Wednesday, 20 January 2016

Lenny Harper. Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Witness.


Former SIO Lenny Harper.

On the 12th &13th of January 2016 former Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) of Jersey Child Abuse investigation (Operation Rectangle)  Lenny Harper gave his long anticipated evidence to the on-going public Inquiry Chaired by Francis Oldham QC.

Mr. Harper was (rightly) put through the mill and subjected to the toughest line of questioning, in this phase of the Inquiry, than any other witness to appear thus far. Indeed as Mr. Harper explains, in the video interview below, he is the ONLY witness to be officially cross-examined by Counsel to the Inquiry. This is despite claims by the Inquiry that witnesses will NOT be cross-examined. It must be said that Mr. Harper, almost looked as if he enjoyed the cross examination, and certainly came out on top at the end of it receiving his second spontaneous round of applause from a packed Public Gallery during his two day testimony.

As viewers/readers would expect Mr. Harper's testimony was not without controversy. Contrary to inaccurate reporting from parts of the local State Media that DID NOT include a totally corrupt Jersey Police Force (SOJP). Mr. Harper, in our video interview, explains how he told the Child Abuse Inquiry that the SOJP should be proud of itself by being able to root out a "tiny minority" of corrupt officers. They did this WITHOUT involving an outside police force. This was not highlighted by parts of the local State Media which we have now clarified.

In part 1 (of 2) of our interview (below) the former SIO discusses what looks to be a very alarming revelation in that, according to Mr. Harper, not only is there the possibility that the Jersey Law Office' have falsified documents given to the Child Abuse Inquiry as evidence, but the Inquiry itself is using these documents in the knowledge that there is suspicion over their authenticity.

Former Chief Police Officer
Graham Power QPM.

Regular readers  will know that it is not beyond the capability of the Jersey Administration to allegedly falsify dates on documents as we learned through the former Police Chief Graham Power's letter of complaint to the Privileges and Procedures Committee concerning the notes drafted (by person's unknown)of his (possibly illegal) suspension as posted HERE.

A couple of quotes from that letter (above link) to PPC from Mr. Power:

"Following almost a year of requests and applications, information has now been disclosed in relation to the times and dates when documents relevant to the suspension were created. It is self-evident that the facts now disclosed are incompatible with the “Official Version” of events.

Letter from the Minister for Home Affairs notifying me that the disciplinary process had been commenced
It is now disclosed that this was created at 0844hrs on Saturday 8 November 2008. This is three days before the receipt of the information which is claimed to have led to the decision to commence the disciplinary process, and three days before the creation of the letter from the Minister instructing the Chief Executive to take action under the Code. Former Deputy Andrew Lewis in his statement to the Wiltshire Police investigation claims that he instructed that the letter be drawn up on Wednesday 12 November 2008 and he is supported in this claim by Mr Ogley. (Document bundle pages 32 and 31.) The disclosure reveals that these statements are untrue."


So we, and the Child Abuse Inquiry, know that dates on documents look to have been falsified by Jersey authorities in the past. 

Mr. Harper drew the Inquiry's attention to a possibly falsified document back in October 27th 2015 and asked for a forensic fingerprint of the document. This request was NOT carried out. So the Inquiry was knowingly relying on a piece of evidence which it knows to have questions over its authenticity. 

As if this wasn't alarming enough the Law Offices' Department produced another document, for the first time, the day Mr. Harper was giving evidence. This document was to "allay Mr. Harper's fears" concerning the original suspicious document. Firstly readers must be mindful that Mr. Harper asked for a digital fingerprint of the original document some 2-3 months before he gave evidence. The day he is giving evidence, to the Inquiry, a document is produced which looks even more suspicious than the original one! Why was the digital fingerprint of the original document never investigated and why did the Law Offices' wait to produce this second document until the day Mr. Harper was giving evidence? Further why has the Inquiry not launched an investigation into both documents rather than rely on them as evidence with such suspicion hanging over their authenticity?

This is an alarming turn of events and unfortunately doesn't bode well for the credibility of the Public Inquiry and until these documents are authenticated (or otherwise) how can any document submitted by the Jersey Authorities/Law Offices' Department be relied  upon?

There could be a plausible explanation concerning these documents (and why they haven't been investigated) but unfortunately  it is not forthcoming and until it is they must be viewed with suspicion.

Part 2 of the interview with Mr. Harper will be published soon.











83 comments:

  1. Good to see the corruption comments clarified you just can't trust Jersey's MSM. Odd how these faked documents have not been reported either. Not. When is part 2 up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's very hard not to feel the Inquiry is complicit in sowing confusion and throwing witnesses off their stride.

      A number of witnesses have been confronted, either on their way in to the hearings or shortly before, with documents that they had not seen and of which they were unaware.

      I don't think the Inquiry itself is necessarily doing this on purpose but they are complicit in allowing this disruptive tactic by the administration.

