LETTER FROM EXILE: # 15
LOOKING INTO THE MICROCOSM FROM REALITY.
Blanche Pierre –
The Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity.
Part 1..
"Papa, are we still the good guys?"
Cormac McCarthy.
The Road.
"Hell is Other People"
Jean-Paul Sartre.
Introduction.
Since 1985, when I first stumbled across his work, I've been a great admirer of the American writer, Cormac McCarthy. I recall to this day, browsing in a bookshop on my 20th birthday, and opening a copy of his novel Suttree – and reading the dense and gothic opening description and finding here a prose poet – expressing in novel-form the dense imagery I sought so much in reading poets like Hughes, Transtromer, Yeats and Thomas.
But as grimly poetic as Suttree was – it was but a nursery rhyme – compared to his greatest work which I read next - Blood Meridian; a book recent years have given me frequent cause to think of.
Of course – since those days, McCarthy has become world-famous, following the filming of several of his books, for example, No Country for Old Men – and, most recently, the post-apocalyptic narrative of The Road, a book for which he won the Pulitzer Prize.
One dank and miserable January evening in London, I went to see the film of The Road on its opening night, knowing that films are never as good as the books on which they're based, but still curious to learn what Hollywood would make of this grimmest of tales.
The story follows the struggle of a man and his son – as they attempt to head south, in the hope of finding some warmth in a world made dark and ashen by a nuclear winter. Humans have destroyed the biosphere, and the only living things remaining are scattered groups of people – virtually all of who have been reduced to surviving in cannibalistic death-cults. Alone – the father is determined that he and his son will cling to civilised values – will carry on being "the good guys".
I sat at the back of the cinema and sensed the reactions of the audience, as much as I watched the film. Their feeling of identification with the man and his son was palpable. Reactions, gestures, snatches of whispered conversations from those nearby – all made it clear that the people watching the film all saw themselves as the man and his son – "the good guys".
I doubt if there was a person in the building – who saw themselves amongst the great majority of humans depicted in the film – reduced to animalistic survival instinct – reduced to a state of zero empathy – and ready and willing to enslave and eat other people.
Nobody ever sees themselves as "the bad guys".
A few years ago, the utter implausibility of such massed self-delusion would not have occurred to me – or, at least, not have occurred to me so strongly.
But as I sat at the back of that cinema – in constructive exile in London – and exactly three years since I'd first started to become dimly aware of what would prove to be Jersey's child abuse atrocity – I looked at that audience and knew – just knew – that McCarthy was right.
Most – if not all - of the people here, wouldn't be "the good guys" – the man and his son. Instead – they would be the murderous and ruthless cannibals.
Indeed – having experienced first-hand during these last three years, the very worst and most foul of people's blind and selfish instincts – having observed so graphically displayed the awesome capacity for self-delusion in most people – who see themselves as "the good guys" – I can be under no illusions about the brute reality of human nature.
How many people – both men and women - who have well-paid jobs of responsibility – who would be considered respectable pillars of society – who are married with children of their own – pause to think of the fragmentary role they have played in the events of the last three years – and see themselves for what they are – "the bad guys"?
How many of these people who have, for example, contributed to the Culture of Concealment – who have participated in some way in the oppression of whistle-blowers – who have maintained the climate of fear which makes secrecy possible – would see themselves as supporting and protecting the sodomising of a nine year old boy?
How many of them – could imagine themselves – metaphorically keeping the door locked – and making sure no one intruded – whilst watching a man in his 40's – make a little girl get his penis out of his trousers and masturbate him?
How many such pillars of society, are clear-eyed in the fact they're protecting a senior civil servant – who would abuse little girls – and 'ram his finger in the anus' of boys?
A civil servant – as I write – about to start work in a senior management post in Jersey's mental health service?
How many data protection officers, magistrates, senior civil servants, journalists and politicians – would see themselves wrestling to the ground – and binding and gagging a person who had discovered the battery and rape of children, in order to stop that person raising the alarm?
For that is – the reality – of what these people are doing.
And – in the case of all of these Jersey officials – who are striving – battling so strongly – to protect and maintain the abuse of children – they're doing so with no more than two degrees of separation from the act.
At best.
So why not, in fact, view them as participants in the atrocities?
'But most of them will not be aware of the crimes', it will be protested.
Is this a defence that can be taken seriously?
After all that we know – after all the hard, documented evidence and testimony now in the public domain?
No. There can be no excuse.
In this age of knowledge and of education – there can be no excuse for such moral and intellectual idleness.
Who, amongst these educated elites, can not be aware of the dangers of tribalism, of mis-placed loyalties, or the human weaknesses so powerfully demonstrated by Stanley Milgram?
Given the ever-present dangers posed by human society – so starkly displayed in the instant case of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster – how can the very types of people who have so clearly failed over the preceding decades – now be active components in the very same failures – all over again?
I am at least aware of studied social psychological phenomena such as S.E.P, or 'Someone Else's Problem'; of the Bystander Effect; of Groupthink – of the Diffusion of Responsibility. And I am a carpenter who left school at the age of fifteen. How can educated professionals – who – to a person - regard themselves as my intellectual, social and ethical superiors – fail to see such phenomena so powerfully demonstrated in their very conduct?
After all – no great study is required – either of what is writ by history – or of modern knowledge – to understand such things.
For here are a mere few paragraphs from Wikipedia:
Somebody Else's Problem (or SEP) is an effect that causes people to ignore matters which are generally important to a group but may not seem specifically important to the individual.
Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas.
Moral hazard occurs when a party insulated from risk may behave differently than it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk.
Moral disengagement is a term from social psychology for the process of convincing the self that ethical standards do not apply to oneself in a particular context, by separating moral reactions from inhumane conduct by disabling the mechanism of self-condemnation.
Diffusion of responsibility is a social phenomenon which tends to occur in groups of people above a certain critical size when responsibility is not explicitly assigned. This phenomenon rarely ever occurs in small groups.
In the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster – we see all such phenomena at work. Indeed – so powerfully displayed, we have to ask the question, is Diffusion of Responsibility too charitable an explanation?
Individuals, groups of people, power-institutions, entire classes – all viewing themselves as "the good guys" – whilst failing to see that their own diffuse and disengaged response to the battery and rape of actual, real children – is, of itself – a persistence of the very condition that such atrocities require to exist.
Therefore – in a possibly futile attempt to counter such intransigence – in an effort to try and bring home to those many people who are pro-actively supporting the Culture of Concealment, the reality of their actions and non-actions – I am going to publish a series of articles – in which we will examine one case from amongst the many that comprise the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.
The case of the Blanche Pierre Group Home.
And the two child abusers who ran it – Jane and Alan McGuire.
And – above all – in this series of articles, we are going to confront evidence.
Evidence of both individual and collective failure.
Failures that not only permitted the devastating abuse of real, living small children – the actual, ruined lives – but also the failures by which we have – collectively – failed again.
Failed to reach out to those wounded and damaged survivors amongst us - and have, instead, abused them yet further – and denied them the protections and support that we owe them.
And should readers require an immediate example of that collective failure – of those in power in Jersey being "the bad guys" - consider this fact.
I could not have acquired – and I could not have published – the evidence you are going to read in the coming days – had I been in Jersey.
I could not return to Jersey – unless and until this evidence - was published.
The victims of the McGuires – of Blanche Pierre – of the States of Jersey; people who are my vulnerable constituents – have not been able to enjoy my support and protection – because in helping them, and others like them, by exposing the truth – I would have been arrested – arrested again; and jailed.
When reading the evidence I will publish in the coming days – let those who participate in such oppressions – disabuse themselves of the notion that they are "the good guys".
They are not.
They are as directly culpable in the crimes – as though they were pro-actively protecting people like Alan McGuire from discovery – while he sexually abuses little girls.
"The truth was darker as yet truth is wont to be."
Cormac McCarthy
The Crossing.
It is 1985; a young mother of five children – receives the worst news imaginable.
The pain and illness that has troubled her, is caused by cancer – there is no chance of a cure – the condition is terminal.
This young women, raising her children alone – confronts not only her own death – but the prospect of leaving her beautiful, young children behind – largely alone in the world.
As her illness progresses, she becomes unable to care for her children; the three youngest are taken into "care" by the authorities of the States of Jersey, and housed in a family-scale orphanage, known as Blanche Pierre, situated at Le Squez estate in the parish of St. Clement – and run by a couple - Jane and Alan McGuire.
Such tragedies happen – but, already a greater disaster has been wrought upon these young, innocent lives.
Jane and Alan McGuire – are a pair of dysfunctional maniacs; appallingly violent, psychotically cruel, revelling in their power over the orphans in their care. Two individuals – with whatever is that peculiar, psychotic synergy that can cause certain couples to become something other – something monstrous.
Already an example of individual and collective failure – given that two individuals less suited to the care of vulnerable children would be difficult to locate. Yet – here they were – casually and blithely employed by the States of Jersey – to "care" for the most vulnerable people in our community.
Paulette Leonie Marie Mauduit died on the 28th June 1986. Her children – now orphans – who knew she was terminally ill – had not been permitted to see her, and were prevented from attending her funeral – not being told of her death until three weeks later, by the McGuires.
Paulette Maudit's children were not alone. Other young children as well – shared the peculiar hell that was the McGuire's regime at Blanche Pierre.
But who was to know of the McGuires' conduct?
Their habit of beating children with weapons? Of starving them? Of making them stand all night in corridors and at the top of the stairs? Of the forceful ramming of soap into the children's mouths – to the point of injury? The routine examples of battery? Jane McGuire's predilection for pouring Dettol down the children's throats – whilst Allen held them down?
People knew. Some people even tried to do something about such deranged conduct.
Some part-time conscientious visiting staff members made note-book entries concerning this conduct; neighbours reported the frequency with which they heard the children screaming.
One incident – recounted by a deeply concerned member of staff – saw Allan McGuire pick up a five year old child – and throw him a distance of approximately seven feet across the room – to smash against a wall – because the child was not tidying-up to McGuire's satisfaction.
And worse.
Not witnessed – but surely enough warning signs were present – Allan McGuire routinely sexually molested the little children in Blanche Pierre. Indeed – so inured did he become in this disgusting behaviour – so securely confident did he feel, that he also sexually abused older girls, whilst on holiday in France.
During the latter half of the 1980's, as the McGuires' conduct changed, and became more and more crazed, complaints and expressions of concern by conscientious members of staff accumulated – until – the senior managers of the then Childrens' Service – people such as Anton Skinner and Geoff Spencer – could ignore them no longer.
In 1990, an "internal" investigation is conducted.
In this investigation, Skinner is forced to conclude that, yes, the conduct of the McGuires has been "unacceptable" – and not of the kind that can be tolerated "in this day and age". "However, by way of mitigation, it's a stressful job".
"But never mind. Mrs. McGuire has agreed to voluntarily "retire" from running the Blanche Pierre Group Home."
"She will now come and work in our 'Family Development Centre' instead."
Even on the plain and known face of the facts at this time – 1990 – the conduct of the McGuires has been monstrously unlawful. That is even assuming Skinner and Spencer were not aware of the sexual abuse.
The gross physical and psychological cruelty and abuse – the violence – should have seen the McGuires reported to the police – without hesitation.
Instead – leaving a number of wrecked and tortured little lives in their wake – the McGuires 'retired' from running Blanche Pierre – and were written a fulsome letter of gratitude and thanks by the then responsible politician, Iris Le Feuvre – President of the Education Committee.
Skinner, Spencer, Le Fevre and her Committee committed a criminal offence; conspiracy to pervert the course of justice – in failing to ensure that the crimes of the McGuires were reported to the police.
The police did not discover the atrocities committed by the McGuires – until eight years later.
And even then – the Jersey authorities collectively – and most of the people involved as individuals – failed – once again.
Failed – to bring justice to these young victims; failed to make the system work – failed to hold people accountable.
And in such failure – enabled the continuation of the Culture of Concealment.
Enabled the continuing protection and support of child abusers.
The 1998 prosecution of the McGuires was corruptly and unlawfully abandoned – an episode we will examine in greater detail when we consider further evidence in Part 2 of 'Blanche Pierre – The Anatomy of an on-going atrocity.'
Before then – I reproduce below a document which was yet another 'internal investigation' – produced in 1999 – in the aftermath of the abandonment of the prosecution of the McGuires.
This is the report by the then Manager of Mental Health Services, Dylan Southern.
Mr. Southern was another example of a good, conscientious and professional member of staff. Sadly – all too often, the many decent individuals who work for the services, are thwarted and obstructed in their efforts to do what is right by entrenched and self-protecting senior managers.
The covering letter and report reproduced below, is limited in its scope and scale. The terms of reference for Mr. Southern's investigation were strictly limited to a disciplinary case against Jane McGuire – and, at that, an investigation in which significant facts were not known to him, and in which certain evidence was not available.
For those reasons, the report does not fully convey the real and gross range of horrors suffered by the children resident at Blanche Pierre. But even so – the regime depicted here – is brutalising, appalling and barbaric.
It was also plainly not compatible with States of Jersey policy.
It was also manifestly criminal in nature.
So – why – when certain aspects of the conduct of the McGuires had been complained of by decent staff members back in the late 1980's – and why – when even Skinner, Spencer and Le Fevre had been forced, finally, to acknowledge the utter unacceptability of such conduct – were the police not informed in 1990?
Why – did they feel it acceptable to continue to employ the obviously deranged and dangerous Jane McGuire in a social environment where she would still be working with vulnerable people?
Why – did it take a further eight years – for the police to become aware of the crimes, and, even then, only by happenstance?
Were the 'mistakes' of the 1980's recognised and faced up to in 1990?
Were the 'mistakes' of 1990 recognised and faced up to in 1998?
Were the 'mistakes' of 1998 recognised and faced up to in 2008?
The answer to those last three questions is, crushingly, no.
As our forthcoming examination of further evidence will show.
The question I confront us all with is this:
Will the 'mistakes' of 2008 be recognised and faced up to?
Unless we all – each and every one of us – recognise the dangers of such phenomena as 'diffusion of responsibility' – until people recognise that simply by not doing the right thing – they actually become "the bad guys" – the terrible lessons – with their awful and real consequences – will remain unlearnt.
Stuart.
THE DYLAN SOUTHERN REPORT.
Mr G Jennings
Chief Executive
Peter Crill House
Gloucester Street
St Helier
Jersey
23rd February 1999
Dear Mr Jennings
Mrs Jane Maguire
Having concluded the internal inquiry as requested I believe it appropriate that a formal disciplinary hearing be held as per policy regarding the conduct of Mrs Maguire whilst the House Mother of Blanche Pierre Family Group Home. In summary I believe Mrs Maguire committed and condoned gross acts of physical and psychological abuse toward the children in her care.
The earliest official record of unacceptable physical punishment was that of washing a child’s mouth out with soap in 1986. This is stated in the house diary. Subsequent uses of this form of punishment are found in the statements of the former children and staff. This form of punishment was forced on the child with physical restraint by Mr Alan Maguire. It is also reported that his fingers were used to rub in the soap in the child’s mouth causing the tongue or mouth lining to bleed. Though this act was not committed directly by Mrs Maguire there is clear evidence that she would be fully aware that it was used on the children she was responsible for and condoned this punishment for a minimum period of 4 years.
A further form of punishment used were hand smacks to various parts of the body including the head. Implements, such as a wooden spoon and slipper were also employed. The use of physical punishment was not a source of control that Mrs Maguire was allowed to employ. I understand that such acts would contravene the Education Committee’s policy on corporal punishment. However, it is my belief that the severity of some of these acts constitute physical abuse in the way they were employed and in no way match the possible misdemeanours committed by a child. It is clear that Mrs Maguire as well as her husband was involved in these acts.
In later life the former children’s statements draw me to the conclusion that they lived in a state of anticipatory anxiety, in that it was not possible during these important formative years to be able to predict what may happen to them on a day to day basis. They lived in a strictly regimented environment and were consistently subjected to threats of removal and verbal abuse. The children who may have had disturbed backgrounds also suffered the loss, in some cases of their parents, and therefore had very limited control over their own lives until they reached a degree of maturity which would allow them to face the world on their own. Their childhood experience was supposed to be managed by Mrs Maguire who had training and experience, yet the children were subjected to a regime of fear and severe punishment.
Mrs Maguire, as the employee of the Children’s Service, did not act in the best interests of the children and many of the acts of abuse would fall into the category of “gross misconduct”. In my opinion, this was a cruel and uncaring environment with Mrs Maguire holding the responsibility for its creation and maintenance until her removal from the home in 1990.
During my investigation interview with Mrs Maguire I asked her directly if she or her husband had ever washed out a child’s mouth with soap and water. I gave Mrs Maguire sufficient opportunity to rationalise why she used this particular form of punishment. Despite clear evidence that such acts took place Mrs Maguire categorically denied that this form of punishment ever occurred.
Mrs Maguire’s apparent inability to respond honestly to these allegations leads me to believe that as her employer we cannot have any confidence in her to remain as an employee working with vulnerable people. I am aware that these events happened some 8 years ago and that since 1990 there have been no further complaints of a similar nature have been made against Mrs Maguire. Yet, the evidence that had recently come to light from the children and the fact that Mrs Maguire continues to deny these allegations, leaves us in an impossible position.
I believe Mrs Maguire will offer witness statements from former residents of the home. However, these statements are only supportive of the home regime before 1986. A former staff member who supported Mrs Maguire in a statement during the recent Police investigation appears to have ignored the fact that records made in the house diary demonstrate the regime of cruelty which existed. The witnesses available to support my conclusion will stand by their original allegations. Police statements from the former residents and the professional Child Care Officers who have maintained some form of contact with them will be made available to the hearing panel. I intend to call as witnesses the following:
Mr Anton Skinner - Director of Community and Social Services.
Ms Sarah Brace - Child Care officer.
Mr Barry Faudemer - Inspector, States of Jersey Police.
In conclusion, my recommendation to the disciplinary panel will be that Mrs Maguire is dismissed from the employ of the Health and Social Services Committee.
Yours sincerely
Dylan A. Southern
Manager, Mental Health Services
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
Report to: Mr Graham Jennings, Chief Executive.
Report from: Mr Dylan A Southern,
Manager, Mental Health Services
Title: Internal Enquiry and report into allegations made against Mrs Jane Maguire,
formally House Parent at the Blanche Pierre Family Group Home.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
1. Background
1.1 Mrs Jane Maguire was appointed as House Mother to the Blanche Pierre Children’s Group Home in March 1980. Prior to this Mrs Maguire had held a temporary contract at Haut de la Garenne Children’s Home from January 1979, but was made a permanent member of staff from 1st August 1979.
1.2 On appointment to the Blanche Pierre Group Home Mrs Maguire was the employee of the Children’s Service with her husband Mr Alan Maguire accepting the role of House Father on a no salary basis. It would be expected that both parties had an interest in child care with the added incentive that free accommodation and various allowances which would have been of positive benefit to the Maguire’s income, were made available.
1.3 The children placed in the home would remain in the care of the House parents till such time that the children moved back to their family, moved to another child care facility or reached an age or maturity which would allow them to stand on their own two feet and live independently.
2. The Role of Mrs Jane Maguire
2.1 The role of Mrs Maguire as the employee was to act as the lead “parent”. Mrs Maguire had training, experience and skills in caring for children. Prior to coming to the island with her husband who was born in Jersey, Mrs Maguire had trained as a Nursery Nurse (NNEB) and held a number of child care positions. A job evaluation form, signed by Mrs Maguire on the 23 February 1987 clearly describes the expected role of Mrs Maguire and in the final section, that of her husband. It is clear from the format that Mrs Maguire had a significant input and understanding of her expected role in this re-grading request (Appendix 1).
The children placed with Mrs Maguire would have some form of disrupted or traumatic life history. Without such a background children do not end up in care environments away from their natural home. Therefore it would be essential that the employee, in this case Mrs Maguire, is able to manage and respond to each child’s needs as stated in the form.
2.2 Having applied for the post of House Mother, Mrs Maguire attended interview with her husband and she was subsequently appointed to the position at Blanche Pierre. Mr and Mrs Maguire took up residence in March 1980. During my interview with Mrs Maguire on 29th January 1999 she stated that at no time did the pressures of child care affect her and that she enjoyed her 10 year stay at Blanche Pierre. Mrs Maguire related many happy times at the family home and emphasised her coping ability in managing the home during her own pregnancy and birth of her daughter. Mrs Maguire states that her “retirement” from the home in 1990 was as a result of a change in child care policy by the Children’s Service. The change of policy was that the family home concept was being terminated in favour of intensive community support to increase the likelihood of children remaining in their natural home, or where this was not possible fostering scheme’s and children’s homes. Mrs Maguire stated that she and her husband had discussed the future with regard to this change of policy, with the Children’s Office before Christmas in 1989. Mrs Maguire did not wish to work in the “new set-up” being proposed at Blanche Pierre, that she had already given 10 years which made her feel she wanted a change and that her new home which was being built, would have dictated that she leave the group home in the near future. Mrs Maguire states that she did not have any clear career plans but was hoping that there would be a place for her in the new system.
3. Childrens’ History
3.1 The children at the home were placed there for a number of reasons. The majority were grouped with their siblings and had the unfortunate experience of having unstable early backgrounds which in some cases was compounded by the rejection or loss of their natural parents. The first group of children who were already residing in the home when Mrs Maguire moved in report appropriate memories of their stay and of Mr and Mrs Maguire. A number of the initial group of children have remained in Mrs Maguire’s social network and will offer a different experience of her care toward them than that stated by the later residents of the home. Though requested by Mrs Maguire to interview a number of these former residents I felt it appropriate to only interview two. My rationale for this is that I believe these former residents will only provide information which is already available in Police statements. These statements may be seen in ‘appendix 2'
4. Allegations of abuse
4.1 The first official report of abuse in the home was made by Mrs Susan Doyle and Ms Karen O’Hara, who were part of the staff team at Blanche Pierre, to Ms Dorothy Ingles who was at the time a course tutor to both of the above on a child care course. Ms Ingles was a Child Care Officer of some years experience and employed within the Children’s Service.
4.2 Mrs Doyle and Ms O’Hara had been appointed as temporary staff in close proximity to each other. Ms O’Hara from 26th June to the 21st July 1989 on temporary contract. Though no conclusive record is available it appears that her employment within the group home was continuous until 1992. Mrs Doyle took up a temporary part time post from the 3rd of July 1989 which became permanent some months later. Both staff continued to work at Blanche Pierre after the Maguire’s departure.
4.3 Both staff reported to Ms Ingles that they had witnessed and heard of acts of physical and psychological abuse to the children at the home.
4.4 Ms Ingles then formulated a report containing the information imparted to her which was sent to Mr A Skinner, Children’s Officer and Mr G Spencer (Acting Homes Manager). This report may be seen as appendix 3.
4.5 Having received Ms Ingles report Mr A Skinner and Mr Geoff Spencer arranged to see both Mrs Doyle and Ms O’Hara. This meeting occurred on the 27th of April 1990. The record of the meeting between Ms O’Hara, Mrs Doyle, Mr G Spencer and Mr A Skinner is enclosed as appendix 4.
4.6 In summary this record matches the report made by Ms Dorothy Ingles and outlines instances of psychological and physical abuse to named and unnamed children.
4.7 The response by Mr Skinner was to interview Mr and Mrs Maguire on the 30th April 1990. The record of this interview is contained in Mr. Skinner’s file note dated 6th of August 1990. (See Appendix 5.) According to Mr Skinner’s file note, both Mr and Mrs Maguire denied the “degree” of physical punishment, verbal threats and inappropriate punishment. They admitted that mouth washing was a technique employed, slaps to the legs and “run a longs” The precise nature of the latter is unknown. They maintained that the forms of discipline used would be employed in the rearing of their own children. Two other interviews were conducted in the following two months as a result of which Mr Skinner states that the Maguires “retired” from the group home in June 1990. During this interview process Mr & Mrs Maguire “challenged” that they had been informed of the Education Committee’s Policy on Corporal Punishment but “later appeared to retract this statement”. It should be noted that within Mr Maguire’s interview during the recent Police investigation he stated “there was no physical punishment. We were told that when we went for the interview”. (Appendix 6)
4.8 During my interview with Mrs Maguire, she was unable to recall any of the three meetings as described in Mr Skinner’s file note. Mrs Maguire denies that the content of the meetings if they were held, included any or part of the allegations made by Mrs Doyle and Ms O’Hara. Mrs Maguire does recall a meeting with Mr Skinner regarding an incident with [name excised] a resident of Blanche Pierre, when he “got drunk” at the Fort and went to stay with Sue Doyle. Mrs Maguire cannot recall the detail nor why [name excised] stayed with Mrs Doyle for 4 days.
4.9 Because of Mrs Maguire’s lack of recall, I put to her at the interview conducted with myself on 29th January 1999, whether either she or her husband had ever washed out a child’s mouth as a form of punishment? The reason for my question is that this form of punishment is a regular feature within the new evidence gleaned from the former residents' statements. Mrs Maguire categorically denied to me that mouth washing had been used as form of punishment that either she or her husband would have employed.
Mrs Maguire’s statement is not supported in light of the available evidence:
a) House diary notes record this form of punishment being used on 4 occasions and threatened on one occasion. (Appendix 7)
b) The Maguire’s admitted that it had been employed by them to Mr Skinner. (Appendix 5)
c) Mrs Doyle and Ms O’Hara reported this type of punishment to Mr Skinner and Mr Spencer. (Appendix 4)
d) Various children reported in their Police statements that this punishment had been inflicted on them or they had witnessed it. (Appendix 8)
4.10 The former residents gave accounts to the Police in their recent investigation of other types of punishment frequently inflicted upon them. Other punishments included hand smacks to various parts of the body including the head, implements such as the use of a slipper, wooden spoon and sandal were also employed. Further evidence that confirms this regime existed is available within the house diaries. These entries appear to have been made by Jane Maguire and were open for other staff to see and contribute to. Significant entries running from 1986 may be seen as appendix 9. The former residents also refer to the use of these types of punishment in their Police statements. (Appendix 10)
5. Events following Mrs Maguire’s departure from Blanche Pierre.
5.1 Mr Skinner moved Mrs Maguire from the Blanche Pierre Group Home. This was described as “retirement” though, in effect a “job swap” with Mrs Audrey Mills occurred
6. The Police Investigation.
6.1 The States Police were requested by Mr and Mrs Maguire to discover the source of an anonymous letter they had received. The Police were advised that possible suspects may have been the former children of Blanche Pierre. When the former residents were interviewed they described a regime which resulted in Mr and Mrs Maguire being charged. Though the prosecution failed it is clear that the former residents’ description of their childhood whilst in the care of the Maguire’s contravened the Education Committee’s policy of corporal punishment and entered the realms of a regime of physical and psychological abuse. The former children describe in their police statements a regime beyond that which was witnessed by Mrs. Doyle and Ms O'Hara in 1990.
6.2. Mr. A. Skinner provided a report during my investigation which may be seen as appendix 11. In this report Mr Skinner clarifies the difference between the reports he received in 1990 by Mrs Doyle and Ms O’Hara and those that emanated from the recent Police enquiry. He also clearly states that the reports made by the former children are believed to have taken place by all those involved in the investigation. Descriptions of force feeding, mouth washing during which injuries are sustained, physical punishments forbidden by Committee Policy, acts of humiliation in front of other children and alleged sexual abuse on female children by Mr Maguire are all contained within the former residents Police statements.
Conclusion
7.1 There is sufficient evidence to show from the Police, and my own investigation that, Mrs Jane Maguire, whilst employed as the House mother at Blanche Pierre Group Home:
a) Clearly understood her role and responsibilities toward the children in her care.
b) Understood that a policy existed which forbade the use of corporal punishment on the children in her care.
c) Breached this policy by inflicting, allowing and condoning physical punishments.
d) Inflicted, allowed and condoned various forms of severe physical abuse on the children in her care.
e) Inflicted, allowed and condoned psychological abuse on the children in her care.
f) Is guilty of numerous offences which constitute gross misconduct.
8. Recommendation
I recommend that Mrs Jane Maguire is dismissed from the employ of the Health and Social Services Committee.
Signed: …………………………………
Dylan A. Southern.
23.2.99
Appendices
1. States of Jersey Job Description Questionnaire Residential Child Care Officer In Charge (Le Squez Group Home)
2. States of Jersey Police statements of [name excised 1] [name excised 2] and [name excised 3].
3. Report to Mr A J Skinner from Ms Dorothy Ingles.
4. Record of notes taken during an interview between Miss K O’Hara, Mrs S Doyle, Mr A J Skinner and Mr G Spencer.
5. File Note of Mr Anton Skinner dated 6th August 1990.
6. Extract from States of Jersey Police, Statement of Alan Maguire.
7. Photocopies of records in the house diaries of Blanche Pierre Children’s Home describing mouth washing incidents.
8. States of Jersey Police statement of [name excised 4] and [name excised 5].
9. Schedule of relevant entries from diaries from Blanche Pierre Group Children’s Home.
10. States of Jersey Police statements of [name excised 6] and [name excised 7].
11. Statement from Mr Anton Skinner to Mr D Southern dated 15th January 1999.
LOOKING INTO THE MICROCOSM FROM REALITY.
