The Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse (CSA Centre) has published an important and challenging analysis of organised ritual abuse. Some thoughts from a professional Appropriate Adult.

I’ve looked at this from my perspective as a professional Appropriate Adult (AA).

Organised ritual abuse involves the systematic sexual, physical, and psychological abuse of children—and often adults—by groups who use rituals, coercion, fear, and belief systems to exert control over victims. Its purpose is not only abuse, but domination, silence, and long-term trauma.

One of the most significant messages from the research is that disbelief can itself become a safeguarding failure.

When survivors disclose experiences that appear extraordinary, professionals can be tempted to focus on whether the account fits our understanding of reality, rather than on the evidence of trauma, vulnerability, and harm. The result is that some victims continue to face barriers to being heard, believed, and supported.

For those of us working within criminal justice and safeguarding systems, this raises important questions about the role of Appropriate Adults.

Other research ( A Keating J, Van Goozen S, Uljarevic M, Hay D, Leekam SR) ‘ritualistic behaviours are associated with cognitive flexibility, as the child transitions repetitive behaviours are [also] evidenced. The researchers posit that the association between executive function and ritualistic behaviours “may become stronger with age in typically developing children.”

“Repetitive and ritualistic behaviours (RRBs) are a feature of both typical and atypical development. While the cognitive correlates of these behaviours have been investigated in some neurodevelopmental conditions these links remain largely unexplored in typical development. The current study examined the relationship between RRBs and executive functions (EF) in a sample of typically developing children aged between 37 and 107 months. Results showed that cognitive flexibility, and not response inhibition or generativity, was most strongly associated with the frequency of RRBs in this sample. In younger children (<67.5 months) cognitive flexibility was significantly associated with ‘Repetitive Behaviours’ but in older children (>67.5 months) cognitive flexibility was associated with both ‘Just Right’ and ‘Repetitive Behaviour’, suggesting that the association between EF and RRBs may become stronger with age in typically developing children.’…”

To improve outcomes for survivors, I believe three developments can assist:

🔹 Enhanced specialist training – Professional AAs require trauma-informed CPD that specifically addresses organised and ritual abuse, complex trauma, dissociation, coercive control, and barriers to disclosure.

🔹 Greater integration within the justice system – professional Appropriate Adults should be embedded more effectively within special measures, witness support arrangements, and court processes to ensure vulnerable individuals can participate fully and fairly.

🔹 Consistency across England and Wales – While some policing areas have developed strong AA provision and partnership working, access and integration remain inconsistent. A person’s location should not determine the quality of safeguarding support they receive.

Conclusion

The uncomfortable reality is that safeguarding systems cannot effectively protect people from harms they are unwilling to acknowledge.

If we are serious about becoming trauma-informed, survivor-centred, and evidence-led, then these principles must be reflected in frontline practice.

I would be interested to hear the views of colleagues working in safeguarding, policing, social care, health, liaison and diversion, and the courts.

Source: https://www.csacentre.org.uk/blog/shining-a-light-on-organised-ritual-abuse/

Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10014551/

#Safeguarding #ChildProtection #AppropriateAdult #CriminalJustice #TraumaInformedPractice #VictimSupport #SocialCare #MentalHealth #Policing #Courts

The Broken Cycle of Justice and Neurodivergence

Anyone who has seen The Green Mile will remember John Coffey—a character who beautifully, and heartbreakingly, mirrors what we now recognize as severe #neurodivergence.


Recently, I watched a similar heartbreak play out right before my eyes in a custody suite.
The #Custody staff were exceptional—compassionate, yet sensibly cautious. The frontline police care deeply. They often look at vulnerable detainees and think, “That could be my mother, my brother, or me.”

Yet, the reality is stark: Our justice system is simply not equipped for this.

The Custody Catch-22

As an #AppropriateAdult, my instinct is always to fight for diversion, police bail, and No Further Action (NFA). But lately, I’ve been asking myself a heavy question:

Am I unintentionally perpetuating a cycle that inevitably causes detainees further harm?

