Jersey's Dean---- Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury

Last week the Jersey Evening Post gave front page coverage to a letter from Senator Bailhache to the Archbishop of Canterbury asking him to press for the publication of the Steel Report.  The Senator wrote as a Senator in the States of Jersey and as Lay Chair of the Jersey Deanery Synod.

Those in the Jersey Church circle have been impressed ( there are others who are unimpressed) at how speedily the Senator has become the chair of the Deanery Synod and it would be interesting to know whether his letter was ever approved by the rank and file Synod members.

The Senator attacked the Bishop of Winchester for failing to apologize for causing ‘unjustified humiliation and distress’ to the Dean and his wife. He accused the Church of ‘burying’ the report to prevent embarrassment for the Bishop of Winchester. He warned that failure to act could cause ‘irreparable damage’ between the Church of England and the church in Jersey and urged the Archbishop to come out in support of the contents of the Steel report in the interest of ‘Christian reconciliation’.

The Senator made no mention of the real victim but that is understandable because as far as he and his colleagues are concerned she does not exist, so much for “Christian reconciliation?”

The Dean has some pretty influential allies who are pressing the Archbishop to release the Steel Report in the belief that it will bring closure to the sorry affair. However they seem to have lost sight of the fact that the Dean and his supporters are hell bent on extracting an apology from the Bishop of Winchester. Until the apology is given there will be no closure.

Sadly they have failed to acknowledge the impact the release will have on the victim. Surely as true Christians the welfare of the vulnerable should take precedence over any perceived “hurt” suffered by a senior member of the clergy.

Tony the Prof has recently published an excellent blog in relation to this matter and on the recent visit to the Archbishop of Canterbury by a delegation from Jersey. It can be accessed HERE.

In any normal organization where there are petty spats the boss would have a serious talk with both men, remind them of their responsibilities and if they could not work together for the good of the organization then they should find alternative employment. Sadly the Church of England is not a normal organization and is certainly not adverse to spending thousands of pounds defending the indefensible.

I have published several blogs on the Dean saga and on 27^th January this year I published a blog titled “Let Sleeping Dogs Lie.”  I said that nothing would be gained by pressing for the release and every one should let sleeping dogs lie. We know that the woman wanted to move on even though she had every right and expectation to some form of redress.

It would seem that the only people who can’t let it go are those who support the Dean, who by his own admission mishandled the complaint and added his apology to that of the Archbishop and the Bishop of Winchester.

My letter to the Archbishop is below. I understand that he has made it known that he is not responding to Senator Bailhache’s letter. I don’t need a reply but I hope the Archbishop will read it and have the courage to do what is right.

 

My Letter........

Dear Archbishop, 

I write as one of the many disillusioned members of the Church of England who are increasingly frustrated at the way the Jersey church is being hijacked by a small group who claim to speak for me. They appear to be more concerned with driving wedges between Jersey and the Bishop of Winchester rather than building bridges and are using the Steel Report as its wooden horse.

You have recently received a strongly worded letter from Senator Bailhache which accuses you of failing to grasp the nettle, whilst I agree with the Senator I do not agree with the nettle he wants you to grasp. Senator Bailhache is part of the problem and whilst he is entitled to support the Dean who is his friend and colleague, he also has a duty to be even handed as Lay Chair of the Jersey Deanery Synod.

The Senator is requesting the publication of the Steel Report but has failed to accept that the publication will solve nothing because it will do nothing for the welfare of the young woman at the heart of the matter or solving the impasse between the Dean and Bishop Dakin of Winchester.

What is evident is that Bishop Dakin could have handled the Dean’s suspension in a more professional manner. The same could be said of the Dean’s handling of the abuse complaint way back in the summer of 2008. What is conveniently forgotten is that the Dean on being reinstated said, “I regret mistakes that I made in the safeguarding processes and I understand that, upon reflection, it would have been more helpful if I had co-operated more fully with the Korris Review. I now add my own apology to that of the Bishop of Winchester and Archbishop of Canterbury to the vulnerable person at the heart of this matter.

The Dean has admitted that he mishandled the abuse allegation therefore even though no disciplinary action is being levelled he cannot nor can others claim that he is exonerated. Had his mistakes not been made at the outset none of the difficulties would have followed.

It should be noted that whilst all of you have made public apologies to the young woman none of you have found the humility to apologise to her personally or ensure that promises made by Bishops Dakin and Gladwin to assist her have been kept. 

Your apology was for badly letting the young woman down, that is an understatement because at the behest of the Dean, his wife and the late Bishop of Winchester she was arrested at home whilst still in her night attire, was detained in a police cell for 24 hours and then imprisoned for two weeks before being effectively deported from Jersey in her night attire and left destitute in the UK. Senator Bailhache claims that the Dean’s suspension was ill judged, precipitate, unnecessary, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. If ever there was a miscarriage of justice one need look no further than the action taken by members of your clergy to remove a problem.

Whilst much money, time and effort is being consumed by Senator Bailhache and his colleagues they are oblivious to the real victim who in their eyes does not exist. The Senator has made reference to a paragraph in your letter of 9^th March 2013 but has carefully doctored it to exclude your reference to the young lady.

The Steel Report cannot and must not be released for a number of reasons, not least because the original Terms of Reference were amended at the behest of the Dean’s colleagues and the arrest and deportation of the vulnerable young woman was excluded despite the Korris recommendation.  The choice of Dame Heather was a grave mistake, not only because of her association with Senator Bailhache but for the comments made during her meeting with me and are contained in the transcript which she promised to give me. However for obvious reasons she has failed to keep her promise.

 Jan Korris was criticized for not interviewing the Church Warden or the young woman, However Dame Heather has also failed to interview both, so how can her Report be taken seriously? The most serious reason for non- publication is of the known impact it will have on the young woman.

The recent representations from Jersey make no mention of this important pastoral consideration. Bishop Dakin has informed the Bailiff of the need for an impact assessment before publication but that is still awaited. There are also assurances given to the Court which have to be met, which will all also cost money.

I am probably one of very few people who have had meetings with the young woman, Dame Heather and Bishop Gladwin who after meeting him in London visited my home to thank me for my endeavors and assurance that I would continue to assist with the Inquiry. I no longer act as a mediator for the young woman but that does not mean that I do not care for her welfare.

I don’t know what hats the Lt Governor, Bailiff and the Chief Minister were wearing but the cost of their visit was paid by the tax payers. I am sure the visit was useful but I doubt whether they were able to give a full and impartial account of events. However I have considerable documentation which supports why the Steel Report should not be released and would be pleased to share with you should you doubt my claims.

I trust that you will address this letter with the urgency it deserves and arrange for the Steel Report to be shredded for the reasons above. I also ask that you take steps to ensure that the Dean and Bishop Dakin are reminded of the responsibilities and that it is hypocritical to stand in the pulpit and ask us to love our neighbour when they do not practice what they preach.

I understand that Senator Bailhache circulated his letter to the Lt Governor, Bailiff, Chief Minister and Bishop Willmott so I will do the same. His letter was also circulated to the media; in the interest of transparency I will do the same.

Yours sincerely,

F.J. (Bob) Hill, BEM.

10^th November 2015

 

 

 

Jersey's Dean---Still More Questions--- BBC Radio Jersey Broadcast.

During Question Time at last Tuesday’s States sitting Deputy John Le Fondre asked Chief Minister Senator Gorst if he was able to update Members as to when the Steel Report would be released? The Chief Minister could not give a date but stated that he was greatly disappointed that the matter had not been brought to a swift conclusion.

Followers of my Dean Blogs will know that 2 years ago Dame Heather Steel was commissioned by Bishop Dakin to review the Dean’s handling of a complaint made by a young lady against a Church Warden in 2008.

Radio Jersey has maintained an interest in the matter and yesterday along with Bruce Willing I was invited to join Matthew Price to discuss the impasse between the Bishop of Winchester and Jersey’s Dean and the delay in the release of the Steel and Gladwin Reports.

Bruce Willing is a member of a small group of people which includes Senator Philip Bailhache who have been vociferously critical of Bishop Dakin’s handling of the “Dean Affair” and have been unstinting in their support for the Dean. I don’t have a problem with their stance but they seem oblivious of some of the Dean’s shortcomings and of  the resultant wedge that has now been securely lodged between Winchester and Jersey thus ending our 500 year old link.

Two years ago I published this BLOG which is well worth reading because it contains a letter from a Dean supporter and a set of questions posed by Bruce Willing. It also contains a quote from the Dean when apologising for mistakes made in his handling of the complaint in which he states “If Christians can’t put things like this behind them and move on then we are all in a mess.” 

Given the impasse it is evident that some Christians have not put things behind them or moved on. Not only do they want the Bishop’s blood but also his head. It is also now evident that following Bruce Willing’s concerns regarding the initial Terms of Reference (TOR) they were amended. This possibly accounts for why the Korris recommendation that the arrest and deportation of HG from Jersey be investigated was omitted from the final TOR.

It should also be recalled that Korris was heavily criticised for not interviewing the complainant, however neither has Steel yet the same criticism is not being levelled at her. After my 3 hour meeting with Dame Heather Steel in October 2013 I wrote to Bishop Dakin informing him of my concerns regarding Dame Heather’s partiality and later published a blog on the matter which can be read by clicking.HERE

Now that it is evident that the TOR were amended and the author's partiality questionable its not surprising that some people are keen for the Steel Report to be published. 

