Yesterday’s Children

May 28

Yesterday’s Children is a series of case studies that share the harrowing stories of children who were groomed and abused and then later failed by the various statutory agencies. All stories are produced in consultation with the actual victims. In many cases, this is the first time that their stories are truly shared.

It is past time their voices are heard.

These are heart wrenching stories shared from the perspective of yesterday’s children who were abused. Their simple truths are free from SEAN FIELDING and Oldham Council’s incompetence or the influence of Andy Burnham’s spin doctors. And just as importantly, they are free from fears of accusations of racism and pay no heed to politician’s anxieties of losing votes or damaging so called ‘community relations’,

I will start with a brave young woman called Sam. This is her story

RAJA MIAH MBE

SAM’S STORY

Sam came forward a few weeks ago. Like others, Sam’s case is not a ‘live’ investigation. Instead it is a fight for justice. A fight that she has been involved in since first being groomed and abused as a 12 year old child.

I will draw out some key headlines from Sam’s story before I copy and paste the entirety of a letter that she has sent to SEAN FIELDING. If you do nothing else, please just read the contents of her letter and ask yourself how you would feel if this was your daughter?

Sam sets out by sharing her position that she believes that Oldham Council is threatening the press from reporting on what is taking place. She states

I have spoken with press organisations responsible for those publications and understand from them and maintain the honestly held belief as a result that the Council had serviced a number of legal threats to prevent free speech in relation to the same, on the basis that if those press organisations continued to report on the matters to which your comments relate the Council would sue them for defamation which would effectively leave them bankrupt.

Before going in to her story, Sam questions Dr Peel’s initial appointment due to his links with the Labour Party and concerns that he is a ‘fixer’. Specific to her ordeal is the following

Sam was groomed online and then raped by Paul Gareth Waites in 2005. He was eventually convicted in 2015, 10 years later!
Sam was abducted from a police station on 27th October 2006 and raped by 2 men who the Police had handed her over to.
She was then subjected subject to a further attack by Sarwar Ali on Chester Street and then raped by a further 5 men at Attock Close led by Shakil Chowdhury
Shakil Chowdhury was convicted in September 2007 of the same for 6 years of which he served 3, by HHJ Roger Thomas at Minshull Street Crown Court.
Sarwar Ali remains wanted following judge in chambers bail, having last been sighted by a member of the public in Mossley (supported by CCTV evidence). Effectively, he was bailed and disappeared
Three further men living under new identities were arrested as part of Operation Solent in 2014 at their residences in Ashton-under-Lyne.
Operation Solent was a secret operation following the disclosures of another victim of the same grooming gang as to the whereabouts of one of the offenders.
This offender, when arrested, identified three further offenders, two of which were arrested and interviewed. One remains at large and is thought to be living in the Greater London area.
The men whom had been arrested were released without charge in October 2014 because vital DNA evidence had been destroyed by Greater Manchester Police and a VIPER of the same offenders was inconclusive.
In 2018, another victim contacted Sam and alleged further offences which she referred to Detective Inspector Lindsay Booth of Operation Messenger. She understands that investigation remains on-going but do not know the outcome.

Whilst Sam was not groomed by Shakil Chowdhury and his gang, what is very clear from the evidence that later appears is that Chowdhury and his gang were members of a grooming gang that operated out of Attock Close. A grooming gang that the authorities knew about but refused to investigate. Here are some damning extracts from Sam’s letter to SEAN FIELDING regarding the actions of the key statutory agencies.

The Behaviour of the Police

In 2012, Sam visited Attock Close to speak with residents about what they had seen in 2006 of Shakil Chowdhury. These residents alleged that they had repeatedly told the Council about a large scale grooming operation in which taxis would amass on the street every Wednesday night and children (both young boys and girls) would be taken into 12 Attock Close in a conveyor belt fashion.
One particular resident gave a detailed account of a young girl running away from 12 Attock Close and seeking refuge in their home. They described that she was a girl missing from a care home in Lancashire and that she was in fear.
When Sam presented this to Greater Manchester Police Professional Standards Branch Investigation Unit, Sgt. Lambert said in a meeting (which he agreed to be recorded on 5 November 2012) that this was “tittle-tattle over the fence” and refused to investigate these allegations with any degree of seriousness - this has never been fully explored even to this day.
Sgt. Lambert at first said in the same meeting on 5 November 2012 that there was no evidence there had been a girl at Attock Close. Later, as a result of pure luck, Sam received intelligence from a media source reference to a specific girl missing from home. This was later provided to Lancashire Police whom provided intelligence files from 12 July 2006 owned by Greater Manchester Police which confirm that a specific girl missing from home had been sighted at Attock Close.
Sgt. Lambert denied the existence of the girl, stating that he had conducted a reasonable and proportionate search but could not find any reference to the girl. Later, Detective Inspector Escott stated in a letter dated 12 August 2013 in response to the complaint of reference A-06-Y99/13 (of which the recorded interaction was a part) that Sgt. Lambert was “embarrassed” to have not identified the intelligence files which I was able to acquire and provide to Parliament, files which actually formed part of the daybook of one of their own officers and was clearly denoted on the Police National Computer against the address in question - these were records made by Detective Chief Superintendant Pemberton at Oldham Police Station.
One resident of Attock Close described how she had been intimidated by the Greater Manchester Police in very specific terms, she alleged: “I’ve been visited by the Police and they’ve said you’re not who you say you are and that it’s in my interests not to get involved in this case”. These were allegations on very specific terms. Greater Manchester Police accepted in their letter of 12 August 2013 which was a statutory letter under Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002, that detectives from Oldham Police Station had visited this woman but denied her allegations.

