Jersey's Dean---States Police or Police State?

On Wednesday Tony the Prof published another thought provoking blog in which he reported on some of the comments that had been reported in the Guernsey Press. It included a comment from Guernsey Deputy Ellis Bebb when offering a view on the possible break between the Diocese of Winchester and Jersey and Guernsey in which he said "I think that the question we should ask ourselves is whether Winchester is the right diocese for Guernsey. I think that what happened in Jersey poses a lot of questions, but I'm convinced that as with any breakdown in relations, there's plenty of blame to go around for everyone. One small correction, the woman wasn't deported but bound over by the Jersey courts; the decision to do so was at the courts discretion and nothing to do with the church."

Tony corrected the statement because the Court case was all about the Church as it was their Clergy which levelled the complaint and pressed for charges as Readers will see below.

At the States Sitting on Monday afternoon the unelected Deputy Bailiff drew Members attention to the Bishop's press release and then said that Members would be pleased to know that the Dean following an investigation by Dame Heather Steel had been exonerated. Thus wrongly echoing his brother's remark and now repeated by the Dean during an interview with the BBC. What the press release said was that no disciplinary action was being taken, but certainly did not state that anyone had been exonerated, that may well the case but until the Steel Report is published it is wrong to speculate.

What is fact is that Dame Heather did not interview the Church Warden or HG nor did she fully investigate HG's arrest, detention and deportation in line with the Korris recommendation. Therefore how can she honestly arrive at a decision not to recommend disciplinary action? What is interesting is that the Bishop published a press statement saying for legal reasons he can't circulate the Report, yet at same time saying that Dame Heather is still finalising it. It should be recalled that when I met Dame Heather on 24^th October she was finalising her report and intended submitting it by the end of the month. How long does she want before she finishes finalising her report? I will also add that I was promised a transcript of the meeting but that too is being withheld by Winchester.

The (miss) information given by the Deputy Bailiff was met by a round of appreciative foot stamping from States Members in the presence of the Dean who like the Deputy Bailiff is an unelected Member. Soon afterwards answers to Written Questions were formerly lodged which are often unreported by the media. Included in the Written Questions was a question to the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Le Marquand from Deputy Mike Higgins. 

It is evident to those who have been closely following the Dean's handling of HG's complaint is that the Jan Korris Report is slowly being rubbished and it wont be long before she and HG will be seen as the real villains and the Dean, his church colleague and the Church Warden are the victims.

There is no doubt that having failed to be satisfied by the Dean, the Bishop and the Safeguarding Officer's handling of her complaint HG was zealous in her pursuit for justice. Not only did she complain about the alleged abuse but also at the way it was handled by the aforesaid Church officials but her complaints were ignored. She was clearly an embarrassment to the Church and a way had to be found to silence her, particularly as they wrongly believed that she might disrupt a Confirmation Service being held on Sunday 26th September.

Readers will know that I have previously written how HG after appearing the Magistrates Court on Monday 27th September was remanded in custody in La  Moye Prison for 2 weeks before appearing  before Magistrate Richard Falle and being bound over to leave Jersey where later that evening where she was left destitute at Southampton Airport whilst still wearing her pyjamas.

Thanks to questions being asked by Deputy Higgins the truth is slowly emerging of the shocking and callus way in which HG was treated when held in custody and denied bail on that fatal Sunday whilst the people responsible for levelling the complaint which led to her arrest were conducting a Confirmation Service at St Mary's Church.

 It is all very well for Deputy Bebb from the safety of the Guernsey shores to claim that no blame can be attributed to the Church. It is all very well for Messrs Philip and William Bailhache and indeed the Dean himself to claim that he has been totally exonerated. No disciplinary action is being taken but can the Dean be really proud of the part which he, his wife and former Bishop Scott Joynt played in incarcerating and eventually deporting HG because she may have disturbed their Church Service.

I receive a number of calls from people who cannot believe that we in Jersey could allow such uncaring action against a vulnerable young lady of previous good character who had made Jersey her home, had a job and a home but all were snatched from her thanks to senior church figures. I have previously published official documents which although are in the public domain are rarely to be found in what is called the mainstream media.

Below is the written answers given to the questions asked by Deputy Higgins and are in the public domain but I have added my comments in red. 

Question,

Will the Minister set out a detailed timeline showing from the time of the arrest of the woman known as HG to the moment she appeared in court to face charges of harassment, the times anyone interacted with her, who those interactions were with and the times at which witness statements were taken, the charges were drawn up and read to her?

Answer

This timeline covers the period from the time of arrest to the time when HG first appeared before a Magistrate.  The timeline does not deal with routine interactions with the custody staff or other routine matters.

26 Sept   9.34    Arrest

At 0934 hrs on Sunday 26th September HG was arrested at her home address by a Police Constable. She was arrested on suspicion of harassment. Another officer was also in attendance.  She was calm and following caution answered the officer’s question about the location of her laptop.  She walked unaided to the police officers’ car where she remained while a search of her room was carried out.

While waiting in the car HG started to show slight signs of distress. On arrival at Rouge Bouillon Police Station (10:17) HG was able to walk to the Custody suite.  Once there she sat on the floor and began to show signs of distress. 

Despite repeated efforts to calm her down officers were unable to communicate with HG and she was eventually carried by three officers into a cell where she was placed on the floor and a cell guard posted.  At this time the police Force Medical Examiner (FME) was unable to carry out any assessment of her due to her demeanour.

