Deputy MIKE HIGGINS was due to give evidence as a witness at today's public hearing for the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry.
Unfortunately this didn't happen due to a submission by the Jersey Law Office Department (this morning) on behalf of the States Greffe. Deputy Higgins had intended on using a LEAKED TRANSCRIPT of a States debate where it appears that disgraced former Home Affairs Minister ANDREW LEWIS gave a different account of events that he gave to the Wiltshire Constabulary and the Napier Review concerning his sight (or not) of the Metropolitan Police Interim Report.
For a more in-depth look at the anomalies told by Deputy Andrew Lewis, in this regard, readers are encouraged to read HERE.
The Law Office successfully argued that the States voted for this transcript to remain a secret and the only way to change that is for a proposition to be brought to the States to ask them to reverse that decision. So now Deputy Higgins has to lodge a proposition to that effect and indeed hope he wins it for it to be able to be used as evidence in the Child Abuse Inquiry.
This does seem a little strange as the States are in effect under investigation by this Inquiry, they are, for want of a better word, the "suspect." So the way that I see it is that the "suspect" is going to be asked (Mike Higgins' proposition) to hand over evidence that could potentially be incriminating. Will the States, or the "suspect" vote to hand over this evidence? We will of course be Blogging about this closer the time.
So Deputy Higgins' evidence will have to wait until late January 2016 after the outcome of the debate.
But here's a question that needs asking. The Child abuse Inquiry were made aware of the leaked, and original, Hansard some 17 months ago as it formed part of former Deputy Trevor Pitman's EVIDENCE. The Inquiry was further made aware of it some 14 months, or so, ago as it formed part of Rico Sorda's evidence. So why then did the Inquiry only get round to asking the States Greffe for the original copy nine days ago? It's known of this document, and its controversy for well over a year, why was it not asked for sooner?
Short post but worth a mention in a Blog of its own.
Who was it that said you really couldn't make this stuff up? I truly hope Mike Higgins gets to deliver his evidence. As a Deputy and man he is an individual of the highest calibre.
ReplyDeleteBut what I also have to ask is this. What on earth can Trevor Pitman make of all of this? Trevor is another politician who has done both the victims and the decent people of this island generally proud.
Yet his attempts to give crucial and damning evidence have been thwarted by the very people who are meant to.be hearing and collating that evidence. The question has to be "why"?
But best of luck Deputy Higgins. I just hope you at least get to tell the truth and that this corrupt States/Crown Office does not manage to silence you too.
Hello. Comments past the 200 mark on your last story don't appear to be loading. Gremlins or State interference?
ReplyDeleteI am having the same problem. Are you sure you are set up right for exceeding the 200/comments mark? Shame to become a victim of your own success in producing such a widely read/contributed to post.
DeleteJust looked and the "load more" option is at the bottom of that page.
DeleteYawn...
ReplyDelete....I-Told-You-So.
...yada, yada....
...I'm even starting to bore myself.
...blah, blah...
Somebody drop me an e-mail when you decide to stop pissing-around like fools, and want to get serious.
Stuart Syvret
Tell us Stuart is this comment an attack on Higgins and Pitman or your thoughts on engaging with, and hoping that this Inquiry would do the right thing generally? I just think readers should be clear. Thanks.
DeleteMy comment is an invitation to campaigners to wake-up. To get serious, get real, get focused.
DeleteMy comment is an attack on naivety, foolishness, ignorance.
This so-called “public inquiry” is a “public authority”. As such, it should be accountable at law.
It has acted – and is continuing to act – unlawfully.
What do we need to do?
What happens in functional societies when a “public-authority” acts in an ultra vires manner?
It get’s taken to court.
And an independent, non-conflicted judicial system makes the “public-authority” stop acting without vires, and instead makes it adhere to the rule-of-law.
Here’s your starter question: -
“Where in the Jersey system do you find an impartial, objective court-of-law before which to challenge the ultra vires acts & omissions of this fake, corrupt, “public-inquiry”?
Let me give you a clue:
“There isn’t one.”
So – what’s the “take-away” – basic – inescapable - “message” from that fact?
This really isn’t difficult you know.
Stuart Syvret
Thanks for clarifying that Stuart. It would be a shame if you good guys were falling out. There is so few of you.
DeleteA question. If it correct that Pitman's witness statement was loaded up on the Care enquiry's website and then taken down do we know why and at whose intervention? What I am getting at is if Mike Higgins is being challenged on production of this debate transcript then surely Pitman's use of it in his evidence must be likewise? Or am I missing something?
ReplyDeleteThis is a very valid point. Can you enlighten us at all Voice?
DeleteI believe Trevor inquired about this today at the Inquiry. Can't remember what the reason was for taking his documents off the COI website so hopefully Trevor could come on and explain?
DeleteAnonymous at 19:59
ReplyDeleteClearly panic in the dressing room.
Unfortunately we are not party to whatever discussions are going on between the State's lawyers and the Inquiry (if I may make such a distinction for the moment).
However, Christmas is coming and there is no need to miss the Pantomime. I have just been reading the leaked Hansard and it is a hoot - unfortunately a tragic one.
Lewis is entirely out of his depth. He admits to having read the Met document and is going to use it in a prosecution. No wonder the Met were hopping mad.
Then at one stage, the Bailiff has to tell him to shut up (in parliamentary language of course). It gives credence to Power's report of the Chief Executive trying to shut Lewis up at the suspension meeting.
To give some of the States' members their due, there is some very tough and perceptive questioning from a number of them.
Pity there is no "Spitting Image" in Jersey. This debate would be a wonderful introduction, though the sound would probably have to be muted as the script is apparently confidential.
Nevertheless you can read the original here on Rico Sorda's blog.
Andrew Lewis in this debate is a bit like Louis Van Gaal. He don't know what he doing!
DeleteJust to report the 'load more' button on your previous post is now working for me at least.
ReplyDeleteSo Mike Higgins did not get to deliver any evidence today. But what about Alison Fossey? To my mind she too is a key witness here. Did she get to go ahead and if so was her evidence concluded?
ReplyDeleteAlison Fossey (who has some very uncomfortable questions to answer) began giving evidence today and will continue tomorrow. It (her evidence) is scheduled to conclude tomorrow so the Inquiry had better be banging out those questions at a severe rate of knots or she will need to be called back.
DeleteThanks. Has the all important issue of her take on Graham and Lenny come up yet?
DeleteThat is expected tomorrow. She will need to be asked her take, not only on Lenny and Graham but Gradwell and Warcup also. Her answers will define her credibility, and trustworthiness.
DeleteYes.
DeleteNo hiding-place.
For Alison Fossey – and even more so, this so-called “public-inquiry”.
It must have seemed like such a easy & lucrative gig when Eversheds and their three puppets signed-up.
But no.
This is historic.
No hiding-place.
Stuart Syvret
Deputy Higgins needs more than luck this vote will go the way its allowed to go
ReplyDeleteHiggins losing the vote could be the best bit of "evidence" our side ever stumbles upon at least in regard to long term recorded history.
DeleteYes.
DeleteIt's as stark as could be.
Always remember in this war – the UK authorities have – by their own published policy commitments – responsibility for the effective rule-of-law in Jersey – and the ultimate power to “legislate” – over & above the heads of our hick-town gangster spivs.
No hiding place.