Blanche Pierre
The Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity.
Part 2.
"The Judge was standing in the gently steaming quite picking his teeth with a thorn as if he'd just eaten.….
…..In the meantime someone had found the boy. He was lying face down naked in one of the cubicles. Scattered about on the clay were great numbers of old bones. As if he like others before him had stumbled upon a place where something inimical lived."
Cormac McCarthy
Blood Meridian.
Of all trades involved in the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster – the one that stands damned upon the facts – and most desperately in need of redemption – is that of lawyers.
Legal advisers – magistrates – prosecution lawyers – defence lawyers – malign clerical bystanders - attorney generals – judges.
No matter the various forms and sub-specie of this most vile phylum – wherever one observes the passage of lawyers in the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster – one looks for the examples of simple honest failure - to ease one's sight of the burden of so much naked depravity; a landscape sacked in a debouch of such despicable charlatanry one struggles to find as much as one human not left wounded and wrecked who's misfortune it was to be in need when encountering this barbarian hoard.
From all of Jersey's vast plague of lawyers – officially, the most expensive upon the face of the planet – I could name you but five with a genuine and ethical commitment to child protection; a mere five – who see the gross toxicity of power in Jersey – and who know it's their duty to fight the cause of the failures.
Alas – they wouldn't thank me for naming them, living as they do in trepidation of the great mass of their brethren who's very raison d'être – gorging upon the billions their transnational gangster clients connive out of the world's tax systems – would be threatened by any vulgar intrusion into the status quo of an out-break of ethics and honesty.
Lawyers: no matter where one looks across the blasted, desolate terrain of decades of failure to protect the most vulnerable people in our community – one sees the passage of the lawyer.
And – most strikingly – it makes not an atom of difference which "side" the lawyers were notionally on – as they acted-out their ancient charade. Prosecuting, judging, defending, advising the police, advising the criminals, representing the interests of the victims, earning money protecting the abusers – all – on the evidence – acted to a shared agenda – a collective goal – a common purpose.
Expending minimum possible effort – whilst acting out their assigned roles – to maintain the pretence of challenge and defense; of scrutiny and interest; of the administration of the law; of professionalism – of care - but all the while ensuring that what they did bore as much relation to reality – and exhibited as much threat to tradition – as an exercise in Japanese Noh theatre.
Not at all an inappropriate analogue – as the primary actors in a Noh drama are called Shites.
In Part 1 of Blanche Pierre – The Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity, we considered our collective failures – our seeming inability as humans to readily and simply do that which is the right thing.
The Jersey Child Abuse Disaster – in all its sustained magnitude – over all those decades – would make a powerful study indeed, for any student of social psychology.
But because such considerations can be too abstract – too distant – we need to begin to comprehend that our disengaged and distant regarded to such tragedies – with the attendant feeling that it's 'somebody else's problem' – makes our view of ourselves as 'the good guys' nothing but a dangerous fantasy.
As casually condemnatory as we may be of child abuse and the ever-present gross failures to protect children – we do not grasp powerfully enough the fact we are considering real people – real lives – real, helpless, children.
Which is why in this series of articles, we are examining a real, actual case – the Blanche Pierre atrocity; the repeated failure to prevent, or punish, the two psychotic child abusers – Jane and Alan Maguire.
The failure – even now – to help and support the victims.
In Part 1 – we considered a key item of hard, documented evidence – the internal disciplinary report written by Dylan Southern – which was prepared in 1999 – only after the corrupt abandonment of the prosecution of the Maguires – which was, itself, merely the latest grotesque failure – amongst a catalogue of such failures in respect of the Maguires – going back to at least fifteen years before that date.
In this posting we are going begin the process of building upon that evidence – with an examination of some documentation which illustrates dramatically – just how those investigative and prosecutory processes were run into the sand – and sabotaged – back in 1998/9 – and the various roles played by lawyers in that tragedy.
And, in forthcoming postings – we will consider yet more documentary evidence; evidence which will go yet further – in securing that unarguable 'guilty' verdict – upon lawyers – in our court of public opinion.
Today – we are going to consider two exhibits.
The first of these is a letter.
The second is a States of Jersey Police 'time-line' – prepared during the recent investigations in 2008 – in an effort to help the police try and understand just how on Earth the 1998 prosecutions could have been abandoned.
Before turning to those two items of evidence – I want to explain why the Blanche Pierre case in particular – is so fundamental – so pivotal – and why what happened to those little children – and the continuing efforts of the Jersey oligarchy - 22 years later - to conceal it – is so central to any understanding of the entire Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.
The Blanche Pierre case can be seen as a kind of Rosetta Stone – a means of enabling us to read and understand the language of failure, of cowardice and of concealment – that underpins the entire, catastrophic failure of Jersey towards its vulnerable children.
The Blanche Pierre case straddles two eras. The very old fashioned approaches – and frequently reprehensible conduct – seen in the 1960's and 1970's – as carried over into the 1980's – and the more modern – supposedly enlightened and responsible era – of the late 1980's and the 1990's.
Of fundamental importance – many of the key facts – the evidence – relevant to the Blanche Pierre abuses – and consequent cover-ups – was far more recent than Haute de la Garenne. It was, and is – there – documented; and - in many ways – beyond all credible dispute.
Further – the case shows – all too graphically and powerfully – that when the authorities – in rare moments of frank remorse – acknowledge that things were foul and unacceptable at HDLG – they aren't being honest when they then go on to claim, "but that was all back in the 1960's – there haven't been such crimes for many decades."
Also – virtually all of the key individuals involved are still living.
The case also goes further than demonstrating sustained child abuse. Crucially – it also demonstrates – on an evidenced basis – the Culture of Concealment. The routine deployment of 'the cover-up' – by the Jersey authorities.
Even more testingly – many of the individuals responsible for the original failures to protect the children in the first place – and who then went on to engage – in one way or another – in the cover-ups – are still 'around', as it were; still prominent in Jersey society.
And – possibly most inescapably and unutterably damming of all – the Blanche Pierre case was a test.
For all the wish to project a civilised face to the world – for all the desperate claims by the Jersey oligarchy that, "things are different these days" – "it couldn't happen again" – "there will be no hiding place" - and – "there will be no cover-up" – all and any such words were going to be worse than meaningless – were going to be actually wicked – and actually be evidence of profound continuing danger to the island's vulnerable children – unless the nettle of the crimes of the Maguires – and the repeated cover-ups – was finally grasped. Unless that test was passed.
In the year 2008 – the States of Jersey wretchedly and dismally failed that test.
Indeed – worse than failed.
The abusers escaped justice.
And those many who perverted the course of justice also escaped.
The victims have been betrayed all over again.
The entire might and financial resources of the Jersey oligarchy has been swung into full cover-up battle mode – to an even worse extent than previously.
And the first and only politician in Jersey's history to identify and speak-out against the child protection failures and Culture of Concealment – has been raided, unlawfully arrested, had his home turned over from top to bottom – without a search warrant - denied legal representation – denied admissibility of the evidence needed for his defence – and has – consequently – been driven into constructive exile.
The Jersey Establishment.
It could scarcely have failed – or disgraced itself – to a greater degree.
Those reasons are why the Blanche Pierre case is central to any understanding of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.
Turning now to the first item of evidence in this posting.
The letter was written – back in 1990 - by the then responsible politician, President of the Education Committee, Iris Le Fevre. In those days, that Committee was responsible for child "protection" in Jersey, so people like Jane Maguire, Anton Skinner and Geoff Spencer were their employees.
As can be seen from the evidence in Part 1, for several years in the late 1980's, the utter barbarism and criminal conduct of the Maguires had been repeatedly noted – and reported – by several decent, conscientious members of staff.
All such complaints were ignored by Spencer and Skinner – until it became too difficult to keep the lid on it.
An internal investigation was conducted – during which such conduct on the part of the Maguires as routinely battering, starving, psychologically abusing and generally terrifying the orphans was established.
For example – one male child having his head smashed so violently against the frame of a metal bunk bed, it gave him concussion, and – in the case of a child around five years of age – being picked up and flung across a room a distance of approximately seven feet to smash against a wall, because the child was not tidying away toys fast enough for Alan Maguire.
Jane and Alan Maguire would also, between them hold down children – and pour liquid disinfectant – Dettol - down their throats.
But – finally - belatedly – in 1990 – the authorities were forced to take note.
Now – it is crucial to note what occurred next.
Because what is displayed and evidenced in this conduct – could be held up as an example of the very, core, fundamental systemic and cultural failing – that lays at the heart of the entire Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.
As I said above – the Maguire abuses – and the entire, wretched – and on-going – Blanche Pierre disaster – is like a malign and toxic Rosetta Stone – that enables us to decipher the entire Jersey abuse catastrophe.
What happened next was an eagerly embraced – collective act of - "Anything-For-A-Quite-Life".
Who wants a scandal on their watch?
The senior managers? The politicians?
Nobody, of course.
So with all the customary moral turpitude and cowardice that so defines public administration in Jersey – the big, metaphorical brush came out – and the even larger carpet was lifted – and the whole, messy and terribly inconvenient nightmare – was simply brushed away. Along with the futures of those little children.
Just as has happened to so many other cases in the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.
And - in Jersey – where the lawyers are bad – even by the standards of their dark trade – where the politicians are thick, possessed of no moral fortitude – and are without organised opposition – and where being a disgraceful moral coward appears to be written at the top of the job application form for all of the island's 'journalists' – all such cover-ups not only succeed, but are pro-actively participated in.
So – on the 26th July, 1990 – rather than the Maguires being reported to the police – for the years of gross torture they were – even then – known to have inflicted on little children – torture those children still suffer from today, in their adulthood – the Maguires had the following letter penned to them by Iris Le Fevre:
Iris Le Feuvre
President, Education Committee
Our Ref: ILEF/SJR/G.H
26th July 1990
Mr. & Mrs A. Maguire
Flat [Address Excised] Road
St. Helier
Jersey
Dear Mr & Mrs Maguire
On Wednesday the 25th July, 1990, the Education Committee was officially informed of your decision to retire as house parents of the group home, Le Squez.
The Committee recalled that you have been house parents to the children of the group home since 1980 and during the past ten years had cared for many children on our behalf.
Several members of the Committee, including myself, were already familiar with your excellent work during this time having served on the Children’s Sub-Committee, and have always been impressed with your total commitment to the children in your charge.
It is therefore with regret that we learn of your retirement. Although we fully appreciate that after ten years of extremely hard work for our children a change of direction and a rest from the 24 hour-a-day commitment you have shown over all these years was well deserved.
My Committee therefore asked that I write on behalf of every member to thank you for your many years of excellent service on behalf of the children in your charge and to wish you all the very best for your future. We were delighted to learn that Mrs. Maguire will continue to work for the Committee in our developing Family Centre service and therefore would not be losing your services all together.
Once again many thanks for your 110% commitment and hard work, the proof of which will live on in the children for whom you have shown much love and care.
All best wishes
Yours sincerely
J. M. Le Feuvre
President, Education Committee.
It has become one of my clichés – I know – but, really – you just couldn't make it up.
If only I could convey to readers – just how devastating to the survivors – reading that letter was.
Kafka would have felt these events too implausible for his works.
And – again – one just couldn't make up the Jersey police time-line – our second piece of evidence in this posting.
This document was prepared in an attempt to grasp just how such a strongly evidenced - and so serious case – with such a number of different victims – can have managed to elude the full scrutiny of the Jersey courts.
Even though – so powerfully evidenced was the case – that, even by Jersey standards – the charges had had to be brought in the first place.
And the presiding magistrate, David Trott, had ruminated upon the case for a month – following an application of 'no case to answer' - before concluding that there was ample evidence to proceed with the charges.
But – fascinatingly – Part 1 of Blanche Pierre – The Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity, has provoked some e-mail correspondence amongst Jersey politicians. Montfort Tadier demanding answers – and even the usually quiet and obedient Jacky Hilton, expressing – quite rightly – grave concerns about what took place back in 1998.
This stirring within the ranks of the usually placid – has clearly struck terror into the heart of the Jersey oligarchy – and elicited a response from no less a figure than William – Barking Bill – Bailhache – until recently the Attorney General – and now, promoted to the post of Deputy Bailiff.
In passing – one cannot help but notice how highly unusual – nay – unprecedented – it is for a Deputy Bailiff to be sullying his hands, entering a political e-mail exchange.
For if such intervention is deemed to be required – it would be the current Attorney General who would undertake the task. But – not a bat-squeak to be heard from Dim Tim. The fact he is on holiday is immaterial. Jersey Attorney Generals do not remain silent – when the resignation of both of his predecessors is demanded – as it has been, by me.
Either a response is made – or a response is not made. But if one is – it comes from the relevant Office. But not – it seems – this time.
Perhaps Tim – is not quite so Dim – after all?
Perhaps he sees his hirsute chops upon a Bailiff's portrait – and that trip to the Palace for the obligatory Knighthood - fifteen years earlier than expected?
Bailhache – feverishly reminds Deputy Hilton and other members of the fact that he issued a public statement when still Attorney General – in which he explained fully – so none need have any concerns – just how in 1998 – and, especially in 2008 – "significant amounts of attention was given to these cases by numbers of highly professional and competent lawyers, both inside and outside the island."
Oh yes.
I wouldn't doubt that statement.
Not for one femtosecond.
Indeed – the Jersey oligarchy – in such utterly desperate straits – that heaven knows just how many millions upon millions of pounds of tax-payers money they have stolen - stolen – to spend upon their friends in the chambers of 7 Bedford Row – in order to buy themselves legal excuses to not prosecute most of the abusers – and to help conceal their various past malfeasances?
Yes – for once we can most certainly believe Barking Bill.
The lawyers will have been working over-time.
The island's disastrous budget deficit begins to look less surprising.
But what is most striking in Barking Bill's e-mail – is the utter desperation evident in it – to try and convince anyone who will listen – that the alleged serious "terminal illness" of Alan Maguire – had nothing – I mean absolutely nothing – to do with the decision to abandon his prosecution in 1998.
According to Barking Bill Bailhache and his allies – such as Michael Birt and Stephen Baker – the decision to abandon the prosecution of the Maguires was solely – absolutely solely – an evidential test.
Now – this is a very curious assertion.
Not least because – even if the claim were true – it scarcely helps the Jersey oligarchy.
Because – upon any objective analyses of the evidential grounds for prosecuting – both in 1998 – let alone 2008 – the prosecutions most certainly should have proceeded.
So why – are the Jersey oligarchy quite so desperate – to nail their colours to the mast of a ship – that's already so holed – it rests on the seabed?
As the evidence will show?
Could it be – that the very clear considerations that were given to Maguire's supposed "terminal illness" – and the "sympathy it might illicit from a jury" – were mere corrupt excuses?
Eagerly seized upon – by an oligarchy apparatus that was desperate to back-out of the whole terribly, terribly embarrassing and politically damaging scandal?
You Know?
A bit like in 2008.
Might the fact that very – very - clear "regard" was had for Maguire's alleged "terminal illness" – be the worst possible truth to emerge – given that not so much as one - single - one of the prosecution-side lawyers – up to and including the then Attorney General himself – Michael Birt – bothered to ask for as much as one scrap of professional, medical evidence?
That – so corrupt – so devoid of application and will to see the prosecutions of the Maguires through – that even – to this day – the police were unable to locate a single, meaningful piece of medical "evidence"?
I know what my assessment of those questions is – and I'm certain a great number of readers will agree with me – once we reach the end of this series of postings.
Whilst much of the document reproduced below is self-explanatory – it is worth expressly observing that at least seven lawyers are involved in the chain of events depicted.
Seven – at least – Jersey lawyers.
Those being:
Ian Christmas – The police prosecuting lawyer.
Mr. Harris – defence lawyer for Jane McGuire.
Advocate Christopher Lakeman – defending lawyer for Alan Maguire.
Mr. David Trott – the presiding magistrate.
Advocate Alan Binnington – crown Advocate for the Attorney General's department.
Michael Birt – the then Attorney General – presently the Bailiff.
And – though not directly involved at that time – the Senior Partner of the law firm that was – supposedly – representing the interests of all those young victims –
Advocate William Bailhache – the Senior Partner of Bailhache La Besse.
Being lawyers – of course – no doubt each and every one of those individuals would have robust arguments by which to attempt to justify their various actions insofar as they had – or have come to have - a bearing upon the Blanche Pierre atrocity.
But – of those seven – only one – on the evidence so far known to us – can escape criticism; Mr. Harris. After all – the job of a defence lawyer – is to defend your client.
So why, then, not extend the same acceptance toward Christopher Lakeman?
On two grounds. One established. The other – for the time being at least – speculative.
Being a defence lawyer – does not confer upon you a licence to lie – to deceive and manipulate the court with falsehoods – to pervert the course of justice.
It is now clear that – as though it required further demonstration, following the Panorama programme – that Lakeman's client – Alan Maguire – was not ill. Let alone "terminally ill."
It is clear that in advising and assisting Maguire in peddling this falsehood – even to the extent of writing false claims to the prosecuting authorities, the police and the court – Lakeman was committing a serious criminal offence.
He was perverting the course of justice.
That much is established.
It could be mere sad coincidence that Christopher Lakeman recently committed suicide. But having such things on one's conscience cannot have helped.
However – Lakeman's representation of Maguire did not stop back in 1998/99.
He resumed representing him in 2008 – when police attention had returned to the Blanche Pierre atrocity – and the clear and evidenced crimes of the Maguires.
The Maguires at this time – were living in France – as is well-documented. But – terribly conveniently – Alan Maguire mysteriously "died" – right around the time when the pressure upon the then current Attorney General – William Bailhache – to extradite the Maguires, was becoming irresistible.
We do not know for certain – but many of the survivors have a very understandable suspicion – that Alan Maguire is not dead. That the death-notice in the Jersey Evening Post was bogus.
The survivors suspect that Advocate Christopher Lakeman – may well have advised and assisted Maguire – in pretending to have died.
After all – Lakeman has – evidentially – perverted the course of justice once, already – to protect Maguire. Why should he not do so again?
Especially when the "death" of Maguire would be so terribly convenient - all-round – not only for Lakeman – but for the then leadership of the police investigation – the disgraced and discredited Mick Gradwell – and his two pet cops – Mark Cane and Julia Jackson, who – whilst pretending to be liaison officers for certain of the survivors – were actually spending the vast majority of their time – doing nothing – except unlawfully monitor me and subject me to criminally intrusive surveillance.
And – of course – the "death" of Maguire would be terribly convenient to one William Bailhache; the Attorney General who was doing - in full co-operation with his 7 Bedford Row alumni – such as Stephen Baker – everything in his power to ensure the charges and extradition against the Maguires did not take place.
Because – had the proper thing happened – and the Maguires been extradited and prosecuted – well – not only would it have been reputationally devastating for Bill Bailhache himself – given he had been the Senior Partner of the firm that so catastrophically failed the young victims back in 1998.
It would also have destroyed his predecessor as Attorney General – the lawyer who corruptly and improperly let the Maguires off back in 1998 – one Michael Birt – until recently, Deputy Bailiff – and now Bailiff.
And – of course – not only would the truth be terminal to both men – it would also be terminal to the whole plastic, fake, toxic, anti-public interest, anti-democratic institution they occupy – as Jersey Crown Officers.
Of course – Maguire may well have actually died. But I can't blame the survivors for feeling as suspicious as they do. Not after what they have endured. Especially as Julia Jackson refused to actually provide the survivors with an actually, French-reproduced and certified copy of the death certificate – instead fobbing them off with a part of a barely legible supposed fax-print-out.
If I were to return to Jersey – one of the tasks I would undertake on the survivors behalf would be establishing the truth in respect of the death of Maguire.
But – frankly – dead – or not dead – the increasingly indefensible and disgusting conduct of Jersey's lawyers – remains an inescapable damnation upon them.
The time-line reproduced below – whilst immensely revealing in so many ways – provides but a flavour of what was – at best – disastrous performance – and, at worse, frankly criminal conduct – by a selection of Jersey's lawyers.
In the document I have excised the names of the victims, and of the 'civilian' witnesses. All other names remain.
Compare and contrast the amount of time – of money – of effort – that lawyers such as Bill Bailhache, Stephen Baker and Bridget Shaw – have expended – are still expending - in the unlawful oppression of me – with the actually indecent willingness to seek-out and find excuses not to prosecute the highly evidence, child-torturing maniacs, the Maguires – as exhibited by Michael Birt, Allan Binnington, Ian Christmas and then magistrate, Mr. Trott.
Contemplate that sad and wretched spectacle – as you read the evidence below.
I will be posting Part 3 of Blanche Pierre – The Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity – on Saturday – when we will be taking a further look at the disgusting conduct of the lawyers.
Steel yourselves.
It doesn't get any better.
Stuart.
STATES OF JERSEY POLICE FORCE.
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS: MAGUIRE INVESTIGATION
(All entries based on records held)
DATE - EVENT
10/05/97 Alan Maguire complains to police about threatening letter he has received (Exhibit AJG/1 and 2)
30/05/97 [Female 1] interviewed by PC Nicholson. Statement obtained covering physical and sexual assault by Alan and Jane Maguire.
09/06/97 [Female 2] makes complaint of indecent assault and physical on her, committed by Alan and Jane Maguire when she was age 7-10 years. Interview on tape. No statement made.
25/06/97 [Female 3] makes statement of physical and sexual abuse committed on her by Alan and Jane Maguire.
25/06/97 [Mail 1] makes statement concerning physical abuse by Alan and Jane Maguire.
30/07/97 [Female 1] makes further statement clarifying physical and sexual abuse committed on her by Alan and Jane Maguire.
04/08/97 [Female 1] makes third statement clarifying points regarding abuse.
06/08/97 [Male 2] provides statement alleging physical abuse by Alan and Jane Maguire.
14/11/97 Joyce Symons provides statement covering witnessing physical abuse by the Maguires.
20/11/97 Susan Doyle provides statement concerning witnessing physical abuse by Alan and Jane Maguire.
26/11/97 Karen O’Hara provides statement concerning witnessing physical abuse by Alan and Jane Maguire.
05/12/97 [Male 3] makes statement concerning physical abuse by Alan and Jane Maguire.
I5/12/97 [Male 4] provides statement concerning physical abuse by Alan and Jane Maguire.
08/01/98 DS Troy and DC Melvin inform Maguires of allegations and make arrangements for interview.
10/01/98 Alan Maguire interviewed, denied all allegations put to him until 3rd interview when he admits to washing the children’s mouths out with soap and using corporal punishment.
**No allegations of sexual abuse put to him**
20/01/98 Jane Maguire interviewed by officers and declines to answer any questions on advice of legal rep.
29/01/98 Alan Maguire charged with 7 offences under Article 9 (Jersey Law) 1969 and Jane Maguire charged with 5 offences under the same act.
12/02/98 [Witness A] and [Witness B] provide witness statements. Corroborates [Female 3].
26/02/98 Reports for Magistrates Court on 05/03/98 prepared by J. Andrews child care officer concerning [Male 3] and [Female 3].
27/02/08 Further reports completed by J. Andrews for [Male 4], [Male 1], [Female 2] and [Female 1].
05/03/98 Maguires' first Court appearance. Not guilty pleas entered. Adjourned until 31/03198.
26/03198 [Defence Witness W] provides defence statement to Police.
30/03/98 Letter from Ian Christmas to Chris Lakeman stating the charges are to be changed to common law offences and that he believes summary trial is not appropriate.
31/03/98 Maguires' second court appearance. [Defence Witness W] appears as defence witness for them. Also, Police legal advisor, Ian Christmas changes charges to that of assault under common law. Not guilty pleas entered to these charged and case adjourned until 21/04/98.
09/04/98 Letter from Ian Christmas to Chris Lakeman clarifying revised charges and confirming the court bundle to be supplied to the Magistrate will have any reference to sexual allegations removed.
21/04/98 Maguires appear at Court, case remanded until 8/06/98.
23/04/98 [Defence Witness X] provides defence statement to Police.
13/05/98 Anton Skinner provides statement and views exhibits relating to internal enquiry re: the Maguires. (Exhibits SD/I, 2).
23/05/98 Richard Davenport provides statement stating he never had any concerns over the children in the care of Maguires.
26/05/98 [Defence Witnesses Y and Z] provide defence statements to Police.
08/06/98 Maguires appear at Court under presiding Magistrate Mr Trott, the following witnesses give evidence [Male 2], [Female 1], [Male 1], [Male 4], Sue Doyle, Karen O’Hara, Joyce Symmons, DC Melvin and DC Troy. An application of no case to answer was made by Mr Harris, legal rep for Jane Maguire. Case adjourned until 07/07/98 for Mr Trott to review the evidence.
***Alan Maguire becomes "unwell" during evidence of [Male 1] and a brief adjournment takes place, Court is informed he is seriously ill but hearing continues.***
09/06/98 Report from Carolyn Coverly, a child Psychiatrist, dated today concerning her views as to the accuracy of the children’s evidence at Court. Concludes that the evidence appears wholly accurate given the trauma suffered. This was instigated at request of Mr David Trott presiding Magistrate.
07/07/98 Maguires appear at Court. Mr Trott having considered the evidence decides there is a case to answer and remands case to the Royal Court.
17/08/98 Dorothy Inglis provides statement stating she reported her concerns about the child care practices of the Maguires in the early 1990s (Exhibit SD/I).
26/09/98 Full case file completed and submitted to OSU by DC Troy.
09/10/98 Ian Christmas sends memo to AG, expressing concerns over the way the Magistrate handled the committal and mentions that Mr Maguire may be terminally ill (No mention of where this info came from) and the fact compassion may be a reason to abandon the prosecution.
06/11/98 Advocate Binnington sends report to Attorney General stating he has revised the Maguire case and concludes it is not in the Public interest to proceed based on 5 main points:
1/ Age of witnesses at time of incidents.
2/ Difficulties due to passage of time.
3/ Likely defence witnesses.
4/ Likely jury sympathy for the Maguires.
5/ Character of prosecution witnesses.
Comment is also made of Alan Maguire’s medical condition and a copy of a medical report submitted by Advocate Lakeman was attached (no trace of any copy), also mention is made of court transcripts and the fact Alan Maguire's health may interrupt any trial.
06/1l/98 Attorney General sends memo to Ian Christmas seeking a conference with him and Advocate Binnington for a final decision. Request this takes place within the next week.
16/11/98 Memo from DC Troy to Custody and patrol Sgts informing them of the decision to drop the allegations against Maguires and asking for extra attention to the victims due to concerns over past suicide and self-harm attempts.
17/11/98 Fax from Police to Victim support requesting urgent referral for all the complainants as the case had been dropped.
24/11/98 Declaration from the Attorney General that the prosecution against Alan and Jane Maguire is to be abandoned on the grounds of insufficient evidence, stamped with date 24/11/98.
24/11/98 Letter from legal firm of Bailhache La Besse acting on behalf of all complainants stating they were instigating civil proceedings against the Maguires and requesting copies of statements.
25/11/98 Letter from Jersey Police to Bailhache La Besse stating it would cost £10 per statement.
11/01/99 Further letter from Bailhache La Besse enclosing cheque for £220 for copy statements. Also consent forms signed by all plaintiffs authorising release of their statements.
26/06/99 Alan Maguire informs Police/Courts that he and family had moved to France.
12/08/99 [Female 2] provides statement alleging sexual abuse by Alan Maguire.
07/09/99 Report to legal advisor regarding new allegations made by [Female 2].
10/09/99 DS Shearer submits report regarding [Female 2] stating that as the earlier charges had been dropped a warrant to return Maguire from France to answer new allegation of [Female 2] was not suitable, locate trace warrant issued pending any return to Jersey.
23/09/99 DI Faudemer agrees with recommendation of DS Shearer and Maguire placed on PNC.
24/09/99 [Female 2] informed of decision.
24/09/99 Adv Lakeman states Alan Maguire is seriously ill (not known how this info was provided).
File Concludes.
LETTER FROM EXILE: # 17 LOOKING INTO THE MICROCOSM FROM REALITY.
Blanche Pierre –The Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity. Part 3.
"Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the powerful in favor of the weak. Historical law subverts it at every turn."
The Judge.
Cormac McCarthy
Blood Meridian
At present, Jersey is not capable of governing itself.
It is an utterly lawless jurisdiction.
Jersey is an environment under the grip of a wholly criminal regime.
So absolute – and absolutely corrupted - is all meaningful power in Jersey – that the island possesses less scrutiny and fewer checks and balances than a Balkan state.
