Jersey's Dean--- Let Sleeping Dogs Lie.

Sir Michael Birt has just retired after twenty years service to the Island serving as Attorney General, Deputy Bailiff and for the past five and half years as Bailiff. As is customary he was asked of the highs and lows during his term of office. When speaking of the lows he cited the difficulties encountered by the Dean and the way in which he had been suspended, the split from Winchester and failure of Bishop Dakin to publish the Steel Report.

I always found Sir Michael to be fair and courteous and respect his views above however I can think of lows that would come far higher on my list. Given that the Dean was party to much of his own misfortunes of which he has admitted and apologised for he can hardly be seen as an innocent bystander. The Bishop of Winchester has publicly stated that no disciplinary action is being taken against the Dean or his colleague but has not said that the Dean has been exonerated of any wrongdoings as reported by some of the media. The Bishop has also stated that the Steel Report highlighted a number of significant concerns about safeguarding in Jersey. As the Dean is the Head of the Island's clergy is he not responsible for the concerns?

When it comes to suspensions I can think of dozens of ordinary States employees who have been suspended yet when I sought support for them to be represented by a friend at disciplinary meetings, I failed through lack of support. Among those suspended were equally illustrious employees such as the former police chief who was left on suspension for over 18 months until his retirement day whereby he was effectively dismissed by stealth. There was also the senior gynaecologist who was left suspended for far longer whereby he was deskilled. However unlike the Dean their plight was not worthy of support from the perceived great and the good. When propositions seeking support for enquiries into the suspension of the police chief and gynaecologist they were vigorously opposed, where is the consistency, where is the fair play? 

The failure of the Council of Ministers led by the Chief Minister to support the proposition to establish a committee of inquiry into Jersey’s historic child abuse must come high up on everyone's the list of lows. The disturbing reports coming from the Inquiry is not only justifying the decision to establish the Committee of Inquiry but says very little for those who opposed or were silent when it came to supporting the proposition.

Sir Michael also commented on the split form the Diocese of Winchester. The split was down to Dean and the Bishop of Winchester being unable to work together. Where was the peace and conciliation and how could Canterbury consider the vanity of two of its senior members to be greater than 500 years of tradition? 

Regarding the issue of the publication of the Steel Report, whilst I can understand concerns being raised about the delay the more serious concerns should be why was the conflicted Dame Steele appointed in the first place? Also why did the Terms of Reference not include the arrest at the Dean’s behest, of the lady at the heart of complaint and her eventual deportation and being left destitute at Southampton airport on a cold October evening? One may also ask why Dame Heather did not interview the lady concerned or give me the transcript as promised of my meeting with her in which she was uncomplimentary to HG.

It should also be noted that the Bishop had been advised to carry out an Impact Assessment to consider the likely impact of the Report on HG. He has assembled a small group of suitably qualified professionals to carry out an assessment and would be providing them with a copy of the report and other relevant information once he had received Counsel’s advice. He was asking them to advise him how the Steel Report can be published in such a way as to minimise the impact on ‘HG’ and the risk of harm to her. If the Report is likely to harm HG how Christian is it to press for its publication?

Radio Jersey has reported that following its enquiry with the Bishop's PR company a spokesman said "We don't yet have a date for publication, as the Steel Report is currently continuing to be reviewed by legal and safeguarding experts."   That answer could have been given months ago and in months to come.

The Sir Michael Birt's call for the report has been supported by some Jersey Synod members however there has been no call for any support for those affected by the Dean and Bishop's actions where promises have not been kept and continued speculation of the date of the Report's publication is causing distress.  Those who have followed the sorry saga will be aware of a catalogue of errors that have occurred from the time when HG first made contact with the Dean in July 2008 to this very day. For the reasons given above to publish the discredited Steel Report would be another.

It is said that publication of the Report will bring closure for Dean and Church, that is wishful thinking. Enough hurt has been caused and needless money has been spent on ego trips which have achieved nothing. Now is the time for closure and to let sleeping dogs lie.

These 2 related links will be of interest to readers. I am grateful to BBC Radio Jersey for this link which can be opened by clicking HERE

Following the Dean's reinstatement I published a blog which can be opened by clicking HERE 

2014=== A Reflection

As another year passes it is customary to review it. When looking back at the blogs published last year I note that I covered a variety of subjects and in no particular order I will comment on some of them.

The Plemont debate saw how a small number of States Members were able to “cook the books” to provide a get out of jail card for their colleagues who were then able vote in support of restoring the headland on the grounds that it was not at the taxpayer’s expense. The money came from the Criminal Offenders Confiscation Fund which is intended to be spent preventing, suppressing or otherwise dealing with criminal conduct and/or the consequences of crime. There is no way that money from that fund should have been used to purchase Plemont but a device was found and thus Plemont was “saved.”

