Attorney General (William Bailhache) Press Statement.

In preparation for an up-coming Blog Posting, and for the historical documented record, we offer (below) a statement made in June 2009 by the then Attorney General, and now Bailiff, William Bailhache.

Those who have been following the Jersey Child Abuse cover-up, and related events, will be aware that very few prosecutions were brought against alleged offenders and the then AG dropped around a dozen cases which brought anger, and outrage, from Abuse Survivors/Victims and their supporters who staged a PROTEST in response. The people of Jersey were offered a couple of SHOW TRIALS and the Jersey Establishment, and STATE MEDIA, set about discrediting the Child Abuse Investigation, (Operation Rectangle) suspended the Chief of Police, (possibly illegally) and went on to close the investigation DOWN.

Questions have been, and still are being asked, about William Bailhache's decision to drop so many cases which fuelled the fire of suspicion surrounding the politicised, and corrupt, Jersey "JUSTICE" SYSTEM.

We offer Mr. Bailhache's 2009 statement below because he will have serious questions to answer because of it, not only in our up-coming Blog Posting, but when he undoubtedly is called as a witness before the ongoing Public Child Abuse INQUIRY.

William Bailhache Press Statement June 3rd 2009.

Attorney-General William Bailhache said this morning two historic abuse investigations have been dropped because of a lack of evidence.

The multi-million pound two and a half year investigation has resulted in three people facing charges. At one time there were 70 suspects.

In the end, police presented six case files to Attorney-General William Bailhache. But the police say they have more files to send him.

As for the victim's statements, but Mr Bailhace said cases often came down to being the word of one person against another.

A decision not to bring criminal proceedings doesn't, he says, mean that those who have made complaints are not believed, nor does it necessarily mean that any account given by a suspect has been believed.

The statement from the Attorney General is reproduced in full below:-

The Attorney General last made a statement on 26th August, 2008 when he announced that of the six files which had then been received by the prosecution lawyers, charges had been laid in respect of three of them, one file had been returned to the police for further investigations, and a decision had been taken in relation to one of the remaining two files that no charges would be brought. Further police investigations have now been conducted and a decision has now been made that for legal and evidential reasons, no charges will be brought in respect of either of the two outstanding files. A full statement of reasons is set out below.

Cases of this nature are often difficult. There is rarely any independent evidence, and often the cases come down to being the word of one person against another. In a criminal trial, it is not a question of the Magistrate or the jury deciding which version of events they prefer. The prosecution most prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, and if there is any doubt, an accused person is entitled to be found not guilty. Before bringing a criminal prosecution, there must be sufficient evidence such that there is a realistic prospect of conviction. A decision not to bring criminal proceedings does not necessarily mean that those who have made complaints are not believed, nor does it necessarily mean that any account given by a suspect has been believed. A decision not to prosecute means only that the Attorney General, having fully considered all of the available evidence and other information, has decided that an acquittal is more likely than a conviction.

A decision not to prosecute is capable of being perceived as denying the complainant the right to be heard. Indeed, this can lead to a pressure to allow the complainant to have his or her day in Court. However to succumb to such pressure would mean that the prosecution was not applying the evidential test which is its function to apply. The Courts are entitled to know that they are not faced with prosecutions which even the prosecutor thinks will not succeed. The criminal justice system as a whole requires each part of that system – police, prosecutors and Courts – to fulfil its functions professionally and properly. To compromise the test to allow evidentially weak cases to proceed is not an exercise of the objective approach which is demanded of prosecutors by the Code on the Decision to Prosecute. It is not fair to anyone – the complainants, the accused, the witnesses or the public – to do otherwise than apply the evidential test professionally and objectively.

Case 5

Nine complainants have made complaints against Mr. A, now a middle aged man who spent approximately 5 to 6 years as a junior trainee and then employee at Haut de la Garenne in the 1970s and 1980s. The complaints relate to incidents which are alleged to have taken place between 20 and 30 years ago. Four of them contained allegations of different types of sexual offending, some of it of the most serious nature; all but two were alleged to have taken place at Haut de la Garenne.

The police have conducted a very thorough and detailed investigation tracing and interviewing all known witnesses before submitting the papers to the independent lawyers instructed by the Attorney General.

In none of the cases is the complaint corroborated by any independent evidence, and none of the complaints is sufficiently similar in nature to suggest that they might supply mutual corroboration.

