Monday, 28 February 2011

JCLA Request.

The Jersey Care Leavers Association have issued a request to all States Members and is re-produced below in it's entirety (photo's added by VFC). Will (can) our States Members do the right thing?

Request to all States Members – Tuesday 1st March 2011

Today you will debate whether or not the decision to hold a Committee of Inquiry into Historical Child Abuse should be upheld or overturned.

We feel that a decision not to proceed will have disastrous repercussions, not only on the Island’s reputation as a whole which is already at a very low point, but also the general public who are, and will be even more dissatisfied. There is a large groundswell of public opinion that feels that the promised enquiry should be held. However the people who will emerge from this suffering the most damage will be those survivors who have been waiting for this COI to happen to enable them to have their chance to put their side of the story, get answers as to why they were failed by the States of Jersey, and in some small way find justice which they have been denied thus far. This is what the victims want despite the draft report stating that in some instances it will still not suffice.

Then and only then will there be some form of closure for them.

Contrary to Chief Minister Le Sueur’s statement to the States Assembly, the JCLA had not been party to any discussions or given any chance to provide input into the decision to drop the Inquiry Indeed it was at the very 11th hour on the morning that the statement was made that the Chair of the JCLA was made aware. Surely the very people who have been affected by the Historical abuse, and those who support them should have had the opportunity to put a case forward for this to proceed.

Given that a very large proportion of the abused had no faith at all in anything connected with the States of Jersey, this action has confirmed that lack of faith a thousand fold.

If this proposition fails the issue is not going to go away. Like a large boil it will fester and fester until the appropriate action is taken to burst it open.  The survivors have every intention to keep the momentum going. To date we have been very, very patient and acted with dignity in anticipation of this Inquiry and have behaved more honourably than some States Members have in this regard.  However there comes a time when enough is enough, patience is exhausted, and that time is now.

Most of you will be parents/grandparents. Have you ever stopped to imagine if one of your own children or grandchildren were abused, either mentally, physically or sexually? No doubt you would be outraged, dismayed and seeking justice against the perpetrator. Your child/grandchild would turn to their family for support and comfort which is the natural course to take. Have you ever stopped to think that those who were in the care of the States of Jersey had no-one to turn to, no-one to comfort or support them, no-one to try and take some of the pain and hurt away, and now the last hope of attempting to seek some form of comfort and closure is being made unavailable to them courtesy of the Council of Ministers.

How many of you have made any effort to speak to any of the survivors to listen to their experiences and how they feel? We would suspect that the answer is not many.


If these were animals that had been harmed and had cruelty displayed towards them there would be public outrage, yet when it is real, living human beings it appears the CoM dismiss them without a second thought. We are urging you to give serious thought to this today, to examine your consciences and hearts and vote for this Inquiry to be sanctioned for the right and just reasons we have outlined, and not for the wrong reasons that have been given for not going ahead, and really have no valid basis at all.

Finally, we would like to just take a couple of examples from a blog which has approached this issue with a very fair and objective approach. The parts reproduced here are with the permission of the blog owner and are very relevant to the situation in Jersey at this present moment in time.

What is important is we give a voice to those who might not otherwise have the opportunity to present their views.” Scottish Government spokeswoman.

“The physical, emotional and sexual abuse that has taken place in Scotland’s residential care homes – perpetrated by the very people who should have been providing support –must never be forgotten. We are demonstrating our commitment through action, and that’s why we are providing a new support service for adults who experienced childhood abuse in care.” Adam Ingram, Minister for Children

The Review pointed to an urgent need to act to preserve historical records, ensuring that former residents could access records and information about their location. Mr Shaw’s recommendations included noting that records, often scattered, should be properly collated: “The Government should commission a review of public records legislation to ensure it is appropriate to meet the records and information needs of Scotland, not least, the needs of former residents and researchers”.. In his conclusion, he addressed the importance to the historical record of the victims being heard, even if those who abused them may no longer be living:

Time and time again in the course of the Review I came upon people, stories and records highlighting the need for us all to recognise and to keep reminding ourselves that children are the most valuable yet the most vulnerable group in society. Our responsibility to respect them, to care for them, to protect them, to acknowledge and respond to their needs and rights can never be taken lightly, or patronisingly. Wherever child abuse occurs it is intolerable, a self indulgence in its ugliest form. Whenever it occurs where children are placed for safety, it is even more despicable.
Those who experienced abuse in the past need to be heard, to know society supports them in speaking out, and that their experiences are recognised and addressed.

“There are many challenges to finding out about our past and the process is even more daunting when those experiences were bad. The reaction to our search can be defensive and cynical. The need to know can be viewed with insensitivity, rather than respect. The past can be dismissed as something which is over and done with, rather than as significant to our present. Learning from our mistakes is a sign of maturity, an indication that we want to do better, to do so for all who were, or are, children in the care of the state.”

I think those words are well worth bearing in mind
. We can too easily dismiss the past as something over and done with, and unless those who have suffered abuse can find a voice, and have their pain respected, we have yet to learn from our mistakes. In the meantime, I would recommend a visit to their website, and see their National Strategy.

In conclusion therefore what we are asking quite simply that you think long and hard, examine the rights and wrongs of this issue, and allow those who have been very sadly let down by the States of Jersey, whether it be 3 years ago, or 33 years ago to see this Inquiry go ahead.

Thank you (End)

Let us hope that the States members will examine their consciences before voting! 

Friday, 25 February 2011

Jersey Law Office(r)s (2)

In this second instalment looking at the Jersey Law Office(r)s (Part one) with P19/2011, due to be debated this coming Tuesday the 1st of March 2011, Deputy Montfort Tadier has lodged an amendment to Deputy Bob Hill's amendment and we thought it would make for an interesting "part 2"

P19/2011 is the proposition lodged by Senator Francis Le Gresley which simply asks the Council of Ministers to keep a promise and that is to hold an "independent" Committee of Inquiry to investigate any issues which remain unresolved in relation to historical abuse in the Island.

The Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel have lodged their own comments in support for a Committee of Inquiry. Deputy Bob Hill has submitted his own amendment all of which can be viewed HERE

Below is Deputy Tadier's amendment, which simply put, is stating that not only has justice got to be done, but justice has to be "seen" to be done.

Quite rightly the Deputy wants the role(s) of our Law Office(r)s examined, question is, will the Law Office(r)s want their Role examined?


Lodged au Greffe on 23rd February 2011
by Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade



PAGE 3 –
After point 6, insert the following point –

“7. Was a consistent and impartial approach taken when deciding on which cases to prosecute; and was the process free from political influence or interference at any level?”.


P.19/2011 Amd.Amd.

In its Report (R.8/2011), in which the Council of Ministers has set out its reasons for not pursuing a Committee of Inquiry, it talks of the Prosecution Process and states –

“The Council is in no doubt that fair and impartial justice has been delivered.”

Whilst this may be the case for the Council of Ministers, and possibly many or all States members, it is not true of the majority of those who directly or indirectly were let down by the States in the past. Indeed, their opinion, for the most part, is that there most certainly is doubt that fair and impartial justice has been delivered. Whether or not this position is actually correct is another matter, but it stands to reason that those who were at the receiving end of States’ inability to ensure that they were protected when they most needed protecting are unlikely to trust that same State when it comes to matters of deciding which prosecutions to pursue.

R.8/2011 then goes on to say –
“In July 2009, the then Attorney General also made a statement to the States Assembly in relation to cases where he had directed that there should be no further action.”.

This is true, and indeed the Attorney General did also say that giving such detail about the decision making process was unusual, but he did so given the great public interest and scrutiny of the Historic Abuse Inquiry cases.

Whilst this statement will have been reassuring to States members and many others, it is ultimately unverifiable in nature and from the perspective of those who remain distrustful of the ‘system’ will ultimately be seen as ‘trust us – we know best.’ Indeed, in its recent newsletter the Jersey Care Leavers Association restated its position that it felt they had ‘been denied justice time and time again and been ignored by the States of Jersey,’ and that cases had been ‘dropped at the 11th hour when there was ample evidence to prosecute.’

Deputy Hill himself states in the report to his amendment –

“The Assembly may wish to consider whether Ministers have done enough to restore and strengthen the confidence of ordinary Islanders in our system of justice, and whether the assurances so far given will be seen by the public at large as convincing and credible.”.

He goes on to say –

“If significant numbers of people, whether justified or otherwise, do not have confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the justice system, then that lack of confidence is in itself a significant problem.”.

There have also been allegations as far back as the notorious radio exchange between former Senators F.H. Walker and S. Syvret when the suggestion was mooted that Jersey might be tempted to prioritise its reputation and business interests above those of the victims themselves. Whilst even the mere suggestion of this is offensive to most of us, it is still something which needs to be looked at if any Committee of Inquiry is to be meaningful and comprehensive.

Finally, the Deputy of St. Martin is quite correct in his report to draw attention to the fact that the independence of the Law Officers in taking prosecution decisions is paramount, and this amendment does not seek to question that, but affirm it. This amendment seeks to include within the terms of reference of any eventual Committee of Inquiry to establish that at all times during the process of decision-making, political interference of any kind was not attempted.

