Investigation into the Role and Actions of Johnny Savile at Springfield Hospital
A report from South West London & St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust
Authors:
Dr. Ruth Allen, Director of Social Work, SWLSTG Mental Health NHS Trust, BA (Hons), PGDip, MSW, CQSW, EdD.
Patrick Bull, Safeguarding Adults Lead SWLSTG Mental Health NHS Trust DipSW, BA, PQSW.
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 1
Contents
Key members of the investigation Page 3
1 Introduction Page 4
2 Timeline leading up to the investigation Page 5
3 Internal investigation into matters relating to Johnny Savile Page 6
4 Terms of Reference Page 6
5 Background information on South West London and St George’s Page 8 Mental Health NHS Trust
6 Approach to the investigation Page 9
7 Johnny Savile’s association with Springfield Hospital and Richmond Page 14 Royal Hospital
8 Specific allegations against Johnny Savile Page 18
9 Access to patients and privileges accorded to Johnny Savile at Page 36 Springfield Hospital
10 Jimmy Savile Page 37
11 Policy, practice and culture during the time of Johnny Savile’s Page 37 association with Springfield Hospital
12 Johnny Savile’s association with Richmond Royal Page 39
13 Past and current policies and procedures Page 39
14 Overall analysis and conclusions Page 43
15 Recommendations Page 48
Appendix One: Current applicable policies and procedures in place in the Trust Page 50
Appendix Two: How the terms of reference have been met Page 51
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 2 Key members of the investigation team:
Investigation Commissioner:
South West London and St Georges Mental Health NHS Trust Board
Report Authors:
Dr Ruth Allen - Director of Social Work SWLSTG NHS Trust
Patrick Bull - Safeguarding Adults Lead SWLSTG NHS Trust
Investigation Team from the Trust:
Dr Ruth Allen - Director of Social Work
Patrick Bull - Safeguarding Adults Lead
Investigation Support Team from the Trust:
John Hughes - Information Governance Manager
Philip Twells - Records Information Officer
Joanne Simmons - Claims Manager
John Cheetham - Property Manager
Sue Denby - Head of Quality Governance
Lorna Smith – Social Worker
Senior Trust and External Oversight:
Jocelyn Fisher - Executive Director of HR/OD and Workforce Transformation
Angela Attah - Director of Corporate Affairs and Trust Secretary
David Firth - Capsticks, Trust Solicitors
Kate Lampard and Verita
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 3
1. Introduction
1 This is the report of an investigation into allegations of historical abuse of patients at Springfield Hospital by Johnny Savile. Johnny, who died in 1998, was the older brother of Jimmy Savile. Operation Yewtree police investigations into allegations against Jimmy Savile (and others) uncovered information about Johnny Savile’s association with Springfield Hospital in Tooting, South London, over 30 years ago. South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust (the Trust) Board have commissioned this investigation at the request of the Department of Health (DH).
2 Johnny Savile worked as a recreation officer at Springfield in the late 1970s up to his dismissal in 1980. He is still remembered by current and ex-staff members, some of whom provided interview evidence for this investigation. Two patient victims, one visitor victim and one staff member victim were also interviewed for this investigation. The investigators and the Trust are very grateful for the assistance and cooperation of all interviewees in preparing this report.
3 This report investigates a total of seven allegations of sexual assault against Johnny Savile between 1978 and 1980, all at Springfield Hospital. Five allegations were made by patients, one by a visitor and one by a staff member. All the victims were adult females at the time of alleged incidents. This report reviews and investigates each alleged incident and considers the implications for the Trust.
4 During an investigation into the activities of Jimmy Savile in another part of the country, a witness also raised concern that Johnny Savile could have provided access to mental health hospitals and care facilities in South West London for his celebrity brother Jimmy in the late 1970s or early 1980s. No evidence has been found in this investigation that Jimmy Savile ever visited or at any time had any direct contact with Springfield Hospital or any of the other mental health care and treatment facilities now run by the Trust.
5 There is evidence that Johnny Savile was seen at the Richmond Royal Hospital in the 1980s as his wife worked in the staff canteen there. They are reported to have shared NHS accommodation on the edge of the hospital site and Johnny Savile is reported to have visited his wife on hospital premises. He was not employed, nor was he a volunteer there when it was an inpatient hospital. No allegations have been made against him in relation to that hospital.
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 4 2. Timeline leading up to this investigation
25th November 2013
6 The DH wrote to the Trust Chief Executive, David Bradley, with information relating to an account of sexual abuse by Johnny Savile against victim 1 (V1), a woman who was an inpatient at Springfield Hospital in 1978. V1 had given a statement to Operation Yewtree in 2013, following the publicity surrounding Jimmy Savile. V1 reported that she believed that other incidents of sexual abuse had occurred in Johnny Savile’s office or elsewhere in Springfield.
28th November 2013
7 Correspondence was received from solicitors Irwin Mitchell representing victim 2 (V2). The letter stated that V2 was a patient of the Day Hospital at Springfield Hospital when on 4th June 1979 Johnny Savile invited her to his office in the hospital and indecently assaulted and raped her. V2 believed that Johnny Savile was employed by the hospital at the time as the recreation and entertainments officer. V2 did not report the rape to the hospital at the time. She had informed a friend of this assault in the early 1980s. V2 reported the rape to the police at Lavender Hill Police Station London SW11 in 1998 and 2005, although it was not recorded as a formal complaint by police at those times. In October 2012, V2 made a further report to Operation Yewtree about the allegation. V2 did not consent for information held by Operation Yewtree to be shared with the Trust.
10th February 2014
8 Staff working on the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (LTHT) investigation into Jimmy Savile contacted this Trust seeking to establish whether Johnny Savile had ever worked at Springfield Hospital and, if so, in what capacity and during what period. They also sought confirmation that he was sacked from the hospital as the result of an allegation of rape made by a patient in 1979.
9 The Director of Investigation at LTHT contacted the Trust to establish an employment history for Johnny Savile within the NHS in an attempt to assess the credibility of rumours that existed about him and his brother Jimmy. The investigator at LTHT was seeking information about Johnny’s relationship with his brother, particularly any intelligence or evidence that related to Johnny providing Jimmy with access to a mortuary at Springfield Hospital. Jimmy Savile’s possible interest in mortuaries had been the subject of national media
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 5 stories and a witness to the LTHT investigation suggested the Trust should investigate whether, when Johnny Savile had worked at Springfield Hospital, which had a functioning mortuary in the 1970s, he might have given access to his brother.
10 There was an additional request from the LTHT investigation team for information about any other hospitals that Johnny Savile worked at, particularly in the Richmond and Surrey areas. A witness (W14) contacted the LTHT investigation and claimed she had met Jimmy Savile's brother whilst on a summer work placement at the Richmond Royal Hospital in 1985 and thought he may have worked there.
16th April 2014
11 An email was received from DH providing guidance documents for NHS investigations into Jimmy Savile and confirming that the Trust should investigate allegations against Johnny Savile and whether any link could be established with the activities of his brother, Jimmy.
3rd September 2014
12 Additional information provided by a witness (W18) about Johnny Savile’s presence at Richmond Royal confirmed he was not employed, nor a volunteer there, but frequently visited the site as his wife worked in the staff canteen and they shared accommodation on the edge of the site.
3. Internal Investigation into matters relating to Johnny Savile
13 The Trust Board commissioned this investigation into Johnny Savile’s association with Springfield Hospital, and other hospitals which are now under the management of the Trust and its predecessor bodies, following allegations that he sexually abused patients during his work activities there. The Board has formally accepted this report on behalf of those organisations.
4. Terms of Reference of the investigation
14 These terms of reference are based on the DH Guidance Pack (November 2013) and amended to take account of the scope of the Trust’s investigation. The purpose of this investigation is:-
i) To thoroughly examine and account for Johnny Savile’s association with Springfield Hospital and to examine evidence for any association with Richmond Royal hospital or any other health facility currently under the
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 6 control of the Trust, including approval for any roles and employment positions he held and the decision making processes relating to these.
ii) To consider the extent to which any such special access and/or privileges and/or lack of supervision and oversight given to Johnny Savile resulted from Johnny Savile’s ‘celebrity’ status, including that derived by Johnny from association with his brother Jimmy Savile, or from Jimmy Savile having any fundraising role within the organisation.
iii) To review relevant policies, practices and procedures which were in place during Johnny Savile’s association with Springfield Hospital and other hospitals under the control of The Trust, or its predecessor bodies, and compliance with these.
iv) To investigate past and current complaints and incidents concerning Johnny Savile’s behaviour at Springfield Hospital or other hospitals under the control of The Trust or its predecessor bodies including where incident(s) occurred, who was involved, what occurred, whether these complaints or incidents were appropriately reported, investigated and addressed, and, if not, the reasons for this.
v) As this investigation does not have the power to impose disciplinary sanctions or make findings as to criminal or civil liability, where evidence is obtained of conduct that indicates the commission of criminal and/or disciplinary offences, inform the police and/or relevant employers.
vi) Where complaints or incidents were not reported, or not investigated, or where no appropriate action was taken, consider the reasons for this including organisational culture and practices and the part played, if any, by Johnny Savile’s ‘celebrity’ or fundraising role within the organisation.
vii) To investigate whether Jimmy Savile ever visited/had an association with Springfield Hospital or other hospitals under the control of The Trust or its predecessor bodies.
viii) In the light of findings of fact in respect of the above, consider whether The Trust’s current safeguarding, complaints, whistle blowing and other policies and processes relating to the matters mentioned above are fit for purpose.
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 7 5. Background Information on South West London & St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust
15 The site of the historic allegations investigated in this report (all dating from the late 1970s and 1980) was Springfield Hospital in Tooting, in the London Borough of Wandsworth, south west London. This hospital was purpose built in 1840 as a large, regional psychiatric asylum sitting in a 100+ acre site with extensive gardens. It originally served Surrey and south west London and the site has continued to house psychiatric services since that time. Most of the original buildings survive, although many are no longer in use, and many modern, purpose-built facilities have been added.
16 In 1974, the hospital became part of Wandsworth and East Merton (Teaching) District Health Authority. In the 1970s, this still housed a very large psychiatric inpatient facility. In 1978, there were 1124 inpatient beds, reducing to 1000 beds in 1980 (and numbers have continued to fall through to the present day). In 1982, the hospital became part of the Wandsworth District Health Authority.
17 In 1994, the South West London Community Trust - called ‘Pathfinder’ - was created through bringing together inpatient and community services in Wandsworth, Merton, and Sutton. Springfield Hospital became part of the South West London Community Trust at that time.
18 In 1999, South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust was created in its current form, covering the Springfield Hospital site. It currently provides inpatient services on two sites in south west London and provides community mental health and social care services across the Wandsworth, Merton, Sutton, Richmond and Kingston local authority areas. The Trust also provides highly specialised regional and national inpatient and outpatient services on the Springfield site, including forensic and specialist child and adolescent services.
19 The Trust Headquarters and a range of other corporate and administrative functions are housed at Springfield – many in areas that would once have been wards and individual patient rooms. The many refurbished and purpose-built facilities on the site now house services such as multidisciplinary community teams, crisis and home treatment teams, specialist therapy services and clinics, and a modern Recovery College providing support to service users and carers through an educational and self- management model.
20 There are still 270 inpatient beds at Springfield, many of which are specialist national and regional resources. All inpatient wards are in environments that have either been purpose built in recent years, or extensively refurbished and remodeled. Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 8 21 The Richmond Royal hospital site in the London Borough of Richmond-Upon- Thames is also discussed in this report as a possible site of employment of (or volunteering by) Johnny Savile, but not a site of any known allegation. It was integrated into the Trust on 1 April 2001 by the dissolution of the Kingston and District Community NHS Trust (Transfer of Staff, Property, Rights and Liabilities) Order 2001. The old Richmond Royal Hospital building now provides accommodation for some of the community services run by the Trust and also houses mental health voluntary sector organisations including a service user and carer café/drop in. It no longer provides inpatient services.
