Wednesday, 28 June 2017

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"

Friday, 23 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?











Sunday, 11 June 2017

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............................

Monday, 5 June 2017

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.

Sunday, 28 May 2017

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?)

Monday, 1 May 2017

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.

Friday, 28 April 2017

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Report to be Published July 3rd 2017.


The Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry has published an UPDATE on its website announcing its Report will be published on July 3rd 2017.

28 April 2017

The Panel of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry on Friday (28 April) made the following announcement:

"The Inquiry Report will be published on Monday 3 July, subject to any other unforeseen circumstances.

"Arrangements for the launch of the report will be published in due course."(END)



Thursday, 27 April 2017

Jersey Evening Post Editorials.



Chief Minister Ian Gorst

On Tuesday 18 April 2017 an answer was tabled by the Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst, to a Written Question from Deputy Russell Labey. The question, and answer, revealed that the Chief Minister had spent more than £33,000 on UK Spin Doctors (Portland Communications) in order to learn how to be "open" and "informative" with the public regarding the long awaited, repeatedly delayed, publication of the Jersey Committee of Inquiry's final Report. VFC published the question and answer HERE.

It subsequently became known that what the Chief Minister DIDN'T tell the States (Island's Parliament), or the public, was he had spent a further £18,000 of taxpayers money on another Spin Doctor former Tory advisor  (Ramsay Jones) seemingly for the same purpose. That's more than £50k spent (squandered) to be told how to be "open and "informative" by Spin Doctors and already he's NOT being open and informative.

Team Voice offer the view that if you want to learn how to "open up" you might go to a Counsellor/Therapist but if you want to learn how to "appear" to be open then you go to a Spin Doctor. There is a big difference between being open and "appearing" to be open.

We ask; how much funding have Victims/Survivors been offered for training in dealing with the national/international Press when they are inevitably asked for comments or interviews? Will they once more be abandoned by our government and left to fend for the themselves? Is it that they don't need any training (media or otherwise) in being open and only those with something to hide do?
The States of Jersey has a "Communications Unit" who have a budget, we believe, of around £300k to deal with the press. What use is it if the Chief Minister has to go off island spending £50k to get media advice? 

The Jersey Evening Post published two Editorials last week (Thursday and Friday) which grapple with some of the issues raised in this posting (and some very poignant ones of its own) and in THIS POSTING. The Editorials were highlighted in the comments section (of previous link) and readers asked us if we could publish them (in the comments section).

Team Voice agreed that the Editorials deserved a Blog Posting of their own and we reproduce them below.


"A real risk of a PR disaster.
Thursday 20th April 2017

BACK in the very first days of the digging at Haut de la Garenne in February 2008, certain ministers within the States were accused of being more concerned about the Island’s international reputation than the abuse scandal unfolding in front of them.

It is therefore somewhat uncomfortable to learn that over £30,000 of taxpayers’ money has been spent on UK spin doctors to help ministers answer questions from the ‘international press’ once the independent Jersey Care Inquiry report becomes public.

The States have a massive communication problem and some media training must be welcomed. But that problem is with getting the message to the people it governs. That is where money, if it can be found, should be spent in training politicians and their civil servants. Even in this modern world of media and its various facets, the basic principles – principles taught to us all by our parents – are still at the core of what should be done: stand up straight, take care of your appearance, look them in the eye and tell the truth. Can there be much more to it than that? £33,500 worth more?

Yes, journalists can be tough and they work very hard to ensure that all of the story is covered fairly and accurately. But there are plenty of courses available, both locally and nationally, for media training that don’t come close to the £33,500 bill Islanders have picked up so far. Can it be that difficult for a minister to answer a question if there is nothing to hide?

Further, have any of these senior ministers – or in fact any politicians representing the seat of power – considered some training in how to speak to the public of Jersey, or on a one-to-one basis with some of the victims of abuse, once the panel’s findings emerge? Surely the report’s impact upon them is far more important than dealing with foreign journalists and the media attention it attracts.