To conclude, the decision whether or not to have a Committee of Inquiry is ultimately for States members. However, if we are to have one – which I hope we do – it is necessary that it be comprehensive and meaningful and so must include an examination of the prosecution processes, amongst other things.

Financial and manpower implications

There are no additional financial or manpower implications arising from this amendment.(End)

Bottom line is, do the people of Jersey have enough confidence in our Judicial system, for a Committee of Inquiry not to bother examining what the Law Office(r)s have, or haven't been doing?

Monday, 21 February 2011

The COCF "Could" be used.





Would the Minister, after consultation with H.M. Attorney General if necessary, advise if the use of money in the Criminal Offences Confiscations Fund could be applied for the purpose of funding the cost of a Committee of Inquiry into historical child abuse by virtue of Article 24 (4)(a)(ii) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 which states that “the Fund shall be applied by the Minister…. in promoting or supporting measures that, in the opinion of the Minister, may assist….. in dealing with the consequences of criminal conduct”?

Would the Minister also advise the current balance of the Criminal Offences Confiscations Fund?


Having consulted with H.M. Attorney General, I have reached the view that monies in the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund ("COCF") are unlikely to be capable of being applied for the purpose of funding the cost of a Committee of Inquiry into historical child abuse.

The COCF is established under Article 24 of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999. Article 24(4) sets out the circumstances in which the COCF, which is separate from the general revenues of the States, can be used.

Article 24(4) and (5) are the relevant provisions:

(4) Subject to paragraph (5), monies in the Fund shall be applied by the Minister for the following purposes, that is to say –

(a) in promoting or supporting measures that, in the opinion of the Minister, may assist –

(i) in preventing, suppressing or otherwise dealing with criminal conduct,

(ii) in dealing with the consequences of criminal conduct, or

(iii) without prejudice to the generality of clauses (i) and (ii), in facilitating the enforcement of any enactment dealing with criminal conduct;

(b) discharging Jersey’s obligations under asset sharing agreements; and

(c) meeting the expenses incurred by the Minister in administering the Fund.

(5) Before promoting or supporting any measure under paragraph (4)(a), the Minister shall consult the Attorney General and other persons or bodies (including other Ministers) as the Minister considers appropriate.

Where there has already been a full criminal investigation and prosecutions have taken place, it would be difficult to construe such an Inquiry as "dealing with the consequences" of criminal conduct (Art 24(4)(ii)).

A final view could be taken when the terms of reference of any such Committee of Inquiry are published. However, on the basis of present information, any link with criminal conduct is likely to be indirect or tangential.

The total available balance in the COCF as at 31 December 2010 was £8,257,520. (End)
One has to ask are the Attorney General and the Treasury Minister looking for reasons as to how the COCF “CAN’T” be used to subsidies the PROMISED Committee of Enquiry, rather than looking at how it CAN be used?

It must be said that if this is their argument AGAINST any of the £8.2M being used then it is pretty lame. Put in the POSITIVE rather than the NEGATIVE then the Treasury Minister’s and Attorney General’s answers are, IMO, a good argument as to how the COCF COULD  be used.

Here is but one example……..there are plenty of others.

“(i) in preventing, suppressing or otherwise dealing with criminal conduct,”

With the right Terms of Reference the Committee of Enquiry could establish how it was possible for our children to be abused for decades, in the Jersey “care” system, without it coming to light. It could, with the right TOR, establish how NO SENIOR MANAGEMENT of the Jersey “care” homes have, to this day, ever been charged with abuse or covering it up. Then put measures in place to ensure that this is not able to happen again. Depending on the Committee of Enquiry’s findings, then those in Senior Management who have escaped justice, thus far, could then be prosecuted. Those who have been falsely accused can be given the opportunity to have their names cleared.

The bottom line is, that going by the Attorney General's and Treasury Minister's answers, the COCF COULD be used for a Committee of Enquiry. The question being do "they" want a Committee of Enquiry and could it's findings bring down the government (the Law Offices)? And doesn't that make the Attorney General, once more, wholly conflicted? What if the TOR  were wide enough to look into what the AG and Law Office(r)s have been to? Is it pure coincidence that no senior management have ever been charged? Is it coicidence that nobody with political responsibility for the "care" homes have ever been held to account, let alone charged? How does a senior Civil Servant at the Education Department remain in post while under investigation by the police? And how does the Chief of Police who are investigating the Civil Servant get, possibly "un-lawfully" suspended on alleged managerial issues?

And not least the victims and survivors of Jersey's "care" system will have their experiences put into the public domain and the History books. It will give some of them just a little closure, and the Council of Ministers would have delivered on a promise.

Supporters for a Committee of Enquiry have set up a Facebook page which is now gaining political support by a number of politicians joining the group. If you agree there should be a Committee of Enquiry, please go to this LINK and press "like."

Friday, 18 February 2011

Ogley "Shredded."

Although the Jersey Evening Post (online) ran with "States chief executive resigns", it is difficult to see how they got to that conclusion from the statement released (below) by Terry Le Sueur.

18TH of February 2011

To: All States Members.

Dear Member

I am writing to inform you that, in accordance with the terms of his contract, the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley, and I have agreed to a mutual termination of his employment as from 31st May 2011.

Mr. Ogley came to Jersey in April 2003 to work as Chief Executive responsible for all the functions of the Policy and Resources Committee. He was recruited to lead on the executive changes required to implement Ministerial Government and then to become the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers and Head of the Paid Service. It was envisaged that following the Clothier reforms the States would become a corporate entity and that the Chief Executive, answering to a unified Council of Ministers, would have responsibility for the whole organisation.

Since 2003 the States has undergone fundamental reform of its political, officer and fiscal structures. However not all the changes envisaged were adopted by the States. During that period the Council of Ministers and the States have also undergone an unprecedented level of turmoil, whether it was the Historic Child abuse investigation and attendant issues, the global recession, or increasing international pressure on the Finance Industry and our fiscal structures.

Despite the pressures, the first Council of Ministers made excellent progress with its strategic plan and we, as the second Council, are well on the way to delivering our plan. The Chief Executive has played an important part in delivering these successes and in responding effectively to the pressures. I thank him for his sterling work.

However, today the States is a significantly different organisation to the one it was planned to become. The Financial, international and domestic climate has also changed fundamentally. At a time when we are intent on making savings across the States we have to look at every possibility. I therefore intend to carry out a review of the senior corporate structures and roles, with particular reference to the Chief Minister’s Department. Thus after 8 successful years, the Chief Executive and I have agreed that now would be a good time for change at the top of the civil service.

Mr Ogley and his wife will be returning to the UK to be nearer their family. I thank him for a job well done and wish him all the best for his next new venture.

Yours Sincerely

Senator Terry Le Sueur

Chief Minister.

Tuesday, 15 February 2011

P19/2011 and amendment.



Lodged au Greffe on 2nd February 2011

by Senator F. du H. Le Gresley


THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion -

to request the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers to reconsider their decision that a Committee of Inquiry to investigate any issues which remain unresolved in relation to historical abuse in the Island would not be appropriate.



The Council of Ministers presented its Report R.8/2011 [Historical Child Abuse:

Committee of Inquiry] to the States on 1st February 2011. Under the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey there is no procedure for the States to debate the contents of this Report. However, I believe that it is right and proper that a debate should take place in the Chamber on such an important issue, which has dominated the news headlines in Jersey for the last 3 years. The outcome of the vote on this proposition will give the Council of Ministers either a clear endorsement of their decision not to set up a Committee of Inquiry or a strong indication that their decision needs to be reconsidered.

Financial and manpower implications

There are no financial or manpower implications arising from this proposition as I am simply seeking a debate on a decision made by the Council of Ministers.



(P.19/2011) – AMENDMENT

Lodged au Greffe on 15th February 2011

by the Deputy of St. Martin


(P.19/2011) – AMENDMENT

PAGE 2 –

For the word “that” substitute the words “and lodge a proposition asking the States to establish”; for the word “any” substitute the words “the following”; delete the words “would not be appropriate”; and after the words “in the Island” insert the following questions –

“1. How have the Island’s children’s homes been run in recent decades?

2. What procedures were in place to recruit staff and how was the performance of staff monitored? Should other steps have been taken to monitor performance?

3. What measures were taken to address inappropriate behaviour from staff when it was discovered, and if those measures were insufficient, what other measures should have been taken?

4. How did those in authority at political and officer level deal with problems that were brought to their attention?

5. What processes were in place to assess the performance of the homes and what action was taken as a result of any problems that were identified?

6. Were there any mechanisms in operation to allow children to report their concerns in safety and what action was taken if and when concerns were voiced?”



In late February 2008 the eyes of the world were focused on Jersey following the announcement that a large number of allegations had been received which suggested that there had been serious child abuse over a lengthy period at Haut de la Garenne. A very costly and extremely complex criminal investigation followed, which led to over 190 victims being identified and complaints of abuse having been carried out by about the same number of alleged offenders.

In almost a perverse way, although many of the media reports were grossly inaccurate and unfair, it did lead to even more alleged victims coming forward, which in turn led the media circulating allegations that Jersey had a “culture of secrecy” and “cover up.”

