logo
Celtic Boys Club abuse case settled: ‘A significant milestone' after 50 years of pain

Celtic Boys Club abuse case settled: ‘A significant milestone' after 50 years of pain

New York Times07-04-2025
'This is a significant milestone and each of our clients will no doubt have differing emotions at this stage,' Laura Connor, a partner at Thompsons Solicitors Scotland, tells The Athletic.
Her firm last week agreed a seven-figure settlement with Scottish champions Celtic on behalf of 22 victims, who were sexually abused at Celtic Boys Club in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, in one of the first American-style class action group litigations of its kind in Scotland. There are a total of 28 claimants in the group, and Thompsons hope the remainder will be resolved by the end of the year.
Advertisement
The civil compensation process began in 2017 and Celtic repeatedly claimed that Celtic Boys Club — a prolific feeder team of the men's first team for several decades since its inception in 1966 — was a 'separate entity' and therefore they were not responsible for the abuse that happened.
The settlement came with no admission of liability by the club, though in 2020 Celtic expressed their 'great sympathy' over allegations and said they 'take these extremely seriously because of the historic contacts between the two organisations'.
'It is difficult to quantify but the delays have likely caused the injuries to be worse, in my opinion, than they would have been had a swift settlement and apology been made, an admission and acceptance of what had happened,' says Connor.
'If that had all been done at an early stage, I don't think our clients would have experienced the same worsening of injuries as they have done.'
A further eight cases are still outstanding which mainly relate to abuse by former coach Jim McCafferty. In 2019 he admitted 12 charges related to child sex abuse against 10 teenage boys between 1972 and 1996, before he died in prison in 2022, aged 76.
Celtic issued a statement last week, which read: 'Celtic football club can confirm that a number of legal claims in the group proceedings against the club have been resolved. We are hopeful that settlement can be reached with the remaining group members shortly.
'For some time, we have sought to work with the group members' lawyers to reach a resolution. The club acknowledges the strength of the survivors of abuse who have come forward, and hope that this resolution may help to bring them some closure.
'Celtic football club is appalled by any form of historic abuse and has great sympathy for those who suffered abuse and for their families. The club is very sorry that these events took place at Celtic Boys Club.'
Allegations of abuse at Celtic Boys Club stretch back more than 50 years. They mainly centre around James 'Jim' Torbett, who founded Celtic Boys Club in 1966 — the year before Celtic became the first British team to win the European Cup — and Frank Cairney, who joined in 1971 after being asked to run the youth side by legendary manager Jock Stein.
Torbett was first jailed in 1998 but it was not until November 2016, when former Crewe player Andy Woodward waived his anonymity to reveal he was sexually abused as a child by former coach Barry Bennell, that the subject was brought out into the open.
Advertisement
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) set up a hotline with the English FA to help survivors across the country who had experienced sexual abuse. More than 860 calls were received in the first week. Greg Clarke, the FA chairman at the time, described it as a 'tidal wave' of allegations.
The Scottish FA announced its own investigation into historical child abuse, which was published in 2021, although many of the related claims could not be included at the time due to ongoing legal issues.
Torbett's first conviction came in 1998 when he was jailed for two years after being found guilty of acts of shameless indecency between 1968 and 1974. That related to three former Celtic Boys Club players, James McGrory, David Gordon and former Scotland international turned radio broadcaster, Alan Brazil.
Brazil gave evidence against Torbett in court and recounted the abuse he suffered in an interview with The Times in 2020: 'I've only hated one person in my life and that's Jim Torbett. For as long as he's alive, there will be a shadow hanging over me.'
Fresh allegations were made in a 2017 BBC Scotland documentary, which included testimony from survivors who waived their anonymity and became the first to allege that further abuse took place in Torbett's second spell at Celtic Boys Club.
That sparked a new police inquiry, leading to Torbett being handed a six-year prison term in 2018 for abusing three children during his second spell at Celtic Boys Club during the 1980s. He was also sentenced to three years in prison in May 2023 for abusing Gordon Woods in 1967, who has been vocal about the need for Celtic to apologise publicly.
Torbett was one of nine former coaches convicted for the abuse committed at Celtic Boys Club.
Cairney was acquitted on similar charges in 1998 but two decades later, he was found guilty of abusing eight boys while running St Columba's Boys Guild in Lanarkshire and the under-16 team at Celtic Boys Club. Speaking in court in 2018, Cairney claimed it was ludicrous, denying his victims any form of closure.
Advertisement
Sheriff Daniel Kelly QC (now KC) paid tribute to the bravery shown by the survivors. 'I commend these men who had the courage to come to court and give evidence as to what happened to them when they were young footballers that you coached,' he told Cairney.
'What was striking about their evidence was it seemed as vivid to them as if it occurred yesterday and I recognise how difficult it must have been for them to relive that moment under public scrutiny.'
It was in 2017 that the first survivor contacted Thompsons, the same time the allegations were intimated to Celtic.
In October 2021, when the class action litigation was launched, Patrick McGuire, partner at Thompsons, hoped it would serve as a wake-up call to Celtic. 'I know of no other similar group actions, or involving such a large number of claimants, against any other club in Europe,' he said.
