Louise Casey to appear before MPs after major review of child grooming failures
The author of the major review into grooming gangs which found authorities have 'shied away' from the ethnicity of sex offenders will face questions from MPs.
Baroness Louise Casey will appear before the Commons Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday morning, after the Government set out plans to launch a new nationwide inquiry into grooming gangs following her rapid review of the scandal.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper claimed officials have dodged the issue of ethnicity among the groups of sex offenders for fear of being called racist, even though available data showed suspects were disproportionately likely to be Asian men.
Speaking in the Commons on Monday as the review was published, the Home Secretary said 'much more robust national data is needed' on the ethnicity of offenders, adding that the authorities 'cannot and must not shy away from these findings'.
Doing so would allow 'the criminality and depravity of a minority of men to be used to marginalise whole communities', she added.
Lady Casey's report found that: 'The appalling lack of data on ethnicity in crime recording alone is a major failing over the last decade or more. Questions about ethnicity have been asked but dodged for years.'
It added: 'We found that the ethnicity of perpetrators is shied away from and is still not recorded for two-thirds of perpetrators, so we are unable to provide any accurate assessment from the nationally collected data.'
Multiple convictions of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds should have 'warranted closer examination', it said, adding: 'Instead of examination, we have seen obfuscation. In a vacuum, incomplete and unreliable data is used to suit the ends of those presenting it.'
Former Tory government adviser Dominic Cummings meanwhile claimed in an interview with Sky News that officials from the Department for Education were supportive of Rotherham Council's suggestion of going to court in 2011 to prevent the Times' initial reporting of the scandal in Rotherham.
Lord Michael Gove, then the education secretary, rejected the request for a judicial review on Mr Cummings' advice, the broadcaster reported.
Ms Cooper said the Government would take action 'immediately' on all of Lady Casey's recommendations, after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer committed to launching a national inquiry into the abuse.
The recommendations included:
– Making it mandatory to collect ethnicity and nationality data of all suspects in child sexual abuse cases
– A new national inquiry into child sexual abuse with statutory legal powers, which will co-ordinate the efforts of local investigations led by councils and set out 'strict timescales' for them to follow.
– A nationwide National Crime Agency operation, targeting people who have sexually exploited children, and following up on an estimated more than 1,000 cold cases where no one was convicted.
– A change in the law so that all adult sex with under-16s is considered rape.
– A review of criminal records held by victims of child sexual exploitation.
In the Commons, Ms Cooper 'unequivocally' apologised for the failings which had led to grooming and child sexual abuse.
The Home Secretary also pledged to exclude convicted sex offenders from the asylum system, while the report warned 'a significant proportion' of live investigations into grooming gangs 'appear to involve suspects who are non-UK nationals and/or who are claiming asylum in the UK'.
In her report, Lady Casey said it is time to draw a line in the sand and take action over the issue, which she called 'one of the most heinous crimes in our society'.
