Sunday, 5 March 2017

Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry. Statement of Advocate Philip Sinel (1)

Advocate Philip Sinel.

Below is the (the first) witness statement of local prominent Lawyer, and Constitutional expert, Advocate Philip Sinel to the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry. The statement has been taken from the Inquiry's website and can be found (near the bottom of its website page) HERE. We have meticulously copied the text, typos are original, although we can't exclude our own.

It became apparent in a previous VFC posting featuring Advocate Sinel (click on label "Advocate Philip Sinel" at bottom of post) that his statement was not easy to find on the Care Inquiry's website. Just as concerning is that his "tabs" or "exhibits" (15 of them) listed in his statement do NOT appear to have been published on the inquiry's website, or if they have, they are harder to find than his statement. Team Voice will be attempting to find out, from the Inquiry Panel, what the situation is regarding these exhibits and will keep readers updated.

What Advocate Sinel's statement appears to explains is how Child Abuse was (and apparently still is) able to flourish in Jersey. Just as importantly most of the evidence to back up these claims (tabs/exhibits) seem to be missing. Other witness exhibits are much easily visible. There could be a perfectly innocent explanation for this and we are waiting to hear it.

It has been said that after the Inquiry has published its report; the Inquiry's website will stay online for 12 months and then will be taken down and all the information/evidence will be archived as part of Jersey Archive and you will need to put in an FOI to have any access to it. We are not sure that this will definitely be the case so documenting as much of the information as possible will help keep some of the historic record available before it could be buried.

Advocate Sinel's is one of those statements that should be documented, and readily available, if for no other reason other than to make readers aware of what has been aloud to go on, is still able to go on, how it was/is able to go on, in the hope that people will be more informed and will know how to stop, or at least highlight the Jersey rot. According to Advocate Sinel's statement the majority of this rot comes from the Crown Offices/"Judicial" (sic) System/Attorney General's Office/Law Offices' Department.


Witness Statement of Philip Sinel

1.0  I make this statement to the Inquiry in my personal capacity, in order to give account of my experiences, as an Advocate and as a resident of Jersey. I will also provide evidence on a number of child abuse cases that were brought to my attention as a result of conducting pro bona support for the Jersey Care Leavers Association ("JCLA") or as a result of living within the island for most of my life. 

2.0  I have advised and assisted the JCLA, some individual victims and the former minister for Health. I have met at least 60 victims.

3.0  (Redaction) the relevance of which being the manner in which the establishment has prevented prosecution of the perpetrators, (Redaction)

4.0  I gave evidence to DI Harper and DI Fossey in relation to Operation Rectangle and witnessed first-hand the chilling forensic evidence gathered. I do not believe in the tooth fairy.

5.0  As one time designated point of contact for those with evidence, I met with DI Warcup - a worrying and unsatisfactory meeting.

6.0  By specific reference to the Committee parameters/terms of reference I can give evidence relative to paragraphs 3, 18,9, 10,11,12 13 and 15.


7.0  I was born on (Redaction) 1959. I was educated in Victoria College, Jersey between the ages of 8 to 16. My father was in the Royal Air Force. He was from a local family. He left the RAF in his early 40s and then became a partner firstly at Bedell Cristin and then at Ogiers.

8.0  I studied law in England and came back to Jersey when I was around 27 years old. My family has been in the Island for hundreds of years. I would like to be proud of my Island, its culture and its Justice system. I am profoundly scared and worried by a number of aspects of both.

9.0 My greatest desire for many years has been to stand in Court representing a client and to know that the process and result will be unaffected by nepotism bias, political or personal agendas or the like; such days are rare, for me they are red letter days. I feel that the Royal Court operates in many respects as an extension of the executive, surveys suggest that my view is not an isolated one.

10.0  This has a grim effect on the Island's culture, which is very much one of fear and concealment. The dysfunctional judicial system is so carefully aligned with the interest of the once party ruling States as to be a source of despair for many; it is a very significant factor in allowing serious crimes to go unpunished and for victims to go unaddressed, it is a culture which encourages crimes and punishes innocents and victims, it is a culture of concealment and deflection.

11.0  Our much vaunted judicial system lacks the respect of the islanders and foreigners alike, not least because it has become a tool of the establishment and of the egos of its participants and proponents.

12.0  Sinels Advocates is my own legal practice which specialises mainly in civil law and financial claims. I am not a civil rights lawyer. I enjoy complex civil litigation. My unique position as a proponent of constitutional change and critic of the establishment arose by accident rather than by design. Given the operating environment in Jersey, a civil rights lawyer would have a very short career.

13.0  I wish to provide evidence to the Inquiry about the corruption that exists in Jersey and the many flaws that exist in the Jersey system and the way that serious crimes are pushed under the carpet and the assortment of child molesters, thieves, rapists, murderers and swindlers have been exculpated by the Crown and by the Judiciary and the way in which the critics of such behaviour are ruined by the deliberate actions of corrupt Judges and prosecutors.

14.0  I am aware that giving frank evidence to the Inquiry will provoke further discrimination and hostility from various sections of society; that is how the Island works.

15.0  It is in the dysfunctionality of a profoundly feudal Constitution and in the abuse of power by Crown Appointees that we find the reasons that the abuse of vulnerable persons and the not so vulnerable, is so prevalent and so unaddressed and will inevitably be repeated.

16.0  It is covered up by Judges and Prosecutors, acting in their own interests or of the friends or what they see as the greater good Jersey pie. There are no properly functioning checks and balances anywhere.

17.0  Jersey is not a democracy, let alone a functioning democracy there are a number of reasons for this:

17.1  a wholly flawed Constitution; primarily an absence of separation of powers, and an Attorney General who acts simultaneously as prosecutor and for the States of Jersey as advisor; 

17.2  tame, compliant and upon occasion wickedly corrupt local media;

17.3  a corrupt, dysfunctional, pro-establishment Judicial system, backed by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal is in many ways worse than the Royal Court; 

17.4  a supine, depressed, disenfranchised and disbelieving electorate; 

17.5  an economy and culture distorted by the finance industry;

17.6   low levels of street crime and of offences against property, combined with high disposable incomes for a high number of people;

17.7  a culture of fear, where the demise of whistleblowers is very much a foregone conclusion, supported by large numbers of Islanders. 

17.8  it is an Island. 

18.0  As the Constitution stands the real power resides with Her Majesty. She knows what goes on in her name in Jersey but is disinclined to intervene. The Judges of the Court of Appeal, the Judges of the Royal Court, the Attorney General and Solicitor General and other Crown Appointees are only answerable to Her Majesty. However, those responsible for the supervision are hidden, supine or compliant. 

19.0  I have attached by way of evidence the documents below, this would be an impossibly long document if I put in all of the things I have seen, heard or witnessed but many instances are recorded in the attachments and in particular the letters to Her Majesty and to the Ministry of Justice and related documents: 

19.1.1  my Affidavit in the Rico application Mayo v Cantrade and Others; (tab1) - I deal later on with that case but it gives a good indication of how things work. Cantrade was my first indication that all was not well; within tab 1 is my letter of 16 July 1998 which set out the need for reforms. The only response to that was a letter from buffoon Michel. Mr Weedons letter about Mr Birt's cover up is factually well founded. 

19.1.2  Tab 2 contains some of my correspondence with the Lieutenant Governor's Office, the Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty (these letters show unequivocally that those responsible for good governance in Jersey have no interest in same. Neither Her Majesty nor Her Majesty's Government demonstrate interest in the welfare of the Island merely in preserving the status quo. Two things are of I think particular importance, the first being that Deputy Carolyn Labey was unsupported by the Mr Le Cocq, Her Majesty and Lord McNulty to such an extent that she was pressurised into withdrawing her statement; so the Graft went unchecked. Yet another cover up under the auspices of by Le Cocq et al.. The second point of note is the role of the Lieutenant Governor in successive cover ups; Sir John McColl the present incumbent has not only passed on my complaints of William Bailhache to William Bailhache, but also told me I must not complain. 

19.1.3  My submissions to the Carswell Enquiry on the Constitution.(tab3) Showing how unlawful and inappropriate our constitution is. 

19.1.4  The Carswell Report (tab4) published in December 2010 recommended wide ranging constitutional reforms it was almost completely ignored, an act of deliberate defiance by the local oligarchy. 

20.0  Jersey is a society where a few key individuals hold the power and make the decisions, for example, the "Bailhache Brothers". The Bailhache Brothers are made up of Sir Philip Bailhache (who until the Crown woke up and I believe removed him post his disgraceful Liberation Day special was Bailiff of Jersey) and his brother William Bailhache, QC (formerly the Attorney General of Jersey is now the current Bailiff). I have never regarded either of them as being fit for office. William Bailhache is responsible for ruining the careers and livelihoods of the former Minister of Health, DI Harper (he escaped just in time), Cl Graham Power, DCI Minty and DI Beghin. These are just the ones that I know of, a mixture of personal malice and protection of Jersey Pie, he was of course aided by countless others with similar mind-sets. Put simply we will never attract and appoint suitable candidates without wide ranging fundamental reforms. 

