Monday, 1 February 2016

The curious incident of William Bailhache in the night-time (and the daytime).






To begin this Blog Posting we thought that it might be a good idea to include a quote from the world’s most famous detective. Disappointingly, this is not Lenny Harper but Sherlock Holmes, whose conversation is reported as follows:

"You consider that to be important?" he [Inspector Gregory] asked.
     "Exceedingly so."
     "Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
     "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
     "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
     "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.
     The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes (1893)
     Inspector Gregory and Sherlock Holmes in "Silver Blaze" (Doubleday p. 346-7)

In this extract Holmes identifies the often ignored evidential significance of doing nothing. In a world, which seeks instant quotes and instant action the headline “man does nothing” is unlikely to sell many newspapers, but doing nothing can be very significant. It can allow the personwho does nothing to go unnoticed while those who did something become the focus of critical attention. Knowing about something and doing nothing is emerging as a significant feature as more of the truth about Jersey’s Child Abuse scandal unravels.


Former CEO Bill Ogley.

Now we turn to the most recent revelations regarding the role of the key players in the (possibly illegal) suspension of Jerseys Police Chief, Graham Power QPM, in 2008 in what many see as a direct government attempt to shut the lid on the Child Abuse Inquiry which was putting Jersey and its politicians under an unwelcome spotlight. Overseen by the then Chief Minister Frank Walker, the hapless Home Affairs Minister AndrewLewis supervised by Chief Executive Bill (Golden Handshake/Shredder) Ogley, suspended Jersey’s Police Chief, at the height of the Child Abuse Investigation, and did it, so it would appear, contrary to unambiguous legal advice from both then Solicitor General (Tim le Cocq) and the Attorney General William Bailhache. And let us not forget the background to all of this. 

The Island’s force was investigating decades of Child Abuse carried out in institutions run by the Jersey Government and a range of sexual offences, which occurred elsewhere. Some of these offences were alleged to have been committed by people connected to those in government at that time. Questions about who in authority knew what and when were being asked daily. Never before had the force been in such an exposed position, investigating the very government to which it was accountable, and never before did it have greater need of the support and protection of the Crown and its officers. To their credit, when they learned that the Chief Minister and his inner circle were planning to suspend the Police Chief, in what many suspect was a blatant political attempt to bring the investigation to an end, the Law Officers advised them not to do it unless they were in possession of  the full Metropolitan  Police Report. Not the alleged "interim Report" and certainly not a letter from the Deputy Chief Officer and soon to be made Acting Police Chief David Warcup. It had to be the full Met Review which should be without qualifications or caveats. Legal advice does not come clearer than that yet that advice was ignored.

What has yet to emerge is who led the Law Officers to believe that a Review Report could be used for disciplinary purposes anyway? The Met should never allow that and they have said so. They have also dealt robustly with any claim that the report was critical (or to use Andrew Lewis' term "damming" of the Role of Chief Officer Power, DCO Lenny Harper, or anyone else involved with Operation Rectangle. in a separate Report OPERATION TUMA  they said:

"The review does not criticise the investigation. The Review does not criticise any individual involved in Operation Rectangle"


Former Attorney General and current Bailiff
William Bailhache.

So what did Her Majesty’s Attorney General (William Bailhache) for Jersey do in the aftermath of this defiance of his advice and the blatant political intrusion of politicians into a criminal investigation in which they had a clear vested interest? Not a lot it appears.  Like the “dog in the night-time” he did nothing.  Or at least nothing positive that we know of.  But there are some things that we can be sure that he subsequently did or did not do. For example he provided legal support for the Jersey Government in resisting the Police Chiefs attempts to have his suspension reviewed in the Royal Court, and he is likely to have been party to a determination to ensure that the Police Chief was not provided with any representation for himself. He represented the Jersey Government in its attempts to withhold information on when the suspension notices were first prepared (which turned out to be several days before the alleged “evidence” in the Warcup Letter was received.) His actions in these matters were bad enough but his omissions were worse.

Over the past seven years at various times and places the politicians involved have been challenged and questioned on the grounds for the suspension and at every stage they have led us all to believe that they followed legal advice. We now know that they lied (by omission or otherwise). They lied to the public, they lied to the media and they lied in the Islands Parliament and William Bailhache heard what they said and did nothing.  When Brian Napier QC was appointed to conduct an independent review of the suspension it appears that Bailhache did not disclose the advice he had given to Frank Walker and Bill Ogley. 

Why an independent QC investigating the suspension was not told that on the night before the suspension took place the Attorney General, no less, told the Ministers that they did not have the evidence required to go ahead is another mystery which is yet to fully unfold.

Brian Napier QC.

The fact that the advice has emerged in the public domain at all is only due to the work of the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry and its extensive powers. Credit has to be given to the Committee of Inquiry for obtaining, and using, this crucial evidence. If William Bailhache, and others, did not disclose this crucial evidence/e-mail to the Napier Review then questions will now have to be asked as to the validity of Napier's findings if crucial evidence had been withheld.

So what was this servant of the Crown (William Bailhache) actually thinking of during all of this? Was he perhaps thinking of the need to defend the integrity of the Criminal (in)Justice system from political intrusion? From what we know apparently not. Which leaves open the possibility of a nasty suspicion. Could it be that he was content to go along with the suspension and do his bit for preserving the reputation of the Island from the damage of the Abuse Investigation, so long he had the “insurance” of the legal advice in his back pocket in case things got really tough? We might never know. But what we do know is that it might be hard to trust him now (that is for anyone who trusted him in the first place.)

As Sherlock Holmes might have said; “it is the curious incident of William Bailhache doing nothing.”


254 comments:

  1. To every inaction there is an equal and opposite inaction.
    Apologies to Isaac Newton

    Great clear post well done VFC team.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SIR Isaac Newton

      Some individuals have actually earned the right to be addressed "Sir"

      MR Philip Bailhache is an affront to the crown, but it would appear that the "crown" does not give a sh1t.

      Delete
    2. BLOGGER SITE NOTE .......13 February 2016 at 16:18

      The number of comments on this blog is nearing 200

      If (when) it passes that point readers will only see those first 200 comments unless they clicks on the little bit of text saying "Load more..." right at the end of the comments thread

      Once 200 comments have been reached, further replies to these first 200 comments will NOT BE DISPLAYED until AFTER that "Load more..." link is clicked

      Therefore if you wish to read the full comments thread (without omissions) you should click that "Load more..." link now, before returning to this point to read the comments.

      ....READERS PLEASE NOTE

      Delete
  2. Brilliant post VFC, this is blogging at it's best. There were comments made at the end of the previous posting which are also very well thought out and informative, where else could you get this standard of debate?

    ReplyDelete
  3. FromColin Machon ( on the wing so no puffin avatar)

    Superb post! I agree with the above commentator that the dialogues on the previous post and this are healthy , informed and diverse.
    I do not fully agree with all of them , but that is a good thing.For one, most fully understand the clear conflicted nature of the Bailiffs etc and many perceived illegalities, but to bring the house down locally needs point issues, sharp focus of clear malpractice.Examples could include using new fingerprinting trails to expose 'after the event' predictions of the future that even States Communications cannot falsify. Just one example will do the trick, the strategy should be to focus on tactics.
    That said, a different element that seriously taxes any 'post middle ages' view is the differing responses by William Bailhache as Bailiff as Speaker .
    The first was the immediate and vitriolic censure of Deputy Montford Tadier ( a liberal in a political sense for external readers). He on discussing the plight of Syrian refugees said, "What would Jesus do?" As a clear jibe at some holier than thou Christian members of the Council of Ministers.This was cut off instantly by WB who insisted on an immediate apology because of the 'offence and distress in the statement'.
    A month or so later, on the debate to determine whether or not the ' in camera' debate should be made available to the Committee of Inquiry, Connetable Chris Taylor ( a more conservative voice) said of whistleblowers who had previously released the debate on the Internet, " they should be hounded down and strung up in the Royal Square'.It should be pointed out that Connetable Taylor is head of the Parish Honarary Police ! William Bailache allowed him to continue without censure.

    ReplyDelete
  4. An excellent post VFC which shows the kind of oblique thinking the Jersey campaign needs to show more of.

    I left 3 comments under the previous posting at 18:28, 19:19 & 21:55, and I notice some links were posted in response, one of which led to the following comment,

    'Not serious enough for the Ministry of justice.

    ‘41. We note the depth of feeling of some witnesses to this inquiry who have indicated serious grievances with various aspects of the governance of the Crown Dependencies and their desire for the UK Government to step in to address their concerns. However, the Crown Dependencies are democratic, self-governing communities with free media and open debate. The independence and powers of self-determination of the Crown Dependencies are, in our view, only to be set aside in the most serious circumstances.

    We note that the restrictive formulation of the power of the UK Government to intervene in insular affairs on the ground of good government is accepted by both the UK and the Crown Dependency governments: namely, that it should be used only in the event of a fundamental breakdown in public order or of the rule of law, endemic corruption in the government or the judiciary or other extreme circumstance, and we see no reason or constitutional basis for changing that formulation.'

    It was then said, I assume directed at me, 'how can you help?'

    That, I'm afraid, is the wrong question.

    You have there what I think, going from memory, is a quote from the nonsense Carswell Report. The question you need to ask is,

    'Is the report of the public inquiry going to make the UK authorities voluntarily face the fact all of this history does show, unarguably, a breakdown in the rule of law and good governance in Jersey?' (The answer is almost certainly 'no' given the UK authorities themselves were suckered into being a party to the Jersey establishment cover-ups and unlawful acts of the last 8 years, so are as 'invested' in trying to cover-up as much as possible as the Jersey authorities.)

    Another questions is,

    'Given that there was, in fact, more than ample evidence to show a structural failure on the part of the Jersey system at the time of that quoted review (a structurally illegal 'prosecution function' for example) but it still produced 'findings' which were nonsense and not compatible with settled law, what are YOU going to do differently this time, to force the UK authorities to face their responsibilities?

    The Jersey campaigners have more than enough evidence gathered already to prove, several times over, a breakdown in the rule of law in Jersey, a failure of good governance, and the clear existence of judicial corruption. But regardless of whether you started to act now, or wait 6 months (or however long) for the finished report of the COI, the question, and the challenge, facing Jersey campaigners is still, 'what now?'

    No matter which way you cut it, you are still faced, one way or another, with the task of forcing the UK authorities to meet their clear legal obligations, and to stop shielding a criminal administration in Jersey.

    The Jersey campaigners and the blogs really need to begin showing some awareness of that task, and ideas as to how it may be undertaken.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So in a way the Carswell Report is recommending a "breakdown in public order" as a way of achieving the proper rule of law on the island because unless you know different we are buggered as the other avenues are under the control of the shysters and neo-feudalists.

      Do we hang those responsible, or do we just lube ourselves up?

      Delete
    2. P.S. Don't forget to lube up the kids too.

      Sorry to be course, but ultimately this is part of what we are talking about

      Delete
  5. Just give testimony Stuart or walk away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure why that comment is made here?

      Nevertheless - although this is obviously repetitive - as I've explained my position and reasoning previously - on many occasions - here goes again.

      I was prepared to work with the public inquiry when it was first setting out.

      But - things went wrong immediately - because the CoI and its lawyers Eversheds chose to ignore Part (e) of the actual legislative decision of the Jersey parliament. That act - which unavoidably rendered the CoI process ultra vires from that point on ("frustrating the legislative purpose") -was no "accident".

      They knew that if they had obeyed Part (e) - and engaged in the primary consultation with stake-holders as required by Part (e) - they would never have got away with the "protocols" they invented for themselves - in secret - and which they then imposed on the inquiry process thus crippling the process with a number of unlawful constraints and restrictions.

      For example - not following the Salmon Principles, not obeying the ECHR, not allowing cross-examination, and not providing unconditional legal representation to interested parties.

      However - in spite of those many ultra vires decisions by the CoI and its lawyers, which are serious enough to justify any concerned person in not engaging with the process from the very moment the protocols were announced - I still tried, in fact, to engage with the process, by writing to them, explaining a number of serious issues with their protocols, and asking that I be provided with legal representation, as is the right of any significantly involved person, before I would sign up to their protocols. And let us remember, these were ultra vires protocols in any event, Part (e) of the States decision having been unlawfully ignored.

      In defiance of the settled case-law, and in defiance of my human rights, the CoI refused to provide me with unconditional legal representation. So that was that.

      In making that - unlawful - decision, this CoI took the decision that I would not be a witness to the public inquiry. It was their decision, not mine. By - unlawfully - breaking my human rights and refusing to give me legal representation, the CoI took the constructive decision to exclude me from the process.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    2. Stuart Syvret

      Some people say I should just forget about all that which I explained above - and give evidence and testimony anyway, as some others have done.

      There's a problem with that - is there not. For that argument to carry any validity, those who make it would need to be able to point at the performance so far of the CoI, and to show it to be at least 'satisfactory'.

      They would need to be able to say, “Stuart, ok, you identified at the start a number of legitimate problems and concerns. But look, those fears which you understandably had, have not come to pass. On the whole, the processes of the CoI have been working pretty much OK. Look, it’s working effectively.”

      But no-one can say that. Because it is not working. We observe the "proceedings" of this "public inquiry" - and we see culpable witness after culpable witness being let-off by the questioning process. Hundreds and hundreds of questions which should have been asked, not even being touched upon.

      We see witnesses on the public interest side be marginalised, restricted, treated with contempt.

      That astonishing bias is able to happen in the proceedings because of the refusal to have cross-examination included. Had civil society in Jersey refused to tolerate the unlawful failure to follow Part (e) of the legislative decision, and had insisted on protocols which were lawful, we would have had the ability to cross-examine. Thus, culpable witnesses would have been questioned thoroughly and appropriately by the representatives of the survivors, whistle-blowers and campaigners. And the witnesses on the public-interest side would have been assured of giving their full testimony and answering the questions they thought were most important because the representatives on the public-interest side would have made sure to ask those questions.

      But we don't have that.

      Instead we have the wretched spectacle of key witnesses - such as Trevor Pitman for example - one of the few good witnesses with experiences of the States - being utterly marginalised. Not only was he treated with staggering disrespect by this CoI - but even more so, the people on whose behalves he was giving evidence for were treated with contempt indirectly, by the conduct of the CoI towards Trevor.

