Tit bits page 2

RIP Paul(Skips)



Ian would tie the rope round the beam then round

< 7>   my feet and hang me up.  Ian would then whip me over

< 8>   my clothes, on back and on my bottom.  He would use a

< 9>   small whip to hit me.  As I have said previously Mr.

<10>   Roberts sometimes whipped me when Ian had me hanging

<11>   upside down over the beam.

<12>         A further photograph has been taken near the

<13>   entrance gate to Ysgubor Esgob.  On the right-hand

<14>   side of the photograph is the new roof on the barn

<15>   where I was hung over the beam.

<16>        A further photographs shows a small barn in the

<17>   background where I can remember a black coloured Welsh

<18>   Cob called Brenin being kept.

<19>        A further photograph shows the building opposite

<20>   the back of the house.  This had not been done up as

<21>   much as that when I was there. The photograph shows a

<22>   general view of the rear of Ysgubor Esgob.

<23>         I may not have said in my other statements that

<24>   when I was hung over the beam in the barn that I had

<25>   been whipped by Ian as well as Mr. Roberts.  The

.                        P-14685     PAUL-LLEWELLYN-JONES

< 1>   reason for this is that I had not remembered until I

< 2>   saw the photographs.  It's is difficult to remember

< 3>   everything at once when it's a long time ago.

< 4>         Something else I have remembered is that when I

< 5>   wet my bed or soiled myself in bed at night, Mr.

< 6>   Roberts would straight away take me downstairs. He

< 7>   would then take me outside and as I stood there in

< 8>   pyjama bottoms he would us a hosepipe to squirt water

< 9>   all over me.  That would go on for about five minutes.

<10>   I was then told to go upstairs to wash myself

<11>   properly, it would be dark sometimes when Mr. Roberts

<12>   took me out.

<13>        It was just outside the back door as shown in

<14>   photographs ELR1F, that Mr. Roberts would hose me

<15>   down. It was in this area that Mr. Roberts whipped me

<16>   as well. I think there was an outside tap alongside

<17>   the wall running from the red back door, as shown in

<18>   this photograph, where the hose pipe was connect to.

<19>   Paul Llewelyn Jones being unable to read I, Alun

<20>   Gwilym Jones, Detective Constable 212 of the North

<21>   Wales Police, have read it to him."

<22>   And it was signed by Paul Llewellyn Jones.

<23>        Finally, sir, the Tribunal statement taken from

<24>   Paul Llewelyn Jones was dated 29th January 1997 after

<25>   the declaration he says, "I have today had read over

.                        P-14686     PAUL-LLEWELLYN-JONES

< 1>   to me by Mr. MW Burke the statements I made to the

< 2>   North Wales Police,"

< 3>   and sir those are the statements I have just read.

< 4>   "To the best of my knowledge and belief the statement

< 5>   is true and accurate. I do not wish to add to, alter

< 6>   or amend any of the statements in any way. I made the

< 7>   complaints referred to in the above statements to

< 8>   various teachers, social workers and to other children

< 9>   and also to my mum. I cannot remember the times or

<10>   dates because it was so long ago but I did complain. I

<11>   am not very good at reading and writing so I could

<12>   only tell people about what was happening to me. I

<13>   recall the following action was taken in relation to

<14>   my complaint: nothing was done about what was

<15>   happening until the police came to see me. I was happy

<16>   that someone was taking notice and told them

<17>   everything. I do not recall any action being taken

<18>   regarding by my complaints. While in residential care

<19>   the general level of help and support available to me

<20>   was nothing. Social Services never bothered we with me

<21>   at all. They said I was disturbed and had to stay in

<22>   care. My social workers were Anne Rogers, Peter Hibbs

<23>   and Blodwen Jones.  Blodwen Jones was OK but the

<24>   others did not help me at all.

<25>        Whilst in residential care at foster homes I was

.                        P-14687     PAUL-LLEWELLYN-JONES

< 1>   not aware of any councillors visiting the homes.

