Silence In School

Lord Justice Scott Baker has established a remarkable career in law, having grown up in a family of legal professionals, he has over 40 years of experience and is currently serving as a senior judge in the High Court. He is known for his astuteness and composed demeanor. Earlier this year, he was commended for his impartial and fair management of the inquest into the passing of Princess Diana.

Apart from his professional career, Baker played an active role in running a private prep school in Buckinghamshire for 14 years. During his time at the institution, he was also the Chairman of the board of governors. However, allegations have surfaced that Baker and the headmaster of the school mishandled a case of sexual abuse of a boy by one of the teachers.

It appears that both individuals contravened the school’s policy by failing to report the incident to social services or the police for a proper investigation. The supposed abuse happened at the Caldicott prep school, a school for boys aged between seven to 13, situated near Farnham Royal in Buckinghamshire. Its grounds span over 40 acres, and it boasts of an excellent academic record; its alumni includes influential figures such as Nick Clegg.

For legal reasons, the victim is referred to anonymously as John. The abuse has had grave psychological effects on the youngster, who is currently receiving counseling. The school is also blamed for withholding vital information during an earlier court case that is set to feature in a documentary. The core of the fresh allegations is based on a policy implemented by Caldicott in 2000.

The school pledged to revamp their mechanisms to accommodate investigations by social services or the police in cases of suspected abuse. The organization reiterated in a letter to the education department that they would immediately suspend any staff member for alleged abuse, pending the outcome of a probe by the police or social services.

It is claimed that the incident involving John happened late in the early 2000s one night in his dormitory. Simon Doggart, the headmaster, notified Baker immediately after John confided in him the next morning. Doggart had discussed with John’s father, and they both agreed that the boy should put the incident in writing. Consequently, Doggart set up a meeting between John, his tutor, and the school’s bursar, who was deemed independent of the accused’s circle of associates, to help him draft the statement.

John’s father insists that the process was "woefully inadequate" as no counseling was provided to his son, and no representative was present at the time of the meeting. He further claims that the environment in the room was "tense, if not hostile," making it difficult for his son to offer an extensive and detailed account of the events. The parents assert that they were initially not informed by Doggart or Baker that it was school policy to report such allegations to the police or social services.

The school argues that they did not report the incident as the parents were adamant that they shield their son from the potential publicity that would arise from such reports. They contend that they did not want to contravene the parents’ wishes, and that their contemporaneous records justify their inaction.

The parents, however, maintain that the school did not notify them that their son’s anonymity would be guaranteed if the police or social services were involved. They insist that they wanted to protect their son from the repercussions of disclosing the incident to other parties and were unaware that reporting to the relevant authorities would safeguard his anonymity.

The speaker noted that schools have become subject to stricter regulations in recent years. At the time of the incident, schools were not obligated to inform the authorities of allegations. However, the current government advises schools that any such allegation should be looked into independently.

After the incident, the parents of the student met with the headmaster to discuss it. The school’s notes from this meeting stated that the parents felt their child was very frightened initially, but had since calmed down. Some months later, another meeting was held with Judge Scott Baker, during which it was noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the teacher had abused other pupils.

The school’s governing body met two months after the incident took place to consider the matter. The minutes of this meeting showed that the parents had initially been satisfied with the school’s response but had some reservations. Scott Baker suggested that the matter should be reported to the Department for Education and Employment or social services, believing there to be a moral obligation to do so. One board member felt that social services should definitely be involved, but Baker reminded them that the boy’s father did not wish his son to be disturbed further. Despite some debate, the board majority agreed that the matter should be reported to either the DfEE or social services.

Caldicott informed the DfEE but not social services, as is required in such cases. The school fully disclosed the situation to the DfEE so that other employers could be aware that the teacher had been accused or convicted of abusing children. Months later, the parents told the school that their child was prepared to be interviewed, which was relayed to the DfEE. However, it was not until at least a year had passed that the allegation came to the attention of the police, not at the school’s instigation but through an unidentified source. The investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence to begin a prosecution.

The parents believe that the delay reduced the likelihood of a conviction, but Caldicott disputes this and states that there was a lack of conclusive evidence against the teacher anyway. Furthermore, the parents claim that the school downplayed the allegation, but Caldicott denies this.

Allegations of abuse have also been levelled against Peter Wright, who was headmaster of Caldicott between 1968 and 1993. He has been accused of abusing boys aged 11 to 14 at the school during his tenure. At his trial in 2003, the judge stayed the prosecution as he believed Wright would not receive a fair trial due to the decades-long time lapse since the alleged crimes. The school was accused of withholding important information from Wright, but the school denies this, stating that it had offered Wright witness information, which he declined.

A documentary being shown tonight on More4 features three former Caldicott pupils who describe being groomed and abused by teachers at the school in the past. Their experiences demonstrate the importance of parents scrutinising a school’s child protection procedures to ensure their children’s safety.