Tuesday 25 February 2014

Curtis Warren---- "Love In"-- Defending the Indefensible

At the last States Sitting the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand refused to accept that former Drugs Councillor Teresa Rodrigues had a 2 year love in with Curtis Waren whilst he was held on remand at La Moye Prison. As such he saw no reason to inquire into the allegation which had been reported in the Mail on Sunday on 16th February. It was also reported that Connetable Steve Pallet the Chairman of the relevant scrutiny panel had also declined to review the matter.

Both the Senator and Connetable are mature men and it is disappointing that they should have dismissed the matter in such a bravado manner.  Surely the simplest way of dealing with the matter would have been by calling for a report from the Prison Governor and the Jurats who form the Prison Board of Visitors. As it is they both lay themselves open to ridicule should it transpire that there is some substance to the allegation.

Given the abrupt dismissal it is not surprising that some States Members, Bloggers and the mainstream media are asking further questions. At the last States Sitting, Senator Le Marquand was unable to give the number of allegations of inappropriate relationship which had been reported during the last five years but said he would happily find out.

Ministers have a habit of failing to give answers but saying they will enquire and will inform the Member asking the question at some later time, but often fail to do so. Fortunately Deputy Tadier is not letting the Minister off the hook and has wisely lodged a number of written questions which should receive answers at the next States Sitting on 4th March.

Deputy Tadier wants to know how many disciplinary cases there have been in the past 10 years at La Moye Prison for employees, and in how many of those cases the employee was either dismissed or resigned pending, or after, the action. He wants the Minister to provide a summary of any alleged misconduct, in terms of its nature (i.e. sexual, drug dealing, etc.)?  He also wants to know whether Teresa Rodrigues was the subject of a disciplinary investigation and, if so what was the basis for, and result of, that investigation? Finally he wants the Minister make the case notes available.

Deputy Tadier is doing his job as a Back Bencher and is to be commended for doing so, but should it not have been Scrutiny’s job or better still for the Minister to come clean in the first place.

This morning Radio Jersey invited Deputy Tadier and Senator Le Marquand to its studio to answer a number of questions in relation to the allegation. Unfortunately Senator Le Marquand was not available so his Assistant Minister, Senator Farnham stood in for him, unfortunately he was poorly briefed and Matthew Price had little difficulty in exposing his short comings. I am grateful to Radio Jersey for providing the link to the interview. Please click here.

Senator Farnham struggled from the outset because it is very difficult defending the indefensible. There is no way that he is as adept as Senators Bailhache, Ozouf or Le Marquand  in sidestepping questions and his replies soon led Matthew Price calling them “weasel words.” It is a poor tradesman who blames his tools and it is pointless claiming that the logistics of the prison may have led to the possibility of an affair taking place. However was Senator Farnham trying to say that there is a possibility that Ms Rodrigues might be telling the truth because apart from Curtis Warren there is no one who can say she was not.

Or is it that there is evidence of the affair but it has been suppressed.What is so frustrating and unseemly is that Senator Farnham believes that everything is just conjecture, with no hard facts and wants Deputy Tadier to produce the evidence. I am sure that if Deputy Tadier asked the Prison Governor to open his books and allow for inmates both current and former to be interviewed in confidence and without prejudice his request would be instantly rejected.

I know that Senator Farnham took objection to the “Weasel words” but listening to the answers he gave this morning one could hardly say that he convinced anyone and probably not even himself. He is on record as wanting a Department of Justice but justice for whom? He knows the difference between right and wrong and by defending his Minister’s obstinacy he is not only failing himself but also the electorate who in few months’ time will be looking to vote for candidates with backbone and the courage of their convictions.  

For the Radio Jersey interview  Please click here


  1. Bob.

    After what appeared to be a fair interview this morning with Matthew Price interviewing Assistant Home Affairs Minister, Senator Lyndon Farnham, and back bench politician St Brelade Deputy Montfort Tadier I sent the following e-mail to Matthew. Copied in, among others, were Senator Farnham, Deputy Tadier, Constables Pallett, Rennard and Le Troquer (Home Affairs "Scrutiny" Panel).


