This is what happened when our criminal justice system was applied to Hubert Cecil Madley for the sexual offences he commited against me when I was a child.

Here are the rulings made by Judge Reid on 4th August 2004, and by Judge Inman on 15th December 2004. These judgments are the reason why Hubert Cecil Madley did not stand trial, despite the fact that he had finally admitted to the police everything that he had done to me when I was a child. You must judge for yourselves whether you think this is justice.

Personally, I am still finding it difficult to come to terms with the fact that the police and the CPS were directly responsible for the fact that Madley was allowed to walk free from court without having to stand trial; the police because of the procedural errors they made when interviewing Madley, and the CPS for 'losing' my original police statement. Madley was not aquitted because there was no trial, but neither was he found guilty, for the same reason. You will also note that neither of the two judges made any reference to the admissions made in the letters Madley wrote to me, which you can read by clicking the link 'Written Evidence' on the left. When I challenged the head of the CPS about this, she said that the letters had been submitted before the court. They were not, however, submitted as evidence. Clearly they could have been and should have been.

You will also note that both judges refer to the fact that the police file submited to the CPS after Madley was arrested in 2000 had gone 'missing'. Judge Reid goes into considerable detail about the fact that my original witness statement, supposedly lost in the missing file, meant that it was unfair to rely on the witness statement I made in 2004, as the two could not be compared to see if I had made any changes to my story.

In fact, it was not 'missing' at all. Far from it. My orginal witness statement was sitting in a file at the offices of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in Holborn, London, which I discovered in August of this year (2006), when I went before the CICA Appeals Panel to present my case, following the release of the evidence prepared for the courts by CPS in the second investigation.

The incompetence of the CPS lies in their mistaken belief that the police interviews would be enough to secure a conviction, so they did not need to use the letters as evidence, nor did they try very hard to find my 'missing' witness statement from 2000. They were wrong, and a self confessed child sex offender is walking the streets laughing at the law. This is not justice.




The Law Courts
Bedford Road
Surrey GU1 4ST

4th August 2005


R  E  G  I  N  A



MISS C CARBERRY appeared for the prosecution

MR A CREE appeared for the defence

R  U  L  I  N  G

JUDGE REID:  I have before me an application to stay these proceedings. In the proceedings the defendant is charged with indecent assault and with buggery of a Mr Wilmer long, long ago between 1966 and 1967. At that time the defendant was a schoolteacher and Mr Wilmer was a pupil.

    The prosecution evidence which they at present wish to adduce comprise, firstly, Mr Wilmer's own testimony; secondly, records of telephone conversations made between Mr Wilmer, Mr Williams ( a gentleman who describes himself as a counsellor) who claims to be assisting Mr Wilmer in overcoming what has clearly become a major part of his life; and admissions said to have been made in the course of interview by the defendant.

    The defence say that this is one of those rare cases when the proceedings should be stayed. Firstly, because some five years ago the police investigated the matter and at that stage the defendant denied in interview matters which had occurred and at that stage there was no sufficient evidence in the view of the CPS to proceed and it is suggested to me that starting point is that nothing much has, in reality, changed since 2000 and, therefore, it would be unfair to allow these proceedings to continue.

    But, secondly, it is said that the evidence obtained in the phone calls made between Mr Madley and Mr Williams is such that it should not be admitted. This was, it was said, a deliberate evidence gathering exercise by and on behalf of Mr Wilmer in which, essentially, the defendant was entrapped into making some admissions by pretty underhand methods.

    Thirdly, it is said that so far as the interviews are concerned, the defendant's mental health at the time of the interviews was such that the interviews ought only to have been conducted with an appropriate adult and are, therefore, manifestly interviews which should not be admitted in evidence.

    The final point, it is pointed out that most of the papers relating to the 2000 investigation have now vanished, in particular Mr Wilmer's witness statement from that date has vanished and that it is, therefore, impractical to cross-examine on the distinctions between that and his present statement and, indeed, his lightly fictionalised account of events which he has since published.

    So far as the telephone conversations are concerned, were I the trial judge I would not for a moment admit them in evidence. I was extremely unimpressed both with Mr Wilmer and with Mr Williams. It seemed to me that Mr Wilmer, in particular, was dishonest and disingenuous in his account of how the telephone calls came to be made. I have no doubt that he was a deliberate party to seeking to get Mr Madley, the defendant, to incriminate himself by pretending that these phone calls were being made for an entirely different purpose.

    I am also deeply unimpressed by the fact that the defendant was not told that the phone calls were being recorded. I am also not particularly impressed by the fact that Mr Williams clearly adopted a pseudonym and did not reveal who he was in any of the phone calls.

    Beyond that, there was a further unimpressive point that suggestions were made in at least one of the latter phone calls that admissions had been made in an earlier phone call which had not been made. All in all I cannot see how those phone calls can properly be admitted in evidence.

    However, that does not deal with the point that even if those were excluded, there would still be the testimony, for what it is worth, of Mr Wilmer and, whatever occurred with him in his schooldays, clearly it has been a (inaudible) of his life.

    That evidence may or may not be credible, but, clearly, it is there. Furthermore, there would on top of that be the interviews that took place. It was suggested to me on the basis of a psychiatric report that the defendant ought not to have been interviewed without the presence of an appropriate adult. It was pointed out when he was interviewed in 2000 he was, indeed, interviewed in the presence of an appropriate adult.