In two cases, the employment records show that the complainants were not at Haut de la Garenne at the same time as Mr. A. In two of the cases, the makers of the statements were not those against whom the alleged crimes were committed, the alleged victims no longer being alive.

In three of the cases, the complainants are intrinsically not credible for different reasons, one of them being that the complainant described assaults taking place in a cellar, in the bath and with the use of the shackles described in the media reports, the statement being made for the first time after the media reports had been published. In another case, the complainant described sustaining 300 to 400 cigarette burn marks and a branding which required a skin graft, but there is no physical sign of any injury nor do the records show that Mr. A was at Haut de la Garenne at the same time. In those circumstances it was inevitable that it be concluded this complaint was incapable of belief. It is this complainant who makes the most serious allegations of sexual offending. In another case, the complainant’s mother, who was allegedly present at the time and gave her permission for the assaults, says they never took place.

Furthermore, the police investigation shows relevant defence material including the fact that a significant number of witnesses speak well of Mr. A. describing his popularity with the children and his good qualities in dealing with the children generally. He received consistently good reports from those responsible for monitoring and evaluating his performance.

The papers have been carefully evaluated by those lawyers, by a senior lawyer in the Law Officers’ Department and by the Attorney General personally. None of the lawyers who have looked at this matter considers that the evidential test is passed.

Case 6

Background

In about May 1997, police received information that there was suspected historical child abuse committed by a man and a woman between 1980 and 1990 upon various ex-residents of a Children’s Home in St. Clement, Jersey. The woman had been employed as a “house mother” and although her husband was not employed in any such capacity, it appeared that he played a full part in the running of the Home, which closed in 1990. Following a police investigation in 1997, a number of charges of grave and criminal assault and common assault were brought against both the man and the woman in the Magistrate’s Court. Following an initial hearing, the Magistrate dismissed some of the charges on the grounds that there was no sufficient prima facie evidence to commit the accused to the Royal Court, but in respect of other charges, the defendants were committed for trial in the Royal Court.

When the matter was received in the then Attorney General’s Chambers, the case file was passed to a private sector Crown Advocate with the request that there should be a full evidential review. The Crown Advocate carried out that review and concluded that there were evidential problems. In the circumstances he recommended that the prosecution should go no further.

On receipt of that review, the then Attorney General convened a case conference which was attended by the private sector Crown Advocate, a departmental lawyer, the police officer in charge of the case, a representative of the Children’s Service and the Attorney General himself. The meeting analysed the evidence on each charge having regard to the memoranda prepared by the private sector Crown Advocate. The then Attorney General concluded that there was insufficient evidence to have any realistic prospect of conviction and that in the circumstances it would not be right to proceed. No-one dissented from this view, which indeed was positively endorsed by the other two lawyers present. Although all present were aware of the assertion that one of the couple was suffering from a terminal illness, this possibility was expressly not a factor taken into account in reaching a decision, which was taken entirely on an assessment of the evidential test.

Following that meeting, the Crown formally abandoned the prosecution before the Royal Court in 1998 on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support it.

Developments in 2008/9

Between 29th April and 9th July, 2008, the independent prosecution lawyers instructed by the Attorney General were provided by the police with a number of statements in relation to this case. These included both the original material arising out of the 1998 investigation, and an amount of new material. Those lawyers provided advice to the Attorney General on 18th and 22nd July, 2008. At the request of the police in the autumn of last year, the Attorney General made an application for mutual legal assistance from the French Authorities to enable an interview with the couple to take place in France. In February this year, the necessary confirmations from the competent authorities in France were obtained but the attempts to interview the couple proved unsuccessful. The decision has thus been taken based on the evidence available in July last year.

The present case raises the difficult question of what approach ought to be taken when a prospective defendant has been given a clear indication by the prosecuting authorities that s/he will not be prosecuted.

The Attorney General has noted that in a written answer given in the House of Commons on 31st March, 1993, the Attorney General of England and Wales, responding to a question relating to the re-institution of proceedings which had been terminated said this:

“The fundamental consideration remains that individuals should be able to rely on decisions taken by the prosecuting authorities. The policy of the Director of Public Prosecutions is that a decision to terminate proceedings or not to prosecute should not, in the absence of special circumstances, be altered once it has been communicated to the defendant or prospective defendant unless it was taken and expressed to be taken because the evidence was insufficient. In such a case it would be appropriate to reconsider the decision if further significant evidence were to become available at a later date – especially if the alleged offence is a serious one.

