Saturday, 2 May 2015

Attorney General (William Bailhache) Press Statement.

In preparation for an up-coming Blog Posting, and for the historical documented record, we offer (below) a statement made in June 2009 by the then Attorney General, and now Bailiff, William Bailhache.

Those who have been following the Jersey Child Abuse cover-up, and related events, will be aware that very few prosecutions were brought against alleged offenders and the then AG dropped around a dozen cases which brought anger, and outrage, from Abuse Survivors/Victims and their supporters who staged a PROTEST in response. The people of Jersey were offered a couple of SHOW TRIALS and the Jersey Establishment, and STATE MEDIA, set about discrediting the Child Abuse Investigation, (Operation Rectangle) suspended the Chief of Police, (possibly illegally) and went on to close the investigation DOWN.

Questions have been, and still are being asked, about William Bailhache's decision to drop so many cases which fuelled the fire of suspicion surrounding the politicised, and corrupt, Jersey "JUSTICE" SYSTEM.

We offer Mr. Bailhache's 2009 statement below because he will have serious questions to answer because of it, not only in our up-coming Blog Posting, but when he undoubtedly is called as a witness before the ongoing Public Child Abuse INQUIRY.

William Bailhache Press Statement June 3rd 2009.

Attorney-General William Bailhache said this morning two historic abuse investigations have been dropped because of a lack of evidence.

The multi-million pound two and a half year investigation has resulted in three people facing charges. At one time there were 70 suspects.

In the end, police presented six case files to Attorney-General William Bailhache. But the police say they have more files to send him.

As for the victim's statements, but Mr Bailhace said cases often came down to being the word of one person against another.

A decision not to bring criminal proceedings doesn't, he says, mean that those who have made complaints are not believed, nor does it necessarily mean that any account given by a suspect has been believed.

The statement from the Attorney General is reproduced in full below:-

The Attorney General last made a statement on 26th August, 2008 when he announced that of the six files which had then been received by the prosecution lawyers, charges had been laid in respect of three of them, one file had been returned to the police for further investigations, and a decision had been taken in relation to one of the remaining two files that no charges would be brought. Further police investigations have now been conducted and a decision has now been made that for legal and evidential reasons, no charges will be brought in respect of either of the two outstanding files. A full statement of reasons is set out below.

Cases of this nature are often difficult. There is rarely any independent evidence, and often the cases come down to being the word of one person against another. In a criminal trial, it is not a question of the Magistrate or the jury deciding which version of events they prefer. The prosecution most prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, and if there is any doubt, an accused person is entitled to be found not guilty. Before bringing a criminal prosecution, there must be sufficient evidence such that there is a realistic prospect of conviction. A decision not to bring criminal proceedings does not necessarily mean that those who have made complaints are not believed, nor does it necessarily mean that any account given by a suspect has been believed. A decision not to prosecute means only that the Attorney General, having fully considered all of the available evidence and other information, has decided that an acquittal is more likely than a conviction.

A decision not to prosecute is capable of being perceived as denying the complainant the right to be heard. Indeed, this can lead to a pressure to allow the complainant to have his or her day in Court. However to succumb to such pressure would mean that the prosecution was not applying the evidential test which is its function to apply. The Courts are entitled to know that they are not faced with prosecutions which even the prosecutor thinks will not succeed. The criminal justice system as a whole requires each part of that system – police, prosecutors and Courts – to fulfil its functions professionally and properly. To compromise the test to allow evidentially weak cases to proceed is not an exercise of the objective approach which is demanded of prosecutors by the Code on the Decision to Prosecute. It is not fair to anyone – the complainants, the accused, the witnesses or the public – to do otherwise than apply the evidential test professionally and objectively.

Case 5

Nine complainants have made complaints against Mr. A, now a middle aged man who spent approximately 5 to 6 years as a junior trainee and then employee at Haut de la Garenne in the 1970s and 1980s. The complaints relate to incidents which are alleged to have taken place between 20 and 30 years ago. Four of them contained allegations of different types of sexual offending, some of it of the most serious nature; all but two were alleged to have taken place at Haut de la Garenne.

The police have conducted a very thorough and detailed investigation tracing and interviewing all known witnesses before submitting the papers to the independent lawyers instructed by the Attorney General.

In none of the cases is the complaint corroborated by any independent evidence, and none of the complaints is sufficiently similar in nature to suggest that they might supply mutual corroboration.

In two cases, the employment records show that the complainants were not at Haut de la Garenne at the same time as Mr. A. In two of the cases, the makers of the statements were not those against whom the alleged crimes were committed, the alleged victims no longer being alive.