What became evident was the inability of senior politicians to manage the growing concerns emanating from the media. It was not surprising, therefore, that promises were made by the Council of Ministers to show the world that the Jersey Government was open and transparent. On 31st March 2008 it presented R.27/2008 which contained a public commitment to hold a full inquiry into any unanswered questions in due course.

The Report contained a series of likely questions which local residents and others from outside the Island had been asking. Those questions are on page 16 of R.8/2011 and are listed in my amendment. They either remain unanswered or have not been satisfactorily answered. R.27/2008 was seen by some as a public gesture and a commitment that those responsible for abusing children and those having oversight and responsibility for the management of the residential homes would be made to account for their actions. However, there were some people who saw R.27/2008 as a gesture of appeasement which was not worth the paper it was written on, because at the end of the investigations the Council of Ministers would find all sorts of reasons or excuses to avoid establishing a Committee of Inquiry to resolve the unanswered questions.

There can be no doubt that the investigation into the abuse allegations has been controversial and has caused distress to the victims, to those suspected of abuse and to those tasked with investigating the hundreds of allegations. This was particularly distressing during the early stages of the investigation when the world’s media took every opportunity to exaggerate or misinterpret information, some of which appears to have been as a result of tittle-tattle exchanged in public bars. However, many people have suffered as a result of the media reports, and the Council of Ministers’ decision to renege on its commitment without even taking the matter to the States just adds salt to the wounds and is just not acceptable.

Some 3 years on, and even if it has been decided that police investigations are concluded it cannot be said that the dust has settled, even though some people would like the matter put to bed. However, there are others who believe that to do so is more akin to pushing the problems under the bed. Whilst the public will hold diverse views, it should ultimately be for States members to decide the best course of action and not a small group of Ministers who believe they know best.

Senator Le Gresley is to be commended for lodging his proposition asking that the Council of Ministers reconsiders its decision. What has been evident these past 3 years is that the Council of Ministers has not demonstrated the leadership and transparency one would have expected when dealing with the difficulties that have occurred during that period, therefore it is not surprising that they seek a quick solution.

Thanks to Senator Le Gresley’s proposition there will be a States debate; however I am concerned that unless the debate is contained to something specific, it will be all too easy for the Council of Ministers to win the day by scare tactics regarding the cost, and unsubstantiated claims that all the issues which were unresolved in 2008 have now been resolved. Also it is claimed that some people will still be dissatisfied at the end of any inquiry.

On page 8 of its Report, the Council of Ministers states that it gave serious consideration as to whether an inquiry is required and justified in the following areas –

1. Historical childcare

2. Current childcare

3. The prosecution process

4. The police investigation.

Given that the previous Council of Ministers had identified 6 questions that would likely be asked by locals and others outside the Island, one would have thought that the present Council of Ministers would have used those questions as a template. However, I believe the reason it chose not to is because the questions remain unresolved, as I will make clear further into this report.

1. Historical childcare

The Council of Ministers is of the view that to look into the matter would be predominately backward-looking and would be unlikely to contribute to learning or provide public reassurance that current systems are effective. Also, given the time that has passed, the ability to uncover additional evidence or hold individuals or
organisations to account is considered highly questionable. It also adds that the Policehave investigated all the criminal allegations.

What the Council has ignored is that even though that issue is one of the 6 questions raised in 2008, no-one has investigated the management, particularly at Haut de la Garenne. Therefore the issue has not been resolved.

2. Current childcare

The Council of Ministers believes that this aspect has been fully covered by the Williamson report. Given that the procedures are now in place for independent inspections of services by the Scottish Social Work Inspection Agency, the first of which commenced recently. For this reason, the Council firmly believes there would be little benefit in undertaking a Committee of Inquiry in this area.

Mr. Williamson was engaged in 2007 to address concerns raised in the Kathy Bull Review of 2003 which were highlighted in the existing provisions and services. Neither reviewer addressed the issues at Haut de la Garenne. Nor did they review the procedures to recruit or monitor staff performance as envisaged in one of the 6 issues recorded in R.27/2008. Also, the current childcare was not considered to be an issue in R.27/2008 and, as such, it was not included as one of the issues of concern.

3. The prosecution process

The Council of Ministers believes that criticism that Island’s prosecution service has delivered anything but fair and impartial justice is unjust and has no firm basis. Unfortunately it has not stated how it came to that view. Also, the Council of Ministers claims that the role of the Attorney General is covered within the independent Carswell Report which was presented in December 2010. Whilst the role of both H.M. Attorney General and H.M. Solicitor General were subject to the Carswell Review, the Review was about their general role and not specifically in relation to the historical abuse investigations.

Members may also wish to consider whether the Ministerial perspective in relation to the role of the Law Officers is too narrow, in that it primarily relates to the number and appropriateness of prosecutions. In a healthy society, perceptions of the system of justice can be as important as reality. If significant numbers of people, whether justified or otherwise, do not have confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the justice system, then that lack of confidence is in itself a significant problem. The Assembly may wish to consider whether Ministers have done enough to restore and strengthen the confidence of ordinary Islanders in our system of justice, and whether the assurances so far given will be seen by the public at large as convincing and credible.

Running alongside this consideration is the issue of the performance of the Law Officers’ Department as a high-cost public sector organisation, and the effectiveness of its management systems in dealing with high profile and politically sensitive issues. It is understood that guidelines for the effective management of historical abuse cases by prosecution authorities are to be found in other jurisdictions. Ministers have provided no assurances that such guidelines as are relevant were applied in Jersey’s historical abuse investigation or even whether any audit or review of management performance against these guidelines has taken place. While members will wish to respect the independence of the Law Officers in taking prosecution decisions, that is a separate matter from considering whether a major public sector organisation is effectively managed and whether any issues of management performance contributed in any way to the creation of some of the negative perceptions associated with historical abuse investigation. Over recent years Ministers have quite properly strengthened and expanded the systems of external inspection of the managerial efficiency, best practice, and value for money, delivered by areas of the public sector, and have arranged for inspection reports to be made publicly available. It is understood that in the U.K. the prosecution authorities are subject to periodic inspections of their working practices and performance. Ministers have provided noassurance that they intend to introduce similar measures in Jersey, or of their assessment of the role of any such arrangements in addressing recognised issues of negative perception. Against this background, members may think that Ministers’ proposals to effectively close the debate without further enquiry are premature.

4. The police investigation

The police investigation was not one of the 6 issues listed in R.27/2008, yet it has been considered by the Council of Ministers. Whilst I appreciate there are differing views relating to the investigation at Haut de La Garenne, I believe it is incorrect to claim that “the Wiltshire Police investigation would appear to fulfil the requirements for public scrutiny and future improvement. In addition, the current proposals for a Police Authority seek to address concerns about the governance of the police.”

The Metropolitan Police reviewed the Haut de la Garenne investigation in less than 4 months but its findings have never been made available. The task of the Wiltshire Police was to review the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police’s role for discipline purposes. It took 12 months and cost in excess of £730,000, of which over £280,000 was spent on travel, accommodation, meals and entertainment. Despite the report being available in November 2009, no disciplinary action was taken and all allegations were withdrawn just before the suspended Police Chief retired. Overall, the suspension cost the taxpayer in excess of £1 million, yet it has gone unnoticed by thesame Council of Ministers which is citing cost as one of the reasons for rejecting a Committee of Inquiry.

It is also claimed that the current proposals for a Police Authority will address the concerns about governance of the police. However, that fact should not be used as an excuse for any shortcomings from those who had political responsibility during the time when the abuse was being carried out or during the historical abuse investigation, yet that fact has been ignored.

Resource implications

It is not disputed that public inquiries are inevitably costly, and this was recognised in R.27/2008 when the Council of Ministers stated there would be significant cost to such an undertaking. The costs will vary widely, depending on the scope of any such exercise; and forecasting such costs in advance of establishing the detailed scope and terms of reference is particularly difficult. However, the potential cost did not deter the Council of Ministers proposing a Committee of Inquiry.

Given the feeble excuses for rejecting the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry, it comes as no surprise that the Council of Ministers should cite the cost of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse in Ireland which cost hundreds of millions of pounds. Jersey should cut its cloth accordingly and there should be no need for the Inquiry costs to run out of control.


As one can see from the report above, the Council of Ministers’ reasons for opposing a Committee of Inquiry are feeble and flawed. However, I believe it is important that my amendments to Senator Le Gresley’s proposition are separated so that Members can decide whether they are satisfied that the individual questions posed in 2008 have been resolved, and vote accordingly.

1. How have the Island’s children’s homes been run in recent decades?

Despite the Council of Ministers’ claims to the contrary, there have not been any investigations into the running of all the residential homes. The Bull and Williamson reviews did not concern themselves with the way Haut de la Garenne was run, as it had been closed almost 2 decades earlier. The largest number of complaints/allegations came from former Haut de la Garenne residents. Their concerns have not been addressed, therefore that issue remains unresolved.

2. What procedures were in place to recruit staff and how was the performance of staff monitored? Should other steps have been taken to monitor performance?

Whilst it could be argued that the Bull and Williamson reviews did include some aspects into the running of some residential homes, they did not include Haut de la Garenne, nor did it look at recruitment or the monitoring of staff performance. Given the large number of complaints and the convictions of some staff, it is apparent that very little attention was given to the monitoring of staff. Therefore that issue remains unresolved.

