Plemont 3------A Pyrrhic Victory???

I know a number of people who are members of the National Trust for Jersey (NTJ) and understandably they are delighted with yesterday’s result. Many are single minded and dedicated in safeguarding our heritage. I have no problem with that, but ask where were they when the applications were being considered to build on the St Martin’s School playing field or the monstrosity at La Coupe Bay in St Martin. I hope they will show the same commitment and diligence when the next contentious application comes along irrespective of who ever are making the application. 

I called my first Plemont blog “a contrived debate” because of the way in which the proposition was conveniently moved up the Agenda so that certain States Members could be present for the debate.

Yesterday’s debate was again a contrived event. The proposition was to request the Treasury Minister to identify the appropriate means of funding a grant however before the States had agreed to the request the Minister, Senator Ozouf had already identified a source even though in many people’s eyes the source, the Criminal Offenders Confiscation Fund, was not intended to finance the purchase of land, no matter how important the land was.

It could be said that the NTJ had further support in the Chamber via three unelected members, the Deputy Bailiff, the Solicitor General and the Dean who all played an interesting and supporting role.

In most democracies the Speaker is a servant of the Members in the Chamber, in Jersey this is not so. Our Speaker not only approves the wording of every proposition, amendment and question that is lodged but also dictates who speaks and what is said.

Yesterday it was evident that he wanted to hurry things along and was in no mood to allow any dissenting speaker to question the advice given by the Solicitor General even though there appeared to be no logic in his answers.

The Confiscation Fund allows for money to be spent “(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;

Senator Ozouf had an amazing and some may say convenient memory lapse yesterday when he was unable to recall how much money was in the Fund when monies were being requested to build the new police station. Had he looked no further than the answer he gave to Senator Le Gresley in February 2011 he would have remembered that there was well over £8 million in the Fund and that money is still unspent?

Therefore one may ask why money from the Confiscation Fund was not allocated to build the police station in the first place.  I submit that the answer is simple, the Fund was never intended to build police stations and that is why the money was not allocated.

The debate kicked off with Senator Bailhache hardly needing to break into a sweat, he had the expected supportive packed gallery, the money had been found, there was no need to compulsory purchase the headland and there was a fixed price. This was get out of jail card which was used by so many members who were looking for a reason to change they voted last time.

Deputy Duhamel the Planning and Environment Minister spoke next, but he gave the appearance of a dead man walking or should it be talking? He late claim that an eleventh hour buyer had turned up, rightly cut no ice particularly as he had omitted mention that point in the Comments which he had lodged some few hours earlier.

Deputies Mike Higgins and Judy Martin were the true stars in the debate and made it abundantly clear that the device/mechanism that Senator Ozouf was adopting to obtain funding was ultra vires.  One may ask how was it possible for the Solicitor General to say that Senator Ozouf’s actions were in order, but then again one has to look no further than the part he played in the Curtis Warren trial.

Senator Ozouf may well claim that his actions were transparent and legal but in my book they say little about his ethics and integrity. Taking money out of one fund and putting it in another fund and then moving it to another fund looks very much like money laundering to me, but then again I am a simple soul who sees things in black and white and not in shady grey.

Immediately after Senator Ozouf had spoken, the Dean rose. As the custodian of what is supposed to be good, one would have hoped that the Dean might have spoken on the morality of the funding and perhaps have quoted from the scriptures and asked the Senator and others what shall it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?

Sadly the Dean complimented Senator Ozouf on the way he had found the funding, so much for morality. He made no mention at all of the States failure to spend money from the fund to help those who have suffered as a consequence of crime and those criminals who need help in being rehabilitated. Interestingly today the States was debating a proposition to provide funding for disabled people, but the Dean had nothing to say.

Money was found to buy land, yet today the very people who were happy to spend it yesterday were today opposing money being spent on our disabled, where is the morality?

Yesterday was a land mark day for the NTJ and Members were constantly reminded that the headland would for the benefit of our children, their children and generations there after; however it will come at a price far greater than £3.5m and may be a Pyrrhic victory. 

Precedents have been created and money can be extracted from the Confiscated Fund and used for a purpose it was never intended for. Also if money can be found for land then money can be found for a whole host of more worthy causes?  The bench mark is now set at an all time low and we are in for an interesting time as Ministers attempt to justify withholding funds from the Island’s many disadvantaged.