      Even his witness-statement has been taken down by the CoI.

      There is simply no way I am going to confer “credibility” on a “public inquiry” which behaves in that way, only for me to be treated like that.

      I’m also in a unique position amongst all witnesses in that I’m the only person to have been subjected to illegal police-state oppressions and suppressions. I’m the only person who’s been made a political prisoner by this gangster oligarchy and its corrupt, political judiciary. And I will – as surely as night follows day – be subjected to further state-reprisals once the CoI has done, packed-up shop, and the dust has settled after it has reported. Some may think it’s a civilised thing to do – to ask me to run those amplified risks – without so much as a lawyer. But I don’t.

      And I will not be told or pressured by anyone into abandoning the broader campaign just because this “public-inquiry” is fake. There are other legitimate paths, other fronts, on which these campaigns need pursuing. And that’s what I will do. A public-inquiry – especially a fake “public-inquiry” - does not magically gain some kind of ‘monopoly’ over the broad field of the campaign subject.

      Perhaps some people need to step back – and reflect upon actually just how disgusting and abhorrent it is to demand of a key-whistle-blower who’s already been subjected to state-oppression, that they get further entangled with Jersey’s quasi-“judicial” fakery - without so much as legal advice.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    3. The treatment of Trevor Pitman and some truly shocking evidence he should have been questioned on is as you say, Stuart an absolutely damning snapshot of where this Inquiry is at.

      But you should still.give your evidence. It is that important to at least get it on record. If you don't they will just twist the underlying reasons why you didn't.

      Delete
    4. The last paragraph above at 18-42 says all that needs to be said about Stuart's stance. Well said Sir or Madam.

      Delete
    5. Elephant in the chatroom1 February 2016 at 20:41

      Excuse me but I must point out that the CoI has the power to subpoena witnesses.

      If the CoI was not a sham it would have subpoenaed Mr.Syvret


      Sorry about all the dung, but I have been here for a while.

      Delete
    6. Elephant in the chatroom1 February 2016 at 20:51

      Oh yes, subpoenaed Mr.Syvret at the outset AND done all that tiresome Salmon Principles, obeying the ECHR, allowing cross-examination, and providing unconditional legal representation.

      Now how did I forget that?

      Delete
  6. Eight comments in and the thread is already diverted from William Bailhache to Stuart Syvret. Stuart has made his mind up that he will not be giving evidence to the committee of enquiry so let that be an end to it. Let Stuart do it his way and don't let him hijack your blog to slag off the enquiry. He's got his own blog to talk about whatever he wants and I don't think it's fair of him to come on here and completely ignore the subject of the blog in favour of talking about himself.

    This is not a troll comment because I was a big supporter of Stuart until he turned his back on us all and won't step up to the plate when he's been called upon. He's hung Lenny Harper out to dry - Graham Power - Trevor Pitman - Mike Higgins - JCLA - and all the victims and survivors.

    Let's forget about Stuart and get this thread back on topic about the silence and omissions of William Bailhache and what this says about how much confidence we should have in him being the top judge in Jersey. I for one have no confidence in him and he should resign or stand for election if he wants to be Bailiff and represent the views of Islanders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stuart has not hung anyone out to dry. The CoI did that.

      He has as much right to say his piece as anyone (maybe more so)

      Also, in case you hadn't noticed Stuart was responding to an appeal from Blogger Rico Sorda so get over yourself.

      However I do agree that we should stay on topic.

      Delete
    2. I was going to say that but 19:46 beat me to it. There's no highjacking of the thread by Syvret I see here. He was answering a criticism made earlier. And even if you don't agree with his decision his answer is reasonable and well though about and in keeping with high standard of discussion on this blog, so let's not start having a load of troll arguments about him. That would be letting the thread get highjacked.

      Delete
    3. I think we are all well aware of Stuart's stance on the CoI, his explanations and rationale for not giving evidence. In that regard he keeps going over the same ground until no-one wants to hear it any more.

      I would say therefore that he is hi-jacking topics on blogs with the incessant legalese etc. I too was once a supporter, but am not impressed by his negativity.

      Furthermore, after hearing Mike Higgins evidence this morning which was honest, powerful, given with conviction and clarity there seems little point in Stuart appearing in any event. Deputy Higgins covered it all superbly.

      Delete
    4. I imagine that all good people are immensely grateful to Mike Higgins and other for giving evidence to the CoI even though the CoI has clearly been heavily engineered to avoid as much of the truth and background as possible, including such hings as death threats to Stuart Syvret and Trevor Pitman

      We hope that Mike Higgins's evidence is not treated in the same way as Trevor Pitman's, making only brief appearances on the CoI website before being deleted off, no doubt to return someday in a much reduced form.

      Many other people have been involved but If it was not for Mr.Syvret there probably would not even be a Public Inquiry into the decades of child abuse by the Jersey government and it's agents.
      Mr.Syvret even forewarned us of the possibility (likelihood even) of the CoI being a Committee of NON-Inquiry:

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

      so I have this feeling that his opinion is rather more relevant than yours @14:10

      People are welcome to different points of view but you end your atack on Mr.Syvret with the sentence "Furthermore, after hearing Mike Higgins evidence this morning which was honest, powerful, given with conviction and clarity there seems little point in Stuart appearing in any event. Deputy Higgins covered it all superbly."
      The implication is that you know everything Mr.Syvret knows and would have presented to the CoI had he not been constructively excluded. This makes you a clairvoyant or a gobshite.

      I am very pleased if Mike Higgins was able to present his oral evidence effectively to this Inquiry. The CoI constructively prevented that in the case of Trevor Pitman and Bob Hill.
      Mike Higgins is not a well man and this CoI likely cost Bob Hill his health.

      Delete
  7. I support Mr Syvrets stance. Why take part in a fake enquiry that only benefits a continuation of circumstances as they stand. Nothing can be learnt and nothing will be gained things will stay the same.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Could it all come tumbling in for Mr Walker?

    ReplyDelete
  9. It is difficult to get the full feel of evidence given to the Committee of Inquiry when all I have to go on is a report on the "Channel" website. That said it is interesting that the former Chief Executive Bill Ogley confirmed at least some of what we all know.That Ministers in Jersey used their positions to put him and others under pressure to act "improperly" as he put it initially and then "wrongly and corruptly" later in his evidence. He says that he did not succumb to these pressures. Most of the evidence seems to indicate that he did (prior to leaving with his £500,000 golden handshake.) Harder questioning in relation to specific examples of when these corrupt pressures were applied might have revealed some interesting examples across a whole range of government activities, possibly touching on planning and finance, although to be fair that would have been well outside the remit of the Inquiry. What is clear from his evidence is that Ministers entered the period of the Abuse Enquiry with an entrenched culture of being able to exert corrupt pressure to move things in their desired direction. Resistance to this pressure had potential consequences for the individual involved.

    Against this background Ministers are likely to have found that attempting to put pressure on Lenny Harper was a disappointing experience. Particularly as he retired before they could take revenge and so they had to go for the "proxy target" of his Chief Officer, Graham Power instead. Ogley said that Jersey lacked systems of "control and accountability" that exist in the UK. Constitutional theory usually describe these as "checks and balances" which are designed to ensure that political power stays within its remit. In theory Jersey has some of these. Part of the remit of the Lieutenant Governor is to ensure "good governance" (do not laugh please, I am only describing the theory.) Then there are the Law Officers who, from their titles at least, appear to serve the Crown (hence “HM” Attorney General etc.) The problem is that none of this appears to work. Government House just seems to stand and watch and the Law Officers are just part of the Jersey Establishment.

    Having studied this for well over a decade Ogley’s solution appears to be that something should be done but he is not very sure what. It might be time for whoever is responsible in the UK to begin thinking hard on this one. The findings of the Inquiry might well reveal that the reputation of the UK and the British Crown has been dragged through the mud once too often by a bunch of toy-town politicians with one eye on their own interests. Tinkering will not do. Only decisive external intervention can reverse the rot if it is not too late already.


    Ogley was talking (somewhat implausibly) about suspension notices when he spoke of the need to prepare for possible outcomes. With this in mind it might be wise for a few senior figures in Whitehall to at least sharpen their pencils. I suspect that this is a story which has a long way to run yet.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Heard comment on radio this am that Ogley saidit was correct for GP to be ousted as the way he was running Rectangle was not good enough yet if I recall the "professional police body" that GP called in to supervise the enquiry actually congratulated GP & his team on what htey had achieved to that stage. Ogley a "civil servant" is actually regarding himself as more knowledgeable than the proper body is he??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ogley and State Media are still busy spinning the establishment line on a gullible public.

      No doubt they remain silent on the tens of millions that the abuse and cover up has cost?

      Delete
  11. Former Deputy Trevor Pitman2 February 2016 at 17:15

    Deputy Mike Higgins should be commended today for his articulate, honest and absolutely compelling evidence to the Care (Child Abuse) Inquiry.

    He did the victims, the brave senior police officers who - finally - sought to unravel the machinations of the 'Jersey Way', and those of us who fought alongside him for justice proud.

    As usual with this Inquiry however one was still left with the disquieting after taste that the manner in which some witnesses are allowed by the Chairman and her lawyers to speak on certain subjects whilst others have not been demands urgent explanation.

    Still, with this regard on a personal note I am just pleased and grateful that certain matters which both I and Deputy Higgins were involved in - including an appalling child protection case involving H & SS and the police was finally raised.

    I repeat once again: Deputy Higgins did the Island of Jersey proud. Now let's see just how much of his excellent evidence our MSM report - honestly...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can only but concur Trevor. A truly brave man,which does not detract from yourself who I know would have been equally as vocal.

      I have made a point of watching the local TV stations this evening just to see how they decided to handle the truth. BBC reported precisely nothing and CTV just a small snippet!

      Nothing changes there then. How do you report the honest truth in Jersey? Simple - you don't!

      Delete
    2. And that is precisely why the bloggers were NOT given 'so called' accredited media to allow them to cover the proceedings, why? because they would have told it like it is, well we could not possibly have that now could we?

      Delete
    3. The mainstream media won't tell the truth because BBC, ITV and JEP have been part of the cover up for so long.

      Delete
  12. Deputy Higgins is a legend.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Like thousands of fellow Islanders I cannot attend the inquiry meetings as like so many I have to work (to help fill the States so called Black Hole) but is their anyway way of hearing the audio of the various participants? If not this really is not right, the printed word is one thing but the passion (or otherwise) of the person giving evidence can be very telling indeed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To the best of my knowledge there is no public audio recordings of the Hearings. "The printed word?" The last transcripts of the Hearings are from the 8th December 2015, almost two months ago.

      Not conducive to being open and transparent.

      Delete
    2. ^ I'm not going to get into the debate about whether Stuart Syvret is wrong or right not to cooperate with this inquiry, but it's hard to disagree with this blog-owner's comment above when he states that the lack of public audio recordings and the delays in making the printed statements available "are not conducive to being open and transparent".

      As the old saying goes, it is not enough to be independent, one must be SEEN to be independent. That is simply the pragmatic reality. With all due respect to the brave survivors and others that have given testimony, these issues will continue to give rise to a concern, both in Jersey and internationally, that this inquiry is not fully fit for purpose.

      Delete
    3. Further to my comment at 18.18 above, if there is no audio recording available for the general population to listen too I presume recordings are taken to verify the written word, if not how on earth do we know if the written word is what was said? and perhaps more importantly what 'redacting' has been made?. With the millions this inquiry has been costing myself (taxpayer) and all others an audio of proceedings should have been mandatory from the start.

      Delete
  14. Do we know if Deputy Higgins talked about our dysfunctional judicial system and the need for external intervention to clean it up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed he did. As a previous commenter mentioned he did the Victims/Survivors, campaigners and Jersey proud today.

      He demonstrated that not all Jersey people/politicians support the Child Abuse cover-up and some of us are ashamed at what has happened and want to put it right. Full credit to Deputy Higgins for showing those watching from outside Jersey that people are willing to stand up and speak the truth.

      Delete
    2. BOG's little helper2 February 2016 at 20:25

      What did he say? Political interference from Chief Judges/Bailiffs? Dishonest Jurats who protect paedophiles? Home Affairs Ministers who mislead the States? We need to know because from what Jill says the accredited media won't be telling us.

      Delete
  15. ''However, the Crown Dependencies are democratic, self-governing communities with free media and open debate'' Can anyone post a link to Jersey free media informing the public on their social network twitter or facebook pages of either Deputy Higgins or Bill Ogley's appearance at the COI or in fact any links from the above to the COI hearings? Please and thanks

    ReplyDelete
  16. Having attended several hearings this week of the Inquiry with all the revelations about abuse and the related failures of those in authority I was amazed that ex CEO Bill Ogley was not questioned on his own resignation from the States because of the bullying he experienced and the additional fact that Chris Swinburn, the States Auditor who revealed the facts was also sacked http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2012/03/20/revealed-why-bill-ogley-resigned/

    ReplyDelete
  17. The Curious Case of the Interjecting Bailhache

    VFC, at some stage you might consider writing a post about Sir Philip Bailhache's politicisation of the office of Bailiff during his tenure. I'd like to offer two extracts from the in-camera debate as samples:

    "1. Deputy P.V.F Le Claire
    Thank you very much, Solicitor General. Could I just add one small query on that because that is very informative and helpful? I just have a question mark over the "available in one form or another". Surely the full interim report should be available because the full interim report has been given to the Minister of Home Affairs and it has been that interim report that has given him this position.

    The Bailiff:
    I do not think the matter can really be advanced any further, Deputy, at this stage.


    2.Deputy A. Lewis
    As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all.

    The Bailiff:
    Minister, do not go down this road please."

    In the first extract, Deputy Le Claire is clearly at risk of backing the Solicitor General into a corner and forcing him to give an explicit answer about the true nature of the interim report (or lack thereof). It is perfectly clear that the Bailiff stepped-in to prevent the SG answering what would seem an innocuous and perfectly in-order question. So why did he do so if he didn't know that it threatened to expose a lie?

    In the second extract, it is obvious that he is doing the exact same thing. Andrew Lewis is under pressure and starting to inadvertently spill the beans, and the Bailiff jumped-in to shut him up.