10:45 Detention Authorised Did the FME actually assess HG before this decision was reached?

Detention authorised by Police Sergeant on 26 September 2010 at 10:45:00. The grounds for detention are: I am satisfied that the arrest is lawful, proportionate and necessary. There is insufficient evidence to charge at this time. I authorise the detention for the purpose of obtaining evidence by questioning and process. It is incumbent on the police to take immediate steps to obtain the evidence, but it appears that the process did not begin until 3 pm when the first statement was taken from the 3 witnesses.

11:12  Doctor  (FME)

Doctor's comments:  Removal to cell observed, not possible to assess because of agitation I suggest minimal stimulus in terms of intervention until HG is calmer and then assessment may be possible.  Currently, fit for detention, I will assess fitness for interview at 12:45 What background medical information did the doctor possess or attempt to obtain which would helped him to understand why HG was agitated. It should have been obvious that the agitation was aggravated by HG being confined in a cell which because her health concerns was causing her untold harm. 

13:00 Doctor Fit for detention, I will review again in 2 hours. It was now three and a half hours since arrest yet no statements had been taken which was totally unfair. Those who made the complaint should have placed that action ahead of their other arrangements and the police should have ensured that it was the case..

13:10 Duty Sergeant note of Medical Review,

Task Medical Review Required completed. Comments: Medical review complete fit for detention FME to return in two hours

15.00 Duty Sergeant’s entry

Police officers’ notes:  Appropriate adult located. When was it decided that an Appropriate Adult was required and why did it take so long to obtain one? After numerous phone calls to a number of agencies I have been put in touch with the on call Mental Health Social Worker via the hospital switch board and she has stated that she has heard of HG and will be happy to act as an Appropriate adult.  Will be attending at 17:30hrs  This is now 8 hours after HG's arrest.

15:04-15:45 Statement recorded - Statement of first witness taken from Mrs Key, the Dean's wife at the Deanery. Why was her statement not taken earlier, she was not conducting the Church Service?

15:48 Duty Inspector

Duty Inspector’s notes: I have attended with the intention of conducting the formal review of detention. however HG appears to be in a heavy sleep and is unresponsive to attempts to wake her.  HG is in the care of the Custody staff and the FME is also in attendance.  It is therefore intended to let the FME assess HG prior to additional attempts to conduct the review process Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) stipulates that a review of detention before charge must be conducted after 6 hours of being in custody. This review is not conducted by an independent person but by another police officer. 

16:00-17.00 Statement recorded - Statement of second witness Former Bishop Michael Scott Joynt at the Deanery

16:28 Doctor

Seen in cell, since last review, now lying on the floor. Have spoken with Mental Health Social Worker who will read hospital notes prior to arrival.  Fit for detention at present.

17:20-17:45 Statement recorded - Statement of third witness The Dean at the Deanery.

17:43 Doctor

I have contacted the duty consultant psychiatrist directly, who will attend in due course.

18:21 Doctor

Seen by duty Consultant Psychiatrist, for detention, no mental illness 

19.30-19.45 Statement recorded - Statement of Arresting Officer Why was this not taken soon after the arrest when the facts were still fresh in his mind.

19:47 Entry -Charged by Centenier Phillip Coffey whose report shows that he charged HG at 2030 hours and remanded in custody. Jersey does not have an independent Prosecution Service and the decision to charge rests with an unpaid voluntary/Honorary police man. Pleaded guilty after charge. When a person is charged they are cautioned and what they say is recorded. It would be interesting to know where HG’s alleged plea is recorded.

21:43 PACE Status Changed

PACE status changed from PACE to Non PACE for the following reason: 

Centenier has refused bail in order to prevent further offences. Why was HG not bailed, what evidence did the Centenier have to deny bail, she had been arrested from her home and was of good character she had been receiving medical attention since her arrival at the police station and was clearly distressed and unwell so what evidence was to hand that HG would commit further offences? 

Held at Police HQ overnight

27 Sept 2010 07:52 Doctor (FME) Comments

No evidence of dehydration although not drinking fit for detention and court

09:50 ENTRY

Handed to court officers and taken to court

10:00 Magistrate’s Court Sitting

Seen by Duty Advocate Jane Grace, Appeared before a Magistrate at 1216 hours. Represented by the Duty Advocate who was not in court when he decided to remand HG in custody at La Moye Prison for two weeks, why?

Readers will know from my previous Blogs that HG later appeared before Magistrate Richard Falle, pleaded guilty and agreed to be bound over. On paper it appears that HG was dealt with according to Law and proper procedure. However it is claimed that the Clergy’s decision to press charges was for HG’s own good, if that is so what did they actually do to help HG to benefit from being arrested. The Dean and Bishop were conducting a church service whilst HG was detained in a police cell waiting for them to write their statements. It would be interesting to know what the sermon was, but hopefully it was not based on “Judge not lest ye be judged” or “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”

It is evident that HG was sending any number of emails and was proving to be a nuisance however it does appear that a sledgehammer was used to crack a nut which has had a life changing affect on HG, for which the Archbishop, Bishop and Dean have all publicly apologised.

Was it necessary to arrest HG, was she deserving of the callus and unchristian treatment she received and is it some thing that the Island and the Church of England can be proud of?

