JEP Editorials. Compare and Contrast (2)

Back in August 2009 while Jersey's biggest Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) was still live, Bloggers were publishing the evidence and facts that the Old Media (formerly known as MSM) was trying to bury.

We (Bloggers) were being trashed by the Old Media, discredited at any given opportunity, in a desperate attempt by the Old Media to churn out the Party Line and bury the truth. Survivors/campaigners/whistleblowers and the cops, (particularly SIO/DCOLenny Harper) were all either silenced or ridiculed by the Old Media, pedophiles, pedophile protectors and supporters of the regime.

Back then (August 2009) Jersey's only newspaper, The Jersey Evening Post, published an Editorial attempting to ridicule Bloggers/Citizen's Journalists and hold onto the immense power it had back then (but was rapidly losing).

We published that editorial HERE where we asked readers to "Compare and Contrast" the opinions of the JEP Editorial and that of a (then) senior journalist working for another Old Media outlet. Readers should read that link in order to grasp how far things have come, how wrong the JEP was and how it is because of the JEP (and all island Old Media) that Bloggers became so trusted and were proven right and totally vindicated whether it be by SENIOR POLITICIANS, Former SENIOR POLICE OFFICER(S) or the Jersey Independent Care Inquiry ITSELF. Even former Attorney General/Bailiff WILLIAM BAILHACHE (through gritted teeth) HAD to vindicate former SIO/DCO Lenny Harper.

We, on this Blog, have (rightly) exposed the JEP for its (shall we say) "failings" over the years, and indeed we've exposed the rest of the Old Media as well. But I digress, regular readers will know that we try to be as fair and balanced as we can be on this Blog and like to give credit where it is due.

In 2014 Andy Sibcy took over the editorship of the newspaper and we have repeatedly given him, and the paper, credit where it has been due and we are pleased to say that has been more often than not. He gained a lot of our respect when he came to the Jersey Independent Care Inquiry to sit alongside BLOGGERS to discuss the role of New and Old Media. It should be noted he didn't have to attend and ITV/CTV as well as The BBC didn't have the courage to come and defend their (indefensible) reporting, and non reporting, of the Child Abuse cover up(s).

We found that Sibcy was humble, at the IJCI hearing, approachable and willing to take onboard constructive criticism/feedback as readers will see by clicking on the above link. The paper (since Sibcy took over) has (in our opinion) become almost unrecognisable since the bad old days. That's not to say that it now practices any kind of investigative journalism, or such like, but you are now seeing articles/opinions published that would never have seen the light of day pre-Sibcy.

In this Blog Posting we want readers to compare and contrast the JEP's opinion from today's EDITORIAL and that of 2009.

Before we do that we need to give readers some context behind today's editorial.

Deputy Mike Higgins

Yesterday, (8th September 2020) in the States (parliament) sitting, Deputy Mike Higgins asked two questions of the children's Minister, Senator Sam Mezec concerning possible criminality within the Children's Services, certainly underhanded, and dangerous tactics allegedly employed by them and it appears the Minister is more inclined to protect the system than he is to hold it to account and protect its users/clients.

Video of the questions and "answers" (sic) can be viewed HERE and HERE. It should be noted that not one other politician had a single question to ask on the back of Deputy Higgins' question. That should put fear into anybody who thinks politicians (other than Higgins) are looking after Children's best interests, or protecting them in any way.

Former Health Minister, and whistleblower, Stuart Syvret

Deputy Higgins, just like Stuart Syvret (and others) before him is going up against the establishment trying to be a voice for the voiceless, trying to root out any wrongdoing and rot, before we have another Child Abuse atrocity on our hands because of Ministers protecting their Department/staff instead of protecting those who are allegedly being abused/failed by it/them.

Regular readers will know that whistleblowers, in the States (like Stuart Syvret) were always portrayed as troublemakers or conspiracy theorists and we thought after the Survivors/whistleblowers/cops and Bloggers were all vindicated by the IJCI that this would end. Well we know it hasn't, as demonstrated by Current Home Affairs Minister LEN NORMAN who tried to portray Deputy Mike Higgins as a troublemaker/conspiracy theorist just as others did before him to (vindicated) Stuart Syvret.

So, finally on to the compare and contrast of the JEP editorials.

JEP EDITORIAL 2009:

"RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS

THE proposal that the States should be televised live on the internet should remind us that, as time
marches on, the media of mass communication evolve. A certain amount of hoo-hah over who should be allowed to video Scrutiny panel hearings also reminds us that a new breed of media person is abroad – or would like to be abroad.

Citizen journalists, as they call themselves, believe that they should share the same rights of access as
more traditional media such as newspaper reporters and TV or radio broadcasters.

In itself that sounds like a reasonable idea and a potential enhancement of democracy. The new kids on the block, however, must realise that if they want privileges they must play by the rules – and that involves signing up to codes of conduct and refraining from defaming everyone who is framed in the view finder or splashed all over a blog.

Until that sort of agreement can be negotiated and finalised, citizen journalists are about as welcome as citizen brain surgeons, citizen airline pilots or, indeed, citizen bricklayers."

JEP EDITORIAL 2020:

"THE Independent Jersey Care Inquiry evidenced beyond doubt that  victims and those who were in desperate need of support did not trust government departments which were supposed to provide it. There was also distrust on the other side of the fence – a reluctance to believe people who said that they were abused by those in positions of authority and responsibility.

As a consequence, marginalised Islanders turned to anti-establishment politicians and bloggers outside of the mainstream who they trusted. They became their champions and ensured the spotlight shone on things that others wanted to ignore or forget.

Long-serving backbencher Deputy Mike Higgins was one of those who used his position in the States to give voice to victims who felt unable or were unwilling to seek redress through more official channels – or who simply were not listened to.

In the wake of the inquiry report there were promises of action and better funding, of putting children first and taking steps to make sure mistakes were not repeated. And yet still there are stories of failings, of case-loads which make providing a good service impossible, of mistakes and cover-ups.

And still those fighting against the system turn to people like Deputy Higgins.

There will, no doubt, be people reading today’s front-page and issuing a sigh – irked by or not interested in what the St Helier Member has to say in his questioning of the Children’s Minister.

But to dismiss the allegations would be to demonstrate that the lessons of the past have not been learned.

Assertions of anything from abuse to malpractice and incompetence must, of course, be tested in appropriate ways, as not all allegations will be fair or true, but it is critical that people with grievances and complaints are empowered to speak out, to blow the whistle and to be heard.

In her opening remarks summarising the panels’ findings, chairwoman of the Independent Care Inquiry Frances Oldham QC quoted the 2008 words of the Howard League for Penal Reform after it reviewed Jersey’s youth justice system. She said: ‘Powerful interlocking networks may exclude and disempower those outside of the groups and make it hard for those outside of those networks, who have genuine concerns, to raise them or make complaints in an effective way. This is likely to be particularly true of deprived, disadvantaged and powerless children.’ The powerful networks of today might be different to those of the past, but they remain and there is still a gulf between them and the powerless. It is through that lens that we should read Deputy Higgins’s comments.

Editor: Andy Sibcy editorial@jerseyeveningpost.com" (END)

It is clear that the JEP has learned some lessons from the past. It's editorial today is not attempting to silence or ridicule the whistleblower, (Deputy Mike Higgins) it is (rightly) telling us to listen to him before the "mistakes" of the past are repeated.

The editorial appears to acknowledge its own (and all island Old Media) mistakes of the past when it concedes that trying to cover up the truth will only push people towards those who/were are telling it (Bloggers)

Quote JEP:

"As a consequence, marginalised Islanders turned to anti-establishment politicians and bloggers outside of the mainstream who they trusted. They became their champions and ensured the spotlight shone on things that others wanted to ignore or forget."

A line I wrote from the 2009 EDITORIAL:

"Citizens Media is here and it is here to stay, get used to it Shipley, you helped create it/us."    

So credit where credit is due. The JEP (evidenced by the two editorials) has come a long way since 2009. Unfortunately The BBC and ITV/CTV remain where they always were, untrusted, unreliable and completely silent (as far as we are aware) on the concerns raised by Deputy Higgins in the States yesterday. It was the (Old) Media's silence that helped the cover-up(s)...........History (in some cases) repeating itself.

New (and some) old Media appear at Child Abuse Panel Review.

On Thursday May 29 2019 Team Voice and Tom Gruchy appeared as witnesses at the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (IJCI) REVIEW PANEL "PUBLIC" Hearing. We "New Media" (formerly known as "Social Media") were invited to sit alongside members of the "Old Media" (formerly known as Mainstream Media) to discuss a number of subjects/bullet-points. (below)

Unfortunately we only got the subjects/bullet-points the night before the Hearing which was nowhere near enough time to do adequate research but nonetheless, in the extremely short time we were given for the hearing (approximately an hour), we were able to hold our own.

Regular readers will know that the Panel went back on its word (pretended it didn't) and refused any media recording of all the "PUBLIC" Hearings as exclusively reported by VFC HERE. WE (New Media) were the only media to challenge this absurd decision as reported on in the above link. The Old media were compliant. So unfortunately were are unable to publish any video footage for the Blog. Which was our intention before the Panel went back on its word.

With the very limited time we had at the hearing, and the number of subjects to be discussed, it was an impossible, and unrealistic task and we should have been allocated at least a two hour slot and that's not counting the DAYS we would have needed if we were allowed to discuss the Old Media's role pre-2017.