The broadcast may be heard by clicking HERE  Readers will note that there are disagreements between Bruce Willing and me. I don't have a problem with what I said but I disagree with some of Bruce's comments which I am pretty sure would also be refuted by Bishop Dakin who was certainly at the sharp end of Bruce's tongue 

It is interesting that the issue of the Dean's "exoneration" was again raised. In my book the fact that disciplinary action is not being taken does not mean that one is exonerated. What is evident is that mistakes have been made on both sides and no good will come by the publication of a Report which is already discredited and will do more harm than good.

I believe the public and the Church would be better served if both parties acted as Christians, put things behind them and moved on so everyone gets out of the mess that they have created.

If readers have difficulty in opening the links to my two blogs above should be able to access them by clicking HERE    and      HERE

I am grateful to Radio Jersey for providing the link to yesterday's broadcast which can also be accessed by clicking HERE

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (9)--- "The Magnificent Seven"???????

The debate relating to the additional funding for the Committee of Inquiry was concluded yesterday with a resounding victory for Chief Minister Gorst.  However his victory was sullied by the immature actions of five of his Ministers and two Assistant Ministers who let their personal feelings take precedence over those of the victims and the Island’s reputation.

Deputy Tadier’s three amendments were as anticipated kicked into touch, however his concerns over the capping of funding and time schedule should not be ignored by the Chief Minister or the Committee of Inquiry. Due diligence must be given to the money paid to Lawyers and all expenditure in that area must be heavily scrutinised. As mentioned in my previous blog the need for legal assistance should not be taken as a licence to bill. All legal expenses must be justified and not just met because of who is making the claim.

As with every debate there were some good, bad and hypercritical speeches and Senator Bailhache’s should not have been made. Senator Gorst’s opening speech was measured and he made some good points however I was hoping to hear that he was going to ask his Ministers to account for the £1.8m already spent on legal fees. Perhaps suitable words of advice had been given to his big spenders prior to the debate in exchange for their votes.

Senator Bailhache as the Island’s former Solicitor and Attorney Generals, Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff should have had the nous to know that because of his past positions he is heavily conflicted so should have declared an interest and left the Chamber. He made it clear from the outset of his speech that he was going to abstain yet took the opportunity to attack those who questioned his past positions and openly proclaimed that he had nothing to fear from any scrutiny. To abstain fooled no one and was a clear vote of contre.

It should be noted that the next issue the COI will be reviewing will be paragraph 13 of ifs Terms of Reference which is "Establish the process by which files were submitted by the States of Jersey Police to the prosecuting authorities for consideration, and establish –  Whether those responsible for deciding on which cases to prosecute took a professional approach;  Whether the process was free from political or other interference at any level. If, for these purposes, or as a result of evidence given under paragraph 7, in the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee, it would be of assistance that one or more of the prosecution files underpinning any prosecution decision may be examined in a manner to be determined by the Committee."

Jersey does not have an Independent Crown Prosecution Service and the decision to prosecute rests with the Attorney General who apart from being the Advisor to the States is also the Titular Head of the Island's Honorary Police Force whose Centeniers have the sole right to Charge. For a lengthy period for the past 25 years Senator Bailhache and his brother William have held the position of Attorney General so presumably will be key witnesses when the COI addresses paragraph 13.

William Bailhache who is now the Bailiff rightly stood down from chairing the debate because he recognised his conflict. Sadly his older brother did not.

For Senator Bailhache to abstain was a vote against his Chief Minister, the victims and the Island of which he is its External Minister. One is entitled to ask whether Senator Bailhache’s behaviour in the Chamber renders him fit to represent the Island. The Senator also appears to have forgotten the support he received from Senator Gorst after denying he had read confidential documents on an aircraft.

Deputy Tadier made an excellent speech; left no stone unturned and had the courage to challenge the actions of people holding key positions. His comments about the burden Sark residents have to carry with the Barclay brothers and Jersey’s burden with the Bailhache brothers was illuminating. I did however wonder whether a similarity with the Krays brothers was to be included but perhaps that would have been unkind to Ronnie and Reggie. 

If Senator Gorst’s opening speech was measured it was surpassed by his closing speech in which it hit the nail bang on its head. He spoke of the cost and how difficult it was for anyone to hazard a guess as to what would be the final bill, but the States had made a commitment and it would have been far better not to have made a start at all than to stop before its completion on the grounds of cost.

He spoke of the impact the stoppage would have on the victims who at last had a feeling that not only was someone listening to them but they are being believed. Do we not owe them the closure they deserve? The third point was of equal importance that being the Island’s reputation. How could we as an Island conclude an Inquiry because we claim not to have the funds? The repercussions world wide would be too horrendous to contemplate. The backlash would have far greater financial implications than the funds required for finishing the job.

