What To Look Out For In The Abuse Inquiry Report.

Former Deputy Daniel Wimberley.

In little more than twenty four hours the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry will (should) be publishing its long-awaited report. (3:pm Monday July 3rd 2017)

Ahead of its publication former Jersey politician, and Anti Child Abuse Campaigner, Daniel Wimberley has put together a number of crucial questions which need to be addressed and "what to look out for" in the report.

Submission (to VFC) of Daniel Wimberley.

Hillsborough is in the News right now – it took 28 years and a series of inquiries before the truth finally was uncovered, and prosecutions brought. I am sure we all want to believe that the Abuse Inquiry here in Jersey gets it “right first time”. But will it? 

I have my doubts, and we need to be ready, as a team, to go through this report at speed and test it to see if it is reliable. The media will want comment and we should be ready to respond with reasoned views, whichever way they go, as soon as we are able.

So, in this post I list some standout moments, moments which encapsulate key issues for the panel. These startling admissions or contradictions in the evidence must have registered with the Panel.

To do a quick audit of the Report we can focus on how the Panel deals with these key moments. We can see if they have been paying attention and if their conclusions are likely to be well-founded.

And if they have ignored, or missed these moments, then it is likely that the Report and its conclusions, in the relevant areas, will not be of much use, and a sad waste of money.

Let us hope that they have done the job properly, it is all we can hope for.

Please add your own standout moments in comments, additions to lists of examples etc.. 

If you want to help with the team readathon, let Voice know. We assume the Report will be searchable so it should be possible to type in a string of words and find them. If there are hard copies available, we assume they will have a comprehensive index. 

So, here goes . . . 

Former DCO/SIO Lenny Harper.

STARTING AT THE TOP . . . 

The relationship between Senior Investigating Officer Lenny Harper (LH), and Attorney General (AG), William Bailhache (WB) 

Question 1: 

Is Paragraph 36 of LH’s First witness statement referred to at all in the Inquiry report? If it is, how is it treated?

NOTES 

At stake here is the credibility of on the one hand the Senior Investigating Officer, and on the other the prosecuting authority.

Here is para. 36: 

“I cannot recall any occasions where the Attorney General did agree to charge employees of the SOJP in relation to malpractice/corruption. Even where we had caught members of the IT department fraudulently buying computers and recording equipment for their own use at home, use which included taking topless photos of their wives, the Attorney General refused to take action. There was even one occasion where we had CCTV evidence of a particular Special Branch Officer indulging in sexual activity in the Special Branch office with a foreign national, and then letting her look at confidential papers on terrorism, and yet no charges were brought.”

The whole issue of LH’s mistrust of the AG is in this paragraph. Why were some at least of these cases not prosecuted? 

I have searched on WB’s witness statement and the transcript of his hearing for the words “equipment” “recording” Special” Branch” and “CCTV” and there were no results. 

NB The Boschat affair was covered by the Inquiry from both sides. The letter of advice for the then SG Stephanie Nicolle is reproduced as an Exhibit of WB’s witness statement. 

The gist of her letter is that the goings-on between the police officers involved, especially Sean Osmand, and Boschat himself appear to be not right, but that there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Her letter is in WB’s exhibits. (It is 95% not there, replaced by a series of solid black squares.) 

It could be that the Panel were able to read other background about the matters in paragraph 36. Then we will see if that is so from their report.

Former AG/current Bailiff William Bailhache

Continuing with WB 

Question 2: 

(again, what is at stake is his credibility) Does the Inquiry report consider the discrepancies in the 2 extracts below, is the Report’s analysis thorough and convincing, and what conclusion does it come to?

Extract 1 

The AG’s letter (not sure to whom) says: "He (witness K”) received consistently good reports from those responsible for monitoring and evaluating his performance." 

When “MR. K.” is questioned about this by Inquiry Counsel Patrick Saad, Mr. K. says the reports, and, monitoring, didn’t exist. More precisely, there were no WRITTEN reports, only verbal ones. But the words of the AG William Bailhache suggest written formal reports. 

