The Monsters of Medomsley

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is
for good men to do nothing”.

The laws and statutes of this land were written for all men with no exception. It is not for our government or their agents to choose which laws either do or do not apply to them and then walk away from the culpability for their actions. Being a prison officer, police officer or even high court judge does not put you above the law.

Would they allow a known sex offender to continue working for 27 years within the youth penal system? Would they facilitate his transfers from institution to institution while they knew that he was a danger to young boys? I’m afraid the answer is yes; they would and they did allow just that. ‘They’ are the Home Office and their employees.

Neville Husband, a married 67-year-old from Shotley Bridge, County Durham, staged a string of sexual abuse offences at the Medomsley centre in the 1970s and 1980s. After his career in the prison service, Husband became a Clergyman of the United Reform Church. In February 2003, Husband was convicted at Newcastle Crown Court of abusing five youngsters and was jailed for eight years. The publicity surrounding the trial led to others coming forward, and in September 2005 he was jailed for a further two years after admitting attacks on four more teenagers. He is now a known and convicted paedophile who is currently serving out his ten year prison sentence.

Husband himself worked for nearly 30 years as a prison officer and Home Office employee. As with most employers, his employers wrote his employment records, and right there on top of the pile of files is one dating back to 1967. It says Neville Husband had been arrested for the illegal importation of homosexual pornography directly into the prison. When training with the prison service, Husband claimed he bought the material for research purposes and was never charged. He was also quizzed in 1999 - five years after he was ordained as a minister - in connection with police operations probing mail order pornography. The case was dropped. One of his many victims is now pursuing the right to sue his employers for vicarious liability in a high profile sex abuse scandal.

Kevin Young, suffered at the hands of Husband, while he was serving a short sentence at the Medomsley Detention Centre, Consett, Co Durham in 1977. Husband, who became a church minister after quitting the prison service, was jailed after admitting a string of horrific sex attacks on teenage boys. Between 1969 & 1984 Despite the Home Office’s attempt to block the move, last year Mr Young won a landmark legal case to launch a bid for compensation at a hearing in Leeds against the Home Office, which ran the detention centre where Husband worked. The Home Office tried to get the case thrown out, and their plea was that too much time has passed since the crimes occurred. This has customarily worked well as a defence for child abusers in the past, as the 1980 Limitation Act states claims for compensation need to be lodged three years after attacks took place. But Mr Young's legal team argued there was provision for people to lodge claims three years after the "date of knowledge". Abuse victims may not realise how badly they have been harmed until years after the attacks took place.

Although the 1980 Limitation Act does do a valuable job and performs its function well in certain areas, it was never meant to be used or abused in order to allow the high and mighty of this land to manipulate the legal process in their own favour. The Judge (Judge Cockroft) at Leeds Crown Court rejected the Home Office’s plea of limitation. Even so, the Home Office has appealed against Judge Cockroft’s ruling, and tried to block Kevin Young’s fight for justice.

Mr Young's solicitor, David Greenwood, of Wakefield firm Jordan's, said: "This stalls the process until it's heard in the Court of Appeal in London.
"They have already tried to have his case thrown out, but they weren't successful. Now they are appealing against that decision.
"Hopefully, if Kevin is successful again, he will be able to go on and prove that the Home Office neglected to care for him adequately and allowed this abuser to sexually assault him."

Neville Husband hand-picked boys to work with him in the kitchens before brutally attacking them. One boy was forced to submit after having a bread knife held to his throat. Another was attacked when he was caught stealing icing and marzipan from the kitchen storeroom. Many of these offences were happening as early as1967 at Portland Young Offenders Institution, and at Medomsley Detention Centre for 17 years.

Psychologist Elli Godsy said that these crimes were some of the worst sexual abuse she has ever heard of.
“This is one of the worst cases of sexual abuse I have come across in my 17 years working for the home office and working with some of the most prolific sex offenders and victims in the country.”
Sexual abuse on this scale could only happen in an institution, and Husband was continually moved around from one young offenders institution to another, allowing him to continue to sexually assault young boys wherever he went with absolute and total impunity. Countless young people were dehumanized and degraded in a never-ending flow of young flesh to the torture chamber.

Governors and senior management were in full knowledge as to the horrors that were going on in the Medomsley Detention Centre. They became the people who aided and abetted Neville Husband in his perversions. They helped him to escape liability for damage done to so many people, over a very long time. Governors and senior management turned a blind eye to the blatant sexual, physical abuse, and constant barracking. This destructive behavior originated from those who were meant to be helping with the rehabilitation of young minds, with the intention that these young boys would go on to becoming productive members of society

For example, governors and senior management not only knew what was going on in the kitchen area but they actively prevented all officers’ rights of search in Neville Husband’s designated areas. Former prison officer David Gordon McClure alleged that…

"Tim Newell (the Governor) thought very highly of Husband and seemed to look after him.”