In three of the cases, the complainants are intrinsically not credible for different reasons, one of them being that the complainant described assaults taking place in a cellar, in the bath and with the use of the shackles described in the media reports, the statement being made for the first time after the media reports had been published. In another case, the complainant described sustaining 300 to 400 cigarette burn marks and a branding which required a skin graft, but there is no physical sign of any injury nor do the records show that Mr. A was at Haut de la Garenne at the same time. In those circumstances it was inevitable that it be concluded this complaint was incapable of belief. It is this complainant who makes the most serious allegations of sexual offending. In another case, the complainant’s mother, who was allegedly present at the time and gave her permission for the assaults, says they never took place.

Furthermore, the police investigation shows relevant defence material including the fact that a significant number of witnesses speak well of Mr. A. describing his popularity with the children and his good qualities in dealing with the children generally. He received consistently good reports from those responsible for monitoring and evaluating his performance.

The papers have been carefully evaluated by those lawyers, by a senior lawyer in the Law Officers’ Department and by the Attorney General personally. None of the lawyers who have looked at this matter considers that the evidential test is passed.

Case 6


In about May 1997, police received information that there was suspected historical child abuse committed by a man and a woman between 1980 and 1990 upon various ex-residents of a Children’s Home in St. Clement, Jersey. The woman had been employed as a “house mother” and although her husband was not employed in any such capacity, it appeared that he played a full part in the running of the Home, which closed in 1990. Following a police investigation in 1997, a number of charges of grave and criminal assault and common assault were brought against both the man and the woman in the Magistrate’s Court. Following an initial hearing, the Magistrate dismissed some of the charges on the grounds that there was no sufficient prima facie evidence to commit the accused to the Royal Court, but in respect of other charges, the defendants were committed for trial in the Royal Court.

When the matter was received in the then Attorney General’s Chambers, the case file was passed to a private sector Crown Advocate with the request that there should be a full evidential review. The Crown Advocate carried out that review and concluded that there were evidential problems. In the circumstances he recommended that the prosecution should go no further.

On receipt of that review, the then Attorney General convened a case conference which was attended by the private sector Crown Advocate, a departmental lawyer, the police officer in charge of the case, a representative of the Children’s Service and the Attorney General himself. The meeting analysed the evidence on each charge having regard to the memoranda prepared by the private sector Crown Advocate. The then Attorney General concluded that there was insufficient evidence to have any realistic prospect of conviction and that in the circumstances it would not be right to proceed. No-one dissented from this view, which indeed was positively endorsed by the other two lawyers present. Although all present were aware of the assertion that one of the couple was suffering from a terminal illness, this possibility was expressly not a factor taken into account in reaching a decision, which was taken entirely on an assessment of the evidential test.

Following that meeting, the Crown formally abandoned the prosecution before the Royal Court in 1998 on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support it.

Developments in 2008/9

Between 29th April and 9th July, 2008, the independent prosecution lawyers instructed by the Attorney General were provided by the police with a number of statements in relation to this case. These included both the original material arising out of the 1998 investigation, and an amount of new material. Those lawyers provided advice to the Attorney General on 18th and 22nd July, 2008. At the request of the police in the autumn of last year, the Attorney General made an application for mutual legal assistance from the French Authorities to enable an interview with the couple to take place in France. In February this year, the necessary confirmations from the competent authorities in France were obtained but the attempts to interview the couple proved unsuccessful. The decision has thus been taken based on the evidence available in July last year.

The present case raises the difficult question of what approach ought to be taken when a prospective defendant has been given a clear indication by the prosecuting authorities that s/he will not be prosecuted.

The Attorney General has noted that in a written answer given in the House of Commons on 31st March, 1993, the Attorney General of England and Wales, responding to a question relating to the re-institution of proceedings which had been terminated said this:

“The fundamental consideration remains that individuals should be able to rely on decisions taken by the prosecuting authorities. The policy of the Director of Public Prosecutions is that a decision to terminate proceedings or not to prosecute should not, in the absence of special circumstances, be altered once it has been communicated to the defendant or prospective defendant unless it was taken and expressed to be taken because the evidence was insufficient. In such a case it would be appropriate to reconsider the decision if further significant evidence were to become available at a later date – especially if the alleged offence is a serious one.

Special circumstances which might justify departure from this policy include:

(i) rare cases where reconsideration of the original decision shows that it was not justified and the maintenance of confidence in the criminal justice system requires that a prosecution be brought notwithstanding the earlier decision; and

(ii) those cases where termination has been effected specifically with a view to the collection and preparation of the necessary evidence which is thought likely to become available in the fairly near future. In such circumstances, the CPS will advise the defendant of the possibility that proceedings will be reinstituted. “

The Attorney General has also noted the Crown Prosecution Service website at paragraph 12, which reads as follows:

“12. Restarting a Prosecution

12.1 People should be able to rely on decisions taken by the Crown Prosecution Service. Normally if the Crown Prosecution Service tells a suspect or defendant that there will not be a prosecution or that the prosecution has been stopped, that is the end of the matter and the case will not start again. But occasionally there are special reasons why the Crown Prosecution Service will restart the prosecution, particularly if the case is serious.

