What To Look Out For In The Abuse Inquiry Report.

Former Deputy Daniel Wimberley.

In little more than twenty four hours the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry will (should) be publishing its long-awaited report. (3:pm Monday July 3rd 2017)

Ahead of its publication former Jersey politician, and Anti Child Abuse Campaigner, Daniel Wimberley has put together a number of crucial questions which need to be addressed and "what to look out for" in the report.

Submission (to VFC) of Daniel Wimberley.

Hillsborough is in the News right now – it took 28 years and a series of inquiries before the truth finally was uncovered, and prosecutions brought. I am sure we all want to believe that the Abuse Inquiry here in Jersey gets it “right first time”. But will it? 

I have my doubts, and we need to be ready, as a team, to go through this report at speed and test it to see if it is reliable. The media will want comment and we should be ready to respond with reasoned views, whichever way they go, as soon as we are able.

So, in this post I list some standout moments, moments which encapsulate key issues for the panel. These startling admissions or contradictions in the evidence must have registered with the Panel.

To do a quick audit of the Report we can focus on how the Panel deals with these key moments. We can see if they have been paying attention and if their conclusions are likely to be well-founded.

And if they have ignored, or missed these moments, then it is likely that the Report and its conclusions, in the relevant areas, will not be of much use, and a sad waste of money.

Let us hope that they have done the job properly, it is all we can hope for.

Please add your own standout moments in comments, additions to lists of examples etc.. 

If you want to help with the team readathon, let Voice know. We assume the Report will be searchable so it should be possible to type in a string of words and find them. If there are hard copies available, we assume they will have a comprehensive index. 

So, here goes . . . 

Former DCO/SIO Lenny Harper.

STARTING AT THE TOP . . . 

The relationship between Senior Investigating Officer Lenny Harper (LH), and Attorney General (AG), William Bailhache (WB) 

Question 1: 

Is Paragraph 36 of LH’s First witness statement referred to at all in the Inquiry report? If it is, how is it treated?

NOTES 

At stake here is the credibility of on the one hand the Senior Investigating Officer, and on the other the prosecuting authority.

Here is para. 36: 

“I cannot recall any occasions where the Attorney General did agree to charge employees of the SOJP in relation to malpractice/corruption. Even where we had caught members of the IT department fraudulently buying computers and recording equipment for their own use at home, use which included taking topless photos of their wives, the Attorney General refused to take action. There was even one occasion where we had CCTV evidence of a particular Special Branch Officer indulging in sexual activity in the Special Branch office with a foreign national, and then letting her look at confidential papers on terrorism, and yet no charges were brought.”

The whole issue of LH’s mistrust of the AG is in this paragraph. Why were some at least of these cases not prosecuted? 

I have searched on WB’s witness statement and the transcript of his hearing for the words “equipment” “recording” Special” Branch” and “CCTV” and there were no results. 

NB The Boschat affair was covered by the Inquiry from both sides. The letter of advice for the then SG Stephanie Nicolle is reproduced as an Exhibit of WB’s witness statement. 

The gist of her letter is that the goings-on between the police officers involved, especially Sean Osmand, and Boschat himself appear to be not right, but that there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Her letter is in WB’s exhibits. (It is 95% not there, replaced by a series of solid black squares.) 

It could be that the Panel were able to read other background about the matters in paragraph 36. Then we will see if that is so from their report.

Former AG/current Bailiff William Bailhache

Continuing with WB 

Question 2: 

(again, what is at stake is his credibility) Does the Inquiry report consider the discrepancies in the 2 extracts below, is the Report’s analysis thorough and convincing, and what conclusion does it come to?

Extract 1 

The AG’s letter (not sure to whom) says: "He (witness K”) received consistently good reports from those responsible for monitoring and evaluating his performance." 

When “MR. K.” is questioned about this by Inquiry Counsel Patrick Saad, Mr. K. says the reports, and, monitoring, didn’t exist. More precisely, there were no WRITTEN reports, only verbal ones. But the words of the AG William Bailhache suggest written formal reports. 

Extract 2 

William Bailhache’s June 2009 public statement says about allegations of cigarette burns: ..… but there is no physical sign of any injury” 

But from Jason Payne-James registered medical practitioner, and specialist in forensic and legal medicine’ we get this: "On examination of his back there were numerous pale mature scars generally less than ... in size down to about [so much] in size. They extended across [an area of the back], they were in no fixed pattern and of no particular shape. They represent areas of skin that have sustained damage of an extent enough to result in residual scars. Causes could include cigarette burns” From his report for the redress scheme, written June 2014

Former Home Affairs Minister/current Deputy

Andrew POWERGATE Lewis.

Andrew Lewis (AL) and connected issues 

Question 3: 

Does the Inquiry report say AL lied to the inquiry panel on oath? Or that he lied to the States? If not, how do they come to that conclusion, and is their reasoning credible? 

If they conclude that he did lie, and if they suggest a prosecution or similar process of some kind, do they address the conflict of interest which will then arise between the AG’s role as lawyer for the government (and therefore, of Ministers) and the AG’s role as public prosecutor?

NOTES 

On December 2 2008 AL made a statement to the States announcing the suspension of Chief of Police (COP) Graham Power (GP). During the questions and answers which followed the statement he said the following words: 

“I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision (to suspend GP) in the first place.” ………………………

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

But in the report by Brian Napier QC (para. 101) we read: 

"As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it. The reason given was the nature of the information that was contained therein. It was, said Mr Ogley, a police document and it was inappropriate that he (or anyone else) should have access to it. Mr Ogley says that he was told both by the Attorney General and Mr Warcup that he should not look at the interim report and neither he nor Mr Lewis did so." (My emphasis) 

Conflicts of interest 

Question 4:

Including the Lewis case, does the Report address the conflict of interest between the AG’s role in Jersey as lawyer for the government (and therefore, of Ministers) and the AG’s role as public prosecutor? What steps do they suggest to deal with this, and are they adequate?

Sir Philip Bailhache 

Question 5: 

Does the Inquiry report say anything at all about the words spoken by the Bailiff (Sir Philip Bailhache) to AL, telling him in effect to stop speaking about the Met Interim Report. in the extract below? (For those who have not considered these words before, I suggest you take a close look, and reflect on their significance.) 

These words were spoken in the in camera Q&A with Home Affairs Minister Lewis, about why he has just suspended the Chief of Police Graham Power. 

The Deputy of St. John (Andrew Lewis): 

"I am bringing a Chief Officer to account. I am giving him every opportunity to defend himself. As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all ..."

The Bailiff: 

Minister, do not go down this road, please.

The Deputy of St. John: 

... that the actions that I took were justified and we will await the outcome of the investigation as to whether it was. 

