Senator Sir Philip Bailhache----------A Man of Influence---Part 1.

I had been going through a number of my files when I came across one about Victoria College. The contents reminded me of how the States was duped into making a decision which it later had to overturn. The contents also revealed the part played in the shenanigans by the now Senator Philip Bailhache who at the time was Attorney General and soon to be Bailiff. Also and very interestingly he became Chairman of its Independent Governing Board during the period when Mr Jervis-Dykes was teaching there and was later sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence for sexual assaults on a number of pupils.

One will have to go back to 1991 when Jack Hydes had been appointed Head Master at the College but was denied membership to the Head Masters Conference (HMC) which is a bit like an old boys club where one of the perceived benefits is that their pupils are able to shoot at Bisley.

A way had to be found to allow for Mr Hydes’ acceptance and it was perceived that if the College’s Governing Board was independent it would pave the way for Mr Hydes. This perception was inaccurate because membership is determined by the Head Master’s credentials and not the School’s nor the Governing Board, but this fact was not made known to States Members.

At that time the Education Committee of the day was also embroiled in a debate about the introduction of a 6^th Form College for the Island’s non- fee paying students. It was also intending to lodge a proposition to establish Governing Bodies for all the Island’s schools but it required Law drafting time which would be some way off.

I had been elected at the end of 1993 and on 12^th April 1994 the States debated the Education Committee’s proposition to amend the “Loi 1960 au sujet du College Victoria" to establish a new Governing Body. This in affect was jumping the queue ahead of all the other schools.

I still have a vivid memory of the debate and felt like Oliver Twist asking Mr Bumble for more porridge when I rose to speak. The late Sir Peter Crill was in the chair and apart from being an Old Victorian (OV) was known to have little patience for new members particularly if he considered them to be wasting time. The Education President Connétable Iris Le Feuvre had outlined the proposition which was expected to be approved on the nod because she asked whether it was necessary to go through the Articles. Sir Peter said the simplest way was for them to be taken as read and just answer any questions should any arise. His tone was such that none or speeches were expected.

I was first to speak and said the proposition was more to do with the Head Master’s acceptance to the HMC than providing for a democratically elected governing body in line with Education’s own guidelines. It was establishing quango which was independent of the States who was still expected to pay the College’s maintenance and educational costs. I remember Sir Peter being very agitated by my speech and moved from one cheek of his backside to another. In conclusion I suggested that the proposition be taken back to the drawing board.

Sir Peter was clearly upset with my suggestion and instead of calling for the vote had to ask whether it was necessary for anyone else to speak. There were but it was a short debate with questions mainly answered by Sir Peter who at one time said “I shouldn't be doing this, the President should being doing this.”  There were a couple short speeches from former students (OV’s) reminiscing on their school days and the pleasure of shooting at Bisley which would be denied to current students if the head master was excluded from the HMC.  Although this was untrue it would not have made any difference as the Articles were accepted en bloc on a standing vote.

Law drafting time is important and the order of precedence in those days was approved by States Members. In normal circumstances the Draft Loi would have been put to the end of the queue unless the President sought States approval to move it up the list. However this was not necessary because unknown to States Members the necessary drafting had already been done thanks to the intervention of the Attorney General who was Philip Bailhache and soon to be appointed Bailiff and Chairman of the Victoria College Governing Board. 

On 4^th January 1994 some 3 months before the debate a memo was sent by the Law Draftsman to the Assistant Director of the Education Department stating that by way of a “farewell gift” and because of Attorney General’s personal interest in the matter the 1860 Loi had been drafted.

The memo was subsequently leaked to the JEP whose reporter Phil Falle later published a report in which the explanation for the “farewell gift” was described as a characteristic joke by the Law Draftsman and the likelihood of such a thing happening again had been reduced.

.

It is evident that Senator Bailhache was able to use his influence to arrange for the law drafting for which he had a personal interest to the detriment of other laws which were higher up the queue. It is sometimes said that “rank has its privileges” but should it extend to using one’s position to further one’s means?