For the benefit of Readers who might want to read Plemont 1 please click here

To read Plemont 2, please click here

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

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

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

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

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

Answer

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

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

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

The nature of the offences committed included:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

" Dear all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Officer FF having affair with inmate, no action taken

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Curtis Warren ---Funny Old World or Just Fantasy?

It's a funny old world that we live in,

But the world's not entirely to blame,

It's the people you meet as you walk down the street,

And Ian Le Marquand is one you could name.

Thanks to Ian Gallagher’s report in the latest edition of the Mail on Sunday Senator Le Marquand is now having another problem he could well do without but is again digging a hole for himself. 

Mr Gallagher has reported a kiss and tell tale from Ms Teresa Rodrigues who was employed as drugs and alcohol councillor at La Moye Prison where Curtis Warren was being held in custody following his arrest on a drugs charge.

Ms Rodrigues has claimed that she had a 2 year love affair and regularly had sex with Curtis Warren in his cell. I don’t know her but she is not the first lady to claim to have sex with a well known personality. Like wise Curtis Warren is not the first male to deny a claim.

In all kiss and tell tales one is left to one’s own judgement and I am not interested in what is often a case of individuals seeking publicity and/or money to further their own ends.  I don’t know why Ms Rodrigues has made the claim but because of the position she held it should not be dismissed as fantasy by Senator Le Marquand. He is a former Magistrate and Curtis Warren may well have appeared before him, but now and very importantly he is the Minister for Home Affairs and what allegedly goes on at La Moye Prison should not be dismissed as fantasy without at least calling for a report.

At the States Sitting yesterday Deputy Montfort Tadier asked the following question;

“Would the Minister advise whether a former prison employee had an inappropriate relationship with a prisoner at HMP La Moye and, if so, what assurances can he give that correct safeguards are in place so that such alleged practice may not occur in future?”

I heard the answers and was amused at how Senator Le Marquand was defending his "do nothing approach" on the strength of a denial by Curtis Warren. What also emerged was that no references were asked for or given by Ms Rodrigues when she took up regular employment at La Moye Prison. Senator Le Marquand claimed that the reason why no references were called for was because Ms Rodrigues was well known and well respected having been employed in a part time position for some time before being appointed to a full time post. One may ask why were no references called for when she began working part time at La Moye Prison? 

As mentioned above Curtis Warren is not the first person to deny a kiss and tell claim. It could be said that he is acting as a perfect gentleman and even if the claim is true why should he accept it, what has he to gain and why should he get embroiled in what is clearly an embarrassment to the Island. Whether or not the claim is true, some will say there is no smoke without fire.

If the prison is so relaxed about references and allowing females in male cells and be photographed together why is it not possible for inmates to enjoy a few other home comforts? The former Jersey Evening Post journalist Philip Falle often called the prison "The La Moye Hilton" perhaps he had a point. 

Those who have been following my blogs will know that Senator Le Marquand has a history of dismissing embarrassing news by claiming they are fantasy. It is not for Minister’s to dismiss reports as fantasy because they may be embarrassing. It will be even more embarrassing if there is some substance to the claim.

I would recommend readers to the voiceforchildren's latest blog by clicking latest blog  Voice reports that the Chairman of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel has dismissed Ms Rodrigues’ claim for similar reasons to Senator Le Marquand. I hope the Chairman will give the matter a re-think and address the matter with a degree of urgency. To fail to do so demeans the Scrutiny process.

It does seem ironic that because it suits Senator Le Marquand he relies on the word of Curtis Warren to bail him out. One wonders what would have happened had the " well respected" Ms Rodrigues claimed that she had been raped by "Drugs Baron" Curtis Warren which would been believed. Would the matter have also been dismissed as fantasy? 

It's a funny old world that we live in,

But the world's not entirely to blame,
And it's the people who think they are the elite
who should be hanging their heads in shame. 

A Reflection on 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

My Comments are in red ink.

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

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

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

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

3.8.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

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

3.8.2 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

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

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

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

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

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

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

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

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

3.8.5 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

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

3.8.6 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

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

The Bailiff:

Yes.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Curtis Warren----More questions without answers

In my last Blog I reported that three Written and three Oral questions relating to the Curtis Warren case had been lodged for last Tuesday’s Sitting and that I would comment on the answers.

As always it is imperative that Members draft questions which are precise and leave Ministers in no doubt as to what is being asked. This is even more important when lodging written questions because unlike Oral Questions there is no opportunity to ask supplementary questions. In the Written question below it is apparent that Deputy Mike Higgins was attempting to establish who the Crown Officers are accountable to, but as one can see the question did not achieve that goal.

