Curtis Warren---La Moye Hilton, Prison or Holiday Camp?

In my previous Blog I reported that Deputy Montfort Tadier had lodged a number of questions relating to disciplinary cases involving Prison Employees. The full questions and answers are as follows;

Will the Minister advise members how many disciplinary cases there have been in the past 10 years at the HMP La Moye Prison for employees, and in how many of those cases the employee was either dismissed or resigned pending, or after, the action?

Will the Minister provide a summary of any alleged misconduct, in terms of its nature (i.e. sexual, drug dealing etc?)

Will the Minister, in particular, inform members whether the former member of staff in charge of the drug and alcohol counselling services who is alleged in a national newspaper to have had an inappropriate relationship with a prisoner was the subject of a disciplinary investigation and, if so what was the basis for, and result of, that investigation? Will the Minister make the case notes, if any, for any such disciplinary action available?

Answer

Prior to 2007, data on the number and outcome of disciplinary cases was not collated. Therefore the information requested could only be extracted through an examination of all staff personal files. Further to discussion with the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs, I believe Deputy Tadier has helpfully agreed that I should focus on Gross Misconducts where dismissal is a disposal available to the Prison Governor.

Between 1 January 2007 and 26 February 2014, 16 Gross Misconduct Investigations were initiated. The outcomes were as follows:

· 1 Prison Officer dismissed
· 2 Senior Officers reduced in rank to Prison Officer
· 1 Senior Officer, 3 Prison Officers and 1 Civilian grade given Final Written Warnings
· 3 Prison Officers given Written Warnings
· 1 Senior Officer, 2 Prison Officers and 2 Civilian Support Grades resigned before the disciplinary process was concluded

The nature of the offences committed included:

· 7 of the 16 Gross Misconducts and 2 of the resignations arose as a consequence of events while off duty in the community. 2 related to inappropriate behaviour in public and 5 due to criminal charges;
· 2 involved trafficking (1 x mobile phone and 1 x confectionery and stationery items);
· 1 related to a breach of the States Information Systems policy;
· 1 involved inappropriate use of a Dictaphone;
· 1 inappropriate disclosure of confidential information;
· 1 failing to report a significant breach of security;
· 1 leaving a part of the prison insecure and failing to complete core duties;
· 1 harassment of a prisoner;
· 1 breach of security while on an external escort (left a prisoner locked in the escort vehicle unsupervised).

With reference to the specific questions related to the ex Manager of Drug &Alcohol Counselling service at La Moye, on 14 September 2010 the Prison Governor would have suspended this individual pending an investigation into whether she had been trafficking items into Prison but she immediately resigned and is believed to have left Jersey within a matter of days thereafter. Because this matter did not proceed to the stage of a disciplinary investigation, it is not included in the figure of 16 Gross Misconduct Investigations set out above.

There has not been an investigation related to any form of sexual activity in the prison.

It is not appropriate to make the case notes in relation to disciplinary matters, or potential disciplinary matters, available.

******************************************************
Each year the Prison Governor submits an Annual Report to the States. His report includes a Mission Statement which is as follows.

H.M. Prison La Moye will provide a healthy, safe, secure and stimulating environment for all who live and work here. Prisoners will be encouraged to address their offending behaviour and to become involved in education and work related training, which will enable them to live a law-abiding and purposeful life in custody and after release. 

• Supportive relationships with families will be facilitated in order to maintain the positive links that will ensure a successful return to the community. In partnership with other agencies the prison will provide effective ways to reduce crime and its resultant social and economic costs. 

• Our aim is to be a model of best practice and an example to other prisons.

These are fine words but seem to be easier said than done.

I know a number of people who work in a variety of jobs in the Prison and they are a credit to them selves and the Prison Service. Unfortunately there will always be a few bad apples who bring the prison and their colleagues into disrepute. This is now evident by the information provided above which has had to be eked out thanks to Deputy Tadier.

In the Prison Governor's latest Report R41/2013 (see below) He reports on the misdeeds of the inmates but completely ignores those committed by his staff, why? Running La Moye Prison costs the Jersey Tax Payer over £10m a year, has on average 157 inmates and around 157 staff which includes drug councillors and other ancillary staff. I believe that the number of known disciplinary offences are disproportionate to the number of staff particularly as they are expected to be highly trained and disciplined.   

Whilst the Minister has provided some details and the number of disciplinary cases one is left to question their validity because a person claiming to be a member of the prison staff has circulated an email which includes the names of personnel who appear to have committed a number of misdeeds but have not really been taken to task. Some do not appear to match those given in Senator Le Marquand's answers above.

