Jersey Reform Day 1769-2020

Tom Gruchy

Today (17th September) is Jersey Reform Day, and as we have, in the past few years, we mark the (251st) Anniversary by reminding readers/viewers of its significance and ask the questions: "What has changed?" "Don't we still have the same so-called "democracy" we had back in 1769 that Tom Gruchy, and fellow islanders, were protesting about?" "Who really runs our Island? Many more questions are asked and mostly answered in the exclusive interview below.

This years interview with local historian/Human Rights Campaigner, and BLOGGER Mike Dun has an added twist due to the current Corona Virus measures/laws being introduced along with the police wanting all police officers to carry Taser Guns. How (as in 1769) are we able to gather in large numbers to overthrow a corrupt Royal Court or similar corrupt institution?

Former Deputy (and victim of its "justice" system) Trevor Pitman

For those not familiar with Reform Day, and how it came about, please visit THIS POSTING which gives you a brief history and includes a link to the successful PROPOSITION brought by former Deputy (and victim of "Jersey Justice") TREVOR PITMAN.

For those who ARE familiar with Reform Day, and its origins, what, in your opinion, has changed for the better, as a result of the original overthrowing of the corrupt Royal Court and indeed the adoption of former Deputy Trevor Pitman's proposition?

 

Press Release from Deputy Montfort Tadier. (Secret Court Cases)

Deputy Montfort Tadier.

PRESS RELEASE

Deputy Montfort Tadier, Chairman of the Jersey Human Rights Group, has said he has concerns that Jersey's Courts may be breaching Human Rights Laws because there will be no mechanism for the public to attend or view the live proceedings of the courts which would otherwise be in open session.

'Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, which is reflected in Jersey Law, states that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing in the determination of his/her civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him/her.'

'There is also a public interest that the default position is that court proceedings are held in public. The Courts, like the Parliament, should be open institutions.'

'It is not satisfactory, even at a time of pandemic, that court hearings which would otherwise be public, now be inaccessible. Technology easily allows Court proceedings to be livestreamed, in the same way that States Assembly and scrutiny panel meetings are broadcast.'

'I have sent a request to Ministers to establish livestreaming of the Courts where hearings would normally be in public.'

-ENDS-

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Two Year Review. (Part 2)

IJCI Panel

On the 25th September 2019 we published PART ONE of our series concerning the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry's (IJCI) second damming REPORT into the "care" of children in Jersey. In our previous posting we said:

"In the coming weeks we intend on publishing excerpts of the Report which we think will be of interest to our readers/viewers."

And:

"In part two of this series we will publish the interview with Chief Minister, Senator John Le Fondre, and Children's Minister, Senator Sam Mezec."

Below is that interview, and among other topics, we discuss the two paragraphs, from the IJCI second report and they are:

Attorney General Robert McRae

18  "There are two aspects of the new Children’s Commissioner legislation which cause us concern. First, it is essential that the Commissioner should have access to all documentation she requires in pursuit of any inquiry. Amendments to the legislation allowed legal advice given by the Law Officers Department to be withheld from the Commissioner, albeit with a provision that the Attorney General could make such advice available if he believed it to be in the public interest, having first applied a public interest test. Whilst we fully understand the importance of the convention that legal advice is not disclosed, we consider that, in setting the arrangement as it now stands, there is a real likelihood of suspicion being generated that critical matters are being covered up and that the “Jersey Way” is being perpetuated. We will come back to the “Jersey Way” later, but suffice to say, arrangements which could be seen to perpetuate this undermining belief should be avoided. To that end, we recommend that the presumption by the Law Officers Department should be framed to indicate that relevant legal advice will be made available to the Commissioner and withheld only where a public interest test is met for non-disclosure. This would symbolise a willingness to be open and transparent in most circumstances, since we believe that there should be few circumstances where it would not be appropriate to let the Commissioner have sight of legal advice, given the very direct impact such advice can have on the long-term outcome for a child." 

Former (possibly illegally suspended) Chief of Police Graham Power QPM

21 "Whilst we would hope that it never becomes necessary to remove a Children’s Commissioner from post, it is nonetheless vital that robust arrangements are in place should the need arise. This is important for the protection of the office but also for the protection of the Commissioner, so that she can undertake her duties without fear of repercussions. The current provision in legislation for ending the appointment of a commissioner is for the Chief Minister and the President of the Chairmen’s Committee to bring forward a proposal to that effect, which would be presented to a sitting of the States Assembly held in-camera. Whilst the Commissioner would have a right to make written representations to the Assembly, we consider it essential that she should be entitled to make representations in person during the in-camera session. We accept that on matters of this nature, regard must be given to protecting the privacy of the Commissioner, hence the need for proceedings to take place in a private session. We consider the Commissioner should also have the right to waive that facility in favour of an open public consideration. Our concern here is to ensure that circumstances, similar to those which pertained at the time of the removal from office of the former Chief Officer of Police, are not replicated. Jersey must demonstrate that it will deal with such a matter in ways which will evidence fairness and as much transparency as possible. We therefore recommend that in reviewing the law, consideration be given to achieving the objective of fully demonstrable fairness in any proceedings to remove a Children’s Commissioner from office."