ITV/CTV

Out of the Old Media it was only the Bailiwick Express and the Jersey Evening Post who had the courage to turn up. ITV/CTV and The BBC lacked that courage so credit to the two who did show up. Of course the Bailiwick Express was not around during the Rectangle Era, so had little, or nothing, to answer for. The JEP, and indeed ITV/CTV and The BBC were around and do have plenty to answer for so most credit should go to Andy Sibcy (Editor JEP). Sibcy wasn't the Editor around the time (Rectangle) the paper was doing its best to trash the Survivors/Abusees and those who tried to get them so-called "justice." We believe the Paper as come along way, for the better, under the Editorship of Sibcy.

The paper (alongside BBC, ITV/CTV) was relentless in attempting to discredit the Victims/Abusees, Lenny Haper, Graham Power QPM, Stuart Syvret and the Bloggers and should have been held to account for this at the (not so) Public Hearing.

However, The Panel was adamant the old media was not going to answer for its reporting before and during Operation Rectangle. At the very start of the Hearing the Chair, Francis Oldham QC, threatened to walk out if that line was going to be taken. Which begs the question "if we are going to ignore the "mistakes" of the past, are we not doomed to repeat them?" It would appear that the Old Media have (like a vast number of abusers) been let off the hook for its past crimes. It was the old "Jersey Way" war cry "let's not dwell on the past, and let's look to the future." So many crimes have been brushed under the carpet with that slogan and it looks like the IJCI Panel have adopted it also which is concerning.

Fellow Team Voice Member RICO SORDA, at the very start of the hearing said words to the effect: "The entire local MSM owe the Victims and Survivors an apology for its reporting during the Child Abuse cover-up." He is of course right. We cannot forget the further abuse Survivors/abusees were subjected to by the Old Media during the Rectangle Era. But, as mentioned above, Francis Oldham QC was having none of it and threatened to walk out (with the Panel) if we attempted to discuss anything that pre-dated the Panel's Report of 2017.

We should also point out that the Old Media, according to the latest SOCIAL SURVEY, only enjoys the confidence of 33% of islanders. It has a mountain to climb in order to win any trust back and by not dealing with its past failings it is difficult to see how this could happen. Bloggers, on the other hand, have earned the trust of Survivors/Abusees and whistleblowers through the years and continue to enjoy that trust. We (unlike to Old Media) can hold our heads high knowing we are on the right side of history and have spoken up for the truth.

BBC

Despite the almost impossible, and fruitless task, in holding the Old Media to account at the hearing, the Panel should be congratulated for attempting to get the Old and New Media round the table. There has always been a "them and us" attitude created by the Old Media and, although BBC/ITV didn't have the courage to turn up, we believe some bridges might have been built with those who did turn up and those who didn't have no intention of building bridges. The irony is that BBC and ITV/CTV could have got some much needed credibility just by showing up as Bailiwick Express and JEP did (from me anyway). And of course the Bloggers don't need to gain credibility from those who matter as we already have it.

We are pleased to say that the discussion around the table, at the hearing, was, on the whole, pretty amicable. We had an opportunity (albeit very limited)  to discuss our differences and indeed similarities with the Old Media and it wasn't a completely useless exercise for which we thank the IJCI Panel for getting at least some of the Old and New media together. This is something the Old Media has resisted for years and still resisted by BBC and ITV/CTV.

Below (in an e-mail received from the Panel the night before the hearing) are the eight subjects expected to be discussed in an hour by up to 7 or eight witnesses.

IJCI Panel

"Hello

We are looking forward to welcoming you to Thursday’s session in St Paul’s at 9.45 am.

Our sessions have been lasting 50-60 minutes. We aim to keep to time as we have a full schedule.

Our focus is on the period 2017-present with a view to identifying what is new and emerging in that period. As with other issues we are reviewing, we are not discussing matters in the period before or during the Inquiry or matters dealt with during the Inquiry. 

In honing down the topics for the session we have drawn on our meetings with over 150 people in the last 10 days, including three more sessions with care experienced young people tonight.

The questions that will help us most are:

.What have you seen that is different in the last two years in services affecting children and families

.Key areas in the last two years for media reporting on child care issues.

.What media campaigns / reporting in the last two years have had an impact?

.The public response through media/social media to the Inquiry report and child care issues
Have there been any barriers to reporting child care issues since July 2017?

.Whether people in Jersey have tended in the last two years to use media rather than official processes to highlight complaints

.What is role of journalists in holding public sector agencies to account?

.Changing the tone of some debate and commentary to encourage more participation
In a climate of global concern about false and manufactured news and commentary, what safeguards are necessary to ensure accurate reporting?

Finally and importantly,
In one of Wednesday morning’s public sessions, we heard very powerful pleas from (name redacted), a Jersey careleaver, cautioning against the media sensationalising complex issues and asking for more reporting of, and pride in, the positive developments in Jersey's child care services. On her behalf we want to ask: how can the media help with this?"(END)

Needless to say hardly any of the subjects were discussed but as mentioned above it wasn't a completely fruitless task and the IJCI Panel should be congratulated for getting the New and (some of) the Old Media round a table and we look forward to building bridges with those (of the Old Media) who look for the same.

We will look to publish the transcript of the Hearing as soon as it becomes available.

In the meantime readers might want to discuss/answer the questions set (above) by the Panel? Or do readers agree the hearing/subjects should have included the Old Media's reporting (or not) during the Operation Rectangle Era?

Donald Bailhache.

Bailiff Donald Bailhache

Before we start; it has to be stressed (while it's still semi legal) that this Blog Posting is an "opinion" from a member of the public and Social Media/mainstream media contributor. It is difficult knowing where to start with this posting/opinion. We could start with that first we had the brother as BORIS BAILHACHE and now we've got Donald Bailhache.

Jersey's unelected and unaccountable Bailiff William Bailhache has reportedly used his speech (17th September 2018 at Assize D’Heritage in the Royal Court) to attack the mainstream media and Social Media. He has attacked free speech and this is yet another reason why the outdated and out of touch (with the modern digital era) position of Bailiff should be consigned to history.

If what has been reported is correct then one can only assume that the Bailiff's speech was written by Donald Trump. According to the BBC:

"Jersey's Bailiff has described irresponsible reporting in the media as a threat to the rule of law.

In a speech to lawyers at the start of the legal year, Sir William Bailhache said that unregulated social media allowed uninformed opinions to be given free rein - even if they aren't based on fact.

He said that could be damaging to the respect people have for the government and the legal process.

And he said a further danger was that mainstream media would try to keep up with social media by putting forward people's opinions as news.

He asked news organisations to keep their output free from uninformed gossip or chatter."

As we said where does one start with this? Let's start with the

first paragraph:

"A threat to the rule of law." Exactly what "rule of law" is he talking about? The rule of law that has political dissidents imprisoned or bankrupted? The rule of law that has an opposition politician's place of residence turned over by a 10 strong police unit without a search warrant? A (possibly illegal) suspension of a Chief Police Officer whose force was investigating DECADES of covered up Child Abuse? An (unaccountable) Attorney General's Office who won't prosecute powerful alleged Child Abusers, paedophiles and rapists? The list could go on, and on, but for brevity let's leave it there and perhaps readers would have other examples.

Second paragraph:

"unregulated social media allowed uninformed opinions to be given free rein - even if they aren't based on fact."

I mean what the flick??? People have opinions, "based on fact"  or otherwise, and what, they shouldn't be allowed to share them??? Words do actually fail me here because I don't think I have come across anything so ridiculous in my life.

Third paragraph:

"could be damaging to the respect people have for the government and the legal process."

Really? exactly what "respect" is he talking about? The last social survey which asked the question(s) reported (if memory serves correct and stand to be corrected) 75% of those surveyed had no confidence in the government and 50% had no confidence in our so-called "justice" system. What kind of respect does he believe the State has? He should probably read more social Media, and indeed comments (from the public who shouldn't have an opinion aired) on MSM online articles. Here is an example of Jersey's "JUSTICE" SYSTEM.

Fourth paragraph:

"mainstream media would try to keep up with social media by putting forward people's opinions as news."

I've got breaking news for the Bailiff. It is the mainstream media's job to be a voice of/for the public. It is not there to be (or shouldn't be) a mouthpiece for the government, nor unelected, unaccountable, outdated Bailiffs/Crown Officers. To quote George Orwell:
“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” The Bailiffs and all Crown Officers should learn that in the new digital era people are able to be held to account like never before. Being held to account is an alien concept to Crown Officers and rather than attempting to legislate against free speech they should get with the times and embrace a new, open, digital world. Take onboard the criticisms and adapt accordingly rather than employing "The Jersey Way" tactic of oppression and Kangaroo (secret) Courts to silence critics. Why not work with the critics in order to win over the public's trust and confidence?

Fifth paragraph:

"He asked news organisations to keep their output free from uninformed gossip or chatter."

Who does he think he is asking the media what (not) to report? If he has a problem with the media then he should complain to the relevant authorities. We are forever being told how well regulated the MSM is and Social Media isn't! Why doesn't he make a complaint to the police quoting P.19/2016?

Of course, those of us familiar with the Leveson Inquiry are aware that the MSM is NOT regulated and P.19/2016 was a tool to silence "public opinion" and not the opinion of the great and good.

But what about the media's role in all this? The JEP has reported on the Bailiff's speech as have the Bailiwick Express, CTV and the BBC that I am aware of and yet not one journalist has challenged this unprecedented attack on free speech? How much do these "journalists" respect their profession?