"Will Her Majesty’s Attorney General explain to members the various checks and balances that apply to the Law Officers and the Law Officers Department and explain how and in what way the department is accountable to the States of Jersey Assembly?”

The AG’s written answer was;

It is unclear from the question precisely what is intended by “accountability” and “checks and balances”. The Attorney General and Solicitor General are appointed by the Crown and hold office during good behaviour. Although the Attorney General is the senior Law Officer they are independent of each other. The Law Officers have supervision of the Criminal and Civil Functions of the department through the Director of the Criminal Division and the Director of the Civil Division.

The Law Officers are sworn office holders and are bound by the terms of their oaths.

Many of the members of the Department are also lawyers who owe independent professional obligations. Other than the Law Officers, all members of the department are subject to the codes of conduct and other policies applying to all civil servants.

The Law Officers’ Department carries out a number of different functions and different considerations apply to the various functions.

Neither the Law Officers nor the department are accountable to the States Assembly for prosecution decisions or prosecutorial matters which are and must remain independent of political considerations and pressure.

Similarly, the Law Officers’ Department is not accountable to the States Assembly for operational matters as it must maintain its ability to give impartial and independent advice. Subject to such exceptions the Law Officers’ Department is accountable to the States Assembly through the Attorney General or Solicitor General who are members of the Assembly.

Financially the Law Officers’ Department is accountable to the Chief Minister’s Department and Treasury and thereby ultimately to the States Assembly for matters of financial management.

Some decisions of the Law Officers may be challenged before the courts. In the exercise of their functions, the Law Officers are public authorities under the Human Rights Jersey Law and must therefore act compatibly with the Convention rights of others, whenever such rights are engaged by the exercise of those functions.

Should the States Assembly fundamentally lose confidence in a Law Officer then the Assembly could adopt a motion of no confidence in that officer. Although the motion would not be legally binding, the Crown and the officer concerned would inevitably pay regard to the views expressed by the elected representatives of the Island.

Several readers have questioned the Crown Officers' accountability, the answer above makes it clear that the AG, SG, the law officers and their Department are not accountable to the States Assembly. However, financially the Law Officers’ Department is accountable to the Chief Minister’s Department and Treasury and thereby ultimately to the States Assembly.

It should be noted that the AG, the SG and the Bailiff are unelected Members of the States. The AG correctly states that he is not accountable to the States Assembly unless there is an over spend in his budget. but he does not say to whom he and other members of the Law Officers are accountable to. So don’t be surprised if Deputy Higgins submits a further question to ascertain where the accountability lies.

Unfortunately the Written answer given by Senator Le Marquand to Deputy Higgins' question also missed the target, he asked;

“Will the Minister explain the apparent contradiction between the Supreme Court’s criticism of the actions of the three police officers involved in the recent Curtis Warren bugging case and their exoneration by the Disciplinary Panel? Is the Minister satisfied that the public retains faith in our police force and the judiciary?

Senator Le Marquand’s answer is as follows;

“These are two different sets of proceedings with different burdens of proof and with different sets of evidence being presented. The public can be fully confident that the issues were properly investigated by an outside Police Force, that the recommendations of that force were acted upon and that a disciplinary hearing was conducted in accordance with the current law.

The public may also take some comfort from the fact that independently of this case, the States of Jersey Police leadership and I have commissioned a review of the current law in relation to police disciplinary matters and that I intend to make improvements in this area.

The results of recent Jersey Annual Social Surveys of public opinion have shown a high and increasing level of public confidence in the States of Jersey Police Force and I believe that the vast majority of the public of this Island have faith in our States of Jersey Police Force and particularly in its senior leadership.

In the context of this matter I do not understand the reference to the judiciary as this disciplinary matter was presided over by the Chief Constable of another British Police Force.”

As one can see Senator Le Marquand answered the first and most important part of the question in one sentence without actually giving an explanation of the condradiction. Had he done so Members would have realised that important evidence which had been previously (intentionally???) omitted was produced at the Disciplinary Hearing.

The second part of the question resulted in an excellent flag waving exercise but without substance. For whilst there may have been questionnaires circulated relating to public confidence in the States Police as a whole, I don’t think any questionnaire has been circulated specifically relating to confidence of its senior leadership. This is a matter I will cover in my comments to Deputy Tadier’s question below.