    Two issues arise. The first is the legitimacy of an unelected speaker stifling debate (especially one that is being held in-camera) when there are no parliamentary grounds for doing so.
    The second, and perhaps more troubling issue is that it gives the impression that the Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache, was party to a deliberate conspiracy to mislead the House.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A very enlightened post. Spot on.

      It always concerns me that the Crown Officers are referred to by their titles in such transcripts, not their names. I am glad that somebody reminded us who was the Bailiff in 2008. The above 2008 transcripts ought to say:

      "The Bailiff, Philip Bailhache:"

      Delete
  18. Jonnie Boundover3 February 2016 at 14:00

    Mike Higgins is a wonderful politician. Unfortunately he is often on his own in the States fighting for we ordinary people, although I do also admire young Sam Mezec who I think will be Chief Minister one day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Syvret had been Chief Minister instead of Frank Walker the island would be a better place and this mess would have been cleared up far better for the good of the island and of the victims.

      Delete
    2. Totally agree Deputy Higgins does brilliant work in the States. And his 20 years of effort with the Air Display has boosted Jersey's economy and put us on the world map. He should be minister for Tourism or even better, the Treasury. As for Deputy Sam Mezec I agree he really is a Chief Minister of the future.

      Delete
  19. As we approach the COI preparation and submission of their final report I would simply say this.

    1)The report had better be accurate and set out mandatory points to be carried out (no more Clothier cherry picking)

    2)It had better state quite clearly the massive conflict of interest for the Bailiff wearing his two hats, no more must this un-elected individual be allowed to dictate who and what can be said by whom in our states chamber and certainly NOT have the right to switch off an elected members microphone.

    3)IF this report proves to be a whitewash then I would suggest we, ordinary people of this wonderful Island we call home each and every one of us take a copy of this report into the Royal Square and have a ceremonial burning of the document after first notifying the worlds press.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Five out of the last eight public witnesses have been on the establishments side. The two giving evidence tomorrow and Friday will definitely be on the establishment side.
    Seems to be a pattern for a whitewash here?!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Who is on tomorrow?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael Birt in the morning and Tim Le Cocq in the afternoon.

      Delete
    2. Sorry to correct you VFC - it is Marnie Baudains (recalled) in the afternoon.

      Delete
    3. Jill.

      Thank you for the correction.

      Delete
  22. I wonder if the ever so timid Care Inquiry counsel and penel will see fit to ask William Bailhache's predecessor Michael Birt about his role in the Victoria College child abuse scandal highlighted by Deputy Higgins? They certainly should.Birt was Attorney General at the time of the cover up by the College and Governors. He was subsequently Bailiff. So he needs to be asked about how and why he allowed John Le Breton the Vice Principle who the police described as 'pathetic' and stated bullied abused boys into silence to remain as a Jurat in the Royal Court.

    Birt also needs to be asked if it was him or Philip Bailhache who wouldn't let the police interrogate Le Breton? Or whether it him or Bailhache who stressed to the police that a 'Jurat had never been prosecuted' to warn them off. They are obvious questions and if they aren't asked I guess Stuart Syvret can rightly say 'I rest my case'!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jersey Chief of Police Bowron says:
    Young people with mental health problems being put into police cells over night.
    Not much progress has been made on his watch then. Has it?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Shortly after I first began blogging in January 2008 I quickly became the peddler of a couple of truisms, as easily reached for as the stock clinches of any jobbing hack.

    "You couldn't make it up."

    and,

    "The government you deserve."

    They quickly became stock phrases in my defiances against the mediaeval-meltdown that is "governance" in Jersey, more for their stark truth than mere economy of typing.

    Having - a long time ago - stopped following the PR product cut-&-paste churnalism which masquerades as the Fourth-Estate in Jersey, I'm not familiar with the latest utterances of the City of London Commune's hired enforcer in Jersey, Mike Bowron.

    So, young people - children - with mental health issues, are being held in police cells overnight? Some of your readers, VFC, may wish to refer the following blog-posting to Mike Bowron and whoever it is who tells him what to say (The Ogier Group). Below the posting - titled, "The Vulnerable Child in Jersey vs The Crown" - they will be able to read the very detailed e-mail in which I confronted all of Jersey's "law" & "justice" system with the stark facts of our unlawful failures towards vulnerable children.

    An e-mail I wrote to all of the relevant authorities - on the 15th November - 2007.

    http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-vulnerable-child-in-jersey-vs-the-crown-2/

    Those seriously interested in the welfare of children - and what went so wrong in Jersey - will read in the e-mail how one of the key issues I raised with the authorities - including the States of Jersey Police Force - was the maltreatment of children with emotional & behavioural difficulties, including them being brought into custody, and further harm they suffered when in custody.

    Here are the names of the recipients of the e-mail of the 15th November 2007. A civilised and responsible answer was received from only one of them. Though it wouldn't be difficult to guess the identity of that person, I'll say now, it was Graham Power.

    Graham Power;

    William Bailhache;

    Philip Bailhache;

    Michael Birt;

    Ian Le Marquand;

    Ian Christmas;

    Andrew Williamson.

    As I say, only one professional, civilised, honest answer was received; only one of those recipients recognised the seriousness of the issues, and understood it was our job - as people in authority - to address and put right failings in the departments we were responsible for when such failings became known to us.

    That person was the good Police Chief Graham Power.

    The rest of them?

    They are why - here we are - today - over eight years - God knows how much avoidable suffering and damage to vulnerable children in the interim - and millions of pounds of tax-payers money - later.

    And current "police" chief Mike Bowron speaks of young people with mental health problems being held in the cells overnight - as though it was a shocking new discovery.

    Go back the City, Mike. You are a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

    Stuart Syvret.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stuart.

      Far be it from me to defend the Police Chief but in the interest of fairness I don’t blame him here.

      He is complaining about having to lock up people with mental health problems. He doesn’t want to be doing it, again, in fairness, he is speaking out against it. He wants adequate accommodation for them and the State STILL doesn’t provide it. This is a State failing and not a cop failing.

      If the Health Service were doing its job the cops would have more time to investigate crimes like judicial corruption?

      Delete
    2. VFC, I agree Jersey's Health & Social Services systems have failed. That was a stark and bitter fact I came to realise myself in late 2006, early 2007 when I was responsible for those services. I tried to do something about it in the face of opposition from the whole establishment.

      There is a two-fold grave problem the community faces in addressing these failing by the polity; firstly, just how easy it is to say "the system is going wrong, but it's someone else's problem". Secondly - and more fundamentally - is the failure to recognise that such problems are multi-dimensional, and not accurately compartmentalised.

      By which I mean, the fact we are still jailing children for their mental health problems, is not only a Health & Social Services failing - it's also a failing of the policing function, for having let itself become "captured" - and having let itself become a "weapon" of state-oppression, suppression and intimidation against those who fought for the correct broad public policies.

      This is a "policing" function which, since its capture by Warcup, and the happy continuance of that path under Bowron, suppresses and intimidates progressive democratic policy - and instead actually protects overt criminals in the highest public offices in Jersey.

      Mike Bowron cannot separate - cannot neatly compartmentalise - these roles- and these consequences.

      The Jersey polity system responsible for the fact mentally unwell children are still being jailed - is the same Jersey polity system Mike Bowron flatly refused to even investigate, notwithstanding a formal, detailed, evidenced, witnessed statement of criminal complaint being given to the Jersey Police under his leadership, by me.

      No hiding place.

      Stuart Syvret.

      Delete
  25. Maybe there is method in Bowron's whistle blowing statement.
    Is he hinting that the soon to be vacant Limes would make a convenient half way house?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not quite. Bowron's comments have nothing to do with whistle blowing. Why is he only raising the issue now after several years in the job? Because SOJP has been told it faces a large cut in its budget, and he's making a play to either have smaller cuts or reduce police time spent acting as social workers because social services are so crap.

      Delete
  26. So with regard to a question rightly posed above, was Michael Birt asked about his allowing a paedophile protecting, abuse concealing Jurat to continue to sit in the Royal Court as if he was honest and respectable? Don't tell me -No. Sir Smarmy was allowed to continue the pretence that he is any different to the disgraced and dishonest Jurat. C'est la vie. The Jersey Way rolls on and on.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Come on , you didn't expect Birt to disagree with Sir PB ,did you?

    ReplyDelete
  28. “The lesson to whisteblowers is that you can’t trust the BBC.”

    http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5772/police-probe-cover-up-over-peter-morrison-exaro-debate-hears

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I watched the video of the debate the other day. Very good!

      I thought the best bit was Meirion Jones talk just before 15 min.

      No, You can’t trust the BBC

      Liz MacKean and Meirion Jones who made the program exposing Savile were both forced out of the BBC after their Newsnight programme was cancelled.

      BBC journalists will be afraid of speaking out about the next big BBC scandal after seeing how those who tried to expose Jimmy Savile were forced out

      The BBC knew Jimmy Savile was a paedophile but still pressed ahead with Christmas tribute broadcasts to him in December 2011

      www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11887548/Alan-Yentob-branded-BBC-journalists-traitors-over-Savile-expose.html

      The BBC’s creative director accused the journalists who exposed the corporation’s cover-up of Jimmy Savile’s crimes of being “traitors”, the former Newsnight investigations head claims.
      According to Meirion Jones, Alan Yentob made the alleged comment about him and Liz MacKean to a colleague after they contributed to the Panorama exposé “Savile – What The BBC Knew”.
      Mr Jones and Ms MacKean led the 2011 Newsnight investigation into Savile’s sex abuse, which was blocked from broadcast by BBC bosses.

      www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/29/bbc-savile-expose-newsnight-meirion-jones

      Delete
  29. February 2016
    Day 13612 Feb 2016

    ​9:30 Public witness



    ​Deputy Andrew Lewis

    Yes
    Day 13511 Feb 2016

    ​10:00 Public witness



    ​Wendy Kinnard

    Yes
    Day 13410 Feb 2016

    ​9:30 Public witness

    13:30 Anonymous witness







    13:45 Anonymous witness







    14:30 Public witness



    ​Glenys Johnston

    Evidence relating to working within Jersey care homes

    Evidence relating to working within Jersey care homes

    Evidence relating to working within Children's Services

    Yes
    Day 1339 Feb 2016

    ​10:00 Public witness



    ​Nicholas Griffin QC

    Yes

    ReplyDelete
  30. Off thread but interesting I hope

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=b86dzTFJbkc

    "2013 Boyarsky Lecture by Jonathan Haidt, PhD"

    Primarily from a USA perspective. A lecture on morality and on how both the Left and the Right screw up.

    However .......does not explain why so many people in Jersey are prepared to live with the cover up and continence of child abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Jonnie H Boundover5 February 2016 at 23:37

    Birt was a completely unconvincing witness at the coi. I wouldn't buy a second hand car off him that is for sure. What a contrast to the honest and incredibly hard working Mike Higgins. Birt should have been forced to answer Higgins' crucial point about why he and the Bailhache brothers allowed a paedophile protecting school master to remain as a Jurat. Instead the Inquiry let him waffle. I really have so much respect for Deputy Higgins I might even move in to St Helier No 3 district just so I can give him an extra vote! I mean we don't want Andrew Lewis getting back in do we.


    ReplyDelete
  32. One observation I have, as I watch the progress of the Jersey Care Inquiry, is those witnesses who are notable by their absence. Where, for example, is Iris Le Feuvre? She was chair of the Jersey Child Protection Committee for many years until Stuart Syvret dismissed her.

    It was Mrs Le Feuvre who "signed" the Maguire reference letter. Although Anton Skinner recently admitted to writing it.

    It was Mrs Le Feuvre who "signed" the letter that helped to get Stuart Syvret removed from his role as Health Minister.

    It was Mrs Le Feuvre who was chair of the Jersey Child Protection Committee for many years.

    Is there a reason she hasn't been called to give evidence? I realise that she is elderly. Could that be the reason? Genuine question, not trolling.

    And can anyone thing of any other key individuals who are notable by their absence?

    Mike Pollard, for example?

    Why aren't these individuals being invited to give evidence, or subpoenaed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good questions @00:35.

      Is Iris Le Feuvre still alive and in possession of her marbles?
      Did they get lost, just like her morals?

      "Home to something evil":
      www.theguardian.com/society/2009/mar/14/haut-de-la-garenne

      Delusional woman probably thinks she will go to heaven.

      Delete
    2. Here is a short list of witnesses who I believe should be called to give evidence to the COI but don't look to have been called yet.

      Without their evidence the final report will not be complete and questions will remain unanswered.

      Iris Le Feuvre

      Andrew Williamson

      Lieutenant Governor

      Brian Napier QC

      Brian Moore

      Emma Martins

      Mike Pollard

      Ian Crich

      Jane Maguire

      Steven Austin Vautier

      Stephen Baker

      Judy Martin

      Jimmy Perchard

      Ian Christmas

      Simon Thomas.

      Delete
    3. VFC, That is a useful and quite shocking list of omissions.

      One could add to that list that others should not have been excluded or constructively excluded. e.g. Whistleblower Health Minster Stuart Syret.

      Our money has been spent with an aversion to the truth, rather than the necessary cleansing hunger for the truth.

      This is a form of theft/embezzlement by the establishment and the island will be mired deeper in shame and no closer to closure, truth and reconciliation.

      What a waste. What a criminal waste!

      Delete
    4. That's a very interesting and important list VFC. And you are certainly correct, a "report" produced by a public inquiry into the Jersey child-abuse controversy could not be complete without those witnesses having been questioned. As it is being run by a law-firm, and not by amateurs the lawyers will certainly know that "a" report produced in the absence of testimony from the aforesaid witnesses will not be a "lawful" report in that it will be only a semi-report, the product of an incomplete task. Perhaps the lawyers think no-one will notice? Well, that worked.

      However, that wasn't my chief point in commenting. I imagine those who know more about the Jersey situation could significantly add to the list of missing witnesses you've produced. (I could if I gave it some thought.) But as an external observer, there are two absences from you list which leap out at me. One is Stuart Syvret, obviously. Though his case differs from the others, in that he has made his reasons for not co-operating public. (For all we know the other missing witnesses may have refused to co-operate just as Syvret has done, though unlike him, they lacked the integrity to say so, and why, publicly?)

