©️ Sophie Lewis|Sophie Editorial
Damning 200-Page Report Exposes How Authorities Enabled Britain’s “Most Prolific Sex Offender” to Abuse Over 2,000 Boys for 26 Years
Warning: This release contains distressing content about child sexual and physical abuse.
12 November 2025 – In what has been described as one of the most comprehensive exposés of institutional abuse in British history, a devastating report published today reveals how police, prison authorities, probation officers and government ministers systematically failed to stop the sexual and physical abuse of over 2,000 young men at a youth detention centre – despite knowing about it for decades.
The independent investigation by Prisons and Probation Ombudsman Adrian Usher lays bare a culture of violence, cover-ups and institutional complicity that allowed Medomsley Detention Centre in County Durham to operate as a “house of horrors” for 26 years between 1961 and 1987.
═════════════════════
THE SCALE OF THE HORROR
The numbers are staggering:
• 2,077 victims came forward to police
• 2,852 compensation claims have been filed
• 388 allegations against a single perpetrator – Neville Husband, described as “possibly the most prolific sex offender in British history”
• 26 years of unchallenged abuse
• Nearly 8,000 documents reviewed
• 74 witnesses interviewed
Young men aged 17–21 – some sentenced for shoplifting, non-payment of fines, or other minor offences – were subjected to systematic physical and sexual abuse from the moment they arrived at the remote moorland detention centre.
═════════════════════
“WELCOME TO MEDOMSLEY”: ABUSE FROM DAY ONE
The report contains harrowing testimony describing how violence was embedded into every aspect of the regime:
RECEPTION: THE FIRST ASSAULT
Over 60% of victims reported being physically assaulted during reception procedures – punched in the face, kicked, headbutted, or having their heads smashed against walls – simply for not saying “Sir” or for minor infractions like putting hands in pockets.
One victim recalled:
“As soon as we were in reception they just started kicking us and slapping us about the head. They were right into our faces shouting and yelling. ‘Stand to attention you fucking scum.’”
Police officers transporting boys to Medomsley witnessed these assaults and did nothing.
PHYSICAL EDUCATION: WEAPONISED VIOLENCE
The gym became a torture chamber under physical training instructor [Perpetrator B], against whom 618 victims made allegations:
• Boys were beaten with hockey sticks
• Forced to play “murder ball” – encouraged to violently attack each other
• Made to climb ropes while instructors shook them or threw objects
• Asthmatic children denied inhalers and punished for struggling to breathe
One victim described being hit in the face with football boots with exposed studs by the PE instructor, fracturing his skull. Another had his fingers deliberately stamped on and broken.
Some boys broke their own bones to escape the gym.
═════════════════════
THE PREDATOR: NEVILLE HUSBAND
At the centre of the sexual abuse was Neville Husband, the catering officer who ran the kitchen from 1969 to 1985.
HIS METHODS:
• Selected vulnerable boys – the small, timid, or those who looked “feminine”
• Isolated them in the kitchen, away from other staff
• Used pornography to groom victims
• Threatened boys they could “disappear” and nobody would care
• Held them at knifepoint during rapes
• Strangled victims during assaults for sexual gratification
• Photographed and filmed abuse
• Took boys off-site to be abused by groups of men
• Continued abusing boys after their release, visiting their homes
The investigation found Husband engaged in “group-based child sexual exploitation” – taking boys to houses where they were raped by multiple perpetrators, including a serving police officer and potentially a magistrate.
═════════════════════
EVERYBODY KNEW
This is not a story of abuse that went undetected. This is a story of institutional complicity.
PRISON STAFF KNEW
The report presents damning evidence that staff at Medomsley were widely aware of the abuse:
PORNOGRAPHY DELIVERIES:
Homosexual pornography was regularly delivered to Medomsley addressed to Husband. One gate officer burned “about 30” packages rather than report them. Officers told investigators they didn’t report it because Husband was “well liked by management.”
THE KITCHEN SEARCH THAT NEVER HAPPENED:
When one probationary officer searched the kitchen in 1978, he found a dildo and pornography. Husband physically assaulted him, slamming him against a wall and punching him repeatedly. The principal officer ordered:
“You don’t go near the kitchen again, it’s come from ‘up’ that you are not under any circumstances to search the kitchen ever again.”
After Husband left in 1985, staff found:
• A white dildo
• Vaseline
• Pornographic magazines
• Women’s underwear, thongs, suspender belts
—all in a locked cabinet in his office.
They told no one. They destroyed the evidence.
WARNING THE BOYS:
Multiple prison officers warned new arrivals not to work in the kitchens. One officer handed a boy a jar of Vaseline and said:
“Give that to Neville… You’ll need that.”
Another told a boy:
“You’re going to be Mr Husband’s new wife.”