12.2 These reasons included:

(a) rare cases where a new look at the original decision shows that it was clearly wrong and should not be allowed to stand;

(b) cases which are stopped so that more evidence which is likely to become available in the fairly near future can be collected and prepared. In these cases the Crown Prosecutor will tell the defendant that the prosecution may well start again; and

(c) cases which are stopped because of a lack of evidence but where more significant evidence is discovered later.”

These appear to be well founded and sound principles upon which in the Attorney’s view the prosecution in Jersey should also proceed. The Attorney is of the view that, as in the United Kingdom, the damage which would be done to public confidence if people in Jersey could not rely upon decisions taken by the office of the Attorney General, particularly if those decisions were simply undone as a result of a change in the identity of the holder of the office, would be very significant indeed. For all these reasons, as a matter of principle, the Attorney General has adopted the approach which has been taken in the United Kingdom.

Accordingly, two particular lines of approach have been considered:

1. Given that the case in 1998 was not stopped so that more evidence might be likely to become available in the fairly near future, was this a case where it might be said that the decision taken in 1998 was clearly wrong?

2. Alternatively, could it be said that, although the case did not proceed because there was a lack of evidence in 1998, more significant evidence has been discovered subsequently which makes a difference to that decision?

On the first of those questions, the Attorney General has received written advice from both the private sector Crown Advocate and from leading Treasury counsel practising at the Central Criminal Court in London. A review has also been carried out by a senior lawyer in the Attorney’s Department and by the Attorney General himself. Having thoroughly considered this review and these advices the Attorney General has concluded that without any shadow of a doubt the decision in 1998 cannot be said to be one which was not justified, nor was it one which was clearly wrong.

One of the particular features of the advice received from senior Treasury counsel in London was that there was a strong probability that re-opening a prosecution in 2008 on the charges which could have been brought in 1998 would be struck out as an abuse of the process of the Court. Indeed, a defence submission that there was an abuse would only be overcome if there were very compelling and completely new evidence capable of removing the reasons for the 1998 decision, and if there were a good reason for the evidence not having been available before. Leading counsel took the view that the material which has become available since 1998 fell far short of providing any such exceptional justification, and that in the circumstances it would not be proper for the Attorney General to seek to reinstitute the criminal proceedings.

Attention was then given to whether or not there was any other significant new evidence which has been obtained. In particular, consideration was given to allegations of sexual assaults which had not previously been made. The advice received from the private sector Crown Advocate was that the evidential test was not met in relation to any such allegation. On his recommendation, the Attorney suggested that he take leading counsel’s advice from London to identify whether that view was shared. That advice was duly taken, and leading counsel has confirmed that, in his view as well, the evidential test is not met. These opinions have been further considered both by the Attorney General and by the senior lawyer in the Law Officers’ Department assisting him in these cases. Nothing in that further consideration has led the Attorney General to express any view contrary to the advice which has been received in respect of these sexual allegations.

In the circumstances, the Attorney General considers that, applying the above principles, there is no reason sufficient to re-open the decision taken by his predecessor in 1998.

The Attorney General realises, of course, that the complainants will be very disappointed with this decision, which has, of course, also been discussed with the police.

Nevertheless, hard decision though it may appear to some, the Attorney General is sure that a decision not to prosecute is the right and appropriate decision in these cases taken on the legal principles set out above.

3rd June, 2009. Law Officers’ Department



  1. Funny how there's always a mountain of evidence against non-Jersey men with no witnesses etc......funny how fervently the police will do an 'outstanding' investigation against sexual predators who happen to be Portuguese/Polish/ non Jersey and the AG happens to find that the evidential test is met......justice in Jersey simply depends on who you are.

  2. Is the next and most important stage of The Independent Care Inquiry going to happen this month?
    Its just that they have no hearing dates up yet. Infact they seem to have gone very quiet....
    Have they the guts to go ahead? Or are they going to resign?

    1. Phase 1(b) of the Inquiry starts on the 26th of this month. This is where those who worked in the "care" system, and those who have been accused of abuse will be giving evidence.

      Has the I inquiry got the guts to go ahead? This remains to be seen but I am cautiously optimistic.

  3. We're still waiting to hear if the COI has completed the investigation it was supposed to be carrying out to find out who leaked Lenny Harper's statement to Philip Bailhache (brother of William Bailhache)

  4. William Bailhache is a good Christian man with integrity and so the Enquiry shall report.

  5. "good Christian man" and good Mason.