Now why would the Bailiff say such a thing? This is about whether the Panel were inquisitive about what is going on. 

Andrew Lewis not getting any advice sent to him direct

Question 6: 

Does the Inquiry report set out clearly exactly who in the LOD sent what advice to whom and when about the possible suspension of GP, people such as head of Human Resources Ian Crich, and Chief Executive, Bill Ogley? 

Does the Inquiry report consider why Lewis was never (so far as I know) sent legal advice by the Law officers even though he was the Minister for Home Affairs (MHA) and as such the only person who can suspend the Chief of Police? 

Andrew Lewis and how the suspension of GP was approached

Question 7:

Does the Inquiry report consider why Lewis could say things like what is quoted below, from the transcript of Day 136 and what conclusions does it draw?

Ms McGahey, Counsel to the Inquiry, asking about the phone call made by AL to GP on the evening before the suspension meeting on November 12th 2008:

“You didn't tell him, did you, that you were going to consider his suspension?

A. (Andrew Lewis) Why would we want to do that?

Former CEO Bill Ogley.

Chief Executive (CE) Bill Ogley (BO) and how the suspension of GP was approached

Question 8:

Does the Report consider the legal advice which Bill Ogley had received from the Law Officers about suspending Chief of Police Graham Power? Is the way it does this thorough and convincing, and what conclusion does it come to?

NOTES 

Ms McGahey to Bill Ogley: 

Q. ………. But he (the AG) is the principal Law Officer. You have in your hands an email and absolutely it is in parentheses in the context of an email principally about the press statement, that says "Surely you will want to have the full Met report before you suspend". Is that expression of opinion not worthy of being taken very seriously?

…………………………..

Q. Did you know that the Solicitor General had advised that you should ensure that the interim report from the Metropolitan Police didn't have any caveats or qualifications in it before you relied on it as a basis for suspension? 

A. We were not allowed to see the interim report, or be aware fully of its contents. 

Q. And so you didn't know whether it had any qualifications or caveats?

A. No. And I'm not sure that I know of that advice. If you could put it before me I would be interested to see it.

The only person who knew of the caveats was Deputy Chief of Police David Warcup (DW). Bill Ogley here seems to be handing him the responsibility of telling other people about these caveats. How does the Report deal with this?

Bill Ogley, Andrew Lewis, and lying

Question 9:

How does the Inquiry Report deal with what Bill Ogley and Andrew Lewis told the Wiltshire Police investigation (Operation Haven) about the dates of the letters written to GP about his suspension? Does the Inquiry come to the conclusion that they lied (see below), what is its reasoning, and what conclusions do they draw?

NOTE

My notes show that both BO and AL lied to (or “misled”) Wiltshire about the dates in what are effectively sworn statements, but I may be wrong on this. Can someone please confirm this and give references, preferably from Inquiry evidence?

Destruction of evidence.

Question 10:

Does the Inquiry report have a section on this crucial issue, drawing together all they have been told and drawing conclusions? Did they truly inquire about the various instances they were told about?

Former Deputy Trevor Pitman.

NOTE

My impression has been that they are unaware of the importance of this issue and completely lacking in any desire to inquire (Inquiry – the clue is in the title) But I may be wrong. 

Here are five cases which I remember – please commenters, tell about others.

a) Mario Lundy (Director of Education) witness statement paragraph 24 says that a manager who joined . . . . destroyed the day books 

b) Trevor Pitman’s witness statement where he mentioned 4 (if I remember correctly) boxes which were found, handed over to a “senior” person, signed for and then disappeared.

c) Hewlett witness statement or transcript, but no reference, sorry

d) “chaotic filing” at Childrens’ Services no reference, sorry

e) LH witness statement (if I remember correctly) refers to missing records

the skull and the coconut

Question 11:

Does the Inquiry come to a sensible and defensible position on this question? And what was the role of the media and politicians in highlighting this one object, and how does the Inquiry evaluate their motives for doing this?

NOTE

There is only one possible position, is there not? An object with collagen in it cannot be the same object as an object with no collagen. So the piece identified originally as maybe a fragment of a child’s skull, and which when sent away for testing, had collagen is not the same object as the “piece of coconut”. But this involves some awareness of what can and does go on at forensic testing establishments. LH refers to it a statement he makes somewhere, but did he tell the COI? Did they ask?

LH’s handling of the media

Question 12:

Does the Report make a clear distinction between what Harper said and wrote and what a) others like Ben Shenton and Frank Walker said that he said and b) what the media said that he said? Does the Report come to a balanced view about the pros and cons of his media approach?

Judges’ attacks on LH

Question 13:

How does the Report describe and interpret the appearance on front pages of the JEP of judges Montgomery and Pitchers, both with headlines and copy attacking Harper?

Does the Report analyse these attacks and their refutation by LH? Did the Panel fulfil their duty to inquire into how these assertions came to be made within judgements and how these highly controversial assertions came to court and were dealt with in court?

NOTE

There is a huge amount at stake in the answers to these questions. They are linked to the answer to Question 5. Were the Inquiry Panel interested in the possibility of a politicised judiciary? Were they inquisitive about this possibility?

Accusations that LH and GP created a bullying culture in the States of Jersey Police (SoJP)

Question 14:

How does the Inquiry report cover this issue?

Former Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand.

NOTE

The accusation of bullying by LH and GP was a vital part of the “war” waged by in particular Minister for Home Affairs Ian Le Marquand to discredit the top team at the Police.

It is of course a very serious accusation, particularly in a uniformed organisation such as the Police with strict lines of command. LH says this (first witness statement paragraph 23 and second witness statement paragraph 57):

“Quite early on in my career at the SOJP, it was clear that many Jersey politicians did not approve of our efforts to tackle bullying. We were openly criticised in the media by these people and on one

occasion were referred to as the 'politically correct KGB stalking the corridors of police headquarters.”

…………….. 

Mr Gradwell claims that there was a culture of bullying among senior officers within the force, naming myself, Graham Power, Shaun Du Val, and David Minty. He seems to have turned this on its head. I had to take firm action on arrival within the force to stop a minority of officers from bullying, but it had nothing to do with the senior ranks of the force. These matters included assaults, inappropriate behaviour and comments, and even holding a gun to an officer's head, as well as racist abuse. I detail a number of these incidents in my exhibit LH/l. The records of each case should still be available at Police Headquarters. Despite being labelled the "politically correct KGB stalking the corridors of Police Headquarters" by one politician, we were very successful in dealing with this, to the extent that officers were happy to report incidents to us.

Ian le Marquand was forced by GP to publicly withdraw accusations of bullying.

Former Health Minister Stuart Syvret.