“For example, on a regular basis on rotation we would thoroughly search various areas within the centre. This was to look for cigarettes and alcohol.”

“All main areas of the prison were searched except for the kitchen area.

“The prison management would not allow anyone but Husband to have access to the kitchen area. If anyone did try and search this area there were reprimanded by management.” especially a governor called Tim Newell”

“There were always very strong rumours that Neville Husband was homosexual and that he was sexually abusing boys who were working for him in the kitchen. This was general knowledge amongst staff and boys in the centre."

“Most evenings Husband would usually keep one boy back with him after the others had been dismissed and we all felt sorry for that boy.

“Nobody reported their suspicions to anyone because Husband was so close to and supported by the Governor and his senior management. Without proof we knew that nothing would come of it except that we would be moved to a different prison.”

We feel that as we were prisoners, articles from the Geneva Convention on the torture and degradation of prisoners would be more applicable in cases like this.

* * *

We go to court again in London on the 17th 18th and 19th of October to hear the reasons behind the Home Offices appeal against judge Cockroft’s historic decision. This may allow Kevin Young’s case to go forward to the high court.

Mr Young, 45, said: "I've said from the start, this is not about money. It is about the principle that people knew this was going on but nothing was done about it.
The experience left him mentally scarred, and he was determined to help bring his tormentors to justice. This started when police officers asked him to tell his story back in 1998 as part of the operation rose years ago.

The evidence and testimonies of the many victims and other prison officers from Medomsley at the time Neville Husband was there, were instrumental in bringing him to justice. Jurors heard how Husband used intimidation and fear to ensure the silence of his detention centre victims, all from damaged backgrounds.
Judge Esmond Faulks told him:

"Their fear of you caused them to submit to your unwelcome attentions and this was in my judgement a gross breach of trust. You and others like you helped cause their damaged personalities. Until now they never thought anyone would believe them.

After the case, Det Insp Simon Orton, who led the Durham Police investigation, said he was delighted by the outcome of the case.

“It is clear this man feasted himself on these young men who were in his charge," he said. "I hope that this will bring closure for the victims. I have no doubt in my mind their lives will always be affected by what happened in Medomsley. My thoughts are very much with the victims still. DI Orton said:
"He has never acknowledged any guilt."
“They have been very brave."

Following the news coverage of his first trial, that Neville Husband was called back to court. More than seven new victims had come forward, and he eventually pleaded guilty and what’s more dropped his appeal against his original 10 year sentence.

Tim Newell was Governor from 1979 to 1981 at Medomsley. He was at Grendon prison as well as the architect of the restorative justice reforms. He says in his statement… “About five years after leaving Medomsley I was on a course at the Prison Training College at Wakefield, when I bumped into a Medomsley colleague John McBee. John told me that Neville had to leave the service over an allegation that he had abused a boy.”

That would make it around 1985/86 when Husband, “Had to leave the service over an allegation that he had abused a boy.” In 1985/86, after being forced to leave Medomsley then got a promotion to senior officer at the Frankland Maximum security prison in Co Durham. Martin Narey was the governor at the Frankland from 1986 to 89, and the governor when Husband was promoted to a senior officer as ‘punishment’ for being caught sexually abusing boys.

Public Relations

Gerry Sutcliffe, parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Home Office is aware of outstanding civil claims relating to abuse of prisoners at the Medomsley detention centre which closed in 1983. His view is that while these civil actions are ongoing it would be inappropriate to comment on any calls for a public inquiry.

“A cash boost in May this year thanks to £1.25million funding for voluntary and community organisations throughout England and Wales, announced Home Office Minister Gerry Sutcliffe.

"Sexual crimes can result in high levels of distress and can be the most damaging physically and emotionally. This funding will help to ensure that victims of these terrible offences have timely access to advice, information, care and counselling that meets their individual needs no matter where they are in the country.

"I am determined that the needs of victims of crime must be better met and this funding is part of a wider programme of Government initiatives to put the needs of those affected by crime central in the criminal justice system."

This is what Gerry Sutcliff says in public; however when in private he is as bad as the abusers. He is allowing the suffering of all the victims from Medomsley to continue, and has failed to respond adequately to calls for a public inquiry into Medomsley Detention Centre and the decades of sexual torture many young kids were put through.

The sexual abuse of a child is a uniquely horrible crime, because it destroys the child's sense of him or herself and undermines the capacity to trust. The fact that this crime is usually carried trusted and respected adults of some standing, makes the damage worse.

Mr. Young, says that it is not just him, but other Medomsley claimants are still locked in an ongoing high court case against the Home Office.

Mr Young, from York, said: "I saw some things that nobody should have to see as a young person.

Governors of the Medomsley Detention Centre and their senior management "were aware of what was happening" at the centre and "failed to stop or act upon, in accordance with the prison protocols of that time."

