April 12, 2024 • 17 mins
Welcome to the latest episode of the HJ Talks Abuse podcast where we unpack sexual abuse cases to facilitate discussion on often neglected subjects. Brought to you by the legal experts at Hugh James, we aim to not just address these cases from a legal standpoint but also bring to light to broader issues suffered by survivors of sexual abuse.
In this episode, host Alan Collins, the partner heading the abuse team at Hugh James, is joined by expert colleague Danielle Vincent. They discuss an important, often overlooked aspect in these cases - the apology. However, listener discretion is advised as the sensitive nature of the content could be distressing for some.
This episode delves into the complexity surrounding apologies in the aftermath of sexual abuse. The UK Ministry of Justice has initiated a consultation paper concerned with the the legal ramifications of apologies in civil proceedings and whether reform is needed. The hosts explore how apologies, considered a significant part of the legal landscape, can impact the course of a case and the survivors' healing process.
Dani and Alan delve deeper into the intricacies surrounding apologies and their legal implications, the reactions of survivors, and complexities tethering apologies to liability. The conversation also includes a brief look at the legal approach to apologies in jurisdictions like Scotland, Hong Kong, and Northern Ireland. Lastly, the hosts relay urgent concerns about the proposed changes and urge listeners to remain engaged and contribute to the consultation paper.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
Welcome to the HGA Talks About Abuse podcast, the podcast where we talk about
sexual abuse cases in the hope that it will assist listeners in openly discussing
topics which have been ignored for too long.
This podcast is brought to you by the abuse team at Hugh James.
We are lawyers, so we tend to speak about the legal aspects of abuse cases,
but we aren't too shy to speak up about the broader issues faced by survivors
(00:25):
of sexual abuse too. We hope that you will find it interesting.
But more than that, if you are a survivor of sexual abuse, we hope that you
will find our discussion empowering.
Hello, my name is Alan Collins. I am the partner who heads up the abuse team
at Hugh James and I'm joined by my colleague Danielle Vincent.
(00:45):
Hi, Danny. Hi, Alan. Alan.
Welcome to this latest podcast in which we are going to be discussing apologies.
But before we get underway, I need to point out that in these podcasts,
we often talk about very sensitive matters, which understandably,
people listening in could find very distressing.
(01:07):
So if you think you may be troubled in any shape or form by the content of this podcast,
you may want to go off
and do something else otherwise please do stay with us so back to the subject
matter apologies well we all know what an apology is saying sorry and when you say sorry.
(01:34):
It's meant to be genuine and sometimes there can be a bit of a row a bit of a disagreement,
over whether that apology is sincere or not so i'm sure we're all familiar with that kind of,
territory but what we're going to be looking at in this
podcast is the giving
(01:57):
of an apology where someone has been harmed sexually abused say and we're going
to be talking about this because the government that is the ministry of justice
has put out a consultation paper reforming the law of apologies in civil proceedings
and it would like people to contribute.
(02:17):
So if this is of interest to you number
one please do listen to this podcast and number
two have a look at the government's
consultation paper and the
website is consult.justice.gov.uk forward
slash but I'll put that website address
(02:40):
in the text that goes up when
this podcast gets hosted so apologies
well the government has said that it needs
to look at what's going on and see whether
there's need for reform because apologies
have been sort of part of the legal landscape
for quite a few years now and under
(03:04):
the compensation act 2006 parties are able to effectively offer an apology and
for that apology not to be legally binding so to copy from the consultation paper the paper it says.
The current law is set out in Section 2 of the Compensation Act 2006 and aims
(03:27):
to encourage those defending claims not to be deterred from offering apologies
by a perception that doing so would constitute an omission of liability.
Whilst there is little empirical evidence to suggest how effective the current
legislation is, the general view is that it had very little impact as parties
understandably very averse to offering apologies for fear of liability being omitted.