Here is the systemic flaw we are trapped in:

  • The Prosecute-to-Protect: Police are often forced to prosecute because, without a charge, the necessary #safeguarding and support frameworks won’t kick in.
  • The Result: If they take no action, the cycle of behavior repeats, society suffers, more #victims are created, and the detainee continues through the seventh hell as they slip through the cracks.
  • Justice has a view
    I am reminded of a talk I attended as a new magistrate, given by the Rt. Hon. Sir John Goldring who was addressing failing institutional processes, he summarised the dilemma perfectly (to paraphrase): If courts do not follow the procedures, even knowing they will fail, then nothing will bring about change. We perpetuate the cycle.
    In my view the police are stuck in that exact procedural trap. They follow a broken blueprint because it’s the only one they have.

I should add action under the Mental Health Act (s136) is very limited and direct accces to approved mental health professionals is like the proverbial rocking horse dung.

A Solution Sitting in Plain Sight

We cannot arrest our way out of a mental health and neurodivergent crisis. The only way to break this cycle is to deliver targeted therapy directly to the individuals who need it most.

The tragic irony? The resources exist.
There are thousands of qualified #therapists out there right now who are able, willing, and ready to deliver these services at a moderate cost. We need a system that bridges the gap between custody and care, rather than treating the court dock as a waiting room for support that is simply not available.
We need systemic change, and we need it now.

CriminalJustice #MentalHealthSupport #Police #SocialValue #Diversion #NeurodiversityAwareness #Reform

I love my job : I’m lucky to be paid as an Appropriate Adult – but many people volunteer and now is true tine to say thank you.

Google search describes the role of “an Appropriate Adult (AA) is an independent person who safeguards the rights, welfare, and effective communication of children (under 18) and vulnerable adults in police custody. They ensure the individual is treated fairly and understands what is happening throughout the criminal justice process. 

Their core duties include:

  • Explaining procedures: Ensuring the person understands their legal rights, why they are at the police station, and what is happening during interviews. 
  • Facilitating communication: Helping the individual communicate effectively with the police and legal representatives, while respecting their right to remain silent.
  • Monitoring police conduct: Observing interviews and key procedures to ensure the police act fairly. The AA can intervene or request a senior officer if they believe the person’s rights are being breached.
  • Safeguarding welfare: Monitoring the person’s physical and mental well-being, ensuring breaks are taken, and requesting medical attention or breaks when needed.”

To those who give up their time to volunteer for such a role. It is no easy task to observe where appropriate, intervene in the Police Custody suite. Thank you.

If you see me around say hi.

Safeguarding children not in school: Safeguarding responsibilities across statutory agencies ( briefing paper )

The Child Practice Review Panel has produced this very useful briefing that explains how “the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 seeks to strengthen the ability of local authorities to fulfil their existing education and safeguarding duties toward children in their areas who are not in school (including home educated children). In light of these forthcoming changes, this briefing paper sets out learning for safeguarding practitioners about the safeguarding responsibilities held by different statutory agencies. 

Elective home education is not inherently a safeguarding risk, and many parents choose to educate their children at home thoughtfully and with positive outcomes. Additionally, for some children school may not feel like a protective environment for a variety of reasons, including factors relating to neurodiversity, mental health, social anxiety and bullying. The learning in this paper relates to circumstances where children have low school attendance, are electively home educated or missing education alongside additional vulnerabilities.”

Download full briefing paper : https://childsafeguarding.independent-panel.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/CSPRP-Website-Briefing-Paper-2_Safeguarding-children-not-in-school-_-safeguarding-responsibilities_June-2026_Final.pd

What does a magistrate do in court ?

“While the role of the magistrate is always about hearing a range of cases and using sound judgement to make the right decisions, magistrates work in two distinct environments – the criminal court and the family court. If you’d like to become a magistrate, you’ll need to choose which type of court you want to work in. In either environment, you’ll have a wide range of opportunities to make a meaningful difference to individuals, and to wider society.”

Note that magistrates also sit in the Crown Court where they decide appeals. Remember that Crown Court Judges do not usually decide guilt, so they often welcome the input from their lay colleagues.

“Family and criminal courts handle different types of cases, and work with different groups of people. Magistrates in both courts require similar skills, character, and sound judgement, but the interests and motivations that might lead you to each could differ.”

From my own experience ( almost 15 years ) this was one of the most rewarding roles you could undertake.

Inside our courts

I Love My Job — But Let Me Tell You What It Really Means to Sit on the Clapham Omnibus

I still love my job. That hasn’t changed.

