IJCI
On the 3rd of July 2017 The Jersey Independent Care Inquiry (IJCI) delivered its damming REPORT on the decades of Child Abuse carried out in Jersey State run "care" homes and elsewhere across the island. The Panel, as part of its report, made 8 key recommendations which can be found in the link above or the shorter version can be read HERE.
In response to that report, and recommendations, a Scrutiny Sub Panel (The Care of Children in Jersey review Panel) was formed which is tasked with monitoring the Children's Minister's progress (or not) in implementing the 8 key recommendations of the IJCI. In December 2018 the Panel presented to the States its quarterly REPORT where it had set out its findings concerning the implementation (or not) of (IJCI) recommendations 1-4.
The Panel is now looking for evidence, from institutions and members of the public, from witnesses who have experience/knowledge of recommendations 5-8. The closing date for written submissions is this coming Friday 16th August 2019. Oral evidence can be given past this date. Its Terms of Reference, and contact details can be found HERE.
ITV/CTV
Some readers might (like myself) believe that all witnesses who gave evidence to the IJCI (like myself) will be receiving a letter from the Scrutiny Panel inviting them to make a submission/give evidence to it. This is because local (Old Media) ITV/CTV, who has a long history of broadcasting Fake News, told it viewer(s) this in a report last month. As I hadn't received a letter from the Panel I contacted them explaining I had given evidence to the IJCI HERE, HERE, and HERE and not received an invitation (as reported by ITV/CTV) to give evidence to the panel. The Scrutiny Officer (who has been extremely helpful) told me:
"I’m afraid it was incorrectly reported that the Panel were writing to all those who gave evidence to the Inquiry."
I asked the Scrutiny Officer if he would contact ITV/CTV and suggest they broadcast a correction to its "incorrect reporting" because potential witnesses might believe, because they haven't received an invitation/letter from the Panel, they are not required to give evidence. The Scrutiny Officer told me that, after making contact with it, ITV/CTV will amend anything necessary on its website but would NOT broadcast a correction as I understand it. I explained to the Scrutiny Officer the long history of ITV/CTV's Fake News and in particular when it comes to do with anything about (Child)Abuse. I sent a link backing up (with hard evidence) the long and sordid history of ITV/CTV's Fake News reporting HERE to suggest, it is more likely than not, that the "misreporting" is more of a design than a mistake. No correction was broadcast (to the best of my knowledge).
In the hope of minimising the potential damage caused (again) by ITV/CTV and to, hopefully encourage witnesses to come forward, we asked Chairman of the Panel, Deputy Rob Ward if he would agree to an interview and explain what kind of evidence the panel is looking for and from whom. The Chairman was very accommodating, agreed to an interview (below) and answered our questions as best he could.
VFC's interest primarily with recommendation 7 (The Jersey Way):
"13.18 "Throughout the course of our work we heard the term the “Jersey Way”. While this was, on occasions, used with pride, to describe a strong culture of community and voluntary involvement, it was more often used to describe a perceived system whereby serious issues are swept under the carpet and people avoid being held to account for abuses that have been perpetrated. This was well summarised in the contribution of a Phase 3 witness who told us:
“We (also) have the impossible situation of the non-separation of powers between the judiciary and political and there is a lot of secrecy, non-transparency and a lack of openness. This brings with it the lack of trust, the fear factor that many have spoken about and contributes greatly to the Jersey Way.”
"13.19 That fear factor and lack of trust must be addressed, therefore we recommend that open consideration involving the whole community be given to how this negative perception of the “Jersey Way” can be countered on a lasting basis. While constitutional matters are out with our Terms of Reference, we are of the opinion that this matter cannot be addressed without further consideration of the recommendations made in the Clothier and Carswell Reports."(END)
"The Jersey Way" and "fear factor" are not exclusive to matters concerning Child Abuse and is the culture of those who run this Island, as in Crown Officers Bailiff/Deputy Bailiff and the Law Offices Department. People live in fear of retaliation/persecution if they speak up/out and we feel this is NOT being adequately (if at all) addressed and might prevent witnesses coming forward to give evidence to this panel's review. We have previously reported on recommendation 7 and explained (or former possibly illegally suspended Police Chief Graham Power did) the far reaching (beyond Child Abuse) consequences of it HERE.
We asked Chairman Deputy Rob Ward, in regards to recommendation 7, if people have evidence of alleged political/judicial corruption, could they give this evidence to the panel/review? What assurances (if any) could he give those wishing to submit evidence that they won't become victims of "The Jersey way" and face persecution/retaliation? What "legal status" does people's written submissions have? Could the Attorney General's Office come after somebody for what they have written in their submission? The irony of that is, the Panel will no doubt be getting its advice from none other than....................The Attorney General's Office.
We thank Deputy Ward for the in-depth, exclusive, interview and hope that those who feel able, will make contact with the Panel (links provided above) and submit evidence. Not only on recommendation 7 but 5,6 and 8 also.
Ought to get him to call your previous interviewee.
ReplyDeleteRob Ward is a hard working Deputy and all round good egg but I fear he is way out of his depth here. The Jersey Way is much bigger than this scrutiny panel.
ReplyDeleteScrutiny is toothless, always has been.
DeleteAll bark and no bite.
Who scrutinises scrutiny?
ReplyDeleteThey cannot give immunity to people giving evidence it was written all over his face.
To the best of my knowledge, that is not correct. Panels & committees running under the auspices and authority of your legislature have parliamentary privilege. This is a well established constitutional safeguard that prevents any interference in the affairs of a legislature, by a judiciary.
DeleteThe gentleman giving the interview appeared to have no knowledge or understanding of this rudimentary fact. He seemed sincere & well intentioned so I suggest someone contact him, put parliamentary privilege to him, then seek a further statement from him confirming such protections to the panel's witnesses. This is rather important. On a straight reading of his ambiguity, witnesses fearing reprisals will now be even more nervous and deterred. I don't believe he was seeking that outcome, but unless he corrects himself publicly, he has just crippled the ability of the panel to attract and secure evidence and testimony necessary to the panel's work.
@My friend at 19:26
Delete"This is a well established constitutional safeguard that prevents any interference in the affairs of a legislature, by a judiciary." Unfortunately, the judiciary can interfere with the legislature as the chief judge is the bailiff who chairs the sitting of the house.
The Beano Is Not The Rag
https://thebaldtruth-postcardsfromdystopia.blogspot.com/ Back again.
ReplyDeleteLINK.
DeleteI thought the role of Deputy Ward's Panel was to scrutinise work since the recommendations were put in place some 2 years ago. So any evidence or views can only be confined about the last 2 years of work, can you clarify?
ReplyDeleteThis is not an attack on the Scrutiny Chair. But I can't ignore the fact that it really seemed like you were having to pull teeth here? The Deputy seems a genuine chap. But has he been given a Chairman's role too quickly? Just compare the confident, at ease approach from the former Deputy Pitman in your last interview. It really is striking. To believe that Deputy Ward will hold the great and the good to account is something I find hard to believe.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ 19:26
ReplyDeleteThat was also my impression. The Chairman is well intentioned but he has not thought this through. Voice really put two questions here.
The first is about privilege and self incrimination and it appears that a witness cannot incriminate themselves as a result of evidence they give to Scrutiny. This means they can not be brought before the criminal "justice" system for anything contained in their evidence. The full details and scope of this need to be set out, as Voice suggested, but as the Chairman didn't commit to.
The second is the kernel of The Jersey Way - will these bastards get me one way or another? Voice instanced losing your job. And of course this would not be done in a way obviously connected to having given evidence. This threat is always in the air and the only appeal ultimately would be to those who perpetrated the wrong in the first place or those complicit in it.
It is very difficult to see how the second one above can be got around in the absence of serious culture change.
Then there is the deadline for submissions. The Chairman is right - there have to be deadlines. But in this case where the (scissors and paste award winning) TV station has actively misled the public, there is surely a case for extending the deadline and hauling the station before scrutiny both in regard to this case and subsequently regarding its irresponsible behaviour generally.
The Chairman seems well intentioned but out of his depth, at least for the moment.
A brilliant interview in the best traditions of investigative journalism. Congratulations.
And while we're on legal matters, I wonder if there has been any further clarification on the precise legal status of the Inquiry team during their visit to the Island and is there any legal protection against self-incriminatin or libel/slander for witnesses, though I accept this is probably less likely to be a problem this time round compared with the Inquiry itself?
ReplyDeleteRob Ward has suprised me in the States and comes accross as an honest and fair man, looking to make a difference and restore some faith in politics. However in this interview he comes accross as way out of his depth. You asked some very good and challenging questions about protecting those wanting to give evidence, but too many times I heard "I hope", "I wish" or "I believe" which mean didly squat in the real world. I have little faith he can deliver on his dreams to keep those engaged toially safe.
ReplyDeleteThis is all very interesting but I'm not sure that I understand what it is all about.
ReplyDeleteThis is nothing new so far as the whole "abuse" issue is concerned. I did not give evidence to the Care Inquiry although I attended many hearings. I had no idea that the Report would embrace so many matters and was amazed that the "Jersey Way" would feature so prominently and critically. Now this Scrutiny Review looks like it could be carrying on with that examination - and I hope it is so - but I doubt if it will be resourced to undertake such a task although the Care Inquiry has already prepared the ground.
I feel sure that I will miss the boat again because to submit evidence requires doing one's own research and time consuming preparation and I simply do not have that.
Take for example the instance of the Election Expenses scandal. Half of the elected government should have resigned, faced a criminal court trial and stood for re-election if they wanted to be in government. Yet the Crown Officers decided that it was not in the public interest and did not want the elected representatives to gain criminal convictions - although that was precisely what the recently amended Election law demanded.
It was like so much that was wrong with the treatment of abused children, their abusers and those who became involved in their "cases".
Deputy Ward would probably have been required to stand down etc because his whole Reform Party made defective returns - but the behaviour of the "system" in this example is indicative of the failures that were exposed by the Care Inquiry and run throughout the Jersey system. This is the same "Jersey Way" still in operation as though nothing has happened over the past few years.
What can I do? I cannot attempt to do this Review Panel's job for it - but I know that those who make up the Review panel simply will not be able to look at themselves critically enough - and never mind all the other weeping sores that need to be exposed and reformed.