Special circumstances which might justify departure from this policy include:

(i) rare cases where reconsideration of the original decision shows that it was not justified and the maintenance of confidence in the criminal justice system requires that a prosecution be brought notwithstanding the earlier decision; and

(ii) those cases where termination has been effected specifically with a view to the collection and preparation of the necessary evidence which is thought likely to become available in the fairly near future. In such circumstances, the CPS will advise the defendant of the possibility that proceedings will be reinstituted. “

The Attorney General has also noted the Crown Prosecution Service website at paragraph 12, which reads as follows:

“12. Restarting a Prosecution

12.1 People should be able to rely on decisions taken by the Crown Prosecution Service. Normally if the Crown Prosecution Service tells a suspect or defendant that there will not be a prosecution or that the prosecution has been stopped, that is the end of the matter and the case will not start again. But occasionally there are special reasons why the Crown Prosecution Service will restart the prosecution, particularly if the case is serious.

12.2 These reasons included:

(a) rare cases where a new look at the original decision shows that it was clearly wrong and should not be allowed to stand;

(b) cases which are stopped so that more evidence which is likely to become available in the fairly near future can be collected and prepared. In these cases the Crown Prosecutor will tell the defendant that the prosecution may well start again; and

(c) cases which are stopped because of a lack of evidence but where more significant evidence is discovered later.”

These appear to be well founded and sound principles upon which in the Attorney’s view the prosecution in Jersey should also proceed. The Attorney is of the view that, as in the United Kingdom, the damage which would be done to public confidence if people in Jersey could not rely upon decisions taken by the office of the Attorney General, particularly if those decisions were simply undone as a result of a change in the identity of the holder of the office, would be very significant indeed. For all these reasons, as a matter of principle, the Attorney General has adopted the approach which has been taken in the United Kingdom.

Accordingly, two particular lines of approach have been considered:

1. Given that the case in 1998 was not stopped so that more evidence might be likely to become available in the fairly near future, was this a case where it might be said that the decision taken in 1998 was clearly wrong?

2. Alternatively, could it be said that, although the case did not proceed because there was a lack of evidence in 1998, more significant evidence has been discovered subsequently which makes a difference to that decision?

On the first of those questions, the Attorney General has received written advice from both the private sector Crown Advocate and from leading Treasury counsel practising at the Central Criminal Court in London. A review has also been carried out by a senior lawyer in the Attorney’s Department and by the Attorney General himself. Having thoroughly considered this review and these advices the Attorney General has concluded that without any shadow of a doubt the decision in 1998 cannot be said to be one which was not justified, nor was it one which was clearly wrong.

One of the particular features of the advice received from senior Treasury counsel in London was that there was a strong probability that re-opening a prosecution in 2008 on the charges which could have been brought in 1998 would be struck out as an abuse of the process of the Court. Indeed, a defence submission that there was an abuse would only be overcome if there were very compelling and completely new evidence capable of removing the reasons for the 1998 decision, and if there were a good reason for the evidence not having been available before. Leading counsel took the view that the material which has become available since 1998 fell far short of providing any such exceptional justification, and that in the circumstances it would not be proper for the Attorney General to seek to reinstitute the criminal proceedings.

Attention was then given to whether or not there was any other significant new evidence which has been obtained. In particular, consideration was given to allegations of sexual assaults which had not previously been made. The advice received from the private sector Crown Advocate was that the evidential test was not met in relation to any such allegation. On his recommendation, the Attorney suggested that he take leading counsel’s advice from London to identify whether that view was shared. That advice was duly taken, and leading counsel has confirmed that, in his view as well, the evidential test is not met. These opinions have been further considered both by the Attorney General and by the senior lawyer in the Law Officers’ Department assisting him in these cases. Nothing in that further consideration has led the Attorney General to express any view contrary to the advice which has been received in respect of these sexual allegations.

In the circumstances, the Attorney General considers that, applying the above principles, there is no reason sufficient to re-open the decision taken by his predecessor in 1998.

The Attorney General realises, of course, that the complainants will be very disappointed with this decision, which has, of course, also been discussed with the police.

Nevertheless, hard decision though it may appear to some, the Attorney General is sure that a decision not to prosecute is the right and appropriate decision in these cases taken on the legal principles set out above.

3rd June, 2009. Law Officers’ Department

Jersey.

Jersey Jurat Candidate Tim Kearsey.

