Bloggers Excluded by Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry.

Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) have been excluded from reporting from the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry at 11-15 Seaton Place St Helier.

Regular readers will know that the Inquiry Team came up with the idea of "Media Accreditation" when it published its protocols earlier this year which can be read HERE. The Inquiry Team then decided to scrap the media accreditation after only receiving 5 applications. So rather than act in the positive and accredit the applicants which were three State Media and two Bloggers (VFC and BOB HILL) the team decided not to accredit anybody and give us all the same access to the media room at Seaton Place.

During this time the inquiry team were being made aware that the majority of the abuse survivors, and potential witnesses, to the inquiry, do not trust the local State Media who stand accused of  complicity in the Jersey cover-up. The team were also made aware that the latest local social survey showed that sixty per-cent, of those surveyed, do not trust the local State Media. In contrast the majority of Abuse Survivors DO trust this, and Bob Hill's Blog, as do a growing number of islanders. The inquiry team were also aware that VFC have not broken a single protocol or breached any Press Release Embargoes and the same can't be said for the Jersey Evening Post (JEP) who breached an embargo and the BBC who were, contrary to the protocols, filming inside the hearing's building, at the bottom of the stairs where any unsuspecting victim/witness would, and in one case was, confronted with a BBC camera, pointing at them when attempting to leave the building.

Tuesday 12 August 2014 was a usual public hearing where Bloggers, and State Media, were sharing the facilities in the media room as had been the case since the hearings begun back in July. It had become a little cramped in the media room due to the BBC having, at one point, five employees in the room, to include a camera man and a national BBC reporter, who was on holiday here, not reporting on the hearing.

The BBC Reporter was Robert Hall who, as part of his original application to the Inquiry Team for accreditation wrote;

"In closing I’d like to thank you once again for the way in which you are dealing with media interest, and close with one thought; I note from local web activity that some non-accredited interested parties are eager to gain accreditation.

Should space be as limited as you fear, I foresee difficulties on busy days if such accreditation goes beyond recognised media organisations......just my view...."(END)

All applications (including Mr. Hall's) can be viewed HERE. 

So the BBC crowds the room with five of its employees, at least two of which had no place being there, and the Inquiry Panel make a ruling to EXCLUDE the only two Bloggers who applied for media accreditation and have been using the facilities from the start without incident. All State media who applied for accreditation were granted it with the same ruling.

The ruling was made almost overnight with those being granted accreditation (State Media) being informed of their accreditation on Wednesday 13 August, the night before the next public hearing. The two Bloggers (VFC and Bob Hill) who had been refused accreditation were not informed of the ruling and had to suffer the humiliation of being turned away from the media room on the Thursday morning. (Humiliation is a subject I will come on to further in this posting.)

But the real reason for banning Bloggers overnight could have more to do with former Health Minister and anti Child Abuse Campaigner, Stuart Syvret, who was in the media room, for the first time, on Tuesday the 12 August. Stuart was tweeting from the room that was challenging the competency of the hearing and its questioning (or lack of) of the witnesses. The Inquiry Team would not have taken well to his criticisms, which in fairness could have been communicated a little less robust, but were perfectly valid observations that need addressing. This gave the Inquiry Team the excuse, we believe it has been looking for, to exclude Bloggers from the media room. It was a typical knee-jerk reaction from the Inquiry Team to ban Bloggers which will ensure the State Media (who don't question anything) have exclusive rights on reporting from the Inquiry building.

So we know the Panel can react with lightening speed in excluding Bloggers, in making a ruling overnight, yet when this Blogger attempts to appeal the decision, e-mails and questions are ignored. Since the day of the banning I have been attempting to find out how to appeal the decision and have all but been ignored.

Back to Thursday 14 August, at the hearing, after suffering the humiliation of being turned away from the media room, I was sat in the public hearing room. The public are not allowed to have any electronic appliances (Tablets/ipads/iphones/laptops phones etc) switched on in the room.

I have never mentioned my disability on this Blog as it is something I don't talk about but there comes a time when it has to be mentioned and this is the time.

Some years ago I suffered a horrific accident where my dominant right hand was wrenched from my arm and has left me an amputee and coming to terms with my disability is something I still struggle with on a daily basis. I can barely write with my left hand and I certainly can't write at any speed that would be legible, indeed when not writing at speed it is barely legible. 

So there I was sat in the public hearing room feeling absolutely useless and humiliated. I could not even pretend to be writing something down on a pad as I didn't have a pen, or pad, as I had no idea the ruling had been made to ban me (and Bob Hill) from the media room and indeed I don't even carry a pen and pad because of my inability to write (at speed anyway).

Sat next to me, in the public hearing room, was a member of the Jersey Care Leavers Association, (JCLA) and good friend of mine, Jill Garcia, who said that the JCLA have a room in the building where, just like the media room, it has a video/audio feed to the public hearing room and I am welcome to use the room, where I could type up any notes on my ipad, if the Inquiry Team agreed.