Extract 2 

William Bailhache’s June 2009 public statement says about allegations of cigarette burns: ..… but there is no physical sign of any injury” 

But from Jason Payne-James registered medical practitioner, and specialist in forensic and legal medicine’ we get this: "On examination of his back there were numerous pale mature scars generally less than ... in size down to about [so much] in size. They extended across [an area of the back], they were in no fixed pattern and of no particular shape. They represent areas of skin that have sustained damage of an extent enough to result in residual scars. Causes could include cigarette burns” From his report for the redress scheme, written June 2014

Former Home Affairs Minister/current Deputy

Andrew POWERGATE Lewis.

Andrew Lewis (AL) and connected issues 

Question 3: 

Does the Inquiry report say AL lied to the inquiry panel on oath? Or that he lied to the States? If not, how do they come to that conclusion, and is their reasoning credible? 

If they conclude that he did lie, and if they suggest a prosecution or similar process of some kind, do they address the conflict of interest which will then arise between the AG’s role as lawyer for the government (and therefore, of Ministers) and the AG’s role as public prosecutor?

NOTES 

On December 2 2008 AL made a statement to the States announcing the suspension of Chief of Police (COP) Graham Power (GP). During the questions and answers which followed the statement he said the following words: 

“I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision (to suspend GP) in the first place.” ………………………

"As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all." (My emphasis)

But in the report by Brian Napier QC (para. 101) we read: 

"As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it. The reason given was the nature of the information that was contained therein. It was, said Mr Ogley, a police document and it was inappropriate that he (or anyone else) should have access to it. Mr Ogley says that he was told both by the Attorney General and Mr Warcup that he should not look at the interim report and neither he nor Mr Lewis did so." (My emphasis) 

Conflicts of interest 

Question 4:

Including the Lewis case, does the Report address the conflict of interest between the AG’s role in Jersey as lawyer for the government (and therefore, of Ministers) and the AG’s role as public prosecutor? What steps do they suggest to deal with this, and are they adequate?

Sir Philip Bailhache 

Question 5: 

Does the Inquiry report say anything at all about the words spoken by the Bailiff (Sir Philip Bailhache) to AL, telling him in effect to stop speaking about the Met Interim Report. in the extract below? (For those who have not considered these words before, I suggest you take a close look, and reflect on their significance.) 

These words were spoken in the in camera Q&A with Home Affairs Minister Lewis, about why he has just suspended the Chief of Police Graham Power. 

The Deputy of St. John (Andrew Lewis): 

"I am bringing a Chief Officer to account. I am giving him every opportunity to defend himself. As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all ..."

The Bailiff: 

Minister, do not go down this road, please.

The Deputy of St. John: 

... that the actions that I took were justified and we will await the outcome of the investigation as to whether it was. 

Now why would the Bailiff say such a thing? This is about whether the Panel were inquisitive about what is going on. 

Andrew Lewis not getting any advice sent to him direct

Question 6: 

Does the Inquiry report set out clearly exactly who in the LOD sent what advice to whom and when about the possible suspension of GP, people such as head of Human Resources Ian Crich, and Chief Executive, Bill Ogley? 

Does the Inquiry report consider why Lewis was never (so far as I know) sent legal advice by the Law officers even though he was the Minister for Home Affairs (MHA) and as such the only person who can suspend the Chief of Police? 

Andrew Lewis and how the suspension of GP was approached

Question 7:

Does the Inquiry report consider why Lewis could say things like what is quoted below, from the transcript of Day 136 and what conclusions does it draw?

Ms McGahey, Counsel to the Inquiry, asking about the phone call made by AL to GP on the evening before the suspension meeting on November 12th 2008:

“You didn't tell him, did you, that you were going to consider his suspension?

A. (Andrew Lewis) Why would we want to do that?

Former CEO Bill Ogley.

Chief Executive (CE) Bill Ogley (BO) and how the suspension of GP was approached

Question 8:

Does the Report consider the legal advice which Bill Ogley had received from the Law Officers about suspending Chief of Police Graham Power? Is the way it does this thorough and convincing, and what conclusion does it come to?

NOTES 

Ms McGahey to Bill Ogley: 

Q. ………. But he (the AG) is the principal Law Officer. You have in your hands an email and absolutely it is in parentheses in the context of an email principally about the press statement, that says "Surely you will want to have the full Met report before you suspend". Is that expression of opinion not worthy of being taken very seriously?