It is not disputed that HG contacted the Dean’s wife and the Bishop early on the Saturday evening when it is alleged that HG was rude and allegedly said she would see the Bishop in St Mary’s Church, but did it mean that she was going to attend or what were her motives. There is no mention of that question being asked by the arresting officer. Why was the decision to inform the police left until early Sunday morning and was it necessary to arrest and go to such extraordinary lengths to detain and deport HG from Jersey?

The decision to arrest HG has left no winners but only shame on those involved with the arrest and subsequent action. The States Police will say that they were responding to an allegation of harassment but could be said HG was treated even handily. If it was decided to arrest her why it did it take so long to obtain the evidence and why was she not bailed? Was the Force's action an example of good States Police practice or more akin to that of a police State? 

Unfortunately neither Winchester nor Jersey cares a damn about HG or Safeguarding and it is doubtful whether these matters will even be discussed by the two Bishops during their flag waving visit to Jersey.

Jesey's Dean---------Deputy Mike Higgins-- Oral Question..

 

Last Tuesday Deputy Higgins asked an Oral question of Senator Le Marquand the Minister for Home Affairs relating to HG's arrest and removal from Jersey for 3 years. Most readers see the removal as deportation but HG is a British citizen she cannot be legally deported but the way in which she was removed amounted to deportation as readers will discover when reading this Blog

The States Standing Orders, require written questions to be lodged on the Monday before the next Sitting which is the Tuesday the following week. Written questions must not exceed 200 words. Answers are printed and published at the next Sitting but there is no opportunity for the questioner to ask further question orally unless they had also lodged an Oral Question which must be lodged before noon on the Thursday before the next Sitting. Oral Questions must not exceed 70 words.

In theory the time allowed for research is adequate and there should be no reason for any Minister to mislead Members. Unfortunately there is a big difference between theory and practice and all too often Ministers either intentionally mislead Members or their answers are inaccurate. Senator Le Maquand is a past master of side stepping questions as readers will see. Below is the Oral question and answer session and it was open for any of the other 49 members to ask supplementary questions. As one can see supplementary questions were only asked by 2 male Members and one must ask why lady Members did not think it worthy to ask questions or was it that they did not wish to offend the Dean who an unelected Member of the States and had led the prayers at the start of the Sitting.

My Comments are in red ink.

3.8 Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the binding over order imposed on the woman known as H.G. in the Korris Report:

Will the Minister explain to Members whether the woman known as H.G. in the Korris Report was bound over to leave the Island and, if so, would he advise whether she was removed from the Island in her pyjamas and left destitute at a United Kingdom airport?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):

The harassment case to which the Deputy refers dates back to October 2010 and the latest Korris Report was published in March this year. The fact that the woman known as H.G. in this case was sentenced for harassment on 11th October 2010 is a matter of public record. H.G. was legally represented in court at her sentencing by a Jersey lawyer and supported in court by both a mental health patient advocate and by friends from Winchester who were in Jersey on holiday at the time. HG did not see her lady Advocate until she had actually arrived at Court and who then advised her to plead guilty. HG claims that she was unaware of the full extent of the Binding Order or that she was going to be shipped out of the Island that day. HG's friends were by chance on holiday in the Island and the Court records show that they were not returning to the UK until the following week. HG had made her home in Jersey and had a job, if her Advocate advised her to plead guilty why did she not ask for a binding order to be of good behaviour in Jersey. However had she been given the opportunity to plead not guilty and the court had actually tried the case she may well have been found not guilty due to mitigating circumstances which were not even mentioned before HG was sentenced. As it was she was treated in a shambolic way in a behind the doors deal where it was conveniently arranged to kick her out of the Island. H.G. pleaded guilty to one charge of harassment. Her lawyers invited the court to deal with sentencing in the case by way of a binding over order to leave the Island, I repeat why a binding over to leave Jersey??? and H.G. consented to this. She was appropriately dressed in daywear attire when appearing at court, as was the case when she left the Island. How can the Senator make that claim and how does he know? HG was arrested at 930 on a Sunday morning at a time when many people are still in bed or as in HG's case she was still in her pyjamas, she was not wearing a dressing gown but for warmth had put on a pullover/cardigan. She was wearing a very old pair of trainers and if not arrested she would have showered and got dressed into day clothes to assist at a charity event at Reg's Garden. Senator Le Marquand fails to explain why two male officers turned up. The States Police knew they were arresting a lady so why the rush why no female police officer? Perhaps if one had been present HG might not have felt embarrassed to ask that she be allowed to put on some underwear and day clothes. HG remained in her pyjamas when taken and detained over night at the police station and then in the same clothes when appearing in court and then taken on to La Moye Prison for two weeks. As she never set foot in her flat again it stands to reason that the clothes she was arrested in were the clothes she was wearing when she was deported from the Island two weeks later. HG was given prison clothing but reverted to her pyjamas when she appeared for sentencing on 11th October. I challenge Senator Le Marquand to disprove this claim. The States funded her flight to Southampton later that afternoon. Big deal, did they expect HG to pay for her flight? The States of Jersey Police assisted in the recovery of personal possessions in storage at a St. Brelade's address for her before leaving the Island. Only partly true. On leaving the Magistrates Court's cell HG was still in the clothing she was wearing when arrested two weeks earlier. She claims she received no help from her advocate or mental health advocate regarding her onward journey and there is no reason to disbelieve her as no arrangements were made for HG to collect her belongings. She asked the police officers if they would stop off at her flat whilst on the way to the airport so she could collect some clothing and personal effects. this they did but would not allow her out of the car. A Police Officer entered her flat to rummage through her belongings bringing with him HG's passport and bank card and two bags of old clothing which HG had put aside to give to charity I am unable to advise on her onward travel or other arrangements from Southampton. I am not surprised at that answer but if he had asked HG She would have told him that she was left to fend for herself and left destitute.