We asked, a very helpful Tina Wing, if it was OK and she saw no problem as I was a trusted associate of the JCLA and its members. This was a great relief as it got me out of the public hearing room where I was, as mentioned above, feeling humiliated and embarrassed. 

I spent the rest of the morning/hearing in the JCLA room where I was able to use my electronic devices and make notes. The hearings stopped for lunch and I popped out to get a sandwich, and can of pop, which I could take back and eat/drink in the JCLA room during the lunch-break.

Upon my return to the hearing building I had to ask to be let back into the JCLA room as the doors need a pass card held by the Inquiry Team. It was at this stage I was told, by a not so helpful member of the Inquiry Team, whom I believe to be, Ms. Natalie Minott  that I am NOT allowed in the JCLA room because it is for "interested parties" only. As spurious and unconvincing as the explanation was, of course I had to adhere to it. This is after being told that there was no problem being in the room only an hour or so before by Ms. Wing.

I was stood in the main reception with my sandwich in my one hand, and can of pop secured in the joint at my inside elbow and bicep on my right arm. I asked, as there was no-one around, in the rooms, could I just go in the JCLA room with JCLA member Jill Gracia, who was eating her lunch in there, and eat my lunch with her? To which Ms. Minott refused, so I asked, as it was lunchtime and no-one around, could I eat my lunch in the media room, or even the public hearing room? Again Ms. Minott refused. So I asked am I to be made to go and eat my sandwich in the street, (bearing in mind I can't physically enjoy my sandwich and drink at the same time unless I have somewhere to put one of them down) to which Ms Minott replied "there are plenty of establishments who have seating areas in town" (or words very similar.)

This was even more humiliating for me, than having to sit in the public hearing room, not being able to write up notes. Now this "care" inquiry team is forcing me to go on the street and eat my lunch rather than allow me ten minutes to do it in the building where others were eating their lunch.

It was at this point that I began to suspect the banning of Bloggers from the media room was not a decision made on any professional grounds, it was made on personal grounds. For reasons only known to Natalie Minott, or the Inquiry Panel, they want to make life for me, at the building, as difficult as they possibly can. Why would a team investigating "care" act so callously towards a disabled man?

Since attempting to come to terms with my disability this experience has got to be one of the most humiliating I've ever suffered.

If this is not a personal issue on behalf of the "care" inquiry team then one has to question the real motives behind excluding the only people (Bloggers) who have been a voice for victims and uncovered the truth that has been, and is being, buried by the State Media from media accreditation? Notwithstanding the Inquiry Team is aware that a number of witnesses have only come forward because of this Blog and that of RICO SORDA. Witnesses who WOULD NOT have come forward if VFC and Rico Sorda had not convinced them. Indeed there is a strong argument to suggest, if it wasn't for the Bloggers, there would be no Inquiry at all. We (unlike the State Media) HAVE questioned "The Party Line" and supplied official documents to the few brave politicians who speak out against the Child Abuse cover-up. We have strongly lobbied those former, and present, politicians to keep this subject in the political and public arena. We have been instrumental in the formation of the TOR's the Committee of Inquiry are now working to. It also seems ironic that Bob Hill should also be banned, because if it was not for Bob's amendments to P19/2011 it is almost certain that there would not be a Committee of Inquiry. P19/2011 and its amendments were covered, in-depth, by VFC HERE.  

The "care" inquiry know how trusted the Bloggers are and it knows how untrusted the State Media is yet it bans the trusted Bloggers.

We asked (although we knew the answer) back in March this year if the Bloggers were going to be marginalised by the Inquiry in a Blog posted HERE. The answer is a clear "yes" and if one looks at that link they will see why, if anybody should be excluded from media accreditation, it should be the State Media. The question readers should be asking is why has the State Media got exclusive rights and the Bloggers silenced if the "care" inquiry wants to get the truth out there?

In light of what appears to be an undisclosed, if not nonexistent, appeals process, this blog stands as a challenge to the Inquiry Team to stop banning those who seek to inform the public on the proceedings of what is meant to be a "public" Child Abuse inquiry.

Reasonable minds can certainly agree that to politicise access to key facilities needed to cover these landmark hearings harks back to some of the most concerning problems plaguing the island and, again, shows a terrible insensitivity to the victims, as the "accredited" news organisations approved by Inquiry Judge Oldham have repeatedly denied the extent of their abuse.

It also calls into question the direction of what the island has been repeatedly promised is supposed to be a neutral and independent inquiry. VFC awaits a response as to why it and other independent news sources have been banned and will publicise this matter until it is properly rectified. This inquiry has already struggled to get victims to trust it and to come forward. If it wants the island to truly believe it represents the public interest, it will stop playing politics with news coverage and focus on doing its job.