In the third part of the question I think Deputy Higgins was asking about the Island’s Judiciary but because he was not specific Senator Le Marquand was able to answer according to his own interpretation of the question.

Deputy Tadier received a better answer to his question below, but unless he actually sees the full accounts he is unable to question the figures given, his question was:

"Will the Minister give a breakdown of the total cost to his Department in respect of the disciplinary action against three of the officers involved with the importation of illegal drugs in 2007, as follows -

(a) The cost of the criminal investigation by Hampshire Police and their associated legal costs?

(b) The States’ police’s legal costs preceding the disciplinary Hearing?

(c) The cost of the disciplinary hearing including the legal advice for the Presiding Officer?

(d) The travel and accommodation cost for the various officers attending the disciplinary Hearing and advise from which budget the funding is coming from?

Answer

It is only possible to give precise figures for bills paid to date for matters other than normal police officers’ time and the figures below refer to this.

(a) It should be noted that the investigation into the actions of the three officers started as a general review of police actions. As issues arose, it became an investigation into potential criminal and / or disciplinary proceedings. The total cost of the whole process was £117,104.

(b) There was more than one disciplinary hearing, so I am not sure as to which hearing the Deputy is referring. This not withstanding , it is not possible to separate out the legal costs incurred preceding any disciplinary hearing from those incurred during a disciplinary hearing as, understandably, a great deal of work is done in the run up to a hearing as well as during. The total legal costs associated with the disciplinary hearings to date are £119,808. This figure includes the £10,000 that I agreed to contribute towards the legal costs to ensure equality of arms for both sides after it was brought to my attention by the independent Chief Officer conducting the disciplinary proceedings that the financial resources available to the Police Association may be exceeded.

(c) The cost of the disciplinary hearings including the legal advice for the Presiding Officer to date is £6,192.

(d) The cost of travel and accommodation for the officers attending the disciplinary hearings to date are £4,562.

The budget is part of expenditure on Police Operations and has been funded from the 2012 Police Budget.

It should be noted that the figures are those known to date and are likely to be considerably higher when the matter is finally concluded. In previous Blogs I had questioned the decision to instigate disciplinary proceedings and what analysis and risk assessment was conducted before embarking in what was going to be a very costly affair. The Judgement does not make pretty reading and those responsible for instigating the disciplinary proceedings are left with egg on face.

In his answer above Senator Le Maquand says “ The public may also take some comfort from the fact that independently of this case, the States of Jersey Police leadership and I have commissioned a review of the current law in relation to police disciplinary matters and that I intend to make improvements in this area.

It should be noted that the Chief Police Officer decided to request Hants Police to investigate the Warren arrest and was supported by Senator Le Marquand. Disciplinary matters are within the Deputy Chief Officer’s remit. This is the same Deputy Chief Officer who only a couple of years ago instigated disciplinary proceeding against 2 officers after the AG had stated that there was insufficient evidence to instigate criminal proceedings. The case was dismissed but it cost in the region of £400k. Therefore I don’t know how Senator Le Marquand believes “the vast majority of the public of this Island have faith in our States of Jersey Police Force and particularly in its senior leadership.

It would be interesting to know whether Senator Le Marquand has confidence in his Deputy Chief Officer who seems prone to slipping on banana skins.

In addition to the three Written Questions the three Oral Questions received responses pretty much in line with predictions in my previous Blog. What continues to disappoint is the failure of other States Members to express an interest in what is clearly a public interest matter and costing in excess of £3m. Perhaps a Scrutiny Panel might take up the matter.

Senator Le Marquand was asked when he was going to release the Judgement. As predicted he said it was confidential and when pressed why he was able to release the Power documents which were also supposed to be confidential, the Senator was able to come up with a totally implausible answer which was not challenged.

Audio Recordings of the Oral Questions can be found courtesy of The Jersey Way Blog.

It is common knowledge that confidential documents do find their way into the public domain, so expect Senator Le Marquand and the Attorney General to be asked further questions when the Judgement is eventually made public.

Curtis Warren--- Car Bugging ? Questions Without Answers???

Readers who have been following my Blogs on the Curtis Warren Affair will have noted the growing number of questions that need answers. Although a number of questions have already been asked, readers will be pleased to know that more are being asked at the States Sitting next Tuesday.

States Question Time has become known as Questions without Answers simply because Ministers are able to get away without giving full answers. No doubt there will be a recurrence next week. There are a total of six questions relating to Curtis Warren and are published below along with my comments.