    In my judgment it would be wrong for me to say that those interviews would have to be excluded. There was a suggestion in the psychiatrist's report that, in effect, he had been told before the second of the two interviews that, yes, he should have an appropriate adult, but, no, you didn't really want one, did he? And that he had declined an appropriate adult, or agreed to go ahead without one, in order to get out of the police station the sooner.

    Of course at a trial on a voire dire it may be that the defendant will give evidence and it may be that on the voire dire findings of fact could be made about that, which might result in the second interview being excluded for those reasons. But I do not have that evidence in front of me. I have the evidence of D.C Hobbs, who conducted the second interview. I have also the evidence of Sergeant Barnes, who was the custody officer at the time of the first interview. In my judgment it cannot properly be said that it is so clear that an appropriate adult was needed, that it is patent that those interviews ought to be excluded.

    It may be that if the matter does come to trial that there will be a voire dire at which on other evidence it will be decided that the interviews should be excluded, but I cannot say on the evidence before me that it would be appropriate to exclude them, at least I certainly cannot say with the certainty which would be required if I were to stay these proceedings at this time.

    That leaves what might be combined as the first of the four points, the points that I mentioned, namely, the fact that the CPS decided not to prosecute in 2000 and the absence of Mr Wilmer's 2000 interview.

    So far as those taken together are concerned, the first by itself is of no relevance to a stay of application. Clearly, the police will from time to time go back again to the CPS in relation to a particular alleged offence because they think things have changed, that is what has happened in this case. The fact that the CPS at one stage had said there is not enough evidence to make it worth prosecuting does not mean that they will not at a later stage on other evidence take a different view.

    So far as the absence of Mr Wilmer's 2000 statement, that is something which from the defence point of view it would be nice to have and it may be that at the end of the prosecution case a further stay application would be remounted if it appears from what has happened in the course of Mr Wilmer's cross-examination that the point has gained added force, but at this stage it does not seem to me that the absence of Mr Wilmer's 2000 statement is sufficient to stay at this stage, and it would be an unusual case to stay this early, that the case should not be allowed to proceed.

    I then step back from the various points which have been taken seriatum and look at the over view of the case. There are substantial differences in strength between counts one and two. I do not think, however, whatever might have been the view if I was being asked to strike out count two on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success, that looking at the whole of it I can say that this case ought not to proceed. It seems to me that, ancient thought it is and difficult though it is to try properly these very old cases, it is not one where I can say no, because of its age, taken with the other matters, it should not be allowed to go on. This country has not, at least as yet, followed the course that I think virtually every Continental country and I think virtually every Code country has followed of having a statute of limitations on criminal matters. My be it should; may be it shouldn't, that is not a matter for me or for this court. But at the moment mere age is no bar to a case proceeding, absent other particular factors, and in my view no sufficient case has been made out at this stage to say that this case on such evidence as is properly admissable should be allowed to proceed to trial. I, therefore, propose to dismiss the application that has been made.

    I have made a number of interlocutory observations in the course of the hearing. Whether or not anybody finds those of any use is a matter for them. They certainly do not form part of any ruling, nor do they form part of any binding decision of any sort. Thank you both very much for your assistance.




The Law Courts
Bedford Road
Surrey GU1 4ST

15th December 2005


R  E  G  I  N  A



MISS C CARBERRY appeared for the prosecution

MR R MENON appeared for the defence

R  U  L  I  N  G

JUDGE INMAN: This is an application by the defence to exclude the evidence of the defendant's interviews which he made under caution on 17th and 27th October last year (2004). The application is made under section 76(2)(b) and section 78 of PACE.

 The defendant was arrested and interviewed in connection with the same allegations as those which form the basis of these proceedings in 2000 and a decision was made not to prosecute him. I understand the file for those matters had either been lost or disposed of, but in any event is no longer available.

 However, the investigating officer in this case, a Detective Constable Hobbs, I understand, had access to various relevant records from which he had learned that during the interviews which took place in 2000, a solicitor and appropriate adult had been present.

 I have read the psychiatric report. A very long and detailed one by Dr. Cree. This was served on the prosecution in July, I believe, and they have not sought to call their own expert.

 It is clear the defendant had been suffering from depression for a number of years and has been in the care of various doctors for his condition and has been prescribed medication which he was in fact taking in October 2004. It is clear that the seriousness of his condition varies and can be controlled by medication.

 He was arrested at home on 17th October (2004) and taken to a nearby police station. I have seen the custody record for that date. It is clear from that that that the defendant had his legal rights explained and decided that he did not want a solicitor to be present at his interview.

 Before the interview the custody sergeant, Sergeant Barnes, filled in a form, 57M, which at Part A is an assessment of the medical risk relevant to the defendant and Part B assesses the need for an appropriate adult or other help. In Part A the defendant gave details of the fact that he suffered from depression and was taking medicine for it. Also that he had attempted suicide about four years earlier.

 In Part B at question 4 he was apparently asked if he needed special help and the box marked "no" has been ticked. I note from that form that attention is especially drawn to the action to be taken if any doubts about a person's mental condition arise and that the custody officer should explain the role of an appropriate adult to the detained person in those circumstances.

 Part D of that form has an entry "vulnerable, suicidal tendencies" and Sergeant Barnes in evidence said that he had no concerns about his mental well being and considered him fit in all respects to be interviewed. "I had no reason from my conversation with him to think he needed an appropriate adult" he said.