But if you’re going to take a seat beside me on the Clapham omnibus—the place where the “ordinary reasonable person” is supposed to sit—then I owe you something more than a warm reflection. I owe you the truth about what this role actually demands, what it protects, and what is at stake if it is misunderstood.

Because the people I meet are often described as “ordinary.”
And that word is where the problem begins.

The myth of the “ordinary person”

The law likes the idea of the reasonable person. Calm. Rational. Able to understand what is said to them and respond accordingly.

But in a custody suite, that person rarely exists.

Instead, I meet people who nod when they don’t understand.
People who say “yes” because silence feels dangerous.
People who are frightened, confused, unwell, overwhelmed—or simply unable to process what is happening quickly enough to protect themselves.

They do not look extraordinary.
They look like anyone you might sit next to on a bus.

And that is precisely why the safeguard exists.

Why I am there — not as a bystander, but as a safeguard

My role as an Appropriate Adult is not to sit quietly and observe.
It is not to offer comfort alone, though sometimes comfort matters.

I am there because the law recognises a risk:
that without support, a vulnerable person may not understand their rights, may not be able to communicate effectively, and may—without meaning to—participate in their own injustice.

Under PACE, I have responsibilities that carry weight:
• To ensure the person understands what is happening to them
• To facilitate communication, not just listen to it
• To protect their rights and welfare throughout the process
• And, when necessary, to intervene

That last part matters more than people realise.

Because sometimes fairness is not passive.

The moment where it matters

There are moments in interviews where something shifts.

A question is repeated, slightly differently each time.
A suspect agrees, then hesitates, then agrees again.
The pace quickens. The language becomes more complex.

To an outside observer, it may look like progress.

To me, it can look like risk.

This is where the role becomes real. Not reflective, not philosophical—real.

I might say:
“Can we pause? I’m not satisfied they understand the question.”

Or:
“Can that be rephrased more simply?”

Or, if necessary:
“I don’t think it’s appropriate to continue at this stage.”

These are not comfortable moments.
They are not supposed to be.

But they are exactly what the safeguard is designed to do:
to interrupt the quiet drift toward unfairness.

Independence is not optional

I work alongside police officers, solicitors, custody staff. There is often professionalism, sometimes warmth.

But I am not part of their process.

I am there for one person only:
the suspect.

That means I must be willing—when required—to challenge, to question, to slow things down. Not because anyone is acting in bad faith, but because the system itself moves quickly, and vulnerability does not.

Independence is not about opposition.
It is about clarity of purpose.

Not everyone gets an Appropriate Adult — and that matters

It is true that vulnerability is everywhere. You can see it if you look closely enough.

But the law requires more than intuition.
It requires a threshold.

There must be reason to believe that a person cannot:
• Understand what is happening
• Communicate effectively
• Or safeguard their own interests

This is not always easy to determine. Sometimes it is obvious. Often it is not.

And when it is missed, the consequences are not abstract.

They are recorded in interview transcripts.
In inconsistent answers.
In admissions that may not be reliable.

In outcomes that cannot easily be undone.

This is about rights, not just care

It is easy to describe this role in human terms—empathy, patience, connection.

And those things matter. They matter a great deal.

But they are not the foundation of the role.

The foundation is rights.

The right to understand.
The right to participate fairly.
The right not to be disadvantaged because of vulnerability.

These are not optional extras in the justice process. They are central to it.

Without them, the idea of a fair trial—enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights—begins to weaken long before a case ever reaches a courtroom.

Why I still love this job

I love this job not because it is easy, or even because it is always rewarding.

I love it because, in small, often unseen ways, it holds the line.

It ensures that the person sitting across from authority is not alone in a moment where they are most at risk of being misunderstood—or of misunderstanding everything.

It reminds the system that the “reasonable person” is not a real person.
But the one in front of us is.

And they deserve to be treated as such.

So, take a seat on the omnibus

If you sit beside me, you might not notice anything remarkable at first.

Just another person. Another conversation. Another process unfolding.

But look closer.

Watch for the pause.
The hesitation.
The moment where something could go wrong—and doesn’t.

That is where this role lives.

Not in grand gestures.
But in the quiet, necessary work of making fairness real.

I love my job : I never feel more alone than when supporting a vulnerable adult accused of assaulting police officers AND who refuses free legal advice.