      For example, the second document referred to by Lenny Harper seems to have been fresh from the Law Offices. And if you look back at other cases, privilege has been lifted on some documents just before the hearings thus enabling them to be introduced at short notice, or no notice at all.

      It is becoming clear that the Inquiry does not have a mind of its own. This is very worrying and there are no prizes for working out who's pulling the strings.

      The longer the Inquiry goes on the more it seems to be validating Stuart Syvret's script, written at the very outset.

      Delete
  2. A comment has been submitted naming 2 police officers involving the falsification of note books. Without knowing the case I am hesitant to publish the comment with the names included.

    It's a poignant comment that should be published so ask the commenter to re-submit the comment with the names redacted?

    ReplyDelete
  3. A very good and concise interview. Though I appreciate most viewers don't seem to want to watch anything for more than 10.minutes I for one would have liked a longer interview. There is after all so much to talk about. Look forward to Part Two with anticipation. Perhaps you could whet our appetite with what type of issues are discussed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Issued discussed, among others, are the treatment of former Deputy Trevor Pitman by the COI. Protection of suspected paedophiles by the COI and a word from Mr. Harper to the Victims/Survivors.

      Delete
    2. Thanks. Sounds as fascinating as Part One. Keep up the good work. We will get our 'French revolution' one day no matter how overdue

      Delete
  4. How can I get comment back to adjust it as didn't make a copy, if send my email would that help

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With your permission I could edit the names out for you and publish it? That helps keep your anonymity without sending an e-mail.

      Delete
    2. Yes permission to edit names is given

      Delete
    3. Edited Anonymous comment.

      I remember a case involving ex policeman (Officer 1) many years ago that PB was AG at the time & he was accused of falsifying his notebook.
      He got independent forensic expert to check the notebook which showed him innocent of the charge & he was acquitted of charge however (Officer 1) had the notebook of the main prosecution witness a fellow police officer (Officer 2) examined by the same expert & it was found that he was GUILTY of falsifying his notebook. In the good old jersey way as he was on PB's side he was not charged in fact he was promoted to (Officer 1’s) position then allowed to retire early with his pension intact. Sound familiar!! On reading Mr. Harper requesting fingerprints reminded me of this story.


      Delete
  5. Day 12829 Jan 2016

    ​09:00 Public witness



    ​William Bailhache

    Yes
    Day 12728 Jan 2016

    ​10:00 Public witness



    ​William Bailhache

    Yes
    Day 12627 Jan 2016

    ​10:00 Public witness





    15:00 Public witness



    ​John Edmonds





    David Morgan

    Yes
    Day 12526 Jan 2016

    ​10:00 Public witness



    ​Sir Philip Bailhache​

    Yes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who is David Morgan please?

      Delete
    2. Is former cop Barry Feudermer's written statements up on the COI webpage yet?

      Delete
    3. Barry Faudemer's transcript can be read HERE.

      His statement to the Inquiry, and supporting documents, can be read HERE.

      Delete
    4. Don't know, as yet, who Dave Morgan is sorry.

      Delete
  6. Ah Royle Family

    What do we expect ....The Spanish inquisition ?

    NOBODY ....... etc. etc.

    I expect they are plumping up the cushions on the comfy chair.in readiness for the Royle posteriors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The question is WHO is Cardinal Wang?

      Delete
  7. Sir Michael Bent20 January 2016 at 20:46

    I hope the Bailhache brothers will both be attached to a lie detector while being questioned?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "attached to a lie detector"
      That would be entertaining but they are already evidenced liars so given the subject matter 240 volts seems more appropriate

      Delete
  8. Slightly off thread but only just. This mentoring of the Home Affairs Minister who suspended Graham Power by former Senator Terry Le Main is one of the most shocking revelations of all. Jaw-dropping.

    ReplyDelete
  9. David Morgan is an ex SOJ police that I believe lives in Uk now & has written numerous letters to the rag quite outspoken so interested to see his contribution

    ReplyDelete
  10. Any new news on Bob Hill's condition?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will post an update later today.

      Delete
    2. No update yet?

      Delete
    3. Bob is making slow, but significant, progress. He is still in Overdale Hospital where he is receiving excellent care. He's got a fairly rigorous regime of speech and physiotherapy. He is still paralysed down his right-hand-side although he does have feeling on the right side of his face.

      He is able to understand what people are saying and in some cases can answer with coherent words. He is very positive and even more determined to work as hard as he can to get back to as normal a life as possible.

      His temperament and determination is inspirational.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for the update.

