Roger Laing 2015 Oct 2 Court of Appeal

This appeal case has brought up several items of interest.

  • Reynolds House Childrens Home Bromley
  • The abuser who was appealing, Roger Laing Deputy Superintendent, Reynolds House Childrens Home. Laing also has a previous record from 1977 of indecent assault on a 10 year old.
  • William Harcourt Superintendent of Reynolds House Childrens Home mentioned as another abuser. In 1975 in UK he was charged with 11 cases of physical and sexual assault but case collapsed as complainants withdrew. In 2013 he was convicted in the US of sexual assaults against children. A separate post is being prepared on him.
  • Judge being Judge Fulford who has his own accusation against him of supporting  paedophile groups. This will be discussed in a future post.

Summary of Appeal

I am not a lawyer but I summarise the appeal as follows and please correct me if you know different.

A previous judge Judge Blackett sitting at Croydon Crown Court on 29 July 2015 had stopped the prosecution, as an abuse of process. He decided that the jury would hear evidence about the defendant whilst being denied information that might affect – indeed seriously undermine – the credibility of the complainant, due to the fact that this information was not available after such a period of time since the offences in 1970s

This appeal judge, Judge Fulford however decided that Judge Blackett imposed a burden on the prosecution that went significantly further than the obligations set out in the Attorney General’s Guidelines. Fulford decided that the issues  do not lead to a reasonable conclusion that the defendant will not receive a fair trial.  He decided that Judge Blackett erred in stopping this trial as an abuse of the process.

It should also be noted that the prosecution and Police investigation was criticised “police should have contacted the social workers involved at the care home in 1974, along with the key witnesses at the trial of Harcourt in 1975”

What happened after this?

I have not heard how the case has since proceeded, if anyone knows please put in comments.

This also means that there could be well more cases of child sexual abuse that have not come to court in the UK about Reynolds House Childrens Home and William Harcourt aka Matthew Andrew Carter.

With Harcourt in jail for the foreseeable future it is not clear what those abused can do to achieve closure or justice, apart from telling their story in public, anonymously if needed or civil actions against the Council who had a duty of care to the children.

Reynolds House Childrens Home

1963-68 I think when Wills was Warden, it was just for boys as another snippet (from 1971) says: “David Wills* adds to this list by the description of his work from 1963-1968 as warden of Reynolds House in Bromley, Kent — a hostel for 12 boys leaving schools for maladjusted children with no home to which they could return. This project…” Harcourt and Laing were employed there at this time – it seems that there were no complaints from kids who were placed there when (William) David Wills ran it. “NAMH experimental project in the care of maladjusted boys”Run by David Wills  HT @cockneycampaign

1970 I think Reynolds House changed after 1970, after David Wills departure. This what I can see in 1971 ad? in ‘New Society’ snippet view: ‘Reynolds House, Bromley, is a short-stay centre for boys and girls aged between 8 and 17 years. It caters for the extended range of diagnosis and assessment for which the Borough is now responsible and may include pre-court Investigations……[can’t see this part]…having accepted the children to diagnose and find treatment for their needs, they and their parents must be confident that the team is an instrument not only capable but determined to accomplish this purpose.” HT@cockneycampaign

1973, Bromley were advertising for staff for ‘Reynolds House Assessment Centre’. Described as being a “16-bed home specialising in the observation and assessment of young people in the 8-17 age range”….with a “team of staff concerned with the short-term care and assessment of up to 16 children in an 8-16 years age group. Full psychiatric consultation and support is provided HT@cockneycampaign


If anyone could fill in any details such as which authorities sent children to Reynolds House Childrens Home or when it was open, who else worked there etc etc please comment below. It can be done anonymously.


Some court reports have had victims names redacted and some assault details redacted.

This is a difficult balance –  normally I would think that  I should not “censor” details but on consultation with various people I have taken the decision to redact. This is mainly to protect victims, their friends and relatives from unnecessary detail and to stop the gratification of those who seek salacious details.

In addition to the obvious “victims redaction” to protect victims details, there may also be “assault redaction” across most of the spectrum of abuse. The assaults are left in the charges, but mainly redacted when repeated with reference to the individual. I have also redacted unnecessary detail of assaults.

Redaction may obscure sometimes the legal reason for the appeal, but should make no large difference to the vital information for researchers that these documents contain. That vital information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, institutions where assaults occurred, the actual charges the perpetrators faced, and dates – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links between people and places and abuse at various times to be ascertained.

