This is the document I submitted to the Surrey police on 4th May 2004, which led to the opening of a new criminal investigation, leading to Madley's re-arrest and subsequent prosecution twelve months later.


1. Introduction


1.1. This document sets out the full facts as now known relating to the sexual offences committed by Hubert Cecil Madley against myself, Graham Peter Wilmer (DOB 20/10/1951), between 1966 and 1968 at The Salesian College, Chertsey, Surrey, and the actions and consequences that followed.


1.2. The document relies on evidence taken from my testimony, witness statements, police statements, CPS statements, statements from the Salesians of Don Bosco (SDB) and the recent confession of Hubert Cecil Madley on 30 April 2004.


2. Background


2.1. In the spring of 1968, I, Graham Peter Wilmer, then aged 16, and a pupil at the Salesian College Chertsey, a Catholic boys school, disclosed to my housemaster, Fr Madden, under the seal of confession, that my chemistry teacher, Hubert Cecil Madley, was sexually abusing me. Fr Madden coerced me to repeat my disclosure outside of the seal of confession so that he could inform the head teacher, Fr O'Shea, which he then did.


2.2. Fr O'Shea spoke to me about the matter and told me that I would also have to be interviewed by the then Provincial of the Salesian Order, Fr George Williams. The Provincial is the senior most member of the Salesian province in the UK.


2.3. During this interview, I was asked to explain everything that had happened. I was also asked very personal questions about my sexual knowledge and behaviour. Afterwards, I was instructed by Fr O'Shea not to tell anyone, including my parents, about the matter, and told that the school would now deal with things.


2.4. The abuse had begun in 1966 when I was 14, and by the time of my disclosure, some 18 months later, I was clearly suffering from the traumatic impact the abuse was causing me, the evidence of which was noted by my parents and other teachers at school because my behaviour and my school work had deteriorated dramatically during the period.


2.5. Despite this, I was not given any support by the school, and Madley continued to have contact with me. My father, concerned at my unexplained decline, wrote to Fr O'Shea in March 1968 and questioned my deterioration. Fr O'Shea replied saying that there was nothing wrong and that I would do well in my GCE 'O' level examinations, which I was due to sit in June of that year.


2.6. My mental health continued to deteriorate and not surprisingly, I failed all of my exams. In the September of 1968, after I had received my results, my father instructed me to asked Fr O'Shea if I could return to the school and repeat the 5th year and resit the exams the following summer. Fr O'Shea refused to allow me back into the school, bringing to an end my formal education.


2.7. In my first three years at the school, I had been in the top group of my class in performance had been awarded prizes for 'diligence in studies', by the Rector of the school, Fr Harris, in 1963 and 1964.


2.8. Having left school with no qualifications, I got a job as a hospital porter at St Peter's Hospital in Chertsey, but I was unable to settle. For the next 7 years, I had numerous manual jobs, none of which I was able to settle at. I was also unable to form relationships with other people and I took refuge in alcohol and self-injurious behaviour.


2.9. The impact of the abuse left deep mental scars, which fundamentally changed my character and seriously damaged my development into adulthood, and, although I finally did establish a long-term relationship, which began in 1976, the quality of that relationship and my life in general was plagued by the memories of my ordeal and the impact it had on me.


2.10. In 1998, aged 48, I suffered a serious mental breakdown, subsequently diagnosed as post traumatic stress disorder with an underlying chronic depressive illness. I was treated at St Catherine's Hospital in Birkenhead using a number of psychological interventions, and, five years later, I am still being treated for depression.


2.11. In November 1999, as part of my treatment, I was advised to inform the police about the abuse I had suffered, and, subsequently, WPC 963 Sarah Harris and WPC 1768 Lorraine Smith, from the North Surrey Family Support team, began an investigation into my allegations.


2.12 In April 2000, Hubert Madley was arrested and interviewed. He denied the allegations of abuse, but was able to recall extensive detail of the time he had spent with me, both in and out of school.