    1. If William Bailhache has so much integrity it couldn't have been him who leaked Lenny Harper's statement to his brother Philip Bailhache. Somebody in the establishment can't have as much integrity as William Bailhache and we need to know who that person is. I for one can't wait to see the COI's findings into their supposed investigation into this!

    2. I could be getting a little bit mixed up here so please forgive and ignore me if this is so. Did I read along time ago that one of the Bailhache brothers leaked an email from deputy Carolyn Labey to Graham Power and he leaked it to the other Bailhache brother? I think it had something to do with planning corruption?

    3. ANSWER, PART 1, of 3

      The comment at 18:04 on 3rd May has events confused. That wasn’t how I remembered things so I went to Stuart Syvret’s blog which fortunately for the rule of law, investigative journalism and press freedom, the Jersey Establishment ultimately failed to suppress. On checking, my memories were confirmed.

      The key posting is to be found in the Stuart Syvret blog archive on 3rd June 2011, under the title “SO BE IT!”. This is the address –

      Perhaps someone can make a link?

      In that posting Syvret published an affidavit prepared for him by the illegally suspended Police Chief Graham Power. It’s such an important document I’m quoting some parts of it, but it won’t all fit into one comment so this is a three-part response to the questions at 18:04.

      What occurred is this:

      Deputy Carolyn Labey did not ‘leak’ anything, and nor did Graham Power. The leak in question came from dodgy cop Dave Minty and was a leak to William Bailhache, who then leaked it in turn to his brother Philip Bailhache.

      Attorney General William Bailhache then tried to illegally coerce the Police Chief – and his brother the then Bailiff Philip Bailhache tried to illegally coerce Deputy Carolyn Labey. The Bailhache Brothers did this in a strenuous and fearful attempt to cover-up the wide-spread planning corruption in Jersey.

      The situation started when Deputy Carolyn Labey was approached by a number of her constituents who were concerned that land-re-zoning and development permissions were being corruptly manipulated via the island’s planning processes.

      These issues were so serious and supported by witnesses she raised the matter with the Police Chief Graham Power.

      He was satisfied that the issues were indeed serious, and he mobilised the first phase of what would have gone on to be a major criminal investigation into “allegations of corruption at the heart of government.”

      It’s as well to let the affidavit of the illegally suspended Police Chief speak for itself.

      In Paragraph 19 of the Police Chief’s affidavit for Stuart Syvret, the Police Chief says this:

      “19: There is another matter which Mr Syvret alleges could have been a motive for his arrest and the search of his address. This relates to the interest of his then partner, Deputy Carolyn Labey, in allegations of corruption relating to planning issues. Mr Syvret states that some local people had approached Deputy Labey with their concerns and that she had drawn these concerns to my attention. Mr Syvret goes on to state that the Police Officer who I had delegated to look into the allegations is the same officer who led the operation in which he was arrested, and Deputy Labey’s home searched. He alleges that files relating to the corruption allegations were accessed as part of the police operation. He has also heard that I had been involved in some exchanges with the then Attorney General in relation to the matter shortly before I was suspended. Mr Syvret asks if I have any evidence to offer in relation to these matters.”

      The Police Chief certainly did have evidence - apocalyptic evidence.


    4. ANSWER, PART 2

      In his affidavit for Stuart Syvret, at paragraph 20, Graham Power then quotes as sub-paragraphs, paragraphs 63 to 67 of his statement to the Wiltshire Police.

      I reproduce some of the key points from paragraph 20, sub-paragraphs 63 to 67:

      From paragraph 20 of the Police Chief’s affidavit, sub-paragraph 63:

      “There is another series of events which may have made it into the files. They happened quite close to my suspension so it is possible that they did not. I will however give brief details in case they are relevant. These involved allegations made against Senator Terry Le Main the Housing Minister. I recall that Deputy Carolyn Labey got in touch with me and related to me information which she had received from people who said that they had inside knowledge of corruption in the granting of permission to build retirement properties on previously designated agricultural land. The allegations were a bit complicated but in brief it was alleged that the Senator and at least one of his senior officials were in a corrupt relationship with a developer who was being assisted in turning lower value agricultural land into high value development land. At my request Chief Inspector David Minty made some initial enquiries.”

      From paragraph 20 of the Police Chief’s affidavit, sub-paragraph 64:

      “I mention this episode now as it was part of the background to what happened when I attempted to address the reports relating to the alleged corruption involving Senator Le Main.”