Stuart Syvret
I you don't want to publish my comment. But face facts publishing the leaked debate could be illegal and have consequences.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. Serious consequences like re-confirming that Rent Boy Lewis lied to UNLAWFULLY suspend the Chief of Police who was insisting on investigating decades of child abuse, corruption and other serious crimes including multiple rapes by establishment figures.
DeleteEven a retard would know by now that the debate transcript was published back in July 2012
http://ricosorda.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/the-transcript-of-in-camera-debate.html
The Law offices and their CoI on a leash are desperate that proven facts do not become evidence. This is not a process of cleansing and closure. It is a very expensive way of digging the hole deeper in full view of the world and history.
Cretins.
Criminal Cretins!
Using public funds for this criminal process constitutes embezzlement.
Theft from the taxpayer.
LINK.
DeleteWhy is a transcript prepared from an in camera debate if it can not be used?
ReplyDelete"But here's a question that needs asking"
ReplyDeleteNow that is another understatement. My take on all of this is that having thought they had gotten the panel/lawyers to effectively airbrush Trevor Pitman and his evidence from history very inconveniently along comes diligent Deputy Higgins and bam! Lo and behold hits them with more of the very same. Oh what to do now? Higgins was never a youth worker so whatever can we spend a few hours pretending to be interested in? Boy but Andrew Lewis must be getting a caning from the big boys for all the hassle his motor mouth has caused. Meanwhile drastic action has now proven necessary. Higgins hearing halted and Trevor Pitman's witness statement disappeared in under an hour! Don't you just love Jersey justice?
Mick Gradwell's evidence is now online.
ReplyDelete20th November. http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/hearings/transcripts
No time to comment right now, but definitely worthy of comment later.
Link to TRANSCRIPT.
DeleteLink to DOCUMENTS.
So what was the gist of Chief Inspector Fossey's evidence today? A shafting for Power and Harper or the truth?
ReplyDeleteAlison Fossey's evidence will be the subject of an upcoming Blog. Let's just say she didn't cover herself in glory.
DeleteIs it just me or are all of Trevor Pitman's witness Statement and documents missing from the COI on line facility?
ReplyDeleteAnyone seen the Beano's yet and their line on the secret States debate transcript debacle? Still working so haven't been able to check it out. Usual playing down no doubt?
ReplyDeleteThe mystery thickens.
DeleteI downloaded a copy of Graham Power's documentation on 28/11/2015.
The Inquiry site now says that the documentation has been last updated on 9/12/2015.
I have not idea whether this is significant or not. I have checked the paras in Powers's main statement (235, 531 & 533), which I quoted in my blog post, and these have not been changed.
I haven't the time to compare the two versions to see if any changes have actually been made.
One thing I can see though is that the Inquiry is not very good at covering its tracks.
A problem for the Inquiry in publishing the confidential Hansard is that it would presumably then be covered by privilege and could be quoted with impunity.
DeleteWell, maybe not, as there would presumably be a conflict of laws here that could only be resolved by a court.
But it would be nice to be covered by privilege instead of us risking our lives to report this ridiculous States' session. :)
To be fair the Beano's account is a decent one. Even allowing for the fact that most will conclude this is a response to actually being left will little choice thanks to the blogs and our handful of brave politicians (eg Mike Higgins,Trevor, Stuart,Bob et al) this must be a welcome development. The acid test will come when they need to call for action against Andrew Lewis and an apology for Graham Power. Mind you the piece even name-checked Trevor Pitman for once without the usual hateful digs! Could there be hope that finally the poisonous establishment coffee has been smelt?
DeleteExtract from paragraph 536 of Graham Power's written statement to the Committee of Inquiry.
ReplyDelete"Andrew Lewis did not report my suspension to the States Assembly because he wanted to. He did it because it was a requirement of the law at that time that a suspension of the Police Chief had to be followed by a report by the Minister to the full house. Whether he was told this before he was persuaded to sign the suspension documents I do not know. But I suspect not. This might explain his somewhat creative improvisation during the debate."
It would be in the public interest for the transcript to be available to the COI any vote against the transcript being provided to the COI surely is a vote against the truth.
ReplyDeleteIt would be in the public interest for the transcript to be available to the COI. The Jersey public are not only very interested but also very much involved. Considering that the majority of the 11 million pounds (so far), of their hard money is going to Lawyers protecting police, politicians, civil servants and people, with loads and loads to hide!?
ReplyDeleteI also looked at the leaked transcript and the whole principle of "In Camera" debates which undermines democracy
ReplyDeletehttp://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2012/07/government-behind-closed-doors.html
It rarely happens in Guernsey or the Isle of Man and is only possible easily with small legislatures - not like the UK.
"The principle of open government is a linchpin of democracy because it allows citizens to scrutinize the activities of elected officials and public servants to ensure that they are acting in the public interest. One pillar that supports open government is freedom of information legislation, which gives people the right to access government-held information. A second pillar is open meetings legislation, which ensures that public bodies conduct their meetings in public, not in secret." (Tom Minchinson)
Daniel Wimberley also had a lot to say about Mr Lewis - the public Napier version, and the buried bones of the "In camera" debate!
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2014/08/today-i-have-guest-posting-on-former.html
Link ONE.
DeleteLink TWO.
This Inquiry is bought and sold. The farcical questioning of witnesses from both sides to ensure nothing of the true severity of years of scandal and betrayal shows this beyond arguement. As Jonny Rotten once said 'Ever get the feeling you've been had?'
ReplyDeleteThe COI is not worth the time, money or effort.
ReplyDeleteIt would have been better if they had given £11.4 Million to the survivors and children's services instead of the paltry amounts reluctantly handed out in their half hearted compo scheme.
Quite right- it doesn't even buy a garage in Jersey, yet alone a home, a basic income and a reasonable pension. That's the sort of compensation they should have received for a ***ed up life.
DeleteBut instead the sort of figured the survivors were given amounts to a little more than a decent holiday, a motorbike etc. Meanwhile the Jersey establishment has been happy to give over 1/2 a million quid to Ogly together with his gold plated pension, as a pay-off. Sickening.
By the end Frances Oldham QC will be a multi-millionaire from wages alone.
DeleteIt would still be worth it IF it exposed Birt and the Bailhache and in some way led to them.being held to account. Not that I believe this will happen. The already highlighted lack of professional questions to draw out answers from very in depth statements from the likes of GP and TP show suggest to me this is a going through the motions exercise.
Delete"A"
ReplyDeleteThanks for the nod and will inform the family. It couldn't have come from him.
The Operation Rectangle/Graham Power suspension phase of the COI is proving to be the most interesting and compelling, so far.
ReplyDeleteAny update on Stuart Syvret giving evidence to the COI?
ReplyDeleteA pattern is emerging as to the way the COI is going with their/our public inquiry. and it [the COI] certainly will not be wanting Syvret to be giving evidence to it. We also are quite sure that Syvret does not want to give his evidence to it. Therefore. That's the update asked for above.
ReplyDeleteIf we go down the route of allowing in camera debate transcripts, of this secret debate to be used as evidence then what will that say about the law enabling the in camera debates?
ReplyDeleteWho of our States members will vote against the proposition any predictions?
ANDREW LEWIS?
DeleteAnd Philip Bailhache, Dozie Pinel, Eddie Noel, Rod Bryans, Kristina Airhead, John Rafault, Michael Le Trocquer and probably quite a few more.
DeleteIs there a link to the COI Terms of Reference that someone fairly new to all of this can access please?
ReplyDeletePart one.