I challenge anyone to read this sequence of events and come to any other conclusion other than bafflement at the Police’s actions. It is clearly apparent to anyone with any sense that the Authorities were made aware of a Grooming Gang operating in Oldham in 2006 from Attock Close. Anything to say SEAN FIELDING?

The Behaviour of Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust

Sam also complained to the Pennine Care Foundation Trust. The result of her complaint was the questioning of her sanity.

They threatened during a telephone discussion with Dr Anoop Mohan in 2013, that if Sam did not submit to the mental capacity assessment then not only would they not deal with the complaint she submitted against them, they would ask the DVLA to withdraw her driving license
They also threatened to consider taking out a court order requiring Sam to undergo the assessment or be detained under the Mental Health Act

They fail to provide a reason for the medical basis for which Sam’s mental capacity needed to be verified. From the records it appears obvious that this was an abuse of their power to assess capacity. They were doing everything they could to avoid investigating Sam’s complaint.

The Behaviour of the Crown Prosecution Service

In the 2007 trial of Shakil Chowdhury, he pleaded guilty to offences against Sam. The Crown instructed Mr Benjamin Fireman who is a barrister presently employed by Kemps Solicitors LLP in Oldham. Mr Fireman made unusual concessions with Shakil Chowdhury’s barrister Mr Gray including that.

Shakil Chowdhury’s basis of plea would be that Sam was not forced to take part in sexual activity but was a willing participant
This is despite forensic reports in the case, particularly a body map recorded at St Mary’s Hospital on 28 October 2006, show that Sam had severe injuries indicating she had been severely beaten and her body had tears that were only possible as a result of forced penetration

In her quest for justice it was not until 2013 that Lord Justice Latham states the following

Before we leave the case we should say something about the publicity which surrounded the sentence that the judge imposed. There were lurid press reports which were based upon the proposition that six years was clearly totally inadequate for “the brutal rape” of a 12-year-old child.

The Behaviour of the Council

Sam and her family refused to remain silent. They escalated their concerns all the way to the Home Affairs Select Committee. Kieth Vaz was its Chair at the time.

Keith Vaz MP in a letter dated 23 November 2012 to Jim McMahon as the leader of the council and copied to the chief executive of the Council at the time, required an explanation for why social services stated in response to Sam disclosing the offences by Paul Waites that she was “trying to impress or shock [them]”.
The Council issued a letter to Keith Vaz MP on 17 December 2012 refusing to answer his enquiries on the basis that the matters he raised were not relevant to the Council “due to the passage of time” and because when Sam made a complaint the Council, it formed the view the complaint was “litigious” thus falling outside of the complaints process.
Cllr. Hugh McDonald, who would have had responsibility for oversight of cases such as these in 2012, was unaware of the exchange between JIM McMAHON and the Home Affairs Select Committee. It appears that JIM McMAHON kept this request hidden from even the Councillor whose responsibility was to lead in safeguarding children. Remarkable!
Paul Waites went on to rape a large number of teenage girls up until his conviction in 2009 when he received a 9 year prison sentence to which a further 11 years were later added in respect of the offences against Sam.

Paul Waites has since been charged with further historic offending and is due to appear at Leeds Crown Court in December this year in relation to a much larger scale of offending. He has abused at least 7 girls nationally based on what is known so far about his offending.

Is Sam alone in believing this is offending that Oldham Council and its partners could have prevented had they believed her and acted appropriately at the time?

Below is Sam’s letter to SEAN FIELDING. It provides far more detail and a greater depth than my summary. Please read it and tell me if there is any doubt left other than JIM McMAHON, now Oldham MP, and his associates have failed our children.

Bare faced lies was it SEAN FIELDING? Unsubstantiated allegations ANDY BURNHAM? Still going to refuse to comment JIM McMAHON?