3. What measures were taken to address inappropriate behaviour from staff when it was discovered, and if those measures were insufficient, what other measures should have been taken?

The States Police concerned itself with allegations of abuse, not whether any procedures were in place to address the reporting of inappropriate behaviour. To the best of my knowledge I am not aware of any review being undertaken to investigate the issues above. Therefore that too remains unresolved.

4. How did those in authority at political and officer level deal with problems that were brought to their attention?

The issue of political and officer oversight is a key factor. Who was told what and what was done about it is an issue that must not be allowed to go unchallenged. It is inconceivable that so much abuse should have been occurring over such a lengthy period, yet no-one has been asked to account for it. The Council of Ministers are being totally irresponsible by failing to address the issue. The media has alleged that Jersey has a “culture of secrecy” and “cover up.” If we want to provide evidence to substantiate that claim, then we can do no better than to try to claim that this matter has been resolved when it plainly has not.

5. What processes were in place to assess the performance of the homes and what action was taken as a result of any problems that were identified?

This is another matter which has been ignored by the Council of Ministers. Following the Williamson Review, procedures are NOW in place, but it is apparent that there were little or no processes in place during the period when it appears that abuse was rife, particularly at Haut de la Garenne. However, again it appears that issue has not been investigated therefore it is unresolved.

6. Were there any mechanisms in operation to allow children to report their concerns in safety and what action was taken if and when concerns were voiced?

This is another issue which was not considered by the Council of Ministers. It does comment on a number of key findings from inquiries into residential homes in the U.K., but conveniently avoids commenting on key findings from inquiries held in Jersey. The obvious reason being that no-one has conducted any review in Jersey. Neither is it intended to do so. It will be for Members to decide whether they are content to leave the issue unresolved.

The historical abuse enquiry was never about child murders, but about the systematic abuse of vulnerable children while in the care of the States of Jersey and how this was ever allowed to happen. We cannot move forward until the States recognises and accepts what happened in the past and is seen to be open and transparent in getting to the truth. It is all very well for the Chief Minister to admit that Jersey failed some children and to offer an apology. However, those abused want justice, not just from those who abused them, but from those in position of authority who either allowed it to happen or were so incompetent as not to notice what was happening to vulnerable children in their care. Many survivors were treated appallingly and their lives shattered for ever, that fact is acknowledged by the Council of Ministers.

However, to claim that an Inquiry is unwarranted because the circumstances have changed since 2008, because no evidence has come to light that murder took place and there have been fewer prosecutions then were envisaged, or to claim that no matter the outcome some people will never be satisfied, is grossly unfair and undignified. Whilst there have been well over 190 people who have reported cases of abuse, there are many others who are too frightened or ashamed to come forward to report cases of abuse inflicted on them. As can be seen, despite the large numbers of people abused and the large number of abusers identified, only a handful of people have been successfully prosecuted. However, no-one holding any position of authority has been taken to task. How can that be and how can we stand by and do nothing?

For the past 3 years there has been a growing unrest within the public of Jersey about the way the whole affair has been handled. To do nothing is not an option. A commitment was made almost 3 years ago and we should be duty-bound to maintain that commitment. Many of the survivors are never going to let the matter rest until a full and independent Committee of Inquiry is held, and that is the least we can do for them.

Financial and manpower implications

It should be noted that the previous Council of Ministers did not produce any financial or manpower details; however a commitment was made irrespective of the cost. Members will recall the public assurances given that all necessary resources would be made available to enable a full investigation to be carried out relating to the historical child abuse enquiry. Therefore a sum of money must have been set aside. If it was not, then what does it say about the Council of Ministers’ intentions?

Funding is not the proposer’s problem as nothing new is being proposed. The money set aside by the Council of Ministers in 2008 must still be available because of the commitment made. No doubt the Chief Minister will inform Members what sum of money was set aside.

However, as a figure must be provided as per Standing Order 21(2), I estimate that the cost will be no greater than the provision made by the Chief Minister when the commitment to hold an inquiry was made, and in any event will be less than £500,000. (End)

Sunday, 13 February 2011

Can Social Networking help the people of Jersey?

Do you remember the days when you would go on holiday and whatever country you were in the locals would ask where you come from? And you would say “Jersey”. Then they would say “oh Bergerac” or “you must be a millionaire” or “I’ve been there and it’s a beautiful island, you must feel so lucky to live there.”

Well thanks to our Council of Ministers, Law Office(r)s and Judicial system those days are gone. If you are now brave enough to admit that you are from Jersey, as has happened to friends of mine, you run the risk of being beaten up. Bergerac, millionaire and beautiful island have all been replaced with “kiddie fiddler,” “paedo’s paradise”, “island of secrets,” “cover-up merchants,” “paedophiles” and far worse.

These accusations have further been strengthened by our Council of Minister’s decision to go back on a promise made to the people of Jersey, the Abuse Survivors and indeed the watching world, to have a full, public and "independent" enquiry into the Haute de la Garrenne and other “care” homes scandal.

Because the Council of Ministers decided this and brought it to the House as a Report and not a Proposition then that meant that this could not be democratically debated. Ten minutes of questions is all that is allowed. That is not democracy, that is a dictatorship, the COM make a decision that impacts on the island as a whole, a decision that we are all going to be judged on and it doesn’t even get debated in the States.

Thankfully our newest Senator has seen the damage this decision will cause (has caused) the victims and survivors of the atrocities that have been allowed to thrive for decades in State run “care” homes. The damage it will cause to the reputation of Jersey as an open and democratic 21st century society.

Senator Francis Le Gresley has lodged a “proposition” (P19/2011) asking the Council of Ministers to reconsider their (in my opinion) very ill-thought out dictatorial decision that can, and more than likely will, cause more damage to all involved than a Committee of Inquiry ever could.

Further to Senator Le Gresley’s Proposition, Deputy Bob Hill, it is reported, has lodged an amendment further in support for a Committee of Inquiry. Deputy Hill’s amendment is rumoured to be extremely well researched, very detailed and a conclusive argument as to why there is no choice other than the Committee of Inquiry to go ahead.

During these past three years or so many people have been accused, and have had the finger pointed at them, for either abusing children or covering up for those who have. Not only do the Abuse Survivors, the people of Jersey and the world deserve the TRUTH to be told, but so do those who have been accused, either rightly or wrongly. This Committee of Inquiry should give them/us that TRUTH, and possible closure for some.

If you are not a paedophile or some-one who is protecting one, if you are a person who wants to be able to put this very dark and sordid part of Jersey’s history to bed, if you are a person who believes this can only happen with a full “independent” Inquiry. If you are a person who resents being called a paedo or a paedo protector because of the actions of a few members of our government and Law Office(r)s. If you are a person who believes the survivors and victims of Child Abuse deserve the public Inquiry that was promised to them. If you are a person who believes the reputation of Jersey needs to be restored. If you are a person who believes, those wrongly accused deserve to have their names cleared. If you are a person who believes that those who have escaped justice should be brought to account. If you are a person who is sick of this “alleged” cover-up and secrecy then please speak out.

There are a number of ways you can do this without moving from your computer. You can e-mail/phone your Deputy or Constable and ask them to support Senator Le Gresley and Deputy Hill with their proposition for this Committee of Inquiry. Likewise you can e-mail or phone any Senator and not least any of the Council of Ministers who are the ones who are showing Jersey in a bad light and abusing the victims/survivors all over again by going back on another promise. You can also contact Deputy Hill and Senator Le Gresley to give them your support.

What I would really like to see is social networking and citizens media putting pressure on our government and Law Office(r)s (because their “accredited" media won’t) that has just been witnessed by the toppling of the Egyptian government. We must show some kind of unity and strength in numbers.

With that in mind, could I ask my readers with a Facebook account, who are in agreement, to go to this LINK and all you have to do, when there, is press “like.”

We must show the world that we are not happy with being tarred with the same brush as our dictatorship, they are not representative of the "good" people of Jersey. For those of my readers that are not from Jersey and are in agreement with all that has been said, then please show us your support by going to the LINK and pressing “like.” Please put the link as your status on Facebook and encourage your friends to do the same. Paedophilia and the cover up of it is a worldwide problem, not just Jersey’s..........We NEED support, our government and judicial system have been allowed to spiral out of control (with the help of the "accredited" media) and all we have left is social networking.

Submitted by VFC.

Tuesday, 8 February 2011


With yet another promise being broken to the Abuse Survivors, and the people of Jersey, in that the Council of Ministers are now saying there is no need for a Committee of Inquiry into the Child Abuse scandal, the Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand has wasted no time in putting out the party line (spin).

On BBC Radio Jersey he was telling the listeners that things have changed since the promise of an inquiry was made back in 2008. He told us that back then people believed there were children’s bodies found up at Haute de la Garenne which turned out not to be true. The more astute listener would have picked up that he said there were no “bodies” - not that there were no body “parts”. With that in mind I sent the following e-mail to the Senator.

From voiceforchildren
To Ian le Marquand
Date Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 9:35 AM
Subject "Part" 1


After listening to your interview the other day on BBC Radio Jersey where you said there were no "bodies" found at HDLG which is one of the "reasons" the COM's won't be supporting a committee of inquiry I became intrigued, or curious, and hope you can help by answering a few questions for me, so there is no confusion and those dreaded conspiracy theories can be kept at bay?

1. Were you choosing your words carefully when you said there were no "bodies" and not "body parts"

2. Are you in agreement with me that there were numerous juvenile body parts recovered at HDLG?

3. Going by the "evidence" that is in the public domain would you say, on the balance of probabilities that if children weren't murdered at HDLG, child's remains were disposed of up there?

4. What "evidence" are you able to provide to "prove" how a piece of child's skull containing 1.6% collagen (only found in Mammals) can turn into a piece of Coconut?

Kind Regards.
VFC. (End)

I am not expecting a reply to that e-mail because Senator Le Marquand has proved unable or unwilling to answer any questions that involve “proof” and “evidence” especially when it comes to Jar/6 (the skull)

So let’s start with the myths and evidence surrounding the child’s skull (Jar/6) that was recovered at Haute de la Garenne or the “Coconut” as the “accredited” media like to call it.

Team Voice has repeatedly asked Senator Le Marquand for some kind of “proof” or “evidence” as to how the “skull” became Coconut? And he has repeatedly declined to do this. Deputy Bob Hill asked him in the States and came out none the wiser as he explained to us in this Interview

Deputy Daniel Wimberley asked Senator Le Marquand, in a written question, for an “audit trail” of JAR/6. Here’s the question he asked and the “answer” he was given.

Deputy Daniel Wimberley: (d) provide a full and proper audit trail of the emails concerning the finds JAR/6 and SLJ/1?

Senator Ian Le Marquand: (d) I do not understand what is meant by "audit trails of e-mails". However, this appears to also be referring to statements or other evidence.(End) Now that is what's classed as an "answer" in the world of Ian Le Marquand.

Why Deputy Wimberley was concerned about the audit trail of JAR/6 is explained in an extract from an e-mail from SOJP Anthroplogist Julie Roberts here "On 8 and 9 April 2008 I re-examined JAR/6. Since I initially examined the fragment it had dried out considerably and changed in colour, texture and weight." (my emphasis).

So it changed in colour, texture and weight? How could  this happen? Which is a question I put the Former SIO Lenny Harper. I wanted to know if there was any chance that this piece of evidence could have been switched? And this is what he told me.

"we sent it (JAR/6) to the carbon dating lab in oxford. Not only did they cock that process up, (as per the collagen e mails)  but they unlawfully and without authority sent the exhibit to at least two other people without even a proper tracking audit. This rendered the exhibit inadmissible and unusable in court as we could not prove it was the same item we found and sent to them."

Which is a clear and concice answer unlike the "answer" given to Deputy Wimberley by the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Le Marquand. Perhaps Deputy Wimberley might consider asking the question again? Because the "evidence" does point towards a "switch."

Former Deputy Chief Officer and Senior Investigating Officer, of the Historical Abuse Inquiry Lenny Harper has been accused of misleading the public, in that he knew it (JAR/6) was not human bone. Well this has been covered extensively by Team Voice and for those who don’t buy into conspiracy theories and myths then you must look at the "evidence" HERE. Which completley destroys that myth with documented "evidence".

Then we have the accusation, or myth, that Mr. Harper just dug Haute de la Garenne up on a whim and that it was a waste of tax payers money etc. But alongside those accusations and myths we have this “Summary Report” which tends to blow those myths clean out of the water. Not withstanding the dig was endorsed by the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) after meeting a very stringent 5 phase criteria. We will look to publish the entire NPIA Report in the coming days.
We also had Gradwell and Warcup telling us that the “cellars” at Haute de la Garenne didn’t even exist but Deputy Bob Hill along with Team Voice and video camera blew the roof (floorboards) right off of that one!

On top of this we have a log entry that describes bone that was “fresh and fleshed” when burnt. In her log Julie Roberts documents a telephone conversation she has with Professor Chamberlain of Sheffield Uni. It speaks for itself.

1 May 2008

“I received a telephone update from Professor Chamberlain. He said that preliminary analysis had shown that the fragments KSH137 were almost certainly human juvenile bone, but he wanted to confirm his findings by comparing them to a known juvenile sample. He also stated that the bones were in a good condition and he felt that they had sufficient collagen in them for C14 dating to be successful. He also stated that the bones were slightly burnt and that in his opinion this had occurred when the remains were still fresh and fleshed as no microbial activity was evident.”

So according to Professor Camberlain "the bones were in a good condition and he felt that they had sufficient collagen in them for C14 dating? Would that be the same collagen that only exists in Mammals, the same collagen that was found in JAR/6?

The report written by Professor Chamberlain is another of those Reports that seems to have vanished into thin air, fallen through a gap in the floor boards or fallen into the notorious shredder along with the hand written notes of  Graham Power's suspension meeting.

We will look to obtain and publish the entire Report soon but for now we re-produce a redacted part of it in order to place a little more "evidence" in the public domain.

The bone material shows features that are diagnostically human and most likely represent the remains of a juvenile person. The state of preservation of the remains indicates that they had been exposed to heat but this had been insufficient to cause much biomolecular damage (indeed, by sterilising the material the heating may have had the effect of reducing the opportunity for subsequent microbial damage to occur). The material is sufficiently well preserved to enable further chemical analysis including extraction of collagen for radiocarbon dating and dietary isotopic analysis, and the state of preservation of the material may render it suitable for the extraction and characterisation of biomarkers such as DNA. (End) Any idea's how that Report managed to be forotten, or vanished, in all this?

So getting back to Senator Le Marquand’s claims and "reasons" for NOT holding a Committee of Inquiry (as if the above is not enough to show there should be) into the Child Abuse that was able to thrive for DECADES un-detected and unreported before Lenny Harper and Graham Power came along.

He claims that no “bodies” were recovered or un-covered so there are no questions that need answering there. Taken from the "Summary Report" there are people who will want to find out what happened to this lot?

Other burnt bone fragments were also recovered from the context within this area.

The EVRD alert indications were confirmed by intrusive archaeological excavation and sieving. A significant number of bone fragments and teeth have been recovered which have been corroborated as human.

Predominantly the human remains have been recovered from cellars 3, 4 and 5 which historically were one large classroom.

Enquiries at this time are suggestive that the human remains were deposited in this area and covered with top soil in a deliberate act of concealment. The deposition could only have taken place during a period of time when the floor had been removed. Research into the historical renovation of the property suggests that the floor above cellars 3, 4 &5 was taken up in the late 60’s early 70’s.

Karl Harrison’s archaeological theory of the burnt debris including human bone fragments and teeth being deposited in the east wing cellars from the west wing is contained within this report. This theory is suggestive that the solid fuel furnace in operation in the west wing around the time of 1960 – 1970 may have been used to dispose of human remains.

Enquiries to date are showing that the original solid fuel central heating and hot water supply furnace in the west wing was replaced in the late 60’s early 70’s with oil fired furnaces. This may have coincided with the floor in cellars 3, 4 & 5 being removed. This would explain the deposition of the bone fragments and teeth with ash deposits as being the

waste from the furnace upon decommissioning. It would also suggest some element of ‘guilty knowledge’.

The tests clearly indicated the presence of human remains decomposition scent.

Remains identified by the resident forensic anthropologist Miss Julie Roberts as human, and items of interest to the enquiry, have been submitted for forensic analysis.

Forty eight human deciduous teeth have been recovered to date. Twenty six of which are presently in the UK being examined to identify the number of individuals from whom they originate.

Numerous bone fragments are being examined at Sheffield University for histology purposes.

The meticulous search of Haut De La Garenne has now been completed and the building handed over to Property Services. Evidence has been obtained to support the abuse enquiry and suggestive evidence that the remains of at least one child were present within the structure of the building.

A significant amount of human remains have been recovered that is suggestive of foul play in relation to the cause of death and guilty knowledge during deposition.

65 Human deciduous teeth

Numerous human bone fragments

It would appear at this stage that the remains were deposited into the area of cellars 3,4 &5 having been removed from a secondary deposition site in the west wing. They were then distributed evenly over the ground and covered with a layer of top soil so as to conceal the deposition from all but the most meticulous scrutiny. (End)

We must also remember that David Warcup closed down “Operation Rectangle” before he scarpered with his Jersey pension. It might well be that all the questions surrounding children’s remains were answered, if that is the case, then those answers need to be shared with the public, and States Members in order to support the Council of Ministers decision not to have a Public Inquiry.

This, of course, only deals with the un-answered questions of human remains. Team Voice will be asking a lot more questions that have not been answered, and we’re sure readers, and States Members, will have a few of their own.

Thursday, 3 February 2011

Interview with Graham Power QPM.

Now that all these awards are flying around, Team Voice is attempting to get a piece of the action. We have “interviewed” former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM and have cut and pasted his answers to our questions involving the Wiltshire Report and related events.

We (Team Voice) are hoping that somebody will nominate us for the “Regional Blog of the Year Award” for this excellent cut and paste job.

On a serious note though what you are (hopefully) about to read is alarming and an account of government activity which is nothing short of shambolic. It is an insight, in the words of Graham Power QPM, on how the - much hailed - Wiltshire Investigation was carried out. The former Police Chief also gives us an in-depth look into how our government “co-ordinate” a disciplinary hearing against our most senior Police Officer. The very sticky situation our government found themselves in when they discovered that if they wanted to discipline the Chief Police Officer, then 800 years of tradition “The Jersey Way” would be lost.