Readers/viewers will note from the above two paragraphs that "The Jersey Way" remains prevalent which is mentioned further in the report and we will look to explore in more detail as part of this series. 

Regular readers/viewers will also know that following the (possibly illegal) suspension of the former Police Chief, the then Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand, possibly broke the law by publishing a redacted version of the prosecution case made against the former Chief Police Officer. Indeed he went on a media roadshow with it and conducted his own KANGAROO COURT with it. Graham Power subsequently wrote his interim DEFENCE CASE to the Wiltshire Constabulary's prosecution case which Ian Le Marquand refused to publish. It was then leaked to The BBC, who along with the rest of the Old Media, had been broadcasting/publishing parts of the prosecution case, but despite being leaked the defence case decided to BURY IT. It was subsequently leaked to the rest of the Island's Old Media who too decided to bury it. The prosecution case is published on the States of Jersey website and STILL the defence case is only published on THIS BLOG. To this day NONE of the local Old Media (to the best of our knowledge) have reported a single word of it. Equally as unjust the defence case does NOT sit alongside the prosecution case on the States website.

During the interview with the Chief Minister/Children's Minister (below) I reminded the Chief Minister that the last time WE SPOKE  (over a year ago) he said he would "look in to it" (the injustice of having the prosecution case on the State website and not the defence case) and would "get back to me." He hadn't/hasn't got back to me. He has once more assured me that he "will look into it."

As mentioned in the video interview; are we just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic? The way Jersey is constructed, and particularly the many hats worn by the (conflicted) Attorney General's Office, is the biggest problem? No matter what avenues one goes down they all seem to lead to the door of the AG. This too is discussed in the video interview. We/regular readers will know that not all  (if any) AG's have been as acquainted with the truth as one would HOPE. 

The fact that the AG's Office seek to withhold legal advice from the Children's commissioner is 
(or could be seen as) The Jersey Way. Similarly the secretive way the Children's Commissioner can be gotten rid of is (or can be seen as) The Jersey Way. Readers/viewers, after watching the interview, will have to make up their mind as to whether assurances/answers given by the Chief Minister, and Children's Minister, are enough to keep today's/tomorrow's children, and whistleblowers, safe?

As we did, in PART ONE of this series, we asked the Chief Minister and Children's Minister if all the positive parts of the damming REPORT were overshadowed by a (distraught) lady making (at the IJCI presentation) "a number of allegations against Children's Services/Social Workers and the "care" of children, by the State, in General. Claiming continued cover-ups, being stonewalled and her child(ren), along with herself being failed by a system that's trying to protect itself."

Deputy Mike Higgins

We are aware that due to the intervention of Deputy Mike Higgins that the lady's case is (finally) being looked at. This is a case that we might return to on the Blog but things do look to be going in a more positive direction than what they were.

On a slightly more positive note we (VFC/Bloggers/New Media) are pleased for the recognition, and SUPPORT, of the IJCI and we are also pleased to have that same support (mentioned in video interview) from the Chief Minister and Children's Minister who we thank for this interview.

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Two Year Review. (Part 1)

IJCI Panel

Two days ago (23rd September 2019) saw the publication/presentation of the IJCI two year review REPORT. It was presented at St.Paul's centre by former Panel Member Francis Oldham QC and filmed in its entirety (approx 1h 15mins) by VFC and others. Should readers/viewers wish to see the presentation let us know and if there is sufficient interest we will upload it to YouTube.

The review/report was to gauge the progress (or otherwise) of the eight RECOMMENDATIONS made in its original damming REPORT.  From what we have read of the report it does seem fairly balanced in that it is critical and complimentary but we are not sure of how equal a measure.

Team Voice would like firstly and foremost to pay tribute to the brave Survivors who could muster up the courage to tell their story one more time to this Panel and finally be believed. The Inquiry did not get the Survivors any justice and that could be down to the fact that "JUSTICE" doesn't exist in Jersey. Your evidence is there for all to see and for the authorities who failed you to wallow in shame, the Inquiry vindicated you. Hopefully one day your abusers WILL face that justice.

We would also like to give a special mention to a special lady, and heroic Survivor, who sadly lost her life on the 18th of December 2015 Dannie Jarman. Dannie gave her evidence to the Inquiry, with the support of Rico Sorda and two other courageous ladies and stalwarts of fighting for Survivors Jill Gracia and Carrie Modral. We are sorry, firstly for the tragic and untimely loss of Dannie, and sorry she never got to see the Inquiry's final report(s).

Liz Mackean

Tribute was payed by the Panel to a brave/fearless journalist who was working with/for the Inquiry Panel until her untimely death LIZ MACKEAN. Liz suffered a fatal stroke and her death was announced on 18th August 2017. Readers should click on the link above to appreciate her journalistic integrity and fearless journalism in attempting to out Jimmy Savile. On principal she resigned from The BBC who chose to protect Britain's most prolific paedophile.

