SPOTLIGHT THE PAST INFORMING THE PRESENT

Sir Peter Hayman

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


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *