Town hall admits criminal record checks on victims

Town hall chiefs have had to admit asking for the criminal records of five child abuse victims, after initially issuing a blanket denial.

And the top solicitor for the survivors of sexual exploitation in the borough has said it shows Lambeth council has not learned from the past.

Imran Khan, who also acted for the family in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, said just asking whether victims had later gone on to commit crimes might have been a breach of their privacy and of data protection legislation.

But he also fears the initial denials showed “the council’s attitude is not one of open accountability and remorse”.

Police helping the nationwide Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse admitted on July 27 that they had been asked in 2017 by Lambeth council about the records of five abuse victims.

Detective Inspector Dan Setter, of police taskforce Winterkey, confirmed in an email, obtained by the South London Press: “Enquiries by our most experienced disclosure officer have found one request, in 2017, where Lambeth had asked for checks to be made on five victims.

“These checks were conducted and an answer supplied. Thankfully, no details of any convictions were found.

“This should not have happened and we have reminded the staff involved that this kind of data should not be supplied.

“Please accept my apologies for not getting the information completely correct in my earlier email.”

But a month before, on June 25 this year, Lambeth chief executive Andrew Travers had written to the Shirley Oaks Survivors Association (SOSA) with reference to a string of allegations made by SOSA in a report: “You claim that Lambeth asked police for any criminal records of some of the survivors.

“This is completely untrue. You persist in this allegation even when told directly that it is not true.

“You have expressly equated the behaviour of elected members and officers of Lambeth today with that of the members and officers of decades past who either abused children themselves or arguably enabled and facilitated it, if only by their silence.

“On any reasonable view, that is simply wrong and deeply offensive.

“We do want to reiterate that Lambeth has long accepted that serial failings by the council did contribute to deeply distressing sexual abuse of children in its care to occur.

“We have apologised for that and remain deeply sorry for the hurt and trauma that all those individuals have endured.

“The level of compensation offered has to balance the council’s duties to survivors with its duties to taxpayers in order to be lawful.

“The tariffs proposed by your legal advisers during negotiations were more than Lambeth could reasonably and lawfully pay.

“Should you further publish this report or repeat the allegations by other means, you will only cause disruption and damage to the vital exercise of supporting and compensating survivors.

“You will also gravely damage the standing of Lambeth and the reputations of the individual officers whom you have traduced as dishonest and racist. That you could consider doing this on the eve of the hearings before IICSA is deeply disappointing.

“The officers concerned have indicated that all their legal rights in relation to this defamatory report are reserved.”

Mr Khan, who represented many claimants at the IICSA, believes the council’s action in asking for claimants’ records may have breached data protection and privacy legislation.

He said that he was concerned that the chief executive’s letter to SOSA – saying Lambeth had not inquired about survivors’ criminal records – appeared to have been contradicted by the police “who say they actually made those inquiries on Lambeth’s behalf, albeit Lambeth say it was not in relation to the Redress Scheme.

“Lambeth staff have reserved the right to take legal action if SOSA repeats the claim.

“In my closing submission to IICSA I said I had been made aware of a threat of legal action to this effect. The chief executive is in charge of an organisation which may have invaded claimants’ privacy and been in breach of data protection legislation even if it wasn’t in relation to the Redress Scheme.

“Lambeth needs to take a long hard look at this whole incident – what happened and why.

“It has given the impression that the council’s attitude is not one of open accountability and remorse. It seems to be caught out all the time – saying one thing and doing another.

“We need Lambeth to come to the table and engage afresh, with sincerity and true atonement. We cannot have legal threats being made. It is just not conducive to open discussion and dialogue.”

A Lambeth council spokesman said: “No requests for criminal records have been made in relation to applicants to the Lambeth Children’s Home Redress Scheme.

“Having a criminal record is in no way relevant under any circumstances to a survivor’s eligibility for compensation under the Redress Scheme.

“Lambeth is co-operating with the national Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. The inquiry is investigating whether there were child protection failures by public authorities, and it will carefully consider the extent to which children’s vulnerabilities put them at greater risk of sexual abuse.

“As part of its preparations for the inquiry, and solely for that purpose, the council did request in 2017 information from the police regarding potential perpetrators of harmful sexual behaviour in order to gain a full picture of the failures at Lambeth’s former children’s homes which were open from the 1930s until the 1980s and 1990s.

“At the time the police responded to the request, but subsequently confirmed that they should not have done so. That preparatory work for the inquiry was not in any way connected to and has not impacted on any applications made to Lambeth Children’s Home Redress Scheme.”

Pictured top: Lambeth Town Hall