Date: 22 November 2019

Re: Grooming Cover-up

Dear Cllr. Fielding,

I am writing to you because I am aware of your recent press comments (“the comments”) (these are annexed) on 26 September 2019 in reply to a number of press articles related to social media postings (“the postings”) alleging a cover-up of grooming in the Oldham Metropolitan Borough (“the substantive material”), published online, which have now been removed. You assert that a number of grooming cases have been assembled together in the postings which has been presented in a way suggesting a connection between them that you go on to assert is false. I did search for the substantive material to which your press comments on Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council’s (“the Council”) website were a response, however these had been deleted shortly after their publication - I became aware of them after viewing stale cached copies of the articles in question in the short time they were available. I have spoken with press organisations responsible for those publications and understand from them and maintain the honestly held belief as a result that the Council had serviced a number of legal threats to prevent free speech in relation to the same, on the basis that if those press organisations continued to report on the matters to which your comments relate the Council would sue them for defamation which would effectively leave them bankrupt. Those organisations therefore feel unable to report on the matter and thus is, in my honestly held opinion, an uneasy silence surrounding these comments of yours and what I perceive to be an intended lack of transparency surrounding the appointment of Dr Mark Peel to conduct a review on behalf of the Oldham LSCB relating to events in 2012/13.

Dr Peel’s appointment in the circumstances is highly questionable. Firstly, the Council refuses to state the allegations to which Dr Mark Peel’s appointment is related. Secondly, Dr Peel is a known associate of the Labour party having been accused, so far as I understand, of being a Labour Party “fixer” in press material related to the Rotherham review he conducted - this review also suffered greatly from a lack of transparency where proceedings were regularly conducted in secret absenting any justification in my honestly held opinion. Thirdly, the proceedings in Oldham acting as the machinery of his review are also absenting of transparency. Fourth he was appointed at the request and with the consent only of the Labour party in Oldham forming the majority of the Council - no other party leaders or potentially interested parties were consulted. Finally, the review focuses on a specific time period (2012/13) absenting any real explanation as to why, particularly given Operation Messenger was setup following serious incidents involving grooming gangs a decade earlier than that period.

The postings, which I only recently seen, I understand based on the content of the substantive material in part refer to the employment of Shabir Ahmed, the leader of the Rochdale grooming ring of notoriety, by the Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council as a Welfare Rights Officer and his membership of the Labour party in Oldham, some of this is substantiated by published press material from his trial - I state this merely to indicate my reliance upon that fact to form an opinion of my own. I have the reasonable and honestly held belief based upon speaking with various parties and reading published material that this allegation is true.

The reason I write is because the postings and the comments in reply to them make reference to the case where I was the victim of a number of serious sexual crimes. Firstly, in 2005, I was groomed online via a website called TeenChat and subsequently raped by Paul Gareth Waites in 2006 (“the 2005 offences”) for which he was convicted following a guilty plea on his day of trial at Minshull Street Crown Court, in March 2015, to a term of imprisonment of 11 years which he is presently serving. One month after the conclusion of those offences, I was abducted from Oldham Police Station on 27 October 2006 and raped by two men in a vehicle I was asked by Police to travel home in before then being subject to a further attack by Sarwar Ali on Chester Street and then raped by a further 5 men at Attock Close led by Shakil Chowdhury (“the 2006 offences”) who was convicted in September 2007 of the same for 6 years of which he served 3, by HHJ Roger Thomas at Minshull Street Crown Court. Sarwar Ali remains wanted following judge in chambers bail, having last been sighted by a member of the public in Mossley (supported by CCTV evidence). Three further men living under new identities were arrested as part of Operation Solent in 2014 at their residences in Ashton-under-Lyne, a secret operation following the attestations of another victim of the same grooming gang as to the whereabouts of one of the offenders. This offender, when arrested, identified three further offenders, two of which were arrested and interviewed. One remains at large and is thought to be living in the Greater London area. The men whom had been arrested were released without charge in October 2014 because vital DNA evidence had been destroyed by Greater Manchester Police and a VIPER of the same offenders was inconclusive. In 2018, another victim contacted me and alleged further offences which I referred to Detective Inspector Lindsay Booth of Operation Messenger, I understand that investigation remains on-going but do not know the outcome.

In 2012, I wrote to David Cameron calling upon him to start a public inquiry of child sexual exploitation which had been taking place nationally. Following a question from Debbie Abrahams MP at PMQs, she asked David Cameron to confirm whether he agreed to this, following which he gave an affirmative response and this enquiry was commenced by Rt. Hon. Keith Vaz MP as Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. I gave evidence to this inquiry both in writing on 31 August 2012 and in person at the House of Commons on 21 November 2012. Following this Keith Vaz sent letters in November 2012 questioning the motives and actions of all of the organisations in the Oldham Multi-agency Partnership, consisting of the Local Authority Children’s Services, the Greater Manchester Police, CPS and local NHS trusts, particularly Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust who had responsibility for my care at the time of these offences. Keith Vaz MP drew particular attention to the fact that only one man had been convicted of these crimes, he drew attention to the fact that there was clear evidence that I had told social workers I was being sexually abused by Paul Waites and finally there was evidence that authorities had acted improperly.