22 The Trust is currently seeking to become a Foundation Trust.
6. Approach to the Investigation
23 The investigators sought to establish the nature of all known allegations of abuse by Johnny Savile, the circumstances in which the alleged incidents arose and the evidence for these allegations. They also aimed to find out whether the Trust has known about and investigated any allegations that had been raised previously. During the investigation, the number of allegations grew as new interview and documentary information came to light. Seven allegations are referenced in this report, although not all could be fully investigated because of lack of information.
24 Throughout the investigation, information about the possible presence or activities of Jimmy Savile on Trust sites was continuously sought. It was raised in all interviews and all relevant documentary resources were reviewed for any evidence.
25 The investigators also looked for background information about policies, practices and culture within Springfield Hospital at the time of the alleged incidents.
Patient victim interviews
26 Two former patients (V1 and V2) have made allegations against Johnny Savile during the course of this investigation. They were each offered the opportunity to be interviewed in person at a place of their choosing and they took this up. Their interviews were simultaneously minuted and the notes of the meetings checked and corrected by the interviewees.
Visitor victim interview
27 After the investigation had commenced, a victim (V5) came forward because she saw information about the investigation on the Trust website. This
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 9 information was put on the Trust website on 26 June 2014 at the same time as a number of NHS Jimmy Savile reports were published. V5 was a visitor to Springfield Hospital in 1978 when she alleges she was twice inappropriately touched by Johnny Savile.
Current and ex-Trust staff interviews (including a staff victim)
28 A search was made of the Corporate Archive for employment records of any staff dating back to the 1970s and none were found. Therefore enquiries were made across the Trust’s existing human resources and senior management team to establish names and contact details for staff and ex- staff working on the Springfield site in 1979. The recollections of Johnny Savile by staff working in Springfield Hospital in the late 1970s and early 1980s were an important source of information, particularly given the very limited amount of documentary evidence related to his work or volunteering record, the reason for leaving his hospital role, any legal actions involving him at that time, and any other documentary evidence.
29 List of those interviewed (NB. the dates shown in brackets indicate the period of time about which they were interviewed with regard either to direct allegations against Johnny Savile (1978-80) or later periods of specific interest to the investigation)
W1 - Administrator (1978-80) (also identified as Victim 4 (V4))
W2 - Nurse Trainee (1978-80)
W3 - Nurse Trainee (1978-80)
W4 - Trainee Nurse (1978-80)
W5 - Nurse (1978-80)
W6 - Personnel Officer (1978-80)
W7 - Risk Manager (1978-80)
W8 - Porter (1978-80
W9 - Support Worker (1978-80)
W10 - Mark Barnard, Team Manager (2005 and 2006)
W11 - Risk Manager (1978-79)
W12 - Dr Dieneke Hubbeling, Consultant Psychiatrist (2006)
W13 - Kim Goddard, Acting Director of Corporate Affairs (2005-6)
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 10 W14 - Student nurse at Richmond Royal (1985)
W15 - Service Director (2012)
W16 - Senior Clinical Psychologist (2012)
W17 - General Practioner for V2 (mid 1990s to 2009)
W18 - Site Services Manager, Richmond Royal (1981)
W19 - Consultant psychiatrist (2005)
W20 - Chief Executive Officer Dr Julie Hollyman (1991)
Other professional interview
30 The investigators would have liked to have interviewed the Divisional Nursing Officer (DNO) for Springfield Hospital for the period of the alleged incidents concerning Johnny Savile, but enquiries found that he had died.
Support and information for interviewees
31 All interviewees were provided with an oral briefing on the NHS investigations, Operation Yewtree and a summary account of the reasons for this enquiry into events in 1978 and 1979 involving Johnny Savile. The alleged victims were also provided with written information about the DH investigation, Operation Yewtree and how to access advice, support and further information immediately prior to, and after report publication.
32 All interviewees were encouraged to ask questions about the process and how their information would be used. All interviewees were given copies of notes taken during interviews and/or the extracts of the report that refer to them, and their suggested amendments and/or comments were taken into account. Interviewees gave information on the understanding that they would not be named in the final report unless (in relation to staff members) such naming was deemed necessary under the guidance provided by the DH. It was explained to all interviewees that information they provided may be used in writing a report that would be published.
33 We asked staff interviewed, and particularly those who are named, to comment on relevant extracts of the report while it was in draft form.
34 Witnesses and victims have been informed of publication in line with DH Guidance.
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 11 Documentary evidence
35 The Trust's NHS records are Public Records under the Public Records Acts and are kept in accordance with the following statutory and NHS guidelines:
• The Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967
• Access to Health Records Act 1990
• The Audit Commission, Setting the Record Straight, 1995
• The Caldecott Review of Patient Identifiable information, 1997
• Health and Social Care Act 2001
• The Data Protection Act 1998
• The Freedom of Information Act 2000
• ICO Data Sharing Code of Practice
• (DoH) Records Management – NHS Code of Practice (2nd Edition)
36 Under the DH’s Records Management NHS Code of Practice, Part 2 (2nd Edition), the Trust is not required to have retained all clinical and non-clinical (e.g. personnel) records from the 1970s and early 1980s. All general medical records that refer to a specific condition (e.g. informal admission for secondary mental health care within a specific hospital) are kept for 8 years following the conclusion of treatment for that condition. All manual or electronic medical records that refer to a specific service user are retained for 8 years following that service user’s death. Where a service user is classified as mentally disordered under the Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended 2007), records are kept for 20 years after the conclusion of their treatment, or the standard 8 years after the service user’s death irrespective of whether the service user died while receiving treatment.
37 Comprehensive records of patients who were in Springfield - or any other facility now managed by the Trust - in the late 1970s and 1980s no longer exist. There are also no systematically archived ‘personnel’ records that date back to this time. Only paper records would have existed at the time and the DH requirement was for them to be kept for 7 years after an employee left the Trust.
38 It became evident early in the investigation that documentary evidence about Johnny Savile’s employment and activities at Springfield Hospital and other sites was very sparse. Interviews with victims and staff who knew either the victims or Johnny Savile were therefore particularly important in piecing
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 12 together evidence of what happened and the culture and practices at the time. Information was sought from a range of sources to maximise the chance of finding coherent and credible evidence of the alleged incidents.
39 The Trust holds a small number of microfilm cassettes which have never been indexed and some dated back to the 1970s and 1980s. For this investigation, these were manually checked for relevant material, and nothing was found.
40 However, some paper records from this period have survived. A small amount of evidence of Johnny Savile’s work and activities at Springfield, and some other relevant background information, was found in a store room at Springfield Hospital.
41 A range of other sources of documentary information about Springfield, Richmond Royal, Johnny Savile and Jimmy Savile were used throughout the investigation and the full list of these sources is given below.
• Patient electronic, microfilm and paper records held by the Trust
• Corporate electronic and paper records archive
• Trust Medical Records Library
• Public Register of Judgments
• National Archive
• London Metropolitan Archive – records of admissions and discharges (1841 – 1980)
• Wandsworth Borough Council database
• Metropolitan Police - checks on crime reports for Johnny Savile were completed by DC Mandy Sparks, designated as Special Point of Contact (SPOC) for Operation Yewtree
• A range of national and local newspapers online, including the Wandsworth Libraries Newspaper Archive and the Daily Mail online.
• Internet (Google) searches using terms including ‘Johnny Savile’, ‘Jimmy Savile’, ‘Springfield Hospital’, ‘Richmond Royal Hospital’,
• Uncatalogued store of personnel, patient affairs, League of Friends notes and other diverse documents from 1978 - 1980 on the Springfield site where the following were found to be of relevance:
➢ Trust Voluntary Services file (1979)
➢ Minutes of Rehabilitation Committee (1980)
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 13 ➢ League of Friends committee documentation, Springfield (1975 to 1976)
➢ Trust Incidents (1st January 1979 to 30th December 1979)
➢ Complaints File (1980)
➢ Final Draft - Hospital Service Complaints Procedure.
Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Heath Authority (1978)
➢ Operational policy for John Meyer ward. Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority – Springfield Hospital (1980)
➢ Memos to Heads of Departments - June 1979 to December 1981
Site Visits:
42 The following sites at Springfield Hospital and Richmond Royal were visited to help investigators understand the victim and witness statements and the documentary evidence about Johnny Savile’s activities in the hospitals. All the following sites are now closed off and unused:
• Recreation Hall, Springfield hospital where Johnny Savile held recreational activities for patients, such as discos
• The mattress store room below the hall where Johnny Savile is alleged to have taken patients
• Johnny Savile's office adjacent to the Recreation Hall
• The rooms once used as the Springfield Mortuary
• Springfield store room
• Richmond Royal medical records store (no longer in use and closed)
7. Johnny Savile’s Association with Springfield Hospital and Richmond Royal
Springfield Hospital
43 Although very fragmentary, the small amounts of documentary evidence about Johnny Savile at Springfield have nonetheless been useful in evidencing some of the nature and extent of his association with, and work at the hospital between 1978 and 1980.
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 14 44 No documentary evidence has been found to confirm the exact start and finish dates of his employment (or any volunteering) at Springfield. The information found does not provide any means to establish the process by which Johnny Savile came to work at the hospital. To supplement other documentary searches, on behalf of the investigators the Trust finance department checked with the NHS Pensions Agency to try and determine if there was a pensions record for Johnny Savile and nothing was found.
45 Staff interviewees who recollected Johnny Savile working at Springfield Hospital suggested he was a recreation officer, or had a similar role title, between the late-1970s and 1980. The personnel officer (W6) suggests he may have been recruited originally through the voluntary services of the hospital and then became employed.
46 A small amount of documentary evidence places him in Springfield Hospital in 1979 and early 1980 undertaking activities in the role of recreation officer. This includes minutes of a rehabilitation committee of 17 January 1980 which mention his activities in the immediate preceding period including ‘a survey of recreation facilities needed by wards, (and that he had)…visited all wards’.
47 References to Johnny Savile are also recorded under a Trust file labelled ‘voluntary services’ which suggest he was working under the voluntary services supervision, although it is believed he was properly employed given what is known about his dismissal and appeal against it through an employment tribunal. The voluntary services file confirms some of the activities he was involved in organising outside of Springfield, including accessing tickets for ‘Speedway’ car racing for patients and also running a disco at a girls’ school on 25th June 1979. The relevant Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) for safeguarding children has been informed about this.
48 There is online reference to Johnny Savile being involved in running or contributing to the Springfield Hospital radio in the late 1970s and this was also recalled by the victims who were interviewed and by some staff who knew him at that time. The investigation team was not able to find any evidence to confirm this.
49 In a letter from the League of Friends to a voluntary organisation in 1979, Johnny Savile is copied in as it is recommended that the voluntary organization contact him stating he is ‘something of a minor celebrity’ who would be helpful to their fundraising efforts.
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 15
Documentary evidence of an employment tribunal following dismissal for gross misconduct at Springfield Hospital
50 The Wandsworth Borough News dated 12th December 1980 states that Johnny Savile appealed against his dismissal for ‘gross misconduct’ from his job as social and recreation Officer at Springfield Hospital. The appeal against his ‘gross misconduct’ hearing was reported as being adjourned to 2nd February 1981 and it was not reported again in the Wandsworth Borough News.
51 A press report from the Glasgow Evening Times dated 2nd February 1981 states that Johnny Savile’s dismissal for gross misconduct was upheld at an employment tribunal.
52 These press reports are the sole documentary pieces of evidence found from that time that provide any clear statements about Johnny Savile’s formal employment status at Springfield Hospital and how he came to leave. While press reports cannot be assumed to be entirely accurate, these reports tally with the accounts within interviews with people who worked at Springfield Hospital at that time who thought he had been dismissed for reasons of gross misconduct. The press report states that Johnny Savile had been employed at Springfield Hospital ‘for six years’ (i.e. between about 1974 and 1980) and some staff witnesses thought he had been employed at Springfield for ‘some years’, but no other evidence for the actual employment period was found.
