Mothers Who Murder (26 page)

Focus remained on the mother at this stage, but as the investigation continued, Barker also became of significant interest to the police. At this time, there was no evidence to indicate that he harmed other children – although that was set to change – but the police described him as sadistic and fascinated with pain. In line with Connelly’s deceitful nature, neither the police nor social services knew that Barker was living with the family. Barker was almost a
hidden presence in the house and Peter’s life. He was said to have intentionally evaded welfare staff at every opportunity, assisted by Connelly as she feared losing her £450 (approximately $840) a week in various benefits had the local authority known another adult was living with them. Connelly was also concerned about Peter’s biological father’s reaction had he known another man was living with his child. Detectives later said had they known Barker was there they may have had the information they needed to save Peter.

Around this same time, a whistleblower in the form of ex-social worker Nevres Kemal sent a letter, dated 16 February 2007, to the Department of Health outlining her concerns of alleged failings in child protection in Haringey. In March 2007, inspectors from the Commission for Social Care met with Haringey Council officials to discuss Ms Kemal’s concerns.

In June, Barker’s brother, Jason Owen, moved into the house with Connelly, her son, and Barker. Owen had separated from his wife and also moved his fifteen-year-old girlfriend in. By this time the relationship between Connelly and Barker was deteriorating and the atmosphere in the house was growing more tense. Jurors heard during the trial how Owen dominated Barker, so it was possible that having another adult in the house might have helped protect Peter. Unfortunately, Owen did not help Peter, and was instead also implicated in Peter’s demise and would later be charged and found guilty of allowing the baby’s death.

By the beginning of June 2007, social workers were concerned that Peter was in significant danger and an announced visit by Ward to the family’s home on 1 June confirmed their fears. Peter was found lying on the sofa
under a blanket; his face was red and Ward saw bruises on his neck. Peter was subjected to a medical examination, after which it was concluded that the bruising was the result of abuse. On 4 June, Peter was placed with a friend for his own safety. Four days later Connelly was arrested for the second time for assaulting Peter; Connelly denied assault and told police that she was a good mum. Peter stayed with this friend for five weeks at which point he was returned to his mother; this was noted as a ‘multi-agency decision’. In fact, it was a multi-agency mistake, and a final fateful decision in the life, and death, of little Peter.

By the end of the month, contact between the family, the health visitor and the social worker had become irregular. Peter was last seen by Ward on 30 July. The social worker was misled on this occasion by Peter’s naturally happy nature. He was restless and fidgety, but he smiled at her – a simple gesture that convinced her he was okay and led her to miss noticing further injuries to Peter’s hands and face. This omission was helped by the fact that Peter was – according to Owen – intentionally smothered in chocolate by Connelly and Barker to disguise the injuries. This was more evidence of Connelly’s deceitful nature. Senior police had made the decision that Peter was unsafe with his mother and sought advice as to whether there was sufficient evidence to have him removed from her care. Just over a week before his death, Haringey Council’s lawyers came back with the decision that the necessary evidence threshold for this type of action had not been met. I wonder what else would have had to happen for that threshold to be reached – short, of course, of the child’s death.

Peter was not protected from further abuse and on 1 August 2007 he was seen at a child development clinic
at St Anne’s Hospital in Haringey, by Dr Sabah al-Zayyat, a locum pediatrician. She noted the baby was unhappy, but the very serious injuries Peter was suffering from at the time of this evaluation went undetected, including a broken back as well as broken ribs. Two medical experts would later tell the court that they believed these injuries should have been evident to the doctor at the time she examined Peter in hospital. Again, chances to help Peter were being missed.

The Crown Prosecution Service considered its position with regards to charging Connelly with Peter’s assault, but on 2 August 2007 Connelly was told she would not be prosecuted as there was not enough evidence to bring charges.