Following my contact with David Cameron, I commenced a campaign “You Have Not Defeated Me” (“the campaign”) with two limbs. The first limb was to identify and address why Shakil Chowdhury received a 6 year conviction for what I identified in my video interviews at 12 years old as over 80 separate attacks that night. The second limb was to fight for a reinvestigation of the offences leading to the apprehension of the offenders. In 2014, my husband succeeded in changing the law and we were invited by the Sentencing Council to draft the new guidelines for sentencing sexual offences. The version we drafted for s.5 offences (rape of a child under the age of 13), were fully incorporated into the new guidelines - we succeeded in that limb of the campaign. My husband also drafted amendments to the Serious Crime Bill 2014-15 [HL] on behalf of Ann Coffey MP to remove the term “child prostitution” from statute and extend s.9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; the first amendment was passed in law, the second did not make it past the Committee stage. We also identified that the light sentence passed on Shakil Chowdhury was a result of a concession by the Crown Prosecution Service as to the nature of the offence. The Crown agreed a bargain with Shakil Chowdhury that they would accept I was not forced to take part in any sexual act provided he pleaded guilty, this meant that he was able to rely on a sentencing mitigation at the time known as “ostensible consent” which we drafted out of the guideline - this allows a Defendant to argue a mitigation that sexual activity was not forced and was therefore less serious than the title of the offence conveys (rape of a child under the age of 13) thus deserving of a lighter sentence.

In the second limb of the campaign, following the orders of Keith Vaz MP and Theresa May MP when she was Home Secretary, the case was reopened for investigation initially by DCI Chris Bridge in 2013 which provided an optimistic view of the condition of the investigation before the case was reopened for a second time following another young woman coming forward about offences committed by the same men (Operation Solent) and was investigated by DCI Andrew Naismith of the GMP Major Incidents Team. At that time, multiple meetings were held about me as an adult by the partner agencies, particularly in response to the complaints sent to them in the second limb of the campaign, at Oldham MASH. I was not notified that I was being discussed in this way other than by coincidence, therefore these meetings were covert and were occurring without my consent - this information was presented by Ben Woffenden of Pennine Care NHS FT at a meeting on 7 May 2013 between my husband and the Trust.

The reason why I write to you, more particularly, is because the mention of any cover-up is extremely difficult for me to hear - it prevents me from moving on from these crimes against me. I understand, based on a sequence of events which I detail further below, that there may have been a cover-up of my case. One could take either of the following views in a binary fashion: either it could be concluded on the basis of the below that there were a series of unfortunate and regrettable events each unconnected from the next, or it could be argued that there was an active, driving force to those unfortunate events whether that was a force with some degree of intent or not. It is only possible to take one view or the other and I draw no firm conclusion as to which, and so I invite the public to draw their own conclusions and hold the Council democratically accountable for its involvement in this case in this open letter. The motivation of this letter is to prevent any disinformation using my case or the crimes committed against me whilst at the same time ensuring the Council is properly challenged about a potential cover-up, not allowing any potentially misleading or incorrect information as you allege to detract from the truth.

I refer to each public authority in the “partnership” to which Dr Peel’s review is related, separately below. These organisations I refer to within the partnership are Oldham Council (Children’s Services), Greater Manchester Police, Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust and the Crown Prosecution Service.

For the avoidance of doubt, where any fact is referred to in this letter the basis of that fact is stated clearly with reference to a person, document, time and/or place substantiating that fact. Where any opinion is given or belief expressed, the basis of that opinion or belief is clearly stated and opinions or beliefs expressed are honestly held. Furthermore, any statement of fact or opinion in this letter is a matter of substantial public interest and each statement is made in view of protecting the public from harm resulting from corruption, crime, disorder and immoral, unethical or vexatious behaviour. Many facts in this case have been referred to in Parliamentary proceedings or legal proceedings and so in most instances attract absolute privilege.

Greater Manchester Police

We visited Attock Close to speak with the residents there about what they had seen in 2006 of Shakil Chowdhury, as part of the 2012 campaign. They alleged that they had repeatedly told the Council about a large scale grooming operation in which taxis would amass on the street every Wednesday night and children (both young boys and girls) would be taken into 12 Attock Close in a conveyor belt fashion. When this was presented to Greater Manchester Police Professional Standards Branch Investigation Unit, Sgt. Lambert said in a meeting which he agreed to be recorded on 5 November 2012 that this was “tittle-tattle over the fence” and refused to investigate these allegations with any degree of seriousness - this has never been fully explored even to this day. These matters were raised in written evidence to the Home Affairs Committee.