53 Records from voluntary services correspondence found in the Springfield store room make reference to Johnny Savile being replaced as recreation officer in December 1981. They also show by this date that potential volunteers were asked explicitly about their criminal records at interview and that ‘personnel’ references would be checked.
54 At the time of the alleged assaults which are described in detail in the next section, there was no regulatory body or centrally held register of staff that posed a risk to vulnerable patients. Following his dismissal from the position at Springfield Hospital, Johnny Savile may have been able to seek employment in another organisation that worked with vulnerable adults. There was no centralised system for reporting such cases, other than the criminal justice system, and that does not appear to have been used.
55 A memo from the South West Thames Regional Health Authority (dated 14th May 1979) gives an indication of the policy framework at the time. A guidance document was provided to hospital managers on how to respond to incidents where ‘injuries have been inflicted by staff’. They are advised that a report to hospital authorities would ‘suffice’ rather than a report to the police as when
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 16 ‘patients at a psychiatric hospital are concerned’ - ‘no legal action could be taken’. This would have clearly steered managers away from reporting to the police in such circumstances at that time.
56 The major legislative and national policy guidance changes since that time are aimed at minimising the risk of a serial abuser being able to work with vulnerable adults or children.
57 An interview with an ex-personnel officer (W6) suggested Johnny Savile may have gone on to work at the Normansfield Hospital in Kingston straight after working at Springfield. A decision to close that Hospital was made during the 1980s when it was under the control of the Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton Healthcare NHS Trust (RTRT). It closed in 1997. It was never under the control of the South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust. W18 was a highly placed and credible witness who worked at the Normansfield during that period, and does not recall any mention of Johnny Savile ever working there.
Richmond Royal
58 Interviewee W14 was referred to the Trust by LTHT as she had provided a statement during LTHT’s investigation into Jimmy Savile that she thought Johnny Savile may have worked at Richmond Royal Hospital (then an inpatient facility) in the mid-1980s. W14 was interviewed by telephone by a Trust investigator and she told him she had met Johnny Savile in 1985 at the Richmond Royal which at the time was under the Richmond Community Trust. W14 was a student nurse on placement with a voluntary sector organization at that time. Her only report was of possibly seeing him there and thinking he may have been working or volunteering there.
59 Interviewee W15 had worked at the Richmond Royal in the late 1970s and early 1980s. W15 stated she thought that Johnny Savile worked either as a volunteer or was employed at the Richmond Royal on reception or as a porter, possibly up until his death in 1998. The Richmond Royal was managed by the Kingston and Richmond District hospital during that period. The Trust took over management of the Richmond Royal in 2001.
60 W18 was interviewed and gave a credible and detailed account of Johnny Savile’s time at Richmond Royal. During the 1980s, W18 was an Estates or Facilities Manager there (he cannot recall his exact job title). He recalled that Johnny Savile and his wife lived in staff accommodation next door to Richmond Royal and the accommodation was linked to the main building with direct access possible. Johnny Savile would go in and out of the building frequently as his wife ran the staff canteen and he would spend a lot of time there. W18 thought that Johnny Savile may have worked in the staff canteen Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 17 to help her out on an unofficial basis but was sure he did not have a formal role in the hospital.
61 W18 also said that ‘everyone’ knew that Johnny Savile had been sacked from his previous job for an incident in which he was found to have been ‘touching a patient’ inappropriately. Johnny Savile was not liked by staff at Richmond Royal because of that incident and his reputation. Johnny Savile was constantly letting people know he was Jimmy Savile’s brother.
62 There were no in-patient services at Richmond Royal at this time and W18 recalled mental health out-patient services, counselling services, an alcohol support service and other charitable organisations being based there in the 1980s.
63 W18 said that Johnny Savile was running his own disco business locally, which was not linked with Richmond Royal. W18 knows this as he himself was involved in organising entertainments at Richmond Royal. W18 does not recall any incident involving Johnny Savile being reported during his time at Richmond Royal.
64 W18 was certain that Johnny Savile’s brother Jimmy Savile did not visit Richmond Royal at any time as it would have been a major news story locally if he had done so.
65 W18 did not recall any incidents involving Johnny Savile or anyone else at the Richmond Royal mortuary (no longer in existence).
8. Specific allegations against Johnny Savile investigated for this report.
66 This section of the report lays out each of the allegations made against Johnny Savile, how the allegation came to light, how each was investigated and the findings about each allegation by the investigators. It should be noted that there is no evidence that the victims have any knowledge of each other, either now or from the past, so similarities in their descriptions of places and actions do not relate to any prior knowledge of each other’s stories. All the allegations relate to Johnny Savile’s time at Springfield Hospital.
Victim V1: Allegation
67 V1’s allegation of abuse is of being touched in a sexual way by Johnny Savile when she was an inpatient in 1979. She stated in her interview for this investigation that she believed Johnny Savile, whom she thought was working as a recreation or entertainments Officer at the time, provided what she termed ‘favours to patients’ if they ‘pleased him’. This meant allowing him to touch them in a sexual way. V1 told us this is what happened to her. She does not recall the exact date of the incident and did not elaborate on exactly
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 18 what happened and how she was touched. She does not recall telling any member of staff about the incident at the time.
68 Upon hearing the publicity around the Jimmy Savile allegations and Operation Yewtree, V1 contacted the police and gave a statement about what had happened to her in 1979. This statement first came to the attention of the investigators at LTHT who alerted the Trust. Trust investigators contacted V1 and she agreed to an interview. V1 was interviewed by the authors of this report and the interview was professionally transcribed.
V1 - Investigation
69 V1 was interviewed in June 2014. Her identity was confirmed at interview as she volunteered to show her passport for the period of her admissions to Springfield Hospital. This confirmed that her name on admission was different to the one she used to make her statement to Operation Yewtree. This information enabled the investigators to trace her admission records.
70 A search was conducted through the London Metropolitan Archive and the admission and discharge records for 1970 to 1980 were reviewed. These records confirmed V1 was admitted informally to Yew Ward at Springfield hospital from West Park Hospital, Epsom on 14 July 1979 and discharged on 25 September 1979. V1 was readmitted informally to Dahlia ward at Springfield hospital from St Thomas’s Hospital on 28 October 1979 and discharged on 30 November 1979.
71 She had not had any contact with the hospital, local social services, nor any services covered by the Trust for over three decades. Before Operation Yewtree, she had not made a statement to any authority about what she now alleges against Johnny Savile.
72 No other documents have been found relating to V1’s stay at Springfield or the incident alleged, nor did any of the other interviewees have knowledge of this victim or her allegations. So, investigation of her specific allegations relates only to her own statements about the incident and her time in Springfield. Her description of the culture and practices of the hospital and the recreational activities of Johnny Savile, however, are corroborated broadly by their consistency with the evidence of other victims and staff.
73 V1 described Springfield Hospital very clearly and with accurate use of ward names and the layout of the hospital. She described Johnny Savile’s activities and his role as a ‘recreation officer’ in ways which fit with the evidence from the other victims and several of the staff interviewed. V1 described Johnny Savile’s role in organising discos for about 60 people in the recreation hall and she noted his ‘over friendly’ manner with patients and some staff .
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 19 74 She stated that beneath the recreation hall there was a store room (such a room has been confirmed to have existed) which in 1979 was used to store mattresses. V1 claimed that patients would go down there with Johnny Savile on occasions. She did not know exactly what happened there and she did not go to the store room with Johnny Savile.
75 She claimed the assault on her occurred as part of a culture whereby female patients wanted to stay in Johnny Savile’s ‘good books’ and would therefore allow him to touch them or engage in some other sexual activity. She did not elaborate on this and stated there wasn’t a lot of talk amongst patients about what Johnny Savile did because ‘they were all receiving the same treatment’ by which she meant Johnny Savile would ‘expose himself’ to patients. She stated that patients might just say ‘I’m going to see Johnny tonight; we’re going for a drink’.
76 When asked about whether she or other patients could have reported concerns or incidents to staff during the period of her admission, she stated that with regard to Johnny Savile some staff were over-friendly, some would ‘slap him on the backside’ or put their arms around him. She implied he was popular and seen very positively by some or many staff. The only complaints she heard about Johnny Savile by staff or patients were ‘jovial’, but this included statements about him being a ‘dirty old (man)’. She described some staff as good and she said she enjoyed her stay at Springfield overall, but that some staff were bullies and unapproachable. She strongly suggested it would have been difficult for a patient to raise a complaint against Johnny Savile.
77 She was asked whether she had any information about whether Jimmy Savile had ever visited or had any connection with Springfield. She said she was ‘100% certain’ she had no knowledge of Jimmy Savile having visited or having any other connection with Springfield.
78 She was also asked whether she knew of either Johnny or Jimmy Savile having access to the mortuary. She had no knowledge of this.
V1 - Findings
79 The investigators concluded that V1 was certainly a patient at Springfield at the time she claimed. Her assertions about Johnny Savile’s behaviour towards her and towards other patients cannot be corroborated in detail by other evidence, but are consistent with the information about his behaviour from several other sources. Her recall of her time at Springfield is accurate in terms of layout, ward names and the recreational activities happening at the time. She was very clear and consistent in her recollections and painted a credible picture of what she claimed happened to her and to others. She described a culture among the staff which suggested, again credibly, that Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 20 some staff at least were over friendly with Johnny Savile and may not have recognised his behaviour towards patients as inappropriate, and/or may not have known about the alleged extent of it.
80 V1 did not report her experience of being touched by Johnny Savile to the hospital authorities at the time and had not told the Trust prior to Operation Yewtree. She did not know the nature and culture of the Trust now as she has had nothing to do with it for a long time, but at the time of the alleged incidents she intimated it was difficult for patients to raise concerns or allegations because some staff were ‘bullies’ and, in the case of Johnny Savile, he was very popular with some staff. The investigators believe that, on the balance of probabilities, V1 was accurately describing an incident of being touched in a sexual manner by Johnny Savile in the context of a culture that may have turned a blind eye to such behaviour and/or which made it difficult for patients to report violations or complaints.
81 There were no known witnesses to the incident and as this matter had not been raised before, the Trust could not have investigated this allegation prior to V1’s recent report.
82 V1 was sure she had no knowledge that Jimmy Savile had contact with Springfield Hospital (or any other locations now managed by the Trust). She also had no recollection that either Johnny or Jimmy Savile had access to the Springfield mortuary.
Victim V2 – Allegation
83 V2 alleges that on 4th June 1979, she was sexually assaulted and raped by Johnny Savile in his office. She claims that earlier that day she had been at the Day Hospital on the Springfield site. She had been attending the Day Hospital since her discharge from an inpatient admission which had lasted from 17 May to 30 May 1979. V2 claims she had first met Johnny Savile when she was taken to the recreation hall to play badminton while she was an inpatient. She stated in interview that he invited her then to come to his office ‘any time for a cup of tea’.
84 V2 claims that when she visited Johnny Savile’s office on 4th June 1979 he was alone in his office. She went in to sit on the couch. He locked the door, dropped his trousers and forced her to perform oral sex then wrestled her down onto the couch and raped her. She claims she then returned to the day hospital and did not tell the staff what had happened. She says the staff noted she was disheveled and asked where she had been but she did not tell them. The only person she says she told about the rape at the time was her step mother who did not encourage her to tell anyone else and who is now dead.
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 21 85 V2 was readmitted as an inpatient to Springfield hospital on June 5th 1979.
V2 - Investigation
86 V2 approached the Trust in November 2012 following her report of rape by Johnny Savile to the police as part of Operation Yewtree in October 2012. Her approach to the Trust at this time was not as a service user or patient but as a local resident who had used Trust services in the past. V2 did not consent for police to share information with the Trust relating to the allegations she had reported to Operation Yewtree in 2012.
87 In November 2012, V2 informed several Trust staff and senior managers about her past experiences at Springfield Hospital. V2 was provided with information and support at that time by senior managers and a senior clinical psychologist in the Trust. She was provided with the opportunity to gain information about her stay at Springfield in 1979, and attempts were made through the human resources department to find information about Johnny Savile’s employment at the hospital. The clinical psychologist met her five times to talk about her experiences and what she wanted to happen with the investigation into her claims. She stated at interview that she found the contact with the Trust in 2012 helpful and supportive.
88 She expressed in 2012 that she wanted or hoped the matter of historical abuse at Springfield Hospital would be considered through Operation Yewtree and did not ask the Trust to formally investigate her past experiences at that time. Nonetheless, the Trust would have investigated her allegations had the requirement from DH not come through to investigate V2’s case alongside others.
89 The Trust started to collate documentary information about V2’s allegations from 2012 onwards. When the DH approached the Trust in April 2014 and advised a full investigation into Johnny Savile (and possible links with Jimmy Savile) was required, V2’s allegation against Johnny Savile was known to the appointed Trust investigators.
90 V2’s admission dates from 1979 were confirmed in Trust records held at the London Metropolitan Archive and her admission in 1991 was confirmed from archived records held in Springfield medical records. As the investigation proceeded, it became clear that V2 had told mental health professionals in the Trust, and its predecessor organisations, in 1991 and also in 2005-6, about the allegation of rape at Springfield in 1979.
91 A Mental Health Assessment form from February 1991 records that V2 stated she had been raped during previous (1979) admission to Springfield hospital and there is no evidence of any follow up actions taken, nor is the document
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 22 signed. Chief Executive, Dr Julie Hollyman (W20), was responsible for the Springfield hospital site in 1991, and she was not made aware of this allegation or the victim’s disclosure, and was not informed of any incidents involving Johnny Savile, and in fact did not know that Jimmy Savile had a brother. No other documentary evidence from 1991 has been found.
92 This investigation therefore looked into V2’s allegation of rape at Springfield in 1979, but also into why the Trust did not investigate her claims about Johnny Savile until initiating inquiries in 2012 and fully investigating in 2014.
93 Because V2 was readmitted to Springfield Hospital in 1991 and used Trust community psychiatric services as recently as 2006/7 and the Trust psychotherapy department in 2008 (and had even more recent contact with a local GP), considerable documentary information has been available to the investigators. This includes her paper and electronic medical notes, many of which she has added to and amended as V2 has long disputed the veracity of her notes. This has included misrepresentation of her family and personal history which she has sought to rectify.
94 V2 has also had contact with the Trust corporate services periodically over the past 10 years with regard to changes to her medical records in the late 1990s. The Trust approached V2 in May 2014 via her solicitors to request an interview and this was conducted in June 2014.
95 In interview, she described the allegation of rape and another sexual assault by Johnny Savile. V2 also alleged in this interview that she was physically assaulted by an unnamed male on Aster Ward during her first admission at Springfield which made her fearful when she was due to be readmitted to that ward later in 1979. She said this assault was witnessed by staff but the investigators did not have enough information about the possible assailant or staff witnesses to investigate this allegation further. This allegation does not relate to Johnny Savile.
96 She also alleged she was sexually assaulted during her second stay in Springfield in 1979 by a male patient during a walk in the grounds. She did not know the identity of the person whom she says assaulted her and the investigators have not found any other information about the assault. She did not report this assault to staff at Springfield. She said she believed that at that time ‘any woman with a mental illness was (considered) promiscuous’ and would be held responsible for a sexual assault.
97 The investigators for this report did not have enough information (neither from V2’s interview nor from limited number of available archived records, that did not include V2’s medical records from 1979 or 1980) to be able to investigate either of the non-Johnny Savile assault allegations further although they were
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 23 clearly serious and will be investigated by the Trust if more information becomes available.
98 Investigators for this report particularly examined why V2’s allegation of rape by Johnny Savile had not been investigated when V2 told the Trust Corporate governance department about it in July 2006. At interview, V2 said she mentioned the rape to both Mr Barnard (W10) and Dr Hubbeling (W12) during assessments in 2005 or 2006, though she could not recall the exact date, nor could she recall in detail what she said or the level of detail she disclosed. The investigators noted that Dr Hubbeling did not join the Trust until May 2006.
99 The investigators found considerable paper and some electronically- generated documentary evidence from 2005-6, both from corporate governance files and from patient records, which augmented the victims and witness interview information in this part of the investigation.
100 Between 1991 and 2005, there is no evidence that V2 had any contact with this Trust’s (and predecessor Trusts’) clinical services, but there is some documentary evidence , corroborated in her interview, that throughout this time V2 had been consistently challenging the veracity of the medical notes held about her by this Trust. She had attempted unsuccessfully to take this matter through civil courts in the late 1990s. She had, however, been able to prove to the Trust that some records were factually incorrect, for instance about her family background and schooling.
101 A locum GP referral letter dated September 2005 includes statements that V2 alleges she was raped when she first used psychiatric services in 1979 and had been told this was a symptom of ‘her psychosis’ though had recently been to the police and ‘felt she was believed’ and referred to Victim Support. This letter does not name Johnny Savile as the perpetrator. V2’s report to the police in 2005 was not recorded as a formal complaint by them.
102 The GP referral letter asked for assessment by a Trust psychiatrist, and V2 was seen in September 2005 for assessment by the Crisis and Home Treatment team in Wandsworth. She was then referred to the local community mental health team in December 2005 and was again assessed by W19 and the Community Mental Health Team manager Mr Barnard (W10).
103 There is no mention in the clinicians’ records at this point that the issue of rape was raised with them. W19 recalls seeing V2 with Mr Barnard. She presented then with a range of difficult and longstanding issues. Because it was an unusual matter, W19 recalled V2’s medico-legal query about the accuracy of her notes, and W19 stated he was ‘scrupulous’ in his response to her. W19 was clear that if V2 had mentioned past abuse, it would have been
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 24 recorded in the notes, probably categorised as ‘personal history’. His contemporaneous notes do not make any reference to V2 disclosing abuse.
104 In May 2006, V2 wrote an email to her GP saying she had told Mr Barnard and her community consultant psychiatrist that she had been raped during her admission to Springfield in 1979 without naming Johnny Savile, and stating she had discussed it ‘at some length’ with the consultant psychiatrist (W19) and Mr Barnard although it was not mentioned in W19’s report’.
105 Late in May 2006, her GP (W17) referred her again to the local community mental health team, specifically writing to a different doctor, Consultant Psychiatrist Dr Hubbeling. Mr Barnard and Dr Hubbeling both saw her for assessment during this period and in July 2006, Dr Hubbeling wrote back to her GP (W17) to provide feedback on her referral. Dr Hubbeling made direct reference in her letter to W17 of V2 talking of being raped while being compulsorily admitted to Springfield Hospital and also that she had been ‘unable to get the appropriate help and support’.
106 Although there is no reference in this letter (or any other document) to any follow up by Dr Hubbeling or Mr Barnard on this allegation, Dr Hubbeling informed the Savile investigation team that she had proposed referral for treatment that in her view would have addressed V2’s various mental health needs, including issues arising from the rape. Dr Hubbeling reported to the investigators that V2 was unwilling to accept that proposal at that time.
107 A few days later, on 18 July 2006, V2 sent an email to the Acting Director of Corporate Affairs Kim Goddard stating that she was raped in 1979 ‘by Jimmy Savile’s older brother, Johnny Savile, who is now dead, who used to be the entertainments officer… [and] who was I believe asked to retire to avoid a scandal because of his activities where female patients were concerned. He was and still is notorious in Tooting…..’ This and another email alleging rape were forwarded by Ms Goddard to Mr Barnard and Dr Hubbeling on 18th July 2006 with a request for advice.
108 After this, there is further correspondence between V2 and the governance and complaints department with regard to changing medical records and there are some contemporaneous notes taken by Mr Barnard and Dr Hubbeling (W12) at several further clinical meetings with V2, but none of these refer to the allegations of rape again.
109 Her GP (W17) has confirmed that V2 spoke to her from 1999 onwards, about having been raped in Springfield, but did not directly refer to Johnny Savile until (about) 2009. W17 referred V2 to an in-house counsellor in 1999 and after this there was a period when V2 appeared to want to get on with her life. W17 stated to the investigation that she thought that V2 had tried to tell the hospital about the rape over many years but had not been believed.
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 25 110 Mr Barnard (W10), Dr Hubbeling (W12), Ms Goddard (W13), W17 and W19 were all interviewed for this investigation. Ms Goddard did not recall what action by corporate services was taken to follow up on the allegation of rape contained within the content of V2’s email. She said that, without having had sight of relevant materials either prior to her interview or subsequently, it was not reasonable to expect accurate recall of events which took place some 8 years previously. She did however confirm that she remembered that V2 was most concerned about the matter of changing her medical records during her long contact with corporate services.
111 Mr Barnard said that he was sure that V2 did not mention rape or sexual assault in his meetings with her in late 2005, May 2006 or at any other time. He recalled V2’s concerns about inaccurate records held by the Trust and current practical difficulties. Mr Barnard did not recall seeing the emails sent to him and Dr Hubbeling by Ms Goddard that stated V2 had complained she was raped at Springfield Hospital in 1979 and asking him and Dr Hubbeling for advice. Mr Barnard stated that if he had been notified of a report of a sexual assault of a service user it would have been reported to police at that time in keeping with contemporary policy. Dr Hubbeling stated that when meeting V2 for the first time, she had been employed by the Trust for only six weeks and had not, in her own words, had the benefit of a formal introduction to the Trust’s safeguarding adults policy.
112 W17’s second referral letter in May 2006 to Dr Hubbeling does not make reference to V2 being raped but did suggest that there should be consideration of previous reports and emails from 2005 and earlier in 2006. Dr Hubbeling recalled meeting with V2 and said that V2 raised the issue of being raped in the past amongst other issues which seemed of greater significance and priority to V2. This was documented in a letter back to the referrer, W17.
113 Investigators noted that V2’s GP (W17) made referral direct to Trust psychotherapy in January and April 2007. The assessment report showed that V2 was supported to make decisions about her future care and treatment options.
114 Dr Hubbeling could not remember if she had seen the email from Ms Goddard stating that V2 had alleged rape in the past. She thought that if she had seen the email, she would have held the assumption that this was being dealt with by the corporate complaints and governance team.
115 Dr Hubbeling was clear that in her clinical opinion at the time, the allegation of rape was not the main reason for V2’s contact with mental health services as contact with V2 was focused on concerns about inaccurate clinical records and resolving practical difficulties such as debt. Having had the benefit of
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 26 reading the emails in the present day, Dr Hubbeling’s view as to the main focus of the emails was reinforced, in that in her opinion the emphasis of the email was not the allegation of rape. Though the investigation team noted that the subject line of the email read ‘rape was by a member of staff’ and in the interview in 2014, Dr Hubbeling acknowledged this allegation of rape was a serious issue that needed to be dealt with properly by the Trust.
116 In March 2008, V2 sent a letter to Dr Hubbeling that describes Dr Hubbeling’s account of V2 being raped at Springfield Hospital as ‘inaccurate and incomprehensible’. The letter was forwarded to the Trust complaints department and addressed as part of the Trust response to V2’s request for her records to be amended.
117 V2 sent an email to Ms Goddard in March 2009 stating that she had been raped by Johnny Savile. V2 also stated in the email that it was a ‘statement’ and not a complaint. There is no documentary evidence of any follow up enquiry to that statement. There are a number of subsequent email and letters both from and to V2 that dealt with other matters, without further mention of the rape.
118 V2 told the investigation team at her interview that she contacted the Trust again in 2012 and wrote to several Executives and senior managers. She stated in that letter that ‘in 1979, I had a nervous breakdown caused by stress and exhaustion and was raped by Johnny Savile’. In 2012, V2 met with a Senior Manager (W15) and Senior Clinical Psychologist (W16) together twice, and three times more with the psychologist alone. She was able to ask and have answered some questions about Johnny Savile, his employment status in 1979, how he had left the hospital. She discussed matters other than the rape with W15 and W16 and found contact with them helpful.