What is ironic is some money in the near £8 million Confiscation Fund comes from criminals found in possession of cannabis and other illegal substances. Last month the States debated whether those suffering chronic illness should be permitted to use cannabis for medicinal purposes. Unfortunately none of those Members who wanted to spend money from the Fund on Plemont gave any thought of taking money from the Fund to fund cannabis based but legal “Sativex Spray” to ease the pain of those Islanders suffering from debilitating diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis.

In the lead up to the debate some Islanders admitted that they had to resort to breaking the law to obtain cannabis for medicinal purposes. If the Fund is intended to prevent crime would it not have made sense to use some of it to provide comfort for the suffering rather than putting them at risk by illegally purchasing cannabis for medicinal purposes or simpler still funding the cannabis based “Sativex Spray which is licensed but only available to those able to afford it. 

One positive move was the arrival of the Residential Tenancy Deposit Scheme which had been in the pipe line for many years. Regretfully there will always be bad tenants and land lords and there will be teething problems but the Scheme should prevent the abuse that has been all too prevalent for far too long.

One of my highest readerships was my blog on the bankruptcy of Trevor and Shona Pitman and how they were made bankrupt whereas Ian Christmas the Island’s former Magistrate was not. The Pitman’s pursuit of justice ended in bankruptcy and loss of their livelihood. Ian Christmas and his cohorts were involved in criminal activity which led to some Islanders losing their savings which will never be recovered. They could have received some compensation had the culprits been stripped of all their assets as was the case with the Pitman’s; however it was not to be. Who says that crime does not pay?

I published a blog about Connetable Crowcroft’s proposition which requested Members to agree that with the impending retirement of the Bailiff, the States should honour the Clothier recommendation that the Bailiff’s dual role of Chief Judge and President of the States should cease. The proposition was scuppered by the former Bailiff and brother of the next Bailiff, Senator Bailhache who felt the matter should be addressed via a referendum. The issue will not go away and we could be in for an interesting year where the Deputy Bailiff and Attorney General are both moving up a notch and a new Solicitor General and Attorney General taking up Office.

The role of those 4 unelected Members of the States conveniently leads me to the other unelected Member that being Jersey’s Dean who was not slow in coming forward when speaking in support of the Plemont proposition but was conveniently out of the Chamber during the cannabis debate. If it is deemed necessary for the Dean to be an unelected States Member is it asking too much of him to speak for the sick and needy.

It would appear that it’s not only the Dean who has been keeping his head down, has anyone seen Bishop Dakin or Bishop Gladwin and Dame Heather Steel or their Reports?

Whilst on the subject of reports I published a number of blogs relating to the Independent Care Inquiry which commenced with much optimism but is now coming up with more questions than answers. History is littered with Inquiries that started with good intentions but failed to deliver because those tasked with seeking the truth were more concerned with protecting the guilty than exposing the truth.

£6 million has been set aside for the Inquiry therefore the public, victims and those whose reputations were tarnished and careers ruined are entitled to know the truth and it is incumbent on Frances Oldham to deliver without fear or favour. The Terms of Reference appertaining to Operation Rectangle will feature this year and I’m sure it will spark interest and controversy.

I covered the Taser issue but am still unsure whether Tasers are a necessary evil, however if they are intended to be a substitute for firearms because they are supposed to be less lethal, then why are the US police officers are still using firearms and killing members of the public?

Jersey experienced its first ever General Election albeit that 17 seats were uncontested. Our Chief Minister was re-elected and will head an Executive which will operate a collective responsibility system which I understand extend to Assistant Ministers. In his Christmas message the retiring Bailiff commented on the reduction of propositions and questions lodged. Jersey does not have a party system however one of the features of our parliamentary system is that Members who are not part of the Executive can attempt to bring about change through propositions.  

What is of concern is that too much power is now with our Executive which will be required to close ranks and stifle what opposition is left among backbenchers. This will lead to even fewer propositions and questions being lodged and also to less transparency and accountability.

2014 was an interesting year and who knows what this year will bring. On Sunday morning just after the 10am news I will be appearing on Radio Jersey’s Politics Hour with Ben Queree and Amy Vatcher looking ahead to what could be the key issues for Jersey in 2015. As always population and unemployment will feature but I do hope that our Government will look to addressing some of the social issues such as why there is increasing number of people relying on charity to survive and of the widening gap between the rich and the poor.