By this time, Peter’s short and sad life was almost over. At 11.35 am on 3 August an ambulance was called to Connelly’s home and Peter was found in his blood-spattered cot, wearing only a nappy; he was stiff and blue (cyanotic) from lack of oxygen. The ambulance crew attempted to resuscitate him, after which he was rushed to North Middlesex Hospital, but Peter was pronounced dead at 12.20 pm. In addition to identifying the serious pre-existing injuries, the post-mortem determined that Peter had swallowed a tooth after being punched in the face. He also had mutilated fingertips and some of his fingernails were missing.

The police immediately began a murder investigation and Connelly was arrested that same day. Barker and his brother Jason Owen, as well as Owen’s fifteen-year-old girlfriend, were arrested eleven days later once the police caught up with them, as they had run away and were hiding at a campsite in Epping Forest, in the south-east of England.

The prosecution later told the Old Bailey (the Central Criminal Court in London) that the treatment Peter suffered was ‘normal’ in this household, and that Peter was used like a punching bag by the very people who should have cared about him most. As in Dean’s case, the authorities had numerous opportunities to step in as Peter was seen sixty times during those eight months by Haringey Children’s Services and health professionals from the National Health Service.

The presiding judge, Justice Stephen Kramer,
²²
said Connelly neglected Peter for the sake of her relationship with Barker.
²³
During her trial Connelly had entered a plea of guilty and was charged with Peter’s murder, as were Barker and Owen, but Connelly and Owen were cleared of that charge due to lack of evidence. On 11 November 2008 sentences were handed down. Barker was found not guilty of Peter’s murder by the jury. Instead, Barker (then aged thirty-two) and his older brother Owen (aged thirty-six) and Connelly were all found guilty of the lesser charge of causing Peter’s death.

The court case into Peter’s death was complicated by the fact that during the investigation into Peter’s situation Barker was also being investigated for the rape of a two-year-old girl – a crime that only came to light after he was investigated over Baby P’s death. Like Peter, this child was also on Haringey Council’s Child Protection Register. As a result, Connelly and Barker were the subjects of a second trial in 2009, although they were provided pseudonyms for this process as they were by now infamous as a result of their roles in Peter’s death and an Internet hate campaign had been started. This time they faced the charges associated with the rape of the little girl. On 1 May 2009,
Barker was convicted of raping the two-year-old in North London, and Connelly was cleared of cruelty. At just four years old at the time of the trial, the girl Barker raped became the youngest child to give evidence at the Old Bailey; she did this through videolink to protect her. The community response to Peter’s death had been so strong that although their names were kept confidential, their defence argued that the veracity of the rape trial’s process was nearly destabilised by Internet bloggers, intent on spreading information linking the accused to Peter’s death. This could have prejudiced the jury against the couple, thereby preventing a fair trial and any issues like this could have been used as grounds for an appeal. Regardless, the order to suppress their identities was short-lived. And so with the conclusion of the legal process, and the expiry of the order on 10 August 2009, the world learnt the names of Peter’s killers.

Sentencing for both trials took place simultaneously on 22 May 2009 at the Central Criminal Court in London. Connelly received an indefinite sentence, with a minimum of five years, but with the condition that she should not be released until she no longer represented a danger to the public – in particular small children. In Barker’s case, if the judge considered Barker was a danger to the public he had latitude to pass a life sentence. This he did, sentencing Barker to life with a minimum of ten years for the rape of the little girl, and a twelve-year term for his part in Peter’s death, the sentences to run concurrently. Owen also received an indefinite sentence, with a minimum jail term of three years. Later, the sentences would be criticised as too lenient by, among others, the NSPCC’s
²⁴
chief executive,
²⁵
and the Attorney-General was asked to consider the
issue and determine if the sentences should be referred to the Court of Appeal.
²⁶
The Attorney-General decided not to increase the sentences in this case, another act that led to significant criticism from child protection campaigners.
²⁷