(03:48):
This consultation therefore looks at
the role of apologies generally within the sphere of
civil justice and asks whether the compensation act is suitable
or whether it should be replaced with new legislation and if
so what the new regime should be one fundamental
question is whether it should be easier to make an
apology there are points to be made on both sides some
(04:10):
argue that protected apologies help settle cases
early and so it should be easy to make one on the
other hand others believe that the apology will not assist
in the resolution and therefore that the desire for one
need to be addressed in an apology statute end of
quote i could go on reading from this but that
would defeat the purpose of this podcast and the discussion
(04:31):
that danny and i are going to have it's an
interesting it's an interesting proposal because as you and i have discussed
when preparing for this it's very independent on what the client who somebody
who's coming to you wants you know We often have people that an apology is basically
the founding thing that that individual may want.
(04:53):
And then you may have clients that actually the apology, they don't feel like
it's worth the paper it's written on.
For example, if the abuser is dead or the organisation, this is now coming from
someone who's not involved at all in what happened, especially if it was a number of years ago.
So there's that element you need to consider what the individual actually wants.
(05:14):
But what I thought was interesting with this consultation was there's been a
comparison in the law in Scotland, Northern Ireland and in Hong Kong.
And both in Scotland and Hong Kong, the position is quite clearly that even
if an apology is made, there's no admission of liability.
Liability and I wonder whether that actually means
that the cases do settle quicker or that
(05:36):
their clients that they're representing actually feel
like they've obtained you know perhaps
better closure because they've had a formal apology
Northern Ireland doesn't have anything
in regards to this from my understanding so there
is a bit of variation here there sure is I
think there's several strands to this so you know
(05:59):
sometimes i feel that there's a contradiction in terms
apology means apology
you're apologizing for something that you've
gone and done but you shouldn't have done you're saying sorry which is different
to what is sometimes termed as an expression of regret you know so i perhaps
(06:21):
i'm getting a bit sort of cynical in my old age I just see these sort of,
in some cases, you get these very carefully
crafted letters coming in from defendants, usually their lawyers,
sort of saying in one paragraph, we're very sorry for what happened.
On the other hand, next paragraph, not our fault. So, you know,
(06:45):
complete contradiction in terms. But anyway, we'll come back to that. that.
It reminds me of a very sort of profound moment I've had in my career quite
a number of years ago now.
It was a client of mine.
Lovely person she was very brave she had been very badly sexually abused as a child by her uncle,
(07:17):
and she wasn't the only victim her cousins had also been sexually abused by
this man too and And it was a sort of, I suppose, a sort of family known sort of secret, as it were.
And then you jump ahead several decades, 30 or 40 years.
And one of the cousins actually goes to the police and makes a complaint about uncle.
(07:44):
And so there's a police investigation and the police understandably want to
find other victims as potential witnesses.
So they approach my client, who does the right thing, I think,
and says, yeah, I'm prepared to help. I'm a victim, too.
And she supported the police and the prosecution in two separate trials.
(08:08):
And he was convicted and sent to prison for a long, long time, probably die in prison.
So she did her public duty by going all the way through, you know,
the criminal process and having to give evidence, be cross-examined and all the rest of it.
And she said to me, all I wanted him to do was acknowledge what he'd done and
(08:32):
to say, sorry, I wasn't interested in him going to prison.
And that's quite profound and
listeners would say well you know that
they you know they might understandably not agree with her sentiment
and they may say well of course he should have gone to
prison but i think that's missing the point or trying to miss the point that
(08:54):
she was trying to make which was she wanted him to acknowledge what he had done
and say sorry for all the the enormous harm that he had inflicted on her and
other members of the family.
And so I think from a survivor perspective, and I'm not sure this is understood
(09:14):
widely, they want acknowledgement, don't they?
They want someone to acknowledge the harm that has been caused.
And I think with this consultation on apologies, they're missing something.
Think that it's sort of not recognizing that it's a lot more profound than just
(09:40):
someone saying a solicitor on behalf of a party say we're very sorry for what happened but.
I think that's getting away from what survivors would be saying,
what this really should be all about.
Yeah, I think you're right there.
And as we say, it's very individually specific on the person that's coming to
(10:05):
us, because as we say, you know, you could have somebody that just will not
want an apology from an abuser or an organisation that's failed.