On a personal note I am falling way behind with the book I am trying to write about the St Martin’s farms which I must devote more time to and prioritise my work load. One simple way is to cut back on the time given to blogging. 

I therefore I wish inform readers that I will be cutting back on the time I give to blogs which will mean that I will be publishing a lot less this coming year.  

I would like to thank readers world wide for their continued support and look forward to an interesting and informative year.

Sativex---------A Glimmer of Hope??

In my previous blog I mentioned that this week the States was to debate 3 cannabis related propositions. The outcome was predicable but it was the quality of the debate that was disappointing.

States Members have the ability of lodging propositions seeking States approval on a variety of issues. There are many Members who never do but fortunately there are a handful like Deputy Monty Tadier who do and he is to be complimented for lodging the 3 propositions which sought to improve the lives of those who through no fault of their own suffer pain and discomfort.

One of the propositions (P127) which can also be read below requested the Health Minister to take steps to make Sativex Spray available without cost to MS patients. The other 2 propositions were much more contentious because Deputy Tadier was seeking support to allow for cannabis to be prescribed for medicinal purposes.

Deputy Tadier decided to debate the Sativex Spray proposition first as it was relatively straight forward and I shall devote this blog to that matter. I will declare an interest because my wife has MS and when asked if she would be the petitioner to represent other MS sufferers she readily agreed.

Before Backbencher’s propositions are debated the relevant Minister normally lodges “Comments” indicating whether the proposition is supported, if it is not, reasons are given. Deputy Tadier lodged his proposition on 16^th July. The Comments which are below were published on 8^th September however the debate was deferred due to the impending elections. It should be noted that after the elections there was a change of Minister. However the new Minister Senator Green did not lodge his Comments until the 8th of December which was the day before the debate but his comments differed from the previous Ministers. 

Both Ministers opposed the proposition but it worth noting their reasons. The previous Minister Deputy Anne Pryke’s Comments could be summarised as follows.

Sativex can be supplied by any pharmacy, in accordance with the doctor’s prescription. It is, however, only available as a private prescription and costs have to be met by the patient.

Previous application from a consultant to make Sativex available via the Hospital pharmacy – in that case specifically for patients suffering with MS (Multiple Sclerosis) – has been rejected by the Hospital Drugs and Therapeutics Committee, based on assessment of clinical evidence and cost-effectiveness.

This decision has recently been corroborated by NICE in its draft revised guidance which does not recommend the use of Sativex for MS patients.

Current Health and Social Services Policy directs that the Department will not provide treatments at public expense where NICE has rejected that treatment. Final NICE guidance on recommended treatments is expected later this year and, should the advice on the use of Sativex for MS patients be amended, this position will be reviewed.

The issue within this proposition, therefore, is whether funding for a NICE non -recommended treatment should be met by taxpayers, at the expense of other treatments that are approved by professional, clinical expertise. The cost to the taxpayer of providing Sativex to any one individual patient would be in the region of £4–£5,000 per year.

There is no way to predict how many patients may subsequently be prescribed this treatment and, therefore, the potential overall impact on the Department’s already stretched annual drugs budget.

While it is available for prescription, Sativex remains a non-NICE approved treatment, and I cannot support a proposition for its supply to be funded by the taxpayer.

It is evident that the previous Minister could not support the proposition, because Sativex is not recommended by NICE, it is expensive even though Health does know how many people might need it but the Hospital Drugs and Therapeutics Committee, has already rejected the one application from a consultant based on assessment of clinical evidence and cost-effectiveness.

One is left to wonder whether the officer briefing Senator Green was the same who briefed the former Minister because it was not the information conveyed by Senator Green to States Members on Tuesday and confirmed by email to me.

Three weeks before the debate I wrote to Senator Green with a number of queries, unfortunately his answer below which was the information he gave to States Members was not sent to me until a couple of minutes after the vote had been taken. The following is an extract.

I am mindful that, ordinarily, Sativex is only available on private prescription. However, there is an existing mechanism in place for a recognised Consultant in an appropriate specialism, to make a request for public funding of such a treatment on behalf of a specific individual.

The treatment of patients must always be based on clinical assessment and professional expertise. But where clinical judgement can demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances in an individual case, which would support the prescribing of this licensed product, a special request can be made for the cost of treatment to be met through public funding. To date, no application has been for exceptional consideration in such circumstances has been received. For these reasons, Monty’s petition is, to all intents and purposes, redundant and that’s why I do not intend support it.