Then they laughed.
Trainees who disclosed abuse to staff were:
• Told to “keep your mouth shut”
• Threatened with being sent back to Medomsley
• Further assaulted for reporting
• Made to lose remission (extended sentences)
THE WARDENS FAILED
Multiple wardens witnessed physical abuse and took no action:
“The governor witnessed this attack… He wore a suit as opposed to a uniform.”
“I was standing in front of the governor… the officer who was standing behind me on my right-hand side hit me full force to my head with his hand.”
One former warden admitted he should have been “more intrusive” in inspecting areas like the kitchen flat where Husband committed abuse. Another acknowledged that visits were effectively announced because he had to call ahead to be let in through the gates.
The report concludes wardens were either complicit or “lacked dedication and professional curiosity to such an extent as to not be professionally competent.”
POLICE DISMISSED VICTIMS
The report reveals systematic failures by police:
AT POLICE STATIONS:
When victims reported abuse after release:
• One was told: “Fuck off, get the bus, think yourself lucky” (Consett police station, 1978)
• Another warned: “We’ve heard it all before, just go home or you’ll find yourself back inside there” (1979)
• A police officer laughed and said the victim “had not gone there for a holiday” when his father tried to report abuse
Some victims made written statements to police. These statements have vanished.
EVEN WHEN FAMILIES INTERVENED:
One grandfather took his grandson to Durham police station while the boy was still at Medomsley after seeing injuries during a visit. Police called the detention centre and asked if officers were beating boys. They were told no. The abuse increased after this call.
A SERVING OFFICER WAS A PERPETRATOR:
The investigation identified Subject A, a serving local police officer, who sexually abused at least one victim after being introduced to him by Neville Husband during fishing trips.
THE HOME OFFICE KNEW SINCE 1965
Government knowledge of abuse at Medomsley dates back to its earliest years:
1965: A father wrote to the Home Office demanding an enquiry after his son escaped. The Newcastle Evening Chronicle published allegations from multiple boys about being hit with sticks and fists “for no reason.”
1967: Two former trainees provided detailed statements to the Northern Echo about physical abuse and medical neglect. These were sent to Home Secretary Roy Jenkins. Nine days later, Home Office minister Lord Stonham replied that “careful enquiries had been made” and there was “nothing to substantiate” the claims.
No records of these investigations exist.
Also in 1967: The director of borstal administration wrote to all detention centre wardens acknowledging that officers were giving out their own punishments in the form of “bunny jumps” and assaults like “a box on the ear” and that this had to stop.
It didn’t stop. For another 20 years.
PROBATION OFFICERS DIDN’T BELIEVE VICTIMS
At least 26 victims disclosed abuse to probation officers. Only two disclosures were escalated to senior staff.
CASE STUDY – WITNESS F:
After being repeatedly raped by Husband and other men at Medomsley, Witness F told his probation officer everything. The probation officer advised him he would be sent back inside if he continued to make “false allegations.”
Years later, at a probation hostel, he disclosed again to assistant warden Witness G, who was shocked and immediately escalated it. The victim wrote a detailed statement. The warden of the hostel said he would “deal with it.”
Nothing happened.
That warden later became the senior probation officer at Medomsley.
The victim disappeared, changed his name, and went into hiding for decades, believing Husband would track him down.
MEDICAL STAFF HAD CONCERNS
An experienced nurse at Shotley Bridge Hospital became alarmed when three trainees from Medomsley were admitted with nephritis (kidney inflammation) in a short time – a rare condition in young men.
A student nurse told her it wasn’t nephritis – it was from “rabbit punches to the kidneys.” The student nurse said “it was common knowledge, and everyone knew that.”
No action was taken.
Trainees attended hospital with:
• Fractured skulls
• Broken bones
• Cracked vertebrae
• Severe burns
They were escorted by prison staff and threatened beforehand to lie about how injuries occurred. Medical staff questioned some accounts but had no power to investigate further.
═════════════════════
TWO DEATHS: THE ULTIMATE FAILURE
In 1981–82, two young men died at Medomsley within four months of each other:
IAN ANGUS SHACKLETON (18, diabetic) died in September 1981 after being given the wrong type and dose of insulin. Prison staff called the doctor multiple times during the night as the boy deteriorated. The doctor refused to attend and instructed them to give him milk and sugar over the phone. By morning it was too late.
DAVID VICTOR CALDWELL (18, asthmatic) died in January 1982 after being forced to participate in outdoor exercise in the snow despite his condition. His family saw bruising during a visit and he told them “the screws” had caused it. After his death, his family’s allegations of abuse were investigated by the warden – who was investigating himself and his own staff.
Neither death prompted any review of medical procedures or policies at Medomsley or across the detention centre estate.
