Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (16) --- A 5 minute after thought?

I had hoped to post a blog soon after giving my evidence at the Hearing two weeks ago and to include a link to the transcript which is normally posted on the Jersey Independent Care Inquiry website soon after. Unfortunately due to unforeseen problems the transcript was only posted yesterday and there is no direct link to it. To read the transcript one has to click HERE then click onto Hearings, then click onto Transcripts and my evidence can be found on day 104 dated 22^nd October.

I believe that in April 2014 I was the first witness to be interviewed by the Inquiry lawyers who being from the UK understandably had little knowledge about how Jersey functioned.  My statement was lengthy and I provided considerable documents as supporting evidence. At the start of my Hearing the Inquiry lawyer Parick Sadd QC pointed out that my statement provided a landscape that the Inquiry has since been covering and it was my statement that provided a very useful introduction to the Inquiry as to those issues which the Inquiry was to investigate under its terms of reference.

It is now evident that some of the information I provided fell outside the Terms of Reference but it did provide useful background information. However although I had been used to giving evidence at times I felt it difficult to get into a train of thought as Patrick Sadd who is clearly a very competent QC jumped from one part of my statement to another. There was a reason, that being the need to seek clarification of some my evidence and for me to justify some of the claims I had made.

As an example I had claimed that whilst I could not say I was lied to by civil servants, I did feel at times that some were economical with the truth or just withheld information.  The issue of the Maguire case was an example and Mr Sadd sought clarification. In the Minutes of the meeting in May 1999 I was present when we were informed that possible criminal action was not being levelled against Mrs Maguire because it was not in the public interest. We were also told that Mr Maguire was suffering from cancer.

At that time Committee members were in complete ignorance of allegations of abuse in the Island’s care homes and naturally what the eye does not see the heart won’t grieve.  Mr Sadd then produced a document signed by the Attorney General’s Office dated November 1998 which said that the no further action was being taken because of lack of evidence.  It justified my concerns but I felt upset because had we been aware of the true facts of the Maguire’s background and of the abuse problems in the care homes, further abuse could have been prevented because action could have been taken at the time.

It is to be hoped that as a result of “lessons learnt” no abuse is inflicted in the first place and if it does, systems are now in place to quickly remedy the problem.

As my transcript shows I covered a wide range of issues including the role of the Centenier, Parish Hall Enquiries, the lack of an independent prosecution service and the issue of the Head of our prosecution service is also the Titular Head of our Honorary Police and legal advisor to the States.

We touched on Operation Rectangle and the involvement of former Police Chief Graham Power and his Deputy Lenny Harper. I had the opportunity to make it known that although we were aware of each other’s existence I could not recall ever having met Mr Harper in Jersey or in Lambeth where we had both served as police officers.

As for Mr Power although we had met during the eight years he had served as Police Chief our meetings were brief and he came across as a highly efficient and upright leader of the Island’s Police Force which had under his leadership become more professional and efficient.  My interest in his case was certainly not because he was a friend as I hardly knew him, but because it quickly became apparent that he had been “stitched up” and people were going to great lengths to hide the truth.

It is almost 7 years to the day t since Mr Power was suspended and effectively dismissed because he was kept suspended until his retirement 18 months later.  Many hours have been spent trying to get to the truth, however for the past two days Mr Power had his day in court and was able to give answers to the many questions which troubled some people.

I was present and Mr Power came across as a highly competent manager who played it by the book. He rightly saw the need for the States Police to be independent and free from political interference. However this did not find favour with senior States Members or senior executive officers.  He was not responsible for Mr Harper’s appointment but had made his Ministers aware that Mr Harper had a reputation as someone who rattled cages.  The Jersey Police had a corruption problem and it did not take long for Mr Harper to get stuck in and become unpopular

It would be fair to say that when Operation Rectangle was launched no one envisaged what would develop or that our senior States Members would be so ill equipped to handle the media circus that followed. Mr Power said that some mistakes were made but none that were serious. To be fair apart from the media frenzy, the excavation was warranted, not to do so would have left too many unanswered questions. Thankfully there were no bodies found, but ironically it is evident that because none were found, in some people’s eyes the excavation represents a failure. I am afraid it was a case of being damned if one dug and damned if one did not.