V2 - Findings
119 V2 has made a particularly serious and traumatic (for her) allegation against Johnny Savile alongside two other serious complaints of assault from 1979 when she was an inpatient at Springfield. While this investigation could not find definitive evidence for the claims made by V2, the persistence of her claim of rape, expressed to professionals since 1991, adds credibility to her account. She named the assailant as Johnny Savile in 2006 before the allegations against his brother were widespread. Her account of the location and timing of the assault, and details about what happened immediately before and after it is alleged to have happened, add further credibility to her story and investigators for this report believed on the balance of probabilities, an assault by Johnny Savile, of the nature described by V2 did occur.
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 27 120 V2 gives an account of a culture in the hospital in 1979 which made it difficult for patients to raise complaints and be believed. This chimes particularly with the account of V1. It also fits with statements made by V5 about Johnny Savile’s alleged controlling attitude towards patients (see paragraphs 152 to 158).
121 It is concerning that the Trust did not investigate her claim of rape in Springfield hospital when it was raised explicitly in the GP referral letter of September 2005 and in an email from V2, in 2006. It appears that other issues she was raising at the time (notably the veracity of her medical records) dominated the Trust’s response to V2.
122 Ms Goddard did attempt to pass on the claim about alleged rape to the clinical staff working with V2 via an email, and it appears no one took responsibility for coordinating a response to the allegation, neither in terms of assessing its impact on her mental health and wellbeing nor in terms of supporting her possible right to redress through full investigation by the Trust or additional police action beyond their referral of V2 to Victim Support.
123 V2’s GP (W17) acted appropriately in referring her to a counsellor in 1999 and referring her to the Trust in 2005 and 2006. The information given by the GP suggests she was consulted and trusted by V2 at a time when V2 did not want to engage with the Trust and the written communications between the GP and the Trust were adequate. The GP also made a subsequent direct referral to Trust psychotherapy department in April 2007.
124 Dr Hubbeling did properly acknowledge the significance of the rape allegation in her letter of July 2006 to V2’s GP but did not take further action in terms of advising any specialist support or supporting her reporting this to the police. V2 appears to have known at this time in 2006 that Johnny Savile was dead and therefore could not be held to account in law, but it is not clear whether Trust staff dealing with her knew or had confirmed this was the case.
125 Dr Hubbeling advised the investigation that she was not aware that the complaint to the police had not been recorded as a formal complaint and that she thought the police and the Trust were already aware of the position. She also recalled that the relevant Trust policy at the time would have required her to report an allegation in circumstances where the allegation had not previously been made known. Even so, she accepted that she did not clarify or confirm that appropriate action had been taken and investigators noted that Dr Hubbeling was both new to the Trust and to the Consultant role.
126 It may be assumed, but is not proven, that the email from Ms Goddard to Mr Barnard and Dr Hubbeling regarding the rape allegations was received and opened. If it was received, it should have been explicitly acted upon, but it is also the investigators’ view that the sender, the Acting Director of Corporate Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 28 Affairs, Ms Goddard, should have taken responsibility to confirm its receipt by Mr Barnard and Dr Hubbeling and as a Corporate senior manager, agreed what actions would be taken or indeed progressed the matter directly with V2.
127 The Trust’s Protection of Vulnerable Adults policy in force in 2005/6 was not as comprehensive as that in place today. However the policy (dated 2004) makes clear that allegations of sexual abuse, including sexual assault or rape, should be routinely reported to the police for advice on the circumstances and the possibilities of prosecution.
128 The Trust policy (2004) states that staff should refer an allegation of abuse ‘formally and seek advice through relevant Trust procedures and Trust line management arrangements’. And ‘if the alleged person is a member of staff then report to the next up line manager’. They should also ‘refer to Borough specific referral and investigatory procedures on the protection of vulnerable adults within each Borough’. In this case, as the incident occurred in Wandsworth, it would be Wandsworth Borough Council’s policy that applies
129 The Wandsworth Borough Council ‘Protecting Vulnerable Adults’ policy in force in 2006 made clear that when disclosures of abuse that may constitute a criminal offence were made ‘ít is imperative that contact should be made with the police as a matter of urgency’. The same policy also advises on disclosures of historic abuse and advises that the ‘delay in reporting should not cast doubt on their truthfulness’.
130 The Trust has investigated the practices of its own staff member Dr Hubbeling who saw V2 in 2006 and the Trust will seek advice from National Clinical Assessment Service (NCAS) in respect of any action required.
131 The Trust has also advised Mr Barnard’s current employer about this report and the apparent lack of action upon receipt of information (from the email from Ms Goddard and at a minimum, within the assessment and subsequent letter to the GP from the consultant, Dr Hubbeling) about a rape allegation of a vulnerable person in 2006. The GP’s (W17) referral to the Trust psychotherapy department on January and April 2007 was appropriate and the investigation team took the view that the assessment report was correctly focused on supporting V2 with her need to make a decision about addressing past issues and future care and treatment options.
132 Ms Goddard is no longer working within the Trust and no longer works in a direct clinical context. The investigators spoke to Ms Goddard and discussed the fact that on the evidence available for this investigation, she appears not to have acted to ensure a proper and coordinated senior management response to V2’s allegations. Ms Goddard recalled V2 re-iterating her complaints about Trust records, and does not recall how the allegation that V2 had been raped, was followed up. Whilst Ms Goddard felt it was unreasonable Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 29 to expect accurate recall of events without having had sight of relevant materials prior to interview, she did however acknowledge that she did not take further action after receiving and forwarding V2’s email in 2006.
V3 - Allegation
133 A hospital administrator (W1) stated at interview that she remembered a named patient (V3) having been allegedly sexually assaulted (inappropriately touched) by Johnny Savile in 1979 (no specific date was provided). W1 was not directly involved in the incident or in any investigation, but heard about it through informal discussion with colleagues. She remembered it because it was very similar to her own experience (see section on V4 below).
V3 - Investigation
134 W1 had remembered the name of the patient because of an unusual (unrelated) incident that had occurred with the patient in the work area where W1 was based. W1 stated this had made V3’s name stick in her mind. However, the name provided by W1 could not be found in any records of hospital admissions for the late 1970s or 1980 and no other information could be gleaned from other interviewees or documentary sources. W1 was asked again for further information or clarification. No other clues or corroborating information could be found.
V3 - Findings
135 A search for the name given, and re-confirmed by, W1 was undertaken through the Trust electronic, microfilm and paper medical records, as well as a search of the London Metropolitan Archive admission records. No information could be found to further investigate or verify the allegation of assault on the person named as V3
V4 - Allegation
136 Staff interviewee W1 is also identified as V4. She alleged in her interview that Johnny Savile came to where she worked one afternoon in the late 1970s to pick up a bleep. As he walked by he touched her inappropriately. She gave him a slap. She reported what had happened, including the slap, to her manager who was the Head Porter, though could not recall his name. He said ‘good for you’ and the matter was not taken forward any further. She said that it ‘stopped Johnny Savile approaching her any more’.
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 30 V4 - Investigation
137 The allegation above was disclosed unexpectedly in the interview with W1 that had been set up with the purpose of investigating what she knew generally about Johnny Savile as she had worked at the same time as him at Springfield as a junior administrator. She had continued to work at the Trust for a number of years in a variety of roles.
138 There was no other documentary evidence to support the allegation made by V4 as the matter had not been dealt with formally by her or her managers. She said in her interview that she had had conversations with at least one colleague about what had happened to her and it was then that she heard about V3, but V4 had decided then that the matter of the assault on her and her manager’s response was ‘done and dusted’ and she took no further action.
139 In interview, V4 described how she got to know Johnny Savile as he would come regularly to where she worked to pick up and drop off a bleep. She did not know how he came to be at Springfield and did not know his employment status although had assumed he had been a volunteer. She thought he may not have worked at the hospital for much more than a year, but this was supposition on her part.
140 She confirmed that he had had an office at the back of the old stage in the recreation hall (which still had his name plate on it until it was removed in 2012) and she said that people would ‘flock there to see him’. She did not recall the claims made by other victims and witnesses that Johnny ran the hospital radio station but she did agree that Johnny Savile would organise recreational events on the wards and possibly organised patient outings.
141 She stated that Johnny Savile ‘used his brother’s fame and was over-friendly’. She thought he could ‘go where he liked by asking, ‘Do you know who I am? I’m Johnny Savile’. She said he always had lots of people in his office including patients.
142 V4 was asked whether she thought Jimmy Savile had ever been to Springfield. She had had a longstanding role with the League of Friends and had been involved in bringing in notable people to e.g. open hospital fetes. She was clear she had no knowledge that Jimmy Savile had ever been to Springfield.
143 V4 was also asked whether she thought it possible that Johnny Savile or his brother had access to the mortuary at Springfield. She said that she had been aware there had been a procedure for accessing the mortuary managed by the porters. While she gave the view that Johnny Savile might have been
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 31 able to gain access to the mortuary, she was unaware of any such incident and had no knowledge of any connection in this respect with Jimmy Savile.
V4 - Findings
144 V4 gave a very clear and credible description of an allegation of inappropriate touching by Johnny Savile in 1979 which was not dealt with seriously by her managers at the time. This incident is a small clue to culture at work in 1979 which was probably more tolerant of such conduct than today.
145 V4 saw Johnny Savile frequently at work for about a year. She had a general view of him as ‘over-friendly’ with patients and staff and reported him having been implicated in one other similar allegation in 1979. She described his use of ‘celebrity by association’ which she suggests drew people to him in large numbers, staff and patients, and may have given him easy access to the whole hospital. She was also of the view that his role gave him access to the wards to organise recreational activities directly with patients. She paints a picture of a person who for at least a year had access to vulnerable people in an era which lacked the safeguarding processes and perspective on patient safety we now expect and enforce.
146 Like all other interviewees and in line with documentary sources, there is no evidence from V4 of Jimmy Savile coming to the hospital. Given her longstanding involvement with the League of Friends and events organising on the site, she is well informed on the history of such matters at Springfield.
147 V4 was not aware of any access to the mortuary by either brother.
V5 - Allegation
148 V5 came forward late in the investigation having seen information about it on the Trust website. This information was uploaded on 26 June 2014.
149 V5 reported an assault by Johnny Savile when she was a visitor to Springfield Hospital in 1978. She was accompanying her then partner whom Johnny Savile had allowed to use the recreation hall to rehearse his band.
150 V5 had wanted to use a toilet and the one in the recreation hall area was unclean so she went to Johnny Savile’s office to ask if there was another she could use. She went in to the office and sat down. Other band members were in the office. Johnny Savile then twice grasped her breasts from behind her as he walked by.
151 She recalled having returned four or five times to Springfield with her partner and his band. She does not report Johnny Savile having assaulted her again.
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 32
V5 - Investigation
152 V5 was interviewed and recounted the allegation. For personal reasons, she had not felt able to report that Johnny Savile had sexually assaulted her at the time it happened.
153 She stated in her interview that in casual conversation in his office, Johnny Savile said he could ‘get the patients to do anything’ and claimed he made them clean the toilets. She also claimed that Johnny Savile said to the other men in his office at the time of the assault that they could ‘have sex’ with any of the patients in exchange for a cigarette or money for the coffee machine, but none of them wanted to do this.
154 V5 recalled having seen in a newspaper that Johnny Savile had been dismissed a ‘few years’ after the incident.
155 No documentary evidence was found to corroborate V5’s allegation.
V5 - Findings
156 V5’s allegation centred on Johnny Savile’s office and the recreation hall, in keeping with the two patient victim allegations. The time frame and the nature of the incident are also in keeping with other allegations.
157 What is different about this allegation is that the victim and her companions in Johnny Savile’s office were visitors and the alleged statements by Johnny Savile about patients were spoken without the presence of staff or patients. The statements cannot be corroborated, but if accurately recollected, suggest an abusive, sexualised and belittling attitude towards patients.
158 As with the other victims interviewed for this investigation, there is nothing to connect V5 with any of the other victims and she would not have known of their allegations and the fact that at least two others focus on or around the recreation hall and Johnny Savile’s office. This consistency adds weight to the credibility of her allegation of assault.