Many if not all of the vulnerable youths were from broken homes and fractured backgrounds. They took on the baggage of being in the care system, where they were also sexually and physically abused, not to mention ill educated. This was the only alternative to being looked after by the church. And we all know where that leads.

I believe Husband had access to all the records about the inmates he chose to serve in his kitchen; he used these to great effect. I also believe that he was not!! allowed to have access to these private documents that were for the eyes of the governor and senior officers only ad he would use these to make his decision on who he could abuse. Who has little contact with the outside world?

Who doesn’t have parents? How many come directly from the care system or had abusive parents?

In Medomsley, we would start work early as we had to get all the breakfasts ready for all the other inmates. Husband would always be there, almost superimposed on every synapse of each young mind in his charge. He had enormity and presence in his own kingdom.

I’ll not bother telling you how breakfasts were in Medomsley … sufficed to they were fast! Everything worked that way in places like that. Once you were at work, Husband would make an excuse to get past you while you were, lets say, tending the potato peeling machine. As he did so he would press his penis towards your backside fleetingly then carry on what he was doing.

On the way back he would do the same thing only with more gusto, and we all knew what might follow. He would sense everything from the initial contact in the dining hall, where he would inspect the newest intake to the centre that day, and then he’d choose who would work in the kitchen.

All his victims were threatened with their lives. Neville Husband laid claim to being in the Military and was trained to kill. “You could disappear in places like this and nobody would ever know.” “You could be buried in the bottom sports field and nobody would care.”

One centre he worked in closed in 1987. There, male inmates stayed until they were 21, and during that time in the North East detention centre he went on to becoming Reverend Husband, a minister at the Brighton Road Reformed Church in Bensham, Gateshead.

Betrayal

The UK's most vulnerable children are being "betrayed" by a care system that is guilty of a catalogue of failings, according to a damning report. The majority of young people leaving institutions are destined to become prostitutes, homeless or spend time in prison, the study states. Harriet Sergeant, author of ‘Handle with Care: an investigation into the care system’, said:
"It is not just a tragedy for the individual. A successful system of care would transform this country.

"At a stroke it would empty a third of our prisons. It would halve the number of prostitutes, reduce by between a third and a half the number of homeless and remove 80% of Big Issue sellers from our street corners.

"Not only is our system failing the young people in care, it is failing society and perpetuating an underclass."

The report says that out of the 6,000 people who leave care on average every year, 75% (4,500) will have no educational qualifications and within two years 50% will be unemployed, while 20% (1,200) will be homeless. Just one out of a hundred will make it to university. In the year ending March 31 2005, 60,900 children were taken in care - most placed with foster parents or in children's homes. Failings of the care system included children being moved among foster carers too often, and homes focusing on short-term containment rather then the long-term well-being of the youngsters. The report concluded the system should be reformed to provide "secure, stable, long-term and loving care for difficult children".

New initiatives that might help children should be explored and young people should be tracked after leaving care in order to build up a true picture of how the system was working, it added.

Hypocrisy

One would think the Crown and its employees could not act with absolute carelessness and abandon. One would think that it has sufficient morals of the sort that bind humanity together, yet the above comments show that this is far from the truth. Even today, despite the sector’s growth in statistical knowledge and greater education, young people are still not tracked after leaving care. A public servant is allowed to continue sexually assaulting children with absolute and total impunity. The authorities, being in full knowledge of these horrors are allowed to escape liability for the damage done whilst simultaneously, those same authorities don’t hesitate to punish a child for stealing a watch. It is clear from what has happened, that carelessness and abandon are words that do describe the actions of the Crown and those public servants who are only there at all because they have our trust.

We the undersigned hope that you can bring these matters to light in an effective way. This will make a difference not only to us, but the thousands of other abuse survivors whose abuse originated from being in the care of government institutions.

To this end, we will be cooperative in any projects you wish to propose that we feel are for the greater good.



Kind regards.

Kevin Young says

All who have a desire to seek the truths & facts surrounding the long term systematic sexual and mental abuse of young teenagers by Crown officers and ongoing litigation against the Home Secretary, The Home Office?

“This is a most serious matter involving Crown officers!”
Judge Cockcroft at Leeds crown court 9th November 2005

How serious? How many officers? Who was involved?

Only a much needed investigation and or enquiry public or independent into the long term criminal activities by known and named officers H.M.D.C. Medomsley, County Durham, (Now Hassockfield). Will begin to uncover what is quite frankly a horror story that really needs to be told openly and honestly so lessons not lip service may be addressed.

