JUDGEMENT OF LORD JUSTICE WARD CONCERNING THE FAMILY : PT 17
Click Here For A Warning Concerning This Judgment
THIS IS THE JUDGMENT OF LORD JUSTICE WARD IN THIS CASE WHICH
HE GAVE IN CHAMBERS ON THE 26TH MAY 1995 BUT WHICH IS BEING
HANDED DOWN IN OPEN COURT TODAY. IT CONSISTS OF 295 PAGES
AND HAS BEEN SIGNED AND DATED BY THE JUDGE.
THE JUDGE HEREBY DIRECTS THAT NO TRANSCRIPT OF THE JUDGMENT
NEED BE TAKEN AND THAT THE VERSION HANDED DOWN MAY BE
TREATED AS AUTHENTIC.
THE JUDGMENT IS BEING DISTRIBUTED ON THE STRICT
UNDERSTANDING THAT IN ANY REPORT OF IT NO PERSON (OTHER THAT
COUNSEL AND THEIR INSTRUCTING SOLICITORS AND THOSE PERSONS
IDENTIFIED BY NAME IN THE JUDGMENT ITSELF) MAY BE IDENTIFIED
BY NAME AND THAT IN PARTICULAR THE ANONYMITY OF THE CHILD, A
WARD OF COURT, AND THE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY MUST BE
STRICTLY PRESERVED.
SIGNED:
THE RT. HON. LORD JUSTICE WARD DATED 19TH OCTOBER 1995
W 42 1992 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
PRINCIPAL REGISTRY IN THE MATTER OF ST (A MINOR)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE SUPREME COURT ACT 1991h
Lord Justice Ward
I now turn to SPM.
He has a long history with the family. He was a bishop in
Australia before the RNR. He is the National Area Shepherd
for the United Kingdom. He has filed voluminous evidence in
the case I am in no doubt at all that he has had authority
from World Services to devote himself to the defence of this
action, that he has had free access to World Services and
has taken instructions from them. He has been The Family's
spokesman. In that capacity he has responded to the
grandmother's case and the Official Solicitor's
interrogatories. It is necessary to remind myself of some of
the matters arising therefrom.
In September 1992 the Plaintiff pleaded her case in this
way:-
"Children and adults are expected to be unquestioningly
obedient. Children are particularly harshly disciplined by
means including:-
(a) withholding of food.
(b) corporal punishment which includes beating and
enforced exercises.
(c) enforced silence
(d) humiliation in front of their peers
(e) bullying by adults and by peers incited by adults
(f) children are punished inter alia for expressing an
interest in anything which is outside the very narrow scope
of their educational curriculum."
She had also asserted that:
"It is common for children at the age of puberty to be sent
to teen schools or teen camps or Victor camps the address of
which is rarely known to their parents."
The answer was that:
"There are such schools and camps but none in Great Britain,
and where there are, attendance is voluntary and usually
short term!"
There is no acknowledgement of the schools at Wantage and
Burnt Farm or of the programmes being run at Tewkesbury and
Rugby, the last of which ended about three of four months
before that answer was given.
The answer continued in this way:-
"It is denied that children and adults are expected to be
unquestioningly obedient. Leaders within The Family expect
those under them to carry out their reasonable instructions,
but such instructions are the product of a process of
counselling and discussion between those involved. It is
denied the children are harshly disciplined. Further and in
particular it is denied that the allegations at paragraph
14(a)-(f) represent Family policy or general practice. It is
admitted in relation to paragraph 14(b) that reasonable
corporal punishment may be administered. It is admitted in
relation to paragraph 4(c) that on a few occasions it some
homes silence cards had been used to discipline children. It
is adverred that violence or physical abuse towards children
is incompatible with continued membership of the family."
In his Affidavit sworn in September 1993 to answer the
interrogatories he stated inter alia that: "The Family no
longer operates teen camps, teen schools or Victor camps."
In answer to a question about corporal punishment he
stated:-
"The Family policy is that corporal punishment is
permissible as the last form of discipline to be used with
children and would normally involve a smack with the hand
for younger children and possibly smack with a fly swatter
for older children, but usually with the hand. Very young
children would not be smacked. It is not something that is
particularly encouraged. We feel that if children are
treated appropriately then corporal punishment should not be
necessary. Most children of toddler age would be spoken to
and may be as a last resort be given a slap on the leg or
hand. We would tend to smack the offending member, for
example like their hand if they touch or take something they
have been asked not to do after several warnings. With
children of 10, 11, 12 we would tend not to encourage
corporal punishment, but would consider the removal of
privileges as a more appropriate way of dealing with
discipline problems. Punishments are usually carried out by
parents, but, if in a classroom situation, by whoever is
taking the class, usually one of the parents."