21.0  The same few individuals control the appointment of other members of the Judiciary including the Court of Appeal and Commissioners which results in cliques of powerful individuals. Theoretically these are Crown Appointees in in reality I believe that it is the current Bailiff and his cabal who decides. 

22.0  Jersey is very much a "pro establishment" place. We have big issues of national importance and they are dealt with by a small number of powerful people often totally unsuitable for office. I have mentioned Sir Philip Bailhache's Liberation Day speech, that chilling document is attached (tab 5). 

23.0  With the two self-interested exceptions of Cantrade with which I deal below and the Liberation Day Speech incidents, what the correspondence shows is an Island abandoned by its Monarch and by the Ministry of Justice both of whom have the power and the duty to ensure the well-being of the Island. 

24.0  In my experience corruption by the "Establishment" in Jersey is endemic, institutionalised and all pervading. When I refer to the "Establishment" I am talking about the Court of Appeal, the Royal Court, the Attorney General, Solicitor General, and the ruling clique of Ministers. The Police force is also in part corrupt, corrupted and cowed, albeit that I have a very positive view of many members past and present of the States of Jersey Police Force. Little wonder that we had the genesis for endemic child abuse, and then a concentrated effort by Media, Crown and Judiciary to cover it up. Most thinking people in our society know what the position is - fear and self-interest keep them quiet.

25.0  By corruption I mean that the matters are not dealt with on the merits rather matters are dealt with according to the personal dictates of the decision makers. Examples of the unpunished and uninvestigated include the following (874, 7, 737) and Lundy and others. Only in Jersey could such people remain at liberty let alone in office notwithstanding the available publicity. This to me is the most worrying aspect. The Inquiry has by now seen much evidence on these people; however the point I am making is that it is all in the public domain but no one does anything.

26.0  Criminal cases are blocked from going to trial, prosecutions are not brought, malicious prosecutions are not uncommon, it is a method of controlling and deterring criticism, eg myself, Power, Harper, Beghin and Minty and Syvret and case verdicts do not reflect the evidence or case precedents. The Judicial system has become suborned to the wishes of the few and the interests of Jersey Pie. 

27.0  At Tab 6, I have, by way of further example, attached the decision of the Police Complaints Tribunal relative to Detective Chief Inspector Minty and Detective Inspector Beghin, I acted for the Defendants. That Judgment was given in camera but leaked, (it is widely available on the internet) and has been the subject of much media reportage so it is appropriate to comment. DCI Minty and DI Beghin were hung out to dry by William Bailhache and his cabal as they knew too much; they never received their medals and were drummed out of the Force. The gravamen of that being that they were persecuted to protect William Bailhache's reputation. That sort of thing obviously makes sure the Police do as they are told. There is a big conflict between their position and that of (737),             to whom I refer below, which shows how things work in Jersey.

28.0  (737) had media clout as a (Redaction) he was protected, honest policemen were destroyed. Correspondence in relation to (737) is at tab 14. (737) is referred to at paragraph 235 of Mr Power's evidence already given to the Inquiry. I had made my own enquiries before I saw Mr Power's evidence. I deal again later on, but in short I uncovered evidence to suggest at least three rapes, he was a guiding light at (Redaction) for many years and is presently the (Redaction)

29.0  When I say that decisions are not reflective of the facts or the law, I mean what I say. In my view Judicial decisions are too often written backwards from the desired result, so law and evidence are ignored, slanted or and cherry picked. 

30.0  This happens at both Royal Court and the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal is a dangerous and frightening place, it does not have a confidence or respect of those before it personally or professionally, locally or abroad. The reasons for its dysfunction are partly personal and partly constitutional; to which one must add pro-establishment bias. 

31.0  I witnessed first-hand the treatment of the former Minister for Health by the Court of Appeal - it scared me; I had wandered in as I was in the building doing something else so I went to observe, the Former Minister of Health was challenging the status quo, the hostility was palpable as was the disparity in moral orientation and for that matter ability between someone on the one hand telling unpalatable truths in a tactless way and those who appeared desperate to keep the lid on. A properly functioning Court of Appeal, like impartial. functional media would have prevented much hardship and saved many lives, neither are in prospect.

32.0  I deal further on with the former Minister for Health's position but note in passing that both he and our former Chief Officer Mr Graham Power appeared before Commissioner Clyde-Smith, a scion of the local oligarchy, the negative outcomes in the litigation were therefore to my mind wholly predictable. 

33.0  Mr Power's and Mr Harper's evidence is freely available. Thanks to the bloggers no one in Jersey or England is unable to access the same but no one does anything. It beggars belief that an affidavits of that nature can circulate in the public domain without those referred to being removed from office.

34.0  As stated previously the establishment often pushes things, such as the child abuse scandal, under the carpet, rapists, swindlers, paedophiles and murderers are exculpated. They will do anything to protect the brand of "corporate Jersey" or "tourist Jersey". I speak here largely of what I have seen, people I have met. documents that I have read; the true story must be much larger than I have encountered. 

35.0  Billions of pounds are deposited in Jersey which makes Jersey a very wealthy island. The financial industry makes up 90% of the GDP. 

36.0  There is a perpetual concern about what a scandal, i.e. a reality check could do to this industry in the island. Jersey could not survive on tourism and agriculture alone.

37.0  Cantrade was quite a small Forex scandal; I mentioned the Cantrade case earlier, post Sir Peter Crill, the former Bailiff, the new guard, Birt as AG and Bailhache as Bailiff, and Clyde-Smith as outrider, moved into overdrive to occlude the facts, deter the victims, and witnesses and make sure they could not win in Court and to help Cantrade get off. The attached press cuttings shows part of the story. (tab 7)

38.0  Anyone who speaks out about what is going wrong in Jersey finds themselves very accident prone, just look at what happened to the former Chief of Police, Graham Power, the former Deputy Chief Constable Lenny Harper and the former Health Minister, Stuart Syvret, myself, Deputy Pitman, Beghin and Minty et al.. We have been variously bankrupted, imprisoned, arrested, denigrated, and suspended. 

39.0  Another example is Wendy Kinnard, the former Home Affairs Minister, who was pushed out of office, she was bullied in her post and came out of politics. Graham Power, former Chief of Police - victim of a putsch organised by William Bailhache, when Mr Power refused to acquiesce in the misuse of the machinery of States in order to suppress whistleblowing relating to child abuse. When sacked at Mr Bailhache's behest, he sought reinstatement by Judicial Review. Predictably, he lost, the Court was presided over by Advocate Clyde-Smith and two Jurats.

40.0  Once DI Harper had retired and Chief Inspector Power had been removed from office, whilst William Bailhache was Attorney General there was an organised, negative media campaign relative to the child abuse inquiry of this is easily found in the public domain, including leaking apparently as a matter of State policy, details of ongoing criminal investigations to the Jersey and National media; the importance of that is impossible to overstate. The decision to do so should be documented at Police Headquarters, the Inquiry could gain copies. In Cantrade, Michael Birt as Attorney General likewise undermined his own police investigation, the same thing seems to have happened under Mr Bailhache who also ousted his own Chief of Police.

41.0  The Pitmans, left wing, activist working class politicians - strangely lost their libel action and were then bankrupted thus keeping them out of politics in Jersey for 5 years. 

42.0  The Former Minister for Health almost necessitates a book in itself. His first mistake was accessing and then publishing minutes of Mr Birt's meeting with Mr Faudemer relative to what appeared to be a mass homicide of vulnerable patients at the General Hospital at which meeting Mr Birt. told Mr Faudermer not to investigate further. The documents speak for themselves. (tab 8) I have seen but cannot presently access a record of a meeting between Birt as Attorney General and States of Jersey Police pulling the plug on the investigation. 

43.0  As night followed day possession of copies of the minutes of that meeting and related became criminalised on Data Protection grounds and the police were sent to intimidate Mr Syvret whose home was subjected to an unlawful search and his rights as a human were totally abrogated. The Attorney General William Bailhache sent the States of Jersey Police to his house with a battering ram. 

44.0  Thereafter Mr Syvret was in the grip of the island's judicial system, the results were a foregone conclusion; I am not writing a book which is what is needed on that topic alone. It is an enormous shame that the former health minister is not giving evidence; please read his blog ( and look logically at the very good points he has made and the evidence he has gathered. The former Minister of Health became angry, tactless and isolated but in many respects he was correct. I believe that William Bailhache systematically abused the powers of his office to destroy his family life, career, health and wealth - he has succeeded. 