…………………………..

Q. Did you know that the Solicitor General had advised that you should ensure that the interim report from the Metropolitan Police didn't have any caveats or qualifications in it before you relied on it as a basis for suspension? 

A. We were not allowed to see the interim report, or be aware fully of its contents. 

Q. And so you didn't know whether it had any qualifications or caveats?

A. No. And I'm not sure that I know of that advice. If you could put it before me I would be interested to see it.

The only person who knew of the caveats was Deputy Chief of Police David Warcup (DW). Bill Ogley here seems to be handing him the responsibility of telling other people about these caveats. How does the Report deal with this?

Bill Ogley, Andrew Lewis, and lying

Question 9:

How does the Inquiry Report deal with what Bill Ogley and Andrew Lewis told the Wiltshire Police investigation (Operation Haven) about the dates of the letters written to GP about his suspension? Does the Inquiry come to the conclusion that they lied (see below), what is its reasoning, and what conclusions do they draw?

NOTE

My notes show that both BO and AL lied to (or “misled”) Wiltshire about the dates in what are effectively sworn statements, but I may be wrong on this. Can someone please confirm this and give references, preferably from Inquiry evidence?

Destruction of evidence.

Question 10:

Does the Inquiry report have a section on this crucial issue, drawing together all they have been told and drawing conclusions? Did they truly inquire about the various instances they were told about?

Former Deputy Trevor Pitman.

NOTE

My impression has been that they are unaware of the importance of this issue and completely lacking in any desire to inquire (Inquiry – the clue is in the title) But I may be wrong. 

Here are five cases which I remember – please commenters, tell about others.

a) Mario Lundy (Director of Education) witness statement paragraph 24 says that a manager who joined . . . . destroyed the day books 

b) Trevor Pitman’s witness statement where he mentioned 4 (if I remember correctly) boxes which were found, handed over to a “senior” person, signed for and then disappeared.

c) Hewlett witness statement or transcript, but no reference, sorry

d) “chaotic filing” at Childrens’ Services no reference, sorry

e) LH witness statement (if I remember correctly) refers to missing records

the skull and the coconut

Question 11:

Does the Inquiry come to a sensible and defensible position on this question? And what was the role of the media and politicians in highlighting this one object, and how does the Inquiry evaluate their motives for doing this?

NOTE

There is only one possible position, is there not? An object with collagen in it cannot be the same object as an object with no collagen. So the piece identified originally as maybe a fragment of a child’s skull, and which when sent away for testing, had collagen is not the same object as the “piece of coconut”. But this involves some awareness of what can and does go on at forensic testing establishments. LH refers to it a statement he makes somewhere, but did he tell the COI? Did they ask?

LH’s handling of the media

Question 12:

Does the Report make a clear distinction between what Harper said and wrote and what a) others like Ben Shenton and Frank Walker said that he said and b) what the media said that he said? Does the Report come to a balanced view about the pros and cons of his media approach?

Judges’ attacks on LH

Question 13:

How does the Report describe and interpret the appearance on front pages of the JEP of judges Montgomery and Pitchers, both with headlines and copy attacking Harper?

Does the Report analyse these attacks and their refutation by LH? Did the Panel fulfil their duty to inquire into how these assertions came to be made within judgements and how these highly controversial assertions came to court and were dealt with in court?

NOTE

There is a huge amount at stake in the answers to these questions. They are linked to the answer to Question 5. Were the Inquiry Panel interested in the possibility of a politicised judiciary? Were they inquisitive about this possibility?

Accusations that LH and GP created a bullying culture in the States of Jersey Police (SoJP)

Question 14:

How does the Inquiry report cover this issue?

Former Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand.

NOTE

The accusation of bullying by LH and GP was a vital part of the “war” waged by in particular Minister for Home Affairs Ian Le Marquand to discredit the top team at the Police.

It is of course a very serious accusation, particularly in a uniformed organisation such as the Police with strict lines of command. LH says this (first witness statement paragraph 23 and second witness statement paragraph 57):

“Quite early on in my career at the SOJP, it was clear that many Jersey politicians did not approve of our efforts to tackle bullying. We were openly criticised in the media by these people and on one

occasion were referred to as the 'politically correct KGB stalking the corridors of police headquarters.”

