By Angus Stickler
The Public Inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie has heard damning evidence about the role of the NSPCC in events leading up to the little girls death. The eight-year-old was murdered by her great aunt Marie Therese Kouao and Kouao's boyfriend. She was regularly beaten, trussed up in a bin liner and left in a freezing bath-tub. Victoria was referred to a centre run by the charity, which worked with problem families. It was an urgent case, but no action was taken for nearly seven months. Confidential documents shown to this programme also prove that crucial details on files were changed after Victoria's death. Members of staff were questioned during the inquiry about whether they had falsified documents to hide the truth. And the charity itself has been criticised for providing the inquiry with doctored photocopies rather than original documents.
The charity NSPCC is keen to promote an image of slick professionalism at the cutting edge of child protection. But this is at odds with evidence heard by the public inquiry into the death of eight year old Victoria Climbie. She was referred to one of the charity's Family Centres in North London on the 5th of August 1999, nearly seven months before her death. There were concerns about poor hygiene, inappropriate dress and that she seemed anxious around her great aunt. She was a child in desperate need. But even though she was referred to the project as an urgent case, staff were preparing for a party. It was a week before she was allocated a social worker. And even then, no one at the project ever went to see her.
During the inquiry NSPCC staff admitted that the centre was a shambles, a project in crisis, where the difficulties were so entrenched that it was unable to provide a quality service. Ernell Watson a manager at the project told the inquiry that their procedures did not work. The abuse Victoria suffered continued unchecked.
CAROLINE GIBSON, counsel for the inquiry: "Do you accept that that is a serious defect in the centre's handling of Victoria's case?"
MS WATSON: "Yes, I would."
MS GIBSON: "I think as you have just outlined from the referral you had serious concerns about this case."
MS WATSON: "Yes."
MS GIBSON: "It is possible that the centre had taken on this referral and actioned it promptly and done some work with the family, that some of the problems that were going on with Kouao and Manning's care of Victoria could have been identified?"
MS WATSON: "Yes, I do believe, yes."
Staff described how the centre was used as little more than a dumping ground for problem familes by social services. Catriona Scott, who was in charge of the centre, told the inquiry that she was aware that delays in the service could have been potentially dangerous. She described staffing problems in her evidence and said that she took her concerns higher.
MS GIBSON: "Did you bring this problem to the attention of your manager?"
MS SCOTT: "Yes I did."
MS GIBSON: "Was anything done to support you?"
MS SCOTT: "Not that I can recall..."
MS GIBSON: "Would this lead to a backlog of work?"
MS SCOTT: "There was a backlog of work yes."
-----
MS GIBSON: "Would you agree that the centre failed to deal with this case adequately?"
MS SCOTT: "Yes."
The NSPCC has not only been criticised for it's handling of Victoria's case, but also in its conduct during the inquiry. It provided doctored photocopies of crucial documents rather than the original paperwork. One barrister complained that this had reduced the inquiry to amateur levels of detective work. The NSPCC said the originals were lost and that details had been changed in the copies to protect the identity of former members of staff. But under pressure from the Chairman, the charity did eventually provide the originals.
The 91热爆 has seen copies of both versions of Victoria's referral document. At first sight they seem identical, but one crucial sentence has been changed. The copy originally shown to the inquiry reads that Victoria's case was "ACCEPTED FOR ONGOING SERVICE". But in the document said to be the original those words had been changed to "NO FURTHER ACTION". A computer record shows that this file had been altered shortly after Victoria's death. The Inquiry Chairman demanded answers.
CHAIRMAN: "You were instructed the originals had been lost, and yet within a couple of hours the originals were put before us. What I am concerned about is when an Inquiry of this kind asks for a faithful record of the documents, it is entitled to receive a faithful record of the documents. Otherwise it understandably causes very great and widespread concern."
And this was not the first time that the inquiry heard allegations that files had been changed. The NSPCC manager allocated to the case, Sylvia Henry, was questioned over different documents and asked if she had falsified records to make it look as if the case was closed shortly after the initial referral in August 1999. She said she was told by Haringey Social Services that Victoria had moved out of the Borough.
NEIL SHELDON, inquiry counsel: "There is one final possibility which I have to put to you so you can respond to it. It is this. That after Victoria had died and it was known that Victoria had died you realised that there was a referral to your centre in the book that had been allocated to you that you had done absolutely nothing about and so at that stage you wrote in that you had been told to close the case by the North Tottenham District Office. Is that right?"
MS HENRY: "That is not right. I mean when Victoria did die I remember checking our system to see if we had a referral and it did not come up as known."
MR SHELDON: "And that was added after the event in an effort to explain away the fact that you had done nothing with this referral for months and months and months?"
MS HENRY: "No, I dispute that."
Haringey Social Services told the inquiry that it couldn't have informed the NSPCC that Victoria left the borough until December 1999, that it had no record of this conversation with Ms Henry at all and that the case was not closed until after Victoria's death in February 2000. Despite this Sylvia Henry maintained to the inquiry that her version of events was true. She admitted that she couldn't remember what happened and that her entire story was based on an entry on a file which she failed to date and sign.
She has not been questioned over the changes to the referral document and the inquiry has no plans to recall her.
The NSPCC says that it held an internal inquiry into what had happened which it has submitted to the inquiry and accepts that more appropriate action could have been taken. These allegations are unlikely to remain unexplored, relating as they do to an organisation so vocal in its campaigns and blatant in its attempts to raise funds for its cause.
LINKS
NB. The 91热爆 cannot be held responsible for the content of external websites