      Delete
  11. VFC, I wanted to bring your readers' attention to the 19/01/2016 debate on the release of the in-camera transcript from 2008. The link to this week's debate is here

    It's a good debate. Deputy Mike Higgins is excellent. What I really want to draw readers' attention to is Constable Chris Taylor, the Constable of St John at section 8.3.2. If ever anyone needed evidence that the film Hot Fuzz is really a documentary about life in Jersey, this is it. What readers must remember is that Mr Taylor, as Constable, is *himself* the head of one of the island's 12 honorary police forces. You are going to need a very loud irony klaxon for this one, trust me. And, if anyone can post photographic or video evidence showing any States of Jersey Police officer, in 2008, exhibiting the following behaviour, I'l eat my hat:

    Quote from Mr Taylor: "This is why when I saw a States police officer holding a piece of coconut in his hand saying: “This is possibly the skull from a murdered child”"

    I am of course aware of this correctly handled police exhibit, shown on the BBC website: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45198000/jpg/_45198487_31b05753-87e5-408d-b177-ce96b8a9ab8c.jpg

    Here is Mr Taylor's full contribution to the debate.

    "8.3.2 The Connétable of St. John:

    I see 3 main issues on this particular proposition: the first concerns the behaviour of the States of Jersey Police, although not directly linked to this proposition; the second is how this is already in the public domain; and finally, the actual topic of the confidentiality of an in camera debate. I have had the privilege and honour and enjoyment of being in the Honorary Police and one of the things that was rammed into me is that when you find evidence you do not contaminate it, you put it in a plastic bag, you label it: where it was found, who found it, location, how it was found, et cetera. This is why when I saw a States police officer holding a piece of coconut in his hand saying: “This is possibly the skull from a murdered child” well, quite frankly, not even the most fantastic sci-fi writer, or whatever, in Hollywood would come up with such a ridiculous statement; (a) it was contaminated, (b) he did not know what it was, and it just defies belief that an officer of that standing should do such a thing, the unprofessionalism defies belief. Any evidence must be - and I hate the terms that the Americans use - “Bagged and tagged”, and they were not. So the behaviour there was, quite frankly, unbelievable. If that was their level of professionalism then one has to doubt almost anything to do with their integrity. The second issue is that I understand part of this, or some of, or most of the in camera debate has been leaked. In other words, a Member of this Assembly or previous Assemblies, I do not know who it was, leaked this information. That undermines the integrity of every single one of us, and that individual should be hounded down and strung up in the Royal Square and made sure that he never enters this room again. Finally, we come on to the issue of confidentiality. If we have an in camera debate, it is precisely that: it remains in camera, it remains confidential. Can we, as Members of this Assembly, be trusted to respect that? I sincerely hope I can be trusted and I urge other Members of this Assembly to stand up and ensure that they too can be trusted to maintain the confidentiality of this Assembly, whether it is in an in camera debate or anywhere else in our duties as a States Member. That debate was in camera, those were the conditions under which it was held and that, we have a duty as States Members, to honour. I urge everyone to vote against every part of this proposition."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Hot Fuzz" sums it up perfectly. It beggars belief how people like Chris Taylor get elected.

      If one looks at his speech, basically NOTHING he said was correct, and NONE of it had anything to do with the proposition!

      Apart from his rambling nonsense concerning the child's skull, the most ironic part of it all was this:

      "The second issue is that I understand part of this, or some of, or most of the in camera debate has been leaked. In other words, a Member of this Assembly or previous Assemblies, I do not know who it was, leaked this information. That undermines the integrity of every single one of us, and that individual should be hounded down and strung up in the Royal Square and made sure that he never enters this room again."(END)

      We have an ongoing Child Abuse Inquiry where the Establishment are trying to convince the outside world that things are different now. Then we've got a Constable who thinks it's acceptable to "hound down" a whistle-blower and "string them up in the Royal Square."

      This stuff really is beyond parody.

      Delete
    2. Spot on VFC.

      Here we are, in 2016, when the elected head of a parish, who is automatically the head of its parish police force (the only forces of law and order allowed to charge offenders) and who is directly answerable to the Attorney General for law and order in his parish, this man thinks it is acceptable to say in the island's parliament, about a whistleblower:

      "That individual should be hounded down and strung up in the Royal Square and made sure that he never enters this room again".

      Can you imagine Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, head of the Metropolitan Police force, or the head of a UK police authority for that matter, appearing before a Select Committee of the House of Commons and, whatever the gravity of a crime (leaving aside the fact that we are talking about whistleblowing here)...can you imagine Sir Bernard saying that a person should be "hounded down and strung up in the Royal Square" ? It just defies belief.

      Leaving aside the obvious logical impossibility that if someone had been strung up in the Royal Square, they would have a pretty difficult time "entering this room again" because they would be dead. Give me strength.

      I know you are in contact with the Inquiry. Perhaps you could bring Mr Taylor's views to their attention, as an example of the ongoing resistance faced by whistleblowers in Jersey. How is that States of Jersey whistleblowing telephone line going, I wonder?

      Also, please could you ask Lenny Harper if any officer ever handled evidence in the way described by Mr Taylor.

