Archive

Sir Peter Hayman

00001 00002 00003 00004 00005 00006 00007 00008 00009 00010 00011 00012 00013 00014 00015 00016 00017 00018 00019 00020 00021 00022 00023 00024 00025 00026 00027 00028 00029 00030 00031 00032 00033 00034 00035 00036 00037

Advertisements

Sunday People, 22nd March 1981

People220381a People220381bThe same issue of the Sunday People carried this editorial:

People220381The ‘Old Harrovian’ and ‘ex-City stockbroker’ who ran the paedophile mailing list which included many prominent people is almost certainly John Risely-Prichard (Old Harrovian and former Lloyds underwriter), who was ‘on the run from Scotland Yard for ten years’ and was exposed in 1994 by Roger Insall, one of the three journalists who wrote the 1981 article.

John Risely-Prichard

John Risely-Prichard

The full 1994 article on John Risely-Prichard can be found here

On 22nd March 1981, the same day as the Sunday People reported that public figures had escaped prosecution, the News of the World revealed that the Scotland Yard investigation into the Paedophile Information Exchange did not take the trouble to examine the post office boxes of PIE members.

NOTW22381

Paedophiles hadn’t always been protected from investigation and prosecution. A 1977-78 investigation which centred on a magazine called Mailbox Boys resulted in dozens of successful prosecutions. This was a mainly London-based network which operated out of a South-East London bookshop. If the Paedophile Information Exchange had been investigated in the same way then the number of prosecutions could have been huge. For more on the Mailbox Boys case, see News of the World 09.10.77 and News of the World 02.04.78

In 1984, paedophiles receiving child abuse images in the post were offered another layer of protection by the Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, who wrote:

“I do not think Customs should supply to police names and addresses of everyone receiving obscene or indecent articles, regardless of whether an offence has been established” (Source: The Mirror 12.11.14)

 

Transcript:
‘TOP PEOPLE ESCAPE CHILD PORN SCANDAL’ (Sunday People, 22nd March 1981)

A number of top public figures besides Sir Peter Hayman, have escaped possible prosecution as child pornography offenders.
They are on a list of about 500 people given to the police by an informant who claims to have supplied them with obscene material involving boys.
Several convictions followed. But, a senior Scotland Yard detective told the Sunday People, only “small fry” were put in the dock.
“We could have netted some very big fish,” he said, “people in the top echelons of society.”
But at a meeting with officials in the department of the Director of Public Prosecutions, police were told to concentrate on certain practising paedophiles, photographers and printers of child sex magazines.
Against them the police already had a good deal of evidence thanks to their informant, an ex-City stockbroker who had been a pupil at Harrow public school and became a dealer in pornography.
It would have needed a more extensive investigation to nail the top people on the list.
The decision to limit their inquires angered detectives.
They told the Sunday People that they were concerned with the extent of the child pornography network they had discovered and the prominence of some of the people involved.
When the Sunday People first exposed the paedophile scandal six years ago evidence was lacking against men in public life.
That evidence began to surface with the Old Harrovian’s list of his 500 customers.
Some of the names on the list were pseudonyms, he told the Sunday People.
“But the real identities could have been established,” he said.
Certainly Sir Peter Hayman’s identity was easily established in the separate police investigation into the Paedophile Information Exchange.
He used the name “Peter Henderson” when he dabbled in child pornography circulated through the Exchange.
Though the police knew who he was his name never appeared in the proceedings that culminated in last week’s trial.
The Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to charge Sir Peter.
And though offensive material involving Sir Peter figures in the original charges against officers of the Paedophile Exchange, that material was not included at the trial itself.
Sir Peter’s involvement created a storm when Mr Geoffrey Dickens M.P. brought out his name in a Commons question.
In his answer the Attorney General backed the D.P.P’s decision not to prosecute Sir Peter.
But detectives who received the Old Harrovian’s list of 500 alleged paedophiles believe that prosecutions under the Protection of Children Act should be allowed to go forward without having to consult the D.P.P.
And they have recommended that a special squad of hand-picked investigators should be set up by Scotland Yard to halt the growth in child pornography.
They claim that the American Mafia was aiming to export child porn to Britain.
One of the detectives told the Sunday People: “We were alarmed because paedophiles in the States took up a new craze—sexually abusing boys, then strangling them.”
So far the Yard has not created a special child sex squad.
Mrs. Mary Whitehouse, the anti-porn campaigner, said yesterday that in dealing with the problem of combating pornography she had “come up against a blank wall, not at ministerial level but among the permanent civil service.”
The police should have more manpower, “but what is the use of that if their evidence is pushed aside?
“I think the D.P.P.’s department and the Attorney General have far too much power in their hands.”