The time was quickly eaten up but much of Mr Power’s 65,000 word statement was untouched. At one time I just wondered where the Panel was going and why so much time was devoted to matters which Mr Power was not responsible for. His apparent mismanagement of Mr Harper was covered and it soon became evident that it was more about perception than fact.

Mr Power’s suspension was world news and a cruel and unjustified act as substantiated in the Napier Report. It was also as a result of poorly planned conspiracy which led to the ending of a distinguished career and a bill of around £2million in a futile attempt to justify it. Surprisingly and almost as after though the Panel addressed the matter in the last 5 minutes of the Hearing, why?

It is to be hoped that when those responsible for Mr Power’s suspension appear before the COI more than 5 minutes will be devoted to finding out why they took such drastic and unjustified action.

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (12)---- Culture of Concealment Reigns On.

One of the interesting features emerging from the Committee of Inquiry (COI) Hearings is the variation in witnesses’ ability to recall events from the past. Some had a good memory, some a poor and on occasions it has been evident some had a selective memory.

Selective memory is often a convenient way of temporarily forgetting something which is expedient to forget. It was not that long ago that a senior Minister was unable to recall what he was reading on the plane. Even more recently he was unable to recall a conversation with the former Education Chief who claimed they had spoken about not reporting an allegation of abuse to the police.

In October the COI will be listening to some very interesting witnesses who will be commenting on the collusion between senior civil servants and Ministers and will be questioning the integrity of Ministers and the Council of Ministers in particular.

In the past month it has become evident that not only have other Ministers suffered from selective memory but the Council of Ministers is suffering from collective selective memory.

During my 18 years in the States I took a particular interest in the Licensing Law and successfully lodged a number of amendments which included approval for pubs to remain open all day on Sundays and for shops to sell alcohol after 1pm. Also at my instigation I conducted a review of the Island’s Licensing Law and among the recommendations was that anomalies in the fees charged for liquor licences should be addressed. Despite my offers to assist the Economic Development Department to conduct a review and to advance a new Licensing Law they were rejected.

In 2007 revenue received from license fees was around £272K per annum from over 600 premises and around £15 million received from Impôt Duties. To seek an increase in the fees requires States approval and until 2007 requests were made in September each year.

There are 7 categories of Licence and 7 scales of fees. However there is the nonsense of large supermarkets paying £114 for their licence which is the same as small corner shops, three times less than local football clubs who normally only open their bar on match days and four times less than the many small restaurants operating around the Island. There are a number of other anomalies which can be found in the link at the bottom of this blog.

In 2007 having again failed to persuade the Minister to agree to my request I lodged P117/2007 which sought States approval to request the Minister to review the structure of the current liquor licence fees with the view to introducing a more equitable licensing structure. Also and of equal importance was part 2 which requested the Minister to finalise the review within 12 months OR before any requests were made for further increases in Licensing fees.

The debate took place on 26^th September. The Minister, Senator Ozouf agreed that his assistant Minister Senator MacLean should act as rapporteur and on his behalf accepted my proposition and I quote part of his speech “First of all, I would just like to thank the Deputy of St. Martin for liaising with the Department in such a constructive manner over this issue. We clearly welcome his proposition. We support it, just so that Members are not in any doubt whatsoever, and we will be moving forward to ensure that an appropriate review is carried out, not only in the narrow constraints of this particular proposition but certainly in a more wide-ranging review.” The full Hansard Report can be read via the link below.

What has this got to do with selective memory you may ask?  Well since the 2007 debate no review has been conducted and no increase has been sought until a couple of weeks ago when the Minister for Economic Development lodged P94/2015 asking for a 17% hype in the license fees The reason given for the increase is because fees have not risen since 2007, they need to be rectified and brought up to date in line with inflation. How ever there is no mention as to why there has been no increase or of the 2007 States decision, why?