 The defendant was interviewed, therefore, without a solicitor or appropriate adult. He was then bailed and returned to Woking police station on 27th October (2004). I have seen the custody record for that occasion, compiled by Sergeant Morris, who gave evidence. The defendant indicated again that he did not want the services of a solicitor.

 Sergeant Morris filled in a similar form, this time it was called a Form 38/37. Part A is in respect of an appropriate adult. Question 4 has the question: "Do you need special help?" and a "yes" box is ticked with an arrow pointing to the word "depression".

 Sergeant Morris had been told that the defendant had not had an appropriate adult present on 17th October, but he said he made his own assessment independently of that information. The sergeant said that in answer to question 4 the defendant had replied: "I suffer from depression" and that is why he had ticked the "yes" box and put the arrow to the word "depression". He also said in evidence that he had put the questions verbatim as they appear on the form.

 He said he would expect to have explained the contents of the note on the form, but he could not recall if in fact he had done so in this case. He said (and I am quoting from the statement he made on 24th November, which he adopted): "During the documentation process and completing the medical care form, when asked, Mr Madley stated that he was in good health but was suffering from depression. However, when further questioned he stated that he was being treated by his doctor and that the depression was being controlled by medication. It was ascertained that he had been taking his medication as prescribed. I was completely satisfied that Mr Madley fully understood the process and when his rights were explained and administered he was adamant that he did not require a solicitor, stating: 'No, not at the moment.' I was also completely satisfied that Mr Madley was able to answer questions without the presence of an appropriate adult."

 So the interview proceeded without a solicitor and without an appropriate adult being present. Detective Hobbs told Sergeant Morris that he did not think the defendant needed an appropriate adult, based on his experience of the way that he dealt with the interview on 17th October.

 In re-examination Sergeant Morris had said: "I asked him if he needed one", that is to say an appropriate adult, "and he said: 'No'".

 The defendant gave evidence and said that on 17th October he had not indicated his need for special help and there had been no discussion involving the use of the words "appropriate adult".

 On 27th October he said that he was positive he answered question 4 in Part A by saying that he did ask for special help as he had had special help in the year 2000. He said Sergeant Morris had not explained the note on the form and also that Detective Constable Hobbs and said to him: "I understand you ask for an appropriate adult. Between the two of us I don't think you want one." "I trusted him", he said, "and I thought it was up to the police to provide an appropriate adult." He had taken the drug Largactil, I think it was, soon before the interview and he said that had the effect of calming him down.

 I have to consider if there have been any breaches of the codes of conduct in respect of those two interviews. First I am asked to consider Code C 1 4, which sets out how an officer should treat a mentally disordered or vulnerable person for the purposes of the code and that has to be read in conjunction with a note at C 1 G.

 In his evidence Dr Cree had said that his diagnosis of the defendant showed him to be suffering from chronic depression, which he said came within the definition of mental disorder in section 1 subsection (2) of the Mental Health Act of 1983.

 The Crown seem to have accepted that he also comes under the description of mentally vulnerable, but I am not quite sure if that was the position at the end of the submissions.

 Note 1 G goes on to say: "When the custody officer has any doubt about the mental state or capacity of a detainee, that the detainee should be treated as being mentally vulnerable and an appropriate adult called."

 I appreciate that custody sergeants are not medical experts and they have a difficult job to do, often under great pressure.

 Here we are dealing with two very experienced custody officers who both said that they carefully considered Mr Madley's mental condition and how he responded to their questions. I bear in mind the requirement of note 11 C to the effect that special care and caution should always be taken when questioning mentally vulnerable people and the appropriate adult should be involved if there is any doubt about a person's mental state.

 In this case the question of Mr Madley's mental condition had clearly been raised by his answers to the question he was asked by the custody sergeants. No force medical examiners were called on either occasion to examine him.

 It is my view that both custody officers erred in not providing an appropriate adult for the two interviews and, therefore, a breach of Code C 1 4, when read with the relevant notes, took place.

 The fact that a breach of a code occurs does not of course of itself render the subsequent interview inadmissible. So in this context I have to consider the provisions of section 70(6)(2)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The burden is on the Crown to prove that the confessions in such interviews were not made in consequence of anything which is likely to render them unreliable as a consequence of anything said or done.

 The correct approach to this problem is set out in Archibold at chapter 15, paragraph 384. That is to say, by consideration of what was said or done, considering the objective test: what was said and done renders it unreliable and whether the prosecution have proved it was not obtained in consequence of the thing said or done.

 In short, does the failure of the officers to provide an appropriate adult for the interviews render the confessions contained there in unreliable?

 I am also asked to consider whether the evidence of the interviews should be excluded under section 78 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act. That is whether the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.

 Of course every case has to be decided on its own facts and in this case I have been specifically been referred to the case of R.v. Aspinall [1999] Cr. App.R. 115. This is a case which has some similarities to the present case. There, in Aspinall, the defendant was suffering from schizophrenia . He declined the services of a solicitor, as he said he wished to get home as soon as possible, but he was in fact actually seen by two force medical examiners who, in effect, confirmed the mental health diagnosis, but both concluded that he was fit to be interviewed.

 At the trial the recorder found that there had been a breach of section 78, but concluded the assessment of his being fit to be interviewed negatived the requirement for the safeguard of an appropriate adult.