< 2>   Whilst in residential care at foster homes the

< 3>   visiting arrangements by parents or their relatives

< 4>   were very bad. My brothers and sisters were not

< 5>   allowed to come and visit me.  I think my mam was

< 6>   allowed to come about once a month but I was never

< 7>   allowed to write to her in case I said something. I

< 8>   was never allowed a visit alone with mam. They would

< 9>   always be there in case I said something.

<10>   Whilst I was at foster homes I was unaware of the way

<11>   I could make a formal complaint. I have been told that

<12>   my written statement may be put before the Inquiry as

<13>   evidence."

<14>   At that stage he was prepared to give evidence to the

<15>   Tribunal in person and did not wish it to be

<16>   anonymous. The statement was read over to him by Mr.

<17>   Burke and he signed it as being correct on 29th

<18>   January 1997. The police statements were also read

<19>   over to Mr. Llewellyn Jones by Mr. Burke.

<20>   <(End of Statements)

<21>   THE CHAIRMAN: What do we have as the record of the

<22>   convictions?

<23>   MR. RYDER: Sir, I have here a transcript of the

<24>   remarks of his Honour Judge Gareth Edwards on 2nd July

<25>   1993. Sir, if I may, I propose to have that short

.                        P-14688     PAUL-LLEWELLYN-JONES

< 1>   transcript copied for the parties and for yourselves

< 2>   to be placed in the record.

< 3>   THE CHAIRMAN: Do we know how many charges there were?

< 4>   MR. BEDFORD: 5.51 of the directory.

< 5>   MR. RYDER: Sir, the son, Ian, was convicted of a

< 6>   common assault and received a conditional discharge.

< 7>   Both parents were charged with cruelty and there was a

< 8>   guilty verdict in relation to the father on a section

< 9>   47, not guilty on both of the cruelty counts for the

<10>   parents, conditional discharge again for the father.

<11>   THE CHAIRMAN: I suppose one of the difficulties faced

<12>   by the Judge was that they were comparatively old

<13>   offences by the time they came to the Crown Court.

<14>   MR. RYDER: Yes, sir, the remarks of the learned Judge

<15>   make it clear that the disgrace, the publicity, were

<16>   taken into account, the time between the offences and

<17>   the convictions.

<18>        Sir, would it be convenient to the Tribunal to

<19>   read the three remaining statements today or defer

<20>   those to another day?

<21>   THE CHAIRMAN: I think we have the stamina, we might as

<22>   well do it now. Are the Robertses represented?

<23>   MR. RYDER: They do have solicitors, sir, yes, and they

<24>   have intimated - father, mother and son - that they

<25>   continued to deny the content of the convictions. They

.                        P-14689

< 1>   have written themselves to the Tribunal and, sir, I

< 2>   propose, if I may, to invite those who represent them

< 3>   to indicate whether they wish to put forward a view in

< 4>   relation to the evidence that has been presented on

< 5>   behalf of Paul Llewellyn Thomas.

< 1>                       Tuesday, 30th September 1997

< 2>   MISS PAUFFLEY: Sir, just before Mr. Cooke is

< 3>   cross-examined further, may I raise an issue in

< 4>   relation to a bundle of documents with which we were

< 5>   served this morning at about half-past 9.  Sir, as I

< 6>   understand it, these have been disclosed to everyone,

< 7>   there's been blanket disclosure and, as you know, sir,

< 8>   they are probation records for the most part.

< 9>   Probation records, of course, attract public interest

<10>   immunity and ordinarily one would imagine that is an

<11>   immunity which is stringently upheld, because one

<12>   knows the reasons why probation officers seek to build

<13>   a confiding relationship of trust with their client.

<14>   Sir, in my submission, Mr. Cooke deserves some sort of

<15>   an explanation from the Tribunal as to how it is that

<16>   these confidential records appear.

<17>   THE CHAIRMAN: I don't like your language very much,

<18>   but there we are.