The Bailiff attacked ALL media, and thus far, has not been asked to substantiate ANY of his claims or give examples. Donald Trump is regularly challenged (by journalists) when he attacks the media

(predominantly MSM) across America and world-wide. How can our media remain so silent when its profession is under such attack? This isn't just an attack on the MSM and I believe both Social Media and the MSM should be fighting in the same corner here. The fact that it's Social Media challenging this attack on free speech and the MSM, thus far, remaining silent is not a good start (or look for the MSM). Unfortunately there is still an element of the MSM that see responsible, respected, Blogs such as ours as a threat. It is time they started working with us rather than remaining silent when free speech its under attack. We have, and do, work well with some reporters in the MSM but others need to drop their prejudice for the greater good in holding power to account and being a voice for the voiceless.

Ironically the MSM look to have committed the offence William Bailhache has accused them of. They have reported his words/opinion, and thus far, not provided, or asked for, any evidence to back up his wide-sweeping allegations (opinion). Perhaps he, and parts of the MSM, think it's ok for unelected, unaccountable members of the State, to have published any opinion they want and not back it up with evidence and it's just the plebs who can't have their opinions published/broadcast?

I have asked BBC Radio Jersey to invite the Bailiff onto its "hot seat" programme in order to back up his claims and be held to account like mere (elected/accountable) mortals do. I have also expressed that I would relish the opportunity to sit alongside the Bailiff on the programme representing Social Media and hold him to account myself. I've been told by the BBC it would put that invitation to the Bailiff so I will keep readers posted as to whether that happens......................................................or not..............................

Interview with Reform Jersey's Senator-Elect Sam Mezec.

Senator-Elect Sam Mezec

Now that the dust has somewhat settled around the recent Jersey elections. VFC asked Senator-Elect Sam Mezec for his first, exclusive, in-depth, video recorded interview and kindly he agreed.

We wanted to ask Sam about his/Reform Jersey's campaign and how the negative,organised and funded smear campaign against his party had affected him and the party. What was the truth behind the nomination papers which saw two of Reform Jersey's Candidates being taken to court? What role did the "accredited" media play and what role did Social Media play during the election campaign and subsequently? Were the court cases accurately reported by the "accredited" media? The court cases deserve a Blog Posting of their very own and something we might return to.........If the MSM won't.

According to Senator-Elect Mezec at one stage the Solicitor General changed the whole case against them/their candidate overnight. Now where/when have we seen this happen before? Perhaps former Health Minister and whistleblower Stuart Syvret might have an idea? It sounds like the whole court business was a complete shambles but that's not how I recall the MSM reporting it. Indeed "shambles" is how it's described by Sam and something that could/should have been sorted out with a phone-call rather than the expense and intimidation of candidates.

We asked the question(s) that hasn't/haven't been asked by the MSM. Including; "is it really conceivable to believe that out of somewhere in the region of ninety six candidates only two (who just happen to be Reform Jersey candidates) of them made a mistake on the nomination papers? Did any other (establishment) candidate make any mistakes and get the phone-call from the parish to sort it out rather than a court summons?" I mean what are the chances/odds of that happening?

Further discussed in the interview below are subjects such as the Independent Election Observers who were overseeing our election process, fake news, MSM campaign against the threat (to the MSM) of Social Media, BBC bias and much more.............

Graham Power on Local Investigative Journalism and Blogs.

Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

On 3rd July 2017 the Independent Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry published its long awaited report. It was a damming and scathing report for the States of Jersey and a complete vindication of the Victims and Survivors who were finally listened to and more importantly believed after decades of being ignored, vilified, threatened and pilloried for attempting to stop the abuse happening to them and for trying to bring their perpetrators to something that resembles "justice" in such a corrupt system. Victims and Survivors remained courageous and dignified and displayed tremendous resolve and tenacity in their plight to be heard. Their vindication has been far too long coming and never more deserving.

Others were vindicated by this Inquiry, to include former Deputy Chief Officer and Senior Investigating Officer (Operation Rectangle) Lenny Harper and the team he led during Rectangle. Graham Power the (possibly illegally) suspended Chief Police Officer was also vindicated and  "reasons" given for his suspension were shown to be (according to the COI) "LIES."

VFC interviewed the former Police Chief the day (4th July 2017) after the Committee of Inquiry published its report. Because the  story was changing almost by the hour we had to interview him again some days later where we exclusively reported he had submitted a criminal complaint, against the politician who suspended him back in 2008 Deputy Andrew Lewis. Which (as far as we are aware) was only covered by BBC Radio Jersey. ITV/CTV has been made aware of the revelation but is unwilling to report it.

Which brings us on to the subject of this Blog Posting and (an extract from) the original interview with Mr. Power. What role did the local Mainstream Media play during Operation Rectangle and what role did Bloggers like Team Voice play? Who were "investigating" and who were (not) "reporting?" what was being reported and what wasn't? How was it being reported?

Former Health Minister and whistleblower Stuart Syvret

Mr. Power's observations, and opinions, of the local Mainstream Media are far from complimentary. It should be emphasised that his opinions on the JEP are (for want of a better word) "historic." He is not making comment of the paper in its current form where we believe there has been a huge turn-around (for the better) under its current Editor. That's not to say that it now practices "Investigative Journalism." It does hold authority to account, better than it ever has, and does report stories that would never have been reported previously. This includes a comprehensive "Saturday Interview" with former Health Minister, and Whistleblower Stuart Syvret. The JEP accurately portrayed the "human story" of being a whistleblower in Jersey and its consequences. We hope to supply a link to that story when one becomes available.

Finally the COI's report has vindicated the work done by Team Voice. We have been vindicated, and thanked, by Chief Minister Senator IAN GORST. This Blog has even been complimented by Deputy Andrew Lewis who has said publicly; "it is a well written Blog"...........Praise indeed.

Team Voice is proud of the part it has played, and continues to play, in giving Victims and Survivors a voice. We are proud of the "investigative" role we have been able to play during this dark period in Jersey's history in order to bring the truth to our readers and viewers. We have been putting the truth out there despite threats of physical violence against us, to include being slashed across the face with a Stanley Blade. Death threats, racial abuse, disability hate, and constant intimidation from those who DON'T want the truth getting out.

We are thankful to the brave whistleblowers who have shown enough confidence in Team Voice to have leaked us many, many, documents which we have published (at great risk) in order to get to the truth.

We are humbled, and extremely thankful to Mr. Power for the acknowledgement and recognition he has given to Team Voice in this interview.

If you support our work and want to give a voice to the voiceless please share this Blog on Social Media Facebook/Twitter etc?

Statement of Former Deputy Chief Police Officer Lenny Harper.

Former DCO Lenny Harper.

"With the report of the Committee of Inquiry being delivered on 3rd July I have over the past few weeks been contacted by various media outlets in the United Kingdom and Jersey. Each of them has asked if I would be willing to speak to them when the report is delivered.

Whilst none of us know what will be contained within the report, I feel more confident in being able to predict the different ways in which the contents will be dealt with by media in the UK and the local media in Jersey.

Jersey’s media, and admittedly some have been worse than others, have continually sought to protect the image of the Jersey establishment to the detriment of the abuse survivors. There have been many ways in which they have sought to do this. One of the most used tactics has been to discredit anyone who was seen to be acting in the best interests of the abuse victims and survivors. By smearing and attempting to discredit myself and others, vested interests have ignored and trivialised the sufferings of the abused.

I find it inconceivable that the horrific abuse suffered by children through the decades in Jersey could have been covered up, both pre and post Operation Rectangle without at least the tacit complicity of the main stream media in Jersey. 

I have witnessed at firsthand how actions of mine have been deliberately misrepresented and how evidence which did not suit the agenda of the Jersey media has been ignored, twisted, or just plain perverted. Only through the blogs of Voice For Children, Rico Sorda, Stuart Syvret, and other public journalists has the truth emerged. There are numerous examples of this but I will mention only a few.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, and in denial of the facts, the Jersey media still insist on referring to the coconut myth. Evidence that the item concerned was never conclusively identified as a coconut and indeed, was even found to contain collagen, (only found in mammals) has been ignored. The evidence of a respected Professor who stated that the bones found had been burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed has been totally ignored. Even a few weeks ago a media source in Jersey was asking me about this nonsense.

The fiasco of the BDO Alto report was a stunning example of how the establishment went to great lengths to deflect from the abuse and the evidence of the survivors by discrediting myself and others. The Scrutiny Report was scathing in its condemnation of the behaviour of the Jersey media, elements of the States, and of course Mr Gradwell and Mr Warcup. What happened to the Chair of that Scrutiny Panel, Trevor Pitman, was intended by the Jersey establishment to be a stark lesson to all who dare to challenge their version of history on behalf of the abused.

More recently we have had the desperate attempts to discredit me and by extension the abuse survivors by the efforts to somehow link me to the criticism by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (Operation Belfong) of the States of Jersey Police in its failings regarding Data Protection issues and much more from 2009 onwards. This despite me leaving the force in 2008 and being told by the PSNI that I did not feature in its investigation, which is why they declined my invitation to be interviewed as part of that investigation.

It was perhaps an unfortunate “oversight” that the Inquiry Terms of Reference did not include how the Jersey mainstream media was able to manipulate public opinion to try and turn it against the survivors and those acting on their behalf.

For all of these reasons and more, I have decided before knowing what is contained in the report, and no matter what is, that I will not be speaking to the mainstream media in Jersey. Should the public journalists that I have mentioned above wish to speak to me I will of course agree to do so. I will also be happy to speak to United Kingdom media sources.

Lenny Harper

24th June 2017"

Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry. Statement of Advocate Philip Sinel (1)

Advocate Philip Sinel.

Below is the (the first) witness statement of local prominent Lawyer, and Constitutional expert, Advocate Philip Sinel to the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry. The statement has been taken from the Inquiry's website and can be found (near the bottom of its website page) HERE. We have meticulously copied the text, typos are original, although we can't exclude our own.