═════════════════════
THE SYSTEM THAT ENABLED ABUSE
The report identifies catastrophic systemic failures:
- THE COMPLAINTS SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED TO FAIL
To complain, boys had to:
• Make complaints in writing to the officers abusing them
• First receive a warning that false complaints would extend their sentence
• Risk losing “remission” (early release) if the complaint wasn’t upheld
Letters home were censored. Visits were cancelled if boys had visible injuries. Families couldn’t complain on their behalf.
The warden’s journal at Medomsley shows virtually no complaints were ever recorded.
- “SHORT, SHARP, SHOCK” HAD NO DEFINITION
Staff had no training on how to run a detention centre. The government used words like “tough”, “robust”, and “short, sharp, shock” but never defined what this meant in practice.
Officers filled the vacuum with their own military backgrounds, implementing brutal discipline they themselves had experienced.
- THE BOARD OF VISITORS WAS NOT INDEPENDENT
The “independent” oversight body consisted of local magistrates – the very same people who sentenced boys to Medomsley. They:
• Socialised with the warden and staff
• Were escorted by prison officers during visits
• Ate cake in the warden’s office rather than inspecting
• When they did investigate complaints at other detention centres, they sided with staff and accused victims of being malicious - TRAINEES WERE SEEN AS INHERENTLY BAD
Post-war attitudes meant young offenders were viewed as worthless, deserving of harsh treatment. This extended to police, probation, medical staff and society at large.
One probation officer told a victim reporting rape:
“Well, what did you expect?”
- HOMOSEXUALITY WAS CRIMINALISED AND STIGMATISED
Throughout Medomsley’s operation, any sexual contact between males was illegal until age 21. This meant:
• Boys feared being seen as willing participants in illegal acts
• Staff dismissed abuse as “consensual” homosexuality
• Victims were shamed and called “Husband’s plaything” or “gay fairies”
• Society had no framework to recognise male-on-male rape as serious crime
═════════════════════
MISSED OPPORTUNITIES: THE COVER-UP CONTINUES
Even after Medomsley closed, authorities continued to fail victims:
1989: Leslie Johnston (the storeman and Husband’s accomplice) was convicted of sexually assaulting a boy at another institution. During his police interview, he admitted to sexual offences at Medomsley going back four to five years.
Cleveland Police conducted no wider investigation. Durham Police were never contacted.
1998: Durham Police received information that Husband had committed “buggery on many young offenders.” They interviewed Husband once at his home. He denied everything. They closed the case, citing “lack of evidence.”
They never searched his house. They never checked with the Prison Service. They never looked for other victims.
2001–2003: Operation Halter finally convicted Husband of 11 offences against six victims. The trial judge indicated further prosecutions would be seen as “abuse of process.”
This prevented hundreds of other victims from getting justice.
Husband died in 2010, never fully held accountable.
═════════════════════
THE OMBUDSMAN’S VERDICT
In his foreword, Adrian Usher writes with barely restrained fury:
“The abuse at Medomsley continued, unchallenged, for the entire 26 years of its operation. The knowledge of abuse by the Prison Service, the police, the Home Office and other organisations of authority was ignored and dismissed.”
“Sending these young men to Medomsley was supposed to instil them with more ordered, law-abiding lives. The authorities failed in their duty to keep detainees safe.”
On the wardens:
“Leaders at every level at Medomsley, including the warden, failed in their duty to protect the best interests of those under their charge. Either staff in leadership roles were aware of the abuse, in which case they were complicit, or they lacked dedication and professional curiosity to such an extent as to not be professionally competent.”
On Husband’s ability to offend for so long:
“In order for the worst excesses of sexual abuse to continue for so long without detection required the silence of many. To achieve that silence, perpetrators required a degree of power.”
═════════════════════
THREE QUESTIONS THAT DEMAND ANSWERS TODAY
The Ombudsman makes no formal recommendations but asks ministers to consider three critical issues:
- WHY ARE CHILDREN IN CUSTODY STILL NOT PROACTIVELY ASKED ABOUT ABUSE?
“It is still not a requirement for every child in detention to be proactively, and regularly, asked by an independent party about their custody experience seen through a safeguarding lens.”
The resource required would be “extremely small” given the low number of children in custody.
- WHY IS THE COMPLAINTS SYSTEM STILL THE SAME?
“The system for children to make a complaint in today’s criminal justice system remains broadly the same as the system in place when Medomsley operated.”
Children must still write to the governor. Family members still cannot complain on their behalf.
- WHERE IS THE PUBLIC APOLOGY?
“Despite criminal convictions, civil cases and compensation paid to the victims of Medomsley, none of them have ever received a public apology.”