A Jurat is a Lay Judge who sits with Commissioners/Bailiffs/Deputy Bailiffs/Judges in the Royal Court of Jersey. The Jurat's task is to judge on the facts of a case, need no legal training for the post, and are elected by an Electoral College consisting of Lawyers and politicians.

There is a train of thought that the Electoral College is no more than an "Old Boys Network" and the elections are just a formality in that the candidate who the Establishment want elected gets the post. Regular readers will be aware it is VFC's opinion that our "justice" system is politicised and corrupt and is in dire need of "a good clean out." How much of a role is played by Jurats is, as yet, unclear, due to the secretive nature of the election and indeed the candidates.

In what is believed to be a first for Jersey we (Citizens Media) have interviewed a candidate for the post. We are not aware of this ever having been done previously, either by Citizens Media, or the local State Media, and feel privileged to have been granted the interview and able to bring our readers another first and another exclusive.

Candidate Tim Kearsey is a down-to-earth 41 year-old working class man with a social conscience and a desire for reform. He is breaking the mould when it comes to the usual line-up of candidates who tend to be upper middle class (former Victoria College students) and pensioners or not far off pension age. He wants to engage the public with the role and make them aware of what it entails and what a great start he has made by engaging with Citizens Media...........Or any media.

For those who would like to learn more about the role of the Jurat, the Establishment line can be viewed HERE. If you want to learn more about the role, and the Jersey "justice" system in general we recommend readers/viewers take a look at what Sir Geoffrey Nice QC writes about it HERE.

Team Voice wish Candidate Kearsey the best of luck with his election campaign and thank him for taking the time out to engage with Citizens Media. Unfortunately we believe the chances of him being elected, and zero, are about the same. The election is a mere formality and the post has already been decided but nothing ventured nothing gained.

Former Jersey Opposition Politician and "The Jersey Way."

Last month at his inauguration as Bailiff, former Attorney General William Bailhache, a man who like his brother Sir Philip bears responsibility for so many unanswered questions on child protection failings, told the Jersey Evening Post how he wanted to ‘reclaim’ the ‘Jersey Way’. According to William Bailhache, the term had been hijacked to falsely portray something negative and even suggest ‘corruption’.

In the short interview (below) former three-times elected St. Helier Deputy Shona Pitman, an outspoken critic of the ‘Jersey Way’, when in office, offers disturbing and highly compelling new evidence into how, for those who dare to stand up against apparent  judicial corruption, and the type of State-concealed abuse now being confirmed in the Independent Care Inquiry, on an almost weekly basis the apparent politicisation of Jersey’s Police force and ‘Justice’ system appears very much alive and well.

As former Deputy Pitman explains, knocked down on a pedestrian crossing in October 2014 due to the apparent negligence of a driver who failed to stop in time at a red light crossing - even with the said driver’s admittance of responsibility and three independent witnesses confirming this – after months of inexplicable procrastination, she was finally informed by Mr Mike Bowron’s States of Jersey Police would not be prosecuting the driver.

Incredibly the reason given was that there apparently ‘wasn’t enough evidence’ to charge an individual whose excuse had been that the angle of the sun had prevented him seeing what colour the traffic lights were! In the words of the Police Officer ‘some things are just accidents’. The driver ‘had tried to stop’ so the Officer said. Which in his Sergeant’s view meant there wasn’t enough evidence to charge him with driving without due care and attention!

All shocking enough in itself one might suggest. Particularly when many readers will still recall the contrasting response from the Police in the case of a young woman driver, prosecuted and convicted just a month after an incident having narrowly missed colliding with a mother and baby buggy on a pedestrian crossing in St. Helier!

Yet for former Deputy Pitman this deeply disturbing treatment at the hands of the Jersey Police did not end there. A full six months on, she has still been denied the insurance details of the driver who knocked her down and even a copy of her own Police statement. Indeed, having promised he would return with the insurance details ‘within a couple of days’ the Police Officer, reportedly, simply never bothered to return.

By her own admission, former Deputy Pitman is just pleased to have been lucky enough to have escaped serious injury. She was nevertheless left with painful bruising, stiff muscles and wholly understandable psychological symptoms manifesting as anxiety as a consequence of the driver knocking her down. Team Voice find the action  (or lack of )  on the part of the Police as incredible, as it at first appears to be inexplicable.

However, when one considers the evidence the former Deputy flags up of just some of the treatment she and her husband have experienced as a consequence of challenging the Jersey Establishment over recent years, perhaps the real motivation behind otherwise inexplicable action becomes somewhat clearer?