Following the address from the Panel Chair, Francis Oldham QC, VFC was granted an interview with Panel Member Sandy Cameron who we have interviewed PREVIOUSLY. We discussed the latest set of recommendations from the Panel, whether Jersey is a safer place as a result of the Panel's recommendations, were any positive changes, supposedly made by the implementation of some recommendations overshadowed by a lady in the audience who proclaimed "The Jersey Way" is still prevalent on the Island?

The lady made a number of allegations against Children's Services/Social Workers and the "care" of children, by the State, in General. Claiming continued cover-ups, being stonewalled and her child(ren), along with herself being failed by a system that's trying to protect itself.

You could hear in the lady's voice and see in her demeanour that she was at the end of her tether, possibly after being sent from pillar to post and coming up against brick walls. We are aware that Deputy Mike Higgins is helping her with her case and appears to be the only politician/person willing to help or listen to her. We believe that after Deputy Higgins's involvement the lady now has a meeting organised with Children's Minister Senator Sam Mezec. We are told that she will only attend if Deputy Higgins is present. We filmed around eight minutes of the lady's outburst but have decided for the time being NOT to publish the film footage until we can edit it to a standard where her family members/service users can't be identified. We might follow up on this case and will keep readers/viewers posted. It certainly does suggest she, and her family, are victims of "The Jersey Way."

VFC

Among other subjects discussed in the interview, including "The Jersey Way" secrecy of the Attorney General's Office, the possible more secrecy from the new role being discussed of an Ombudsman, we discussed the role of Bloggers/New Media in holding power to account. We are humbled to learn that the Panel is supportive of our work and recognises "the key role played (by New Media) in exposing key issues in Jersey." Bloggers/New Media are also referred to favourably (and quoted) in the latest Review/Report:

"The events that gave rise to the investigations of‘Operation Rectangle’ and led to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry, fostered the growth of social media commentators in Jersey who determinedly advocated for victims and for transparency in governmental and criminal justice operations and continue to do so vigorously."

VFC was also humbled to be invited, by the Panel, to meet for an informal chat and a coffee, the day after the presentation (yesterday) of its Report/Review. The invitation was gratefully accepted where we were able to chat freely about our agreements/disagreements, mutual respect in certain areas, and the need for New Media/Campaigners to continue being a voice for the voiceless. We thank the Panel for its continued support.

In the coming weeks we intend on publishing excerpts of the Report which we think will be of interest to our readers/viewers.

In part two of this series we will publish the interview with Chief Minister, Senator John Le Fondre, and Children's Minister, Senator Sam Mezec.

Scrutiny Call for Evidence.

IJCI

On the 3rd of July 2017 The Jersey Independent Care Inquiry (IJCI) delivered its damming REPORT on the decades of Child Abuse carried out in Jersey State run "care" homes and elsewhere across the island. The Panel, as part of its report, made 8 key recommendations which can be found in the link above or the shorter version can be read HERE.

In response to that report, and recommendations, a Scrutiny Sub Panel (The Care of Children in Jersey review Panel) was formed which is tasked with monitoring the Children's Minister's progress (or not) in implementing the 8 key recommendations of the IJCI. In December 2018 the Panel presented to the States its quarterly REPORT where it had set out its findings concerning the implementation (or not) of (IJCI) recommendations 1-4.

The Panel is now looking for evidence, from institutions and members of the public, from witnesses who have experience/knowledge of recommendations 5-8. The closing date for written submissions is this coming Friday 16th August 2019. Oral evidence can be given past this date. Its Terms of Reference, and contact details can be found HERE.

ITV/CTV

Some readers might (like myself) believe that all witnesses who gave evidence to the IJCI (like myself) will be receiving a letter from the Scrutiny Panel inviting them to make a submission/give evidence to it. This is because local (Old Media) ITV/CTV, who has a long history of broadcasting Fake News, told it viewer(s) this in a report last month. As I hadn't received a letter from the Panel I contacted them explaining I had given evidence to the IJCI HERE,  HERE, and HERE and not received an invitation (as reported by ITV/CTV) to give evidence to the panel. The Scrutiny Officer (who has been extremely helpful) told me:

"I’m afraid it was incorrectly reported that the Panel were writing to all those who gave evidence to the Inquiry."

I asked the Scrutiny Officer if he would contact ITV/CTV and suggest they broadcast a correction to its "incorrect reporting" because potential witnesses might believe, because they haven't received an invitation/letter from the Panel, they are not required to give evidence. The Scrutiny Officer told me that, after making contact with it, ITV/CTV will amend anything necessary on its website but would NOT broadcast a correction as I understand it. I explained to the Scrutiny Officer the long history of ITV/CTV's Fake News and in particular when it comes to do with anything about (Child)Abuse. I sent a link backing up (with hard evidence) the long and sordid history of ITV/CTV's Fake News reporting HERE to suggest, it is more likely than not, that the "misreporting" is more of a design than a mistake. No correction was broadcast (to the best of my knowledge).