This brings me back to selective memory because it’s difficult to accept that not one current Minister or civil servant can remember the 2007 proposition or asked why there has been no annual request. Senator MacLean is now the Minister of Finance, has he forgotten the proposition? The same could be said of Senator Bailhache who as Bailiff would have given consent for my proposition to be lodged and presided during the debate which was unanimously approved via a Standing Vote. Have fellow Ministers like Gorst, Ozouf, Routier and Pryke also forgotten or asked why there has been no request for an increase for long? Have none of the newer Ministers asked questions or are they so bound to collective obedience. 

Before a proposition can be lodged it has to be approved by the Bailiff who by coincidence also heads the Licensing Bench. I am surprised that he has not insisted on a rescindment of the 2007 decision before approving P94/2015. It is common knowledge among the Licensing trade why fees have not been raised since the 2007 decision yet that fact seems to be unknown to Ministers, their civil servants and even the head of the Licensing Bench. I found this memory loss hard to accept so did a bit of research.

The Minister’s report in P94/2015 which can be read in full in the link below says “following consultation with key stakeholders it has been agreed that whilst the up-rating is long overdue, in order to reduce the financial burden on licensees, the increases will phased over 2 years.”  As the report makes no mention of the 2007 States decision I thought it was wise to check with some of the key stakeholders seeking information as to what the consultation entailed.

I have checked with key stakeholders who have confirmed that they met a minister and civil servant but only to be informed that the fees would be going up, but to ease the burden they would be raised in two rather than one year. They maintain that they raised the issue of the States decision in 2007 and why the increase was sought before the outcome of the review. However they were told that the increase was going ahead irrespective of the States decision."

I have no reason to question the stakeholder’s version of events because asking about the 2007 decision is probably the first question anyone including States Members would ask.

What is now evident is that Ministers and civil servants are aware of the 2007 decision but have chosen to omit that fact in the report. The States has had 8 years to conduct the review but has failed. Not only does it hide the truth but the anomalies still exist because the promised review has not been carried out.

The Council of Ministers is desperate to fill the black hole it created and via the Economic Minister is seeking an increase in Licence fees; however the manner in which it seeks the increase does little for its integrity or reputation. It is evident that by concealing the truth the Ministers and Civil Servants are being underhand and unprofessional. What ever reason it chooses to deny that fact it will do little to persuade the "thinking public" that the culture of concealment and collusion still exists in Jersey and should not go unnoticed by the Committee of Inquiry.

If the Council of Ministers can go to such lengths to conceal the truth for such minor matters like increasing Licence fees than it begs the question what has it been concealing in relation to abuse allegations, Operation Rectangle, the Graham Power suspension and many other related matters.

I shall be forwarding this blog to the relevant Ministers suggesting that P94/2015 be withdrawn and the States decision of 2007 be implemented before any rise in fees is requested.. 

The original Proposition P 117/2007 can be read by clicking HERE

The Minister's Proposition P94/2015 can be read by clicking HERE

The 2007 Hansard report can be read by clicking HERE and scroll well down until reaching Paragraph 11

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.

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (3) ----A Myth Exposed.

It is now almost a month since the Committee of Inquiry got under way and on 23rd July I published a Blog on that first Hearing. In that Blog whilst being supportive of the Committee of Inquiry (COI) I registered some concerns which had not been addressed.

I will start with the 13 questions that the former Deputy Daniel Wimberley had submitted including some relating to the Terms of Reference, (TOR). Daniel who was a leading player in getting States approval for the COI is concerned that it may only be looking into abuse in Care Homes and not in other establishments such as Victoria College and the Jersey Sea Cadets. I hope the COI is looking because among the exhibits I have submitted with my statement is the Sharp Report into the abuse at Victoria College.

Daniel is also seeking assurance that the TOR includes the issues surrounding the suspension of the former Chief of Police Graham Power. Again I hope that matter is included because I have submitted a number of documents in relation to that matter. The COI relies on the goodwill and co-operation it can engender from people like Daniel and should be building bridges and not walls therefore not only does he require an early answer but it must be placed in the public domain.

Daniel's questions can found in theVoiceforChildren Blog published on 21st July and can be read by clicking HERE

I am also disappointed that my other two concerns have not been addressed as witnesses are not being updated and neither is the COI website. However having reported on the negatives I want to concentrate on the positives and in particular on the witnesses who appeared before the COI yesterday.