There was a poignant line in the Scottish FA's harrowing 191-page report from February 2021, which heard 33 personal accounts from people aged between six and 16 across Scottish football at the time of the alleged offences. 'Apology should be made not just because the review recommends it but more importantly because it is the right thing to do,' it read. A number of clubs subsequently apologised but Celtic did not add to their earlier statement at the time, apart from in September 2023 when they confirmed they were in discussions with the lawyers representing those abused at Celtic Boys Club.
The report stated it was not concerned with culpability or liability, that this was about accountability and responsibility. 'Who in Scottish football knew about these matters at the time? What did they know? What did they do?'
Celtic have still not admitted liability, which puts their continued avoidance of liability in stark contrast to Manchester City's handling of Bennell's abuse in the 1970s and 1980s. City launched a 'survivors' scheme' which paid out mostly five-figure compensation sums to former players but, crucially, around 20 received personal, face-to-face apologies from the directors of the club.
Advertisement
The agreement is without an admission of liability from Celtic but Thompsons had always believed that there was compelling evidence to show that the boys' club and the football club were inextricably linked.
'That is what I would say the compensation reflects and what our clients can take from the compensation,' Connor says.
'They wanted an apology for what had happened. The apology that was also desired by the point of settlement related to how the cases had been defended and how long it had been defended for.'
It has taken another three and a half years to get to this point before Celtic agreed an out-of-court settlement, which took the overall process to eight years — in addition to the decades of trauma they have lived with.
A new proof/trial date to hear evidence had not been set as negotiations had been ongoing for 18 months. The previous proof was set to take place in October 2023 to deal with a preliminary point in relation to whether the defender could actually receive a fair trial, which is a common defence taken in historical abuse cases, as they claimed there were documents that they believed would show the distinction between Celtic Boys Club and Celtic Football Club were missing.
That would have been an opportunity to lead evidence but the hearing was discharged because Celtic indicated shortly before it that they wished to explore settlement discussions and so the case moved to those considerations.
'It was always in the hands of the defender to settle the case at any time,' says Connor.
'They could have done it at any point since the claims were intimated to them. The part that they would have not had such control over was our valuation of the cases and gathering the evidence in relation to the injuries and the losses. That can take many months to do, or a year or more.
Advertisement
'They wouldn't have had control over that part, but it certainly was within their control to admit at an early stage, engagement in settlement discussions, make that intention clear and put forward an offer. They didn't need to wait for us to value cases, they could have made that first move had they wanted to do so — although that last point would have been unusual.'
It was only when the Childhood Abuse Limitation Act (CALA) 2017 was passed in the Scottish Parliament, removing the three-year time bar on abuse cases, that Thompsons could pursue a class action.
CALA allows groups of two or more people with the same, or similar, claims to raise a single action in the court of session and was brought into law in Scotland in 2020. Two years later, Lord Arthurson ruled that the legal criteria for allowing the action to proceed had been met for 22 former Celtic Boys Club players to seek compensation for the abuse they experienced.
'From a legal perspective, it has been really interesting to be involved with,' says Connor, who also used the class action method when representing more than 700 former tea pickers in Kenya.
'The benefit it gave us is that the common issues of liability could be addressed for the period during which all the cases happened. If a case related to someone at the Boys Club being abused in the 1970s and another in the 1990s we could consider that entire period, whereas if we had raised each case individually, which was the only option prior to the group proceedings, it is very difficult to bring in any evidence into the case outwith the period specific to that case.'
The criminal convictions of Torbett and Cairney in 2018 provided the foundations for the civil case, albeit there were not criminal convictions in all of the cases.
'As there were so many criminal convictions, they didn't have to prove the abuse happened as we claimed,' Connor says. 'It is taken as fact when there is a conviction.
Advertisement
'That is part of the case we would normally have to prove but that had already been done so the main focus of this case was whether or not Celtic were responsible for that abuse.'
The Scottish FA's report into historical child abuse, published in 2021, mentions 11 professional clubs including Celtic.
Is there the possibility that more survivors from Celtic Boys Club could come forward and join the action, or that former youth players at other clubs could come together and pursue justice the same way?
'I'm afraid I don't have a straightforward answer,' Connor says, 'but I always welcome survivors contacting me from any type of background to discuss their individual case. Every case is so individual that I couldn't give a specific answer.
'There is always the possibility depending on evidence. One of the significant distinctions with the Celtic action as opposed to other clubs is that the perpetrators are still alive and have been convicted. Whereas that is absent with other clubs so the availability of wider evidence and the legal landscape has to be considered.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