As an #AppropriateAdult, I never feel more alone than when making representations for a detained person, accused of assaulting police officers, who is resolved to refuse legal representation ( and by default is vulnerable person ).

When a person had capacity to make decisions ( they have choices ) and should they refuse to engage with the free legal advice available to them, the duty of an AA is amplified.

Police officers, routinely give disclosure to legal representatives are now ( unexpectedly ) faced with an AA asking what evidence do you have to show what and why is the detainee in custody ( a lay version of PACE C ) ?

In the interview proper the AA must challenge the Police Officer when they introduce lines of enquiry that , in the AA’s opinion , do not relate to the information on the “front sheet” or information provided to the AA prior to interview.

Should the Police Officer refuse to stop the line of questioning and continue the AA has three basic options; walk out of the interview ( politely, to speak with the custody sergeant ), remain and allow the line of questioning to continue but clearly state that you will make formal representation post interview ( ie to have the interview considered as unfair and thereby inadmissible – a matter for court ), to refuse to engage and leave ( thereby requiring a new AA to be called ). Do nothing is not an option.

Unsurprisingly most Police Officers will look to the interview as they planned ( after all, who are you? You are not a lawyer? ).

At this point the AA remembers they forgot to explain their role to the Police Officer and agree how to handle representations that may arise.

The AA will also be worrying about their powers and what, precisely , paragraph of PACE applies? In truth these are erroneous. An AA is like the “man on the Clapham omnibus” ( a legal metaphor in English law representing the reasonable, ordinary person, used to measure negligence and standards of behavior. Coined in the 1930s (often credited to Lord Justice Greer), this figure embodies an average, intelligent, yet nondescript citzen, representing common sense. So no legal knowledge required. As one District Judge described it to me “ if it feel wrong then it probably is wrong” .

Juries. Every person matters.

The recent report by Court Watch (which I wholeheartedly support) does far more than merely critique the magistrates’ courts. It lays bare a deeper crisis: the quiet erosion of justice at its very foundation.

Look closely, and you will see the profound incompetence of those who are meant to guide and lead magistrates. The lawyers (solicitors and barristers alike) who stand before and alongside the bench, offering advice that too often lacks wisdom, preparation, or genuine care for the fragile lives hanging in the balance. The senior figures who steer Her Majesty’s Court Service, including members of the Criminal Bar Association, whose detached jurisprudence and institutional self-interest have allowed bottlenecks, delays, and dysfunction to fester while ordinary people pay the price in lost time, lost liberty, and lost faith.

Yet in the midst of this failing machinery, there shines a quiet, stubborn light the greater good that still defends us all.

Celebrate them. The volunteer magistrates: ordinary citizens who give their time, their energy, and often their own money on a shoestring budget to keep the wheels of justice turning. They sit week after week, unpaid or barely compensated, funding our system with their goodwill, phones systems, IT equipment – they sacrifice because they believe in something bigger than themselves. They are the backbone of the lowest court in the land — the first and often only line of defence for British fairness.

Honour, too, the exhausted yet resolute judges and the District Bench. Men and women who, despite crushing caseloads and relentless pressure, support these lay volunteers with steadfast guidance so that the rest of us might cling to some semblance of Britishness; that hard-won tradition of due process, community judgment, and the rule of law that defines who we are.

Look too at the scores of solicitors and barristers who sacrifice time and income to support us when life takes a wrong turn pro bono sounds posh but it translates not into money but service – “I give to you”

Enough of the division.

Now is the time to unite — solicitors, barristers, judges, and the lay Bench — as one. Put away the petty jurisdictional squabbles, the turf wars, and the narrow interpretations of jurisprudence that have fractured us for too long. Set aside ego and professional silos.

Fight for one thing, and one thing only: We demand jury trials.

We demand the ancient right of every citizen to be judged not by overworked professionals in under-resourced rooms, but by a jury of their peers — twelve ordinary men and women who bring collective wisdom, lived experience, and the conscience of the community into the courtroom. This is not a luxury. It is the beating heart of British justice. Without it, we risk sliding into a system where convenience trumps conscience, where speed replaces scrutiny, and where the vulnerable are processed rather than protected.

The report has sounded the alarm. The cracks are visible. The human cost — to defendants, to victims, to the dedicated volunteers who keep showing up — is too high to ignore any longer.