 The Court of Appeal held that the recorder had fallen into error. The question which should have been determined was not whether the defendant's condition obviated the need for an appropriate adult, but whether the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect upon the fairness of the trial that it should be excluded.

 In submissions before me the prosecution have submitted that the defendant in Aspinall was suffereing from a much more severe mental illness than is the case here and to some extent I accept that, but I also note that he was examined by two FME's which of course was not the case in the present case. So here I conclude that at the very least the custody officers should have entertained a doubt as to Mr Madley's mental state or capacity on the basis of the information they had been given. They should have exercised the due care and caution necessary and when such an issue arises and the fact that they did not deprived the defendant of the safeguard he undoubtedly should have had, namely, the provision of an appropriate adult. So I shall not allow the evidence of the interviews of 17th and 27th October to be admitted because under section 76(2)(b) of the view that the confessions are unreliable as a consequence of there not being an appropriate adult present and under section 78 because the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that it should not be admitted for the same reason. That is my ruling.

For What It's Worth

On 15 December 2005, when Judge Inman refused to allow Madley's interviews with the police to go forward as evidence for trial, on the basis that he should have been allowed to have a responsible adult with him during the interviews, all that remained as evidence was my witness statement; the previous judge, Judge Reid, having already ruled back on 4 August that the telephone conversations between Madley and David were inadmissible due to the 'underhand' methods it was claimed David and I had used to 'entrap' Madley into admitting what he had done to me. The fact that Madley had wanted to tell David everything willingly seemed to have evaded the judge, but then judges are a law unto themselves, and victims of child abuse don't, as a rule, get much sympathy from our system of justice, unless, of course, they have been killed by their abuser, but then it's too late.

The judge paid no attention at all to my explanation that I was trying to ensure that Madley could not go on to abuse other children. In fact, he dismissed my account almost entirely, saying that he was 'unimpressed' by what I had said, as if I were the guilty party, not the victim. However, with Madley's confession having been ruled out as evidence that could be adduced, were back at square one, as I had been in April 2000; the only evidence left in the case being my word alone, which, according to Judge Reid, who had referred to it glibly as being 'for what it's worth,' was not good enough to be tested before a jury.

So, having carried the pain and scars of everything I had been through for all these years, and for all the effort and heartache I had endured trying to bring Madley before a court, I had suffered the further indignity of having the door of justice slammed in my face by a two judges, even though the man who stole my childhood had finally confessed everything, albeit in his own cowardly version of the truth. Madley may have escaped justice this time, but I have always believed that he will have abused other children, as well as me, as do the police and just about everyone else who knows my story. In time, some of these victims will come forward, and hopefully, another judge may view their stories with more compassion, and punish this evil man for the misery he has caused us all.

If there is any doubt still left in your minds as to what happened, I will leave you with some of what Madley told the police in his two interviews with them. His account gives a chilling insight into the mind of a paedophile, particularly the way he transfers blame for what he did to me, saying that it was I who had initiated the sexual acts, not the other way round. His cruellest lie is when he says that, on the very day I had found the courage to tell the priests what had been going on, so that I could take communion at Martin's requiem mass, he claims I came to him for sex one final time.

When I said earlier in my story that I had forgiven him for what he did, I had not seen these interviews. You will forgive me, then, when I tell you now that I am no longer sure if I have yet found the inner strength to mean what I said. Nor am I sure that it matters anymore. What does matter is that my story, and your reaction to it, will contribute in part to the growing sense of awareness that, despite all the child abuse horrors of the past, and all of the numerous investigations, inquiries, recommendations and changes to the law, children in our country, and all countries, continue to suffer untold harm at the hands of adults, the legacy of which will remain with us for decades to come. So, for what it's worth, this is what Madley told the police.

Extract from police interview with Hubert Cecil Madley - October 17th 2004

Hugh - what can you tell me? Take as long as you want and in as much detail as you like, explaining to me your relationship with Graham, and what happened between the two of you.

To the best of my knowledge, I started teaching Chemistry (at Salesian College, Chertsey) in September 1966. Graham was asked by the Headmaster to show me round the school. He was about 15 years old. I found him a very pleasant person and very easy to get on with. We formed a friendship. I drove a motorbike at that time and I gave him a lift home occasionally. I remember once I went down to Wales. He was with a school party doing a trip to a place called St Brevills Castle, where they stayed the night. I gave several of them a lift on my motorbike as they were walking along the road, just to save them the extra five miles. I gave Graham a lift back (to London). Nothing had happened between us at that stage.

After Christmas (1966), Graham's parents asked me to tutor him with extra lessons for Maths, Physics and Chemistry. I started going to his home. In January (1967), I bought a signal generator kit, and built and tested it over a few months. I took it to his home and demonstrated it to him. On that occasion, I am a bit reluctant to say this, but I will say it, Graham said to me "My knobs gone all wonky." I looked and saw he had an erection. I asked him did he want me to feel it for him, and he said "Let's go upstairs." In the letters I've had with him, he says that he didn't do this, but I do remember this now.

What I'm asking you to remember is your memory, so if this is the way you remember it, then this is the way you remember it. Try not to let your memory be clouded by other stuff you may have heard since.

I don't want to turn it against him because I know he couldn't give his consent but…..

You carry on. So, he said that his knob's gone wonky, and you saw that he had an erection. Then what happened?