Senator Gorst’s closing speech was one befitting his status. Although to those listening it was pretty clear that he was heading for a handsome victory it was therefore disappointing that his pleas for unity and a unanimous vote were ignored by Ministers who did not have the humility to think of the bigger picture and of its impact on the victims and the Island. I defend their right to speak and to oppose, however when the time came for the vote it was obvious that they were in a tiny minority and it called for Statesmanship and to act in a manner befitting of high office but alas it was sadly lacking.

The photographs of the “Magnificent Seven” are published below. Given their concerns over the impending costs I await their explanations regarding financial prudence particularly from Ministers Refault and Bryans as their Departments have already incurred in excess of £750,000 in legal fees.

The Magnificent Seven ----Senator Bailhache, Connetable Refault of St Peter, Deputy Pinel, Deputy Bryans, Deputy Luce, Deputy Noel and Deputy Truscott can to seen below.

Senator Philip Bailhache

Connetable John Refault

Deputy Pinel

Deputy Bryans

Deputy Luce

Deputy Noel

Deputy Truscott

Jersey's Elections (1) ------Apathy Ahoy??

Well that “was the Election Nomination Week that was” and the dust has now settled. However it is evident that the dust was not disturbed in several parishes as 17 candidates were “elected” unopposed. Whilst I accept it is not the fault of those successful and indeed lucky candidates that no-one opposed them, however they must take some responsibility for supporting a system which is archaic and undemocratic.  

My blog is read world wide and some readers from outside the Island and for that many on Island will marvel how an Island’s democracy can still operate where there is no party system, no formal opposition, has three types of elected States Member and where the unelected Dean, Solicitor and Attorney General, Lieutenant Governor, Bailiff and his Deputy all sit in the same Assembly and have the right to speak.

It is now some 14 years since the late Sir Cecil Clothier published his report and one of my regrets during my 18 years in the States is that I supported the change to ministerial government based on the promise that we would immediately address the other Clothier reform recommendations. It is a fact that States Members, with the support of the Council of Ministers have reneged on the promises made some 12 years go.

We now have a parliamentary system that is controlled by members with vested interests and an old boy net work that even old Etonians would envy. Thanks to the States allowing itself to be ambushed by Senator Bailhache’s throttling of the Electoral Commission, the electorate is left floundering and with little or no say in who will be elected to the States and ultimately to the Council of Ministers.

At the last referendum the electorate were given the opportunity of voting for “Option A” which would have allowed for the Island to be divided into 6 electoral districts whereby the electorate in each district would be given the opportunity of voting for 7 members to the States Assembly which would be reduced to 42 members. The system would have removed the Connétables/Constables automatic seat in the States but would permit them to stand shoulder to shoulder with other candidates seeking election to the States.

“Option A” would have ensured that no member would be elected or re-elected unopposed and every member including Ministers and Connétables/Constables would be held accountable to a wider electorate. However it was not to be and we have a situation where 11 Connétables/Constables have either been elected or re-elected unopposed. Even more bizarre is that 6 Deputies have been elected/re-elected unopposed some of whom are hoping to become Ministers.

We also have a situation where Ministers would rather stand in their relatively safe parish or district seat than seek an Island mandate. It is a pity that they did not display the example of Deputies Green and Young and Dr Zoe Cameron who are seeking an Island mandate in their endeavours to become Minister. They will receive one of my votes not just because of their example but they have the credentials to be Ministers.

I hope to publish other blogs before the election on 15^th October which is not only to elect members to the States but includes a referendum where the electorate will be asked “should the Constables remain as members of the States as an automatic right?” It might be a simple question but it requires an informed answer and I very much regret that votes will be cast on sentiment rather than knowledge.

I respect the role of Connétable/Constable and know most of the post holders however as sensible and mature people why were they sitting as a body at the Senatorial Nomination evening. Why were they there, who asked them and how could they justify being there?

Now that 11 of the Connétables/Constables will not have to knock at doors it is hoped that they will find time to upload their manifestos on to Vote.je  and also organise Parish Assemblies to arrange for independent speakers to discuss the merits of voting “Yes” or “No” before the forthcoming Referendum.

Jersey's Dean---Steel and Gladwin Reports---Update

It is now 18 months since Tim Dakin the Bishop of Winchester suspended Jersey's Dean Bob Key and announced that there would be an investigation into the Dean’s handling of a complaint against a Church Warden.

The suspension arose from the findings of report by Jan Korris who had in November 2011 been commissioned by the Safeguarding Panel for the Diocese of Winchester. What has never been established is why the Korris review was instigated in the first place? However is should be noted that Tim Dakin was not appointed Bishop until April 2012 so was unlikely to have played any part in that decision.

The Korris Report is dated March 2013 but must have been viewed by Bishop Dakin some time sooner because on 8th March he announced that he had suspended Jersey’s Dean.

At the time of the suspension Bishop Dakin said “Firstly I want to give my unreserved apologies to the complainant for her treatment. Protecting the vulnerable is at the heart of the Church of England's mission. With that comes a duty to ensure those in need are properly looked after. It is vital that robust safeguarding policies are in place and, above all, that they are properly implemented."

