Beecholme – Wandsworth Council wrong to say they had no Child Abuse Reports

I blog this as it is important information, before the meeting that Beecholme Survivors have with Wandsworth Council on tomorrow evening 6th December.

[Please note updates at end on 7th Dec 2017 and 8th Dec]

Contact Beecholme Survivors or twitter  @beecholme12


Way back on  Aug 3 I asked Wandsworth Council

Please could you tell me the titles, dates and authors of any reports you hold on Beechholme House Childrens home
This would include
Any reports commissioned or held on child abuse at beecholme
Any inspection reports held, authored by SSI or equivalent London County Council
Any reports about Beecholme other purposes to the social services committee or equivalent
Any Annual Reports

Possible search terms are both spellings -Beechholme, Beecholme,
Beechholme Fir Tree Road, Banstead, Surrey
Beechholme Childrens Community
Beechholme Childrens Home
Geoffrey Banner
Cedar House, Jasmine House

They replied [2]

This information is not held by Wandsworth Council. The information may be
available from the London Metropolitan Archives [4] 

It needs someone local to check at the archives  [4] to see what is archived there, but it was barely conceivable to me that Wandsworth did not hold anything. I therefore asked for an internal review of the decision.

I am writing to request an internal review of Wandsworth Borough Council’s handling of my FOI request ‘Beechholme House Childrens Home’. It is scarcely believable that you have no records of any child abuse report titles. If so then it would appear that the Council is negligent, Please internally review my request.

The Council took 6 weeks to reply, longer than the allowed 4 weeks by law, but at least they apologised for the delay and adnitted the original decision was wrong ie they did hold information.  2017 Dec 5 FOI Internal Review Reply [5]

They previously either were incompetent or deliberately lied. What other information are they hiding? I would suggest that Beecholme Survivors ask for the information to be given to them (ie not under FOI.)

Wandsworth refuse even to give me the title, dates or authors of the Report(s) claiming exemtion under S31 – disclosure in relation to law enforcement.

I am not even sure that this exemption applies, so I will read up and may challenge this. It also has omitted the public interest test.

S6 “Section 31 is a prejudice based exemption and is subject to the public interest test. This means that not only does the information have to prejudice one of the purposes listed, but, before the information can be withheld, the public interest in preventing that prejudice must outweigh the public interest in disclosure.”

The reply is –

I have conducted a detailed review of Wandsworth Council’s response having regard to the specific requirements of the FOI Act. I am writing to advise you that the Council does hold the information requested in the form of a report relating to the non-recent abuse at Beecholme Care Home. However, having regard to the current situation regarding Beecholme, my decision is that the report is exempt under section 31 of the FOI Act. Section 31 expressly provides that information will be exempt from disclosure in a number of cases relating to law enforcement. In this case, having reviewed the current situation in respect of Beecholme Care Home, my decision is that the following three aspects of section 31 all apply:

Law enforcement – Section 31 Freedom of Information Act


This section has no associated Explanatory Notes

(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—

(a) The prevention or detection of crime,

(b) The apprehension or prosecution of offenders,

(c) The administration of justice,

Therefore, the outcome of my internal review is that the initial decision reached by the Council in its consideration of the FOI request was incorrect. This is on the basis that through the internal review process I undertook, it has transpired that the Council does hold the information requested. However, having carefully considered the circumstances surrounding Beecholme Care Home, my decision is that the information cannot be released because it is expressly exempt under section 31 of the FOI Act (that it would, or would be likely to, prejudice law enforcement).

Having established that the exemption at section 31 applies, I have undertaken a further test to determine whether or not the prejudice or harm specified in the exemption would, or would be likely to, occur. In undertaking this further test, I have based my approach on that adopted by the the Information Tribunal in Christopher Martin Hogan and Oxford City Council v the Information Commissioner (EA/2005/0026 and 0030, 17 October 2006) (“Hogan”), at paragraphs 28-34. I have therefore taken the following steps, specifically to:

  1. Identify the “applicable interests” within the relevant exemption. The applicable interests are those relating to the prevention or detection of crime; the apprehension or prosecution of offenders; and the administration of justice.
  2. Show that the prejudice claimed is “real, actual or of substance”. Given the seriousness of the matters in question, there can be no doubt that the prejudice fits the definition of being “real, actual or of substance”.
  3. Show that there is a “causal link” between the disclosure and the prejudice claimed. Given the non-recent nature of the matters in question, any disclosure of information would be likely to cause anyone who had in any way been involved in the matters, to be forewarned of any matters under consideration.
    1. Decide on the “likelihood of the occurrence of prejudice”. Any disclosure of information relating to the serious matters in question would be likely to have a direct and prejudicial impact on any further consideration of action. 