In the former Yugoslavia, there are at least, organised oppositions – and the scrutiny of human rights organisations – and the close oversight of the U.N.
The broad population of Jersey possesses no such protections.
Lawlessness – overt criminality – and political oppression – all are openly practised with absolute impunity – taking place, as they do, protected from acknowledgment by a kind of emperor's-new-clothes exercise in collective denial.
A climate of fear exists to ensure the public don't state the truth. And that terror is maintained through the exemplative harassment and oppression of their occasional 'renegade' elected representatives.
And rather than there being any arm of the state to which people can turn – or even any less formal check and balance, such as might be found within the Fourth Estate of most countries – all such embodiments of power as exist within Jersey – and even those external to it, within British governance – are bent instead to the protections of the status quo.
Consider – in which functioning democracy do you find the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, the media and the prosecution system – all working so closely together in cahoots – against the common interest of the public good?
Where else would you find – in the democratic world – all such institutions striving collectively to conceal decades of child abuse – as is happening so evidencedly in Jersey?
You think I exaggerate? Perhaps even greatly so?
View the situation from the perspective of the victims of child abuse in Jersey.
There are dozens upon dozens of abuse survivors – of all ages – in Jersey; the victims of many different crimes, committed and concealed over many decades.
Sadly – nothing unique in that circumstance. One comes across similar examples throughout the world.
However – eventually, in civilised countries at least, such crimes get exposed – the guilty get punished – and the institutions responsible for failing to protect the children are held up to condemnation – are required to publicly face their failings, and to apologise. Even the Catholic Church in Ireland – and even the Pope – have not been able to avoid such confrontation with reality.
The Jersey survivors must have felt optimistic. For from 2007 onwards – not only were they being listened to and finally taken seriously – but the people who were believing them could not have been better-placed - or more powerful.
No longer was it just the occasional whistle-blower who was supporting them. Now their cause had the ideal champions.
A dedicated police investigation – Operation Rectangle – being led by a tough, no-nonsense, hard-bitten cop, used to combating paramilitary murders in Northern Ireland and gang-land killings and organised child-abuse in London.
A politician with the highest electoral mandate in Jersey, the senior Senator – who was a member of the cabinet – in no less a position than being the Minster with responsibility for Social Services.
And a strong Chief Constable of the Police Force – of impeccable professional record – nationally respected – and holder of the Queens Police Medal.
Three stronger, better-placed and more appropriate authority-figures could not have been wished for.
What could possibly go wrong?
If Jersey were a functioning, law-abiding democracy – with effective checks and balances – or even dutiful external scrutiny – by no conceivable means could the atrocities and cover-ups of the past withstand the proper attentions of such a leadership of the Police Force and of the Social Services department.
Yet - here we are.
Three years later.
The Senior Investigating Officer retired – and was immediately subjected to a highly organised and publicly funded campaign of disinformation, spin and lies, questioning his competence; a smear-campaign enthusiastically embraced by all of Jersey's media.
The politician was sacked for "undermining staff morale" – for becoming the first ever Jersey politician to state publically that the island's child protection systems had failed. And because the politician continued to fight the Culture of Concealment he has been subjected to constant unlawful harassment by the Data Protection Commissioner, illegal surveillance, corrupt and lawless police raids, arrest, searches without legal warrant, prosecution without effective legal representation and denied admissibility of the evidence he needs to make his defence.
And the Chief Constable has been criminally suspended from his post – in what is manifestly a brazen conspiracy to pervert the course of justice – has been denied proper due process – failed by what passes for a judicial process in Jersey – and subjected to a repeated and Kafkaesque moving of the goalposts by profoundly conflicted politicians, Crown Officers and civil servants.
And all of the above has been enthusiastically and unquestioningly endorsed and promoted by what passes for the "accredited" media in Jersey.
Jersey: an utterly lawless jurisdiction.
But what, then, of external scrutiny?
The "connections" between power in Jersey - and power in London have been very carefully cultivated over a period of centuries. That fact is highly visible in at least four grounds.
Access: The relevant authorities in London – be they the Whitehall mandarins or the relevant politicians never – ever – entertain meaningful direct contact with the ordinary people of Jersey, nor even their elected representatives. Audience is only ever granted to a few select Jersey oligarchy politicians. Even then – to all practical purposes – liaison between London, and power in Jersey is conducted through the island's Crown Officers. The unelected and unaccountable "Government within a Government" – as identified by Graham Power.
Meetings and contact with the London authorities and mere plebs – or – heaven forefend, opposition politicians in Jersey, just never occurs.
Thus the powers-that-be in London ensure that nothing too vulgar or problematic should ever intrude into their purview.
Deliberate pseudo-investigation of any complaints: No complaint – and I am aware of many – ever made to the authorities in London concerning the conduct of their appointees in Jersey – for example, the four Crown Officers – is ever investigated. Likewise – any complaints to the effect that the rule of law, or of good governance, have failed – are ever properly considered.
All that happens, is that any letter of complaint to the authorities in London, is merely sent back to the very authorities in Jersey that are being complained of – with a covering letter to the effect, "tell us what we need to say to make these dreadful plebs bugger-off, there's a chap."
Then – after the inevitable airy dismissal of the complaint has occurred – the Jersey oligarchy are left to then oppress, and wreak their vengeance upon whoever the complainant was.
The illegitimate 'framing' of the terms of engagement: It can be observed in any discussion of, or communication concerning, the Jersey oligarchy and its power and status – that both parties – London and the Jersey establishment – are always careful to refer to '"Jersey" says this' – '"Jersey" wants that' – 'the "Crown Dependency's" wishes have been taken into account' – 'we are protecting and respecting the "interests of the Crown Dependency" and "its views"'.
Such phraseology is, of course, mere propaganda and code. For, in truth, what they're saying is – "the interests of Jersey's traditional ruling elite are being taken into account"; "the position and power of the entrenched Jersey oligarchy is being protected."
A very – very – different thing to the broad interest of the Jersey population as a whole being safeguarded.
Connections: Should the above fail to protect the Jersey oligarchy's traditional vice-like grip on power – and some kind of cosmetic inquiry become unavoidable – not to worry. One of "our chaps" will do it.
My readers – an astute bunch – having recently coined the phrase "Ourchap Reports" to describe this phenomenon – so startlingly well-evidenced and visible is it.
It is one of the oldest tricks of power in the democratic age. You are an authority facing some kind of scandal – some kind of disgraceful crises?
Step one: agree how serious it is. So serious, in fact, that you're going to establish an "independent" "inquiry" into the matter.
There. You see how seriously you're taking this scandal? So seriously – you've made sure that the inquiry is established to your terms of reference – and is being conducted by one of your chaps. And, you've done so with sufficient determination and speed, to head-off any danger of an actual meaningful and independent investigation taking place.
Which brings me to the subject of Lord Carswell.
The Lord is – of course – a text-book example of an "Ourchap".
In order to deflect from there being a real investigation into the wholly conflicted and unsustainable position of Jersey's London-appointed four Crown Officers – the Jersey oligarchy reluctantly agreed that they would support an "inquiry" – but ensured it would be of their choosing, and working to their terms of reference – thus ensuring the requisite "Ourchap Report" is produced as the final product.
If there should be any doubt about that, consider – what would any serious inquiry Chairman be doing – even agreeing to take on an investigation – into a question that was settled by history – 250 years ago?
As though there was still some doubt – some question or argument that needed testing – concerning the concept of a separation of powers and effective checks and balances?
And to test my suspicions concerning this exercise – I took the trouble to submit my views in writing – to the effect that the present arrangement of Jersey's Crown Officers is manifestly absurd, and should be changed immediately in order to ensure effective checks and balances.
I went further - and made sure my submission was very solidly backed – by a raft of hard evidence.
That was on the 31st March.
At time of writing – 5.00 a.m Monday 12th April – there is precisely zero sign of any reference to my terribly inconvenient written, evidenced submission – on the Panel's web site.
Lots and lots of other submissions, to be sure.
Just not mine.
All of that terribly inconvenient hard evidence of the complete breakdown in the rule of law in Jersey. Yet – 95% of the published submissions on the web site amount to nothing more than - "everything in the garden is rosy – no need to change anything – the plebs and peasants love it – and we've always done it this way."
Jersey: less scrutiny and fewer checks and balances than a Balkan state.
So if one wishes to apply scrutiny to the situation that exists in Jersey – upon who – or what – should one focus?
I once heard one of Jersey's more noted Advocates – Richard Falle – remark that the history of governance in Jersey, was the history of the place's lawyers.
How true.
He – I imagine – would naturally see that as a good thing.
It most certainly isn't.
One need only consider the state of crazed, nihilistic folly that power in Jersey has come to – to see that decadence was long ago allowed to take too strong a grip.
When something over-ripens, we say that it has rotted. And if rot develops un-checked – it infects everything.
It is such a rot that has irredeemably gripped the Jersey oligarchy. For in the final analyses – the 'paradise' of lawyers' untrammelled power has become spalted with canker – as inevitably happens to all absolute power.
Were that not so with the Jersey situation, there would have been cool heads available – wise council – people 'on-side' – players for the establishment team – who would have said – "hold on."
"Look – not only is this wrong – this attempt to carry on concealing child abuse – it also simply won't work. This is the 21st century. The days when our chaps could pull the shutters over this kind of thing – ended long ago. The plebs have the internet now. We no longer control what the public get to know."
"Now – as embarrassing as this is – the best thing we could do – in 2008 – is face up to the inevitable; take the moral high-ground. Accept that things went disastrously wrong in years gone by – take it on the chin - but now we will see that the system is fixed."
But – amongst all of Jersey's plush comfort of lawyers – there were none to offer such council.
Instead – incapable of resisting Groupthink – folly has been heaped upon folly.
A decorated, nationally respected Chief Constable has been criminally suspended.
Widely known manifest child abusers have not only escaped justice – they're actually protected still; often in public posts.
Police raiding-parties have been sent around to arrest the senior Senator in the island's parliament – turn over the house from top to bottom – without a search warrant – whilst he's locked in a windowless police cell for seven and a half hours – as though Jersey were Zimbabwe. And if that wasn't bad enough – the police steal his parliamentary privileged communications with his constituents – and he gets refused effective legal representation – and then denied the admissibility of the evidence he needs to defend himself.
Yet – still the madness continues.
No wise council prevails; instead – bigger and bigger sticks are reached for.
And to illustrate that point – we can turn to the first item of evidence which accompanies this posting.
It is a letter I received - via e-mail – on the 26th March –from Jersey's Data Protection Commissioner – Emma Martins; daughter of Bergerac TV actor John Nettles.
Aside from being manifestly unlawful in several regards – for example, the letter being an attempt to intimidate a witness – me - in a criminal case, and, most of the people cited as complainants, possessing precisely zero locus against me under any aspect of the data protection law – the letter is unremarkable.
It is all-of-a-piece with the continuous unlawful harassments Ms Martins has subjected me - and other whistle-blowers to, at the behest of William Bailhache - for around two and a half years now.
The only thing that compensates the tedium of showing it, is the illustration of the banality of evil.
The letter is very brief. It didn't need to be long. All it had to do was fulfil a certain pseudo-legal function – and, more significantly, intimidate and harass me.
What can be drawn from this letter which is more significant – are the identities, the statuses – and the shared objectives – of the seven complainants and Ms. Martins.
If you are resident in Jersey – bear in mind – as you read these few – fragmentary lines – two things:
1: This letter – and, in particular, all of the underlying legal "work" – has cost you many hundreds of thousands of pounds.
2: All seven of the individuals named in the letter as complainants have acted both criminally – and with gross professional incompetence. You have either employed, or still are employing them; you are still paying for their pensions. And the letter represents them and their corrupt allies oppressing and thwarting you – through the oppression and harassment of your elected representatives. You are funding this:
"THE OFFICE OF THE
Data Protection Commissioner
Strictly private & confidential
By email only:
st.syvret@gmail.com; st.syvret@gov.je
Senator Stuart Syvret
26th March 2010
Dear Senator Syvret
Application for assistance under Art.53 of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 (“the Law”)
I have received applications from the following individuals seeking assistance from mc under Art.53 of the Law;
1. Mrs Linda Dodds
2. Mr Richard Jouault
3. Mrs Rose Naylor
4. Mr David Minty
5. Mr Andrew Marolia
6. Mr Piers Baker
7. Mrs Marnie Baudains
In each case I have determined to provide assistance.
I write therefore in accordance with my statutory obligations to inform you of that decision.
Yours sincerely
Mrs Emma Martins
Data Protection Commissioner."
Did you enjoy that?
Did you appreciate Ms Martins undertaking so enthusiastically the instructions of her Jersey oligarchy Boss – William Bailhache?
Do you consider that to be a fine and worthwhile use of your hard-earned taxes?
If you do – let me council you to reserve your judgment; for in three or four weeks – I will microscopically itemise the crimes and/or gross malfeasances of those seven individuals.
That's just in case you haven't been paying attention – and can't yet see for yourself the utter atrocity taking place.
But – for today – let us focus upon the even broader question; greater than those seven individuals using and abusing your resources to shelter themselves from accountability.
Instead – let us consider the democratic implications – of people like Ms Martins – her puppet-masters in the Crown Officers' department – and lots and lots of very, very expensive lawyers – the whole crew, paid for by you – using your money, to criminally harass and oppress your chosen elected representatives.
I suppose I could recount just how such monstrous threats are gross breaches of the hard-won rights of parliamentary democracy – of your right to be freely represented – for which our forefathers have laid down their lives.
I could also belabour the point that, to receive such a letter from Ms. Martins – especially in the name of her and certain those complainants – is a straightforward criminal act of witness intimidation during the course of a criminal trial; but that much is too obvious already – so brazen is it.
However – what is worth focusing upon – because it is a genuinely mystifying question – one that I have striven – unsuccessfully – to obtain an answer to from Whitehall mandarins on behalf of my constituents, is – just who do we complain to?
In Jersey – as already adumbrated above and before – we are – undeniably and starkly confronted with nothing less than a complete breakdown in the rule of law – the proper administration of justice.
But – given the Police under David Warcup – the Attorney General's office under these Crown Officers – and the Judiciary under Michael Birt and William Bailhache – are all the very corrupt and criminal entities we wish to complain about – to who or what – do my constituents make their criminal complaints?
You begin to see the problem?
And it's not as though there is any reasoning with these Jersey authorities.
On the contrary.
For example – I responded by e-mail to the manifestly anti-democratic, intimidatory and unlawful letter from Ms. Martins – stating the obvious objections to what she was attempting – and warning her that she was threatening me even though I am the primary witness in an on-going criminal trial.
What occurred next – well – you just couldn't make it up.
I received a reply – not from Ms Martins – not even from the Crown Officers' department – but from a private sector legal firm.
And, no – not 7 Bedford Row.
But, rather - from a Jersey legal outfit – that, today at least, goes under the name of Appleby Global.
Now, let me tell you something absolutely fascinating about Applebys; they've evolved over the years – as legal firms are wont to do. But not evolved – in this case – from any old legal firm.
Oh no.
Appleby's evolved from a legal firm – regular readers will be there ahead of us – called Bailhache Labesse.
Now – where have we heard that name before?
Bailhache Labesse was, of course, the law firm that so catastrophically failed the young victims of the Blanche Pierre Atrocity – back during 1998/99.
Back when THE Senior Partner of the firm was one Advocate William Bailhache.
That being THE William – Barking Bill – Bailhache who has not only been instructing and directing Emma Martins in her various oppressions of me and other whistle-blowers during the last two and a half years – but who has also been evidentially instrumental in pro-actively obstructing and thwarting the Police in their efforts to extradite and charge and prosecute Jane and Allan Maguire – for the criminal offences they so obviously committed against their young victims.
Young victims who were utterly betrayed and failed – by Bailhache Labesse – back in 1998/99.
Is it not remarkable – how those young victims were not able to take a civil case forward?
Is it not amazing – that what atrocious "advice" – such as they received – concerned the "possibility" of suing the Maguires – rather than the far more obvious – culpable - and legally guaranteed defendant – the States of Jersey?
Is it not sickening – that so disengaged and morally dysfunctional were Bailhache Labesse/Applebys - that the only note-worthy thing they ever did in respect of the young victims of the Blanche Pierre Atrocity – was to send them a bill?
I did – of course – attempt to point out to William Bailhache – during 2008 – when matters concerning the Blanche Pierre atrocity and the abuses by the Maguires were due to be determined for extradition and prosecution – that he, in his capacity as Attorney General, was hopelessly conflicted in the matter – and that he should recues himself.
He – of course – would have none of it, and instead pressed on – with all of the crazed hubris that so defines the Jersey oligarchy. And to this day – he consequently remains dammed – utterly so – by his own actions and misjudgements.
But to return to Bailhache Labesse – in its 2010 incarnation - as Appleby Global – and its politically oppressive, unlawful and anti-democratic actions – as evidenced in their letter to me.
As explained above – I received the highly intimidating and prejudicing letter from Ms Martins – which I was so frightened and disquieted by, I had to respond, pointing out its manifest illegality.
In response, I received this:
"APPLEBY
E-mail:
dbenest@applebyglobal.com
dblackmor@applebyglobal.com
Direct dial:
Tel + 44 (0) 1534 818 101777
Fax + 44 (0) 1534 837 778
Your ref:
Appleby ref: 204644.0002\DVB\djb
30 March 2010
By Email Only: st.syvret@gmail.com
Senator Stuart Syvret
Dear Senator Syvret
Data Protection Commissioner
I write further to your letter dated 26th March 2010 as addressed to the Data Protection Commissioner, Mrs Martins, and which she has passed to us for reply.
Under Art.53, the Data Protection Commissioner may provide assistance if she determines that it is appropriate to do so in all the circumstances and that the relevant statutory test has been met. She has agreed to accede to the requests of certain individuals who have made applications to her, and whose names have been provided to you.
Pursuant to Art.53 of the Law, where she has made the decision to provide an individual with assistance, she is obliged to inform you, the data controller, of that decision. That she has done. Her letter does no more than that and to frame it as intimidatory is wrong.
She is not obliged to and will not provide to you the reasons for her determinations to provide assistance. This is for no other reason than that the matters contained within the individual applications for assistance, and which form the basis of any determination, are confidential. She has taken advice regarding her powers under the Law and she is satisfied that she is acting properly in acceding to the requests, which she has approached in an entirely impartial manner.
As a direct result of the requests made to her and her decision to provide assistance in relation to the applicants, she has instructed this firm and we are now in the process of considering each individual case and the appropriate way in which to take the matter forward.
It has also been noted that your letter to Mrs Martins appears littered with allegations of misconduct and criminality. Whilst not wishing at this stage to engage in litigation by correspondence, it should be noted, for the record, that each allegation in this respect is expressly denied.
Yours faithfully
David Benest"
Predictably – my honest effort to defend myself against Martins' attempts to frighten and intimidate me in my capacity as a defence witness in the course of the prosecution, elicited only further and greater oppression from the Jersey oligarchy, as evidenced in the letter above.
It is also dismaying that Appleby Global – nee Bailhache Labesse – and their clients – seem able to draw limitlessly upon untold quantities of Jersey tax-payers' money – in order to engage in such anti-democratic and manifestly criminal enterprises.
However – to say that, is to state the obvious.
Let me inform readers – and I'm struggling here – for a new cliché – if that isn't an oxymoron – of something that Kafka couldn't have made up – on a drunken night out with James Joyce.
In late 2007/early 2008 – one of the Blanche Pierre survivors – the atrocities they suffered having been opened to re-investigation – was attempting to obtain the file of her case – as held by Appleby – formerly known as Bailhache Labesse. But – in her attempts to obtain their file – she was being obstructed and thwarted at every turn.
Eventually – this young woman asked me, as her elected representative, to accompany her at a meeting with Appleby, which she had had to finally insist upon, in order to demand her files.
We attended the firm's offices, where we were ushered into a small room, and sat waiting. After some delay, a lawyer eventually came into the room and peremptorily asked me to leave.
I asked why? He responded that that was nothing to do with me – he wished to speak alone with my constituent.
She asked why? He – growing agitated – said he just needed to speak with her in private.
I turned to her and said that I was perfectly happy to leave, if that was her wish; that it was her decision.
She chose to say 'no', and insisted upon me remaining – and told the lawyer that whatever he had to say, he could say with me present. I reinforced this by saying that I was present to represent my constituent, and if she wished me to be present, I would remain.
The lawyer – losing all control and going red in the face by this stage – barley avoided shouting, and snapped –
"Very well then! I must say to you that you should not trust Senator Syvret! You should not be discussing your case with him! He does not have your best interests at heart! He does not care about you! He is just using you for his political purposes!"
I sat there and took this tirade of dishonest abuse with the equanimity I've developed over the years. Took it, on the surface at least. I turned to look at my constituent, her concerns uppermost in my mind, and again said, it was her decision – and I had no problem at all if she wished me to leave. She did not.
I don't mind saying now – just how personally demoralising to me that attack was – just how wounding.
I had cast aside my career to stand by these constituents – to do what was right. I had received nothing but hell from all quarters of the Jersey oligarchy for doing so; yet – here I had to sit – calmly listening to this animal denigrate me – the only person in authority who had ever striven to do right by these survivors. Unlike anyone from Bailhache Labesse/Appleby Global.
The lawyer was David Benest.
The same lawyer who authored the letter above, on Emma Martins' behalf.
This being David Benest of Appleby Global – which firm was – and is – striving to support and continue the cover-up – the Culture of Concealment, in which their forebears – Bailhache Labesse (Senior Partner, William Bailhache) – were so dismally culpable.
Appleby Global – who are being paid with significant sums of Jersey tax-payers' money – in order to continue oppressing me – for striving to attempt to represent the young victims they so disgustingly failed – twelve years ago.
It must be a remarkable feeling – being paid huge sums of money – to engage in the cover-up – of one's own despicable malfeasances.
A reader when commenting under Part 2 of this series of postings, introduced us to an old Mexican curse:
"May your life be filled with lawyers."
Though – God knows, I'm justified – it's not a fate I would wish upon my worst enemies.
And if it is not yet clear enough why that should be such a terrible thing – read below the concluding item of evidence - for this posting, at least.
In Blanche Pierre – Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity, Part 2 – we considered the States of Jersey Police chronology of the events of 1998/99 – when the administration of "justice" – and even their own lawyers, Bailhache Labesse – failed, utterly, the young victims.
The evidence reproduced below is a further States of Jersey Police chronology – this time – prepared contemporaneously – in an effort to enable the Police to understand just what on Earth was happening in 2008 – and why – again – when the case was even more powerfully evidenced and established – the Jersey Crown Officers – and 7 Bedford Row – and the Attorney General, William Bailhache – were still doing everything in their power – to prevent the Blanche Pierre abusers – Jane and Allan Maguire – from facing justice?
The Police began to formulate their own views as to what had, and was, taking place – as we will examine in Part 4 of Blanche Pierre – Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity – in the next couple of days.
In the meantime – I have to say my thanks – to those constituents – for trusting, and standing by me – in the face of such evil.
Stuart.
STATES OF JERSEY POLICE CHRONOLOGY
IN RESPECT OF MAGUIRE ABUSE INVESTIGATION - 2008.
Telephone: (01534) 612612
POLICE HEADQUARTERS
P.O. Box 789
JERSEY JE2 3ZA
REPORT for Attention of SlO
Submitted by: D.C 3961 HOLMES
Date: 6th August 2008
Subject: Chronology of Events and Legal Contact Linked to Maguire Investigation.
Sir,
As requested, below is a chronological list of events and meetings linked to the re-investigation of Jane and Allan Maguire. All entries are taken from documents held within the enquiry or from Emails held within the States of Jersey Police computer system. I have attached and appendix of documents where relevant or included HOLMES numbers to assist with location of documents.
18/03/2008 Statement obtained from [Male 5] S135 who attended Police HQ wishing to make a complaint against Jane and Allan Maguire. Allegations of physical and sexual abuse.
26/03/2008 Statement obtained from [Female 2] S113
27/03/2008 Attended Law offices to recover copy tiles of evidence for Maguire trial in 1998. Informed they were with the Attorney General who was not finished with them. (PNB DC Newth pg 92).
27/03/2008 Meeting with OIC of initial investigation Barry Faudemer.
28/03/2008 Witness [Female 1] contacted HAT enquiry stating she had been informed by SKY TV that the Maguires were to be re-arrested.
31/03/2008 Panorama TV program broadcast.
08/04/2008 Original case files for trial in 1998 recovered by investigating officers and exhibited.
10/04/2008 Court transcripts of committal hearing collected from the Magistrates Court. Exhibit DH/1.
14/04/2008 Statement obtained from [Female 1]. S117.
14/04/2008 Statement obtained from [Male 3] S190 by officers from HAT in the UK.
16/04/2008 Statement obtained from [Male 2]. S181.
22/04/2008 Statement obtained from [Female 3]. S216.
23/04/2008 Statement obtained from [Male 4] S220.
23/04/2008 Statement obtained from [Male 3] S226.
28/04/2008 Reviewing officers' files of evidence containing all new statements and officers recommendations (Appendix A) for re-instigation of proceedings against Maguires along with exhibits Ph/7 and PH/8 submitted to legal advisor Simon Thomas.
12/05/2008 Statement obtained from [Female 4]. S248.
20/05/2008 Statement obtained from [Female 5].S256.
20/05/2008 Meeting with Simon Thomas attended by investigating officers and DS Smith. Issues raised included requests for new statements, chronological list of events, time line of residence for witnesses at Blanche Pierre, obtain all files for residents at Blanche Pierre and in particular the subject of Abuse of Process was raised with 8 particular points that had to be addressed by the investigating officers.
21/05/2008 Statement obtained from Joyce Symons. S240.
29/05/2008 Email (1) from Simon Thomas requesting further info into a point raised concerning [Female 2]. Reply sent the same day.
30/05/2008 Investigating officer’s report concerning abuse of process submitted to Simon Thomas (Appendix B) with additional comments appended from SIO. Also submitted was folder addressing most of the other items raised by Simon Thomas at previous meeting.
03/06/2008 Email (2) from investigating officer with query regarding next meeting.
04/06/2008 Further Email (3) from investigating officer regarding meeting and further paperwork for his attention.
04/06/2008 Email reply (4) from Simon Thomas re: Emails (2+3) stating he had no recollection of a meeting but as was meeting Crown Advocates to update them on the Maguires' case he thought that would take priority. Also investigating officer’s reply sent the same day.
06/06/2008 Email (5) from Simon Thomas requesting information on possible deceased witness.
07/06/2008 Email (5 reply) from investigating officer in reply to Email (5) delay due to investigating officer being out of the island for weekend.
10/06/2008 Email (6) from investigating officer re exhibits recovered.
16/06/2008 Email (7) from investigating officer requesting advice regarding the approach to potential defence witnesses.
18/06/2008 Email (8) received to investigating officers via SlO containing communications between SlO and Simon Thomas and Stephan Baker. The genesis of the communications would be that the legal advisors would advise the Attorney General within 7 days of the 18/06/2008.
26/06/2008 Email (9) from investigating officer asking for update as to Attorney General's advice and asking for a copy for records and also to enable enquiry to be focused to the recommendations.
27/06/2008 Statement obtained from witness Audrey Mills. S281.
27/06/2008 Email (10) from Simon Thomas in reply to Email (9) stating he will reply to my request next week.
02/07/2002 Statement obtained from [Witness W]. S301.
02/07/2008 Email (11) from Simon Thomas re: update on diaries from Blanche Pierre and investigating officers reply sent the same day.
02/07/2008 Email (12) from Simon Thomas acknowledging Email (11) and requesting further information regarding [Male 4]. Also investigating officers reply sent the same day.
03/07/2008 Statement obtained from witness Sue Doyle. S313.
07/07/2008 Email (13) series of Emails between Simon Thomas and investigating officers concerning various enquiry topics and investigating officers replies.
07/07/2008 Email (14) further Email from investigating officer addressing point raised by Simon Thomas.
08/07/2008. Email (15) further emails from Simon Thomas concerning exhibit problems and officers reply sent the same day.
08/07/2008 Email (16) from investigating officer to Simon Thomas addressing further points raised and asking for a meeting to tighten up the focus of the enquiry and to avoid investigating officers wasting time on lines of enquiry not to be pursued by legal team.
08/07/2008 Email (17) from investigating officer with more information regarding exhibits.
09/07/2008 Telephone call received by investigating officer from Simon Thomas. It was stated that the recommendations had not gone to the Attorney General but that it was very close to completion. Delay was explained as due to the complicated nature of the case he wanted everything correct before submission to the Attorney General. He also stated a copy of the advice would not be supplied to the enquiry team. Simon Thomas also requested copies of further statements. Conversation documented in Investigation Log Book D1449 immediately after call terminated.