Although the former Minister said there had been an unsuccessful application Senator Green says there have been none. If there have been none it would not be surprising because I doubt whether GP’s or their patients are aware of what appears to be a policy change introduced by Senator Green. I can confirm that my wife and her MS circle of friends are not aware of the policy change but know full well that if recommendations have to go via a consultant the whole process could take many frustrating months.

I mentioned above that the quality of the debate was disappointing and that was because apart from Deputy Tadier who proposed the proposition and the Minister responding the only other Member to speak was the newly elected Senator Dr Zoe Cameron who had made it known that she had been elected to try to get the health service fit for the future.

She had featured in the Jersey Evening Post that day in which she had expressed her dissatisfaction with politics mainly because she had not been given the Health Minister or even the Assistant Minister’s post. However on Tuesday she had the ideal platform to speak about the plight of MS patients, the merits of Sativex and informing Members whether she was aware that it was available albeit via the Consultant route. Also had she contacted Chemists she could have informed Members that the cost of Sativex in Jersey would be around £3000 and not the 4/5k as quoted in the Comments.

It is estimated that possibly one person in a thousand may have Multiple Sclerosis (MS). As there are around 100,000 residents in Jersey there could be around 100 people with MS who have various stages of the disease. Sativex is primarily to relieve spasticity which can be a problem for some people with MS. Although the number of people who would benefit from Sativex is unknown it is likely to be only a small percentage of 100. The reason why not exact figure can be given is because Sativex has only been available to those who can afford to purchase it.

Sadly it is evident that Senator Cameron did not pick up on the contradictions in the former Ministers Comments and the current Ministers speech. She had an opportunity of informing Members of how the current system is not working but failed to do so. Her short uninspiring speech added nothing to the debate, it was hardly the stuff of a potential Minister and she was one of the 29 Members who voted against the proposition.

The debate lasted less than 20 minutes and Deputy Tadier’s proposition received 16 votes which were around the same number he received for his other propositions. He might not have won the vote but he shook some branches in relation to the issue of Sativex because not withstanding the previous Minister’s Comments the current Minister says that Sativex can be freely prescribed if supported by a GP and Consultant. 

I have written to Senator Green asking what steps he is taking to ensure that MS patients and their GP’s are informed of his policy.

Readers might find this blog posted by Tony the Prof to be of interest---Please click here

Sativex Proposition P127/2014

Details of the Vote for P127

Bedrocan Proposition P126/2014

Cannabis; Possession of cannabis for treatment purposes P128/2014

Jersey's Freedom of Information Law--A Lucky Break !!!

Last Tuesday the States debated an amendment to the Freedom of Information Jersey Law which will come into force in January next year. Before covering that matter I believe it would be helpful to mention that the States has taken almost 20 years to bring the Law to fruition.

The seeds to the Law were sown by former Senator Stuart Syvret who in early 1994 was appointed as President of the newly constituted Special Committee on Freedom of Information to examine the issues involved in establishing by law, a general right of access to official information by members of the public.The members of Stuart's committee were Senator's Nigel Quérée and Vernon Tomes, and Deputies Robin Rumboll, Jimmy Johns, Gary Matthews and me.

It has been a torturous route with every opportunity taken by those with vested interests finding every possible excuse to deny the public of information they are entitled to. If it had not been for Stuart's initial initiative, drive and persistence one wonders whether there would be a Law today.

I have lost track of the number of States Members who before being elected supported the principle of openness yet have failed to keep their promises. In the attached Comments the Council of Ministers/COM claims to strongly support openness and transparency in government yet could not give its support to a common sense set of amendments from Deputy Carolyn Labey of Grouville which sought to extend the Law to States-owned bodies. 

It is only in recent years that States-owned bodies such as Jersey Telecoms and Jersey Post have Boards comprising of non-States Members. It is only months ago that the States transferred the running of its housing stock to Andium Homes which will come within the Law's remit. Yet the COM opposed Deputy Labey's amendments which were in two parts/paragraphs. The first two which sought approval to extend the Law to include such bodies as Jersey Telecoms and secondly for law drafting to be completed as soon as practicable. 

Part/Paragraph (c) was even less testing because all it asked was for the Chief Minister to investigate the feasibility and desirability of further extending the scope of the Law to other entities that receive a majority of their funding from the States, and to report back to the States with recommendations within 6 months.

Unfortunately the same COM which claims to strongly support openness and transparency in government wasn't even prepared to investigate extending the Law. The usual red herrings of confidentiality intruding in business were recycled, however the Law will rightly have clauses to prevent such eventualities. 

I have attached Deputy Labey's proposition and her Report along with the COM 's Comments which are below. I have also attached the details of the two sets of votes which are worth reading.