Some transcripts may have been subject to automatic reading software and whilst effort has been made to correct these, the text should not be regarded as definitive.  Common mistakes in reprinting here are that quotation marks are sometimes not correct, replaced by odd symbols.

If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say.

This appeal is redacted for assault detail and personal detail by cathy fox blog

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

Friday 2nd October 2015

The Right Honourable Lord Justice Fulford

Between: The Crown Prosecution Service  v.  Roger Laing

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of WordWave International Limited Trading as DTI 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY Tel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

Mr Mark Gadsden (instructed by The CPS Appeals Unit) for the Applicant
Ms Adrienne Knight (instructed by Heckford Norton Solicitors) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 16 September 2015

As Approved by the Court

Lord Justice Fulford:

1. The applicant is the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”). Roger Laing is the respondent to an application by the CPS for leave to appeal a terminating ruling by Judge Blackett sitting at Croydon Crown Court on 29 July 2015. For convenience, we refer to the respondent as the “the defendant” or “Laing” in this judgment.

The judge stayed the indictment he faced as an abuse of the process of the court. Laing was charged with six counts of indecent assault on a male person contrary to section 15 Sexual Offences Act 1956 (counts 1,2, 4, 5, 6 and 7) and attempted buggery contrary to common law (count 3). The offences spanned the period between 16 July 1974 and 8 September 1978.

2. Following the judge’s ruling, the prosecution was granted an adjournment in order to consider whether to appeal, and on 31 July 2015 the CPS informed the court that it intended to apply for leave to appeal and it gave the relevant acquittal undertaking.

3. The Registrar has referred the prosecution’s application to the Full Court.

The Facts
4. The complainant, [A], was a resident at the Reynolds House children care home in Bromley in the 1970s, having been sent there during his teenage years because of unruly behaviour. The complainant informed police that he first entered the home in 1972, when he was aged thirteen, although investigations by the prosecution revealed that he probably did not attend the care home until he was almost fifteen years of age.

5. The Head Superintendent at the home was William Harcourt [aka Matthew Andrew Carter]. The defendant was the Deputy Superintendent. The police investigated Harcourt whilst Laing was working at the home. He was charged with eleven offences of physical and sexual assault on seven male children at the home. Harcourt’s trial in 1975 collapsed when several of the complainants withdrew their allegations. Harcourt returned to his native home in the USA where, in 2013, he was convicted and sentenced for a number of serious sexual assaults on children.

6. In November 2012 the complainant attended at a police station for an ABE interview having previously contacted the NSPCC helpline. He alleged that Harcourt, who lived on the top floor of the care home, had sexually abused him in his living quarters on a regular basis (at least three times a week). On some occasions the complainant’s friend, B (who has since died), had been present. Any failure to comply with Harcourt’s sexual requests resulted in the complainant receiving a beating. We note that the defendant questions the accuracy of this account as regards Harcourt, because the surviving records tend to indicate that Harcourt and the complainant were only at the home at the same time for a matter of a few weeks.

7. The complainant disclosed that the defendant also sexually abused him. Unlike Harcourt, however, Laing never abused him at the care home. The first occasion was in the defendant’s car on the return journey from a visit to Ashford in Kent. Laing parked the car in a rural location and started touching the complainant’s genitals (count 1). A was hit when he resisted, and thereafter he complied. He was made to [assault redacted] Laing until [assault redacted] (count 7).

8. Sexual abuse of this kind became very regular, occurring almost every other night. As a consequence, the counts on the indictment were specimen counts. These offences were usually committed when the defendant took A to various rural locations in his car. He was forced to[assault redacted] (count 6) and [assault redacted] (count 7). He was severely beaten if he did not comply.

9. A alleged that he was taken to the home of the defendant’s mother in Letchworth, Hertfordshire. There, on one occasion, the defendant attempted to [assault redacted] but was unable to [assault redacted] (count 3). The defendant then made A [assault redacted] on him (count 4). On further occasions at the home of Laing’s mother he was forced to [assault redacted] on the defendant (count 7), the defendant performed [assault redacted] (count 2), and he was again forced [assault redacted] Laing (Count 4).

10. Count 5 involves the suggestion that Laing indecently assaulted A by kissing him. However, no details of this offence are contained either in the ABE interview or the Police


11. The complainant said that the abuse continued after he moved to a new school, as the defendant turned up at the premises in his car at leaving time and drove him to secluded locations for this purpose. On one of these occasions, a neighbour witnessed Laing abusing him and intervened. The complainant was removed from the situation. The neighbour subsequently died.