Unfortunately, I do not know what is the status of the Independent Care Panel now. I know that they are to publish their own report soon - and I have made a small participation in their recent activity - but it would be better if they reported before this Review Panel's closing date for submissions. And I wonder too for how long can the Care panel be invited back to investigate and advise the Jersey system which now has a Children's Commissioner, Children's Minister, Children's Rights Officer, a Children's Director General and Charlie Parker besides the Number 1 priority of the government for children's welfare and the "Pledge" obligation on Members and other as "Corporate Parent".....as the interview explains the task is so great and the defects in the system run so wide and so deep that there is no way that an individual can prepare a meaningful submission.
Frankly I doubt that the Review Panel can do so either unless it curtails the examination and imposes a strict adherence to a self imposed TOR.
I wish the Panel well but it seems to me that the whole "Jersey Way" issue needs to be subjected to a very substantial "Clothier" style examination. Maybe this is the justification for the Westminster cavalry to be called in but with a Chief Minister who is so clearly a defender of the traditional systems I am not at all hopeful that anything useful or progressive will arise from this.
Tom Gruchy.
DeleteYou make a number of good points and in particular:
"the whole "Jersey Way" issue needs to be subjected to a very substantial "Clothier" style examination."
We all have our own version of what "The Jersey Way"stands for and it is something that needs to be scrutinised and eradicated.
You rightly make the point that half our elected officials are (potential) criminals and the AG giving them a get out of jail free card (The Jersey Way) makes them all complicit in "The Jersey Way."
An outside independent body, perhaps a Royal Commission, should look into it or some kind of a Public Inquiry?
TOR's: What is "The Jersey Way" and how can we eradicate it?
Absolutely sickening to think that Mr Ward (nothing against him for the record) and his party colleagues can all sit in the States, while both Pitmans, far better politicians in my view, cannot. And all thanks to our corrupt judiciary. Don't you just have to agree?
Delete"half our elected officials are (potential) criminals and the AG giving them a get out of jail free card (The Jersey Way) makes them all complicit in "The Jersey Way."
ReplyDeleteAnybody could say that about any Government in the World.
No they couldn’t. Not “every government in the world” has the conflict our Attorney General has in advising the government and Scrutiny as well as being the sole prosecutor on the Island. Deciding who gets prosecuted and who doesn’t without being accountable for his actions/in-actions.
DeleteThe integrity of the AG and his officers is another debate. But you are saying half our elected officials are (potential) criminals. Well they either are or they are not aren't they?
DeleteThere’s the crux of the matter. Yes they have committed a crime but the AG didn’t prosecute them (The Jersey Way). Are you a criminal if you commit a crime and a conflicted AG turns a blind eye to that crime? What do you think? Are they criminals?
DeleteThat’s why I said they were “potential” criminals and not “criminals.” They committed a crime, that in itself is a criminal act, I’m sure you would agree? The fact that the AG turned a blind eye to it (The Jersey Way) doesn’t mean they didn’t commit that crime.
DeleteYou are the one who brought in the word “guilty.” Not me. I never said they were guilty or innocent. I merely pointed out that they committed a crime and “The Jersey Way” made sure they weren’t made to answer for it. They are “potential” criminals no matter how you want to dress it up.
Will you be giving evidence to the Scrutiny Review?
It is even worse. The Crown officers did prosecute 2 elected States Members and one failed candidate as the law demanded - but when Nick le Cornu and I researched the matter to reveal the full extent of the failure those prosecutions were dropped and the rest of those elected or otherwise who had broken the law were excused. It is noticeable that not one elected States Member has pursued the matter further and have kept their collective heads well down below the parapet. So much for their integrity and the Bailiff - the so called "Defender of the Constitution" declined to take any action either. Of course the "media" was very quick to dismiss this sordid episode as a "storm in a tea cup and urged that we move on etc. But that is how the Jersey Way has been operating with the full participation of the JEP etc for decades and let us not overlook that if the Independent Care Inquiry had not undertaken its task and produced its Report - NOBODY within this Island would have done it - just as Alan Collins (a UK lawyer) is the sole legal adviser who has been consistently fighting for the abused throughout. No Jersey lawyer has done that. And finally, let us not forget that the 2 Election Returns Deputies who were prosecuted and had their charges dropped spent £thousands in legal costs to defend themselves. Using court costs without a conviction to "punish" is just another aspect of the Jersey Way and there are many instances of others who have experienced similar treatment.
ReplyDelete@TG: "No Jersey lawyer has done that."
DeleteI think you do something of a disservice to Advocate Philip Sinel.
In addition to doing a good deal of pro bono work on behalf of Jerseys child abuse survivors he has been exceedingly courageous and to the point in his assessment of the "Jersey situation"
For example consider just these few paragraphs from one of his witness statements to the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry:
..........
"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."
Advocate Sinel's first statement to the Care Inquiry can be read HERE.
DeleteVFC, do we know which group is going to report first? This scrutiny panel, or the 3 former members of the defucnt public inquiry?
ReplyDeleteNot at this moment in time.
DeleteI expect the scrutiny panel to report first. If the three former members of the inquiry have any sense at all they'll want to wait to see what evidence and testimony appears to the scrutiny panel, so they can address it in their next output. I'm reliably informed on the grapevine they're going to be less than thrilled with some of that material.
DeleteI have stood my ground for fair reason but the powers that be reach far beyond what I expected,
ReplyDeleteWould I stand again! Never sadly I withdrew a lot from the care inquiry that was because of fear,
It extended to my not wishing to accept compensation I thought I could cope but I failed and yes any amount of compensation would of made a huge difference to my situation, sadly dates are set door closed,
Will things change I don’t think so the government failed so many children if you have the strength and knowledge of the system I still think it will remain stagnant.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteQuoted above: -
ReplyDelete"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."
I understand exactly his concerns. I'm preparing several specific documents at the moment - and I fully expect attempts on my life as a consequence.
I'm taking the obvious precautions - re multiple-jurisdiction - and multi-agency - notification and back-up.
Hey, Jersey, you spend £24 million on a "public-inquiry" - which excludes key witnesses - and then removes from publication the archive of expensive evidence; is that: -
a) a good outcome,
b) a shit outcome?
The Government You Deserve.
Stuart Syvret
Investigative journalist, historian, international anti-mafia activist.
Stuart Syvret - Great to hear but please include evidential proof with your claims because anything less is not sufficient and you will only be asked for it if matters were to progress.
DeleteI cannot see why anybody would want to kill you for giving truthful independently verifiable evidence, in fact this is exactly what many have been asking of you for sometime.
All well and good Stuart but you have said this many times before.
DeleteNo, not 'what many' have been asking him for. That's what trolls have been asking him for.
DeleteIt's purposes as a strategy is to attempt to mislead the public in to thinking Stuart has never produced evidence.
As the facts and history records, Stuart provided masses of evidence to the States when he was a member (they blocked its publication), he provided masses of evidence to the Police (the Police where then illegally hi-jacked), he provided 10,1000s of pages of hard evidence to courts in the various political show trials against him. Some of that evidence was so damning and embarrassing for TPTB that they suddenly banned his entire defence case 3 months into the proceedings. They imprisoned him again, after Britain's first ever secret trial, and told him he'll be imprisoned again if he ever says or reveals anything.
That latter reason is why he needed legal representation in order to engage with the Care Inquiry. They refused, so he couldn't take part.
And as we now know from that recent legal opinion, he should have been given legal representation so his evidence could have been taken & heard. So he was right again.
That is a brief recount of the actual known, evidenced, historic, recorded facts. Facts that anyone curious can research for themselves. Facts known and recorded by all of us who have followed the Jersey situation over the years.
So let's have no more of these lies from trolls on here. Repeating lies over and over and over again is page 1 from the trolling playbook. Such crap shouldn't be given space here.
"It's purposes as a strategy is to attempt to mislead the public in to thinking Stuart has never produced evidence."
DeleteTrue though, sorry to go against the grain but he never offered up evidence to the CoI.
According to legal opinion it is not Stuart to blame for not giving evidence to the COI. The blame lies fairly and squarely at the door of the States of Jersey.
DeleteRead below and interpret “court orders” as “Super-Injunction.”
Legal opinion:
“The Care Inquiry report noted his refusal to assist the inquiry as regrettable. But Syvret himself told the Jersey Evening Post that he wanted to give evidence, but did not because he was not granted legal representation, something he felt he needed to prevent the breach of any of the court orders that were in place against him.
If the States of Jersey truly wanted to draw a line and turn a new leaf, which is what this inquiry sought to do, then legal representation should have been granted to Stuart Syvret. That would have served one of the strongest possible indications yet that the government wants to move forward into an era of transparency and honesty whilst at the same time demonstrating an element of humility, which has been so lacking in the eyes of the victims.”
From HERE.
That piece of work about the Jersey Way was indeed excellent, but I feel that if the Review Panel try and break TJW down, particularly in respect of the Child Abuse issues the would need to have attended the Inquiry itself and heard the evidence given in full, or read the report in its entirety to get anywhere near the issues that were heard relating to this. Hearing evidence first hand is very powerful as opposed to just reading snippets. TJW featured very strongly, but how do you break it down and pinpoint what it means?? With difficulty I'm afraid, and this is one reason why I will not make a submission because I don't think it will make a jot of difference. It still looms large - not so many weeks ago a high(ish) profile person was accused of sexual misdemeanors, proof was available, and police officers were involved as well as one other in a highly conflicted relationship. The alleged perpetrator was a Freemason, suddenly removed of his 'apron'. Our not so esteemed Home Affairs Minister told the States when asked a perfectly straightforward question that the questioner was a conspiracy theorist!!!!!!!!!!!! Furthermore he has refused to answer any more questions on the matter to the media or anybody. What better example of TJW than this. It looms large and will be evident whenever there is something to be covered up or hidden. In a nutshell folks - it stinks and the smell will never go away.
DeleteJill.
DeletePretty much for the reasons you have given (and others) I have decided not to offer a written submission also. Should the Panel wish to hear oral evidence from me then I would oblige.
The following quoted from above is a most useful example for external observers of how the Jersey way and its spin doctors manipulate. (Also worth noting the base incompetence.),
Delete'True though, sorry to go against the grain but he never offered up evidence to the CoI.'
The comment refers to the key whistleblower and public office holder from in the Jersey polity, the then Health & Social Services Minister Stuart Syvret.
The propaganda and spin against Syvret has always been from the beginning, that he must have been just 'making it all up. If not, he'd would have produced evidence'. As admirably explained above at 15.00, the claim Syvret 'never produced evidence' is simply untrue on its face and on the facts & recorded history of events, so that matter need not detain us.
But the critical comment says,
'True though, sorry to go against the grain but he never offered up evidence to the CoI.'
That assertion is a lie. He did 'offer' evidence to the CoI. What Syvret did in fact do was pro-actively and of his own initiative, write to the CoI when it first started, introduce himself, explain his role in events, his experiences, state the central importance of the testimony and evidence he could supply, and, most noticeably, that he was a willing witness who wanted to co-operate and to give evidence to the CoI.
What did the CoI do?
It ignored and failed to adhere to its legislative purpose, failed to adhere to its legislative instruction, and instead of undertaking Part e of the decision of the legislature, did the opposite, and introduced a range of ex cathedra 'protocols', of its own invention, many of which were incompatible with Human Rights, and of opposite effect to the proper purpose of the inquiry.
The CoI refused to comply with the law and make available to Syvret unconditional legal representation. So the CoI constructively excluded Syvret from being a witness to the CoI.
As well as being an unlawful breach of his Human Rights, this was also an abuse of the Human Rights of the child-abuse survivors and whistle-blowers who were thus denied the benefit of Syvret's testimony.
So if Syvret did not supply evidence to the CoI, that was the fault of the CoI, not of Syvret. He was willing to supply such evidence. He offered to. The CoI didn't want to receive evidence from him.
It's interesting to recall that the nonsense decision the CoI made to deny Syvret's Human Rights, they then tried to camouflage on their web site by burying it, and only starting the dated list of formal decisions one day later, so it didn't show up.
There are words to describe such conduct.
My colleagues who practice in criminal law are very familiar with such words.
Anonymous @ 15:00
ReplyDelete+1
Does anyone know how, or even if, I can search through the Independent Care Inquiry hearings and recorded statements to look for something?
ReplyDeleteI believe not. The Establishment had the lot taken offline. There are many people who have a copy of it all should you wish to pose a question on here I'm sure a reader could research it for you.
DeleteGood luck with that.
Delete£24 million - for the first "public-inquiry" in history - to depublish the published archive of a "public-inquiry".
However - thanks to international anti-mafia activists - the previously published but now depublished archive of hearings and recorded statements are safely - and forever more - archived in a number of locations and formats around the globe.
Hey - I'd like to help someone who still refers to it as "Care Inquiry" - I really would, you know - but some people are so stupid ain't nothing can be done for them - and - er - there's the small matter I'd get arrested and imprisoned again if I were to assist anyone in establishing contact with international archive holders.
But I can offer this simple and very good advice. Contact Children's Minister Senator Sam Mezec, and simply tell him to order the re-publication of the un-edited, un-redacted archive.
Simple as.
There you go!
Sorted.
He could do that with a one paragraph e-mail.
And of course he'd do that, good old 'man-of-the-people' Sam.
You'd almost never know he used to work for Stephen Baker.
Stuart Syvret
Investigative journalist, historian, international anti-mafia activist
The archives are being reviewed because of Data Protection Law Stuart.
Delete"..... Children's Minister Senator Sam Mezec, ..... good old 'man-of-the-people' Sam.
DeleteYou'd almost never know he used to work for Stephen Baker. "
Wow, just wow.
The Beano is not the Rag
He worked with Stephen Baker. So what, big deal, I know Stephen Baker well.
DeleteAdvocate Stephen Baker as is a matter of public record, in many ways the key link between Jersey's Law Officers Department, and the City of London legal chambers of 7 Bedford Row, where he remains a 'Door Tenant'.
DeleteThe Chambers of 7 Bedford Row, and Stephen Baker himself were employed by his friend the Jersey Attorney General (William Bailhache) (sole prosecution authority on Jersey) to be "prosecuting" lawyers in the Jersey child-abuse scandal.
As was since made clear in formal statements by the former Police Chief Graham Power, and especially statements by the former Deputy Police Chief Lenny Harper, Stephen Baker & colleagues at 7 Bedford Row were repeatedly obstructive to the Police Force, and obstructive to the Police decisions to charge & prosecute certain child-abusers.
Amongst those child-abusers Baker/7 Bedford Row shielded from prosecution was the psychopathic, multi-victim, child raper and child torturer "Mr K".
In spite of multi-victims, and very substantial similar fact evidence, "Mr.K" remains at liberty, hi-profile, walking around on Jersey, free, to this day.
….….CONTINUED…….
….…CONTINUED FROM ABOVE……
DeleteStephen Baker was then, more latterly also employed by his friend (and Mr.K's friend) then Attorney General William Bailhache, to prosecute Stuart Syvret for whistle-blowing.
The malfeasance of that 'prosection' (and trial) is remarkable, and extensively evidenced and archived, and is, inevitably, being dealt with. It is too extensive to go into fully here.
However, this is some of the damning evidence.
CITED EVIDENCE:
1: Excerpts from E-mailed questions to the NMC, from Stuart Syvret, written on 20th October 2010:
[Relevant replies from Peter Pinto de Sa of the NMC, written on 22nd October 2010, below.]
Questions from Stuart Syvret (October 2010):
1: Why has the NMC been corresponding with, and allowing itself to be influenced by, Jersey’s wholly conflicted Law Officers’ department in respect of the case?