Removal of Stuart Syvret (SS) from ministerial post

Question 15:

Does the Inquiry report recognise the importance of this dismissal and tackle this subject in detail, fairly and robustly? Were SS’s criticisms of the childrens’ services right? Was Mike Pollard’s letter to all staff criticising the actions of the Minister right? How does the Inquiry report deal with the “conspiracy” in the Civil Service – the 2 simultaneous meetings documented by the File Notes of GP and Alison Fossey?

Does the Report connect the removal of SS from his ministerial post to the sacking of social worker Simon Bellwood and the suspension of Graham Power? What conclusions does it draw about these events? Does the Report connect this apparent conspiracy with the apparent conspiracy surrounding the suspension of GP?

The role of the media

Question 16:

Does the Inquiry report analyse how the media in Jersey reported on the abuse which occurred, the investigation by the Police, the political dimension and so on? There are academic teams who do content analysis of media – did the Inquiry commission research?

Were the media objective and unbiassed? Were they challenging? Does the Inquiry report consider both traditional and internet? Has the Report described the impact media had on politics and society in the area of child sexual abuse in the past and has the Inquiry report made robust and useful recommendations about the role that the media could play in the future to help bring about a society free from child abuse

Does the Inquiry report explain why they called no editor or journalist as a witness?

NOTE

It is as if the Panel did not think the media were part of the TOR, But they most certainly are. See TOR 4 “Examine the political and societal environment during the period under review . . .”

IN CONCLUSION

I have left out many areas, concentrating on the political and social issues. This is long enough as it is.

I think that they will actually do the job on Childrens’ Services and how they failed and ways to improve them. I have far less confidence about the areas focussed on here.

I have not covered recommendations for the future, that is a separate task. First we need to know if the Committee of Inquiry’s diagnosis of what went wrong and why it went wrong is based on a real understanding of the issues.

I hope that this list of some key issues is useful, and that people add their own issues, and add their own examples e.g. of evidence which has gone missing.

Daniel.

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry to Destroy Evidence?

Former Deputy Daniel Wimberley

Former Jersey politician, and Anti Child Abuse Campaigner, Daniel Wimberley has issued a damming Press Release, ahead of the (long awaited) Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry's (COI), final report being published.

Mr. Wimberley was  instrumental (with others such as Jersey Care Leavers Association, Team Voice, current and former politicians and campaigners) in formulating its Terms of Reference. He has studied and researched the entire Child Abuse scandal up to, and including, the COI.

The (below) Press Release is just a tiny snapshot of the alarming revelations contained in Mr. Wimberley's "documents" as listed at the beneath "Notes for Editors" below the Press Release. 

ABUSE INQUIRY WEBSITE NEEDS COMPLETE OVERHAUL BEFORE REPORT IS PUBLISHED. KEY DOCUMENTS MUST BE SAVED, NOT DESTROYED.

The Jersey Abuse Inquiry has been told that their website should be radically improved before they publish their report. 

Abuse campaigner and former States member Daniel Wimberley has written to the Panel setting out in detail the many changes which are needed. His letter, sent on March 31st, says:

“When the report appears it is obviously essential that anyone with an interest, from direct protagonists (victims, perpetrators, alleged perpetrators, those accused of wrong-doing of any kind) to the public and the politicians who represent them, to journalists, to charity workers, campaigners and policy-makers, that all of these stakeholders can check your report against all the original documents. 

“To do this the website must be in good order, with every document actually present and correct, both documents of evidence and documentation of the workings and decisions of the Inquiry. And all the contents of the website must be accessible, easy to find, easily down-loadable, and extracts easily copied. None of these conditions apply right now.” (original emphasis)

“The website as it stands now is a disgrace and is not fit-for-purpose,” says Mr. Wimberley. “You cannot find what you want, witness statements are incomplete and sometimes garbled, key documents are missing, or else they come and go, Panel decisions are shrouded in mystery, and using the website is made to be as awkward as possible. When the national and international journalists show up for the launch of the report they will not be amused.”

Mr. Wimberley has also discovered that the Inquiry Panel plan to destroy key information instead of placing it on its website so that everyone can read it.

“This is a stunning blow to victims and to all those who want to see Jersey learn from the horrors of the past” said Mr. Wimberley. “When the Inquiry began its work ‘information that is relevant and material to the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference’ was going to be preserved,” said Mr. Wimberley. 

“Now the Inquiry says this information will be destroyed. The Panel has either made a mistake or made an astonishing and unpublicised reversal of policy which they must explain to States Members and the public. Why ever would one seek to destroy all this information?”

“I already pointed out the many issues which the Panel needed to address in an email in June last year,” said Mr. Wimberley. “They have had plenty of time, but they are ignoring these concerns. There seems to be no willingness to engage, and no desire to reassure the public. This is not the best way to build confidence and trust in this Inquiry.” ENDS

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1 proof of the Inquiry’s intention to destroy relevant information
The “Inquiry Protocol on Data Protection, Freedom of Information and Redaction” can be seen at: http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/key-documents It states:

“6. The Inquiry will categorise the information that it receives into the following categories:

6.1 Category 1 – evidence given and referred to during oral hearings. This will include witness statements of those witnesses giving oral evidence and those that are taken as read in to the Inquiry’s record. This information will be uploaded onto the Inquiry’s website;

6.2 Category 2 – information that is relevant and material to the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference and is probative of them; and

6.3 Category 3 – information that is irrelevant or immaterial to the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference or not probative of them. This information will not be disclosed to Interested Parties or published as part of the Inquiry’s work.

7. All Category 1 and Category 2 information will be considered and the documents referred to within the hearing room will be redacted in accordance with the Inquiry’s policy on redacting personal information (which is set out in detail below), prior to release to Interested Parties and/or publication on the Inquiry’s website.

8. Following the conclusion of the Inquiry’s work, all Category 1 material will be transferred to the States of Jersey Archive in redacted form. All other information will be logged and then destroyed by the Inquiry or originals returned to the provider. A copy of the document log will be provided to the States of Jersey Archive, again redacted in accordance with the Inquiry’s redaction policy.”

So, “Category 2 information” which is defined as “information that is relevant and material to the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference and is probative of them” (para. 6.2) will be “logged and then destroyed” (para. 8)

2 the original policy on destruction of relevant information

From the following extract of the transcript of the second preliminary hearing on June 16th, 2014, page 43, lines 9-15 it is clear that the original policy was to keep Category 2 information:

9 A similar point we have made and again there has

10 been no response, I regret to say, in relation to

11 paragraph 8 of the previous protocol, which is at

12 divider 7, which provides:

13 "Following the conclusion of the Inquiry's work all

14 category 1 and category 2 material will be transferred

15 to the States of Jersey archive in redacted form."(my emphasis)

3 could it all be a mistake?