11/07/2008 Email (18) series of Emails from Simon Thomas requesting collection of original files and exhibits from his office and officers replies sent the same day.
14/07/2008 Documents requested by Simon Thomas dropped at St Helier office by investigating officer.
16/07/2008 Statement obtained from witness [Witness V]. S317.
18/07/2008 Statement obtained from witness Dorothy Wood (Ingliss). S320.
28/07/2008 Statement from witness Graham Jennings. (Statement number not allocated at time of writing.)
29/07/2008 Meeting with Simon Thomas and DC Holmes. This took place at Broadcasting House following a meeting between Simon Thomas and deputy SIO). Simon Thomas stated that the Attorney General wished to clarify to the investigation team that the decision to drop the charges against the Maguires in 1998 was based purely on an evidential standard. Investigation team criticism of the fact that too much weight was placed on the purported terminal illness of Allan Maguire as a factor in the decision to dismiss the charges was ill founded. Documents held by the enquiry concerning this issue were badly worded and the AG wished to clarify that the decision was evidential based not public interest based. Simon Thomas also stated that criticism from the enquiry team as to the fact there appeared to be no record of a meeting between council, police and children's services prior to the decision being made was also incorrect. Via the AG Simon Thomas stated that a meeting did take place. Copy tapes of interviews with certain witnesses also requested. When asked about update as to decision with the Maguires, Simon Thomas stated it is with the law officers and he has seen paperwork from them so they are looking at it.
Contents of this meeting immediately past to deputy SlO and its conclusion and recorded in investigation log book D1449
06/08/2008 Copy tapes of interviews requested by Simon Thomas supplied.
Enquiries into the Maguire’s are still ongoing however to date the enquiry team has received no indication from any source as to what possible charges are being proposed or even what the views of the legal team or the Attorney General's office are.
SIGNED…….DC 3961 HOLMES.
LETTER FROM EXILE: # 18 LOOKING INTO THE MICROCOSM FROM
REALITY.
Blanche Pierre –
The Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity.
Part 4.
Decades of War.
The Human Costs:
For my Constituents;
For Those Close to me;
For me.
"It makes no difference what men think of war, said The Judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way."
Blood Meridian
Cormac McCarthy
"Alison tells me now however, that the Attorney General has asked for full files from you on the law of the situation, the facts, and that there are concerns about over-ruling a previous AG’s decision. My staff feel from their conversation with you that this will set things back some months."
"I am particularly puzzled by the need for all of this in the light of the new evidence on the sexual assaults and on the similar offences not considered previously. All the time, the risk of the Maguires fleeing or escaping justice in some other way is increasing."
Lenny Harper to Stephen Baker, 18th June 2008.
"If the decision is taken to charge the offences that were originally discontinued then there will undoubtedly be an abuse of process argument mounted by the defence. There will also be an abuse of process application if we charge the sexual offences which were previously clear on the papers."
"The unique feature of this case is that a declaration was issued by the then Attorney General that the evidential test was not satisfied. We are unavoidably in new territory from a legal perspective."
"You will doubtless understand the importance of ensuring that there is no perception that decisions are being made as a result of pressure brought by anybody outside the investigating authorities and the lawyers involved in the case. Any prosecution which follows the investigation must and will follow standard procedures."
Stephen Baker to Lenny Harper, 18th June, 2008.
"Firstly, you mention the 'unique’ factor that the AG issued a certificate saying that the evidential test was not passed. I understand that - but surely the then and now argument comes into play?"
"I agree with you about the undesirability of having the perception that there is undue or improper influence on the decision making process, but as I and the Chief emphasised to the Attorney General, that perception is widely held already by the victims and there is little we can do about that other than to progress this as openly, transparently and as speedily as possible."
Lenny Harper to Stephen Baker, 18th June, 2008.
Recently, I have been obviously thinking about the impending end of my political career. Not really the tactical and strategic details of how it will play out - but, rather, the philosophical, intellectual and emotional landscape that I see from my personal perspective when looking back over the last twenty years.
How has it been for me, as a person? Has the time left me feeling improved and warmed, through experiencing so closely the instincts and behaviours of my fellow men? Has it brought me advance? Any kind of security? Has it been enjoyable? Has it been easy? Has it left me feeling safer and more confident of society, and my existence within it? Has it even left me with many pleasant memories?
No. None of those things.
I am having a war waged against me. A war that has persisted for years – and, as though it were not so bad already as to have driven me into constructive exile, and to have driven my ex-partner and I apart – it is still being waged against her and her children; late last night three police officers having intruded into her home, in what was obviously yet another act of banana-republic type oppression and intimidation.
It is a war that could only be pursued – if most people either actively - or tacitly, supported it.
A usually supportive reader recently criticised me for having too negative a view of people; for agreeing with the bleak assessment of humanity, to be found in the works of Cormac McCarthy. Rob wrote this:
"I think your misanthropy is born of looking into the darkness too long. Understandable but regrettable."
I very much admire Rob's optimism. Perhaps it is as he said – and I've spent too long looking into the darkness? But when you're an honest man - trying to do your best in politics – especially Jersey politics – there is an awful lot of darkness to look into.
In fact – it isn't a case of looking into the darkness. It's a case of the darkness being so concentrated, it possesses a gravitational mass - like a black hole, so dense it actual swallows the light and sucks in your vision until it crosses a kind of event-horizon, beyond which all morality and rationality becomes nulled. Especially after twenty years exposure.
I could summarise how I feel in several ways; several different conclusions come to mind. One of the abiding sensations I'm left with most strongly at the end of those twenty years – is that people get the government they deserve. There is something inimical and monstrous about power. You see it everywhere you look. It tends to attract the very worst of society – yet, even though we in the West have long been democratic, still, broadly, the most foul, venal, shallow, corrupt, ignorant and inadequate individuals rise to the surface.
But more than that – perhaps because of that – when I look back at my twenty years in politics – what I see most strongly – is war.
Any attempt to exercise power is to wage a battle in a perpetual war.
And war brings out the worst in humans – because it is what humans do best. "The ultimate trade – and its ultimate practitioner."
Twenty years in politics in little, sunny, Jersey?
It's like remembering a cratered and blasted battlefield – across which one advanced and retreated and advanced again, experiencing nothing but struggle and danger and hostility and filth – with the only prominent moments being near-misses and actual wounds received amongst the battery.
So now I'm about to stagger out of that struggle – in many ways as maimed and as bleak as the field of war I'm leaving, as though it were imprinted upon me like a kind brail map of scar-tissue.
Looking back across those 20 years – there are no highlights. None at all. The only prominent features compete to outdo the next in their sheer wretchedness. However – some moments were so implacably awful – so startling bleak in their savagery – that if I live to be 90 – I'll remember them on my death-bed.
Which moments were the worst? Even though there are so many to choose from – one incident stands out – above all others – like some kind of obsidian monument to just how disgusting the average Jersey oligarchy politician is.
It was 1:19 p.m. on Wednesday the fifth of December 2007.
I was standing at my desk in the island’s parliament - where, in my capacity as Father of the House, I had just attempted to deliver the customary Christmas speech which marks the end of the assembly’s final meeting before the seasonal recess.
These speeches traditionally focus on the year gone by and consider what the New Year may hold. True enough, such addresses normally deal with smug, mutually self-congratulatory banalities. But this time circumstances required a departure from the shallow and hackneyed trivialities which usually serve on such occasions.
For that Christmas marked the end of a year that had – finally – belatedly - seen many decades of concealed child abuse – exposed. For nearly all of that year, I had been working – investigating – researching – networking and meeting – and had become the first ever member of the Jersey parliament to recognise and expose the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster. I had made my dreadful discovery public – when answering a question in the island's parliament in July 2007. Exposing the truth led directly to me being sacked – supposedly for "undermining staff morale" – but, in truth – sacked, in a desperate attempt to maintain the cover-up. The chief, criminal engineer of the unlawful plot to have me removed was Bill Ogley; the self-same gangster remains – to this day - the Chief Executive to the States of Jersey. A fact which – of itself – speaks so powerfully of just what trying to work within the Jersey political environment was like.
But – it could be said that having one's dismissal engineered by spivs and crooks is an occupational hazard of politics. The dismissal wasn't the worst.
For sheer, existential bleakness – nothing approaches that Christmas speech.
I was, perhaps, about a third of the way in to it, when the interruptions and barracking started. I had been trying to express some recognition and empathy towards the many abuse survivors I had come to know of.
Below the States chamber, there are a number of meeting rooms, and it was in those chambers I would often meet survivors. Over a period of months, I had had meeting after meeting in the building – morning, afternoon and night.
Some of those encounters were utterly harrowing.
Not least amongst them, meetings with many of the Blanche Pierre survivors.
On one occasion, I had met with a young woman and her brother – one of the female, and one of the male - victims of the Maguires' psychotic barbarisms. Together they explained to me what had happened to them – during those years when they were small children.
Though now adults – towards the end of this desolate recounting of the destruction of their childhood – they had to stand, and hugged one another, and sobbed on the others shoulder – the brother vowing that as long as he had breath in his body – no-one would ever again harm his sister.
Which was why – some weeks later – standing at my desk in the States chamber – about 30 seconds walk from the room where that harrowing encounter had occurred – I had an image of those two people so strongly in my mind – as I stood there in a state of shell-shock – having just been barracked and my microphone cut to prevent me expressing any empathy and recognition towards them and other abuse survivors.
The States meeting was adjourned in disarray – thus allowing members rush off to their waiting Christmas lunch.
In the remonstrations that followed – naturally – I was the villain of the piece. The editorial leader comment from The Rag – Jersey's only "newspaper" – was beyond the usual merely sociopathic – and into the realms of scarcely disguised pro-child abuse.
Back in those days – I was still foolish enough to bother speaking to the local hacks – so after ten minutes or so – of trying to grasp the sheer barbarism of what had just taken place – I wearily exited the building into the Square – to deal with the predictable range of Jersey media questions – all of which being variations on a theme of "how dare I be so rude and inconsiderate as to upset States members at Christmas by speaking of such things?"
How to describe how I felt during the hours which followed that moment in the Jersey parliament? My chest and guts felt knotted and I couldn’t really think. After the local TV interviews, as I walked back down King Street people must have thought me strange – as every time thoughts of the incident entered the shocked void of my mind, I would shake my head in simple disbelief. Already deeply concerned for the survivors, I knew exactly how the oligarchy and its media would respond to this incident. The local “newspaper” would condemn me in customary fashion; I would be the "troublemaker" – and the baying mob of States members and the Bailiff who stopped me speaking of the suffering of victims, would be depicted as the voice of moderation.
The first time ever a member of the States assembly had stood and acknowledged their suffering – and the member was shouted-down and prevented from speaking. What would the victims think? How, in the name of God, could I explain the behaviour of my colleagues to them?
I just didn’t know.
I got back to my flat, cast off the despised suit and replaced it with jeans and T-shirt and looked about the room at various mountains of documents and books; at the PC, the telephone, the fax-machine – and contemplated them with some kind of detachment borne of the shell-shock; an internal, icy desolation which I immediately set about trying assuage with the sustaining warmth of large quantities of red wine and the wracked and empathetic melancholia of Tom Waits songs which growled – freighted with human misery – from out the speakers of the CD player.
I laid on the futon – contemplating the wreckage of the day whilst I drank a bottle of wine by the neck. Alternately casting my eyes around the room and looking at the ceiling as I drank from the bottle. As though ambushed by the idea, this was the point I found myself seriously considering how to kill myself.
I roused myself to prod resignedly at the computer before switching on the local TV news at 6.30, knowing that, hoping to do as much damage to me as possible, BBC Jersey would, for once, actually use the part of the interview I considered to be most relevant. Sure enough, I was a little uplifted at the fact they broadcast my description of the States assembly as largely a “collection of gangsters and halfwits”.
After watching the regional news I staggered off to my desk and lay back, slumped in the swivel chair, already self-medicated with the wine, and tried to begin dealing with the day’s accumulated e-mails and telephone messages.
Another reader of this blog – in a comment under the previous posting – suggested that they didn't believe me when I said I was frightened by the things I am confronted with politically. Oh that isn't so. That evening – after that conduct by the States of Jersey – I knew I had to telephone a number of the survivors – and try and gently explain to them what had happened – why it had happened – how it could have happened. Knowing that several of them would be wracked with tears on the other end of the phone. That was frightening.
Politics: it is all war.
Even – in truth – on territory all would claim to be uncontested.
What sublimated, savage instincts must grip most politicians – that obstructing their enemies – is of greater importance to them – than expressing some empathy for the victims of child abuse?
I don't know.
And frankly, I don't, especially, wish to run the risk of becoming that way myself.
But fear is an intrinsic feature of war – and there are many things to be afraid of in politics – in addition to being afraid of becoming some kind of barbarian.
There are hard, day-to-day realities to be frightened of. I've been unafraid for twenty years – but I wonder just how many people understand the brute reality – of the personal costs of warring against the Jersey oligarchy?
I thought about trying to illustrate just what it costs me to be as I am – and do what I do in Jersey politics - when I read a comment that another reader submitted under the previous posting. In Part 3 of this series – to illustrate the kinds of oppression I suffer – I published the latest threatening letter from Emma Martins, Jersey's profoundly politicised Data Protection Commissioner. A letter that is – quite obviously – an exercise in threat and intimidation.
The reader's comment struck me as so important, I thought I'd address it directly. This is what they wrote:
"Can you clarify for this reader why you found that letter from Emma Martins threatening? I personally just read it as a statement of facts. Sure you would rather that than not know what was going on?"
The letter in question can be found in the previous posting – and it simply constitutes an intimidation directed at me, by Ms. Martins, in the name of seven individuals – all of who have committed various gross malfeasances – but all of who enjoy the invulnerable protections of the Jersey oligarchy.
'What is threatening – about threatening letters from Emma Martins?'
A part of me wishes the reader was trying to have a laugh. Sadly – I don't believe they are.
"Just a statement of facts"?
As though someone stating facts – cannot be making a threat.
A Mafioso on trial for running a protection-racket may as well say to the court – "hey – I was not intimidating and threatening that witness. When I said someone would come around and smash his kneecaps – that was just a statement of the facts."
But, if only we were dealing with such metaphorical exaggerations.
Any and all communications from her – are – as the facts and as experiences show – exactly that. Threats.
Sometimes – not even faintly disguised.
Simply promises of overt, direct, oppressive action – unless you stop saying things that her powerful and influential friends don't like.
People like Bill Bailhache – and Dave Minty.
You see – the latest unlawful threat from Ms. Martins – like those issued and carried out before – is designed to intimidate me into not publishing the kind of evidence you are able to read here.
For example – all this evidence of the Blanche Pierre atrocity – and, of the criminal concealment of that atrocity. Including – the e-mail correspondence you are able to read below.
But – specifically – "what is threatening in the letter from Emma Martins?"
The prospect of yet more – of what I have already suffered. For example –
The fear – of not knowing when the next bang on the door is going to come.
Not knowing when I'm next going to step outside – and a squad of ten cops will descended upon me.
Police raids – like something out of the Nazi occupation.
Having my partner, her children and her extended family terrified.
Having her children's' bedrooms turned over by the Weirdcop's bent crooks.
Having our relationship destroyed - quite deliberately - through the above-actions and the subsequent constant fears of not knowing when the police are next going to turn-up – mob-handed – and storm through the house – because of my presence.
Fearing that my constituents' private data will be repeatedly stolen by gangster cops like Dave Minty – under Ms. Martins "authority".
Having my ability to function as an elected parliamentarian - repeatedly destroyed – by this continuing stream of criminal threats and oppressions from Martins and her Bosses.
Knowing that – anytime I do my job effectively – of holding the executive – holding power to account – a collection of gangsters under the "authority" of people like Ms. Martins and Bill Bailhache, will storm my home.
Being monitored and harassed by gangster cops – people like Dave Minty – who has been directly – pro-actively – and criminally supported in his corrupt protections of Terry Le Main – by both William – and Philip - Bailhache.
Having the Data Protection Law nakedly misused and abused by people who have no locus whatsoever – to oppress me, thus preventing me from holding them to account.
The constant stress.
Getting arrested.
Getting locked-up in a windowless police cell for seven and a half hours.
Getting jailed – for trying to stop my frail, elderly constituents from being murdered.
Getting dragged before court and being obstructed by Bill Bailhache from summoning my witnesses.
Getting dragged before court - and then being told – as soon as I've won the argument – 'actually – err – your evidence is deemed inadmissible – because we have no answer to it – and it's terribly embarrassing.'
And having to endure all of this crypto-Nazi oppression – with zero effective legal representation.
Those are just a few of the actual – real – consequences – that have happened – following the various threats made against me by Emma Martins.
Because of the actions of Ms. Martins – I have been driven into constructive exile. My partner and I have had our relationship destroyed by the perpetual threat and expectations of further oppressive, unlawful police raids. I have had my career destroyed. My constituents' cannot communicate effectively with me. I face constant biased oppressions via what passes for the judiciary in Jersey. And I face the constant threat of further such gross breaches of my human rights – every time I try to do my job as a politician – and hold the executive to account.
The actions implicit in Ms. Martins' letter – are not even mere "threats".
They are promises.
Promises of yet further acts of warfare – against me; against my constituents.
Acts of war – designed to protect people like Jane and Allan Maguire – and those who have concealed child abuse.
Acts of war – designed to stop me working on my constituents' behalves – by obtaining – and publishing – the e-mails you can read below.
Indeed – as will be very – very – clear – to any thinking person when reading the e-mails below – they themselves illustrate a battle underway. A battle in which – Lenny Harper and his police team – were struggling to bring clearly evidenced child abusers to justice; but – on the other hand – Stephen Baker, Simon Thomas of 7 Bedford Row, and the then Attorney General – William Bailhache – were battling to shelter those abusers from facing justice.
Because if those abusers – whose original offences were 'clear on the papers' – were actually returned and prosecuted – it would raise very – very – serious questions – about the conduct of the then Attorney General – Michael Birt.
That being the Michael Birt who – in his capacity as Deputy Bailiff – improperly advised the then Council of Ministers in 2007 – that it was acceptable for them to abandon due process – and adopt an ultra vires procedure – in their and Bill Ogley's efforts to have me sacked as Health & Social Services Minister – in order to prevent me from exposing these kinds of historically concealed crimes against children.
The kinds of crimes Michael Birt failed to prosecute.
Twenty years of war – just to try and do that which is right. As I remarked at the beginning of this posting, it's very difficult to escape the conclusion that people get the government they deserve – especially if the 'reward' for those politicians who strive, as I have, to try and do what's right – is to end up in my situation – alone, broke, wasted and wounded.
I'm really not sure whether I even have the strength left to fight the legal battle – to enable me to fight the by-election.
Perhaps it's time for someone else to fight the war – on behalf of people like the Blanch Pierre survivors.
Well – at least once I've finished this series of articles. Because there is more – damning – evidence, to be published in Part 5 of Blanch Pierre, Anatomy of an On-going atrocity.
Stuart.
-----Original Message-----
From: Harper, Lenny (mailto:L.Harper@Jersey.pnn.police.uk]
Sent: 18 June 2008 08:07
To: sthomas@7br.co.uk; Thomas, Advocate, Simon
CC: Stephen Baker; Hill, David; Fossey, Alison; Smith, Andrew
Subject: Maguires
Morning Simon. I hope all is well with you and the ankle. Can I ask you about the Maguires? I think the file went over to you in April.
When I spoke to you week before last you told me that you had about a day or two left to do on it, and that you had decided to run with not on1y the new sexual allegations, but also the old and in addition some of the old sexual allegations that we had built upon and which had been ignored at the time. This was heartening news because of the importance of this case to the victims, and the perception among them that there had been a cover-up after the magistrate had committed the job for trial. It was also in line with the advice of the Extradition Expert that I had spoken to at the Crown Prosecution Service, Alison Riley, who deals regularly with France. We also discussed the impact that moves to bring them back would have on the perception of the enquiry.
Alison tells me now however, that the Attorney General has asked for full files from you on the law of the situation, the facts, and that there are concerns about over-ruling a previous AG’s decision. My staff feel from their conversation with you that this will set things back some months. There are a number of concerns here. Firstly, the officers in charge of this case are from the UK and are to return to their force in August. If things are not moving by then, there will be difficulties for us. Secondly, I am under regular pressure from the victims and their representatives, including Senator Syvret who is authorised by them to inquire for them, as to how the enquiry is progressing. The media, Panorama and the News of the World in particular, (who both tracked them down and door stepped them in France) also have an acute interest. I am just a little worried that this is going to look as if we are dragging our feet. Whilst I will not discuss the matter in detail, I do need a line to take, and that will obviously be that we submitted it in April and that you have now been asked for files. I also need to document the decision in the incident room system and would therefore be obliged if you could clarify the exact position for me now, in particular the likely time scales, if this is a routine procedure, and also the matter about the previous decision which I recall was taken by an advocate. I am particularly puzzled by the need for all of this in the light of the new evidence on the sexual assaults and on the similar offences not considered previously. All the time, the risk of the Maguires fleeing or escaping justice in some other way is increasing.
Best wishes,
Lenny
Lenny Harper
Deputy Chief Officer
Stases of Jersey Police
Tele. 01534 612520
E. Mail: l.harper@jersey.pnn.police.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Baker [mailto:StephenBaker@bakerplatt.com]
Sent: 18 June 2008 12:12
To: Harper, Lenny; sthomas@7br.co.ok; Thomas, Advocate Simon
Cc: Hill, David; Fossey, Alison: Smith, Andrew
Subject: Re: Maguires [Scanned]
Dear Lenny
Thank you for your email regarding the Maguires addressed to Simon Thomas but copied to both of us.
You are correct that the four lever arch files were submitted in April. As we recollect it was at the end of April. Simon has worked on them throughout May and has had two meetings with the officers in the case, on 20th April and 30th April. A full and helpful submission on abuse of process from the investigators’ point of view was provided to him on 30th May along with significant new statements setting out new complaints. The investigation has developed since the files were first submitted and all involved have worked diligently in the circumstances.
Simon’s task has been:
i) To review the witness statements from the 1998 prosecution along with the transcripts of evidence given at the committal hearing to identify the precise complaints that are made by the witnesses;
ii) To review the new witness statements to identify the extent to which they give rise to new complaints as well as the extent to which they provide admissible evidence to support the original complains;
iii) In the case of one of the new witnesses, to review the witness’s children’s services file (which gives rise to a number of significant issues surrounding the witness’s evidence);
iv) To analyse the manner in which the prosecution proceeded in 1998, the advice given by both the police legal advisers and the then Crown Advocate in order to understand the nature of the decision making process that occurred;
v) To consider how the matter progressed following the decision to discontinue the prosecution, in particular the enquiry conducted by Children's Services.
vi) Taking all the above into account, to anticipate any potential abuse of process arguments that may be taken, both here and abroad and assess the chances of such arguments succeeding.
In contrast to the other files that we have been asked to consider, the decision in this case is in the main part focuses on whether to charge as opposed to whether to arrest. To that end Simon has been working through the evidence with Cyril Whelan and preparing draft charges that we would wish to form part of an extradition request. As Simon advised when we spoke on 30th May, all charges will have to be specified on such a request. You have now confirmed that advice with Alison Riley.
As Simon said the week before last, there is a day or two’s work to be done on formulating potential charges. Those potential charges include the old allegations which were discontinued, the sexual allegations which were never proceeded with as well as certain of the new allegations. He intends to continue the task this week. We will seek Cyril’s view on the final product. His vast experience of Jersey criminal law is invaluable in this regard.
If the decision is taken to charge the offences that were originally discontinued then there will undoubtedly be an abuse of process argument mounted by the defence. There will also be an abuse of process application if we charge the sexual offences which were previously clear on the papers. As discussed with Simon on 30th May, the law in this area is developing. He mentioned the well known case of Abu Hamza and expresses the view that the hurdle for the defence is somewhat higher as a result of the House of Lords decision. That is entirely right. His ongoing research shows that, even in the past few weeks, decisions being handed down by the Administrative Court in England to the effect that prosecutions should be stayed as an abuse of process in circumstances that a defendant had been promised by a police officer that he would not be prosecuted. The unique feature of this case is that a declaration was issued by the then Attorney General that the evidential test was not satisfied. We are unavoidably in new territory from a legal perspective. That legal issue must be closely analysed, advice given and considered.
In addition to the inevitability of an abuse of process argument in the Jersey Courts should the Maguires be returned to Jersey, there is every prospect of the Maguires mounting a similar arguments in France on the issue of extradition. We would anticipate a judicial review
application of the Attorney’s decision to extradite in the Royal Court even before they are returned. We bear in mind what Alison Riley has said about the practicalities of the procedure in France, in the sense of the Maguires being offered the choice between consenting to extradition and being placed in prison. What we anticipate you mean by this is the possibility that the Maguires may be denied bail should they contest extradition. That would be a matter for the French Courts, doubtless taking into account any representations we may make. Such considerations must form no part of any decision taken here. It may well be that if and when they are arrested matters proceed swiftly.
However, our experience of the extradition of intelligent defendants has been that they choose to contest the matter in the requested jurisdiction notwithstanding the prospect of a period in custody whilst the challenge takes pace. This is a matter over which we will have little control and obviously the potential for delay must be borne in mind, in particular as far as the availability of the investigating officers are concerned.
As this is an extradition case it has to go through the Law Officers’ Department. The Attorney General has, as one would expect and as was discussed on the 30th May, asked for a full advice on the case and the issue of abuse of process. We intend to begin work on that advice this week. The Attorney will then have to consider the advice and make decisions as to how to proceed.
We think that the idea of months of delay before a decision on extradition is taken is pessimistic. Equally, however, depending on that decision, it may be optimistic to expect that the Maguires will be returned to Jersey quickly.
We are somewhat unsure as to precisely want you mean when you say you will have to take a line. This case is being dealt with in an entirely usual and proper fashion. The police have provided files to us. We have considered them. Extremely difficult and novel points of law arise. They need the most careful thought. The Attorney General has entirely properly requested a full written advice. That will be provided to him shortly. He will then need to consider that advice and make his decision. I do not anticipate any inordinate delay or any delay at all. Insofar as it is necessary to take a line with anybody it seems to me the line should be that matters are progressing normally, the files are in the hands of the lawyers who will advise the Attorney how best to proceed.
You will doubtless understand the importance of ensuring that there is no perception that decisions are being made as a result of pressure brought by anybody outside the investigating authorities and the lawyers involved in the case. Any prosecution which follows the investigation must and will follow standard procedures.
As to timescale we propose to advise the Attorney within seven days.
For various reasons the Maguires have known about this investigation for many months. Our understanding is that there is no imminent risk of then absconding.
Steve and Simon
From: Harper. Lenny
Sent: 18 June 2008 14 26
To: Stephen Baker, sthomas@7brco.uk; Thomas, Advocate Simon
Cc: Hill, David; Fossey, Alison Smith, Andrew
Subject: RE: Maguires[Scanned]
Thanks very much Stephen - that is useful and I would agree with most of it. A few points I should make though. Firstly, I can only react to the information I am given and some of what you say below is slightly at odds with information given to me. Also, and I am not being critical here, the probable reason for you being unsure as to what I mean by “taking a line” with the media is that you do not have the responsibility for dealing with them as part of the investigative strategy, nor are you having to take thirty to forty calls or enquiries from them daily. Some of these are from people who know a lot about this case, either from victims or because they found the Maguires in France and are still active in monitoring. That is why I have to take a line and not say “no comment” as the AG floated to me recently. I am sure you understand that when I am asked what progress we are making then I need to be aware of the process so that I do ourselves, and yourselves, justice without making it look as if we are dragging our heels. That is what I mean by taking a line and I hope it is clearer to you now.
I fully concur with your comments about the diligent work in building up the files since the initial complaints, and I understand what Simon’s role has been in the work subsequent to the files being handed to him seven weeks ago.
It is not true to say that the focus on the other files for you has been whether to arrest or not. We will arrest on reasonable suspicion and we are experienced and knowledgeable enough to know when an arrest is justifiable. What I undertook in my previous correspondence with you was that instead of arresting and then submitting the papers to you, we would give you the papers before arrest so that when we brought them in, we would have an idea of what charges to prefer instead of releasing them and then waiting whilst you examined the papers. If you review the correspondence you will see that this is quite clear. We are not seeking advice on whether to arrest or not - we want to know if there is sufficient evidence to charge and what those charges could be. Normally, as I have said, we arrest, interview and submit a file. In all our investigations we have sufficient to justify arrest. It is charging that is the issue. In this respect, the Maguires are not different. What is different is the extradition.
I am not being awkward (again) but simply ask the questions in respect of Abuse of Process as follows. Firstly, you mention the 'unique’ factor that the AG issued a certificate saying that the evidential test was not passed. I understand that - but surely the then and now argument comes into play. I would imagine that the same principle must have applied over the refusal to prosecute the killers of Stephen Lawrence - yet, that was over-ruled was it not? Perhaps I am being simplistic being only a cop, but it is a genuine question.