4: Why have I been misled by the NMC in respect of the Data Protection and Freedom of Information requests I have made – in that evidence of direct relevance to my complaints – and evidence in respect of the contacts between the NMC and the Jersey authorities and/or their agents – has been improperly hidden from me?
Answers from the NMC (October 2010):
“1: You state that the NMC has been influenced by the Jersey law officers. I am not aware of any evidence to support this assertion. Please provide further details.”
“4: You assert that you have been misled in respect of your request for information under DPA/FoI. You assert that the NMC has had dealings with the Jersey authorities in respect of this case. I am not aware of any evidence to support your statement. Please provide further details.”
That exchange – which took place in October 2010 – must now be compared and contrasted with the following letter – only disclosed by the NMC to Stuart Syvret on the 7th November 2012: –
2: Letter to the NMC, dated 28th May 2010 – from Jersey Crown prosecution Advocate Stephen Baker:
Note that this letter – from the Jersey Law Officers’ prosecutor, Advocate Stephen Baker – was written to the NMC on the 28th May 2010 – five months before the NMC were categorically denying to Stuart Syvret the existence of any such correspondence:
“BAKERPLATT
Professor Weir-Hughes
Nursing and Midwifery Council
23 Portland Place
London
WIB 1PZ
Sent by e-mail and post
28 May 2010
Dear Professor Weir-Hughes
I am the Crown Advocate who is retained by the Attorney General of Jersey to prosecute a number of allegations against Stuart Syvret, who is a local politician in Jersey. The case against Mr Syvret concerns two alleged offences committed by him contrary to the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005. In brief outline they arise from a particular posting he made upon his internet blog in March 2009 and what he said in that about [REDACTED] The trial of these matters is due to commence on 29th June 2010. [VERY SUBSTANTIAL REDACTIONS] concerning a letter that you received from Mr Syvret, which set out a number of concerns [VERY SUBSTANTIAL REDACTIONS] will not be completed before Mr Syvret’s trial in June.
“[VERY SUBSTANTIAL REDACTIONS] As part of my duty as Crown Advocate I am required to make disclosure to Mr Syvret of any matters which may be relevant to his defence. [REMAINDER REDACTED.]”
The above-cited letter proves – when contrasted with the answers from the NMC, as cited above – that the NMC were acting in bad faith – and lying to Stuart Syvret – when that public authority wrote to him in October 2010, and falsely claimed that there had been no intercession with the NMC by Jersey prosecutors.
.......CONTINUED...…
….…CONTINUED FROM ABOVE……
DeleteHowever – in addition to the evidenced lying by the NMC – it is also evidenced that Jersey prosecutors were lying in respect of the same issue – as the following item of evidence shows:
3: Extract from the official court transcript of the 3rd November 2010, of the data protection prosecution against Stuart Syvret:
The evidenced fact of the letter – cited above – from Jersey prosecuting lawyer, Crown Advocate Stephen Baker - written to the NMC in May 2010 – must now be compared and contrasted with the words of Advocate Stephen Baker in an excerpt from the official court transcript from the 3rd November (some 6 months later) 2010, of the data protection prosecution against Stuart Syvret:
“DEFENDANT (Stuart Syvret, speaking, self-representing and cross-examining a witness): Well, on the basis of what this witness has told to me, I’m assuming then that the intercession that has taken place with the NMC has not come from the States of Jersey Police force and that it has come from the Prosecution?
CROWN ADVOCATE: There’s been no intercession by the Prosecution with the NMC.”
That Crown Advocate is, in fact, Advocate Stephen Baker – the man who did, in fact, - contrary to his words in court - write the intercession letter to the NMC. Six months earlier.
I also remember being at 2 of Stuart's court cases, one in the Magistrates Court the other in the Royal Court. Although I can't remember what the court cases were about I do remember in the Magistrates Court Stuart applied for the interim defence case of Graham Power to the Wilts constabulary, to be admitted into evidence. Crown Prosecutor, Stephen Baker, told the court that he had read Mr. Power's interim defence case and it wasn't relevant to Stuart's case. The Magistrate accepted Advocate Baker's testimony and Stuart wasn't able to rely on Mr. Power's (94 page) document. Which of course wasn't in the public domain then but is NOW.
DeleteFast forward a couple of weeks later and Stuart was before the Royal Court, again I can't remember what for, (although no doubt another trumped up charge), and Stephen Baker was the Crown Prosecutor. Stephen Baker told the court that he "HADN'T" read Graham Power's document (94 page) document. I could be mistaken in my memory and perhaps Stuart could clarify if so?
Perhaps Jon might be able to help here. No doubt, as an ordinary concerned citizen with no establishment connections whatsoever, he assiduously monitored the grinding wheels of justice on the island and attended all of these cases (except, of course, the secret one unless he got a pass anonymously in the post).
DeletePerhaps his memory is better than yours. In any event he could check with Stella if in doubt.
To see, or not to see, that is the question?
DeleteThis second sight thing, is it a particular Jersey gene? Three people in such a small population is surely significant.
"......Crown Prosecutor, Stephen Baker, told the court that he had read Mr. Power's interim defence case and it wasn't relevant to Stuart's case. The Magistrate accepted Advocate Baker's testimony and Stuart wasn't able to rely on Mr. Power's (94 page) document."