Unhappy Anniversary 5

Today marks the 5th anniversary of the illegal suspension of former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. Regular readers will be aware that the former Police Chief was suspended under very dubious circumstances while (because?) his force were investigating allegations of decades long child abuse in the Island of Jersey.

Mr. Power QPM was suspended on the strength of a letter written by, possibly the most conflicted person there was, David Warcup. Warcup, stood to gain financially and a fast tracked promotion with the early removal of Mr. Power. The "Warcup Letter" was leaked to Blogger (Jersey's only independent media) Rico Sorda where he, exclusively, published it HERE.

Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) have (almost exclusively) published the facts surrounding the unprecedented illegal suspension, and related matters, in stark contrast to the party line, spin and propaganda, published/broadcast by the local State Media which has been little more than "Allegations Without Substance."

Although it must be said that there is as much NOT been published by the State Media as there has been propaganda and spin. Readers will be aware that the BBC were furnished with Mr. Power's 94 page, 62,000 word, interim defence case to the allegations put to him by the discredited, and disgraced Wiltshire Constabulary. The BBC, along with the rest of the island's State Media, reported extensively on the prosecution case against Mr. Power but when furnished with his interim defence case it was BURIED.

Team Voice has, and continues to, publish a reminder, every year, of possibly one of the biggest miscarriages of "justice" this island has ever seen, (although there is plenty of COMPETITION) in this illegal suspension, of a Chief Police Officer, decorated by the Queen, who's career which spanned 42 years came to an abrupt end when (because?) his force was investigating, not only decades of child abuse in State Run "Care" Institutions but some other "very uncomfortable" allegations concerning some very powerful people on the island.

This year is no different and we remind our readers that the Police Force under the leadership of Graham Power QPM, with Deputy Chief Officer, and Senior Investigating Officer Lenny Harper were investigating allegations that are almost incomprehensible. Allegations of children being brutalised, tortured, raped, abused and possibly even murdered. For a "Summary Report" on the excavation of children's home, Haute de la Garenne and a chilling inventory of the juvenile remains unearthed please read the "official Police Report" published exclusively by Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) Here.

For those with a deep interest of the "facts" surrounding Mr. Power's suspension and how the official line concerning the child abuse cover up has been TORN APART please look at the previous years "Unhappy Anniversaries."

Unhappy Anniversary 1

Unhappy Anniversary 2

Unhappy Anniversary 3

Unhappy Anniversary 4

Response from State Greffier Michael De La Haye.

Further to our previous posting where we published the PRESS RELEASE concerning the nomination of the Chairman for the Committee Of Inquiry into the decades of Child Abuse Frances Oldham QC. We publish a response from States Greffe Michael De La Haye.

In our previous posting we told readers that we were in contact (and still are) with Mr. De La Haye, all through the weekend. Before we published our previous posting, the relevant part was sent to Mr. De La Haye in order to give him a right of reply before publication.

Yesterday we received an e-mail from Mr. De La Haye, in response to the Blog Posting, and e-mail exchanges, which was considered for publication in the comments section of that posting. However, in the interest of fairness and balance, it has been decided that it should be a stand alone Blog Posting.

State Greffier Michael De La Haye. 

"I am writing in connection with our exchanges of emails over the weekend and today and in particular in relation to your request to be interviewed for your blog. I should mention at the outset that I have not given any media interviews about the nomination of Frances Oldham QC and the reports in today's media have all been simply based on the media release that I forwarded to you under embargo as requested at the weekend.

As I mentioned at the weekend I do not believe it would appropriate for me to be interviewed by you. As Greffier of the States I have to be scrupulous in everything that I do to ensure that I am never seen to do anything in my work that could be perceived as political or politically controversial. I hope all members of the States would confirm that I endeavor in everything I do to comply with this requirement so that no-one can ever claim that I am not at all times a totally impartial and independent officer of the States.

Although there are a range of political views about blog sites in Jersey I know you would not disagree if I say that it is clear that there are some States members who consider blogs are important and some of these are willing to engage actively with you and other bloggers to give interviews etc whereas there are other States members who do not wish to engage at all with you. It is not for me to comment on these varying views as to do so would be to be entering the political debate that will no doubt continue on this issue for the foreseeable future as the media landscape and the influence of the internet continues to evolve.

The immediate problem for me is that if I agreed to be interviewed on this issue my decision would be seen by some as a political statement on my part by those States members who feel it is inappropriate. These members could then be critical of my decision to be interviewed. I simply cannot, in my position, unilaterally decide that engaging with a blog site is a correct thing for the Greffier of the States to do. I'd stress most strongly that in taking this decision I'm not, as a result, 'siding' with those who think that engaging is incorrect but until there is general political agreement on what is appropriate I simply cannot be seen to be expressing a view either way.

I hope all who know me would agree that it is not in my nature to be awkward or obstructive and I am more than happy to explain briefly for you some of the steps that we followed in identifying Mrs Oldham so that you can be satisfied that she is a suitable person to chair the inquiry.