Let this be our rallying cry: Unite across the professions. Demand better. Demand jury trials. Demand the continuation of a justice system worthy of the name “British.”

When justice falters at the bottom, it falls at the top. And we, the people, will not stand idly by while the soul of our heritage is stolen from us. We demand jury trials.

I love my job

The custody suite was absolute bedlam — multiple fights breaking out in the holding cells, a dozen different languages bouncing off the walls, and the usual Friday-night circus of drunks, dealers, and domestic disasters.

The custody sergeant, a grizzled veteran with zero patience left, leaned across his desk, veins bulging in his neck, and bellowed at the latest young lad being processed:

“Oi! Are you heterosexual?”

Blank stare. Confused silence. The kid just blinked slowly, like the word had bounced straight off his forehead.

The sergeant, clearly not in the mood for interpretive dance, slammed a meaty hand on the desk and roared even louder:

“Do you like women? Yes or no?”

The young man’s face suddenly lit up with recognition. He nodded vigorously and answered in a thick accent, loud enough for the entire custody block to hear:

“Yes! Women. Women’s good.”

Dead silence fell across the entire suite. Even the fighters in the cells seemed to pause for a second. Then the whole place erupted — half the coppers trying (and failing) to stifle laughter, the other half just shaking their heads in disbelief.

Cells erupted

National County Lines Coordination Centre conferences for London-based police & professionals supporting children

FREE in-person National County Lines Coordination Centre conferences for London-based police & professionals supporting children, focused on County Lines & child exploitation, discuss with subject matter experts. With 2 dates. Lunch included. Registration required.

The National County Lines Coordination Centre (NCLCC) invites you to an insightful event focused on tackling County Lines and Child Exploitation. This conference will feature subject matter experts presenting on critical topics such as children in care, missing children, and adultification.

Attendees will have the opportunity to participate in multi-agency discussions and engage directly with representatives from leading organisations, including Catch22, Crimestoppers, Ivison Trust, and The Children’s Society. Together, we aim to share knowledge, strengthen partnerships, and develop strategies to protect vulnerable children from harm.

Refreshments and Lunch will be provided. Tickets:

Thu 22 Jan 2026 9:00 AM – 4:00 PM
Emmanuel Centre, SW1P 3DW

Wed 18 Feb 2026 9:00 AM – 4:00 PM, Peel Centre, NW9 5JE

Nitrous oxide – risks for custody officers at Police Stations – the full article (linked) useful for Appropriate Adults

www.pnld.co.uk/article/

Professor Philip John Cowen, Professor of Psychopharmacology at Oxford University produced a Report in the form of a witness statement for the Home Office in 2016 regarding nitrous oxide, he said:

‘Nitrous oxide continues to have medical use as a component of general anaesthesia as well as in other clinical procedures and situations where sedation and analgesia are useful. It is also being explored as a possible therapy for treatment resistant depression.

It has been known for over 200 years that nitrous oxide has psychoactive effects in addition to its anaesthetic and analgesic properties.

Generally, the effect is to elevate mood and produce changes in subjective mental state that are typically associated with psychedelic agents. These changes take the form of alterations in body image, sensation and perception.

This is consistent with the observation that many of the effects of nitrous oxide are similar to another well-known NMDA receptor antagonist, ketamine.’

The effects of inhaling nitrous oxide are noted as:

Single inhalation – will result in effects starting almost immediately, peaking about 10-30 seconds after inhalation and then rapidly diminishing. It produces a euphoric, pleasant, joyful, empathogenic (generating a state of empathy) and sometimes hallucinogenic effect, and causes a deep ‘silly’ voice.

If the dose is repeated – effects reach a plateau about 30-60 seconds after the first breath.

Whilst the user often feels back to ‘normal’ within about 1-5 minutes after the last inhalation, some users report that effects such as a sense of well-being can be felt for up to 30 minutes after last use.

If you think the single justice procedure is wrong … wait until you AI catch s you before you commit a crime

www.gov.uk/government/news/ai-to-help-police-catch-criminals-before-they-strike

Criminals hell bent on making others’ lives a misery face being stopped before they can strike through cutting edge mapping technology, supported by AI, to be rolled out by 2030, Technology Secretary Peter Kyle has announced today (Friday 15 August). Innovators have been tasked with developing a detailed real time and interactive crime map that spans England and Wales and can detect, track and predict where devastating knife crime is likely to occur or spot early warning signs of anti-social behaviour before it spirals out of control – giving police the intel they need to step in and keep the public safe. It will be rooted in advanced AI that will examine how to bring together data shared between police, councils and social services, including criminal records, previous incident locations and behavioural patterns of known offenders. The map will identify where crime is concentrating so law enforcement and partners can direct their resources as needed and help prevent further victims.

The Concentrations of Crime Data Challenge – delivered by UKRI – sets teams from business, universities and beyond a clear and measurable target of coming together to develop the solution to be operational across England and Wales by 2030 and is part of the government’s £500 million R&D Missions Accelerator Programme. As part of an initial £4 million government investment, teams will deliver initial prototypes to enhance the mapping system by April 2026 – a crucial milestone that supports the Safer Streets Mission as part of our Plan for Change, which aims to halve knife crime and Violence Against Women and Girls within a decade…

Prison – we remain trapped in our thinking. But what alternatives exist ?

Mechanism of custodial thinking – how does it work?

The underlying support for custodial sanctions is based on the assumption that individuals are rational actors who conduct a cost-benefit analysis of committing a criminal act. They are deterred from criminal behaviour and activity by the increasing severity of punishments, as the risk of imprisonment with a loss of freedoms outweighs the reward of the offending behaviour.

However, this assumption is based on theory rather than empirical evidence. The authors present three logical and empirical reasons why this may not hold true in practice.

Firstly, reoffending rates for those sentenced to imprisonment are high. Secondly, the deterrence effect of a potential sanction is linked to its certainty as well as severity. Thirdly, the deterrence effect assumes that offenders always perceive imprisonment as a more severe sentence to a non-custodial sanction. Research suggests that this is not always the case.

More recent research has also suggested that imprisonment can increase the risk of reoffending. This is because individuals are exposed to risk factors during their time in prison, such as associating with other offenders and experiencing negative events like violence and increased victimisation, which are hypothesised to increase psychological strain.

Furthermore, protective factors such as family and pro-social contacts are at a distance from the individual, which also increases the risk of reoffending. The experience of being in prison will also create barriers to accommodation and employment.

Research has found that on average, custodial sanctions increased reoffending compared to noncustodial sanctions.

It is likely that individuals who are in custodial settings are more exposed to risk factors associated with criminal activity and behaviour, and have less access to protective factors to protect them from this behaviour.

Alternatives to custodial sanctions include:

  • probation
  • community service or fines
  • suspended sentences or dismissals
  • electronic tagging
  • treatment-focused interventions not based in custodial settings

My preference, as an alternative to custody is tagging curfew at home ..

Aysos have published their report “Colombia: Situation of LGBTQI+ people”. Makes for a miserable read.

Aysos have published their report “Colombia: Situation of LGBTQI+ people”. Makes for miserable reading.

The report is part of an initiative to make a selection of their research available publicly. In making this report widely accessible, they intend their research to contribute to fair and evidence-based decision-making.

This Country of Origin Information (COI) report is intended as background reference material for legal representatives and those assisting asylum seekers. The COI report should be used as a tool to help identify relevant COI. It is imperative that legal representatives and those assisting asylum seekers read the whole COI report and consider whether, having done so, the report is, on balance, likely to support the specific case in which it is proposed to rely upon it.

You can also search for UK Govt reports for most countries on the UK Government website.

Credit to the campaigners – following planned changes in victim compensation.

Government plans changes to ensures that awarded compensation will no longer be taken into account when applying for means-tested benefits – such as Universal Credit, Pension Credit and Housing Benefit.

Until now, compensation for miscarriage of justice cases pushed some people over the savings limit for claiming certain benefits, leaving them ineligible for much-needed help.

This long overdue and will help restore fairness to our systems as part of the Plan for Change I’m not sure it will restore trust (one of the aims) but time heals.

The change comes after a campaign for rule changes to unlock benefit entitlement for those who have received miscarriage of justice compensation payments. Credit to the campaigners – in my view.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/miscarriages-of-justice-victims-given-access-to-vital-support?utm_campaign=English%2BCrime&utm_medium=email&utm_source=English_Crime_408

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started