    Whilst I have been unable to elaborate in respect of the full detail applying to the tests set out at points 1 to 4 above, I hope you will appreciate this is for the essential reason of seeking to avoid the very prejudice that would be caused if the information was released – this is entirely in accordance with the statutory requirements. As you may be aware, the Information Commissioner’s view is that information released via FOI is effectively released to the world at large.

If you can, please spread my posts on various social media that you use, this is a means by which everyone can bring attention to child sexual abuse – thankyou.

Update 7th Dec

Having written again to ask for the omitted public interest test, and more explanation of the exemption and the reports, I received a prompt reply. This gives more details of the Report held which is 6 pages long and they have some more information relevant to child abuse, which the Council also consider exempted. They give more details as to the reasons for exemption.

However if the reason is to prevent detection of crime and apprehend offenders and prosecute- why was it not done 40 years ago?

The subsections relied on in this case are s31 (1) (a) (b) and (c) as
noted below.

Section 31 Law enforcement.

(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is
exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to, prejudice—

(a) the prevention or detection of crime,

(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,

(c) the administration of justice,

The public interest test

Section 31 Arguments in favour of disclosure:

· There is a general presumption in the FOI Act that disclosure of
information is in the public interest.

· There is a public interest in the disclosure of information
which leads to transparency about how public organisations conduct their

Section 31 Arguments against disclosure:

· It is considered that disclosure of the information in question
would be likely to prevent the detection of crime; the apprehension or
prosecution of offenders; and the administration of justice.

· It is considered that disclosure of the information in question
would be likely to prejudice ongoing investigations into the matters
regarding Beecholme Care Home.

· Given that the investigations concern non-recent matters,
relating to over 40 years ago, and the consequent fact that obtaining
evidence is that much more difficult in such historical cases, any
disclosure would be likely to make the efforts to gather evidence much
more difficult or simply no longer possible.

· It is considered that disclosure of the information in question
would be likely to have a profound and detrimental impact on any victims
who were identified as a result of the disclosure.

The balance of the public interest test is against disclosure in this case
given the likely prejudice that would be caused to law enforcement
activities as noted above, as well as the impact on any victims.

Information held by the local authority

The Council holds one report and some further information not held as part
of a report. It is considered that all such information is exempt from
disclosure under s31 (1) (a) (b) and (c). The release of either the report
or any other information held would be likely to have the impacts
identified under ‘Arguments against disclosure’ as noted above. The
report is six pages long. The date investigations started is not held.

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

I have written back with the following –

Thank you for the prompt detail.
The correct original reply should have been received by approx 3 Sept, were the investigations in progress then and by who?
Has the report and other information been given to police and or the CSA Inquiry?
Which bodies are you saying that the FOI release of this information would hamper?
Has the Council contacted the London Met Archives to see what information that they may hold on the abuse, which may be useful for the Council, Survivors Groups, Police and CSA Inquiry? If so what is that list, including titles and dates and the number of relevant reports and pieces of information?

Updated 2017 Dec 8

Wandsworth Council replied that the Report has not been shared with other bodies, ie csa inquiry and perhaps includes the police, it is not clear. Nor have the council checked what documents are with Londpn Met Archives – which survivors/campaigners  obviously need to check. The response is as follows.

You’re welcome and I hope you will appreciate that whilst I have been
seeking to respond to your enquiries in as helpful a way as possible, I
must take care to do so having regard to the legal requirement not to
prejudice ongoing enquiries into the matter. However, I have noted
responses to your further questions below.

– Yes, enquiries in respect of law enforcement were in progress by 3rd
September 2017.

– The report held by the authority is an internal document. The report
itself has not been shared with any other bodies, although some of the
information it contains will have been shared, where strictly necessary,
for the purposes of law enforcement.

– Release of the report would be likely to prejudice the progress of
ongoing enquiries in respect of law enforcement.

– The Council’s current and ongoing focus is on the matter of law
enforcement; I have not been able to establish that any Council officers
have sought to obtain archived material from the London Metropolitan
Archives in respect of this matter.