After the sad news about Sally Bradley QC's ill health the selection panel of Belinda Smith,Ed Marsden and myself met urgently to discuss how we could identify a new chairman. I should stress most strongly that we have never, at any time, sought any advice or guidance from anyone in Jersey about the appointment of a chairman and I can also confirm that luckily no one in Jersey has ever actually tried to tell me how I should go about the task of finding a Chairman. I have not, in fact, discussed the appointment process with anyone in Jersey until we had concluded it and even my own staff might say that I have been unusually secretive about what I have been doing! To avoid any 'Jersey' connection all the practical arrangements to contact people and arrange meetings etc were made through Ed Marsden's office.

We relied on a number of sources such as legal directories and enquiries with organisations in the UK to identify a number of potentially suitable QCs to chair the inquiry and Ed Marsden and I then met them for an initial discussion to explain what would be involved and to hear from them about their experience. We made extensive inquiries before and during the informal meetings that those we were seeing had absolutely no contacts at all with anyone in Jersey who was in any way involved with the issues to be covered in the inquiry and we made sure that they did not know anyone in Jersey who was in any way connected with the inquiry. A number of people were excluded because of connections and I think it is fair to say that we erred significantly on the side of caution when assessing any possible conflict.

When we saw potential chairmen we were keen to assess their proposed approach to the inquiry and ensure that they were aware of the importance of engaging in a sympathetic way with all who wanted to give evidence. We also wanted to hear what practical experience they had of dealing with victims of abuse and how they would ensure that appropriate arrangements were in place to handle all witnesses sensitively. We made sure that they appreciated how important the inquiry was for Jersey and wanted to know what experience they had of hearing potentially conflicting evidence and reaching an accurate conclusion. We were particularly keen to talk to QCs who had experience sitting as judges in the Family Division or the Crown Court as presiding in these courts and dealing with witnesses and lawyers for both sides would give very relevant experience for presiding over a public inquiry.

We shortlisted down to 3 QCs and the full selection panel then conducted a formal interview with these 3. We were unanimous at the end that Mrs Oldham had all the right experience to chair the inquiry. She has many years experience dealing with abuse cases and she explained to us that a huge proportion of the cases she deals with involve some form of physical or sexual abuse. She is determined to ensure that the inquiry allows people to tell their stories so that the inquiry finally brings closure and establishes exactly what happened over the period covered by the inquiry terms of reference. She has absolutely no connections at all with Jersey and has never met or come into contact with anyone connected in any way with the issues to be covered by the inquiry. She had never been to the island before coming for the interview we held. She convinced us that she will be fearless in getting to the truth to the best of her ability. She has sat as a judge for several years and in this capacity has to hear evidence and come to a reasoned conclusion. Importantly she has an extremely engaging and pleasant personal manner and we were convinced that she will be seen as a very suitable person to chair the inquiry by all who come into contact with her in the coming months.

Having been charged by the States to lead the selection process for a chairman I have done everything I can to ensure that the most suitable person possible (who was available to commit to work for some 12 months on this) was found. I recognize fully how important the inquiry is for the Island and was determined to do all I could to the best of my ability throughout the selection process to find the best person I could.

I hope this helps. For the avoidance of doubt I would mention that although I do not feel it would be appropriate for me to be interviewed I have no objection if you wish to publish this email on your blog site.

Michael de la Haye
Greffier of the States"(END)

It should be noted that in all our dealings with Mr. De La Haye we have found him to be extremely helpful, professional and impartial,willing to engage and answer any questions. If only some (most) of our politicians could take a leaf out of his book then maybe we could all work together in doing what is right for the Abuse Victims/Survivors and the Island as a whole......

APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO HISTORIC ABUSE.

Being the responsible and trusted media that we are we have adhered to the strict embargo placed on the Press Release issued by States Greffe Michael De La Haye (below) which is 00.01 Monday 21st October 2013.

This however didn't stop Jersey's ONLY "News"paper breaching the embargo by publishing information from it on Saturday 19th October.........Because they CAN breach embargoes being the ONLY "News"paper on the Island. If we Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) were to act so defiantly/irresponsibly we would never be given another embargoed Press Release. Thankfully, as mentioned above, we are more responsible than that and won't lower our standards to that of the discredited, and disgraced JEP.

As regular readers would expect, Team Voice will be reporting extensively on the (possibly controversial) appointment of Frances Oldham QC, and indeed the whole Committee of Inquiry and related issues.

But for now, at least, we give our readers the official Press Release (embargo respected).

"A senior UK lawyer with 36 years experience of family and criminal law matters is being nominated to chair the Committee of Inquiry into Historical Abuse.