In the hope of minimising the potential damage caused (again) by ITV/CTV and to, hopefully encourage witnesses to come forward, we asked Chairman of the Panel, Deputy Rob Ward if he would agree to an interview and explain what kind of evidence the panel is looking for and from whom. The Chairman was very accommodating, agreed to an interview (below) and answered our questions as best he could.

VFC's  interest primarily with recommendation 7 (The Jersey Way):

"13.18 "Throughout the course of our work we heard the term the “Jersey Way”. While this was, on occasions, used with pride, to describe a strong culture of community and voluntary involvement, it was more often used to describe a perceived system whereby serious issues are swept under the carpet and people avoid being held to account for abuses that have been perpetrated. This was well summarised in the contribution of a Phase 3 witness who told us:

“We (also) have the impossible situation of the non-separation of powers between the judiciary and political and there is a lot of secrecy, non-transparency and a lack of openness. This brings with it the lack of trust, the fear factor that many have spoken about and contributes greatly to the Jersey Way.”

"13.19 That fear factor and lack of trust must be addressed, therefore we recommend that open consideration involving the whole community be given to how this negative perception of the “Jersey Way” can be countered on a lasting basis. While constitutional matters are out with our Terms of Reference, we are of the opinion that this matter cannot be addressed without further consideration of the recommendations made in the Clothier and Carswell Reports."(END)

"The Jersey Way" and "fear factor" are not exclusive to matters concerning Child Abuse and is the culture of those who run this Island, as in Crown Officers Bailiff/Deputy Bailiff and the Law Offices Department. People live in fear of retaliation/persecution if they speak up/out and we feel this is NOT being adequately (if at all) addressed and might prevent witnesses coming forward to give evidence to this panel's review. We have previously reported on recommendation 7 and explained (or former possibly illegally suspended Police Chief Graham Power did) the far reaching (beyond Child Abuse) consequences of it HERE.

We asked Chairman Deputy Rob Ward, in regards to recommendation 7, if people have evidence of alleged political/judicial corruption, could they give this evidence to the panel/review? What assurances (if any) could he give those wishing to submit evidence that they won't become victims of "The Jersey way" and face persecution/retaliation? What "legal status" does people's written submissions have? Could the Attorney General's Office come after somebody for what they have written in their submission? The irony of that is, the Panel will no doubt be getting its advice from none other than....................The Attorney General's Office.

We thank Deputy Ward for the in-depth, exclusive, interview and hope that those who feel able, will make contact with the Panel (links provided above) and submit evidence. Not only on recommendation 7 but 5,6 and 8 also.

Les Chenes "JUSTICE?"

Senator Sam Mezec (Children's Minister)

On Monday 1st July 2019 the government announced its REDRESS SCHEME for Survivors of the brutal regime suffered during their time at Les Chenes Secure Residential Unit and for those in a Jersey Foster Care Placement.

From the get-go parts (but not all) of the Old Media were (and still are) reporting the Redress Scheme as "Justice" for the Survivors. It would be interesting to learn how many Survivors the Old Media have spoken with who believe what they are(n't) getting is "justice." Certainly the ones I have spoken with see it as the only option available to them. Their abusers are NOT going to face charges so they (Survivors) have to make do (for the most part) with a couple of quid.

After the public announcement at St. Paul's Centre (Monday 1st July) VFC was granted an interview with Children's Minister Senator Sam Mezec. We took away the governments (and parts of the Old Media) agenda as passing this scheme off as "justice." Instead of declaring money (and an apology) is being offered to Survivors wouldn't it have been a better declaration to make that their abusers have been jailed AND the Survivors have been "adequately" compensated?

We asked the Children's Minister questions along those lines. "Why is this all about money and not justice?" "How can a price be put on a childhood/lifetime of misery and torment?" How on earth did the conflicted, and untrusted, Law Offices Department/Attorney General's Office get to be the Administrators of the Redress Scheme? The very people who have failed the Survivors for failing/refusing to prosecute (and allegedly protecting) their abusers. Staggeringly the Children's Minister told us that some Survivors asked for the option to have the Law Offices Department administer the scheme. The Minister, through the Lawyer representing many of the Survivors, says that partly for the simplicity of it and partly for the COST some survivors chose the Law Offices. Really? The Survivors voluntarily chose to make things as simple and cheap for the government without being pushed down that avenue? They weren't told that if we put the administration of the scheme out to tender then that could take a lot more time and your ordeal could drag on, unnecessarily, a lot longer? We asked, alongside the governments apology, shouldn't there be an apology from The Law Offices Department/Attorney General's Office? We know that the AG's Office has some (many) uncomfortable questions to ANSWER.