V6 and V7 - Allegation
159 V6 was identified from press statements in the Wandsworth Borough News (12th December 1980) and the Glasgow Evening Times (2nd February 1981) about Johnny Savile being dismissed for gross misconduct having sexually assaulted a patient in April 1980. This evidence has been matched with evidence from documents found in the uncatalogued documents store room at
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 33 Springfield Hospital. The latter show that a staff nurse from Yew Ward received a complaint (from the person identified here as V6) that a member of the hospital staff in the recreational hall had ‘put his hands on her body’.
160 V6 is reported in a handwritten note by the staff nurse (dated 15th April 1980) as having visited ‘Springfield Village’ (a name then used to denote the area including the recreation hall) on 10th April 1980 accompanied by another patient. An unnamed member of staff became over friendly and ‘groped’ her in the pretence of tickling her, put his hands ‘everywhere’ and lifted up her top, grabbed her breasts and followed her down the corridor.
161 V6 is reported to have stated she wanted to make a formal complaint and the staff nurse advised her of the complaints procedure.
162 A patient witness to the event was also interviewed and is reported on the same document (dated 15th April 1980) to have given a very similar account to that recorded for V6. The patient witness is also reported as stating she had not been surprised by the staff member’s conduct – he had ‘done the same to her on other occasions but she had never had any witnesses around to prove it’. She is therefore referred to here as ‘V7’.
163 Although not named fully in the Springfield notes, the hand written interview note attached to the witness statement names the assailant as ‘Johnny’. There is also a striking consistency between the date (April 1980) and other details of the incident in the documents found at Springfield and the press report on the case leading to Johnny Savile’s dismissal. The initial of the complainant’s surname in the Springfield documents also matches that given in the press reports.
164 It is therefore concluded here that V6 is the same victim as described in the April 1980 Springfield document and the 1980 and 1981 press reports.
V6 and V7 - Investigation
165 The only direct information about this alleged incident comes from the paper notes found in the uncatalogued documents store and from the press reports. Efforts were made to trace staff and patients V6 and V7 named in the incident reports through medical records and through asking existing and previous staff who worked at the Trust in 1980. None could be traced to be interviewed by the time of completing this report.
166 Having found the press reports, all staff interviewed who knew Johnny Savile at Springfield were asked about their knowledge of how he left the hospital. While no interviewee provided definitive information about the incident or the process of dismissal, staff interviewee W6, a personnel officer in 1979, was
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 34 able to recall that Johnny Savile was dismissed in or around 1980 following a complaint by a female patient that he had molested her. The Divisional Nursing Officer had investigated the complaint and taken forward the dismissal, but W6 could not recall that the police were informed or involved in any way.
167 The Regional Health Authority guidance (dated14th May 1979) found by the investigation team may have led the DNO to consider that a report to the police was not necessarily required. The guidance makes reference to the ‘fact that no legal action’ could be taken in relation to incidents involving staff harming ‘psychiatric patients’, but does not offer guidance on whether such matters should be reported to the police.
168 Inquiries by the Trust investigators with London Metropolitan Police for records of any criminal convictions or cautions against Johnny Savile did not find anything.
169 W6 also recalled that Johnny Savile had appealed against the dismissal but, as the press reports state, it was upheld at the employment tribunal.
V6 and V7 - Findings
170 There is strong evidence that Johnny Savile was dismissed for the sexual assault of V6. It appears in this case, the complaint investigation processes of the time worked reasonably well to support the complainant and the patient witness to make their statements and for these to be treated with respect, seen as credible, and used to hold Johnny Savile to account. The witness interview with ex-personnel officer W6 suggests the disciplinary investigation was led by the Divisional Nursing Officer.
171 The investigators think it most likely a disciplinary process uncovered strong evidence of an assault by Johnny Savile upon V6 and this is substantiated by the decision to dismiss being upheld by an employment tribunal.
172 V7 indicates however that making a complaint without a witness was difficult in 1979 and her own experience only came to light when she witnessed the assault on V6.
173 While there is evidence this case led to a disciplinary hearing there is no evidence that the police were informed or that they took any action if they were informed. There is also some corroborative evidence from W1 (V4) and V2 that the hospital wanted to ‘get rid’ of Johnny Savile in 1980 ‘quietly’ as he had minor celebrity status. It is perhaps for this reason there is little press information and few staff recollections about how he left the hospital.
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 35 9. Access to patients and privileges accorded to Johnny Savile at Springfield or other health service sites in south west London as a result of celebrity status or lack of supervision.
174 V1, V2, V4 (W1) and several of the staff interviewed reported that Johnny Savile had strong, informal and probably unprofessionally friendly relationships with some colleagues at Springfield. They reported that he tried to use his celebrity by association to gain status in the hospital. He had access to patients in what has been reported as the very informal surroundings of ‘activities’ in the recreation hall as well as through documented incidents of visiting wards to provide recreational input and leading patient outings in his role as recreation officer. He is also reported to have run or contributed to the hospital radio station and to have used access to this to try to gain sexual favours from female patients.
175 Visitor victim V5 reports that Johnny Savile described patients in very derogatory and sexualized ways, implying he could exploit his position of power over them.
176 Interviewees have described how some staff and patients sought him out and patients apparently would come frequently in considerable numbers to see him in his office. The fact that he had his own office off the recreation hall where he could apparently be alone with patients unsupervised, and that that office bore his name for many years after he left, suggests he had some privileged status and freedom to act unobserved and unsupervised. He was described as having a ‘following’ of staff and patients by one interviewee and as being seen as a ‘big man’ by another.
177 The investigation team concludes that Johnny Savile is likely to have used his association with his famous brother to facilitate extensive informal contact with patients and to have obscured the likely abusive and exploitative nature of some of this contact from other staff who treated him rather as a minor celebrity in his own right and who were on ‘over-friendly’ terms with him.
178 No records have been found to clarify what supervision he did or did not receive, nor what formal supervisory expectations existed. Reference to him in the voluntary services file suggests his work may have come under that part of the organisation at some stage of his time at Springfield.
179 While there is scant corroborative evidence for many of the individual allegations, they add up to a credible picture that Johnny Savile misused local celebrity status to exploit vulnerable patients as well as others.
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 36 10. Jimmy Savile
180 There is nothing in the findings of this investigation to link Jimmy Savile with Springfield or any other sites now under the control of the Trust. All witnesses and victims were asked about this and denied any knowledge of Jimmy Savile visiting this or any other Trust site and no documentary evidence has been found to suggest a link. It seems highly unlikely that such a high profile individual would have been able to come to Springfield unnoticed, although not entirely impossible. But no evidence has been found to allow a firm conclusion.
181 The reports of Johnny Savile’s behavior at Springfield suggest any impropriety was on his own account and did not directly involve his brother, although he appears to have derived celebrity status from his family connection.
182 The investigators at LTHT raised with the Trust the possibility that Johnny Savile might have provided Jimmy Savile with access to the Springfield Mortuary. Jimmy Savile’s alleged fascination and inappropriate behaviour in the mortuary at Leeds has been investigated by LTHT. An informant to the LTHT investigation knew that Jimmy Savile’s brother had worked at Springfield and that there was a mortuary there in the late 1970s. LTHT investigators passed this information on to the Trust and this possibility was included in the terms of reference for this investigation.
183 Johnny Savile’s office was geographically close to the onsite mortuary at Springfield Hospital. According to several interviewees, Johnny Savile reportedly had influence over others, including the porters, who controlled access to the mortuary. This was reported by W1 to have been limited and well marshalled by the head porter at the time and there was a procedure for how it was accessed with designated staff being responsible for picking up the keys and signing them out. It remains a possibility that Johnny Savile would have been able to access the mortuary, but none of the interviewees recall any such incident being known at the time, or since.
11. Policy, practice and culture during the time of Johnny Savile’s association with Springfield Hospital
184 W4 was a personnel manager in 1979 and her account of events suggest that there was a complaints policy or process that involved escalating concerns to a senior staff member or the Divisional Nursing Officer (DNO). The apparent involvement of the DNO in the investigation leading to Johnny Savile’s dismissal adds weight to this.
185 The investigators found little evidence of policies or protocols for patient safety in the late 1970s. Little has been retained in written form. A few records Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 37 of assaults having been investigated by the DNO and the involvement of police in a small number of cases shows that some procedures for reporting and proper investigation were in place. The investigation of V6’s allegation is perhaps the most clear evidence of how an incident might have been properly investigated in 1980, senior staff having clearly taken the complaint seriously. However, the implication in that instance was that it was successfully taken forward because there was a witness but it was not reported to the police as it should have been. V1, V2 at interview and V7 in a brief written note suggest that without witnesses, patient complaints may not have been believed.
186 Both V1 and V2 described a culture in the hospital in 1978/79 that made it very difficult for patients to raise concerns and to have allegations of abuse or assault taken seriously. V1, V2, and V5 independently described a culture of over-familiarity and unchallenged breaches of professional boundaries that left patients, and some staff, at risk of abuse and exploitation.
187 However, the complaint made by V6 and witnessed by V7 (who herself claimed she had been assaulted) was apparently investigated and led to Johnny Savile’s dismissal. V7’s statement in the investigation that she hadn’t reported her experience because she had not had a witness suggests that patient may have believed that her testimony alone may not have been taken seriously at that time.
188 W1 also recounted in her interview that a female patient (name unknown) made a complaint of abuse by Johnny Savile and it was dealt with seriously by the DNO. Fragmentary evidence of complaints procedures and written complaints responses have been found in the uncatalogued document store.
189 Staff interviews about the period of the late 1970’s suggest that if matters were reported to the DNO or other hospital authorities, they were taken seriously but the impression gained by the investigators was that such reporting was not the norm as it is today. The era of the alleged assaults by Johnny Savile pre-dates by two decades the developments in adult safeguarding starting with ‘No Secrets’ published by the Department of Health in 2000 which fundamentally changed the approach of health and social care agencies towards believing and responding to allegations of abuse and exploitation of vulnerable people. There were also no systematic checks on the former conduct of those recruited to the Trust in the late 1970s such as are now in place.
190 Incident reports from June 1979 show that a series of five incidents of sexual or indecent assault on patients, visitors and staff had been reported which, like the allegations investigated in this report, had been observed by staff. The DNO at the time provided very clear advice on the expected response, and
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 38 that the incidents needed to be reported to the police, and senior management.
191 A Springfield management report of eight sexual assaults of patients reported to hospital management and the police in 1979/80 was also found in the uncatalogued document store room. These reports led to the subsequent arrest of the perpetrator. None of the incidents relate to Johnny Savile, but provide evidence that some incidents were dealt with effectively, and involved the police when reported to senior staff.
192 It is not possible to draw any definite conclusions about the frequency of this type of incident in Springfield from this small sample of incident reports. However, it does support the view that there was a culture in the late nineteen seventies that left vulnerable adults at risk of sexual abuse.
193 What may have particularly characterised the alleged assaults by Johnny Savile was the fact they occurred in the context of ‘recreation’ and ‘fun’ and thus were not taken seriously and went unnoticed and/or were unreported. This is a reflection of the culture of the organisation at the time that meant that some patients (and possibly others such as visitors or some staff) did not feel able to report what had happened and some reports were not dealt with appropriately
12. Johnny Savile’s association with Richmond Royal and any other facilities now under the control of the Trust
194 W18 provided a credible and detailed account of Johnny Savile’s association with Richmond Royal. Johnny Savile was known to have been dismissed from his previous post and was not there on any official basis: he was not employed; he was not a volunteer, and he was not involved in any fund- raising or organising activities. W18 does not recall any untoward incidents involving Johnny Savile. His frequent visits to the main building were not challenged as his wife was working there and he lived in staff accommodation. A description of Johnny Savile being disliked because of his past behavior was given by W18.
195 No evidence has been found of Johnny Savile being employed, volunteering, or being seen at any other site now under the control of the Trust.
13. Past and Current Policies and Procedures
Past
196 The Trust does not hold many documents showing the policies and practice in Springfield Hospital in 1978 and 1979.
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 39 197 A sample operational policy with a complaints process for this time period was found for John Meyer intensive care ward. It may have been that similar operational policies were in place for other wards on the Springfield site but these have not been found.