The Governing Board was later established with the newly appointed Bailiff Sir Philip appointed its first Chairman. This was subsequently to lead to further complications, conflicts of interest and abuse of position.

This will be explained in a further Blog which I shall publish shortly.

Jersey's Dean--Laity's JEP Advert

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

THE STEEL INVESTIGATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bishop of Winchester is a member of the clergy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Korris Report can be read HERE

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

Jersey's Dean and the Silly Season.

It is often said that the month of August is the silly season for news and readers of Saturday’s Jersey Evening Post will doubtless be scratching their heads at the sight of an expensive full page advert inviting witnesses to give evidence about the conduct of the Bishop of Winchester.

The advert makes reference to an advertisement placed in the same newspaper the previous Saturday by the Bishop of Winchester inviting members of the public to offer evidence in relation to the investigation being conducted by Dame Heather Steel. The advert also published Dame Heather’s Terms of Reference (TOR).

This Saturday’s advert cites a number of the Bishop’s failings in relation to one safeguarding issue which is deemed to be disproportionate, caused widespread anxiety and hurt, and has wrongly undermined public confidence in the Church in Jersey.

Included in the failings, “is the launching of two simultaneous and uncoordinated inquiries aimed less at caring for the vulnerable and more at assaulting the constitutional relationship between Jersey and the Diocese of Winchester, which may have caused a loss of confidence in the Diocese. Some may have experienced the relentless assault on the Church in Jersey through a PR company as placing power before pastoral care.”

“Others may be alarmed at the alleged expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds on lawyers, public relations consultants and two extensive inquiries. The terms of reference of the Steel inquiry invite evidence from the public of inappropriate or unbecoming conduct by the clergy in relation to events of the recent past. The Bishop of Winchester is a member of the clergy. If anyone has experienced the conduct of the Bishop of Winchester as inappropriate, or unbecoming, they should write to Dame Heather Steel at heather.steel@churchofengland.org and copy it to noconfidenceinwinton@gmail.com “

The advert appears to have been paid for by a group of concerned members of the laity of the Anglican Church in Jersey “who retain the highest confidence in the safeguarding record and practice of the Anglican Church in Jersey. Safeguarding provides for the care of the vulnerable, but also provides protection for those who offer that care. Courageous support is often provided by the Church for people who are deeply disturbed in the most challenging circumstances.”

Given such a powerful statement one wonders why those members of the laity did not have the courage to state who they are, who at no confidence in Winton will receive the evidence and what is its purpose? Also why should the evidence be forwarded to Dame Heather is she part of the laity, why no explanation? On reading her TOR it seems to be stretching things to claim that the Bishop’s alleged failings come within its remit.

I have questioned the Bishop’s handling of the matter ever since he suspended Jersey’s Dean Bob Key. If ever there was case of failing to plan there can be few which would surpass the Bishop’s. The advert placed by those claiming to be concerned members of the laity are no better and is akin to the pot calling the kettle black. Goodness knows what the ordinary members of the congregation up and down the country are thinking about their supposed leaders.

Those who have been following my Blogs will know that I believe the Dean and others have a case to answer, but they are entitled to expect the investigation to be conducted in an efficient and timely manner. This has not been the case and those questioning the conduct of the investigation are entitled to do so because there is ample evidence.

However what is distressing about the advert is that the concerned laity have made no mention of the real victim, that being HG, the lady whose suffered so badly at the hands of those who profess to care for the vulnerable and for giving courageous support.

Do they wish to continue turn a blind eye to those responsible for the abuse, do they wish to turn a blind eye to those responsible for HG’s arrest, detention and deportation. Do they wish to turn a blind eye to those who left her destitute in England whereby she lost her Jersey home, job and friends? Do they not care about her wellbeing and that her complaints are properly addressed?

Instead of petty squabbling among themselves, they should be united in pressing for an efficient and timely investigation and ensuring that HG receives tangible support and personal apologies. There may have been only been one safeguarding issue, but the way it has been mishandled and the fallout that followed is not down to HG but the incompetence of those tasked with the care of the vulnerable. They failed five years ago and are failing once more.