As the email contains allegations which have not been investigated the names of the individuals have been omitted and the following is the redacted version.

" Dear all,

First I will apologise for sending this information in this way, I do not have the strength to identify myself as I will be subjected to persecution by prison management and will lose my job which […] I cannot afford to do but I cant stay silent any more.

The story instigated by Theresa Rodrigues is on the whole a fairy tale but it opens up other questions that should be asked.

Rodrigues was suspected, investigated and challenged for numerous acts including sexual activity with numerous inmates(not warren) supply of drugs phones and pornographic materials. She was allowed to leave with pension reputation and a pay off from management. 

Officer AA was suspected investigated and found guilty of the same and again was allowed to leave with reputation pension intact and move too another states job

Officer BB found guilty after investigation for supply of drugs  no action taken, still states employee.

Counsellor CC guilty of supplying mobile phones to inmates  no action taken

Civilian DD   guilty of supply of drugs, phones and pornographic material. no action taken

Officer EE   Guilty of having improper relationship with Curtis Warren, passing and smuggling items and mail in and out of prison.  no action taken

Officer FF having affair with inmate, no action taken

The questions asked should be why have all these incidents been covered up X, ultimately the buck stops with the Governor but it is common knowledge X who runs La Moye and makes the decisions. 

Several Officers convicted of violent offences and kept job because of personally protected by X 

The moral in the prison is the lowest by far in the 10+ years I have been there, the management especially X run a regime based on corruption, bullying and lies and deceit."

It will be for readers to question the validity of the contents of the email or the author's authenticity as his/her spelling and grammar is suspect. However some of the allegations even if they come from an anonymous source are too serious to be ignored and as the names of the staff are in the email it should not be difficult to verify some of the allegations.

Questions have been asked as to Ms Rodrigues' motives for talking to the Mail on Sunday, could the answer be found in relation to Officer EE  who it is claimed was found guilty of having an improper relationship with Curtis Warren, passing and smuggling items and mail in and out of prison.  whereby no action was taken. Is it a case of "Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned?"

Senator Le Marquand was subjected to a number of questions during yesterday's Question Time and can be found on The Jersey Way website. look for question 8 which was asked by Deputy Le Herissier. It is evident that the Minister is slowly having to concede that all is not all sweetness and light at the prison. The fact that some of his Prison staff have been found guilty of a whole raft of dishonest acts cannot be ignored. It is now evident that Ms Rodriques' claim is not in isolation and the Minister must have been aware of the number cases of misconduct including hers so how can he say her claim was fantasy? If as it is claimed, another Prison Officer has been found guilty of having an inappropriate relationship with Curtis Warren what is to say that Ms Rodrigues did not?

What is evident is thanks to the persistence of a small number of people, the truth is slowly emerging along with a loss of confidence in the Minister and Prison Governor who must come up with answers to ensure that the prison is a safe and secure one for inmates and those employed there. 

La Moye Prison is a small but very expensive place to run but it is apparent that despite the Governor's glowing report and his Minister's reticence the public is being short changed and need to know what is really going on at the Prison.

Curtis Warren has been detained in many prisons and if stars were awarded for catering for ones overall needs it would be interesting to know how many stars he would award to Jersey's La Moye Prison which affectionately is given the tag "Hilton."

The Prison Governor Bill Millar was appointed in  March 2008, he is required to publish an Annual Report which is usually presented to the States in the Spring. His last Report presented to the States in May 2013 can be read here

The Jersey Way website can be read here look for question 8 asked by Deputy Le Herissier.

A Reflection on 2013

During 2013 I published 33 blogs and in common with other Bloggers have seen an increased readership. Whilst a large proportion of my posting have been in relation to the Dean's handling of HG's complaint I have covered other topics. I shall devote this blog looking back on some of them and will also take the opportunity of updating readers.

In January drug dealer Curtis Warren was still very much in the news and so he remained throughout the year as the Authorities were determined to make his life as difficult as possible. I have no time for drug dealers but it appears that every possible step was taken to ensure that Curtis Warren remained behind bars for as long as the Authorities could justifiably do so.

There was an ongoing battle to either get some of his ill gotten gains or to keep him locked up. He was due to be released this month but was ordered to pay back almost £200m or face a further period behind bars. Following the Court's ruling a statement from Jersey's Law Officers' Department read; 

"The Royal Court of Jersey has today ordered that £198m be confiscated from Curtis Warren. It is believed to be one of the largest ever confiscation orders made in the British Isles and Europe.

