Following my complaint, a meeting was agreed to discuss the matter

Minutes from the meeting.

12               RESTRICTED

PA-243935 History Item Number 0251

Notes of a meeting with Mr REDACTED

Tuesday 23 May 2017, 10am – 12pm,

Novotel Hotel, Leeds

Attendees: REDACTED (JM), REDACTED (TA), Daniel Jeans (DJ) and Carolyn Preston (CP)

PHSO’s investigation so far

JM and TA expressed concern about the duration of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) investigation, which was now over 18 months old. DJ and CP explained that the time taken had largely been caused by problems obtaining evidence from the Department of Health (DoH). Further, the case had been reallocated following Amanda Lynch’s departure in December 2016 and then reallocated again to the Complex Investigations in March 2017, where it now rested.

JM explained that he had been seriously ill in recent months, with two hospital admissions in ICU. He explained that there was a need for PHSO to proceed at pace and that the matters were causing him distress. DJ and CP apologised for the time taken so far and reassured JM that once the information was received by DoH, PHSO could proceed to draft report fairly swiftly.

CP explained that there had been a productive meeting with DoH in early May 2017, where DoH had agreed to send the evidence for JM’s case. However, they then expressed further concern following that meeting that the information sought by PHSO should not be passed on . PHSO’s position was that JM’s case concerned administrative matters and considered that the legislation we work to meant we were entitled to the information sought from DoH. If DoH remained resistant, PHSO’s plan was to engage our legal team to resolve matters and allow the information to be passed on. We hoped that this would happen quickly and allow the investigation to progress. We assured JM that he would be kept updated about that.

TA asked why we could not use the information provided by JM and proceed with a draft report using the balance of probability. DJ and CP explained that we knew DoH had evidence, that it was relevant to our investigation and that PHSO was entitled to it. Therefore it was appropriate that PHSO obtain that evidence for the investigation.

JM’s complaint

JM provided a statement to PHSO listing where he considered DoH’s processes had fallen short. JM told PHSO about his main concerns and how they arose:

1) He was unhappy with the handling of the ‘Speaking Out’ investigation by Leeds General Infirmary (LGI). In particular:

i)         JM said that he had sent LGI a statement 10 days before the interview in May 2013 and that when he arrived for the interview there was a

13               RESTRICTED

pre-meeting for an hour. This was not recorded or documented - the LGI Investigators told JM about why they did not consider his version of events regarding the dead body could not have happened. JM did not realise that this was a pre-meeting as he thought it was the meeting until LGI investigators advised that they were going to record the second part of the meeting, which he had not realised would be recorded. He said that this recorded section lasted around an hour;

ii)          The LGI investigators were adversarial during the pre-meeting and interview and JM did not feel properly represented because his solicitors were not allowed to be present;

iii)         JM was never told that this interview would form part of an evaluation for a compensation claim. He thought he was helping with establishing what Savile had done so improvements could be made in future;

iv)         JM said that he was clearly distressed about the events when he was interviewed by LGI and did not understand comments that he had not seemed upset. He said the recording of the interview should show

this;

v)           JM said he was told initially by LGI that the reason they doubted him was because he had not given the entirety of his evidence to Police. He said that when he spoke with the Police initially he had been worried that he might be charged with a crime so had sought legal advice. Then when he had presented the full evidence to the Police, the Police had removed the preamble and effect the abuse had on him from his statement. Therefore, he thought LGI’s position was unfair. JM said that the Police had recorded 204 crimes attributable to Savile out of 440 reported – four of those 204 were the crimes he had reported.

2)   He was unhappy with DoH’s handling of compensation claim

i)            JM told us that his solicitors had tried to take legal action for compensation but that matters for compensation had not been sorted by the High Court until February 2014. He said that this was why his February 2013 claim had not progressed and that he had then applied for compensation in May 2014. JM said that when he was refused compensation in October 2014 his solicitors said that he could proceed with a civil claim but not on a ‘no win no fee’ basis – he would have to pay for the legal services. Furthermore, JM said that if he proceeded with a civil claim, he was advised that it may not be possible to retain his confidentiality as the matter might enter the public domain. JM also had doubts that legal action would have obtained the information from DoH about their reasons for refusing his compensation claim;

ii)          JM was given no information about the process being used to consider the compensation claim. In particular, he did not know that the LGI

Investigation was being used by the DoH when assessing his

compensation claim. He had been expecting the DoH to take his compensation claim forward with his solicitor in terms of asking for information;

iii)         JM said that at the time he reported matters to the Police in 2012 most of the victims of Jimmy Savile that were known in the public domain were women, not men, and there was no knowledge of

Savile’s activities with dead bodies. In addition, there were only two morgues in Leeds in the 1970s and he had identified one of them in his account. JM said that DoH had not answered his question as to why they did not accept his account of events in light of these factors. JM said that he was gobsmacked DoH did not accept his account of the dead body because there are 12 accounts in the LGI and Stoke

Mandeville investigations about Savile behaving inappropriately with dead bodies. JM said that his account was the only one that showed Savile abusing, rather than moving a dead body, and that DoH may not want this in the public domain;

iv)         JM said that DoH had not given him reasons for rejecting his other three encounters with Savile outside of the dead body. He said that it was unfair that DoH had used the fact that he could not remember the dates of his sister’s hospital stays, and that he was not able to provide her medical records, as grounds to question him;

v)           JM said that one of the LGI investigators, Ray Galloway, had contacted him before he submitted his compensation claim in 2014. JM had been asked for details about his sister’s hospital stay and dates etc. JM said that he sent Roy Galloway a link with an article that showed that if dates and times were recalled by those abused as children, it made their stories less believable, not more believable. Therefore, he did not know why his inability to remember dates was seen to make his account less credible.

3)   Effect of LGI investigation and DoH compensation claim

i)            After the May 2013 interview JM said he found it difficult to sleep. He would wake at all times of night and write down notes to try and present a full picture of what happened to him. His wife had told him that he was like a bear with a sore head – snapping at the family etc. Since then he had received 12 months of therapy which had helped improve things – he was sleeping better and was a lot calmer;

ii)          JM does not want compensation. He would like an acknowledgement by LGI and DoH that he was a victim and an apology from them for their handling of matters.

Further comments

JM said that he was he was helping with the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). He was hoping to use PHSO’s report and investigation as part of his contribution to that work.

In addition, JM said that he was happy to receive updates when there were developments on the case.

End of notes

24.05.17

We can see from the meeting notes that all I was asking for was an apology for the way my case had been handled, and rejected. This it would seem was too much and the DOH continued to hide the documents behind their privileged status, the DoH could do this, because they had determined that the crimes committed by Savile, which were posthumously recorded as crimes by the Police and the CPS, that in fact these were allegations, and could be treated as much less serious than actual crimes? This is what happens when an organisation determines to spend money on legal teams, rather than victims.