reasoning how the friend of a (csa) victim who expressed a wish not to proceed with a criminal investigation would be deemed to have a reasonable excuse.
Also, the act does not place any additional or greater responsibility on leaders of religious sects. Therefore in the eyes of the law they have the same considerations as "every other person" and entitled to the same fair treatment. If there are two, ten or twenty people have knowledge of the crime (as prescribed by the act) in the chain before a worker receives it, he is not any more liable than the others unless they have "reasonable excuse." In fact the most obvious and appropriate example of reasonable excuse is to inform your informant of their legal responsibility to report the matter. If they have no reasonable excuse, you then have one ! That's all a worker needs to do (imo) in most cases that I can imagine in order to evade legal responsibility. We also have to remember that it is one thing to commit an offence and quite another to be prosecuted for it. I regularly ride my motorcycle at 71mph on the motorway at night. Inevitably the public interest test will apply. I note also that any proceedings under that particular section of the 1967 Act can only be instigated with the consent of the attorney-general which indicates that any proceedings would not be taken lightly. However I still maintain that the particulars of the circumstances being discussed here whereby if the leaders of a religious organisation have information relating to an CSA (an arrestable offence) alleged to have been carried out by a subordinate against a child within the organisation they may be deemed to have a duty to report it under the law. I can’t think of a reasonable excuse not to. Matt10 Matt, this is common sense thinking not what may be legally appropriate under this act. There is no special provision to hold leaders of religious sects more accountable than any other person. Every person who is under investigation is entitled to fairness under the law. This act makes everyone of the same responsibility under the definition of "every other person" without distinction. That's how individuals have to be seen irrespective of their position.
A worker who has knowledge and has 1st or 2nd hand information is certainly in a position of legal responsibilty to report the matter, simply by virtue of being one of "every other person" not because of his position in a religious sect. If he has 12th hand knowledge he would be considered as any other person who has 12th hand knowledge.
An overseer or worker who fails to report a matter under this act is no more or less criminally liable than any other person and would be entitled to a fair trial on that basis with the same protection under the law and the same considerations.
However, "once convicted" a Judge may or may not take into account the worker's position in relation to the circumstances and if he thought it appropriate a heavier fine or sentence may be imposed.
In my overall view, in most cases, the workers (largely being distant from the actual events and some way down the chain of information passing) would be difficult to prosecute. Simply by telling their informants to report the matter to the police would give them that reasonable excuse. Also, since the act does not specifically prescribe for them they could claim they are being unfairly pursued if one, two ten or so persons who are equally liable under the law are ignored at their expense.
If they are to have a system of mandatory reporting in NI it would be best to have the legislation prescribe for particular employments and/or persons in positions of responsibility which to a great degree is the case elsewhere in the world, that is if we want to make leaders of religious sects etc specifically liable.
Matt, you might have a better idea than me. Considering the principle motives of this act which I believe may have been given a broader civil face for political palatability, I wonder if such provisions as I've mentioned above were deliberately left out or avoided due to the political situation at the time with the Catholic Church and the allegations of priests etc harbouring terrorists orhaving knowledge about certain terrorist crimes ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2011 13:19:10 GMT -5
Ram,
I don’t think there is much we disagree on. My main aim here was to correct any impression that there was no system of mandatory reporting of CSA in Northern Ireland. Such a view had been expressed to me previously. We can debate all day whether a prosecution would actually take place in the event of non-reporting or what might be accepted as a reasonable excuse but these will ultimately be for the prosecution authorities and the courts to determine. The key is to ensure that CSA is reported. I think it is acknowledged that the 1967 Act is not the ideal mechanism to deal with this and there have been proposals put forward including bringing forward a specific separate piece of legislation dealing with mandatory reporting of CSA in Northern Ireland. It has also been proposed that more should be done to make people aware of the mandatory reporting system as lack of awareness is deemed to be a possible factor in under-reporting in Northern Ireland. I hope therefore that this thread will contribute to raising awareness amongst any interested parties who might read here who were previously unaware.
As to your point in your last paragraph it is an interesting theory and I would be interested in anything which supports it. I have read the Stormont parliament debates on the draft Bill back in 1967 and can find no reference to the reasons for Section 5 being different to that in the UK Bill. There are also cabinet papers on it which I have not seen which may shed some light on it. I know that the 1967 Act repealed many older Acts and wonder was there anything similar contained previously in an old Irish Act. If I get time I will research this further. I know that 1966/67 was a time of relative peace in Northern Ireland and that there had been no concentrated IRA activity for a few years. However memories are long here.
