Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry to Destroy Evidence?

Former Deputy Daniel Wimberley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES FOR EDITORS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 the original policy on destruction of relevant information

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

9 A similar point we have made and again there has

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

11 paragraph 8 of the previous protocol, which is at

12 divider 7, which provides:

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

14 category 1 and category 2 material will be transferred

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

3 could it all be a mistake?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F “TOR as used by COI”

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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