Abuse victim sues council

Now an adult, she was one of three youngsters at the centre of one of the highest-profile child sex abuse investigations in Scotland of recent decades.

However, highly unusual reporting restrictions mean that The Herald cannot print the name of the council she is suing – or who was accused of hurting her and the others.

Yet legal insiders stress her case could set a crucial precedent in forcing councils who fail to protect children to pay compensation.

The woman was taken into care in 2003 after allegations that she and two stepsisters were abused by her stepfather, mother and others.

Seven people were eventually arrested in a series of raids in Scotland and England in respect of the allegations. Charges, however, were dropped in 2004 amid a frenzy of publicity.

In 2005 a comprehensive official report into the way local bodies handled the case came to the conclusion the woman and her two stepsisters had been the victim of sexual abuse.

The report, by the then Social Work Inspection Agency, found the victim had suffered despite 222 officially recorded concerns being passed on to various authorities about suspected sex abuse, physical abuse, neglect and health problems.

Now – in a four-week-long proof hearing scheduled for October – the woman will argue the council should pay for these failings.

Children’s rights campaigners, however, fear that crucial elements of her case – despite previous publicity – will be kept secret.

Court of Session judge Lord Stewart, in a preliminary technical judgment on aspects of the case published early this month, anonymised the name of the local authority.

He wrote: “There could be an argument for some reporting restrictions in this case. I say this on the basis of the privacy rights that are at stake and on the basis that the public interest aspect has already been substantially satisfied by the publicity given to the police operation in 2003, by the reporting of the termination of criminal proceedings in 2004 and by the coverage given to the publication of the report in 2005.”

Lord Stewart added: “There must be a public interest in knowing, at the very least, whether or not the defenders are liable in damages to the pursuer, and in general whether local authorities are liable in damages to victims for failures of their child protection services. These matters have to be debated further.”

Sarah Nelson of Edinburgh University, one of Scotland’s leading academic authorities in childhood sex abuse, last night called for transparency.

She said: “I find it absurd that the local authority in question is not being named.

“This council was at the centre of one of the most high-profile, shocking sex abuse investigations in recent Scottish history.

“Everybody involved in child protection will immediately recognise the case.

“It was subject to an excellent report by the Social Work Inspection Agency. The reported failings by social work, health, police, education were stark.

“This report highlighted a paralysis by the protective agencies concerned, which over the years failed to protect very vulnerable children. It revealed a culture under which agencies whose job was to safeguard children became fearful and paralysed at dealing with sexual abuse because of the backlash from cases like Orkney, watching their own backs instead of putting child safety at the centre of policy.

“It is now vital that we have as much transparency as possible so long as this does not compromise the privacy of the victims.”

The victims and alleged victims of sexual offences are routinely awarded media anonymity. Those accused of offences do not.

The Herald contacted the council being sued. It did not comment. Nor did solicitors acting for the woman taking the action. It is understood she first sought to sue as early as 2008.

A hearing – or proof – on the case will begin at the Court of Session in early October.