Whatever their intentions in undergoing media training, it is going to be seen by the public as an exercise in either more covering up, an attempt to manipulate the truth or putting Jersey’s international reputation before anything else, something the Council of Ministers can ill afford.

There is a real risk the media exercise could itself turn into a local PR disaster."


"ANOTHER day and another potential PR disaster.
Friday 21st April 2017.

Today’s front-page exclusive reveals that ministers have hired a top Tory spin doctor to advise on how they should navigate what is going to be a difficult time for this Island. Once again Jersey is going to be thrust into the national and international limelight to answer for its record on child protection and care.

It is not the cost which is going to be the main thrust of public frustration here in the Island at this news or even the fact that ministers did not think to mention that they had engaged Ramsay Jones when they were questioned about the use of Portland Communications during this week’s States question time.

Readers will recall Wednesday’s lead article which reported that the UK PR agency had been brought in at a cost of £33,500 to help ministers on how to respond to questions in the wake of the publication of the Independent Care Inquiry report, which is expected to be imminent.

It goes way deeper than that. It is the fact that, locally at least, the government’s whole PR strategy over this very difficult issue seems to be saying exactly the opposite of what they need to say before they have even said a word.

Once again, Senator Ian Gorst and his team appear to be on the back foot as they prepare for the storm. The abuse inquiry was supposed to be Jersey’s attempt at truth and reconciliation; a chance to let everyone tell their stories in an open and transparent environment.

At the very least, the employment of PR specialists creates a perception that openness and honesty are not uppermost in their minds. That may not actually be true, but the failure to explain the need for this help before they were forced to do so shows how little has been learned from cock-up after cock-up over the years.

If ministers want some effective PR advice, they might start by listening to those who are telling them to get out onto the front foot and take their arguments to the people they represent, to have the courage of their convictions and to lead.

And they might also jettison those – and especially those in the public sector – who believe that the job of a PR professional is to deny voters the honesty and transparency that must be a basic democratic right and to manage information cynically.

All too often, it seems, they seek the counsel of the latter, a lack of judgment which could cost this administration and the Island dear."

Monday, 24 April 2017

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry to Destroy Evidence?



Former Deputy Daniel Wimberley


Former Jersey politician, and Anti Child Abuse Campaigner, Daniel Wimberley has issued a damming Press Release, ahead of the (long awaited) Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry's (COI), final report being published.
Mr. Wimberley was  instrumental (with others such as Jersey Care Leavers Association, Team Voice, current and former politicians and campaigners) in formulating its Terms of Reference. He has studied and researched the entire Child Abuse scandal up to, and including, the COI.

The (below) Press Release is just a tiny snapshot of the alarming revelations contained in Mr. Wimberley's "documents" as listed at the beneath "Notes for Editors" below the Press Release. 
ABUSE INQUIRY WEBSITE NEEDS COMPLETE OVERHAUL BEFORE REPORT IS PUBLISHED. KEY DOCUMENTS MUST BE SAVED, NOT DESTROYED.
The Jersey Abuse Inquiry has been told that their website should be radically improved before they publish their report. 
Abuse campaigner and former States member Daniel Wimberley has written to the Panel setting out in detail the many changes which are needed. His letter, sent on March 31st, says:
“When the report appears it is obviously essential that anyone with an interest, from direct protagonists (victims, perpetrators, alleged perpetrators, those accused of wrong-doing of any kind) to the public and the politicians who represent them, to journalists, to charity workers, campaigners and policy-makers, that all of these stakeholders can check your report against all the original documents. 
“To do this the website must be in good order, with every document actually present and correct, both documents of evidence and documentation of the workings and decisions of the Inquiry. And all the contents of the website must be accessible, easy to find, easily down-loadable, and extracts easily copied. None of these conditions apply right now.” (original emphasis)
“The website as it stands now is a disgrace and is not fit-for-purpose,” says Mr. Wimberley. “You cannot find what you want, witness statements are incomplete and sometimes garbled, key documents are missing, or else they come and go, Panel decisions are shrouded in mystery, and using the website is made to be as awkward as possible. When the national and international journalists show up for the launch of the report they will not be amused.”
Mr. Wimberley has also discovered that the Inquiry Panel plan to destroy key information instead of placing it on its website so that everyone can read it.
“This is a stunning blow to victims and to all those who want to see Jersey learn from the horrors of the past” said Mr. Wimberley. “When the Inquiry began its work ‘information that is relevant and material to the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference’ was going to be preserved,” said Mr. Wimberley. 
“Now the Inquiry says this information will be destroyed. The Panel has either made a mistake or made an astonishing and unpublicised reversal of policy which they must explain to States Members and the public. Why ever would one seek to destroy all this information?”
“I already pointed out the many issues which the Panel needed to address in an email in June last year,” said Mr. Wimberley. “They have had plenty of time, but they are ignoring these concerns. There seems to be no willingness to engage, and no desire to reassure the public. This is not the best way to build confidence and trust in this Inquiry.” ENDS