45.0  The Law on Corroboration. Historically in order to convict for certain crimes it was in effect necessary to have corroboration, i.e. independent evidence, this is very difficult in sexual offences of a historic nature, that requirement was abrogated in England by s32 of the Criminal Justice and Police Order Act 1994. The equivalent legislation in Jersey was deliberately slowed down by the Council of Ministers so that it would not come into effect until after the conclusion of the Haut de la Garenne investigations. It was a conscious political decision to prevent prosecutions. The Council of Ministers presided over by Frank Walker did not want to be seen to be helping victims. The Jersey statute and appointed day Acte are attached at tab 9, the date is obviously significant it post-dates Operation Rectangle and it is 18 years after the equivalent English statute. 

46.0  Jersey needs reform; the child abuse scandal is only one symptom of a dysfunctional Island. Sir Michael Birt handling the 1999 investigation into (Redaction) was terrible, the evidence shows to my mind that multiple homicides were swept under the carpet, he became the Bailiff for Jersey, he tried to sweep the Cantrade scandal under the carpet despite all of which he became our Chief Judge; worse still he was given a knighthood even after Her Majesty became aware of the Cantrade and (Redaction) incidents. He was responsible for Jetting the Maguires off, he was succeeded by Mr Le Cocq who supported him in at least that enterprise. (tab 10) 

47.0  The Bailiff, currently William Bailhache previously Sir Michael Birt and before him Sir Philip Bailhache, is the Chief Justice, and therefore Head of Jersey's Judiciary, Head of State and Head of the Executive and Legislature. The Bailiff can rule on the very laws he has designed or approved; he chose the prosecutors. There is no separation of powers. The Bailiff also represents Jersey abroad as the Islands Chief Citizen. The fundamental problem in Jersey is that the Judiciary, Executive and Legislature are completely interlinked. The Bailiff is also president of the Court of Appeal, the Deputy Bailiff is also a member of the Court of Appeal; this is very, very wrong. 

48.0  For me none of this is an academic exercise, I have met the victims or witnesses to rape, murder and assaults, I cannot always sleep at night. Absent fundamental changes to our Courts and Constitution it is all going to happen again. 

49.0  The Royal Court Rules specify that leave must be obtained from the Bailiff in order for a judicial review claim to be made. This too is a nonsensical position and is open to abuse, it fits with the prohibition on bringing private prosecutions contained in the Code Civile of 1777 (tab 11 }, it all prevents society from breathing.

50.0  The current Attorney General is Timothy Le Cocq QC, another Ogier partner, Birt, Clyde-Smith and Fitz are also Ogier or ex Ogier, as was my father. The Attorney General acts as the Chief Law Officer of Jersey. What this means in practice is that he is the legal advisor to the Crown, to the States Assembly, to the Ministers and to all other public bodies. The Attorney General, and his office, are notorious for being indolent and pro- Establishment, when I complained to the Lieutenant Governor to that effect he simply sent off my complaint to the Attorney General.

51.0 The Attorney General is also the Head of the Honorary Police in Jersey. In Jersey, there are 13 police forces, 12 of these are Honorary Police forces that operate within one of the 12 Parishes of Jersey and the 13th force is the professional police- the States of Jersey Police. It remains in some respects (the powers of search and charge) subservient to the Honorary Police. It is worrying that it is the Honorary Police have the power to charge people with arrestable offences, as opposed to the States of Jersey Police, the Honorary Police also have a right of search without warrant. Therefore, as head of the Honorary Police, the Attorney General can and does direct whether charges should be brought or not. The Honorary Police are answerable to the Attorney General, he tells them what to do. Mr Harper will I am sure tell the Enquiry how this operated in practice to the detriment of victims. In practice the Attorney General also has complete dominion over the States of Jersey Police who have no means of operating independently of their political controllers.

52.0  The Attorney General is responsible for all prosecutions in Jersey. It is impossible to bring a private prosecution in Jersey as they are forbidden by the Code Civile 1777. We therefore have the impossible position, for example in relation to the child abuse scandal, where the Attorney General is responsible for the proper function of the organs of State, he defends their reputation and defends them from attack, is responsible for prosecutions potentially against the State. Additionally, he advises the States in relation to the claims against it for compensation by abused children. The Code Civile needs to be repealed if individuals could sponsor private prosecutions it would balance things up and discourage the Attorney General from covering things up.

53.0  During civil litigation Blatchley v Lincoln Trustees, he deliberately mislead the Court, to gain money for himself and his client Sir Philip Bailhache turned a blind eye and the Law Society covered it up. Complaints about pro establishment Advocates simply disappear. In short if you are part of the oligarchy you are untouchable, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time or have the wrong views you are persecuted hence the matters of concern to this Inquiry and my absolute certainty that without external assistance and imposed constitutional change nothing will alter and that something similar will all happen again.

54.0  I have seen several instances of the Police being thwarted by the Attorney General. Policemen may come along and agree that a crime has been committed, they will gather the evidence but a decision is then made by the Establishment not to prosecute, the Police cannot charge without the assistance of the AG and the Honorary Police. Alternatively, the case may be prosecuted but the decision making does not follow the correct procedure and there is nothing that the Court of Appeal will do about it as they make a point of not reversing decisions made by the lower Court; by way of contrast cross Jersey Pie or an individual oligarch and your destruction is assured.

55.0  The corruption is so bad and all-pervading that the legal profession is disempowered. The Court of Appeal are renowned for being so clever that they can make decisions without listening to submissions. Advocates do not go to the Court of Appeal expecting justice, their main aim is to emerge without personal criticism - this is symptomatic of a very serious dysfunction; and a lack of professional and public confidence in our Judiciary. 

56.0  Longstanding Commissioner Julian Clyde Smith can also be linked to witness intimidation. I have referenced in this statement, a complaint Commissioner Clyde Smith made against me because of evidence I gave in an American court about a Judicial "cover-up" in Jersey in the Bank of Cantrade case. How can you have Judges who think that witness intimidation is appropriate? (tab 12). 

57.0  If anyone wants to know what really happened in a case they would need to look past the judgement as it so rarely contains the full story. I am not the only Advocate who thinks this however I am the only one who will say it in public. What other Advocates say behind closed doors is more severe than my thoughts, the expression "there is no justice in Jersey" is common, worse than what I have said here. 

58.0  It is a big concern that applications for membership of the Court of Appeal are processed through the offices of the Bailiff in Jersey. Members of the Court of Appeal are appointed based on recommendation by the Bailiff and his cabal.

59.0  A key issue is that when Judges in the Court of Appeal are sworn in, they sit in front of the Royal Court and take their oath - it is like watching a Mafia induction. That day they are told to go next door and tell the Royal Court that they got things wrong. The Judges must feel that if they want to be invited back, they have to play the game. 

60.0  It is well known that the Court of Appeal will protect the Establishment, specifically the lower Courts in Jersey. One of the ways they do this is by avoiding overturning a decision made by one of the lower Courts, and avoiding any admission that the lower Court got something wrong. This creates an enormous dead weight in the legal system and generates bigger problems elsewhere.

61.0  In my view, neither the Royal Court nor the Court of Appeal are able to satisfy the criteria of Article 6 for the provision of a fair and independent tribunal. 

62.0  My experience at the hands of the Court of Appeal is not in relation to child sex abuse cases, as I do not specialise in this area, but I have direct experience of other cases where the decision made by the Court of Appeal defy credibility.

63.0 The Court of Appeal is part of a non-functioning system which does not have the respect of the public or professionals. There is often a feeling from top to bottom of the legal profession in Jersey of "what is the point".

64.0 The Court of Appeal was not always like this. There were individuals previously who set the tone for example Sir Godfrey Le Quesne, quietly spoken, fair and efficient, a pleasure to appear before, win or lose; this is the problem, namely that external perceptions of the Justice vary according to the constitution of the tribunal this does not encourage the free flow of challenges in our society. A robust, trusted and clearly impartial Court of Appeal would alter the balance in our society in a profound fashion.

65.0  I mentioned before the Cantrade case. In 2003 my firm was representing a number of international investors in the Bank of Cantrade case, this was a relatively straightforward case. Essentially the Bank of Cantrade, its auditor and a currency trader were guilty of defrauding investors and my firm was running a civil claim to obtain the invested monies back. The investors had lost around $23.5 million, which is not a large amount of money in such a case, i.e. in commercial terms a relatively small fraud. 