It looks to me that the advert is more about the concerned members of the Jersey Laity protecting their cosy and closed group so as to continue doing things the “Jersey Way.” Unfortunately the Bishop is playing into their hands.

St Martin's School Field--- Rape or Progress???

In March last year the Planning Department published its plans for a new St Martin’s School to be built on its 7 vergee field which for over 60 years had not only been part and parcel of school life but also of the Parish and in particular its football club and the school’s cricket team.

On 16th March I published what was to be first of 8 further Blogs I published in an attempt to save the School field. Click HERE

It was never disputed that the current school which sits on a 3 vergee site had reached its sell by date. Although the school had been put on the Site of Local Interest Register the listing was only done in late 2009 as a ploy to build on the school field which it itself was listed. I was always of the view that the existing school and head teacher's house which has not been occupied by a head teacher for over 45 years could either be demolished or refurbished or  rebuilt on the existing site. This would save the field.

One of the concerns expressed by supporters for building on the school field was the disruption which would be caused to pupils who would have to be housed in port-a- cabins whilst the existing school was being refurbished or rebuilt. Other pupils had been educated in similar buildings when major work had been undertaken at their schools but that fact was conveniently ignored. What was also conveniently ignored was the fact that school life would be disrupted even if it was built on the field, and that is certainly the case.

Formal planning approval was given last November and although requests were made for the parish football team to continue playing on the field until work on it began, the request was refused. Since Easter there has been some activity on the field with white fencing being erected, tracks being laid and large amounts of machinery being left on the field. Sadly the school has been out of bounds for pupils, parents and other members of the public, who normally took their children to enjoy the play area, kick a ball, play cricket or for some other social or sporting activity.

Apart from the disruption on the field as the main services had to be extended to it; this has led to the main road being closed and hedges and trees removed to allow for more car parking and greater access onto the field.

None of this inconvenience both financial and environmental would have been required had the existing site been utilised but who cares, because in the land of the blind the one eyed are kings. Those chosen to lead have failed, where have the environmentalist and the sports leaders been hiding?

The loss of the field to the Parish football Club was always going to be a bitter pill to swallow. Last season with no home pitch it had a nomadic and demoralising existence. Promises to find an alternative pitch in the parish have been as hollow as the Church of England’s apology to HG. A further major blow is the recent loss of the Club’s team coach Darryl Parker who gallantly assisted me and others in opposing the application to build on the School field. Darryl has understandably moved to fresh pastures where his talents will be appreciated and valued.

Last year we celebrated Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee and the Queen Elizabeth 11 Fields Trust was established with local communities being asked to nominate 2012 playing fields which would protect them from being built on. A Body headed by the Island’s Bailiff, Lt Governor and Chief Minister was established to oversee the scheme. I nominated the St Martin’s field which clearly embarrassed the Jersey Body as it (contrary to the rules of the scheme) had nominated the Grainville School field.

It conveniently chose to ignore my request but following a few broadsides the clearly embarrassed Body quickly folded and transferred responsibility to the Connetable’s Committee. Needless to say that was as good as the kiss of death because the School field has been lost for ever and I am informed that no other fields have been nominated and the closing date has been reached.

On the last day of this summer's term there was a short ceremony on the field to “dig the first sod.” No doubt there was much breast beating and hearty cheers from those instrumental in destroying a much loved field. Some will say its progress; others will say it was rape. Unfortunately the real winner is apathy from the great majority of Islanders and Parishioners who at a time of crisis chose to do nothing.

Jersey's Dean---Another Meaningless Apology??

On 17th June I published a Blog titled Jersey’ Dean –Meaningless apologies. In that Blog I made reference to public apologies given to HG. In my view they were clearly meaningless because they were not given personally, there was no intention of doing so and when carefully looking into the wording of the apology it was unclear as to what the apology was for, if indeed there was one.