Frances Oldham QC was first called to the Bar in 1977 and was appointed as Queen’s Counsel in 1994. She is regularly instructed in high profile cases in both criminal and family matters and has considerable experience dealing with cases involving sexual and physical abuse. She was appointed as a Crown Court Recorder in 1994 and is authorised to try serious cases involving rape and serious sexual offences. She has been a Deputy High Court Judge in the Family Division for over 10 years and she spends several weeks each year sitting as a judge in the criminal and family courts. She is also a judge for the Mental Health Restricted Patients Panel Tribunal and in 2012 she was appointed as a member of the QC Appointments Panel. She was leader of the Midland Circuit between 2002 and 2005 and Head of her Chambers for 7 years.

Mrs. Oldham’s nomination comes after the lawyer initially appointed to chair the inquiry, Mrs. Sally Bradley QC, became unwell in July and was unable to take up the position. The recruitment process for the replacement chairman has been undertaken by the same selection panel comprising Michael de la Haye, Greffier of the States, Belinda Smith, Senior Legal Counsel – Child Protection at the NSPCC and Ed Marsden, the Managing Partner of Verita. Informal discussions were held in the United Kingdom with 9 potential chairmen before 3 people were invited for a formal interview.

Mr. de la Haye said “The selection panel is unanimous in recommending Frances Oldham QC for this position. She has very extensive experience in many high profile cases in the UK and her combination of criminal and family law experience at the highest levels makes her eminently suitable to chair the inquiry in Jersey. She sits regularly as a judge in both the Crown Court and the Family Division of the High Court and she has vast experience of dealing with some of the most vulnerable members of society. Frances started her working career as a management trainee in the NHS before qualifying as a barrister and she was keen to point out to us that she
did not come from a privileged background which undoubtedly, in our view, helps her to relate well to people from all walks of life. The selection panel is convinced that she has exactly the right combination of empathy and firmness to chair the inquiry successfully in a totally independent and objective way.”

Following the selection of Mrs. Oldham to chair the inquiry the selection panel is now working with her to finalise the appointment of 2 committee members from the United Kingdom for the inquiry. The selection process for the members was already well underway before the summer but had to be placed on hold following the news of the previous chairman’s ill health. The selection panel is hopeful that the recruitment of 2 committee members can be concluded by the end of October so that the Chairman and members can begin to make plans for the inquiry to start.

Mrs. Oldham said “I am very pleased to have been nominated to chair this important inquiry and I am keen to ensure that the inquiry starts in early 2014. I am determined to run the inquiry in a way that will encourage all those who want to come forward to speak to us to do so. It is essential that the inquiry is able to establish exactly what happened in the care system in Jersey during the period covered by our terms of reference and I will ensure that everything possible is done to achieve that aim”.

The nominations of Mrs. Oldham and the 2 committee members will need to be approved by the States and the Chief Minister will be lodging the necessary proposition in due course so that the appointments can be considered by the Assembly in December."(END)

FRANCES OLDHAM QC

Team Voice, as regular readers would expect, have a number of REAL probing questions to ask that won't be asked by the State Media concerning the nomination of Frances Oldham QC.

Unfortunately, after repeated requests, we have been refused an interview with/by Mr. De La Haye (States Greffe) although he has been extremely helpful with supplying us with the embargoed Press Release (breached by the JEP) and has been in constant contact with us over the weekend.

We are still hopeful that we can reach some kind of a compromise on the interview front and Mr. De La Haye has said he is willing to answer our questions, it's just what format they take that is the sticking point right now, and hope to bring readers an update on that front as soon as we can.

Our argument is that we ARE the trusted media on the Island and the State Media stands accused of complicity in the whole cover-up of the Child Abuse and it's not us who breached the embargo or are accused of covering up any Child Abuse.

We believe the Committee of Inquiry will gain more credibility by engaging with those of us who have been at the forefront of investigative journalism on the island for the last 5 years or so and have campaigned heavily for the Abuse Victims/Survivors and indeed for the COI itself, for which we have been praised by a number of national/international journalists and local politicians.

The myth that surrounds the State Media being the trusted local news source, is just that,......a myth. If the State Media is granted an interview and Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) are refused, then it won't be our reputation/credibility that suffers, it will be that of the Committee of Inquiry itself.

This IS NOT a good beginning.

Two Sides To The Story.

Former Deputy, and Anti Child Abuse Campaigner, Daniel Wimberley, wrote to Chief Minister Ian Gorst back in November 2012 with his concerns relating to the Child Abuse Committee Of Inquiry and its Terms of Reference.

Mr. Wimberley outlines the many discrepancies between the "Official Government Line" and "The Truth" concerning the Child Abuse atrocities and related issues including the illegal suspension of Former Police Chief, Graham Power QPM, the Napier Report, the so called, Met Interim Report and much more.

The letter was written in the hope of striking up a dialogue with the Chief Minister in order to help shape some fit for purpose Terms Of Reference for the Child Abuse Committee Of Inquiry due to be debated in the island's parliament tomorrow (Wed 6 March 2013). Links will be published for our overseas readers where the debate can be listened to online and members of Team Voice will be tweeting the debate using the hash-tag #coijersey.