…………….. 

Mr Gradwell claims that there was a culture of bullying among senior officers within the force, naming myself, Graham Power, Shaun Du Val, and David Minty. He seems to have turned this on its head. I had to take firm action on arrival within the force to stop a minority of officers from bullying, but it had nothing to do with the senior ranks of the force. These matters included assaults, inappropriate behaviour and comments, and even holding a gun to an officer's head, as well as racist abuse. I detail a number of these incidents in my exhibit LH/l. The records of each case should still be available at Police Headquarters. Despite being labelled the "politically correct KGB stalking the corridors of Police Headquarters" by one politician, we were very successful in dealing with this, to the extent that officers were happy to report incidents to us.

Ian le Marquand was forced by GP to publicly withdraw accusations of bullying.

Former Health Minister Stuart Syvret.

Removal of Stuart Syvret (SS) from ministerial post

Question 15:

Does the Inquiry report recognise the importance of this dismissal and tackle this subject in detail, fairly and robustly? Were SS’s criticisms of the childrens’ services right? Was Mike Pollard’s letter to all staff criticising the actions of the Minister right? How does the Inquiry report deal with the “conspiracy” in the Civil Service – the 2 simultaneous meetings documented by the File Notes of GP and Alison Fossey?

Does the Report connect the removal of SS from his ministerial post to the sacking of social worker Simon Bellwood and the suspension of Graham Power? What conclusions does it draw about these events? Does the Report connect this apparent conspiracy with the apparent conspiracy surrounding the suspension of GP?

The role of the media

Question 16:

Does the Inquiry report analyse how the media in Jersey reported on the abuse which occurred, the investigation by the Police, the political dimension and so on? There are academic teams who do content analysis of media – did the Inquiry commission research?

Were the media objective and unbiassed? Were they challenging? Does the Inquiry report consider both traditional and internet? Has the Report described the impact media had on politics and society in the area of child sexual abuse in the past and has the Inquiry report made robust and useful recommendations about the role that the media could play in the future to help bring about a society free from child abuse

Does the Inquiry report explain why they called no editor or journalist as a witness?

NOTE

It is as if the Panel did not think the media were part of the TOR, But they most certainly are. See TOR 4 “Examine the political and societal environment during the period under review . . .”

IN CONCLUSION

I have left out many areas, concentrating on the political and social issues. This is long enough as it is.

I think that they will actually do the job on Childrens’ Services and how they failed and ways to improve them. I have far less confidence about the areas focussed on here.

I have not covered recommendations for the future, that is a separate task. First we need to know if the Committee of Inquiry’s diagnosis of what went wrong and why it went wrong is based on a real understanding of the issues.

I hope that this list of some key issues is useful, and that people add their own issues, and add their own examples e.g. of evidence which has gone missing.

Daniel.

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"

Compare and Contrast.

Senator Philip Bailhache

In our PREVIOUS POSTING we warned readers/politicians to be "careful what (who) you wish for" concerning the Vote of No Confidence against Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst. A vote that he comfortably survived.

Our concerns, as Anti Child Abuse Campaigners, were that if Senator Gorst (who is a supporter of the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry) was ousted then we could almost certainly end up with Senator Bailhache as Chief Minister. As pointed out in our previous posting (above link) Senator Bailhache is NOT a supporter of this Inquiry and has attempted to thwart it at any given opportunity. We believe that if he had become Chief Minister the COI report would not have seen the light of day. (It still might not)

At this point it should be of interest to readers to note that during the Vote of No Confidence debate Senator Bailhache did NOT speak. He had nothing to say, either in support of his Chief Minister, or otherwise. Could it be that he didn't want to show his hand and reveal that he was after the top job?

The very next day after Senator Gorst was voted to remain as Chief Minister and Senator Bailhache realised that he's not getting the top job just yet. During "arrangement of public business" he (Senator Bailhache) proposed that the in-committee debate to discuss the findings of the Child Abuse Inquiry's report should be deferred. It is due to be debated on the sixth, and if needs be, the seventh of July. He wanted it deferred until the tenth of July. His reasons, apparently, is to give members time to read and digest the report because three days aren't long enough.