It is two years to the day that the Independent Jersey Care INQUIRY published its REPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS and one has to ask; "has attitudes towards Child Abuse, and Survivors, changed in any way?" "How is money perceived (by the government and parts of the Old Media) as "justice?" As mentioned above, and in the interview (below), those Survivors I have spoken with have ALL said this is/was never about money, it's always been about justice. It's the government (along with The Law Offices Department) who have made it about money, it is not the choice of all Survivors. Their choice would have been not to have been abused in the first place.

Cheyenne O'Connor Rally Saturday 16th February 2019.

Cheyenne O'Connor

This coming Saturday 16th February at 10am there is a rally to be held at the Royal Square in Jersey. The rally has been organised by online pedophile hunter Cheyenne O'Connor who snares online child predators who attempt to meet (what they believe are) children. Cheyenne poses as a teenage child online and gathers evidence against pedophiles which she then hands over to the police. Her efforts have resulted in a number of convictions with some predators ending up in prison, for what she, and many others believe, a short amount of time.

Cheyenne is advocating for a minimum (three year) prison sentence of pedophiles and believes they should remain on the Sex Offenders Register for life and has created an online petition to that end. The petition has attracted more than 2,500 signatures and received a response from the relative (Home Affairs) Minister. With another 2,500 signatures it will be considered for debate in the Island's Parliament. The petition (and the Minister's response) can be viewed (and signed) HERE. She also runs her own Facebook page where she documents her online work catching pedophiles and cases she is working on. The page can be viewed HERE.

Former Health Minister/Whistleblower Stuart Syvret

VFC spoke with Cheyenne yesterday (video below) and discussed the upcoming rally this Saturday where there will be a few speakers including Survivors and former Health Minister, and whistleblower Stuart Syvret. We also discussed such topics as "The Culture of Fear" so prevalent in our Island, the message being sent out by those attacking those of us who campaign against pedophilia and trying to protect our children. Her response the the Home Affairs Minister's and Attorney General's response, Keyboard Warriors and much more.

We thank Cheyenne O'Connor for the interview and for the work she does in trying to keep our children safe. If you agree with the PETITION and want to make a difference then sign it and be at the rally this Saturday 16th February 10am Royal Square.

Former Police Chief lodges Criminal Complaint Against Sitting Politician.

Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM

Following the publication of the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry (COI) Report and the revelation of the legal opinion from the island's Attorney General that Deputy Andrew Lewis, after being branded a liar by the COI, will NOT face prosecution for perjury (like you and I would) as he was allegedly covered by Parliamentary Privilege when giving evidence to the COI.

Team Voice has interviewed former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM and asked him his thoughts on the COI's findings and recommendations and indeed his thoughts on Deputy Lewis apparently (legal "opinion") being protected by privilege or not as the case may be. Mr. Power's observations (as one would expect) are far ranging/reaching on this and all subjects discussed in the exclusive interview.

Deputy Andrew Lewis.

He tells us that the public were duped into believing Deputy Lewis and all States Members who gave evidence to the COI were doing so under the same circumstances as everybody else giving evidence. Why was he asked to swear an oath before giving evidence? Why didn't the  Panel ask him to just be truthful as there was no point in swearing an oath? Victims/Survivors and witnesses (who weren't politicians) gave evidence under the threat of prison for perjury. Andrew Lewis didn't.

There are other opinions on the definition of Parliamentary Privilege that don't sit alongside that of the Jersey Attorney General. Mr. Power, for instance told us:

"It has been suggested to me that there is no known precedent for the use of privilege to escape prosecution for perjury and that the AG is quoting the law out of context in that the overall purpose of the immunity is to allow members to speak openly and honestly without fear of legal reprisals. Not to lie through their back teeth."

The former Chief Police Officer asks what implications this might have further afield (Grenfell Tower Inquiry) and much more. By referring Deputy Lewis's apparent lies to PPC isn't this already going against the COI's recommendations and in particular recommendation 7 (Below)?

Regular readers will be aware that PPC has already looked at the evidence against Andrew Lewis when VFC made a complaint about his apparent lies but PPC did NOT act on my complaint and further denied me a properly constituted (PPC) Hearing where I would have been granted the protection (which I need(ed)) of privilege enjoyed by Deputy Lewis. my complaint to PPC can, and should, be read HERE and HERE.

Recommendation 7 features heavily in this interview which is why we have published it below so readers can make themselves aware of it when considering the action/inactions of the government in the coming weeks/months or even years. It has to be said that it doesn't look like the best of starts after spending £23m on an "independent" judge-led Inquiry which found that one of our politicians lied and our politicians want politicians (PPC) to look into it.

Chief Minister Ian Gorst.

Team Voice can also exclusively reveal that the former Chief Police Officer has lodged a formal criminal complaint against Deputy Lewis with the Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst. Mr. Power is asking that the Chief Minister put into place an "independent" criminal investigation into the actions of Deputy Andrew Lewis. At time of publication the Chief Minister had not responded to Mr. Power and we hope to keep readers updated as we are.