It became apparent in a previous VFC posting featuring Advocate Sinel (click on label "Advocate Philip Sinel" at bottom of post) that his statement was not easy to find on the Care Inquiry's website. Just as concerning is that his "tabs" or "exhibits" (15 of them) listed in his statement do NOT appear to have been published on the inquiry's website, or if they have, they are harder to find than his statement. Team Voice will be attempting to find out, from the Inquiry Panel, what the situation is regarding these exhibits and will keep readers updated.

What Advocate Sinel's statement appears to explains is how Child Abuse was (and apparently still is) able to flourish in Jersey. Just as importantly most of the evidence to back up these claims (tabs/exhibits) seem to be missing. Other witness exhibits are much easily visible. There could be a perfectly innocent explanation for this and we are waiting to hear it.

It has been said that after the Inquiry has published its report; the Inquiry's website will stay online for 12 months and then will be taken down and all the information/evidence will be archived as part of Jersey Archive and you will need to put in an FOI to have any access to it. We are not sure that this will definitely be the case so documenting as much of the information as possible will help keep some of the historic record available before it could be buried.

Advocate Sinel's is one of those statements that should be documented, and readily available, if for no other reason other than to make readers aware of what has been aloud to go on, is still able to go on, how it was/is able to go on, in the hope that people will be more informed and will know how to stop, or at least highlight the Jersey rot. According to Advocate Sinel's statement the majority of this rot comes from the Crown Offices/"Judicial" (sic) System/Attorney General's Office/Law Offices' Department.


"THE INDEPENDENT JERSEY CARE INQUIRY

Witness Statement of Philip Sinel

1.0  I make this statement to the Inquiry in my personal capacity, in order to give account of my experiences, as an Advocate and as a resident of Jersey. I will also provide evidence on a number of child abuse cases that were brought to my attention as a result of conducting pro bona support for the Jersey Care Leavers Association ("JCLA") or as a result of living within the island for most of my life. 

2.0  I have advised and assisted the JCLA, some individual victims and the former minister for Health. I have met at least 60 victims.

3.0  (Redaction) the relevance of which being the manner in which the establishment has prevented prosecution of the perpetrators, (Redaction)

4.0  I gave evidence to DI Harper and DI Fossey in relation to Operation Rectangle and witnessed first-hand the chilling forensic evidence gathered. I do not believe in the tooth fairy.

5.0  As one time designated point of contact for those with evidence, I met with DI Warcup - a worrying and unsatisfactory meeting.

6.0  By specific reference to the Committee parameters/terms of reference I can give evidence relative to paragraphs 3, 18,9, 10,11,12 13 and 15.

Background.

7.0  I was born on (Redaction) 1959. I was educated in Victoria College, Jersey between the ages of 8 to 16. My father was in the Royal Air Force. He was from a local family. He left the RAF in his early 40s and then became a partner firstly at Bedell Cristin and then at Ogiers.

8.0  I studied law in England and came back to Jersey when I was around 27 years old. My family has been in the Island for hundreds of years. I would like to be proud of my Island, its culture and its Justice system. I am profoundly scared and worried by a number of aspects of both.

9.0 My greatest desire for many years has been to stand in Court representing a client and to know that the process and result will be unaffected by nepotism bias, political or personal agendas or the like; such days are rare, for me they are red letter days. I feel that the Royal Court operates in many respects as an extension of the executive, surveys suggest that my view is not an isolated one.

10.0  This has a grim effect on the Island's culture, which is very much one of fear and concealment. The dysfunctional judicial system is so carefully aligned with the interest of the once party ruling States as to be a source of despair for many; it is a very significant factor in allowing serious crimes to go unpunished and for victims to go unaddressed, it is a culture which encourages crimes and punishes innocents and victims, it is a culture of concealment and deflection.

11.0  Our much vaunted judicial system lacks the respect of the islanders and foreigners alike, not least because it has become a tool of the establishment and of the egos of its participants and proponents.

12.0  Sinels Advocates is my own legal practice which specialises mainly in civil law and financial claims. I am not a civil rights lawyer. I enjoy complex civil litigation. My unique position as a proponent of constitutional change and critic of the establishment arose by accident rather than by design. Given the operating environment in Jersey, a civil rights lawyer would have a very short career.

13.0  I wish to provide evidence to the Inquiry about the corruption that exists in Jersey and the many flaws that exist in the Jersey system and the way that serious crimes are pushed under the carpet and the assortment of child molesters, thieves, rapists, murderers and swindlers have been exculpated by the Crown and by the Judiciary and the way in which the critics of such behaviour are ruined by the deliberate actions of corrupt Judges and prosecutors.

14.0  I am aware that giving frank evidence to the Inquiry will provoke further discrimination and hostility from various sections of society; that is how the Island works.

15.0  It is in the dysfunctionality of a profoundly feudal Constitution and in the abuse of power by Crown Appointees that we find the reasons that the abuse of vulnerable persons and the not so vulnerable, is so prevalent and so unaddressed and will inevitably be repeated.

16.0  It is covered up by Judges and Prosecutors, acting in their own interests or of the friends or what they see as the greater good Jersey pie. There are no properly functioning checks and balances anywhere.

17.0  Jersey is not a democracy, let alone a functioning democracy there are a number of reasons for this:

17.1  a wholly flawed Constitution; primarily an absence of separation of powers, and an Attorney General who acts simultaneously as prosecutor and for the States of Jersey as advisor; 

17.2  tame, compliant and upon occasion wickedly corrupt local media;

17.3  a corrupt, dysfunctional, pro-establishment Judicial system, backed by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal is in many ways worse than the Royal Court; 

17.4  a supine, depressed, disenfranchised and disbelieving electorate; 

17.5  an economy and culture distorted by the finance industry;

17.6   low levels of street crime and of offences against property, combined with high disposable incomes for a high number of people;

17.7  a culture of fear, where the demise of whistleblowers is very much a foregone conclusion, supported by large numbers of Islanders. 

17.8  it is an Island. 

18.0  As the Constitution stands the real power resides with Her Majesty. She knows what goes on in her name in Jersey but is disinclined to intervene. The Judges of the Court of Appeal, the Judges of the Royal Court, the Attorney General and Solicitor General and other Crown Appointees are only answerable to Her Majesty. However, those responsible for the supervision are hidden, supine or compliant. 

19.0  I have attached by way of evidence the documents below, this would be an impossibly long document if I put in all of the things I have seen, heard or witnessed but many instances are recorded in the attachments and in particular the letters to Her Majesty and to the Ministry of Justice and related documents: 

19.1.1  my Affidavit in the Rico application Mayo v Cantrade and Others; (tab1) - I deal later on with that case but it gives a good indication of how things work. Cantrade was my first indication that all was not well; within tab 1 is my letter of 16 July 1998 which set out the need for reforms. The only response to that was a letter from buffoon Michel. Mr Weedons letter about Mr Birt's cover up is factually well founded. 

19.1.2  Tab 2 contains some of my correspondence with the Lieutenant Governor's Office, the Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty (these letters show unequivocally that those responsible for good governance in Jersey have no interest in same. Neither Her Majesty nor Her Majesty's Government demonstrate interest in the welfare of the Island merely in preserving the status quo. Two things are of I think particular importance, the first being that Deputy Carolyn Labey was unsupported by the Mr Le Cocq, Her Majesty and Lord McNulty to such an extent that she was pressurised into withdrawing her statement; so the Graft went unchecked. Yet another cover up under the auspices of by Le Cocq et al.. The second point of note is the role of the Lieutenant Governor in successive cover ups; Sir John McColl the present incumbent has not only passed on my complaints of William Bailhache to William Bailhache, but also told me I must not complain. 

19.1.3  My submissions to the Carswell Enquiry on the Constitution.(tab3) Showing how unlawful and inappropriate our constitution is. 

19.1.4  The Carswell Report (tab4) published in December 2010 recommended wide ranging constitutional reforms it was almost completely ignored, an act of deliberate defiance by the local oligarchy. 

20.0  Jersey is a society where a few key individuals hold the power and make the decisions, for example, the "Bailhache Brothers". The Bailhache Brothers are made up of Sir Philip Bailhache (who until the Crown woke up and I believe removed him post his disgraceful Liberation Day special was Bailiff of Jersey) and his brother William Bailhache, QC (formerly the Attorney General of Jersey is now the current Bailiff). I have never regarded either of them as being fit for office. William Bailhache is responsible for ruining the careers and livelihoods of the former Minister of Health, DI Harper (he escaped just in time), Cl Graham Power, DCI Minty and DI Beghin. These are just the ones that I know of, a mixture of personal malice and protection of Jersey Pie, he was of course aided by countless others with similar mind-sets. Put simply we will never attract and appoint suitable candidates without wide ranging fundamental reforms. 

21.0  The same few individuals control the appointment of other members of the Judiciary including the Court of Appeal and Commissioners which results in cliques of powerful individuals. Theoretically these are Crown Appointees in in reality I believe that it is the current Bailiff and his cabal who decides. 

22.0  Jersey is very much a "pro establishment" place. We have big issues of national importance and they are dealt with by a small number of powerful people often totally unsuitable for office. I have mentioned Sir Philip Bailhache's Liberation Day speech, that chilling document is attached (tab 5). 

23.0  With the two self-interested exceptions of Cantrade with which I deal below and the Liberation Day Speech incidents, what the correspondence shows is an Island abandoned by its Monarch and by the Ministry of Justice both of whom have the power and the duty to ensure the well-being of the Island. 