66.0 I took the evidence in relation to this case to Michael Birt who was then AG via the Police asked him to bring a prosecution. However, after much delay, no prosecution happened. It seemed clear to me, and to Police Officers at the time, that the investors had clearly been defrauded. You could literally trace the money from (a) to (b) to see that it was all a fraud. I therefore wrote to the Home Office to see if they could push Sir Michael Birt into bringing a prosecution

67.0  By the time the Mr Straw acted upon my correspondence, Michael Birt was time barred from prosecuting many of the offences. It is not as if Michael Birt forgot about the case, I was chasing him about it. Michael Birt sometimes wrote back with anodyne responses to my letters, other times there was just radio silence. Eventually I went to see Jack Straw I believe he forced Mr Birt to prosecute. But for my persistence Cantrade would have got off instead of receiving a multi-million pound fine. Since then neither Her Majesty nor Her Majesty's Government have done nothing useful relative to Jersey's corruption of which I am aware.

68.0  The civil process stated in front of Sir Peter Crill our former Bailiff, in front of my clients that my clients were successful, he retired and was replaced by Sir Philip Bailhache before whom my clients kept losing, he made a speech describing my clients as "a small band of protestors who should be taken to the harbour". He was, after a lot of lobbying replaced by Sir Godfrey Le Quesne, who became the trial judge at which stage the case settled (tabs 7 and 13).

69.0  What particularly angers me about this case is that it was really quite a small time fraud in financial terms but ended up being splashed all over the international press because the Jersey Judiciary and the Attorney General tried to cover it up, it would have been simplicity itself to have prosecuted Cantrade et al and to have provided the investors with a level playing field.

70.0 As related I had to give evidence in an American Court in support of an application to bring proceedings in a more neutral forum. My evidence was that the Jersey Judiciary was biased given the utterance of Sir Philip Bailhache and the diddicoying of Birt this was hardly a surprise. Subsequently a complaint was made against me by the now Commissioner Julian Clyde Smith for providing this evidence to an American Court (tab 12). He alleged that I had been guilty of professional misconduct as a lawyer. When I talk about being accident prone you just  have to look at Commissioner Julian Clyde Smith's complaint to the Law Society about me. Literally hundreds of thousands of pounds must have been spent producing this complaint. The cost to the taxpayer of prosecuting me is now well in excess of £750,000; so long as I had an Independent external Judge,. the prosecutions fail. If I have a localised one I fail.

71.0  There is no doubt that Sir Michael Birt was in trouble over his handling of the Cantrade case and Commissioner Julian Clyde Smith wanted to have a poke at me. The same thing happened to Stuart Syvret over (Redaction) in order to protect Michael Birt, William Bailhache as the AG had his house raided and searched unlawfully. A focal point of my evidence to the American Court was the behaviour and utterances of Sir Philip Bailhache, the proceedings against me for professional misconduct were initiated at an in camera, ex parte hearing preceded over by Sir Philip Bailhache.

72.0 I recall another case which demonstrates the corruption of the Establishment, it was in relation to planning permission for land. This case involved Deputy Terry Le Main who at one stage was Minister for Housing and had a relationship with Developers called Noel. 

73.0  Strangely land was bought by the Noels who paid £1 million for it; its agricultural value was a fraction of that cost. The vendor was told that "Terry" had had a suitcase full of cash to fix the planning. I saw the papers, there was overwhelming evidence to support a fully blown criminal investigation but despite my best efforts to involve the Home Office, the matter was covered up in the usual way. (see tab 2) As usual ever since Cantrade if evidence of corruption is given to the Ministry of Justice, they give it to the people about whom the complaint is made so that they can investigate themselves.

74.0  I have much evidence on this subject i.e. Graft but it is not directly relevant to the Inquiry so I have simply put some of it forward to indicate how the system backs itself up and how what looks like blatant criminality goes unchecked.

The Jersey Law Society

75.0 Over the years I have been the subject of many complaints to the Jersey Law Society, some of which are referenced in this statement; more than any other member of the profession living or dead. It is important to bear in mind that Jersey has a separate Law Society to the Law Society of England and Wales. In Jersey, the President of the Law Society is often seen having lunch with the Attorney General and the former Attorney General. The Law Society very much supports Jersey Pie and the oligarchy, not independent lawyers, I do not want to dwell overly on my story, but bogus complaints to the Law Society and criminal prosecutions have become part of my life, at enormous emotional and financial expense. I have often prevailed but there is no question in my mind but that they are politically motivated. A fair trial is impossible in Jersey for myself and indeed others.

The Press in Jersey

76.0  There is only one newspaper in Jersey which is the Jersey Evening Post. The Jersey Evening Post is not independent, that is to say, historically it would never be critical of the Establishment. Jersey needs truthful, honest, and objective journalism. The bloggers help to raise awareness on issues where they can, however as discussed, the Establishment does its best to shut them down. The bloggers are very important and often very good.

77.0   The way the Jersey Evening Post handled the abuse scandal has been incredibly biased. I recall they reported that it was claimed a child's skull had been found and that there was a murder investigation. The so called child's skull, was then said to be an old coconut shell. What a wonderful way of deliberately undermining the investigation. I am not sure the Police even claimed a child's skull had been found or that it was a piece of coconut. The headlines made a joke out of a very serious issue, namely that child abuse had happened on the island on a large scale.

78.0 Many people in Jersey do not believe that there is any cover up of a child abuse scandal or that there even was one. Irresponsible, biased and truly revolting reporting by the Jersey Evening Post was a major factor in these state of affair.

79.0  It was reported by the Jersey Evening Post accurately that children's milk teeth had been found at Haut de la Garenne. The oligarchy said it could have been the work of the tooth fairy, this was published by the paper. I found this comment to be deeply disturbing. I saw the teeth, I know they had roots attached to them. I wonder what society we live in when the media writes such things. Those articles were published in order to discredit the allegations of child abuse, i.e. to support Jersey Pie.

80.0  I mentioned earlier the press releases organised by Deputy Superintendent Mike Gradwell and William Bailhache in order to discredit their own criminal investigation, Operation Rectangle. This involved leaking evidence, some of it documentary, relative to a live investigation. No responsible journalist would do such a thing but people believed in it. I will never forget an elderly couple in the butchers saying look it was all lies, it was the tooth fairy.

81.0  There is a darker side to this, vaguely honest, competent media would have saved many lives and spared much grief and hardship, the absence of same has corrupted our society I believe that one of the reasons for this in the position of (737) formerly the (Redaction)  and now (Redaction) Rumours that he was a multiple rapist had circulated on the blogs for some time, I came, in my professional capacity, to undertake my own investigations.

82.0 Those investigations indicated the existence of credible evidence to the effect that whilst (Redaction) his computer had to be rebuilt due to the quantity of pornography (2) he raped a female in the (Redaction) (3) the rape was reported to (Redaction) (4) (redaction) backed (737) and (5) (737) raped two other women and indecently assaulted his housekeeper. How many trade offs has it taken to keep this man at liberty? In this respect please look at the synergy between the Jersey Evening Post and Sir Philip Bailhache (tab 13). I have written to the Attorney General relative to (737) (tab 14); no one should hold their breath.

83.0  The remaining media is even less effective or even more biased, the only functioning media being the bloggers who have no financing or training despite which they are head and shoulders in front.

84.0  To bring the story back to my personal experience of being "accident prone" as a result of being perceived anti-Establishment, it is worth noting the prosecution that has been brought against me for assault.

85.0  My second wife (Redaction) in relation to a (Redaction) incident, eight years after the event. (Redaction) She has a diagnosed explosive personality disorder and (Redaction) my eldest daughter. There was minor bruising due to restraint and a tussle. A prosecution was brought by the Attorney General eight years later during my divorce  (Redaction) was subsequently arrested. The prosecution was subsequently dropped due to insufficient evidence. There was insufficient evidence from the start, the case should never have made it as far as it did. It was I am sure politically motivated.

86.0  Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith, is a friend of the complainant, and when (Redaction) to the Magistrates Court to be indicted, Commissioner Julian Clyde Smith's son was there taking notes. (Redaction)  it was strange that he was there taking notes. (Redaction) him what he was doing. He was reluctant to engage (Redaction). I find it  strange that he happened to be there with a note pad and pen. Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith has a long history with me, as mentioned above in relation to Cantrade. (Redaction) to appear in front of Julian Clyde-Smith to have the charges dropped. He first cleared the Court and then appeared most reluctant to allow the Crown's application to drop the case. At an earlier hearing (Redaction)  before William Bailhache, (Redaction) counsel said "not guilty", he wrote down and said "guilty". (Redaction)  counsel had to correct him. William Bailhache later (Redaction) in the toilet at the L'Horizon hotel and said how disappointed he was that (Redaction) objected to him sitting.

87.0 I viewed this case, and the earlier one, as a deliberate acts of intimidation designed to deter myself and others from speaking out about the need for reform in Jersey. It would have worked in the Establishment's favour if they had been able to tarnish (Redacted) 
by bringing home criminal proceedings. 