Yes of course this apparent destruction policy may be a simple error. I have put this possibility to the Inquiry and they have failed to give any assurances. h, misleading statements and obstruction in Jersey over the whole issue of child abuse they should have done.

4 List of attached documents, in order of usability (conciseness and emotion)

A “letter of reply by DW April 6 2017 to reply of Panel.doc”

B “letter to panel about website March 31 2017.doc”

C “letter to panel about website June 21 2016.doc”

D “reply of Panel Nov 4 2016 to DW letter re website of June 2016.doc”

E “reply of Panel April 5 2017 to DW letter re website of March 2017.doc”

F “TOR as used by COI”

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTIONS

A This 2 page letter to the Inquiry legal team expresses my shock and disappointment with the Panel’s failure to engage and summarises the issues and says that I will publicise this.

B is an 8 page letter to Chairman and members of the panel, dated 31 March 2017. It lists the Failings of the Website, takes the issues under Completeness of Information and making the Site User-friendly one by one and pleads with the panel to act to save their website. Basically a shortened and improved version of letter C.

C is the first letter in this correspondence about the website - a 17 page letter to Chairman and members of the panel, dated 21 June 2016.This letter puts 25 questions to the Panel about their website all of which need to be addressed if the website is to become fit for purpose, with explanations.

D is the reply of the Panel to my June 2016 letter. Note the date 4½ months after I wrote to them and only sent after I sent a long chasing email on 11th October 2016.

E is the reply of the Panel to my March 31st 2017 letter. It is 39 words long.

F the Terms of Reference of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Jersey, as agreed by the States.(End)

Team Voice has collated the (above) listed documents A-F and published them HERE.

Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry A Fake, Partial, Incompetent?

Former Jersey Politician, Deputy Daniel Wimberley has issued a Press Release (below) where he raises a number of concerning points involving the actions/inactions of the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry (COI) and believes it could be a Fake.

Mr. Wimberley worked tirelessly, as a States Member, and continues to work tirelessly, to get to the truth behind the decades of paedophilia/Child Abuse so prevalent on the Island for so long. He, along with the Jersey Care Leavers Association, (JCLA) Team Voice, and a very small number of politicians, was instrumental in the formation of the Terms Of Reference (TOR) for the current Inquiry. Terms Of Reference that were extremely hard fought for against a determined Council Of Ministers (COM) to keep the TOR's to a bare minimum. Which will explain why Mr. Wimberley, and stakeholders, insist they are implemented and not watered down more than they have been by the COM.

ABUSE INQUIRY MAY BE A FAKE SAYS CAMPAIGNER

On the eve of the first public hearings of the child abuse inquiry, the Panel faces the accusation that it is set to be a fake.

Campaigner Daniel Wimberley has put 13 questions to the inquiry chairman, Frances Oldham and her panel.

The questions challenge the panel to pledge that it will take all abuse committed in Jersey as being within its remit and also that it will consider all the issues surrounding the suspension of Chief of Police Graham Power.

“As things stand, there is a bias towards concealment”, said Mr. Wimberley. “The team have narrowed down the inquiry to just children within the care system. And yet Ministers amended the Terms of Reference (TOR) to include “third party providers of services for children and young people”[1] So the Inquiry Panel are going directly against the wishes of the States and their ownTOR. It is completely and utterly unacceptable and so I am asking for an explanation.”

In his letter to the Panel Mr. Wimberley says that his giving evidence depends on getting satisfactory answers. He writes:

“The questions at the foot of this letter are your last chance to show the public in general and stakeholders in particular that you are the real deal, offering a comprehensive, robust and resistant-to-influence inquiry and not a sham and narrow inquiry offering a whitewash. And only then can I consider giving evidence.”

“Jersey is a polarised society” he writes. “where there is widespread cynicism about the way our island is run. The mistrust extends to believing that it is entirely possible that the COI is in fact “in the pocket” of the ruling apparatus and will not recommend anything, and will not allow to be public knowledge, anything that would upset their rule and the way they rule. To have procedures which create difficulties for potential key witnesses, or Terms of Reference which narrow down the scope of the Inquiry would then be interpreted in this light.

“The concerns of the public and stakeholders are even more understandable when one recalls that the first inquiries at Hillsborough and in North Wales both failed and had to be repeated for the truth to at last come out. We do not want the same to happen in Jersey.”

ENDS

ATTACHED letter to the abuse inquiry

---

[1]     TOR 14

Friday, July 18, 2014                                     by email from dwimberley

Dear Chairman and Panel of the Committee of Inquiry into child abuse in Jersey,

Before launching into what this letter is really about, I should perhaps introduce myself to you. I played a leading role in the States in pursuing the issues around the suspension of Chief of Police Graham Power, including the role of the “media consultant” Matt Tapp and the “Interim report of the Metropolitan Police”, and in seeing that the Napier report was commissioned and in securing the very existence of the Committee of Inquiry (COI). [1]

If you inspect Hansard you can confirm that I contributed major speeches in all the big debates in this area and asked numerous States questions.  For me justice for the victims and securing a better and safer future as regards child abuse is intricately linked with the governance of the island. And so to the matter in hand.

Many people: victims, stakeholders, and members of the public had great expectations of the inquiry into child abuse in Jersey.

We wanted to believe that the inquiry would be fearless, comprehensive and independent.

We wanted to believe that after all the evidence had been heard, after the ensuing public attention and debate, after you had written your report and recommendations and after these were acted upon, then Jersey would be in a better place and we could all be certain that systematic child abuse of the kind which happened across the island could never happen again. [2]

But your actions so far have dashed the faith which I, in common with so many others, wanted to place in you.  It looks as if your COI will be a fake. So much so that I am driven to write this letter to you offering a last chance to prove to us all, by answering the questions at the end of this letter in a satisfactory manner, that your Inquiry will not be a fake, but the genuine article.

At the moment this is billed as a “care” inquiry and not as an inquiry into abuse. It is billed as an inquiry into abuse at States-run institutions or programmes (such as fostering) and not as an inquiry into abuse wherever it occurred – be it Victoria College, the Sea Cadets or elsewhere. It is billed as an inquiry into the abuse of children, thus excluding the abuse of young people who would not see themselves as children, when in fact such people can be, and were, abused in Jersey, as I recall.

I describe the actions which have dashed my faith in you in detail in Appendix 1 but in summary:

i)          you have limited the scope of the abuse to be covered by your inquiry;

ii)         you have excluded victims from coming forward by putting out the message that the inquiry is not for them. This is an astonishing outcome for an inquiry into child abuse and is inexcusable.

iii)        in limiting the scope of the inquiry you have set aside the clearly expressed wishes  of the States

iv)        in limiting the scope of the inquiry you have breached your own Terms of Reference (TOR)

v)         you have failed to consult people about the TOR as requested by the States;

vi)        you have failed to consult people on the procedures to be followed at the inquiry, as requested by the States;

vii)       You have maintained that the TOR could not be changed, when this is patently untrue.

viii)      you have undermined your relationship with stakeholders by the way you have treated them

All the above, taken together, looks like incompetence or partiality or both. It also looks like a deliberate attempt to limit the COI. This ties in with the COM’s resistance to widening the scope of the TOR. Many on the island want stuff NOT to come out. The narrowest possible interpretation of the TOR serves this purpose.