NOTES FOR EDITORS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 the original policy on destruction of relevant information

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

9 A similar point we have made and again there has

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

11 paragraph 8 of the previous protocol, which is at

12 divider 7, which provides:

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

14 category 1 and category 2 material will be transferred

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

3 could it all be a mistake?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F “TOR as used by COI”

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, 18 April 2017

£35k For "Openness?"



Chief Minister Ian Gorst

After a Written Question tabled by Deputy Russell Labey (below) to the Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst,we have learnt (as if we didn't know already) that our Ministers/Assistant Ministers and their officers don't know how to be open and informative with the public.

We learn that they have spent £35,000 on what looks like a PR spin company (Portland Communications) to learn the art of openness and informativeness. This begs the question; "what are the States Communication Unit being paid (around 300k a year) for?" Further, if our elected politicians don't know how to be open and informative, is a PR (spin) company the best people to ask? Will the £35k be taken out of the States Communications Unit's budget?


Deputy Russell Labey


WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER
BY DEPUTY R. LABEY OF ST. HELIER ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 18TH APRIL 2017

Will the Chief Minister advise if the services of Portland Communications have been engaged by the States of Jersey to provide media training to Ministers and/or others in preparation for the publication of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry’s report, or for any other reason, and, if so:

1. (a) which Ministers or other personnel are receiving this training;

2. (b) if the cost of the programme including fees, flights and accommodation are to be met by the tax payer, how much will this amount to; and 

3. (c) what is the brief Portland Communications are working to and what exactly is the firm charged with delivering for the government?

Answer

Portland Communications were first engaged as a result of an open competitive tendering process initiated in 2011 by the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey for the provision of combined strategic support to the Islands, which at the time was mainly in relation to UK matters.

During 2012 and 2013, Portland Communications provided advice on UK Party conferences, Global transparency initiatives, FATCA and enhanced engagement with a number of key European countries. Since the offices in London, Brussels and Caen have become more fully established, in partnership with the Bailiwick of Guernsey, those offices have been able to take on these functions and Portland Communications is now engaged only to provide additional strategic advice, as needed, on matters where there is strong national or international interest.

Most recently, this has included the provision of advice on how best to engage with the anticipated national and international interest in the report to be published this year by the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry. The aim is to improve upon the past handling of such matters by the Island and being fully open and informative in the public response.

This strategic advice includes matters relating to anticipated national and international media interest and has been provided to officers and relevant Ministers (the Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister/Minister for Health and Social Services, Minister for Education and Minister for Home Affairs), usually during telephone calls. In 2017 this has also involved the relevant Ministers visiting the offices of Portland Communications in London as convenient (usually when in London for other personal or official business).

