Assessment of the evidence of witness B
9.32 It would be inappropriate to prolong this report by a detailed analysis of the credibility of each of these witnesses but it is necessary to deal specifically with B and C. We are satisfied that B has suffered a long history of sexual abuse before, during and after his period in care and, to a significant extent until he left care, of physical abuse. As a result he has been, and remains, severely damaged psychologically; he has been greatly affected also by the sudden death of his young wife in very sad circumstances on 1 April 1992, leaving B with a very young child to bring up. A major problem is that the damage is reflected in B's personality in such a way that he presents himself as an unreliable witness by the standards that an ordinary member of a jury is likely to apply. Thus, he is highly sensitive to any criticism and explosive in his reactions, particularly to any suggestion of sexual deviation on his part, although he told us frankly that there was a period in his youth when, because of the persistent sexual abuse to which he had been subjected, he began to question his own sexuality. He has been described also as manipulative and there are many matters on which he is particularly vulnerable in cross-examination.
9.33 One of these matters, which inevitably leads to prolonged cross-examination, is the sequence in which his complaints of abuse have emerged. It is not unusual for a complainant of sexual abuse or a child complainant generally to deny at first that any abuse has occurred but in B's case we have had before us a plethora of statements. These included eight main statements made to the police between 30 March 1992 and 8 February 1993 but B alleges that the police have failed to produce six other statements that he made to them. Rightly or wrongly, he complains also of insensitive behaviour, and in some cases, downright misconduct on the part of a small number of officers involved in interviewing him. In view of the potential difficulties, B was permitted exceptionally to draft his own statement to the Tribunal rather than be interviewed by a member of the Tribunal's team. The statement runs to 48 pages, in the course of which B alleges that he has been sexually abused by 32 persons (eight of whom are not named) and otherwise physically abused by 22. It is not surprising in the circumstances that B's recollection, in a limited number of instances, was shown by contemporary documents to be incorrect.
9.34 In the light of these and similar difficulties it was decided in March 1993 by the Crown Prosecution Service, in consultation with counsel, that reliance ought not to be placed on the evidence of witness B for the purpose of prosecuting any alleged abuser. However, this decision did not deter the police from further investigating after that date allegations that had been made by him; and it seems likely that he was required to attend at some stage for the trial of Howarth in 1994 as a potential witness, although he was not called to give evidence. It must be said also that his claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in respect of the abuse that he suffered at the hands of Howarth, Norris and one other person dealt with later in this report has been settled for a proper sum; and he had no pending civil claim in respect of these matters when he gave evidence to the Tribunal. His libel action against Private Eye in respect of a collateral matter was also settled for proper sums in respect of damages and costs shortly before he gave evidence in the Anglesea libel action.