Jersey is a polarised society where there is widespread cynicism about the way our island is run.  There are very good reasons for this – such a high degree of mistrust has is likely to be based to a degree on reality. I give you more detail both about the degree of cynicism and mistrust and about the reasons this situation has arisen in Appendix 2.

The concerns of the public and stakeholders are even more understandable when one recalls that the first inquiries at Hillsborough and in North Wales both failed and had to be repeated for the truth to at last come out. We do not want the same to happen in Jersey.

The mistrust extends to believing that it is entirely possible that the COI is in fact “in the pocket” of the ruling apparatus and will not recommend anything,  and will not allow to be public knowledge, anything that would upset their rule and the way they rule. To have procedures which create difficulties for potential key witnesses, or Terms of Reference which narrow down the scope of the Inquiry would then be interpreted in this light.

The credibility of the Inquiry is absolutely essential, as I’m sure you are aware. We all have to be certain that in spite of our worst fears, the Inquiry is not “in the pocket” of the ruling apparatus. To repeat, the questions at the foot of this letter are your last chance to show the public in general and stakeholders in particular that you are the real deal, offering a comprehensive, robust and resistant-to-influence inquiry and not a sham and narrow inquiry offering a whitewash. And only then can I consider giving evidence.

Yours faithfully,

Daniel Wimberley

QUESTIONS FOR THE COI

NOTE many of these questions are capable of a Yes/No answer. In all cases the answer Yes is the answer which will demonstrate to me that you intend this inquiry to be comprehensive, robust and truly independent and influence-proof.

1

You have excluded a certain victim, and this is not a hypothesis but a fact. It is likely given the limits you have placed up to now on this COI,  that she is not alone and that others have got the message that this inquiry is nothing to do with them.

So my first question to you is this: do you see that this incident is extremely damaging to the credibility of your Inquiry? Some victims of abuse will be heard, some will not.

2

Will the Inquiry include in its remit abuse as it affected not only children but also young people in Jersey?

Will the Inquiry include in its remit abuse carried out in organisations, institutions, settings not run directly by the States?

Will the Inquiry include in its remit abuse carried out in organisations, institutions, settings not providing “care” to young people or children, but rather doing any other provision?

Will the Inquiry include in its remit abuse carried out within families, or by organised groups, but not covered by the above? In particular will the Inquiry include in its remit the response of teachers, schools, and the education authority, and the response of Social Services to reports or evidence of such abuse?

3

Will the COI include in its remit both independent and in-house reports and investigations relevant to the abuse being considered by the COI in all of the “period under review” as defined in TOR 1 (and not just “after 2007” as per TOR 6)?

4

Will the COI include in its remit the following issues: the suspension of Graham Power, the denigration of the SIO (Senior Investigating Officer), the handling of the changeover from the Power / Harper team to the Warcup / Gradwell team, the handling of the evidence, and so on?

The reason I ask this is that in your reply to this point Peter Jones wrote:

“In relation to paragraph seven of your letter, and the list of issues that you set out, the extent to which they (and any number of possible permutations of evidence) will be examined will depend on what evidence emerges, and where that evidence needs to be pursued, given the focus that the Inquiry must necessarily have on its Terms of Reference.  Many of the Terms of Reference will call for consideration of the motivation of people who have done things, as much as the acts themselves. But the starting point will be whether the Terms of Reference are engaged on the evidence, and where does the evidence then need to be followed?”  (my emphasis)

In other words the COI will follow where the evidence leads – but only if where it leads is within the TOR. But surely what matters is: are these questions important – and not “are they within the TOR”?

Clearly then, if these matters are to be taken seriously, then they should be made explicit within the TOR. You have refused my request to include them in the TOR, hence this request that you formally state that these essential matters will be treated in the same way as any other important evidence, and not just politely listened to but not heard, because they are not explicitly mentioned in the TOR

5

It is quite clear that the COM and States members expected you to consult and instructed you to consult, on the TOR, but you did not. Why?

6

Why did the legal team insist that the TOR could not be changed, when in fact they can?

7

Will you adopt from now on appropriately inclusive language in all communications? Thus: referring to “children and young people” and not just “children”; referring to care settings, schools, youth work, remand centres, indeed any setting and abuse conducted in no “setting” at all? – and not just “care”?

8

Any victim of abuse outside the care system may think – ‘this Inquiry is nothing to do with me’ because of its name. What exactly will the Inquiry do to address this issue?

9

In the light of the above two questions, how will you correct the false impression given in the past that this COI is only concerned with abuse which happened to people “in care”?

Please outline the steps you will take to reach witnesses with this new approach, and to encourage them to come forward.

10

Will you have a set target time for oral evidence to appear on the Inquiry website? Will you publish reasons for any failure to meet your own target? Will documents read by the COI appear immediately on the website? Will these documents be properly searchable as with the Hillsborough Inquiry?

11

What is the research capacity of this inquiry? And what will the Panel do if the research staff prove to be not enough?

In asking this I have in mind some potentially large users of research capacity: contacts with the Jersey care system from authorities in the UK such as Birmingham, Islington etc.; research into how out of line Jersey is statistically both with the scale of historical abuse and with the continuing spate of cases of abuse, online pornography, grooming and so on (in other words, is there a Jersey factor”?) ; situations where you have to soldier through vast amounts of emails.

12

The Lord Chief Justice said in September 2012, concerning the Hillsborough disaster, and the ensuing inquiry and inquests, that there had been “deliberate misinformation surrounding the disaster” [3]   If you find this is the case in Jersey, what will the Panel do?

13

If you find evidence of criminal behaviour, (which has not been before the courts already) what action will you take?

14

How did the name “Independent Jersey Care Inquiry” come to be given to the inquiry? When was it suggested and by whom?

Thank you in advance for answering these questions.

I would point out that if I say that other stakeholders will take note of your response to my questions, I think you can see that this is a true statement.  The reputation, possibly the continued existence of the COI, is at stake here.

APPENDIX 1

i)         you have limited the scope of the abuse to be covered by your inquiry;

your website

Here is the text of a news update on your Inquiry website dated July 8^th 2014 which appeals for more people to come forward in the following words:

“Anyone with experience of the island's care system, including those who were abused or worked within it, is invited to get in touch with the Inquiry team” (news item for July 8^th. http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/news?newsid=25)

The people who were abused or who worked in Jersey schools, youth organisations, remand centres do not get a mention. People who may have been abused outside any formal or semi-formal setting do not get a mention.  All such people are not invited.