In answer to a further set of interrogatories he responded
by Affidavit sworn in January 1994 that he had no knowledge
of food ever being withheld from a minor:-
"While corporal punishment is an infrequently used
instrument for child training within The Family, where
legal, it is absolutely against Family policy and practice
to use it excessively or inappropriately. It is considered a
last resort in child training, and all other avenues are
tried first before employing corporal punishment. Even when
corporal punishment is deemed necessary by a parent or care
giver, it is never excessive, and it is always tempered with
love and understanding and is given with the goal of being
to teach and instruct, rather than to punish."
Of silence restriction he said:
"To my knowledge this was never a widespread practice and
does not now occur in any family community of which I am
aware. In any case, even those isolated instances where
silence cards were used, were never contrary to the welfare
of a minor."
In his evidence in chief he admitted knowledge of a Victor
Programme at Tewkesbury and of a "New Model programme", not
a Victor Programme, run by Mary Malaysia at Rugby. He had
very little knowledge of these matters because he was
concentrating on preparing this case. He expressed concern
and upset on learning, as he had as the case unfolded, that
some things had gone wrong. He said he was doing research on
it, that he was reporting to World Services and that he
hoped that it would never happen again.
Cross-examined by the grandmother he explained that Heidi
and JL had been in charge of child care and "because it was
war time for us there had been shortcomings in our
shepherding." I have no doubt that is how The Family have
regarded these proceedings, as a war-like battle against The
Family. He labours under a deep and bitter sense of
persecution. The evidence given by CA seemed to take him by
surprise and he did not appear to know of any abusive
physical ill-treatment of MS by Mary. Cross examined by the
Official Solicitor he stated that he first heard of these
matters when researching CA' Affidavit served after the
evidence had started. He knew of Mary's apology but
understood it to be for her partiality. He said also that he
had received a report that whilst at Tewkesbury, Mary had
spanked a boy and bruised him. He said he had heard that
from the child's mother who must have known about it from
the time it had happened. He had not asked JL for any
reports. He had not sought help from JL or anyone else
before answering the interrogatories. He said he had spoken
to the children from Wantage but not to those from
Tewkesbury and to only some from Rugby. He said he had
received a written report from the children after MS had
filed her Affidavit but he said he had received no report
from EM. He had only been aware of Mary's partiality as the
only problem for the teens. He could give me no satisfactory
explanation at all for his failure to have dealt with these
matters in his answers to the interrogatories.
I am driven to conclude that he was not fully frank with me.
I cannot accept that he was so immersed in the preparation
of this case that he was blind and deaf to what was going on
about him. (I have to confess that my sympathies for him
have increased as the burden of my completing this judgment
has weighed like a larger and larger millstone around my
neck!) It defies belief that he could live in the NAS home
where his wife resided when she was in charge of childcare
and, even if separated from her, not be aware of the
teenagers' discontent so rife that World Services had sent
EM to investigate in the Autumn of 1993, before his final
Affidavits were sworn. My confidence in The Family is not
enhanced even if I approach the case on the basis that SPM
was largely left in a state of blissful ignorance. That
would serve only to demonstrate the abject breakdown in the
chain of communication which is supposed to be there to
provide the checks and balances against abuse. Whichever way
I look at it, children in The Family had been left
unprotected.
EM was recalled on day 60. She then admitted more of the
meeting held in Nottingham over the weekend of 20th October
1993. About 70 teens attended. Complaints began to emerge
about Tewkesbury. No complaints were made about Rugby. This
worries me. If the children were truly free to speak openly
and confidently at a special forum called to investigate
their worries and complaints, why was information about
Rugby withheld? The answer must be that the children were
under some inhibition. What did emerge was that four or five
boys aged between 11 and 13 spoke of being beaten with a
"switch" at Tewkesbury. AM and KA made public apologies. EM
did not feel that AM was being frank but she did believe KA
who said he had not himself administered any swatting. He
had, in fact, wielded the stick at Rugby. AM had beaten
Oxford S's son with the horse crop and KA confirmed that he
had told Heidi of that matter. EM said Heidi no longer held
a position of power. She referred to reports which had been
sent to Europe of the events in Tewkesbury and seemed to
suggest that these had been sent towards the end of 1990 to
the beginning of April 1991. I certainly have not seen them.
