Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1000
- 1019)
WEDNESDAY 1 DECEMBER 2004 (MORNING)
MRS LYNN
FARR, MRS
JANETTE MATTIN,
MS JUNE
SHARPLES, MRS
CLAUDIA BECKLEY-LINES
AND MR
JUSTIN HUGHESTON-ROBERTS
Q1000 Mr Jones: We are going to cover
this later on in terms of primacy but who is actually investigating
it?
Mrs Farr: RMPs.
Q1001 Mr Jones: So, North Yorkshire
Police are not involved?
Mrs Farr: I suggested that he
contacted North Yorkshire Police but this only came to light on
Friday, even though it has been going on since July. I told the
family to contact North Yorkshire Police.
Q1002 Mr Jones: But it is the MoD
who are investigating rather than the North Yorkshire Police?
Mrs Farr: Yes.
Q1003 Mr Roy: I would just like to
go back to the approach of the families. Jim and Helen McKenna
are constituents of mine whose son David died in the care of the
Army and, in the many discussions that I have had with Jim and
Helen, they were very, very bitter that no one from the Army turned
up to their son's inquest. I would like to ask, was that a one-off
that they did not turn up to David's inquest or does it happen
all the time? What happened in your cases?
Mrs Farr: At Catterick, it is
a bit of a unique situation. I never had an inquest. When Daniel
died in St James's in Leeds, one coroner wanted an inquest. We
went to the North Yorkshire Coroner who said that an inquest was
not necessary. You go along with these people. Our coroner is
now in prison.
Ms Sharples: Allan's inquest lasted
10 minutes with the same coroner.
Q1004 Mr Roy: Were the Army there?
Ms Sharples: There was a retired
sergeant major who had been retired years representing the Army,
and a corporal.
Q1005 Mr Roy: Was a serving officer
there?
Ms Sharples: There was a corporal
who gave the arms out the morning that Allan died and that was
it. No statements were read out, nothing.
Mr Hugheston-Roberts: I am Justin
Hugheston-Roberts, solicitor acting on behalf of the Catterick
families. If there is a question of fault as far as the Ministry
of Defence are concerned, then Treasury Counsel and Treasury Solicitor
are always instructed and they are also available and that has
happened in a number of inquests; there will always be Treasury
Solicitor and Treasury Counsel present.
Mrs Mattin: In my case, Mark's
junior corporal came to me after the funeral and gave me an awful
graphic description of being the one who found Mark and the mess
on the floor; he gave me a lot of details that I really did not
want to know. I did not go to the inquest, which was up in Carlisle,
because I did not want any more clinical details. My husband went
with my brother-in-law and, at this inquest, two military Policemen
were trotted out who told a completely different story and said
that they were the ones who had found him and that they had heard
the shot from 500 yards away. So, we had two completely conflicting
stories.
Mrs Beckley-Lines: In my case,
the coroner, the same coroner who is in jail now, was the coroner
and the lawyer and he ran the inquest. When we went to the inquest,
I took a lawyer and my own pathologist. I had never met them before;
I met them on the day of the inquest; we had only spoken over
the phone. I asked them if they could stand by me and if they
could look at the body again for me and the pathologist stood
up and said, "The Army kindly gave me their notes."
I thought, I hired you, you charged me, I hired you. Why do you
go and take notes from the Army? I could take notes from the Army,
if I wanted. I wanted to know what the pathologist found. The
one I hired stood up at the inquest and told everybody that he
took his notes from the Army. I thought he had defeated the whole
purpose because I wanted him to come to with own findings and
make his own notes in order that we could compare it with the
one that the Army would give us. No, that did not happen. The
inquest took three hours and they did not allow anybody to speak
except for the junior officer who was on duty with my son on that
day. He was the only one who spoke.
Q1006 Chairman: I have been trying
to work out how many visits we have made either to training establishments
or to courses that the military are now obliged to go on if they
are training. It is probably 20 though I stand corrected. I think
that, on every single visit we have made, we have raised this
dilemma and I am seeking your views on this. Joining the Army
is a difficult job and you know that. I am not being patronising,
you are intelligent and articulate women, but it is difficult.
You are likely to be sent off to fight some pretty difficult people
who do not play by the Queensberry Rules. To train people for
this incredibly tough career that they chose to join, that regime
has to be tough. If you send a team of social workers to train
them, when your sons or other mothers' sons go off to fight, they
will be at a profound disadvantage. Where do you think—and
perhaps it is an unfair question—that dividing line should
be between a tough regime and respecting the young men and women
who are going through that? Do you see the dilemma? Tough but
not brutal. If you are too soft, you are causing problems. You
must have given thought to where that difficult line is and that
line must bend and it must be very difficult to answer. Have you
given any thought to this, ladies?
Mrs Farr: They need the discipline
because, as you say, at some point, their lives are going to depend
on this discipline, but I think there is a very fine line between
discipline and abuse and this line is getting crossed over too
much with the abuse. There is no reason to hit someone on the
jaw because they are late on guard duty and things like that.
That is not discipline.
Q1007 Chairman: I think you know
when it is brutality but it is really difficult. What is the decibel
level a sergeant can reach in communicating his thoughts? Is above
a certain level excessive? It is a dilemma that I certainly have
not been able to resolve.