3.8.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

A supplementary. I think the Minister’s response is misleading; I will put that down to the information he has been given. The lady concerned was in her pyjamas, she had no underwear, she had a cardigan over her pyjamas, that was all. The police officers took her back. On the way to the airport, she asked if she could go home and get some clothes. They would not allow her to go in and get them; they got some plastic bags with goods that were going to a charity shop and she was basically left in the U.K. with no money. Deputy Higgins's information is correct. What I would say to the Minister is: is that how we should be treating people in the 21st century? What sort of impression is it giving to people outside this Island? The tactics used are very similar to that of a totalitarian state. Now for a classic Le Marquand side step clearly he did not want to answer the question because the tactics adopted were akin to that of a totalitarian State. Let's see the answer given.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am afraid that much of the information being given by the Deputy is wholly inaccurate. A typical answer from a Minister who naturally must be believed because he is a Minister. The fact is that this young lady had spent 2 weeks in prison prior to coming before the court for sentencing. Why was she remanded in custody for two weeks, why was she not bailed? To suggest that she would be in prison for 2 weeks and that the prison authorities would allow her to be taken down to Police Headquarters in her pyjamas is, frankly, totally ludicrous and totally inaccurate. The Senator is completely ignoring the facts, where did he acquire his information? HG was taken from La Moye Prison to the Magistrates Court not police headquarters. I submit that he should check the facts with those who know rather than from those who like Dame Heather refuse to accept them because it shows the judiciary and police in a poor light? The functionality of my department in this area is the functionality of the police officers in carrying out the court order in relation to the binding over order, and that functionality is, first of all, to hold the individual in custody for a period and then to place them on a flight or on a boat out of the Island. HG was hardly a Curtis Warren or high risk offender, her alleged crime was that she was going to disrupt a church Service Surely there must be proper procedure for persons who are bound over to leave the Island to be given an opportunity to gather some clothing and personal effects before being put on a boat or aircraft. In addition to that, they assisted the lady in seeking to regain possession of items which she had in the Island to take with her. The Senator is wrong again.

3.8.2 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I have to ask, are we getting extra time for these very long answers? I hope we are adding extra time. My question is this: in the Korris Report, pages 41 and 48, the author recommends that H.G.’s arrest and deportation should be investigated as the matter is not being investigated by Dame Heather Steel, as it is not considered to be a church matter. Does the Minister agree that the matter should in fact be the subject of an inquiry instigated by the States itself and, if not, why not?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The use of the term “deportation” is inaccurate in this context. Korris described HG's removal as deportation. Here, we have a situation in which a person’s lawyer invites the court to deal with the matter by way of a binding over order with a condition of leaving the Island and not returning for 3 years. There is no mention of the 3 years in the Court transcript. Why did the lawyer who had never met HG until the morning of the Hearing advise HG to accept a binding over to leave the Island, why if guilty could she not have been bound over in Jersey to keep the peace? The answer is because HG was becoming a thorn in the Church's side and a legal way had to be found to remove her from the Island. If there are concerns in relation to the manner in which the young lady was dealt with, I am aware that earlier this year the Chief Minister commissioned a report from the Jersey Independent Safeguarding Chair into the care and welfare of H.G. This is news to me and HG. A few months ago I repeatedly asked the Chief Minister to instigate an investigation but he refused. Why the U Turn, why has HG not been informed, what are the terms of reference and will the report be released to the public? in respect of these matters, and the outcome of that report is expected some time in the future, but I have no particular details on that other than the fact that such a report has been commissioned by the Chief Minister. Why no details, the investigation must be looking into the arrest and detention which were carried out by the police.
3.8.3 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

A supplementary? It is not an attack on the Minister, as I am sure he is not responsible for all these things, but the examples of how Jersey flouts the absolute right to a fair trial process are growing weekly. The evidence we are hearing is so different. Does that not in itself suggest that, really, to put people’s minds at rest, that the Minister should initiate an inquiry?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

It is a matter of public record what happened in the courts. Does that mean what happened in the Court cannot be questioned? I have in front of me, not only a copy of the charge sheet for sentencing purposes, but also a transcript, albeit one which has been edited out to remove certain details and information, of both hearings which took place. Will the Senator explain why the charge against the Bishop was dropped? I submit that by doing so it paved the way to remove HG from the Island. She could hardly be bound over to the UK if the Bishop was living there.That is a matter of public record. If Members are interested to try to obtain a copy of the edited matter, they should approach the Magistrates’ Court Greffier to see if he will provide them with such a copy, otherwise, they can go and listen to the tape recording. These matters are not held in secret; this is a public, open court. Some of the information which I have given today comes directly from those transcripts. And very selective too.

3.8.4 Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin:

I would like to agree with Deputy Pitman inasmuch as we are used to having contrary views across the House but, in this case, the 2 versions of events seem to be very far apart. Could I ask the Minister if he would be prepared to meet Deputy Higgins to try to ascertain where Deputy Higgins’ version of events comes from and if it is truthful?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I do not think there is any point in that, personally. I have invited Deputy Higgins on many occasions to come and talk to me about many different matters in which we have a difference of opinion; he never wants to come and talk to me, but if he wants to come and talk to me on this matter, I will happily see him. This is the usual approach to keep matters under the carpet.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I will come too. Not sure why Trevor wants to waste his time, he did not get very far when he saw the Chief Minister in relation to Senator Bailhache's reading of documents on the plane.