One particular resident gave a detailed account of a young girl running away from 12 Attock Close and seeking refuge in their home. They described that she was a girl missing from a care home in Lancashire and that she was in fear. Sgt. Lambert at first said in the same meeting on 5 November 2012 that there was no evidence there had been a girl at Attock Close. Later, I had as a result of pure luck received intelligence from a media source as a kind gesture which made reference to a specific girl missing from home. This was later provided to Lancashire Police whom provided intelligence files from 12 July 2006 owned by Greater Manchester Police which confirm that a specific girl missing from home had been sighted at Attock Close. These intelligence files were disclosed to Parliament and were conferred Parliamentary privilege in a sitting of the Home Affairs Committee in September 2012 along with the rest of my evidence. Sgt. Lambert denied the existence of the girl, stating that he had conducted a reasonable and proportionate search but could not find any reference to the girl. Later, Detective Inspector Escott stated in a letter dated 12 August 2013 in response to the complaint of reference A-06-Y99/13 (of which the recorded interaction was a part) that Sgt. Lambert was “embarassed” to have not identified the intelligence files which I was able to acquire and provide to Parliament, files which actually formed part of the daybook of one of their own officers and was clearly denoted on the Police National Computer against the address in question - these were records made by Detective Chief Superintendant Pemberton at Oldham Police Station.

When I returned in December 2012 to Attock Close with the journalist Andrew Norfolk from The Times as part of a wider journalistic investigation by him, one resident of Attock Close described how she had been intimidated by the Greater Manchester Police in very specific terms, she alleged: “I’ve been visited by the Police and they’ve said you’re not who you say you are and that it’s in my interests not to get involved in this case”. These were allegations on very specific terms. Greater Manchester Police accepted in their letter of 12 August 2013 which was a statutory letter under Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002, that detectives from Oldham Police Station had visited this woman but denied her allegations. The officers who visited this woman were PC Luker and PC Prescott on behalf of DI Meeks and DI Swift from Oldham Police Station. There was also a further visit from a PC Lomax.

In a decision letter dated 9 January 2015 in an IPCC appeal of reference 2013/013002, Mr Shardesh Ramchurn found in specific terms that the Greater Manchester Police had intentionally disregarded evidence and important material points in the handling of its internal investigation of A-06-Y99/13. The matter was referred for a re-investigation by the Greater Manchester Police at that time. The IPCC had also found in a separate appeal of reference 2012/000708 in a decision by Mr Michael Barratt that GMP had intentionally and unreasonably refused to investigate the complaint that they had ignored evidence that Paul Waites was sexually abusing me despite this being referred to in quite some detail in my video interview to the Greater Manchester Police on 2 November 2006, GMP accepts the position that all parties knew about his offending.

The first re-investigation was commenced in 2013 by DCI Bridge at the request of DCS Mary Doyle as a result of her letter to Keith Vaz MP dated 4 December 2012 in which she agreed to commission the review. DCI Bridge found that the investigation was “flawless” which was referred to in a letter from DCS Mary Doyle to Keith Vaz dated 4 February 2013 and that there was no manner in which the investigation could have been improved. He disclosed in a meeting at my home in May 2013 that connections were not apparent with the material we identified and the investigation of the 2006 offences at the time due to a misspelling of a name on the PNC. However, in summer 2014, a female victim of the same grooming gang came forward with allegations and information about the whereabouts of the offenders in Ashton-under-Lyne, Tameside, living under new identities. Subsequently, DCI Naismith commenced Operation Solent as a matter of urgency. Three men were arrested, including the male identified by this female. That male identified another three males, two of whom were arrested and interviewed. The DNA of this female was present in blood on the DNA evidence used to convict Shakil Chowdhury and showed that she was there shortly before myself when the offences took place. There was also DNA evidence to show that these males were present in the room where I was raped as referred to in a forensic report from 2014 by Ms Emma Burton, however the DNA from various sources in the original investigation needed to secure a conviction were missing. The relevant property items which were destroyed at GMP’s instruction were property items QQ/717047/06, QQ/716771/06 and QQ/714011/06. Other property items were destroyed due to their mismanagement and these were PDK11 and PDK13.