We went upstairs, got undressed. I laid on his bed and he laid on top of me and we both ejaculated. As far as I know, it only happened that one evening. I don't think anything else happened that night. I think after that, when I went over to his house to give him private lessons, I did put my arm around him and I did masturbate him, and then he did the same to me.

So, as far as your memory is concerned Hugh, don't get me wrong, I appreciate your frankness - as far as your memory is concerned, was the incident where you had the radio - was that the first time you had physical, sexual contact with Graham?

I'm absolutely positive about this because I know he said, he uttered to me that I had touched him in the car, but…

Don't worry about what Graham has told you since. What we need to know is your memory.

I know I didn't have a car at the time. I was on a motorbike.

OK, that's alright. So, where did this take place?

That was in his house.

At Graham's House?


What Address - is that the one in Pyrford?

West Byfleet.

So, we'll use that incident that you've just told me to start. At this point, you haven't been at the school for a full year yet, had you?

You started in the previous September. You got on with Graham and what you're saying is at parent's evening, his parents asked if you would give him extra tuition, and you were happy to do that, and the payment would be a meal or whatever? So, it was around about March of '67 that you made this radio? Was it a radio?

No. It was a signal generator.

Was he expecting you to come around with it?

Yes. I think I'd given him a lift over from the school.

You'd gone to his home address, after school presumably. Was anyone else at home?

No. Apparently, as far as I remember, his parents were away at the time.

So, you've gone in there, where you have set up your transnitter in the house?

In the lounge.

How come, then, that this came about - Graham said that his knob was wonky, then?


Bonky? I've never heard of that one. I mean, had you been talking about anything sexual?

Not at all, no. It was completely out of the blue.

So, you're there; he's here. How old is Graham then - '67?

15, coming on 16.

(He was actually 14 years and 4 months old at the time.) You say to him, would you like me to touch it? Is this something you've discussed before with Graham?

No, never.

Had there been anything even remotely sexual between the two of you?

I'd never interfered with him at all up until then.

When he told you that his knob was bonky, and you looked and saw that he had an erection, what effect did that have on you?

I got an erection as well, obviously.

How old were you at the time Hugh?

About 23 - 24.

So, the fact that he told you and you saw that, it had a physical reaction for you, and you got an erection yourself.


First sequence of events. Were you aroused when you asked Graham if he'd like you to touch his penis?

I think I was aroused when I saw he had an erection.

Take me through what happened next.

What went through my mind?

Everything physically. Who's suggestion was it that you went upstairs?

Graham's. He did actually say "Someone might see us - let's go upstairs."

You went upstairs. Where did you go?

To the bedroom - Graham's bedroom.

Whereabouts in the house was Graham's bedroom?

As far as I know it was immediately above the lounge. That's too far back for me to really remember.

You've got into the bedroom. Then what's happened?

We both got undressed.


Yes, but not initially. As far as I remember, we didn't initially get completely undressed. Graham lay on top of me and then we did eventually get undressed.

 So, when you lay on the bed, were you naked?.

Eventually, yes.

Was it like a slow strip, or how did it work out?

I can't remember that far back.

But you can remember lying on the bed. You're naked, sexually aroused?


And Graham is doing what?

He was lying on top of me, rubbing backwards and forwards.

What, rubbing penises?

No, well, um, physically he was on top of me….

Facing each other?


You're lying on your back, he's facing down, so, what, rubbing your bodies together?


Rubbing penises presumably?

Then what happened?

We both had an ejaculation.

What, you had an ejaculation brought on by him rubbing you penis with his penis?

And vice versa.

Then what happened?

Basically, that was it.

Was anything said after that?

I honestly can't remember.

How did you feel after that?

I know how I felt when he said "Let's go upstairs."

Tell me?

What do I do? Do I walk out? I think that this distance was going on through my mind. Do I walk out - embarrass him, and he probably would never want to see me again, or do I go upstairs? To my shame, I went upstairs.

Were you in a relationship with anyone else at the time?


Were you aware that you might have feelings for another male at that time?

Yes. I thought I was under control. I didn't expect it to happen. I hadn't planned it to happen.

 I'm not saying that you did. What I'm saying is when were you aware that your interest was towards - I'll say Graham to start with - or was it towards men in general?
Men in general, I would say.

When did you realise that you were having those thoughts and feelings? Are we talking about something that's years and years ago, or is it something that you've lived with for…

It's impossible to remember back then. My memory was very much affected by what happened to me in the '90's.

As a young man, growing up in the sixties, was that a problem for you?

I did…there were a couple of girls I was fond of, but I was always a very, very shy person. I think I was too afraid to approach them and say "Let's go out."

And before this thing with Graham, had you had any sexual experiences before that?

Not that I know of.

I'm talking about either with girls or boys.

I've never had intercourse with a girl, no.

What about any sexual play with a male?

I'm not aware of it.

So, what we're talking about really is this sexual encounter you've described with Graham is, could be, the first sexual encounter that you've had.

As far as I can recall, yes.

You had a thought - do I walk out, or do I go upstairs?

I should have walked out.

Obviously, of course you should. But this is, as far as you can remember, the first time that anything sexual took place between you and Graham?

Absolutely, yes.

Now, when you saw Graham after this incident, was anything said about it?

I can't remember.

The only thing I will say about that Hugh is that we're talking about something that's quite monumental in your life. It's quite a big thing to take place, and you've remembered it. Obviously, it's in your memory. You've remembered it in a lot of detail.

Most of the talk between us was as friends, and honestly, I did look on Graham as a friend. I would have loved to have had a brother. I would have loved Graham to have been my brother. My intentions had been to do the best for him. Know that now is one of the things that's upset me so much, which is why I wanted to help him. I feel so ashamed.

We've talked about the first sexual encounter between you and Graham. How many times did you have a sexual encounter with him?

If you mean masturbating him, I presume about six or seven occasions, which happened …where was it now….that would have been when I came over to give him lessons.

To the best of my knowledge, nothing happened outside school until we went down to Wales in, I think, the summer of '67.

We'll chat about that in a second. That's obviously towards the later end of the relationship with Graham. So, would it follow a pattern?

 How do you mean?

You go and do the tuition, and then go on to masturbation. How would it go? Did it follow a pattern?

I'm not aware of any particular pattern.

Who would generally start the sexual activity then?

After the first time, I would have done.

How would that manifest itself? How would you do that?

I'd put my arm around him, and then perhaps masturbate him.

And would this be in his bedroom in his house?

He had a study bedroom, yes.

What about him doing stuff to you?

Yeah, he'd do the same.



What, to ejaculation?

Oh no, we were dressed then.

OK, but masturbate him until he ejaculated?

No, we were fully dressed.

So, when you masturbated Graham, did it go that far?

Not on those times, no.

What, he didn't ejaculate?

I wouldn't know. He was dressed at the time.

So, was it over his clothing, or what would you do? Put your hands inside his clothing?


Over his clothing?


What would he do to you?

The same.

Would you take any of your clothing off and get your penis out?

No, because we were in the family house then.

Did that ever happen, apart from the first occasion?

Not to my knowledge, no.

So, it was rubbing each other over your clothing?


So, when he rubbed you over your clothing, did he make you ejaculate?


Did he ejaculate?

I have no idea.

Was anything said after these things? Any expressions of pleasure, of joy or anything like that, or regret or anything at all?

I don't think regret was ever mentioned.

So, would it be the case that, once it had actually got to the physical sexual side of things, as you've described in the first instance, would it be a regular thing then for you to sort of mutually masturbate each other after homework?

It's difficult to say.

But was it a number of times?

It was a number of times, yes.

Did sexual activity ever take any different forms?

You're talking about the rape now?

I'm talking about any sexual activity you had with Graham. Did it take any other forms apart from masturbating?

As far as I can recall, it was only either masturbation or laying on top of each other.

What about oral sex?

Oh, no. I couldn't stand it. I can't stand the idea of that.

OK then. I'll ask you the question. Did you ever suck his penis?

No fear.

And did he ever suck yours?


You say these things took place mainly in Graham's house?


Anywhere else where they took place? We're not speaking about Wales for a minute, we're just speaking about any sexual activity between you and Graham taking place anywhere else?

He said that he stayed one night at the flat I had, which is true, but no sexual activity took place that night. I absolutely know that.

Did any sexual activity take place between you and Graham in your digs?


Are you sure about that?


Did Graham ever visit…

At that time, nothing has happened between us.

Did Graham ever visit your digs?

Just that one time.

What was that in relation to?

I think we'd been out to the pictures and I have a feeling there was something wrong with my motorcycle. He'd missed the last train home. He phoned his mother for her to come and collect him, and she wouldn't. So, basically, he had to stay with me for the night, plus I didn't have enough money to get him a taxi home.

Did anything happen that night?

No, that's the night I'm talking about before….

I'm asking you now, really testing your memory now, and asking you again, just for your frankness really. Did anything sexual take place between you and Graham in any of your digs?

In the second digs, yes.

This was right next to the school?

They sold the other flat and moved me to a flat right next to the school. In fact that was the night that Graham told me that the Salesians knew what was going on, and that would have been February or March of '68. It was after the summer of '67, to the best of my knowledge, there had been no sexual activity between us in the Autumn term, or up until that time when he said he wanted to speak to me, and came to the flat - that was the other flat.

And sexual activity took place on that occasion?


And what was that?

That was exactly the same as before - he laid on top of me…

Mutual masturbation - oh, what naked?


So, you got naked and…so how many times - I know it sounds like a funny question. You've described one set of sexual activity where you're rubbing his penis over his trousers, and he's rubbing you, and then you've described the first time you had sexual contact with Graham was when you were both naked and he laid on top of you. So, how many times was it when you were both naked, and he laid on top of you?

I would say, obviously the first time. The only other time I can recall is when we went down to Wales.

We're going to talk about Wales in a little while. We've got this occasion at the flat. So, three times, as far as you can remember, where you were completely naked?

Well, it's twice, plus what happened in between - yeah.

So, Wales was in between?


So, we're talking about Graham's home address, your second work address, and we're talking about this trip to Wales now. So, what happened on that trip to Wales?
By this time I had use of my father's car, as I'd passed the test, and sometime during the summer term, I started to use the car. Sometimes the car, sometimes the motorbike. My father had a derelict cottage in Wales, which I would go down to occasionally and see if it was alright, and hadn't been vandalised. I was planning to go down there almost at the start of the summer holidays of '67, I think it would have been. I asked Graham if he would like to come with me, and he did.

How old was Graham now?

He was just going from year 10 to year 11. I'm not sure when his birthday is, so he could have still been 15, he could have been 16. I don't know. (He was 15).