198 A Hospital Service Complaints Procedure. Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Heath Authority (1978) found in the Corporate Archive states that all complaints should be recorded in writing, and submitted to a Unit Administrator, and dependent on the seriousness of the complaint, escalated to a Senior Nursing Officer or Head of Department. The policy states that ‘all complaints should be dealt with promptly and justice should be seen to be done’
Current
199 The Trust is now committed to ensuring patient safety and safeguarding are at the heart of all that it does at all times. This means ensuring service users know their rights, are supported to make choices about their care and treatment as much as possible and are treated as equal citizens. The Trust’s progress in this area in recent years has been borne out in recent positive quality evaluations of safeguarding practice (e.g. in the 2014 Chief Inspector of Hospitals/Care Quality Commission Inspection report).
200 The Trust focuses on improving how to listen directly to the views and experiences of inpatients and other service users, both while people are using services and afterwards. Information and online tools are available to gather feedback frequently and quickly (e.g. encouraging people to give feedback through ‘Patient Opinion’ online and through the Trusts’ in-house ‘Real Time Feedback’ electronic portals). Staff are trained to encourage people to talk about their experiences and to ensure service users and their families know their rights. This includes making sure people know their rights to be protected - and to protect themselves - from abuse and harm, both within Trust facilities and in their day to day lives.
201 To supplement the Trust safeguarding adults policy, a guidance document has been produced to support clinicians in their response to historic abuse. This initiative is led by the Trust’s Safeguarding leads. Local Clinical Directors and safeguarding leads for each area of the Trust will provide support for the use of this guidance to practitioners. It includes information on the Operation Yew Tree legacy unit.
202 The Trust works closely with service user and carer groups and organisations to hear their concerns or complaints and to take seriously their experience of Trust ‘culture’, staff attitudes and practice. All complaints are investigated and responded to in accordance with legal requirements, best practice and Trust
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 40 policy. The Trust sees service users and carers as partners in care and aims to empower people to promote their mental recovery and their wellbeing.
203 Service user and carer advocates are also frequently directly involved in supporting people on wards. The Trust aims to maintain a culture of openness balanced with excellent governance around managing visitors, to promote healthy and therapeutic ward environments.
204 The Trust works as a partner within local authority Safeguarding Adults Partnership Boards across South West London and expects and welcomes regular scrutiny from these bodies, as well as from NHS commissioners. The Trust follows the Pan-London Safeguarding adults at risk policy and procedure (SCIE 2011) in its adult safeguarding work. Borough and directorate designated safeguarding adults and safeguarding children’s leads form a robust governance and oversight structure. The Medical Director has board level executive responsibility for the quality of adult safeguarding practice.
205 The Trust has developed robust local partnership arrangements with police through the five Safeguarding Adults Partnership Boards in its area. This allows advice, support and information to be shared (where appropriate and subject to local information sharing agreements) between the agencies to ensure swift and effective response to potential, and actual, criminal acts.
206 The Trust’s adult safeguarding system has been externally reviewed and shown to provide ‘substantial assurance’ by the London Audit Consortium in 2013. Further assurance of the effectiveness of the Trust governance structures and systems are provided through the undertaking of an annual safeguarding adults self-assessment and assurance framework check, under the scrutiny of NHS England (a function formerly held by NHS London) in partnership with the five local authority Safeguarding Adults Partnership Boards. The latter provide detailed feedback and hold the Trust to account.
207 All detained service users on the Trust in-patient units have access to Independent Mental Health Advocacy (IMHA) services and those lacking capacity have access to Independent Mental Capacity Act (IMCA) advocates. Other service users have ready access to information from the Trust Complaints teams who have most recently offered open complaints ‘surgeries’ on wards.
208 The Trust now has robust and safe recruitment procedures and practices in line with national requirements and local Safeguarding Adult Boards’ expectations. This includes clear policies on when to undertake checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service. Mandatory training and induction standards include the need to ensure new staff are made aware of their responsibilities to safeguard ‘Adults at Risk’ and promote rights and wellbeing. Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 41 209 Any staff member or volunteer facing allegations of a serious nature would be subject to a formal escalation process involving senior managers and disciplinary processes. This would include consideration of being referred to the relevant professional body (Nursing & Midwifery Council, Health and Care Professionals Council, General Medical Council etc.) and consideration of reporting the concern to the Disclosure and Barring Service.
210 The Trust encourages all individuals (staff, service users, carers or others) to raise any concerns that they may have about the conduct of others in the Trust or the way in which the Trust is run. The Guidance and Procedure on Raising Concerns (Including Whistle-blowing) sets out the way in which individuals may raise any concerns that they have, and how those concerns will be dealt with.
211 The Trust is confident that the procedures, training, culture and ethos of the Trust inpatient services in 2015 mean that any experiences of abuse or assault similar to that reported in the late 1970s would be most likely to come to light, to be reported and a person protected immediately under Safeguarding Adults or Children processes, with appropriate involvement of the police.
Corporate complaints and investigation systems
212 This investigation has raised particular questions about the way a claim of historic rape sent to the corporate governance department was handled in 2006. It appears that the complaint made by V2 about experiences in 1979 was not investigated. Since that time, the way any such allegation or complaint is handled corporately has changed significantly. The Trust now has a dedicated Patient Experience team of six full time staff who handle complaints in a corporate context and as such are clinically and managerially separate from the borough services that provide clinical care so can ensure a clear perspective. Those within the team that investigate complaints are trained in Root Cause Analysis investigation methodology. As well as having a clinician within the team, it has to hand a senior clinician with safeguarding expertise who advises on investigations. Access to the team has been made easier by an identifiable webpage on the Trust website, a dedicated patient experience and PALS advice line as well as linking to service user feedback forums.
213 Complaints are reviewed and risk rated as they are received and an overview is taken weekly in a team meeting. Performance systems are in place to monitor complaints and the responses. Review processes are also in place to consider the quality of responses and to ensure that all issues are addressed. The learning of lessons from individual complaints and themes across
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 42 complaints is a priority for the organisation and is captured in regular reports to the Quality and Safety sub-Committee of the Trust Board.
214 All incident reporting is covered by the Trust Quality Strategy 2013-18 which includes the enhancement of the patient safety culture e.g. by embedding electronic incident recording and increasing the number of patient safety incidents reported. Since the implementation of electronic incident reporting in April 2013 the Trust has seen an overall increase in the number of incidents reported (26%) which is seen as an improvement in the capture of incidents enabling greater accountability and resolution of problems.
215 For external assurance, the Trust commissioned Niche Consultancy in 2014 to review the patient safety culture, and the Trust was evaluated as implementing the correct procedures and protocols to become ‘proactive’, and it was described as an organisation that is ‘always on the alert/thinking about patient safety issues that might emerge’.
216 Some policy and process gaps were highlighted by this investigation. Most notably, a need was identified to revise the Visitors Policy to ensure it included an explicit section on managing celebrity visitors, and a new Volunteering Policy was needed to ensure it was fully up to date and provided assurance that all volunteers comply with adult and child safeguarding responsibilities. Both the policies have been published and put into operation.
217 A list of relevant patient safety and safeguarding policies currently in force in the Trust is given in Appendix One.
14. Overall Analysis and Conclusions
218 With the victim and witness evidence, documentary evidence and press reports, it can be stated with confidence that Johnny Savile was engaged as a recreation officer working with patients at Springfield Hospital in the late 1970s and that he was dismissed for gross misconduct of a sexual nature in 1980. It is most likely he appealed against that dismissal and the dismissal was upheld. It has not been possible to find any Trust documentation to confirm further details of his employment or his dismissal from Springfield hospital.
219 With regard to the seven allegations investigated for this report:-
220 Allegation V1: This investigation relied entirely on the victim’s interview testimony. Her recall of Springfield hospital and the role that Johnny Savile played in the recreational activities was clear and credible. Her allegation of inappropriate touching did not contain much detail and there was no corroborative evidence available, however, her allegation was credible and clear, and in the opinion of the investigators, on the balance of probabilities Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 43 her claim is most likely to be true. Her description of the culture in the hospital, patient and staff behaviour with Johnny Savile and his powerful personality fitted the testimony of other witnesses and victims of the time.
221 Allegation V2: V2 alleged rape and other sexual assault by Johnny Savile in his office on 4th June 1979. There is no contemporary corroborative evidence of this allegation available and V2 did not tell any staff about her allegation at the time. However, between 1991 and 2012, V2 reported the incident to the Trust on more than one occasion, as well as reporting it to the police, and to her GP. V2’s account of what happened to her in 1979 has been consistent throughout.
222 It has not been possible to determine definitively what happened to V2 in 1979 with regard to the alleged rape and sexual assault in Johnny Savile’s office, but it is credible, and it is likely on the balance of probabilities that an assault occurred, given the other evidence about his conduct, V2’s consistent claim of rape since (at least) 1991, and her detailed description of where and how the assault occurred.
223 It is clear the Trust had an opportunity to investigate this allegation in 2006, should have done so under the policies in force in the Trust at the time and in keeping with good practice, but did not. It seems likely that V2’s primary concern was perceived to be revision of her medical notes and the allegation of rape did not receive the Trust’s attention that it demanded. It appears the Acting Director of Corporate Affairs thought the matter should, or could, be dealt with by the practitioners involved with V2. In fact, neither corporate nor clinical staff fully addressed the matter with her nor promoted her access to possible legal redress.
224 Current Trust policies and their application to instances of historic abuse have been considered by the Trust in the light of this incident, and a guidance document has been produced to supplement existing policies. This will re- affirm the actions staff should be taking when taking disclosures of historic abuse.
225 The actions of Trust staff involved in V2’s case in 2006 have been considered within the terms of reference of this report. In the case of Dr Hubbeling, the National Clinical Assessment Service (NCAS) are advising the Trust on whether any further action is required.
226 The employer of former team manager, Mr. Barnard, has been informed of the findings of this investigation.
227 The employer of former interim Director of Operations, Kim Goddard, has been informed of the findings of this investigation.
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 44 Victim 3
228 Allegation V3: This allegation by W1 of inappropriate touching of a named patient by Johnny Savile could not be progressed as the patient name did not match any records of admission from 1978-80 and she could therefore not be identified or contacted. No other information about the alleged incident could be found. It has not been possible to conclude whether or not the incident took place.
229 Allegation V4: The ex-staff member V4 gave a credible account of being inappropriately touched by Johnny Savile in 1979. It was clear that the matter was dealt with in a peremptory way by V4’s manager who responded ‘good for you’ when advised V4 had slapped him. No further action was taken. The implication from V4’s interview and the picture painted by other interviewees was that such an occurrence was not taken as seriously as it would be now. Even when she thought a patient had also been assaulted by him, V4 did not raise again with hospital authorities what had happened to her. The interviewees paint a picture that Johnny Savile had a particularly powerful place within the culture of the hospital at the time, winning over staff as well as patients and helping to protect him from criticism and obscure his conduct.
230 Allegation V5: V5 came forward after the investigation had started, having seen information about it on the Trust website. She was a visitor in 1978 and in interview she gave a clear account of coming to the recreation hall area with her then partner and of Johnny Savile indecently touching her twice in his office, witnessed by other visitors. She recounted that he revealed very disparaging and sexualised attitudes towards patients in which he suggested he had power over them and also that they might be available for sexual ‘favours’ to others.
231 V5’s account is clear and, again, credible and likely to be true, in the opinion of the investigators given the pattern of behaviours that has emerged from all the allegations. V5 also revealed that while she was not a patient, she was vulnerable in 1978 because of other personal difficulties. This meant she did not mention the assaults to anyone other than family members and did not think to report the matter to police or hospital authorities.
232 Allegations V6 and V7: V6 is the victim in the case that led to Johnny Savile’s dismissal and V7 is the patient witness to that incident of inappropriate touching. V7 revealed that she too had been subject to similar actions by Johnny Savile. The investigators found the original typed and handwritten notes from the interviews with V6 and V7 which show that, in April 1980, senior staff at the hospital took their accusation seriously. His dismissal apparently led Johnny Savile to challenge the hospital through an employment tribunal, as reported in two press articles and mentioned in the
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 45 interview of the ex-personnel officer. This led the investigation team to conclude that the incident with V6 did occur.