12. Other boys at the care home told A that the defendant had abused them but this was not something he suggested he had witnessed.

13. A stated that although Harcourt and the defendant injured him, he was not permitted to attend hospital. He and the other boys were kept locked up night and day in the home; indeed, they were effectively treated as prisoners.

14. The complainant suggested that he told his mother about the abuse but she refused to believe him. He said he and others had informed social services of the abuse at the time, but the social workers accused them of lying and therefore the allegations were probably not referred to the police.

15. He also informed his brother of the abuse. The latter then revealed that the defendant had attempted to abuse him. It was only when his brother told their mother about what had occurred that she finally believed the complainant’s account. A told the police that he was unaware of the investigation into Harcourt prior to the latter’s trial.

16. He indicated to the police that the Jimmy Savile inquiry had finally encouraged him to come forward.

17. Laing has a conviction from 1977 for Indecent Assault on a ten-year-old male. When interviewed by the police, Laing said that he had formed a friendship with the complainant’s mother. On occasions when he was leaving the family home, A tried to kiss him. Initially he resisted these approaches, but eventually he allowed the complainant to kiss him on the lips although he did not reciprocate. The complainant became intense and sent him three love letters. In due course, he allowed the complainant to [assault redacted] with him on three occasions, once in a van and twice in one of the bedrooms at the complainant’s family home when nobody else was present.

18. The defendant accepted that he went to A’s home after the latter left the children’s home, but on his account he was asked by A’s mother to help find A who was an “unruly child”. He suggested that he became friends with A’s mother. It is his case, therefore, that A became infatuated with him and that he allowed a sexual relationship to develop.

The Application
19. On behalf of Laing, it was submitted to the judge that the prosecution ought to be stayed as an abuse of process on the basis that the respondent could not have a fair trial on account of: (i) the delay in bringing the matter before the court; (ii) the lack of crucial evidence that would have undermined the prosecution’s case; and (iii) what was alleged to be an inadequate investigation by the police. It was submitted that any judicial direction to the jury would fail to remedy the prejudice caused to the defendant as a result of these three factors. As regards (i), Miss Knight, on behalf of Laing, complains that the CPS took an excessive period between the report that was sent by the police to the CPS and the latter reaching a decision to charge the defendant (approximately 18 months).

20. Distilling the defence submissions, there are ten areas which, it is argued, collectively indicate serious prejudice.

21. First, in the context of the suggestion that the complainant was prevented from receiving treatment, there are no available medical records that reveal whether or not he ever saw a doctor and, if he did, the injuries that were reported. There are two entries dated after October 1974 in an occurrence book which suggest that residents at the home visited a hospital (see, for instance, the entry for 17 June 1975 when a boy (C) damaged his arm or wrist).

22. Second, the prosecution has not interviewed any staff or residents at the home, nor any of the relevant social workers. We note, however, that the defence is apparently aware that A had contact with a social worker called Mr Gilroy. Furthermore, the complainant accepts that he was essentially “out of control” at this stage in his life.

23. Third, the complainant has alleged that he and B  (the latter was a witness at Harcourt’s trial) saw each other being abused. It is suggested that when B gave evidence during Harcourt’s trial he, along with other witnesses, resiled from the allegations that he had made in his witness statement. B, as set out above, has died.

24. Fourth, no school records for the complainant have been provided.

25. Fifth, no files from social services are available. These, it is suggested, would have established the reasons why the complainant was sent to the home, and whether or not he had made any complaint to social services (as he has alleged). The Crown has sought this documentation, but nothing relevant can be found over and above the material already served by the prosecution.

26. Sixth, the complainant’s brother is not a prosecution witness even though A alleges that the respondent also attempted sexually to abuse him. It seems that A’s brother does not want to assist in this prosecution.

27. Seventh, it is suggested the statements from Harcourt’s trial would disclose that no allegations were made against the defendant.

28. Eighth, the disappearance of the care home’s daily occurrence books for 1973 and 1974 has prevented the defence from undermining the complainant’s account as to his dates of residence at the institution and his account of being kept a prisoner. The defendant believes that A only first came to the institution in the middle of 1974. We note in this regard that the prosecution accepts that the records tend to indicate that he first attended the school on 16 July 1974.