As a States’ Deputy, Shona Pitman did of course bring the first ever Vote of No Confidence in a Bailiff – then Sir Philip Bailhache - for his appalling child protection failings including both the Roger Holland affair, and the now infamous Liberation Day speech which so offended the child abuse survivors and others. As readers will recall, she was then rapidly prosecuted by Bailhache’s Attorney General brother William. Dragged through the Royal Court along with a solitary colleague (the only other Deputy who voted for her proposition) for her having assisted two elderly and disabled constituents register for a postal vote – even though it was apparently evidenced and subsequently proven that other election candidates had breached the very same Article 39A law, yet faced no such prosecution.

The subsequent abuses suffered by former Deputy Shona Pitman and her husband at the hands of the Jersey ‘Justice’ system have of course been numerous. Suffice to say that when one listens to the interview and tries to marry up the Police behaviour one has to conclude that if Bailiff William Bailhache really wants to reclaim the ‘Jersey Way’ as something positive he has rather a lot of work to do…

A Guest Posting from Lord Reginald Hamilton Rawley Tooting-Jones III

We are pleased to have our old friend "Lord Reg" back to join us in this special Guest Posting:

"A vacancy for Jurat has arisen and there is a rumour that it will be a contested election - possibly with a candidate being fielded by the loony left. This would be highly irregular as preferred candidates  are normally the domaine of the righteous right. 

Readers will be relieved to know that the law specifically states that women and non-anglicans can hold the esteemed office. Very progressive!

'Qualifications for the office of Jurat

(2) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that –


(a) a person, by reason of the fact that the person is not a member of the Established Church, shall not be disqualified for being appointed Jurat;


(b) a woman, by reason of her sex or marriage, shall not be disqualified for being appointed Jurat. '

The full 1948 Royal Court (Jersey) Law can be found HERE. It makes for verY interesting reading.

We wish both (or all candidates) the very best of luck! We will be watching with interest...

Deputy Montfort Tadier Speech P.20/2015

Following the success of Chief Minister Ian Gorst's proposition P.20/2015 where he was able to persuade the House to approve extra funding for the ongoing Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry, and we were able to report, in an exclusive, in-depth INTERVIEW with the Chief Minister, a positive message for the island in that our parliament has done the right thing. Although not all were in favour of the proposition, to include former Bailiff , and now Senator Philip Bailhache, who, by his own admission, was conflicted but still SPOKE AGAINST THE PROPOSITION regardless.

Deputy Montfort Tadier, as regular readers will be aware, has been a staunch supporter, and campaigner for the Victims/Survivors of abuse and was instrumental in formulating  the Inquiry's Terms of Reference. The Deputy, in his speech below, not only kicked Senator Bailhache's speech into touch but along with Chief Minister Gorst, and all those who voted/spoke in favour of the proposition, helped put Jersey on the map for the right reasons.

Chief Minister Ian Gorst Interview. (P.20/2015)

It is very rare that I am able to be proud of our States Assembly and congratulate it for doing the right thing. Yesterday was one of those rare occasions when 34 of Chief Minister Gorst's fellow politicians supported him, the Child Abuse Inquiry, Victims/Survivors and the Island of Jersey as a whole by VOTING in favour of his PROPOSITION and secured extra funding so that the Child Abuse Committee Of Inquiry is able to continue its work and I feel able/compelled to congratulate the States, as a whole, for doing the right thing.

Chief Minister Gorst stuck his neck on the line bringing this proposition against powerful forces in the background and had he lost the vote then surely his position, as Chief Minister, would have had to be questioned? This proposition, as mentioned in our interview (below) was seen by some as a "Gorst V Bailhache battle" and winner takes all. Now it is Senator Bailhache's position as External Relations Minister that should be questioned.

What the States did yesterday was to put Jersey back on the map for the RIGHT reasons. It (hopefully) sent out a message to the rest of the world saying that we will no longer cover up Child Abuse, we are ready to face the "mistakes" of the past, the Island is (to quote the Chief Minister) "grown up." If Senator Bailhache had of got his wish and halted this Inquiry, mid-flow, then Jersey's reputation (if it's possible) would have taken such a dive that it could have been impossible to recover from. Is this the kind of message we want an External Relations Minister to convey to the rest of the world on our behalf?