I am not suggesting for one moment that there is anything improper in what is happening, but unlike you I do have to answer this publicly now. I probably don’t understand all that you are doing, in the same way as you have difficulty understanding the demands on me. I agree with you about the undesirability of having the perception that there is undue or improper influence on the decision making process, but as I and the Chief emphasised to the Attorney General, that perception is widely held already by the victims and there is little we can do about that other than to progress this as openly, transparently and as speedily as possible. In that respect I am greatly reassured to read your intention to advise the AG within seven days.
As to the Maguires absconding, I have laid out already that my understanding is slightly different to yours and Switzerland has been mentioned to me, although I have no firm evidence of that.
Lenny
Lenny Harper
Deputy Chief Officer
States of Jersey Police
Tele: 01534 612520
E. Mail: l.harper@jersey.pnn.police.uk
LETTER FROM EXILE: # 19
LOOKING INTO THE MICROCOSM FROM REALITY.
Blanche Pierre –
The Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity.
Part 5.
J'ACCUSE.
"In conclusion we are of the opinion the decision of the Attorney General [Michael Birt] to discharge the prosecution on 24th November 1998 was in the whole wrong."
States of Jersey Police Report, 2008.
"My duty is to speak, I do not want to be an accomplice. My nights would be haunted by the specter of innocence that suffer there".
Emile Zola.
"The Judge smiled. He spoke softly into the dim mud cubicle. You came forward, he said, to take part in a work. But you were a witness against yourself…..
…..For it was required of no man that he give more than he possessed nor was any man's share compared to another's. Only each was called upon to empty out his heart into the common and one did not. Can you tell me who that one was?
It was you, whispered the Kid. You were the one.
The Judge watched him through the bars, he shook his head. What joins men together, he said, is not the sharing of bread but the sharing of enemies. But if I was your enemy with whom would you have shared me? With whom? The priest? Where is he now? Look at me. Our animosities were formed and waiting before we two ever met. Yet even so you could have changed it all.
You, said the Kid. It was you."
Blood Median
Cormac McCarthy
"Clearly, based solely on the information to hand questions must be raised as to the motivation of prosecution for this case to succeed as on the face of it, despite clear difficulties with the case, the prima facie evidence was there for this matter to go to trial."
"Should it become apparent that Mr Maguire was not suffering from a terminal illness or his illness was not as serious as made out then consideration should be given to an investigation into offences of perverting the course of justice."
"Why then, if all legal tests had been satisfied to the extent that it would be committed to the Royal Court, did the prosecution then feel the need to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to proceed?"
"Most concerning of all it appears the Prosecution Advocate Mr Christmas who was present in Court played no part in proceedings."
"Defence witness Richard Davenport who was the child care officer for the home at the time and provided a statement claiming he never had any concerns over ill treatment at Blanche Pierre is now a suspect for sexual abuse at Haut De La Garenne."
"Concerns were raised over defence witnesses for the Maguires. The opinion of the prosecution appears to have been this evidence was too supportive to the Maguires. However, no consideration appears to have been given to testing their evidence in Court. If prosecution simply accepted defence evidence as fact very few cases would actually ever get to Court."
"Mr Christmas made comment that the presiding Magistrate Judge Trott appeared to have dismissed too quickly representations from Mr Harris that his client Jane Maguire had no case to answer."
"In relation to Question 3, the most apparent change since the decision was made to drop the charges is the continued apparent good health of Mr Maguire. A lot of emphasis was placed on concerns over Alan Maguire’s health and the adverse effects it may have on the conduct of a trial and the sympathy it would evoke in a jury for prosecuting a terminally ill man. Ten years on he appears to be still living a very active life.
"To date we have yet to locate any medical evidence to confirm the claims of Maguire's Advocate, Mr Lakeman, that his client was “seriously ill”. In light of any evidence to the contrary we are of the opinion that at best it was naive for the prosecution and Courts to simply take the word of Maguire and his Advocate."
"As already discussed the alleged terminal illness of Alan Maguire does not appear to have been investigated and too much weight appears to have been placed upon this claim. It is not even known what type of illness Maguire claimed to have yet alone how long he had to live."
"In conclusion, abuse of process will no doubt be raised as an issue by defence should the decision be made to bring the Maguires back from France. The main argument being that the case was dismissed through lack of evidence, however, based on the evidence alone we are of the opinion that this decision was wrong and the matter should have been allowed to go to trial as instructed by Judge Trott. Should the incorrect decision of the prosecution be a valid argument for abuse of process then from a Police point of view there is little we can do to counter it. However based on evidence alone and concerns over the conduct of the case at Magistrates Court we feel there are sufficient arguments to robustly counter an abuse of process argument. Therefore pending legal decision we are of the opinion both Jane and Alan Maguire should be returned to Jersey for proceedings to be recommenced against them."
"Notwithstanding any abuse of process on the allegations from 1997, there is still the matter of the new allegations and that of [Female 2] against Alan Maguire. As stated these stand up to scrutiny on their own merits and all efforts should be made to pursue all avenues to return Alan Maguire to Jersey to answer these new allegations."
States of Jersey Police Report, 2008.
Apart from the quote taken from Zola's famous 'J'accuse' – and the quote from Cormac McCarthy's great – and horrifying – work, Blood Meridian - the random passages I reproduce above are all taken from a secret report by the States of Jersey Police Force – written jointly by two Officers, after the taking of independent legal advice, in 2008 – following months of obstructions from William Bailhache, the then Attorney General, and his various agents, such as Simon Thomas - of 7 Bedford Row - and Advocate Stephen Baker – formerly of 7 Bedford Row.
The entire report is reproduced below.
But so utterly damning – are so many passages from the document, I felt it important to quote extensively from it, at the outset.
For, as though there were not enough evidence already in the public domain – evidence that would not, nor could not, be obtained and published, even in the name of decency - had I not fled Jersey – the document I reproduce in this posting is proof – upon proof.
The report below – read in conjunction with other evidence now published – establishes beyond dispute - a number of facts.
A large number of vulnerable children, who were resident at the States of Jersey Blanche Pierre group-home – suffered appalling abuses.
The monstrous crimes suffered by these children were able to take place – on a sustained basis – over a period of years.
The children suffered appallingly – and were all profoundly damaged by what they endured.
They carry those scars – that suffering – that damage – with them today - into their adult-hood.
On many occasions – during what now approaches a time-span of three decades – the island's authorities – the States of Jersey – have had successive opportunities to prevent that abuse occurring in the first place - then to have stopped it happening – then to have rescued the children, and to have stopped placing other children in the very same danger - to have prevented Jane and Alan Maguire from having access to vulnerable children – to have reported them to the police – to have prosecuted them – convict them – punish them – hold the culpable professionals to account – to have learnt the lessons - and to have delivered protection, justice, care – and continuing support – to the survivors.
Notwithstanding nearly three decades - the public authorities of the island of Jersey failed – at each, relevant stage – and have continued to fail - to this very day – to do even any one of those things.
It is worse.
Not only was the accumulated damnation of such failure visible to any honest and thinking person two years ago; still – in ever more crazed and extraordinary displays of amoral megalomania – the Jersey oligarchy engages in a continuing total war – against the truth – against those vulnerable, damaged people – to this very day.
For though the great majority of decent people in Jersey imagine themselves to be in a respectable, law-abiding society – where if anything dreadful happens, the authorities can be relied upon to protect you – the awful truth is the reverse.
You and your family can be the victims of the most unspeakably dreadful things – yet no matter how just your cause – should it clash in some way with the interests of the Jersey oligarchy – and its senior figures - not only will you and yours not be protected, you will actually be oppressed – and suffer further, in attempting to seek justice.
In Jersey – as I explained in Part 3 – there are no effective or functioning checks and balances. There is no part of the state power apparatus – nor even of the Fourth Estate – that will intervene against the others, should they have become decadent or be abusing their powers.
But, who is there, to state that truth? What power, what authority, what check and balance exists within Jersey – or, frankly, without – to bring an end to such overtly practiced lawlessness?
And – in particular – in the case of the continuing Blanche Pierre atrocity – finally bring an end to that disgusting spectacle?
Most certainly not the judiciary – nor the prosecution system.
On the contrary – both of those unscrutinised and excessive powers in Jersey – have become – plainly – subverted and suborned to the opposite ends.
Both of those state powers, that in any functioning society would be seeking to protect the vulnerable by bringing wrongdoers to justice and punishing the guilty – instead – in Jersey – have striven to crush the weak – and to protect the guilty.
As the evidence proves.
And it is no coincidence that the two previous Attorney Generals, the all-powerful head of Jersey's prosecution system – have each now 'progressed' – and are, respectively, the head Judge and deputy head Judge of Jersey's judiciary.
They are –
Michael Birt.
And -
William Bailhache.
All decent, thinking people – will now join with the Blanche Pierre survivors and with me – with the call we now make - in demanding the immediate resignations of both men.
Michael Birt – and William Bailhache.
On the evidence – their positions are utterly untenable.
Doubly so – because in Jersey, the role and power of the judiciary is manifestly excessive. There is no clear separation of powers; a profoundly unhealthy overlap existing between the legislature and the judiciary. The undesirability of that state of affairs is there to be seen in the overt politicisation of the Jersey "justice" system.
In fact – the posts occupied by Birt and Bailhache – those of Bailiff and of Deputy Bailiff – serve also as unelected and highly politicised 'Speakers' of the Jersey parliament. Both men – like their predecessor, William Bailhache's brother, Philip – routinely exhibit undisguised bias when chairing States of Jersey debates, and when controlling question time. Just as they abuse the quite remarkable power they possess to vet, alter, block and edit – all propositions and questions tabled in the Jersey legislature.
And I will provide you with a topical – and quite staggering – example.
For notwithstanding the fact both men are – on the evidence – hopelessly conflicted in all issues relevant to the child abuse scandal – let alone the Blanche Pierre atrocity in particular – Michael Birt, just this past week – actually prevented an elected member – Deputy Trevor Pitman – from asking a question concerning the existence of an authenticated death certificate for Alan Maguire. The rest of the question was 'permitted'.
But not that one, crucial point – as to whether the Jersey authorities ever obtained a death certificate in respect of the alleged "death" of the child abuser – Alan Maguire.
The improper and unlawful obstruction of that question - by Michael Birt – can only reinforce the theory of the Blanche Pierre survivors – that Maguire did not die.
Michael Birt – the then Attorney General – who corruptly permitted Maguire to escape justice in 1998.
Now – obstructing efforts to scrutinise that matter, by members of the island's parliament.
One simply could not invent such conduct.
And now, Birt's successor as Attorney General, and as Deputy Bailiff, William Bailhache, is – if anything – even more conflicted than Birt.
On the evidence – Bailhache's overt and continuous obstructions of the Police in their attempts to bring the Maguires, belatedly, to justice during 2008 – is even worse than Birt's conduct a decade earlier. For not only was there more evidence available – making the case for prosecution in the Blanche Pierre atrocity even more crushingly overwhelming – there were lots of other cases, too.
Cases that should have been brought to court – but were not. Cases that were not prosecuted – because William Bailhache adjudged that to have prosecuted such cases – would – in one way or another – have been massively damaging to the interests of the Jersey oligarchy.
Not, though, it ironically transpires – as catastrophically damaging as the consequences of his actions and disastrous misjudgements.
But Michael Birt – and William Bailhache – remain so culturally blinkered, so inured to the requirements of modern accountability, so assured in their plainly toxically excessive powers – that not only do they fail to see the plain fact that each is so hopelessly conflicted, that it is quite improper for either to play any role – at all – in any aspect of the child abuse issues that come before the Jersey parliament – they also, frighteningly, imagine it is acceptable for both to actually interfere in, and obstruct, such scrutinies.
It is – frightening.
I can think of no more appropriate a word.
It is frightening – to observe two men – who would, in any respectable society now be belatedly penning their letters of resignation - feel so absolutely assured and confident in their power – that, instead of resigning – merely strive more mightily and nakedly to abuse their powers – to heap more cover-up – upon the cover-up.
I have observed throughout this series of posts, how Jersey possesses no functioning checks and balances.
The spectacle of Birt and Bailhache - not only remaining in post – but further abusing their powers to conceal the truth – provides yet further proof of that fact.
For which power in Jersey could – or would – say "enough!"?
What power in Jersey can act in the obvious public interest – and take these two, frankly dangerous, eccentrics by the collar – and lead them out the door?
Not the judiciary. Not the executive. Not the prosecution system. Not the Fourth Estate. And not the legislature. Such is the nature of power in Jersey that – even if Birt and Bailhache were not obstructing the opposition members – the ruling oligarchy grouping possess not the wisdom to see when the higher public good requires them to act against their own institutions gone bad.
As far as the Jersey oligarchy is concerned – the maintenance of the status quo is all. It is the cause – to which all others are suborned.
Which is why – sadly, in so many ways – only a very long – a very difficult – and a very damaging – war – through the courts of Jersey, London and Strasbourg will eventually succeed in treating that madness.
But treated, it must be.
That fact is an evidenced and inescapable by-product – that comes along with the truth about the Blanche Pierre atrocity.
How sad – for the survivors – that they must endure yet more years of hurt – of injustice – when, instead, their suffering could be ameliorated and their wounds tended – now – if only power in Jersey possessed any capacity for self-criticism – or even for shame.
Stuart.
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THE MAGUIRES.
STATES OF JERSEY POLICE REPORT:
2008.
Telephone: (01534) 612612
POLICE HEADQUARTERS.
P.O. BOX 789
JERSEY. JE2 314.
REPORT
Submitted by: DC 3961 HOLMES & DC 663 NEWTH
Subject: Alan and Jane Maguire Case Review
Sir.
Whilst at a meeting on Tuesday 20th May 2008 with our legal advisor Simon Thomas to discuss the ongoing investigation into Jane and Alan Maguire certain questions were raised concerning any possibility of abuse of process being brought forward at a future date by defence, should a decision be made to proceed with charges against the Maguires.
Five specific points have been raised and research requested, these are;
1/ Why were the sexual allegations made against Alan Maguire not proceeded against at the time?
2/ What was said to the Maguires in Court about the case being dropped other than what is contained within the letter of discontinuance?
3/ What has changed since the decision was made and was that decision wrong, if so why?
4/ What might Maguire say to show he has acted to his detriment once he was told of the decision to discontinue?
5/ Have any new facts not known at the time come to light since the decision was made to discontinue the case?
In response to Question 1 we have liaised with the investigating officers, in particular Nick Troy, as well as examining existing paperwork held by the enquiry. It appears the decision not to pursue the allegations of sexual assault made by [Female 1] and [Female 3] was made by the [then] OIC based on the information held at the time, the view was that there was little or no corroboration to support these allegations.
With regard to Question 2 it is not known what was said to the Maguires in Court concerning the dropping of the charges. It would appear that the decision to stop proceedings was made following the Court appearance on 7 July 1998. The Maguires do not appear in Court again after this date. Therefore it can only be assumed the Maguires were notified either verbally or via letter either by the Courts or their Advocates.
In relation to Question 3, the most apparent change since the decision was made to drop the charges is the continued apparent good health of Mr Maguire. A lot of emphasis was placed on concerns over Alan Maguire’s health and the adverse effects it may have on the conduct of a trial and the sympathy it would evoke in a jury for prosecuting a terminally ill man. Ten years on he appears to be still living a very active life.
To date we have yet to locate any medical evidence to confirm the claims of Maguire's Advocate, Mr Lakeman, that his client was “seriously ill”. In light of any evidence to the contrary we are of the opinion that at best it was naive for the prosecution and Courts to simply take the word of Maguire and his Advocate.
Consideration may have to be given to obtaining a production order for any medical records still held within Jersey for Alan Maguire in an attempt to refute or confirm his illness. It should be noted that at no stage is the exact nature of Mr Maguire’s illness disclosed.
Should it become apparent that Mr Maguire was not suffering from a terminal illness or his illness was not as serious as made out then consideration should be given to an investigation into offences of perverting the course of justice.
Another reason supplied by Advocate Binnington for discontinuing the case were concerns over the credibility of the victims, including previous convictions, drug and alcohol abuse. It is accepted that the victims do have “issues” covering these concerns but it was recognised at the time in the report of Carolyn Coverly that these ‘issues” are classic signs of the effect of childhood abuse, a fact that was clearly ignored at the time. Today this view is readily accepted and expert witness viewpoints could be sought by prosecution to validate this.
[Female 2] did not provide any evidence at the committal hearing as she did not turn up and as a result her allegations were never heard. Her reasons for not appearing are already well documented. However, today as an adult she fully accepts her responsibilities to provide her evidence. No real effort appears to have been made at the time to locate her or have the case adjourned for a short time so she could be located. Considering how emotionally disturbed she was at the time ( as described in psychiatric reports ) the decision to dismiss her evidence so quickly appears now to be very premature.
Defence witness Richard Davenport who was the child care officer for the home at the time and provided a statement claiming he never had any concerns over ill treatment at Blanche Pierre is now a suspect for sexual abuse at Haut De La Garenne. (ongoing)
In conclusion we are of the opinion the decision of the Attorney General to discharge the prosecution on 24th November 1998 was in the whole wrong. The basis for this view is a follows.
1/ Too much consideration was given to the negative effects of the victims' characters, previous convictions etc and what effect they would have on a successful prosecution. No consideration what so ever appears to have been given to the positive aspects of these facts. It was recognised that the associated problems of drugs, alcohol and offending were all the classic signs of being subject of childhood abuse yet this appears to have been ignored or simply viewed as too difficult to overcome.
This also applies to concerns the prosecution had over inconsistencies in the witness evidence. It was again recognised by Carolyn Coverly that the evidence provided by the victims was "wholly accurate” considering the trauma suffered. No consideration appears to have been given to calling on "expert” witness opinion to support the prosecution case or taking this into account when assessing their evidence.
2/ There appears to have been no system of care put in place for the victims at the committal. Even allowing for the differences between Jersey and UK procedures it is apparent the witnesses were simply left to their own devices when giving evidence. Special measures were put in place in the form of screens but this led to difficulties in evidence being heard with answers often having to be repeated on several occasions, only adding to the stress of the witness. Most concerning of all it appears the Prosecution Advocate Mr Christmas who was present in Court played no part in proceedings. Legal reasons for this aside, this led to the witnesses being at the mercy of defence Advocates who, whilst accepting they had a job to do, where simply allowed to savage people who it was accepted were vulnerable and who should have had the full protection of the prosecution.
3/ Concerns were raised over defence witnesses for the Maguires. The opinion of the prosecution appears to have been this evidence was too supportive to the Maguires. However, no consideration appears to have been given to testing their evidence in Court. If prosecution simply accepted defence evidence as fact very few cases would actually ever get to Court. Defence evidence must be tested at trial as robustly as defence would test prosecution evidence or at the very least investigated for its voracity prior to the trial. This was not done.
4/ As already discussed the alleged terminal illness of Alan Maguire does not appear to have been investigated and too much weight appears to have been placed upon this claim. It is not even known what type of illness Maguire claimed to have yet alone how long he had to live.
5/ Mr Christmas made comment that the presiding Magistrate Judge Trott appeared to have dismissed too quickly representations from Mr Harris that his client Jane Maguire had no case to answer. However, Judge Trott heard most of the evidence including that of defence witness [W] as well as being provided with statements from all witnesses seen prior to the committal. He then took a whole month to consider his decision eventually finding that there was a case to answer. Why then, if all legal tests had been satisfied to the extent that it would be committed to the Royal Court, did the prosecution then feel the need to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to proceed?
Clearly, based solely on the information to hand questions must be raised as to the motivation of prosecution for this case to succeed as on the face of it, despite clear difficulties with the case, the prima facie evidence was there for this matter to go to trial.
The answers to Question 4 are very hard to establish, at present there is no [record] of what the Maguires' response to the 'no further action' was. Clearly after the dropping of the Court case an internal hearing took place that clearly found Jane Maguire guilty of inflicting and condoning severe physical and mental abuse on the children in her care. These findings do not appear to have been contested by the Maguires, the question has to be asked, ‘why?' If they believed they were not guilty of the allegations?
Also, it would appear that Alan Maguire must have known about the further allegation of sexual abuse made by [Female 2] after the case was dropped as reference is made to his Advocate Mr Lakeman contacting officers on the day Maguire was placed as wanted on PNC to state Alan Maguire was seriously ill. The Maguires have family and friends on Jersey yet despite this Alan Maguire has never returned. If he believed himself to be innocent of the allegation why has he never returned in the last ten years to answer the allegation and clear his name?
There appears to be no evidence of any witness intimidation by any party involved in this matter but it is not known what if any other contact has been maintained.
In connection to Question 5 a number of new allegations and further information has come to light. Most notably the new allegations of sexual abuse against Alan Maguire made by [Female 4] (albeit the assault occurred in French jurisdiction) [Female 5] and [Male 5]. These are totally new allegations that have never been put to Alan Maguire and stand against him in their own right, but also in respect of [Female 4]and [Female 5] add great support to the earlier allegations made by [Female 3] [Female 1] and [Female 2]. [Female 5] in particular is a very strong witness who was at Blanche Pierre as a helper and has no other motivation to her complaint than to help the enquiry.
The allegation made by [Female 2] has never been put to Alan Maguire and to this day he still remains as wanted for interview should he return to Jersey. [Male 5] aside all the allegations of sexual abuse against Maguire are of a similar vein and taken together provide a reasonable case against him.
The new allegations also give new evidence of physical abuse committed by Alan and Jane Maguire against [Female 5] and [Female 4] provides strong corroboration to the accounts of physical abuse against a number of original witnesses.
As you will be aware all the witnesses have been re-visited and asked to review their original statements. Without exception all have stood by their original allegations and no attempts have been made to ‘flour” them up.
In conclusion, abuse of process will no doubt be raised as an issue by defence should the decision be made to bring the Maguires back from France. The main argument being that the case was dismissed through lack of evidence, however, based on the evidence alone we are of the opinion that this decision was wrong and the matter should have been allowed to go to trial as instructed by Judge Trott. Should the incorrect decision of the prosecution be a valid argument for abuse of process then from a Police point of view there is little we can do to counter it. However based on evidence alone and concerns over the conduct of the case at Magistrates Court we feel there are sufficient arguments to robustly counter an abuse of process argument. Therefore pending legal decision we are of the opinion both Jane and Alan Maguire should be returned to Jersey for proceedings to be recommenced against them.
Notwithstanding any abuse of process on the allegations from 1997, there is still the matter of the new allegations and that of [Female 2] against Alan Maguire. As stated these stand up to scrutiny on their own merits and all efforts should be made to pursue all avenues to return Alan Maguire to Jersey to answer these new allegations.
DC 3961 HOLMES
DC 663 NEWTH
LETTER FROM EXILE: # 20 LOOKING INTO THE MICROCOSM
FROM REALITY.
Blanche Pierre –
The Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity.
Part 6.
Honesty in Politics:
It Didn't Work.
But what of Diplomacy:
Does a Second Career Await Me?
A Reflection upon my natural talents.
“Diplomats are useful only in fair weather. As soon as it rains they drown in every drop.”
Charles de Gaulle
In a comment left under Part 5 of this series of postings, I said that Part 6 would involve the publishing of yet further evidence of the, frankly disgusting, persistent and shameful failure of the Jersey authorities to protect vulnerable children.
In particular – we were going to take a detailed look at the considered opinions of magistrate Bridget Shaw – who has exhibited zero difficulty in finding 100% agreement with Stephen Baker – that there is no substance to my concern that there is a Culture of Concealment engaged in by Jersey's senior civil service – who routinely conceal gross child protection failures - and other crimes – and conspire to hide that fact.
Her performce in presuming to sit in judgment upon me – being diametrically incompatible with her private knowledge and views.
But – we will have to wait a day or two for that wretched examination of "The Jersey Way" – writ large.
Instead, we have a change of plan. Because – this evening – during my last hour or so as a Senator – before I was – frankly unlawfully – driven from Office through a series of intimidating harassments and oppressions which have kept me from Jersey – I was taking a last look through my old States member e-mail account.
And – totally by coincidence – I happily stumbled upon an e-mail I wrote to David –'Weirdcop' – Warcup back on the 9th September 2009.
Weirdcop being the very carefully selected and recruited crook – employed by the Jersey oligarchy – to unlawfully usurp the post of the Chief Constable of the States of Jersey Police Force – which is rightfully and admirably held by Graham Power, Queens Police Medal.
In fact – when re-reading the e-mail – so filled was I with that warm glow of satisfaction and pride – that comes from have having done one's job well, and with integrity – I thought as a last Senatorial missive, I would share it with all of my "esteemed" colleagues.
But – as well as being gripped by a pathological aversion to the truth – I'm afraid most Jersey politicians also possess very little sense of humour. So – knowing my considered e-mail to Mr. Warcup would be wasted on them – I've decided to share it with my readers too.
Strange though it may seem – given the nature of the various wars I had to fight – and the harrowing nature of the issues it fell to me – virtually single-handed, it seems - to confront – many of my former constituents tell me they have found my candour and frankness funny over the years.
So, in that spirit of Beckettian black humour – let me share with you my last official e-mail as a States member – sent to my colleagues – in which I provide them with my opinion of Weirdcop – as written to him last September.
Of course – the real tragedy and farce is that these clowns are seriously going to vote for Weirdcop to become Boss of the Jersey police.
Now – where did I put that job application form – for the Diplomatic Service?
Stuart
Last E-Mail by Senator Stuart Syvret to Other Jersey Politicians.
Dear Colleague
My – what a relief I shan't have to write that any more.
However – purely by coincidence – as I was trawling through my old e-mails – I came across the e-mail I copy below.
It is self-explanatory.
I realise how 98% of you still experience a profound culture shock when confronted with the written or spoken truth.
However – there are somethings you have to endure – to the greater good of the community you serve.
Therefore – in light of the forthcoming debate on P.30 – I though it apposite that you should receive my e-mail below – sent to Mr. Warcup on the 9th September, 2009.
May those of you who vote for this man to become head of the Police Force in Jersey -hang your heads in shame.
Former Senator Stuart Syvret
-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart Syvret
Sent: Wed 09/09/2009 11:04
To: David Warcup
Cc:
Subject: The Corrupt Conduct of David Warcup
Mr. Warcup.
I listened to the BBC Jersey radio news this morning, which - belatedly - was reporting the guest posting written by Mr. Lenny Harper, and published on my blog.
Mr. Harper, being the recently retired former Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, and the man who led the historic child abuse investigation.
Mr. Harper wrote the blog posting in response to the concerted and co-ordinated attempts by Mick Gradwell, who has just retired from the SOJP, to rubbish the historic abuse investigation, undermine its credibility, attack the credibility and integrity of abuse survivors, and in doing so, assist the Jersey oligarchy in concealing the true and full extent of child abuse in Jersey.
Mr. Gradwell's comments were riddled with lies, distortions and misleading omissions. It was that catalogue of falsehoods to which Mr. Harper was responding.
What has prompted me to write to you was the astonishing comment attributed to you by BBC Jersey, which consisted of words to the effect that, "The arguments and personal disagreement between the two former officers of the SOJP – Mr. Harper and Mr. Gradwell - was nothing to do with you."
This was plainly a desperate attempt on your part to distance yourself from the controversy - as though it were, in fact, nothing to do with you.
Mr. Warcup - it is everything to do with you.
You and Mr. Gradwell have failed to secure prosecutions of a significant number of very well-evidenced child abusers.
In fact - it is worse than this; you and Mr. Gradwell pro-actively supported and worked with Attorney General William Bailhache in minimising the cases that came to court.
You - Mr. Warcup - are a pro-active member of the Jersey establishment's cover-up.
You have, for example, pro-actively supported and assisted in the concealing of the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice which was committed by senior civil servants and the then Council of Ministers, in engineering my dismissal as Health & Social Services Minister in 2007. That conspiracy was made a formal criminal complaint by me - against these demonstrable conspirators, who were striving to conceal the criminal conduct of the States of Jersey in respect of institutional child abuse.
You have failed to investigate the matter fully, no charges have been brought, you have refused to give me copies of my many formal statements given to the police - and you have failed to keep me - the complainant - informed of "progress".
You have also - in a further example - shown yourself to be content to carry on being employed by the SOJP - notwithstanding the evidenced, provable fact that the Chief Officer of the Education Department - Mario Lundy - is a very serious child abuser - having spent much of the 1980's - along with his predecessor, Tom McKeon - savagely battering and torturing vulnerable children in Jersey's child secure unit, which they used to run.
Are you proud of your "achievements" Mr. Warcup?
Are you content that Jersey's Education Department is led by a man who is a child-torturer?