3.8.5 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I might say that I will be bringing matters to the House regarding what I want to speak to the Minister for Home Affairs about. As far as H.G. is concerned, perhaps the Minister will explain to us a number of strange things that happened: (1) she was arrested and spent 11 hours in custody before she was charged; perhaps he can tell us why there was the delay; (2) perhaps he can also tell us why the police did not bail her - she had accommodation, she had a job and she was of good character; (3) and also perhaps he can tell us why the police objected to her having bail at the court appearance on 27th September.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I cannot answer the first question; it is far too detailed and it was going beyond the area of the initial question back into earlier time. It was a genuine question and HG was not charged until 11 hours after her arrest. It is evident that HG had to wait until the police had obtained statements from the Dean, his wife and the Bishop. They also had to find a Centenier to charge. Again, if Deputy Higgins would care to look at the transcript of the hearing, he will see precisely what was said by the prosecution and he will see precisely the thought processes of the Magistrate concerned in relation to the matter. It was established during the course of the hearing that, in fact, she did not have a home to go to, that the person with whom she had been staying was unwilling to have her back again. That is on the record of the transcript. Deputy Higgins has described what really happened and HG has every right to claim that she was also poorly represented at the first Hearing too. One should really examine Magistrate Richard Falle's thought process and why he sentenced HG to be bound over to leave the Island for 3 years

3.8.6 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I must address that last point about the person not having a home. The police phoned the landlord and said about H.G. and asked whether she lived and everything else and whether she could go back. They would not tell her what the nature of the charge was. The woman was aware of the fact that police had arrested her in the morning, the police would not say why she was being charged. For all they knew, she could have been a mass murderer and they would have been in danger so, as a consequence, because the police would not tell them why she had been arrested, they would not necessarily have her back in the home. I think it is monstrous to say otherwise. This is a stain on Jersey’s character and it is not going to go away. I spoke to the land lady some months ago and Deputy Higgins account is correct. The land lady said that had she been told the facts she would have been happy for HG to return to her flat.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I have absolutely no knowledge of that; all I can say is what is in the transcript. The transcript will show that her legal representative had left the court before HG was refused bail. While I am on my feet, could I possibly correct a mistake I made in answer before to a question of Deputy Trevor Pitman on the previous answer? It is a matter of correction.

The Bailiff:

Yes.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

This was in relation to the first set of questions by Deputy Trevor Pitman. I erroneously said that there had been a letter to Mr. Syvret setting out the position from which I had quoted. In fact, I now see, on checking it, that there was an email. I wonder whether Senator Le Marquand will correct some of the information he gave in his answers above.

I am drafting this Blog during the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month and one day after the Remembrance Service where at the Cenotaph, the Dean during his closing prayers asked God to grant the Island PEACE,TRUTH,JUSTICE.

Are they just empty words, because where is HG's justice ? She was badly let down by the Church for whom the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Winchester and the Dean albeit belatedly have all publicly apologised. However she was also badly let down by the States Police, her legal representatives, the social services and the Judiciary, are those actions not worthy of redress?

And now to cap it all even though there is now a very expensive investigation into the events relating to the way HG's complaint was handled and how she was treated during her arrest, her voice has not been heard, where is the justice that the Dean was praying for? the answer is simple, it is not with God but the very people who were probably at other Remembrance Services either with the Dean was or elsewhere in the UK. What are they doing about it?

The way HG was arrested detained and deported is of grave concern but is it just an isolated incident? Are there proper procedures in place and if so were they followed by the police in the first instance. Is our legal aid system working against the interests of both the lawyer and accused who all too often feels pressurised to plead guilty. Was the Magistrate too close to some senior members of the Town Church? Deputy Higgins was right to describe the tactics used to deport HG as very similar to that of a Totalitarian State. Are there Binding Over procedures in place and again were they followed.

Even if HG was not dressed in her pyjamas, is the method of her arrest and deportation acceptable for an Island that claims to be Christian. Is it right to remove a vulnerable person from a secure environment and dumped and left destitute on a UK airport on a cold October evening?

In my very first Blog on the Dean titled "The Dean, Bishop and Good Shepherds, Fact or Fiction? published on 22nd March, I wrote "As a responsible and caring community how could the above happen, are our Health, Social Services, Police, Courts, Legal Advisors and other relevant agencies fully trained and resourced to respond to people like HG? Given her experience one is left to wonder."

I don't need to wonder any more because clearly Jersey is not trained or resourced and even worse it is unwilling to accept or rectify its failings.

Jersey's Dean--Laity's JEP Advert

When I published my previous Blog, due to technical difficulties, I was unable to publish the advert which appeared in the Jersey Evening Post on Saturday 10^th August, thanks to the assistance of fellow Bloggers I am now able to publish it in full which should be helpful to readers outside the Island.

THE STEEL INVESTIGATION

Following the advertisement placed by the Rt. Rev, the Lord Bishop of Winchester on 3rd August 2013 a group of concerned members of the laity of the Anglican Church in Jersey wish to affirm their confidence in the love of God made real in the faith and lives of those who make up the Church in Jersey, and in particular their trust in all those who offer pastoral care in their name. We wish to affirm our reliance upon the whole Church in the Island as it tries to live out the love of God made tangible in Jesus Christ and made effective by the power of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those who respond to that love.