Alleged Chief Minister Gorst did not reply to Mr. Wimberley's letter so he (Mr. Wimberley) sees value, for the historic record, in making the letter public in the hope that people will gain a wider understanding of the questions still being asked and whether the Committee Of Inquiry will be given the tools to glean the answers.

Dear Chief Minister,                                                   November 1^st 2012

Confidential

Note on confidentiality of this letter.

So far as I am concerned the request being made in this letter and the letter itself will stay confidential, unless I am forced to “go public,” as indicated below by the actions or inaction of yourself and the Council of Ministers.

I see that the proposition for establishing a Committee of Inquiry (CoI) into the issues surrounding child abuse in the island is due to be published next week.

This letter concerns the Terms of Reference of such an Inquiry. I believe that it is most likely that the Terms of Reference as presented by the Council of Ministers to the States will be passed. I also believe that if the Terms of Reference are deemed to be faulty in one or another aspect, and an amendment or amendments are brought by backbenchers, then it is most likely that they will not succeed.

That is my belief, and I would expect that you agree. It is after all what tends to happen, not always but in the majority of cases. And so it is very important that the Terms of Reference, as proposed by the Council of Ministers, are “right first time”.

I am asking you to ensure that the Terms of Reference proposed by the Council of Ministers will allow the Inquiry to consider:

·   The conduct of the police investigation

·   The conduct of the Law Officers Department (LOD)

·   The conduct of other individuals, public bodies and agencies of government as they affected the investigation

I am asking this because I fear that if these areas are excluded, then many key issues will be excluded. For example, if it is true, as many believe, that the initial Power/Harper police investigation was effectively “shut down / discredited” then this has serious implications. Why would it be shut down? Whose interests might be protected if the investigation was to be “shut down / discredited”? Does the “shutting down / discrediting” of the investigation mean that some guilty parties, guilty either of abuse, or of aiding abuse, or of concealing abuse, might escape justice, which is a view that has been clearly expressed, by for example, David James Smith, crime journalist for the Times, at    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6241652.ece

I am not saying how much, if any, of this chain of reasoning is justifiable. I am saying that many believe the notion that the investigation was effectively “shut down / discredited” and that this can be shown to be in line with the facts of the matter.

Conversely there are many who believe that the Power/Harper team were a disaster, and somehow systems should have been in place to stop all their mistakes.

That is just one example. I will list in the Appendix some of the many matters which require to be explained, if this whole affair is ever to reach closure, the island is to be brought back into a state of harmony, and a reasonable level of trust in island institutions can be restored.

As chairman of the BBC Trust, Chris Patten has had to deal with the fallout from the recent revelations about Jimmy Savile. In a recent article for the Mail on Sunday [1]  he expressed his reactions thus:

“Did some turn a blind eye to criminality? Did some prefer not to follow up their suspicions because of this criminal’s popularity and place in the schedules? Were reports of criminality put aside or buried? Even those of us who were not there at the time are inheritors of the shame.” (my emphasis)

So how does the BBC respond to this critical situation, involving child abuse and one of their leading stars? By launching three inquiries:

“The first inquiry, led by Nick Pollard, former head of Sky News, will look at all aspects of the Newsnight report: the reasons for dropping it, whether editor Peter Rippon was leaned on by senior executives to drop the item, how the fallout of  the decision was handled, and how the editor came  to produce a blog explaining his decisions in terms that no longer seem accurate. We want and need a full account of what happened, wherever its conclusions lead. The Trust will publish it and take whatever steps are necessary. (my emphasis)

“The second inquiry will be conducted by former Court of Appeal judge Dame Janet Smith. She will examine the BBC’s culture and practices in the years that Savile worked there. She will also examine whether BBC child protection and whistle blowing policies are good enough. Due to the nature of the subject, her report is likely to take longer to produce.”

“Third, the Director-General has appointed a distinguished QC, Dinah Rose, to advise the BBC on its sexual harassment policies and practices.”

Patten goes on:

“The independent inquiries are not smokescreens behind which we can hide. They must and will get to the truth of what  happened. The BBC must tell the truth and face up to the truth about itself, however terrible.” (my emphasis)

Please can Jersey’s government take a leaf out of Chris Patten’s book? He is taking immediate, strong and genuine action because he can see the dangers. There is an unequivocal commitment to finding out the truth and to taking any remedial action necessary.

The BBC is beholden to the license-fee payers, on whose support he depends, and that means virtually all of us. For them he has to protect the reputation and integrity of the institution.  He has also to save the self-respect and the self-confidence of all those who work for the BBC. I also happen to find from the tone of his remarks that he genuinely is shocked and genuinely believes that the course of action he is taking is right on moral grounds alone.