In her written report EM informed me "both Ricky and I wrote
a report about our Nottingham meeting which was submitted to
the European Shepherds." I have not seen that document
either. When cross- examined, EM was prepared to admit that
there was inappropriate corporal punishment administered to
MS and to 10 year old S4 with the horse crop, but she was
not prepared to concede that MS had been bruised or that S4
had been cut. That evidence was not complete when the Court
rose on Friday afternoon. On Monday EM did not attend and I
had to wait 10 days for her to reappear. She then produced
her report. It was not what I wanted. I did not need her to
prepare a written report for me. I wanted to read what she
had reported to World Services. Her conclusions were myopic.
Her analysis of the mistakes that appeared to have been made
were identified as follows:-
"1. The UK NAS had insufficient information available to
them about Mary's experience in working with teenagers, in
particular that her experience appears to have been limited
to working at the Jumbo in the Philippines.
2. That Mary had little or no experience in running Victor
Programmes as they had been developed in Japan, and relied
upon limited literature available and her outdated
experience in the Philippines.
3. She had personal difficulties in that she showed
partiality to her favourites, was overly strict and not
sufficiently Spirit-led. Her manner of involvement in the
programmes was inadequately thought through. There was a
failure to work properly with the local teamwork and there
were failures in her being adequately shepherded by the NAS
teamwork.
4. The subsequent conflict between her and the local
shepherds was probably inevitable.
5. That conflict was adequately resolved by the local
teamwork referring the issue to the NAS teamwork and her
being instructed to work within the local teamwork. When she
did work more satisfactorily within the local teamwork her
influence was modified.
6. She was withdrawn from further work with JETTS and Teens.
7. When she redirected her ministry to outreach and then
subsequently worked with YAs, the YAs had no difficulty in
voting her off the teamwork in light of their
dissatisfaction at her shepherding.
8. The team working procedure appears to have functioned
well to limit her influence. Although her involvement in the
Victor Programme was unfortunate, the shepherding system
managed to correct the problem. She should not be a
scapegoat however for a more general problem about how to
engage and involve family adolescents with ordinary Family
life and that issue presents a positive challenge to The
Family which is what we are engaged in and which we feel we
are making progress with."
It did not present a difficult task for Counsel to cross
examine EM into acknowledging that many others apart from
Mary practised and/or permitted undue and excessive corporal
punishment, silence restriction and isolation. I have no
doubt that they did.
It is clear from a letter which appears to have been sent to
all DO homes in the British Isles from the European
Shepherds that either they have an imperfect knowledge of
what went on or that they are trying to pretend to
themselves and to the teenagers they are addressing that
things were not as bad as everybody knows they were. It is a
letter of apology but the first page seems to lay all the
blame on Mary Malaysia. they write:
"Mary was working closely with the NASs and we were
receiving reports from them as to how you teens were doing,
however these reports were not very detailed and we weren't
aware of how different disciplinary measures were handled,
nor that the spirit in which Mary and some of the older
teens were shepherding you wasn't right. In the spring of
1992, one of the members of our teamwork (Dawn G. who was
not called to give evidence) "made a quick visitation around
some of the homes in England with SPM."
This suggests that SPM must have had more knowledge than he
declared. The concerns revealed, which were almost
inevitably concerns linked to Mary Malaysia, were "later
shared with the NASs especially Heidi."
"Some of you did speak up about something that had taken
place with your teens that you weren't in agreement with,
and we believe that NASs did take action in these cases - at
least we hope they did, and if not, again we offer our
apologies."