There are three Written Questions;

Deputy Tadier has lodged the following written question about the discipline case which requires an answer from the Minister of Home Affairs.

“Will the Minister give a breakdown of the total cost to his Department in respect of the disciplinary action against three of the officers involved with the importation of illegal drugs in 2007, as follows –

(a) The cost of the criminal investigation by Hampshire Police and their associated legal costs?

(b) The States’ police’s legal costs preceding the disciplinary Hearing?

(c) The cost of the disciplinary hearing including the legal advice for the Presiding Officer?

(d) The travel and accommodation cost for the various officers attending the disciplinary Hearing and advise from which budget the funding is coming from.

Readers will recall that via an Oral Question at the last States Sitting, the Home Affairs Minister stated that the cost to date was £217,674. I believe that figure is very conservative which requires a breakdown of the expenditure to date. However how do you calculate the human cost of suspending one officer, another ending up in intensive care and putting the third officer through a disciplinary hearing about things he is supposed to have done five years previously only to have all allegations against him thrown out."


Deputy Mike Higgins has two Written Questions his first to the Attorney General is as follows;

“Will Her Majesty’s Attorney General explain to members the various checks and balances that apply to the Law Officers and the Law Officers Department and explain how and in what way the department is accountable to the States of Jersey Assembly?”

Readers will note that questions regarding the accountability of the Crown Officers have been raised in my Blogs and it will be interesting to see what answer is given.

Deputy Higgins' second question is to the Home Affairs Minister and is also most opportune,

“Will the Minister explain the apparent contradiction between the Supreme Court’s criticism of the actions of the three police officers involved in the recent Curtis Warren bugging case and their exoneration by the Disciplinary Panel? Is the Minister satisfied that the public retains faith in our police force and the judiciary?”

It is evident that at the Disciplinary Hearing some new evidence must have come to light which led the Chief Constable exonerating the officers. The public and certainly the three officers are entitled to a full explanation, anything less is totally unacceptable.

There are 3 Oral Questions the first by Deputy Monty Tadier is;

“Given the criticism of States Police and a Lawyer in the Law Officers’ Department by the Privy Council in relation to the Curtis Warren prosecution and the alleged involvement of the Attorney General in the subsequent police disciplinary case, would the Attorney General make a statement clarifying the situation?”

Although this question is akin to one being asked of the Home Affairs Minister it is important to note that the Hants Police investigated the role of 3 police officers but apparently the lawyer’s role has not been the subject of any enquiry. Also given the allegations that it was the AG who instigated the Disciplinary actions, the public is entitled to a full explanation and if the AG was not responsible who was?

Deputy Roy Le Hérissier will be asking the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –

“Given the verdict of the Police Disciplinary Tribunal, is the Minister satisfied that the police acted with complete authority in the matter of bugging a vehicle in the case Re Curtis Warren?”

Readers who have been following the case will recall that my Blog published on 17th October contained the 2009 Royal Court Judgement. In paragraph 18 one will see that the advice given to the police officers by the Crown Advocate was in the opinion of the Court “honest and well intentioned.” The Crown Advocate’s advice was; he didn’t see a Jersey Court ruling any evidence which was obtained inadmissible, it would be a matter for the Court to decide. it was an operational decision for the officers to decide. He added “If it was me I’d go ahead and do it, but don’t quote me on that.”

No doubt the officers shared the Court’s view that they were given honest and well intentioned advice and took it. The Crown Officer was correct with his assertion that it was for the Court to determine whether the evidence obtained was inadmissible. In fact not only did the Jersey Royal Court accept the evidence but also the Privy Council which then strongly criticised the officers’ action, how bizarre.

The third Oral Question is being asked by Deputy Mike Higgins who will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –

“Due to the important public interest issues involved will the Minister publish the written decision of the disciplinary tribunal involving the three police officers involved in the Curtis Warren car bugging case, and if not why not? And if so when?

It is likely that the Minister will refuse to publish the Judgement claiming that it is an internal disciplinary matter and/or like the Wiltshire Police Report it is a confidential report. However the Wiltshire Report was put into the public domain by none other than the same Minister, What’s the difference? I am sure that the 3 officers would be delighted if the Report was released.

The Jersey Way Blog has been doing an excellent job in publishing audio recordings of the Oral Questions and I am sure that next Tuesday's will be on its Blog site that evening.