Yesterday in the States Chamber Senator Philip Bailhache a knight of the realm, former Bailiff, Chief Judge, former Attorney and Solicitor General and would be Foreign Minister made a Personal Statement. Interestingly he made it as a backbencher whereby according to the rules he could not be questioned on the contents/accuracy of his statement. This might not have been the case had he done so in his capacity as Assistant Chief Minister.

For readers who may not be acquainted with the background I will cover the relevant points and state that Senator Bailhache, as is his right, has been offering assistance to the Island’s Dean who is the subject of a complaint over his handling of an abuse complaint from a lady known as HG.

It was claimed by two business men that Senator Bailhache whilst on a flight between Jersey and London was reading documents appertaining to the case which revealed the names of the victim and the accused. Most of us have read documents or other material whilst on flights so what has made a mountain out of a mole hole?

It is evident that the business men contacted Deputy Trevor Pitman and expressed concerns about Senator Bailhache reading what they thought was sensitive documents which could be read by them and possibly other members of the public. It is unclear what research was carried out by Deputy Pitman before asking questions in the States but it would be helpful to know whether Senator Bailhache was travelling on States business and in what capacity. Was he travelling as a backbencher or as an Assistant Minister, as one can see above, there is a difference but none of us is the wiser?

The exchanges that ensued could be akin to a playground spat whereby the bully whilst denying any wrongdoing called his accusers nasty names and impugned their integrity. The bully and the accusers were then questioned by the Head master who believed that everyone was telling the truth. However to his credit Deputy Pitman stuck to his guns and pursued the matter to a stage where Senator Bailhache has been boxed into a corner and has now made a skilfully drafted statement which includes an apology. However it is open to interpretation and appears to be very much a damage limitation exercise.

Senator Bailhache is strongly denying not telling the truth however it does appear that he has been very economical with it. He claims that had he been made aware of what was being alleged a misunderstanding could have been avoided? To those who have been following the matter it seems to have been a simple one. It was claimed that he was reading sensitive documents on a plane which he had not only denied reading but in rebuttal used language which he now accepts was stronger than was necessary or appropriate. He would like to make it clear that he did not impute dishonesty or malice to Deputy Pitman or his constituents. There are some people who may not be convinced with that claim.

I believe that most people when being accused of something ensure they know exactly what they are being accused of before shooting from the hip and casting aspersions on the accusers. However this does not seem to be the case with Senator Bailhache who appears to be of the belief that his actions are above reproach.

The matter could and should have been resolved the first time the matter was raised in the States on 30th April. The reason why it was not is not down to Deputy Pitman but rests squarely on the shoulders Senator Bailhache and Chief Minister Gorst who failed to investigate the matter in a thorough and expedient manner.

What the Personal statement reveals is that Senator Bailhache has problems with his memory; he is not sure what he reads and even today could be mistaken in what he thinks he was reading. Given that he is aspiring to be the Island’s first Foreign Minister it does not bode well for Jersey.

The Statement is published in full below and it will be for readers to draw their own conclusions.
**************************************************************

PERSONAL STATEMENT TO BE MADE BY SENATOR SIR PHILIP BAILHACHE


ON MONDAY 15th JULY 2013

On 18th June Deputy Trevor Pitman claimed that I was not telling the truth to the Assembly in relation to a complaint by one of his constituents and this is my first opportunity to respond to that claim. That claim is strongly denied.
I should like to begin by stating that I have at no time been approached by Deputy Pitman seeking an explanation as to what happened on a London flight; the only exchanges that have taken place have happened on the floor of this Chamber in response to questions. If I had been made aware of exactly what was being alleged, a misunderstanding could have been avoided. It was not until Deputy Pitman made available to the Chief Minister a copy of the email from his constituent shortly before questions were put on 14th May, and the Chief Minister passed that copy to me, that I was able to understand the precise nature of the allegations.