This is an in-depth interview with Mr. Power who sees the value in history recording the truth, because as things stand it looks like there is a much distorted record of history being created. The much hailed Wiltshire Report was “a failure” not only a failure but a ONE MILLION POUND Failure. Mr. Power says in part of this interview “Nobody with their name on the failed Wiltshire enquiry should have the nerve to criticise anyone else’s conduct of any enquiry ever.”


Q. Can you tell us when you first heard of the plan to involve Wiltshire Police in relation to any disciplinary investigations into your handling and management of “Operation Rectangle” (HDLG Child Abuse Investigation)?

A. On the 2nd December 2008. The Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers, Bill Ogley, wrote to me and told me that he had appointed Brian Moore, Chief Constable of Wiltshire, to carry out a disciplinary investigation on his behalf. Terms of reference were enclosed with the letter. The disciplinary investigation was given the name “Operation Haven.” It was later renamed “Haven 1” when the matter which the Minister for Home Affairs, Ian Le Marquand, called “Operation Blast” was named “Haven 2.” But more of that later.

Q. Could you outline the sequence of events that followed - your perspective on the quality of the Wiltshire Investigation(s) and the conduct of those involved, including the Jersey authorities?

A. 11th December 2008. Brian Moore wrote to me to introduce himself (that by the way was the only introduction we ever had. He never met me once. Not even to say hello) . In his letter he said that the enquiry would take "a number of months."

In the weeks/months which follow there are some routine exchanges of correspondence and various documents are provided by both sides.

5th March 2009. Moore wrote to my representative (Dr Timothy Brain, Chairman of the Chief Police Officers Staff Association) seeking to clarify some procedural points regarding the enquiry. He gave a new timetable. He said that he proposed to complete "the major phase of evidence gathering" by 31st March 2009 and that he proposed to interview me around late April/early May 2009. He expected to complete the report writing phase by June 2009. It appears that similar assurances were being given to the Minister for Home Affairs. On the basis of these assurances various dates for completion were given in the States. For example in early 2009 members were led to expect completion by March of that year. Later dates were given at later times.

11th May 2009. Moore wrote to me and proposed that I be interviewed at a suitably neutral venue, possibly a Jersey hotel, in the week commencing 15th June 2009. He said that the interview should last for “at least a week." As the law currently stands suspects in murder cases and similar crimes may, with the authority of a Court, be interviewed for around three days. I know of no precedent for a disciplinary interview lasting for “at least a week.”

19th May 2009 and thereafter. My Professional Association attempted to move matters forward in correspondence with the Minister for Home Affairs. It is pointed out that the Minister and Wiltshire Police are benefiting from legal advice at public expense. It is suggested that an interview lasting for a week or more is potentially oppressive but that I will nevertheless consider taking part provided that I am given equality of arms by means of funded legal representation. Meanwhile we obtain an estimate for the services of an Advocate during the proposed interview. The round figure given is £30k. It is also pointed out that the Disciplinary Code places me under no obligation to attend an interview. It refers to me providing a written statement. That is all that I am obliged to do. Anything more than that would be a concession on my part, but one that I am nevertheless willing to make, provided that the arrangements are fair to both sides.

Q. So you are denied “equality of arms” and all legal advice obtained by Wiltshire and the States of Jersey is funded by the Jersey Tax payer?

A. In a word “yes”

29th May 2009. A civil servant wrote on behalf of the Minister telling me that I will not be provided with legal representation during the proposed interview. My Association took legal advice from a Jersey Advocate. The legal advice told me that the proposals to conduct and interview lasting for at least a week were oppressive and that I should not attend without legal representation. I am advised that I am under no obligation to attend and that I am within my rights to state that I will provide a written statement instead of attending for interview. I decide to accept the advice.

The decision of the Minister not to provide legal representation has disrupted the proposed timetable. The parties are still corresponding on the matter beyond 15th June 2009 when the proposed interviews should have started. In all honesty I had not really expected Ministers to agree to me being represented on the grounds of fairness. They had shown no fairness up to that point and I did not expect them to change their approach. I did however think that they might have allowed representation in order that the interview could take place as planned and that matters could move forward. It was however becoming apparent that moving matters forward was not part of their agenda.

23rd June 2009. I concluded that discussions about the proposed interview and legal representation have come to a "dead end" and I formally notified Brian Moore that, acting on legal advice, I will provide a written statement. Wiltshire then provided me with a list of issues which I am asked to cover.

I commence work on my statement as soon as I have the necessary documents from Wilts. My statement is detailed and over 62,000 words. It is completed and submitted on 30th July 2009. My statement is a comprehensive inside account of the whole affair and makes reference to a large amount of information which has so far not entered the public domain. So far as I am aware it has been seen by only a handful of people and has never been published.

Running alongside this is the matter which the Minister for Home Affairs has referred to as "Operation Blast, which was said to concern alleged files kept in relation to some States Members. The Minister announced in the States on 16th June 2009 that he was commencing a disciplinary enquiry relating to the issue, but appears not to have discussed the matter with Wiltshire. On 19th June 2009 Brian Moore wrote to me and told me that he has received no request to investigate "Blast." It is not until two months later on the 14th August 2009 that Moore wrote to tell me that he has been appointed to investigate "Blast" and that he expects to commence the investigation on 30th September 2009. Whatever was the intention of the Ministers announcement on 16th June 2009, its practical effect, and the delay in commencing an investigation, threw away all hope of an early end to the Wiltshire enquiry. It was by then certain that the matter would drag into 2010 when I was due to retire anyway.

14th August 2009. Moore notified me of a changed timescale for his "Haven 1" report (relating to the abuse enquiry). (“Blast" has been named "Haven 2") He said that the report will be completed by 30th September 2009.

18th September 2009. Moore further revised the date to 19th October 2009.

20th October 2009. Moore wrote to say that he has delivered part of his report to the Deputy Chief Executive (John Richardson) He said that he has not completed work on financial oversight of the abuse enquiry and that a report on that will follow. I am aware that the Disciplinary Code requires the Chief Executive to send me a copy of the report. I decide to wait and see what happens next.

Q. I’m a little lost here, how many different completion dates has Brian Moore given you up to now?

A. We began with a commitment from Moore to have the enquiry completed in the early part of 2009. It is clear that the Minister for Home Affairs, Ian Le Marquand, was told something similar, because he informed the States and some States Members that he hoped to have matters concluded by around March 2009. Thereafter deadlines slipped with regularity. I have given some of the key examples of letters which formally notified me of yet another proposed completion date, but in between these there were various informal assurances given to other parties none of which came to anything. In any event, by mid 2009 it was becoming clear that the investigation was running out of control and that any credibility in terms of timescale and costs was gradually being lost. In some ways it was entertaining to watch the chaos unfold. At another level it was less entertaining. Amongst all of the confusion I was attempting to do two contradictory things at the same time. On the one hand I was working with my defence team to prepare to defend against any disciplinary action that was brought. On the other hand I was attempting to prepare for my pending retirement and for life after policing. Had it not been for my suspension and the disciplinary investigation it is probable that I would have retired earlier than I eventually did. I could not work out why the Minister for Home Affairs was spending public money on a disciplinary process which, at the very most, would only entitle him to tell me to retire, when I was going to retire anyway. I did not understand it then and I am not sure that I understand it now.

Q. let’s say the Home Affairs Minister, rather than suspending you, suggested (as you were already 2 years past your retirement date) that you took retirement, is that something you would have considered?

A. You are right to point out that I was at the time two years past my official retirement date and was working on an extended contract in order to provide continuity until a new Senior Management team was in place. Before I was suspended in November 2008 I was already thinking of retirement. My intention was to meet with the new Minister for Home Affairs in early 2009 and to discuss my future. Had the suspension not intervened it is probable that my retirement would have been announced some time in early 2009. However, once the suspension was imposed, I decided to stay on and fight the allegations, which I did until time ran out and it became clear that the whole thing was destined to die of old age. It is one of the many ironies of the situation that the suspension, which presumably somebody thought would hasten my departure, actually kept me in post for well over a year after I would have otherwise retired. And remember, even if the whole disciplinary process had ground on for a further two years and my case had finally been through the entire procedure ending with a hearing in the States, the only sanction available to the Minister and to the States appeared to be to instruct me to retire. Something that I had been willing to do years earlier. That is how illogical the whole thing was. But to finally answer your question, no offer of retirement was ever put to me so I did not have to consider that way of concluding the situation. Had an offer been made I would have taken professional and legal advice and would have acted in accordance with that advice. I do not know what the advice would have been so I cannot give a certain answer to that question.

Q. Do you feel that ultimate responsibility for financial oversight should have been laid at your door, if not yours, then who’s?