Finally as to the rubs ….. my view is that it in reality it would be rare for a prosecution to be brought forward under section 5(1) (although this does not change anything as regards mandatory reporting) but if the prosecution authorities were ever minded to take a prosecution (in my unlearned opinion) it would likely be more likely in a case where a person in authority failed to report an incident and, even more so, if they had failed to report a separate incident previously. While everyone is entitled to be treated the same under the law in theory, the public interest guidelines on whether to prosecute do take account of whether a person is in a position of trust or authority. It is not therefore so much that the friend of the victim would be deemed to have a reasonable excuse but that it would not be in the public interest to pursue such a prosecution. However if they did (and I was a juryman), the views of the victim would be deemed a reasonable excuse to me (if it was a sister of mine who was abused and she told me not to tell anyone because she wanted to forget the whole incident and she was worried about the effect it would have on my mother I would likely respect her wishes - in my view that would be a reasonable excuse for not reporting to the authorities). I understand that, depending on the nature of the offence, the police also take the views of victims into account when deciding to proceed with an investigation. As I say these are merely my views and I am not a lawyer.
Oh and I trust that the use of orange writing is out of respect for today.
Matt10
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 12, 2011 14:23:44 GMT -5
A 10 yo girl and 60 yo man have been "mentioned" a couple times here. Is that the case we are talking about?
|
|
|
Post by ex-teenager on Jul 12, 2011 15:08:48 GMT -5
A 10 yo girl and 60 yo man have been "mentioned" a couple times here. Is that the case we are talking about? I think that is being used as an example.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2011 15:36:19 GMT -5
Matt, as you infer our real positions on the primary matter, ie workers reporting cases of csa and being held to account if they don't, are virtually identical. It is the application of this law which I can see difficulties in bringing this about. Ultimately though, the general principle is this that every case is judged on its own merits and what may be accepted or prosecuted in one set of circumstances may not in others. Judgements have to be made on what the legislation provides for. The term "reasonable excuse" is not defined and again that would be up to a court to decide what was reasonable in the circumstances if a prosecutor or police did not accept the reason. Again a case by case consideration. Over here (Scotland), if this legislation applied the police would make a decision whether to report for prosecution or not. It would then be up to the Procurator Fiscal to make the final decision. It is not so much the views of victims that are taken into account but rather their willingness to give statements with the possibility of being examind/cross-examined in court which is the governing factor. However, any reluctance, fears, requests of the victims are noted and passed to the PF so that he/she is fully aware of the circumstances in which they have to make a decision regarding prosecution.
One final thing which may have a bearing in any decision. Workers in most cases would only have hearsay evidence (generally inadmissable) whereas those who are much closer to the events would likely have real evidence (first hand testimony) which is admissable. This does not give the workers a way out in terms of the act but would certainly be a consideration for the worthwhileness of any prosecution, especially if the legal process is by-passing others who can provide real evidence and have failed to do so.
Anyway, I suspect this dialogue is a distraction from the real issues and more likely to be harmful than helpful. I would suggest that if workers want to be absolutely safe from the law they should at least take on the responsibility to ensure that all matters of csa brought to their knowledge are reported within a reasonable time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2011 15:41:25 GMT -5
A 10 yo girl and 60 yo man have been "mentioned" a couple times here. Is that the case we are talking about? I think that is being used as an example. Thanks exT. Yes it was an imaginary example. Nothing more. Matt. Sorry, the orange stuff had nothing in connection with today. Somehow I thought it would be better to try and respond with one of these post carve ups which I hate. I failed yet again.
|
|
|
Post by emerald on Jul 15, 2011 17:32:51 GMT -5
We heard last year that the worker had been put out of the work and assumed that included the fellowship itself. It turns out now that he was acting as a worker, albeit a semi-retired one, taking meetings and doing house visits. TG was in the next county so it seems improbable, especially given the gossip network in the meetings, that TG didn't know that his newly defrocked worker had refused to take off his frock.
Whatever are we going to hear next?
|
|
|
Post by hazelbush on Jul 16, 2011 2:18:48 GMT -5
Standards are falling and very sad things are taking place. Anyone ever suggest removing TG? Is his successor any better? The only hope of improvement is when there is first a genuine apology to all who have being very deeply hurt and wounded by past actions and present day lack of Godly care and understanding. Sadly the day of confidentiality and dependability is also gone and thus too much hush hush but no profitable action being taken.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2011 3:27:00 GMT -5
Standards are falling and very sad things are taking place. Anyone ever suggest removing TG? This board held a leadership poll on TG this time last year which showed that only 5.2% of those responding felt that he shouldn't quit. This was even less than the percentage (13.1%) who didn't care but just wanted to beat him with a stick. I have heard the 'standards are slipping' tale of woe for many years but one wonders whether any evidence exists to support it. It may well be less a case of standards slipping as a case of reality slowly dawning. Scratch at the surface and the gilt soon wears off and people may now be starting to realise that the workers are no better and no worse than the rest of clergy and no more God's true servants than the local Catholic priest. I stumbled across the attached workers list from 1974/75 (link below) and it is frightening to note that of the 11 'brother worker' fields no less than 3 contain the names of workers against whom allegations have been made on this board. That's a staggering 27% of fields, a remarkable percentage even considering the revelations coming out about the Catholic Church. Anyone who still believes that God calls these men into the work really must have some soul searching questions to ask of themselves in the night. Matt10 www.wingsfortruth.info/noeltanner.pdf
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2011 4:20:11 GMT -5
Matt, I must apologise. I have been contacted by an innie and an outtie who feel I may have confused matters in our exchanges over the legislation you provided about mandatory reporting.