“This is the worst case of sexual and physical abuse I have had to deal with in my 17 years as a Home Office physiologist ,dealing with some of the most violent and dangerous sex offenders in our prisons “
Dr.Elie Godsi Leeds court 9th November 2005

Between 1967 and 1983 many raped and tortured sadistically often on a daily basis throughout there 3, 6 month sentences by a small group of serving officers and with the apparent knowledge of more senior prison officials, assistant governors and governors, with criminal charges being formally lodged firstly in 1967 for criminal offences that clearly showed a most unhealthy appetite for homosexual pornography in regards young boys in bondage etc.

The illegal importation of homosexual pornography both into the uk and then into the Medomsley youth custody centre its self, to be shown to the young inmates in private viewing situations between officers and inmates according to home office official documents and known as Portland Young offenders institute , only to be dismissed as not in the public interest!

The relocation of the offending officers to other youth custody centres, despite formal criminal charges laid by Portland police, also charges that were to be subsequently drop deemed not in the public interest!


Allowing them free access to continue there ways uninterrupted as they most certainly did, culminating in the rape and violent sexual attacks on many young inmates over a twenty year period.

Most of these will remain silent witnesses, many with a duty of care, having failed in that duty have welcomed the immoral use of this statutes of limitations act designed primarily for medical negligence to allowing those responsible to avoid accountability and therefore deny justice to genuine victims. The Church and many other institutes have and continue to misuse the act to avoid accountability! In particular where the facts have been fully investigated and found to be true.


Only by dealing truthfully and morality with past, so called historic abuse
(Not historic to those who live with its affects today!) can we truly learn and there fore begin to avoid a large proportion of the inhuman and life destroying abuse that has and continues to blight our progress to a better and more just society.


Home offices policies of inaction / avoidance and at times outright criminal deceit in this and many similar cases have resulted in the continuation of the most brutal and inhumane criminal treatment of young persons in their custody.

A society that tolerates abuse is by its very nature an abusive society, and the laws required to deal justly and morally with abuse must reflect that society’s desires.


I can fully understand the statutes of limitations when used for its designed purpose (medical negligence )but this law was never intended to be applied to victims of abuse who seek an opportunity for a fair hearing and with consideration for the well known and documented symptoms of those abused being unable to unburden there nightmares

Sometimes until many years later, in reality most victims will live out there lives silent witnesses to the betrayal and humiliation that only they will truly know and there silent screaming heard only in there shattered minds . In reality for many years only the lawyers and legal frame have gained financially from all this pain and yet how quick the defence to constantly refer to the compensation always the compensation?

They chose to further belittle and cause pain while collecting there fees in bulk, woe ye layers. Who would ignore our quest for justice peace of mind and a opportunity for some degree of closer that we and our families crave so badly.



Yours sincerely A Survivor

www.justice4survivors.org

Prison Officer evidence Medomsley DC

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act this is the evidence of David McClure, Prison Officer Medomsley DC 1978

"Tim Newell thought very highly of Husband and seemed to look after him. For example, on a regular basis on rotation we would thoroughly search various areas within the centre. This was to look for cigarettes and alcohol. All main areas of the prison were searched except for the kitchen area.

“The prison management would not allow anyone but Husband to have access to the kitchen area. If anyone did try and search this area there were reprimanded by management.”

“There were always very strong rumours that Neville Husband was homosexual and that he was sexually abusing boys who were working for him in the kitchen.
This was general knowledge amongst staff and boys in the centre.

“On a night time Husband would usually keep one boy back with him after the others had been dismissed and we all felt sorry for that boy.

“Nobody reported their suspicions to anyone because Husband was so close to and supported by the Governor and his senior management.

“Without proof we knew that nothing would come of it except that we would be moved to a different prison.”

“For sometime I was employed as a gate officer and was surprised to see that Husband was receiving large quantities of post containing homosexual pornography.

“Sometime the envelopes were not sealed and I used to look at the magazines and burn them without telling Husband.

“One opened package contained a video I looked at this and found it was hardcore gay porn, again I burned it.

“The only other person who got to work in Husband’s kitchen was his relief when he went on holiday.

“His relief was a prison officer called Brian Greenwell. There was one period where Husband was away for several weeks and another catering Officer was brought from elsewhere.

“Whilst this man was working in the kitchens he approached me and said that he was quite shocked to be receiving gay porn addressed to the ‘Catering Office and asked what to do with it. I took it from him and incinerated it.

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act this is the evidence of Tim Newell, Gov Medomsley DC 1978 to 1981

“About five years after leaving Medomsley I was on a course at the Prison Training College at Wakefield, when I bumped into a Medomsley colleague John McBee.
John told me that -Neville had to leave the service over an allegation that he had abused a boy I was quite shocked to hear this as we had continued to exchange Christmas cards.

“Neville didn’t take much time off and worked very long hours. When he was off a relief chef filled in for him, but Neville usually worked alone with the assistance of trainees which he selected.