Senator Gorst, and the States of Jersey, have been the subject of much criticism on this Blog because we question authority and attempt to hold it to some kind of account, and will continue to do so, but credit must be given where it is due and it certainly is due here.

VFC thanks the Chief Minister for agreeing to an interview and having the confidence in this Blog to report fairly and accurately. Most of all we thank him for having the courage to bring his proposition, we thank the 34 other politicians who supported him, and the Victims/Survivors of horrendous Child Abuse on this Island. Yesterday was a proud day for Jersey and sends out a message of hope that the Island has turned a corner and "The Jersey Way" could soon be a thing of the past?..............Or am I being too optimistic?

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?" 

Former Honorary Police Officer Blows The Whistle.

John has been an Honorary Policeman (Constables Officer) for more than six years and has served in two different Parishes. That was until he reported his immediate superior for suspected drink-driving to the States of Jersey Police.

For the benefit of our national/international readers; Jersey has thirteen Police Forces. There are twelve Honorary/volunteer forces, which equates to one for each of the 12 Parishes, and the States of Jersey Police who are the "paid" or "professional" Police. The Honorary Officers are elected (mostly unopposed) at a Parish Assembly.

The Constables Officer is immediately answerable to a ventengier/Centenier who is answerable ultimately to the Attorney General. At the Head of the Parish is the Constable who also has an automatic right to a seat in the Island's Parliament.

It is important to note that the States, or paid, professional, Police DO NOT have the power to charge offenders, it is the Honorary Police, or more specifically, a Centenier, who has that exclusive power. Centeniers are more often than not elected unopposed at Parish Assemblies also.

We have interviewed John (below) who has decided to blow the whistle on what he, and many others, believe to be "an old boys network." After doing what he was trained to do (reporting a fellow officer to the States of Jersey Police) he now tells us that he has become a victim of whistle blowing and been ostracised. Fellow Officers, according to John, have turned their back on him, refused to go out on duty with him, at the time of the whistle blowing. John also tells us that these actions were supported by the Parish Constable.

After going through all the "correct channels" he has come up against a brick wall and now feels there is no other option open to him other than to go public and expose, what he calls, "an old boys network" that is the Parish system.

He now believes that if, as an Honorary Officer, you suspect a crime being committed by a fellow officer, keep your head down and turn a blind eye. (The Jersey Way)

VFC has not approached the Parish for a comment (who will no doubt have a different version of events, and strenuously deny the claims made by John,) but offer a right of reply should the Parish wish to make contact.

Time for a long overdue whistle blowing policy.

Jersey Child Abuse Rally 7th Anniversary.

As PREVIOUSLY REPORTED today saw the seventh Anniversary of the first Jersey Child Abuse Rally and it was marked in the Royal Square by around 50-60 people which included Victims/Survivors, Politicians, (past and present) whistle blowers and supporters.

Below are a couple of videos with the speeches given by, in part 1, Deputy Montfort Tadier and former Senator Francis Le Gresley. In part 2 former Deputy Bob Hill and former Health Minister Stuart Syvret.

Support for Jersey Child Abuse Victims/Survivors (7th Anniversary)

Deputy Montfort Tadier, long time campaigner for, and supporter of, Victims/Survivors of Child Abuse has issued a Press Release (below) calling for islanders to show their support for Victims/Survivors of Jersey Child Abuse this coming Sunday at 11am in the Royal Square.

Readers will know that there are political shenanigans afoot attempting to shut down the ongoing Child Abuse public Inquiry by certain members of our government, and elsewhere, by people who have some very uncomfortable questions to answer very soon if the Inquiry is given the extra funds it needs to carry on its work.

The world (and Victims/Survivors) need(s) to know that the good people of Jersey do not support a cover up and want to put the past right as best it can so we can once more hold our heads up high and be proud of our island knowing that we have done everything in or power to support the Victims and Survivors and to get to the truth.

Please show your support by sharing this Blog Posting/Press Release over social media and please turn up to the Royal Square Sunday 8 March at 11am?

Press Release of Deputy Montfort Tadier.

"Islanders are invited to congregate to in the Royal Square this Sunday morning at 11am to mark the 7^th Anniversary of the Time4Change rally which was held on 8^th March 2008 to remember the victims and survivors of Jersey child abuse, past and present.

‘Much has happened since that date, and with the help of campaigners, bloggers and former States Members, we were able to secure a Committee of Inquiry to look independently into these serious matters; to shine a light into one of the darkest chapters in Jersey’s recent history, and to seek to bring redress, justice and healing.’ Said Deputy Tadier, a long-time campaigner for Justice for abuse survivors.