When questions were put to the Chief Minister on 30th April I had assumed that the flight in question was a flight that I made to London on the evening of 20th March not long after the suspension of the Dean’s Commission had taken place. On that flight to London I have a clear recollection of reading the Korris report, as stated by the Chief Minister to the Assembly on 30th April. It was only on 14th May that it became clear to me for the first time that the flight referred to by Deputy Pitman’s constituent was on the afternoon of 21st March when I was returning to Jersey from London. On that flight I do not believe that I would have been reading documents relating to this matter because I had read them in London, but I may be mistaken.

In answering questions on 14th May I said that the content of the email from Deputy Pitman’s constituent “taken in the round [gave] a fictitious and malicious account of my reading habits on aeroplanes”. Having had time to reflect, I am sorry that I used language that was stronger than was necessary or appropriate. I withdraw the phrase “fictitious and malicious” and would like to make it clear that I do not impute dishonesty or malice to Deputy Pitman’s constituent or, for the avoidance of any doubt, to the Deputy himself. Having said that, the recollection of Deputy Pitman’s constituent is, at least in part, mistaken. That is perhaps not surprising because the constituent has stated in his email that he was sitting in a seat on the opposite aisle and reading papers in someone else’s possession from that position cannot be easy. That email alleged that the constituent had seen me reading “various police statements…” and it was later clarified to the Chief Minister that this meant “police witness statements”. That recollection is mistaken because I did not have in my possession on the aeroplane any copies of such police statements. I do not believe that it would have been possible for the other information referred to in the email to have been seen on that occasion, but in that respect I may be mistaken. If it was possible for any third party to have identified EY or HG from the papers in my possession, I would obviously regret that very much.

I should like to clarify two other points. First, I have never had in my possession any papers that I was not entitled to have in my possession, nor that involved a breach of the Data Protection Law or any other statute. Specifically, I have never seen any police statements relating to the investigation into allegations made by HG against EY. Secondly, my interest in these issues is not one that relates to my duties as an Assistant Minister. My interest stems from my position as an elected representative of Grouville Church on the Deanery Synod, and my strong feelings about the manner in which the Dean has been treated. Any backbench member has a perfect right to interest himself in matters of this kind.

Jersey's Dean ------Doubting Thomases

Four months have elapsed since Bishop Dakin suspended Jersey ’s Dean. The suspension or removal of the Dean’s Commission had been prompted following the publication of the much maligned Korris Report. The Bishop, shortly afterwards announced that the matter would be the subject of a Visitation which would be led by former Bishop John Gladwin with an Archdeacon, a suitably experienced and independent senior lawyer and a suitable lay person to assist him. The Terms of Reference were published but did not cover the complaint into the Dean’s alleged mishandling of HG’s complaint.

Following the firing of broadsides from the Dean’s supporters led by the former Bailiff but now Senator Philip Bailhache the Dean’s Commission was restored 7 weeks later before the Visitation had got underway let alone concluded. So one wonders why the Dean was suspended in the first place.

Two months ago Bishop Dakin announced that Dame Heather Steel had been commissioned to lead an investigation into the Dean’s handling of HG’s complaint which feeds into John Gladwin’s Visitation. One is to assume that apart from the investigation into the Dean’s handling of HG’s complaint it will include the decision and manner of her deportation from Jersey. On page 41 of her Report Jan Korris states “It is clearly a matter of concern that a vulnerable adult in such a distressed state could be removed from Jersey with no thought to her imminent care needs.”

Unfortunately it is only an assumption because although the whole investigation is supposed to be based on safeguarding and the need for full transparency and accountability, no Terms of Reference have been published. It has been rumoured that Dame Heather wanted a no holds barred investigation which was considered to be too open for the Bishop. Could that be the reason for Dame Heather’s failure to get under way?

I am not the only one who has sought clarification or indeed an update on what is really (not) going on. However apart from notification that the Bishop had personally apologised to HG, which she says is completely untrue, the wheels of the Bishop’s chariot which were never secure appear to have come off.

It seems ironic that Korris who was critical of the Dean’s handling of HG’s complaint claimed that all the way along the line everything came too late. It seems that Bishop Dakin has learnt nothing from the report and his apparent lack of leadership and procrastination is now becoming an embarrassment.