We reproduce below the video of Senator Bailhache's short speech making the proposition to have the debate deferred. We ask readers, in spite of the revelations in our previous posting, where we reported that the Senator, while in his role as Bailiff, delivered a now "infamous" speech at a Liberation Day ceremony where he said words to the effect: "Child Abuse is a scandal but the real scandal is the denigration of Jersey and its people by the outside media." When asked by Council to the Inquiry if he had considered the effect this might have on Abuse Victims/Survivors he replied in the negative.

We ask readers (after watching the video below) has Senator Bailhache learnt anything since then? How much compassion for Victims/Survivors does he demonstrate in his reasoning for deferring the debate?

But here is one of the more curious aspects of his proposition. He wanted the debate deferred until the tenth of July. But as Senator Gorst pointed out in his speech (below) during the debate, and indeed another States Member pointed out in their speech, Senator Bailhache is due to be off-island on the tenth of July on what sounds like official States Business (Jersey-London Day). Despite being reminded of this by two States Members during the debate, the Senator did NOT acknowledge it in his summing up speech.

It could be that he completely forgot that he would be off-island on the tenth, and he completely forgot to acknowledge this despite being reminded by two States Members during the debate and did NOT address the issue in his summing up speech. In his defence we must say that the Senator's evidence to the Committee of Inquiry did demonstrate he has a woefully inadequate memory. Under questioning from Council to the Inquiry he could barely remember a thing and was unable to answer many questions.

It could also mean that he fears he is (rightly) going to be heavily criticised in the Inquiry's report and doesn't want to be around when it is being debated?

Readers should compare and contrast the speech of Chief Minister Gorst against that of Senator Bailhache and ask who considers the interests of the Victims and Survivors and who doesn't?

Be Careful what (who) You Wish for.

Chief Minister Ian Gorst.

Now that the vote of no confidence against Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst has been officially LODGED It's potential implications need to be examined and some pragmatic questions asked should it succeed.

Including Constable Taylor (the mover of the proposition) 14 States Members have signed the proposition and agree the Chief Minister should go. There is a rule of thumb, or an unwritten rule, that if a vote of no confidence against a Minister is brought then the proposer of the proposition should put themselves forward for the post. In this case Constable Taylor has publicly stated that he doesn't want the job claiming he has "the best job in the world" being Constable of St. John. None of the other 13 signatories have publicly declared an interest in the top job either.

So where does this leave us should the proposition be successful? As things stand NOBODY has put their name forward to replace the Chief Minister and 14 politicians have signed a proposition to get rid of him without knowing who his replacement might be. Some names have been banded around who might make a good/competent Chief Minister but none of these people have publicly declared they want the job.

Deputy of St. John Tracy Vallois' name has been mentioned a few times, not least by her Constable, that she could fill the Chief Minister's shoes. She has since ruled herself out of the running. Treasury Minister Senator Alan Maclean's name has also come up in the mix but he has not said anything publicly about it that we are aware of.

Another name that is strongly rumoured and there is a real possibility (he has previously ran for the post) that former Bailiff and current External Relations Minister Senator Philip Bailhache could put his name forward and has a good chance of winning the vote. He was asked on BBC Radio Jersey recently if he would stand for the position and would not give a categoric "NO." This only serves to strengthen the rumour and possibility of him putting his name forward.

Looking at this as an Anti Child Abuse Campaigner there could not be anything more concerning than the thought of senator Bailhache becoming our next Chief Minister. The former Attorney General and former Bailiff has consistently attempted to derail the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry. He spoke against giving the Inquiry extra funding HERE. He stands accused of receiving a leaked witness statement and attempting to intimidate WITNESSES to the Inquiry, accusations he strongly denies.  He has employed what have been termed as "scare tactics" by indicating the Inquiry's cost could reach as much as £50m (it cost less than half that amount). Whilst Bailiff he gave an infamous speech at his Liberation Day address saying:

"All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal".

A man who seems to believe that children being horrendously abused and tortured in the "care" of the States of Jersey, and elsewhere, is less scandalous than Jersey getting some bad press?

