need of your Department’s attention, is that not so?
Yes, that’s correct.
And when were you notified that this child might be living in circumstances which were not desirable?
I’ll just have to look at my notes if I may Your Honour. Ah, it looks like August 11, we had a telephone call from a…
So, August 11. And when did you actually go out and do something about this matter?
Well, October 14 was when I made my visit to the property. We’re like most government departments at the moment, completely overstretched with everything, even vehicles, so although the public might think we’re…
You’ll have to forgive my maths Ms Randall but I think that makes it two months between your being told that there might be a child in grave peril and your taking action on it.
Yes, I agree, well at least I agree with what you’re implying, it’s not an ideal situation but I think ‘grave peril’ is putting it a bit strongly. We have a huge workload and there were other cases where there was a more immediate risk to the child. It’s all a matter of priorities of course.
Yet when you went out there you clearly formed the view that this was a child in grave peril indeed. After two months of being not too concerned about him you had him out of the place and into St Bede’s in 48 hours. You must have been alarmed.
Oh well no, if there was a really serious risk to him I would have waited for him to return to the house and taken him with me of course. There’s no suggestion that he was in an abusive situation for example. This is a case of benign neglect rather than direct abuse. I actually think the young girl has probably done quite a good job considering her age and inexperience.
Where have you said that in your report? Can you point His Honour to the spot?
Well, I don’t think I actually said that anywhere, not in so many words. There’s not really much point.
Well I propose to take you through that report if you don’t mind, Ms Randall. Can you have a look at the document the usher is handing you. Is that your report?
Yes it is.
And would you agree that your report is prejudicial to the two young people involved, not only to Gavin but to Ms Ellie Linton as well?
No I certainly wouldn’t agree to that. I’ve always made a point of being balanced. It’s an important part of our work.
Yet you’ve just told us that Ellie was doing a good job in looking after Gavin. Show us again where you’ve said that in your report.
Well of course, as I said, I haven’t actually said that…
Do you suggest that the scars and bruises you mention in the report might be the result of ill-treatment at the hands of Ellie Linton?
No, no, I’ve got no evidence of that. There were no bruises, but there were an extraordinary number of marks and scars that suggested to me that he had been the recipient of an untoward amount of physical violence. Even the doctor was quite shocked by the…
His stepfather murdered his mother, do you accept that?
Well as I say he’s never been charged with that, but after talking to the police I would have to say yes, I do accept that that’s quite a likely story.
And the same stepfather launched a vicious and cowardly attack on Gavin just a few months ago, do you accept that?
Yes, certainly I do. He’s in prison for that very thing, as I’ve said there.
Could having a murderous stepfather possibly account for some of those scars do you think?
Well yes, but at the same time what is the child doing being placed in a situation where a man can nearly murder him? To my mind that shows he is not being looked after properly.
So are all victims of murderous attacks negligent, is that what you are saying? It is impossible for someone to be attacked unless they have been dreadfully careless?
Well of course I’m not saying that but what we look for is a pattern.
I say no more than that the two young people were walking through a public park on a Saturday morning in broad daylight, so if that is negligent I’m afraid that every time I walk my dog I am inviting a murderous assault. (laughter) I think you are prejudiced Ms Randall, and I will endeavour to show that now. Let me put this to you, are you a psychologist?
No, I’m not, not as such. We all do a training course where we…
You are not a psychologist yet you throw terms like post-traumatic-shock syndrome around, as though you are indeed well versed in such serious conditions. What are the symptoms of post-traumatic-shock syndrome?
Well, inability to sleep properly, general disturbance of behaviour, being overly fearful, not good at social relationships, that sort of thing.
Is hypervigilance a symptom of post-traumatic-shock?
Well, I’m not actually sure what that is.
Are you familiar with the terms intrusive symptoms, arousal symptoms and avoidance symptoms?
Not as such, no.
Is that a yes or a no?
It’s no, I’m not familiar with them. I imagine the last one you said might be something to do with getting away from things that disturb you though. I’m starting to feel a bit like that myself, now, in the witness box.
A dysphoric mood for example, would you consider that to be a symptom of post-traumatic-shock syndrome?
I actually have no idea Mr Blaine.
What percentage of people exposed to violence or other traumas are likely to develop post-traumatic-shock syndrome?
I believe it’s around 20 %.
So you accept the possibility that someone exposed to violence might not necessarily develop the illness? Perhaps 80 % of these people even?
Certainly.
So, a 4 in 5 chance that Gavin would not be suffering from this condition. Let us move on. You say that the two young people were paranoid?
No, I said that they were fearful in a way… I’ll just find it here, here it is, ‘defensive to the point of paranoia to the idea that Gavin might be “taken away”’.
So their defensiveness was paranoia?
Well, I’m not using the word in a strictly medical sense there, more in the everyday way that people use it. You know as well as I do Mr Blaine that people use the word all the time to mean just overreacting, being unduly aggressive or defensive. Technically speaking perhaps I should have found a better word.
I submit that it’s a highly prejudicial word to use in a report that means not much less than life and death to these young people. You are bandying about a word that implies behaviour that fits into the clinical range of schizophrenia. Yet the irony is that their so-called paranoia was completely justified wasn’t it Ms Randall?
I’m not sure what you mean.
You say they were unreasonably fearful that your department would take Gavin away?
(No reply)
Did your department in fact take Gavin away?
Yes, you know we did, and for very good reasons.
So might not what you call paranoia in fact be evidence of their intelligence, that they summed up a complex situation quickly and accurately, and realised that it was in their best interests not to cooperate with the people who were determined to break up the family relationship that they had successfully established?
That’s certainly not the way I see the situation Mr Blaine.
I notice that as you talk to us here today Ms Randall you often put your hand to your mouth in a gesture that might perhaps be a nervous habit.
Do I? I suppose I do. I seem to remember my mother commenting on much the same thing when I was a teenager. Commenting rather frequently actually. (laughter)
It sounds like our mothers came from the same school. (laughter). Gavin is of course profoundly deaf and