French President Macron, wife Brigitte sue Candace Owens for defamation from transgender claim
French President Macron, wife Brigitte sue Candace Owens for defamation from transgender claim

CNBC

time19 minutes ago

  • CNBC

French President Macron, wife Brigitte sue Candace Owens for defamation from transgender claim

French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, on Wednesday sued right-wing provocateur podcaster Candace Owens for repeatedly falsely claiming that Brigitte Macron "is in fact a man." The Macrons' 22-count civil lawsuit accusing Owens of defamation and false light alleges that Owens, since March 2024, has "used this false statement" about Brigitte Macron "to promote her independent platform, gain notoriety, and make money." "Owens disregarded all credible evidence disproving her claim in favor of platforming known conspiracy theorists and proven defamers," the lawsuit filed in Delaware Superior Court says. "And rather than engage with President and Mrs. Macron's attempts to set the record straight, Owens mocked them and used them as additional fodder for her frenzied fan base," says the suit, which notes that Brigitte Macron bore three children from her first husband. The complaint says that Owens' allegedly knowingly false statements about the Macrons include claims that they are blood relatives who have committed incest, and that President Macron was chosen to be president as part of a CIA-operated program or "similar mind-control program." The statements were made in an eight-part podcast, "Becoming Brigitte," and in accompanying posts on the social media site X, the suit says. "These lies have caused tremendous damage to the Macrons," the suit says. The complaint seeks monetary damages to be determined at trial. The Macrons are being represented in the suit by the law firm Clare Locke. Clare Locke in April 2023 with another law firm, obtained a $787.5 million settlement for the voting machine company Dominion Voting System from Fox Corp. and its cable networks, including Fox News, to resolve a defamation suit related to claims about the 2020 presidential election. "If ever there was a clear-cut case of defamation, this is it," said the firm's attorney Tom Clare, about the lawsuit filed by the Macrons. The Macrons, in a statement, said, "Because Ms. Owens systematically reaffirmed these falsehoods in response to each of our attorneys' repeated requests for a retraction, we ultimately concluded that referring the matter to a court of law was the only remaining avenue for remedy." "Ms. Owens' campaign of defamation was plainly designed to harass and cause pain to us and our families and to garner attention and notoriety. We gave her every opportunity to back away from these claims, but she refused," the couple said. "It is our earnest hope that this lawsuit will set the record straight and end this campaign of defamation once and for all." A spokesperson for Owens, in a statement to CNBC, said "Candace Owens is not shutting up. This is a foreign government attacking the First Amendment rights of an American independent journalist." "Candace repeatedly requested an interview with Brigitte Macron," the spokesperson said. "Instead of offering a comment, Brigitte is resorting to trying to bully a reporter into submission." "In France, politicians can bully journalists, but this is not France. It's America. Candace will address everything on her show today, where she will continue to express her First Amendment rights." Owens, on July 2, published on her website a letter from Clare Locke to her attorney demanding that Owens "and the entities she controls retract her false and defamatory statements" about the Macrons.

Liverpool signs Ekitiké from Frankfurt and takes offseason spending to $342 million
Liverpool signs Ekitiké from Frankfurt and takes offseason spending to $342 million

Fox Sports

time19 minutes ago

  • Fox Sports

Liverpool signs Ekitiké from Frankfurt and takes offseason spending to $342 million

