THE Sunday Herald went to the University of Dundee to interview Mark Smith last week, but he was not at his office. We then asked a press officer if we could interview Smith but he chose to respond in writing using the press officer as an intermediary.
He said raising questions of wrongful and false allegations is “an entirely legitimate academic interest” and he does “appreciate that this is a very sensitive area … but I believe we must be honest in our examination of the complexity of care work and the reasons why former residents might seek to interpret or reinterpret their experiences in a particular way. That does not make me an ‘apologist for child abuse’ and I strongly refute any such description.”
Smith accused the Sunday Herald of a “witch hunt based on guilt by association or, more worryingly, guilt where there is not even association”.
When asked about his comments defending Brother Benedict, Smith confirmed they worked together and said the case inspired him to become an academic.
When asked to justify his defence, Smith said: “The device in question generated static electricity. It was similar to the Van de Graaff generators used in science labs across the country – its impact was no greater. I know this from personal experience and [in the trial] several former pupils testified to this effect.
“It is legitimate to assert from personal experience that this was not abuse.”
He added: “In terms of the [Brother Benedict] case I have only ever questioned the interpretation of allegations surrounding the Van de Graaff generator and whether the minor electric shock produced by a hand-cranked generator constituted abuse. I have never commented on any other aspects of the allegations.”
When asked whether his article entitled “Criminalising everyday care” is a defence of child abusers, Smith said: “There is nothing in this article that defends child abusers – I don’t defend child abusers. I question the criminal justice system’s responses to credulously believing every claim. I am not alone in this as recent events in England testify, for example ... the ‘Nick’ case, in which allegations against prominent figures have been shown to be wholly without substance. There are equally valid questions to be asked in respect of responses to historical abuse.”
When asked about his comments – that he has not come across a case yet where he has been convinced of guilt and he found himself thinking on hearing of some charges “I’ve done that” – Smith said these comments are “in relation to the application of historical standards to present-day care. This is in contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which prohibits the application of retrospective justice. My legitimate interest is in miscarriages of justice”.
Smith added that he has “never denied that abuse takes place in residential care” and said he knows “as much as anyone the importance of delivering justice for victims but that does not mean I automatically accept every claim of abuse unquestioningly”.
In an article published in the Sunday Herald on November 26 ,2017 (St Katharine’s Secure Unit: a history of abuse) we stated that Mark Smith worked “alongside” Gordon Collins, who was jailed for sexually abusing children at St Katharine’s Centre, a secure unit, and at Northfield, another Edinburgh Council care home, between 1995 and 2006. Mark Smith was principal of Secure Services until 2000 and did work at St Katharine’s until then but he did not work alongside Gordon Collins and does not know Collins personally or professionally. We are happy to clarify this matter and set the record straight.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here