“This Independent Report suggests that, put simply our policies were not implemented as they should have been. I am particularly disappointed that the Dean of Jersey refused to cooperate with the review and I have now ordered an immediate and thorough investigation. In the wake of the report, difficult but necessary and decisive actions are required to ensure that, in the future, procedures will be followed properly.”

18 months on it is worth looking to see if there is an outcome of the “difficult but necessary and decisive actions.” On 26th March last year it was announced that John Gladwin the former Bishop of Chelmsford would head a Visitation/Inquiry whereby woolly Terms of Reference were published. This eventually led to the Inquiry being separated with John Gladwin looking into the complicated Constitutional issues and Dame Heather Steel being appointed to investigate the Dean’s handling of the complaint against the Church Warden.

It goes without saying that Bishop Dakin soon sailed into troubled and uncharted waters and was quite unaware of “The Jersey Way” of handling matters particularly if it affected establishment figures or constitutional matters. Soon after the former Bailiff but now Senator Bailhache wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury protesting at the Bishop’s handling of the matter whereby the Dean’s suspension was lifted.

The process had all the hallmarks of a “done deal” because the Dean offered a meaningless apology for failings in his administration. I may add that the Archbishop of Canterbury had also offered public but not personal apologies to the victim.

Given the importance of the matter let alone the obscene cost one would have hoped that by mid September 2014 the Gladwin and Steel Reports would have been published. It is worth reminding readers that last November Bishop Gladwin announced that Dame Heather was finalising her Report but based on her findings no disciplinary action was being taken against the Dean and the other clergy member.

I have always maintained that the Steel Report would be worthless for a number of reasons, such as she did not interview the two main witnesses, she did not, as recommended by Jan Korris address the issue of the complainant’s deportation from Jersey and being left destitute in the UK. Dame Heather is a former colleague of Senator Philip Bailhache a well known supporter of the Dean and in a 3 hour meeting with me she was less than complimentary to the victim and displayed a bias in favour of the Dean. It should be noted that Dame Heather reneged on a promise to provide me with the transcript of the meeting.

In May this year the Bishop informed Jersey’s Bailiff that Dame Heather had sent him her Report and that she had informed him that it was her final report. One gets the impression that Dame Heather had submitted a number of “final” reports and had got fed up with continually making amendments at the Bishop’s behest.

The Bishop made some further but very relevant points in that he was forwarding the Report to Counsel in London to look at defamation and confidentiality but hoped to publish the Report shortly. He had also assembled a small group of suitably qualified professionals to carry out an Impact Assessment to consider the likely impact on the person at the heart of the matter.

The Bishop went on to say that the Report highlighted a number of significant concerns about safeguarding in Jersey, including some which were directly connected with the Canons and the laws of Jersey.

We are now in mid September and one is perfectly entitled to know what is going on at Winchester and ask why the Reports have not been published and what if any steps have been taken in relation to the Impact Study and addressing the significant safeguarding concerns in the Island which were also raised by Jan Korris in March 2013.

I have tried to get answers from Winchester and Canterbury but needless to say I have not received replies. If 18 months ago Bishop Tim was of the view that it was vital that robust safeguarding policies are in place and, above all, that they are properly implemented it would be helpful if he, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Dover who now has oversight for Jersey or the Dean would make it publicly known what new safe guarding policies are in place and that when someone makes a complaint against a Church Official they wont end up being deported and left destitute in the UK.

At the same time it would also be helpful for the Bishop to announce that he will not be publishing the Steel Report as it has been so redacted it is now as meaningless as his apologies.

Today the Dean has announced that the Church is to seek the views of Islanders in relation to same sex marriages. It makes one wonder where the Church’s priorities are.

Plemont 2---More Dirty Deeds Afoot??

In my previous blog I stated that the anticipated Comments from the Treasury and Planning Ministers along with those from Council of Ministers (COM) had not been submitted. Following the States approval of my Proposition P194/2011, Comments relating to propositions should  be lodged by noon on the Friday before the debate.The Proposition can be read HERE

Senator Bailhache's proposition is the first to debated at next Tuesday's States Sitting. Today the COM lodged comments in respect of Senator Breckon's proposition in relation to an inquiry into the sale of the Broad Street Post Office Building which is to be debated at the same Sitting. However its Comments re the Plemont purchase are still no where to be found, Why?

Earlier today the Treasury Minister, Senator Ozouf lodged his Comments in relation to Senator Bailhache's proposition which seeks States approval to spend £3.5million to assist the National Trust for Jersey to purchase the Plemont Holiday Village and return it to its natural state.

Senator Bailhache's proposition also (cheekily) requests the Treasury Minister to identify the appropriate means means of funding for the States, should they wish to do so, to provide a grant to the National Trust for Jersey in order for them to acquire the Plémont Holiday Village.