The Chief Minister who is to be likened to a Dictator in that he now requires all his Ministers to fall into line and vote as he does was left with egg on his face. When one looks at the way Members voted it will be noted that all Ministers in Lemming fashion obeyed the call to duty. However the Chief Minister will have to do something about the dining habits and travel arrangements of Senators Bailhache, Farnham and Ozouf. 

The first two were unable to complete their lunch within the 90 minute luncheon break whereby they missed the vote which was taken soon after the luncheon break. Senator Ozouf's absence was because he was out of the Island on States business which turned out to be a blessing. This is because their absence meant that parts (a) and (b) of Deputy Labey's amendments were approved by 3 votes, 22/19 with 8 Members out of the Chamber. Had the Ministers been present the Deputy would lost because if a vote is tied the amendment/proposition is lost. 

When it came to voting for part/paragraph (c) even though it was opposed by the COM, Deputy Labey increased her majority to 28/12 with 9 Members absent. If one looks carefully at that vote it will be seen that the Education Minister, Deputy Rob Bryans broke ranks and actually voted according to his conscience.  One wonders whether he has been ordered to produce 100 lines promising to obey in future, or given a yellow card. 

Tuesday may have been a bad day for Chief Minister Gorst and his Ministers but it was a good day for the general public who will benefit from greater openness and transparency.  

Deputy Labey's amendment and the COM Comments can be read in full by clicking on to the links below. The two votes can also be read by clicking onto the relevant links.

Freedom of Information amendment P149/2014

Freedom of Information Council of Minister's Comments

Votes for Paragraphs  A and B

 Votes for paragraph C

Tuesday's States business was all over before 3pm. However I doubt whether it will end by 3pm when it next sits on Tuesday 9th December. On the Order Paper are 3 cannabis related propositions which were lodged last July by Deputy Monty Tadier. He is seeking approval for sufferers of multiple sclerosis to be prescribed Sativex Spray which is cannabis based, He is also requesting the Minister to use his discretionary powers under the Misuse of Drugs (General Provisions) (Jersey) Order 2009; to permit Bedrocan BV to be prescribed and thirdly to allow cannabis to be smoked for medicinal purposes.

There should be some lively debates.

Jersey's Elections (5) -------No Honour, Integrity or Confidence, What's New?

Following a complaint lodged by Nick Le Cornu and Gino Rosoli the losing candidates in the recent election for Deputies in St Helier Number 1 District, the Royal Court has rejected their complaint relating to an error in the Nomination Paper submitted by Scott Wickenden (above).

The Royal Court may well be of the belief that the submission of an invalid Nomination Paper was technical and inadvertent therefore not a matter of substance.  But is that acceptable, are Elections not supposed to be serious matters therefore requiring the highest standards of honesty and integrity.

The Public is entitled to expect States Members to be competent, honest and honourable. It should also expect its Courts to act in a fair and consistent way and deliver justice. Perhaps it’s because I am old fashioned and principled that I am not enamoured by the Court’s decision or share the relief experienced by Scott Wickenden when he says he just wants to get on with his job. The following paragraphs will explain my reasons.

Nomination Papers are vital documents and it is the responsibility of candidates to ensure that their signatories are not only on the electoral role but live in the relevant constituency. 

Having stood for election several times I know how important the Nomination Paper is and always ensured that my signatories were valid. Mr Wickenden failed this simple task. The other five candidates did not.

I understand that Mr Wickenden submitted his Nomination Paper to St Helier Parish Hall before the Nomination Meeting. The Nomination Paper contained the name of a woman who lived outside Number 1 District thereby rendering the document invalid. However the Officer at the Town Hall failed to spot the error. 

Given that Mr Wickenden would have been canvassing for 3 weeks before the day of the election It is hard to understand how he did not discover that one of his signatories lived in a different district or those close to him did not discover that fact. This leads one to ask whether he did know but chose not to disclose the information.

Most signatories vote for their nominee. However it is evident that the woman could not vote for Mr Wickenden at the Town Hall because as she had discovered that she was registered to vote in Number 2 District she voted at the Springfield Polling Station and therefore could not vote for him. It seems inconceivable that there was no communication between the pair of them before or after the election. Unfortunately the Royal Court was not sufficiently interested to allow the complainants to call the woman to give evidence so we shall never know the truth.

It is also hard to accept that at no time during the post election celebrations that the mistake did not come to light or was not discussed.  However even if one is prepared to believe that Mr Wickenden knew absolutely nothing of his mistake until it was revealed the day after the election, it is evident that he was prepared to sit tight in anticipation that the matter would disappear which questions his honesty and integrity.