      The other missing core witness is Christopher Chapman. And I find it surprising that his absence hasn't been a point of contention throughout, and there hasn't been a clamour for him to be summoned. After all, this was the man who has gone down in Jersey history and infamy as the cause of the phrase "Ourchap Reports", to describe the kind of laughably transparent white-wash PR phantasmagoria which masquerade as "factual reports" which the Jersey Establishment routinely purchase using tax-payers money when they need a hotch-potch of fictions and omissions to disguise their incompetences and corruptions.

      It's been some time since I read the Chapman "Ourchap" report but it stuck in my mind as an especially disgusting and reprehensible farrago of overt lies, omissions, and coercive thuggery even by Jersey Establishment "Official Report" standards. I think campaigners will find many, if not all, of the individuals who were improperly shielded from accountability in the "Ourchap" Report have now been show by history to be culpable, in one way or another, in the Jersey child-abuse scandal.

      Christopher Chapman has to be a core witness. He, along with that handful of other public officials who used their positions or commissions to intimidate, coerce and silence whistle-blowers, and to conceal child-protection failures (Emma Martins is another) must be put on the stand and asked the obvious question: "Look, here is all the evidence we have gathered for child-abuse, child-protection failures, and cover-ups in Jersey; how did you come to be on the wrong side in all that?"

      Delete
    5. Yes, Constable Iris Le Feuvre who also nominated disgraced Vic College Vice Principle John Le Breton to become a Jurat. But maybe we aren't allowed to mention that?

      Delete
    6. Witnesses missing from the COI. I hope others will add to the list. Here are 2 who spring to mind. Alan Breckon and Geoff Southern.

      Delete
    7. I expect he's been spoken of before as a witness who must be called (?) but Christopher Pitchers has to be put on the stand. There's no escaping the fact he must be grilled given how intensely involved he's been in the history of the Jersey child abuse cover-ups? He was the judge chosen by Philip Bailhache to hear the trial of some of the mere handful of abusers brought to court. Donnelly, for example. What was staggering about those proceedings is that Pitchers didn't use the discretion of the court, nor any motion of its own in the interests of justice, to scrutinise in the public interest the assertions being made by the parties.

      Those not familiar with the history of the Jersey situation will need to know that Christopher Pitchers was the judge (chosen by the fatally conflicted Philip Bailhache) to preside over some of the Jersey child-abuse prosecutions. In those trials, most interestingly as a collective motion which was deeply peculiar in itself as the interests of the accused would have been best served as individual applications, a joint abuse-of-process application was made to the effect they couldn't gain a fair trial.

      These were obviously cases of the deepest public-interest significance. But quite amazingly, the defence AND the prosecution went to court making, in essence, the same case, namely that Jersey's police force were incompetent and improperly motivated.

      Any competent and objective trial judge would have done one of two things in the face of that situation; firstly, and almost certainly, given the burden of proof on the state, have agreed abuse-of-process, and thrown out the charges against the accused and acquitted them in the face very dramatic supposed "doubts" about the competence and motivation of the police force. Especially - ESPECIALLY - given that those doubts about the competence and motives of the police force were being agreed and endorsed by the actual prosecution.

      I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of any precedent case in modern British law in which counsel for the accused has gone to court pleading abuse-of-process on the grounds the police were both incompetent and improperly motivated, AND in which THE prosecution has agreed with that basic premise - but yet the judge had agreed to the trial going ahead?!

      It's amazing. And one of those things that could slip below the radar screen of a lay audience.

      Instead of ruling in that way, what occurred was, that with the agreement of both parties (accused and prosecution) an unevidenced, unscrutinised and unchallenged letter by a spin-doctor, Mr Matt Tapp, was admitted into the proceedings, and Christopher Pitchers the trial judge simply read it out in court, incorporating it into his judgement.

      That's how a wholly unevidenced screed by a spin-doctor, which supported the very bizarre shared position of both parties (accused and prosecution) came to be incorporated into a court judgement as though it were tested, established fact.

      How on Earth did that happen?

      How did something so utterly extraordinary, and almost certainly without precedent in modern British criminal trial history, come to pass?

      And were that not extraordinary enough, we have the now known fact that Mr Matt Tapp was employed secretly, behind the scenes, not only without the then Police Chief Graham Power's knowledge or authority, but as has been claimed by former Chief Minister Frank Walker, even without his knowledge either. So we don't know under whose authority Mr Matt Tapp even continued to be employed.

      Nevertheless the trial judge Christopher Pitchers chose to incorporate a PR commission by Mr Tapp into a vital abuse-of-process judgement which then had dramatic impacts on the standing of the Jersey Police Force, and thus the human rights of many further child-abuse victims whose attackers may otherwise have been charged and brought to trial.

      I would go as far as to suggest that Christopher Pitchers is the most pressing of remaining witnesses.

      Delete
    8. Was it Pitchers who was discovered rather embarrassing state of undress at a well known rent boy haunt in London

      If so it could a possible explanation of Pitchers' otherwise inexplicable behaviour ...if his ass is "owned"

      "Rent a verdict" in legal La-La-Land with bells and whistles!

      or was that a different UK Judge entirely?
      Jog my memory please.

      Delete
    9. Thanks VFC.
      But I recall it was a Judge that the Jersey establishment have "used".
      Can you remind us which case(s)?

      One of the Syvret show trials?

      Delete
    10. I’m not aware of any of the ‘judges’ used against Syvret having been caught with rent boys. If anyone is so aware, could they share a link?

      Perhaps the reader is getting confused with the two judges who blocked the 2009 judicial review brought by Syvret against the Secretary of State for Justice for failing to ensure the rule of law in Jersey, even though the facts and law were plainly on Syvret’s side (as subsequent events have more than proven.)

      It was a fascinating exmaple of how brother-judges stick together. An even more fascinating question is how the two came to be hearing the application when both were obviously inappropriate judges to be involved with the case.

      One of the 2 was Michael Tugendhat – a former Jersey court commissioner - and friend of Philip Bailhache. A frankly remarkable and preposterous biasing factor.

      The other was Stephen Richards who was prosecuted yet acquitted in 2007 for flashing women on a train. If you Google ‘flasher judge’ the articles will be found. Here’s one of them,

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-461508/Judge-cleared-flashing-bungled-police-inquiry.html

      The scientific evidence on unconscious bias is very clear. A person who’d been ‘wrongly’ accused of a sex-crime could not then be capable of being an impartial judge overseeing cases which involve sex-crimes. Even with the best will, the subconscious bias will favour the accused. It was wholly wrong for Richards to have been involved in hearing the case, central to which was Syvret’s claim that sex-crimes were not being lawfully investigated in Jersey.

      That’s assuming Stephen Richards was innocent. Being accused of a sex-crime once may be unfortunate. For it to happen again a few years later, by an entirely new alleged victim – as happened to Richards here

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275887/Judge-cleared-2007-flashing-quizzed-sex-assault-train-route.html

      could be said to be of the most profound and dashed bad luck. What are the odds, eh?

      Delete
    11. Isn’t the need to call Christopher Pitchers even more obvious than suggested above? Not only did Pitchers act as is said, and incorporate unevidenced and unchallenged rubbish by a spin-doctor into a criminal trial abuse of process application as though it was fact, but he was also later appointed by the conflicted Michael Birt to hear Stuart Syvret’s appeal for whistle-blowing, and one of Syvret’s Jersey judicial review applications. As was reported and discussed on the blogs at the time, Chris Pitcher’s conduct against Syvret was biased. To an amazing extent. Remember when after months and months of claims by Stephen Baker in the courts that there was no need to disclose Graham Power’s statement to Wiltshire to Stuart Syvret because, so Baker claimed, none of it was ‘relevant’, but Baker eventually admitting in front of Pitchers that, in reality, Baker had not in fact read it. So prosecution lawyer Stephen Baker (who was himself conflicted against Syvret having been involved, as we’ve seen at the COI, in burying a lot of the child-abuse cases which should have been prosecuted) admitted to repeatedly lying throughout months of prior court proceedings against Syvret, but yet Christopher Pitchers ignores Baker’s lies and carries on as though nothing had happened. In a UK court the case against Syvret would have been immediately thrown out right at that moment, and the prosecuting lawyer referred to the Police for perverting justice and misconduct in a public office. So why didn’t Christopher Pitchers do that? Why instead did he carry on shielding the child-abuse cover-ups?

      Delete
  33. Good to see Wendy Kinnard is to give evidence. But will she tell, or be able to tell her full true facts as to why she so suddenly left her Home Affairs Minister position?

    ReplyDelete
  34. It seems that Tim Le Cocq let it out that Bill Ogley requested advice on the removal of a 'Police Chief' in SEPTEMBER 2008. So at least six weeks , possibly a lot more, before Andrew Lewis was 'hit out of the blue' and while Wendy Kinnard was still in post for some five weeks.
    As they say ,'wasn't he being a bit 'previous',? a couple of days for a letter is almost understandable, but six to ten weeks before anyone else had an inkling is either a miracle or something else...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a very important observation, Colin. The stress being on the fact that Ogley sought advice about removing the chief of police, not merely disciplining him. It completely gives a lie to all the crap Lewis came up with about suspension not being a foregone conclusion when he suspended Graham Power.

      Also, ask yourself why it was even remotely appropriate for Ogley to seek this advice, when the only person capable of disciplining the police chief was the Home Affairs Minister.

      It's really quite astonishing how Brian Napier QC managed to write a 50-odd page report chronicling the most obvious plot to oust the Chief of Police, and then concluded that there was no plot!

      Walker and Ogley wanted Power removed; Kinnard resisted; Ogley sought advice about how to remove Power and found they couldn't do so without Home Affairs Minister agreement; Kinnard mysteriously resigned for reasons unknown; Lewis appointed as patsy; Lewis removed Power unlawfully on the most obviously trumped-up cobblers.

      I guess you need to be a £700-an-hour silk to not see this as a plot?

      Delete
    2. "I guess you need to be a £700-an-hour silk to not see this as a plot?"

      Prostitution of the mind and soul!

      Call girls/rent boys can at least wash themselves and mostly don't have to take the 'unpleasantness' to their grave (or beyond!)

      Delete
  35. Wendy Kinnard was bullied (by a well known male, female bullier), into suspending Graham Power. She said that she would rather resign than suspend that good Chief Of Police. She was then bullied into resigning.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Memo

    Just a reminder that there is still no sign of Trevor's documentation reappearing on the Inquiry site (Day 109) and that the version of the transcript is one created on 23 January 2016 and uploaded on 28 January 2016. This was substituted for the original transcript which had been created on 3 December 2015. The new transcript is just 2 pages shorter than the old and there could be a perfectly innocent explanation for this. Both transcripts are listed as containing only a single redaction of a name.

    I do not have the facility to compare the two documents in detail. They appear on the face of it to be the same, so why create and upload the later one?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many pages have the two got Polo?

      Delete
    2. By the sound of it someone at the COI is editing out chunks of Trevor Pitman's witness statement and not much could be more serious than that. What other explanations are there for a two page shorter statement from a month before?

      Delete
    3. The old one is 190 pages and the new one 188. It could be due to fonts/margins or other minor formatting details.

      The real question is why a new document had to be created. They're hardly going to do that to correct a few minor punctuation mistakes, particularly when they are making an unholy mess of almost everything else.

      Delete
    4. I realise it will be a tedious thing to do, and he shouldn't have been treated like this, but can former Deputy Pitman be asked to check through these things and let us know what alterations have been made? No one will be better placed than him.

      Thanks

      Delete
    5. I think I am right in saying Trevor's original has been quoted as being 208 pages? If so that is a very substantial shrinkage. I hope Trevor can go through all of this himself. Sounds very suspicious.

      Delete
  37. What about calling Brenda Chappell as a witness

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Am I alone in not knowing who Brenda Chappell is and why she should be a witness to the Jersey public inquiry? Perhaps she's well known in Jersey, but it's a name I've missed.

      Delete
  38. Good point about the Chapman report at 18:14! I'd nearly forgotten about that. If we're not careful the report of the COI will end up being an Ourchap report. We've got to keep the pressure on to let these people know we won't put up with Ourchap reports any more. The powers that be wanted the Napier report to be an Ourchap report, and the nearly got their way. It was only because of the heavy pressure on Napier that he had to produce a compromised halfway house report. It would have been a full on Ourchap report if he didn't know he was under the spotlight and was going to be ripped to pieces if he didn't at least say the basic truth the suspension of the police chief was unlawful.

    ReplyDelete
  39. As the originator of the term 'ourchap report' , originally on the despicable blog, I was surprised that it ' got legs' .I am still disappointed that it is applicable.
    Another 'mot juste ' was tensegrity politics, now that might just be a snip from Dim Tim?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Back to Brian Napier QC and the ourchap report where the hyper critical ToR achieved by the hard work of Bob Hill literally "fell off the page" ....in what was on publication of the Napier Report described as a ....."clerical error"
    (No, you couldn't make it up! What? they had an operation trident student type up the appointment letter?)
    I stumbled across this comment from over 5 years ago:

    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/09/im-jersey-politiciankeep-me-in-here.html?showComment=1284231757086#c4125754616006346818

    Word has reached me from a source close to the Chief Ministers Office who says that it is quite apt that former Deputy “Andrew” Lewis should get a mention at this time.

    These are “unconfirmed” reports that he, along with Acting Chief Officer David Warcup have both received “Scott Letters” from Brian Napier QC as part of his, long awaited, Report. The unconfirmed reports I am getting tell me that our “powers that be” are trying to “persuade” Mr. Napier to “tone down” his criticisms of David Warcup and Andrew Lewis for the final version of his Report……..Now where has that happened before?

    Like I said, this is all unconfirmed but if the source proves to be as good as their word (they’ve been good in the past) then I hope to have something a little more substantial very soon.

    (First published by VFC 11 September 2010 at 20:02)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The disappearing TOR from the Napier Report gave rise to a complaint against top Civil Servant, John Richardson, from former Deputy Bob Hill.

      The postings we published show how Senator Philip Ozouf has been able to fly under the radar.

      Serious Complaint ONE.

      Serious Complaint TWO.

      Serious Complaint THREE.