The love of Christ, expressed through the Church, mends broken lives, brings hope to the hopeless, purpose to the wounded, and forgiveness to those in need of it.

The Church in Jersey has a long record of living out this love and providing a safe space for those in need.

We retain the highest confidence in the safeguarding record and practice of the Anglican Church in Jersey. It has fed the hungry, housed the homeless, comforted and tended the sick, and called the powerful to account. Countless lives have been transformed by Christ’s presence in a caring Church in Jersey.

Safeguarding provides for the care of the vulnerable, but also provides protection for those who offer that care. Courageous support is often provided by the Church for people who are deeply disturbed in the most challenging circumstances.

The Church is not, and cannot be perfect, and sadly, from time to time, confidence and hope can be damaged by people getting things wrong.

INVITATION TO GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT THE CONDUCT OF THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

Many in the Island may feel that the Bishop of Winchester’s response to one ‘safeguarding issue’ has been disproportionate, has caused widespread anxiety and hurt, and has wrongly undermined public confidence in the Church in Jersey.

The launching of two simultaneous and unco-ordinated inquiries, apparently aimed less at caring for the vulnerable and more at assaulting the constitutional relationship between Jersey and the Diocese of Winchester, may have caused a loss of confidence in the Diocese.

Some may have experienced that relentless public assault on the Church in Jersey through a PR company as placing power before pastoral care.

Others may be alarmed at the alleged expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds on lawyers, public relations consultants, and two extensive inquiries; they may be worried about this expenditure of money raised by sacrificial giving from people who have generously sustained the mission of the Church.

The terms of reference of the Steel inquiry invite evidence from the public of inappropriate or unbecoming conduct by clergy in relation to events of the recent past.

The Bishop of Winchester is a member of the clergy.

If you have experienced the conduct of the Bishop of Winchester as inappropriate, or unbecoming, please write to Dame Heather Steel at heather.steel@churchofengland.org and copy it to noconfidenceinwinton@gmail.com (End)

Since the advert was published it has been revealed that members of the laity from both Jersey and Guernsey held a private meeting organised by Senator Bailhache. The information coming to hand is that the meeting enabled attendees to raise concerns emanating from the Bishop’s Visitation and their relationship with the diocese of Winchester.

I would put a few pence that if safeguarding was on the agenda it was way down the list. I would put even a few more pence that the Dean's handling of HG’s complaint or concerns about her welfare was not even on the agenda.

The Saga began with concerns over safeguarding and the alleged failure of the Dean and others to deal with a complaint against a Church Warden, those concerns now seem to be forgotten and is more about the clergy's self preservation than caring for the vulnerable.

Given that Senator Bailhache was involved it is likely that the subject of a break away from Winchester was high up on the agenda. The Senator not content with political independence appears to be looking at religious independence, is he using the Winchester farce as a trial run for greater events to follow? 

We don’t know whether those behind the publication of the advert are the same people involved in organising the meeting but it is interesting to note that the advert contains the following: “The Church is not, and cannot be perfect, and sadly, from time to time, confidence and hope can be damaged by people getting things wrong.”

Those responsible for the advert have got things badly wrong, they have done so anonymously and are asking members of the public who have experienced inappropriate or unbecoming conduct of their Bishop to write to Dame Heather and copy them in. If they do not have the courage to disclose their identity, how can they expect people to have courage to submit their comments to an anonymous group?

One wonders whether Bishop Dakin is aware of his revolting clergy or whether he really cares. Apparently he was not available but when asked for a comment but a “spokesman” on behalf of the Diocese of Winchester released the following statement.

"The Bishop of Winchester is fully committed to the historic relationship between Jersey and the rest of the Diocese of Winchester. The current safeguarding inquiries are focused purely on ensuring that vulnerable people in the Island, and the Diocese as a whole, are given all the support they need. The Church of England's recent General Synod made clear that safeguarding is of paramount importance throughout the Church. Every single Diocese, including the deaneries and parishes that form them, is expected to take safeguarding equally seriously. 

"Significant concerns were raised around the handling of a serious abuse complaint by a vulnerable young woman in Jersey in 2008. It would have been wholly irresponsible for the Diocese and the Bishop to have ignored these concerns and the current independent inquiries have been given the full support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Dean of Jersey and the Chief Minister. The central Church of England is also funding a significant proportion of the cost of the inquiries because of its wider commitment to safeguarding. 

"The Bishop of Winchester and Dame Heather Steel agreed that her investigation should be carried out as openly and transparently as possible. As such, she placed a public notice in the Jersey Evening Post, calling for anyone with information or evidence that could aid her work to come forward." (End)

If one reads Dame Heather’s TOR (below) they will note that it states that she is going to conduct her investigation in private, therefore why is the “spokesman” saying the investigation should be carried out as openly and transparently as possible.

Also why did the spokesman not take the opportunity to comment on the advert and more importantly confirm whether Dame Heather is content to receive evidence of the Bishop’s perceived inappropriate conduct.

As there is no comment I  have written to Dame Heather asking what part if any she has had in publishing the advert and has she agreed to receive evidence of the Bishop’s inappropriate conduct. As her TOR are unclear I have also asked whether she will be investigating HG's arrest, detention and deportation from Jersey in line with the Korris recommendation? As yet I have not received a reply. 