Opening speech by the chair

How did the COI end up with such an extraordinary limitation? Well, it happened from day 1. The chairman’s opening speech at the first preliminary hearing on April 3^rd showed that she actually does think that this inquiry is only about abuse which happened in care. Again and again she referred to “care” and “care system” and “children’s’ homes and foster care.” No other setting was specifically mentioned, so far as I can see. For the many extracts which prove this point please see Appendix 3.

In particular she interpreted TOR 8, which is about “how and by what means concerns about abuse were raised and how, and to whom, they were reported,” as only being about children in care, when in fact TOR 8 is completely open and could and should be interpreted to be about all abuse. [4]

The choice of name for the inquiry

The COI is now known as the “Independent Jersey Care Inquiry.” And yet the COI has always been referred to in the States as an ‘Inquiry into child abuse’ or the “Historical Abuse Inquiry.” [5] And of course that is what it is – or should be. So why was the name changed? This needs an explanation as the implications of this name change have been profound.

ii)        you have excluded victims from coming forward by putting out the message that the inquiry is not for them. This is an astonishing outcome for an inquiry into child abuse and is inexcusable.

Your actions have led to at least one victim being told directly that the Inquiry did not apply to her. She was excluded by your Inquiry.

What happened was this.[6] A victim of serious abuse [7] asked your legal team words to the effect of ‘is it (the Inquiry) only for children in care?’ The answer was effectively ‘yes.’

She is almost certainly not the only one as your website, as quoted above, sets out to exclude  any victim who was not in care.

This matter is at the heart of my complaint to you. You have excluded certain victims, and this is not a hypothesis but a fact. So my first question to you is this: do you see that this incident destroys the credibility of your Inquiry? Some victims of abuse will be heard, some will not. And my second question to you is this: What are you going to do about it?

iii)       in limiting the scope of the inquiry you have set aside the clearly expressed wishes of the States

The title of the proposition setting up the COI was “COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY: HISTORICAL CHILD ABUSE.” The report accompanying the proposition opened with these words: “This proposition, seeking the establishment of a Committee of Inquiry into Historical Child Abuse in Jersey, reflects both the belief of the Council of Ministers that this course of action is the correct one for the whole community and that it is the will of the States, following the approval of P.19/2011” And paragraph a) of what the States passed , for the avoidance of all doubt, was: “to agree that a Committee of Inquiry should be established in accordance with Standing Order 146 to enquire into a definite matter of public importance, namely historical child abuse in Jersey;”  (my emphasis)

It could not be clearer. I am minded to ask: did your Panel read the report and proposition? And if so, how did the COI change into the “Independent Jersey Care Inquiry”? This feeds into the suspicion surrounding this COI, that certain areas are being excluded deliberately.

iv)        in limiting the scope of the inquiry you have breached your own Terms of  Reference (TOR)

The wishes of the States are of course ultimately embodied in the actual words of the proposition as approved, which in this case include the TOR.

Two of the TOR specifically point to a wider interpretation than the “care settings only” one which you seem to have adopted.  TOR 2 reads:

“Determine the organisation (including recruitment and supervision of staff), management, governance and culture of children’s homes and any other establishments caring for children, run by the States and in other non-States run establishments providing for children, where abuse has been alleged, in the period under review and consider whether these aspects of these establishments were adequate.” (my emphasis)

And TOR 14 reads:

“14.     Set out what lessons can be learned for the current system of residential and foster care services in Jersey and for third party providers of services for children and young people in the Island.”  (my emphasis)

Clearly for these two TOR’s to be properly investigated, children and young people in such non-care and non-States settings would have to give evidence, and for that to happen the Inquiry has to actively seek them out. Instead, as we have seen, they are excluded, because only people who have been in care are invited or even considered.

You might wish to argue that TOR’s 2 and 14 mean that accounts of abuse in non-States run organisations need not be considered, but only evidence about the “organisation (including recruitment and supervision of staff), management, governance and culture” of such organisations.

But this is to strain credulity. Such a reading is possible but would lead to extraordinary hair-splitting as witnesses gave evidence – ‘you can say this, no, you can’t say that.’ And it flatly contradicts the intentions of the States.

The Amendment which inserted the words in italics into TOR’s 2 and 14 as cited above was tabled on 27^th February 2013 by the Council of Ministers (COM).  The opening words of the Report accompanying this Amendment are as follows:

“The Council of Ministers, having discussed the amendments to Terms of Reference with Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade and the Attorney General, is of the view that it is reasonable to expect that children who may have suffered abuse in non-States run establishments and third party providers of services for children may also wish to be able to raise their concerns with the Committee of Inquiry. The further amendments outlined in (a) and (c) above (sic) therefore intended to widen the scope of the terms of reference beyond that of States-run establishments, as described.”  (my emphasis)

So the intention is clear: the COI must cover non-States run establishments and must cover providers of “services” and not just providers of care.

In ignoring the wishes of the States in this way you are setting aside months of struggle to have truly comprehensive TOR. 

I am minded to ask: if your Panel read the proposition and if you read the reports which accompany the original proposition and the third amendment and if you did study the TOR themselves and dig into their implications, then how could you find yourselves in the situation you now find yourselves in?

It is abundantly clear that this is an Inquiry into child abuse, and that the intention was quite rightly, to cover all abuse in the island, wherever it occurred. How else can the COI get the full picture? And how else can the Panel make effective recommendations?

v)         you have failed to consult people about the TOR as requested by the States;

There can be no dispute that this is a true statement. When the States set up the COI they agreed under paragraph e)

“that the proposed Chairman should be requested to recommend any final changes to the Terms of Reference for the Committee of Inquiry referred to in paragraph (b) above for approval by the Assembly, and also to set out the proposed process for conducting the Inquiry having consulted with interested parties where necessary;”  (P.118/2012, paragraph e)) [8]

The point was spelt out repeatedly in the debate, as I showed in my submission to you about suggested improvements to the TOR. It is quite clear that the COM and States members expected you to consult and instructed you to consult, on the TOR. But you did not. The question is: why?

vi)        you have failed to consult people on the procedures to be followed at the inquiry, as requested by the States;

Paragraph e) quoted in the preceding section applies here also. You were requested by the States to “set out the proposed process for conducting the Inquiry having consulted with interested parties where necessary.”

Your not doing so had important consequences. Stakeholders were put in an impossible position, thus seriously eroding trust. 