24.0  In my experience corruption by the "Establishment" in Jersey is endemic, institutionalised and all pervading. When I refer to the "Establishment" I am talking about the Court of Appeal, the Royal Court, the Attorney General, Solicitor General, and the ruling clique of Ministers. The Police force is also in part corrupt, corrupted and cowed, albeit that I have a very positive view of many members past and present of the States of Jersey Police Force. Little wonder that we had the genesis for endemic child abuse, and then a concentrated effort by Media, Crown and Judiciary to cover it up. Most thinking people in our society know what the position is - fear and self-interest keep them quiet.

25.0  By corruption I mean that the matters are not dealt with on the merits rather matters are dealt with according to the personal dictates of the decision makers. Examples of the unpunished and uninvestigated include the following (874, 7, 737) and Lundy and others. Only in Jersey could such people remain at liberty let alone in office notwithstanding the available publicity. This to me is the most worrying aspect. The Inquiry has by now seen much evidence on these people; however the point I am making is that it is all in the public domain but no one does anything.

26.0  Criminal cases are blocked from going to trial, prosecutions are not brought, malicious prosecutions are not uncommon, it is a method of controlling and deterring criticism, eg myself, Power, Harper, Beghin and Minty and Syvret and case verdicts do not reflect the evidence or case precedents. The Judicial system has become suborned to the wishes of the few and the interests of Jersey Pie. 

27.0  At Tab 6, I have, by way of further example, attached the decision of the Police Complaints Tribunal relative to Detective Chief Inspector Minty and Detective Inspector Beghin, I acted for the Defendants. That Judgment was given in camera but leaked, (it is widely available on the internet) and has been the subject of much media reportage so it is appropriate to comment. DCI Minty and DI Beghin were hung out to dry by William Bailhache and his cabal as they knew too much; they never received their medals and were drummed out of the Force. The gravamen of that being that they were persecuted to protect William Bailhache's reputation. That sort of thing obviously makes sure the Police do as they are told. There is a big conflict between their position and that of (737),             to whom I refer below, which shows how things work in Jersey.

28.0  (737) had media clout as a (Redaction) he was protected, honest policemen were destroyed. Correspondence in relation to (737) is at tab 14. (737) is referred to at paragraph 235 of Mr Power's evidence already given to the Inquiry. I had made my own enquiries before I saw Mr Power's evidence. I deal again later on, but in short I uncovered evidence to suggest at least three rapes, he was a guiding light at (Redaction) for many years and is presently the (Redaction)

29.0  When I say that decisions are not reflective of the facts or the law, I mean what I say. In my view Judicial decisions are too often written backwards from the desired result, so law and evidence are ignored, slanted or and cherry picked. 

30.0  This happens at both Royal Court and the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal is a dangerous and frightening place, it does not have a confidence or respect of those before it personally or professionally, locally or abroad. The reasons for its dysfunction are partly personal and partly constitutional; to which one must add pro-establishment bias. 

31.0  I witnessed first-hand the treatment of the former Minister for Health by the Court of Appeal - it scared me; I had wandered in as I was in the building doing something else so I went to observe, the Former Minister of Health was challenging the status quo, the hostility was palpable as was the disparity in moral orientation and for that matter ability between someone on the one hand telling unpalatable truths in a tactless way and those who appeared desperate to keep the lid on. A properly functioning Court of Appeal, like impartial. functional media would have prevented much hardship and saved many lives, neither are in prospect.

32.0  I deal further on with the former Minister for Health's position but note in passing that both he and our former Chief Officer Mr Graham Power appeared before Commissioner Clyde-Smith, a scion of the local oligarchy, the negative outcomes in the litigation were therefore to my mind wholly predictable. 

33.0  Mr Power's and Mr Harper's evidence is freely available. Thanks to the bloggers no one in Jersey or England is unable to access the same but no one does anything. It beggars belief that an affidavits of that nature can circulate in the public domain without those referred to being removed from office.

34.0  As stated previously the establishment often pushes things, such as the child abuse scandal, under the carpet, rapists, swindlers, paedophiles and murderers are exculpated. They will do anything to protect the brand of "corporate Jersey" or "tourist Jersey". I speak here largely of what I have seen, people I have met. documents that I have read; the true story must be much larger than I have encountered. 

35.0  Billions of pounds are deposited in Jersey which makes Jersey a very wealthy island. The financial industry makes up 90% of the GDP. 

36.0  There is a perpetual concern about what a scandal, i.e. a reality check could do to this industry in the island. Jersey could not survive on tourism and agriculture alone.

37.0  Cantrade was quite a small Forex scandal; I mentioned the Cantrade case earlier, post Sir Peter Crill, the former Bailiff, the new guard, Birt as AG and Bailhache as Bailiff, and Clyde-Smith as outrider, moved into overdrive to occlude the facts, deter the victims, and witnesses and make sure they could not win in Court and to help Cantrade get off. The attached press cuttings shows part of the story. (tab 7)

38.0  Anyone who speaks out about what is going wrong in Jersey finds themselves very accident prone, just look at what happened to the former Chief of Police, Graham Power, the former Deputy Chief Constable Lenny Harper and the former Health Minister, Stuart Syvret, myself, Deputy Pitman, Beghin and Minty et al.. We have been variously bankrupted, imprisoned, arrested, denigrated, and suspended. 

39.0  Another example is Wendy Kinnard, the former Home Affairs Minister, who was pushed out of office, she was bullied in her post and came out of politics. Graham Power, former Chief of Police - victim of a putsch organised by William Bailhache, when Mr Power refused to acquiesce in the misuse of the machinery of States in order to suppress whistleblowing relating to child abuse. When sacked at Mr Bailhache's behest, he sought reinstatement by Judicial Review. Predictably, he lost, the Court was presided over by Advocate Clyde-Smith and two Jurats.

40.0  Once DI Harper had retired and Chief Inspector Power had been removed from office, whilst William Bailhache was Attorney General there was an organised, negative media campaign relative to the child abuse inquiry of this is easily found in the public domain, including leaking apparently as a matter of State policy, details of ongoing criminal investigations to the Jersey and National media; the importance of that is impossible to overstate. The decision to do so should be documented at Police Headquarters, the Inquiry could gain copies. In Cantrade, Michael Birt as Attorney General likewise undermined his own police investigation, the same thing seems to have happened under Mr Bailhache who also ousted his own Chief of Police.

41.0  The Pitmans, left wing, activist working class politicians - strangely lost their libel action and were then bankrupted thus keeping them out of politics in Jersey for 5 years. 

42.0  The Former Minister for Health almost necessitates a book in itself. His first mistake was accessing and then publishing minutes of Mr Birt's meeting with Mr Faudemer relative to what appeared to be a mass homicide of vulnerable patients at the General Hospital at which meeting Mr Birt. told Mr Faudermer not to investigate further. The documents speak for themselves. (tab 8) I have seen but cannot presently access a record of a meeting between Birt as Attorney General and States of Jersey Police pulling the plug on the investigation. 

43.0  As night followed day possession of copies of the minutes of that meeting and related became criminalised on Data Protection grounds and the police were sent to intimidate Mr Syvret whose home was subjected to an unlawful search and his rights as a human were totally abrogated. The Attorney General William Bailhache sent the States of Jersey Police to his house with a battering ram. 

44.0  Thereafter Mr Syvret was in the grip of the island's judicial system, the results were a foregone conclusion; I am not writing a book which is what is needed on that topic alone. It is an enormous shame that the former health minister is not giving evidence; please read his blog (http://freespeechoffshore.ni/stuartsyvretblog/about-this-blog/) and look logically at the very good points he has made and the evidence he has gathered. The former Minister of Health became angry, tactless and isolated but in many respects he was correct. I believe that William Bailhache systematically abused the powers of his office to destroy his family life, career, health and wealth - he has succeeded. 

45.0  The Law on Corroboration. Historically in order to convict for certain crimes it was in effect necessary to have corroboration, i.e. independent evidence, this is very difficult in sexual offences of a historic nature, that requirement was abrogated in England by s32 of the Criminal Justice and Police Order Act 1994. The equivalent legislation in Jersey was deliberately slowed down by the Council of Ministers so that it would not come into effect until after the conclusion of the Haut de la Garenne investigations. It was a conscious political decision to prevent prosecutions. The Council of Ministers presided over by Frank Walker did not want to be seen to be helping victims. The Jersey statute and appointed day Acte are attached at tab 9, the date is obviously significant it post-dates Operation Rectangle and it is 18 years after the equivalent English statute. 

46.0  Jersey needs reform; the child abuse scandal is only one symptom of a dysfunctional Island. Sir Michael Birt handling the 1999 investigation into (Redaction) was terrible, the evidence shows to my mind that multiple homicides were swept under the carpet, he became the Bailiff for Jersey, he tried to sweep the Cantrade scandal under the carpet despite all of which he became our Chief Judge; worse still he was given a knighthood even after Her Majesty became aware of the Cantrade and (Redaction) incidents. He was responsible for Jetting the Maguires off, he was succeeded by Mr Le Cocq who supported him in at least that enterprise. (tab 10) 

47.0  The Bailiff, currently William Bailhache previously Sir Michael Birt and before him Sir Philip Bailhache, is the Chief Justice, and therefore Head of Jersey's Judiciary, Head of State and Head of the Executive and Legislature. The Bailiff can rule on the very laws he has designed or approved; he chose the prosecutors. There is no separation of powers. The Bailiff also represents Jersey abroad as the Islands Chief Citizen. The fundamental problem in Jersey is that the Judiciary, Executive and Legislature are completely interlinked. The Bailiff is also president of the Court of Appeal, the Deputy Bailiff is also a member of the Court of Appeal; this is very, very wrong. 