‘I am very concerned at recent developments to sabotage the Committee of Inquiry, made by some elements that have never wanted the Inquiry to happen – individuals who themselves have questions to answer under the Committee’s Terms of Reference.

‘The Committee is just about to look at some of its key terms of reference, including [No 13. to] Establish the process by which files were submitted by the States of Jersey Police to the prosecuting authorities for consideration, and establish – 

 Whether those responsible for deciding on which cases to prosecute took a professional approach; 

 Whether the process was free from political or other interference at any level. ‘

‘It is quite understandable that some people may not want this to happen and will try anything to obstruct the Committee from being able to do its job.’

‘For my part, I will resolutely oppose any suggestion that the Committee not be allowed to do its job.

‘The meeting brief memorial this Sunday, will allow the focus to be put back where it belongs. On the victims and survivors of abuse.’

Anyone wishing to attend is invite to bring a daffodil as a sign of respect. And to observe a minute silence."(END)

Francis Oldham QC Letter to Treasury Minister.

As we reported PREVIOUSLY there are some concerns over the costs of the ongoing Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry and five months after VFC voiced these concerns the Treasury Minister, Senator Alan Maclean, got concerned and asked (as VFC had) for a breakdown of the costs in a letter to Francis Oldham QC which can be read on page 22 of the PROPOSITION lodged by alleged Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst, to request the States to agree to additional funding for the Inquiry.

Senator Maclean's letter started off with this sentence;

"Further to the Council of Ministers meeting on Wednesday 28th January and your meeting with the Chief Officer for External Relations and Constitutional Affairs........."(END)

Wait a minute! "your meeting with the Chief Officer for External Relations?" What on earth has the conflicted Senator Philip Bailhache's Department got to do with the finances of the Child Abuse Inquiry? What is Francis Oldham QC doing meeting with representatives of the conflicted Philip Bailhache's Department on ANY issue?  These questions need to be asked at a political, and indeed at a journalistic level, by the State Media.

Back to Francis Oldham QC's letter/reply to the Treasury Minister (below) which can also be found at page 24 of the alleged Chief Minister's PROPOSITION. Although I don't agree with the letter's contents entirely I believe it is worth a Blog Post of its own and broadly support it and will make comments below.

"9 February 2015-02-26

Dear Senator Maclean

Report on Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Expenditure

Thank you for your letter of 2 February 2015 seeking information as to the ongoing work and costs of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry. I have responded to your questions in the attached appendices, which I hope will be of assistance to States Members in considering the way forward.

I understand the financial pressures the Council of Ministers is having to address across budgets. It is clear to the panel however that there are extremely serious matters regarding the history of care for children in Jersey which must be fully explored and addressed if the victims and indeed the whole island is to move on from what has been a very negative experience over recent years Importantly we must make a judgement whether current services for children are fit for purpose and provide protection from the failures of care in the past. We ca only do that if we are able to complete our Inquiry in full.

The scope of the Inquiry in terms of witnesses and documentation far exceeds the assumptions in the budget. In May 2014 I raised concerns about the potential cost of the Inquiry.

To date we have heard evidence of the experiences of 150 people who were within the care system from the 1940’s. Whilst there have been accounts of positive experiences, most of what we have hear has related to painful and damaging experiences. The first phase of the Inquiry has been slow and painstaking, not least because of the difficulty many of the victims have had to wrestle with emotionally in terms of firstly giving a statement and then deciding whether to give evidence in public. Given the history of these matters in the island our first challenge has been to gain the trust and confidence of the victims. The fact that in recent weeks more than 20 new witnesses have come forward is, I believe, a good indicator that we have made significant progress in that regard. Many witnesses have been prepared to give evidence in public of the most intimate forms of abuse and in doing so have demonstrated enormous emotional courage.

The feedback we have had from them as to how they have been treated by the Inquiry has been universally positive. Indeed, I understand that some have made this known to the Chief Minister. If we do not now fully address the question of why their care was so often lacking in the system over many decades we will be letting down not only the victims, but the people of Jersey.

This is one side of the story. Equally important is that we now move to the stage which provides the opportunity for those working within the services to tell their side of the story. We will also give those accused of abuse the opportunity to respond.