Mrs Farr: I think it depends what
he is shouting out. Not so much what he is shouting but what he
is saying.
Chairman: Perhaps it is an unfair question
but, if you have any further thoughts on this, please, drop us
a note. As my colleague James said, certainly your ideas, some
of which you have expressed so far verbally, will be quite helpful.
We are not just looking at the infantry of the Army, we are looking
at all of the Armed Services, and some of your recommendations
on what the military ought to be doing subsequent to a soldier's
death will be really helpful.
Q1008 Mr Hancock: Lynn, if I could
turn to you as the holder of the website, I would be grateful
if you could tell us what you have been now told about ongoing
issues of bullying and whether or not recruits or others who have
contacted you have said that there is a mechanism now for them
to be able to complain properly about it. Have you had any contacts
through your website or contact by any serving soldiers who have
said, "We know what happened to your son was terrible but
we believe that things are better and we can now complain and
we are convinced that something will be done" or do you still
get a very negative view?
Mrs Farr: It would be lovely if
they did say that but unfortunately they do not. That is the opposite
of what they are saying.
Q1009 Mr Hancock: The Army are telling
us that things have changed, that they have appointed people,
and that there is a clear identification for all recruits and
all trainees, whatever phase a trainee is in, to be able to turn
to a person whom they can trust. A superior, yes, but somebody
they can trust. You just do not believe that?
Mrs Farr: No because they still
have to ask permission, probably off the NCO who is abusing them,
for them to go and see these people. They cannot just go and see
these people confidentially.
Q1010 Mr Hancock: I think the Army
are suggesting that they can.
Mrs Farr: The recruits who are
coming forward to us have not been able to.
Q1011 Mr Hancock: I think it would
be enormously helpful to us if you could give us some of that
comment you are getting about the current situation from serving
soldiers, men and women, who are contacting you about some of
the issues they are facing today and they are not able to go through
the procedures that the Army are now claiming is part of the solution
to maybe the problems they have. If you could do that, Lynn, it
would be helpful to us.
Mrs Farr: Do you mean as now?
Q1012 Mr Hancock: As current as you
can get it. Not today but if you could send it to us.
Mrs Farr: I have a wife of a young
soldier who is emailing me. He is based in Germany and he has
been hit in the face on a couple of occasions with the butt of
a rifle by his corporal. She says, "We just do not know where
to turn. We just do not know who to speak to." That is just
one example.
Q1013 Mr Hancock: And that is a current
case?
Mrs Farr: That is a current case.
Q1014 Mr Hancock: This is a female
soldier—
Mrs Farr: No, this is the wife
of a soldier who is sending me e-mails.
Q1015 Mr Hancock: The wife of a young
soldier who is hit in the face repeatedly with a rifle butt by
his corporal and does not know how to deal with that.
Mrs Farr: No. I said, "Do
not go up the Chain of Command. Go as high as you possibly can.
Miss the Chain of Command." She says that he is not even
able to do that because he is frightened of repercussions.
Q1016 Mr Hancock: This is an extraordinarily
personal question and I accept entirely if none of you want to
answer it. Has the circumstances arisen since your sons' deaths
where the Army have suggested to you that your son was not psychologically
suited for the Army and that he might have had psychological problems
or mental health problems which they knew about and they have
suggested to you was the cause? At any of the inquests that have
been held, was that ever raised?
Mrs Beckley-Lines: No. They never
told us that at any time.
Ms Sharples: No.
Mrs Farr: No.
Mrs Mattin: No.
Q1017 Mr Hancock: The Army never
put it to you that maybe your son had made a wrong move in joining
the Army?
Mrs Farr: No.
Q1018 Mr Jones: Lynn, in terms of
not the occasion that was referred to but others, it is very important
that we try and get a snapshot of what is happening now because,
as the Chairman said, we have lost count of the number of visits
we have made but, everywhere we go, we are told that there is
a system of complaint through the Chain of Command. It is held
up that there are also other alternatives such as WRVS and other
things and they trumpet the independent confidential help line
but I think that in most cases when we ask the number of calls
they have had, there have been very few calls to that independent
help line. How many—and, if you cannot answer, could you
let us have the answer subsequently—current serving members
are you having, say in a 12-month period, contacting you with
complaints like the one you have just described?
Mrs Farr: I personally have had
about four young soldiers from Catterick and one of them told
us of other things that are going on there with soldiers who have
not come forward. I have had a couple of emails from somebody
serving overseas and I think Elaine Higgins, who deals with overseas,
has had one as well. I have had about 10 in the last 12 months,
but they are the ones who dare come forward. There are lots who
cannot or who will not. To be fair, did you announce your visits
to these establishments because, when I went to Catterick, everything
was laid on and they took me round to see various things and stuff
like this? If you just turned up, would you get the same sort
of reception?
Q1019 Chairman: Have you had any
communications from people outside the Army? As I said, we are
looking at the other Services. It would not be fair just to look
at the Army and assume because there have not been so many problems
that have gone public that there are no problems in the other
Services. Have others written to you?
Mrs Farr: Just one member of our
group, her daughter was in the RAF.
| 