DeleteTerms of Reference, as approved by the States of Jersey on 6th March 2013
The Committee of Inquiry (“the Committee”) is asked to do the following –
1. Establish the type and nature of children’s homes and fostering services in Jersey in the period under review, that is the post-war period, with a particular focus on the period after 1960. Consider (in general terms) why children were placed and maintained in these services.
2. 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.
3. Examine the political and other oversight of children’s homes and fostering services and other establishments run by the States with a particular focus on oversight by the various Education Committees between 1960 and 1995, by the various Health and Social Services Committees between 1996 and 2005, and by ministerial government from 2006 to the current day.
4. Examine the political and societal environment during the period under review and its effect on the oversight of children’s homes, fostering services and other establishments run by the States, on the reporting or non-reporting of abuse within or outside such organisations, on the response to those reports of abuse by all agencies and by the public, on the eventual police and any other investigations, and on the eventual outcomes.
5. Establish a chronology of significant changes in childcare practice and policy during the period under review, with reference to Jersey and the UK in order to identify the social and professional norms under which the services in Jersey operated throughout the period under review.
6. Take into account the independent investigations and reports conducted in response to the concerns raised in 2007, and any relevant information that has come to light during the development and progression of the Redress Scheme.
7. Consider the experiences of those witnesses who suffered abuse or believe that they suffered abuse, and hear from staff who worked in these services, together with any other relevant witnesses. It will be for the Committee to determine, by balancing the interests of justice and the public interest against the presumption of openness, whether, and to what extent, all or any of the evidence given to it should be given in private. The Committee, in accordance with Standing Order 147(2), will have the power to conduct hearings in private if the Chairman and members consider this to be appropriate.
8. Identify how and by what means concerns about abuse were raised and how, and to whom, they were reported. Establish whether systems existed to allow children and others to raise concerns and safeguard their wellbeing, whether these systems were adequate, and any failings they had.
Part two.
Delete9. Review the actions of the agencies of the government, the justice system and politicians during the period under review, in particular when concerns came to light about child abuse and establish what, if any, lessons are to be learned.
10. Consider how the Education and Health and Social Services Departments dealt with concerns about alleged abuse, what action they took, whether these actions were in line with the policies and procedures of the day, and whether those policies and procedures were adequate.
11. Establish whether, where abuse was suspected, it was reported to the appropriate bodies, including the States of Jersey Police; what action was taken by persons or entities including the police, and whether this was in line with policies and procedures of the day and whether those policies and procedures were adequate.
12. Determine whether the concerns in 2007 were sufficient to justify the States of Jersey Police setting in train ‘Operation Rectangle’.
13. 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.
If, for these purposes, or as a result of evidence given under paragraph 7, in the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee, it would be of assistance that one or more of the prosecution files underpinning any prosecution decision may be examined in a manner to be determined by the Committee.
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.
15. Report on any other issues arising during the Inquiry considered to be relevant to the past safety of children in residential or foster care and other establishments run by the States, and whether these issues affect the safety of children in the future.
Term of reference 9 says 'Review the actions of the agencies of the government, the justice system and politicians during the period under review, in particular when concerns came to light about child abuse and establish what, if any, lessons are to be learned.'
DeleteThe COI is asked explicitly to inquire into the actions of 'the justice system'. I’m confused because I heard word going around that the COI was refusing to look at the role of Jersey’s ‘justice system’. But that rumour must be wrong, because the TOR 9 requires the COI to look at the role of ‘the justice system’. And in fact they’ve already done so to an extent when looking at the actions of police (honorary & paid), Centenniers , and the Parish Hall Inquiry system, and some of the prosecution & non-prosecution issues, and the role and actions of the magistrates’ court.
So can we scotch once and for all the false rumour being spread by some people (I could guess who) who want to heap discredit and scorn on the COI. It is looking into the judicial issues. I’m right aren’t I Voice?
Indeed you are right and could have included TOR 13 to strengthen your argument.
Delete"13. 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.
If, for these purposes, or as a result of evidence given under paragraph 7, in the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee, it would be of assistance that one or more of the prosecution files underpinning any prosecution decision may be examined in a manner to be determined by the Committee."
In the JEP report of this incident they too confirm what you say about Pitman including a copy of this leaked transcript as long ago as last year. My first question and surely the one most people would ask is why had it taken this long for the States Greffier to get any release banned? My second question is why was no such move made when Pitman gave public evidence a few weeks ago? Was there some kind of private agreement between States lawyers and the Inquiry Chairman/Panel that Pitman would not be asked about this? All very confusing
ReplyDeleteWho is up for questions this week or have things wound up for Xmas?
ReplyDeleteStates start sitting tomorrow for questions which can be read HERE.
ReplyDeleteSince when has any question in the States ever drummed up an answer.
DeleteSurprised they still bother trying.
Should there not be a proposition from Deputy Higgins on publishing the in camera Hansard on the order paper somewhere?
ReplyDeleteNot yet. He will (I would have thought) be writing it over the weekend. He won't have had a chance to write/submit it yet.
ReplyDeleteAll quiet on the western front?
ReplyDeleteA question in relation to Graham Power's evidence, in particular paragraphs 104 to 106 of his statement to Wiltshire Police, contained in this document http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/Transcripts/Day%20107%20documents.pdf.
ReplyDeleteParagraphs 104 to 106 describe the events surrounding the opening of a locked cabinet in Mr Power's office. We know from other blogs that a tape recording of a conversation with Stuart Syvret and a copy of Mr Power's contract, providing him with legal assistance, were apparently taken from the safe. As he says, no person representing Mr Power's interests was present.
What I'm curious about is that Mr Power does not refer to the precise contents of the cabinet in his evidence. He may have good reason no to do so. It just strikes me as curious. Perhaps Mr Warcup will provide answers when he appears on 16th December?
LINK.
DeleteSame thing occurred to me, but I passed it over for the moment.
DeleteThe proposition has been lodged and can be read HERE.
DeleteSomething weird has happened with your link ... The proposition as written keeps repeating itself
ReplyDeleteJust tried it and no problems.
DeleteAnonymous at 16:05 may be referring to apparent repetition within the document, but each of the bullets is different.
DeleteSmall typo, I think, in para 5 page 4, which should refer to 2015 not 2014, but I assume that will not affect consideration by the States.
Is there yet any indication of when this proposition will be debated/voted on?
Polo.
DeleteIt is due to be debated on the 19th January 2016.
Thanks.
DeleteNo doubt there will be much soul searching over the Christmas and the vote (including rationalisations) will be most interesting.
Indeed! Will publish a Blog regarding the proposition in the New Year.
DeleteCan anyone enlighten us on the Chief Ministers answer to a question about the Sharp report from Deputy Higgins?
ReplyDeletea) The full report contained 41 pages not including the appendix.
b) One appendix was produced to the report. The title of the appendix is “The Attorney General’s Questions and My Answers” and it contains 2 pages.
c) The main report was sent to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry on the 27th February 2014.
d) The one appendix was also sent to the Inquiry on the 27th February 2014.
I have re-read the Sharp Report which is publicly available at this URL
Deletehttp://www.no2abuse.com/index.php/news/comments/the-sharp-report-jersey-abuse-download/
I think some confusion may have come about with the passage of time. I think what the Jersey campaigners have been referring to, and the evidence they want your public inquiry to obtain is not ‘6 appendices’, but rather ‘six victim statements’.
The mistake I think has been using the word ‘appendices’ rather than the ‘six statements by victims’ which the Sharp Report refers to.