Senator Ozouf's Comments can be read HERE

Senator Ozouf has made it clear that there are no immediate funds, however he wishes to assist his good friend and fellow Minister Senator Bailhache by raiding the funds from the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) law 1999 ( The Law) which can be read in full  HERE

I hope that ALL States Members will read Senator Ozouf's Comments and read the (Law) which the Senator has conveniently omitted to provide a link why? Is it because he knows that what he is proposing is well outside the provisions of (The Law). He knows that, so does Senator Bailhache, the Council of Ministers, the Attorney General, Uncle Tom Cobley and all who have read Article 24 which covers how the funds can be dispersed.

For the benefit of readers and hopefully those States Members who read my Blog Article 24 is as follows:

24    Criminal Offences Confiscations Fund

(1)    There shall be established a Fund to be called the Criminal Offences Confiscations Fund which, subject to this Article, shall be managed and controlled by the Minister for Treasury and Resources.[22]

(2)    All amounts –

(a)     recovered under or in satisfaction of a confiscation order; or

(b)     received under an asset sharing agreement,

shall be included in the monies which are paid into the Fund.[23]

(3)    Monies paid into the Fund shall not form part of the annual income of the States.

(3A)      The Fund shall be a special fund for the purposes of the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005[24].

(4)    Subject to paragraph (5), monies in the Fund shall be applied by the Minister for Treasury and Resources for the following purposes, that is to say –

(a)     in promoting or supporting measures that, in the opinion of the Minister for Treasury and Resources, may assist –

(i)     in preventing, suppressing or otherwise dealing with criminal conduct,

(ii)    in dealing with the consequences of criminal conduct, or

(iii)   without prejudice to the generality of clauses (i) and (ii), in facilitating the enforcement of any enactment dealing with criminal conduct;

(b)     discharging Jersey’s obligations under asset sharing agreements; and

(c)     meeting the expenses incurred by the Minister for Treasury and Resources in administering the Fund.[25]

(5)    Before promoting or supporting any measure under paragraph (4)(a), the Minister for Treasury and Resources shall consult the Attorney General and other persons or bodies (including other Ministers) as the Minister for Treasury and Resources considers appropriate.[26]

(6)    Monies paid into the Fund, while not applied for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (4), may be –

(a)     held in the custody of the Treasurer of the States at the States Treasury; or

(b)     placed, in the name of the States, in a current or deposit account with one or more banks selected by the Minister for Treasury and Resources,

and any interest earned on such monies while held in such an account shall be paid by the States into the Fund.[27]

(7)    Monies held in any account by virtue of paragraph (6)(b) may be withdrawn on the signature of the Treasurer of the States.

(8)    In this Article, “asset sharing agreement” means any agreement or arrangement made by or on behalf of Jersey with a country or territory outside Jersey for the sharing of the proceeds of criminal conduct that, as a result of mutual assistance, have been confiscated or forfeited either in Jersey or elsewhere.[28]

As can be seen from the above Article there is no way in which funds which are intended for preventing, suppressing or otherwise dealing with criminal conduct or in dealing with the consequences of criminal conduct can be used to purchase the Holiday Village.

It might be worth reminding Senator Ozouf, States Members and Law Officers that when seeking to use money from the same source to fund the Committee of Inquiry (COI) into the abuse of Island residents, the request was rejected because it fell outside the provisions of Article 24, even though it was argued that the COI was dealing with the consequences of criminal conduct.

Is the reason for the COM's failure to lodge its Comments because it has lost its spin script writer and is therefore unable to find someone with the ability to pull the wool over the eyes of States Members, or has it been reminded that the provisions of the (Law) do not allow for funds to buy Plemont which was denied to supporters of the COI which the Council of Ministers opposed.

Apart from bringing the States into disrepute by recycling the Plemont issue, using highly questionable or even "dirty" tactics to achieve their goal does little for the reputation of the individuals concerned.

Jersey's Bailiff--- The Times are a Changing

States Members have just spent over a day debating the future role of the Bailiff. It could be said that the matter is an old chestnut but has been too hot to handle because people’s fingers would be burnt if they picked it up. This was proven to be the case as Connetable Crowcroft and fellow States Members discovered yesterday.

Connetable Crowcroft had lodged his proposition P160/2013 last December and asked the States “to agree that from the date of retirement of Sir Michael Birt as Bailiff of Jersey, Recommendation 2 of the Review of the Roles of the Crown Officers (the ‘Carswell Review’), namely that “2. 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” should be implemented.

The current Bailiff is to retire at the end of this year and Connetable Crowcroft obviously thought it would be a good time to bring about change, however the Proposition was doomed from the outset and completely wrecked by the lodging of amendments by Senator Bailhache and Deputy le Herissier relating to a referendum to be held during the October Elections.