Readers are encouraged to watch this interview (below) in its entirety as it is full of thought provoking revelations few might have thought about. One thing readers/viewers can be certain of  Mr. Power is not going away any time soon. In fact VFC has been liaising with Mr. Power for not far off a decade now and we have to say we have never seen him as animated, and determined, as he is now. He looks to have the bit between his teeth and so he should. He, and his family, have been badly wronged. This needs to be put right and he is determined for this to happen.

Recommendation 7: The “Jersey Way”

13.41 Throughout the course of the Inquiry, we heard reference to the “Jersey Way” notwithstanding that there did not seem to be any set definition of the term. On some occasions it was used in a positive way, to describe a strong culture of community and voluntary involvement across the island, and this is something we recognise as a strength of the island, from the many contacts we had with voluntary organisations and individuals who give generously of their time to serve the interests of others. On most occasions, however, the “Jersey Way” was used in a pejorative way, to describe a perceived system whereby serious issues are swept under the carpet and people escape being held to account for abuses perpetrated. A Phase 3 witness told us: “we [also] have the impossible situation of the non-separation of powers between the judiciary and political and there is a lot of secrecy, non-transparency and a lack of openness. This brings with it the lack of trust, the fear factor that many have spoken about and contributes greatly to the Jersey Way”. 

It is this strongly held perception by many of those who experienced abuse that will continue to undermine any attempts to move the island forward from the matters into which we have inquired. We therefore recommend that open consideration involving the whole community is given to how this negative perception of the “Jersey Way” can be countered on a lasting basis.

13.42 Jersey has a long and proudly held tradition of governance, but that is not to say that steps should not be taken to reflect the modern world in which the island exists. As with many long-established jurisdictions, there can be a resistance to change, which is something that seems to be acknowledged. We are of the opinion that this serious matter cannot be addressed without further consideration being given, in the light of our findings, to recommendations contained in the Clothier and Carswell Reports.

13.43 While these involve constitutional matters, we are firmly of the view that the progress that must be made in relation to future care and safety of children in Jersey will be undermined if they are not dealt with such that all perceptions of there being a negative “Jersey Way” are eradicated once and for all. Achieving this would, in our opinion, provide a very strong visible marker that there was a deep determination in the island to use the conclusion of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry as a platform to ensure that the island’s children and young people will be looked after in a caring and compassionate system that is underpinned by a system of governance in which there is the utmost confidence among all of the island’s citizens.(END.)

Liar(s) in Politics. The Government You Deserve?

Enough (in less than 90 seconds) said?

(Some) Key Issues Facing Jersey.

The Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry has triggered a massive outpouring of evidence, interpretations and thoughts. There is a danger that the key issues get lost in the mass of evidence and comment. Team Voice has therefore sifted through as much of the evidence as we are able and picked from the contributions to the Blogs what our readers appear to see as the key themes to emerge. We publish them for your comment and, as always, for our worldwide readership who may see benefit in a short summary of what, from our perspective, this is all about.

Jersey needs reforms, which bring its governance to a standard, that most other western democracies would see as normal. Nothing is being asked for which is beyond what most societies would see as basic entitlements. We believe that everything said in this Blog Posting is well supported by evidence, which is readily available or has been given in public to the on-going Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry.

· The Law Officers are a significant part of the Jersey problem. They combine the role of prosecutors with that of legal advisors to the Jersey Government. There is an obvious conflict of interest when matters are alleged which affect the interests of the government. This conflict was seriously exposed during the police investigation into decades of concealed Child Abuse (Operation Rectangle) and has remained a problem ever since. The Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry has apparently been told of changes which have been made since that time which it is claimed bring more independence to the prosecution process. Many observers see these as cosmetic and unlikely to inspire public confidence. Jersey needs a fully independent prosecution service, which is unfettered and uncompromised by any other responsibilities. As recommended to the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry HERE.

· There is no general understanding of exactly what is the significance or intended effect of senior legal figures being appointed by the Crown. (Bailiff/Deputy Bailiff/Solicitor General/Attorney General etc.)  There might be a general expectation that their role is to represent the interests of the British Crown in Jersey but instead they sometimes appear to position themselves as the defenders of Jersey interests against British intrusion. It is unclear where their loyalties lie or where they should lie.

· There are deep conflicts in the role of the Bailiff as (unelected) speaker in the island’s parliament, as a (unelected) representative of the island and the senior judge.

· So far as is generally understood, HM Lieutenant Governor is the representative of British Crown interests with a responsibility for monitoring good governance and the proper administration of justice. Yet he now appears to be appointed by the very people he is expected to oversee. There is little information on how the Governor’s duties are discharged in practice As reported by VFC HERE. For example, there is no transparent system of reporting on the activity of the Governor in respect of those things, which he is apparently supposed to observe, or what conclusions if any the Governor has reached and what actions he is taking in consequence. No information is available on the qualifications or training which is required for the Governor to discharge this particular role nor is it clear why a retired General should be considered the best person for the position?

· Democratic participation in the island appears to be low. There is a high level of non-registration for voting and a low level of turnout at elections. The electoral system appears to be tilted in favour of “Old Jersey” interests in the rural parishes. Cynicism around the processes of democracy and governance is widespread.