Here is the full quote from paragraph A3 of the Sharp Report:
‘The Attorney General listed several matters and eleven questions (which I have numbered below for ease of reference) arising from the police report and, “on the assumption that the assertions made in the Report are accurate”, referred them to the Governing Body to consider. Attached to the Report were 3 letters, six statements by victims of Mr Jervis-Dykes and one by the Headmaster.’
So I suggest that whoever has been asking your public inquiry to obtain ‘6 appendices’, should clarify their request to the panel and make it clear that what you’re seeking the body obtain are the ‘3 letters’, the ‘six statements by victims of Jervis-Dykes’, and the statement ‘by the Headmaster’.
In fact thinking about that evidence having now got an accurate understanding of what it was, it is all of great, perhaps pivotal, relevance to the work of the COI. The public inquiry will gain great insight into how Jersey’s authorities were responding to child-abuse and child-abuse cover-ups by viewing the 6 victims statements (which would obviously be redacted solely to the purpose of protecting the victims’ identities). And the statement by the disgraced Headmaster will be of profound importance and relevance. The mysterious ‘3 letters’ too will be of great interest.
If you hear of the public inquiry being formally asked for this evidence, could you let us know, VFC?
How damning it is that there are only three politicians - at least to my knowledge - who were brave, insightful enough and most important of all caring enough to highlight the incestuous nature of those overseeing our judicial system which allowed a despicable and clearly dishonest creature like Le Breton to sit in judgement of others as a Jurat.
DeleteThose three are the former Senator Stuart Syvret and the Deputies Trevor and Shona Pitman.
Respect to each of them, this being a stark contrast to William Bailhache who brought Le Breton out of mothballs to rub abuse victims and anti-abuse campaigners noses in the dirt in having him preside on the January child abuse case this very year as if he were a normal and decent human being.
As Mr Syvret used to say you couldn't make this up. Nothing changes with these Rotter's and scoundrels who pass themselves off as Jersey's elite.
It is always sad when the Jersey Establishment try to pass off demonstrable half truths and even complete fabrication as fact; even more when what they seeking to distract from is child abuse and its concealment.
ReplyDeleteThe 'facts' given to Deputy Higgins here simply deliberately misleading. The first thing to point out here amongst so many red herrings spun over the Victoria College child abuse cover up is to ensure an accurate understanding of what an 'Appendix' or 'Appendices' is/are. If memory serves...
A fair definition being 'supplementary material at the end of a book, report, document, article or other form of text'. It being regularly added that such material is 'usually of an explanatory, statistical or biographical nature.'
Thus far from Chief Minister Gorst's nonsence the fact is that in Sharp there were, as I have stated many times SIX key 'appendices' these being crucial STATEMENTS from Andrew Jervis-Dykes' victims all ATTACHED to the report presented to the then Education Committee.
There were also three LETTER Appendices ATTACHED and one STATEMENT from the disgraced Headmaster.
We can split hairs here but what Gorst is trying to pass off as co-operation with the COI here is the frankly irrelevant document described as 'Appendix one' which is little more than the Education 'off-island' form. Which the petvert teacher Jervis-Dykes was meant to complete to take his pupils/victims on the boat trips. Forms which he and his enablers at the College treated with contempt.
Why the SIX 'appendices' STATEMENTS from the victims are so iimportant and must be given to the COI is obvious - they back up the concealment of the abuse and the contempt for protecting the pupils displayed by those in charge at Victoria College.
Six statements which help shed more light on the outrageous behaviour of individuals such as the Vice-Principle who the investigating police were astounded to discover had been allowed by the Bailiff and Attorney General to become a Jurat who would sit on other child abuse cases in the Royal Court - right up until this very year.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's right one John Le Breton.
Former Deputy Pitman, I left the comment above concerning the semantical point re ‘appendices’ vs. ‘statements’. I in no way was being hostile to your position, that of Deputy Higgins, nor any other Jersey campaigner. Indeed, I agree with the point you make; your Chief Minister (and if they’re playing the same lawyer-games, your public inquiry) are being greatly disingenuous and wilfully obstructive if they’re trying hide the statements (and other evidence) from disclosure by hiding behind the word ‘appendices’.
DeleteYou are absolutely correct. The evidence involved, all the letters, the victims statements, the statements by culpable staff such as the Headmaster (Jack Hydes) and the Deputy Headmaster (John Le Breton) must all be obtained, investigated and published by the COI.
As a commenter pointed out above, your public inquiry is directly required by its terms of reference to examine the functioning, role and conduct of Jersey’s judicial system in respect of matters relating to child-protection failures, child-abuse, & child-abuse cover-ups. The staggering conduct of John Le Breton and his then even more amazing incorporation into Jersey’s judiciary, and his later simply unbelievable involvement in actual cases which related to the child-abuse cover-ups, is one of the most central and important set of issues this public inquiry has to examine.
What should be added to the useful and highly revealing three comments above is surely this.
DeleteIf the Care Inquiry chairwoman and her panel want to understand the core attitude to children abused whilst being 'cared for' by Home or school in Jersey just focus on the fact that not a single Attorney General, Bailiff or Lieutenant-Governor in all the years that have passed since the Victoria College cover up was finally exposed have done a thing to remedy such a staggering abuse
Of our justice system evident in the paedophile protector Le Breton's continued seat on the Jurats' benches.
Understand this and I suggest one understands why the States. Judiciary, Law Office and paid lawyers don't want to hand over so much material.
Anonymous at 20:40 hits the nail right on the head. Campaigners need to ensure that the inquiry receives:
ReplyDelete3 letters
6 statements by victims of Jervis-Dykes (suitably anonymised)
1 statement by the Headmaster
These deviant cover up merchants must not be given any kind of wiggle room.
Can anyone tell me just who was 1) the Bailiff and 2) the Attorney General holding office at the time of John Le Breton's selection to.become a Jurat? The answer to this may be very revealing.
ReplyDeleteIn answer to 22:06, the Bailiff at the time of John Le Breton’s selection to become a “Jurat” was Philip Bailhache. That’s the same Philip Bailhache who himself had been a member of the Victoria College Board of Governors during the early 1990’s, throughout a period when Jervis-Dykes was abusing pupils of the school, and during which period the school were aware of complaints of abuse against Jervis-Dykes.
DeleteThe Attorney General at the time of Le Breton’s proposing and election by the Jersey Establsihment “electoral college” to become a “Jurat” was Michael Birt.
To make the very obvious point, the most serious and profound responsibilities lays upon office-holders such as the head of your judiciary (Bailiff) and your Attorney General (sole prosecution authority + other functions) to ensure that people coming into positions involving policing, prosecution and judicial functions are not personally conflicted, and that they satisfy what might reasonably be described as a “fit & proper person” test relevant to the public office they’re taking up.
Obviously, both your Bailiff, Philip Bailhache, and your Attorney General, Michael Birt at the relevant time were both – both – aware of the scandalous events at Victoria College and the reprehensible, very possibly illegal, conduct of John Le Breton. They both therefore had an unavoidable public duty and basic public-interest expectation on their shoulders to make the necessary reasonable disclosures to the public authorities about to elect Le Breton to their judiciary.
That both Philip Bailhache and Michael Birt failed to take such step concerning Le Breton is amazing, scandalous and at least ultra vires.
