‘Most shocking case I have ever examined’

FILES RELATING to a Home Office researcher’s attempts to investigate street grooming of children in the town by gangs of paedophiles were stolen from a locked council office – but no culprits can be identified, investigators have concluded.

An investigation was ordered into the theft of files after evidence about the incident was given to MPs by the researcher in 2014 in which she said an unknown individual had gained access to her office in the Risky Business youth project and removed all the data relating to her work with the Home Office in 2002.

Her computer records were also “impaired” in the incident.

The report found: “There is a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence to support an assertion that an incident occurred involving the removal of files and/or impairment of computer records belonging to the former researcher.

“On the basis of our investigation and taking into account the circumstantial evidence available, our conclusion is that on the balance of probability it is likely files were removed from the Risky Business Office and computer records impaired.”

But the report added: “We have YEARS OF missing minutes of child protection conferences have been “found by chance” by South Yorkshire Police.

Professor Alexis Jay, had raised concerns she had been unable to view minutes of meetings from the late 1990s and early 2000s relating to child protection issues in the town when she conducted her independent inquiry in 2014.

They related to an organisation called the ‘Key Players Group’ which involved police and council figures, as well as voluntary agencies in the town. It was linked to the Risky Business project that had been set up to help victims of child sexual exploitation.

But a report said “some minutes had been found by chance by the South Yorkshire Police as part of their enquiries” in 2014, following the publication of the Jay report. no information about who might have been the culprit(s), if files were removed and/or computer records impaired. We have found no evidence that would suggest any council officers referred to in this report were involved in the alleged incident.

“The work of Risky Business was gaining profile in 2002 and with what is known now about the exploitation of children, there might well have been strong motivation for individuals to prevent the information held in Risky Business files from being reported to statutory agencies.”

The report said the allegation had been first raised in 2002 as part of a grievance procedure but the grievance was withdrawn and the allegation not followed up.

Council officers interviewed as part of the new investigation “denied any knowledge of the alleged incident”.

The report added: “The council missed an opportunity to confirm at the time whether any removal of documents and/or impairment of computer files had occurred or not. In view of the significance of the matter, the council’s procedures should have led the council to look at the matter outside of the grievance. Not least, there should have been recognition of the potential loss of data, reportable under the Data Protection Act.” Minutes of 11 meetings were discovered among 175 council boxes and files held by the police. The report said: “It was the weak arrangements for archiving records within the council, compounded by a lack of a more structured and corporate response to Professor Jay’s requests, rather than a lack of interest by the council which led to minutes remaining undiscovered. “Based on the findings from this investigation, it is concluded that the council’s records management arrangements were insufficient to record the contents of files sent for archiving and future retrieval. “Primarily for this reason, and the lack of a broader resource for co-ordinating a response to Professor Jay, it is concluded the council did not have adequate arrangements in place to manage the information requests received from Professor Jay.” THE CASE of a 12-year-old girl who became a victim of sexual exploitation while being looked after in a local children’s unit has been described as the “most shocking I have ever come across” by a senior social work expert.

Jean Imray, who specialises in supporting councils found to be failing children, conducted a review of 15 cases highlighted by the Jay report.

She said that in the case of Child E “the failings were of such magnitude that a more detailed, forensic review of that case was warranted”. She there appeared to be evidence of “significant culpability by at least two social care professionals.”

The Jay report described how there was a “level of chaos” in the care of Child E, “with staff powerless as older children in the residential units introduced younger and more vulnerable children like Child E to predatory adult males who were targeting children’s homes”.

The child was then prematurely moved into semi-independent accommodation, where was at even greater risk of harm.

But Rotherham Council chief executive Sharon Kemp said despite the calls for further investigations, there were the “same issues of the difficulty of holding individuals to account” as there had been in other areas of the reports.

Ms Imray’s reports concluded “there are insufficient grounds to proceed with any action against any individual practitioner or team manager” in the other 14 cases she examined after they were first highlighted by Professor Jay in 2014.

Ms Imray said: “With the exception of one case, I have not found any examples of individual casework so poor or dangerous that disciplinary action against individual practitioners would be warranted.”