2.13. Fr. O'Shea was also interviewed, but he said he was unable to recall any of the events of the time, and there was no record of my disclosure, or Madley's subsequent move to Salesian College Battersea. Fr George Williams, the Provincial at the time, was not interviewed and Fr Maddon had died in 1998.


2.14. An advice file was submitted to the CPS who decided that there was insufficient evidence to support a prosecution. The Chief Crown Prosecutor at Guildford, Sandie Hebblethwaite, gave me a full explanation for the decision.


2.15. The CPS decision rested on three points: 1) The case rested solely on my word against Madley's word, 2) There was a lack of any corroborating evidence that could be tested in court, and 3) Madley's right to be able to mount an effective defence; the period of 30 years between the offences and my allegations being deemed to be too long to be relied on.


2.16. Consequently, the police investigation ended with no charges being laid, but the case details were added to the surrey police computer system, where they would remain in case any further evidence came to light. My allegations were not, however, filed on the National Police Computer.


2.17. Following the collapse of the criminal investigation, I began civil proceedings against the Salesian Order for their failure to carry out their duty of care. Madley was not included in this action. The process proved extremely difficult for a range of reasons, not least of which were the huge costs involved and the strengthened position the collapse of the criminal case had given the Salesian Order, who continued to maintain that they knew nothing about the events of 1968.


2.18. Eventually, I took over the case myself as Litigant in Person, reducing the cost significantly. The consequence of this was that the Salesian Order decided to offer to mediate with me rather than face an action in the High Court.


2.19. The mediation concluded in February 2001 with an offer from the Salesians of £20,000, who still denied any knowledge of the abuse, and an agreement that I would not pursue them, the LEA or Madley (although they was not party to the mediation), in any court in the future.


2.20. My need to secure some form of settlement from the Salesians was not about money; it was to enable me to regain my self-respect by proving that I had faced them once more, but this time as a man and not as a child.


2.21. The Salesians decision to give me the money, despite them still not accepting any liability, was enough for me to move on with my recovery process, or so I had thought at the time. Had I known the true extent of the knowledge SDB actually had about the abuse, and the further damaging impact their deception, once discovered, would have on me, I would not have settled the matter in any other place than in a court.


 3. The Catholic Clergy abuse explosion and the Soham murders.


3.1. In 2003, when the full scale of child abuse by catholic priests began emerged here and in the USA, it became clear that the Catholic Church (of which the Salesian Order was part - being the third largest catholic order in the world) had covered up abuse for years, under papal instructions.


3.2. The realisation that this was why the Salesians at Chertsey had sworn me to silence became a growing problem for me in my recovery process, and I began to suffer further psychological problems. I was advised that I would have to revisit the problem if I was ever going to reach the point of closure. However, having signed the mediation agreement in 2001, which prohibited me from even talking about what had happened, I was unsure how to proceed.


3.3. The breakthrough came following the tragic murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, which brought into focus the issue of allegations of sexual offences not being recorded on the police national computer (PNC), unless a conviction had been secured, and the potential, therefore, for un-convicted paedophiles to go unnoticed in future CRO checks made prior to employment.


3.4. Consequently, in November 2003, I began to correspond again with Surrey Police and with the lawyers acting for the Salesians, to press the argument that times and events had changed, and that it was not safe to keep the issues I had raised locked away under legal restraint any longer as there was the real possibility that in doing so, Madley would be able to continue to abuse other children.

3.5. The course of action I proposed was that I be allowed to instruct the police to begin a private criminal prosecution against Madley, which, even if unsuccessful, would at least enable the allegations to be registered on the PNC.