The letter then revealed how knowledge of the
dissatisfaction had grown to the point that at the end of
1993 Mary wrote her apology.
"Ricky and EM arrived in England towards the end of last
year, and one of the things they were initially hit with was
the discontent and bitterness towards the past Victor
Programme which Mary helped to shepherd. ... So the
combination of these two - reports from Ricky and EM and
info from the Court case - has helped us to see that Mary
did use and advocate an excessive use of disciplinary
measures such as silence restriction, the demerit chart
system and excessive corporal punishment in some cases and
for this we're truly sorry. We're sorry for the unnecessary
hurt that was caused physically - although that heals fairly
quickly - but more so for any emotional and spiritual
battles that resulted as those are the scars which take the
longest to heal. Again, we ask your forgiveness of our
teamwork for not being closer in our communication and
involvement ... Actually because of the active "grapevine"
among our teens in The Family, and because we have good
reason to believe that some of the teens who left have at
best exaggerated parts of their testimonies, it has been
difficult to discern what actually happened and what is
hearsay and exaggeration. We know that excesses did occur,
but rather than go into further detail on that side of it,
some of which would probably wind up being quite a bit of
speculation, what we would like to talk about is what has
probably been the greater cause of bitterness and anger
which some of you still feel and that is the spirit behind
Mary's shepherding and training."
Once again blame was being heaped upon Mary. She seemed to
have been punished by banishment from The Family home for 7
days. She was then placed on "Babes Status" for 6 months to:
"Provide an environment for her to hopefully learn more
about truly being a servant to the flock, to help her grasp
the lessons that she needs regarding her weaknesses of self
righteousness, pride and man-pleasing which have sometimes
motivated her actions ..."
The letter then continued - and this is important -:
"The last point we would like to address is how we can
safeguard our Family from these things ever happening again.
One thing which we believe will help are some specific
guidelines for discipline which will be coming out soon from
WS. These make it clear where the boundaries lie in the use
of different disciplinary measures and what is excessive.
This in itself should make it impossible - or highly
difficult - for anyone to take matters into their own hands
or to have their own particular brand or style of
discipline."
The letter concluded:-
"Our prayer is that we can all go on to the dawn of a
brighter day, free from the clouds which have overhung those
of you who were affected by all the above, and clearer in
understanding of how to avoid it in the future. As Dad
prayed, "Sometimes, Lord, we even learn by our defeats, very
needed lesson. We learn also by our mistakes, very needed
lessons, in order to teach others not to make the same
mistakes, not enter into the same frays, to incur the same
defeat, but to stay in the narrow path of Thy Will, very
close, in tune with Thy spirit."
I must wait to see how much The Family are willing to learn
from their mistakes.
S's DAY TO DAY CARE:
I turn to the arrangements made for S. He lives with his
mother. The Ward's home is a property, with 31ò2 acres of
garden, leased to the MMs and MA in June 1993 for a term of
3 years. It has become home for NT and S. The conditions
prevailing there are fully described in the social services
reports which I will now refer.
The Local Authority's Investigations
At the hearing for directions in October 1993, it then
appeared that the grandmother might not be able to continue
to offer care to S. I directed Leicestershire County
Council, as the appropriate Local Authority, to undertake an
investigation of S's circumstances. I specifically requested
that they investigate the following matters including
education, medical care, investigations into child sex abuse
in Leicestershire or elsewhere presently and in the past,
police enquiries and most importantly I asked them to
investigate:-
"How did the children present to the Social Workers? Are
they happy children albeit in an unusual but still tolerable
environment, or are they isolated and emotionally damaged
victims of an oppressive religious fervour?"
I was fully aware when making that order that I was imposing
a great burden upon the Local Authority's Social Services
Department. It was wholly impracticable to furnish them with
copies of the thousands of pages of evidence which had even
then been presented to me. Time was comparatively short.
Despite all those difficulties the Legal and Social Services
departments responded magnificently to my request. I pay
tribute to the care they took and I am most grateful to them
for their report. I have already recited from the associated
enquiries undertaken by the Education Authority who, of
course, share these plaudits of praise. The Social Services
Department reported to me as follows:-
Two experienced Social Workers made four visits to the
Ward's home. The first two were unannounced and the team
were there from 9 am to 4.30 pm and from 4.30 pm to 9.00 pm
respectively. Two other pre-arranged visits one for a day
and the other for two hours were made on other occasions.
They set themselves these tasks:-
(i) the general demeanour of the children including their
behaviour and spontaneity across the whole age range. There
were then twenty children at the home ranging in age from S
then one of three children under a year old to KAS aged 16.
(ii) to focus on any children who appeared withdrawn or
whose behaviour caused them to stand out from the others.
(iii) to look for any signs of sexualized behaviour and
language in the children.
(iv) interactions and relationships between children of
different ages and between adults and children, including
expectations of the children by the adults.
(v) attitudes of the adults to the outside world and how
that was reflected in the children.
(vi) issues of discipline and how difficult behaviour was
handled.
(vii) sleeping arrangements for the children.