      From paragraph 20 of the Police Chief’s affidavit, sub-paragraph 65:

      “I had some email and telephone exchanges with the Attorney General about the above allegations. My interpretation of these exchanges is that the Attorney General became disproportionately fixated upon the fact that the information regarding the alleged corruption originated from Deputy Labey, who was in a relationship with Senator Syvret, who was a persistent and determined critic of the Attorney General. At some point in these exchanges Deputy Labey emailed me expressing lack of confidence in the independence and integrity of the criminal justice system, and expressed criticism of the then Bailiff, who is the brother of the then Attorney General. A print-out of the email from Deputy Labey had been obtained by the Attorney General, and there were some exchanges about it in which I was involved. The Attorney General reacted angrily towards Deputy Labey and demanded she apologise to the Bailiff or something of that nature. At some point I asked him if he had obtained the copy lawfully, when I should have said “legitimately.” He said he had obtained it as part of the bundle of papers submitted by David Minty, who was leading on the discussions as to whether there should be a criminal investigation.”

      [So it was Dave Minty who leaked to William Bailhache the classified correspondence between Deputy Carolyn Labey and the Police Chief.]


    5. ANSWER, PART 3

      From paragraph 20 of the Police Chief’s affidavit, sub-paragraph 66:

      “In any event the outcome was that we could not agree, and the exchange finished with what I took to be an angry email from the Attorney General expressing apparent frustration at my perceived failure to sufficiently oppose the criticism of his brother the Bailiff, and finishing with a phrase something like “so be it,” which I read as having a threatening tone. So far as I can recall, that was the last email I received from the Attorney General. Not long afterwards I was suspended.”

      The whole affidavit is worth reading at the Stuart Syvret archive, on 3rd June 2011, under the title “SO BE IT!”. The address is –

      Going from memory, Deputy Carolyn Labey even courageously tried to get the impending corruptly driven land-rezoning debate parked via a States debate pending a full investigation?

      One can’t help but get the strong impression that Senator Stuart Syvret and Deputy Carolyn Labey were, back then as a couple an ethical force the Jersey Establishment of sleazy old Freemasons & similar crooks were terrified of, so they had to be disrupted, put under intolerable pressure and split apart.

      It will be most interesting to see what full and frank submissions to the COI Carolyn Labey makes? Do you know, VFC, if she plans to give evidence? It’s very clear from the published evidence that what happened to her, Stuart Syvret and her house & children under the orders of the Bailhache Brothers is inextricably at the core of the 2007, 2008 & 2009 child-abuse cover-ups.

      And insofar as the naked planning corruption is concerned, it’s similar-fact-evidence, which amplifies & supports the conclusions of the full collapse in the proper rule of law in Jersey which has enabled and covered-up the decades of child-abuse.

      Just as Stuart Syvret's efforts to expose the killer nurse are equally central similar-fact-evidence.

    6. Link referred to can be viewed HERE.

  6. Can you clarify the meaning of this post.
    Are you saying that decisions to prosecute were wrong despite the reasons given by the AG?

    1. There are question marks surrounding the decision NOT to prosecute at least one suspect.

    2. At 06:25 a question asks “Can you clarify the meaning of this post.
      Are you saying that decisions to prosecute were wrong despite the reasons given by the AG?”

      Of course the decisions were wrong. For all kinds of very obvious reasons.

      The question seems to say to readers of this site ‘if you think the AG’s decisions to NOT prosecute were dubious and contaminated, what then do you think of the decisions he took in cases where he DID prosecute? Are you saying he was wrong in the former cases, but not in the latter?’ Such a position would obviously be inconsistent and partisan.

      For my part as a lawyer who has followed events in ‘The Jersey Situation’ for several years, I have no such difficulty.

      Any involvement at all of the Office of Jersey Attorney General in any of the decisions to not prosecute - or prosecute - the alleged abusers was, and remains, ultra vires.

      And that, frankly, is the very position the abusers prosecuted should have had argued in court by their lawyers, if their lawyers were not of the permanently conflicted and fearful Jersey Bar with their lucrative exclusive rights of audience with what passes for a “court” in your island.

      Why is that so? Why was and is any involvement of the Jersey Attorney General in any of these issues simply unlawful, irredeemably so?

      There are several strong grounds.

      Probably the most significant is the primary test one makes which is this, ‘is the prosecution function in Jersey structurally capable of making its discretionary decisions in a way that has vires?’ That is, ‘is the ‘public authority’ of the prosecution function capable of making non-contaminated objective decisions – decisions which are based purely on relevant material & factors and free from contaminations with non-relevant material & factors?’ It’s one of the prime and standard tests in public law as to whether a public function is being discharged lawfully. We then bring into the same equation the requirements of Article 6 of the ECHR, which guarantees for all people a ‘fair hearing’ in determination of any matter which has an impact on their civil rights and obligations, and any criminal matter against them’. Strasbourg ECtHR case-law has established very clearly that such a requirement applies not only to an actual ‘court’ and ‘judicial proceedings’ but to any decision by a public authority which has an impact on the ‘civil rights and obligations’ of an individual. In any such case, the individual’s Article 6 Rights are engaged.