· Taken together much of the above presents a picture of a system of governance, which has a number of semi-feudal elements, few of which are accountable by any visible means.

· When the Jersey establishment believes that its position is being challenged it sometimes reacts ruthlessly, and in a manner which is unfettered by considerations of ethics, fairness or even legality. And nobody appears to be able to stop them from doing it.

· The Jersey political and public sector appears to have an entrenched culture of inertia. Many witnesses to the on-going Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry have provided evidence of the extreme challenges which can face anyone attempting to deliver change. Progressive innovation is rarely encouraged and is sometimes (more often than not) punished. There is a long history of reports and inquiries, which have produced sensible recommendations that have not been implemented or acted upon. It should be remembered that the Jersey Government argued that the current Committee of Inquiry was unnecessary because “lessons had been learned” and the necessary changes made. The Inquiry is only taking place because the Jersey Government’s view was overruled by a rare backbench revolt that now appears to be well justified by the evidence. The past experience of external reviews too often consists of well-evidenced and constructive reports gathering dust on departmental shelves because nobody has the skills, inclination or support to take them forward or because those with responsibility are fearful of the consequences of doing so.

· There is a conspicuous lack of any consistent external and independent inspection regime with transparent reporting and follow-up. Increasingly in the UK public services, including those providing criminal justice, are subject to regular independent scrutiny. This is far less frequent in Jersey, which arguably needs this type of attention more than most regions of the UK. Where such arrangements have been in place in the past they appear in some cases to have quietly “died a death.” (For instance our Police Force hasn't been HMIC inspected for the best part of 8 years)

· For whatever reason the Jersey media appears to be noticeably non-intrusive and, for the most part, uncritical in respect of the Jersey authorities. If any further disturbing issues emerge in the island it is unlikely to be as a result of investigative journalism. There will be little that the Committee of Inquiry can do about this but it adds strength to the question of who will bring intrusive scrutiny to bear upon government/judicial actions/inactions/corruption in the future?

· It should be remembered that while some of the above raises fine points of constitutional theory, this is not an academic exercise. The well-being of vulnerable people is at stake. The Committee of Inquiry exists because there were decades of preventable suffering in institutions operated by the Jersey Government, and nobody did anything about it. When people subsequently attempted to do something about it they have given evidence, to the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry, that they encountered a range of difficulties and lack of support from the Jersey authorities, and among those creating the difficulties were people who purported to represent the Crown. Unless there is significant change there is a high probability that further preventable suffering will occur.

· Whatever the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry recommends, if matters are left to the Jersey authorities, most of the required changes will not happen. Change will only be achieved by strong and authoritative external intervention, followed by intrusive monitoring backed by some form of potential sanction. The Committee of Inquiry should not under estimate the extent to which entrenched Jersey interests will seek to resist, obstruct and subvert any reforms that it recommends.

Have we got it right or do you have different priorities? Let us know.

Oral Evidence of VFC (Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry).

As part of phase 3(d) of the on-going Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry: “To assist in the development of recommendations for the future care of children in Jersey, the Inquiry invites submissions (maximum 3000 words) from organisations with expertise in the care of children and young people and from departments tasked with providing services that contribute to the welfare of children and young people in Jersey.” VFC was invited to make an oral submission after submitting a written submission as part of Phase 3(c), which we published HERE.

Below is a rough copy of my Oral submission today which lasted about an hour. Many of the points were elaborated on and were pretty much positively received by the Panel.

I started off by thanking the panel for giving me the opportunity to make a submission and after explaining that “I make the submission as a father of two children, member of the public who has real concerns for the current, and future safety of children and whistle blowers on the Island. I don’t claim to be an expert but am happy to share my knowledge and experience as a lay member of the public in the hope that the Panel will take on board some grass-roots observations and experiences.”

Oral Submission:

“You’ve heard from all the so-called “experts” in this field and one must remember a number these “experts” have been employed by our government while the Abuse was taking place. Indeed a number of them, unbelievably, (or not) are still employed by them.

I have nothing to gain by speaking with this Inquiry, indeed, quite the opposite.

Jersey, and society as a whole, needs to start thinking outside the box. Albert Einstein has been quoted as saying: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.”

I’ve listened to many an “expert” witness at this Inquiry and I’ve heard nothing new. They are all saying the same things “minister for children” “Ombudsman for children” Child’s advocate.” What is that really going to achieve? I argue absolutely nothing; it’s civil servant/politician platitudes. Alan Collins said yesterday "you could go through a hundred years of Hansard of people arguing about this very subject we’re wrestling with today in 2016."

What I haven’t heard from ANYBODY is how could society, or the government and its authorities understand the paedophile?

In mid 2009, I think it was, I asked the then Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand, what he has in place for paedophiles BEFORE they offend? Where can a potential paedophile go for help/understanding if they are having sexual urges towards children? What can be done BEFORE they reach the so-called Jersey “Justice” System? Not surprisingly he didn’t have an answer and didn’t seek to look for one.

