Sir Peter Hayman
Scandalous: The Cover-Up In High Places (22.03.81)
Leave a comment
The hidden scandal linked to the Sir Peter Hayman case
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?


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?



MI6 chief Sir Peter Hayman named as a paedophile in the House of Commons
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

Private Eye, February 1981
The Times, 16th March 1981

New Standard, 16th March 1981
The Times, 17th March 1981
The Times, 17th March 1981
The Guardian, 17th March 1981
Daily Mail, 17th March 1981
Daily Express, 18th March 1981
Daily Mirror, 18th March 1981
The Times, 18th March 1981

New Standard, 18th March 1981

Daily Mail, 19th March 1981
The Sun, 19th March 1981 – Shame of ‘shining star’ envoy
Daily Mirror, 19th March 1981 –Secret shame of Mr Perfect
Daily Mirror, 19th March 1981
The Times, 19th March 1981
The Times, 19th March 1981
Daily Express, 19th March 1981


New Standard, 19th March 1981
The Sun, 20th March 1981
The Sun, 20th March 1981
The Sun, 20th March 1981
Daily Express, 20th March 1981

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


The Sun, 20th March 1981
The Times, 20th March 1981
The Times, 20th March 1981
The Times, 20th March 1981
The Times, 21st March 1981
The Observer, 22nd March 1981
Daily Express, 22nd March 1981
The Guardian, 24th March 1981
The Times, 24th March 1981
The Times, 26th March 1981 –The questions unanswered in the Hayman case
Guardian, 2nd April 1981
The Times, 7th April 1981
The Guardian, 7th April 1981
Sunday Express, 20th April 1981
Daily Express, 13th May 1981 – William Hickey column
Daily Express, 25th August 1983

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




New Standard, 16th March 1981









New Standard, 18th March 1981


Daily Mail, 19th March 1981









New Standard, 19th March 1981





























Shame of the ‘porn’ envoy (18.03.81)
‘Don’t Name Porn Envoy’ (16.03.81)
Why Sir Peter Hayman was not named (07.04.81)
MP in porn name storm (19.03.81)
Havers denies special treatment for Hayman (07.04.81)
Text of MP’s questions on envoy and replies by Ministers (20.03.81)
Child-sex diary of a diplomat (17.03.81)
MP defies porn case plea (18.03.81)
MP back home nursing his ‘media burn’ (02.04.81)
MP determined to name diplomat over child pornography case (17.3.81)
How Sir Peter was kept out of the PIE trial (20.3.81)
The Guardian, 20th March 1981
by David Leigh
As the Attorney General denies a cover-up, David Leigh investigates who was exposed in the PIE pornography case, and whose activities were hidden from view.



by David Leigh
As the Attorney General denies a cover-up, David Leigh investigates who was exposed in the PIE pornography case, and whose activities were hidden from view.



The Beast of Berlin (November 1980)
MP ‘ready for gaol’ to protect source (24.3.81)
Beast of Berlin (2) (Feb 81)
The questions unanswered in the Hayman case (26.3.81)
Shame of ‘shining star’ envoy (19.3.81)
Paedophile case diplomat would have faced purge (17.3.81)
Secret shame of Mr Perfect (19.3.81)
Rap for MP who named envoy (19.3.81)
Sir Peter ‘not in blackmail plot’ (20.3.81)
Law chief tells of ‘an obsession with child-torture’ (20.3.81)
Diplomat referred to in sex trial named today (18.3.81)
The double life of Sir Peter Hayman (21.3.81)
Tory MP threatens to name ex-diplomat mentioned in sex trial (16.3.81)
Ex-diplomat was not blackmailed or pressurized, solicitor says (20.3.81)
Sir Peter and Mr. Henderson (20.3.81)
MP is defiant over naming diplomat (17.3.81)
My flat’s been bugged, he says (20.3.81)
Attorney General’s full answer to question on Sir Peter Hayman (20.3.81)
Mr Steel says naming diplomat may be abuse of privilege (19.3.81)
Hayman MP defiant over source (24.3.81)
I will name the porn case envoy today (18.3.81)