What about his parents? What did they think about it?

They were happy with that.

So, you've gone off on this trip to Wales. When, approximately, do you think it was?

I think it was probably the first or second week of the summer holidays of '67.

So, that would be early August.

Might have been the end of July. I can't remember. We arrived fairly late as the car was giving trouble on the way. I took and old tent. It began to rain and the tent leaked, so we slept in the car, or in the back kitchen of the cottage. The following day, I took Graham to Ross on Wye to buy a new tent. That day we put up the tent, and we had sexual relations as before.

When you say as before…?

I was lying on the ground - Graham was on top of me.



Did it go beyond the laying on top of each other?

I was sort of, back in my memory, and I honestly can't remember this happening.

Was there any sort of penetration?

No, this is what I mean.

What, you can't remember it, or…?

To the best of my knowledge, it didn't happen, but I have really sought in the back of my mind about this, and what I can remember, I have said. I don't know whether I attempted it and failed, or what, because that's what he said in the…

What Graham is saying, on that matter, is that you had sexual intercourse with him, in the fact that you managed to get your penis into his anus, and you had sexual intercourse that way, and then he tried it with you, and he couldn't do it. Does that ring any bells?

No. I remember from what he said on the stuff on the internet, that I penetrated him and then withdrew. I just can't remember this. If I did, well, I just can't believe it.

What I'm saying, Hugh, now, just be honest with me, and really think about this now. We're talking about a sexual relationship - let's take the mechanics of who's who out of it. It's a sexual relationship between two people. It's gone from mutual masturbation, and it's progressing, as it would do in any sexual relationship. I am just asking you to be as honest with me as you can. Did sexual intercourse take place between you and Graham on that holiday?

If I could remember it, I would tell you, but, honestly, I can't. I hope it didn't. I can't say it didn't.

What about when Graham tried to penetrate you anully?

I'm saying I don't remember this incident at all.

That's all I need to ask you about this trip to Wales.

I know afterwards, we did tour around Wales.

Was there more sexual activity afterwards?

Masturbation. I can't remember if we lay on each other after that.

This, when you're laying on each other? Were you touching him? Were you holding his penis, and him holding your penis, or..?

That would be a bit difficult because I had my arms around him.

That's what I'm thinking of. So, it was in a cuddling sort of way, but a rhythmic movement between the two, like sex?

I presume so.

When did your sexual relationship finish with Graham?

The night he told me, in the flat - well, actually, can I explain a little bit?

Please do.

It was several weeks after Martin died. He wanted to speak to me, and came round to the flat after school. He came round and we both got undressed again, and exactly the same thing as before happened. He lay on top of me, and then he said he had to go. This would be about 5ish, and he then asked me if I could meet him later on. At this stage, I didn't know what he was going to tell me.

You didn't know what had been said, or who'd been told, or anything. OK. Were you concerned when he said that he wanted to meet you later on? No worries?

No. I was completely alright. I went to his house between about 6 and 7 o'clock, and spoke to Graham's mum until Graham came home. We went for a drive, and after a few minutes, stopped to talk. He said to me, as far as I can remember, these are his exact words. "They know about us." And, as you can imagine, I was absolutely shattered.

How did you take that to mean, when he said they know about us.? What did you take it to mean? The school knew?


Did he go into any details as to who was told or…?

He didn't - he didn't.

You carry on then.

I asked how did they know, and he said he didn't know, and it wasn't until recently I knew that he had told them. I thought they'd found out by some other means.

So, you weren't sure. He told you that he didn't know how they knew about it, and you didn't…

But he told me that they wanted me to resign.

Graham told you that?

Yes. So, they sent him with a message, effectively, but I didn't realise that until recently.

Graham told you that the school wanted you to resign over you're sexual relationship with Graham?

I was absolutely shattered. I said to Graham at the time that I would deny it. I remember saying that now, and I know that's actually caused him some problems since, which I didn't realise until recently.

What we need to concentrate on is that time, Hugh.

I dropped Graham back and went for a drive for a while. There was an un-gated level crossing near Chertsey, and I was going to go over under the train.

Because of what Graham had told you?

Because of the shame.

Well, thankfully, you didn't do that. What did actually happen after that, Hugh?

I just thought of my family. They wouldn't have wanted me to do that. So, I knew it was no good denying it, so, I went to see the Headmaster, who was Fr O'Shea, but he wasn't around at the time, so, the rector was Fr Gaffney. I went to see him that same evening.

What, after Graham had told you?


So, it's Fr Gaffney you went and spoke to?

Yes, and I told him basically what I've told you, except it was much shorter.

But, he was left in no doubt that you had told him you'd been having a sexual relationship?

He was expecting me to come round. He obviously knew what had been going on.

But, what you told him, Hugh - I know you said it wasn't in as much detail - was he aware that you'd been having a sexual relationship with Graham, as a result of you're conversation with Fr Gaffney. Is that what you told him?

He knew. Yes, but he knew before, from Graham.

Did you tell him?

Yes I did.

So, he was aware that you'd been having a sexual relationship with Graham?


And what was his advice - what did he do about it?

I can't remember exactly what he said, but I offered him my resignation there and then, and he said that he would see the headmaster in the morning. I presume he'd been away. I didn't know what was going to happen, whether the police would be called in at the time. I think, the following day, I saw Graham at the bottom of the stairs leading to the Chemistry lab, and I started to tell him that I had been to see Fr Gaffney, and it's alright, they believe me. Then I had to break off, because I think someone was coming down the stairs.