“Neville was qualified for promotion but never took up the promotion. I have never been in touch with Neville Husband since, 1981 but I did write to him offering support shortly after I had spoken to John McBee.

“Neville seemed a devoted family man and spent a lot of his time with his family & was heavily involved in church matters.

“Not entirely consistent with what Officer McClure says is it? For it would appear that this Governor was affording Neville Husband a measure of special privilege, in going against prison protocols in the prevention of officers in their right of search of the kitchen area where Neville husband sexually abusing the kitchen inmates.”

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act this is the evidence of Thomas Boyle, Prison officer Med DC 1974 to 1977

“Husband left Medomsley on promotion around 1982 it was within a matter of weeks after he left that I was asked to assist to clean out the upstairs area of the kitchen it was while cleaning one of these upstairs rooms out, with Tony HAYES who had taken over from Husband that I opened up a 4 drawer cabinet.

“In one of the drawers I found a dildo, one or two bras, stockings and different coloured suspender belts. There were also a number of pornographic books such as parade and hustler. Books of this nature were not allowed in the detention centre.”

“He did comment that,’ THE BEST KITCHEN STAFF WERE COLOURED AND GAYS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE CLEANEST.”

“Thomas Boyle also thought it ok to destroy evidence. By doing so he allowed more years of sexual abuse to continue and many more young vulnerable people to suffer at the hands of his fellow officers, again a failure in his duty to the inmates of the detention centre.

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act this is the evidence of Tony Hayes, Prison officer Med DC 1980 to 1987

“As soon as I arrived I was told by two officers that Neville Husband was a domineering character and also that he allegedly sexually abused inmates. One of these officers was called Neil Sowerby and the other one was called Frank but I don’t remember his surname, I know that he eventually moved to Frankland.

“About six months to a year before Husband left one of the gate officers intercepted a package addressed to him and found it contained gay pornographic video. He showed this to me before destroying it. I don’t remember the name of this prison officer.

“Husband was into local amateur dramatics and I know that he took at least four boys out of the Detention Centre to help him set up things for the dramatics group. I also know from talking to these boys that he also took them to his home.

“I don’t remember these boy’s names but it was about two months after I’d arrived. I learned from other staff that Husband had returned the boys to camp about 11 .00pm (2300hrs) on each occasion.

“In 1985 or 1986 Husband was promoted and moved to H.M.P Frankland. I remember he left at 1 .00pm (l300hrs) on a Thursday, leaving me in charge of the kitchen. The same day I went into work at 2.30pm (l430hrs) and on arrival I was immediately approached by a delegation of three kitchen lads.

“One of them was the spokesperson, he asked me if Mr. Husband had finished for good I replied ‘Yes’ The next question was, has he really finished , is he not coming back I confirmed that was the situation The three boys then told me that when Husband was working and I * was not there, that the lad who was working in the pastry department would never clean up They said that Husband would take him up to the staff changing room to look at pornography He would then come back to the kitchen to organise the cleaners and then return to the changing room These three suggested that this was to have sex with the boy.

“Even though I believed that what these boys had told me I was still too scared of Husband to say anything to anybody Prior to Husband leaving there were a number of times when I had taken sick leave because of the stress of Husband’s overbearing, overpowering and intimidating attitude towards me was too much for me to cope with. I can say that I was frightened of Neville Husband and that although I was very relieved when he left, this fear stayed with me for quite a while.

“Another prisoner told me that he had been sent up a ladder in the dry store by Husband and that once up the ladder Husband had fondled his privates. This lad had allegedly retaliated .and struck Husband.

“Later On the same day that Husband left Medomsley, I went into the kitchen office. In this office was a locked five drawer steel filing cabinet. Husband did all the ordering and he was the only one to have a key. I never saw inside this cabinet whilst he was there. He claimed to use it as a secure store for prisoner’s money. On this afternoon when he left I asked Husband for the key and he gave me it.

“After the three boy delegation had left my office I opened the locked drawers. Apart from legitimate paperwork, I found stuck to the back of the fourth drawer down, three thongs, one lace, one of PVC and one made of nylon. In the bottom drawer was a small quarter full jar of Vaseline and a white vibrator about four inches long. Shortly after I had found these items Neil Sowerby came into the office and I showed him what I’d found, before throwing them away.

“I continued to work at Medomsley until it closed in 1987 and I moved to H.M.P Durham. I resigned from the prison service in June 2001.

“I think that other prison officers who may know what Husband was doing are, Harrison, Bill Smith, a garden civilian and a Prison Officer called Frank Williams.
The third officer who makes the same observations as the others only this officer was told that Husband was abusing boys “A Delegation” of young inmates told him what husband was doing. He himself found a vibrator sexual apparel and pornography.

He also had opportunity with working in the kitchen to observe some of Husband’s control and manipulation tactics and he felt he himself had been subjected to intimidation at the hands of Husband. This officer needs to be applauded for his honesty now; however he bares a heavy responsibility for his lack of care and a gross dereliction of duty to many inmates of the detention centre.