Indeed, the Attorney General referred to in the Sharp Report – the Attorney General who posed the “eleven questions” - is Michael Birt. The same Michael Birt who was there, and an actual participant in, the election of John Le Breton to be one of your Royal Court’s 12 Jurats. An “election” which took place in your Royal Court, and which was presided over by Bailiff Philip Bailhache.
And it is not as though this were an isolated event.
An entirely analogous disgraceful failure of rudimentary public-office responsibility is to be found in the earlier conduct of Philip Bailhache, when he was Attorney General in the early 1990’s, when he failed to have the ‘honorary’ police officer Roger Holland removed from office, even though Bailhache knew then Holland was a convicted paedophile. As we know Holland then went on to commit further acts of child-abuse.
Thank you to ex-Deputy Pitman and Anonymous above in regard to the Sharp Report. It is abundantly obvious that the material they describe simply must be handed to the COI.
ReplyDeleteThe Sharp Report is so old and questionably relevant as so much has changed since.
ReplyDeleteBecause it is known that Andrew Jervis-Dykes changed his name and got back into teaching in London soon after his release and that is 13 years ago. No Sex Offender Register anywhere in the 90s.
The Sharp Report is of huge relevance. Only a troll or a Jersey Crown Officer could claim otherwise. Jervis-Dykes himself of course is largely irrelevant - it is the actions of man allowed to protect the paedophile, betray victims and become a lay judge who is of key import. Along with the Crown officers and Education president who made his promotion possible.
DeleteThis and your last post on the Inquiry farce have been very busy and with a load of (generally) very good, thoughtful comments. Still showing the State Media how it is done after all thses years! Well done and good luck.
ReplyDeleteAnother classic bit of States of Jersey subterfuge this week, in an answer to Deputy Mike Higgins about the chain of evidence (aka chain of custody) for items found at HDLG.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyQuestions/2015/Dep%20Higgins%20to%20HA%20re%20Operation%20Rectangle.pdf
"In the case of Operation Rectangle, there are no known breaches to the continuity of evidence."
That's "no known breaches" people...
No "known breaches" according to whoever on the current staff was asked to prepare the response for the Minister of Home Affairs.
What about breaches that are unknown to the current staff? I'm suddenly coming over all Donald Rumsfeld with my known unknowns and unknown unknowns...
The answer given to Deputy Higgins directly contradicts what Lenny Harper has claimed on numerous occasions. I do wonder if Lenny Harper has a smoking gun email proving that the chain of custody for certain items was broken.
VFC,
ReplyDeleteI imagine you are in contact with Graham Power. Is there any value in asking Mr Power to email all current States' members with a message along the lines of "Hello, my name is Graham Power. The in-camera session was in relation to my suspension from my employment as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. I consent to the release of all personal information relating to me contained in the transcript of the original in camera session, and indeed any subsequent in camera session."
We wouldn't want any politicians to trot out the old "Mr Power's private information" defence, would we?
I don't want to start taking up space on this excellent comment stream but just would draw attention to two things in the context of not letting anyone off the hook when it comes to getting all relevant material out into the open.
ReplyDeleteIn the first place, the stakes are very high for the establishment and they will clearly go to serious lengths to keep as much as they can under wraps.
In the second place, I would again draw attention to their efforts to deny highly relevant material to Graham Power, namely, the dates of the first drafts of his suspension letters. This seemed a small thing when he was looking for them, but they actually proved devastating (for the establishment) when he finally got them. The ridiculous grounds put forward by the Minister for denying access to them, under the freedom of information code then in force, show that the authorities have absolutely no shame in attempting to cover up their "mistakes". I have dealt with this in more detail in my blog post on Graham Power's statement and documentation.
You do understand, yes, that people who are members of a school’s Board of Governors carry personal legal liability for any unlawful acts or omissions by that governing body (such as child-abuse)? It’s what’s known as ‘fiduciary’ responsibility, and which give rise to an equitable remedy.
ReplyDeleteBeing a member of a Board of Governors of a school is not some sort of nice easy risk-free way of social-climbing. It’s serious and brings with it very very significant and onerous expectations and duties. DUTIES WHICH ARE LEGALLY ACCOUNTABLE.
Basically, what I’m pointing out is that any person who was a member of a Board of Governors of an institution during a time period when things were going unlawfully wrong and tortious acts & omissions were happening, is legally liable for the consequences. The victims of the of child-abuse which happened at the Jersey school Victoria College have a clear-cut open & shut legal claim for damages against all of those who were members of the Board of Governors during the relevant period. Usually, like in a place with real lawyers and independent courts, Governors who failed so badly as the Victoria College Governors would have been eaten for breakfast already by the victims’ lawyers and the courts. We’re talking millions & millions of $$$.
Usually there’d be 3 basic legal questions, 1) did some kind of unlawful harm or neglect occur & from which victims suffered harm, damage etc, 2) do/did the relevant authorities have a duty of care to the victims under the circumstances, & 3) what was the degree of culpability/negligence on the part of those authorities in allowing, permitting, enabling that harm & damage to occur?
In the Jersey (UK) case of the school Victoria College, we know that victims did suffer really serious damage & harm. They were victims of child-abuse, and that fact is shown to the criminal standard of proof because their abuser was convicted & jailed. We know that according to law a Board of Governors carries civil legal responsibility for any unlawful acts & omissions occurring within the institution’s purview (that’s simply a long-established fact of law.) And we know (& this is the fulcrum issue in Jersey) that the school, its most senior leadership & Board of Governors knew about the abuse, knew about the unlawful neglect of the institution they were running & Governing, because we have the facts as established in the Sharp Report.
Many senior people working in the school, and, as Governors, who were responsible for its oversight had at an early stage sufficient awareness of suspected abuse & the early allegations of abuse, to have taken the matter seriously at the very first possible moment.
This is just a crushing situation.
Any person who was a member of the Board of Governors of Jersey’s Victoria College during the time period when child abuse was occurring, and especially when child-abuse was being covered-up had/has a direct legal and financial liability to the victims for the abuse they suffered, because of the negligence and failure of the duty of care of the institution.
This means that men such as Philip Bailhache and John Le Breton were permanently conflicted, and remain so, because of their personal and financial liability in tort arising out of their role as Governor & Vice-Principle during a time when child-abuse was occurring.
That kind of conflict of interests means it was AB INITIO (Latin, usually used to describe a situation which was ‘null & void from the very beginning’) for individuals such as Philip Bailhache and John Le Breton to have any later involvement in any kind of official capacity, discharging any kind of formal public office, when it came to matters involving Jersey’s child-protection failures & abuse cover-ups
So from what you are saying it would, as a consequence, seem quite apparent that John Le Breton should not have been allowed to sit on the defamation case of anti-child abuse campaigner and politician ex Deputy Pitman? Or have I misunderstood the legal point being made here?
DeleteThat’s absolutely right. I’ve followed events in your island from here in the USA and it’s so fascinating I’m thinking of doing a paper for my faculty on the administration of justice (if we could call it that) in the British Crown Dependencies. It’s just amazing that these men have been able to get away with all this. There’s just no way it’s lawful for a person with direct conflicts of interest in an issue to then be a part of a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal making decisions related to that issue. The presence of any conflicted person in any part of the functioning of that tribunal renders those processes unlawful. The same is true for Philip Bailhache as someone points at 23:42 above. He too is permanently conflicted from any official role in making any formal decisions which relate to the child-abuse controversies. There’s nothing even faintly defensible about the Jersey situation. It’s so indefensible the real questions you should be asking should be directed at the authorities in London.