      What that means in plain English is that all such decisions must comply with Article 6, that is, be fair and objective and not contaminated.

      Therefore our starting question is, ‘does the public function of ‘prosecutor’ in Jersey meet the necessary standards of fairness and objectively, as clearly required by law?’

      The answer is ‘no’.

      The alleged abusers who were prosecuted should have argued the decisions to prosecute them were contaminated & politicised because of the ‘political’ need of your AG to find a few low grade scapegoats.

      To meet the test of objectivity and fairness the Jersey prosecution function would need to be free of other contaminating considerations. It would need to be a prosecution function – and only a prosecution function. Instead, in Jersey all prosecutions are decided by the Attorney General who is conflicted and contaminated by several other, mutually exclusive functions and powers, for example being in charge of legal advice provided to the executive and legal advice provided to the legislature. The Office is also politicised in that it plays a role promoting and defending Jersey’s ‘image’.

      And that is quite without even coming on to factor-in the very well-documented personal contaminations of the individual office-holders.

  7. I have read for the first time the affidavit written for Stuart Syvret by Police Chief Graham Power following the reference made to it in the 3-part answer above. What an extraordinary state of affairs. It serves indeed to further illustrate how irredeemably corrupt your polity is in Jersey. If public officials such as a DPP and a senior judge acted in that way in response to corruption allegations here in London it is they who'd be arrested in the resulting national scandal. The fact that that has still not happened in Jersey and in fact they've been permitted by London to run amok with even more corruption and abuses of power can only reinforce the view others have expressed that individuals who are directly employed in that London Crown Dependency oversight apparatus have been corrupted by the Jersey cosa nostra.

    Are you Jersey campaigners demanding answers from London?

    1. There are a number of campaigners, in Jersey, nationally and internationally who have submitted evidence of corruption from over here to London authorities and the silence, thus far, has been deafening. There are also a number of campaigners putting pressure on the London authorities to have the Jersey Child Abuse scandal, and cover up, included in the Terms of Reference for the overarching CSA Inquiry.

  8. VFC off topic, but do the public want the Esplanade car park to close on Wednesday after the States debate of Deputy Tadiers propositions on Tuesday, Because that is exactley what will happen and why it should not.;topicseen#msg59953


  9. Stuart Syvret Blog LINK

  10. That affidavit by the Police Chief for Stuart Syvret is shocking and I don't know of any precedent situation in Britain. What's revealed is corruption of the very highest degree, involving a total assault on the good rule of law by criminals who have captured high public office of judge and of prosecutor.

    I agree with the comment that asked if you Jersey campaigners are taking this up with TPTB in London? If you've been fobbed off by the London politicians & civil servants, the obvious step to take is write directly to the Queen. Usually the Queen's offices just pass such stuff to the relevant politicians, but isn't your situation in Jersey different from the UK in that as a Crown Dependency you are still a pure feudal society? The Queen has special responsibilities and duties to you, Her subjects in Jersey. She just couldn't hand on and wash Her hands of such horrifying corruption once it was brought to Her attention. Something would have to be done, even if invisibly behind the scenes.

    Why don't you get together a group of campaigners and all sign a letter to Her? There's nothing to lose by doing so and even if it did get ignored it would be an historic 'insurance policy' should you need to hold the Monarchy to account in a few years time once your current strategy to clean up Jersey and gain the proper rule of law has failed? (Well, let's be honest, its failed already, e.g a public inquiry which isn't 'public', or an 'inquiry', but you know what I mean, when the failure becomes so obvious you can't keep kidding yourselves any more and you have to face up to going back to the drawing board.)

    You need to get all of the evidence you've accumulated over these years and send it all to the Queen with a covering letter. Think of it as insurance. Remember, the man who is a criminal as revealed in so much of this evidence, former Attorney General William Bailhache, is empowered now as Bailiff by the Queen's Letters Patent. Why are you not holding Her to account?

    1. Because surely if the AG's, SG's, Bailiffs, Deputy Bailiffs are all Crown Appointees the Queen herself is responsible for their criminality? In effect it would be asking her to hold herself to account wouldn't it?

    2. I'm up for signing a letter and I will ask my friends to do the same. Not just that, I will door knock to get as many signatures as possible. The more people who become aware and sign it, the easier it will be for others to sign as it will act as a chisel to break down the fear that dominates everyone here except for a few brave people like Neil, Rico, Stuart etc. Please please, we got nothing to loose and as the commentator says, we need insurance. And whilst what VFC has replied about the Queens accountability, it will be interesting to see how the crown wriggles out of that one.