      Delete
    2. A simple objective way of measuring bias in the Napier Report. Do a "Find" on the words "Accept" and "Reason", and see how many times Napier uses them in the context of "I have no reason to doubt" or "I accept this version of events". Actually, to save you the bother, it's 13 times by my count. Now guess how many times he uses it in regard to unevidenced assertions by the likes of Lewis, Warcup, Ogley and Crich, versus how many times he uses it in regard to unevidenced assertions by Graham Power? Clue: the score is 13-0.

      Entirely coincidental.

      Delete
    3. 13! unlucky for some!

      He who pays the piper calls the tune.

      Has Brian Napier (no relation of Charles Napier?) ever commented on the vital ToR which mysteriously (CoI style) fell off his brief? This "accidental" loss of a ToR would be further evidence or the very conspiracy Napier so pointedly failed to errr... "find".

      Another word search to do on ourchap reports is on "find", as in "I did not find any evidence of..."

      No shit Sherlock!

      Delete
  41. When is Andrew Lewis appearing? Watching him try to juggle all of his, Le Cocq, Walker and Ogley's different versions of the truth should be better than any film. I bet he never thought this day would come along.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Andrew Lewis was quoted on BBC Radio Jersey last week saying that he was "looking forward" to putting the record straight when he appears next week.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are a lot of people looking forward to Andrew Lewis putting the record straight. He has flatly refused to do this for more than 7 years despite many attempts for him to tell which of his versions of the “truth” is the “truth.”

      Andrew Lewis in a secret States Sitting:

      "I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place.”

      Brian Napier QC"

      “As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it."

      OPEN LETTER

      Delete
  43. Lewis has been seen sitting with his lawyer in the Inquiry during Ogley's and Le Cocq's testimony, not in the public gallery I might add. Wendy Kinnard appears next week before he gives his evidence, plenty of time for him to hear what others have to say before he decides on his story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. May I please ask which lawyer is representing Andrew Lewis?

      Delete
    2. I believe it is Ogier’s who are representing the Sojp. Curiously not Lacey’s Advocates who are representing the Chief Ministers’ Department.

      Delete
    3. Andrew Lewis suspends the chief of police almost certainly illegally and the police's lawyers defend him - how sick is that? They should be thinking about prosecuting him not defending him. Has the chief minister's lawyers refused to defend him?

      Delete
    4. I'm not sure "defend" is the correct terminology as nobody is on trial at the Child Abuse Inquiry. "Assist" is probably more apt but the points raised in the comment are still just as valid.

      Delete
  44. Who is paying for his lawyer?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just a minute. How on Earth can the Police, as a neutral public body, be lending their lawyers, Ogiers, to a partisan politician? Moreover, one who was on the wrong side in the whole scandal? How can that be? And what an astounding contrast with Stuart Syvret, who was on the right side throughout, but yet Eversheds and the COI have refused him any legal representation. This is simply amazing. Is anyone objecting to this?

      Delete
    2. A reader, at 18:52, says: -

      ".....Is anyone objecting to this?”

      I would, of course, object to that state of affairs - were there any authority in Jersey to complain to. “The Jersey “police” authority, The Ogier Group?” Well, you can see how that works out.

      Alas, the entire polity of Jersey being a Potemkin village run on behalf of high-level, high-finance organised crime based in the City of London, the "climate" - as it were – is such that I'm supposed to count myself lucky for each week which passes with me still breathing.

      Let’s face it – some witnesses now aren’t.

      Yes – it is just extraordinary – even from the perspective of the Jersey cosa nostra and their FACAWS in wanting a plausible cover-up – that the evidencedly culpable are getting legal representation – from THE POLICE, of all agencies – whilst I remain the only human being in the entire Council of Europe member states (which includes Russia) who can’t obtain legal representation.

      Yes. It is that astounding.

      But there's a far more basic - and more important - point which the commenter doesn't grasp.

      Firstly - just how can it possibly be - in Britain - in the 21st century - that a "police” force is allowing itself to be “legally” advised by a law-firm which is - on the plain evidence - one of the most fatally conflicted entities in the entire scandal?

      The Ogier Group.

      Consider some rudimentary law which even the average middle-ranking cop should be aware of (perhaps you need to get someone to explain it you, Mr Bowron. Though not, obviously, The Ogier Group - nor your other lawyers - Appleby Global / Bailhache LaBesse.)

      It was already clear on the facts that the Ogier Group - Ogiers - were fatally conflicted in the Jersey child-abuse scandals - and - no-one is forgetting this - a number of other very serious criminal cover-ups in Jersey.

      The obvious contaminating factor being the "capture" of the Jersey "judicial" and "prosecution" functions by Ogiers, through individuals such as Michael Birt, Tim Le Cocq, Julian Clyde-Smith, and assorted "jurats". Also closely involved in the capture of the Jersey “criminal justice” system are the City of London legal chambers, 7 Bedford Row (from whence originated the conflicted Advocate Stephen Baker. Also the disposable useful-idiot factotum, former Solicitor General Howard – “Blunt” – Sharp, the man who didn’t know government agencies can be judicially reviewed – until, that is, the judge – Julian Clyde-Smith - of The Ogier Group – helpfully intervened, corrected Sharp’s mistake, and ran the Jersey’s oligarchy’s case for him.)

      Those contaminations alone, make the notion of a Jersey "police” force being "legally advised" by Ogiers something so Kafkaesque - so overtly illegitimate - not even Putin would attempt it in Russia; so startlingly illegal, an equivalent state of affairs would be too corrupt and oppressive for even Mugabe to attempt so overtly.

      Naturally then, we come to the obvious clever-clever "defence" of this madcap banana-republic situation which the Jersey mafia will have tucked in their back-pocket. You know? Just like those oh so sincere e-mails of “legal advice” – sent by Attorney Generals at the 59th minutes of 11th hours – kept in reserve - should an “insurance-policy” be needed. It goes something like this: -

      “Oh, what’s that? The Ogier Group’s close involvement with the Jersey Police Force?!? Well, look – there’s no problem with this. It was a "democratic", “lawful” decision - by the Home Affairs Minister - to hand over Jersey "police authority" responsibility to Ogiers.”

      …..continued….

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    3. ….Continued….

      And the Ogier Group - in such a typically Jersey act of charitable public-spiritedness - offered to "take on this onerous public responsibility even though it would cost them about £100,000 p/a”

      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-ogier-group/

      Indeed - who knows - Ogiers are so “public-spirited” - they might be doing the "police" force’s "legal representation" free too - or at a "special” – quid-pro-quo - rate?

      Or more probably – Ogiers have swallowed a vast chunk of tax-payers money in representing and defending themselves – under the proxy guise of “representing and defending” the police.

      There is a fatal "problem" with the “It-Was-The-Home-Affairs-Minister’s-Decision” as an excuse for the remarkable spectacle of The Ogier Group having occupied Jersey’s policing-function.

      But there is, in particular, a stark fact – obvious to any thinking person - which renders ultra vires the decision of the Minister to create that relationship between Ogiers and the policing function. The involvement of Ogiers was as a result of a Ministerial decision made by the Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand.

      But Le Marquand was - throughout his entire involvement - fatally conflicted.

      Fatally conflicted - before he was even elected.

      This was the then magistrate Ian Le Marquand who - with zero basis in law - invented "powers" for himself and the magistrates court to illegally imprison vulnerable children - abusing "remand" processes - and who invented - again, unlawfully - a "power" to subject a certain category of children to illegal solitary confinement regimes.

      Ian Le Marquand – whose conduct I had begun investigating under the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 whilst I was still Health & Social Services Minister in the course of 2007 - & he was still magistrate – who resigned as magistrate for the sole purpose of seeking election to “bring the police force under direct political control”.

      That’s the Ian Le Marquand who then went on to maintain the plainly illegal suspension against the Police Chief Graham Power – which had been illegally initiated by Andrew Lewis. Who is now being given “legal advice” – in the name of the “police” – by Ogiers.

      The point of law is plain. Ian Le Marquand was always – always – directly, personally and fatally contaminated and conflicted in these matters.

      Thus – no decisions relevant to these matter which were then made by the relevant “public authority” – the office of Home Affairs Minister – when that public-authority involved Ian Le Marquand – were lawful.

      Thus – the conflicted Ministerial decision of the Home Affairs Minister to hand over those “policing functions” to the conflicted Ogier Group – were always ultra vires, always illegitimate.

      I doubt there’s as much as one senior figure in the present top leadership of the States of Jersey Police Force who grasps the magnitude of the position they and the SOJP are in.

      Bluntly? There is no other regional police force ANYWHERE - in any of the established, respectable western European democracies – which is in the position of the SOJP; politically captured - placed under the strategic control & “legal advice” of a deeply conflicted private company facing very serious legal questions itself – by a politician who was himself unlawfully conflicted. And under the name of the SOJP, a corruptly conflicted partisan politician is being given legal representation when many in the community feel he should be charged, not shielded.

      The present involvements and entanglements between The Ogier Group and the States of Jersey Police Force are simply, starkly devoid of any and all legal legitimacy. The description of mere “ultra vires” doesn't go far enough. There are other words – other phrases – which could be used to describe the relationship between the Jersey Police and the law firm Ogiers.

      The whole world is watching.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    4. Stuart, Rico is right, either get involved or walk away, these posts of yours are not helping.

      Delete
    5. Give it a rest with the trolling. Lots of us think Stuart's posts are helpful. He has a unique view on what's happened and he supported us when it mattered, so I'm supporting him. I don't want him to be refused to be given legal representation. Especially when the likes of Lewis are getting legally representation. I respect Rico but if he says that he is wrong. And Rico needs to remember, he doesn't have a god-given right to speak on everyone's behalf. As a survivor I trust Stuart and his explanations make things a lot clearer for me. It's worrying to be honest to read arrogant claims from some that other people should follow their orders or shut up totally and go away. People have a free choice to deal with the situations of the COI as they as individuals want to.

      I for one hadn't understood the history of how Ian Le Marquand as Home Affairs Minister was responsible for handing over control of the police to Ogiers. I was locked up in the pits in Greenfields by Le Marquand when he was the magistrate, so I want to know this kind of stuff. So don't take any notice of the trolling Stuart.

      Delete
    6. Well said @13:37

      Delete
    7. Have a word with yourself, why does everybody use trolling as a way of dealing with comments people object to. Nobody trolls on here and Andrew Lewis is nobody to get excited about. If they conclude that Graham Power was illegally suspended, what will the Inquiry do about it? Nothing. This Inquiry is groomed exactly as the Establishment wanted it and that's helped by Stuart's refusal to take his evidence down there. If people cannot say it as it is without being called a troll then they have won.

      Delete
    8. @15:18
      Can you spot the flaw in your logic?

      or do you need help

      Delete
    9. Stuart posts are only helpful if he takes them with the evidence to this Inquiry.
      I can't believe people who are pushing him to go are being called trolls on here, what's the logic behind that?

      Delete
    10. "Stuart posts are only helpful if ..."
      That is your opinion but if you don't mind many of us trust Mr.Syvret's judgement above your's Anon. And indeed above Rico's in this case.

      The CoI is to some extent Rico's baby, being one of those whose efforts brought this CoI into existence -or at least helped resurrect it after the States' promise to survivors was broken!

      Even if it is Rico's baby, I am perplexed by his enthusiasm for Mr.Syvret to "validate" a CoI which Rico himself concedes is so utterly flawed and biased.
      Rico is far cleverer than his feral punctuation would suggest but like most of us he would probably concede that he is not the sharpest tool in the box (no offence intended Rico)

      It is disappointing to not (officially) have ALL of Mr.Syvret's evidence at this stage but he is right to play the long game and the smart money does not lose ALL it's army fighting a losing battle. The game of this CoI and the outcome are set. Despite the best of preparation Bob Hill and Trevor Pitman strode bravely into the ambush that has been expensively prepared. Mr.Pitman's statements are still lost in the smoke and mirrors of the cherade.
      Perhaps when Trevor Pitman statement is put back on the CoI website AND Trevor Pitman is recalled to properly cover his evidence, then anonymice can appeal for Mr.Syvret to give his evidence without said anonymice being called a retard.

      You have the right to state that Stuart should give evidence (without the legal representation afforded to the likes of Lewis LOL) and I have the right to state that you are a retard

      Some other readers think that you are a troll. Fair enough. I don't actually care which one you are.

      Delete
    11. Bob Hill suffered a devastating stroke a few days after giving his evidence. It is difficult to believe that the stress caused by his treatment by the CoI was not to some extent responsible.

      They have no shame.

      Delete
    12. So be it, but there will never be an Inquiry like this again and don't be fooled by people who say there will be. This is the only/last show in town and its findings will be cemented into Jersey's history.

      Delete
    13. First off, thank you for your restrained and civil response @12:38. Doing "fight club" would rarely have a clear winner but the clarity of thread would often be a the loser.

      I actually agree with most of your comment:
      "So be it, but there will never be an Inquiry like this again and don't be fooled by people who say there will be. This is the only/last show in town and its findings will be cemented into Jersey's history."
      but some of the detail is wrong or debatable.

      We don't need another lawyer led Inquiry. We need prosecutions of the 85%of "chargeable" abusers whose escape has been engineered by the establishment. We need the rule of law with checks and balances / oversight of the conditions conducive to further abuse upon abuse will still exist. "Law" by company-town shysters has failed us and will fail us again.

      The Establishment and it's "organs" will continue to pedal it's "Official History" but the world has changed and populations are wising up to being led and misled by their 'owners'. In Jersey's case this "Official History" is already sufficiently untenable that accepted history will inevitably include the failure of this CoI.

      We await the final report. Ideally we will be able to applaud it as a good effort under difficult circumstances. Far more likely that it will be an untenable mash and we can spend the next few years pulling the legs off it and hence off those who involve themselves in adding yet another shameful layer to the cover up and abuse.

      Mr.Syvret officially giving evidence would have great value. However Mr.Syvret being constructively excluded and also not sopheanaed is a big bull elephant-in-the-room to add to the herd already there. This has a huge value when playing the hand when the cards have been stacked the way they have been.

      I don't think Mr.Syvret will be (or should be) persuaded otherwise. It is a difficult call to make but sometimes it is best to respect people who have the right to make their own decisions, and agree to disagree.

      This is not a fight just involving Jersey but Jersey may well be the key to dismantling power-paedophilia in the UK and any other affected crown dependencies.