233 However, there is no evidence that police were informed of the allegation against V6, despite it being taken seriously by hospital managers. There was suggestion from some staff interviews that the hospital wanted to get rid of Johnny Savile ‘quietly’ because of his celebrity and this rather secretive approach may have meant patients did not get full access to legal redress.
234 Credible witness evidence has shown that Johnny Savile never worked or volunteered at Richmond Royal, but was frequently seen there because his wife was employed there in the 1980s and they shared a flat on the edge of the site. There has been no evidence found of any incidents at the Richmond Royal involving Johnny Savile.
Potential for further allegations
235 It is possible that other allegations of a similar nature may be made against Johnny Savile from his time working at Springfield (or possibly elsewhere in health facilities in South West London). Johnny Savile was in a post that gave him access to a very vulnerable patient group and the investigators believe he was able to use his ‘status’ to persuade patients and staff to do what he wanted. Further allegations may therefore come forward, particularly after the publication of this report.
236 The Trust is committed to providing support to any patient, former patient, current or past staff member or member of the public who may have been subject to inappropriate and unwanted attention from Johnny Savile during the period of his employment at Springfield or while visiting the Richmond Royal. We know that it may not be easy for people to discuss their experiences but if they do feel able to come forward with information then we will ensure they are fully supported and incidents will be investigated as far as possible.
237 The investigation has also thoroughly considered whether Johnny Savile gave access to Springfield Hospital to his brother Jimmy. No evidence was found that Jimmy Savile ever came to Springfield or any other Trust site.
238 The investigation also specifically considered whether Johnny Savile himself accessed or gave his brother access to the Springfield mortuary. No evidence of this was found.
Matters of good practice and lessons learnt
239 This investigation raises many practice considerations. Clearly the allegations occurred at a time (1978-80) when robust safeguarding and incident investigation procedures were not in place. Safeguarding in the Trust has
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 46 developed in line with statute, national policy, as well as professional and patient/service user expectations and the investigators are satisfied that current procedures and protocols are effective.
240 In 2006 the Trust had an opportunity to investigate the allegation made by V2, and should have done so under the Trust and local authority policies in place at the time and in keeping with good practice. The applicable Trust policy from 2004 states that staff should have ensured that the law and statutory requirements were used appropriately so that victims of possible crimes received the protection of the law and had access to the judicial process.
241 The investigators also believe there has been a change in culture in the Trust, even in the past few years. When V2 approached the Trust (via letters to the Board and Senior Managers) in October 2012 to say again that she had been subject to rape in 1979 – the memory having been particularly stirred by hearing of Operation Yewtree – she reported to the investigators a positive reception to her concerns compared to how she felt her disclosure of the rape had been dealt with previously. She approached the Trust at this time not as a service user, but as a local resident wishing to inform the Trust of past experiences.
242 This investigation offers opportunity now to consider Trust protocols and standard approaches to disclosures of sexual abuse, particularly those relating to health and care settings, and most specifically to any experiences in Trust services or their predecessor bodies. It is also an opportunity for further organisational learning as shown in the recommendations.
243 Relevant local partners, stakeholders and particularly the safeguarding adults boards have been advised of the outcome of this investigation in accordance with DH guidance and given the opportunity to discuss its contents and implications.
244 The Trust has agreed to share the final report with Operation Yewtree and agreed that it is suitable for release and would not prejudice any potential investigation by the police.
245 The Trust has published this report for public access through its own website. The report has been made available in advance, with support offered, to victims and witnesses.
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 47 15. Recommendations
246 The investigation team recommends that the Trust should:
i. Ensure that all known victims of Johnny Savile - and others who may need it - are provided with appropriate support, advice and guidance.
ii. Investigate appropriately any new allegations that arise from the publication of this report, in partnership with relevant agencies and police.
iii. Review any information that comes to light about the possibility that Jimmy Savile had access to Springfield (or any other establishments now under the management of the Trust) at any point.
iv. Be proactive and cooperative with local media and other networks of communication with local citizens.
v. Be open and transparent about this investigation whilst protecting confidential matters and informing people about the actions taken by the Trust in light of Operation Yewtree.
vi. Ensure the Trust public website has information about this investigation and where people can go for support, advice or more information
vii. Provide advice and guidance to all staff regarding the handling of disclosures of allegations of historic sexual abuse and make this available on the Trust intranet.
viii. Make links with other organisations and resources (e.g. voluntary organisations) with whom the Trust can work to help people who have experienced abuse access the most appropriate support.
ix. Ensure each Trust Directorate has local leads to provide advice and expertise to colleagues responding to disclosures of abuse and related issues arising from service users, family members and carers or the general public.
x. Ensure staff, service users and family members have access to information about a full range of support services and specialist advice outside the Trust e.g. from service users organisations and the voluntary sectors.
xi. Current policies to review:
o Volunteer
o Visitors and VIPs (including celebrity visitors)
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 48 o Whistleblowing
o Fundraising
o Medical Induction
o Complaints (in relation to historic abuse)
xii. Ensure staff are supported to manage their own wellbeing while dealing with disclosures, and be alert to the fact that staff may also have been victims of abuse.
xiii. Cooperate fully with the DH/Operation Yewtree Legacy Unit as required.
xiv. Facilitate learning events for clinical and practitioner staff on what has been learnt from this investigation and on how to deal with disclosures of historic sexual abuse.
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 49
Appendix One
Current applicable Policies and Procedures in place in the Trust:
• Professional Registration Procedure (Issued: February 2014. Review date: March 2016)
• Disclosure and Barring Service Policy (formerly CRB Policy) (Issued: November 2013, Review date: November 2015);
• Employment checks procedure (Issued: February 2014. Review date: March 2016)
• Safeguarding children – (Issued: January 2013. Review date: January 2015)
• Records Management Policy (Issued: January 2013, Review date: June 2015
• Health And Social Care Records Policy (Issued: January 2014, Review date: May 2015
• Conduct and discipline – Disciplinary Policy and Procedure (Issued: Feb 2014. Review date: February 2016)
• Whistleblowing – Guidance and procedures on raising concerns (Issued: March 2014. Review date: March 2016)
• Violence and aggression – The prevention and therapeutic management of aggression and violence policy (Issued: December 2013. Review date: November 2015)
• Safeguarding adults – (Issued February 2013. Review date: December 2014)
• Complaints – (Issued March 2014. Review date: April 2016)
• Dignity at work – Bullying and Harassment and Dignity at Work policy (issued February 2014. Review date: March 2016)
• Information governance – (Issued: November 2012. Review date: September 2014)
• IM&T Security policy (Issued: March 2012. Review date: May 2014);
• Security Management Policy (Issued February 2014. Review February 2015)
• Visitors policy (July 2014)
• Volunteering policy (August 2014) Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 50
Appendix Two
How the Terms of Reference have been met
To thoroughly examine and account for Johnny Savile’s association with Springfield Hospital and to examine evidence for any association with Richmond Royal hospital or any other health facility currently under the control of the Trust, including approval for any roles and employment positions he held and the decision making processes relating to these.
All reasonable efforts have been made through archive and online searches and there are no official records showing how Johnny Savile came to be working on the Springfield hospital site in the 1970s. Limited official documentary evidence has been found on the incident that led to him being removed from his position. The press reports are the only documents that confirm Johnny Savile was employed at Springfield hospital as they contain the detail of his dismissal, and his appeal against his dismissal. Evidence of the reason for Johnny Savile’s presence at the Richmond Royal is from a credible witness, and confirms he was not there in any official capacity.
To consider the extent to which any such special access and/or privileges and/or lack of supervision and oversight given to Johnny Savile resulted from Johnny Savile’s ‘celebrity’ status, including that derived by Johnny from association with his brother Jimmy Savile, or from Jimmy Savile having any fundraising role within the organisation.
Interviewees refer to Johnny Savile using his association with his well-known brother Jimmy Savile to exploit others. There is no documentary or other evidence of any supervision or oversight of Johnny Savile during his time at Springfield hospital. There is a small amount of documentary evidence about Johnny Savile being engaged in local fund-raising activities but no relationship with his brother Jimmy Savile’s large scale fundraising. The testimonial evidence and victim interviews describe a culture of widespread tolerance of Johnny Savile using his ‘celebrity’ status to engage in predatory and exploitative behaviour up until his dismissal. There is no evidence that this continued at the Richmond Royal.
To review relevant policies, practices and procedures which were in place during Johnny Savile’s association with Springfield Hospital and other hospitals under the control of The Trust, or its predecessor bodies, and compliance with these.
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 51 There is very little documentary evidence of the policies and procedures in use in the 1970s in Springfield hospital. The few documents that have been found, and testimonial evidence, suggest that incidents could be reported and escalated to a senior manager (the DNO) and there was evidence of some incidents being investigated as a result of this.
To investigate past and current complaints and incidents concerning Johnny Savile’s behaviour at Springfield Hospital or other hospitals under the control of The Trust or its predecessor bodies including where incident(s) occurred, who was involved, what occurred, whether these complaints or incidents were appropriately reported, investigated and addressed, and, if not, the reasons for this.
All known complaints and incidents involving Johnny Savile have been investigated and relevant evidence has been collated and presented in this report. One incident was appropriately escalated internally, although there was no evidence of the incident being reported to police. The response to a report of rape made by V2 to the Trust in 2006 does not comply with safeguarding policies and national guidance in place at the time. The Trust is reviewing whether the practices of individuals met the standards expected in respect of disclosures of historical abuse, especially within our own facilities.
As this investigation does not have the power to impose disciplinary sanctions or make findings as to criminal or civil liability, where evidence is obtained of conduct that indicates the commission of criminal and/or disciplinary offences, inform the police and/or relevant employers.
In 2006 three staff did not meet expected national and local standards. Two no longer work for the Trust and both have been made aware of the report’s findings. Their respective employers have also been made aware. The remaining Trust employee has been subject to internal investigation and the Trust will take necessary measures to ensure competence is appraised and monitored.
Where complaints or incidents were not reported, or not investigated, or where no appropriate action was taken, consider the reasons for this including organizational culture and practices and the part played, if any, by Johnny Savile’s ‘celebrity’ or fundraising role within the organization.
Interview evidence described a culture where patients did not feel empowered to report incidents, and where professional boundaries were not always maintained. Johnny Savile used his ‘celebrity’ status to take advantage of the permissive nature of the times. The Trust at that time had systems in place to
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 52 respond when they were made aware of the abuse of patients, staff and visitors, and where it was used it was effective.
To investigate whether Jimmy Savile ever visited/had an association with Springfield Hospital or other hospitals under the control of The Trust or its predecessor bodies.
Witnesses and victims were asked about the possibility of Jimmy Savile visiting the Springfield, Richmond Royal and other Trust sites, and they consistently stated Jimmy Savile did not visit any of those sites, nor has any documentary evidence been found.
In the light of findings of fact in respect of the above, consider whether The Trust’s current safeguarding, complaints, whistle blowing and other policies and processes relating to the matters mentioned above are fit for purpose.
All relevant and applicable policies in 2014 have been subject to many reviews, modernisation and augmentation since 1980 as reported above. The Trust safeguarding adults’ policy has most recently been reviewed in 2013 to ensure alignment with the Social Care Institute of Excellence (SCIE) pan- London policy. The Trust governance systems and structures have been subject to external scrutiny in 2013 by the London Audit Consortium, who described them as ‘robust’. Current figures show that 90% of Trust staff have completed the safeguarding adults ‘basic awareness’ training and the objective of the Trust Quality Strategy 2013-18 is to further develop the patient safety culture. The Trust is confident that its current polices and processes are well-established, embedded in frontline practice and effective at minimising the risk of any recurrence of such incidents.
Johnny Savile: SWLSTG NHS Trust investigation report – February 2015 53