A. I have dealt with this at some length in my statement to Wiltshire. The short story is that when I took office in 2000 I had a number of financial staff working in the Force reporting to me, and I had control of the Force budget. Gradually, all of the qualified financial staff were removed by Ministers, and responsibility for the budget moved to the Chief Officer for Home Affairs who was made the “Accounting Officer” under the Finance Law. This left me with limited information about financial issues and no qualified staff to give advice. Whenever there was a query I had to ask Home Affairs staff to deal with it. During the abuse enquiry I made sure that Home Affairs financial personnel had access to all financial information and I met regularly with them and checked for any concerns they might have had. The minutes of those meetings show that they had none. That was the best I could do. I am a policeman, not an accountant. I asked the Accountants to keep an eye on things and they told me that everything was fine. It is hard to see what else I could have done. If there is any argument about this then it might be resolved by taking a look at the Finance Law. The Law says that the person responsible is the nominated Accounting Officer. I was not the Accounting Officer for the Force, although if Ministers had heeded my advice on the matter then I would have been. But that is another story. The fact is that Ministers insisted that another Chief Officer be given responsibility for the Police budget. It is they who should be accountable for the consequences of that decision.

21st December 2009. I received a letter and the incomplete Wilts report delivered to my home. The letter revealed that at the time when the report and recommendations were written, Wendy Kinnard, who was Minister for Home Affairs during the relevant part of the enquiry, had not been interviewed and so her evidence was not included. However, the letter stated that she had since been interviewed and that the conclusions in the report are unchanged, although the report has yet to be amended to cover Wendy Kinnard’s evidence and the sections dealing with financial management are not yet available. This is an unprofessional and shambolic way of providing a key report. It seems to me that the documents delivered to me on 21st December 2009 had two purposes. The first was to try and disrupt the family Xmas. The second was to allow the Minister and Wilts to claim that they had delivered a report “in 2009." I was unimpressed by either and stated that I would react to a full and complete report when I got one. I was also aware that no action was possible on the basis of the Wilts report. The Disciplinary Code only allows the Minister to act on the basis of a report from the Chief Executive (or in this case the deputy Chief Executive who was acting in that role for the purposes of this enquiry.) This report from the Chief Executive is referred to in the Code as the "Preliminary Report" which then has to be discussed at a meeting between the parties. I therefore wait for a Preliminary Report to be provided.

Q. So that’s a year gone by relatively un-productive how did things develop in 2010?

A. 13th January 2010. Wilts wrote and asked if I was willing to be interviewed regarding "Haven 2" (“Blast.”) I replied stating that I would take the same position as before. If I am provided with legal advice in the same way that they have been provided with legal advice then I will be interviewed. If I am not afforded equality of arms and set on a level playing field then I will fall back on my right to make a written statement. My Professional Association corresponded with the Minister for Home Affairs and Wiltshire in relation to the proposed interview and whether representation will be provided. These exchanges carried on throughout January and into the second half of February when it became clear that I would not be provided with representation. I therefore took advice and as a result of the advice I received I state that I will not attend for interview but will provide a full written statement once I am given the information necessary for me to do so. On 22nd February 2010 I receive a letter from Wiltshire with the necessary enclosures and I begin writing my statement. Once again the refusal of the Minister to provide fair and equal representation has introduced further delay into the process.

20th January 2010. In the midst of the above exchanges I give formal notice of what everyone knows already. Namely that come what may I will retire in 2010 and that I intend to be retired before the end of July. Now everyone who understands the procedure knows that there is no prospect of the disciplinary process being finished. I know it, my Association knows it, Wiltshire know it, and you can bet that the Minister knows it. It may have been the right moment for the Minister to call it a day and halt any further expenditure. Instead he decided to press ahead regardless, irrespective of the fact that no final outcome was possible.

11th February 2010. The Deputy Chief Executive wrote to me with a copy of the Financial Management section of the Wilts report. He said that he is now in a position to prepare his "Preliminary Report."

Surreally..............and running alongside this increasingly irrelevant bureaucratic saga, I am in separate correspondence with the Human Resources section of the Chief Ministers Department. We are dealing with things such as my removal expenses, pension, calculation of my outstanding leave and the setting of my "last working day." This is calculated as 15th June 2010. This will become significant later. In all of this correspondence I see no evidence that the Chief Ministers Department and the Home Affairs Department are aware of what the other are doing or the apparent conflict between their respective positions.  
However, at this point it may be fair and appropriate to record that much of the correspondence I received (and I have several files of correspondence) I found to be fair, professional and courteous. This was particularly the case in my dealings with some of the staff of the Chief Ministers Department. Some correspondence sent on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs was confrontational and aggressive, but I would not wish this to detract from the general professionalism of most of those who work in the Jersey public sector.

February 2010...After a debate in the States the Napier review of my suspension commences. Brian Napier QC will subsequently publish a report which confirms that my original suspension was unfair, not justified by the evidence, and apparently contrary to legal advice. However, his report is not published until after I have retired and does not influence events in 2010, as the disciplinary investigation limps towards its inconclusive end.

10th March 2010. My statement in relation to “Haven 2” (Operation Blast) is completed and submitted. It contains over 13,000 words. The statement was collected by Wilts from the family home which my wife had established in North Yorkshire. I answered the door and handed over the statement in person. I have already notified the relevant States Departments of my new contact details. I have said that I will travel to Jersey if asked to return to work as Chief Officer or to take part in any legitimate activity connected with the disciplinary process. Otherwise I will be engaged working in consultation with my UK based defence team. I was not asked to return to duty and accordingly I continued to work in the UK and monitor developments. In spite of the fact that I am working my notice, my retirement is approaching and I am by then based in the UK, Ministers do not appear to grasp the reality of the situation. They continue to press ahead with a procedure which they know cannot be completed.

Given that my Haven 2 statement contains references to sensitive intelligence material I suggest that it be treated as "Secret." How Moore deals with this alongside the need to report to Jersey Ministers and Civil Servants is a problem for him. I draw his attention to the fact that the statement contains sensitive intelligence from UK agencies who have given no permission for it to be shared with the Jersey Authorities. I do not know how he handled that issue. I was never told.

26th March 2010. The Chief Ministers Department wrote to me offering me a pay rise. I decided to accept and informed them accordingly.

Q. A pay rise? You are being investigated for just about anything that they could make stick and they give you more money……..after they’ve suspended you?

A. The terms of my contract entitled me to a salary review on a periodic basis and the terms of my suspension, confirmed in the Royal Court, entitled me to the full benefit of all of my contractual entitlements when suspended. So I got a pay rise. I did not mind as I thought that I had earned it. Remember that the suspension was not my idea. I wanted to be back working all hours 7 days a week and was ready to return to work at 24 hours notice. It was the Ministers idea that I should be paid for doing nothing. If it was a stupid arrangement then it was his stupid arrangement. Not mine.

19th April 2010. I received a letter from John Richardson with the long awaited "preliminary report" for “Haven 1” (the abuse investigation) and an invitation to a disciplinary meeting with the Minister. BUT...all of the paperwork related only to "Haven 1." There was no mention of "Haven 2" (Operation “Blast”). I replied on 23rd April 2010. I pointed out that things have now been strung out to a point where it is impossible for me to return to work and that I have therefore been effectively dismissed without a hearing. I also ask what is happening about "Haven 2" ... has it been abandoned or what??.....If I am to attend a meeting I am entitled to a fair chance to prepare and to take advice. I am also entitled to be represented, and my representative (Dr Timothy Brain, of the Chief Police Officers Staff Association) also needs to prepare and clear his diary. So what is happening about "Haven 2" and where is the preliminary report that we are both entitled to regarding the "Haven 2" enquiry??

18th May 2010, almost a month later. I received a reply from John Richardson. He denies that I have been constructively dismissed and asks about dates when my representative will be available for me to meet with the Minister.....But he ignores Haven 2 completely.

26th May 2010. Two things happen. I receive a copy of the Wilts report relating to "Blast." Or “Haven 2” as it is now known. Assuming that the Minister received it at around the same time as me this appears to indicate that he has been attempting to arrange a disciplinary meeting prior to receipt of the investigation report. This would be a material breach of the Disciplinary Code. I write back to John Richardson again, asking him to clarify just what is on the agenda of the meeting he is proposing. Is "Blast" up for discussion or not? If it is I stand by my right not to attend a meeting until I have the preliminary report of the Chief Executive to the Minister. That is what the Code says and I stand by it. We are also entitled to some basics such as an agenda for the meeting, an indication of its duration, who will speak and in what order and so on. I might not have a lawyer but I understand my rights and I intend to have them respected.

1st June 2010. I have heard nothing from John Richardson but I write to him drawing his attention to the fact that my "last working day" is approaching and asking him to set in motion the relevant administrative procedures for the necessary paperwork to be signed off. I receive the required administrative documents but nothing relevant to the disciplinary enquiry.

15th June 2010. My "last working day" as determined by the Chief Ministers Department comes and goes. Nothing of any consequence happens.

23rd June 2010. A courier delivered a letter from John Richardson and his "Preliminary Report" in relation to "Haven 2" to the family home in England. The letter says that the Minister wants to move to the next stage of the process which is to meet with me and discuss the enclosed report. I am on holiday. The correspondence was signed for by another person at the house. My Professional Association learned of the delivery and wrote to the Minister pointing out that my last working day as set by the Chief Ministers Department was the week before and that I have retired. It is too late now to talk of disciplinary meetings. The police disciplinary code does not apply to civilians. Time has run out and there can be no disciplinary action. It is over.