They found that the house was well suited for the purpose of
communal living by the five family units who were living
there. Considerable time and effort had been spent
refurbishing the property and bringing the kitchen, bathroom
and heating facilities up to required standard. It was
comfortably furnished throughout, clean and well maintained.
Every detail of daily living, e.g. cleaning, preparation of
meals, laundry and so forth was planned and schedules
allocated the tasks between adults and responsible children.
The Social Workers were told that advice from Berg and Maria
based on The Family's experiences world wide of communal
living and raising children guided their modus vivendi.
The Social Workers observed the daily routines and
activities of the children who were divided into groups
being the toddler group, young children, middle children,
the JETTS and the teenagers. These were the reported
conclusions:-
"1. We considered all the children we had met were happy,
generally relaxed and confident.
2. Each family unit is clearly close and distinct within
the overall community of The Family. The children, including
the babies, all know their own parents and siblings.
3. The children are responsive and spontaneous. No child
appeared withdrawn or difficult and there was no sign
whatsoever of inappropriate sexual behaviour. The adults
displayed positive and caring attitudes towards the children
who obviously trusted them all.
4. Between all the age groups the children interacted
well.
5. We were told both by adults and the children of
contact with people outside the community e.g. an open day
in the summer, assisting elderly people in the village and
helping with someone's garden, and going to the village
bonfire. There are outings to such places as swimming baths,
parks and museums both in age groups and as family units.
While this is sufficient for the younger children it seems
the young people's lives are restricted to their own and
other Family communities."
From their interviews it appeared that none of the adults
believed there had been sexual abuse of children within The
Family. They believed that there was no pressure put on
individuals who had choice on issues of moving home, seeking
medical attention and leaving The Family. Prayers for
guidance would be said but it was generally thought to be
pointless trying to make the disaffected stay against their
will: communal living was not easy and all those involved
had to be committed to make it work. The issue of discipline
was not seen as a major one as the children grew up with
love and positive attention and all responded to that. If
any older children misbehaved sanctions such as withdrawing
privileges were used but time spent listening and
counselling was thought to be well spent. Teenagers were
encouraged to make their own decisions but if they were
angry or unhappy they too would receive counselling.
The children confirmed that they enjoyed living in The
Family and although they could mix with people outside they
tended to find enough within their own home or other Family
homes to occupy their need. If they were experiencing
problems, there was always an adult to whom to talk. There
appeared to be no perception of people outside as evil. The
Social Workers expressed the view that the children appeared
not to be repeating what adults had told them and seemed to
have thought things through for themselves. They accordingly
concluded:-
"1. During our visit we have observed and heard nothing
of concern with regard to any of the children living here.
2. We have seen all twenty children living here, spoken
individually with several across the age range and talked
more informally with most of the others.
3. The teenagers particularly impressed us with their
practical skills e.g. H3 cooking for thirty people and KAS
teaching a group of three younger children. The boys also
learn practical skills e.g. J is able to help with plumbing
and car mechanics.
4. The teenagers do not attain formal educational
qualifications which could be seen as a disadvantage should
they choose to leave The Family. According to MM, however,
this is being considered and recently, e.g. H3 undertook a
short course at a local college.
5. The teenagers and older children genuinely do not see
any need to mix with similar aged children who live locally
and are not connected with The Family. Because of this their
experiences of other ways of living are necessarily
restricted and choices about their futures are therefore not
fully formed.
6. The Family according to MM is now making a conscious
effort to become involved in the local community. On our
last visit plans were well advanced to hold another open day
for the villagers with a Christmas Concert. This may assist
in the children meeting up with village children more.
7. S along with the other younger children are happy and
secure in this environment. Their emotional development
needs are met in close, loving relationships with parents
and siblings and also through security and trust in their
other carers. Child care routines and practices ensure that
all their physical development needs are met. There is
plenty of age appropriate activity for their mental
development and socially they have many opportunities for
inter action with the other adults and children living in
the home. From our observations all these interactions are
positive with genuine regard and care evident.
8. NT plans to remain in The Family with S and SB. Our
observations and discussions with the older children at the
Ward's home who have grown up in The Family suggest they are
confident and happy.
Our only reservations are as outlined above about the
restricted contact and understanding of the outside world
which will limit his ability to make choices in later life
about remaining in the family."
[ Click Me ] Go To Part 16 . . .
[ Click Me ] Go To Part 18 . . .