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act this is the evidence of Paul Montague Prison officer Med DC 1979 to 1982

“Husband ran the kitchen and among his staff of inmates he always had one boy identified as a head kitchen boy. The head kitchen boy and a couple of other senior boys always wore a red tie and remember that there used to be quite a bit of Mickey taking and banter about the head kitchen lad being involved sexually with Husband. This Mickey taking was very over the top and open. It was treated as a joke. It was so over the top that nobody believed it could have been true.

“It was not until I was working in Durham prison in November or December of 2000 (11 or 12/2000) and I was approached by prisoner ***** **** that I realised that Husband may have sexually abusing boys in Medomsley. **** told me that Husband had raped him whilst at Medomsley I passed this complaint on to my supervisor Governor Donn I know that before Husband left Medomsley he worked quite closely with a PO called Tony Hayes I vaguely remember Hayes finding some pornography and other items after Husband had left I’m sure he will be able to help you Tony works at Risley Prison Another PO who used to work in the kitchen Quite a lot was a maintenance electrician called Barry Paterson He is now an electrician at Low Newton Prison

“During my time at Medomsley I worked under four different governors they were, in Chronological order; Tim Newell (now at Grendon Prison), Derek Whitehead (Retired); Chris Harder (retired) and the last one whose name I can’t remember who came from Kirk Levington.

“The Mickey taking was very over the top and open. It was treated as a joke. It was so over the top that nobody believed it could have been true.”

This officer obviously thought it amusing when he heard the rumours and instead of acting on the rumours he ignored them just like the list of other officers. What amused him was actually our torture.

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act this is the evidence of Alan Reed, Prison officer at Medomsley DC 1974 to 1987

“Husband was also a member of Shotley Bridge, Theatrical Society and used to take inmates out to assist him; I’m not sure whether they were in the play or were just assisting with meals etc. Husband would have had to have some sort of authority to do this usually. The prison governor who at the time was Tim Newell with whom he was quite friendly.

“At the time I was at Medomsley with Husband who I believe left before me I did hear rumours that he was interfering with the boys, that was the usual banter in prison amongst staff. For instance Husband used to call Leslie Johnson, the Queen Mother’ but it was all banter. It did occur to me while knowing Husband that he maybe was a homosexual however he was a married man, with children, he was always coming out with sexual banter, double meanings etc.

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act this is the evidence of Evidence Alan Marrs, Prison officer of Medomsley DC 1984 to 1987.

“When I first went to Medomsley I remember Neville Husband who was the catering officer there. I would describe him as aged around 50 years old, short fat with greasy, greying lank hair.

“Husband left a year to two years after I first started I did hear rumours from officers who had served there longer that Husband had interfered with some of the inmates who worked in the kitchens.

“These rumours were about Husband only and did not involve anyone else. I remember Les JOHNSON was about Husband’s only close associate.
Les was a store man at Medomsley.


Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act this is the evidence of Kathleen Collwell, Admin Officer Med DC until 1988

“I would only see Neville if he was passing my office in order to see the Governors. He would never pass the time of day with me hut would only acknowledge me, as my door was usually open.

“As stated, I didn’t know Neville Husband on a social basis but I was aware of rumours circulating the centre regarding his behaviour i.e. that he had his favourite boys.

“I personally felt that he looked like a ‘pervert’ or a ‘dirty old man’. He never looked clean and he would often wear an old rain mac. I certainly felt very uneasy in his presence there was just something that I did not like about him.
No-one ever seemed to question him about his behaviour.

List of Officers:

Thomas Boyle,
Brian Judson,
Jimmy Bradley,
Bill Miller,
Chris Onslow,
Dave Tock,
Frank Shand
David McClure
Tony Hayes
Leslie Johnson
James Malcolm Kirkup
Brian Greenwell
Michael Paul Montague
Danny Scott
Barry Paterson
John McBee
Chief officer Homewood
Neil Sowerby
Alan Reid
Alan Marrs
Neville Husband
George Heath
Bill Smith

List of Governors

James Millar Reid
Timothy Charles Newell
Derek Whitehead
Chris Harder


It is a credit to those members of staff who came forward and told the truth. Without them, Neville Husband and his colleague Leslie Johnson would still be abusing children and youths, and causing more damage to people's lives.

But let us not be naïve and imagine that Neville Husband and Leslie Johnson were the only two perpetrators of such crime, and that prison inmates elsewhere are now safely doing their time in institutions throughout the whole of the UK.

These people were in a position of professional trust.

They witnessed crime of such magnitude and did nothing.

These silent witnesses were breaking the law, and they should at least be publicly held accountable for their collusive behaviour.