And you do see it and we've both seen it
with experience as well when we've had clients that have wanted
an apology and especially on the
cases that were quite widely publicized in
the press such as the football abuse is that actually in
(10:28):
the end the organizations were willing to provide apologies
but they weren't for you know the years of
litigation going on because I think that they were worried of
effectively a floodgates opening that they'll send an apology
and then all all of a sudden they'll have lots and lots of
other people come forward which is wrong in
that respect because as the paper
(10:49):
is at the current moment it doesn't accept liability but
can mean a lot to certain people indeed indeed and which reminds me of all the
work that we've done in jersey for example where there has been a public apology
and also individual apologies for those survivors who wanted an individual apology.
(11:13):
So for some survivors, that's absolutely right. It means a great deal.
And as I said, in Jersey, in the wake of, you know, the,
you know, the terrible cases that we
know about arising from Hoda Garan and
other children's homes and other very um
sad cases there has been that public apology
(11:35):
by the then jersey government and
individual apologies too and
that's meant an awful lot to many people but
of course that's been given in the context of a
much broader canvas in which
in jersey there was the public inquiry and
also um the two compensation
(11:58):
schemes to pay compensation to
survivors so it's a
a bigger a pitch bigger
picture in that the apology or apologies
were given in the context of doing other
things for survivors compensation and
(12:20):
so on and i think this brings me on to the the point that troubles me with this
consultation is I don't like personally seeing apologies being given but then in the next breath but.
Because that completely detracts from, in my view, the sort of candidness or
(12:43):
the candor of the apology that's being given.
And I think here we are in 2024, we should be doing better than this.
Victims of sexual abuse shouldn't be treated in this sort of way.
I think they deserve better. Yeah. And the other side of this that we discussed
(13:06):
was that if the apology is the only recourse that the individual can get,
depending on the specific facts of the case, you know, the abuser's dead, for example,
or there's no organisation to potentially sue because of, you know,
whatever changes may have happened over the time so that there's not a civil
claim that can possibly be successful.
(13:27):
For the apology may be the only recourse that
that individual may get so there may be much more
importance on that yeah i
get that and um i wouldn't want to detract from it at all and it's you know
at the end of the day it doesn't matter what i think i'm not a survivor what
(13:49):
matters is is is what the survivors think you know the people that we try and help,
Some clients actually say to me, well, if I am successful with my claim,
I do want an apology, which is entirely understandable and legitimate.
And as you say, and then sometimes you get clients that are almost offended
(14:12):
at the idea of having an apology because they just don't think it means anything.
It doesn't change anything.
So it is a very individual opinion, I think, on the apologies.
But I do think it is right for the government to look at this and get feedback
on it and look at the other, as I say, the other jurisdictions and what they
(14:33):
do on it. Well, that's right.
And I think there's an opportunity here to actually go a lot further,
you know, because there's been talk over the years about having a protocol that
the key players, so to speak, should adhere to.
You know, they have these protocols in the various Australian states which seem
to be successful, and we ought to have one here.
(14:55):
And it's all about gearing the parties to follow a non-litigious route to resolve
the survivors' complaints or claim.
And that, of course, can, you know, include an apology.
But it should not be an excuse to try and manage the survivor,
(15:19):
because I have seen in some settings, religious settings in particular,
these sort of internalized schemes, which on the face of it seem to be all very
worthy to try and resolve complaints of abuse and sexual abuse and emotional abuse and so on.
But you then find, either intentionally or unintentionally, those operating
(15:44):
the scheme sort of managing the survivor.
And again, my own personal view is that that's entirely inappropriate, if not damn right wrong.
So I think there's a big discussion to have here.
Yeah, it'll be interesting how the consultation goes, what follows on from it.
Yeah, I think we should contribute to it. And I think as many people and organisations
(16:09):
as possible should contribute to it because it's an important opportunity.
As I said, my own personal view is it should go a lot further.
Yeah it'll be interesting so for our listeners as
well if they've got opinions on it unless we have
a wide range of both experts and survivors to
get in contact with us or as you say you'll put the contact details
(16:30):
so everyone's opinion can be listened to
yeah exactly i think you know the most important
voices are going to be those of the survivors not
people such as me but i am going to contribute
and i'm going to say well i think apologies should be
absolutely absolutely genuine and not
sort of weasel words with expressions of
(16:53):
regret and you know that kind of language and which i think is you know i think
personally is wrong but anyway that's me with my um me um banging the drum so
to speak standing on the soapbox so interesting thanks danny and And thanks for listening in.