So, what you were telling Graham is that…?

When I said, he must have thought that I denied it. I didn't get the chance…

To tell him that you'd told the truth?

If I can go back to the day before? Fr Gaffney told me to avoid being alone with Graham, as far as possible, except in a professional capacity.

So, this Fr Gaffney, he was what, the Deputy Head?

No, he was the Rector.

But he was aware of it?

And he told the Headmaster the following day.

And his advice, when you told him, was don't be alone with Graham.

Yes. He didn't say I had to go from the school immediately.

So, then what happened, Hugh?

Well, I suppose the next three or four weeks, I was just…

You were still working there?


Still teaching?

I worked until the end of that year, and not long after that.

So, was anything else said to you by any of the other staff?

No. Fr O'Shea didn't come to me. I was expecting to be called into him, but I wasn't. Not long after this, Fr Gaffney died, as it happened. I can't think of a gap, but it would give some idea of the time if you can find out when this happened. At his funeral, the Provincial Rector - he's the boss of the Salesians in England and Scotland and Wales. He was at the funeral, and I went to see him to apologise for what I'd done, and the difficulty I had caused the Salesians. He knew all about it.

What was his name?

Fr George Williams.

Is he still about?

Yes, to the best of my knowledge.

So, Fr George Williams is like the sort of Head Honcho, and you told him at Fr Gaffney's funeral?

But, he already knew.

So, somebody had told Williams, then? Were you surprised that this Fr George Williams knew what had gone on, or not?

Yes and no. I didn't know how far things had spread.

Still, nothing happened to you - you were still teaching?

I'm still teaching, but, obviously, I'd given my resignation at that time.

You had resigned, so you were working your month's notice out, what ever it was?

The year's notice, isn't it, until July? I can't remember exactly when it happened, when I resigned.

So, it was at the end of the teaching year that you were going to go?


So, that would be the beginning of the summer holiday?

Yes. Anyway, basically, I told him what I'd told Fr Gaffney, and what I've told you. We talked about a few things, I can't remember, and he asked me what I was doing next year. I said that I hadn't got anything sorted out. I'd applied for a few jobs, and I'd either been too late, or they were filled with more qualified people, or whatever. So, he said to me "There's going to be a post for a Chemistry teacher in Battersea."

What, a Salesian school in Battersea?

Yeah. After I got up off the floor, as you can imagine, he made it clear that, if I applied for the job, there wouldn't be a problem getting it.

That must have been a surprise for you?

I couldn't believe it!

Him being aware of what happened between you and Graham, then, offering you a job at another school?

It maybe they wanted to keep their eye on me there, rather than me going to another school.

Did you, at any time after it had come out, have any other sexual encounters with Graham?

No. Absolutely not.

OK. I am going to ask you one question, and it's a matter for you whether you answer it or not. Since the last sexual encounter with Graham, has anything taken place between you and any other pupil?

No. I learned a very hard lesson.

For The Record

Hugh Madley joined the teaching staff at Salesian College, Battersea, in September 1968, where he remained teaching young boys for the next 31 years. He was supposed to be monitored during his time there, but within a matter of months, he was taking boys from that school on camping trips. There have, so far, been no other allegations made against him to police, but this is what one of those boys told me in an e-mail. Judge for yourselves.

Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 - Subject: Hugh Madley

Hello Graham,
I think there are possibly a few others like yourself, and I would like to try and find them if possible. I feel very frustrated about this situation as Madley is a born and bred liar, and always has been. He is refusing to tell me the truth and is trying to stop me from attending Guilford Crown on the 3rd March as he is worried about what I might find out!! As I said to you before I suspect that he has abused my brother. If he has, then I do not want him to escape punishment. I have read the book and to be honest the majority is almost identical to the way he was around me. Whenever we stayed with him he would try to get in the same bed, but we used to kick him out. I know you are telling the truth, and after reading your book it struck me that there HAS to be others. Madley has admitted to my Wife that he has had feelings for me since I was younger, and still has; and also that if I had been that way inclined he would have slept with me. In other words, because I was strong enough to stop him he didn't. He has also confessed to masturbating over photos of me that he had taken whilst I was attending Salesian College Battersea. In the picture I had just crossed the line at the Inter Salesian sports events. He is a very stupid man as I was only 13 yrs old when he started hanging around me. He confessed this to MY WIFE though!!!! Why does he still have that picture??? I thought that was illegal??? He only confessed all this as my Wife told him she would not tell me, (yeah right). She put the phone on loudspeaker and even my mother in law heard it. I feel absolutely sick to think that all this time I thought he was a friend, and all he wanted to do was abuse me. This validates my suspicion of my brothers ILLNESS further. I have also found out that he burnt most of the video's that he had taken of the many other pupils, but I think they are actually under the floor in his room (he has a small section of floor boards that can be lifted out in a square approx 2 foot by 2 foot under his bed) and that he is lying again, as I know that he hides stuff under there. If they are not there then they may be in the shed, or at his Uncle's house who lives only 10 mins away. In his bathroom there is a panel by the bath taps that can be lifted and also hides stuff in there. He sits shampoos and other items on top so that you would never suspect it.
Good luck with everything.
Take care,
Best wishes,