      Delete
    3. "a Member of this Assembly or previous Assemblies, I do not know who it was, leaked this information. That undermines the integrity of every single one of us, and that individual should be hounded down and strung up in the Royal Square and made sure that he never enters this room again."

      Actually Mr Taylor I would suggest that possibly all of those who voted for this to be in camera and have since strove to keep this confidential and away from the inquiry should be subject to such treatment. That would be far more appropriate given the circumstances.

      Delete
    4. "strung up in the Royal Square" by his 'man bits'
      if anyone can find them!

      I believe a phrase used by commenters on your last thread was 'Cabbage stick munching yokels'

      voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/jersey-lieutenant-governor-and-crown.html

      Delete
    5. If I may, I take slight issue with the description of the Constable of St John as an "elected head of a parish". He was, in fact, returned unopposed. While the States may oxymoronically describe this as being "elected unopposed", I suspect I am not alone in considering that he (along with the many other States Members who were returned unopposed) has no meaningful democratic mandate at all. Nobody voted for him, even in his own parish. He represents nobody, and his idiotic splutterings merely underline the dire lack of quality in the States, and the desperate need for electoral reform.

      Delete
  12. Hope Bob is making good progress. An honest and hardworking politician, and a gentleman too. Getting back to thread can I ask if anyone knows anything on the Trevor Pitman witness statement debacle? The statement still hasn't re-appeared as far as I can see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spoke with Trevor yesterday and he said that he had once more contacted the Inquiry in an attempt to discover what the latest state of play is with his statement/documents.

      It appears the Inquiry is being very cagey and would not give him a straight answer as to why the evidence has disappeared again.

      I'm sorry to say that I, and many others, are starting to lose confidence in this Inquiry and we are expecting a white-wash.

      Delete
    2. Former Deputy Trevor Pitman23 January 2016 at 12:16

      Just to expand on this for your readers Voice:

      Having indeed enquired again yesterday, not least to find out when I might expect a written reply to my twice sent letter setting out my concerns I was told that this reply had been composed but...

      It could not be signed off until next week.

      More disturbingly I was also told there has been - wait for it - yet another demand for redaction!

      My witness statement has, according to the COI triggered 'very high interest'.

      All pretty remarkable given it has barely been on line more than a couple of hours in some eight weeks since I gave evidence.

      As to just how these new demands for redaction keep arising when nobody (officially) ever gets to see it I really can't imagine?

      Finally, I can say that I am aware a third party requested that I be re-called to face a proper, broad-based questioning.

      For the record I have stated that I would be willing to comply with this; but don't believe for a single second that it will happen.

      I don't think the COI want certain subjects such the dysfunction and down right corrupt practices in our judiciary for example to be spelt out.We shall see.

      I personally believe the intention at the Establishment's demand is the witness statement is kept off line until so.much time has passed people get fed up of looking for it.

      As we know burying things is a fundamental strategy within the 'Jersey Way' William Bailhache is apparently so proud of.

      Delete
  13. SS right again!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SS right again!!! .....and predicted in quite a lot of detail here:

      freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-publics-inquiry-into-the-public-inquiry-starts-here/

      Having smart people with integrity in the parliament can save taxpayers ENORMOUS amounts of money. GST, Tax or money that could have been invested in the island instead of the majority being syphoned into the accounts of Legal-Sméagols

      Ex Health Minister Syvret of course remains banned from standing for democratic election due to the illegal and corrupt prosecutions by the abusive establishment.

      Delete
  14. If VFC doesn't mind, and if he is prepared to risk being strung up in the Royal Square by his man bits for aiding and abetting whistleblowing, I'd just like to remind people that Trevor's documentation is still available here.

    Link [PDF 86MB] Full documentation.

    Link [PDF 29MB] Written statement only.

    Comparing his written statement with the transcript of the oral hearing, which is still available on the Inquiry website, reveals how shoddily and evasively he was treated by the Inquiry.

    Link [PDF 1MB]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A gold star for you, Polo. Be fascinating to eventually see what has changed by the time, if ever, ex-Deputy Pitman's witness statement finally surfaces.

      My own thoughts now are sadly shaping up with your own. We are heading for a Whitewash which really isn't what any of us want.

      As one of the few (I would guess?) quick enough to begin scrolling through bits of the statement before it first vanished I was immediately struck by how many questions jumped out at me to be pitched to the Bailhache brothers.

      So I suppose the positive thing is next week we will get the acid test, evidence used or ignored?

      Delete
    2. A well made point. Will our independent COI be brave enough to ask the Toxic Two about their legal abuses?

      Delete
    3. Sir Michael Bent23 January 2016 at 17:29

      In a word NO!