The Greater Manchester Police asked the CPS to make a charging decision in respect of these three men, which is confirmed in a letter dated 12 December 2014 from Peter Lewis, Chief Executive of the Crown Prosecution Service to Debbie Abrahams MP. The same letter confirms that Peter Lewis had personally spoken to DCI Naismith and confirmed that the requests for a charging decision in respect of these three men were withdrawn because DNA evidence was missing. In a subsequent investigation and report dated 2 July 2018 by DCI Pervais, it is confirmed that the Senior Investigation Officer in the case, Phil Key, had ordered for the evidence to be destroyed but the report denied any misconduct simply stating this was an oversight but refused to reach a conclusion on there being any ground for this aspect of the complaint being upheld. It did however, make the following findings: (i) it refused to reach a conclusion about whether I was mistreated at Oldham Police Station (ii) it found periodic investigative reviews had not been conducted appropriately (iii) it refused to reach a conclusion in relation to DNA evidence being destroyed (iv) the first response when I was missing from home was inadequate and took far too long (v) it refused to reach a conclusion on whether the IPCC should have led the investigation into the conduct of Greater Manchester Police.

In its decision dated 28 February 2019 in the appeal referenced 2018/107036, the IOPC made the following findings: (i) I was mistreated at Oldham Police Station by Greater Manchester Police based on the testimony of DCS Doyle to Keith Vaz MP in official correspondence to the Home Affairs Committee (ii) the SIO Phil Key had failed to act diligently and had taken deliberate actions in the case which had the effect of jeapordising Operation Solent (iii) the SIO deliberately destroyed evidence merely giving the order “destroy” without any explanation for the same (iv) DC Key as he was at the time had “misplaced” his notebooks such that no investigation could find them for review, it found this was a failure of diligence (v) Greater Manchester Police had taken inappropriate action in light of the information received about DC Key, however it recommended management advice due to the passage of time rather than formal misconduct charges. The IOPC would not be drawn into discussion on the motivation for the DNA evidence or notebooks being destroyed in this way, save except finding that the SIO was not diligent. It recommended against formal misconduct proceedings due to the passage of time. It did not find the fact that DC Key was not, at the time, a properly trained or accredited detective constable to be significant.

During the 2014 re-investigation, when Paul Waites was initially due to be tried in September 2014, four men were brought to trial as a result of me re-creating Paul Waites offences on TeenChat and recording this for the Police to observe so that they understood how Paul Waites went about grooming me. No material was shared with the public and the intention was not to “catch paedophiles” but rather to rebut the comments of DS Victoria Kenyon that there was insufficient evidence to explain how I had come to meet Paul Waites. Greater Manchester Police issued a press release on 16 July 2014, knowing about the upcoming trial and the potentially adverse effect this might have, referring to myself and my husband as “self-styled paedophile hunter[s]”, not merely that we were paedophile hunters but that we referred to ourselves as such. We believe that this was a retaliation to the complaint against GMP and subsequently a complaint made to ICO about the Crown Prosecution Service losing my video interviews as a result of using an improper contractor, Swan Films, to edit my video interviews for the trial whom was subsequently burgled in a student flat at Fallowfield, Manchester. The ICO complaint reference is RFA0558877 in which ICO issued a fixed penalty to the CPS of £200,000, which is confirmed in their letter to my husband dated 4 November 2015. We understand that the CPS had this decision removed from ICO’s website. The Greater Manchester Police deny that they and the CPS had together agreed a hostile media strategy towards me and my husband, refusing to comment on the reasons for the wording in their letter dated 7 January 2016 relating to the complaints of reference A-06-Y0387/15 and A-06-Y1285-14. The IPCC found in an appeal decision letter dated 24 March 2016 in the appeal of reference 2016/061985 that Greater Manchester Police had been purposefully evasive in their complaint response and that significantly further investigation was required.

The press comments resulting from Greater Manchester Police’s press circular were admitted to the Defence bundle in Paul Waites trial preparation, I base this on information advised by the SIO DC Andrew Day at the time the proceedings remained on-going. As a result, my husband who was the primary target of Greater Manchester Police’s press campaign had to withdraw as a witness. Further, I was advised by the Greater Manchester Police and Crown Prosecution Service that this would have a severe impact on the trial and that whilst they would see it through, there was less than a 50% chance of success as a result. It is only because I submitted a further ADVOKATE statement on the day of Paul Waites trial, identifying him in a way that was only possible if the offences were committed, that he pleaded guilty. It was very likely otherwise that the case would have collapsed and it is unusual in my honestly held belief, that the CPS and Greater Manchester Police would adopt a hostile media strategy to any witnesses in the case that would result in the criminal justice process being injured by their actions.

Crown Prosecution Service

In the 2007 trial of Shakil Chowdhury, he pleaded guilty to offences against me. The Crown instructed Mr Benjamin Fireman who is a barrister presently employed by Kemps Solicitors LLP in Oldham. He made unusual concessions with Shakil Chowdhury’s barrister Mr Gray. Together, they agreed that Shakil Chowdhury’s basis of plea would be that I was not forced to take part in sexual activity but was a willing participant. The forensic reports in the case, particularly a body map recorded at St Mary’s Hospital on 28 October 2006, show that I had severe injuries indicating I had been severely beaten and my body had tears that were only possible as a result of forced penetration. The forensic examiner said that some of these injuries were inconclusive in relation to Shakil Chowdhury but did not find at any stage that the injuries were not intentional and as a result of the offences. She gives possible alternative explanations, but does not attach any significance to possible alternatives based on the scientific presentation of the case. This information was not adequately presented by the CPS.