It is also unfair on the leading players in the affair; allegations have been made against the former Bishop, the Safeguarding Officer, the Dean, his wife, the Vicar and the Church Warden. They are entitled to know whether the second part of the Visitation is going ahead.

Most importantly the procrastination is most unfair on HG who is the real but forgotten victim of what is becoming a complete shambles on top of the unholy mess created by the Dean and former Bishop. In previous Blogs I have stated that before the Visitation got under way personal apologies and tangible assistance should be given to HG.  These are still awaited.

In addition there are other questions that need answers. It is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The same could be said of perception particularly in small communities like Jersey with its infamous “ Jersey Way .” Therefore one would have hoped that before anyone was appointed as a member of the Visitation Panel any suggestion of conflict whether implied or perceived would deem them, no matter how well qualified to be unacceptable.

If one accepts that principle then one must question whether someone who is a member of the Dean’s congregation at St Helier’s Parish Church and recently listed on its Electoral Role is a wise appointment to the Panel.

By the same token Dame Heather is a former Judge of the Court of Appeal in Jersey and a former colleague of Senator Philip Bailhache. Dame Heather accepted Senator Bailhache’s invitation to be a Speaker at his 2010 Conference called “Dependency or Sovereignty? Time to take Stock.” A fellow Speaker was Advocate Richard Falle who was the Magistrate responsible for HG’s shameful removal from Jersey. 

If Dame Heather is to conduct her investigation in line with the Korris recommendation on page 41 of her Report, she will be required to question Mr Falle. Dame Heather will also have to investigate members of the States Police who arrested HG but did not charge her until 12 hours later after taking statements from the Dean and former Bishop. They also successfully opposed her Bail. Therefore one is entitled to ask why a Member of the States Police is assisting Dame Heather.

While there must be transparency, witnesses when necessary should be entitled to confidentiality particularly in Jersey where there is a genuine fear of reprisal and/or marginalisation for anyone coming forward with evidence questioning the role of “Establishment” figures. The current composition of the Visitation Panels is deterring at least two witnesses submitting evidence. HG has also made it abundantly clear that she will not appear before the Dame Heather Panel. Unfortunately no one is listening.

The football season has not yet commenced but Winchester is already conceding a number of own goals. The normal remedy is to replace the Manager but no one is holding their breath. It was suggested at the outset by the Dean’s supporters led by Senator Philip Bailhache are calling all the shots. It also lays weight to the belief that Winchester ’s concerns about HG are just a smoke screen as a cover for the real agenda that being Constitutional matters. Regretfully that is now becoming abundantly clear.

I am not the only Doubting Thomas but regretfully am being joined by an ever growing number of sceptics who doubt whether the Church of England really gives a damn about the vulnerable and last weekend’s General Synod Conference at York was just another case of hot air and humbug.

Jersey landlord and Tenant disputes-----Sledgehammer to crack nuts?

The States has recently debated changes to Jersey’s Housing Law which will shortly come into force and will bring about a number of changes but will still be discriminatory because the 10 year housing qualifying rule will remain. At present although one is able to live in Jersey one cannot rent or buy in the qualified sector unless one has resided in Jersey for 10 years, or is a multi millionaire (who agrees to pay a minimun amount of tax) or is considered to be essentially employed. Life for newcomers can be difficult because they can only occupy property in what is known as the unqualified sector which does not afford the same housing rights as in the qualified sector.

Since the early 1960’s Jersey has had a steady flow of immigrants from the UK and from further afield but the lack of legislation allowed for exploitation, sub standard and expensive property and dubious practices adopted by landlords. However over the course of time the lot of the immigrant has improved and it anticipated that the soon to be repealed Jersey Housing Law is intended to be fairer and more equitable.

The Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 2012 is essentially new immigration legislation and it merges the existing Housing and Regulation of Undertakings Laws. Although the Law is about to come into force there are no significant changes to the principles behind the current laws.

It can not be denied that there are good and bad tenants and landlords but hopefully the bad are very much in the minority. However if there are disputes between landlords and tenants there must be a more user friendly system to adjudicate than at present.