    3. I have often suggested we need to form a group. As an individual, I'm scared to express my views (due to the Jersey Way). As a group member, I'll no longer feel the need to write under an Anonymous heading. That in itself would feel like a significant victory for me and others like me- intelligent people who haven't been abused as a child, but are repeatedly shocked by the illegal acts of the Jersey authorities. We don't deserve to feel shame, we didn't abuse children or cover up child abuse but we feel it nevertheless. If we got together and formed a group, we could collectively be a cog in that change we desire. We would gain people power which always proceeds change. In 2008 - 2012, we could never have succeeded. Now it's post Savile era we have the best opportunity but it will take work and commitment. I'm willing to do my bit for a better Jersey and for justice and for all the things that should be, but aren't due to the Jersey Way.

  11. Do you know the reasons why the Jersey child abuse public inquiry refused to give Syvret legal funding? It's a statutory inquiry isn't it? That affidavit by Graham Power and other stuff in Syvret's old blogs is so serious, to not give him legal funding just doesn't make any sense. I can't think of any explanation that would make 'sense' apart from the Jersey public inquiry being corrupt. There is no other explanation which holds water. Maybe you know something that isn't known to the public which gives a different explanation? If you do the time has come to share that secret with your readers because from where a lot of us are standing, the Jersey child abuse public inquiry is corrupt, and that is an issue for us because our UK inquiry is going to rely on the Jersey inquiry for filling in the blanks about what happened with children trafficked from the UK to Jersey. And what UK child abusers did in Jersey and if Jersey cover ups helped them get away with their crimes in the UK longer. If there is some amazing reason that justifies the Jersey inquiry refusing to give legal representation to Stuart Syvret we have to know what it is now, because if there is not a genuine reason, the Jersey inquiry is corrupt and we must straight away launch a campaign against the UK inquiry from relying on the Jersey inquiry.

    1. To be honest I'm not entirely sure what the scenario is there and perhaps Stuart could explain it from his perspective? For my part I am hoping some kind of compromise/agreement can be met between Stuart and the Inquiry Panel that would/could ensure Stuart could give his vital evidence in safety.

    2. To answer the question at 19:06 - there is no credible or legitimate reason for the Jersey child-abuse public inquiry to have refused to meet my right to legal representation.

      Frankly, the premise of the comment is correct - the Jersey child-abuse "public-inquiry" is corrupt. It is overtly corrupt. No UK public authority could possibly rely upon the Jersey inquiry and the conflicted City of London law-firm Eversheds to arrive at the truth concerning the breakdown in the basic protections of the rule of law in Jersey and the consequences there have been over the decades for British vulnerable children.

      There is - or course - an "official-reason" why Eversheds and the Jersey inquiry refused to provide me with legal representation - namely, that they wanted me to sign away my rights first - and only then be able to take legal advice on the meaning and consequences of having done so - afterwards.

      Obviously, only a complete cretin would agree to a "deal" of that nature.

      The thing that shows Eversheds & the Jersey child-abuse "public-inquiry" to be overtly corrupt is not so much that they would try to mug a key witness in that way & abuse the witness's human rights, but more so they even attempt something so starkly incompatible with the legal requirements for public inquiries.

      So manifestly unlawful is it to refuse legal representation to a key witness, it can't be put down to incompetence. That refusal was a deliberate act of corruption, designed to ensure a biased, rigged, and ultra vires process could deliver a whitewash - without its corrupt and conflicted methodology being challenged and exposed.

      I wrote about it at the time, here:

      Not only is the Jersey child-abuse public inquiry just another phase of the deep cover-ups - it isn't even a competent cover-up.

      Stuart Syvret

    3. I too have been trying to make sense of this.

      As far as I can make out, Stuart thinks that if he gets interested party status from the inquiry he will be curtailed in some of his rights. Without such status the inquiry will not, as a matter of course, consider him for funding. That leaves the possibility of funding him on exceptional grounds if he is not an interested party. However they are refusing this on the basis that the legal advice he is seeking is effectively challenging their own protocols which they are satisfied are completely kosher in all circumstances.

      Therefore, if he persists in refusing interested party status he can pay for his own legal advice.

      Without fully understanding the implications, this seems very unfair to me. It looks more like the inquiry sitting on its dignity than doing everything in its power to get the best result.

      It also seems to suggest that the inquiry does not understand the full extent of the lawless environment in which it is operating.

  12. Reading the question at 19:06 it struck me that it's such an obvious question, another really obvious question arises from it. Is there a journalist in Jersey who has asked those questions of the Jersey public inquiry and of Stuart Syvret?