DeleteThere are a number of interesting comments above regarding a John Le Breton who was Deputy Headmaster at Victoria College during the sexual abuse of young boys abuse which led to the conviction of Jervis-Dykes. As I understand, he is alleged to have failed to act on the abuse but nevertheless went on to be appointed as a Jurat and to sit on a number of significant cases. I see from Mr Powers statement that the Jurat who sat on the judicial review of his suspension from duty during the subsequent historic abuse enquiry was also called John Le Breton. Are they by any chance related?
ReplyDeleteBelieve it or not, it is the very same person.
DeleteEven more evidence that the paedophile protecting Jurat and, as the investigating police officer of the time Mr Cornelissen pointed out, actual 'bully' of abuse victims John Le Breton was parachuted in to do a number on troublesome anti-abuse champions Graham Power and the Pitmans. When oh when will our esteemed and very handsomely paid Lieutenant-Governor finally get up off his arse and start doing his job I.e. ensuring the enforcement of law and order and good governance?
DeleteIt would be good if Deputy Higgins could let us know if the answer he received from the Chief Minister was helpful and where is he heading with this superb question about The Sharp Report.
ReplyDeleteHi VFC,
ReplyDeleteDid you attend David Warcup's public hearing at the inquiry today?
If so, how did it go down?
Did he explain his letter and the "Metropolitan Police Report" ?
Was he asked about the items allegedly taken from Graham Power's locked office cabinet? Specifically, the recording of the Syvret telephone call and the copy of Mr Power's contract guaranteeing him legal representation?
The MET Report was mentioned and Mr. Warcup didn't cover himself in glory in that respect. The questioning of him by counsel was, IMO, very good and relative. The cracking open of Mr. Power's safe was not on the agenda but plenty more was. Will have to wait for transcripts and publish a Blog on Mr. Warcup's appearance at the Inquiry today when they are available.
DeleteCredit has to go the Inquiry Team today because the nailed him......Or allowed him to nail himself.
Well, that's a very positive sounding comment VFC. I look forward to the blog post.
DeleteTell me, did he appear by video link or appear in person in St Helier?
He appeared in person.
DeleteWarcup wasn't even mentioned on the Jersey BBC, or CTV TV news today, but he was mentioned on BBC Radio Jersey news. Warcup said that he had nothing to do with Powers suspension. Who did then?
ReplyDeleteIf Warcup really did say that he had nothing to do with Mr Power's suspension then this puts him at odds with a number of other key players, including Lewis, Ogley, and Le Marquand, all of whom, at various stages, have said that they relied upon a letter written by him to Ogley. The now notorious "Warcup Letter" was quoted directly in the suspension documents handed to Mr Power. If he did not think that the letter he wrote to the Chief Executive was to be used for suspension purposes then what did he think it was for? Warcup might not be the brightest but he is not so daft that he could not work that one out.
DeleteThis "Jurat" business is incredible. Like others who tune in from outside your little tax Haven I find myself asking just how brazenly bent is your judiciary and government? I mean I am almost tempted to ask were you not better off under your Nazi Occupation?
ReplyDeleteI note that former St Helier Deputy Trevor Pitman's witness statement has still not been re-posted on the COI website.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone tell me what the hell is going on? The statement apparently went down while someone I know was trying to read it and I'm told it is (or at least was) damning.
WTF does this type of behaviour say about the independence or integrity of this Inquiry?
Okay, so I am quite happy to acknowledge I was a big admirer of politics as practiced by Pitman. Yes he could be in your face but IMHO this is exactly what is needed when faced with these untouchable ministers and Bailiffs.
This whole issue stinks and just to show I am not some kind of sychophsnt I would also add that if Trevor Pitman is still in the island it really would be helpful if he could come on and tell us what is going on.
If he even knows himself of course? Completely unacceptable the whole thing Madam Chairman.
Regular readers will know that former Deputy Bob Hill recently suffered a massive brain haemorrhage/stroke as reported HERE.
ReplyDeleteI am pleased to say that Bob is making (slow) progress and, as a result, has now been transferred from the General Hospital to Overdale.
Great news. Thanks for the update.
DeleteThat is truly excellent and promising news. Onwards and upwards Bob.
DeleteIs that:
DeleteOverdale Hospital
Westmount Road
St Helier
Jersey
JE2 3UH
and do we need to specify a ward for snailmail cards?
That's the one Polo and it's Samarez Ward.
Delete
ReplyDeletePart 1.
Corruption in Jersey and the suspension of the Chief of Police.
It is clear that corruption exists in small islands that have weak judicial, public sector or political accountability. The police force are supposed to be independent and are charged with holding “ anyone” to account if they stray outside of the law. G. Power as proved with his well documented “ over my dead body meeting “ notes, and tensions with the AG that he was outside of the elite hard core, and independent as a good honest cop should be.
Although Frank Walker was publicly supportive of the child abuse investigations he clashed with Stuart Syvret over who was responsible and was active in a damage limitation exercise to save corporate tax haven Jersey and its substantial income.
Chief of Police G. Power appears to be sympathetic to ex-Senators Syvret’s outspoken views on corporate failings on child abuse. He is also looking closely and in tandem at Deputy Carolyn Labey’s concerns when she reports to him on endemic planning corruption.
Parts taken from Graham Powers published legal affidavit.
These involved allegations made against Senator Terry Le Main the Housing Minister. I recall that Deputy Carolyn Labey got in touch with me and related to me information which she had received from people who said that they had inside knowledge of corruption in the granting of permission to build retirement properties on previously designated agricultural land.
The allegations were a bit complicated but in brief it was alleged that the Senator and at least one of his senior officials were in a corrupt relationship with a developer who was being assisted in turning lower value agricultural land into high value development land. At my request Chief Inspector David Minty made some initial enquiries.
64. At some stage I spoke to the Attorney General and offered the view that these were serious allegations, and some form of criminal enquiry might be called for, if only to clear the air. I was aware that word of the allegations had spread and they were being talked about widely in some circles.
I recall that at this time my relationship with the Attorney General was experiencing some tension. The above matter was running parallel with another issue, which arose after the key period in Operation Rectangle, which concerned children who had been placed in situations of risk by the Social Services Department, apparently contrary to specialist advice.
In consequence of this action some of the children had suffered serious abuse and the offenders had been convicted. I know that David Minty had submitted an initial report to the Attorney General following criminal proceedings against the abusers of the children, in which he recommended a criminal investigation into the actions of the Civil Servants involved in the decision to place the children at risk.
As I recall the Attorney General responded by suggesting that he might address the matter by having a discreet word with the Chief Executive. I recall that I thought badly of this idea, regarding it as the sort of thing which had got us all into the “Rectangle” situation to begin with.
Continued.
Part 2.
ReplyDeleteAt some point in these exchanges Deputy Labey emailed me expressing lack of confidence in the independence and integrity of the criminal justice system, and expressed criticism of the then Bailiff, who is the brother of the then Attorney General. A print-out of the email from Deputy Labey had been obtained by the Attorney General, and there were some exchanges about it in which I was involved.
The Attorney General reacted angrily towards Deputy Labey and demanded she apologise to the Bailiff or something of that nature.
At some point I asked him if he had obtained the copy lawfully, when I should have said “legitimately.” He said he had obtained it as part of the bundle of papers submitted by David Minty, who was leading on the discussions as to whether there should be a criminal investigation.