That example - as you well-know - is but one of dozens of abusers who should have been brought to justice.
You and Mr. Gradwell have been content to assist the Jersey oligarchy in minimising the scope and scale of charges that should have been brought.
I think you need reminding of the infamous and notorious press-conference you gave - along with Mick Gradwell - in November 2008 - in which you issued a five-page press-release, which contained several demonstrable lies - and during which you both - both - set about doing all you could to rubbish the integrity and credibility of the prior two years of police work in conducting the investigation.
I repeat - you were then - and have been since - a pro-active participant in the Jersey oligarchy's cover-up.
It is - therefore - totally dishonest - and simply literally incredible - for you to attempt to now distance yourself from Mr. Gradwell's remarks.
Mr. Gradwell, in his extraordinary diatribes of lies and abuse directed at fellow officers, made reference, however inaccurately, to certain things being "unprecedented".
I will tell you what is unprecedented, Mr. Warcup, because I took the trouble to research the matter following your infamous press-conference.
It is unprecedented for two senior police officers, to come into a major police investigation, which had been on-going for two years - and then to call a press-conference for the express purpose of undermining, attacking, destroying the credibility of, and ruining the effectiveness of the previous two-years hard work.
The actions of you and Mick Gradwell were "without precedent" in British policing.
And let us recall another extraordinary feature of your actions. At that press-conference you publicly stated - to a national press presence - that you had destroyed certain evidence - because 'you' didn't consider it 'credible'.
Are you not aware - Mr. Warcup - that destroying evidence is a very serious criminal offence?
It is a criminal offence that you have committed.
Mr. Warcup - let me spell it out to you - as it apparently eludes you - you are in a situation in which you are leagues out of your depth.
You find yourself as a pro-active member of a criminal conspiracy to conceal child abuse and other crimes.
You may have imagined that selling your "integrity" to the Jersey establishment would be a safe option - given they control all power in Jersey.
You failed to take into account the gravity and magnitude of the situation - all of which will now be exposed fully - in microscopic detail - before the Commons Justice Committee - and in court in London during the civil action against the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw.
If there is any justice and decency in this world - you will - in the coming months - find yourself without the protections of the Jersey authorities - as they too will be held to account.
At the end of your career, Mr. Warcup - you are a criminal.
You have engaged in numerous conspiracies - with the Jersey authorities - to pervert the course of justice. You have also committed misconduct in a public office.
At least two-thirds of your officers despise you, and regard you as a component in the establishment's cover-up.
You have twisted and perverted your job as a senior police officer from what it should involve - enforcing the law, and protecting the weak and vulnerable - and turned it into a role in which you abuse your powers to protect powerful and influential criminals.
You - Mr. Warcup - are a bent cop.
You were a pro-active participant in the plainly unlawful, improper and Political suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, Graham Power. An exercise which is another example of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
You have betrayed my vulnerable constituents.
You have betrayed many, many victims of child abuse.
You have shamed the office you hold and the good name of the police.
Mr. Warcup - you are a liar and a crook.
My constituents and I require your immediate resignation.
You are disgusting - and an utter disgrace to the uniform you wear.
Yours sincerely,
Senator Stuart Syvret.
States of Jersey.
LETTER FROM EXILE: # 21 LOOKING INTO THE MICROCOSM
FROM REALITY.
Blanche Pierre –
The Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity.
Part 7.
Child Abuse –
And the Failures to Protect Children.
The Atrocities Continue.
"There was frequently delay in reporting matters to the Police. A case in which delay could have had fatal consequences was the case of the [Child, Family 4] baby (please see report DS Fossey [Date excised] folder 1) who was taken to A&E with a suspected fractured skull. Doctors were investigating this as a non-accidental injury and the parents were the sole carers and therefore the chief suspects. Children’s Service did not inform the Police. The Child was admitted at approximately 17.00 one day and Police were not informed until 13.00 the following day, and then, only by chance. In the meantime the child had been allowed home for the night with her parents. I am not an expert in child care but one only has to apply a modicum of commonsense to realise that the Police should have been informed at once and that the child should have been placed with someone other than her parents until investigations were complete. The next day, not one but two suspicious skull fractures were confirmed."
Bridget Shaw.
"I still find this hard to understand particularly as I successfully prosecuted [Mother, Child, Family 1] for neglect when she admitted allowing a known sex offender into her home on a daily basis and watched him indecently assault [Child, Family 1] on two occasions without intervening. When parents cannot or will not protect a child surely the state has a duty to act?"
Bridget Shaw.
"[Mother, Family 6] was a young single mother with a disturbed background. On [Date excised] she informed psychiatric nurse [Nurse A] that she had tried to kill her [Age excised] old baby by smothering him. She stopped in time. However, she felt that the baby was better off without her but as she did not want anyone else to have the child it would be better for him to die.
"The documents show that [Nurse A] informed Children's Service at once. However, Children’s Service did not inform the Police until 4 weeks later. In the meantime Children’s Service had agreed with [Mother, Family 6] that her father should care for the baby but they did not tell him what had happened. The grandfather was therefore not in a position properly to protect the child as he did not know either that the child was at risk or what that risk was. The Grandfather in fact took the baby with him on a visit to UK where [Mother, Family 6] joined them. No authorities in UK had any idea that the Child was at risk. Police were only informed 4 weeks after [Date excised] when the family returned to Jersey. One can only conclude that in this case there was an abject failure to follow basic procedures and in my view, the Child must have been put at risk by those failures."
Bridget Shaw.
What Has Happened?
How Has it Happened?
Why Has it Happened?
Since my term of Office was unlawfully terminated by the Jersey oligarchy, many, many members of the public in Jersey have e-mailed me to express their support – and to ask questions – always questions. Chiefly, the three I reproduce above.
In this posting – I will try to do two things. Answer those questions.
And – sadly – provide yet more damning evidence of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster. Evidence which proves – that the recently published Special Case Review – into just one child protection failure – that caused outrage in Jersey – is only the tip of the iceberg.
The evidence I quote from above – with the full report, by Bridget Shaw, reproduced below – illustrates nine – yes – nine – further such atrocities.
And still – most of the awful truth is hidden.
A very successful American lawyer once remarked to me, as though letting me in on a trade-secret, how to tell which side was actually right – and which wrong, in a case of litigation. He said, "The lawyer who is making the case for the side who are right, will keep his argument very simple and clear. The lawyer representing the side who are wrong, will make his argument as complex as possible."
That was good advice.
Indeed, one often sees the same tactics used in politics.
Why should each side choose those stratagems? What advantage is offered by each to the respective positions?
If your case is fundamentally right – if you have truth on your side – a reasonable jury will see that that is so. You do not need elaborate complexities or stultifying legal arguments to prop-up your case. But, the other side – who are wrong – are simply wrong. Therefore any plain and easy statement of the facts disastrously undermines their position.
Which is why the side with the weak or non-existent case, will do everything and anything in their power to complicate, obscure, cloud – and divert attention from – the core, simple issues.
The party who is right – will combat this, by always striving to return the argument to the central, simple facts. Just as the party who is wrong – will continually strive to over-complicate matters – and introduce diversion – upon diversion.
There are risks – of course – in both approaches, to both sides.
The obvious risk is that the opposing tactic works, of itself - but a less obvious danger is that in adopting either strategy, you assist your opponent by driving the jury towards their side.
The side over-complicating matters, might succeed in their objective of making the jury lose track of the issues – of intimidating them into thinking, "we must be foolish and ignorant – not to understand such obviously brilliant and learned points. If such expert and highly-ranked people – who clearly know so much – say that the case of the other side is wrong – well, that must be so. Who are we, ordinary people, to disagree with such professionals? Anyway, surely such a controversial matter – that has ended in court, after all these years – just can't be as simple as the other side are claiming?"
But – against such a tactic – the simple argument may work; it may succeed in blowing away the clouds of confusions and obscurations. People's common sense instincts can be powerful; they may well smell that unmistakable scent of nonsense - and, instead, just see – and understand - the plain facts, and instinctively grasp the truth.
The risks to either side – in the responses they must make to the other, are clear. If you are on the 'complex' side – if you refuse to engage in a straight way with the simple facts, you risk appearing evasive – and your attempted delusion of the audience, that hocus-pocus you were trying to dazzle them with, may evaporate. And, if you are on the 'simple' side, a refusal to be drawn into any technical complexity or subtle nuance of argument can make your case appear intellectually weak.
The advice of that American lawyer returned to mind today, whilst I was answering the many e-mails of support I have received – and trying to think of how to answer the oft-repeated request from the many people who have not been following events closely, to explain –
"How did things come to this? How was all this able to happen? Why has it happened?"
I've answered those people by promising that I would try – somehow – to summarise and encapsulate the strange and bizarre course of events – which have led from early 2007 – to this unprecedented state of affairs.
I could, of course, write a very lengthy – and complexly cross-referenced – series of postings that referred readers back to this or that posting of such-and-such a date – and the evidence they contain. But – although I could do that – I've decided instead to try and keep it simple.
Simple – because the truth is on our side.
And – in addition to explaining the truth – I am going to publish the next item of evidence as part of our examination of the continuing Blanche Pierre Atrocity. And – in a coincidental and circular manner – the particular item of evidence, in addition to proving the continuing child protection failure in Jersey – takes us back to how these atrocities are able to be hidden – through the oppression of people like me – even though the truth is known to those in positions of power.
So – whilst not without its risks – I'm going to describe below – in simple, easily understood terms – the truth.
The reality – the disgusting Political manoeuvrings – the fearful abuses of power - which have caused, and continue to drive this extraordinary sequence of events.
I will explain – simply – why things happened as they did – and, in particular – just why certain early – catastrophic – misjudgements on the part of the Jersey oligarchy – have left them with no choice; left them chained into a course of action that they cannot now turn from – but which has, effectively, destroyed them.
In the case of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster – a continuously unfolding failure, spread over decades – and, in particular, the events of the last three years, I am on the side that is right. I, and others like me, who have fought for the protections of children – can state our cases simply – make our arguments easy to understand – because we have the truth on our side.
In letter from Exile 13, in which I published the second ACPO report – I explained just how many items of actual hard, documented evidence there are, now in the public domain – that support our simple – and truthful – argument. Namely – that there has been a systemic, catastrophic breakdown in child protection in Jersey – and that that has been made worse, by a sustained campaign by the powers-that-be in the island, to conceal that long-term failure to protect children. Indeed, the items of evidence listed in Letter from Exile 13 have now been dramatically added to – by the evidence published in this series of postings examining the Blanch Pierre atrocity.
The truth is –
There has been a grotesque failure to protect Jersey's vulnerable children.
That failure has persisted over a period of many decades.
Many, many, highly-placed and influential people – such as senior civil servants, politicians, Law Officers and judges have been culpable in that failure – in one way or another – over the decades.
All of those people who are still living, whether still working, or retired, wish to conceal their respective roles in the failures.
Not only did individuals fail – the States of Jersey as an entity – the island's entire public administration – also failed – disastrously. Indeed – it continues to do so.
Therefore – even if it were not many of the same people of which we speak – still, the Establishment – wanting to maintain the "image" of the States of Jersey – has common cause with all of those culpable individuals.
That Common Purpose – between the States and individuals, is what gives rise to the Culture of Concealment.
Not only have we published dramatic quantities of evidence that shows many, many cases of child abuse – we have also published huge quantities of evidence which shows the deliberate concealing of that abuse.
Fortunately for vulnerable children – and unfortunately for all those engaged in the Culture of Concealment – three years ago, we began to expose the child protection failures.
The Jersey establishment panicked. At that moment – there were two paths available to them. One – the path of wisdom – recognise and acknowledge the failures; face up to them – and their consequences – and do the right thing. Or – the path of folly – carry on behaving as the Jersey oligarchy has always done – as an all-powerful law-unto-itself; re-enforce the Culture of Concealment; and abuse all powers to oppress, denigrate – and make an example of - anyone who dares to speak the truth and tries to do what's right.
Back then – in July 2007 – the States of Jersey committed itself to the path of folly.
Thinking it was only me, and a few other "troublemakers" who were exposing the child protection failures – the Jersey oligarchy set about oppressing and neutralising me – thinking that that would enable them to get the lid back down on the whole disaster.
By acting in such a foolish, improper and unwise manner, the Jersey oligarchy destroyed their credibility at that stage. But the full, awful magnitude of that disastrous conduct did not dawn upon them until we learnt, some months later, of the covert Police investigation into the decades of concealed abuse.
The police investigation went public, in late 2007 – to the profound fear, humiliation and discredit of the Jersey establishment. For not only was it shaming that Jersey had harboured such child protection failures for decades – but, even only a few months earlier, the first and only Jersey politician to have exposed such failures, had been politically oppressed for his efforts, by the Jersey oligarchy.
Though nothing but support for the police investigation could be expressed publicly - privately, senior establishment figures knew this turn of events to be politically disastrous for them. They viewed the Jersey elections – approaching towards the end of 2008, with huge trepidation. They hoped – somehow – it would have faded away by then. Of course – it didn't. So – as the election drew close – a crazed act of desperation – of utter folly – was called for.
Something would have to be engineered – to discredit the entire historic abuse investigation.
Something would have to be done – to make it appear to have been a fuss over nothing – and drive the voting public back towards the traditionalists – in time for the crucial election of 29 members of the Jersey parliament – which would take place on the 26th November, 2008.
In the preceding months, much thought had been given to manufacturing some nonsense for which to suspend or sack the man directly leading the investigation – Lenny Harper. But – he was retiring in any event – making any such action against him appear even less credible. There was only one thing left to do – only one target that would serve the purposes of spin, during that crucial period in the build-up to the 2008 Deputies election – the Police Chief, Graham Power.
Mr. Power was unlawfully suspended – without any warning – without due process – and on no grounds - or evidence – whatsoever – by Bill Ogley, the Chief Executive to the States, and a politician, then Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis, on the morning of the 12th November, 2008.
This was a desperate, desperate gamble. But – one the Jersey oligarchy, in their hubris, imagined they'd get away with.
Thrusting Mr. Power into this position – they attempted to bribe him – by offering him his full pension and a monetary settlement – if he agreed there and then to go – to take 'early retirement' – and they told him they would give him 'half-an-hour' to 'think about it'.
Another catastrophic misjudgement – of the kind that can only be made by people wholly corrupted by too much power.
The Chief Constable, a formidable man - of impeccable professionalism and integrity told them he did not require any time to think about it – his answer was "no".
He remains improperly suspended to this day – whilst the Jersey authorities engage in ever-more transparently lunatic panics – to try and manufacture – post-event – some kind of weak and spurious "justification" for their Political and corrupt behaviour. All the while Mr. Power's real retirement looms – when he will become a free agent – and able to express his assessment of events.
But – back in November 2008 – that criminal and despicable action, had the desired political effect. The credibility of the investigation was trashed. The traditional Jersey oligarchy were made to appear respectable once again, in the eyes of many Jersey voters.
However – the truth was not so easily disposed of. Mr. Power continued to fight; Mr. Harper continued to support the abuse survivors, and – especially problematically for the Jersey oligarchy, used to total control over the island's "news" agenda, I continued to write my blog – publishing hard evidence that the local "accredited" media could have been safely relied upon to not publish. Even if they'd had the competence to obtain it.
But, Mr. Power and Mr. Harper were, effectively, going or gone. I remained the last great problem. The one remaining – and in many ways, most problematic – 'last-man-standing' from the exposing of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster. Doubly-dangerous. For not only was I publishing a continuing flood of hard evidence that proves many of the abuses took place – and proves many of the cover-ups – additionally, as a non-establishment Senator – I was also a political threat to the Jersey oligarchy's monopoly of power. What to do?
Terminate both of these threats at the same time – by abusing the "law" to attack me – and, specifically, to attack me over the publishing of the blog. The perfect solution.
Early one morning in April 2009, I stepped from the front door, and began to walk across to my car. Three unmarked police cars sped up the drive – I understood instantly what was going down – and plain clothed police officers leapt from the vehicles and surrounded me. One grabbed my wrist and told me I was under arrest for alleged data protection law offences. He stated my rights and told me I would now be taken to the police station. I asked if I could at least put on a clean T-shirt. He and three others then walked me into the house. Whilst inside, I asked if I could see their search warrant. The arresting officer, said yes, and began to reach into his jacket pocket, but he hesitated, stopped and said "no – it would be shown to me down at the station."
The operation was co-ordinated from Police Headquarters by one Dave Minty. There were at least ten officers involved on the ground at my home. The six I had seen immediately, two additional search officers, and a further two who had been waiting in a van in the lane outside, equipped with helmets and one of those battering-rams that get used in drug raids, "should I have not left the house and it had become necessary to effect a forced-entry".
I was taken to Police Headquarters under arrest, and was held locked into police cells for seven and a half hours – the great majority of that time in a tiny, windowless cell on the ground floor, where, if I wanted to use the toilet, I had to ring a bell, and an officer would eventually come, and escort me to the lavatories before returning me to lock and key in the cell.
Throughout this time, the home I shared with my partner – also a politician - was ransacked by police officers – from top to bottom - including going through her children's bedrooms, all of their possessions and searching their computers. Searching all of my partner's possessions and her computers. Turning over furniture, including the sofas and chairs in the sitting-room. Tipping the kitchen bin out onto the kitchen floor. All of this was enthusiastically engaged in by the police – even though the office I used, where my computer and files were kept, was – obviously - in another part of the property. They turned that over as well.
The above search was undertaken without any search warrant existing. The arresting officer had simply lied to me, when he said I'd be given a copy at the station. The supposed "legality" of the search relying upon an emergency search power, for use at the time of unplanned arrests.
The search was – plainly – a criminal act. It was unlawful on the grounds of being an 'abuse of powers', of being 'disproportionate' and of being engaged in improperly, when the law that was allegedly being broken by me, actually stipulates a specific enforcement procedure – including the requirement to obtain a search warrant.
The only significant charges arising being two alleged data protection offences. I have been expressly denied effective legal representation. The only thing that was – eventually – conceded to me – six-months into the corrupt prosecution process – was an offer of an unpaid, legal aid lawyer, not of my choice. Even had I been prepared to accept such an inadequate offer – it came six months too late – when the die had been cast in many respects.
Notwithstanding these denials of my rights, I worked through months of increasingly absurd preliminary hearings, and with the voluntary help of an expert witness, assembled my defence case. The report to court by the expert in particular, was unarguable. It prove conclusively and damningly the validity of my public-interest disclosure defence. It became clear at this stage the Jersey oligarchy had given no serious consideration to the facts relevant to the case they had acted upon.
After several months of work on my defence case – and at virtually the last minute of the 11th hour – the prosecution lawyer, Stephen Baker, formerly of 7 Bedford Row, and a personal friend of William Bailhache, announced without warning at the end of another of the 'directions hearings' that I would now have to make an application to the court to have all of my defence evidence deemed "admissible". This was a straightforward act of procedural corruption on Baker's part – the evidence in question already being "admitted" to the court proceedings – as it had been disclosed to me by the prosecution – in the full knowledge that I was using it as the basis of a public interest disclosure defence.
The judge – Bridget Shaw – went along with this corrupt charade, pretending, along with Baker that the evidence was not already a part of the proceedings, and agreeing with him that there would have to be yet another directions hearing the next week – at which I would have to "make an application to the court" – to have the evidence necessary to prove my defence case – "deemed admissible".
Given that the Judge – Bridget Shaw – had, throughout every hearing, simply agreed 100% with Baker - and merely parroted everything he said – I realised then my involvement was futile.
I walked from the court – and, a few days later, left Jersey.
Those – then – are some of the key facts in a chain of events that began for me, early in 2007, when I began to discover the true nature and extent of decades of concealed child abuse in Jersey.
The corrupt, anti-democratic and lawless actions described above – have now led to the oppression of the rights of my constituents and my illegitimate exclusion from democratic Office.
I wrote above, that a number of, frankly crazed, misjudgements had chained the Jersey oligarchy into a course of action that they cannot now turn from – but which has, effectively, destroyed them.
Political disasters happen to power-groupings all the time. 'Why' – you may ask – 'can't the Jersey establishment just face facts, take it on the chin – and turn aside from the path of folly they are on?'
There are several answers to that question.
For example – whilst those in power can be observed meeting with various disasters in most, Western democracies – Jersey is different, in that it has no organised opposition – and no functioning independent media. Therefore those in power in Jersey are able to indulge in folly – without facing the challenge they would in a functioning democracy.
It is also the case that Jersey has no separation of powers – thus no effective checks and balances. In the island, even the judiciary is corrupted to Political purposes.
The stakes are immensely high – therefore – for that power-structure. It is – effectively – a single-party state. But – the admission of any catastrophic public scandal – such as the corrupt concealment of decades of child abuse – could permanently change the political landscape.
Those reasons are – of themselves – enough to explain the irrational and shamelessly overt misbehaviours of the Jersey authorities during the last three years.
But – there is another reason – a reason which is, actually, quite obvious – when you pause to think about the lawless and corrupt behaviours itemised above.
A reason why – the misjudgements of the leaders of the Jersey oligarchy – have caused this to be a 'Total War' – that can only end in complete victory – and utter destruction – for one side – or the other – so vast are the stakes.
It is this.
If people like Graham Power, Lenny Harper and me – win – then certain, immutable facts are acknowledged.
And the general, collective, acknowledgement of those facts – can only have one, final, destination.
The logic is inescapable – and there to be observed.
For a multitude of various crimes of - Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice - and of - Misconduct in a Public Office – the following individuals will be jailed:
Michael Birt.
William Bailhache.
Bill Ogley.
Tom McKeon.
Mike Pollard.
Richard Jouault.
Linda Dodds.
Marnie Baudains.
Dave Warcup.
Mick Gradwell.
Frank Walker.
Terry Le Sueur.
Philip Ozouf.
Mike Vibert.
Stephen Baker.
Emma Martins.
Dave Minty.
Bridget Shaw.
Each and every one of those individuals has engaged in – in one way or another – at different times and in different capacities – in conspiracies to pervert the course of justice, and of acts of misconduct in a public office – in respect of the pro-active, deliberate, concealment of crimes of child abuse – and of crimes of the concealment of child abuse.
That list is by no means exhaustive. But each person that features in it – has the mens rea – and is faced with the evidence – necessary to be prosecuted, convicted – and jailed – for the offences they have committed.
And, of course, in the Jersey context – not only are we speaking of the shame and disgrace of those powerful individuals – we are also facing the utter destruction of the very thing – the very institutions – the very status quo – they were all seeking to protect when embarking upon their criminal enterprise.
Each, in some way, has – knowingly – and that is a crucial distinction – knowingly – with mens rea - acted in ways, and misused their powers, to support and further the cause of the criminal concealment of child abuse.
Such actions have been engaged in, in the capacities of Law Officers, senior civil servants, regulatory officials, members of the 2007 Jersey cabinet, senior police officers – and judges.
Those are some stakes.
But yet – that is the inescapable, logical destination – that defeat for the corrupt Jersey oligarchy leads to.
So – if you observe the crazed, and seemingly irrationally excessive – and ultimately destructive, actions of the Jersey authorities – and shake your head in puzzled wonderment at the persistence of such folly, of the heaping of misjudgement upon misjudgement – now you will understand why.
For them – losing is simply not an option.
This end – this total war – could have been averted – could even have been rowed-back from at certain stages, though that would have involved some sacrifices.
However – in the catalogue of errors that has been the Jersey oligarchy's conduct throughout the child abuse scandal – there are three disastrous misjudgements – three terminally suicidal actions – that there was never, really, going to be any recovery from.
Firstly, the decision by the Jersey cabinet – to join with the corrupt civil servants in the deliberate concealing of child abuse – and their engineering of my dismissal as a Minister.
Secondly, the - frankly insane – action of corruptly and improperly suspending the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force. A nationally respected Chief Constable and holder of the Queens Police Medal. And doing so – in support of, of all things – the sabotaging of a major child abuse investigation.
Thirdly, the crazed, Mugabesque, police-state arrest, searching and oppression of a prominent opposition politician. The theft of his constituents' private data, the denial of his human rights, the refusal to provide legal representation and attempts to prevent him from even adducing the evidence he needs to defend himself.
When, eventually, the reckoning comes – those three events will be looked back upon by history – as the three nails the Jersey oligarchy hung itself from.
And to remind ourselves of just why the fight cannot be given-up – of exactly why any decent person must wish this seen through to the end – we can turn to the next item of evidence.
The document re-produced below – is a report – written by no less a figure than Bridget Shaw.
In it – in addition to the general damnation of what passes for a child "protection" system in Jersey – she refers to no less than nine – nine – separate – horrifying – examples of child abuse.
And – each one of the nine examples referred to here by judge Shaw are note-worthy – because each and everyone is being referred to in the context of examples of disastrous failure by Jersey's child protection apparatus.
In recent times.
Indeed – amongst the cases Ms. Shaw refers to in her report – are at least three – three - that I had become aware of – in spite of the civil servants' obstructions, and through my own investigations – during early 2007.
The very kind of cases I had in mind – when I gave that fateful – honest – answer to the question I was asked in the Jersey parliament in July 2007 – in which I said I 'had no confidence in Jersey's child protection systems – and I was going to commission an external, independent inquiry'.
The answer that then led to people like Bill Ogley, Mike Pollard and Marnie Baudains – with the enthusiastic political support of Frank walker, Terry Le Sueur, Philip Ozouf and Mike Vibert – and with the "legal" assistance of Michael Birt, William Bailhache and Emma Martins – having my dismissal engineered for "undermining staff moral".
These being the self-same staff responsible for the things documented in Ms. Shaw's report – such as failures leading to the neglect, mis-care, battery, savage injury and rape – of many vulnerable children.
I have explained above – as requested by many members of the public – what happened – how it happened – and why it happened. Well – at least as far as those terms can be addressed - under such wretched circumstances. What goes through the minds of people like Bridget Shaw – when unlawfully persecuting me – I can't begin to address.
And the real question – just how my community can have found itself led into such madness – where child abusers and those who fail to protect children are defended – I am likewise still struggling with.
Stuart.
REPORT BY BRIDGET SHAW.
Children’s Service
Background
In January 2006 OS (now DI) Alison Fossey assumed responsibility for what is now the Police Public Protection Team (PPU) formerly known as FPT.
Dl Fossey began to present us with many more cases for advice than we had previously received from the Police. The number of prosecutions rose accordingly, indeed we have had some very successful prosecutions. However at the same time DI Fossey brought to my attention a number of issues concerning the way in which Children’s Service officers were dealing with cases.
These can be summarised as delay in referring matters to the Police; heavy reliance on Police to take action in cases where Children Service should be acting and fail to do so; lack of understanding of Children’s Services primary role in Child Protection; reluctance to apply for Care Orders or Emergency Protection Orders for fear of failing and poor handling of case conferences.
The main issues at the time were with the long term care team who run the Children’s Homes, not, I stress, anything to do with Greenfields, nor with any behaviour that could be considered criminal. It appeared to the Police that a number of members of staff did not appreciate the risks to children, did not act when they should to protect children and did not understand the respective roles of the Police and Children’s Service.
Action by Legal Advisers’ Office
I raised the matter with the Solicitor General and DI Fossey subsequently sent me a report in April 2006 (attached folder 1 together with schedule of investigations and Children’s Service chronologies)
My file note and my subsequent report to the Solicitor General outlining my concerns are also attached (folders 2 and 3).
Meeting with Police
On 8 June 2006 The SG and I met with DCI Bonjour and DS Fossey to discuss the issues ( please see folder 4).
Dl Fossey had brought to our attention a number of cases which were symptomatic of the standards apparently applied by Children’s Service such as shown by the [1], [2] and [3] family histories.
In many cases little seems to be done by Children’s Service to intervene when in view of the Police, Children’s Service should act. They rely too much on the Police and seem to think the Police can act when Children’s Service can’t - rather than the other way around due to the different standards of proof. Frequently when a case was referred to the Police, Children’s Service would ask what he Police were doing about it rather than taking action themselves. The details are in the attached reports.
There was frequently delay in reporting matters to the Police. A case in which delay could have had fatal consequences was the case of the [Child, Family 4] baby (please see report DS Fossey [date excised] folder 1) who was taken to A&E with a suspected fractured skull. Doctors were investigating this as a non-accidental injury and the parents were the sole carers and therefore the chief suspects. Children’s Service did not inform the Police. The Child was admitted at approximately 17.00 one day and Police were not informed until 13.00 the following day, and then, only by chance. In the meantime the child had been allowed home for the night with her parents. I am not an expert in child care but one only has to apply a modicum of commonsense to realise that the Police should have been informed at once and that the child should have been placed with someone other than her parents until investigations were complete. The next day, not one but two suspicious skull fractures were confirmed.