Whilst I still feel that it would be hard to enforce this legislation against workers in many circumstances by virtue of their distance from the misdeeds and an ample buffer of other candidates for reporting, I must stress that this is my opinion only. Cases are decided upon individually an on their own merits. Irrespective of the appropriateness of my views, an element of risk of prosecution to some degree would remain in most cases.
The Workers in Northern Ireland should in my view spend a few hundred quid (not a lot to gain protection) to consult a lawyer in Northern Ireland who has experience with the workings of this piece of legislation so that they can obtain professional legal advice on how they conduct themselves in the future. This, for such a small sum would not only protect them from the law, but would give them confidence in their dealings and a proper explanation to others when they are informed about cases of CSA (or any other criminal activity).
Alternatively, they could simply refer all cases they are notified about to the authorities or ensure their informants do so.
Personally I find the idea of workers having to be forced to report such matters by the long arm of the law a very sad state of affairs. They should be moved to do the right thing in these circumstances without the crowbar of mandatory reporting.
How oft I heard workers say they chose to turn their back on the things of this world "because of their love for lost souls!" The sad thing is that I truly believed that at one time. Make no mistake I do believe that to be the case with some workers but the current attitudes towards dealing appropriately with csa in their ranks worldwide is highly despicable and leaves me grasping to use some very bad words, but I will refrain.
The local churches that I now have contact with cherish the children in their church. They are a gift from God and current attitudes are that if any threat or misdeed is perceived it is dealt with properly and in keeping with modern acceptable, prescribed methods.
What is particularly strange, is that the workers not only have children in their church, but by their very nomadic domestic arrangements, they live in the same houses as these children, share their bathrooms, kitchens, living rooms and sleep in adjacent bedrooms, being accepted as part of the extended family for the duration of their stay, YET when it comes to properly addressing csa and other abuse issues, they simply don't want to know. In that they show their true love not only for the children in the church, but also for the families as well. They by and large serve the system, or themselves, not the church. Is this really God's one and only true ministry on Earth at work ? Do they really have a love for lost souls when they show no love for the children of the saved?
Workers should be embarrassed at the thought they might have to be controlled by legislation in these matters. They have a:
1) Christian duty to protect the children in their midst. Love others as thyself etc. They are the future not only of the church but also its ministry.
2) Civic responsibility in which it is their social duty to protect the children and deal properly with any matter which arises in the church.
3) Moral responsibility. Their instincts should automatically become engaged when they hear about cases of CSA and have the intent and desire to address the immorality of CSA and other abuses in properly prescribed ways.
Workers who are out there dragging your heals over CSA issues within your church take note, all three of the above condemn you long before the law ever will.
|
|
|
Post by apple on Jul 17, 2011 8:45:34 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2011 9:24:54 GMT -5
Thanks for posting this apple. Good that things are moving in the right direction (for all clergy) and other persons in positions of responsibility. Hopefully Northern Ireland will follow suit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2011 13:34:19 GMT -5
Ram, apple beat me to it with her news of the Irish government's proposals to introduce specific legislation dealing with the mandatory reporting of CSA in Ireland. Here's also a piece from Thursday's Guardian which seemed relevant to the wider discussion being held here. Matt10 "..... The Irish Catholic church and the Vatican have faced severe criticism over repeated attempts to deal with incidents of abuse behind closed doors rather than by handing over suspects to the Garda Síochána. The Irish deputy prime minister and foreign minister, Eamon Gilmore, met with the Vatican's ambassador to Ireland to discuss the report's findings. "There's one law in this country. Everybody is going to have to learn to comply with it. The Vatican will have to comply with the laws of this country," Gilmore said after the meeting. Gilmore said the report would be debated in the House next Tuesday or Wednesday, depending on the availability of ministers and spokespersons. He said the failure of the church to co-operate with the law was one of the greatest problems and that the coalition government was determined that there would be consequences for any institution which failed to work with the legal authorities of the state when it came to child abuse...." www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/14/vatican-child-abuse-ireland
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2011 14:17:12 GMT -5
Thanks Matt. I hope the North follow this example also. I have a hunch that the wording of the Criminal Law Act (NI) 1967 was deliberate in its ommision of specific classes of people for political (religious?) reasons, but that is just my suspicious mind at work.
Nevertheless, the noose is tightening.
|
|