ReplyDeleteAnd....
".....Fast forward a couple of weeks later and Stuart was before the Royal Court, again I can't remember what for, (although no doubt another trumped up charge), and Stephen Baker was the Crown Prosecutor. Stephen Baker told the court that he "HADN'T" read Graham Power's document (94 page) document."
Yes. That's correct.
And the two cases referred to in comments above - lying about "not" contacting the NMC - and lying about "having read" Graham Power's interim statement - are merely two examples. Advocate Stephen Baker repeatedly lied throughout all the proceedings.
At least as significantly - he, the prosecution - and certain parties - failed to disclose a deep range of evidence to the defence.
Stuart Syvret
Investigative Journalist, historian, international anti-mafia activist.
Thank you Stuart and VFC for refreshing my memory as I have been racking my brains all day to remember when Advocate Baker blatantly lied to the Magistrates Court. It all comes back now in all its gory glory.
DeletePolo, you can rest assured that Jon has not been seen at any of these proceedings either with or without Stella!
Oh what tangled webs we need to 'unweave'.
Jill, I thought as much but I was only trying to flush him out. He has been so quiet of late I wondered if he was still in the land of the living. I wish him well in the sense that I hope he survives long enough to get his just desserts. Train coming down the track and all that. :)
DeletePresumably this was the reason your defence case was thrown out? As the various correspondence would have been irrefutable evidence of blatant lies by the crown advocate. How the hell do these people get away with this and WHEN will the UK step in and sort it out.
DeleteAs a regular interested reader and occasional commenter here, the detailed main articles and subsequent debates in the commentary have always had the robust 'feel' of truth and accuracy. Arguments presented have had consistent logic, and intellectual rigor. Evidential documentation and sources have always been reliable. It's a rare thing therefore for me to to do a double-take when reading VFC.
ReplyDeleteI have had to do just that when reading the comments above concerning correspondence between your prosecution service and the NMC, and subsequent further falsehood uttered to the Court by Prosecuting Council. After picking my jaw up off the floor, the clear & remarkable 'course-of-conduct' demonstrated by that evidence I could not interpret in any way other than as fulfilling the components and test for the offence of conspiracy to pervert justice.
Equally astonishing is the example of Prosecuting Council stating on one occasion to the Court that he had read a key document claimed by the defence to be of evidential value to the defence, but which Prosecution wished not to disclose, so Prosecution were claiming non-relevance as the ground for non-disclosure.
On a later occasion the same Prosecuting Council admitting to that Court that he had not in fact read the document in question. This in spite of the fact he had previously asserted to a lower Court that he had read the document, and could thus assure the Court nothing in it would be of relevance or assistance to the defence case.
These revelations are so stunning I'm almost at a loss for words.
I won't labour the points. But I am duty bound to explain to the largely non-legal readership of this site, that if these revelations were concerning a prosecution and conviction here in England, the conviction would be deemed unsafe and immediately quashed, quin contra. Simple cases of accidental non-disclosure of one item automatically attract dismissal of the prosecution, or in the case of a conviction, quashing. Full disclosure is the bedrock of the criminal justice system.
I wonder how many of Jersey's legal profession are aware of the evidence published above? In the expectation that a few of them are, and that more will now become so aware, they perhaps may wish to contemplate the reputation of the Jersey justice system?
The quasing of the conviction in this case would undoubtedly be a crushing humiliation for the Jersey 'establishment', it would be 'politically' problematic for your local powerbrokers, and unavoidably see the premature end of 2 or 3 careers. Generally speaking, all the foregoing will seem pretty uninviting and unpalatable to the island's 'establishment'.
In that light, I invite your legal profession to contemplate instead some of the other possible, perhaps likely, ways in which this clear miscarriage of justice becomes resolved, as it certainly will. A mere humiliating metaphorical slap in the face for your establishment and the disgrace of 1 or 2 of your local grandees might begin to seem a very attractive means of resolution, compared to some of the other possible outcomes.
Is anyone awake?
New readers may be wondering what this business was with the NMC (Nursing and Midwifery Council) and why Jersey's Law Offices should have become so concerned with "guiding" the UK's NMC.
ReplyDeleteThe backstory to the "conspiracy to pervert justice" outlines above was at least partially the need to cover up a previous "conspiracy to pervert justice" …..the cover up of a suspected serial killer and sexual predator operating from Jersey's General Hospital.
The investigation into ex-military "Nurse M" was stopped by the Law Offices (presumably to "protect the island's reputation !!!). To justify the decision not to prosecute Nurse M it was highly beneficial to guide the NMC to allow Nurse M to continue to practice and thus "proving" that the Health Minister's concerns about the suspicious deaths of patients were without foundation.
Nurse M was able to continue working and continue to have access to vulnerable patients, though only in the private sector because "Nurse M" was dismissed from his States employment.
Question to the Jersey establishment:
ReplyDelete'Hey, if you can hear me all the way down there, would you like an even bigger shovel?'
New Post?
ReplyDeleteSee old Dooley Power gets a mention in this JSPCA fraud case referred to the Royal Court.
ReplyDeleteWhere is he these days?
https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/watch-alleged-jspca-fraud-400k/#.XVwrpOhKjIU
Link to ARTICLE. Sean Dooley Power (or whatever his real name is) has gone very quiet since he was seen (on CCTV) coming out of the JSPCA buildings at stupid o'clock in the morning with (if memory serves correct) cases/suitcases).