    Thank you for interviewing Deputy Tadier and Assistant Home Affairs Minister, Senator Lyndon Farnham, this morning concerning the “historic going’s on” at La Moye Prison.

    To any right minded, fair and objective, onlooker there are serious questions that need answering and a root and branch investigation into the policies and procedures followed (or not) by the prison/Home Affairs Department but here’s where we’re at.

    Assistant Home Affairs Minister, Senator Lyndon Farnham said;

    “This is something that happened some years ago THAT NEEDS INVESTIGATING”

    Constable Michel Le Troquer Member of Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel Says;

    “I’m sure this is the start of something that will go on for some time. If true then there are a lot of explanations to be made……..and I don’t know how anyone will be able explain away such allegations.”

    Yet Chairman of Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel Steve Pallet says;

    “At present I do not see a role for the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel in this matter.”

    So The Assistant Home Affairs Minister agrees with Deputy Tadier and believes “THIS NEEDS INVESTIGATING.” Constable Le Troquer also appears to be in agreement with Deputy Tadier and Senator Farnham. The question needs to be;

    Who is going to resign first from the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel Constable Pallet or Constable Le Troquer?

    Yet another Jersey debacle………………….Or cover up?"

    More HERE

    1. One gets the feeling that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing.

  2. Constable Pallet has got more to answer for than Ian Le Marquand coz we expect Le Marquand to cover it up tho we expect the scrutiny team or the head of the scrutiny team to hold him to account and not be a part of his cover up.

    1. Yes to date the Scrutiny Panel does seem to be divided. I am not sure whether it has met as Panel yet, but hopefully when it does it will sing from one hymn book.

  3. Matthew Price, Ian Le Marquand all claim Curtis Warren has denied the claims.

    Please could someone point me to the quoted denial from Curtis Warren himself

    1. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/curtis-warren-liverpool-drugs-baron-3153574


    2. Good Question with a simple answer which is there is no known record of Curtis Warren denying the claim.

      It was Senator Le Marquand who set the hare running when replying to a question from Deputy Tadier at the States Sitting on 18th Feb, the following can be found in Hansard.

      4.14.1 Deputy M. Tadier:
      Just because something is hard to believe does not necessarily mean it did not happen but leaving that logic aside, can the Minister advise, given the very serious nature of this allegation and the reputational damage it would have for both public confidence in Jersey and possibly outside of Jersey, surely the very minimum that we would expect is a proper review to be carried out which would, at the very least, seek to interview both parties who were alleged to have taken part in this alleged activity. Has that been done, will that be done, and if not, why not?

      Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
      "The prisoner has strongly denied this. Frankly, I think that the allegations as set out in the press are very much in the area of fantasy and I really do not think there is any point in wasting public money and time on a review of something which appears to me to be so fantastic and unlikely."

      It is evident that Senator had either received the information from Curtis Warren or he was misleading the States.

      If one reads the Mail on Sunday report Ian Gallagher states "It should be stated that Ms Rodrigues claimed to be speaking with the blessing of Warren. But when this newspaper contacted his lawyers, Keith Dyson Solicitors, they said their client did not wish to ‘authenticate the story."

      Perhaps a States Member will ask Senator Le Marquand where he received the information that " the prisoner has strongly denied Ms Rodrigues' claim."


    3. Below is the the link to the comment from Claude Carcel above at 2241


      Although the Newspaper claims that Curtis Warren has denied the claim in the report the following can be found;

      "Anthony Barraclough, Warren’s barrister, said: “Mr Warren says this woman is a friend who he gets on well with and who he helped out during his time in La Moye with her anti-drug campaign."

      “He is now worried this will portray him as disrespecting the authorities and the impact it may have on his upcoming appeal.”

      The quote above does support the claim that Curtis Warren denies Ms Rodrigues' claim.

    4. Please note that I omitted the word NOT in the last paragraph above. I should have written, the quote above does NOT support the claim that Curtis Warren denies Ms Rodrigues claim.

      What the Barrister's quote does tell us is that Curtis Warren knew Ms Rodrigues and considered her to be a friend and they got on well. According to Ms Rodrigues their friendship blossomed.