<19>   MISS PAUFFLEY: Sir, I apologise for that.   Mr. Cooke

<20>   himself has seen them this morning.  He knows not how

<21>   it is that the records have been disclosed and I would

<22>   ask my learned friend, Mr. Treverton-Jones, to give

<23>   some explanation to Mr. Cooke.

<24>   THE CHAIRMAN: I think the position is that they were

<25>   subpoenaed as a result of an order that I made for an

.                        P-15476

< 1>   enquiry to be disclosed because there is material in

< 2>   them which is of importance far exceeding any question

< 3>   of state immunity.  It is not a personal immunity.

< 4>   Public interest immunity is not a personal immunity

< 5>   attaching to Mr. Cooke.  It's a much broader ground,

< 6>   it is not designed to protect individuals.

< 7>   MISS PAUFFLEY: Sir, as I understand the position

< 8>   ordinarily, there might have been some argument as to

< 9>   whether it was appropriate for a subpoena to issue, in

<10>   this instance there has been none and that is, I would

<11>   say, a matter of some regret.

<12>   THE CHAIRMAN: It was not suggested to me that there

<13>   was any objection to it.  I would have permitted you

<14>   to make a submission if I had known there was an

<15>   objection but I was not told that there was.

<16>   MISS PAUFFLEY: I knew nothing of the application until

<17>   this morning.  I knew nothing of the disclosure point

<18>   until the documents were handed to me.

<19>   THE CHAIRMAN: I see, yes.

<20>   MISS PAUFFLEY: That, in my submission, is regrettable.

<21>   THE CHAIRMAN: It is an unfortunate lapse but it

<22>   wouldn't have altered the.....  They are plainly

<23>   documents in respect of which public interest immunity

<24>   should not attach having regard to the importance of

<25>   the matters dealt with


_________________________________________________________________

                              September 1997

< 8>   THE CHAIRMAN: I should say that there is a renewed

< 9>   application for anonymity by Gary Cooke and I've

<10>   suggested that that should be heard at 10.30 tomorrow

<11>   morning.

<12>   MR. RYDER: Thank you, sir.

<13>   

<14>   THE CHAIRMAN: Miss Pauffley, we have a list, headed

<15>   Stevens and Cooke, in the directory of convictions.

<16>   Are you aware of that?

<17>   MISS PAUFFLEY: Sir, I am sorry I am not following.

<18>   THE CHAIRMAN: No, I can see you're not. I was speaking

<19>   about Gary Cooke a moment ago and about the renewed

<20>   application.  We do have a list in the directory of

<21>   convictions of a man called Stevens and Cooke.  I'm

<22>   not aware that there is any other list involving

<23>   Cooke.

<24>   MISS PAUFFLEY: Sir, may I look at the directory?

<25>   THE CHAIRMAN: What is not clear is that in respect of

.                        P-13991         

< 1>   those persons, who were the alleged victims, what

< 2>   their status was at the material time. I understand

< 3>   his position to be the (inaudible) significant part of

< 4>   his application that he was not involved with anyone,

< 5>   that he has not been convicted of any offence in

< 6>   relation to a person who, at the time of the alleged

< 7>   offence, was in care and we would, obviously, like

< 8>   some guidance about the list.

< 9>   MISS PAUFFLEY: I will do what I can, sir.  Although, I

<10>   anticipate that I will not have the resources

<11>   available to me to state with any degree of clarity

<12>   what the position is. Others may.

<13>   THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, if you do it in consultation with

<14>   Mr. Ryder and, indeed, Mr. King if he has any

<15>   information.

<16>   MISS PAUFFLEY: I will do that.

<17>   THE CHAIRMAN: It would also be of assistance if our

<18>   attention could be drawn to any who have given

<19>   evidence because we've heard so many witnesses.

<20>   MISS PAUFFLEY: Yes.

<21>   MR. RYDER: Thank you, sir.