      Delete
  15. Constable Chris Taylor, the Constable of St John. Has anyone contact The constable to find out which version given by Deputy Lewis are we expected to believe? The version Deputy Lewis provided in the States or the totally different version given by Deputy Lewis in the in-camera debate. Is it acceptable to use an in-camera debate to deceive the public?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Trevor Pitman should be re-called as a witness. You might think Oldham would realise for the sake of credibility it is better to hold hands up, acknowledge a mistake was made and just get the witness back. Just five minutes skim shows the gap between written statement and public questioning is as wide as the Chedder Gorge.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Give the COI a chance. Are they going to give the Bailhache Brothers and easy ride? Without doubt next week will be ALL of their reckoning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay but how many more chances do they merit? The standard and targeting of questions put to Graham Power and Trevor Pitman was dire by any standards. So bad that IMHO the COI council almost made this Assemnly's Chief Minister's question time look like Paxman. I simply can't see it as happening by chance. Can yo

      Delete
    2. "Give the COI a chance"

      Surely they are on their 4th chance by now?
      Syvret ....Bob Hill .....Big Trev

      A tragedy has become a comic tragedy!

      Delete
  18. Breaking News - Next week's questions leaked...

    Counsel

    'Good morning Sir Philip your Highness'

    Sir Philip

    'Good morning peasant'

    Counsel

    'So Sir Philip, is everything in Jersey absolutely tip-top and perfect? A perfect democracy and justice system in fact?:

    Sir Philip

    'Yes exactly so. We have no crime. No corruption. And even our dogs pick up their own poo and put it in the bins. Any one who says otherwise is an anti- Jersey wrecker and should be hanged by the neck until dead. Just as Constable Taylor says.'

    Counsel

    'Thank you your Highmness. No further questions Madam Chairman.'

    Chairman Oldham

    'Thank you Counsel. The panel has no further questions for Sir Philip either.'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You.missed s bit. Oldham QC obviously winds up with "Can we just add, Sir Philip that it is good to know from your answers that so many millions of taxpayers money has been well spent, and that we can all go home and sleep well tonight knowing all of this abuse hoo-hah was nonsence. Certainly our hearts are warmed knowing that in the process we have also helped at least one States lawyer to become a multi-millionaire".

      Delete
  19. We seem.to have strayed off thread here. We must lodr sight of the seriousness of the COI being willing to question Lenny using documents they knew to be highly dubious in authenticity

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Must NOT lose sight?'

      Very true. Such laxity on top of all of the other concerns is very disturbing.

      Delete
    2. Surely the thread is exactly this. That the CoI has as predicted turned into a bad joke , that we are all paying for , in multiple ways.
      The problem is that ,this is it for a generation or more. The rub will be how it treats the Bailhaches, if as expected with deference or faux deference , then the game is up totally, and the Peoples Park debacle will become an us and them 'Les Miserables' re-enactment if they are not careful.

      Delete
  20. Good point, as regards getting off thread.

    So, what is the process for confirming the authenticity of a document submitted to the Inquiry? All document management and email systems produce metadata, i.e. data about data, that is to say, who produced an emaill or document, when they did so, and on which computer. This sort of thing is the bread and butter workload of an independent computer forensics expert. They supply this sort of evidence to civil and criminal courts day in, day out. So, if there is a dispute over authenticity, it's not exactly hard to establish the truth, provided an independent computer forensics expert is appointed to do the job.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There have been some developments regarding the COI's "investigation" into these documents which might be published at a later date.

      Delete
    2. Can you say whether such developments are likely to (a) reassure us taxpayers who are paying for this inquiry or (b) raise further concerns?

      Delete
    3. Watching with interest....

      Delete
  21. If Lenny Harper isn't afforded the forensic 'fingerprint' he has asked for, and the COI do not fight tooth and claw to secure it then the game is surely up.

    It is not good enough for Patrick Sadd to make statements such 'I trust this document will put your concerns at rest' when every one of us in the public gallery could mediately see the crucial date had been slotted in and not even in the same font!

    Outrageous really.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I nearly fell out of my standing (well sitting really) when I saw the JEP headline that the Bailhache Brothers were to "speak at" the Inquiry. The caption on the photo said "speak to" the Inquiry but the text had them also "appearing at" the Inquiry.

    I left a comment on the page and it will be interesting to see (i) if it survives, and (ii) what response, if any, it may evoke.

    Link (scroll down for comments)

    In case it vanishes, you can see the comment here.

    Link

    ReplyDelete
  23. I had just checked this Polo before I saw your post and was about to comment when I read yours!
    That article from the 21st has disappeared from the JEP online. However if you search Bailhache it still comes up for the moment.
    Obviously they are pulling strings and having failed to get adoring responses from anyone other than Graham73/aka Mediator ,Allyking etc , got it pulled!
    Perhas they don't like quotes from Dickens?
    PS perhaps you can do a link to the search Bailhache on this I can't on this computer Slan Polo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Intriguingly this news item has returned early this morning on the list at the correct spot of 21st at 1300. It re-appeared about 7.30 and immediately afterwards an anti-Syvret post from Graham73 was put on . Surely coincidence.

