HASC: Justice Lowell Goddard 11th Feb 15

This pre-selection HASC hearing with Judge Goddard, proposed chair of the CSA inquiry, will be the last one that involves this select committee. Keith Vaz explained that ‘as soon as a statutory inquiry is formed, parliament steps back to allow the statutory inquiry to do its work.’ However, he expressed the view that he was sure that the successor committee, formed after parliament is reassembled after the 7th May, will want to hear from Justice Goddard.



Filed under Abuse, HASC, News, Politics

6 responses to “HASC: Justice Lowell Goddard 11th Feb 15

  1. Pingback: HASC: Justice Lowell Goddard 11th Feb 15 | Alternative News Network

  2. artmanjosephgrech

    Given the independence of the Inquiry and its scope it is questionable that the Home Affairs Committee is the right vehicle for formal reporting progress in the future as Education Heath Justice and other committees also involved so a special committee might need to be formed and representing all parties with an interest eg Northern Ireland Scottish and Welsh MPs

  3. L Irving

    I would like to know your opinion Justice Goddard with regard to the three links on the child abuse enquiry.

    From what I have read and listened too:

    1. Theresa May set up an independent child abuse enquiry, chosen by herself most from the Home Office.

    2. TM chose two chairs, both had conflicts of interest, both stood down.

    3. The only two independent people are the two victims of child abuse.

    4. TM appointed Ben Emmerson QC as an advisor to the Independent Panel.

    5. Within the letters and documents Ben Emmerson QC spoke to Fiona W. after Sharon Evans had spoken, (see Page 30 dated 06/01/2015), given that Fiona W. had to stand down due to a conflict of interest, why was he speaking to Fiona W, is this a breach of confidentiality.

    6. The letters between the secretariat Angela Kyle and Ben Emmerson QC (Page 68 and previous), from the correspondence it would seem that Ben Emmerson is imposing his views on the secretariat Angela Kyle, considering that his job was only to advise the panel, is he showing a conflict of interest to the Home Secretary.

    7. Listening to Ben Emmerson QC speaking to the Home Affairs Select Committee, it seems his duties are to report to the Home Secretary, this shows clearly that he is not treating his position as an advisor to the panel as independent, he is putting his duty to the Home Secretary before his position as an advisor to the panel, this is surely is a conflict of interest, the reason being he is duty bound to the panel and not the Home Secretary.

    8. Ben Emmerson QC clearly shows when speaking to the Home Affairs Select Committee he is not working as an independent advisor to the independent panel, but using his qualified position as a Queens Council prosecutor or judge ( I may be using the wrong words, prosecutor or judge), rather than advise, he is using his qualified position to undermine Sharon Evans an independent child abuse victim, while continuing to look for the Home Sectretary’s approval on what he is doing.

    9. Ben Emmerson QC can not say that the panel agree with him, in the sense, he is only there as an advisor, he is not on the panel, he is not there to make judgement of the panel, he is not there only to give advice, because he is seeking to get the approval of the Home Secretary and the panel on matters that are not related to his position, there is a conflict of interest between Ben Emmerson and his allegiance to the Home Secretary and his position as an Independent Advisor to the Independent Panel.

    10. Theresa May set up an Independent Enquiry for Child Abuse Victims, she set up the Independent Panel, that does not mean she has full control, this is an Independent Panel, therefore she should be asking questions from the panel. It has clearly been shown that Ben Emmerson QC is liasing with the Home Secretary which puts his position as an independent advisor to the panel in question.

    11. The relationship between Theresa May and Ben Emmerson QC has clearly shown that Ben Emmerson QC should step down from the post as an advisor to the panel and someone should be appointed who is not connected to the Home Secretary, their connection shows clearly a conflict of interest, therefore Ben Emmerson QC will not be able to perform his job as independent advisor to an Independent Panel.

    12. At the end of the session with the Home Affairs Select Committee, Sharon Evans was told to go to them if she had any foreseeable problems in the future, this being so, should the Home Affairs Select Committee take over the position of Theresa May the Home Secretary, the reason I ask, Theresa May does not seem to understand what an independent panel means, an independent panel means that they have the ability to fulfill their positions without the interference from an inside source of parliament which could damage the enquiry, which looks to be the case.

    13. The public will have no confidence while Theresa May is at the healm, her duty as Home Secretary to set up an Independent Enquiry has come under scrutiny once again as she has put in place an independent advisor who’s duties lie to her, rather than the independent panel, for this reason, she should have no connection whatsoever with the Independent Child Abuse Enquiry, the Home Affairs Select Committee should take over, an independent advisor and Chair should be put in place and the panel should be allowed to get on with their work.

    14. The reason Ben Emmerson QC should step down from this enquiry, he is a well respected man in his profession, this could damage his reputation with his connection to Theresa May the Home Secretary.

    15. Should Sharon Evans be on the panel, she knows what it is to be abused as a child.

    I may be looking at the information from the wrong angle, but these are the questions and thoughts after reading the information, what are your thoughts after reading the links

  4. tazzdevil48


  5. After years of harassment most of us are very reluctant to speak out again
    the police warned us to be silent as we could be sued for libel, we were told the board of british deputies run this country and to name a jew as many of us wanted to could put those close to us in danger,
    So we may still keep silent, anyone who helps us such as the radio shows by Dr patel made him a target for character assassination and ridicule, and of course he lost his NHS job
    It was said those working for Rupert Murdock paid people to make fun and discredit whistleblowers.
    for the moment those of us still alive will mostly avoid miss goddard thankyou

  6. Well there’s nothing to add to the debate except to say that I think Dame Goddard has brought shame on her head by abandoning the inquiry.
    I appreciate the stress it would cause for her family is Australia,
    but did she forget that the entire point was for her to devote as much of her time mind and heart to this inquiry?
    I mean whatever she stood to lose in terms of time with her family etc
    was being compensated most generously by the taxpayers.
    But I know money can’t take the place of one’s family
    but come on this case required full attention and now the victims who were relying on her are now left in limbo again.
    its not good.
    I think it is safe to assume Dame Goddard has lost any respect she once had from the British public
    and the Australian public won’t be proud of their esteemed citizen.
    Oh Well
    that’s life I guess.