_________________________________________________________________

   

THE CHAIRMAN: Is this in relation to Mr. Sharman?

MR. LLOYD: Indeed it is sir, yes. An application for

representation by ourselves as solicitor and Junior

Counsel individually out of public funds. The basis

of the application is that Mr. Sharman's circumstances

are very different to others before this Tribunal.

On 19th September 1996 he was convicted on seven

counts, including rape, attempted rape and indecency

allegations involving a young girl. He was not then a

serving police officer. He was convicted following

trial and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.

All the allegations are denied and are currently

subject of appeal against conviction at the Court of

Appeal.

THE CHAIRMAN: Nothing to do with any child in care.

MR. LLOYD: No. There were other allegations which

were ordered to remain on file, which were allegations

involving a young boy but not, as I understand it,

anything to do with this Inquiry.



. P‑5133

THE CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. LLOYD: Throughout those proceedings, which were

quite lengthy and complicated, he was represented by

Mr. David Potter, Junior Counsel, and he would very

much like to be represented by Mr. Potter within this

Inquiry.

THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think there's any difficulty in

principle about your application. What is worrying me

is whether or not the allegations against Mr. Sharman

have anything to do with this Inquiry. I eventually

will require assistance from Mr. Elias and anybody

else who wishes to make submissions about the matter,

but superficially my impression is that they relate to

a period when Mr. Messham was in the care of his

father and, for example, attending the army cadets. I

would find it very difficult to justify investigation

of an allegation of that kind which has nothing to do

with the terms of reference of the Tribunal. I don't

know how much ‑ have you seen, presumably, the Salmon

material?

MR. LLOYD: I have seen the statements made by Mr.

Messham.

THE CHAIRMAN: Can you help just for the moment ‑ does

anything ‑ was your client involved, allegedly, with

Mr. Messham at any time when Mr. Messham was in care?



. P‑5134

MR. LLOYD: Not ‑ I don't think so, sir. What, I

think, I would say is I think it's alleged by Mr.

Messham that Mr. Sharman was the first to be retained,

which then perhaps led to the others involvement.

THE CHAIRMAN: I find it a matter of some difficulty,

it's not appropriate to adjudicate upon a matter

theoretically. It may well be that you should be

granted the right to appear in view of the fact that

your client is mentioned, but it could, the result

could be that your right to appear would be discharged

at the conclusion of Mr. Messham's evidence, depending

on rulings and what Mr. Messham says anyway.

What is your feeling about it, Mr. Elias?

MR. ELIAS: On the face of Mr. Messham's statement, at

the time of this alleged incident, serious though it

be, he, Mr. Messham, was at home with his father.

This is an allegation relating to the cadets, attended

at a time when Mr. Messham was at home. Although it

may be right to say that this was one of the earliest,

if not the earliest incident Mr. Messham refers to in

terms of abuse, it does not appear to have occurred

when Mr. Messham was in care.

THE CHAIRMAN: The difficulty is, I can quite see that

somebody might in cross‑examination, for example, want

to refer to it, make some link allegation in



. P‑5135

cross‑examination, so that it would be difficult to

say that it was relevant, but for the purposes of our

report it's not a matter that we are enquiring into

and it may be that the conclusion about the voracity

of the allegation would be irrelevant to our

conclusions. But I don't like dealing with matters

hypothetically. Does anybody else an interested party

wish to say anything about this at the moment?

MR. KING: Sir, as you know Mr. Messham is represented

by Panones, who I think may not be here today.

THE CHAIRMAN: No. I think the solution, subject to

what my colleagues says, that you should be granted

representation, and in view of the knowledge of the

case by Junior Counsel. It is made clear that we're

dubious about the relevance to our terms of reference

to the allegation anyway.

MR. LLOYD: Thank you very much, sir.

THE CHAIRMAN: And to the extent that he is represented

we will make a recommendation to the Secretary of

State that his costs in respect of this matter should

be met out of public funds.

MR. LLOYD: I'm obliged.