88.0  I have just been suspended from practicing for four months, this was typical the Jersey way in action. I objected to a poor quality decision of the Court of Appeal, in my position as counsel for Leeds United Football Club (that was my job), then a complaint is made to the Law Society who cannot convict, after a lengthy hearing, so it is sent to Mr Le Cocq as Attorney General to have another go.

89.0  In my mind once Mr Beloff was appointed as presiding Judge the result was a forgone conclusion, he has been her often and become in my mind an apologee for the establishment, he was previously a frequent participant in the Court of Appeal. I have always regarded him as baring considerably responsible for the demise of the reputation of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal must be and be seen to be independent of local politics and personalities.

90.0  In the usual fashion for those holding politically incorrect views the changes were changed at the last minute, and to my mind in effect re- written after conviction. It was after the event before I knew what I have been convicted of and some of the Jurats were obviously gagging to convict and never mind the merits, By no stretch of the imagination could be said to have done anything which merited censure let alone suspension. I think that my support of the truths told by the former Minister of Health and others go a long way to explaining why I cannot receive a fair trial on any issue in this jurisdiction. 

91.0  Before l detail my involvement with the JCLA, and specific cases of child abuse I was involved with as an Advocate, I think it is important, for contextual reasons, to understand that (Redaction) 
the former Bailiff, the Attorney General and Crown Advocate Fitz, and Commissioner Clyde-Smith are all present or former Ogier Partners. 

92.0  In or about 2009, well into my adult life, I made a decision (Redaction) to the Police. I therefore made an appointment at Jersey Police Station. The Police will have the correspondence to back this up.

93.0  The process of me making an appointment at the Police Station was clearly not confidential. Before I walked through the door of Jersey Police Station (Redaction) lawyer was writing to say that she (Advocate Fitz) knew I had made an appointment to see the Police. She does prosecution work for the Crown and had used her connections to find out about the prosecution. There is a strong parallel here with the complaint made about the (Redaction) referred to in DI Harper's evidence. Advocate Fitz is now a Magistrate, la plus ca change. 

94.0   I soon came to realise that no prosecution would be brought against (Redaction) because he was a prominent individual, (Redaction) Mr Le Cocq, Mr Birt and Mr Clyde-Smith. I did not pursue the matter any further as I did not see the point, I did not trust the system. (Redaction) Mr. Le Cocq's (Redaction)  is ever going to be charged let alone convicted.

95.0  If I cannot get justice for myself, and I am an experienced Advocate, how can other people without such training, knowledge and resource do it? If I could not pursue my case, how could others? This is a very stark example of how Jersey works. Prominent people are tipped off and protected by the Attorney General.

96.0  I have tried to support other individuals (Redaction)  by giving pro bono support and assistance to the JCLA. I can mention some of the cases I have dealt with, but some I am not at liberty to discuss. 

97.0  It is important to note that I am an Advocate that specialises in civil matters and financial claims. I am not an expert in criminal matters such as child abuse. In Jersey, any practising Solicitor with less than 15 years post qualification experience must participate in providing legal aid for free.

98.0  There is a rota which allocates what legal aid case a lawyer will be assigned to. This system for providing legal aid presents difficulties as lawyers are working for free on a case that they have been assigned to and which in practice, they have no specialism in. It is therefore not surprising that so few legal aid cases end up being prosecuted (and even fewer being appealed). This system results in many people not being provided with proper specialist advice, having a bad experience of the legal system and not receiving justice. 

99.0  I became involved with the JCLA around the time I went to see Mr Harper regarding (Redaction) (please see below). I noticed that the experience of members of the JCLA in relation to dealing with the authorities was very similar to my own i.e. there were insuperable obstacles, a wall of corruption. 

100.0  I was invited to the very first meeting of the JCLA. I agreed to help the JCLA by providing some generic pro bono advice. I could not happily offer more specific advice as I was not a legal specialist in abuse cases and I did not have the financial or emotional resources to do so. I could instead assist with general legal issues such as how to request documents or how to document things. I was also able to provide some office supplies for the JCLA such as computers and stationary that were surplus in my own office.

101.0  When I started to get involved then with the JCLA people would stop me in the street and say, "leave it alone." A partner at my firm advised me against helping them as it was unpopular. I found it difficult dealing with the amount of people who were against me being involved with the JCLA. I got a lot of flak because of it, as did my then wife. Put simply large numbers of influential people in Jersey would rather bury the truth than deal with it.

102.0 I got a lot of flak because of it, as did my then wife. Put simply large numbers of influential people in Jersey would rather bury the truth than deal with it. Group meetings of the JCLA were not open to all, just care leavers. The meetings were often traumatic, it was all about gaining an acknowledgment of what had happened. It was never about people saying that they wanted compensation, it was about people wanting acknowledgement of what had happened to them and for someone to say sorry. No one ever asked me how to get money, despite which many people still think that the complaints are financially motivated. The stories were harrowing. I recall hearing and seeing that one admission form to a children's home stated that a three year old had "sexy eyes."

103.0  The JCLA members were aged between 20 to 70. I recall being at a meeting and being astounded when I looked around the room and realised that this abuse had been allowed to go on for over 50 years. It was terrible stuff. Some members had not seen each other for over 30 years and suddenly they were reunited and remembering what happened to them. It was too much for some of them. 

104.0  I had occasional one-to-ones with JCLA members but generally I was addressing the group about things such as the general legal processes. I must have met in excess of 70 members during my work with them. No care leaver that I have met ever sought advice in relation to compensation, that complaints are finically motivated is one of the great myths spun by the establishment and the Jersey Evening Post, it is disgusting. 

105.0  From the time Mr Harper left the Island, I became the designated principal point of contact from victims wishing to speak to the police. Once Mr Harper left the island, victims stopped coming forward, there was a complete absence of trust in the system, I did not trust it once Mr Harper had gone, no intelligent person would do so. Mr Warcup who replaced him was a totally different kettle of fish to Mr Harper I did not trust him to look after the victims, neither did they. 

106.0  At one point in time the JCLA were hijacked by some lawyers and academics from England. I think some university lecturers had introduced some law firms from England to members of the JCLA and began to push me out. I offered to help the English firms by putting information into context and tell them how the Island worked and so forth however they did not respond to my offer. 

107.0  In some way I was relieved that the JCLA members were receiving specialist advice as I could only help them with the legal process in a general way, from an emotional point of view I found it all too harrowing. I did not find the incoming lawyers very professional, they were being offered free help and advice which they ignored.

108.0  When Mr Harper left Jersey, confidence in the Police collapsed especially once Waring and Gradwell publicly briefed against their own enquiry. I have dealt with a lot of police in my time, Mr Harper struck me as a very normal policeman. 

109.0  If Mr Harper had not had the media backing he had he would have been shut down. He told me that himself. Mr Harper had to change his car as he was pulled over so often by the local 'hobby bobbies' ie the Honorary Police which I thought was terrible. He was here to help and was being hindered by the local honoraries repeatedly pulling him over. It is sad that Mr Harper had to leave. I understand his wife became sick and he did not want to stay on, however I am not sure if that is the full story. Had he stayed William Bailhache would have destroyed him as he did Mr Power. 

110.0  I came across some terrible things while assisting the JCLA. I recall meeting one man, I cannot remember his name, however he told me that he used to reoffend in order to get sent to jail as it was safer than staying at Haut de la Garenne. Another told me that he had broken his arm while doing something he should not have, so to ensure he did not do it again, the surgeon (Redaction)

111.0 (Redaction) whose name I will not provide, was (Redaction)  been happy with him (Redaction) as he suddenly started making mistakes. Mr (Redaction) and told (Redaction) what had happened to him as a child, he was struggling to cope with it. He would text (Redaction) the details. (Redaction) had been raped and beaten at Haut de la Garenne. He was deeply distressed by what had happened. He saw a dead child at Haut de la Garenne. I gave that information to Mr Harper.

112.0  Some time ago another lady (Redaction) who I am not at liberty to name reported that she had a (Redaction) when she was an adolescent, this had an appalling effect on her, she nor I believe that any investigation will be free from political interference.


113.0  (875) (Redaction) and her sister (876) came to see me on the recommendation of Senator Dick Shenton, then a local politician, now deceased. Dick recommended my services as a pro bono lawyer as he could not get anyone else to assist with their case as they were both very difficult to deal with. (875,876) had been in foster care. Their biological father died (Redaction) so they were "in the system" so to speak.

114.0  (875) had been repetitively raped from the age of 14 onwards if not before by her foster father, a local man named (Redaction) The abuse (875) had suffered was terrible, for example, (Redaction) Even talking about what happened to (875) causes me much distress. I have attached at tab 15 her witness statement and related correspondence. I have sought to revitalise her complaint but Mr le Cocq was not keen, nothing was done.