In a letter dated 17 September 2013 to my husband, Ms Cheryl Hramiak who is branch crown prosecutor for CPS North West, denied that the CPS had not made the case during sentencing of forcible sexual activity. However, the judgment of Lord Justice Latham in Attorney General’s Reference 99 of 2007, a case put forward by Baroness Patricia Scotland QC at the request of my mother, states in clear terms on public record that the Crown had accepted the contention from the Defence that there was no forcible sexual activity. This was a very unusual concession to have been made in the case, this is confirmed in absolutely privileged material in which Latham, LJ indicates: “There is, it is right to say, no evidence that the prosecution sought to rely on that she objected in any way to any of that activity.”, at para. [6]. I also note with some significance, the scathing remarks of LJ Latham at para. [13]: “Before we leave the case we should say something about the publicity which surrounded the sentence that the judge imposed. There were lurid press reports which were based upon the proposition that six years was clearly totally inadequate for “the brutal rape” of a 12-year-old child. From what we have said it will be apparent that that is not an accurate description of what happened that night, whatever other epithets one may seek to use of the disgusting opportunistic behaviour of this offender and those with him. It is clear that the basis of those press reports was a press release or releases from the Greater Manchester Police website in which the description we have quoted was the description given of the offences. It is unfortunate that it was thought appropriate to base reports of what had happened on that website account rather than on the account which was given in court and which was the basis of the judge's sentence. The judge can feel, in our view, properly aggrieved that the press comment to which he was subjected was not based upon what actually occurred in front of him.”. This unequivocally establishes that the CPS did not present important evidence of injury or brutality.

The judgement of HHJ Roger Thomas who is now Recorder of Bradford, in a sentencing hearing on 31 August 2007, stated that the case of R -v- Chowdhury was one grooming gang of a series in Oldham and the wider north west which was known about at the time. HHJ Roger Thomas does not remark upon “ostensible consent” as LJ Latham did in the later appeal, but he does note that he passes the sentence with the view that I needed protecting from myself (I had agreed to the activity). In paragraph G of the official transcript of the sentencing hearing in Crown Case T067902, I point out that he makes reference to unfavourable social services files indicating that I was “sexually active” at that time and I will return to this paragraph later. It was unusual that the Crown Prosecution Service presented this case with very little merit in its advocacy, allowing for what should have been genuine concerns for my safety to be weaponised against me.

Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust

As a result of the second limb of the 2012 campaign, I submitted a complaint to Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust because they had received a fax from Brook and Oldham Council Children’s Services on 24 June 2006 enclosing medical notes which showed that I had a boyfriend “Paul”. My medical notes with Pennine Care NHS FT indicated that Zoe Rawling who was a CAHMS social worker, working for the Trust in liaison with Oldham MBC, was categorically aware of Paul Waites offending because she conducted internet safety sessions and sessions around boundaries with adults in lieu of the information received.

When I submitted a complaint to Pennine Care NHS FT, their response was to require a mental capacity assessment. They had threatened at one point on the telephone, during a telephone discussion with Dr Anoop Mohan in 2013, that if I did not submit to the mental capacity assessment then not only would they not deal with the complaint I submitted against them, they would ask the DVLA to withdraw my driving license and would consider a court order requiring me to undergo the assessment or be detained under the Mental Health Act. The mental capacity assessment is recorded in medical notes in a letter by Dr Mohan dated 26 March 2013 - this was a direct consequence of my complaint and is bizarrely recorded in the medical notes dated the same date, to be as such. The same notes fail to reason the medical basis for which capacity needed to be verified, it is obvious from the records that this was an abuse of their power to assess capacity. This is a highly unusual step for an NHS Trust which was already very much in the limelight for its involvement in the Rochdale grooming case. I place significance between this and the decision to assess mental capacity.

Oldham Local Authority

Keith Vaz MP in a letter dated 23 November 2012 to Jim McMahon as the leader of the council and copied to the chief executive of the Council at the time, required an explanation for why social services files dated 29 June 2006 (Session 4 - CAT Team Visit), stated in response to my disclosing the offences by Paul Waites that I was “trying to impress or shock [them]”. He questioned why despite that I had made a complaint to the Council about this, it had refused to investigate the matters raised “due to the passage of time” as later stated in a letter from Janet Francis at Oldham Council dated 4 January 2013, although at the time this was raised with Keith Vaz MP this had been verbally advised during a meeting on 4 October 2012 with Ms Janet Francis and the then Head of Service Ms Kim Scragg.