She also urged opposition politicians not to use the scandal as a 'political football', adding there was a chance to 'create a national reset'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
10 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Louise Casey criticises Tories for politicising her grooming gangs report
Update: Date: 2025-06-17T08:17:25.000Z Title: Louise Casey Content: Good morning. After the Home Office yesterday published 's audit of the grooming gang scandal, none of the political parties at Westminster seriously challenged any of her conclusions, or recommendations. But, of course, that does not mean there was consensus. As reported here yesterday, an almighty blame game commenced (or resumed, to be more accurate). In an interview on Newsnight last night, Casey said she was 'disappointed' by the way her report was being politicised and criticised the Conservatives in particular. Asked what she felt about the 'politicisation' of her report, Casey replied: I'm disappointed by it, to put it mildly. I really hoped – and hope still – that the report is so clear, it's so straightforward. We need to change some laws. We need to do a national criminal investigation. We need to get on with the national inquiry with local footprint in it. And ideally, wouldn't it be great if everybody came behind that and just backed it and got on with it? Asked what she felt about the proceedings in the Commons yesterday, Casey said: I just felt, dare I say it, I felt the opposition could have just been a bit, 'Yes, we will all come together behind you.' Maybe there's still time to do that. I think it's just so important that they do. It almost doesn't matter right now, does it, what political party people are part of. We've identified there's a problem, it's been a problem there a long time, and it's about time we drew a line in the sand. There does not seem much chance that Kemi Badenoch will take any notice. She has scheduled a press conference today and, judging by her X feed last night, she intends to celebrate what she perceives as a victory for her campaigning. The 10 most recent posts on her feed are either tweets or retweets about the grooming gang scandal. This is the one she has pinned. This national inquiry is a hard-won victory for the brave survivors who refused to be silenced — who gave up their anonymity to expose the institutions that failed them. Labour fought it every step of the way. They voted against it. Mocked campaigners. Smeared them. Branded it a 'far-right bandwagon' and a 'dog whistle.' Now they're pretending they supported it all along? Disgraceful. Their hand was forced. Our job now is to make sure this inquiry delivers justice for every survivor. No more delays. Here is the agenda for the day. 9.30am: Angela Rayner, deputy prime minister, chairs cabinet. Keir Starmer is still in Canada at the G7 summit. 10.30am: , the crossbench peer and former civil servant, gives evidence to the Commons home affairs committee about her grooming gangs report published yesterday. 11am: Kemi Badenoch holds a press conference. Noon: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing. 1pm: John Swinney, Scotland's first minister, gives a speech on independence at the Scotland 2050 conference in Edinburgh. Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, is speaking at 2.10pm. Early afternoon (UK time): Starmer takes questions from British print journalists and broadcasters at the G7 summit. Late afternoon: MPs debate amendments to the crime and policing bill relating to abortion. They will vote at 7pm. If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm at the moment), or message me on social media. I can't read all the messages BTL, but if you put 'Andrew' in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word. If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @ The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary. I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can't promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Daily Mail
11 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
City investment banker who made false claim he was sexually harassed at work by a female colleague is sued by his old bosses
A City investment banker who made false claims that he had been sexually harassed by his female manager is now being sued by his old bosses who want him to be found in contempt of court. Damilare Ajao, who worked for German finance giant Commerzbank in London in 2019, claimed he was pestered by a female manager who 'flirtatiously' told him she could 'see his underwear' and tried to touch his Gucci belt buckle in the staff canteen. Mr Ajao, who was sacked in November 2019, subsequently brought an employment tribunal claim against the bank, which included allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault against the manager - who was identified in court only as 'Q'. The allegations centred on claims that she had made a sexualised comment about a string vest that he was wearing under a shirt and that he had been forced to slap her hand away when she reached out towards his designer belt. But his allegations were thrown out by judge Anthony Snelson, who found that the sexual harassment and assault allegations 'were false and in large part made up', with the serious claim of sexual assault amounting to 'pure invention'. Mr Ajoa was also handed a £60,000 legal costs bill. But far from being the end of matters, Commerzbank AG is now taking the unusual step of suing Mr Ajoa in a bid to get him found in contempt of court, which could see him face up to two years in prison. It comes after his former bosses said the 'made up' allegations against the female manager had caused such distress they had resulted in her developing a 'serious psychiatric illness'. Asking London's High Court to find - on the criminal standard of proof - that Mr Ajao deliberately lied, lawyers for Commerzbank told Mr Justice Martin Spencer that the manager on the receiving end of the disproved allegations had gone on to 'develop a serious psychiatric illness' as a result of being accused. But Mr Ajao is fighting the case, insisting that he had genuinely believed in what he told the tribunal, even if he ultimately lost his case. The court heard that Mr Ajao worked for the bank at its offices in Gresham Street, in the City of London, between May and November 2019 when he was sacked, and subsequently brought his unsuccessful tribunal claim. Employment Judge Snelson in April 2024 dismissed his claim and said of the sex allegations: 'We are satisfied that the claimant's case under this head is simply false. 