Elections are ordered by the Royal Court which appoints its Jurats as Returning Officers. A Jurat was appointed to oversee the above election yet it appears there is no provision for the Court or its appointees to play any role in addressing invalid Nomination Papers. This is left to the unsuccessful candidates who will be perceived to be bad losers by pursuing the matter. This was certainly the case with Nick Le Cornu. I am not defending his inappropriate remarks about a fellow States Member but his mistake should not have been used as a reason for some of the media to attack him but turn a blind eye to a “mistake” by another politician.

The Royal Court should be setting higher bench marks for those who seek high office, yet in this particular case it appears that the bench mark was set well below the norm because of who one of the complainants was. One wonders what action would have followed had Mr Le Cornu won in similar circumstances. 

We are all capable of making mistakes but it is how we handle them that we are judged. Mr Wickenden was seeking the high office of Member of our Parliament whereby his competence, honesty and integrity should be beyond reproach. The Court accepts that he is incompetent but sadly it seemed unconcerned about his honesty and integrity.  

It is not disputed that by receiving more votes than three other candidates Mr Wickenden was elected, however he was elected by an electorate who believed that he was efficient, honest and honourable. With the number of unanswered questions, could that now be said of him?

I saw Mr Wickenden's interview on TV last night and he was clearly relieved, however he offered no apology for his mistake or for the expense incurred by the taxpayers and others in addressing it. Perhaps an honourable member would have apologised for his mistake as soon as it came to light. If  the mistake was known only after the result was announced, which seems highly unlikely, then he should have resigned thus allowing for a re-election.

His action would have been seen as one of humility and honesty which I am sure would have seen his vote increased. As it is unless there are answers to my questions above there will always be question marks about his integrity and honesty.

I note that Mr Wickenden is now a member of the Public Accounts Committee chaired by Deputy Andrew Lewis. Given the concerns raised in my previous blog concerning Deputy Lewis it is evident that they are well suited so one can understand why there is so little confidence in our parliamentary and judicial system.

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (6)----- Another Unhappy Anniversary

In my previous blog I wrote about the first anniversary of my meeting with Heather Steel who hardly acted like a Dame when breaking a promise to give me the transcript of our meeting. In that blog I also mentioned that we were approaching what will now be the 6^th anniversary of the suspension of Jersey’s former Police Chief Graham Power.

I apologise if this blog is a little longer than usual but there is so much documentation to hand which has been collated to eke out the truth in what has been a disgraceful display of abuse at the highest level of government. This blog is intended to give an insight into the events leading up to and after the suspension and although lengthy there is still more which could have been included. 

Nothing can be done to undo the hurt inflicted on the former police chief and his family or to recover the million pounds plus incurred by Home Affairs and the States in paying for futile court cases and pointless one sided investigations whilst attempting to justify an unjust act. However those involved with the decision to suspend in the first place and those who did their utmost to cover up the truth and to deny the Chief Officer his natural right to answer the spurious allegation against him should not be forgotten.

The police investigation into the child abuse allegations came as a rude awakening to many Islanders who smugly believed that Jersey was immune from such claims. It is not disputed that the decision to implement Operation Rectangle was only taken after all the available evidence had been examined and was supported by senior officers from outside the Island. Given the weight of the information to hand, not to conduct a thorough search of Haut de Garenne would certainly have led to claims of cover ups. The police would be damned if they did not dig and certainly damned because they did, particularly as no bodies were found, although no explanation has been given for the collection of teeth that were found.

In recent months the Portuguese Police conducted a similar dig in the full glare of the world’s media for Madeleine McCann which apparently did not discover any evidence but I have not heard of the relevant police chief being suspended. What is evident is that it was the leadership of Jersey’ s senior politicians that was found wanting and having had their shortcomings publicly exposed some one’s head had to roll and it certainly was not going to be theirs.

I was a States Member at the time of the suspension which came as a complete surprise. I had been aware of concerns regarding the expense of the investigations but not of the professionalism of the police involved. I was surprised how quickly a Church Service was arranged for the victims when none had been identified. However the service was not at the behest of the police. I was also surprised at how quickly the investigation attracted the attention of the world’s media. However once in contact with several journalists it soon became evident that the principle of why let the truth get in the way of a good story prevailed. I was a serving police officer in Lambeth during the Brixton riots and there were times when I questioned the motives and integrity of the media who similarly sought to make mountains out of molehills.

The police chief was suspended on 12^th November 2008 but because of the election the matter via a Minister’s statement could not be addressed until 2^nd December. The Minister Andrew Lewis said it gave him no pleasure to read it. Given the evidence of Ministerial and Civil Servant collusion that later came to light it is not surprising it gave him no pleasure.