It was back in 2000 when Sir Cecil Clothier’s Machinery of Government Panel recommended that the Bailiff should cease to act as president of the States or to take any political part in the Island’s government and the States should also elect their own Speaker. The Panel made no recommendation as to who the Speaker should be.

It was also recommended that the Chief Minister should be the direct link to the Home Office in London. And the office of Bailiff should continue to be the highest in the Island. Apart from an unsuccessful proposition lodged by former Deputy Shona Pitman a few years back the matter has not been addressed.

Because of my concerns about the lack of the Crown Officer’s accountability and the States having no appetite to address the issue of the Bailiff’s dual role I lodged P 5/2009 which asked the States to agree that an independent review be conducted into the current roles of the unelected members of the States, namely the Bailiff, the Lieutenant-Governor, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Dean. Very importantly I also requested that the means of achieving that goal should be via the Council of Ministers and Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC).

This was approved and eventually led to the Carswell Review which again reported that the Bailiff’s dual role was untenable.

In his report Connetable Crowcroft stated that the Privileges and Procedures Committee, of which he once was its chairman, had been working on the matter, but because the present Bailiff was retiring at the end of 2014 he thought it would be a good time to address the matter. I believe the Connetable was being unrealistic because not only was the time scale too short but so was his report too short of detail which was a matter shrewdly picked up by Senator Bailhache.

As mentioned above Senator Bailhache lodged an amendment which stated that if the Crowcroft proposition was approved the matter should be included in a referendum to be held at the same time as the elections on 15^th October. The public would be asked if they wanted the Bailiff’s role as President of the States to end. Deputy le Herissier’s amendment made the result of the referendum binding.

It soon became evident that if the amendments were approved there would be insufficient time for PPC to draft the necessary legislation before the October election. Also if the public was to be asked for their view then surely they needed to be consulted but who would be responsible particularly as time was so short.

I listened to parts of the debate and it became evident that sentiment over logic became the order of the day. I heard one Connetable state that if it’s not broke why fix it and parishioners were asking why the Bailiff was being kicked out of the States. The comment was certainly an own goal because one the reasons why Connetables claim their role in the States is so important is because they are the direct Parish link to the States. If that is so, how many Connetables arranged Parish meetings to discuss the proposition or other propositions for the matter? I stand to be corrected but I doubt whether any parish meetings were held to discuss the matter.

Senator Bailhache whose main election platform is supposed to be States reform which seems anomalous given his support for Connetables remaining in the States, quickly reminded Members how important the Bailiff’s role was at Liberation Services, other civic occasions and meeting dignitaries but steered well clear of explaining the Bailiff’s lack of accountability or that in other democracies (apart from Guernsey) the Speaker is subservient to the House.

It was left to the likes of Deputy Sam Mezec and Senator Ozouf in excellent speeches to remind Members that what the Bailiff does outside the Chamber is one thing but what he does in the Chamber is another and has no place in the 21^st century. Unfortunately the wise words went unheeded. The world is changing and so too in Jersey which is not as it is once was but some die hards are hanging onto the belief that pomp and ceremony can over ride the need for democracy and accountability.

The late Sir Cecil Clothier wrote “Change can be uncomfortable but it is inevitable. The proper attitude to change is not to resist it but to try control its direction.” These are wise words which should not be ignored.

Sir Cecil Clothier rightly stated that the Bailiff’s role should not be political, with this I concur because the Bailiff’s role as President of the States is political. It is he who approves or rejects propositions submitted by Members and also their amendments and questions. The Bailiff as Speaker has a critical role in deciding when a Member is called to speak during a debate or ask supplementary questions.

The Bailiff is appointed by the Crown and his office is high and honourable and ancient. In ancient times Bailiffs played a significant part in government but this was when there were no parliaments, no elections and no appreciation of accountability. Speakers must be accountable to their Parliament and that should be the case for Jersey.

Surely no one should hold or exercise political power or influence unless elected by the people to do so. Who has elected the Bailiff and for that matter the Dean, Attorney and Solicitor Generals? None of them are entirely non political and all have the right to speak in the States. The Bailiff as Speaker should be a servant of the Assembly but can’t be unless he is elected to that post?  Also as he is appointed by the Queen’s Letters Patent to the high and ancient office how can he hold an office to which he should be subservient to the States?

Connetable Crowcroft’s proposition was lodged on quicksand and soon began to sink. To his credit he correctly realised that his proposition was wrecked and even he could not support it as amended so when the States resumed yesterday morning he sought support to with draw it. However Members rejected his request which was then confirmed by 27 votes to 23 when put to the vote. This led to a full morning and early afternoon being spent on recycled speeches which did nothing for Member's credibility. When finally the vote was taken on the proposition as amended, it was heavily defeated.