I have since thought about this and on reflection I do not think that his use of the email was entirely legitimate. He obtained the email in his capacity as the Head of the Prosecution Service, and then appears to have used it in his other capacity as the legal representative of the government.
This is of course a symptom of the multi-role of the Jersey Law Officers Department.
http://www.jerseymedia.co.uk/tag/proper-investigation/.
The Evening Post article ( now removed ) but saved by social media reporter Rico Sorda.
PLANNING corruption on a grand scale involving civil servants, solicitors and at least one States Member has been ignored by police, it was alleged in court yesterday.
http://ricosorda.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/snapshot.html
The suspension of Graham Power ( Nov. 2008 ) from office just days after the meeting with William Bailhache AG. over planning corruption and the ongoing child abuse investigation killed off the chance of a planning corruption investigation. Planning Minister Freddie Cohen took up the reins and announced an in house investigation would take place.
Nothing more was heard.
Home affairs minister Andrew Lewis said that he would not have suspended the police chief without advice from several people including Human Resources and the Attorney General. Now obviously at the head of the Jersey judiciary is the Attorney General, the Bailiff ( head judge and States speaker ) and the deputy Bailiff were and are, well known to each other due to working in the same department and by family relationship being brothers.
As Power comments, his suspension was a punishment for daring to challenge Jersey's "secrecy culture" by investigating serious allegations made against some of the island's power players.
Found in his affidavit and in a tell all article below
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/28/jersey-secrecy-culture
The answer was the removal of a cop who refused to be intimidated by politicians the AG or other civil servants.
G.Power.
The report is right to state that I was subject to a number of allegations, but in the event none of these allegations came to anything. There were no disciplinary charges and there was no disciplinary hearing. All disciplinary action was abandoned after a period of over a year and a half and well over one million pounds of expenditure.
Continued.
Part 3.
ReplyDeleteLord Napier, as reported by the Guardian.
Two years ago, a QC from the mainland, Brian Napier, was commissioned to produce an independent report into Power's ousting. He found no evidence of any conspiracy, but ruled that the suspension could not be justified by hard evidence.
In his report, Napier wrote: "Whatever view may now be taken of the substantive criticisms that have been made of Mr Power's conduct of the historic abuse inquiry, there was at the time a lack of hard evidence against him showing lack of competence in relation to the running of the historic abuse inquiry, the basis on which he was suspended on 12 November 2008 was in my view inadequate."
He added: "There were indications that Mr Power had not done his job well. But that is as far as it goes."
Napier found that at the time of the suspension meeting,
Lewis had not read a key report later relied on to justify Power's ousting. The report, conducted by the Metropolitan police, was a standard critical appraisal, fairly common between police forces. It was never intended for any disciplinary use. And, as Napier noted, it was labelled "interim", carrying a warning that it was unfinished, that Harper had not yet been interviewed, and that views expressed in it could change when it was completed.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/28/jersey-secrecy-culture
How can the UK Justice Ministry say that Jersey is a well run Crown Dependency with such evidence in plain sight ?
Probably because, along with the Jersey Attorney General's Office, the UK Justice Ministry is complicit in the local corruption and lawlessness.
DeleteThe useful set of three comments above concludes with the following question: -
Delete"How can the UK Justice Ministry say that Jersey is a well run Crown Dependency with such evidence in plain sight?”
The answer to that question has two basic components.
Firstly – and very obviously – there are, and have been for at least three decades, a succession of Whitehall administrators, departmental lawyers, senior civil-servants and members of the British judiciary who have been brought into corrupt relationships with the Jersey oligarchy & the Jersey oligarchy’s bosses in the City of London Commune.
Secondly – there’s a basic difference in how British corruption-culture works, in contrast to corruption-cultures in other European countries. In most nations, those engaging in corrupt acts and transactions make no attempt to hypnotise themselves into nearly believing what they’re doing is not corrupt. There’s no pretence. They know what graft is; they know they’re being grifters. In British corruption-culture administrators and others engage in acts, omissions and transactions which are plainly corrupt – e.g., just look at the sheer, breathtaking volume of overt civil-service, Crown Officer and judicial corruption in Jersey – but there’s a kind of “collective-delusion” engaged in by British public-service gangsters. They kid themselves that what they’re doing is not corruption, but is instead the “proper, correct & lawful discharge of their public duties”. It’s a kind of pantomime. The Jersey “justice” system for exmaple, is obviously a criminal enterprise in-&-of-itself. Just consider the evidenced facts in the above three comments.
Some factors make British corruption-culture so difficult to combat; deference – people are so “conditioned” to defer to “senior” people – when their seniors want to commission corrupt acts & omissions, it’s all too easy in British society for the minions to “only-obey-orders”. Another factor is the sheer extent, breadth & depth of British corruption-culture. Every time some serious corruption looks to get being exposed, there are always so many people in the system – from the bottom to the top – who’ve been involved in it, or involved in permitting it to happen – they all have a stake in getting the lid back down on it all. Quite obviously, that’s what’s happened in Jersey – that’s what’s happened with the extensive London corruption which is so active in protecting, shielding and maintaining the Jersey corruption.
The Whitehall gangsters are “owned” now; committed for evermore to shield and prop-up the regime in jersey – even though it is – on-the-evidence – THE most corrupt polity amongst all the established democracies on the face of the planet.
Stuart Syvret
Snippet for meditation over the Christmas.
ReplyDeleteIn his policy record, dated 29/11/2008 - page 77 of his Inquiry documentation, Mick Gradwell indicates an intention to interview Person 737 under caution as a suspect.
Link
Perhaps a number of Eversheds Solicitors have something of a sense of humour, evident in conferring the cipher number 737 upon the said individual? The Jersey Establishment is in a death-spiral tail-spin. He is the cause of the rushing plane-crash which can’t now be averted.
DeleteI’ve always shared the view of those who are sceptical of this public inquiry. But even so, I’m intrigued, so very curious, to learn how those running the Committee of Inquiry have imagined all this playing out? You know? In the long run?
I try to put myself in their shoes and imagine their strategy, their goal. But no matter how hard I try I simply cannot see a “good” ending to all this. There doesn’t appear to be one available. No matter what.
No law-firm with any sense of respectability and interest in maintaining its reputation and standing should have gone near the Jersey brief. Not unless they did intend to actually do a real job. Clearly Eversheds didn’t. As Syvret pointed out last year they terminated any possibility of the exercise having vires when they made the most puzzling decision to ignore a paragraph of the Act of the Jersey parliament and so fail to meet their legislative purpose. Did their team seriously think non-one would notice something so basic? In the 21st century?
As I said, I struggle, I really do, to see any form of “good” ending to all this.
Hey, I guess if Eversheds and the Panel Chair have any kind of grasp of the reality of things they must see they’re duty bound to make a higher & serious disclosure of their discovery of the most hi-level corruption, especially judicial corruption, in Jersey? I mean even if they felt they could wriggle out of stating that overtly in their actual Jersey Child-Abuse Report, they're still duty-bound in all professional honesty to report so much serious crime to the relevant authorities, the authorities in London. Oh sure, those authorities don’t want to hear it. They will ignore it and do nothing with such a formal smoking-gun report. But at least Eversheds get themselves off-the-hook, Big-Time, by doing that, by adopting that ‘insurance policy’. No matter the inevitable plane-wreck down the road, Eversheds can say, ‘hey, not our problem, buddy, we saw all this corruption & we communicated it to the Justice Department, the Crown, the Privy Council, Cabinet Secretary and to the Home Secretary, and in the doing well & truly covered our collective asses. Not our problem anymore. They chose to ignore our report to them of what appears to be extensive prima facie criminality at the very highest levels of administration in their Crown Dependency Jersey. Hey, what can we do? We told em so. Not our problem anymore!’