During the next three years there were well over a hundred written and oral questions asked by the likes of, Deputies Higgins, Tadier, Pitman, Wimberley and me as we sought answers from Ian Le Marquand, Terry Le Sueur and Philip Ozouf. Connetable Crowcroft in December 2008 lodged a proposition P182/2008 HERE requesting the Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand to commission a compliance check on the suspension and report to the States no later than 1st March 2009.

It seemed such an obvious yet simple request, particularly as Ian Le Marquand was new to the States and should have stood back and given his support. Unfortunately it was not to be possibly because he had been briefed by his acting Chief Officer David Warcup who was heavily involved and conflicted as he would have taken his boss's job and salary. His participation in the suspension not only led to criticism from Bryan Napier but rendered him unfit to replace Graham Power. He resigned prior to seeking States approval for his appointment.

Having failed to accept Connetable Crowcroft’s proposition in 2010 I lodged P9/2010. HERE which sought approval to establish an independent panel to review the suspension. Again the States rejected that proposition but accepted Chief Minister Le Sueur’s proposal to appoint an independent commissioner to conduct an “in house Review.”

Senator Le Sueur sought my support but I would only give it if I was to be party to the appointment of the Commissioner and able to have sight of the draft report(s), this was agreed as were were the terms of reference. However they were altered by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer without consulting me or Senator Le Sueur. It is known that at least two drafts were produced without me having sight of them as was the “final” version which I don’t believe was as written by the Commissioner Bryan Napier. His Report can be read HERE.  Whilst Napier found people at fault it is difficult to understand how he could find no evidence of a conspiracy when his report provides so much evidence.

One person not interviewed was Wendy Kinnard who was the Minister for Home Affairs until mid October 2008. She would never have been party to disciplinary action therefore she was never party to any of the secret discussions which took place between Senator Frank Walker, Andrew Lewis who was Assistant Minister of Home Affairs, Chief Executive Officer Bill Ogley, David Warcup and the Law Officers so how could it be said there was no evidence of conspiracy?

During the in camera question period after Andrew Lewis had read his statement and before I was privy to any of the facts that later emerged, I said there was a nasty smell about the suspension. Knowing what I now know it is evident that Graham Power was “stitched up.”  Deputy Lewis had replaced Wendy Kinnard and like Kinnard and Walker he too was retiring from the States in early December. Therefore having been given a window of opportunity it called for swift action. The action taken was akin to "planting" which was a despicable act undertaken by "bent coppers" and did so much harm to the reputation of all police officers.

It was known that Graham Power was to take a short break over the week end of 7/10th November. It is evident that David Warcup had a "friend" in the Met Police who was attempting to obtain a report into the Jersey Police Force's handling of the child abuse allegation. The Report was never intended for disciplinary action and neither was it complete because important witnesses had not been interviewed. It is also evident that the "friend" could not provide the report until Monday 10th November. However letters relating to the pending suspension were typed on the morning of Saturday 8th November which made reference to the Met Interim Report which was still not in Warcup's hands. The letters were dated 12th November which was the day that Graham Power was to be suspended

The Interim Report without the Met Police logo was received by Warcup during Monday 10th and was deemed to be so sensitive that they were for police eyes only, therefore it was not seen by Lewis, Walker or Ogley, Yet this was the damning evidence which used to justify suspending a police officer with over 40 years distinguished service.

There is no longer any dispute about the drafting of the letters because having had his request for evidence to support that fact denied by the Chief Minister, Senator Terry Le Sueur, Graham Power made a successful application to the States Complaint's Board which found in his favour. The Board's finding via R115/2009 can be read HERE

The suspension was deemed to be a neutral act which was farcical claim because despite the evidence that came to hand the matter was allowed to simmer for almost two years at the cost of over a million pounds much of which was paid to the Wiltshire Constabulary whose officers made dozens of trips to Jersey trying to find evidence to level disciplinary charges. Although their report was submitted to Minister Le Marquand before Christmas it remained on his desk until Graham Power had retired the following summer. 

Bryan Napier presented his final Report on 10^th September but Senator Le Sueur would not circulate it. He was minded to take disciplinary proceedings against the Chief Executive Officer Bill Ogley, but no doubt was advised not do so being fearful of what Bill Ogley would have made public. Somehow a way out was found whereby he was able to retire with a £500k parachute. The Napier Report was eventually published two months later but only after I had made it clear that I would publish my copy.