Following his enquiry the Council had issued a letter to Keith Vaz MP on 17 December 2012 refusing to answer his enquiries on the basis that the matters he raised were not relevant to the Council “due to the passage of time” and because when I made a complaint the Council, it formed the view the complaint was “litigious” thus falling outside of the complaints process. I also understand it did not share this information with the Council’s safeguarding portfolio holder Cllr. Hugh McDonald who would have had responsibility for oversight of cases such as these both at the time of the offences and in 2012. For this to have been the case, Keith Vaz’s interactions with the Council and concerns about my case could not have been disclosed to the rest of the safeguarding scrutiny apparatus of the Council.

The Council was clearly aggressive towards Keith Vaz’s letter and my complaint. Both Jim McMahon as leader of the council and the chief executive at the time were aware of the case. Not only did they not disclose it to the opposition parties in Oldham Council, they also refused to investigate the matter seriously or take any substantive action in response to the serious concerns presented to them.

It is clear based on the comments of HHJ Roger Thomas in his sentencing remarks related to Shakil Chowdhury that the social services files written by Oldham Council’s employees were destructive and weaponised, it was recognised by the judge that I was “sexually active” with Paul Waites but no further action was taken by the Council or any other partner, despite that this was read out publicly by the judge and all authorities were aware of his remarks.

Paul Waites went on to rape a large number of teenage girls up until his conviction in 2009 of the same, leading to a 9 year prison sentence to which a further 11 years were later added in respect of the offences against me. Paul Waites has since been charged with further historic offending and is due to appear at Leeds Crown Court in December this year in relation to a much larger scale of offending. He has abused at least 7 girls nationally based on what is known so far about his offending, this is offending that the Council and its partners could have prevented had they acted appropriately at the time.

Proceedings were issued in 2016 by Richard Scorer after he was consulted at Pannone LLP. The legal action was later dropped because he instructed a hostile expert whom he refused to challenge about serious factual inaccuracies in an expert witness statement attracting a statement of truth and so it was not feasible to continue, which is discussed in multiple correspondence between he and my husband dated variously throughout July 2016. Richard Scorer did not at any point disclose that he was standing as an MP after the death of Jim Dobbin MP in Heywood for the Labour Party whom form the leadership of Oldham Council and did in 2012. This was a clear conflict of interest which was never declared by him - a labour politician standing as an MP for Heywood leading a legal action against a labour council. It is unusual in the circumstances that a hostile expert was instructed and remained unchallenged by Richard Scorer, given his political affiliation to the Council he was inappropriately leading a legal action against. I form the honestly held opinion that Richard Scorer and the Council by joint political affiliation, may have agreed to jeopardise this case - this is purely my opinion based upon a publicly declared interest and relationship between he and Oldham Council’s leading political party and the fact that Richard Scorer refused to challenge the expert about a rogue statement, instead he eventually refused to represent me because I would not accept said expert witness statement.

Richard Scorer had himself told me in a private conversation that the Rochdale grooming case was unique in that it was nationally notorious and this is why it was easier for him to succeed in that case. Any labour politician would otherwise be insane to sue a council led by their own party in any other circumstances, so in my view this outcome was a convenient one at best. My opinion in this respect is reasonable and honestly held. Moreover it is substantially true that there was a conflict of interest because the circumstances described would amount to a conflict between solicitor and client as particularised fully in Chapter 3 of the SRA Handbook, forming part of the SRA Regulations which solicitors are required by law to follow.

On the basis of what has been discussed, it is clear that the partner organisations which make up the Oldham Multiagency Safeguarding Hub and wider safeguarding partnership in relation to which Dr Mark Peel is conducting a review, have acted inappropriately and have taken a hostile political strategy towards me both now and in the past. It is possible to conclude that these events are unconnected and are a series of unfortunate and regrettable events. Taken together however, it appears to evidence a cover-up involving all of the partner agencies. The above facts evidence multiple hostile motives. I am unable to say that these motives were shared between the agencies forming the partnership, but in my view this is not ultimately relevant because each partner agency had a clearly defined motive which even if not shared, when taken together amount to co-operation between the partner agencies even if they were not ultimately aware of it.

Can you and the chief executive please explain whether you accept the position that there may have been a cover-up in light of what has been evidenced clearly above, and/or in the alternative are you prepared to apologise for the failings of the partnership, particularly the Council’s failings, identified above not just to me but to all of the victims that have been affected by these failings.

I have published this as an open letter for transparency so that Oldham Council can answer this question publicly and transparently to the electorate that will hold them accountable if it refuses. For the avoidance of doubt, no defamatory statements are intended by any matter presented in this letter; this letter is entirely motivated by and is indeed in the public interest.

Sincere Regards,

P.P.

Samantha Walker-Roberts

Raja Miah