Without some follow up to their actions there is little hope for survivors left in their wake to recover their dignity.

There is also very little hope of stopping the destruction of the lives of other inmates who are still being detained in institutions throughout the land, and all because prison officers are not held accountable.


David Greenwood, Jordans Solicitors, Neil Jordan House, Wellington Road, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire WF13 1HL, 01924 457171

Letter to Durham Police

Document/01

On the ............DATE PLEASE 2006, Judge Cockroft, (a circuit 9 Judge) at Leeds court said: “These are serious crimes committed by crown officers”.

Following the telephone call at 14.34 on Tuesday 4th January 2007 when we victims of abuse at the hands of Neville Husband were in a meeting, you said you were not prepared to take any further action in relation to Neville Husband’s crimes. We understand the reasons behind your decision. However our reason for complaining is not in relation to the actual crimes committed by Husband but the numerous crimes committed by the other prison officers at Medomsley.

Many officers not only failed in the duty of care they owed to the inmates at Medomsley. They hid and destroyed evidence, and conspired with other officers to destroy the evidence that could have substantiated any possible complaints at the time.

Leslie Johnson, another officer at Medomsley who worked in the stores was a close friend of Neville Husband. He was arrested and sentenced to time in prison for sexually abusing one Mark Stuart Park, who was also a victim of Husband. We believe Husband gave evidence on Johnson’s behalf. Mark Park told police about Husband at the same time…And yet nothing was done until years after Johnson was investigated and jailed for his crimes,

We have always been led to believe that there were no complainants from victims from Husbands time at the two United Reformed Churches where he worked. We have been made aware that this is not the case and there were complaints that came from his time at the church. Can you elaborate?

The trauma that all Neville Husbands victims suffered is being made even more tortuous by the failure of the Legal system to protect those who have suffered abuse. Basic human rights are still being trampled on by the Home Office as all these victims have not got the closure that they rightly deserve. Neville Husband was investigated over a period of twelve years. Why did the investigation take so long? Was this because Leslie Johnson was a close friend and fellow mason to Neville Husband? The following words are quotes from the trial that Judge Cockroft presided over:

“Neville Husband gave an inmate to Leslie Johnson so that he could abuse him.”

“There was an enormous responsibility, you may conclude, placed on prison officers and those who worked in the establishment of Medomsley.

Enormous trust was bestowed upon them by the system, by the Government, by the public, but also that very system was open to abuse. If somebody betrayed that trust, then it is incumbent upon the police service that originally arrested Mr. Husband to seek the justice that we are asking for. Only an investigation into the behaviour of all the officers at Medomsley, and not just Neville Husband’s behaviour will draw out the truth of the matters.

These matters hold us up in the courts while facing the current statutes of limitation on article 33 s (14). We have more than proven that conspiracy to pervert the course of justice was going at the time of the offences, therefore article 32 (b) comes in to play:

8. Section 32(1) (b) of the 1980 Act postpones the commencement of the limitation period where
"Any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant".
In such a case the period of limitation does not begin to run until the plaintiff discovers the concealment or could with reasonable diligence discover it. The rationale for this provision is plain: if the defendant is not sued earlier, he has only himself to blame.

9. Section 32(2) provides:
For the purposes of subsection (1) above, deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty."

We are not talking about a few, or even a handful of incidences. We are talking about behaviour that was allowed to go on for a period of decades. We feel that the trial of Husband should have continued on to include all the people who allowed these horrors to continue.

In 2001 the Law Commision found that the time limititations for reporting child abuse claims were not in the best interests of the victims, who in many cases were so traumatised that it took many years before they could bring themselves to make claims against their abusers.

The public interest in protecting defendants from stale claims, and ensuring there is an end to litigation does not apply where the defendant has been guilty of sexual abuse. The Commision therefore recommended that its proposed long-stop Limitation period of 10 years should not be applied to claims in respect of personal injuries to the claimant and gave these recommendations to the Government. In July 2002, Lord Irvine, announced that the Government had accepted the Commission’s recommendations in principle yet over the following years, no legislation has been brought forward. At the end of last year, the Government confirmed that the report was amongst the many Law Commission reports still awaiting Legislation.

Given the concerns raised by both the commission and set out in this correspondence, it seems to us that the government should at least explain why further action on this matter appears to have halted. It is simply not good enough to think that there are abusers who will not be brought to justice because of this government inertia. It is an issue to which all concerned should give the most serious of considerations. Victims are being abused once again by this ridiculous Law that does everything to protect the rights of abusers or the places and people who employ them; Many thousands of pounds have been spent on this case and the public purse is not being served by the legal system in the way it should, and purports itself to be.

Let us not forget that there was a death as a direct result of what Husband did and what the prison officers at Medomsley did or didn’t do. After one of husbands victims had given his testimony in Newcastle Crown Court Detective Ian Mitchell told him that another of the victims who was due to testify had just taken his own life. We think that further investigation would shed more light on a matter of a serious magnitude and it would also be very much in the public interest.