Transcript:
SCANDALOUS: THE COVER-UP IN HIGH PLACES (Sunday People, 22nd March 1981)

There has been a scandalous cover-up in the case of Sir Peter Hayman. The powers that be, as usual, tried to protect one of their own.
No-one in authority would have raised a finger to save an ordinary man or woman from public disgrace after being found trafficking in child pornography.
Yet all along Sir Peter’s name was carefully concealed.
Neither he, nor eight others who had been corresponding about their vile “hobby” was prosecuted. In that one regard it could be claimed he was not shown favour.
But in every other respect he was given the complete V.I.P. treatment – Veiled from the Irate Public. Henderson was he name Sir Peter had used in his pornography ring. Henderson it remained throughout all the inquiries into the Paedophile Information Exchange and the court proceedings that followed.
Everyone who was investigated had to disclose his or her real name in witness statements or in giving evidence. Except for Sir Peter.
One of the witnesses in the committal proceedings spoke of nude photographs of nine and 11-year-old girls.
About one of the girls Henderson was alleged to have written: “Any dirty details about her would be much appreciated by us all.” No-one identified the man who had written that as Sir Peter Hayman.
Sir Peter is only the latest in a long list of establishment figures around whom the establishment has thrown its smokescreen.
Remember Sir Anthony Blunt; Philby, Burgess and Maclean; remember the long-hidden sexploit of our former ambassador in Moscow.
We are supposed to live in a society where, as near as humanly possible, all men and women enjoy equal protection and suffer equal penalties for their transgressions.
COVER-UPS FOR THE HIGH AND MIGHTY MAKE A MOCKERY OF JUSTICE.

Sunday People, 22nd March 1981

People220381

Transcript:
SCANDALOUS: THE COVER-UP IN HIGH PLACES (Sunday People, 22nd March 1981)

There has been a scandalous cover-up in the case of Sir Peter Hayman. The powers that be, as usual, tried to protect one of their own.
No-one in authority would have raised a finger to save an ordinary man or woman from public disgrace after being found trafficking in child pornography.
Yet all along Sir Peter’s name was carefully concealed.
Neither he, nor eight others who had been corresponding about their vile “hobby” was prosecuted. In that one regard it could be claimed he was not shown favour.
But in every other respect he was given the complete V.I.P. treatment – Veiled from the Irate Public. Henderson was he name Sir Peter had used in his pornography ring. Henderson it remained throughout all the inquiries into the Paedophile Information Exchange and the court proceedings that followed.
Everyone who was investigated had to disclose his or her real name in witness statements or in giving evidence. Except for Sir Peter.
One of the witnesses in the committal proceedings spoke of nude photographs of nine and 11-year-old girls.
About one of the girls Henderson was alleged to have written: “Any dirty details about her would be much appreciated by us all.” No-one identified the man who had written that as Sir Peter Hayman.
Sir Peter is only the latest in a long list of establishment figures around whom the establishment has thrown its smokescreen.
Remember Sir Anthony Blunt; Philby, Burgess and Maclean; remember the long-hidden sexploit of our former ambassador in Moscow.
We are supposed to live in a society where, as near as humanly possible, all men and women enjoy equal protection and suffer equal penalties for their transgressions.
COVER-UPS FOR THE HIGH AND MIGHTY MAKE A MOCKERY OF JUSTICE.

In March 1981, Geoffrey Dickens used parliamentary prvilege to name senior diplomat Sir Peter Hayman as a paedophile and member of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). The case is summarised in a recent article from the Mail, and all the original press reports can be found here.

But there is still a mystery surrounding the trial of two paedophiles in Hayman’s network.

The sequence of events that led to Hayman being named began in 1978 when a packet was found in a London bus containing correspondence – “obscene literature and written material” – between Hayman and a number of other people. As a result of this find, seven men and two women were named by the Metroplitan Police as possible defendants in a report submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but he advised against prosecuting any of them.