'We accept the evidence of Q that she once commented to him in the office that she could see his vest through his shirt and that it was an interesting look, or words to that effect. She told us that the shirt was very thin and the vest seemed to be of a material resembling fishnet tights. 'The remark was not made in a suggestive manner. Nor did it come across as a criticism. 'We greatly regret to say that in our judgment the balance of the claimant's case on sexual harassment, which included an exceedingly serious allegation of sexual assault, is, in its entirety, pure invention. 'The acts and events on which he relies did not happen. There was no treatment of him by Q which could conceivably have been seen as amounting to harassment of any kind. 'He repeatedly put forward assertions which were completely untrue and which he knew to be completely untrue. Numerous claims had no factual basis whatsoever. 'The alleged events on which they were premised never happened. They were made up. 'We found him a witness "contemptuous of his duty to tell the truth and unworthy of belief".' The bank is now suing its former employee, seeking to have him found in contempt. Louis Browne KC, for the bank, told the judge Mr Ajao 'made numerous allegations including race, ... sex discrimination/sexual harassment, bullying, harassment, victimisation. 'His claims for alleged discrimination and harassment by Q were false, were known by him to be false and were found so to be by the employment tribunal. 'The allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination and harassment by Q were of an extremely serious nature. The fact and nature of these allegations caused Q to develop a serious psychiatric illness. 'In acting as he did, Mr Ajao knowingly made false statements of truth and/or interfered with the due administration of justice by giving evidence which he knew was false, which he knew would be likely to interfere with the administration of justice and which had the clear and obvious potential so to do. 'He was contemptuous of his duty to tell the truth. 'Commerzbank contend that the court will be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the grounds of contempt for which permission has been granted will be proved beyond reasonable doubt.' Fiona Horlick KC, for Mr Ajao, reminded the court that the findings of the tribunal could not be taken as proof of his guilt in the contempt action, as the standard of proof is higher with a different focus on the evidence. Cross examining 'Q' in the witness box, Mr Browne said: 'A vest is underwear. You described the vest he was wearing as like fishnet stockings or tights. He was wearing a thin shirt and you could see the fishnet net vest through the thin shirt and you would have been able to see his body in the gaps. You would be able to see for example his nipples. You could see the rest of his body.' She responded: 'No, I don't believe I would have been able to see his nipples. I don't think a person would wear something like that to the office.' The barrister continued: 'You said you could see his vest and it looked interesting. That's a remark about his underwear.' 'That's not the way I said it,' insisted Q, adding that it was 'a very casual comment'. She added: 'The whole look looked extraordinary. That's why I made a comment. I didn't say it in a sexual way.' Mr Browne put to her: 'Remarking upon a person of the opposite gender's underwear and saying it looked interesting - do you admit that could be interpreted as being flirtatious?' 'No,' she replied. 'It could have been if it was somebody who didn't have this friendly relationship that we had. I wouldn't say it to a random person.. In the context of our relationship, it doesn't make sense. Absolutely not.' But the barrister said the friendly relationship might make it more likely that it would be interpreted as flirting, something which she denied in the witness box. Moving onto the incident with the Gucci belt, Mr Browne told Q: 'You stretched out your hand towards the Gucci buckle as if you wanted to touch it... he instinctively knocked your hand away and you said, 'I'm just looking'.' Q responded: 'Absolutely not. I never extended my arm or did anything suggestive of something indecent. It was just an innocuous thing to say, nothing special. 'I didn't reach out for his belt or try to touch it. That's why I say it was from afar. The way I was saying all these things could not have been interpreted as being sexual'. Ms Horlick in her written submissions told the court that the fact Mr Ajao is facing contempt allegations is extraordinary, saying, 'those acting for Mr Ajao have found no reported case in which a party to employment proceedings has brought a contempt application alleging interference with the due administration of justice on the basis of conflicting witness evidence alone. 'The bank must show that Mr Ajao undertook conduct interfering with the due administration of justice. 'In this case the bank must show, to the criminal standard, that Mr Ajao knew the statements made by him were false, in that he made them dishonestly and intended that they would interfere with the administration of justice in some material way. 'These proceedings have been brought in a haphazard, slipshod fashion. The bank has chosen to relitigate the facts underlying the employment claim in the High Court. 'It is entitled to do that, but must prove its case to the criminal standard. It cannot do that where Mr Ajao's evidence was truthful (or) the areas of factual dispute are riven with matters of interpretation and perception. 'Mr Ajao will invite the court to find that the application is misconceived as a matter of law and is not supported by the evidence and to dismiss the application accordingly.' The judge will give his ruling at a later date.