The second area of concern was that members of the long term care teams did not seem to know what their roles were vis a vis the Police. They seemed to think that it was for the Police to act primarily to protect children. The Police’s primary role is to investigate crime. In doing so they work alongside Children’s Service but too often Police found Children’s Service expected the Police to take action when they themselves did not act. They were reluctant to apply for Emergency Protection Orders or Care Orders, even in cases where children such as the [Family 1] children such as [Child, Family 1] appeared to be at considerable risk in her own home.
Another area of concern was the conduct of case conferences, which are meetings held between all agencies to decide whether a child should be put onto the Child Protection Register. This categorises children at the highest risk and a plan of intervention is formed. In the [Child, Family 4] case the chair of the conference was the parents’ former children’s service officer who was clearly not impartial. Other concerns specifically surrounded a Manager named Danny Wherry. He would, for example, start the conference by stating that he did /did not intend to put the child on the register. This was not conducive to an open discussion and joint working between the various agencies.
Mr Wherry also told Police that if a Child on the Register was reported as missing, he did not want the Children’s Service to be contacted about it out of hours — it could wait until the morning. Children are put on the register if they are thought to be at very high risk. One would have thought that Children’s Service would be just the people the Police need to speak to in order to help find a very vulnerable child late at night.
Meeting with Children’s Service
The SG and I met with Marnie Baudains and Tony Le Sueur, (a Children’s Service manager). They accepted that Case Conferences were not always handled well and said they were short of people in the island qualified to chair them (something Marnie is working to improve).
As far as the long term cases were concerned, they effectively said that the chronologies we saw reflected only part of the work that went on but admitted that cost was a factor in dealing with such families, they thought they would never get care orders as the bar is set too high and even if they applied, they would have to show that the care home was better than the family home, which wasn’t necessarily the case as they would struggle to place such children.
We were told that incidents such as the [Child, Family 4] baby case should not have happened and were exceptional.
We also brought up the case of Jason Hamon which came to light in [Date excised]. Hamon was convicted of sexual offences against girls (aged 12/13) and sentenced to three years imprisonment Before he was released he underwent a RAMAS assessment which assesses a person’s risk of committing further serious offences. He was deemed to be at high risk. He also expressed his intention to return to live with his partner. This woman did not accept that he remained a risk (‘He has paid his debt to society etc ‘). She had an [Age excised] old daughter. Clearly, the mother was in no position to protect her daughter if she did not accept that he posed a risk of offending. Children’s Service did not intervene to protect the girl.
Two years later, the almost inevitable disclosure was made to the Police that Hamon had been indecently assaulting the daughter from the moment he came home. This was a tragedy which could have been avoided. Hamon is now serving another prison sentence. Children’s Service said they were not able to establish that he was actually living at the partner's address and denied it when challenged.
Overall they believed they were doing a good job but that they felt unable to apply for Court orders to take children into care as the standards set by the Court were very high and applications even in such cases as [Child, Family 1] were likely to fail. The driving factor behind these decisions seems too often to be whether Children’s Service have suitable accommodation for the child rather than whether the child is at risk of harm if he or she stays in the home.
I still find this hard to understand particularly as I successfully prosecuted [Mother, Child, Family 1] for neglect when she admitted allowing a known sex offender into her home on a daily basis and watched him indecently assault [Child, Family 1] on two occasions without intervening. When parents cannot or will not protect a child surely the state has a duty to act?
The Present Position
The view of the Police is nothing has improved since our meeting with Children’s Service. Indeed things have deteriorated as the problems were formerly to do with the long term care team and response from the emergency team had been good. Since then some members of the emergency team have left and things have not improved.
Delays in reporting matters to the Police and questionable judgement issues remain.
Delays
The delay in the [Family 4] case was clearly not an exception. There have been many instances in which there has been delay in informing the Police. A glaring example is the case [Child, Family 6] (folder 5). I no longer have the full file but I enclose copies of the documents showing a referral from Health to Children’s Service on [Date excised.]
[Mother, Family 6] was a young single mother with a disturbed background. On [Date excised] she informed psychiatric nurse [Nurse A] that she had tried to kill her [Age excised] old baby by smothering him. She stopped in time. However, she felt that the baby was better off without her but as she did not want anyone else to have the child it would be better for him to die.
The documents show that [Nurse A] informed Children's Service at once. However, Children’s Service did not inform the Police until 4 weeks later. In the meantime Children’s Service had agreed with [Mother, Family 6] that her father should care for the baby but they did not tell him what had happened. The grandfather was therefore not in a position properly to protect the child as he did not know either that the child was at risk or what that risk was. The Grandfather in fact took the baby with him on a visit to UK where [Mother, Family 6] joined them. No authorities in UK had any idea that the Child was at risk. Police were only informed 4 weeks after [Date excised] when the family returned to Jersey. One can only conclude that in this case there was an abject failure to follow basic procedures and in my view, the Child must have been put at risk by those failures.
Poor Judgment
Another recent example of what is wrong in Children’s Service is the case of the [Family 7] (folder 6). The letter on file is from Linda Dodds, a senior manager. The letter is self explanatory. The children were at so much risk that they were put on the Register in [Date excised] 2006. By [Date excised] 2007 Children’s Service had had no intervention in the family, and had not even completed a core assessment as mother would not co-operate. The suggestion then, is that the children should come off the register! Surely mother's refusal to let Children’s Service into the house and refusal to co-operate is all the more reason for concern for these children, not less. DI Fossey's reply is also attached.
Another example is the case of [Child, Family 8] (folder 7). This was brought to my attention last week. [Child, Family 8] has been fostered by a family since the age of [Age excised] . He is now, around [Age excised]. He has [Condition excised.] Recently he tried to strangle the [Age excised] year old son of his foster parents. Children’s Service seem only able to focus on what they think is best for [Child, Family 8]and are ignoring the need to protect the [Age excised] yr old in the family. They are adamant that [Child, Family 8] should not be prosecuted and should remain in the home. It was only the Police who asked in case conference what the mother's view was (she can no longer cope with him) and the effect on the [Age excised] yr old (very fearful he or his parents will be killed by [Child, Family 8] in their sleep). There are two children here and the Police have actually alleged that Mr McVey of Children’s Service has tried to mislead them about whether to prosecute firstly in omitting Dr Williams’ comments that [Child, Family 8] should be prosecuted from the minutes of the meeting and then writing to DI Fossey saying that CAMHS (i.e. Dr Williams) were of the opinion that prosecution would not be in [Child, Family 8's] best interest. This is a very serious allegation but the officer (DC Cornelissen) does not see what other interpretation he can put on the facts.
Yet another case earlier this year was Dennis Godwin. He was a convicted sex offender living with a woman who has severe learning difficulties and her daughter [Child, Family 9]. who has equal, if not more severe problems. [Child, Family 9] was assessed as having a mental age of 6 although she was [Age excised]. [Child, Family 9] mother knew Godwin was a sex offender. She was unable to protect her daughter. Godwin slept in her daughter’s room with the girl. Children’s Service knew he was a sex offender living with two people of severely reduced mental capacity. They did not intervene. Godwin repeatedly raped [Child, Family 9] and even filmed two acts himself. He is now serving 12 years. Even after Godwin’s arrest Children’s Service would not remove [Child, Family 9] from her mother’s care, not because they didn’t appreciate mother’s inability to protect her daughter but because they didn’t have anywhere to put a Child with severe learning difficulties. This continued even after Godwin tried to contact [Child, Family 9] from prison and mother sent him photographs of her.
Williamson Enquiry
When the enquiry was set up I contacted the Solicitor General and asked whether I should speak to Mr Williamson about the concerns we had had about Children’s Service which led to our meeting last year. The SG said that I should do so. I was aware that the Police still had problems with Children’s Service and I spoke to DI Fossey who gave me the most recent examples of [Child, Family 7] and [Child, Family 8].
I would emphasise that I have no knowledge of the matters relating to the allegations Senator Syvret has made about Greenfields and I feel I have nothing to contribute to that aspect of Mr Williamson’s enquiry. However, the enquiry was set up to look at child protection in its widest sense and I felt under an obligation to bring the above matters to Mr Williamson’s attention, which, with the agreement of the SG, I did last Thursday.
Bridget Shaw
Bridget Shaw wimple
Friday, 30 April 2010
LOOKING INTO THE MICROCOSM FROM REALITY.
Blanche Pierre –The Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity.
Part 8.
Blanche Pierre – Haut
A.C.P.O 3/4:
Yet More Evidence that HDLG
Investigation was Good.
Therefore Suspension of Police Chief
Was Unlawful.
"Recommendation 13: That the Chief Officer maintains a safety zone between the investigation and any demands of politicians.
The Chief of Police has maintained a role in updating Jersey’s politicians and wider community. An article interviewing him in The Jersey Evening Post regarding his Annual Report of 2007 has also included aspects of Operation Rectangle. It is understood that he has received a statement including allegations of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and other offences. He will seek independent legal advice regarding these allegations."
ACPO3/4.
"5 Intelligence/Analysis
5.1 It is known that some victims were abused by more than one person and that a number of the abusers assaulted numerous victims. The analyst should interrogate all the evidence and provide charting of the abusers and abused children, together with time lines. This will assist interviews, prosecutors and presentation at court.
Recommendation 50: That the analyst prepares charts of abusers and abused children, together with timelines."
ACPO 3/4.
"8 Victims of child abuse and witnesses management
8.1 The deputy SIO has overseen a review of all the victims, identifying those that had been abused within the offence parameters set by the SIO. There are now 116 victims of child abuse that meet the criteria, whom have come forward to report crimes committed against them at the Home."
ACPO 3/4
"6 The homicide Investigation
6.1 Since the last visit, the sifting at the scene has unearthed some 30 fragments of bone and seven teeth. A definitive forensic analysis of all the samples is incomplete. It appears however, that one bone is a piece of a female child’s tibia. Additionally, some of the bones have been cut and some of the milk teeth have long roots, suggesting that they did not naturally fall out. The initial views from expert examinations are that these bones and teeth originate from two children. These facts indicate an unexplained death or deaths and it is appropriate that the investigation continues to pursue what happened to the children."
ACPO 3/4.
"10 Forensic Strategy
10.1 Articles in the Mail on Sunday (18.5.08) and the Daily Mail (19.5.08) criticised the SIO and the investigation, focusing on the forensic processing. This specifically relates to the first piece of ‘skull’ found at the Home. The articles were followed by some criticism in political circles. The Review team immediately saw the damage this has caused to some of the investigation team and sapped their morale. The political criticism is extremely unhelpful and, if leaked will fuel the media comments and will divert the investigation, Of course, political players have every right in the public’s interest to question efficiency and effectiveness of the investigation but this does not include ridiculing members of the team.
Recommendation 54: That the Chief Officer of States of Jersey Police considers raising what the politician has done with the appropriate authorities."
ACPO 3/4.
This posting will conclude - for the time being - our examination of the Blanch Pierre child abuse atrocity. A crime that I very deliberately describe as 'on-going'; as persisting over the years and decades.
I do so because not only is the suffering - and the denial of justice - a continuous presence in the lives of the survivors - I do so because the broad, criminal enterprise - of facilitating and concealing the child abuse that occurred - continues to the present day.
And the evidence for that guilty conduct by the States of Jersey is there - to be seen - not only in that one crime - but also in respect of the concealment of child abuse in general.
For example - the criminal concealment of the true extent of the crimes that occurred at Haut de le Garenne - and the on-going unlawful suspension of the Chief Constable of the Jersey Police Force, Graham Power.
An unlawful suspension, facilitated by the acting police chief - David Warcup.
A fact rendered all the more staggering - given that parts of the ACPO report, which is reproduced below - confirm that the ACPO team met with Warcup - he was satisfied with their findings - and wanted them to continue to be involved.
This being the very same ACPO team who endorsed the investigation - and, specifically, the role plaid by the Chief Constable, Graham Power.
Yet - a few months later - Warcup was ignoring all of the ACPO reports - and, instead, embarked upon the unlawful usurping of Mr. Power - on the basis of nothing more than a now-discredited memo - written by a personal friend of Warcup's from the Metropolitan police.
No matter which aspect of the child protection disasters we look at in Jersey - failure and wilful malfeasance are the dominant features of what is - clearly - a systemic entity.
In Part 1 of this series of postings, I explored just how it is that bad and evil things can happen – almost, not quite, but almost – by accident. How people, in failing to be aware of factors such as the Diffusion of Responsibility, of Moral Disengagement and of Groupthink – and of personal distance from the actual, principal, crimes – can end up being components in extensive criminal enterprises.
Not only have such phenomena been very well explored and documented in social psychology, so common-place are they, that several theories of law also address group malfeasances, and the culpability of individuals. Perhaps the most famous expression of the simultaneous nature of collective and of individual responsibility being the rejection of the Nuremburg defence, as used by the Nazis, who sought exculpation from their crimes, by claiming that there were "only obeying orders".
The law, on that occasion, rightly establishing that actual and moral guilt for crimes could not be assigned from those involved in the committing of those offences, merely because a superior had issued the authority.
We are – each of us – responsible for our own actions – no matter how slight – if we are playing a role in a greater crime.
But, just as people often have the most profound difficulty in perceiving their inchoate responsibility for crimes – people equally have a difficulty in even perceiving that the crimes exist and can often be continual in time – on-going – and often of vast and dramatic complexity – spreading out to greater and greater extent in ever-expanding ripples that bring more and more people into the realm of culpability.
And that difficulty of perception, that prevents people from truly seeing and understanding just what it is they are involved in – can often be the very salve – the very tranquilising-agent – which drugs people and equips them to take part in the gravest of crimes, merely because they are distant from the original or immediate offence.
A way to overcome this difficulty in perceiving reality is to step-back – so that you can see the truth – by being able to see the whole picture – not just your own, small, immediate inchoate part in it.
Look at the whole – reality.
And for our purposes - that broad reality is that which has taken place – and is still taking place – in Jersey; it is a single, monstrous, criminal enterprise.
We might call it the "Jersey Child Abuse Disaster".
We might term it the "Culture of Concealment".
We might conclude that whilst there is no current, established over-arching single criminal offence, with which we could conveniently label this enterprise – nevertheless, so obviously wrong is it – and so obviously involving many principal and inchoate criminal acts – that we must see it as a single phenomena.
However we may see it, that process of "naming" the thing – of seeing it as a whole, specific entity – is always crucial to human understanding.
What happened at Auschwitz, or Dachau, or Ravensbruck were not isolated, unconnected acts of mass-murder. They were components in a greater whole. The most disgusting act in human history. And people rightly see that "thing" as the distinct, entire, entity that it was.
We look back upon it; we see it; we know it. We recognise it.
Many Jewish people describe it as the Shoah; more commonly, "it" is known as the Holocaust.
But we have named it – we see it – for the specific episode in history that it was.
That is not, of course, to compare the persistent hate, contempt, disregard and criminality shown towards vulnerable children for decades in Jersey, with the nature of the Holocaust. But nevertheless, we are confronted with a continuing atrocity, that is a distinct entity, and which is greater than the sum of its parts.
Of course a further distinction can be drawn between the two crimes in that the Nazi leadership specifically and deliberately planned to attempt genocide against the Jewish people. They knew what they were doing – they had the mens rea. By way of contrast there won't – I presume - have been a secret meeting of the leaders of the Jersey oligarchy at which they took a specific decision to knowingly subject the vulnerable children of Jersey to decades of neglect, abuse and torture; to have consciously decided, 'this is what we are going to do, and, moreover, we will also conceal all such crimes'.
So does that absence of a specific 'controlling mind' – with the mens rea for what we now see as the entity that is the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster – mean that those who participate in the atrocity bear no responsibility?
For many good – and obvious – reasons, legal theory does not grant such exculpation to individuals. Not least – because if it did, we would be approaching an acceptance of the Nuremburg 'defence', whereby people could have participated in the most dreadful of crimes – but be able to claim innocence – by asserting, perhaps even accurately, that their role in the crime was so peripheral, they could not perceive that the crime was being committed in the first place – or, even if they had seen the broader enterprise, that they did not know it was a crime.
It is well-known that 'ignorance of the law is no defence', but that is not the only means by which legal theory holds people to responsibility for their own actions.
For example, in civil law, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, or, 'the thing itself speaks', can establish the existence of a broad 'duty of care' – or responsibility – for an act. And even though overall responsibility for the wrong act may lie indistinctly within a group of people, if it is obvious that in that context, that group owed a duty of care, then liability for a wrong suffered by a person, speaks for itself in its obviousness – and need not be directly ascribed to an individual within the group.
And in the realm of criminal law, the existence of inchoate offences has long been established; perhaps the most widely recognised being the offence of conspiracy. An individual may have only played a minor, partial, peripheral role in a conspiracy - but having been so involved, they are guilty of the broader criminal enterprise of the conspiracy.
There can be no doubt that individual employees of the States of Jersey, and the States of Jersey itself, are liable for both civil and criminal wrongs committed against the victims of child abuse. That much is already an unarguable, evidenced fact.
We need only consider the contemporaneous file-note written by Graham Power, the Chief Constable of the States of Jersey Police Force in July 2007 - in which he recorded the criminal conspiracy being engaged in by Bill Ogley, the States of Jersey Chief Executive, and Mike Pollard, the Health & Social Services Chief Executive - to unlawfully engineer my dismissal as Minister, for the purposes of preventing me from exposing child protection failures.
Indeed - the dramatic compounding of that criminal offence is there to be seen in the criminal conduct of William Bailhache who - in his then capacity as Attorney General, refused to prosecute criminals such as Ogley and Pollard.
And that particular example - the criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by seeking to conceal crimes of child abuse - is but one example. The event -the continuum that we can describe as the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster is ladled with similar such examples.
No person vaguely familiar with the facts - for example, the great mass of hard evidence published by this blog - could credibly dispute that all the elements required to establish the existence and the commissioning of various criminal offences are present.
Conspiracies - plots designed to achieve criminal objectives, the mens rea necessary for both primary crimes and for the conspiracy itself, the 'agreement' between a number of people to bring about unlawful outcomes by which people suffer wrongs, the 'general intent', the 'agreement' to act in such ways as to involve the commissioning of a criminal act, the 'facilitation' of such acts - all are evidenced and clear behaviours exhibited by the senior figures in the Jersey oligarchy.
That is why - when I described the Jersey oligarchy as a 'criminal regime' - I do so quite specifically.
It is a literal fact.
There is no other jurisdiction in the established, democratic world - that would have embraced such overt and comprehensive lawlessness in its conduct.
No matter how one considers the evidence against the Jersey oligarchy, there is no hiding from the fact that the mens rea and the actus reus are clearly present, regardless of whether we consider motivational concurrence or temporal concurrence.
Whether the individuals involved have been the principals or the accessories - the common purpose of breaking the law in known, demonstrable ways - is established - and, so far as I am aware, no mitigation on the grounds of abandonment of the course of criminal conduct could yet be cited by any of the guilty parties.
And in this posting, I publish yet further evidence that shows the criminal conduct of the Jersey oligarchy.
That evidence is the combined third and fourth reports prepared by the Association of Chief Police Officers, who were providing professional oversight of the Jersey historic child abuse investigation. Like the two earlier ACPO reports I have published - it proves that the investigation itself - and, in particular, the overall leadership of the Jersey Police under Graham Power - was of a very high standard.
The offences - the criminal conduct - demonstrated by this evidence - are two-fold.
Not only is it clear from the report that the investigation was justified - both on grounds of many, many cases of child abuse - and the very real discovery of unidentified remains of children - but it also shows the subsequent action of suspending the Chief Constable, Graham Power - to have been without any credible justification, and therefore of itself, another criminal act, designed to sabotage a proper police enquiry.
So how and why - given the overt criminality on display - is the Jersey oligarchy able to get away with such conduct?
Because they are the senior civil service - they are the prosecution system - they are the executive - they are the legislature - they are the judiciary - they are the fourth estate.
Unless we win - by eventually forcing external intervention - there is not the remotest prospect of such comprehensively corrupted power in Jersey - ever holding itself to account.
Even the recently appointed Attorney General, who had an opportunity to, effectively, turn the Jersey oligarchy away from lawlessness and corruption has, instead, foolishly chosen to continue the criminal enterprises engaged in by his predecessors.
So it is going to be a long time before we can rely upon the proper protections of the law in Jersey.
In the mean time - we just have to hope that some of these oligarchs might begin to develop some ethics - or even a little common sense.
And perhaps attempting to stand back from what they have become involved in - and seeing it for the extensive amalgam of criminal offences that it is - perceiving it as a continuum of child abuse and the criminal concealment of such abuse - might assist them in coming to such recognition.
So in an effort to assist those 'players' in the Jersey oligarchy who have become active participants in the atrocity - I will draw the linkages between their actions - and the consequences of their actions to show that, just as the bureaucrats and facilitators of the Holocaust may as well have been beating people into the gas chambers - Jersey oligarchs are helping today's paedophiles to rape children and for such crimes to be concealed.
Let us say that you are a senior police officer - who has helped the oligarchy bury the child abuse investigation - by mounting the unlawful coup against the Chief Constable.
Imagine your actions as being akin to pimping young boys from Haute de la Garenne to be sodomised by old men.
Or - facilitating enforced abortions on a teenage girls who have been made pregnant through rape at HDLG - and then disposing of the foetus in the old furnace.
If you have helped the Jersey establishment bury the abuse investigation - those are the crimes you are associated with.
Let us imagine - that you are a senior civil servant - and you are aware of gross and systemic cases of child abuse - but you do not inform the police - and nor do you even alert your politicians to the generality of such a breakdown in social services.
Imagine coming home from work in a bad mood - and beating a child in your care with a wooden broom-handle - until the child is bleeding from lacerations - and does not even have the strength left to carry on screaming.
Then - once you've finished - locking that child in the cupboard under the stairs until midnight.
By failing to even draw such crimes to the attention of the police - you may as well have been wielding that broom yourself.
Or - perhaps you are a politician - who has denigrated the police investigation - tried to undermine the police leaders - or - as is referred to in this ACPO report - furnished manipulated information to the Mail on Sunday, in a deliberate attempt to smear the enquiry.
You have misused your position - in order to protect people who take school boys out to sea on sailing boats, where there is no chance of the child being helped - and who then hold the boy's head over the side of the boat under the water whilst anally raping them.
Perhaps you are a senior civil servant - who is aware that senior colleagues from other departments are deliberately concealing child abuse - and you chose to support and protect your friends in such conduct.
Imagine walking down a dark lane one evening - and hearing the screams of a child being molested. You know it's happening - you even know which house it is taking place in - but you hurry on by - pretending that you didn't hear that suffering.
Or - perhaps it comes into your knowledge - that a member of your staff - in the department you manage - has been sexually abusing a teenage girl in his care, and has caused her to become pregnant. Not only do you not inform the police - even worse - you confront the employee - but not to sack him on the grounds of gross misconduct; instead you tell him you'll let him resign and leave quietly - in order to avoid any inconvenient fuss - thus enabling him to go and work elsewhere where he can carry on abusing other children.
You may as well have pimped under-age girls to that abuser.
Imagine you are a Data Protection Commissioner and you are abusing your powers to oppress politicians who are trying to fight against child abuse.
It may as well be you - who is knowingly protecting a middle-aged man from discovery whilst he forces little girls to masturbate him.
Or - perhaps you're helping your establishment friends - to conceal their culpability for letting-off a man who is - obviously - an evidenced mass-murdering psychopath.
You may as well have been going around that hospital ward - at 3.00 in the morning - detaching patients' drips - and overdosing them with heroin.
You might be a politician - who thought no further than the partisan political support of your allies - and the doing-down of your opponents - and therefore you voted to stop a colleague from exposing child protection failures.
Imagine you - yourself - being responsible for keeping a mentally ill 14 year old - locked up in solitary confinement - where he has a mental breakdown - and routinely lacerates his arms through self-harm - whilst he lays on a mattress on his cell floor for 23 hours a day.
And you keep him in those conditions - for three months.
Or perhaps you are a lawyer - and close friends with the Attorney General - who pays you with public money to politically oppress opposition politicians.
You are directly supporting and maintaining the climate of fear - and the Culture of Concealment - that will continue to embolden mass-murders - and child rapists - in the committing of their crimes.
Or - perhaps you are a judge; a judge who knows perfectly well that Jersey harbours a Culture of Concealment - in which the grossest of abuses - and of social services failures - are allowed to persist - with those responsible enjoying some kind of absolute invulnerability - which ensures they can never be held to account for their gross incompetence.
But even though you have that knowledge - you abuse your powers to participate in the overt oppression of those who were trying to combat the culture of secrecy and the lack of accountability.
Your actions are equivalent to those of a political tyrant who wishes to conceal the failures of his regime - so he sends around thugs to beat-up his opponents - to "make an example" of them - to maintain the climate of fear.
Or - perhaps you are a journalist - and you are provided with damning evidence that shows that many gross crimes against children were able to be committed over a period of years - not only without being reported to the police, but even with the victims being bullied into not complaining.
You do not take steps to have the information published - because your bosses and your friends wouldn't like it.
You may as well have stood and watched - whilst those boys were made to become helplessly intoxicated - and then sexually molested - whilst the abusers filmed their crimes.
Actions - and inaction's - and consequences.
And not merely abstract theorising - but a disturbingly close match to the actual events.
Cause - and effect.
It is famously written that all that is required for the triumph of evil - is for good people to do nothing.
But the dreadful reality of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster is worse than that.
The Culture of Concealment - and the climate of fear that enables all such atrocities to persist - does not come about only because "good people do nothing". Instead - its existence is pro-actively helped and nurtured - through an accumulation of small acts of ethical bankruptcy - of evil - of cowardice - that - cumulatively - bring into existence an act of monstrous wickedness that is something greater than the sum of its parts.
Yet - how many of those contributory individuals - those culpable people - see their own weakness and solipsistic inadequacies - for what they are - component-parts in a greater atrocity which would not be able to exist if it were not for their participation?
Acts - and consequences.
As Dylan Thomas wrote:
"The hand that signed the paper
Felled the city."
Stuart.
ASSOCIATION OF CHIEF POLICE OFFICERS
REPORT 3/4
Operation Rectangle: Haut de la Garenne, Jersey
Historical Child Abuse investigation and possible homicide case
Update of previous recommendations
Recommendation 1: That an agenda is prepared for this (and any other meetings) and a minute taker records the salient points and any decisions.
From the 4th March 2008, Vickie Ellis has been appointed minute taker and every meeting has an agenda and a record is maintained. Copies of the minutes are not yet retained on the Holmes account. This should be addressed and the deputy SIO has been reminded of this requirement.(26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 2: That the deputy SIO (Detective Inspector Keith Bray) provides an update of any points of interest that includes – the MIR, the Outside Enquiry Team, Analysis and Intelligence Cell. In key areas, consideration should be given to inviting any colleagues responsible for these areas of the investigation.
DI Bray attends the management meetings and provides a current situation report. This is also provided to both the outside enquiry team and the MIR; a copy of all reports are held on Holmes as ‘other documents’. (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 3: That the SIO considers a mechanical process for sifting the debris.
On the 4th March 2008, a mechanical sifter was borrowed from the Counter Terrorist Command at New Scotland Yard. It was in place on the 5th March in one of the sifting areas at Haut de la Garenne. The team saw this being used and it has speeded up the process. (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 4: That the three exhibit sites be detailed in the policy book. That the Crime Scene Manager provides a statement that details the exhibits and could include a time line, e.g. ‘these are the exhibits and could include a time line, e.g. ‘these are the exhibits recovered at the Haut de la Garenne care home between the 1st January 2008 and the 1st March 2008. The examination of the scene has not been completed and further exhibits will be correctly recorded and submitted at appropriate periods.’
The SIO has entered a policy decision on the 3rd March. The exhibits at Haut de la Garenne are retained at a secure area and the Scene Manager retains an exhibit book and log. She will provide a full statement giving account control and movement. The Exhibits Officer retains control of all other exhibits and retains a record of movement on Holmes. The documents and files in ‘the cage’ are exhibited in batches. When specific papers are removed they are sub-exhibited as required with a full record on Holmes. (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 5: That the SIO review this position and seeks advice from his trained Family Liaison Co-ordinator and through Detective Sergeant Teresa Russell NPIA, seeks advice from Detective Constable Duncan McGarry (NPIA).
On 20th March Duncan McGarry visited the MIR. He was apprised of the FLO policy from DS Dave Hill (the Office Manager). He gave advice on an FLO strategy, best practice and exit policy for victims. (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 6: That the SIO ensure that his policy for presenting victims’ evidence to the courts is recorded in the policy log.
On 18th March the SIO recorded this policy in his policy/decision log. (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 7: The SIO should consider whether all residents will be interviewed (or not)?
On 18th March, the SIO recorded the policy that not all victims will be interviewed as a matter of course. They will only be interviewed if they come forward and are victims or witnesses of material evidence. (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 8: The SIO should consider a policy for dealing with such victims and record it as a matter of policy.