      Delete
    14. On tonight's news its reported that there is no evidence of cover up.
      So is this not the best time for Stuart Syvret to present his evidence of a cover to the Inquiry?

      Delete
    15. "So is this not the best time for Stuart Syvret to present his evidence of a cover to the Inquiry?"

      Sorry, didn't Trevor Pitman already try that?

      Delete
  45. Another witness to add to the list who should be called to the COI as mentioned HERE is Juliette Gallichan.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Can I ask some basic procedural questions? If Andrew Lewis has in fact attended parts of the COI as an observer, with a tax-payer funded lawyer at his side, and has been allowed to sit apart from the hoi-polio -

    In what capacity is he attending?
    Why has he been given special treatment in terms of seating arrangements?
    Why is he being provided with a tax-payer funded lawyer when Stuart Syvret, also a former minister with important testimony, has apparently not been afforded that right?
    Who agreed to him being provided with a lawyer - i.e. is this an arrangement approved and funded by the COI out of the COI budget, or is it an arrangement sanctioned and funded by the government, independent of the COI?
    If his lawyer is indeed from Ogier, and Ogier are also current legal advisors to the SOJP, would this not represent a very clear conflict of interests? Andrew Lewis is no longer minister responsible for the SOJP, and it is not difficult to foresee scenarios where his interests might conflict with those of the SOJP.

    And then, of course, there is the $64,000 question: if he always told the truth and acted fairly and honestly throughout his brief tenure as Minister for Home Affairs, why does Andrew Lewis feel the need to observe testimony by his former allies Ogley and Walker? After all, to an honest man with nothing to hide, why would the testimony of others be of any interest, let alone such interest that you need a lawyer?

    ReplyDelete
  47. The above makes a fair point: Andrew Lewis is a former Minister and gets provided with a lawyer. Stuart Syvret is also a former Minister - though of far longer tenure - but doesn't get an all fees paid lawyer?

    I have never bought into Stuart's claimed need for this but this blatant double standard puts a new perspective on all of this out of basic fairness.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Like me, other readers may have missed a significant new comment nested in the thread above:

    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-curious-incident-of-william.html?showComment=1454876923498#c3478128440061456834

    "Isn’t the need to call [before CoI] Christopher Pitchers even more obvious than suggested above? Not only did Pitchers act as is said, and incorporate unevidenced and unchallenged rubbish by a spin-doctor into a criminal trial abuse of process application as though it was fact, but he was also later appointed by the conflicted Michael Birt to hear Stuart Syvret’s appeal for whistle-blowing, and one of Syvret’s Jersey judicial review applications. As was reported and discussed on the blogs at the time, Chris Pitcher’s conduct against Syvret was biased. To an amazing extent. Remember when after months and months of claims by Stephen Baker in the courts that there was no need to disclose Graham Power’s statement to Wiltshire to Stuart Syvret because, so Baker claimed, none of it was ‘relevant’, but Baker eventually admitting in front of Pitchers that, in reality, Baker had not in fact read it. So prosecution lawyer Stephen Baker (who was himself conflicted against Syvret having been involved, as we’ve seen at the COI, in burying a lot of the child-abuse cases which should have been prosecuted) admitted to repeatedly lying throughout months of prior court proceedings against Syvret, but yet Christopher Pitchers ignores Baker’s lies and carries on as though nothing had happened. In a UK court the case against Syvret would have been immediately thrown out right at that moment, and the prosecuting lawyer referred to the Police for perverting justice and misconduct in a public office. So why didn’t Christopher Pitchers do that? Why instead did he carry on shielding the child-abuse cover-ups?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sir Christopher Pitchers? Why yes indeedy! I know one or two of his associates here in London who are enthusiastic in wanting to congratulate Sir Christopher on having found such bountiful later-career employment from the very well paying, if somewhat opaquely accounted, Jersey "Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund". Likewise, and coincidently enough, I notice other readers mentioning 7 Bedford Row in the context of Jersey, those Chambers too, as well as their alumni such as Stephen Baker, will be able to vouch for the "lottery-winnings"-style of career earnings which become available to those lucky few who are deemed worthy of tapping into the Jersey COCF. You know? When a really "important" task emerges? Like generating "reasons" to not prosecute 85% of Jersey's child abuse suspects?

      Why, you know, as I think about it, perhaps Sir Christopher Pitchers had, in the past, some kind of association himself with the Chambers of 7 Bedford Row? I mean, it would explain, would it not, Sir Chris having that necessary high level of expertise, specialism, integrity, calibre and understanding needed to slot right in, right along side the 7 Bedford Row alumni such as Stephen Baker in his work on the Jersey child-abuse cases?

      These two fine gentleman will, no doubt, willingly explain to the Jersey public inquiry how their fine skill-sets and experiences made then such fitting prosecution and judicial office holders in Jersey during which would have been a most, beastly difficult time for the "reputation" of the island had the criminal justice system failed to act in the appropriate manner. I'm sure a detailed account of the marvellously earned remunerations of both these fine men will serve as an inspiring and motivational lecture, which all, surely, of Jersey's young lawyers will wish to attend. We live in uncertain times in so many ways, but we can be quite certain Sir Christopher and Stephen Baker would gain a standing ovation.

      Ah, yes, it brings a tear of pride to the eye of an old QC, when observing the traditions of our ancient profession, which is only here to humbly serve, being pursed with the stoutest customary vigour by two such skilled and wonderful fellows.

      Delete
    2. Indeed @01:37 well said :-)
      One of the talents required is vice-like self control. It would be unseemly to draw attention to oneself by squealing loudly with delight on seeing one's trough being re-filled to the brim.

      Justice, and other people's children are such a small price to pay for "men" of said calibre.

      Delete
  49. The SOJ Police (and Andrew Lewis) are represented by Carey Olsen, not Ogier's. Senior partner Alex Olsen was Philip Ozouf's campaign manager.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Why on earth would Andrew Lewis have representation from The SOJ Police's Lawyers?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Murkier & murkier.

    So what is the involvement of Ogiers in the Jersey public inquiry? Are they merely, as the Police Authority, providing behind the scenes 'guidance' to the SOJP and your island's dozen (is it?) private, family 'police' forces? That's in addition to providing the office block accommodation from which the 'public inquiry' is being staged? The points made somewhere earlier in this thread re the basic ultra vires of the appointment of a senior figure from Ogiers as head of your 'police authority' by the conflicted Ian Le Marquand, and the resourcing by Ogiers of that function, remain true. The relationship between Ogiers and the SOJP, has no legal validity. But even without the basic confounding factor of the ab initio ultra vires of the status of the conflicted Ian Le Marquand and the fatal contamination which that brought to the public authority of Home Affairs Minister, Ogiers were and remain fatally conflicted from having any involvement at all in administering, advising, guiding or shaping Jersey's policing function given that law-firms close involvement in representing some serious alleged criminals.

    Observing the carryings on in Jersey and the hopeless cross contaminations of private and public law and legal functions, it becomes clear that there's been the most serious vacuum in judicial and constitutional leadership on your island for many a decade.

    Perhaps I'll be corrected if I have this wrong, but was not the recently chosen (by your conflicted establishment) Jersey Attorney General, and sole prosecutor in Jersey, recruited from Carey Olsen? And now we're being told, above, that the actual legal advisers to the SOJP are Carey Olsen? My God!

    Is the phrase 'conflicts of interest' banned from the Jersey lexicon?

    More seriously, is there any person of senior rank in the Jersey Police Force who sees the clear fact that it is is automatically and permanently not possible for the Jersey Police to be 'legally advised' by any Jersey based law-firm, lawyer, or any legal practice or chambers with connections to Jersey? The place is simply too small, and no legal practice with an involvement in Jersey will be free of conflicts of interest when it comes to questions and advice and representation to the island's policing function.

    And we can see that these are not mere hypothetical concerns. It is extraordinary that legal advisers to the SOJP, no matter which firm it is, should also be providing legal advice to the former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis. This is a man, as was correctly pointed out above, who many people in Jersey feel should be charged. The conclusion to be drawn from this scenario is that there no competent leadership at the top of the SOJP at all. No competent police force would even dream of having legal advisers who were also giving legal advice to third-parties who could well have possible certain criminal justice issues to face.

    Add to this chaos the conduct of the 'public inquiry' itself. It is partisanly banning certain witness statements at the demand of your conflicted establishment. And has, somehow, God knows how, managed to contrive a situation in which one of the most culpable people (Andrew Lewis) gets special treatment via the Police, whilst one of the key whistle-blowers and former Minister Stuart Syvret gains no representation at all so has been constructively excluded as a witness, even though it is obviously the case his testimony would be 100% on the side of survivors and whistle-blowers.

    How on Earth was this mad state of affairs reached?

    I use this word deliberately: what we see unfolding in Jersey is anarchy. The make-it-up-as-you-go-along anarcho-syndicalist 'deals' which suit the day to day 'pragmatic' self-interests of a number of power syndicates. On Jersey it is as though the established law, judicial processes and precedents - all that society has come to know as proper justice - did not exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Is the phrase 'conflicts of interest' banned from the Jersey lexicon?"

      Not officially, but 15+ years ago when a certain elected politician had the audacity to point out a conflict of interest during the LLP/"legislature for hire" scandal, he was ejected from the states and not allowed to return for over 6 months.

      I kid you not.

      Delete
  52. I hand't give those factors enough thought before, but when you think about it, it's obviously true that all Jersey law-firms and lawyers will be conflicted from being able to give impartial advice to the Jersey Police Force. Jersey law firms will all have some criminally suspect clients. Maybe even serious suspects. Maybe even child abuse suspects. So it isn't possible for ordinary members of the public to view that legal advice to the police, or the police's actions and decisions based on that contaminated advice, as being impartial and fair. And yes, that will not only be the case with law firms actually being the legal advisers to the police, but other law firs as well, like Ogiers, who have a serious influence over policing in Jersey.

    Maybe I've missed the talk about this actual problem where it's been covered on the blogs before? But I don't remember it, and reading it being pointed out in a few of the comments here, to me it's like a 'bingo' moment and that until now we've all missed this. Isn't this the piece of of the jigsaw we've been looking for for years? Policing in Jersey can't be real and fair if its being advised and guided by conflicted organisations and people? And maybe that's exactly why policing in the island over the years has been not fair for most of the decades?

    Isn't this what we need to get fixed? And we don't need to wait for the COI report for this. VFC can you or someone else who knows States members ask one of them to take a decision to the States saying 'from now on, the police in Jersey will not take advice or guidance from Jersey law-firms or any other organisations or people which will have conflicts of interest in Jersey'? It's obvious isnt it that a law-firm which might have really rich clients who might have broken the law can't be seen as fair advisers to the police? I can't work out why we haven't been fighting for this already. Have I missed it somewhere?

    ReplyDelete
  53. The top UK lawyer drafted in to investigate Jersey's justice system says he sees no evidence of a child abuse cover-up.

    Nicholas Griffin QC gave evidence to the Jersey Care Inquiry today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nicholas Griffin QC says "he sees no evidence of a child abuse cover-up"
      Well I could have told you that for free.

      In fact I DID:
      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2016/01/lenny-harper-jersey-child-abuse-inquiry_24.html?showComment=1454051952543#c1594357569377677870

      "The senior establishment stock phrase for this CoI has been
      "I don't recall"

      The CoI's evidence is being filtered by staff from the departments under investigation and Mr. Pitman's documentary evidence is STILL disappeared.
      Why do we get the feeling that the stock phrase of the CoI is going to be
      "we didn't see any evidence of ......."

      No shit Sherlock !

      Ditto Nicholas Griffin QC ? [BINGO]

      Just like Williamson, Napier etc. etc. .....

      Delete
    2. I think his actual words were more along the lines that he saw no cover-up not to prosecute 7 (I think) cases that he had been asked to review.

      A slight difference.

      Delete
    3. Well now, there's a surprise.

      Here we see a core part of its legislative task, improperly privatised by the Committee of Inquiry, then to be plucked as though out of a hat - "here's-one-we-prepared-earlier" - with the “finding' 'no evidence of a child abuse cover up'.

      Now, what parts of Mr Griffin's instructions, briefings, ToRs, guidance, research, original material, & secondary material, methodology, reasoning and calculations have operated in - and taken place in - the domain and working arena of a 'public inquiry'?

      You know? As per the "legislative purpose" of the Jersey legislature?

      That's right.

      None.

      All of those very necessary and key attributes of the publicly accountable processes of an investigative tribunal - the very purposes for which "public inquiries" exist - are absent in the task and work and "findings" of Mr Griffin.

      No meaningful scrutiny on Mr Griffin’s work – no opportunity for affected parties to cross-examine him – no third-party questioning re methodology – no testing of the evidence Mr Griffin drew on – no peer-review – zero resources on the public-interest side to scrutinise the “hows” and “whys” of Mr Griffin’s product.

      It is not, therefore, especially surprising that Mr Griffin is not only wrong in his basic conclusion - but that his processes possess no vires and cannot be taken seriously as any form of 'objective' inquiry.

      How so is he wrong - and more basically than that, why does his work have no credible legal standing?

      Because he has failed to gather obviously available evidence, in the form of testimony, from known, readily identified and locatable witnesses, whose testimony was perfectly accessible via lawfully available processes. Mr Griffin has failed to meet a number of legal tests - just for example, "sufficient inquiry".

      How much effort did Mr Griffin make to communicate with me - a central, core witness, capable of furnishing very significant testimony - an individual heavily experienced in multiple examples of the unlawful conduct by Jersey's prosecution system?

      That's right.

      A Big Fat Zero.

      ….Continued….

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    4. ….Continued….

      The standard in law has a phrase - "sufficient inquiry". A "public authority" undertaking it's official purpose must endeavour to undertake "sufficient inquiry". Another legal standard is "reasonableness" - did a public authority make "reasonable efforts" to meet certain tests and requirements.

      Failing to send so much as a one-line e-mail - to a known - high-profile - readily contactable - evidenced - core witness, asking to speak with that witness, does not meet the test of "reasonable" efforts. Nor does failing - entirely - to seek to interview a core witness meet the test of "sufficient inquiry".

      The obvious objection to that analyses will be: -

      “But you, Stuart Syvret, refuse to engage with the “public inquiry” and its processes.”