29. Ninth, the death of the defendant’s mother in March 2014 has prevented the defendant from being able to call evidence as to what occurred when the complainant visited her house. The complainant’s mother has also died (albeit a statement was taken from her), and Miss Knight would have wished to question her about the dates when particular events occurred, including when A first lived at the children’s home.

A’s mother suggested that he had been at the home from the age of ten. We note the prosecution decided not to apply to introduce the statement from the complainant’s mother as hearsay evidence. Miss Knight, additionally, wished to ask her questions as to whether he was, in effect, locked up at school or whether he returned home on a daily basis as a dayboy.

30. Finally, the death of the complainant’s mother has removed any independent evidence of the suggested recent complaint A.

The Ruling
31. The judge applied the test set out in Attorney-Generals Reference (No. 1 of 1990) [1992] QB 630 . He accepted there is a clear presumption against a stay, and that it was not for the judge to determine the quality of the evidence before the trial started.

32. The judge noted there had been nearly a forty-year delay in reporting the alleged abuse. He accepted that delays of this order are not uncommon and that a lapse of time could never of itself be a sufficient reason to stay the proceedings.

33. The judge recognised it was not unusual for a complainant to wait a long time before reporting abuse, and that A had provided an explanation as to what had prompted him to make the complaint. The judge rejected as speculation a suggestion that he had waited until crucial witnesses had died until making his complaint.

34. In the judge’s view, however, the prosecution was at fault for not making all possible and relevant inquiries. In particular, he decided that the police should have contacted the social workers involved at the care home in 1974, along with the key witnesses at the trial of Harcourt in 1975. The complainant had made a number of assertions that potentially could have been corroborated or undermined.

The police should have explored A’s suggestion that he was unaware of any investigation into abuse at the home, and his claim that he had reported the defendant’s activities to social services on six or seven occasions, only to be told that nobody would believe him. This was at a time when social services were investigating alleged sexual abuse at the home.

If the social workers had failed to support A’s suggested contemporaneous complaint, then his account would have been completely undermined. The judge decided these were serious omissions by the police. The court determined, therefore, that the defendant would suffer significant prejudice because a considerable quantity of potential evidence that might have undermined the prosecution’s case was unavailable.

This did not involve speculation as to what the witnesses would have said, but rather it reflected the lack of investigation by the police into evidence that had the potential to weaken the case against the defendant, given the complainant’s allegations. It was clear that social services had received other allegations of abuse which they passed to the prosecuting authorities. It was noted that had there been a complaint, the defendant might have expected to have been investigated rather than appointed as Deputy Superintendent of the care home.

35. In the absence of the evidence set out above, this case, in the judge’s view, was reduced to an assessment of the complainant’s word against that of the defendant. The judge determined that any attempt to undermine the complainant’s credibility was hampered by the missing evidence, particularly as regards his suggested complaints to social workers, his virtual imprisonment in the house and the lack of access to doctors after he was beaten. The jury would have heard evidence about the defendant whilst being denied information that might affect – indeed seriously undermine – the credibility of the complainant.

36. The judge concluded that any direction that might be given would be insufficient to rectify that prejudice because the jury were at risk of being misled by the absence of this material. No fair trial in those circumstances could be held and the proceedings were stayed as an abuse of process.

37. This case involves events that occurred approximately 40 years ago. It is important to focus carefully on the principal issues that will arise if this trial proceeds. It is not suggested that Laing and Harcourt committed these offences together, and the allegations against Harcourt differed significantly from those now made against Laing. Harcourt was alleged to have assaulted boys sexually at the care home, whereas Laing is said to have assaulted D at a variety of other locations.

The defendant has set out in his defence statement that when A was 16 or 17 years old he wrote to Laing and said he loved him. Thereafter, having threatened to make false allegations to the police to the effect that Laing had sexually assaulted him, A persuaded Laing to have sex with him.

Laing allowed A [assault redacted] on three occasions. There are undoubted issues as to the age of A when these events occurred, the range of sexual activity in which they engaged and the locations of the various incidents, but on the basis of that significant admission by Laing, one of the central issues in the case is whether the sexual contact between them was consensual. Only the two men involved would be able to say whether this had been enforced sexual activity.

38. Various witnesses have died, but it is of note that N was only concerned with alleged offences committed by Harcourt rather than by Laing. It follows that his evidence relates only to A’s credibility as opposed to the particular events with which the defendant is charged.

A alleges Harcourt abused B, whereas the latter’s statement reveals he was called as a witness rather than as a complainant. We note that subject to any ruling on admissibility, this material is available for use at trial by the defence. The complainant’s mother, furthermore, was not a witness on whom the prosecution proposed to rely and no application would have been made by the Crown to read her statement.