As Danny said, you know, contribute.
(17:16):
And if you've got any suggestions, ideas about this podcast or any other podcast
or future podcasts, then please do get in touch.
So it's goodbye from me and it's goodbye from Danny. Bye, listeners.
(17:40):
Podcast player. If you'd like to speak to us about something you've heard today,
we'd love to hear from you.
Email us at aboutabuse at hbc.
Music.
Welcome to the HGA Talks About Abuse podcast, the podcast where we talk about
sexual abuse cases in the hope that it will assist listeners in openly discussing
topics which have been ignored for too long.
This podcast is brought to you by the abuse team at Hugh James.
We are lawyers, so we tend to speak about the legal aspects of abuse cases,
but we aren't too shy to speak up about the broader issues faced by survivors
(00:25):
of sexual abuse too. We hope that you will find it interesting.
But more than that, if you are a survivor of sexual abuse, we hope that you
will find our discussion empowering.
Hello, my name is Alan Collins. I am the partner who heads up the abuse team
at Hugh James and I'm joined by my colleague Danielle Vincent.
(00:45):
Hi, Danny. Hi, Alan. Alan.
Welcome to this latest podcast in which we are going to be discussing apologies.
But before we get underway, I need to point out that in these podcasts,
we often talk about very sensitive matters, which understandably,
people listening in could find very distressing.
(01:07):
So if you think you may be troubled in any shape or form by the content of this podcast,
you may want to go off
and do something else otherwise please do stay with us so back to the subject
matter apologies well we all know what an apology is saying sorry and when you say sorry.
(01:34):
It's meant to be genuine and sometimes there can be a bit of a row a bit of a disagreement,
over whether that apology is sincere or not so i'm sure we're all familiar with that kind of,
territory but what we're going to be looking at in this
podcast is the giving
(01:57):
of an apology where someone has been harmed sexually abused say and we're going
to be talking about this because the government that is the ministry of justice
has put out a consultation paper reforming the law of apologies in civil proceedings
and it would like people to contribute.
(02:17):
So if this is of interest to you number
one please do listen to this podcast and number
two have a look at the government's
consultation paper and the
website is consult.justice.gov.uk forward
slash but I'll put that website address
(02:40):
in the text that goes up when
this podcast gets hosted so apologies
well the government has said that it needs
to look at what's going on and see whether
there's need for reform because apologies
have been sort of part of the legal landscape
for quite a few years now and under
(03:04):
the compensation act 2006 parties are able to effectively offer an apology and
for that apology not to be legally binding so to copy from the consultation paper the paper it says.
The current law is set out in Section 2 of the Compensation Act 2006 and aims
(03:27):
to encourage those defending claims not to be deterred from offering apologies
by a perception that doing so would constitute an omission of liability.
Whilst there is little empirical evidence to suggest how effective the current
legislation is, the general view is that it had very little impact as parties
understandably very averse to offering apologies for fear of liability being omitted.
(03:48):
This consultation therefore looks at
the role of apologies generally within the sphere of
civil justice and asks whether the compensation act is suitable
or whether it should be replaced with new legislation and if
so what the new regime should be one fundamental
question is whether it should be easier to make an
apology there are points to be made on both sides some
(04:10):
argue that protected apologies help settle cases
early and so it should be easy to make one on the
other hand others believe that the apology will not assist
in the resolution and therefore that the desire for one
need to be addressed in an apology statute end of
quote i could go on reading from this but that
would defeat the purpose of this podcast and the discussion
(04:31):
that danny and i are going to have it's an
interesting it's an interesting proposal because as you and i have discussed
when preparing for this it's very independent on what the client who somebody
who's coming to you wants you know We often have people that an apology is basically
the founding thing that that individual may want.
(04:53):
And then you may have clients that actually the apology, they don't feel like
it's worth the paper it's written on.