Dame Heather Steel's Terms of Reference can be read HERE

The Korris Report can be read HERE

The following Blog by Tony the Prof is well worth reading please click HERE

Jersey's Dean---Did the Punishment fit the Crime?

Readers who have followed my Dean Blogs will know that from the very outset I raised concerns about the circumstances which led to HG being “deported” from Jersey and left destitute in the UK. I questioned whether the agencies with responsibility with dealing for people like HG had the competence and resources. Having read and re read the Korris Report, Senator Bailhache’s letter and documentation provided by HG my concerns have not been allayed but have increased. On Page 41 of her Report Jan Korris states “The decision and manner of HG’s deportation requires investigation. It is clearly a matter of concern that a vulnerable adult in such a distressed state could be removed from Jersey with no thought of her imminent needs.”

I agree with Jan Korris and although I have repeatedly requested the Chief Minister to instigate an investigation, his failure to even respond can only indicate that he will not to agree to my request. The arrest is not included in the Visitation Terms of Reference and it is unclear whether the proposed investigation into the Dean’s handling of HG’s complaints will come within its remit.

However the purpose of this Blog is to allow readers an insight into the circumstances that led to HG’s arrest and removal from Jersey.

It is evident that HG had made complaints to the Dean, the Bishop and the States Police. It is also evident that whilst there was some substance to her complaint against the Church Warden, the police did not have sufficient evidence to level criminal charges. In page 40, Korris states “it is debatable once the police case had been settled whether HG’s abuse complaints remained a Safeguarding issue. However as soon as HG started to make complaints against Officers of the Church in December 2008 it may have been helpful for the task of investigating this to have changed hands.”

Unfortunately the same people tasked with addressing HG’s abuse complaints then addressed her complaints against them for abuse of process. This seems extraordinary given that HG had informed Lambeth Palace of her complaints. I understand that the Church of England has access to a wide range of agencies with the relevant expertise including Autism yet it is apparent that little or no contact was made for advice or assistance.

HG had a double grievance, her allegation against the Church Warden and also against the Church Officers, their wives and the Safeguarding Officer who in HG’s eyes was not acting impartially. This grievance lasted (and still does) from December 2008 until September 2010. It is apparent that in seeking justice, HG sent hundreds of emails to the Dean, Bishop and the Safeguarding Officer Jane Fisher which were often copied to various other people. To remedy the problem the States Police were eventually contacted and apparently suitable words of advice were given along with a Harassment Order which HG denies receiving.

It appears that on Sunday 26th September 2010 a church service was due to take place in which both the Dean and Bishop would be attending. It is alleged that HG made a telephone call in the late afternoon of Saturday 25th September in which she was rude and threatened to disrupt the church service. Although Korris (page 25) states that the Bishop made a statement at the Deanery on 26th September the statement was taken some hours AFTER HG had been arrested and not before as reported by Korris. Korris goes on to state that the Bishop’s statement was made with the expectation that this would enable the police to keep HG from disrupting the Service that day. Was he that naïve? Statements were also taken that afternoon from the Dean and Mrs Key.

One would have assumed that at the time the statements were being taken all 3 were aware that HG had been in custody for some hours. It is not known whether any of the 3 asked of the purpose for the statements but one might have assumed that they knew their statements would be used as evidence against HG.

What is evident is that earlier at around 930am two States Police officers had called at HG’s home and arrested her on suspicion of harassment. It appears that HG was arrested and the evidence to justify the arrest and detention was obtained some hours after the arrest and HG was charged some 11 hours after her arrest and well after the Church Service.

What is also evident but deemed irrelevant is the fact that on the Sunday morning HG was getting herself ready to lend support at a charity event. She was arrested from her home; she was in full employment and of good character. If she was arrested to prevent disrupting the Church Service, why was she not bailed after the Service and warned to attend the Magistrate’s Court the following morning?

HG was held in custody overnight and taken by prison van to the Magistrate’s Court on the Monday morning. Legal Aid in Jersey is not as advanced as in the UK; however HG was seen by a duty advocate who advised her to reserve her plea and to apply for bail.

HG did not appear before the Magistrate until almost lunch time. The Court Transcript records the Magistrate twice stating that the matter was not an ordinary run of the mill case, yet no explanation is given. What he did say was in normal circumstances with a case such as this, conditional bail would be quite normal. Yet it is apparent that he sought excuses to deny bail. HG’s Advocate stated that HG had somewhere to live, had been living there for 6 months and gave details of her current employment; if she did not turn up that day she might lose her job. HG also understood that any breach of bail would lead to her arrest. However despite the facts and assurances HG was remanded in La Moye prison for two weeks.

HG appeared at the Magistrate’s Court two weeks later where the two original charges were dropped but replaced by a third. It will be for others to take me to task but it appears that there was a great deal of behind the scenes activity to find the most expedient way of dealing with a touchy and sensitive situation. The rationale for the change was that the original charges included the Bishop and Jane Fisher who lived in the UK. On page 24 Korris mentions Jane Fisher writing to the Bishop on 14th August 2010 expressing concerns as to how harassment to which they were being subjected, could be handled. Adding that if a court case was involved she felt the Diocese would be rather exposed, saying “I don’t think we have written evidence to support any investigation into her complaints against us at all” worrying that the Diocese’s competence could be questioned, “Particularly in light of the internal debate- well documented-about an independent review.”

