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.