      Delete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. THE LAW

    Part One: -

    I’m interested in the comments above (and on other forums) concerning the imminent – or should that be immanent - appearance of the Bailhache Brothers before that which purports to be a “public-inquiry” into the decades of concelaed child-abuse and child-protection failure on the British island of Jersey.

    As is the impression I’ve gained when speaking to others, there appears to be a frisson of excitement in the air; an almost palpable sense of anticipation that – finally – these two wretched sociopaths Philip and William Bailhache are “going to be held to account”.

    It’s not a sensation - or analytical conclusion – I share.

    Such is the gravity of the misfeasances and malfeasances of these two men – even if this were a real public-inquiry as opposed to an ultra vires charade – it would not approach being an adequate accounting in law for their behaviour.

    It is my hope to one day be wrong in a significant assessment concerning the standards and actions of the Jersey polity. Meanwhile it becomes more and more clear with each passing week I was right about the conduct of this Committee of Inquiry. But I write now, not to labour the point of "I-told-you-so" - but instead to try and offer some advice to survivors, whistle-blowers and campaigners in Jersey; advice by which they too could make accurate assessments of the flaws in public administration in this island.

    That advice is this: "if you want to understand how Jersey's public authorities failed in respect of one scandal or another - if you want to get to the heart of how various components of our public administration cause, and then persist in covering-up, abuses of the public-interest - the sole subject you should be focusing upon is ‘the law’."

    As grave and appalling as the Jersey child-abuse disaster is - that fact of understanding - 'how the law is supposed to work' - goes beyond that one field of failure, and is both the map and the destination in cleaning-up our community's inadequacies.

    Let me put it this way; many people in Jersey, not least the victims of child-abuse who should have been protected by the state from that abuse, might think the reason the system failed them was because of some deficiency in public policy - or some absence in the legislation. Understandably, many people will think, 'if only this or that policy had been in place - and if only we had a law which said X or Y - then we would have been protected from what we instead suffered.'

    So many survivors and whistle-blowers have vested their hopes for better child-protection in this CoI; they view it as being 'The Process' which will discover and recommend those changes in public policy, or the introduction of new legislation, which will fix a broken system.

    True enough - there is always scope for new policies - always a need for improved legislation. And no decent person would argue there is no such need in the Jersey situation.

    But a more fundamental fact is this; in no matter which way Jersey's existing policies and laws are deficient - those policies and laws are - and have been for decades - a hundred-times better than the actual, dismal, reality as delivered by the Jersey polity.

    So much of the abuse which has happened to people - the harm which happened to them as children - and so many of the gross failures to protect them - and the heavily documented cover-ups - were already against States policy - and were always unlawful.

    So to really succeed in taking this campaign - and the broader campaign for public safety - forwards, we have to begin by asking the right questions. And though this will not be a popular statement to some, our major failure has been to fail to ask the right questions.

    ….continued…..

    ReplyDelete
  26. THE LAW – Part two

    ..continued…

    We've failed to start from the right page, so to speak. As profoundly serious - as life-devastating - as cases of child-abuse are to the victims of that abuse - any inquiry into what went so wrong in Jersey will never address the right question if it focuses only on cases A, B, or C of abuse, or the acts & omissions of X, Y, or Z public employee.

    Instead, a real public inquiry into Jersey's child-abuse disaster - if it is to be effective - should rather be focusing on the question of ‘why existing laws - statute-law, case-law, private-law, public-law - and profound Rights such as the European Convention on Human Rights - did not work in Jersey?’

    That is the question: “how did law in Jersey - in a part of the British Isles - fail so many children - so disastrously - for so long?”

    Many people who read this blog will be hoping that this "public-inquiry" finally delivers in the case of the Bailhache Brothers, that which it has so clearly failed to deliver hitherto in the case of any of the culpable witnesses – a merciless examination. Many are hoping the CoI subjects Philip Bailhache and William Bailhache to the relentless and microscopic interrogation both men have - for decades - unlawfully evaded in respect of their many case-specific acts and omissions. But on the "performance" of Eversheds so far, there is no likelihood at all that that will happen.

    But - even if it did – such a line of questioning would be largely diversionary; mere 'bread-and-circuses' - to appease the plebeians – unless it was secondary to the line of questioning which matters.

    So which is the line of questioning which matters?

    The fundamental questions which sit in plain sight – which hitherto hide in plain sight in Jersey - are the questions concerning the basic functioning of the rule of law in this British island. Those are the questions we’ve failed to ask so far; those are the questions we’ve been diverted from asking by too much focus on particular cases, and specific individuals.

    That is the line of questioning which should be put – given the circumstances - to two such “legal” figures as the Bailhache Brothers.