"The confiscation proceedings are the result of several years of extensive investigation into the criminal career and financial affairs of one of Europe's most notorious organised criminals." 

I did not attend any of the Hearings but from reports I have read it was reported that during the Hearing it was alleged that Warren was laundering £10m to £15m a week from smuggling drugs. It was also revealed that from his cell at Jersey's La Moye prison while awaiting trial between 2007 and 2009, Warren was alleged to have used several illicit mobile phones to contact a network of associates in an attempt to continue his drug trafficking empire. Some 35,000 calls across 41 countries between March 2008 and October 2009 involving Warren's mobile phones were analysed during the investigation.

If the above occurred one wonders who knew about it, why was it permitted, how many people have been arrested and if none, why not? When one also considers the controversy over the way evidence was obtained to convict Warren where no drugs came into police hands nor the drug supplier arrested, it ‘s not surprising that he has lodged another appeal. He might well be asking who guards the guardians or who watches the watchman?

Interestingly one the judges involved with one of the earlier appeal Hearings was certain Dame Heather Steel.

In February I published a blog about a film company called Canbedone Productions who having originally asked for £2m settled for £200k to film in Jersey. The Blog has received a considerable number of visits throughout the year and I am sure that readers will be looking with interest as to whether the promised filming actually gets under way later this month.

I am much saddened every time I pass St Martin’s School’s former playing field which is very much a building site because of the construction of the new school.The new parish Deputy, Steve Luce was a leading light in support of building the school on its field rather than on its existing site. I had hoped Deputy Rob Duhamel would have remembered that he is also Minister for Environment as well as Planning and would have saved the field but it was not to be. It is therefore amusing to read that Steve Luce lodged a proposition claiming that he has no confidence in Deputy Duhamel. It is said that one has no friends in politics.

I posted a Blog reporting on the lot of many of the Island’s immigrants who have little protection in respect of the deposits they are required to leave with land lords. The promised legislation still has not been lodged but I am informed that it should be lodged in the near future.

The States continued to make a pig’s ear of Reform and as long as it remains in Member’s hands, apart from the odd tweaking nothing substantial will be forthcoming. The one regret I have is that I voted in favour of Ministerial Government way back in 2001. I believed that reform in line with Clothier would immediately follow but it certainly has not been the case.

It was my proposition that established the Carswell Review into the role of the unelected Members of States. These include the Bailiff, the Deputy, the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, the Dean and the Lt. Governor. One of the recommendations to come from the Review was that the Bailiff’s dual role should end.

Connetable Crowcroft has lodged a proposition requesting the States to agree that the Bailiff should cease to act as President of the States and the States should elect their own President either from within or from without the ranks of their members.  I have always been relaxed in relation as to who presides at States Sittings but my main concern is that who ever it is, that person should be accountable and there should be a right of appeal against decisions made by that person in relation to the lodging of propositions and questions from States Members.

I devoted three blogs in which the former Bailiff was able to able to act in a partial and conflicted manner and yet not be accountable to anyone.

The debate on the Bailiff is due on 4th February and it seems ironic that a Connetable is lodging a proposition to remove the Bailiff from the States in line with the Clothier recommendation yet the Connetables are totally ignoring Clothier's recommendation to remove them selves from the States.  

In March it will be 3 years since the States agreed to establish a Committee of Inquiry into Jersey’s Historic Child Abuse. I published a couple of Blogs relating to that topic but it this Blog on Jimmy Savile published in 2012 which is still receiving a large number of visits. I am looking forward to the Committee actually getting under-way.

As mentioned above I have devoted a considerable amount of time to the Dean’s handling of HG’s complaint. As is so often the case it is not what was done at the time but what was not done that leads to problems. This could be said in the Dean’s case where sadly his handling of the complaint has caused a tremendous amount of distress not only to him and his wife but to HG which was also life changing.

Much time and expense has been given to investigating the matter and it is already evident that there will be no winners. The two Reports are due to be published some time in the near future but I doubt whether either will really put an end to the affair and will probably pose more questions than answers, but Bloggers will ensure that questions are asked.

Finally may I wish all readers a safe and healthy 2014 and ask that if you are minded to make a New Year's resolution you might consider one I made at the millennium and still keep. When ever possible use the stairs rather than the lift. Its good for your heart and spirit, try it even for a month and see if it makes a difference, I am sure it will.  

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---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.