Napier made a number of recommendations such as to ensure that statements are preserved and not torn up as was the case with Bill Ogley. Therefore I lodged a proposition P166/2010 HERE which sought States approval to implement them. Also as Napier had found that Graham Power had been unfairly suspended I asked that he be given a formal States apology.

As with other propositions P166 was rejected and disgracefully the States rejected my proposal to apologize to Graham Power. In March 2011 after the former Senator Le Gresley had lodged P19/2011 requesting the Council of Ministers to reconsider its decision not to establish a Committee of Inquiry into Jersey’s historic abuse, I lodged amendments HERE seeking States approval to establish a Committee of Inquiry if the issues raised in R27/2008 HERE had not been not been resolved.

It is said that everything comes to he who waits and thanks to a U turn by some hard liners my amendment along with one from Deputy Tadier was approved. Paragraph 12 of the Committee of Inquiry’s terms of Reference is to determine whether the concerns in 2007 were sufficient to justify the States of Jersey Police setting in train ‘Operation Rectangle’. Not only must the concerns be reviewed but also the repercussions of that decision. 

The suspension was totally unjustified as was the cost incurred in to prevent the truth being disclosed. The Committee of Inquiry now has the opportunity of right a wrong. The Inquiry Chair, Frances Oldham QC, has promised a "robust and fearless" examination of what went wrong and to find answers for people who suffered abuse as children. In seeking answers to those issues she must also seek answers from those who abused their positions when suspending Graham Power because without his leadership there would be no investigation, no Committee of Inquiry and those abused and neglected would still be unheard.

P182/2008 Connetable Simon Crowcroft's request for a compliance check can be read HERE
R115/2009 The Complaint's Board Finding re date of drafting of suspension letters can be read HERE
P 9/2010 My proposition to request an independent public review of the suspension can be read  HERE
R.132/2010 The Napier Report can be read  HERE
P166/2008 which also contains Graham Power's Affidavit can be read HERE
P19/2011 amendment to establish Committee of Inquiry can be read HERE
R27/2008 Council of Ministers Report re possible of Inquiry can be read HERE

Jersey's Dean----- An Unhappy Anniversary.

A year has passed since my infamous meeting with Dame Heather Steel and the publishing of my blog “The truth, the whole truth or nothing but a whitewash?

That blog reported on my meeting with Dame Heather which led me to believe that her proposed report would be a whitewash. The Blog can be read HERE and gives a useful background to the sorry saga which 18 months ago was described as a mess but unfortunately has now become an even bigger, financial and embarrassing mess.

A year ago I was promised a transcript of the meeting but despite several requests to Dame Heather and Bishop Dakin it has not, and because of Dame Heather’s incriminating comments is unlikely to be given to me.

A year ago Dame Heather told me that her report was almost complete. However we know that her final version was not submitted to Bishop Dakin until last May. One is therefore entitled to ask where is it and why has no public explanation been given for the delay in publication.  

It is no secret that if the report had been compiled by a truly independent and competent person it would contain details of incompetence by a number of senior clergy members and of collusion to dispose of the victim. Therefore it’s not surprising that the report has not been circulated. 

We are also nearing the 6^th anniversary of the spurious suspension of Jersey’s former Police Chief Graham Power.

If the panel of the Committee of Inquiry into Jersey’s historical child abuse adheres to its Terms of Reference it will soon be calling witnesses and hopefully the truth into the suspension will be revealed and the real reason and those responsible for it will be disclosed.

There are similarities relating to the suspension of Jersey’s Dean and the former Police Chief, however unlike the Dean who had friends in high places; the police chief was in effect dismissed by stealth.

Like Winchester a review into the circumstances of the suspension was commissioned and parts of the report were leaked but the final outcome was never revealed. It was a costly affair and like Winchester those involved in instigating the review did not emerge with any credit which soon after led me to make the following comment;

“The Minister and Minister for Home Affairs have emerged from this saga with no disciplinary case, no chief officer, a pending report from a QC likely to be critical of the Island’s Government, and a bill for over a million pounds. They are not well placed to criticise the actions of others.”

The same could be said of the Archbishop and Bishop, what have they achieved and at what cost? However I suppose one thing that could be said of their appointment of Dame Heather was that it turned out to be a precursor to the equally unwise appointments of Baroness Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf to head other reviews.

If these people can’t remember who their relations and friends are or who they socialise with. then how can they possibly be expected to remember the faceless victims and what they have to say. 

The Gladwin and Steel Reviews have been expensive and divisive affairs and are yet unpublished. It might be helpful not let the birthday candles burn out until they have set fire to both Reports so their ashes may join those of the hundreds of thousands of pounds already gone up in smoke in paying for what has become a futile and embarrassing farce.