The Inquiry is also asked to consider whether decisions to prosecute were “free from political or other interference at any level” . As I stated in my address on 3 April 2014, “we will formulate our own view as the Inquiry evolves and when we have accumulated sufficient evidence. Only then will the Panel be in a position to make findings as to whether the process was in fact free from political or other interference at any level”. We are about to embark upon those hearings. It should not be thought that those parts of the Inquiry are severable.  We cannot evaluate and/or make recommendations in relation to any one part without considering the whole.

We have constantly kept under review the running costs of the Inquiry. Public inquiries are, as you will, inevitably expensive if matters are to be fully addressed. This is even more so the case given the very extensive Terms of Reference set for us by the States Assembly. Indeed, we have resisted pressure to add to the Terms of Reference. The nature of this Inquiry is such that the publicity it has been given and the confidence we have engendered  in victims has led to them coming forward in greater numbers than envisaged at the outset.

We remain fully committed to examining how costs can be contained whilst not compromising our duty to act independently and to give you a full report in accordance with our Terms of Reference. Our purpose is to establish the truth; the truth about what happened to children in residential and foster homes, how mistreatment of children remained hidden for so long and what was done when concerns were raised.

Yours Sincerely

Frances Oldham QC

Chair" (END)

Firstly Judge Oldham's letter has given me some much needed confidence in her and her Inquiry. Regular readers will be aware that we have (rightly) challenged a number of decisions made by the Inquiry and in the interest of fairness and balance should also give credit where it is due. Judge Oldham appears to be standing up to the Establishment and refusing to be bullied by them.

Some interesting paragraphs here;

"This is one side of the story. Equally important is that we now move to the stage which provides the opportunity for those working within the services to tell their side of the story. We will also give those accused of abuse the opportunity to respond." 

And this paragraph in particular;

The Inquiry is also asked to consider whether decisions to prosecute were “free from political or other interference at any level” . As I stated in my address on 3 April 2014, “we will formulate our own view as the Inquiry evolves and when we have accumulated sufficient evidence. Only then will the Panel be in a position to make findings as to whether the process was in fact free from political or other interference at any level”. We are about to embark upon those hearings.

So Philip Bailhache is running around SCARE MONGERING quoting (un-evidenced) costs of the Inquiry at £50m just at the time when the alleged abusers, and those working within the services, are going to be called in front of the Inquiry? Does he want the plug pulled before the Inquiry starts to look at the abuse cases that never went to court and starts "to consider whether decisions to prosecute were “free from political or other interference at any level?"

Regular readers will be aware that we were asking why No managers, Senior Civil Servants, high ranking officials have been charged with any kind of neglect, dereliction of duty or Abuse……coincidence?………..or “The Jersey way?” back in November 2011. Now in 2015 it's about time we got those answers.

A word of advice for Judge Oldham would be to make sure every "I" is dotted and every "T" is crossed when it comes to expenses because the Establishment has form when it comes to trashing abuse investigations over moneys.

This inquiry is about DECADES of covered up Child Abuse, destroyed childhoods and lives and how it was able to happen for so long, indeed if it is able to happen still.

Let's not let the Establishment, and State Media, turn this into a story about money as they did with Operation Rectangle or to quote the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM;

The attempts to divert this debate into discussions concerning the trivia of expense claims, is a scandal of which all involved should be thoroughly ashamed.

History should NOT be allowed to repeat itself and the Establishment be allowed to get away with it a second time round. Let's get to the bottom of what went on because until then the Island, its reputation, and Victims/Survivors will not be able to move forward.

Perhaps the most important sentence of Judge Oldham's letter is this;

"not least because of the difficulty many of the victims have had to wrestle with emotionally in terms of firstly giving a statement and then deciding whether to give evidence in public."(END)

Victims/Survivors have shown immense courage in coming forward to this Inquiry and reliving the most horrific memories conceivable. They have been put through enough, notwithstanding the horrors they were subjected to as children, but we must remember they were promised in 2008 by Frank Walker that there would be an Independent Inquiry with no stone left unturned. They were then told by Terry Le Sueur that there wouldn't be an Inquiry. They were then told by Ian Gorst that there would be an Inquiry. Is our government now going to tell the victims/survivors that they can have an inquiry but a few stones will have to be left unturned because despite being one of the richest places on earth Jersey doesn't have enough money to put its past right?

Don't you think it's time to give the Victims/Survivors what they were originally promised? Don't you think they have been through enough? They need closure and so does Jersey.

For those wishing to give evidence to the Inquiry they can do so from HERE.