subtitle-ready English CC options
“Mr. Minister, thank you for Telex’s questions.
This is not 444 speaking. Daniel already corresponded as far back as 2013 with the child-protection authorities and the competent ministry about the former director of the Szőlő Street Juvenile Detention Center, Péter Pál Juhász. I quote: he behaved in a manner incompatible with the ethical standards of social work toward three underage girls.
The letter related to this was made public by HVG on Tuesday, and the issue was also discussed at Thursday’s Government Info briefing. It turned out that the ministry must have known already in 2013 that Péter Pál Juhász had behaved, to put it mildly, unethically toward three underage girls, let’s say victims. How do you comment on this? And why were there no consequences back then? Or why did this only come to light now?”
Answer:
“I comment by saying that the claim that the ministry had knowledge of this is false. The situation is that there was such a report in 2013, it was investigated, a police procedure took place, and it did not find the report to be well-founded. Therefore, the ministry had no knowledge of this.”
Question:
“Miklós Soltész was the State Secretary for Family Affairs at that time. This correspondence took place during his tenure. He is now working in your ministry. Did you ask him whether he knew about this?”
Answer:
“I spoke with Miklós Soltész. He had absolutely no knowledge of this. Such reports, while not everyday occurrences, are quite frequent in the life of a state secretariat. This happened 12 years ago. He was not the addressee, nor was his deputy. His staff acted correctly: they ordered an investigation, a police investigation, which was concluded.
I understand that you keep asking the same question, but if you are sitting in an office and you notify the police, the police conduct an investigation and return with the conclusion that no unlawful act occurred, then you must accept that.”
Follow-up:
“But an institution director can be dismissed not only for criminal offenses. Even ethical misconduct could be enough. Three child-protection leaders wrote documents stating that this man behaved in a questionable manner toward three different minors.”
Answer:
“Those who disagree with what you are saying should note that the report did not concern the institution. The institution housed juvenile male offenders. The report concerned three women in a completely different situation. The institution itself was not affected.”
Question:
“So because he behaved questionably toward young girls, that has nothing to do with an institution responsible for minors?”
Answer:
“If something like this is written about someone, I will not give it credibility unless it constitutes a well-founded suspicion of a criminal offense, in which case I pass it to the police. If the police say no crime was committed, I accept that.”
Question:
“So you do not give credibility to the statements of three state child-protection leaders?”
Answer:
“They made a report. The police gave it enough credibility to investigate it, and the police concluded the investigation. That is not hard to understand.”
Question:
“But ethical violations are not the responsibility of the police.”
Answer:
“The ethical issue was examined in relation to a specific case, and based on the police investigation it was found to be unfounded. We do not know whether the police investigation was good or bad, but there is no data contradicting it. One thing we do know: the authorities acted with the greatest possible care.”
Question:
“Did the ministry request any information in the 2010s regarding Péter Pál Juhász?”
Answer:
“I know that there was a report. The police investigated it and found it unfounded.”
Question:
“The document refers to a ministry inquiry. Wouldn’t it be worth investigating whether such an inquiry actually took place?”
Answer:
“I have not seen it. I have seen reports about it.”
Question:
“Don’t you think it is important to follow up on this in such a serious case?”
Answer:
“It is good if all documents are collected, but the substance of the case will not change. It is clear what happened: there was a police investigation and it did not lead to results.”
Question:
“But what exactly was suspicious is still unclear.”
Answer:
“Since the suspicion was investigated and found unfounded, it will not have major significance.”
Question:
“Given that many such warnings were received, don’t you think the government should have acted differently?”
Answer:
“I consider the government’s work appropriate. The government had no further duty in this matter. There may have been department heads who could have acted differently, but the government’s merit is that this series of crimes ended and the perpetrator is now in prison. This is because we ordered a comprehensive review of child protection.”