Q. So just how did they manage to get themselves into this mess??

A. This is almost worth a book in its own right. Firstly,in November 2008 the new Minister for Home Affairs, Ian Le Marquand, inherited a messed-up suspension and should have put his energy into getting out of the mess rather than digging himself in deeper. The old saying about "holes and digging" applies well here. When wise folk find themselves in a hole they stop digging. Fools send for a bigger spade. Secondly, he was far too "hands off." He might have thought that he was still a Magistrate where he just sat and waited for the evidence to be brought to him. He did not attempt to manage the situation. He also committed most of the sins of which he liked to accuse others. There was nothing like a "gold group" apparent attempt was made to coordinate the disparate activities of the law officers, States HR, the Chief Ministers Department, the Force, Home Affairs, the Treasurers Department and Wilts. They all pressed ahead with their own agenda often working in contradiction with each other. Nobody got a grip of the big picture. No effective deadlines were set and nobody to this day appears to have accepted responsibility for financial management of the Wiltshire enquiry. At times they appeared to be like a herd of cats chasing each other tails. And nobody seemed to grasp the implications of the passage of time or did proper calculations of the work that remained to be done and the time available to do it in. Had they done so they would have realised that the game was over by the second half of 2009. As it was they pressed ahead and spent well over a million pounds on an enquiry which had no prospect of coming to a final conclusion.

Q. As a fellow professional, how do you Rate Brian Moore and his investigation(s)

A. Moore was an "absentee investigator" if there ever was one. He never met with me and he even planned to have the disciplinary interviews conducted by subordinates. He did not get the basics right at the beginning. He accepted terms of reference which invited him to assess my conduct against the rules which apply in England and Wales (which were incorrectly described as the "UK.") At an early stage I pointed out that these rules did not even apply to Scotland, let alone Jersey, and that I had a clear political mandate to disregard any UK guidelines which were not consistent with local practice. I also drew attention to the fact that the political mandate not to apply UK guidelines in Jersey had been re-enforced by the advice of the Attorney General of the time (now the Deputy Bailiff William Bailhache) who would be called as a defence witness should the matter ever come to a hearing. But Moore carried on regardless without ever resolving that contradiction. In the end he could only do his report and ask an English Lawyer what disciplinary offences would apply to an English Chief operating under English rules. He then said that it was up to the Jersey authorities to decide whether to apply the same reasoning locally. This was an awkward problem for the Jersey Authorities. If they decided that English Guidelines did not apply in Jersey then the whole case collapsed. However, if they decided that English guidelines did apply then those guidelines would then become the “bible” for policing the Island and 800 years of policing tradition would go out of the window. This dilemma presented quite a problem. In the end Ministers dealt with this in the time honored way. They put off making a decision until it was too late anyway. That is after all “the Jersey Way”. What a waste. An enquiry built on sand. No matter how much work is done, if the foundations are not sound then the whole thing falls over. Having accepted wide ranging terms of reference Moore compounded his error by authorizing "fishing expeditions" which involved trawling through every email I had sent and every document I had created. Interviews were conducted with people I worked with 20 years ago, asking them to remember something, anything, that could stick. By any standard this was foolish, wasteful, but also contemptible. A more professional approach would have involved a tight “ring fenced” enquiry focusing on specific relevant issues and bound by clear timescales and budgets. This was never done, and in consequence the investigation took on a life of its own, perpetuating one line of enquiry after another until the original purpose became lost in the mass of data. He also failed to get a grip of the timescales and the spending behavior of his own staff whose apparent determination to leave no expense unclaimed provided a welcome boost to the local hotel and hospitality industry, but did nothing for law enforcement. Perhaps he could not believe his luck that so much Jersey money was being siphoned off into his Force accounts. In all probability he will have made good use of it for the benefit of the citizens of Wiltshire. The benefit to the citizens of Jersey is less apparent. I expect that he will have his excuses but the result speaks for itself. Over £1m and nearly two years spent on an enquiry with no result. And he was the Investigating Officer. Not “overseeing” the enquiry, not the person with executive responsibility, he was the named person in charge. Nobody with their name on the failed Wiltshire enquiry should have the nerve to criticise anyone else’s conduct of any enquiry ever. They have forfeited their right to criticise anyone else. They have allowed themselves to be drawn into a political vendetta, they have wasted over a million pounds, and they have produced a flawed report when they knew it was too late to do anything with it.

Q. Every penny that was spent on “Operation Rectangle” has been scrutinized with a fine tooth comb, ironically by the Wiltshire Constabulary. Do you think there would be value in investigating how Wiltshire managed to rack up an estimated bill of in excess of a million pounds?

A. It could be argued that there are many aspects of the Wiltshire investigation which would merit an enquiry in their own right. However, I am conscious of the fact that the Wiltshire enquiry was in itself an “investigation into an investigation.” I am not sure that I want to suggest that the Jersey taxpayer foots the bill for an “investigation into an investigation into an investigation.” That might be an investigation too far. I have however suggested in a letter to Brian Moore that his investigation could be used as a case study in the training given to senior officers on the conduct of relating to disciplinary investigations. I believe that the Wiltshire enquiry provides good examples of the pitfalls that can befall a disciplinary enquiry when insufficient attention is given to terms of reference, timescales and costs. So far he has not responded to this suggestion.

Q. During all this, suspension, Wiltshire Investigation and so on, you have remained relatively in the background when it comes to the media spotlight, was this a conscious decision on your part?

A.I have decided not to be personally pro-active in this matter, but at the same time, to be ready to respond to any legitimate enquiries. That remains the case. I have answered your questions because you have taken the trouble to ask them. If they had been asked by another part of the media I would have done the same. But nobody else asked.

Q. There are a number of theories as to why the local “accredited” media have not been asking questions. They range from “it’s not newsworthy” to “they are complicit in covering up the truth with our government.” Have you a theory as to why none of the other local media have asked, searching, and in-depth questions on this subject and reported them?

A. The lack of any serious investigative journalism in the Island was drawn to my attention by an experienced media professional ten years ago, when I was appointed, and others have spoken of it since. That said, I know a number of Jersey media people and many are committed and professional, although they rarely seem to have the time or resources to investigate a story in detail. I prefer not to speculate regarding motives. I just observe, as others have done, that it is rare for the actions of government to be challenged in any depth.

Q. You have told us that you have written, in total 75,000 words in your defence to the Wiltshire allegations. Do you believe those words will ever be published by our Home Affairs Minister and why, in your opinion do you believe they have not been published so far?

A. Whatever anyone may think of the abuse investigation and the events which followed, most observers would agree that the account given by the Chief Officer of the time is an important part of the historical record. So far I have kept these documents confidential and have shared them only with a few trusted individuals for safekeeping. In the way of the world it is inevitable that they will enter the public domain at some time. Both of my statements give a detailed and accurate account of events which is in sharp contrast to the “false history” which Ministers and their allies have attempted to construct. There is a strong argument that it is now in the public interest that all sides of the story should be made available for historians and other interested parties. The Jersey Authorities could of course take the initiative and release these documents now, although by doing so they would expose some of the myths which Ministers have sought to perpetuate about the abuse enquiry. This may of course be the reason why they have not been released so far. I have decided to leave the matter to them for the time being, but I continue to keep the issue under review.

Q. Are you saying that if the Jersey authorities don’t publish your defence statements then you will?

A. I have no plans to publish them at this time but I intend to ensure that at the very least they are available for legitimate historical research. I am sure that they will enter the public domain at some time in the future but I cannot say when.

Q. What do you believe were the intentions of Wilts and their Report?

A. Whatever the intentions of Wiltshire Police, the practical effect of their activity has been to support the actions of those in Jersey who have used public funds to undermine the confidence of abuse victims and witnesses, and to persecute those who strived to bring abusers to justice. They should be ashamed of their involvement in this sordid affair and some of the sordid individuals behind it. After nearly two years and well over a million pounds of investigation I retired without facing a single disciplinary charge. All allegations against me were abandoned. I stand exonerated and remain proud of the part I played in breaking down the culture of abuse which existed almost unchallenged in the Island for decades. I remain grateful as ever for the past and continuing messages of encouragement and support I receive from Islanders, all of whom have my thanks and best wishes.

Q. Do you believe, that culture of abuse that “existed” could “exist” again in Jersey?

A. In speaking of a culture of abuse I have in mind not only the major Historic Abuse Enquiry but a number of other enquiries and allegations of abuse which have surfaced in recent years. It is impossible for a rational person to look back at the history of this subject and not conclude that for decades there was a culture in which some people in positions of authority used their position to abuse vulnerable young people, and believed that they could get away with it, either because of who they were or who they knew. I believe that a lot of good work has been done to break down that culture. With continuing determination it can be further broken down and should not return, but vigilance is needed. Denial will not help. The first step in curing a problem of this nature is to admit that it existed. When that is freely and openly admitted by those in authority, an important line will have been crossed. That will not bring justice to the many people who suffered over the years, but it might bring some assurance that the future may be better than the past. (End)

For the sake of history Mr. Power’s side of the story needs to be documented. We hope this interview goes some way in doing that, while we eagerly await his 75,000 word rebuttal of the Wiltshire allegations. The Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand has had those words for quite some time…….about time they were published Senator, don’t you think?