Does all this not apply equally to the issue of child abuse in Jersey? Indeed one only has to change a few words in the paragraph above:    for Chris Patten write Ian Gorst;  for “chair of the BBC Trust” write “Chief Minister of the Council of Ministers”;   for “license-fee payers” write “the people of Jersey”.

The only difference is that you, as Chief Minister, are responsible both for matters of compliance and for execution, which Mr. Patten is not. No matter. It falls to you, in this instance, to act to protect (or some would say renew) the integrity and reputation of the island of Jersey and its institutions, and its government.

I hope that you and the Council of Ministers will make sure that the TOR are as wide-ranging as I have asked, for the reasons I have given. But hope is not enough. There are no serious checks and balances in Jersey, no diverse and independent-minded press ready to pounce on this issue and sound the alarm, no-one to blow the whistle and raise the stakes on the issue as David Cameron has about the BBC.

Therefore, if you attempt to sweep these issues under the carpet, then you are forcing me to seek out checks and balances elsewhere to highlight what you are doing, and the word “Confidential” at the head of this letter will no longer apply.

I close with what two islanders wrote in online comments to an article in the JEP:

“How ironic the vast majority of us want the same thing the truth some are clearly supporters of the C.O.M others the survivors and some I think just the plain truth. A few are just worried about the money being spent to those I would say the finance industry like it or not works on trust and stability the continuing allegations are destroying that.

Can’t we put the politics aside and work to getting the truth or it will continue festering to the detriment of us all, and Jersey will be destroyed. The C.O.M keep saying that nothing serious happened but something did happen and the truth about what happened needs to be exposed and in a way that can be believed and accepted by all.

As per my previous post that can only be obtained by a truly independent enquiry with only one term of reference the TRUTH”

http://www.thisisjersey.com/2011/02/03/new-call-for-committee-of-inquiry/#xzz1DhjFQa2h

and from the same discussion thread:

“Until the wound is completely cleaned out and treated it will continue to fester and never heal. Those who might be innocent in all this, but unfairly blamed by ‘unproven hearsay’ will forever carry the weight of suspicion. Conspiracy theories will continue to be nurtured and gossip will thrive.

A full, thorough and independant (sic) enquiry, inclusive and involving all interested parties is, in my humble opinion, the only way we will ever be able to put this sorry saga to bed.”

Yours faithfully

Daniel Wimberley

APPENDIX

Listed below are just some of the issues which have to be addressed if this CoI can be said to be comprehensive and provide, in the words of Chris Patten “a  full account of what happened” so that we “can take whatever steps are necessary.”

(NOTE all emphases are mine unless where otherwise stated)

1 Was the investigation a shambles?

On the one hand:

Mick Gradwell: “'I have never seen anything like this in 30 years. In respect of sexual offences I have been a detective for 22 years, I can show convictions for rapes and sex offences by predatory paedophiles as well as a huge number of murders, but I have never ever seen police working in this way, I really am absolutely shocked by what has gone on. It is abhorrent behaviour.” Cited on Voice for Children blog as “said on leaving Jersey” 

On the other hand:

“In a statement dated 7^th May, 2009 Andrew Lewis speaks of his briefings by the H.W.G. (the Homicide Working Group of ACPO) and states in paragraph 8, “When I received their report with the recommendations, I was told by Andy Baker that the investigation was a “shining example” of how an investigation of this type should be run and that they were satisfied that the S.I.O. was doing a good job” Power statement to the Wiltshire Inquiry paragraph 158 [2]

2 Was the handling of the media incompetent and ill-thought out?

On the one hand:

I remember the Wiltshire report being highly critical, both of specific media events, (Graham Power was asked by Wiltshire to comment on “the sensationalist media releases”) and of the lack of attention to media issues and of an overall strategy.

On the other hand:

I have read Graham Power’s statement to Wiltshire. Paragraphs 285 onwards show quite clearly that media issues were given considered and constant attention by the Power / Harper team. Some examples: before the inquiry went public the creation of a website giving contact details and encouraging victims to get in touch, likewise pre-emptive briefings of the key politicians about what might happen in terms of media; the need to emphasise the “independence and integrity of the police” in an environment where that was not always taken for granted by certain sections of society; the pro-active approach taken to the service of remorse organised by the Dean of Jersey at Gouray church on 26^th February; strategy was clearly discussed (paragraph 298 and 299) and it goes on.