48.0  For me none of this is an academic exercise, I have met the victims or witnesses to rape, murder and assaults, I cannot always sleep at night. Absent fundamental changes to our Courts and Constitution it is all going to happen again. 

49.0  The Royal Court Rules specify that leave must be obtained from the Bailiff in order for a judicial review claim to be made. This too is a nonsensical position and is open to abuse, it fits with the prohibition on bringing private prosecutions contained in the Code Civile of 1777 (tab 11 }, it all prevents society from breathing.

50.0  The current Attorney General is Timothy Le Cocq QC, another Ogier partner, Birt, Clyde-Smith and Fitz are also Ogier or ex Ogier, as was my father. The Attorney General acts as the Chief Law Officer of Jersey. What this means in practice is that he is the legal advisor to the Crown, to the States Assembly, to the Ministers and to all other public bodies. The Attorney General, and his office, are notorious for being indolent and pro- Establishment, when I complained to the Lieutenant Governor to that effect he simply sent off my complaint to the Attorney General.

51.0 The Attorney General is also the Head of the Honorary Police in Jersey. In Jersey, there are 13 police forces, 12 of these are Honorary Police forces that operate within one of the 12 Parishes of Jersey and the 13th force is the professional police- the States of Jersey Police. It remains in some respects (the powers of search and charge) subservient to the Honorary Police. It is worrying that it is the Honorary Police have the power to charge people with arrestable offences, as opposed to the States of Jersey Police, the Honorary Police also have a right of search without warrant. Therefore, as head of the Honorary Police, the Attorney General can and does direct whether charges should be brought or not. The Honorary Police are answerable to the Attorney General, he tells them what to do. Mr Harper will I am sure tell the Enquiry how this operated in practice to the detriment of victims. In practice the Attorney General also has complete dominion over the States of Jersey Police who have no means of operating independently of their political controllers.

52.0  The Attorney General is responsible for all prosecutions in Jersey. It is impossible to bring a private prosecution in Jersey as they are forbidden by the Code Civile 1777. We therefore have the impossible position, for example in relation to the child abuse scandal, where the Attorney General is responsible for the proper function of the organs of State, he defends their reputation and defends them from attack, is responsible for prosecutions potentially against the State. Additionally, he advises the States in relation to the claims against it for compensation by abused children. The Code Civile needs to be repealed if individuals could sponsor private prosecutions it would balance things up and discourage the Attorney General from covering things up.

53.0  During civil litigation Blatchley v Lincoln Trustees, he deliberately mislead the Court, to gain money for himself and his client Sir Philip Bailhache turned a blind eye and the Law Society covered it up. Complaints about pro establishment Advocates simply disappear. In short if you are part of the oligarchy you are untouchable, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time or have the wrong views you are persecuted hence the matters of concern to this Inquiry and my absolute certainty that without external assistance and imposed constitutional change nothing will alter and that something similar will all happen again.

54.0  I have seen several instances of the Police being thwarted by the Attorney General. Policemen may come along and agree that a crime has been committed, they will gather the evidence but a decision is then made by the Establishment not to prosecute, the Police cannot charge without the assistance of the AG and the Honorary Police. Alternatively, the case may be prosecuted but the decision making does not follow the correct procedure and there is nothing that the Court of Appeal will do about it as they make a point of not reversing decisions made by the lower Court; by way of contrast cross Jersey Pie or an individual oligarch and your destruction is assured.

55.0  The corruption is so bad and all-pervading that the legal profession is disempowered. The Court of Appeal are renowned for being so clever that they can make decisions without listening to submissions. Advocates do not go to the Court of Appeal expecting justice, their main aim is to emerge without personal criticism - this is symptomatic of a very serious dysfunction; and a lack of professional and public confidence in our Judiciary. 

56.0  Longstanding Commissioner Julian Clyde Smith can also be linked to witness intimidation. I have referenced in this statement, a complaint Commissioner Clyde Smith made against me because of evidence I gave in an American court about a Judicial "cover-up" in Jersey in the Bank of Cantrade case. How can you have Judges who think that witness intimidation is appropriate? (tab 12). 

57.0  If anyone wants to know what really happened in a case they would need to look past the judgement as it so rarely contains the full story. I am not the only Advocate who thinks this however I am the only one who will say it in public. What other Advocates say behind closed doors is more severe than my thoughts, the expression "there is no justice in Jersey" is common, worse than what I have said here. 

58.0  It is a big concern that applications for membership of the Court of Appeal are processed through the offices of the Bailiff in Jersey. Members of the Court of Appeal are appointed based on recommendation by the Bailiff and his cabal.

59.0  A key issue is that when Judges in the Court of Appeal are sworn in, they sit in front of the Royal Court and take their oath - it is like watching a Mafia induction. That day they are told to go next door and tell the Royal Court that they got things wrong. The Judges must feel that if they want to be invited back, they have to play the game. 

60.0  It is well known that the Court of Appeal will protect the Establishment, specifically the lower Courts in Jersey. One of the ways they do this is by avoiding overturning a decision made by one of the lower Courts, and avoiding any admission that the lower Court got something wrong. This creates an enormous dead weight in the legal system and generates bigger problems elsewhere.

61.0  In my view, neither the Royal Court nor the Court of Appeal are able to satisfy the criteria of Article 6 for the provision of a fair and independent tribunal. 

62.0  My experience at the hands of the Court of Appeal is not in relation to child sex abuse cases, as I do not specialise in this area, but I have direct experience of other cases where the decision made by the Court of Appeal defy credibility.

63.0 The Court of Appeal is part of a non-functioning system which does not have the respect of the public or professionals. There is often a feeling from top to bottom of the legal profession in Jersey of "what is the point".

64.0 The Court of Appeal was not always like this. There were individuals previously who set the tone for example Sir Godfrey Le Quesne, quietly spoken, fair and efficient, a pleasure to appear before, win or lose; this is the problem, namely that external perceptions of the Justice vary according to the constitution of the tribunal this does not encourage the free flow of challenges in our society. A robust, trusted and clearly impartial Court of Appeal would alter the balance in our society in a profound fashion.

65.0  I mentioned before the Cantrade case. In 2003 my firm was representing a number of international investors in the Bank of Cantrade case, this was a relatively straightforward case. Essentially the Bank of Cantrade, its auditor and a currency trader were guilty of defrauding investors and my firm was running a civil claim to obtain the invested monies back. The investors had lost around $23.5 million, which is not a large amount of money in such a case, i.e. in commercial terms a relatively small fraud. 

66.0 I took the evidence in relation to this case to Michael Birt who was then AG via the Police asked him to bring a prosecution. However, after much delay, no prosecution happened. It seemed clear to me, and to Police Officers at the time, that the investors had clearly been defrauded. You could literally trace the money from (a) to (b) to see that it was all a fraud. I therefore wrote to the Home Office to see if they could push Sir Michael Birt into bringing a prosecution

67.0  By the time the Mr Straw acted upon my correspondence, Michael Birt was time barred from prosecuting many of the offences. It is not as if Michael Birt forgot about the case, I was chasing him about it. Michael Birt sometimes wrote back with anodyne responses to my letters, other times there was just radio silence. Eventually I went to see Jack Straw I believe he forced Mr Birt to prosecute. But for my persistence Cantrade would have got off instead of receiving a multi-million pound fine. Since then neither Her Majesty nor Her Majesty's Government have done nothing useful relative to Jersey's corruption of which I am aware.

68.0  The civil process stated in front of Sir Peter Crill our former Bailiff, in front of my clients that my clients were successful, he retired and was replaced by Sir Philip Bailhache before whom my clients kept losing, he made a speech describing my clients as "a small band of protestors who should be taken to the harbour". He was, after a lot of lobbying replaced by Sir Godfrey Le Quesne, who became the trial judge at which stage the case settled (tabs 7 and 13).

69.0  What particularly angers me about this case is that it was really quite a small time fraud in financial terms but ended up being splashed all over the international press because the Jersey Judiciary and the Attorney General tried to cover it up, it would have been simplicity itself to have prosecuted Cantrade et al and to have provided the investors with a level playing field.

70.0 As related I had to give evidence in an American Court in support of an application to bring proceedings in a more neutral forum. My evidence was that the Jersey Judiciary was biased given the utterance of Sir Philip Bailhache and the diddicoying of Birt this was hardly a surprise. Subsequently a complaint was made against me by the now Commissioner Julian Clyde Smith for providing this evidence to an American Court (tab 12). He alleged that I had been guilty of professional misconduct as a lawyer. When I talk about being accident prone you just  have to look at Commissioner Julian Clyde Smith's complaint to the Law Society about me. Literally hundreds of thousands of pounds must have been spent producing this complaint. The cost to the taxpayer of prosecuting me is now well in excess of £750,000; so long as I had an Independent external Judge,. the prosecutions fail. If I have a localised one I fail.

71.0  There is no doubt that Sir Michael Birt was in trouble over his handling of the Cantrade case and Commissioner Julian Clyde Smith wanted to have a poke at me. The same thing happened to Stuart Syvret over (Redaction) in order to protect Michael Birt, William Bailhache as the AG had his house raided and searched unlawfully. A focal point of my evidence to the American Court was the behaviour and utterances of Sir Philip Bailhache, the proceedings against me for professional misconduct were initiated at an in camera, ex parte hearing preceded over by Sir Philip Bailhache.