From the TRANSCRIPTS of the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry. Senator Bailhache being questioned by Counsel to the Inquiry Patrick Sadd:

Q. Did you discuss the (Liberation Day) speech and the draft with anyone?

A. I usually used my family as a sounding board on these occasions. I find my children to be my most ferocious critics so I would have shared it in the family, but beyond that, no.

Q. Does your family include your brother William?

A. I think not on this occasion.

Q. So aside from your family you discussed it with no one else?

A. No.

Q. Before making that speech, Sir Philip, the suggestion that damage to Jersey's reputation was "the real scandal" {WD009001/2}, did you consider the effect that this might have for instance first on those victims who had come forward to say they had been abused?

A. I think, Mr Sadd, I would have considered all the circumstances in the round. I can't -- I don't think I can say to you that I specifically identified the alleged victims as a group of people to be considered, (emphasis added) but I certainly would have viewed the matter in the round.(END)




Firstly he refers to the Victims/Survivors as "alleged" despite there being a number of convictions against abusers all be it a couple of Lambs thrown to the SLAUGHTER and indeed the numerous cases that weren't taken to a JERSEY COURT by, among others, Senator Bailhache's brother, former Attorney General and current Bailiff William Bailhache. Who has serious questions of his own to ANSWER.

Secondly he states:  "I don't think I can say to you that I specifically identified the alleged victims as a group of people to be considered,"

He is giving a political speech on a Liberation Day about Child Abuse and didn't consider the Victims/Survivors?

Thirdly he should be aware that there are more "ferocious critics"than his family members and he should be using them as a "sounding board" as he is being hopelessly let down by his family members.

Then we come to his apparent desire for Jersey to break ties with the UK and become independent. Quoted in an ARTICLE (June 2012) by The Guardian Newspaper as saying:

"The island should be prepared to stand up for itself and should be ready to become independent if it were necessary in Jersey's interest to do so."

Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM

The former (possibly illegally suspended) Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM wrote in his (BURIED BY THE MEDIA) interim defence case to the Wiltshire Constabulary:

"Such views are not confined to the older elements of the honorary service. They can be found, albeit in a more developed form, in the senior levels of government and the legal establishment where some notable figures favour an eventual severance of links with the U.K. and would see the ready acceptance of U.K. working practices as running counter to this agenda. I recall that in 2007 I assisted a small working group which included, among others, the Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache and the Attorney General William Bailhache. The purpose of the group was to prepare a draft contingency plan for complete independence. I submitted papers to the group on the implications for law enforcement, and used some contacts from my previous role to offer suggestions as to who outside of the island, could assist in developing such a plan. I provided contact details of key figures in the Scottish Government and Administration including the Scottish National Party. I recall that some of the advice and contacts I provided were in an email I sent, probably in July 2007. This and other experiences reinforced my understanding that there was a tide flowing against closer association with the U.K, and a strong local agenda to develop working models and solutions within the island."(END)

VFC can also confirm that Senator Bailhache does NOT have the confidence of the Jersey Care Leavers Association (JCLA) or any Victims/Survivors we have spoken to. Senator Gorst on the other hand DOES have the confidence of the JCLA.

The Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry is due to publish its final report within weeks and it is anticipated that those in power at the time, both judicially and politically, are going to be heavily criticised.

Chief Minister Gorst has been a supporter of the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry, firstly by voting for it to happen in the first place (Senator Bailhache was absent for the vote) and secondly for bringing the successful proposition to grant the Inquiry further funding. (Which Senator Bailhache spoke against but did not vote because of conflict.)

We don't know for sure that Senator Bailhache will throw his hat in the ring for the top job or indeed if he will achieve enough votes to get the job. What we are saying is that it's not worth the risk. (In our opinion)

Readers (including politicians) should seriously be considering what the implications could be of getting rid of Gorst. We are not saying that he is the perfect person for the job and that he hasn't got questions to answer concerning his leadership. What we are saying to politicians: You need to find out who might end up with the job if Gorst goes before you cast your vote. To readers/members of the public; don't lobby your States Member to get rid of Gorst until we know who his replacement might be. Be careful what (who) you wish for............................