    For in the Bailhache Brothers we have two Attorney Generals, two Deputy Bailiffs, and two Bailiffs; legal advisers to the executive and individual public departments - sole prosecuting authorities - and heads of the legislature - and heads of the judiciary. Two men who have - de facto - BEEN 'THE LAW' in Jersey - for decades.

    Although I am a heavily evidenced victim of the misfeasances and malfeasances of Philip and William Bailhache – although both of these men have for years rampantly and unlawfully abused the public authority they held – and hold – to unlawfully intimidate, obstruct, oppress and suppress me for trying to represent my constituents against child-abuse cover-ups and the corruptions of “The Jersey Way” – although I have repeatedly had my human rights trampled into the dirt by these two men and their agents and allies - I have little interest in seeing these men questioned about their conduct towards me. At least, at this stage, and in this forum.

    I say that, because there’s a real danger that the lawyers steering this supposed “public-inquiry” will succeed in creating a diversionary story by focusing on the years of suppressions and abuse conducted by the Bailhache Brothers against me – juicy stuff to Jersey’s heritage media no-doubt – and thus give themselves a smoke-screen to hide their failure to pursue the obviously necessary questions – THE IMPORTANT questions which really matter - to these two heads of all that goes under the name of “The –Legal-System” in Jersey.

    “So what are those actual questions concerning the basic functioning – or otherwise - of law in Jersey?”

    They’re plain enough. They sit in plain sight. I know them. Eversheds knows them. Eversheds know that I know them – and Eversheds know that I know Eversheds knows them.

    We wait and watch.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
  27. So, Stuart. Considering you know the vital questions to ask the COI. What's stopping you standing up infront of this COI and asking these vital questions concerning the basic functioning-or otherwise-of law in Jersey?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think we know what Stuarts answer would be as he has stated it frequently. However , what might help us the observing public, to judge the veracity of questioning is a few pointer questions to look for.
      As Stuart says ,Eversheds knows what to ask , the question is will they ask and pursue with vigour.
      What we can only guess at is what those questions might be.So Stuart can you just give us a few key ones as 'the only way we have to judge truth from falsehood is our senses ' (and a little help please.)

      Delete
    2. I'd say what Mr Syvret is getting at was pretty obvious. It seems to me what he is saying is that the appearance of Bailhache & Bailhache in front of your public inquiry will be the predictable dénouement of what is known in the game as a 'long-con'. The offices where the 'play' is happening are the 'shop-front', the 'grift' running the racket are an informal syndicate of Jersey law-firms where the 'inside-men' are centred, certain witnesses are 'shills', and that the Eversheds team are the 'ropers'. Though too diplomatic to say so, implicit in Mr Syvret's explanation is the message that most people in Jersey and most readers of this blog are the 'marks', and that the proof of this will be the 'failure' of your 'public inquiry' and its 'ropers' to lay the obvious line of beating on these two men who have run 'the law' in Jersey for many years.

      Delete
    3. For more info on the "long con" terms used by anon:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick

      Or to mash what has already been said:
      "For in the Bailhache Brothers we have two Attorney Generals, two Deputy Bailiffs, and two Bailiffs; legal advisers to the executive and individual public departments - sole prosecuting authorities - and heads of the legislature - and heads of the judiciary. Two men who have - de facto - BEEN 'THE LAW' in Jersey - for decades."

      These men ARE THE LAW over a period when THE LAW HAS DEMONSTRABLY FAILED.

      It will be a challenge to come to a credible conclusion other than that the two Bailhaches have failed

      And a further challenge to conclude that they have FAILED in, honestly, in good faith, with integrity and professionalism.

      It's a tall order but it is what is required in order to justify baby brother's elevation to Bailiff ....by the crown.

      The stakes are high.

      Delete
  28. Is part two of Lenny's interview still.going up today? Need to plan my day around the Arsenal v Chelsea match and watching this. Come on you Blues!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, hope to publish within the next couple of hours.

      Delete
    2. Great. Hopefully just time to watch it before heading off to the pub. Has to be done you know, bad as the blues are right now.

      Delete
  29. How would a member of the public go about getting a digital fingerprint of a document handed to them by a magistrate?

    ReplyDelete
  30. I have been thinking further about Trevor's vanishing documentation and the rumours that are flying around.

    The following scenario came to mind.

    What if the in camera debate is not the only part of Trevor's documentation that it being objected to? Let us for a moment contemplate the staggering exhibit of the bullet and the abusive label which was delivered personally by hand to his address in the relative styx.

    Trevor has done the brave thing and published it.

    Link

    Let's suppose, for a moment, that the perpetrator felt that this publication of a private message was a violation of his right to privacy and sought the assistance of the Data Commissioner, and not for the first time.