Finally in this regard, it is accepted that the defendant’s mother would have been aware of the circumstances and the number of times the complainant visited her house, where it is suggested one or more relevant incidents occurred. However, Laing is able to deploy the description given by A of the house then occupied by the defendant’s mother (a timber-clad building etc.) which does not fit the house where she was living at the relevant time (she had moved from number 4 to number 41 in the same road).

39. The relevance of the failure to produce the occurrence books for 1973 and 1974 is to a significant extent diminished because the prosecution and the defence accept that A first arrived at the care home in July 1974, and Harcourt was suspended in September 1974. Defence counsel is in possession of an occurrence book or books for the care home from October 1974.

40. The Attorney-General’s Guidelines (2013) at paragraph 56 provide that: “There may be cases where the investigator, disclosure officer or prosecutor believes that a third party (for example, a local authority, a social services department, a hospital, a doctor, a school, a provider of forensic services) has material or information which might be relevant to the prosecution case.

In such cases, investigators, disclosure officers and prosecutors should take reasonable steps to identify, secure and consider material held by any third party where it appears to the investigator, disclosure officer or prosecutor that (a) such material exists and (b) that it may be relevant to an issue in the case”. The judge imposed a higher burden on the prosecution in this context when he concluded that the prosecution “[…] are at fault for not making all possible and relevant inquiries, in particular the police should have made inquiries of social workers who were involved in the Reynolds Care Home in 1974 […]”.

41. The object of the inquiry, as we understand the argument, would be to prove two things. First, that there is no record of A having, on a number of occasions, made a contemporaneous report about Laing’s sexual abuse to the local authority. The implication of that complaint needs careful consideration.

It would involve representatives of social services being able, 40 years after these events, to provide the police with all the files relating to allegations of abuse at this care home. These files have been sought and they cannot be located. Similarly, it would necessitate the police interviewing all the relevant social services’ employees who, four decades earlier, may have spoken with A.

Such steps would not be reasonable. It is unlikely that the relevant records now exist (they have not been found to date) or that the former employees, in sufficient numbers, can now be traced. If some of them can now be located, the prospect that they would be able to remember that a particular resident at the care home did not report sexual abuse is slight. We note that A in his ABE interview, apart from recalling that he spoke with different people (men and women), could not recall any of their names. In those circumstances, it would be very difficult for the prosecution to make any useful inquiries.

42. Second, this suggested inquiry would be directed at establishing the reasons why A was placed in a care home. A accepts that he was out of control at this particular stage in his life. It is not easy to understand how additional information as to the behavioural problems he then demonstrated would materially assist on the question as to whether he is now telling the truth about alleged sexual abuse by Laing.

43. In our judgment, the defendant has clear and, potentially, strong material that he is able to deploy in order to address significant aspects of the evidence that it is anticipated will be given by A.

As set out above, the defendant is able to demonstrate – to the extent that events concerning Harcourt are relevant to the present case – that A and Harcourt were only at the premises together for a very short period of time (very possibly as short as 2 weeks).

The defence, additionally, is in a position to comment on the sheer improbability of the authorities ignoring contemporaneous complaints by A about Harcourt and Laing when they were in the process of investigating and prosecuting the Head Superintendent for serious sexual offences involving residents at the care home.

The defence is in possession of a 52-page bundle setting out the concerns of social services, the involvement of the police, the suspension of Harcourt, and the course of the investigation. There is also evidence of a parent complaining about what he had heard in July 1974, which was reported to social services.

44. The lack of medical records relates to the assaults that are said to have been perpetrated by Harcourt and Laing. There is, however, a real question over whether these records will be available 40 years after these events. Furthermore, even if they established that A saw a doctor for particular reasons, that would not prove that he
was prevented from obtaining treatment for injuries inflicted as part of this alleged sexual offending. As set out above, the defence is able to prove that at least one resident saw a doctor in the period after October 1974 when he hurt himself on some broken glass.

45. We do not accept the contention that the witnesses from the Harcourt trial are likely to assist a jury in resolving the issues in the present case, save as regards the layout and description of the premises and particular rooms (for instance, where certain events are said to have occurred). As we have set out above, it was not alleged that Harcourt and Laing committed joint offences, or that Laing abused A at the care home. It is unlikely that the witnesses from the original trial would have any relevant evidence to give concerning the allegations now made against Laing.