115.0 (875) was also abused and in a very distressed state as a result of what had happened. She became extremely violent and had actually (Redaction).

116.0  What happened to (875) stays with me. It still wakes me in the middle of the night. No one was ever prosecuted, despite the fact that there was a lot of evidence.

117.0  When I heard about the Inquiry I looked for (875) to encourage her to come forward. I found that she was in a mental hospital (Redaction) She had not been able to cope with what happened to her, her life was effectively over from the age of 14 and she will now never leave institutionalised care. 

118.0  It gets to me that this case is no closer to being resolved and that I see (Redaction) (874) the perpetrator doing his Christmas shopping. (874) grandchildren are (Redaction) I see him walking about as if nothing is wrong. It is not right. I still feel that I have failed her and that the Island is protecting him.

119.0  I know that at some stage a policeman compiled statistics on the suicide rate amongst children who were in care; much higher than in the general population. I am sure that Eversheds could obtain a copy.

120.0  The Inquiry

121.0  I think that it is important that the Inquiry looks at the fuller picture all of this scandal, and considers how the human race works. The Inquiry should look at how humans deal with serious trauma. There has been a lot written about how victims of abuse mentally deal with what has happened to them. There are specific trends and this is something that the Inquiry should consider. Some victims, (Redaction) try to reach out and help others as a way of coping with what happened to them. Other victims are unable to get past what happened and end up in a "downward spiral", often suffering from alcohol abuse, self- harm and the abuse of others, I believe that both (28, 179) went the way they did as a result of childhood abuse in care.

122.0  I think someone should say "sorry" in relation to what has happened. I also think people need to acknowledge what has happened in Jersey. It is key that the Inquiry gets to the bottom of what has happened, but also how it has been covered up for decades. 

123.0  In no way do I believe that anything has changed or will change; all of the harm will be perpetrated again one way or another as we as an Island have been abandoned by its monarch and a feudal power structure which favours abusers.

124.0  (874, 7) Lundy, (737) et al and for that matter both Bailhache brothers remain at large in the community.

125.0 I confirm that I am willing to give oral evidence to this Inquiry if required to do so, but for my own wellbeing I would rather not.

Statement of Truth
I believe the facts stated in this witness statement are true. 

Signed: Philip Sinel.

Dated 15/12/15

Exhibits to Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Witness Statement of Philip Sinel

Tab 1  Affidavit of Philip Cowan Sinel - Mayo v. Cantrade & Others, plus related commentary. 

Tab 2  Correspondence between Philip Cowan Sinel, Lieutenant Governor, Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty, meeting notes and related.

TAB 3  Submissions to the Carswell Enquiry on the Constitution.

Tab 4  The Carswell Report. 

Tab 5  Sir Philip Bailhache's liberation day speech. 

Tab 6  Decision of the Police Complaints Tribunal relative to Beghin and Minty and blog and commentary. 

Tab 7  Cuttings in respect of Commissioner Clyde-Smith and Cantrade. 

Tab 8  Documentation relative to multiple homicides at the General Hospital. 

Tab 9  Statute and Appointed Day Act relative to the need for corroboration.

Tab 10  (Redaction) 2010. 

Tab 11  Code Civile.

Tab 12  Letter from Commissioner Clyde-Smith making a complaint against Philip Cowan Sinel.

Tab 13  Transcript of Philip Bailhache's speech 16 November 1996.

Tab 14  Letter to the Attorney General re (737)

Tab 15  (875) statement and correspondence."(END)

It's difficult to know which paragraph(s) of this statement deserve highlighting the most or are the most disturbing but here are just a few:

“I recall hearing and seeing that one admission form to a children's home stated that a three year old had "sexy eyes.”

“If I cannot get justice for myself, and I am an experienced Advocate, how can other people without such training, knowledge and resource do it? If I could not pursue my case, how could others?” 

“multiple homicides were swept under the carpet”

"a very serious dysfunction; and a lack of professional and public confidence in our Judiciary."

“Prominent people are tipped off and protected by the Attorney General.”

"In no way do I believe that anything has changed or will change; all of the harm will be perpetrated again one way or another as we as an Island have been abandoned by its monarch and a feudal power structure which favours abusers."

Team Voice plan to publish more statements submitted to the Inquiry in the coming weeks/months.

We must stress that those named in Advocate Sinel's statement will refute his allegations and must be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a Jersey court. That said; most of his allegations are against the Jersey court(s) so don't hold your breath......................


  1. The Appeal Court is a sick joke just as Advocate Sinel says. What chance did a Syvret or the Pitmans have of recourse to justice going up before this bunch of Bailiff stooges? The answer is obviously none.

  2. This should bring you directly to the online version.


    1. Thanks Polo but it takes you to the top of the page, the same as my link does in the main posting.

    2. That's strange. It takes me to p 314. Be interesting to see where it takes others.

    3. I got taken straight to the top of the page, but then I just searched for Sinel

    4. I think putting '#page=314' at the end of the hyperlink (to target a particular page in a PDF) does not work on all operating systems. Does not work on my Mac


    5. At 23.03 on 25th April 2017 I clicked on Polo's link (Polo 5 March, 22.00) I got this message:

      "The page you're looking for doesn't exist."

      Just saying....

  3. "13.0  I wish to provide evidence to the Inquiry about the corruption that exists in Jersey and the many flaws that exist in the Jersey system and the way that serious crimes are pushed under the carpet and the assortment of child molesters, thieves, rapists, murderers and swindlers have been exculpated by the Crown and by the Judiciary and the way in which the critics of such behaviour are ruined by the deliberate actions of corrupt Judges and prosecutors.

    14.0  I am aware that giving frank evidence to the Inquiry will provoke further discrimination and hostility from various sections of society; that is how the Island works."

    1. "125.0 I confirm that I am willing to give oral evidence to this Inquiry if required to do so, but for my own wellbeing I would rather not."

  4. Advocate Sinel's backup documents, to which he refers in his written statement and which the Inquiry labels WD009119 are nowhere on the Inquiry site.

    1. "Tab 10  (Redaction) 2010."

      And even if they put some of it up, they will have taken the meat out of the sandwich.

  5. I think I've commented before about these written statements, such as Advocate Sinel's. The inquiry officially dealt with a large number of them on 29 February 2016. At the very start of the transcript on 29 February 2016, talking about these statements, the counsel to the inquiry Mr Livingston said:

    Page 1 of transcript:

    "Madam Chair, in addition to this evidence the Inquiry has also received a number of statements and written submissions from others, which you will have the opportunity to read and consider in the writing of your final report. All of these documents will be made available to the public in due course."

    Then on page 7, he added:

    Madam Chair, I have only given the references to witness statements or submissions for all of these witnesses. As will be seen from the index at {WS000732}, there are supporting documents for some of these witnesses and all of those documents will also be made available to the public and should be considered by the Panel.

    Here is where he said that, pages 1 and 7:

    Clearly the supporting documents relating to Advocate Sinel's evidence (which could of course be appropriately redacted) have not been made available. What exactly have we spent our £26million on?

    As regards retaining this content, the inquiry sat for 149 days. The only option seems to be to visit this page and doing a manual download. It is usually the transcript and the documents, for each day.

    1. Anonymous 6 March 2017 at 02:03 writes that Counsel to the Inquiry, Mr. Livingston, told the Panel: "All of these documents will be made available to the public in due course." he said this on 29 February 2016. And then, as we know, they sort of were and sort of weren’t.


      I tried to find the Closing Submission of Counsel to the Inquiry on their website. As the key document in framing their report, and also in triggering the closing submissions of the Interested Parties, you would have thought it would be on the website. But it wasn’t – or it wasn’t until I inquired as to its whereabouts!

      Here is a quote from what Counsel to the Inquiry, Ms Jerram, said to the panel on June 20, 2016:

      "As alluded to already, we have produced a written summary of the evidence which amounts to some 1,400 pages of summary and analysis; plus five appendices dealing with particular matters. This document will be available on the Inquiry's website at the end of the oral submissions" (Day 147 page 50).

      That was June 20 2016.

      A few days ago, so, 10 months later, I tried to find this document (the Closing Submission of Counsel to the Inquiry ) on the website - it was nowhere to be seen.

      Perhaps the most important document of the Inquiry (apart from the Final report) - the summary by Counsel of all the evidence - a sort of guide for the Panel through all the evidence of 145 odd days, together with suggestions for the Panel of puzzles or conflicts in the evidence for them to ponder, key bits of evidence or argument they might wish to focus their attention on, etc. - this 1400 page document was not there.

      I wrote a pleading, desperate email of puzzled inquiry to the COI on 19th April, asking where it was, and got a polite reply: "I will look into the matter"

      One day later, the document was up on the website, the issue having been "resolved".