See above (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 9: The SIO should discuss Wateridge with the Prosecuting authority.
On 15th March the SIO met with the Force legal advisor, Lawrence O’Donnell. They discussed Wateridge. He is to be re-interviewed week commencing the 24th March regarding other allegations and offences. All parties are content with this way forward. (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 10: The SIO must detail any arrest strategies in the Policy Files.
On 19th March, the SIO detailed his arrest strategy in his policy/decision log.(26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 11: The SIO should ascertain from the proper authorities, and recover, any records or files of people who worked at the home (following advice from the data protection officer).
The head of Social Services, Tony Le Sueur, provides full access to any files required. The enquiry team has immediate access to the files and can remove any on receipt. This process is intelligence led; in that, as the intelligence cell identifies a former worker of interest a call is made and the files searched for and recovered against receipt. (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 12: The SIO must set strategies for contingencies of victims and suspects harming themselves and the likelihood of suspects fleeing to other countries.
All victims and suspects are risk assessed by the officer who has the action to deal with the individual. On 25th March, the deputy SIO has provided Special Branch with details of all suspects for tracking of movement if they attempt to leave Jersey. (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 13: That the Chief Officer maintains a safety zone between the investigation and any demands of politicians.
The chief of Police has maintained a role in updating Jersey’s politicians and wider community. An article interviewing him in The Jersey Evening Post regarding his Annual Report of 2007 has also included aspects of Operation Rectangle. It is understood that he has received a statement including allegations of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and other offences. He will seek independent legal advice regarding these allegations. (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 14: That the key members of investigation team consider the offer of specific mentors from this team.
This is on-going and the key members of the enquiry team have welcomed and taken the opportunity to seek advice from their respective mentors. (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 15: That the SIO, deputy SOI and Office Manager have clear demarcation of their roles and adhere to them.
As of 10th March, when PNICC provided additional resources on mutual aid, the three key members of the enquiry work to their specific roles detailed within MIRSAP. (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 16: That the Chief Officer considers appointing someone to temporarily undertake the duties of deputy chief officer.
On 10th March, Sean Du Val was appointed Deputy Chief Officer. He undertakes all the functions within that rank leaving the SIO to concentrate on Operation Rectangle. (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 17: That the Chief Officer and SIO consider a Community Impact Assessment and convene an Independent Advisory Group. The IAG should not include former residents of this home, could include advisors from the NSPCC or community groups. The IAG could advise on the CIA.
On 19th March, a Community Impact Assessment was completed. The first meeting of the Independent Advisory Group was held on 13th March 2008. (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 18: The media officers should put together an internal media process and ensure it is kept current.
On 7th March, an internal document was drawn up and made available to all staff. (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 19: That other accommodation is found for the enquiry team and that the MIR is extended to the current room used by the enquiry team. This may allow the Document Reader/OM/Deputy SIO to use the current MIR for work that requires a quieter environment. States of Jersey Police recognised this from the upsurge in calls over recent days and are in the process of addressing this matter.
On 10th March, the MIR took over the two rooms of the MIR and the outside enquiry team moved into separate accommodation on the second floor of police headquarters. In three or four week’s time a new MIR will be made available in Broadcasting House – a nearby police rented building. (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 20: That the call centre phones are located elsewhere and have a ‘relevant’ number of dedicated call-takers with appropriate skills. This call centre can be staffed during office hours and have a suitable answering machine for other times. This will fluctuate depending on the media coverage etc, but best practice is to enhance numbers initially as it’s then easier to stand people down. This call centre should include child abuse trained officers.
On 17th March, a dedicated Call-Centre with two staff, one a member of the enquiry team and another a member of the NSPCC was located in the enquiry team’s office. (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 21: Through Mutual Aid a dedicated experienced Receiver and a dedicated experienced Action Manager are found for the MIR. (These roles may, at some time in the future, be able to be combined when the incident volumes settle down). Additional typing staff should also be identified and posted to MIR.
From 10th March, a Receiver, Action Manager, two Readers and additional typists were dedicated to MIR. (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 22: The Deputy SIO should review the Actions queues on behalf of the SOP to focus the MIR to the relevant lines of enquiry. The Deputy SIO should undertake this review with a dedicated Action Manager over the course of a day or two, this would allow the number to be dramatically reduced to relevant Actions with the remainder being put to ‘For Referral’ or ‘Referred’. It should be noted that they would still be searchable in those queues should they become relevant as the enquiry continues. This would assist to ‘clear the ground’ from under their feet to allow a clearer focus on what Actions are relevant.
The Deputy SIO and Office Manager now have a regular QA system in place (see recommendation 42). (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 23: That there should be assurance that all of the good work being done for the enquiry at the various locations and countries is captured via relevant documentation associated to the incident Actions. For example the work by the search dog; the work by the Archaeological digs etc. One option may be to feed synopses of work being done by experts into the MIR via the coordinating SOCO which should be controlled via Actions. Such documents could be ‘living documents’ on a daily basis to be typed up. This would form a good source of intelligence/update information for the SIO rather than having to rely on minutiae detail from each and every area.
This is now in place and the SIO is updated at management meetings regarding this action. (26.3.08)Completed.
It is suggested that an SIO (Andy Tattersall GMP) with previous experience of such abuse cases together with a Disclosure expert (Ian Lloyd or Graham Marshall, West Midlands Police) are invited through Teresa Russell to apprise and advise the best way to do this that will comply with Disclosure advice, best practice and regulations.
On 17th March Andy Tattersall visited the enquiry and met with key members of the team. (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 24: That all policy files are recorded on the Holmes account.
The non sensitive policy files were already on Holmes and are available for the team to see. (26.3.08) sensitive policy files are retained in hard copy only. (23.5.08) Completed.
Recommendation 25: The SIO should consider this issue in any risk assessment conducted on the victims as well as the suspects.
See Recommendation 12 above. (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 26: Consideration should be given to investing in both a full HOLMES system for States of Jersey Police and the requisite training for staff.
A report has been submitted to the Home Affairs minister. (26.3.08)
Recommendation 27: That the States of Jersey Police consider all the recommendations and take appropriate action. It is suggested that this team returns to Jersey in four weeks time to revisit any recommendations, the enquiry and make further recommendations as appropriate.
This recommendation is complete. (26.3.08) Completed.
Recommendation 28: That the SIO considers a scoring matrix to manage and prioritise the arrests of suspects.
The SIO decided not to adopt a scoring matrix (log 8 in Persons of Interest/Suspect Policy). However in log 9, he does decide to prioritise the suspect list and to take no further action against others. (23.5.08) Completed.
Recommendation 29: That the SIO considers appointing lead officers for each suspect and they maintain a structured investigative log for each of their designated suspects.
Each Person of Interest and / or suspect is allocated to a team for research and progression. The team are also responsible for maintaining the structured investigative log that is also recorded on the Holmes account. (23.5.08) Completed.
Recommendation 30: That Detective Inspector Alan Williamson, the Family Liaison lead for States of Jersey Police, creates and implements a family liaison strategy in accordance with the advice from DC McGarry.
Detective Constable Alex le Chevalier (Jersey police) and Raymond Alexander (NSPCC) are dedicated to this role. They are putting together a FLO strategy which will be utilised on a case by case basis. (23.5.08) Completed.
Recommendation 31: That the Crime Scene Manager and SOCA for Jersey brings this issue to the attention of LGC management.
There has been confusion over the provenancing and carbon dating of this exhibit. This has been exacerbated by the Mail on Sunday article on 18th May 2008, where forensic analysts involved have spoken directly to the media. This will be subject of a further recommendation that the States of Jersey Police raises this breach of confidence with the National Police Improvement Agency. (23.5.08) Completed.
Recommendation 32: That once the provenance of the piece of skull is known, the SIO decided and decision logs the continuance or not of the homicide investigation.
Even though there is confusion regarding this exhibit, from the context in which it was found the SIO has been informed that it is from the 1920s. With regard to that item he has declared that it is not part of a homicide investigation. However, with recent finds of cut bone, charred pieces of bone and full milk teeth, he has declared this an unexplained death or deaths and once there is confirmation around the date of the death (s), he will decide whether this is a homicide case.(23.5.08) Completed.
Recommendation 33: If not a homicide, the SIO seeks advice as to how to deal with the piece of bone.
The SIO is retaining this exhibit. (23.5.08) Completed.
Recommendation 34: If there is no homicide at Haut de la Garenne the case remains a complex historical abuse investigation, the SIO should then consider declaring it a critical incident and instigate police supporting that decision. Discharged. (23.5.08)
Recommendation 35: A forensic strategy must be drawn up to cover all exhibits that have been recovered for comparison against victims and the UK database.
See recommendation 56 (23.5.08) Completed.
Recommendation 36: The SIO must obtain forensic advice regarding the recovered bones from the scene.
See recommendation (23.5.08) Completed.
Recommendation 37: Through Theresa Russell, NPIA, the SIO seeks the advice of Adrian West with regard to a sensitive media appeal for reluctant witnesses to come forward and report crimes.
The SIO has considered this recommendation and is satisfied with the strategy in place for encouraging victims to come forward. (23.5.08) Completed.
Recommendation 38: That the SIO considers a strategy to encourage workers at the home to provide evidence.
The SIO has made such media appeals. This recommendation will be reconsidered if the findings of bones and teeth lead to a homicide investigation. (23.5.08) Completed.
Recommendation 39: All risk assessments must be quality assured and supervised by the deputy SIO.
The deputy SIO is supervising the risk assessments. (23.5.08) Completed.
Recommendation 40: The SIO seeks an experienced Receiver – ideally be Monday 31st March 2008. (23.5.08) Completed.
Recommendation 41: In conjunction with the advice from Andy Tattersall, if the enquiry is a complex historical abuse investigation, the SIO considers how best to sub divide the Holmes account to address individual suspects.
This is being undertaken and the suspects have been divided and designated to teams to progress. The disclosure officer is engaged on this process and further expert disclosure advice is being sought from Devon & Cornwall Police. (23.05.08) Completed.
Recommendation 42: Within seven days, a full review of the incident actions is made to assess and prioritise the work of the enquiry team. This will identify areas of priority to provide the SIO the best evidence available against suspects. This should be completed by Keith Bray and Dave Hill. (23.5.08) Completed.
Recommendation 43: That the Receiver receives and quality assures the returning actions from the Enquiry team. (23.5.08) Completed.
Recommendation 44: The SIO seeks a Receiver at the earliest opportunity. (23.5.08) Completed.
Recommendation 45: Following the review of Actions (see recommendation 41 above) the SIO reconsiders the staff requirements. (23.5.08) Completed.
Recommendation 46: The SIO should discuss medium to long term requirements with PNICC. (23.5.08) Completed.
1 Mentoring
1.1 The team continues to mentor the senior players on the enquiry. Unless there are any issues that come to light, e.g. a media report, the team, in the main, responds to the individuals making contact.
2 The Major Incident Room
2.1 The MIR and enquiry team have now moved to more appropriate accommodation in the Major Crime Suite at Broadcasting House. There is sufficient space for the number of staff on the team and there is some room for expansion.
3 The Holmes Account
3.1 The main Action queues are at 303 For Allocation, 460 Allocated, 13 Completed, 603 Resulted, 154 Filed, 2 for Referral, 621 Referred and 2 Pended. The referred Actions will be assessed again in the near future to ensure there are none that require to be moved back for allocation. A Detective Sergeant manages the enquiry team’s Actions, ensuring they return them in a timely manner. The Actions for Allocation are reviewed on a daily basis by the Office Manager and the Enquiry team leader.
3.1 The Review team attended an office meeting/daily briefing. It was noted that no official record was kept and, therefore, no record retained on Holmes. An ongoing document on Holmes will allow staff to keep updated with the investigation and allow any new staff to read in to the investigation.
Recommendation 47: That a record is kept and updated on Holmes of all meetings.
4 Disclosure/presentation of evidence
4.1 There are complex issues in relation to the ability to isolate certain documents for specific files in relation to suspects or accused persons within the incident. The disclosure officer is to engage the support of an experienced Disclosure officer from Devon & Cornwall.
4.2 To assist with the presentation of these complex cases at court, it is recommended that computer generated graphics be used.
Recommendation 48: That the SIO considers computer generated graphics for presenting the cases at court.
4.3 Witnesses who are victims are initially interviewed on audio tape and then a written statement is prepared and signed. The deputy SIO wants to quality assure that the accounts given between the audio and written records to not differ.
Recommendation 49: That the Disclosure Officer and the teams responsible for managing the individual cases, a comparison between the audio and written records is conducted to ensure that there are no discrepancies.
5 Intelligence/Analysis
5.1 It is known that some victims were abused by more than one person and that a number of the abusers assaulted numerous victims. The analyst should interrogate all the evidence and provide charting of the abusers and abused children, together with time lines. This will assist interviews, prosecutors and presentation at court.
Recommendation 50: That the analyst prepares charts of abusers and abused children, together with timelines.
6 The homicide Investigation
6.1 Since the last visit, the sifting at the scene has unearthed some 30 fragments of bone and seven teeth. A definitive forensic analysis of all the samples is incomplete. It appears however, that one bone is a piece of a female child’s tibia. Additionally, some of the bones have been cut and some of the milk teeth have long roots, suggesting that they did not naturally fall out. The initial views from expert examinations are that these bones and teeth originate from two children. These facts indicate an unexplained death or deaths and it is appropriate that the investigation continues to pursue what happened to the children. A decision as to the enquiry being a homicide investigation (and the protocols of a homicide investigation should be adhered to until a decision is made) depends on the dates of the deaths. If they died too long ago a homicide investigation may not be pursued. The SIO has intimated that if the children died post war a homicide investigation will be undertaken. The SIO will then review the resource requirements to conduct both the homicide investigation and the on-going complex child abuse investigation.
7 Victim(s) of homicide/unexplained death
7.1 The partial bones and milk teeth will be forensically examined for many reasons, one being for identification of the children. The best advice must be obtained to ensure all forensic opportunities are pursued in this endeavour.
7.2 There will be a very demanding challenge to identify who the dead children could be, and this will require extensive work to obtain registers and records of the residents at the Home. Annually, there were 250 children in Jersey’s care system (based on annual reports). The analyst has commenced this work and he has identified that on any one day, between the period of 1957 to 1986, 55 children were resident at the Home. Residents at the Home included: runaways from the UK; children on remand; children for respite requirements; and children there for one night. If this work is required (both for a homicide investigation and or for a coroner’s hearing) additional resources will be required as researchers to assist the analyst.
Recommendation 51: That if a full list of children is required, additional researchers are identified to assist the analyst.
8 Victims of child abuse and witnesses management
8.1 The deputy SIO has overseen a review of all the victims, identifying those that had been abused within the offence parameters set by the SIO. There are now 116 victims of child abuse that meet the criteria, whom have come forward to report crimes committed against them at the Home.
8.2 The newly appointed Family Liaison Co-ordinator is being ably assisted by a colleague from the NSPCC. They are putting together a strategy to oversee the needs of the victims. This will include a risk assessment model and the Review Team will meet with them and discuss the risk models that are available and may be of value for this purpose. They are considering how to keep the victims updated throughout the enquiry and court process including, best practice from the witness care service in UK courts, refreshing the telephone helpline and they should also consider a website with secure individual passwords for victims to be updated.
Recommendation 52: The FLC and NSPCC team should consider processes for keeping victims updated throughout the investigation and court process.
9 Scene Management
9.1 The Office Manager confirms concerns with regard to the Action management of the work going on at the ‘scene’. These centre around:-
a lot of work is being done at the Home which harvests a large number of exhibits. There appears to still be a ‘disconnect’ between the MIR and the scene management of exhibits;
lack of document flow from the Home to MIR;
lack of control via Actions of work being done at the scene.
This issue is important for many reasons and even more so with the discrepancies of forensic examinations and further exhibits being found.
Recommendation 53: The SIO reviews his decision to allow the Crime Scene Manager to retain exhibits at the Home and complete one statement at the conclusion of the scene being searched. All relevant documentation regarding the enquiry (including those at the Home) must be put on Holmes. This should be further considered by the forensic reviewers as detailed at recommendation 56 below.
9.2 A potential second extensive scene has been identified by victims of child abuse. One of these witnesses has stated that they saw a child’s body in the confines of this new scene. The SIO has taken physical and technical measures to protect the area whilst at the same time ensuring that the general public are not alerted to police interest in the area. The SIO must ensure that measures are taken not to cross contaminate the two scenes and that a full strategy is undertaken to forensically search this second scene.
10 Forensic Strategy
10.1 Articles in the Mail on Sunday (18.5.08) and the Daily Mail (19.5.08) criticised the SIO and the investigation, focusing on the forensic processing. This specifically relates to the first piece of ‘skull’ found at the Home. The articles were followed by some criticism in political circles. The Review team immediately saw the damage this has caused to some of the investigation team and sapped their morale. The political criticism is extremely unhelpful and, if leaked will fuel the media comments and will divert the investigation, Of course, political players have every right in the public’s interest to question efficiency and effectiveness of the investigation but this does not include ridiculing members of the team.
Recommendation 54: That the Chief Officer of States of Jersey Police considers raising what the politician has done with the appropriate authorities.
10.2 The article in the Mail on Sunday included quotes, interviews and a photograph of scientist employed in the forensic processing of a particular exhibit. This was without the SIO’s authority.
Recommendation 55: That the Chief Officer of States of Jersey Police discusses this breach with LGC and they raise this issue with Tony Lake, portfolio holder for forensic issues in ACPO.
10.3 The Review Team feel it is appropriate to have an independent forensic review to look at the whole forensic process from when the exhibit is recovered through to the completion of the forensic examination(s).
Recommendation 56: That an Independent Forensic review be conducted by a team identified by the NPIA. Consideration should also be given to have all key players at a table-top forensic exercise.
10.4 Whilst visiting the Home, the Review Team was informed that Vicky Coupland, the Crime Scene Manager, was at the scene of a fatal fire. She will, no doubt, attend to many aspects of cross contamination that could be alleged or possible contamination of the charred bones found at the Home.
11 Suspects and Persons of Interest
11.1 The Deputy SIO has reviewed the list of suspects and persons of interest. There are 12 suspects and they are each managed by a pair of officers within the enquiry team and they are responsible for researching, collation of evidence, risk assessments and planning of arrests. There are some 30 other persons of interest who will be assessed as and when the weight of evidence against them becomes clearer. A decision will then be made to categorise them as suspects or listed for no further action. The deputy SIO has already reduced the list of suspects and persons of interest by undertaking the review.
12 Arrest Strategies
21.1 It is understood that one person to be arrested was possibly abused at the Home and later became an abuser whilst a teenager at the Home. The advice of a clinical psychologist must be obtained before he is arrested.
Recommendation 57: That the advice of a clinical psychologist be obtained through Teresa Russell, NPIA.
13 Resources
13.1 We spoke to a number of the enquiry team members. They are very content with the new accommodation and feel they are kept apprised of the investigation process through daily briefings/office meetings. They are not on excessive hours and are not receiving allowances under the Hertfordshire agreement.
13.2 It is understood that the deputy SIO and the Crime Scene Manager are still required to undertake on call duties in the Island. The deputy SIO was engaged over the last weekend on an allegation of serious sexual assault and the Crime Scene Manager was called out to a fatal fire on the 21st May. There are other officers available to cover on call for serious crime. The demands from Operation Rectangle on these two key individuals, is extremely high, especially so with the issues of recovery of exhibits and the need to keep a consecutive record and feed of documents to the MIR.
Recommendation 58: That the States of Jersey Police ensures that the key staff on Operation Rectangle are deployed full time on the investigation and other personnel are deployed for on-call duties in Jersey.
Recommendation 59: That the temporary Deputy Chief Officer and head of CID considers and draws up contingency plans in case another major incident occurs in Jersey.
13.3 The SIO travelled to Sheffield to meet forensic experts with regard to the recent discovery of bones and teeth. No doubt there are sound reasons for him to travel but he should empower other members of the enquiry team to undertake such roles.
13.4 The Ops Management have asked for States of Jersey police officers to be returned from operation Rectangle to other duties in the Island. They suggest as staff from the UK are deployed on the operation, their own staff should be made available for deployment on other Jersey policing requirements. The request is understandable but key roles on the enquiry must be from Jersey. They know the powers, the systems, the processes and can meet the long term requirements of such a complex enquiry. It is particularly important as they move into the arrest phase.
Recommendation 60: That key roles on the enquiry must be from the States of Jersey.
13.5 The Ops Management also have some concern that any staff ‘back filling’ States of Jersey Police Officers on everyday policing demands will not be paid for by the finances being made available for the Haut de la Garenne requirements. These are indirect costs.
Recommendation 61: That the States of Jersey Police ascertain the correct position on recompense payments for back filling staff on operation Rectangle.
13.6 Staff from the UK are seconded to the enquiry for periods of around three months or less. Issues of continuity and reading in to the enquiry are obvious. Some staff are willing to be deployed for longer periods than three months. Staff with background in child protection, homicide investigation and MIR support should be provided for the enquiry.
Recommendation 62: That States of Jersey Police discuss with PNICC, the possibility of a more flexible approach to periods of secondment to the enquiry.
13.7 The Review Team have taken the opportunity to speak to a number of the staff on the enquiry. The staff from the UK are still unclear as to their police powers whilst in Jersey.
Recommendation 63: That the States of Jersey ascertains the position with regard to police powers for seconded officers from the UK and that clarity is given to the position for each and every individual whilst they are deployed in Jersey.
14. Finance
14.1 The Review team have been asked to comment as to whether an SIO should consider financial implications of an enquiry. This has been asked as, it is understood, the SIO commented that he had considered costs and expenditure, reported in the media. This article was queried by e-mail sent to the chief officer and another party in Jersey. The SIO will be neglecting his or her duty if they did not consider costs and resources of an enquiry. This includes from the overall costs and value, against public interest of mounting an investigation, e.g. the offences are very old and dated and the public expectation may be that there is no or limited value in prolonged investigation, to unit overtime costs for administrative enquires.
Recommendation 64: The SIO must continue to consider and record expenditure, costs and resource demands of any enquiries.
15: The Independent Advisory Group
15.1 The IAG has now met on four occasions. The Review Team have seen the first three sets of recorded minutes of the meetings. Care must be taken to ensure that the minutes are an accurate record of what is said. An example being reference to ‘skull’ at the bottom of the first page in the third meeting (18th April 2008). Any inaccuracies must be corrected.
15.2 The fifth meeting is planned for next week. The SIO must ensure he brings the group up to date with all the issues that have been aired in public and any other foreseeable issue that may be raised. The IAG are there to be a community sounding board and expert advisory group of the investigation – they are critical friends and provide checks and balances for an investigation.
16 Succession planning of the SIO
16.1 The current SIO is to retire from the States of Jersey Police in September 2008. In reality he leaves the Island on the 11th August 2008. A successor is required – the investigation into the complex child abuse and possible homicide is at a crucial stage. Succession planning for the SIO must be addressed at the earliest opportunity. Some possible options for the position of SIO, includes:-
To ask the current SIO to delay his retirement or take up a contract to continue as the SIO.
To appoint the deputy SIO as the SIO.
To have the replacement Deputy Chief Officer be the SIO.
To have another senior officer in Jersey become the SIO.
To ask the ACPO HWG to appoint someone from the Review Team (their parent organisation must also be asked).
To ask the ACPO HWG to advise on a suitable SIO from the UK.
To have a retired UK or Jersey officer contracted as the SIO.
To have an SIO contracted from a company that supplies such, e.g. RIG.
16.2 The Review Team have worked on criteria and skills that a successor requires.
Recommendation 65: That the Chief Officer States of Jersey Police convenes a meeting to discuss the succession planning for the SIO, at the earliest opportunity (which this Review Team should be represented on). In the meantime, the Chief Officer should seek the current SIO’s views on his retention and his replacement.
17 Governance
17.1 The Chief Officer remains a buffer zone between the SIO and the politicians in States of Jersey. It is suggested that he retains this role for the foreseeable future.
17.2 The Attorney General has a nominated lawyer advising the investigation team. The review team are aware that files have been supplied to him seeking advice on arrests and extradition. Subject to any legal impediments, the designated lawyer must attend to the files and provide advice at the earliest opportunity. There are now two people charged and awaiting trial and 12 suspects being prepared for arrest and further enquiries. The designated lawyer has two files for consideration and will have more in the next few weeks.
Media
18.1 There is high media interest in the enquiry. The media are keen to keep the public informed and seek any new or high points for reporting. Additionally, some members of the media are keen to criticise the police, the authorities or any other aspect of the Home and Jersey. The media must be managed. Their value to keeping the general public apprised is important. The victims will be affected by what they see and hear, and the Review Team are aware that a victim of serious assaults over a prolonged period whilst resident in the Home, contacted the enquiry team to say she now wanted to make a statement. She has been reluctant in the past.
18.2 Subject to any high points of the investigation, the SIO, advised by the States of Jersey Press Officer, should consider holding press conferences in a controlled environment. The Review Team suggests that no one-to-one interviews are provided (unless the value is obvious) save for local Jersey media that a specific interest in the enquiry.
Recommendation 66: No one-to-one interviews be provided unless for Jersey media with a specific interest in the enquiry.
Andre Baker
Anne Harrison
John Mooney
23rd May 2008
ACPO HWG Review Team – Operation Rectangle
Visit – 28th June 2008 – 30th June 2008
Visit by A. Baker, A. Harrison, Jonathan Smith, Teresa Russell and Malcolm Boots.
Part of the team met with Lenny Harper, Alison Fossey, Vicki Coupland and Martin Grimes to discuss the Forensic Strategy and terms of reference for the Forensic Review.
A document was presented that details the summary for the forensic decision log. From the outset the forensic strategy was discussed at the enquiry’s management meetings and subsequently recorded in both the SIO’s logs and the Crime Scene Manager’s logs. The team have been advised on drafting a forensic strategy as a forward-looking document from the outset of an enquiry. The review team are aware there will be other scene(s) to be searched and examined for forensic opportunities and recovery.
Recommendation 67: That the management team complete forensic strategies for any further scenes identified. This should be a forward looking document that details the strategic direction for that scene examination.
2.1 The review team met with the SIO and deputy SIO and discussed the terms of reference for the forensic review. These have been agreed and presented to be signed off. Any report should be discussed with the ACPO HWG review team and the States of Jersey police. The forensic review should be made available to any full review if and when undertaken.
3.1 The SIO still awaits carbon dating and other forensic expert advice and conclusions. He is hopeful that these will be forthcoming in the near future and that he will be able to revisit the unexplained death/homicide question, and decide if the States of jersey Police are able to conduct a homicide investigation. If he is able to so decide, this will assist any successor as to the on-going strategy and conduct of Operation Rectangle.
3.2 However, the ACPO HWG team feel that a full review is commissioned to take stock and assist in the future strategy of the enquiry. Where an extensive number of staff or support has been provided by a specific force that force’s review tem should not be utilised.
Recommendation 68: That there is a full review of the investigation/enquiry. This must be conducted by a dedicated and experienced review team from either the Metropolitan Police Service or other UK police force review team. The terms of reference should be agreed by the States of Jersey Police, the new review team and the ACPO HWG team.
Recommendation 69: That once a decision has been taken with regard to the human remains – teeth and bones. The SIO must discuss a coronial hearing with the States of Jersey Coroner.
4.1 The Independent Advisory Group was set up to critically advise the SIO and enquiry team. The aim being that an independent party regularly meets the SIO and representatives to discuss the investigation and comment as to direction and value with specific aspects of community impact and considerations that affect the community.
4.2 It is understood, however that the IAG have asked the general public for their views on the investigation and general comment on such. This course of action could be reflected from both a negative and positive standpoint. Negative in that some of the respondents could have been pointed and a collective from a defendants’ group of associates – almost setting up defence ambush at trial, and positive, that the comments could have been a collective of law enforcement, politicians and the like to support the robust strategy of the investigation. The whole exercise might well be valueless, especially as the public have not been exposed to the vast majority of the lines of investigation.
4.3 The review team are also concerned that the IAG undertook this public poll without discussion and reference to the SIO.
5.1 The review team met with the Chief Officer and David Warcup – the DCO designate to discuss the options for succession planning of the SIO. The Chief Officer and DCO designate, expressed the value in retaining the expertise of the ACPO HWG. It was agreed that a seconded or contracted SIO will be selected by open advertisement and a process was agreed and is now in place. The ACPO HWG team will prepare a draft advertisement and will discuss their further involvement, in the selection and the enquiry, with David Warcup.
5.2 The line supervision of Operation Rectangle remains from the SIO directly to the Chief Officer. This will change on the appointment of the new Deputy Chief Officer – David Warcup, where he will provide the strategic direction and the acting SIO and newly appointed SIO will report directly to him.
Andre Baker
Anne Harrison