Daily Mail
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump abandons historic UK-US trade deal just as it's agreed
Donald Trump accidentally dropped the historic US-UK trade deal while announcing it had officially been signed after holding crunch talks with Sir Keir Starmer at the G7 summit. The US President left the Prime Minister scrambling to round-up the crucial papers as the two leaders attempted to put on a united front and show the world the transatlantic deal was 'done'. But as Trump attempted to open a black folder with the signed agreement inside, several papers spilled out on to the floor, prompting Starmer to quickly bend down and intervene. 'Oops sorry about that,' the president said, before Starmer tried to brush off the gaffe by quipping: 'It's a very important document.' Stood alongside Starmer, the US President then said 'We signed it and it's done', before mistakenly announcing the deal was with the European Union , rather than the UK. He added: 'It's a fair deal for both. It'll produce a lot of jobs, a lot of income.' The Prime Minister said the completed deal 'implements on car tariffs and aerospace', and described the agreement as a 'sign of strength' between Britain and America, with Trump saying it's 'fair' for both nations. He said: 'Donald, thank you very much. This now implements on car tariffs and aerospace. A really important agreement. And so this is a very good day for both of our countries, a real sign of strength.' Starmer said the proclamation would implement agreements reached on automotive tariffs and aerospace, without providing any details. Under the terms of the deal, first announced in the White House in early May, UK carmakers will be hit by a 10 per cent rate when selling vehicles to the US rather than 25. In return, Britain is lifting tariffs on American companies' shipments of products such as beef and ethanol. The Department for Business and Trade also said the US has committed to removing tariffs on UK aerospace goods such as engines and aircraft parts. However, there was a signal from Trump that agreement about tariffs on British steel exports to the US could take longer to finalise. Asked if steel tariffs would be set to 0 per cent for the UK, the US President replied: 'We're gonna let you have that information in little while.' In recent months, the UK has held a series of engagements aimed at securing a reduction in the tariffs Mr Trump imposed on Britain and the rest of the world on April 2. Along with 10 per cent tariffs on all British goods, the president imposed 25 per cent levies on cars and steel. He later increased the tariff on steel to 50 per cent, but gave the UK a reprieve, keeping its rate at 25 per cent until at least July 9. Under the broad terms of last month's agreement, the US will implement quotas that will effectively eliminate the tariff on British steel and reduce the tariff on UK vehicles to 10 per cent. But it did not immediately take effect, leaving British businesses uncertain about whether the UK could be exposed to any surprise hikes from Trump. When asked, Trump did say that the UK was 'very well protected' when questioned over whether Britain would be protected from any future tariffs. Asked whether he could guarantee the country would be protected from any further levies, the US president said: 'The UK is very well protected, you know why? Because I like them.' Trump added that Starmer had done 'what other people haven't been able to do' in securing a deal with the US, saying their relationship with Britain was 'just fantastic'. The US president told reporters: 'The Prime Minister's done a great job, I want to just tell that to the people of the United Kingdom. 'He's done what other people. They've been talking about this deal for six years. and he's done what they haven't been able to do.' Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said: 'We agreed this deal with the US to ensure jobs and livelihoods in some of our most vital sectors were protected, and since then we have been focused on delivering those benefits to businesses.' 'Bringing trade deals into force can take several months, yet we are delivering on the first set of agreements in a matter of weeks. And we won't stop there.' Before their one-on-one talks, Sir Keir found himself sat next to Mr Trump during a working session at his first G7 summit as Prime Minister.