    You Jersey bloggers have been unremitting, who knows, perhaps rightly, of traditional journalism in your island. Well, aren't the issues raised by the question at 19:06 an interesting test? Why not see that your heritage media get asked to examine those issues? After all, regardless of who is right, the public inquiry or Syvret, and regardless of which side one is on, the simple issue that a public inquiry has refused legal representation to a key witness, and that the key witness is refusing to speak to the public inquiry, is a big, big NEWS STORY!

    A big news story, no matter which side one takes. So where are Jersey's journalists?

    Perhaps they've approached both parties, and both have refused to comment? Well, in which case, why not say so?

    I'm genuinely interested in the Jersey 'regulated media' position on this. After all, we wouldn't want to have to relay on mere bloggers to fill this striking public interest lacunae, would we?

  13. VFC.
    The Jersey COI starts up again today. But how come there is no notification of this on their web site?

  14. ''At some point I asked him if he had obtained the copy lawfully, when I should have said “legitimately.”

    What is the significance of the above quote? Is their a difference?

  15. Surely there are tens, if not hundreds of good, honest, Lawyers out there who would represent Stuart Syvret, for no charge at all....
    But maybe bravery needs to be added to the good and honest list!?

  16. The JEP won't name Mr K, so who is he?

  17. "In three of the cases, the complainants are intrinsically not credible for different reasons, one of them being that the complainant described assaults taking place in a cellar, in the bath and with the use of the shackles described in the media reports, the statement being made for the first time after the media reports had been published."

    People who did this should be named and shamed.

    1. That is of course assuming the Attorney General’s (William Bailhache) statement was truthful and accurate. Maybe after my next post you might (if you don’t already) have doubts in his truthfulness/accuracy.

  18. Any thoughts about this week's elections?

    1. VFC is probably too busy to comment on the UK elections but I can offer some observations

      A majority gives a government the ability to act decisively if it so wishes.

      IF it so wishes - noe there's the rub

      The Conservatives have been as infiltrated (possibly more) by paedophiles

      An Ex chief whip was even recorded reminiscing that they basically LIKED paedophiles (pederasts in particular) because you owned their ass and could be absolutely sure of their support.

      The UK situation was mentioned recently by another local blogger Dr.Forskitt

      That blog links to the BBC Radio 4 "World at One" 05/05/2015 "Becky Milligan investigates allegations of historical child Abuse" [from 26m30s]

      Most of the Irish survivor's accusations relate to older boys but he says he was beaten unconscious when he objected to the sexual torture followed be gang rape of two drugged brothers (aged about 8 and 10)

      Perhaps Team Voice/TJW could upload a copy of this as it will disappear off the iplayer in a couple of weeks??????

      It is actually the 2nd part of 3
      The first part is [from 7m20s] on

      The third part is [from 18:30] on

      Margret Thatcher's Father was allegedly a prolific and well known abuser (apparently only of post puberty girls) in the town where he was Mayor.

      Thatcher seems to have surrounded herself with 'loyal' individuals, many of whom seem to have turned out to be paedophiles and whom she allegedly protected:
      (ironically while being sniped at by Ted Heath)

      A good one stop shop and the source of much of the investigation and reporting is

      Add the Jimmy Savile friendship and the issue that they gave him 'keys' and free run of Broadmore psychiatric unit !!!!!

      The beast will likely continue to try to protect itself and to limit the damage citing platitudes of "the greater good". It must be cleansed and cut open from the inside or have the truth dragged out painfully and slowly (like Jersey).

      It will be interesting if they try to accept half baked findings of the Jersey CoI.

  19. What makes you think that the Jersey CoI is going to give half baked finding?
    They are either going to come back all guns blazing or they are going to resign.
    Simple as that.
    Interesting times ahead.

  20. They can only come back 'all guns blazing' if those who have evidence do not withhold it.

  21. Are you still reporting on Trevor Pitman's latest work?

    1. I shall, in the next couple of days, be reporting on former Deputy Shona Pitman's courageous, and inspirational, latest work.

    2. Courageous and inspirational.
      Kicking arse again is she?

    3. VFC

      I think Anonymous at 19:50 above just came from Dublin. Depart 18:35. Must have been a direct flight :)

  22. Did you hear this plonker's liberation day address. When taking about those that evacuated before the occupation he said ' ... Some of the best known Jersey residents fleeing like rats'.
    What a supercilious prat ... typically Bailhache. I am a 61 year old jersey man whose parents were teenagers in Jersey during the occupation and I just would like to say that our Bailiff does
    not speak for me. I am disgusted.

    1. I do not know which copy of Sinel's diary (the first was printed in December 1945, the second in January 1946) that WB took the so called 'quote' from but I have the hardback revised edition (illustrated) September 1946 version and I cannot find ANY such words as were quoted??. Is this another make it up as you go along, I really do think WB should show the people of this Island where this quote is from. And yes I am Jersey born and bred and my family were all here during those long and painful years.