3  Did the Power / Harper team say there were murders?

On the one hand:

“I had written in detail about the child-abuse inquiry last year. I had never given much credence to the more lurid tales of possible homicides, mainly because I had been counselled against them by Lenny Harper. There were no missing children, he said, clearly and often, and there was no evidence of murder”

Times article, May 10, 2009, by David James Smith, “Britain’s foremost crime writer,”   http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6241652.ece

“I told Bob Key (on 25th February, the day before the service at Gouray church, and two days after the announcement of the “piece of skull” find) our position was that we did not know if any crime had been committed, and that contrary to reports there was no murder enquiry. I suggested as best I could, that he tone his words accordingly.”  Power statement to Wiltshire, paragraph 296

“LH emphasises that there is no evidence that anyone was murdered or died at Haut de la Garenne in these rooms but there is evidence of abuse there” (Power statement to Wiltshire, paragraph 302, quoting a report by PC Dunwell-Smith recording what Lenny Harper said on Sky TV on 28/02/08)

“I note that in his statement Frank Walker refers to an announcement that a full homicide enquiry could not be justified, which was made on 18th April 2008. . . .  other similar announcements were made around that time but did not seem to receive adequate exposure.”  Power statement to Wiltshire, paragraph 323

On the other hand:

"unfounded suggestion of multiple murders" Commissioner Sir Christopher Pitcher

“An assessment of the evidence available has revealed that the forensic recoveries do not indicate that there have been murders of children or other people at Haut de la Garenne” (Press Release, Operation Rectangle November 12th 2008)

4  The suspension – some facts that are very hard to explain . . .

·   “The basis on which he (Graham Power) was suspended was in my view inadequate” (Napier paragraph 107)

·   Too much reliance was placed on just one letter, that of David Warcup. No other evidence was taken into account. (Napier paragraph 107)

·   The Chief Minister resisted to the utmost letting Graham Power know the dates on which the suspension letters were created.

·   The Met Interim report on which David Warcup relied to some extent in his letter, and for the Press Conference of November 12^th 2008, had caveats. The Law officers specifically warned against using the report if it had caveats. (Napier, paragraph 45)

·   The Met Interim Report was part of a learning-type review process which should never be used in a disciplinary context. (Wiltshire, reference not to hand) And yet it was so used.

·   Until the 11^th November 2008, the Home Affairs Minister at the time, Andrew Lewis, “had no reason to believe that they (that is, the States of Jersey Police) were not managing the investigation well.”  (Mr. Lewis’ statement to the Wiltshire Police) and yet on February 22 2010, responding to the impending debate on P9/2010 and to Graham Power’s Affidavit, former Minister Lewis wrote: “I had been aware for some time of concerns about the command and control of the Child Abuse Inquiry.” These two statements cannot both be true.

·   “As from October 10 he (Mr. Ogley) was making preparations for the possible suspension of the Chief officer (of Police) . . .” (Napier, paragraph 79) and  “there was little objective basis for planning such precautionary measures as at 10 October” (Napier, paragraph 80)  

·   The hearing itself did not accord with natural justice as the person facing suspension was given no notice, no time to prepare, no representation and the documents on which the suspension was based

5  Discrediting the Inquiry – why?

“This particular officer, in my view, caused enormous problems in this Island, not just in this context, but in the context of the police force generally, and he is, in my opinion, an incompetent maverick and not in the least a credible person to be believed by this Assembly or anywhere else." (Minister for Home Affairs, debate on P19 Tadier amendment, Hansard, March 1^st 2011)

This is not the view of the abuse survivors.

Nor of Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC) who have praised the leadership of the force, and its success in reducing crime, nor of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) advisory team who mentored and advised on the handling of the Haut de la Garenne investigation

A balanced report of the entire investigation can be read here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6241652.ece

Again and again there are two completely different versions of events. Or there are contradictions which appear to make no sense. And yet the consequences were severe – the suspension (effectively the dismissal) of our Chief of Police in utterly extraordinary circumstances.

In fact sense can be made of all of this – but without a Committee of Inquiry with the powers and remit to find the truth such hypotheses cannot be fully tested. And the truth is ultimately the only way this will all be resolved.

---

[1]    MAIL ONSUNDAY: PUBLISHED: 23:34 GMT, 27 October 2012 | UPDATED: 21:20 GMT, 28 October 2012

[2]    I am aware that the Minister for Home Affairs tried to discredit the ACPO reports by suggesting that as Andy Baker was applying for a top job at SoJP he was biassed towards praising the inquiry. Mr. Power has refuted this caustically pointing out that a) he, Graham Power had nothing to do with the selection process whatsoever, and b) that praising the investigation was hardly going to win brownie points in the atmosphere prevailing at the time. I would add, c) that trimming one’s views away from what is useful towards what is cosmetic is hardly a good way of recommending oneself as a top policeman, and c) people at the top of their profession, as Baker was, are unlikely to jeopardise their reputation by not doing their job properly. The point being that here too there are two sides to the story.(END)

Will this Committee Of Inquiry be able to deliver the answers? Why would Senator Gorst ignore Mr. Wimberley's letter? Why have the Council Of Ministers been dragged, kicking and screaming to this Committee Of Inquiry? Is there any real appetite from the COM (Law Offices) to get to the truth? After tomorrow's debate, will Senator Le Gresley be offering his RESIGNATION?