DeleteEversheds and 37 Bedford Row (& 7 Bedford Row) could theoretically adopt that approach. But there’s no sign I’ve seen that they plan to. There’s just no indication they’re smart enough. Or realistic enough. Having worked with both British and USA lawyers, in the main British lawyers don’t really cut it. They’re great going into a dispute when they know the tables are rigged for them. Not so good, not so tough when it comes to doing the right thing.
Sadly guys, I think your burden is to pick up the failures of 37 Bedford Row and Eversheds, and there you have your fresh locus for a new, different and real public inquiry.
Could Trevor Pitman come on here and leave a comment bringing us up-to-date with an explanation of what’s happened to his statement? This is really serious. Many people yourself included VFC have argued that the COI, whilst not perfect, is ‘the only game in town’ and those kind of things, whilst others, Stuart Syvret included, have said all along this inquiry was rubbish and just a fake. Most people seem to have thought the best thing to do was go along with the COI and I did. But speaking personally I don’t see how anyone on the good side could carry on with that argument anymore if the COI is going along with the establishment and blocking the publication of whole statements. Especially statements from one of the most important witnesses on our side. I got very close to washing my hands of the COI when I saw how short their questioning of Mr Power and Trevor was. As far as I’m concerned the removal of Trevor’s statement is it, game over. Unless it’s back up by 5:00 tomorrow I’m telling everyone else’s the COI is a fake and we’ve been mugs. You VFC have to face facts to? Don’t we all have to? How much more bad does it get before we all say ‘this is crap’, and get a States member like Deputy Higgins to ask the states to scrap this COI and get a fresh inquiry to look at all Jersey corruption? More I think about what this COI has done the more and more I think I’ve been a fool. God, they’re not properly questioning our main witnesses and they’re not publishing statements from our main witnesses. I feel I’ve been groomed all over again by these f**king lawyer bastards. I for one of had it with being taken advantage of. No more.
ReplyDeleteIn answer to the above - and previous requests/comments - yes, I will be happy to come on here and keep people up to date once - and it must be said - if ever I, the witness am allowed to know what is going on.
DeleteAs we stand I am afraid I feel I have been treated with staggering disrespect; as by extension have the victims and other campaigners.
I have been told that the attendance in the public gallery for my public evidence was the largest so far during the COI. I am also well aware that people were shocked by the ineptitude of my 'questioning'. Though it is not my responsibility I can only apologise to people.
As some know my witness statement was substantial and covered some important issues. I can say that the views expressed to me that the lamentable questioning and the rapid vanishing of my 208 page statement and supporting documents can do nothing other than undermine confidence in the independence of this COI are ones I have to feel myself.
Sadly these are now not my only concerns. All of this I find very sad as I have been one of those who have told victims approaching me to give their evidence to the COI.
I would like to say more believe me but as I am currently finishing off a document to be submitted highlighting these matters will not - for now.
All I can tell your readers is that I have thus far - despite three requests - been denied any kind of acceptable, let alone full answer.
All I can say is that with regard to the rapidly vanished witness statement apparently our esteemed Data Protection Commissioner is involved.
In the meantime please rest assured should my statement not materialise soon, or be acceptably in one piece I will consider publishing it all my self and damn the consequences.
I and most importantly of all the victims deserve better. We can simply not afford an Inquiry where it increasingly looks like our Establishment may be calling the shots as to what may be published by the COI or witnesses questioned about.
To me this explanation says it all. Trevor Pitman was one of the key witnesses for 'the good guys'. In his own words his questioning was inept. Maybe he should have said 'corrupt'. Not asking him about the missing evidence, Jurat Le Breton and the Vic College abuse cover up with its senior judicial involvment, and the Met Interim report
Delete/Lewis meant none of these got out to the public as they should. Farce or cover up? Maybe both. The Jersey Establishment are in charge here and it shows a mile off.
The indignation of the Information Commissioner should not detract from what was said reported in the sharp report.
DeleteThe Sharp reports exists whether it was hidden from the public or not that report was a report that can not be made to vanish on the say of the information commissioner.
Neither should the in camera meeting get the same treatment both are public interest events that happened.
Anyone else having problems getting onto Graham Powers transcripts, Day 107, documents section?
ReplyDeleteJust gets to show a few paragraphs, then goes black then freezes.
All other days are fine. Only Graham Powers day is effected. Try it and see.
It's all still there. Perhaps you are not letting it fully load before trying to move around in it.
DeleteNow that the Inquiry have had a chance to see the environment they are working in, might someone with some standing ask them about their policy in relation to blog posts.
ReplyDeleteAre they keeping an eye on relevant blogs? Have they checked out posts going way back? Or are they confining themselves simply to evidence specifically submitted to them.
If it is the latter, then some witnesses would need to start referring to blog posts so that the Inquiry would then have to check them out and even include printouts in the documentation supplied to certain other witnesses.
If they are ignoring them, then surely they must also ignore the "accredited" media unless specific articles/broadcasts are referred to.
If, on the other hand, they are trawling the "accredited" media, then they have no grounds for ignoring the blogs, given the following of, and contributions to, the local blogs.
Any discrimination against the blogs and in favour of discredited "accredited" media would not reflect well on their final report.
Just a few questions that the enquiry should be asking relating to the post above.If they do not read the blogs they have the information already by way of signed statements.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 17 December 2015 at 16:15
Part 2.
At some point in these exchanges Deputy Labey emailed me expressing lack of confidence in the independence and integrity of the criminal justice system, and expressed criticism of the then Bailiff, who is the brother of the then Attorney General. A print-out of the email from Deputy Labey had been obtained by the Attorney General, and there were some exchanges about it in which I was involved.
Since when does the AG in this case William Bailhache receive private emails sent by States members to others in this case the Chief of Police. He claims it was with a bundle of evidence given by police man David Minty. Why was Minty giving confidential communication to a third party ie the AG which had nothing to do with possible prosecutions against civil servants of which he was investigating ?
Save the best till last, someone in the centre of the states members email hub electronic world, must have provided David Minty with a copy of Deputy Labey's email to Graham Power the police boss. Who gave instructions for States members private emails to be read and then copied and forwarded to the Attorney General.
There is a bad smell coming from this and Francis Oldham has plenty more questions and needs to dig deeper about how this email found it's way to the AG' desk, but will she ?
It stands to reason that: The people controlling this COI are the same people controlling The dwindling Jersey Way....
ReplyDeleteThe Jersey Way's Conflict of interest is starting to stand out a mile!?
Trevor Pitman's witness statement still missing somewhere in Jersey Way cyber space.
ReplyDeleteWhat odds can I have that this is actually being discreetly edited or even re-written?
Hope Trevor goes through it with a fine toothcomb should it eventually escape Big Brother and re-appear.
I see the loon is continuing his obsession with the said most excellent former Deputy on the Filthy Rag's on line pages on a story about Reform Jersey's attempts to protect pensioners
ReplyDeleteI only mention this because to it explains why we are in this horrible position of needing a child abuse Inquiry. Too many sad and embittered people care only about bitching and bullying rather than about doing the right thing. Such as protecting the vulnerable. Sad, very sad. But to end on a positive note all the best to all of Jersey's victims and their champions such as yourself.