72.0 I recall another case which demonstrates the corruption of the Establishment, it was in relation to planning permission for land. This case involved Deputy Terry Le Main who at one stage was Minister for Housing and had a relationship with Developers called Noel. 

73.0  Strangely land was bought by the Noels who paid £1 million for it; its agricultural value was a fraction of that cost. The vendor was told that "Terry" had had a suitcase full of cash to fix the planning. I saw the papers, there was overwhelming evidence to support a fully blown criminal investigation but despite my best efforts to involve the Home Office, the matter was covered up in the usual way. (see tab 2) As usual ever since Cantrade if evidence of corruption is given to the Ministry of Justice, they give it to the people about whom the complaint is made so that they can investigate themselves.

74.0  I have much evidence on this subject i.e. Graft but it is not directly relevant to the Inquiry so I have simply put some of it forward to indicate how the system backs itself up and how what looks like blatant criminality goes unchecked.

The Jersey Law Society

75.0 Over the years I have been the subject of many complaints to the Jersey Law Society, some of which are referenced in this statement; more than any other member of the profession living or dead. It is important to bear in mind that Jersey has a separate Law Society to the Law Society of England and Wales. In Jersey, the President of the Law Society is often seen having lunch with the Attorney General and the former Attorney General. The Law Society very much supports Jersey Pie and the oligarchy, not independent lawyers, I do not want to dwell overly on my story, but bogus complaints to the Law Society and criminal prosecutions have become part of my life, at enormous emotional and financial expense. I have often prevailed but there is no question in my mind but that they are politically motivated. A fair trial is impossible in Jersey for myself and indeed others.

The Press in Jersey

76.0  There is only one newspaper in Jersey which is the Jersey Evening Post. The Jersey Evening Post is not independent, that is to say, historically it would never be critical of the Establishment. Jersey needs truthful, honest, and objective journalism. The bloggers help to raise awareness on issues where they can, however as discussed, the Establishment does its best to shut them down. The bloggers are very important and often very good.

77.0   The way the Jersey Evening Post handled the abuse scandal has been incredibly biased. I recall they reported that it was claimed a child's skull had been found and that there was a murder investigation. The so called child's skull, was then said to be an old coconut shell. What a wonderful way of deliberately undermining the investigation. I am not sure the Police even claimed a child's skull had been found or that it was a piece of coconut. The headlines made a joke out of a very serious issue, namely that child abuse had happened on the island on a large scale.

78.0 Many people in Jersey do not believe that there is any cover up of a child abuse scandal or that there even was one. Irresponsible, biased and truly revolting reporting by the Jersey Evening Post was a major factor in these state of affair.

79.0  It was reported by the Jersey Evening Post accurately that children's milk teeth had been found at Haut de la Garenne. The oligarchy said it could have been the work of the tooth fairy, this was published by the paper. I found this comment to be deeply disturbing. I saw the teeth, I know they had roots attached to them. I wonder what society we live in when the media writes such things. Those articles were published in order to discredit the allegations of child abuse, i.e. to support Jersey Pie.

80.0  I mentioned earlier the press releases organised by Deputy Superintendent Mike Gradwell and William Bailhache in order to discredit their own criminal investigation, Operation Rectangle. This involved leaking evidence, some of it documentary, relative to a live investigation. No responsible journalist would do such a thing but people believed in it. I will never forget an elderly couple in the butchers saying look it was all lies, it was the tooth fairy.

81.0  There is a darker side to this, vaguely honest, competent media would have saved many lives and spared much grief and hardship, the absence of same has corrupted our society I believe that one of the reasons for this in the position of (737) formerly the (Redaction)  and now (Redaction) Rumours that he was a multiple rapist had circulated on the blogs for some time, I came, in my professional capacity, to undertake my own investigations.

82.0 Those investigations indicated the existence of credible evidence to the effect that whilst (Redaction) his computer had to be rebuilt due to the quantity of pornography (2) he raped a female in the (Redaction) (3) the rape was reported to (Redaction) (4) (redaction) backed (737) and (5) (737) raped two other women and indecently assaulted his housekeeper. How many trade offs has it taken to keep this man at liberty? In this respect please look at the synergy between the Jersey Evening Post and Sir Philip Bailhache (tab 13). I have written to the Attorney General relative to (737) (tab 14); no one should hold their breath.

83.0  The remaining media is even less effective or even more biased, the only functioning media being the bloggers who have no financing or training despite which they are head and shoulders in front.

84.0  To bring the story back to my personal experience of being "accident prone" as a result of being perceived anti-Establishment, it is worth noting the prosecution that has been brought against me for assault.

85.0  My second wife (Redaction) in relation to a (Redaction) incident, eight years after the event. (Redaction) She has a diagnosed explosive personality disorder and (Redaction) my eldest daughter. There was minor bruising due to restraint and a tussle. A prosecution was brought by the Attorney General eight years later during my divorce  (Redaction) was subsequently arrested. The prosecution was subsequently dropped due to insufficient evidence. There was insufficient evidence from the start, the case should never have made it as far as it did. It was I am sure politically motivated.

86.0  Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith, is a friend of the complainant, and when (Redaction) to the Magistrates Court to be indicted, Commissioner Julian Clyde Smith's son was there taking notes. (Redaction)  it was strange that he was there taking notes. (Redaction) him what he was doing. He was reluctant to engage (Redaction). I find it  strange that he happened to be there with a note pad and pen. Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith has a long history with me, as mentioned above in relation to Cantrade. (Redaction) to appear in front of Julian Clyde-Smith to have the charges dropped. He first cleared the Court and then appeared most reluctant to allow the Crown's application to drop the case. At an earlier hearing (Redaction)  before William Bailhache, (Redaction) counsel said "not guilty", he wrote down and said "guilty". (Redaction)  counsel had to correct him. William Bailhache later (Redaction) in the toilet at the L'Horizon hotel and said how disappointed he was that (Redaction) objected to him sitting.

87.0 I viewed this case, and the earlier one, as a deliberate acts of intimidation designed to deter myself and others from speaking out about the need for reform in Jersey. It would have worked in the Establishment's favour if they had been able to tarnish (Redacted) 
by bringing home criminal proceedings. 

88.0  I have just been suspended from practicing for four months, this was typical the Jersey way in action. I objected to a poor quality decision of the Court of Appeal, in my position as counsel for Leeds United Football Club (that was my job), then a complaint is made to the Law Society who cannot convict, after a lengthy hearing, so it is sent to Mr Le Cocq as Attorney General to have another go.

89.0  In my mind once Mr Beloff was appointed as presiding Judge the result was a forgone conclusion, he has been her often and become in my mind an apologee for the establishment, he was previously a frequent participant in the Court of Appeal. I have always regarded him as baring considerably responsible for the demise of the reputation of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal must be and be seen to be independent of local politics and personalities.

90.0  In the usual fashion for those holding politically incorrect views the changes were changed at the last minute, and to my mind in effect re- written after conviction. It was after the event before I knew what I have been convicted of and some of the Jurats were obviously gagging to convict and never mind the merits, By no stretch of the imagination could be said to have done anything which merited censure let alone suspension. I think that my support of the truths told by the former Minister of Health and others go a long way to explaining why I cannot receive a fair trial on any issue in this jurisdiction. 

91.0  Before l detail my involvement with the JCLA, and specific cases of child abuse I was involved with as an Advocate, I think it is important, for contextual reasons, to understand that (Redaction) 
the former Bailiff, the Attorney General and Crown Advocate Fitz, and Commissioner Clyde-Smith are all present or former Ogier Partners. 

92.0  In or about 2009, well into my adult life, I made a decision (Redaction) to the Police. I therefore made an appointment at Jersey Police Station. The Police will have the correspondence to back this up.

93.0  The process of me making an appointment at the Police Station was clearly not confidential. Before I walked through the door of Jersey Police Station (Redaction) lawyer was writing to say that she (Advocate Fitz) knew I had made an appointment to see the Police. She does prosecution work for the Crown and had used her connections to find out about the prosecution. There is a strong parallel here with the complaint made about the (Redaction) referred to in DI Harper's evidence. Advocate Fitz is now a Magistrate, la plus ca change. 

94.0   I soon came to realise that no prosecution would be brought against (Redaction) because he was a prominent individual, (Redaction) Mr Le Cocq, Mr Birt and Mr Clyde-Smith. I did not pursue the matter any further as I did not see the point, I did not trust the system. (Redaction) Mr. Le Cocq's (Redaction)  is ever going to be charged let alone convicted.

95.0  If I cannot get justice for myself, and I am an experienced Advocate, how can other people without such training, knowledge and resource do it? If I could not pursue my case, how could others? This is a very stark example of how Jersey works. Prominent people are tipped off and protected by the Attorney General.

96.0  I have tried to support other individuals (Redaction)  by giving pro bono support and assistance to the JCLA. I can mention some of the cases I have dealt with, but some I am not at liberty to discuss. 

97.0  It is important to note that I am an Advocate that specialises in civil matters and financial claims. I am not an expert in criminal matters such as child abuse. In Jersey, any practising Solicitor with less than 15 years post qualification experience must participate in providing legal aid for free.

98.0  There is a rota which allocates what legal aid case a lawyer will be assigned to. This system for providing legal aid presents difficulties as lawyers are working for free on a case that they have been assigned to and which in practice, they have no specialism in. It is therefore not surprising that so few legal aid cases end up being prosecuted (and even fewer being appealed). This system results in many people not being provided with proper specialist advice, having a bad experience of the legal system and not receiving justice. 

99.0  I became involved with the JCLA around the time I went to see Mr Harper regarding (Redaction) (please see below). I noticed that the experience of members of the JCLA in relation to dealing with the authorities was very similar to my own i.e. there were insuperable obstacles, a wall of corruption. 