  • 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]
  • Fresh Start Foundation Scottish not for profit group, helping child sexual abuse victims & survivors  [P]


[1] 2017 Aug 3 Cathy Fox FOI

[2] 2017 Aug 31 FOi Reply

[3] 2017 Oct 20  FOI Internal Review Request

[4] London Met Archives

[5] 2017 Dec 5 FOI Internal Review Reply

[6] 2017 Dec 6 Further reply WDTK

[A] Sanctuary for the Abused

Let justice be done though the heavens fall – Fiat justitia ruat cælum

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 sexual abuse, Childrens home, London, South East and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Beecholme – Wandsworth Council wrong to say they had no Child Abuse Reports

  1. Pingback: Beecholme – Wandsworth Council wrong to say they had no Child Abuse Reports — cathy fox blog on child abuse | L8in

      • LESLEY COOK. says:

        24 Mar 2016 – CHILDREN are being raped, attacked, assaulted and ignored, according to a report which identified “widespread serious and systemic failings” by Essex Police. Not investigating child on child rape is “common practice” and paedophiles are free to continue grooming children online even after reports are …AND THE KEIR STARMER QC EVIDENCE OF DJ WOOLARD HHJ LEVY HHJ D,TURNER QC…NOT 1 HAVE STOPPED THE SERIOUS CORRUPTION… WHAT DO THE POLICE DO WITH PEOPLE WELL WHAT A SURPRISE..YES I KNOW HANGINGS COVERED UP…YES THEY TRIED WITH ME OVERDOSED BY DOCTOR EL_MARAGHY..CANT GET TREATMENT AT MY DOCS OF OVER 30 YRS ALL LOCUMS…Police investigating up to 25 deaths at Essex mental health units – The …
        13 Sep 2017 – Up to 25 deaths at various mental health units run by the North Essex Partnership NHS Trust are being investigated by police. Nine different establishments..Sir Keir Starmer, the then director of public prosecutions (DPP), in the decision. Labour’s deputy, a former CPS chief and the hidden papers on failed sex case Labour’s deputy, a former CPS chief and the hidden papers on failed sex caseLabour’s deputy, a former CPS chief and Townley, who left the CPS last year, was described by John Hardy QC, Keir Starmer comes to the judges’ defence – New Statesman
        KEIR STARMER COVERED UP SERIOUS CORRUPTION POLICE.Strip search of boy, 16, at centre of misconduct hearing – BBC News
        21 Aug 2017 – Two Essex Police officers face a misconduct panel after a 16-year-old boy was wrongly strip searched. … A teenage boy was wrongly strip searched in the back of a police van without a responsible adult present, it has emerged. A police misconduct panel heard the 16-year-old was strip searched three …
        The JCIO is unable to investigate, challenge or question a judge’s decision or case
        handling because these are part of a judge’s function and not personal conduct. It is
        only for a judge to decide how to conduct the proceedings before them in court. It is
        also only for a judge to decide what evidence or information they wish to consider. In
        accordance with his case management function, therefore, in respect of point C) DJ
        Woollard was entitled to dismissed the evidence as being lawful and not to take an
        interest in the Criminal Case or look at the CPS evidence. In respect of point A) a
        judge is entitled to decide who they want to hear from during a hearing and how long
        for. I therefore confirm that points A) and C) are dismissed under Rule 21(b) because
        they relate to DJ Woollard’s handling of the case and his decision making in the
        REPORT CHIEF INSPECTOR CARRINGTON 2008 THE SERIOUS CORRUPTION IS TO SERIOUS FOR LOCAL RESOLUTION…The police staff member had resigned prior to the commencement of the PSD investigation. It is alleged that a male officer has had inappropriate contact with vulnerable females. This matter was referred to the IPCC on 24th July 2014.
        Update: The officer has been suspended and a PSD investigation is in progress.
        The IPCC has returned this matter back to force to be conducted as a
        supervised investigation.
        Update: The investigation is on-going and the officer has had the suspension lifted and is back at work on a restricted basis. Complaints, Misconduct and other matters
        Essex Police Professional Standards Department produce a quarterly report on behalf of the Chief Constable which outlines the background to complaints, misconduct and other matters for the attention of the Police and Crime Commissioner of Essex.
        Report 2017 Q1
        Report 2016 Q4
        Have you been rejected for a deferred payment scheme by your local authority? Let us know: than 100 homes a week are being seized from elderly people by councils to pay for their care home fees.
        Families have been forced to hand over properties because local authorities are refusing to pay for the care.
        The scale of the confiscations – revealed yesterday by a Freedom of Information request – will pile pressure on the Government to help the thousands of families forced to pay ruinous care fees.


  2. Pingback: cathy fox Beecholme – Wandsworth Council wrong to say they had no Child Abuse Reports | HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE

  3. Pingback: NEWS | goodnessandharmony


    Reblogged this on HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Pingback: Beechwood Survivors Interim Report | cathy fox blog on child abuse

  6. Pingback: Beecholme Survivors Interim Report | L8in

  7. Pingback: cathy fox Beecholme Survivors Interim Report | HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE : KAREN IRVINE IS EL COYOTE IS SNAKE LOGAN IS HOAXTEAD

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

  9. Pingback: Lambeth Compensation for ex residents of Lambeth Childrens Homes and Survivors. | cathy fox blog on child abuse

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.