Surely the best way to protect our children is to start understanding their predators? Why does a paedophile have to harm a child before he, or she, gets any kind of attention? Prison is NOT a deterrent; prisons all over the UK are full of paedophiles. Courts, across the UK, are full of them.

I’d like to see some kind of a study into paedophiles and a confidential “help centre” or phone “hotline” set up. Somewhere, or someone, they can go to and speak about their urges/feelings in strict confidence. Possibly a Councilor/shrink or someone of that nature.  If we can understand the paedophile, then in turn, we can protect our children.

Where would the money come from? This could be easily achieved through government departments all chipping in a few quid. Health&SS, Education, Home Affairs, who are the current so-called “corporate Parent.”

I have to say, as touched on earlier, that most of what I’ve heard at this Inquiry, I could go to ANY Inquiry tackling Child Abuse, and its concealment for decades, and hear the exact same box ticking platitudes. If this Inquiry wants to make its mark and really want to stand out from all other Inquiries, and leave Jersey’s children with a fighting chance after it leaves Jersey then it has to start looking outside the box, and recommending that there is more help/support and understanding of paedophiles or potential paedophiles. If we can stop them harming our children rather than locking them up after they have ruined a child and their family’s life then I think any child/parent would thank you for it. Then Jersey could truly be A WORLD LEADER in the protection of children.

For children to be made safer in Jersey the whole culture needs to change and “The Jersey Way” needs to be cosigned to history and that isn’t going to happen any time soon. The “Power’s That Be” need to start listening to those who challenge them, they need to take on-board the criticisms leveled at them. As things stand they (TPTB) go all out to silence and ruin anybody who challenges them. Anybody who questions power need to be silenced in case it damages the reputation of Jersey. They can’t see the irony that those who purport to be looking out for Jersey’s reputation are the very people who are ruining it. For centuries the corrupt/politicised judiciary has been subjecting those who rock the Jersey Boat to Kangaroo Courts. I can elaborate on a couple of cases if the Panel wishes (which I did).

Victims/Survivors, from a starting point, need to be believed and not trashed or discredited. This is something that was suggested by the then Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmmer in the wake of the Savile atrocities and clearly hasn’t been accepted by some, including witnesses to this Inquiry. Victims/Survivors are STILL being accused of compo seeking/criminals/addicts/trouble makers on this island and this is Post Savile/Kincora/Mid Staffs/North Wales/Rotherham/Rectangle. This mindset needs to change. The media should, and could, play its part in this. They (the media) could just drop one word, which would help in this regard. The word “historic” is being used to describe this Inquiry’s work although the word historic doesn’t feature in the Inquiry’s title and indeed it is investigating allegations of Abuse up to 2014. 

The Panel needs to look at the democratic deficit and how Jersey is structured if it is to make any meaningful recommendations in its report. The role of the Judiciary needs a very close examination, as they are the unelected/unaccountable real power of Jersey. The AG holds all the power and is structurally conflicted. He advises the Executive AND Scrutiny. He advises Ministers and then decides what cases get prosecuted against the State, or don’t get prosecuted which is more often the case than not.

Recommendations.

If the UK refuses to restore good governance and the rule of law on the Island although, as mentioned in my PREVIOUS SUBMISSION it might not be the best outcome due to its own perceived, or otherwise, corruption.

I would firstly recommend that there is an independent Department/Director of Public Prosecution set up that is appointed by, and overseen by, the UK. possibly the Privy Council? Ministry of Justice? That way the Attorney General’s Office would be less conflicted and some much needed trust and confidence could be put back into our so-called “Justice” system. A fairly recent Social Survey found that 50% of the public had no confidence in the judiciary, 60% didn’t trust the local State Media and 75% didn’t trust the Government.

Secondly, as in my PREVIOUS SUBMISSION, I would suggest that the Panel look into, and recommend, Mandatory Reporting. One of the reasons this abuse was able to go on for so long is because it was easy to turn a blind eye and not “damage Jersey’s Reputation.” Mandatory Reporting would be a deterrent.

Thirdly there needs to be an off-island independent body set up for whistleblowers. You heard only the other day, (Jo Olsson) and all through this Inquiry that people are still, if not even more scared, to speak out against management/authority. How this body would be set up and paid for would be something the Panel would need to look into but I am willing to research a few ideas in order to assist if that is required.

Finally I would recommend that the Inquiry should recommend that the UK should oversee, and ensure, it’s final report/recommendations are followed up. The Inquiry has been told by many witnesses that its recommendations will be ignored by our government. Indeed Ian Le Marquand, while giving evidence as a witness to the Inquiry, uncontrollably laughed when asked, by the Chair if  he believed its recommendations will be acted on. There are millions of £’s worth of reports/reviews etc. Gathering dust at the States Building. The good people of Jersey and more importantly Victims/Survivors and the children of today and the future don’t deserve this to be another twenty three million quid’s worth of dusty report on a shelf.(END)