The prison officers at Medomsley committed worse crimes against the inmates than the crimes the inmates had committed out in society. What is worse, is that those crimes were done with the approval and knowledge of other officers. We believe Officer Boyle commited purgery in the dock when he said there was no violence to inmates at Medomsley. 'Medomsley was all about violence.' said the Deputy Warden Homewood's son, who lived at Medomsley and was similar in age to the inmates at the time.

Taken from emails from Simon Homewood (Lawyer and son of the chief deputy warden of Medomsley until 78/79).

“I have been in contact with this man on a number of occasions and he says his father knew nothing of sexual abuse but knew of the physical abuse
Mr Homewood said “As for physical abuse..... Yeap, I know it went on.
I don't really know to what extent it went on. Whether you like it or not that was what DC's were about to a large degree.

“Looking back as a lawyer and with many years of life behind me, I would condemn it without reservation. That is simply how it was in the 1970s. It’s different today, as you point out. Apparently by 1976 it had got softer. In 72/73 and earlier it was supposed to be far worse! Makes you wonder doesn't it?

“Further, DC's, whether me and you like it or not, were supposed to be rough and tough. Even if "and Violent" wasn’t the official line, it was certainly the unofficial one. I suppose you could argue that for my father and his staff to claim that they were only obeying orders is no more of an excuse than it was for the German soldiers at Treblinka, Sorbibor and Auschwitz.

“I agree that he shouldn't have overlooked this violence and he may well agree himself, I don't know. If it is decided that he has to answer for it then so be it. But of course that will never happen because the whole state machine was complicit in it.

“He was doing what the prison department wanted him to do. I entirely agree with you, that he was wrong to do it, but then I am simply being wise after the event. It is still unfair to look back and judge people's actions in the past by the standards and thinking of today. Surely you must see that?

“Thank you for correcting me on Onslow. I doesn't surprise me that he was violent. If I may I will expand on him and his wife and why I mentioned her. My brother who was about 15 at the time and as a developing young lad took rather a liking to Mrs Onslow and to be honest he couldn't take his eyes off her when she was anywhere near him. She was a very attractive lady, as I have said. To cut to the chase, Onslow noticed this one day and went berserk. He grabbed hold of my brother around the throat almost choking him and had to be restrained by Brian Judson (Very tall blonde haired guy) and another officer. This may show a tendency to violence as well as an element of insecurity you may think?

“Perhaps now you see why I mentioned her in the way I did. It was a very prominent factor in my recall if not relevant to you. Perhaps, on reflection, I should have omitted the comment, but I was writing what I was thinking at the time.

“The running around the fence and the baseball bat business was a tactic employed by Royal Navy PEI's but they used a pick-axe handle. Naturally they targeted anyone they didn't like. I was actually in the Royal Marines and you may have seen recently the revelations about initiation ceremonies. There was a culture of violence at Lympstone and always has been. It is Action Man territory and the simple rule is if you don't like it, don't join, the exit door is over there.

“Many people would have said the same about Detention Centres at the time, but of course you couldn't walk out and the fact that we didn't made us volunteers I guess.”(End)

What could be worse than crimes that enable so many young people to suffer decades of sexual abuse without the possibility of escape? We think it's not having the possibility to have their complaints taken seriously. The behaviour is curtailed by the regime itself, with the tragedy of dangerous prison officers & criminals being allowed to continue in the prison service. With all the evidence that was found in the centre being consistently destroyed, who else was responsible but those who were in charge?

What has happened to police integrity, honesty? As a part of the Police Force, you know the truth of this matter. We have learned that people complained to both Durham Police and Consett police over the years. We can prove this with statements from witnesses who have said they went to the police in their local area. Further, that the police station did contact Durham police, and a woman police officer confirmed this by telephoning the complainant back from Durham police station. We have accounts of others who say they made complaints to various people and nothing was done. We have inmates who actually clubbed together to support each other and told officers exactly what Husband was doing, and still nothing was done.

If there was enough substantive evidence to jail Husband in two court cases, then one would imagine that this evidence was just as substantive to justify further criminal charges against those who allowed it to continue for years. There is enough evidence at the very least, to warrant a re-questioning all officers who where at Medomsley again.

The public would indeed be interested to know that there are prison officers who are still working in prison in the UK today who where instrumental in the continuation of the sexual torture of many young & vulnerable people. Despite the current cases of litigation against the home office, we feel it would be more equitable to take a criminal action against their employees. The management and governorship are just as accountable as those officers who destroyed evidence and ignored contemporaneous complaints.


David Greenwood, Jordans Solicitors, Neil Jordan House, Wellington Road, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire WF13 1HL, 01924 457171