      What is the right word – shambolic, inefficient, obstructive? And is this incompetence a result of some deliberate policy or intent, or what is it?

  6. If DCI Minty is a victim then does that mean his other cases as complainant are legit?

  7. "We must stress that those named in Advocate Sinel's statement will refute his allegations and must be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a Jersey court."

    If this has been online for sometime already then the people accused must take it all as water off a ducks back, because nobody can be bothered to respond never mind refute.

    1. Is this the Paedo-Troll again?6 March 2017 at 11:06

      That's right @07:35 Why should establishment abusers, rapists, paedophiles and even murderers "be bothered" when they know that they will be protected like the advocate says.

  8. The new LG comes with a poor press, seemingly earlier on he was demanding to arrive in an aeroplane of the Queens Flight, ( a small bird told me).

  9. Spotted on anomaly in the Advocates statement. The Pitmans, who he rightly highlights, most strangely managed to lose their libel case against the JEP and their estate agent chum Trower have been illegally banned from standing for election (they would both surely regain their seats easily) not for five years but for nine. This does not exist anywhere in Europe. Then again if the Advocate was confused by the law it is probably worth investigating if this has even been applied correctly or just made up. What a place! But a powerful and damning document and hopefully one which will carry the weight it should.

  10. I notice from the comments above that for some 'mysterious' reason the supporting evidential documentation submitted by Advocate Sinel is missing from the inquiry web site.

    If anyone possesses copies of the said documentation, could it not be provided to us by some enterprising investigative blog site?

    Assuming of course, the public inquiry can't be persuaded to rectify its omission, an omission which is surely accidental?

    1. I have e-mailed the Inquiry asking where the documentation is. Will keep readers updated. If it doesn't get published on the COI website I'm sure it will find itself online somehow.

    2. Oh dear surely the good Advocate isn't being given a warning dose of the disappearing documents Pitman treatment? Support them as I really want and try to do you really have to understand Stuart Syvret's concerns.

      The up/down/up/down farce of Pitman's witness stateement and documents surely should have seen any respectable committee of inquiry ensure that type of thing could never happen again. It made even the most supportive of observer do a double take.

    3. To be fair to the COI I believe it was under a constant bombardment from the Data Protection Office to redact this that and the other. If the COI was to alert people of the redactions etc it would have defeated the object. It didn't look good on the COI but I believe the majority of blame should be laid at the DPO's door.

    4. Thanks for the info. I was told it was coming direct from the Law Office by order of our wonderful Bailiff. Forgive me my ignorance but are you pointing out that the Data Protection Office works entirely separate from these bods? All very confusing and I have lived in Jersey for almost nineteen years now.

    5. The official line is that the Data Protection Office is "independent" from the "bods." From what I have seen the truth is that it's (DPO) another establishment tool for silencing dissent.

  11. Here are a couple of sentences to paragraphs from Mr Sinel's affidavit which deserve repeating and totally agreed with.

    "It was reported by the Jersey Evening Post accurately that children's milk teeth had been found at Haut de la Garenne. The oligarchy said it could have been the work of the tooth fairy, this was published by the paper. I found this comment to be deeply disturbing. I saw the teeth, I know they had roots attached to them. I wonder what society we live in when the media writes such things. Those articles were published in order to discredit the allegations of child abuse, i.e. to support Jersey Pie."

    "The remaining media is even less effective or even more biased, the only functioning media being the bloggers who have no financing or training despite which they are head and shoulders in front."

    Without the bloggers the truth would never have come out and most of it still hasn't with the mainstream media.

  12. This statement also surely needs highlighting: "He saw a dead child at Haut de la Garenne. I gave that information to Mr Harper."

  13. The Jersey MSM are a disgrace. When you consider that Wikipedia stated that they did not view the Daily Mail as a reliable source of truthful information they really should have taken a look at the Rag and the other establishment mouthpieces. Make the Mail look positively perfect.

  14. VFC - you say this: -

    "It became apparent in a previous VFC posting featuring Advocate Sinel (click on label "Advocate Philip Sinel" at bottom of post) that his statement was not easy to find on the Care Inquiry's website. Just as concerning is that his "tabs" or "exhibits" (15 of them) listed in his statement do NOT appear to have been published on the inquiry's website, or if they have, they are harder to find than his statement. Team Voice will be attempting to find out, from the Inquiry Panel, what the situation is regarding these exhibits and will keep readers updated."

    And - in subsequent comment exchanges it becomes clear the evidence documents submitted by Advocate Sinel are not - in fact - published by this - £26 million - "public" - inquiry.

    I won't elaborate further, the point I'm making.

    As everyone familiar with "The-Jersey-Situation" will already understand - all-too-starkly - that which confronts us - a la Savile - hiding-in-plain-sight.

    Meanwhile, given the inquiries you're making to the "coI" - concerning this missing public evidence - from the web site of this "public" inquiry - you might wish to additionally inquire of them as to why the "Inquiry-Ruling" they made - to refuse to comply with the ECHR, the Salmon Principles and provide me with unconditional legal representation - is NOT included in the list of "key documents" - alongside all other "Inquiry-Rulings"?

    It's a fair enough question, surely - to a Chair and a body which has boasted - repeatedly - of their "independence" and of its "transparency"?

    After all - certain individuals think it was right - and defensible - and lawful - and proper - for the CoI to refuse to give me legal representation - unless I signed-up to dozens of obscure "legal" "protocols" - which the CoI invented - for itself with zero public consultation in direct defiance of the "legislative-purpose" as expressed in Part e of the States decision.

    Certain people think the CoI was "right" in ignoring the States in that way.

    So - why the "shyness" over that particular "Inquiry-Ruling"?

    Surely the CoI - and those who believe the CoI to have been a lawful and credible exercise - should be "proud" - proud, do you hear - of that "Inquiry-Ruling" - by which they told me to Fuck-Off? And decided that "The-Jersey-Way" knew better than England & Wales jurisprudence - better than settled post Act-of-Settlement case-law - knew better than habeas corpus - knew better than the Salmon Principles - knew better than ECtHR case-law?

    Such a mighty - seminal - Master-Piece of "judge-made-law" - such a planet-wide - brilliant - example of profound and wise jurisprudence - such seismic, Earth-shaking novel and path-breaking piece of legal brilliance?

    So why be afraid of it?

    Why not sing it from the rooftops?

    Why the humility? Why the embarrassment? Why is the CoI so humble - as to seek to keep the average member of the public unaware of the CoI's "Inquiry-Ruling" brilliance - by which they stomped uppity anarcho-commies like me into irrelevance - by the twist of refusing to let me have any legal representation - unless I signed-away all rights and standing first? Without being able to take any legal advice upon the implications and consequences of so doing?

    Why is that "Inquiry-Ruling" hidden - buried away in obscurity - omitted from the all of the other "Inquiry-Rulings" as published in the "key-documents"?

    I mean - it couldn't be - could it - because that "Inquiry-Ruling" by the CoI - by which they intimidated, harassed - sought to coerce - and constructively excluded - a vital core-witness - is - in-fact - shameful and embarrassing bollocks - by which the CoI destroyed any claim it may ever have had to possess vires - surely?

    Stuart Syvret

    1. Oh do shut up Mr. Syvret.

      This endless whinging about having rights is boring and irrelevant because we live in Jersey.

      It is called the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry. This proves that it is an independent inquiry into care.
      It would not be called that if it was not an independent inquiry into care

      You are not even a lawyer and you should have taken part in this CoI because hundreds of people agree that it is INDEPENDENT (the clue is in the name)

      Nobody is interested, which is why nobody is going to answer your comment.

    2. Jersey's democracy - our government and particularly our 'justice' system most difinitely IS a Potemkin Village. It is you who are deluded and/or fooling yourself on that one. Also just because something calls itself 'independent' is hardly a guarantee that it is. Wake up and smell the coffee Adolfus.

    3. @13:12
      What you actually read was ".....This endless whinging about having rights is boring and irrelevant because we live in Jersey...."09:49

      Think about it.
      You don't 'do' satire my friend?

      "Supine Compliant Majority" was a clue.
      I'm sorry if the link has a glitch but it should take you to the previous comment thread starting 5 March 2017 at 09:19 at:

      The same old, from people who can read (e.g. the JEP etc.) and maybe let it do the thinking for them.

      p.s. I love coffee
      (but it is one of the things which keeps me awake at night!)

    4. Just for the sake of clarity, the ruling is on the site, but is not included in the index to rulings, so you have to search the site independently to find it. I am sure this was done on purpose as it was brought to the Inquiry's attention a long time ago.

      At the time Stuart thought it had been taken down.

      I had downloaded a copy, just in case.

      By the way, how can the Inquiry justify leaving their site open for only a year and then turning over the docs to whoever where they will only be accessible via an FOI (if this is the case).

