Showing posts with label JCLA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label JCLA. Show all posts

Sunday, 5 March 2017

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



Advocate Philip Sinel.


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

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

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

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

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


"THE INDEPENDENT JERSEY CARE INQUIRY

Witness Statement of Philip Sinel

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17.4  a supine, depressed, disenfranchised and disbelieving electorate; 

17.5  an economy and culture distorted by the finance industry;

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

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

17.8  it is an Island. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Jersey Law Society

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

The Press in Jersey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

875,876

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

120.0  The Inquiry

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signed: Philip Sinel.

Dated 15/12/15

Exhibits to Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Witness Statement of Philip Sinel

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

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

TAB 3  Submissions to the Carswell Enquiry on the Constitution.

Tab 4  The Carswell Report. 

Tab 5  Sir Philip Bailhache's liberation day speech. 

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

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

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

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

Tab 10  (Redaction) 2010. 

Tab 11  Code Civile.

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

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

Tab 14  Letter to the Attorney General re (737)

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

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

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

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

“multiple homicides were swept under the carpet”

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, 24 March 2015

Open Letter To All States Members.




Today the Island's Parliament debate/vote on Chief Minister Gorst's PROPOSITION  asking the States to agree to extra funding for the ongoing Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry so that it is able to complete its vital work. Deputy Tadier has also submitted AMENDMENTS to which Chief Minister Gorst has submitted COMMENTS.

The Jersey Care Leavers Association (JCLA) has sent an Open Letter to all States Members which we reproduce (and support)  below.

"To All States Members 

Today you will make a decision on the extra funding for the Jersey Care Inquiry. It is to be hoped that this decision is taken wisely and with great consideration for the bigger picture that any failure to agree to this Proposition would have in several instances. 

1. The impact on the very courageous victims who have come forward with their evidence to the Inquiry. This has been extremely harrowing for some who have had to re-visit the abuse suffered whilst in the ‘care’ of the States of Jersey. To reject the extra funding would, to all intents and purposes, be yet another rejection for the victims. This they do not deserve. What they do deserve is answers and closure. 

2. To reject the Proposition would be unprecedented, particularly at a time when Historic Child Abuse is a very high profile issue in the UK at the moment. Does Jersey also want to be seen to still ‘covering-up’ its failures in this very sad and sorry saga? 

3. The ‘reputation’ that Jersey’s Establishment are so keen to preserve will be well and truly damaged even further. The repercussions will be far reaching and the matter will never go away, or move on if the Inquiry is thwarted in any, way, shape or form from undertaking what they have been tasked with in its fullest format. 

We would also ask you to support Deputy Tadier’s amendments, particularly the removal of paragraph (c) (ii) which we feel does potentially restrict the Inquiry in terms of scope and its independence. Whilst no-one would argue that prudence in financial matters is very important the ‘capping’ aspect sits uncomfortably and begs the question, can the Inquiry operate as they would wish without having to make allowances due to the restraints put on it? Nobody with an interest in this Inquiry would like to think that this could be the case. The Inquiry must be allowed to continue as they think best, whilst exercising regard for expenditure. Likewise, and perhaps more so, States agents, lawyers et al should be exercising the same caution. 

One matter that does rather stick in the craw, whilst not directly related to the Inquiry or proposition, is the amount States Lawyers have received in relation to the Compensation Scheme versus the compensation actually paid to Claimants. 

Paragraph (c) (v) is bizarre as the Committee of Inquiry have already been making use of various ‘reports’ etc. In fact, it is States departments which have, on occasion, held up this process by not always being co-operative in the provision of requested documents. It is such actions that undermine the Inquiry and add unnecessary cost to the tax payer. As such, this paragraph is unnecessary and its removal should be supported.

Whilst we appreciate the motives of the Chief Minister in bringing this proposition, and seeking to bring on board those who are concerned about costs, we have been disappointed by the machinations that have taken place with certain Members of the Council of Ministers. 

It is sad that this document has been lodged by the Chief Minister solely and not by the Council of Ministers as a collective. Furthermore, we were disappointed to find out that certain Ministers were asking to meet us to discuss ending the Committee of Inquiry altogether. As such, we have experienced renewed mistrust for the Government and what appears to be their divided stance on matters of child abuse, exposing the cover-ups that allowed it and potential political interference. 

The Northern Ireland Inquiry encountered problems in that their estimated costs also rose quite considerably . Below is a quote from the Belfast Telegraph that would indicate that the money did not have to be ‘fought’ for. 

'Costs for an inquiry into historical institutional child abuse in Northern Ireland could reach £19m, the Assembly has been told.Ulster Unionist MLA Mike Nesbitt, who chairs Stormont's OFMDFM committee, said MLAs had been informed in September that predicted costs had doubled from initial estimates. 

The Strangford MLA added: “On the estimated costs of the inquiry the committee sought clarification from the department whether the figures in the financial and explanatory memorandum of between £7.5m and £9m remained accurate. 

“Officials advised the committee that the estimated costs had been revised upwards — doubled in fact to £15-19m to take into account the complexities of the inquiry and the associated legal costs.” 

Mr Nesbitt said he was assured the necessary funds would be made available from the OFMDFM budget'.

It would appear that the reasons highlighted in red equally apply here. 

Finally a final figure of £50m has been mooted by Senator Bailhache. Interestingly there has been no indication as to how this figure was arrived at, no break-down of costs, or who actually provided this information. Scare-mongering is easy, but as with anything facts are required as proof. 

We sincerely hope that there will be no opposition to this Proposition and that there will be wide support for the amendments put forward by Deputy Tadier. 

Please think of the human tragedies involved here. Do we really want, or need to go here ever again?" 


Monday, 21 July 2014

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 8th 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 8th. 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 3rd 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 27th 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 17th 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 3rd, 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 10th 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 3rd 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 3rd 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 14th Term of Reference will be taken in 3rd 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 321st 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.
[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 4th 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.