“Subsequently, the Metropolitan Police submitted a further report which revealed that one of the nine, not Sir Peter Hayman, was carrying on a correspondence with a tenth person. The police investigation showed that the two shared an obsession about the systematic killing by sexual torture of young people and children. In view of the extreme nature of the material they had sent each other, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided to prosecute them for conspiring to convene Section 11 of the Post Office Act”. Source: The Guardian 20.03.81

The trial of the two people took place at St Albans Crown Court in 1979-80. They were both found guilty but walked free with a conditional discharge. The weak sentence in itself is very worrying, but even more worrying is the fact that the trial doesn’t seem to have been reported at the time despite the shocking nature of the case. I have searched the Guardian and the Times archives, along with most tabloids from the time and can’t find any reports. The two reports from 1981 that referred to the trial didn’t name the individuals and didn’t even say whether they were male or female.

Many PIE members were thought to have worked in education, residential care, and other professions that would bring them into contact with children. These people could have walked free and straight into a job working with children, with the public none the wiser as to their conviction.

The Times voiced their concern about the case after Hayman was named in Parliament:

“The wider question for disquiet is what happened to the two individuals mentioned in Sir Michael’s statement who shared an obsession about the systematic killing by sexual torture of young people and children. They were prosecuted at St Albans – and conditionally discharged. Such execution of the law singularly fails to match the sense of public outrage.” Source: The Times 20.03.81

Geoffrey Dickens was still talking about it in August 1983, when he said that “the Attorney General had conceded that within the PIE organisation there were people obsessed by the death of children by sexual torture”. Source The Sun 23.03.83

Who were the two individuals, and why were they never named in the press?

Sun20381a Sun20381bTimes20381b

This is a timeline of the key news reports in the ‘Hayman affair’, in which Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens named PIE member Sir Peter Hayman in the House of Commons using Parliamentary privilege.

I’m looking for any information about the trial of two men who were part of Hayman’s paedophile network. They were said to have been “obsessed by the systematic killing by sexual torture of children and young people”. The trial took place at St Albans Crown Court in either 1979 or 1980 and they received a conditional discharge – see The Times 20.03.81 (last paragraph).

Private Eye, November 1980

Hayman1Hayman2Private Eye, February 1981

EyeFeb81The Times, 16th March 1981

Times16381

New Standard, 16th March 1981

ES160381a ES160381bThe Times, 17th March 1981

Times17381The Times, 17th March 1981

Times17381aThe Guardian, 17th March 1981

G17381Daily Mail, 17th March 1981

Mail170381Daily Express, 18th March 1981

DExp_1981_03_18_003hurd_1Daily Mirror, 18th March 1981

Mirror180381The Times, 18th March 1981

Times18381

New Standard, 18th March 1981

ES180381a ES180381b

Daily Mail, 19th March 1981

Mail190381aThe Sun, 19th March 1981 Shame of ‘shining star’ envoy

Sun19381b Sun19381cDaily Mirror, 19th March 1981 Secret shame of Mr Perfect

Mirror19381bDaily Mirror, 19th March 1981

Mirror19381aThe Times, 19th March 1981

Times19381The Times, 19th March 1981

Times19381 (2)Daily Express, 19th March 1981

Express19381Exp190381b

New Standard, 19th March 1981

ES190381The Sun, 20th March 1981

Sun20381dThe Sun, 20th March 1981

Sun20381a Sun20381bThe Sun, 20th March 1981

Sun20381Daily Express, 20th March 1981

Exp200381aaExp200381bbThe Guardian, 20th March 1981

Guardian20381The Guardian, 20th March 1981

G200381The Guardian, 20th March 1981 How Sir Peter was kept out of the PIE trial by David Leigh

20381aG20381eG20381fThe Sun, 20th March 1981

Sun20381cThe Times, 20th March 1981

Times20381cThe Times, 20th March 1981

Times20381bThe Times, 20th March 1981

Times20381The Times, 21st March 1981

Times21381The Observer, 22nd March 1981

Observer22381Daily Express, 22nd March 1981

SExp220381The Guardian, 24th March 1981

Guardian24381The Times, 24th March 1981

HaymanTimes24381The Times, 26th March 1981The questions unanswered in the Hayman case

Times26381b Times26381bGuardian, 2nd April 1981

G020481The Times, 7th April 1981

Times070481The Guardian, 7th April 1981

G070481Sunday Express, 20th April 1981

SExp120481Daily Express, 13th May 1981 – William Hickey column

Exp130581Daily Express, 25th August 1983

Exp250883