4. Salesians step back from the agreement


4.1. The Salesians at first strongly resisted my argument, but after continued pressure from myself, they finally gave ground and agreed that they would not enforce the breach of the agreement that would occur were I to launch a private criminal prosecution against Madley. The reason they gave was that they would not wish to be seen as 'having protected any one who had abused children'. They continued to maintain that they had no knowledge of the abuse, saying: 'You will understand, in the context, that [this reason] is a general statement of principle, and is not to be taken as a specific reference to Mr Madley as to whose activities the Order has no information other than that which you have supplied.' They continued to insist though that were I to try and re-open my case against them in any way, they would seek an immediate injunction to stop me.

4.2. Consequently, I advised Surrey police of my intentions and sought their help. On April 1, 2004, I also wrote to Hubert Madley to inform him that I had asked Surrey police to begin a private criminal prosecution against him.


 5. Madley responds


5.1. Given the vehemence of Madley's original denial to the police after his arrest in April 2000, it was a major surprise when, only days after I had written to him, he replied, not with furious outrage, but with a request to meet with me. He included his ex-directory phone number and asked me to phone him to make arrangements.


5.2. I responded by saying that I did not want to meet him any where other than in front of a judge. Madley replied again saying that he now realised he had done something wrong back in 1966/68.


5.3. He wrote to me again on 17 April 2004, saying that he wanted to help me in 'the only was I can at this late stage'. He also said that he hoped I understood exactly what he was saying as he was 'too nervous to put it in writing'. He also asked again if he could talk to me, or meet with my counsellor if I was not willing to talk to him in person.


5.4. This was a significant development as it was the first real evidence that Madley was acknowledging he had done something wrong and he wanted to put it right. I contacted the police who took the view that this may be sufficient to persuade the CPS to allow it to be tested in court, thus allowing the original CPS case to proceed. They told me to seal the letters in a bag and they would arrange to collect them from me.


5.5. In the meantime, I wrote back to Madley, saying that I would arrange for my counsellor to telephone him to discover what it was that he wanted to say to me.


5.6. 1 He replied by return post, giving the dates and times when he would be in, and on Friday April 30th, my counsellor, David Williams, a trustee of The Lantern Project, a charity that provides support for victims of sexual abuse, phoned Madley at a pre-arranged time and recorded the conversation.


6. A full confession


6.1. The conversation was a total revelation as, without any prompting, Madly made a full admission of the sexual offences he had committed against me, plus a detailed explanation of who knew about it in the Salesian Order, who had been involved in transferring him from Salesian College Chertsey to Salesian College Battersea following his resignation over the affair, and the restrictions he was placed under at Battersea, where he remained until he retired in 1998, all of which was organised to protect him and the school from prosecution. He repeatedly asked for forgiveness during the conversation and said that he realised that the police could prosecute him at any time.

6.2. David Williams had a second telephone conversation with Hugh Madley on May 5th, during which Hugh Madley repeated his admission and added more detail as to the involvement of the Salesians in covering up the offences and in moving him to another school (Battersea) run by the Salesian Order.


7. Madley's account of what had really happened


7.1. On the day I had disclosed to Fr Maddon in confession that I was being abused; I also told Madley that afternoon that I had told Fr Maddon about us. Madley had responded by saying that he would simply deny it and they would not believe me. As no action seemed to follow my disclosure, other than my interview with the Provincial, I had always thought that that is what had happened - they had not believed me, which was why Fr O'Shea had refused to allow me to re-take my exams.


7.2. What had actually happened, according to Madley's confession, was that, later that same day, he had realised that he could not bring himself to deny what I had told them, and although he realised there could be serious consequences, he decided he would have to go to see Fr O'Shea and admit the offences.

7.3. Fr O'Shea was not there when he went to see him, so he asked if he could see Fr Gaffney, the newly appointed Rector. Fr Gaffney told him that he already knew what he wanted to discuss, but he asked Madley to tell him everything that had happened in his own words, which Madley says he did.


7.4. At the end of the discussion, Fr Gaffney told Madley that he would have to resign. Fr Gaffney told Madley that he would see Fr O'Shea the next morning to sort out the details of the resignation. He then asked Madley to promise him that he would never 'offend' against a child again, to which Madley says he agreed.