      Let’s be clear about what it is, in fact, I am refusing: I refuse to surrender my entitlement to well-established human rights – I refuse to be subjected to witness intimidation – I refuse to have my testimony handicapped and sabotaged to the disadvantage of survivors and vulnerable children by lack of resources and a level playing-field – I refuse to be discriminated against – I refuse to be marginalised and victimised by a “process” which gives actual police lawyer support to the man who illegally suspended the police chief – I refuse to engage with a process which is unlawfully – unlawfully – refusing to provide me with legal representation. That is what I refuse.

      The mounding of that catalogue of discriminatory and ultra vires acts and omissions by this CoI are – in fact – a constructive decision by this CoI to coerce me - intimidate me – and de facto threaten me so as to prevent me from giving evidence.

      Mr Griffin should have contacted me – a known, key witness.

      And in the event of me saying to Mr Griffin, “I am an intimidated witness, and I need legal representation before I could speak with you”, Mr Griffin should have relayed that fact to his employers, the CoI, and invited them to stop their constructive decision to prevent me, a key witness, from engaging with a public inquiry.

      And if Mr Griffin’s employers refused, Mr Griffin should have resigned the brief – his employers having made the task for which he was employed, impossible to lawfully discharge.

      He didn’t do that. So in addition to being factually wrong – Mr Griffin’s findings have no vires.

      That would be the case even had it been lawful for his employers, the CoI and Eversheds, to have “abdicated” their statutory powers of a “public inquiry” to a private-sector process in the first place – which it wasn't.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
  54. Wasn't Ian Christmas a Police Solicitor, before turning Magistrate and criminal?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Attorney General: "Good morning Mr Griffin. Here are the files on the seven cases we've selected for you."
    N Griffin QC: "Thank you. They seem rather slim."
    Attorney General: "Indeed."
    N Griffin QC, on opening files: "Why, they are all empty."
    Attorney General, looking Mr Griffin straight in the eye: "Indeed."
    N Griffin QC: "Ah. I see. I'm afraid I'll have to charge above my usual rate for work of this complexity."
    Attorney General: "Indeed."
    JEP headline: THERE WAS NO COVER-UP CONFIRMS LEADING QC

    ReplyDelete
  56. You people should be pleased there are no cover ups.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “You people” must learn not to selectively quote what was(n’t) said.

      Nicholas Griffin QC said he had “only seen a snapshot of the cases that had been presented to the Inquiry.” He did NOT say the decision NOT to prosecute was the right decision either. He did NOT say “there were no cover ups.”

      One must remember that we are talking about possibly dozens, if not more, cases that haven’t been prosecuted. The Inquiry is looking at cases from the 1940’s up to 2014. Out of all those cases not prosecuted he has looked at eight of them.

      Please quote accurately and don’t read into something that isn’t there.

      You might want to look at this SNAPSHOT of Jersey’s “justice” system that Mr. Griffin QC wouldn’t have looked at.

      Delete
    2. Comment at 9:08 says: -

      "You people should be pleased there are no cover ups."

      There were cover-ups.

      There are cover-ups.

      They are obvious.

      They sit in plain sight.

      Paying a lawyer to assert that "black-is-white" does not make black become white.

      The most charitable thing that can be said about those who claim "there was no cover-up" is that they are gravely and obviously mistaken.

      It's an evidenced - overt - plain, stone-fact that the Jersey polity covered-up decades of child-protection failure and child-abuse.

      There is a famous Dilbert cartoon which depicts the character saying, "I'm now entering the PowerPoint zone. I can alter reality." The point being that paying a professional to make a snazzy presentation about a set of issues, does not, in fact, change reality.

      The work of the Jersey so-called "public inquiry" and its private sector agents such as Mr Griffin face the same problem of that immutable collision with reality. It's what comes of taking on briefs and mission-statements which were written and designed by spin-doctors. PR agents have a deeply problematic relationship with the thing in which we exist and which surrounds us, known as reality, in that spin-doctors believe - and in fairness to them, not without a strange metaphysical justification based on the social-sciences - that "nothing is real unless it happens in the broad public concious" - that is, "nothing is real - unless it exists in the mainstream media, and is thus designated as "truth and reality" by the press."

      So it is that the spin-doctors who designed Jersey's "public-inquiry" on behalf of the island's corrupt oligarchy, knew at the outset the "public perception" they needed to craft in order to "alter reality" - at least insofar as the make-believe "reality" of public-discourse is concerned - required a number of very expensive lawyers to say "black-is-white". Then - so armed with that "independent", "expert" assertion that black is white, the spin-doctors and the oligarchy's media can sail-forth with their newly minted "reality".

      Alas - like a PowerPoint presentation - that chain of expensive, bootstrapped assertions does not alter reality.

      The Jersey polity - illegally - concealed decades of child-protection failure - and decades of child-abuse.

      There were cover-ups.

      There are cover-ups.

      That is reality.

      Taking £15 million from taxpayers and giving it to lawyers to craft and manufacture the ammunition the spin-doctors need - does not change the reality of the real reality.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    3. I'm very much on your side VFC, but isn't there a problem which is obvious from that video of yours a snapshot of Jersey justice, which is that sure the justice system in Jersey is corrupt, but this public inquiry is looking at the child abuse cover ups. Shouldn't there really be a a public inquiry into he corruption of the Jersey justice system? Isn't that what efforts should be focused on?

      Delete
    4. Stuart if cover ups are such a certainty then when are you going down to the Inquiry to show them the evidence? Anybody can go online and do what you are doing, can't you see that, but online comments are not forming part of the Inquiry are they?

      Delete
  57. Day 13612 Feb 2016

    ​9:30 Public witness



    ​Deputy Andrew Lewis

    Yes
    Day 13511 Feb 2016

    ​10:00 Public witness



    ​Wendy Kinnard

    Yes
    Day 13410 Feb 2016



    9:30 Public witness


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Four Carey Olsen lawyers at the Inquiry today. They're acting for everyone.

      Delete
  58. Wasn't Christopher Lakeman re Maguires case a partner at Carey Olsen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that's correct.

      The fundamental point being - and a reader made this point very well above - there is, simply, no Jersey law-firm free of conflicition in these matters.

      It is - quite simply - not remotely possible for the States of Jersey Police Force - to be acting in a lawful manner in any of these matters - if the SOJP is taking legal advice or guidance from any Jersey law-firm.

      Of all the basic functions in society, the police force is near the top - perhaps the highest - of functions which must be utterly pure, free of contamination - acting, and being seen to act, without fear or favour.

      The instant you have a police force being guided, advised, steered, by conflicted parties - you no longer have a police force.

      You have something masquerading as a "police force" - but it is no longer a police force in any way compatible with the rule-of-law.

      And in Jersey we know that - we've seen it - we've experienced it.

      None of us are forgetting the illegal support FOR criminals - given by the States of Jersey Police Force - in the face of differing criminal complaints; for example, complaints from me - complaints from Rico Sorda - complaints from the Deputy of Grouville - complaints from Trevor and Shona Pitman - complaints from child-abuse victims - complaints from rape victims - complaints from victims of attempted murder.

      Various and multi-faceted - and stark - and serious - acts of straight-forward criminality - and complaints made to the SOJP. But yet what passes for a "police force" in Jersey refuses to act - goes along with the protection of the criminals - on the basis of "legal advice".

      Legal advice from overtly - starkly unlawfully - conflicted law-firms and lawyers.

      If you can afford to employ one of Jersey's legal syndicates - or you are in some way allied to them, so they'll protect you for free - then - as if by magic - you have utter immunity from investigation and charging by a police force.

      Instead - the SOJP - acting on "legal advice" - will illegally oppress your victims and those who tried to protect your victims.

      Jersey does not possess a lawful, functioning police force. Instead the SOJP are the agents of Jersey's serious, establishment criminals and their thugs - via the control-mechanism of "legal-advice".

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
  59. A reader says: -

    "Stuart if cover ups are such a certainty then when are you going down to the Inquiry to show them the evidence? Anybody can go online and do what you are doing, can't you see that, but online comments are not forming part of the Inquiry are they?"

    You're really not paying attention, are you.

    There is no public-inquiry.

    What public-inquiry are you talking about?

    Show me a body and set of proceedings which constitute a public-inquiry - and I'll go and engage with it.

    Certainly the Jersey legislature agreed there should be such an inquiry.

    But between that - and the long-con taking place in the back-rooms of The Ogier Group - the process of a public-inquiry was high-jacked by the conflicted, self-protecting oligarchy of Jersey.

    If there was a real public inquiry taking place - one which met the basic tests for vires - which followed its legislative purpose - which complied with the requirements of the ECHR - which was not so obviously discriminating against abuse-survivors, whistle-blowers and campaigners - one which didn't comprise a room filled with millions of pound worth of full-time professional representation on the side of the state, with zero full-time professional representation on the public-interest side - I would be co-operating with it.

    But - as the facts show - no such public inquiry exists.

    There is no public-inquiry for me to engage with or co-operate with.

    "The Jersey Way" exists because so many people are prepared to go along with a world of make-believe.

    I am not.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the Ex Health Minister put that rather well.

      Delete
  60. Curious to know whether Wendy Kinnard was able to throw any light on the events leading up to the suspension of Graham Power

    ReplyDelete
  61. "There is no public-inquiry for me to engage with or co-operate with.

    "The Jersey Way" exists because so many people are prepared to go along with a world of make-believe."

    Even more reason to give evidence. If you want to expose this public inquiry at least get it on public record with evidence that this inquiry is fake BEFORE it produces its final report.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I see Alison Fossey's session at the Inquiry is now up on their website.

    Link Day 117

    Still no sign of the return of Trevor's missing documentation though (Day 109)

    ReplyDelete
  63. Any news yet on Lewis squaring the circle?

    Probably need a PhD to analyse that in due course :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Embarrassingly for him (and Jersey) he DID try and square a circle today while giving evidence. The Hearing was unexpectedly halted by the Chair. It was due to carry on until 3 o'clock but was halted at around 12:30. Hopefully this will give Mr. Lewis time to reflect and consider his position. It is also hoped that the Chair will remind Mr. Lewis that he is under oath.

      The whole embarrassing saga was witnessed by a very unexpected spectator in the form of Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM who was sat in the public gallery.

      Delete
    2. He is under oath and he is fully aware of it.
      God knows what life you'll have when its all over Neil.

      Delete
    3. You're too polite to say so VFC, but this comment. "He is under oath and he is fully aware of it. God knows what life you'll have when its all over Neil" needs to be well-noted by national and international observers. I am aware that you are one of the many witnesses to the COI who has spoken with them, and provided information, and that comment is a very clear example of the type of witness intimidation which is endorsed and protected by the Jersey Establishment.

      That comment, and many other similar undisguised threats, are routinely made against anyone who speaks truth against the corrupt interests of the Jersey Establishment. I invite people in the international community to remember that threat. When people like Stuart Syvret expresses, as he has done, the fear that he'll be subjected to state reprisals when the COI is over, he does not exaggerate. Those are the kind of threats, and we see from Syvret's actual experiences over the years, they are not idle threats. The powerful in Jersey carry them out.

      Delete
  64. Given that Andrew Lewis has effectively called Wendy Kinnard and Christopher Harris forgers and liars over a note that would prove that Lewis had discussed in some as yet unknown way Powers dismissal many weeks before he ' knew anything'. I wonder what schoolyard tricks he is going to apply over the read/ unread Met Report.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an easy one. He can't admit that he saw the actual interim Met Report, because then he would be admitting he straight-out lied. What he will say is that the 'report' he was referring to during the in-camera debate was the letter from Warcup. He will magnanimously accept that his choice of words was perhaps not as careful as it could have been, but it was an honest mistake and he was not intentionally misleading anybody.

      Let's face it, referring to a letter from Jersey's Deputy Chief of Police as though it were a report from the Metropolitan Police is the sort of innocent mistake anybody could make.

      Just as writing Graham Power's suspension letter three days before he was suspended was merely covering an eventuality rather than evidence that the decision to oust Mr Power had already been made. Because, of course, it's something all employers do as a matter of course whenever they call staff into a disciplinary hearing without a predetermined outcome: have a suspension letter in their pocket just in case.

      I believe the judicial term for Mr Lewis is "an unreliable witness".

      Delete
    2. Indeed, when he said (at a secret States Sitting):

      "I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place.”

      He meant "I've seen a letter from David Warcup."

      Delete
    3. At 15:46 says this, 'Given that Andrew Lewis has effectively called Wendy Kinnard and Christopher Harris forgers and liars'.

      It is worse than that. Andrew Lewis is accusing former Home Affairs Minster Kinnard and her husband Christopher Harris of perjury. (One assumes Mr. Harris will concur with Ms Kinnard's testimony when he too gives evidence under oath shortly.)

      I've had cause to observe events in Jersey closely for some years, and I think should people in London have had sufficient foresight over the real nature things unfolding in Jersey, the problematic facts of the situation would not now be as they are.

      May I suggest that Mr Lewis needs to reflect on events, and endeavour to recover those aspects of his memory which appear (selectively) to be failing? It doesn't take a great deal of basic reasoning to see where this ends. And at present Mr Lewis is on the wrong side of the denouement.

      The phrase 'last chance saloon' comes to mind.

      Delete
  65. Please can you just remind us, we are told that Mr Power was suspended with in 24 hours of the first conversation that Deputy Lewis had about any concerns. Now Mrs Kinnard says she had a conversation with Deputy Lewis mentioning suspending Mr Power a month earlier!
    Has this conversation been mentioned before and who should we believe?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Personally I believe Wendy Kinnard.

      Delete
    2. To be fair I don't think they will have much choice. Wendy Kinnard did herself and abuse Survivors proud when giving her very credible and believable evidence.

      Delete
    3. Now when Mrs Kinnard left, without saying anything about being bullied by Mr Walker, are people going to believe her now? Or are we to believe that Mr Walker bullied Mrs Kinnard out to get Deputy Lewis in, that he knew he could bully into suspending Mr Power? And now Deputy Lewis us up to his neck in it, trying to remember what Lie was said next? What a mess he is in.
      Deputy Lewis must be cursing Mr Walker now?

      Delete
    4. I have nothing but the upmost respect for Wendy Kinnard after listening to her evidence to the Inquiry I would encourage readers to read her statement/transcripts when they become available.