    The Data Commissioner calls in a real detective, who happens to be Daddy Bergerac, and he advises her to have a go at the Inquiry, who are making too much of a fuss over HDLG and adding to the public pressure on the BBC to have him banned permanently from all appearances on air.

    So Emma shoots off a letter to the Inquiry and throws them into complete confusion. They now don't know what to do and contemplate redacting the bullet.

    You may think the flaw in this is that the perpetrator is not known. He is anonymous. But that only means you don't fully understand The Jersey Way where anonymity and secret trials are all part of the system and have been used to good effect down the years.

    Perhaps the Inquiry might get some clarification from the Bailhache Brothers during the week.

    And, by the way, when is Emma due to appear and set out her stall on how she pulled a fast one on Google and got them to take down Stuart Syvret's blog?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My word but you all live in a scary place! I had always thought Jersey a pleasant place with kiddies building sand castles in the summer. From what you reveal your island seems more like an Italian Mafia island.

      Delete
    2. like in Italy you don't see the Mafia every day

      the locals know who to 'respect'

      when push comes to shove -they shove

      Delete
  31. Back from the Arsenal game and no part two? Hope you are alright?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apologies for delay and should be up within twenty minutes.

      Delete
    2. Part two has been published in new posting HERE.

      Delete
  32. Doesn't it say something about the 'integrity' of this whole process that we don't know if the COI is going to call Emma Martins? One of THE MOST conflicted and compromised public officials in Jersey's history when it comes to suppressing the investigation of different serious crimes. Worse yet, as Polo speculates, the suppression of evidence by the COI is probably being engaged in under the 'cover' of 'demands' from Martins. Can you say VFC if any interested parties or other witnesses have asked for her to be called and questioned? If they haven't, why on Earth not?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Policing today - Police Chief Mike Bowron should be called in front of the investigation and asked a simple question.

    Is your police force completely free of political interference ?

    If he says there is no political interference, then it is game set and match. He must go.

    Just about all members of Jerseys independent police force, in all ranks are fully aware, that Police Chief Bowron is just a puppet that takes orders. He has no choice as an honest man but to resign, but the wage packet and pension are far to juicy to walk away from.

    Jersey's police force, with good quality and caring professionals ultimately run by politicians and top judiciary controling the head man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not so sure Mike Bowron is likely to resign. He did not exactly come to Jersey with a squeaky clean record, and was know at the time as 'The Chosen One'.

      Maybe VFC, you could put up the link!

      Delete
  34. Sorry to take thread off subject. https://www.facebook.com/NotTheJerseyPolice/

    ReplyDelete
  35. About producing documents at the last minute. The States, in particular our present Chief officer John Richardson, have form in this.

    The States debated my proposition to cancel the contract for the incinerator at la Collette on 25th February 2009. Absolutely crucial was the amount of money which such a cancellation would cost.

    We ( a group of us committed to getting a better solution for Jersey, and suspicious of how the contract to build the incinerator had been set up) had lined up an expert to carry out a peer review of the estimates being bandied around. In various ways this was thwarted by TTS.

    Then on the second and final day of the debate, TTS (Minister - Jackson Chief Officer - John Richardson) put on members' desks a document spelling out how the cost of cancellation figures they had used in the debate had been arrived at by their consultants. It was dated 15th January.

    So they had the information then but chose to make it available to States Members 41 days later. I had put in a written question on the 20th January (5 days after the document was prepared by the consultants) but this information was withheld.

    The same thing happened in a debate on the waterfront in In I think 2011 when information was withheld from a Scrutiny panel and then produced during the debate itself.

    For those who like the actual words and a bit of fun here is the relevant passage from Hansard:

    Me: "We come now to costs. . . . The first point to make is that the House … I do find the situation that the House is in, and I hope you agree with me, is pretty unsatisfactory about this. We are given a document today (25th February) that was written on 15th January. What kind of democracy is this? I am sorry, myself and Deputy Higgins, in particular … because we have been interested in these cancellation costs and we have been pressing for a peer review, and this document which has at least a bit more information than we were being given was not released to us, but it existed. I think that is a little short of scandalous. [Approbation]

    The Connétable of St. Brelade (Mike Jackson):

    I must object to that, Sir. If the Deputy would give way briefly I produced that document as a result of a conversation with Deputy Pitman and Deputy Hill at lunchtime. I do not recall being asked for it by any of Deputy Wimberley’s group.

    The Deputy of St. Mary (me):

    Thank you for that intervention. The fact is that myself and Deputy Higgins have been asking for documentation to prove or to justify the £45.9 million (cost of cancellation according to TTS). I myself had a written question in which this information was not given as part of the reply, on 20th January. I am sorry, but this House has been kept in the dark. This is a document dated 15th January, it was an internal memo from Fichtner we could have had it, it is not confidential, it is right here on our tables. I do not know what is going on and I am not happy with it. . . . "

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.