Fairness is a difficult balancing act in child abuse cases

WHEN I wrote about alleged abuse victims threatening to withdraw from the child abuse inquiry, because of concerns about their own identification, some readers were not wholly sympathetic.

Some felt abuse survivors could not reasonably expect anonymity, feeling that those against whom claims are made have a right to know who is making accusations that may be false.

That’s understandable, and more or less in line with what appears to be the inquiry’s current position – that, if it hears allegations of abuse, those said to be responsible will usually be told who is making the claims, in the interests of fairness.

The exceptions appear to be where organisations have admitted children were abused on their watch, or individuals already convicted of abuse. But survivor groups feel this means every other allegation will definitely result in an inquiry “applicant” being named to their alleged abuser.

It is wrong to overstate the chances of false allegations being made, or to view this in excessively legalistic terms. We know abuse took place, and on a significant scale, in state and charity settings, andanumberofchurch institutions. This is fact. And the inquiry is not a court – its purpose is to explore how unfettered child abuse was able to take place so readily, over so many years, and how it can be prevented in the future. The language of accused and accuser is unhelpful.

Even talking about “fairness” is problematic. For some abuse survivors talk of being fair to a person who cruelly abused their vulnerability and trust is something of a sick joke.

What has most alarmed the victim groups is that the tone of the inquiry appears to have changed. Chairwoman Lady Smith says the rules have not changed, but if so, many potential participants feel they were misled. Many clearly expected to be anonymised while their claims were looked into. They may have been labouring under a false impression, but perceptions count. Significant numbers now seem on the verge of withdrawing their evidence.

For the inquiry itself, the impression that simply has to be avoided is that it is left defending the needs of alleged abusers, while victims – and alleged victims – stand back and take no part.