The matter will not go away but it needs more than a back bencher to address it. However unless there is a will and leadership from the Council of Ministers supported by a genuine desire from all States Members to bring Jersey into the 21st Century the Bailiff's dual role will be untenable and if change does not come from within it will be imposed upon us from outside the Island. 

Connetable of St Helier Proposition P160/2013

Privileges and Procedure Committee Comments

Senator Bailhache Amendment

Deputy Le Herissier Amendment

Deputy of St Martin P/5/2009 re review of role of Unelected Members of the States.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the Radio Jersey interview  Please click here

Jersey's Dean--Diocese of Winchester Press Release --Dame Heather Steel

You could not make it up” is an expression often used by disbelieving and frustrated members of the public. However given yesterday’s Diocese of Winchester’s press release about investigating HG’s complaint, one could not really make it up, just what game is Bishop Dakin playing?

The following Press Release was published yesterday afternoon and my comments are shown in red

THE DIOCESE OF WINCHESTER has today confirmed that Dame Heather Steel DBE is leading the investigation into a church safeguarding complaint from 2008, which was announced by the Bishop of Winchester on 26 March 2013. The Investigation is feeding into the Church inquiry (Visitation), currently being carried out by Bishop John Gladwin, to consider the wider implementation of safeguarding in Jersey and across the Diocese. Bishop Gladwin will be publishing his report on the Visitation later this year, providing recommendations for enhancing the Diocese’s safeguarding policies and procedures.

Dame Heather Steel DBE is a former Judge of the Court of Appeal in Jersey, having retired in 2012, and is a former High Court Judge in England and Wales (Queen’s Bench Division.) The investigation follows the independent Korris Review into Safeguarding in the Deanery of Jersey, published in March 2013, which considered the case of a vulnerable adult parishioner, who had made a complaint about abusive behaviour by a churchwarden. The Investigation will now make further inquiries, find facts and make recommendations about whether or not disciplinary complaints should be brought against any member of the clergy as a result of the matters raised in the Korris Review.

The complaint against the Church Warden was made by HG to the Dean in July 2008. She later made complaints against the Dean, former Bishop of Winchester, and the Safeguarding Officer, Jane Fisher will those complaints be investigated?

As a result of the Jersey and Winchester clergy’s failure to respond to HG’s complaints in an efficient manner, her frustration in seeking redress eventually led to her being arrested and “removed” from the Island and left destitute in the UK. Will the decsion and manner of these actions be investigated? (See Korris Report page 41) Also see my previous Blog Here.

The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Rev Tim Dakin, said, “We are enormously grateful that Dame Heather has offered her considerable expertise to us all. As I have said before, we cannot stress enough the importance of safeguarding. We are committed to understanding fully the circumstances of this complaint and to ensuring that we take whatever action is required to ensure that our Church is a safe haven for the vulnerable.”

“I am also grateful for the cooperation of the Dean in these matters, following his recent apology. As he has said, together we recognise the importance of safeguarding children and vulnerable adults in Jersey and we want to ensure the safeguarding procedures of the Diocese achieve this as part of the whole Church's mission. These ongoing inquiries will form a vital part of our learning."

There should be no reasons as to why the Dean should not cooperate because he is also a key player, but like Bishop Dakin and the Archbishop of Canterbury he has not apologised to HG, so it questions their integrity and recognition of the importance of safeguarding vulnerable adults in Jersey or elsewhere in the UK. HG says she has not received any apology and I can see no reason to disbelieve her.

The Investigation will gather and review all available and relevant evidence including, but not limited to, that considered by the Korris Review. Dame Heather Steel will also be advised and assisted in her inquiries by a police officer, nominated by the States of Jersey Police.

Although Jan Korris published a 50 page Report it was somewhat devalued by the author’s failure to interview HG who is the key witness to the whole sorry affair.

Winchester must be aware that its Safeguarding policy is in tatters, this is evident by its failure to handle HG’s original complaint and the debacle that followed. The Korris Review is a disturbing report about failings in Jersey. So too is John Gladwin’s interim and recent final report on his Chichester Visitation where considerable failings were identified.

Surely Bishop Dakin must be aware of the Jersey and UK Police involvement with HG’s complaint, so one must ask why Dame Steel is going to be advised and assisted by a police officer, nominated by the States of Jersey Police.

I am not casting any aspersions on the police officer who is to be nominated, but because of its involvement with HG the States Police is conflicted. If Dame Steel, the Diocese of Winchester and the States Police cannot see the conflict then one must question their judgement and whether they are suitably qualified to conduct the investigation.

Those who have been following the Dean Affair are aware that there are hidden agendas, the latest press release just adds to that belief. Given the way that HG has suffered at the hands of Winchester and the police any likelihood of her partaking in the John Gladwin review was remote. The latest press release will almost certainly be read with incredulity not only by HG but those who have little or no confidence in Winchester. This can only be good news for Senator Bailhache and his supporters who are seeking a constitutional break from the UK.

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?