DeleteIf his past record is anything to go by there could have been bundles of stolen e-mails in the cases. (if that's what they were)
Sean Dooley Power (or whatever his real name is) was also implicated in this alleged SCAM.
DeleteOr "disgraced" former HOUSING MINISTER Sean Dooley Power. (or whatever his real name is)
DeleteFascinating trial coming up in October then.
DeleteYeah that Dooley did a vanishing trick a few months back, FB a/c gone, everything.
The Irish have a term - "gombeen man" - which describes Sean Dooley-Power (or whatever his real name is) perfectly.
DeleteBut everyone with any sense - and various external agencies which have followed The-Jersey-Situation - have long known Sean Dooley-Power for what he is. Frankly, that much is so clear and understood, there's little point in being diverted by it.
The much - much - more fascinating issue - is that the cretin about to become Jersey's "bailiff" - that's the London appointed head of both the "legislature" and the "judiciary" on Jersey - "Dim" Tim Le Cocq - refused to prosecute Sean Dooley-Power (or whatever his real name is) for data protection law offences which included the plainly evidenced straight-forward theft of private date, trafficking that data, and conspiracy with others to publish that data.
When Dim Tim Le Cocq became Jersey Attorney General (sole prosecuting authority) he continued to carry-on and maintain a range of multiple corrupt cover-ups initiated by his predecessor William Bailhache. As well as covering-up the data protection law crimes of Sean Dooley-Power (or whatever his real name is) Le Cocq was - at all relevant times - instrumental in initiating, and maintaining the illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power.
This conduct included Le Cocq remaining silent during the emergency Jersey "legislature" session - and knowingly and deliberately conspiring in the legislature being lied to by then Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis.
Lewis repeatedly lied to the legislature - repeatedly falsely asserting the suspension of the Police Chief was an "emergency", the need for which only arose a day or so before. In fact - as we now know - the illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power had been discussed and planned for weeks and weeks beforehand - and that then Solicitor General Tim Le Cocq had been advising Andrew Lewis throughout that time.
Andrew Lewis lied to the legislature. His co-conspirators such as then Solicitor General Tim Le Cocq failed to alert the legislature to the lies of Lewis. One of the few useful products of the make-believe "public-inquiry" was evidence for the extensive pre-planning of the illegal suspension of the Police Chief. Which will be one of the core reasons why the evidence has now been de-published. Well, hey-ho, international civil-society has all that evidence recorded.
And - of course - no-one is forgetting Tim Le Cocq's origination from The Ogier Group - same "law-firm" which produced and placed people like Michael Birt - and Julian Clyde-Smith, and others - into what passes for a "judicial" apparatus on Jersey: -
http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-ogier-group/
We have various evidential documents from that time.
The most fascinating thing about Sean Dooley-Power (or whatever his real name is) is that the person about to become the London appointed chief "judge" on Jersey, and unelected head of the Jersey judiciary - was so allied to Sean Dolley-Power (or whatever his real name is) - so determined to not prosecute, and instead cover-up for & shield him.
"Dim" Tim Le Cocq is presently Jersey's deputy chief "judge", and will shortly become the chief "judge" of the British tax-haven - as well as being the unelected, London appointed head of the Jersey "legislature".
Pretty fitting and unsurprising that Jersey's "judiciary" should shield, and keep such company as Sean Dooley-Power (or whatever his real name is) as allies.
Well - hey - it's all archived - shared - recognised for what it is - by different observers around the planet.
Only a question of time till the comet strikes.
Stuart Syvret,
Investigative journalist, historian, international anti-mafia activist.
Thank you Sturat. Its helpfull to be reminded about how it all fits together and yet still goes on. It's not a past thing that happened in 2008/2009. It will go on till that comet strikes.
DeleteWhat's happened, barely any comments on any of the blogs at the moment????
ReplyDeleteBog all to do with this particulat post (what a nice but sadly slightly boring, quite out of his depth chap the chairman seems?) All I wanted to say was that I don't always side click on your featured post when I come on here. Today glad I did. The new comment about Shona Pitman is something I totally agree with. She is a really big loss to the States. Her treatment on BBC radio Jersey was quite appalling and with an obvious hidden agenda at play.
ReplyDeleteWhy so few comments, where is everybody?
ReplyDeleteIt's that time of year when most people are on holiday? Just a guess.
DeleteTrevor Pitman's new blog has another post up. Its about Jersey and is a cracking good read. The sort of history I was never taught at school. Apparently a second part of more modern facts will be up at the weekend.
ReplyDeleteWell worth a read HERE.
DeleteNew Blog Posting from former Deputy Trevor Pitman HERE.
ReplyDeleteNeed a new post, comments have dried.
ReplyDeleteJust put up all the comments unfit for publication from The P/Artist Formerly Known As Sharrock. That should give people a few hundred more to read while you write a new post?
DeleteSo it is just entertainment that "they" want? Why not publish Occupation recipes or something similar - there are people it seems who want to do nothing to actually change things - except read about dissent and make occasional jibes or jokes. What is their purpose?
ReplyDeleteIndependent Jersey Care Inquiry 2nd Report IMMINENT.
ReplyDelete