100.0  I was invited to the very first meeting of the JCLA. I agreed to help the JCLA by providing some generic pro bono advice. I could not happily offer more specific advice as I was not a legal specialist in abuse cases and I did not have the financial or emotional resources to do so. I could instead assist with general legal issues such as how to request documents or how to document things. I was also able to provide some office supplies for the JCLA such as computers and stationary that were surplus in my own office.

101.0  When I started to get involved then with the JCLA people would stop me in the street and say, "leave it alone." A partner at my firm advised me against helping them as it was unpopular. I found it difficult dealing with the amount of people who were against me being involved with the JCLA. I got a lot of flak because of it, as did my then wife. Put simply large numbers of influential people in Jersey would rather bury the truth than deal with it.

102.0 I got a lot of flak because of it, as did my then wife. Put simply large numbers of influential people in Jersey would rather bury the truth than deal with it. Group meetings of the JCLA were not open to all, just care leavers. The meetings were often traumatic, it was all about gaining an acknowledgment of what had happened. It was never about people saying that they wanted compensation, it was about people wanting acknowledgement of what had happened to them and for someone to say sorry. No one ever asked me how to get money, despite which many people still think that the complaints are financially motivated. The stories were harrowing. I recall hearing and seeing that one admission form to a children's home stated that a three year old had "sexy eyes."

103.0  The JCLA members were aged between 20 to 70. I recall being at a meeting and being astounded when I looked around the room and realised that this abuse had been allowed to go on for over 50 years. It was terrible stuff. Some members had not seen each other for over 30 years and suddenly they were reunited and remembering what happened to them. It was too much for some of them. 

104.0  I had occasional one-to-ones with JCLA members but generally I was addressing the group about things such as the general legal processes. I must have met in excess of 70 members during my work with them. No care leaver that I have met ever sought advice in relation to compensation, that complaints are finically motivated is one of the great myths spun by the establishment and the Jersey Evening Post, it is disgusting. 

105.0  From the time Mr Harper left the Island, I became the designated principal point of contact from victims wishing to speak to the police. Once Mr Harper left the island, victims stopped coming forward, there was a complete absence of trust in the system, I did not trust it once Mr Harper had gone, no intelligent person would do so. Mr Warcup who replaced him was a totally different kettle of fish to Mr Harper I did not trust him to look after the victims, neither did they. 

106.0  At one point in time the JCLA were hijacked by some lawyers and academics from England. I think some university lecturers had introduced some law firms from England to members of the JCLA and began to push me out. I offered to help the English firms by putting information into context and tell them how the Island worked and so forth however they did not respond to my offer. 

107.0  In some way I was relieved that the JCLA members were receiving specialist advice as I could only help them with the legal process in a general way, from an emotional point of view I found it all too harrowing. I did not find the incoming lawyers very professional, they were being offered free help and advice which they ignored.

108.0  When Mr Harper left Jersey, confidence in the Police collapsed especially once Waring and Gradwell publicly briefed against their own enquiry. I have dealt with a lot of police in my time, Mr Harper struck me as a very normal policeman. 

109.0  If Mr Harper had not had the media backing he had he would have been shut down. He told me that himself. Mr Harper had to change his car as he was pulled over so often by the local 'hobby bobbies' ie the Honorary Police which I thought was terrible. He was here to help and was being hindered by the local honoraries repeatedly pulling him over. It is sad that Mr Harper had to leave. I understand his wife became sick and he did not want to stay on, however I am not sure if that is the full story. Had he stayed William Bailhache would have destroyed him as he did Mr Power. 

110.0  I came across some terrible things while assisting the JCLA. I recall meeting one man, I cannot remember his name, however he told me that he used to reoffend in order to get sent to jail as it was safer than staying at Haut de la Garenne. Another told me that he had broken his arm while doing something he should not have, so to ensure he did not do it again, the surgeon (Redaction)

111.0 (Redaction) whose name I will not provide, was (Redaction)  been happy with him (Redaction) as he suddenly started making mistakes. Mr (Redaction) and told (Redaction) what had happened to him as a child, he was struggling to cope with it. He would text (Redaction) the details. (Redaction) had been raped and beaten at Haut de la Garenne. He was deeply distressed by what had happened. He saw a dead child at Haut de la Garenne. I gave that information to Mr Harper.

112.0  Some time ago another lady (Redaction) who I am not at liberty to name reported that she had a (Redaction) when she was an adolescent, this had an appalling effect on her, she nor I believe that any investigation will be free from political interference.

875,876

113.0  (875) (Redaction) and her sister (876) came to see me on the recommendation of Senator Dick Shenton, then a local politician, now deceased. Dick recommended my services as a pro bono lawyer as he could not get anyone else to assist with their case as they were both very difficult to deal with. (875,876) had been in foster care. Their biological father died (Redaction) so they were "in the system" so to speak.

114.0  (875) had been repetitively raped from the age of 14 onwards if not before by her foster father, a local man named (Redaction) The abuse (875) had suffered was terrible, for example, (Redaction) Even talking about what happened to (875) causes me much distress. I have attached at tab 15 her witness statement and related correspondence. I have sought to revitalise her complaint but Mr le Cocq was not keen, nothing was done.

115.0 (875) was also abused and in a very distressed state as a result of what had happened. She became extremely violent and had actually (Redaction).

116.0  What happened to (875) stays with me. It still wakes me in the middle of the night. No one was ever prosecuted, despite the fact that there was a lot of evidence.

117.0  When I heard about the Inquiry I looked for (875) to encourage her to come forward. I found that she was in a mental hospital (Redaction) She had not been able to cope with what happened to her, her life was effectively over from the age of 14 and she will now never leave institutionalised care. 

118.0  It gets to me that this case is no closer to being resolved and that I see (Redaction) (874) the perpetrator doing his Christmas shopping. (874) grandchildren are (Redaction) I see him walking about as if nothing is wrong. It is not right. I still feel that I have failed her and that the Island is protecting him.

119.0  I know that at some stage a policeman compiled statistics on the suicide rate amongst children who were in care; much higher than in the general population. I am sure that Eversheds could obtain a copy.

120.0  The Inquiry

121.0  I think that it is important that the Inquiry looks at the fuller picture all of this scandal, and considers how the human race works. The Inquiry should look at how humans deal with serious trauma. There has been a lot written about how victims of abuse mentally deal with what has happened to them. There are specific trends and this is something that the Inquiry should consider. Some victims, (Redaction) try to reach out and help others as a way of coping with what happened to them. Other victims are unable to get past what happened and end up in a "downward spiral", often suffering from alcohol abuse, self- harm and the abuse of others, I believe that both (28, 179) went the way they did as a result of childhood abuse in care.

122.0  I think someone should say "sorry" in relation to what has happened. I also think people need to acknowledge what has happened in Jersey. It is key that the Inquiry gets to the bottom of what has happened, but also how it has been covered up for decades. 

123.0  In no way do I believe that anything has changed or will change; all of the harm will be perpetrated again one way or another as we as an Island have been abandoned by its monarch and a feudal power structure which favours abusers.

124.0  (874, 7) Lundy, (737) et al and for that matter both Bailhache brothers remain at large in the community.

125.0 I confirm that I am willing to give oral evidence to this Inquiry if required to do so, but for my own wellbeing I would rather not.

Statement of Truth
I believe the facts stated in this witness statement are true. 

Signed: Philip Sinel.

Dated 15/12/15

Exhibits to Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Witness Statement of Philip Sinel

Tab 1  Affidavit of Philip Cowan Sinel - Mayo v. Cantrade & Others, plus related commentary. 

Tab 2  Correspondence between Philip Cowan Sinel, Lieutenant Governor, Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty, meeting notes and related.

TAB 3  Submissions to the Carswell Enquiry on the Constitution.

Tab 4  The Carswell Report. 

Tab 5  Sir Philip Bailhache's liberation day speech. 

Tab 6  Decision of the Police Complaints Tribunal relative to Beghin and Minty and blog and commentary. 

Tab 7  Cuttings in respect of Commissioner Clyde-Smith and Cantrade. 

Tab 8  Documentation relative to multiple homicides at the General Hospital. 

Tab 9  Statute and Appointed Day Act relative to the need for corroboration.

Tab 10  (Redaction) 2010. 

Tab 11  Code Civile.

Tab 12  Letter from Commissioner Clyde-Smith making a complaint against Philip Cowan Sinel.

Tab 13  Transcript of Philip Bailhache's speech 16 November 1996.

Tab 14  Letter to the Attorney General re (737)

Tab 15  (875) statement and correspondence."(END)

It's difficult to know which paragraph(s) of this statement deserve highlighting the most or are the most disturbing but here are just a few:

“I recall hearing and seeing that one admission form to a children's home stated that a three year old had "sexy eyes.”

“If I cannot get justice for myself, and I am an experienced Advocate, how can other people without such training, knowledge and resource do it? If I could not pursue my case, how could others?” 

“multiple homicides were swept under the carpet”

"a very serious dysfunction; and a lack of professional and public confidence in our Judiciary."

“Prominent people are tipped off and protected by the Attorney General.”

"In no way do I believe that anything has changed or will change; all of the harm will be perpetrated again one way or another as we as an Island have been abandoned by its monarch and a feudal power structure which favours abusers."

Team Voice plan to publish more statements submitted to the Inquiry in the coming weeks/months.

We must stress that those named in Advocate Sinel's statement will refute his allegations and must be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a Jersey court. That said; most of his allegations are against the Jersey court(s) so don't hold your breath......................