      This is a woman who was up against it. Full credit to her.

      Delete
    5. I concur VFC. She was a most credible witness, honest, forthright, and answered questions without any hesitation. Utmost respect to Ms Kinnard, unlike today's witness who was almost embarrasing to the 'nth' degree.

      If I were AL I would cease trying to defend the indefensible and man up and be honest. He would gain more respect than he has if he did.

      Delete
    6. Jill, I agree with you, but it's not a case of Andrew Lewis needing to 'man up'. His problem so far is that he's tried to be too much of a 'tough guy', sticking to his guns even as the firing squads line up against him. What Andrew Lewis needs is to drop the 'tough man' act, and instead clasp on to some humble self preservation. In Jersey we all know he's not very bright and has been what people call a useful idiot, and that's been so obvious for years. Time has come for him to drop tough pride, and think about his reputation for the rest of his life, and maybe more than reputation, there could be legal consequences. You have to wonder, especially about male politicians, whether they ever really moved on much beyond play ground proto alpha male scratching. Andrew Lewis, like that Underworld album, is being 'second toughest in the infants'. He needs to grow up by seeing that reason, compassion, humility & empathy are the marks of decent, mature human beings, as opposed to being big, tough, dumb hard men.

      Delete
  66. Wendy Kinnard was magnificent when she gave her evidence, straightforward ,articulate and intelligent, no lapses of memory as many senior people seem to be suffering from, she impressed me as a women of great courage and integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Ok, good on her then and now I hope the truth can come out, the little we have been told on the Main Stream Media, would make us think she's making this lot up. But as you say she's credible, well when you tell the truth it comes straight out, unlike trying to remember the lies you've said, you suddenly start forgetting dates and conversations! I think the wheels are coming off. At last.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Lawyer Christopher Harris is programmed to give evidence to the COI next week....
    Is he only doing this because of what Andrew Lewis said about him and Wendy Kinnard today?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe he was scheduled to give evidence anyway.

      Delete
  69. "The whole embarrassing saga was witnessed by a very unexpected spectator in the form of Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM who was sat in the public gallery."

    Good on you, Graham Power. I do hope that you stay the weekend so that you can attend Andrew Lewis' second session on Monday.

    And, if you have time, please walk up and down King Street on Saturday with your head held high.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just to confirm the correct day that the Lewis 'show' is next on - it is Wednesday morning at 9.00 am.

      Rollup, roll up!

      Delete
  70. Lenny Harper's witness statement is also now up on the inquiry website.

    I haven't read it yet but my first observation is that his first statement is 98 pages long. Not far off the 80 pages that Phil Bailhache predicted in the States on 24th March 2015 when he hadn't of course seen or been told about Mr Harper's statement in any way, shape of form whatsoever, but still felt able to say:

    "I understand that the former Deputy Police Chief has recently filed an 80- page memorandum with the inquiry, and I think that we can be fairly sure that that would provide much lurid material for the media which neither he nor they would be likely to publish without the protection of a committee of inquiry"

    If you play the lottery, you should ask Phil Bailhache for the numbers because he has an uncanny ability to be pretty close with his predictions...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh the irony of Phil Bailhache accusing Lenny of hiding behind the protection of the COI to commit libel... while himself hiding behind the protection of parliamentary privilege. He never was the brightest of fellows, was he?

      Delete
    2. Whilst he is clearly not above "making stuff up", it is pretty clear that "Sir" Philip was using inside information in his "the former Deputy Police Chief has recently filed an 80- page memorandum", the relatively small 18page discrepancy between the figures could be down to an 80-page document being put into a different font, margins, header/footer etc.

      Sir Philip was appealing to States Members to keep things covered up to prevent "Jersey's reputation" being damaged by lurid facts and testimony. True to form and his opinion of what is the "Real Scandal"

      Now it wouldn't be the first time that Sir Philip has been caught with documents and information unlawfully in his possession. There was that embarrassing case of him leading the attack team against the victim of Jersey Church abuse, and reading confidential information on a public flight to the UK. An incident which he then persistently lied about before pleading memory loss.

      Delete
  71. Getting back to the subject of this blog posting, William Bailhache's very clear advice not to go ahead with the disastrous press conference and the suspension of Graham Power can be read at the end of Frank Walker's evidence. Scroll to the bottom of this page:

    http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/Transcripts/Day%20124%20Documents%20Optimsed.pdf

    Note where he says, on 11th November 2008 at 09:35:

    "(If you get to the stage of suspending GP, then of course some statement will be necessary. But surely you will need to have the full Met review in your hands for that purpose, and allow a little time for it to be assimilated. I hope you might want to consult on such a statement.)"

    ReplyDelete
  72. The differing views of the Jersey mainstream media on Andrew Lewis' performance are worthy of a graduate treatise.
    Channel ITV give a set of clearly critical verbatim exchanges on their online presence, and unusually have given a worthwhile report.t
    Today's JEP is in full 'Deadwood Press' mode , re presenting Andrew Lewis' press statement and background annex probably word for word , without any interpretation other than the Lewis view.
    Missed any BBC input but I am sure others can fill me in!

    ReplyDelete
  73. Apologies , I missed out the BBC Jersey online coverage .Probably due to sugar overdosing.On this poor Andrew Lewis felt ' politically exposed by"" and "personally misled" by the police.
    Mm mm!

    ReplyDelete
  74. Mike Higgins's statement and transcript are also up.

    Link Transcript

    Link Statement

    The transcript is interesting for Deputy Higgins's clear interpretation of the conflicting statements of the then Home Affairs Minister (Napier vs. States) and also his view of how The Powers That Be attempted to unsuccessfully consign him to the Limbo to which they successfully banished Stuart Syvret and Trevor Pitman.

    On Lewis: he feels the then Minister had not read the Met "Interim Report" but realised that adducing a letter from Warcup as the reason for the suspension would not have convinced many in the States. "Evidence" from an objective third party report would trump a malicious letter from an insider seeking Power's job any day.

    On attempts to do for him: he cites the rumours circulated about his financial management of the Jersey Air Show and the unjustifiable withholding of the grant which, were it not for the flexibility of the sponsor, would have bankrupted him.

    The Statement is interesting for its itemising of the inadequacy and perversity of the Children's Service and for the official copies of the transcripts of the two in camera debates.

    The irony of his having to request that the debate, on his proposition to publish the transcript of the earlier in camera debate, itself be held in camera is not lost. This was because he needed to be able to circulate the earlier in camera transcript to States members so that they could actually debate its disclosure. As we know, he lost that one, but succeeded in his most recent attempt, by almost unanimity.

    You couldn't make it up.

    Overall, a sterling performance by the Deputy.


    ReplyDelete
  75. VFC, can you shed any light on why the Lewis hearing was unexpectedly curtailed?

    I was in the Irish High Court once where our lawyer, for the State's defence, was making a mess of it and rapidly losing the case for us, when the judge, who saw what was happening, adjourned the case till the following day.

    This gave me the opportunity to bawl out our idiot lawyer and set him straight for the next day's session.

    Any parallels, I wonder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately I can’t shed any light, which is disappointing if you consider this is a public hearing and the public are kept in the dark as to why a key witness is stopped mid-flow and his schedule changed.

      That said, full credit to Counsel for asking the right questions and having Mr. Lewis on the ropes.

      Delete
  76. Frank Walker's testimony to the COI:
    "To be perfectly clear on this point, Graham Power would still have been suspended even if David Warcup had not included reference to the Report in his letter of 10 November 2008. The evidence of poor practice in a number of serious issues were so compelling that, with or without reference to the Report findings, the decision would have been the same. Therefore, whilst people such as Bob Hill and Graham Power say that it was unfair to use the Report in a disciplinary context (given that it was not intended to be used for disciplinary
    purposes), I do not see this as the defining issue. There is no doubt that the outcome would have been the same had the report not been used."

    Which is rather difficult to reconcile with this exchange during the in-camera debate:

    "Deputy Troy
    Are there any other reasons for the suspension?

    The Deputy of St John (Andrew Lewis)
    No, there are not. I am purely acting on information contained in a report that was about an investigation into an operation which is code-named Rectangle and that is what the report was about and that is where my concerns were. No other concerns have I currently got, other than those, of a serious nature."

    And also rather difficult to reconcile with the advice of the SG that the Met Report would need to be damning without caveat to be sufficient to launch a suspension.

    So, to summarise:
    1. Frank Walker by his own admission was out to remove Graham Power, despite there being no legitimate grounds
    for doing so. He was not working alone to seek this unlawful outcome, so this is a conspiracy by any definition (other than that in Napier's English Dictionary).
    2. Andrew Lewis's version of events is looking rather 'implausible', and at some point the penny is going to drop that he is the fall guy.

    ReplyDelete
  77. This report on the Channel TV website is fascinating. Andrew Lewis is accusing Wendy Kinnard's husband Christopher Harris, a lawyer, of fabricating evidence:

    http://www.itv.com/news/channel/2016-02-12/care-inquiry-evidence-fabricated-says-former-home-affairs-minister/

    If Mr Harris is a lawyer (and I believe he is) then that makes him an officer of the court. He is consequently held to a higher standard of truth, honesty and integrity than a member of the public. Most lawyers I know (and I know a lot of them) are meticulous in their record keeping, because of their more onerous duties. It will be very interesting to hear from Mr Harris. This inquiry is very much in need of the smoking gun, should one exist.

    Also, Andrew Lewis says "I would love to have this carbon dated."

    Can one carbon date a piece of paper, to prove when a message was written on it? I don't think so. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100411131154AADjiTr

    Even if one were able to carbon date some 300 year old paper, there is no way to prove when a message was written on it, be it 300 years ago or yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Anonymous at 10:41

    That remark made my day.

    Perhaps we should try carbon dating Andrew Lewis?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the results would date him to the Mendacious Period.

      Delete
  79. Sorry. Anonymous at 11.12 re carbon dating.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Knowing Chris Harris , who is not only a lawyer (English Solicitor at very least in memory) and President of the Jersey National Trust to boot. He simply will have this exactly right, it is his longstanding profession and the easy option with any uncertainty would be to say nothing, but he did not do that because he is correct.
    Lewis has been royally caught out and I wouldn't mind betting his counsel had requested 'time' to consider new evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Will this be the third time that Andrew Lewis has been attempted to be silenced in mid-flow for his own good?

    1. Suspension meeting by Ogley
    2. In camera session in States by Bailiff
    3, Inquiry by ??

    Three strikes and ouch!

    ReplyDelete
  82. Any chance the Inquiry could be asked to explain why a raft of transcript/statement material has gone up on the site at one go?

    And, while I'm at it, do I take it the only record of the oral sessions is the transcript compiled from note takers' notes and that there are no recordings?

    If so, is this not very strange, in this day and age? And, if proceedings are transmitted live to the press room, why are they not recorded?

    And, if they are recorded, why do they need note takers? Can they not transcribe the recordings?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Polo, I also wonder if in fact it was Lewis's lawyers who pulled the plug to stop Lewis digging himself a bigger hole.
    I watched the BBC evening news and saw no mention of the inquiry
    The oral sessions are recorded by a stenographer ,could it be that a written record can be redacted and changed ,whereas a verbal account cannot?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most likely his lawyers (and possibly on a nod from others?).

      If it was the Inquiry itself, and if the aim was to protect Lewis or his mentors, then the implications would be enormous with the Inquiry yet again confirming its prejudiced approach to this whole exercise.

      Delete
  84. BLOGGER SITE NOTE .......13 February 2016 at 15:44

    READERS PLEASE NOTE .......

    The number of comments on this blog is nearing 200

    If (when) it passes that point readers will only see those first 200 comments unless they clicks on the little bit of text saying "Load more..." right at the end of the comments thread

    Once 200 comments have been reached replies to these first 200 comments will NOT BE DISPLAYED until AFTER that "Load more..." link is clicked

    ....READERS PLEASE NOTE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. READERS PLEASE NOTE .......13 February 2016 at 15:58

      Probably should read

      Once 200 comments have been reached FURTHER replies to these first 200 comments will NOT BE DISPLAYED until AFTER that "Load more..." link is clicked

      Delete
  85. I am told that when when Andrew Lewis gave his evidence the Committee of Inquiry was shown part of his statement in which he criticized Mr Power for not attending the Police Press Conference on the morning of Wednesday 12th November 2008 at which Warcup and Gradwell publicly rubbished the historic abuse enquiry. Apparently Lewis also backed this criticism up in his oral evidence saying that the Chief Officers absence showed a lack of interest in the investigation. Mr Power might have a number of reasons for not attending the press conference but, according to earlier evidence, one of them might be that at the time the conference was taking place he was in the office of the Chief Executive for a suspension meeting which he had been ordered to attend by................er.....................Andrew Lewis.

    I am told that in his evidence Lewis described Mr Power as a "clever and calculating man." Perhaps Lewis believes that Mr Power was so clever and calculating that he was capable of being in two places at the same time. Or it might be that Lewis is just showing his customary disdain for anything resembling the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Lewis is the first domino in a line that are about to come crashing down. Ogley and Walker are right up there. All that is needed is a final push that will send them toppling and Graham Power will be totally vindicated.
    Cmon Stuart, you can deliver that knock out blow. Graham Power stood up for you and for what was right. Now you must stand up for him. Put your damning evidence on public record under oath to the COI ( despite any shortcomings this COI may have )


    Put the evidence on public record

    ReplyDelete
  87. Extract from Napier report paragraph 54.

    "As early as 28th October (2008) there was in existence a document created by Mr Crich (Head of HR) setting out a possible scenario for "Possible disciplinary proceedings against the Chief of Police". By this time Mr Lewis had taken over as Minister from Senator Kinnard. Yet no steps were taken by Mr Lewis to try to resolve the differences that were seen as emerging, not only by him but by his senior advisers. Mr Lewis' position was that he did question the need to proceed by way of possible suspension with both Mr Crich and Mr Ogley at around this time." (i.e. around 28th October 2008.)

    Perhaps when he next gives evidence Mr Lewis will be given an opportunity to explain how what he appears to have told Napier can be reconciled with his claim to the Inquiry that he did not discuss suspension before 11th November 2008, the day before it happened.

    ReplyDelete