In an email dated 17^th April, I wrote this to the legal team:

………………………
“I too may wish to become an IP (Interested Party) - however I cannot decide this due to the reasons before cited on the various threads. But I am concerned that if one's application for IP is not put forward within the "deadline" - which as I have pointed out does not appear in the General Procedures protocol -  then the process is subject to the caveat that the Panel will deal with it when they can. So, assuming that after all the clarifications and negotiations which will take place, I do decide to ask for IP status, then the COI may proceed gaily for months before I get it. This would mean that all that had transpired before that time would be inaccessible to me.

So applying for IP status later down the line is very much a second best for the person concerned. And yet, as I have said in my previous email today: “the problem (of unresolved issues within the protocols) exists solely because the inquiry has pressed ahead with these without any consultation in direct contradiction with what the States charged the COI to do at paragraph e) of the proposition which set the COI up.” So why should I be made to suffer because of the failings OF THE COI?”
(My emphasis)
Under Standing order 147 you may have had the right to do what you did and write the protocols in private and then release them to the world, [9] but in doing this you created serious problems which could, and should, have been avoided. The burden of these problems fell entirely on stakeholders, and not on you.

vii)      You have maintained that the TOR could not be changed, when this is patently untrue.

At the very first meeting with them on April 3^rd, immediately after the preliminary hearing, your agents i.e. Eversheds legal team told stakeholders that the TOR ‘could not be changed.’ Later they told Carrie Modral of the Jersey Care Leavers’ Association that they were ‘set in stone.’ This is untrue, as we demonstrated to them. When this line evaporated your Eversheds moved to a different position, in this email of 10^th April:

“First, any Inquiry - including this Inquiry - is bound to investigate such matters that are referred to it from the appointing body, as set out in the Terms of Reference. It has no power or authority to inquire into matters that go beyond those terms of reference. It was for this reason that I set out to Carrie Modral that the Terms of Reference set the boundaries for what the Inquiry can, and cannot, do.

Further, no Inquiry has the power to extend its own terms of reference.  That can only be done by the appointing party, in this case the States of Jersey.  In the event that the Inquiry Panel wished to extend or clarify its Terms of Reference, I anticipate that the Inquiry Panel would need to go back to the States for clarification/modification.

I interpret your email and your letter on behalf of the signatories to be an application that the Inquiry should invite an extension to its own Terms of Reference.”

Quite. So why could the legal team not have come clean about this in the first place, and told us that yes, it is open for people to suggest changes to the TOR and these will be considered?

To maintain from our first meeting on April 3^rd that it was not possible to suggest changes, and again to Carrie Modral, and then to say, well yes, it is possible and you just did not put it quite right gives a strong impression of deceit. It is exactly what we had to contend with in the States repeatedly, namely the use of words to obscure rather than to illuminate, the use of language to obstruct instead of to assist. It does not inspire confidence in the Panel when your agents behave in exactly the same obfuscating and obstructive way as the Ministers whose words and actions you will be scrutinising.

viii)     you have treated stakeholders in a way which has undermined your relationship with them.

Sections v) and vi) and vii) above describe how stakeholders could not engage with you over key matters of procedure (in effect you shielded yourselves from them and their concerns) (sections v) and vi)), were misled by words which were in a very strict sense true, but to any lay person were untrue, (section vi)), and put at a disadvantage (section vii)).

I believe this damage to the relationship with stakeholders could have been avoided.  In retrospect maybe you think so too.

Taken together this is a sorry state of affairs. These are your witnesses, these are the activists, the very people who desperately want this inquiry to get to the truth, yet it seems as if they are not wanted – the very same syndrome I have noted under section i) above.

I am not asking that there should have been privileged access. Of course all stakeholders would have been able contributed to any possible improvements to the TOR and to the formation of the protocols. Yes it would needed careful handling, but it would have avoided the damage.

APPENDIX 2

I stated that such depth of mistrust does not spring up entirely by itself from nowhere. It is fed, constantly, by the actions of the ruling apparatus. The evidence is out there on the blogs and occasionally in the mainstream media. To mention just three recent examples, there was the pledge made in the hustings for the position of Treasury Minister by the current holder of that office, that “I will not increase GST (Goods and Service Tax)” which was then broken. The excuse given, namely that the world economic situation went unexpectedly into meltdown was nionsense as the meltdown was well and truly under way when he made the pledge.

There was the golden handshake of over ½ million for the Chief Executive at the time of the suspension of Graham Power, Bill Ogley, which many believe was the price for silence.  There was the raid on Stuart Syvret’s house when the police not only arrived on his doorstep in large numbers to enforce an infringement of the Data Protection Law, but took his partner’s box of evidence about planning graft!  There was the absurd use of the DP law to silence a blogger. There are 8 or 9 examples of dishonesty in my proposition to deal with States members misleading each other in the States Assembly (P.169/2011).

This mistrust was noted by the former Chief of Police for Jersey Graham Power

“. . . .The challenge of achieving this (viz. establishing in the public mind that the police would behave with independence and integrity) is comparably difficult in Jersey.  In the U.K. and other  jurisdictions the authorities may have their  problems, but it would  be unusual to find any comparable part  of the  British  Isles where  suspicion and cynicism regarding those  in authority was so ingrained  in the  popular culture.”   [10]

Any incumbent of that role gets a pretty close-up and immediate view of a society. The words above come from his submission to a disciplinary inquiry into his conduct of Operation Rectangle and so can reasonably be taken as a considered view. Further credibility is given by his CV, as reported by himself.   [11]

APPENDIX 3

These are extracts from the chairman’s opening speech at the first preliminary hearing of the COI on April 3^rd 2014 which showed that she actually does think that this inquiry is only about abuse which happened in care.

All emphases are of course mine.

Extract 1

“The Inquiry has been set up to establish what went wrong in the Island’s care system over many years and to find answers for people who suffered abuse as children. We have been asked by the States of Jersey to investigate the abuse and mistreatment of children placed in children’s’ homes and in foster care in Jersey from the Second World War.”

Lines 26-30

Extract 2

“5. On 6 March 2013 the States Assembly agreed the Terms of Reference for a public inquiry to undertake a wide-ranging investigation into historical child abuse in Jersey.”

Lines 36-37

NOTE:  I include the above quote for the sake of completeness and balance. It is indeed there, but it is the only reference to this form of words. Everywhere else this COI is about the care system and children in care.

Extract 3

 “Our purpose is to establish the truth; the truth about what happened to children in residential and foster homes”

lines 43-44

Extract 4

 “In summary . . . . . . Finally, we will consider what lessons can be learned for the current system of residential and foster care services in Jersey and make recommendations for the future of those services.”

Lines 48, 59-61

Extract 5

 “TERMS OF REFERENCE

……..

A. Establishing the extent of abuse in Jersey’s children’s’ homes and other statutory child care provision since 1945 – how pervasive was abuse in the statutory care system?