      So I don't know where Senator Le Marquand has got the information to claim that Curtis Warren denies Ms Rodrigues claim.

  4. Hi Bob.

    Got it and it will be up on my Blog as soon as I can, Well Matthew Price doing his job for a change?


  5. Thanks Bob. I do feel ILM should provide clear concise direct evidence of strong denial from Curtis Warren.

  6. I must say the first time I heard that Curtis Warren (via his Barrister) denied her claim, my thoughts immediately went to his appeal. Strange that ILM add's such much weight to the denial, perhaps the court should have just taken his word it was a set up!

    Incidentally, ILM once again demonstrating how he must be one of the must expensive person to ask questions of, as his answers or should I say lack of, means more and more questions are asked.

    It would be interesting if there were statistics on how efficient members are in ensuring those asking questions are provided the information (they are really after, the truth) in a timely manner so not to waste States sitting time and obviously costs.

    1. As you will see from my comments above, Curtis Warren's Barristers via the Mail on Sunday and the Liverpool Echo have NOT denied Ms Rodrigues's claim.

      It was Senator Le Marquand who has said that Curtis Warren has denied her claim but we don't know where he got that information.

      During my time in the States I asked hundreds of questions but made sure that I was aware of the sort of answer I should receive so I could come back with supplementary questions which would test the Minister's competence..

      The purpose of the questions was to highlight an issue and to test the competence of the Minister in anticipation that he/she would address the issues one is raising..

      During my last term in the States we had the issue of the former police chief and a hospital consultant who had both been unfairly suspended. I and a couple of other States Members asked literally dozens of questions because we knew that the answers being received were inaccurate.

      Unfortunately we were made to look like the bad guys because Members got fed up with the repetition of the questions and thought we should drop the matter and accept the Minister's answers.

      Whilst Senator Le Marquand has a reputation for failing to give accurate answers he is not the only Minister, but they are able to get away with it because all too few Members are prepared to ask questions.

  7. I was reading some notes of yesterday’s JEP and I think that making judgements like «She done it for the money« is rather silly. I have read her CV, all her letters of recommendation from 8 or 10 years working with so many agencies and praised by all. Yes, it seems she was silly enough and highly unprofessional by making a big mistake and gets involved «romantically« with a prisoner. However, that doesn’t take away the amount of work she done for people suffering from addiction and from all I can read about her work she was definitely not stupid to have made this article for money. No way would she ruin her reputation for money, and definitely not against Curtis Warren.
    Nevertheless, good work on this Blog. Congratulations, at least your blog is sticking to facts and not wanting to gossip.

    1. Thanks for the compliment.

      I don't know what her motive was for telling her story to the Mail on Sunday but she has certainly caused a stir and is testing the Minister and Prison Governor which is not a bad thing because it keeps them alert.

      Senator Farnham has accepted that because of the layout of the prison cells it would have been possible for some functions to be out of sight of watching eyes.

      However it is possible that to allow for regular liaisons certain people may have received "rewards" for turning a blind eye. That is why I believe the matter should be investigated, it would remove suspicion away from the prison staff.

    2. Where can we read about the work Ms Rodrigues had done?

    3. Not sure where one can find out but we know that she was so well respected that references were not required..

  8. Next Tuesday States sitting must be a sickie for ILM, or he will be hiding in the toilet all day.

    1. I'm pretty sure @irlpol on Twitter, will have a cartoon for that!

    2. There are 2 Oral questions relating to the Prison Incident, the first is;

      4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following question of the Chairman of the Education and Home Affairs scrutiny panel –

      “'What steps, if any, will the Chairman and his Panel be taking to satisfy themselves that adequate safeguarding mechanisms are in place at the Prison in the light of recent allegations of misconduct by past members of staff, and will the Chairman advise whether the panel will undertake to conduct a review into dismissal procedures at the Prison in relation to cases where there is evidence of gross misconduct?”

      It will be interesting to see what transpires for the answer.

    3. The 2nd Oral question from Deputy Le Herissier is very close to Deputy Tadier's Written Question which is in the body of my Blog above.

      The Written answer will available before the question below is asked, so Members should a greater understanding of the background to the question.