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Panel will stay tight lipped.

The Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry (IJCI) has sent the below e-mail to the mainstream media and, we believe, Interested Parties, which has got to be its most outrageous, and alarming, statement thus far.

It explains that the report will be published on its website (apparently no hard copies). It will not be answering any questions from the media (or Bloggers). It seems to be saying that cameras won't even be allowed at the Press/public statement (where no questions are allowed). It states: "A pool arrangement will be in place to provide video footage and photographs of the report’s launch and will be made available as soon as possible after the event."(END)

It's difficult to know how much of the Panel's blunder after blunder in its Press Releases are down to outright incompetence or is there a more sinister motive behind this?

How can it be with such a high profile review/investigation/report that the media are going to be so shut out and the panel can be so tight-lipped? 

 

Statement/e-mail from Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry

The IJCI Panel on Monday (5 June) issued further details about the publication of its report on July 3 2017. The public launch will take place at St Paul’s Centre, Dumaresq St, St Helier.

Interested Parties will be given access to the final report two hours before its publication. This is in line with paragraph 19.6 of the Inquiry Protocols: General Procedures.Interested Parties and their legal representatives are invited to attend St Paul’s Centre at 1300 to consider the report. They will not be allowed to speak to anyone else, including the media, at this time.

At 1500, St Paul’s will be open to the public and the media. There will be a statement from IJCI Chair, Frances Oldham QC. The Panel will not be taking any questions or giving interviews. A pool arrangement will be in place to provide video footage and photographs of the report’s launch and will be made available as soon as possible after the event.

The report will be published on the Inquiry website at 1500 on July 3 2017.(END)

It's absolutely bonkers that the media (and Bloggers) will not have a copy of the report before the Panel Chairman Francis Oldham QC delivers her statement. Then again it would be pointless having a copy because questions are not allowed in what must be an unprecedented move.

This latest move by the Inquiry Panel does not inspire confidence. This is/was the biggest Child Abuse Investigation/Inquiry in Jersey's history. As Victims/Survivors and Campaigners will be only too aware silence is the paedophiles biggest ally. Now the Chairman of this panel wants to remain silent? 

Team Voice is reserving its judgement on the Panel's work until we have read the report. We are not impressed with its (or lack of) media presence during the time it has been running up to this date.

One Rule for One?

Following the debacle, and scandal, of the failed Jersey Innovation Fund (JIF) which could have cost the Jersey taxpayer millions of £'s. It has been reported that two out of the three independent reports into the failings of JIF will not be published. This is apparently because the remaining reports are of a disciplinary nature. (So what)?

The one report that has been published is reported to have exonerated Senator Philip Ozouf but leaves questions to be answered of Senators Alan Maclean and Lyndon Farnham. Questions the Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst doesn't seem able to understand or ANSWER.

Back in 2010 the then Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand, set a very dangerous precedent by (possibly illegally) publishing the disgraced and discredited Wiltshire report, as explained in the below e-mail sent to BBC Radio Jersey from VFC.

This is after his (ILM's) predecessor, and now St. Helier Deputy, Andrew Lewis (possibly illegally) suspended the former Police Chief DURING a major Child Abuse Investigation amid contradictory statements of which he remains UNACCOUNTABLE.

The Wiltshire Report (Operation Haven 1) was the prosecution case against the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM for a supposed disciplinary hearing..........That never happened!

Despite there never being an "outcome" (because he robbed the former Police Chief of a disciplinary hearing) Ian Le Marquand still went ahead and appeared to have breached the Wilts confidentiality clauses, by publishing a heavily redacted form of its report.

Former CO Wilts Constabulary Brian Moore.

Operation Haven (1) Confidentiality Clauses.

"Highly Confidential – Personal Information

An independent disciplinary investigation by Wiltshire Police

Following the suspension of Chief Officer Graham Power of the
States of Jersey Police on 12 November 2008.

Obligation to confidentiality

1. Paragraph 1.2 of the discipline code (for Chief Officers of the States of Jersey Police) requires that all parties involved in the operation of this code will maintain confidentiality while proceedings are being progressed. The outcome of any particular case arising under the code will not, as a general rule, be publicised, but it is accepted that following the outcome of a particular case, the Home Affairs Minister and/or the States Employment Board and /or the Chief Officer, might decide that public disclosure is appropriate.