7.5. Fr Gaffney also instructed Madley that he was not be alone again with me at any time. The following morning, despite this instruction, Madley met me alone in the stairwell that led from the playground up to the chemistry laboratory. He claims it was his intention to tell me that he had admitted what he had done to Fr Gaffney and had resigned. However, before he could tell me this, someone came up the stairs, so he had moved away without telling me what had actually happened.


7.6. Not long afterwards, while Madley was working out his notice period (he should, of course, have been suspended on the day of my disclosure and removed from working with children) Fr Gaffney died, and at his funeral, Madley said he was approached by Fr George Williams, the Provincial at the time (the head of the Salesian Order in the UK), who asked to see him.


7.7. They went into a private room and Fr Williams said that he knew everything that had happened, but he wanted Madley to tell him in his own words. Madley said that he repeated the story he had told Fr Gaffney. Fr Williams then asked him to explain why he had abused me. Madley said that he had had 'feelings' for me, and he had not been able to control them the first time it had happened. Fr Williams told him that he could accept this explanation for the first offence, but what about all the other times? Madley said he told Fr Williams that he had no answer for that.


7.8. Fr Williams then asked Madley what he was going to do for the future. Madley said he told him that he had applied for two posts, but had been unsuccessful in both applications.


7.9. Fr Williams then told him that there was a vacancy teaching chemistry at the Salesian College in Battersea that had arisen following Fr Perla's move to become parish priest at Battersea.


7.10. Fr Williams then asked him to repeat to him the promise he had made to Fr Gaffney not to offend against children again. Madley gave him that promise and Fr Williams then told him that he would not stand in his way if he applied for the post at Battersea.


7.11. Madley did apply and was accepted for the job. When he arrived at Battersea, he was interviewed by the then headmaster, Fr Foley, who told him that he knew about what had happened at Chertsey.


7.12. Fr Foley told Madley that he was not allowed to have any contact with boys on a one-to-one basis, and that he would be watched closely at all times. He told him that he would be monitored by the deputy head, Fr Blackburn, who taught in the laboratory next to where Madley would teach.


7.13. Madley also revealed that he had also told Fr Golding, the head of science at Chertsey everything that had happened.


7.14. In the period between Madley resigning and him taking up the new post at Battersea, he was allowed to work his notice period at Chertsey. During this time, the school did not give me any support, and Madley was allowed to continue to teach me. Now that we know that the Salesians knew everything about what he had done, it is totally unacceptable that they placed me back in danger knowing full well what Madley had done to me.


8. Further Evidence


8.1. Following the telephone conversations, Madley wrote to me a number of letters confirming all that he had said in the telephone conversations and asking me to forgive him. These letters have been handed to Surrey Police who are currently investigating the case.


9. The consequences


9.1. The legal consequences of Madley's confession fall into three categories. Firstly, the police now have enough evidence to bring criminal charges against Madley, which can now be prosecuted by the Crown. They have also confirmed to me that they will consider bringing charges against the Salesians for conspiracy and perverting justice.


9.3. I have also written to the Secretary of State for Education and asked him to instigate a formal inquiry into these events, my original request for that to happen, made in 2000, having met with no action being taken on the grounds that there was no evidence.




I believe this summary to be a true statement of fact.


Graham Peter Wilmer - 4 May 2004.

Madley was charged in January 2006 under the 1963 Sexual Offences Act with one specimen charge of buggery with a child and three specimen charges of indecency with a child. Even though he had admitted to the police everything he had done to me, when it came to his first appearnce at Guildford Crown Court, he entered a not guilty plea to the charges on the advice of his defence, who sought permission from the judge to prepare and present an 'abuse of process' argument in his defence. The judge agreed to their request and it was not until August 4th 2005 that Madley appeared again, and the first part of the defence argument was heard, at which I was cross examined, not about what had been done to me, but about what was my motivation in bringing a private criminal prosecution. It was as if I was the guilty party not Madley. The Judge's perverse ruling is shown in 'Trial & Error' - click the link on the left to read it.