      8. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs–

      “Would the Minister outline the security checks that are applied to civilian employees working within HM Prison La Moye and confirm whether there have been any lapses concerning such employees in the last 10 years and, if so, how many have there been and what remedial actions were taken?”

  9. Bob.

    A Party Political Broadcast on Behalf of REFORM JERSEY

  10. I am just a grateful father who was blessed to have had Ms Rodrigues working at La Moye when my son was there. He is out of prison for 6 years now and after living 12 years of hell of seeing him killing himself slowly with drugs, in and out of institutions, last time he was at La Moye my son had Teresa as his counsellor. She done a lot of work with him and many others from group sessions and one to one work, and he is now 7 years in recovery, we have a life that to be honest I never even dreamed it would be possible. I know 4 other families with 2 daughters and 2 sons who came out just before him and other 2 just after him who are also in recovery, working, studying and raising their own families. These families too are eternally grateful for her work. I know there are many others who are also in recovery, others who relapsed and unfortunately and very sadly some have died after relapsing.
    It is very difficult to stay in recovery in such a small Island; you have no idea unless a member of your family has passed through it. Every time my son would go to town, college, work a meeting, for a coffee, he would have to bump through ‘old mates’ and Teresa gave him the structure and the tools to deal with this and so many other situations, like relationships, getting a job, be a son etc.
    I also judged her when the paper came out, my son told me “dad, I know her well, I was there, I know the score, she would never had done this unless she had absolutely no other choice”. I learn to believe in my son, trust his judgement and I stop throwing stones.
    This all story in the papers is very sad, but I had to write how blessed my family and so many others are for having had Ms Rodrigues in their lives. God bless you Teresa and thank you so much for all your work
    ‘A grateful father’

    1. Thank you for your comment.

      I am sure there will be other inmates who will have been grateful for the support and guidance given to them by Ms Rodrigues and I would be pleased to hear of them.

      The bit that puzzles me is why Ms Rodrigues felt it was necessary to go public with claim of a relationship with Curtis Warren.

  11. I am one of those inmates who are still in recovery and having a great life. Many helped me at la moye, from officers, to teachers but in my addiction there is no doubt that I owe my life to her. She knew how to reach us, she wouldn´t buy into any bullshit that we would try to give. She could see through us, due to her own experience and we just couldn’t full her. She would go straight to them point, be assertive, even when we didn’t like it. Those who are now saying that she was bringing things inside, tell them to come forward because its all lies. .... I know..... I tried and asked her, she just laugh gave me a hard time, and put me on my place. Those who are telling she was doing wrong (not talking about what was said in the newspaper because it was her who admitted to it) but all the rest people just say that because some of us just hated when we didn’t get what we wanted. Others say that because she was part of the panel who decided who could get home leave, x.tmas leave, TAG etc. If we asked her she wouldn’t lie and tell us if she had said yes or no at the panel, some started to hate her if she said no and would do anything to denigrate her name. Others (both prisoners and staff are very racist.... big problem in there) and they would do and still say anything against her because she was (apologies for the name but I have heard them cal her many times) ‘a Porki’ in there.
    I am just stating facts, no gossip: she helped me get my life back and she is hated by many prisoners because she didn’t get things in, hated by some stuff due to her status of well liked and respected and hated by others because she was Portuguese.... In relation to why she spoke to the papers I can only comment on rumours I heard and the rumours are that she done it because a much bigger injustice was going to happened and she just had to come forward.
    Like the one before, God bless her and thank you for all you have done to me

  12. Interesting comments in support of Ms Rodrigues.
    Hopefully more will be revealed

    Just a UK situation I noticed re.misconduct in a public office:

    Female prison officer jailed for having sex with inmate - and smuggling drugs into jail

    Julie Turton, 53, was sentenced at Birmingham Crown Court after admitting six counts of misconduct in a public office

    Mushy Mushy Le Marquand......

    1. Readers should be able to access the website here.CLICK HERE

  13. Bob.

    Scrutiny Panel Chairman Steve Pallett MUST RESIGN.

  14. I have received a comment from a reader that insults a member of the public who contributes to Voice for Children. The reader makes some interesting comments which I would consider publishing if the offensive remarks are removed.