One of the most common complaints is in relation to deposits given to landlords as surety prior to tenants taking up occupancy. The sum is arbitrary and at the Landlord’s discretion but is often levelled at one month’s rent. There are a number of reasons why a surety is required but basically it is a form of insurance should anything untoward occur to the property.

Unfortunately the system is open to abuse and some landlords withhold all or part of the deposit for a number of reasons including, if in their opinion, the property is not left clean and tidy. In the first instance the landlord is the sole arbiter and is the judge in their own cause. Whilst it is open for tenants to dispute the land lord’s claim the only remedy is via the Petty Debts Court. Even if a tenant has limited legal expertise the fees required just to get the dispute into Court are in the region of £130, which might not be refunded even if the claim is successful?

During my time as a States Member I often assisted residents with problems and have recently assisted a young immigrant with a rent dispute. Below is the case which I am sure will be familiar to many readers.

A young immigrant paid a month’s rent as surety for a property which turned out to be an ice box and a health hazard. At the time of taking up occupancy the only means of heating was a wood/coal stove in the kitchen which heated the radiators and hot water which was presumed to be working adequately. Items of the previous tenant’s property remained in a small shed outside the property which the land lady said would be removed, but never was.

During the tenant’s occupancy the fire when lit emitted fumes which caused headaches and nausea, the land lady said the matter would be addressed but never did and it was not long before mould appeared on the walls and the house in general became too cold and uncomfortable to live in. After living there for a short time he gave ten days notice to quit which by coincidence would be over the Easter holiday period.

It is understood that the property, which is inherited, is administered by a registered company. However in reality the main decisions are taken by an absentee land lady who appears to be responsible for leasing the property and deciding what surety should be paid and returned.

Although the tenant gave more than the requisite one day’s notice to vacate, it was not convenient for the land lady to be in the Island when the tenant vacated the property so she arranged for an agent to attend. However because of the Easter holidays the agent was unable to attend until two days after the property was vacated. On inspection the agent was of the opinion that although the tenant had paid for the property to be cleaned, it was not to her satisfaction. She was also of the view that the shed was not cleared of rubbish even though it belonged to the former tenant.

The land lady has withheld £250 claiming that she had to pay approximately £140 to have the property cleaned and the rubbish removed. Interestingly she is also deducting 3 days rent and water rates (£110) on the pretext that the property was unfit to rent because of its alleged condition.

The deduction is not only bizarre but totally unreasonable, how can someone claim for something that is not lost? It was not the tenant’s fault that neither the land lady nor the agent was available when he vacated the property. Also no rent was lost because having been advised that the property was a health risk the land lady, after the property was vacated, arranged for the stove to be removed and replaced by a central heating system. Therefore no rent was lost because of the property was unfit due to work being undertaken for the installation.

Although requests have been made to the land lady to meet to discuss the deductions they have been rejected. The young tenant is not the first and will certainly not be the last to suffer at the hands of unreasonable landlords. However because of the fees and hassle involved in going down the court route land lords are sitting pretty.

The new Control of Housing and Work Law will not cover the issue of surety disputes but the Housing Minister has given assurances that a rent deposit scheme will soon be implemented. I understand that it will be similar to that operating in the UK where all deposits are placed with a third party who adjudicates surety disputes.

Whilst such a scheme is welcomed it does appear to be cumbersome and akin to a sledgehammer to crack a nut approach which will involve large numbers of deposits being unnecessarily held with an Ombudsman or third party. I believe a better scheme would be that when ever there is a dispute the land lord would be required to deposit the disputed sum of money with an Ombudsman/third party who would then speedily adjudicate and decide what if any of the surety should be with held or returned.

Unfortunately whatever scheme is to be adopted, it will be too late to help the young immigrant and others who currently find themselves at the mercy of unreasonable land lords.

I know that my Blogs are read world wide and would be grateful to hear from readers how landlord/tenant disputes are resolved and of surety deposit schemes operating in their part of the world.



.