For example, if the abuser is dead or the organisation, this is now coming from
someone who's not involved at all in what happened, especially if it was a number of years ago.
So there's that element you need to consider what the individual actually wants.
(05:14):
But what I thought was interesting with this consultation was there's been a
comparison in the law in Scotland, Northern Ireland and in Hong Kong.
And both in Scotland and Hong Kong, the position is quite clearly that even
if an apology is made, there's no admission of liability.
Liability and I wonder whether that actually means
that the cases do settle quicker or that
(05:36):
their clients that they're representing actually feel
like they've obtained you know perhaps
better closure because they've had a formal apology
Northern Ireland doesn't have anything
in regards to this from my understanding so there
is a bit of variation here there sure is I
think there's several strands to this so you know
(05:59):
sometimes i feel that there's a contradiction in terms
apology means apology
you're apologizing for something that you've
gone and done but you shouldn't have done you're saying sorry which is different
to what is sometimes termed as an expression of regret you know so i perhaps
(06:21):
i'm getting a bit sort of cynical in my old age I just see these sort of,
in some cases, you get these very carefully
crafted letters coming in from defendants, usually their lawyers,
sort of saying in one paragraph, we're very sorry for what happened.
On the other hand, next paragraph, not our fault. So, you know,
(06:45):
complete contradiction in terms. But anyway, we'll come back to that. that.
It reminds me of a very sort of profound moment I've had in my career quite
a number of years ago now.
It was a client of mine.
Lovely person she was very brave she had been very badly sexually abused as a child by her uncle,
(07:17):
and she wasn't the only victim her cousins had also been sexually abused by
this man too and And it was a sort of, I suppose, a sort of family known sort of secret, as it were.
And then you jump ahead several decades, 30 or 40 years.
And one of the cousins actually goes to the police and makes a complaint about uncle.
(07:44):
And so there's a police investigation and the police understandably want to
find other victims as potential witnesses.
So they approach my client, who does the right thing, I think,
and says, yeah, I'm prepared to help. I'm a victim, too.
And she supported the police and the prosecution in two separate trials.
(08:08):
And he was convicted and sent to prison for a long, long time, probably die in prison.
So she did her public duty by going all the way through, you know,
the criminal process and having to give evidence, be cross-examined and all the rest of it.
And she said to me, all I wanted him to do was acknowledge what he'd done and
(08:32):
to say, sorry, I wasn't interested in him going to prison.
And that's quite profound and
listeners would say well you know that
they you know they might understandably not agree with her sentiment
and they may say well of course he should have gone to
prison but i think that's missing the point or trying to miss the point that
(08:54):
she was trying to make which was she wanted him to acknowledge what he had done
and say sorry for all the the enormous harm that he had inflicted on her and
other members of the family.
And so I think from a survivor perspective, and I'm not sure this is understood
(09:14):
widely, they want acknowledgement, don't they?
They want someone to acknowledge the harm that has been caused.
And I think with this consultation on apologies, they're missing something.
Think that it's sort of not recognizing that it's a lot more profound than just
(09:40):
someone saying a solicitor on behalf of a party say we're very sorry for what happened but.
I think that's getting away from what survivors would be saying,
what this really should be all about.
Yeah, I think you're right there.
And as we say, it's very individually specific on the person that's coming to
(10:05):
us, because as we say, you know, you could have somebody that just will not
want an apology from an abuser or an organisation that's failed.
And you do see it and we've both seen it
with experience as well when we've had clients that have wanted
an apology and especially on the
cases that were quite widely publicized in
the press such as the football abuse is that actually in
(10:28):
the end the organizations were willing to provide apologies
but they weren't for you know the years of
litigation going on because I think that they were worried of
effectively a floodgates opening that they'll send an apology
and then all all of a sudden they'll have lots and lots of
other people come forward which is wrong in
that respect because as the paper
(10:49):
is at the current moment it doesn't accept liability but
can mean a lot to certain people indeed indeed and which reminds me of all the
work that we've done in jersey for example where there has been a public apology
and also individual apologies for those survivors who wanted an individual apology.
(11:13):
So for some survivors, that's absolutely right. It means a great deal.