Portland Communications has received £33,500 from the Department for Community and Constitutional Affairs for the provision of this strategic advice and support, with the aim of enhancing the provision of public information, including to the national and international media, following the release of the report by the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry.
(END)

Being open means telling (the sometimes uncomfortable) truth. Being informative is telling/publishing the facts without using spin and Spin Doctors. Paying £35k to Spin Doctors doesn't instil confidence that we are not going to get a load of spin from our leaders when the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry publishes its report and the infamous "Jersey Way" continues.........................

Friday, 17 March 2017

Ian Gorst's Guide to the Galaxy.



Chief Minister Ian Gorst.


The meaning of everything, according to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, was/is 42 but Chief Minister Ian Gorst has his own version.

After the scandal of the Jersey Innovation Fund (JIF) was exposed serious questions needed to be asked, or more importantly answered, of those politically responsible i.e Senator Philip Ozouf who signed off two of the loans, and Senator Lyndon Farnham, along with Senator Alan Maclean who between them signed off five of the loans and last but not least Chief Minister Ian Gorst who surely has ultimate responsibility for the actions/in-actions of his Ministers and Assistant Ministers?

We reported HERE. how it looked like Senator Ozouf was being slung under the bus for his part in this fiasco, and in fairness to him, he resigned as Assistant Minister So we know he did "The Honourable Thing." What we DON'T know is if Senator's Maclean and Farnham have also offered to do "The Honourable Thing" or if Chief Minster Gorst asked them to?


Deputy Montfort Tadier.

Reform Jersey's Deputy Montfort Tadier attempted to find this out on 14 February 2017 by tabling the following Oral Question to the Chief Minister:

“Given that Senator Ozouf was not the only Minister to have signed off loans from the Jersey Innovation Fund, will the Chief Minister also be asking Senators Farnham and Maclean to 'step aside' from their Ministerial duties until the relevant investigation has fully reported back?”

This is where we discovered that senator's Farnham and Maclean signed off the majority of the loans but we DIDN'T get an answer to Deputy Tadier's question. So on 14 March 2017 the Deputy attempted once more to get his question addressed if not answered where he tabled the following Oral Question to the Chief Minister.

“Will the Chief Minister state whether, following the publication of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report entitled ‘Jersey Innovation Fund’ (R.3/2017), Senator Farnham and/or Senator Maclean offered to resign as Ministers or whether he, as Chief Minister, asked them to resign?”

Again a pretty straight forward, clear and concise, question? But this is where we discovered that Chief Minister Gorst has his own version of "42" which appears to be "the former Assistant Minister did the honourable thing."

If this (edited video below) didn't make such a mockery of our so called "Democratic Process" it could almost be funny. The fact that the (unelected/unaccountable) Chair(s) of the States Assembly rule it perfectly acceptable for the Chef Minister (and by implication ANY Minister) to "come out with their own version of 42" in "answer" to any question makes the whole so-called "Democratic Process" that much more (almost) laughable and tragic............ 




Thursday, 9 March 2017

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Report Delayed..........Again.





Readers will know that the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry was to due publish its report at the end of December 2016. Readers will also know that the publication was delayed until the first quarter of this year (2017) as we reported  HERE.

We reported that the first delay, or the Press Release, seemed  insensitive to Victims/Survivors and lacking in any information as to why it was delayed. Unfortunately this latest delay/Press Release fairs little better.

9 March 2017

"The Panel of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry on Thursday (9 March) released the following statement:

"The Panel has received new information as part of Phase 3 of its work, in respect of recommendations for the future of Jersey's childcare system.

"The Panel has advised the States of Jersey that there will be a delay to the publication of the report pending examination of the new information as to whether it affects the recommendations we intend to make.

"We do not anticipate extensive delays. We will announce the date of the report's publication in due course and advise on the arrangements that will be in place for its launch."
(END)

From HERE.

Very short post but what can one say?

Has anybody got any idea what the Press Release says/means? It seems very ambiguous to me.


Sunday, 5 March 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......................