      Surely the States could take on hosting the open site. Perhaps some diligent States member would sort this out. Not that anyone heeds instructions from the States anymore. All too convenient by far.

  15. In complete compliance with the votes in the States Chamber we have spent about £23 million on the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry.

    Anybody who thinks that this was not in compliance with the expressed wishes of the then States Members is really suggesting that our democracy is a charade
    - a cover for an underlying feudal oligarchy.
    A potemkin village even.

    That is a ridiculous suggestion which could only be made by a village idiot and would not be made by anyone with any knowledge or legal training.
    If it was true it would have been reported in the JEP and the island's other accredited media.

    Further -once we have put this nonsense to bed with an "Independent Care Inquiry", does anyone seriously think that we should have a public inquiry into ABUSE ???

    Maybe even call it "Independent Jersey Abuse Inquiry"
    Ridiculous! Think of the island's reputation. Does Mr.Syvret think that a potemkin village is full of idiots?

    Why are we even talking about this when we need to be getting on with business as usual?

    We are assured that children in Jersey are now safe, and that assurance is good enough for anyone who is not an idiot.

    1. There has been the even more ridiculous suggestion that we should recover the cost £23 million on the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry off Eversheds and the island's officers who contracted them.

      Why would we want our money back?

      Only an idiot would want to see Eversheds' contract of appointment.

      What are we going to do if the final report does not identify the systemic causes of the decades of unreported abuse of children and islanders???

      The contract of appointment and any further instruction that Eversheds have received will identify who is responsible if the CoI final report is platitudinous waffle which fails to identify what became blindingly obvious to whistle blowers, bloggers, Police Chiefs and Health Ministers.

      Eversheds really are going to have to pull out all the stops to snatch victory from......

    2. Is it true that Eversheds were the retained lawyers for UK Special Branch ?

    3. "Is it true that Eversheds were the retained lawyers for UK Special Branch ?"

      There is 'surprisingly' little information appearing on search engines about the relationship between Eversheds' and UK Special Branch.

      You would have thought that if such a link existed it would be easy to find.

      However a little information seems to have leaked out on the CV of a mere (lol) pensions lawyer:

      "As Eversheds' London Senior Partner I was responsible for approximately 600 staff and 100 partners. .......

      ........Most of my career was spent attached to Special Branch. In 1985 I won a Home Office Scholarship to read law at Jesus College, Cambridge."

      Well well well....

    4. One of the few places that "Eversheds" and "Special Branch" appear on the same web page is actually on Eversheds own web site:

      "The team is currently acting on behalf of Sir Michael Morland's inquiry into the murder of solicitor Rosemary Nelson, whose terms of reference require an analysis as to whether there was any collusion by the state - such as Special Branch, MI5 or the army - in her murder. ...."

      So this is another 'security sensitive' inquiry in which Eversheds are deeply involved in but there is no mention on their website of their association with the services under investigation.

      Why are Eversheds so coy about their long standing relationship with the security services????
      You would have thought that they would be glad to share their association with such an important and good paying client.

      p.s. Readers will be pleased to know that Anthony got the job as Pensions Ombudsman.
      That will be a useful little earner through his microcosm - retirement I mean.

  16. What baffles me is that if the Justice System is as corrupt as Adv Sinel claims then isn't he doing a disservice to his clients by trying to represent them within it???????
    Its like saying all Politicians are corrupt and then standing for election.

    1. Really @13:22
      What baffles me is just how thick are you?

  17. You refuse to publish a lot of comments.
    Have a go at speaking to the MSM and ask why they won't do stories on this and you may learn something.

    1. What a surprise. The paedo-trolls are back and desperate to get irrelevant comments in after the thread just above, starting 11:37

      Mr. Syvret claimed on his blog that Eversheds were the retained lawyers for the UK security services, but I had never seen any evidence to support it.

      Until now:

      "As Eversheds' London Senior Partner I was responsible for approximately 600 staff and 100 partners. .......Most of my career was spent attached to Special Branch......"

      Nothing to see here, LOL

    2. Voice,
      I think you had better archive that page

  18. Isn't it ever so odd how Vernon Tomes is being attacked on the JEP's echo chamber for his involvement in a certain story, him being dead and all, yet our wonderful Bailiff William Bailhache who was every bit as involved isn't?

    1. What story is attacking Tomes? Remember, most of us out here on plant earth don't get to see what your gangster funded media peddles to propagandize you peasants. Some info please.

    2. It relates to this story, published in more detail in the paper/digital edition on 7th March 2017

      The more detailed article refers to this recently published judgement. Bacon argued abuse of process, see para 22, but lost. He is due to be sentenced soon:[2016]JRC181.aspx

      What the more detailed JEP article states is that Bacon was defended by Advocate William Bailhache, paid for by Bacon's teaching union. Bailhache would no doubt argue that he was just doing his job, defending whoever he had to defend.

      I must say, I was at school in England 30+ years ago. If similar events had occurred in my town at that time (1979-83) I'm confident that the teacher would have been prosecuted in the criminal courts. It's not that long ago. I'm shocked that Bacon was dealt with at the parish hall. The Jersey Way though, eh? I doubt the £26million inquiry has covered this case as it would have been sub-judice at the time of the inquiry. How many more are there like it?

    3. Says a lot about the Bailache brothers true attitude to abuse in my opinion. We all know that Sir Philip was happy to let Roger Holland join the Hons even though he knew he had an abuse conviction.
      We also now know that he told a Head of Education he wasn't going to prosecute another abuser but just wanted the Head to get rid of him.

      We further know Bailhache was heavily involved in the Jervis-Dykes abuse cover up scandal and with Sir Michael Birt were the senior Crown officers who would not let the police in the case pursue the former Vice-Principle and now jurat who at least one pupil stated had bullied him in to silence.

      Jumping back to William we also now know that he brought this disgraced jurt out of retirement when he became Bailiff to sit on the Barett(?) abuse case. Jersey is in really safe hands. No need to mention the Donnely abuse case anomalies at all.

    4. Don't you just know that the Care Inquiry will ignore all of this? Isn't it a fact that they apparently gave up on demanding the Victoria College school pupils witness statements that went with the Stephen Sharp report which mentioned the above vice principle/Jurat? Couldn't imagine Lenny Harper giving up on such crucial evidence of the Jersey way.

    5. There is a bit of a pattern here.

      Isn't Mr.Bellyache the one who provided the priority suspect [alleged rapist of multiple children who also liked to torture boys with a lighted cigarette] with an 'libi/shield' in direct contradiction of one of the UK's leading expert witnesses?

      Will the CoI report gloss over these trivial matters?

    6. The missing words & appauling cover up for "Bacon" in 1985 are "The Masons" as he was one of them back then until he was kicked out over the school scandal!

    7. Anon at 20:42. Thanks for that info. It all falls into place.

  19. How many people these days read the JEP, let alone the JEP's echo chamber? But point taken

    1. Even odder that the Rag's brilliant and fearless journalists are not talking about Bailache. No it isn't really is it? Can't have the man who blocks a separation of powers shown up. Again.

  20. So Bill Bailhache is shown to be a liar. Andrew Lewis who suspended the Police Chief is shown to be a liar. But the Lieutenant Governor just sits on his handsomely paid arse. Makes you so proud does it not?

  21. COI recommendations/conclusion/whitewash. Delayed yet again. Could be interesting.

    1. May we ask for some further information in respect of this comment? Has it been reported in the Jersey media that the CoI report will be delayed again? If so, what has been said, and for how long might the delay be?

    2. Just writing a Blog on the subject now and will be published shortly.

    3. What a farce. This really does not bode well. It will end up like the Sharp Report. Still damning but only if you read between the lines. And worst of all with the key Establishment guilty protected because of the damage it would do to Jersey or rather the Jersey Way.

    4. Looking forward to seeing the COI report. I'm sure it's in their interests to be delaying it for as long possible. That way they can take instructions from Whitehall who will decide the damage limitations. In my opinion the report will have the usual bla bla bla lessons learned rubbish. There will be no prosecutions, the Jersey Way will carry on as normal, the good guys will loose and the establishment will prevail.

    5. I bloody hope not! Did we really lose people like Stuart, Trevor, Shona and Bob just to be palmed off with a token piece of watered down crud? No we bloody well did not!

    6. No you didn't just lose people like Stuart etc. just to be palmed off with a token piece of watered down crud.

      You PAID (300k+) for them to be prosecuted and they you PAID (23m+) for the watered down crud.

      Shucks, we probably paid for the water too!

      In a functioning community these people would be hanging from the lampposts already.

  22. Delayed till when? After Birt and the Bailhaches have re-written it? Subject to Martin and Glasgow's signing off of course.