2. This Report contains personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, and Wiltshire Police would breach the first data protection principle if it were to disclose that information. Hence, the information is exempt under s.40(2) Freedom of Information Act 2000

3. This Report contains information that has been, and continues to be, held by Wiltshire Police for the purposes of an investigation which it has a duty to conduct and which ought not to be disclosed (under s.30 Freedom of Information Act 2000).

4. An obligation of confidence upon Wiltshire Police arises from the duty outlined at 1. Above, and disclosure of information would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey. Information, therefore, ought not to be disclosed (under s.27 Freedom of Information Act 2000)."(END).

With all this in mind VFC sent the below e-mail to BBC Radio Jersey.

E-mail to BBC Radio Jersey.

"I heard on your radio programme this morning that the remaining reports into the Jersey Innovation Fund will NOT be published because they are of a disciplinary nature.

I'd like to cast your/the BBC's mind back to 2010 when the then Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand, (possibly illegally) published the prosecution side of a disciplinary report from the Wiltshire Constabulary (Operation Haven 1) against the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

I reported here https://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/08/outcome-precedent-has-been-set.html that a precedent had been set and asked the question"Does this now mean that any states employee, even if un-convicted of any wrongdoing can face the prospect of the publication of a disciplinary report all over the “accredited” media? Or will it, once more turn out to be one rule for one????????????????????????????????"

You/BBC might want to challenge the Chief Minister's decision to bury the JIF reports on the basis of the precedent set by Ian Le Marquand back in 2010?"(END)

Of course the BBC could find itself in a bit of a sticky situation considering that it, alongside all other local mainstream media, published the prosecution case against the former Chief Police Officer. But despite being leaked the Chief Officer's interim defence case refused to publish a single WORD OF IT. Indeed, to this day, NONE of the local mainstream media have published a single word of it despite it now being a publicly available document (somewhere) on the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry's WEBSITE. And despite ALL local Mainstream Media reporting on the prosecution case.

We await to see if the BBC (or any of the Mainstream Media) will challenge the Chief Minister on his decision to bury these Jersey Innovation Fund disciplinary reports in light of the precedent set by Ian Le Marquand. Or will it be a case of "One Rule for One?"

A Precedent has been SET. (For some?)

Public to Discover How Much "openness" £50k can Buy?

Senator Ian Gorst

Tomorrow (Tuesday 2nd May 2017) we should find out if the reported £50k plus spent by the Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst, (the Taxpayer) on UK Spin Doctors has paid off.

In answer to Deputy Russell Labey's previous WRITTEN QUESTION the Chief Minister claimed that the aim of the £33,500 spent on Spin Doctors (Portland Communications) was in order to help him, Ministers and Civil Servants "to improve upon the past handling of such matters by the Island and being fully open and informative in the public response."

We have since learnt that the Chief Minister has spent a further reported £18,000 obtaining advice from former Tory Spin Doctor Ramsay Jones presumably for the same purpose of being open and informative in the public response (with regard to the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry's final report)  TO BE PUBLISHED 3rd July 2017.

Deputy Russell Labey

2. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Further to his answer to my written question on 18th April 2017, will the Chief Minister advise whether the £33,500 spent on consultancy in preparation for the release of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry’s findings included any expenditure on engaging Ramsay Jones; and, if not, what was the cost of engaging him and what is the total anticipated spend for all such P.R. advice and training relating to this issue?” 

Deputy Sam Mezec

3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister – 

“What measures, if any, will the Chief Minister be taking to ensure that, in the aftermath of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry publishing its report, the evidence it received remains publicly accessible and complete?”

Deputy Mike Higgins

8. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister – 

“In light of the States expenditure on public relations consultants, legal representation and civil service time in preparation for the publication of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry’s report, will the Chief Minister undertake to investigate what measures, if any, can be taken to ensure there is ‘equality of arms’ for all parties involved with the Inquiry to be able to respond to that report?”(END)

We look forward to finding out how much "openness and informativeness" fifty thousand pound can buy.