Associated Press Liverpool signed France forward Hugo Ekitike from Eintracht Frankfurt on Wednesday to continue the Premier League champion's offseason spending spree. Ekitiké is Liverpool's latest big-money signing after Florian Wirtz, Jeremie Frimpong and Milos Kerkez — taking its outlay to around $342 million. The 23-year-old Ekitiké has joined for a fee of 69 million pounds ($93.5 million) and signed a six-year contract, a person with knowledge of the deal told The Associated Press. The person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because details have not been made public, said the fee could rise by a further 10 million pounds ($13.5 million). Liverpool manager Arne Slot has been busy strengthening a team that won its record-equaling 20th English league title last season — in particular in attack. Wirtz, signed from Bayer Leverkusen last month for a fee that could rise to a British record 116 million pounds ($156 million), is considered one of the brightest talents in Europe. And Etikité is another player who has shone in Germany after leaving Paris Saint-Germain last year. He scored 22 in 48 appearances in his one full season with Frankfurt, which has made a big profit on him after buying him for a reported $19 million last year. Ekitiké's move comes weeks after Liverpool forward Diogo Jota died in a car accident in Spain. There is uncertainty about the future of other Liverpool forwards Darwin Nunez and Luis Diaz, who have both been targeted by teams in Europe during the offseason. The Merseyside club has not retained a league title since winning three in a row between 1982 and '84, which was before the inception of the Premier League. It is likely to face challenges from Manchester City, Arsenal and Chelsea, who have all been active in the transfer market since the end of the season. Ekitiké is the latest big-money departure from Frankfurt after forward Omar Marmoush joined Man City for a reported $73 million in January. Marmoush was the team's top-scorer at the time, but Ekitiké responded with his best performances in a Frankfurt shirt to help the team finish third in the Bundesliga for Champions League qualification. ___ James Robson is at ___ AP soccer:

Trump Administration Live Updates: Judge Denies Request to Unseal Epstein Grand Jury Transcripts in Florida
Trump Administration Live Updates: Judge Denies Request to Unseal Epstein Grand Jury Transcripts in Florida

New York Times

time31 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Trump Administration Live Updates: Judge Denies Request to Unseal Epstein Grand Jury Transcripts in Florida

Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, has contended that the intelligence work in 2016 was not only flawed but also amounted to a conspiracy against President Trump. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, released a document on Wednesday that she said undermined the conclusion of intelligence agencies during the Obama administration that Russia favored the election of Donald J. Trump in 2016. The document was a report that the House Intelligence Committee originally drafted in 2017, when Republicans led the panel. The report took issue with the conclusion reached in December 2016 that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had favored Mr. Trump. The new material provides some interesting insights into the development of the review of Russian activity by American spy agencies, and the debate over their assessment. But none of the new information changes the fundamental view that Russia meddled in the election and that Mr. Putin hoped to damage Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee. On Sunday, Ms. Gabbard promised to refer the details of her findings to the Justice Department. And on Wednesday, she said in a social media post that Mr. Trump had ordered the declassification of the report and that the information showed the 'most egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence in American history.' The Obama administration, Ms. Gabbard wrote, was 'promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election.' Ms. Gabbard has won praise from Mr. Trump for her investigation into the intelligence findings and spoke at length about how the 2016 assessment was part of a witch hunt against him. The president has been under sharp criticism for his handling of documents related to the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, and his attacks on the Obama administration appear to be part of a distract-and-deflect strategy. Ms. Gabbard reiterated her assertion that the intelligence assessment was intended to undermine Mr. Trump's presidency. 'In doing so, they conspired to subvert the will of the American people,' she wrote, 'working with their partners in the media to promote the lie, in order to undermine the legitimacy of President Trump, essentially enacting a years-long coup against him.' The report was released with relatively few redactions, prompting criticism from Democrats. 'Given the rushed and unusual 'declassification' process the D.N.I. has implemented, I fear that the public release of this report could compromise sensitive sources and methods and endanger our national security,' said Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, referring to the director of national intelligence. Officials familiar with the matter said that another, more heavily redacted version took care to hide more information about U.S. sources and had been considered for release. Ms. Gabbard said on social media that Mr. Trump had declassified the report. Kash Patel, now Mr. Trump's F.B.I. director, was a key author of the report released on Wednesday, according to officials. Only Republicans on the committee participated in the drafting of the 2017 report and revisions in 2020. The House report found that most of the judgments made by the intelligence community in 2016 were sound. But it argued that the work was rushed, as a recent tradecraft analysis by the C.I.A. also found. The assessment that Mr. Putin had favored Mr. Trump did not follow the 'professional criteria' of the other findings, the House report said. The findings were at odds with a bipartisan series of Senate reports from a committee that included Marco Rubio, then a Republican senator from Florida and now Mr. Trump's secretary of state. The Senate Intelligence Committee affirmed the work of the C.I.A. and the other intelligence agencies on the 2016 assessment. The judgment about Mr. Putin's preference, the House report said, was based on a single source who was biased against the Russian government. The raw intelligence was fragmentary and lacked context, the report added. The detailed discussion of the source has not been made public before, although the U.S. decision to extract and relocate him, first to Virginia, has become public. Russia officials made the source's identity public and said he was an aide to a senior Russian official. The 2017 report portrays the information as incomplete and subject to interpretation, pointing to a single piece of intelligence from the man that said Mr. Putin had decided to leak emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee because Mrs. Clinton had better odds of the election and Mr. Trump, 'whose victory Putin was counting, most likely would not be able to pull off a convincing victory.' But current and former American officials pushed back on the characterization of the source's intelligence, saying he was well placed and had provided sound information to the United States on Mr. Putin's intentions. While details about the debate over the source are new, the overall view of the House Intelligence Committee was well known, and members frequently took issue with the finding. But the full report with details of the C.I.A.'s work on the 2016 intelligence assessment has not been released. Attacking the conclusions of the 2016 assessment that Russia sought to denigrate Mrs. Clinton and help Mr. Trump has been a hobby horse of some of the president's supporters. Republicans have long taken particular aim at the idea that the Kremlin favored Mr. Trump, arguing instead that Russia was simply trying to sow chaos or undermine democratic institutions. The attacks on the documents have intensified in recent weeks as first the C.I.A. and then Ms. Gabbard's office have raised questions about the effort. Bipartisan Senate reviews have validated the C.I.A.'s work in 2016, and John H. Durham, a special prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William P. Barr during Mr. Trump's first term, also failed to find any evidence undermining the intelligence agencies' conclusions. While Mr. Trump's Republican supporters criticized the assessment during his first term, the president focused much of his ire on Robert S. Mueller III, the former F.B.I. director appointed to investigate any ties between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. The newly released House document also takes a close look at the role that a dossier prepared by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, played in the 2016 assessment. Trump administration officials have maintained that the 2016 intelligence review was tainted by unverified information in the so-called Steele dossier. A classified annex to the report mentioned the dossier, but former officials said the C.I.A. did not take it seriously and did not allow it to influence their assessment. Few if any of the claims in Mr. Steele's work about Mr. Trump have been verified in the ensuing years. In interviews this week, former officials insisted the Steele dossier did not influence the findings of the 2016 assessment. But the House report took issue with that, noting that in one of the bullet points in the original, classified version, the assessment referred readers to the annex discussing the dossier. The House report said the two-page annex summarizing the dossier 'misrepresented the significance and credibility' of Mr. Steele's work. The dossier 'was written in an amateurish conspiracy and political propaganda tone that invited skepticism, if not ridicule, over its content,' the report continued. The House review also said one C.I.A. officer said he confronted John O. Brennan, the agency's director at the time, with the flaws of the dossier. Mr. Brennan, according to the House report, acknowledged the flaws but added, 'doesn't it ring true.' Mr. Brennan, who emerged as one of the sharpest critics of Mr. Trump, has long denied that the dossier colored the assessment and said that he backed C.I.A. officers who wanted it kept out of the main body. He has said he placed the dossier in the annex at the insistence of the F.B.I. Former Obama administration officials acknowledged in hindsight that including the unverified dossier in the annex was a mistake, given the justifiable criticisms Republicans had of Mr. Steele's assertions. But the officials said the F.B.I. felt it had no choice but to include it in the annex to avoid appearing as if they were hiding something from Mr. Trump. C.I.A. officials wanted to be sure the F.B.I. signed on to the overall assessments, and they felt that the bureau would do that only if the annex was included, former officials said. The existence of the dossier was initially exposed by CNN, and then Buzzfeed published its contents. Since Mr. Trump's return to office, the C.I.A. and Ms. Gabbard have tried to sow doubts about the assessment. Ms. Gabbard has contended that the intelligence work in 2016 was not just flawed but also amounted to a conspiracy against Mr. Trump. On Friday, Ms. Gabbard issued a report that she said exposed a 'treasonous conspiracy,' claiming senior Obama administration officials had pressured the intelligence committee to change its views on Russian meddling. The documents presented showed that the Obama administration was eager to quickly complete its work but not that the intelligence agencies were altering their conclusions. Mr. Trump has praised Ms. Gabbard, after criticizing her work just weeks earlier. Referring to Ms. Gabbard's report, Mr. Trump said on Tuesday that while in office, President Barack Obama 'was trying to lead a coup.' Ms. Gabbard has said she wants to end the weaponization of intelligence. She has condemned politicians for what she sees as the use of selective bits of intelligence against their opponents. While she has portrayed the release of the documents as a corrective to the errors and missteps of the Obama administration, former officials and even some allies of Ms. Gabbard have said her effort to throw a lifeline to Mr. Trump is an example of the very politicization she has vowed to stamp out.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store