B. What systems operated in the child care system within which abuse took place and how effective were these?

C. Who was accountable for the running and oversight of residential child care ?

Lines 93-98

Extract 6

 “45. I recognise that the Inquiry asks a great deal of you (this refers to the abuse survivors) : quite simply , that you should come and tell us about what happened to you as a child - an account of your life both before being taken into care and whilst in care. We want to hear about how you were treated; complaints you may have made etc. . . .

lines 249-252

Extract 7

 “51. The eighth Term of Reference asks us to consider who raised concerns about abuse, and to whom, and what, if anything, was done about them. It also invites us to conduct an historical review of the systems in place for handling the disclosure of abuse by children. Although not expressed as such, we will be looking at disclosure of abuse within the setting of children in care.

Lines 283-287

NOTE: This extract is especially revealing. The TOR 8 does not specify which settings abuse occurred. It reads: “Identify how and by what means concerns about abuse were raised and how, and to whom, they were reported . . .”  Yet the chair assumes that the TOR must be limited to “disclosure of abuse within the setting of children in care.”

Extract 8

 “70. Evidence in relation to the 14^th Term of Reference will be taken in 3^rd Phase of the Inquiry, by which time we will have gathered a wealth of evidence.

71. We will hear evidence from those who have conducted recent reports on statutory child care provision in Jersey; experts in this field and independent of the States. We will also be assisted by witnesses from the relevant departments, giving their views on the lessons to be learned. We wish to set out clear recommendations for the future structure and management of statutory child care services in Jersey.

72. The purpose and value of this 14th Term of Reference, and indeed the 15th Te r m  of Ref e r e n c e ,  c a n n o t  b e  u n d e r e s t i m a t e d . I t  i s  t o  s e t  o u t  w h a t  l e s s o n s can be learned for the benefit of child and foster care services in Jersey”

Lines 379-390

NOTE: The actual TOR 14 is:   “Set out what lessons can be learned for the current system of residential and foster care services in Jersey and for third party providers of services for children and young people in the Island.” So the words added by amendment by the COM are left out.

---

[1]     I know the official title is the “The Independent Jersey Care Inquiry”. However this title is so seriously misleading that I refuse to use it. The issue of the name of the Inquiry and what the Panel propose to do about it is dealt with in Appendix 1 sections i) and iii).

[2]    Also that non-systematic abuse, for example abuse occurring within a family, would be better understood, better picked up, and better dealt with across the board.

[3]     Source: BBC PM programme, Eddie Mair prepared intro , Monday 321^st march 2014

[4]     For the actual words spoken by the chair and the text of the TOR see Appendix zzz, extract number zzz

[5]     Often with the unfortunate addition of the word “historical” which implies that all this is in a rain-filled and miserable past which has nothing whatever to do with the present. As you know, this is far from the truth.

[6]    This is a second hand account from a source I take to be reliable. Hence I do not use direct quote marks (“…”) but single apostrophes (‘…’) by which I mean – this is the gist of what was said.

[7]    I make no judgement as to whether the abuse happened or not, just as your inquiry would not make such a judgement before hearing the evidence.

[8]      http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyMinutes/2013/2013.03.06%20States%20Minutes%20%5BINC.%20CORRIGENDUM%5D.pdf    

[9]    I am not clear whether an explicit instruction from the States overrides what is stated in Standing Orders. SO 147 is not prescriptive but uses the word “may,” which means that you had total discretion, and you chose to override the request of the States. For ease of reference, here is the text of the SO: “147 Committee of inquiry: proceedings: (1) A committee of inquiry may regulate its own procedure for the conduct and management of its proceedings including, but not limited to, venue and adjournments”

[10]     From   Graham Power’s Statement to the Wiltshire Police disciplinary Inquiry, Para 292, July 2009. This can be found reprinted at http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.co.uk/2012_08_01_archive.html  in a blog post dated August 4^th 2012.

[11]     I successfully applied for a place at Queen’s College Oxford where I read Politics, Philosophy and Economics. During my time at University my senior tutor (and subsequently Provost of the College) was the late Geoffrey Marshall who was the author of the book “Police and Government” and an authority on the relationship between senior police leadership and the political authorities.

In my service as a senior officer I have worked in partnership with a range of political groups and interests.   For example, in Cleveland there were some sharp divisions between traditional “Old Labour” representatives and those who were seen as more left wing and radical.   In North Yorkshire there was strong political representation of traditional and landed interests.   In Scotland, Police Authorities, and both local and national government were sometimes strongly divided between Nationalist, Devolutionist and Unionist interests. There were also sometimes sharp divisions along sectarian lines.

I consider myself to be experienced in working in challenging political environments and aware of the need to strike a balance between proper political accountability of the police service and the need to be independent, both in terms of reality and perception, in the delivery of operational policing.”  (Affidavit by Graham Power written at the request of Stuart Syvret, 2nd May, 2011)(END)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VFC takes the view that it is possibly too early to judge the Inquiry  and is not judging it, although does share the concerns (and others) of former Deputy Wimberley, and await the answers, from the Inquiry Team, to his questions.

We have no idea, as yet, wether this Inquiry is going to be a whitewash, or not, which is why it is imperative that anybody who believes they have evidence that would/could be of use to the Inquiry  should submit it.

Contact details for the Inquiry can be found HERE. The Jersey Care Leavers Association can also be contacted should anybody want help or advice, either about the Inquiry or submitting evidence. They can be reached by phone 01534-738351 or e-mailed at jerseycareleavers@gmail.com

For those who have doubts about the Inquiry it is important to note that it is "the only gig in town" if it has no evidence to work with then it cannot be blamed for burying it, it cannot be expected to discover the truth, and it cannot be expected to reach a definitive conclusion.

It should also be noted that a number of Victims/Survivors who have given statements to the Inquiry have been impressed with the way they were treated and due to the positive way they were treated are now willing to appear as a live witness.

We are also led to believe that (illegally?) suspended former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM has spent a number of days giving testimony to the Inquiry Team and his experience/judgement of the Team is as positive as that of the Victims/Survivors.

As Jersey doesn't have a mainstream media that scrutinises, challenges, hold's to account, or questions any Party Line, it is left to Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media)/campaigners to ask these questions and scrutinise Party Lines. Indeed it is argued that if we did have a fit for purpose mainstream media on the Island then the horrific abuse inflicted on our children for decades could/would never have happened for so long in the first place. Team Voice WILL continue to hold the Child Abuse Inquiry to account because in that respect Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media)/campaigners are the only gig in town.

The Inquiry Team closely monitor this Blogsite (and other Blogsites) so will be aware of this posting and we offer a right of reply to the Team, and an opportunity to answer Mr. Wimberley's questions, which will be considered for publication as our next posting.