Madley appeared again at Guildford Crown Court on 15th September 2005, which was supposed to be his trial. But his defence team continued to argue their case of 'abuse of process', only this time they brought a psychiatrist to state that Madley was not of sound mind when he confessed to the police, and they should have allowed him to have an 'appropriate adult' with him when he was interviewed by the police. The trial judge agreed and the case collapsed due to what was described as a 'technical error' by Surrey police. The trial judge's ruling is also shown in 'Trial & Error' - click the link on the left to read it.

Is it little wonder then that the senior law officer in the country said on 28th August 2006 that 'victims are not getting justice'.

The Times    
August 28, 2006

Victims are not getting justice, says law chief

By Richard Ford, Home Correspondent

THE liberal legal establishment has been condemned by the Director of Public Prosecutions for its patronising attitude towards the public and victims of crime.

Ken Macdonald, QC, head of the Crown Prosecution Service, said that elitist attitudes had helped to break the bond of trust between the public and the criminal justice system.

In an extraordinary warning, he said that the country would enter dangerous territory if the public felt that justice was not being delivered by the courts.

Mr Macdonald also called for a move away from the position held by many lawyers that only the defendants’ rights matter. Greater emphasis should be given to the rights of victims and witnesses, he said. “Few sounds are less attractive than well-educated lawyers patronising vulnerable victims of crime with inflexible platitudes.”

The speech has been made public as new figures show that while 80 per cent of people think that the justice system is fair to the accused, only 36 per cent are confident that it meets the needs of victims. It also comes after a series of highprofile killings by criminals released from jail on parole.

Mr Macdonald said that in some cases the victims of crime had been treated as “pariahs” by the system and witnesses were handled in an appalling manner. The DPP added: “The perception that no one looks out for them and that it’s only defendants whose rights are taken seriously is not wildly wrong.”

He said that there had to be fairness for both victims of crime and suspects: “The view that only defendants’ rights matter, still quite commonly held by many criminal lawyers, appears to me to be a fundamentalist position that we should move away from.

“My own view is that liberal commentators need to start by acknowledging that the public have a point. The service given to victims and witnesses has traditionally been appalling.”

The speech is Mr Macdonald’s most controversial since he became director three years ago. Made in May at a seminar organised by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King’s College London, and passed to The Times, it will provide useful ammunition for the Government, which announced plans to rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of the law-abiding majority last month.

Mr Macdonald said that the old-fashioned idea that thecriminal justice system sits above the public and consists of principles and practices beyond popular influence or argument was “elitist and obscurantist”.

David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, had seen the need for a democratic element to criminal justice which, while not slipping into “vigilanteeism, serves to temper an increasingly dangerous disconnect between our people as a whole and the traditional judicial and practitioner establishment”, Mr Macdonald said.

He added: “If people, including victims, feel they cannot secure justice through the courts, we are entering dangerous territory”.

The speech, which was given to an audience of lawyers and criminologists, will provoke anger among many lawyers, particularly those representing suspects, and it will raise suspicions that Mr Macdonald wishes to water down traditional legal safeguards for defendants. But in it he insisted that the principles of jury trial, presumption of innocence, a right to appeal and full disclosure of the state’s case were all non-negotiable.

Last night Richard Garside, acting director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, said: “It is important that we make a distinction between a legal system treating people with respect and a defendant whose guilt has still to be proved.”

John Cooper, a leading criminal law barrister, said: “The fundamental of a trial in the criminal justice system is the analysis of facts and evidence to decide if the prosecution have proved their case.

“It is not, and never should be, an arena where victims primarily undertake a cathartic exercise for the allegation that is tested at the trial.”