Peter’s injuries were extensive and, as with Dean, the suffering Peter endured shocked the nation and subsequently made its way into history via the British Parliament. Other children had suffered and died in the same council area – Haringey, North London – with the horrendous case of Victoria Climbié still fresh in many people’s minds from almost ten years earlier. Victoria’s case had also led to a public inquiry, the result of which were measures enacted to prevent anything similar ever happening again. Yet here we were. Unsurprisingly, Haringey child protection services and other agencies charged with protecting young and vulnerable children in the community were widely criticised. In November 2008, the British Government was accused in the media of buck-passing, after the contents of Ms Kemal’s letter alleging Haringey Council’s failings in child protection emerged. Two inquiries were launched, as was a nationwide review of social service care. Criticism was levelled at various agencies including the National Health Service, which was condemned by the Care Quality Commission for its failings in care provision for Peter.

Haringey Council initiated an internal Serious Case Review following Peter’s death, but after the completion of the criminal case, the council only released an executive summary to the public. The vast majority of the report was kept confidential, with only very few people being allowed to read it, including two Members of Parliament and opposition spokesperson for Children’s Services – and they were asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement
before being permitted to see it. We can only imagine how damning that review must have been. The Children’s Minister, Ed Balls, was condemning of the review, and ordered a second, independent adjudicator to prepare a report as well as an inquiry into the roles of various key parties, including the local authority, the health authority and the police. Its aim was not to focus on Peter’s case specifically, but to examine if Haringey Social Services generally followed the correct procedures.

A summary of the report was presented to ministers on 1 December 2008 and, in an unusual move, Ed Balls announced in a press conference that he had used special powers to remove Sharon Shoesmith from her post as head of children’s services at Haringey Council. In addition, Labour Council leader, George Meehan, resigned, as did the Cabinet minister for children and young people, Liz Santry. Both had previously refused to resign during a council meeting in late November, but now gave in to pressure. Others lost their jobs over the scandal, including the deputy director of children’s services at Haringey Council, Cecilia Hitchen, following the ‘devastating’ report ordered by Balls.

On 15 March 2009, a British newspaper, the
Mail on Sunday
,
²⁸
claimed to have seen the full inquiry report and asserted that the executive summary released for public consumption either omitted or contradicted the main report, missing details on the level of injuries Peter suffered as well as key pieces of information about how the case was handled. There were also details of squandered opportunities that could have saved Peter’s life, such as meetings where it was to be decided if Peter should be removed from his mother’s custody that officials failed to attend. In addition, officials failed to follow through on an interim court order
to remove Peter, even though it had been agreed that there were legal grounds for this six months before he died.

In March 2009, the family’s general practitioner, Dr Jerome Ikwueke, who treated Peter eight days before he died and fourteen times in the months leading up to his death, was suspended by the General Medical Council (GMC). In 2011, the doctor admitted that if he had acted differently by performing a home visit, Peter Connelly might still be alive. The GMC’s disciplinary panel ruled that Dr Ikwueke had breached his professional duty towards Peter by failing to undertake a full physical examination, failing to make an urgent referral for further checks, and for neglecting to share information with social services. Following Ikwueke’s twelve-month suspension for his failures, the GMC decided that he would be allowed to return to work, but a set of eighteen strict conditions were imposed on his registration for one year.
²⁹
A disciplinary hearing was also established to review the actions of Sabah al-Zayyat, the consultant pediatrician who had been suspended in 2008 and stood accused of misconduct by the GMC. The medic, who qualified in Pakistan before moving to Britain in 2004, was questioned about her fitness to practise after she failed to spot signs Peter was being abused when she examined him on 1 August 2007 at St Ann’s Hospital in Tottenham, North London. At this time, al-Zayyat should have diagnosed a broken back and broken ribs, but she failed to notice these very serious injuries, which were only discovered at post-mortem. This process was suspended in 2010 after al-Zayyat became too mentally unwell to defend herself at which point she left the UK.
³⁰