By removing the Bishop and Jane Fisher from the charges it paved the way to bind HG over to leave the Island on the grounds that she was homeless and unemployed and could no longer harass the Keys. However it should be recalled that only two weeks earlier HG could not be bailed because she was allegedly homeless and unemployed. HG has stated that she feared that if she did not agree to be bound over she would be subjected to a further period in prison.

However where was the logic in binding HG to leave the Island where she would be destitute and a possible risk to the Bishop and Jane Fisher, but logic did not play a part in the Court’s thinking. Like Pontius Pilate the Magistrate washed his hands of the matter. After being sentenced arrangements were made for a flight later that day. HG was held in custody until she was placed in a police car to be transported to the airport. She pleaded with the officers to allow her to collect her belongings from her home which was on the way to the airport. Her plea was respected but rather than allow her to enter her home to collect her property she had to remain in the car whilst a police officer rummaged through her belongings selecting various items to be taken on the plane.

HG arrived in the UK on a dark October night with no means of support, homeless, unemployed and with criminal record. On page 25 Jane Fisher is reported as saying that "she was shocked that HG was bound over and summarily deported from the Island for 3 years and put on a plane with no-one to meet her. No planned accommodation and no accommodation." I wonder whether the Dean and the Bishop were also shocked.

Last Thursday the now re-instated Dean led the 68th Liberation Day Service to celebrate the ending of 5 years of the Nazi Occupation of Jersey. 70 years ago the Occupying Nazi's gave many Jersey families very short notice to report at the harbour to be deported to Germany. They were more fortunate than HG because they were given the opportunity of choosing what they could put in their suitcase. Some small consolation I suppose, but did HG’s punishment fit the crime, did she deserve to be deported and have we learnt nothing from the past?

Jersey's Dean and the Victim's Tale

Readers who have been following my two previous “Dean Blogs” below will be aware that considerable concern has been expressed about the health and whereabouts of the victim known as HG. Last Thursday a person purporting to be HG made contact with me and after making relevant checks I am satisfied as to her authenticity.

The matter is now quite involved but in summary, in July 2008 HG made a complaint to Jersey’s Dean about being the victim of inappropriate conduct by a church warden. She felt her complaint had not been satisfactorily addressed so made a complaint to the former Bishop of Winchester. Again she felt her concerns had not been addressed to her satisfaction. She informed the police but they found there was insufficient evidence to support criminal charges.

HG sought justice for two years and it is alleged that she harassed both the Dean and former Bishop which led to her arrest in September 2010. She was held in police custody and remanded in La Moye prison for 2 weeks before being bound over to leave the Island for three years. Having read the Court Transcript I have serious concerns about the circumstances of the arrest, detention and conviction and have made repeated requests to the Chief Minister to instigate an investigation but my request has fallen on deaf ears. On HG’s return to the UK she was again arrested in July 2011for harassment and incarcerated. HG is autistic and since returning to the UK she has no fixed abode or employment.

However HG’s plea for justice has led to a review by Jan Korris into the circumstances of her complaint, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the current Bishop of Winchester have both issued a public apology although HG claims she has not been officially made aware of it. In addition to the withdrawal of the Dean’s Commission a visitation/investigation by John Gladwin is underway. These are all positive actions but have come so late in the day and at a horrific personal price.

Given her experience it is not surprising that HG has lost all confidence and trust in the Police and the Church and feels most aggrieved at the insensitive manner in which both Bodies have treated her.

It is evident that there is a body of people including Senator Bailhache who feel that the Dean has been treated unfairly, the withdrawal of his Commission is both unreasonable and unconstitutional and the Dean should be reinstated. However it is disappointing that the very same group have displayed little or no sympathy/support for the victim HG who is now regarded as the villain.

The group from Jersey is exerting pressure on the Archbishop of Canterbury to intervene and for Bishop Dakin to reconsider his decision to withdraw the Dean's Commission and have him reinstated by Liberation Day on 9th of May. What is evident is that both men are not being swayed and are holding firm with the decision taken some six weeks ago. It is a fact that the Dean’s Commission has been withdrawn; we should all be pressing for the Visitation to be undertaken without any undue delay. I have expressed that view to Winchester and asked that a completion target date is made known.

Whilst there is considerable support for the Dean it is apparent that the forgotten person is HG. She tells me that her experience at the hands of the Police and Church has been life changing. She now has a criminal record, has little trust for anyone and her wounds are deep but has been encouraged by the support she has found via the Blogs and that is why she has contacted me for advice and support which I am happy to give and to act as her intermediary when necessary.

My first concern is for HG’s health and safety, the need for her to have a sense of her own value and know there are people who are concerned for her well being and are prepared to help her if she will let them. However this process will take time and patience but time can be a healer.

This Blog gives an update on the sorry affair. I titled my last Blog “A Voice in the Wilderness” HG’s voice is now being heard and this Blog will provide for a wider platform for it to be heard and I urge those tasked with sorting out the sorry mess will do so in a spirit of goodwill, unison and urgency. Above all else they should remember that HG is a real person who has suffered at the hands of professional people.

In my first "Dean Blog" I questioned the ability of our Health, Social Services, Police, Courts, Legal Advisors and other relevant agencies and were they fully trained and resourced to respond to people like HG. It is now evident that they, including the Church of England have much to learn and must do better.