“I leave it to all of the bodies referenced in this investigation to examine their organisational consciences and determine if there is any action taken today that would diminish, even fractionally, the trauma that is still being felt by victims.”
═════════════════════
A MESSAGE TO SURVIVORS
The Ombudsman’s final words are addressed directly to victims:
“I would like to thank all who came forward to speak to us, some for the very first time. You have exhibited extraordinary courage and, for some, at significant personal cost to your mental health.”
“When victims are asked what they most want, their reply is often justice. This report cannot deliver that. It cannot take away the decades of frustration, fear and mental anguish that some have lived with.”
“However, it is my fervent hope that, for many victims, what this report represents is a victory for your tenacity, determination and courage. You may have had to overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles over the last 40 years and more but, in the end, you were heard, and you were believed.”
═════════════════════
THE WIDER PATTERN
The report places Medomsley in the context of widespread abuse across the detention centre estate:
Other institutions under investigation or with proven abuse:
• Kirklevington – Over 800 victims, ongoing police investigation
• Eastwood Park – 239 compensation claims, one conviction
• Whatton – 42 compensation claims
• Buckley Hall – Allegations of brutality in 1960s, investigated by Board of Visitors who found them “unfounded”
• New Hall – 1971 inquiry dismissed victims as “malicious”, praised accused officers
• Ashford Remand Centre – 1971 inquiry found “no substance” to allegations
The patterns are identical: reception violence, gym abuse, sexual exploitation, complaints dismissed, victims not believed.
═════════════════════
CALLS FOR ACTION
The report will likely trigger:
POLITICAL RESPONSE:
• Urgent questions in Parliament
• Calls for criminal investigation into the cover-up
• Review of historic compensation claims
• Pressure for public inquiries into other detention centres
INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE:
• HM Prison and Probation Service must address the three questions
• Police forces must review how they handled reports
• Home Office must explain decades of inaction
• Public apologies from all bodies involved
LEGAL ACTION:
• Potential for further civil claims
• Calls to reopen criminal investigations where possible
• Scrutiny of the 2005 judge’s decision that further prosecutions were “abuse of process”
═════════════════════
CONTEXT: WHY THIS MATTERS NOW
This is not ancient history. This report has urgent contemporary relevance:
- Children are still in custody and the safeguards that failed at Medomsley remain largely unchanged
- Institutional abuse continues to be uncovered across British society – from sports to churches to care homes
- Victims are still living with trauma 40+ years later, many having never received acknowledgement or justice
- The pattern of disbelief persists – vulnerable people reporting abuse to authorities and being dismissed
- Power imbalances remain wherever institutions hold power over vulnerable people
═════════════════════
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
The PPO investigation took 18 months and involved:
• Reviewing nearly 8,000 documents
• Interviewing 74 witnesses
• Analysing material from three major police investigations
• Conducting a call for evidence from 51 authorities
• Examining records from Durham Constabulary, the National Archives, Ministry of Justice, Home Office, and multiple other bodies
KEY STATISTICS:
• Years of operation: 1961–1987 (26 years)
• Victims who came forward: 2,077
• Compensation claims: 2,852
• Allegations against Husband: 388 (primary abuser in 338 cases)
• Staff convicted: 8 (to date)
• Documents reviewed: Nearly 8,000
• Witnesses interviewed: 74
• Police investigations: 3 (Operation Halter 1, Halter 2, Seabrook)
TIMELINE OF KEY EVENTS:
• 1961 – Medomsley opens
• 1965 – First complaints to Home Office
• 1967 – Home Office director acknowledges officers using unauthorised punishments
• 1969 – Neville Husband arrives as catering officer
• 1981–82 – Two deaths within four months
• 1985 – Husband leaves; staff find pornography and sex toys, report nothing
• 1987 – Medomsley closes
• 1989 – Johnston convicted, admits Medomsley offending, no wider investigation
• 2001 – Operation Halter 1 begins
• 2003 – Husband convicted of 11 offences
• 2005 – Husband convicted of 4 more offences; judge says further trials “abuse of process”
• 2010 – Husband dies
• 2013 – Operation Seabrook begins
• 2018–2019 – Further staff convicted
• 2023 – This investigation commissioned
• 2025 – Report published
ABOUT THE PPO:
The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman is independent of the Prison Service and investigates complaints, deaths in custody, and special investigations commissioned by the Secretary of State for Justice.
ABOUT ADRIAN USHER:
Adrian Usher was appointed Prisons and Probation Ombudsman in April 2023. He has nearly 40 years of public service experience.
VICTIM SUPPORT:
• Samaritans: 116 123
• NAPAC (National Association for People Abused in Childhood): 0808 801 0331
• Victim Support: 08 08 16 89 111
═════════════════════
The Grooming Files 
Leave a comment