46. There are often powerful and valid reasons why witnesses take a long time – on occasion decades – before they are able to report offences of this kind to the authorities. This is frequently one of the direct consequences of the abuse that has been perpetrated on them: fear and shame engendered by the offender and the nature of these crimes can often deter victims from reporting what occurred until many years have passed.

As a result, witnesses (along with the records they made) who could have been easily traced if the trial had occurred shortly after the alleged offences occurred, are frequently no longer available. Our system of justice is well able to address the consequences of this loss or absence of evidence, most particularly by means of careful cross-examination, comments by counsel in their speeches and the directions of the trial judge to the jury.

47. For the reasons set out above, we consider that the judge imposed a burden on the prosecution that went significantly further than the obligations set out in the Attorney General’s Guidelines. Additionally, it is our view that the matters identified by the judge do not lead to a reasonable conclusion that the defendant will not receive a fair trial. It follows that the judge erred in staying this trial as an abuse of the process.

48. Under section 61(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Court of Appeal has power to confirm, reverse or vary any ruling to which the appeal relates. Section 67 of the Act provides that the Court of Appeal may not reverse a ruling on an appeal under this part of the Act “unless it is satisfied (a) that the ruling was wrong in law, (b) that the ruling involved an error of law or principle, or (c) that the ruling was a ruling that it was not reasonable for the judge to have made.”

49. We consider that the ruling was wrong in law and that it was, on the facts, unreasonable. In the result, we quash the decision of the learned judge and we order that these proceedings may resume in the Crown Court.

50. There shall be no report of these proceedings until the conclusion of the trial or the proceedings are otherwise brought to a conclusion, without the leave of the court.

51. The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this case. No matter relating to the complainant shall during his lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify him as the victim of charge 2. Provided his name is not included, this judgment need not otherwise be anonymised.

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]


[1] Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog

[2] Index of Court Appeals EWCA on this blog

[3] Childrens Homes Bromley London Borough Council Homes

[4]  2013? old? Switalkskis -Complaints have been made about Reynolds House in Bromley, Kent, and one former staff member is currently being investigated by the US authorities. If you suffered abuse at Reynolds House in Bromley, and would like to talk to one of our specialist child abuse compensation lawyers in confidence, call 0800 138 4700 or complete our contact form to receive a call back.

[5] 2013 Jul 31 FBI archives Michigan Man Sentenced to 165 Years for Child Sex Tourism Offenses

[6] Wikipedia Bromley London Borough Council

[7] “NAMH experimental project in the care of maladjusted boys” Run by David Wills HT @CockneyCampaign


About cathy fox blog on Child Abuse

the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free...
This entry was posted in cathyfoxblog, Child Abuse, Child trafficking, Childrens home, Court, Crown Prosecution Service, Kent, South East and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Roger Laing 2015 Oct 2 Court of Appeal

  1. Pingback: CATHY FOX Roger Laing 2015 Oct 2 Court of Appeal | HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE E mail

  2. Pingback: Matthew Andrew Carter aka William Charles Harcourt, Serial Child Rapist | cathy fox blog on child abuse

  3. Pingback: CATHY FOXMatthew Andrew Carter aka William Charles Harcourt, Serial Child Rapist | HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE E mail

  4. Pingback: An Index and Timeline of Court and Court of Appeal Documents on Cathy Fox Blog | cathy fox blog on child abuse

  5. Pingback: Judge Adrian Fulford – Can we trust him? | cathy fox blog on child abuse

  6. Pingback: Judge Adrian Fulford – Can we trust him? | L8in

  7. Pingback: Judge Adrian Fulford – Can we trust him?       | HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE E mail

  8. Pingback: Links of cathyfoxblog posts 2013 – 2021 | cathy fox blog on child abuse

  9. Terence Smith says:

    My brother and me were put into Reynolds house by Bromley magistrates court on the same day in the early 70s,I was 11 and my brother was only 10,we were both sexually abused by Harcourt from the same night we were put in there until the day we left which weren’t at the same time,I left after about 3 months but my brother was in there for a lot longer,he was one of them who first reported Harcourt and took him to court only for it to collapse cos other boys withdrew their statements,I never got abused by Laing but he was a vile nasty bloke and tho never sexually abused me he did abuse me mentally,I was definitely sexually abused by Harcourt tho,I believe he has now been sentenced in the USA and been given a very long sentence with not just sexual abuse but also if child trafficking


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.