And as I said, in Jersey, in the wake of, you know, the,
you know, the terrible cases that we
know about arising from Hoda Garan and
other children's homes and other very um
sad cases there has been that public apology
(11:35):
by the then jersey government and
individual apologies too and
that's meant an awful lot to many people but
of course that's been given in the context of a
much broader canvas in which
in jersey there was the public inquiry and
also um the two compensation
(11:58):
schemes to pay compensation to
survivors so it's a
a bigger a pitch bigger
picture in that the apology or apologies
were given in the context of doing other
things for survivors compensation and
(12:20):
so on and i think this brings me on to the the point that troubles me with this
consultation is I don't like personally seeing apologies being given but then in the next breath but.
Because that completely detracts from, in my view, the sort of candidness or
(12:43):
the candor of the apology that's being given.
And I think here we are in 2024, we should be doing better than this.
Victims of sexual abuse shouldn't be treated in this sort of way.
I think they deserve better. Yeah. And the other side of this that we discussed
(13:06):
was that if the apology is the only recourse that the individual can get,
depending on the specific facts of the case, you know, the abuser's dead, for example,
or there's no organisation to potentially sue because of, you know,
whatever changes may have happened over the time so that there's not a civil
claim that can possibly be successful.
(13:27):
For the apology may be the only recourse that
that individual may get so there may be much more
importance on that yeah i
get that and um i wouldn't want to detract from it at all and it's you know
at the end of the day it doesn't matter what i think i'm not a survivor what
(13:49):
matters is is is what the survivors think you know the people that we try and help,
Some clients actually say to me, well, if I am successful with my claim,
I do want an apology, which is entirely understandable and legitimate.
And as you say, and then sometimes you get clients that are almost offended
(14:12):
at the idea of having an apology because they just don't think it means anything.
It doesn't change anything.
So it is a very individual opinion, I think, on the apologies.
But I do think it is right for the government to look at this and get feedback
on it and look at the other, as I say, the other jurisdictions and what they
(14:33):
do on it. Well, that's right.
And I think there's an opportunity here to actually go a lot further,
you know, because there's been talk over the years about having a protocol that
the key players, so to speak, should adhere to.
You know, they have these protocols in the various Australian states which seem
to be successful, and we ought to have one here.
(14:55):
And it's all about gearing the parties to follow a non-litigious route to resolve
the survivors' complaints or claim.
And that, of course, can, you know, include an apology.
But it should not be an excuse to try and manage the survivor,
(15:19):
because I have seen in some settings, religious settings in particular,
these sort of internalized schemes, which on the face of it seem to be all very
worthy to try and resolve complaints of abuse and sexual abuse and emotional abuse and so on.
But you then find, either intentionally or unintentionally, those operating
(15:44):
the scheme sort of managing the survivor.
And again, my own personal view is that that's entirely inappropriate, if not damn right wrong.
So I think there's a big discussion to have here.
Yeah, it'll be interesting how the consultation goes, what follows on from it.
Yeah, I think we should contribute to it. And I think as many people and organisations
(16:09):
as possible should contribute to it because it's an important opportunity.
As I said, my own personal view is it should go a lot further.
Yeah it'll be interesting so for our listeners as
well if they've got opinions on it unless we have
a wide range of both experts and survivors to
get in contact with us or as you say you'll put the contact details
(16:30):
so everyone's opinion can be listened to
yeah exactly i think you know the most important
voices are going to be those of the survivors not
people such as me but i am going to contribute
and i'm going to say well i think apologies should be
absolutely absolutely genuine and not
sort of weasel words with expressions of
(16:53):
regret and you know that kind of language and which i think is you know i think
personally is wrong but anyway that's me with my um me um banging the drum so
to speak standing on the soapbox so interesting thanks danny and And thanks for listening in.
As Danny said, you know, contribute.
(17:16):
And if you've got any suggestions, ideas about this podcast or any other podcast
or future podcasts, then please do get in touch.
So it's goodbye from me and it's goodbye from Danny. Bye, listeners.
(17:40):
Podcast player. If you'd like to speak to us about something you've heard today,
we'd love to hear from you.
Email us at aboutabuse at hbc.
Music.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.