It takes courage to appear before any public body and yesterday we saw that courage displayed by two witnesses now well into their 70s who not only suffered at the hands of those entrusted to care for them but had to wait for over 60 years to be publicly heard.

Yesterday the two elderly pensioners exposed the myth that everything in the Jersey garden was rosy. They put to shame those States Members and the media which ridiculed the professionalism displayed by Graham Power and Lenny Harper in implementing Operation Rectangle and those who opposed the establishment of the COI. Sadly but predictably the perceived great and the good were no where to found. No doubt they will say that what happened 60 years ago would not happen today.

They may well be right however I am sure that as more witnesses come forward we shall again hear that such events would not happen today, but things will only change because of the shame of what has happened and of its denial. Both witnesses said they came forward in the hope that what they endured will not happen to others. Their small but positive and brave step will go a long way in ensuring that their suffering was not in vain.

We heard how they were placed in the Boys and Girls Homes as orphans if in a Victorian Age. There was no mention of a Mr Bumble but it is evident that there were many bumbling bureaucrats who allowed acts of brutality and neglect to occur. It was interesting to hear two people who were unknown to each other recalling incidents which were not dissimilar. It was very helpful that a former resident from the Girls Home had come forward as its residents have been silent victims for too long.

The Jersey Home for Girls was situated in Grouville and its residents attended Grouville School some half mile away. It was demolished to make way for a housing estate.There was an amalgamation with the Boys Home which became known as Haut de la Garenne. The residents at the Home for Boys were educated at the Home until July 1946 when the senior boys were transferred to St Martin's Elementary School.

The witnesses claimed that they treated like criminals and made to feel like second class citizens because of where they resided. I made a number of notes and at times felt a sense of empathy because I attended St Martin’s School from 1947 to 1955 along with around 60 boys from the Home for Boys. In those days school life was difficult and the cane, ruler and pencil were a regular form of punishment, however unlike the boys from the Home we had a home to go to after school.

Among my notes was how one witness described how she felt when the Island was liberated from the German Occupying Forces. Although the Island was being liberated she did not feel that she was because she had to remain in the Home and then be sent as in servitude to work as a domestic without pay in a large house not many miles away.

By coincidence on the bus yesterday morning I sat along side a former Home for Boy who had told me that on leaving school he had to work on a farm without pay for 3 years. As a former inmate he had to be grateful that someone would house and feed him whilst learning how to fend for himself.

It was a sad but illuminating day and will have given the COI much food for thought. As an aside I believe the Panel should be a bit more probing as to why the witnesses were incarcerated in the first place and who was responsible. Also it was evident that the members of the COI still do not understand the difference between a Senator and Centenier or the States or Honorary Police or a Connetable and Constable. If blame or praise is to be apportioned it is imperative that the Lawyers and COI know the difference so that a true account is recorded.  

As mentioned above it takes courage to appear before any public body, but to their credit both lawyers were considerate and helpful when taking the witnesses through their evidence. Also when asking questions they allowed ample time for the answers. If there are any would be witnesses still doubting whether their evidence is relevant I ask that they make contact with the Inquiry Team via freephone 0800 735 0100 or email  info@jerseycareinquiry.org

A transcript of yesterday's hearing will be available on the Care Website which can accessed by clicking Here There is no Hearing today but a witness will be appearing tomorrow at 10am.

Jersey's Dean-- The True financial cost-- A "Very Expensive Mess???"

I was aware that at the recent General Synod held in York the Dean of Portsmouth the Very Reverend David Bindley had asked a question regarding the costs incurred following the fall out between the Bishop of Winchester and Jersey’s Dean. I applied for the actual written question and answer and have now received it. By coincidence it also coincided with leaked details of costs to BBC Radio Jersey who have kindly made them available to me.

The following is Rev. Bindley’s question:  

“What have been the Episcopal legal costs borne by the Church Commissioners in relation to the recent discussions between the Diocese of Winchester and the Channel Islands about safeguarding issues and Episcopal oversight?”

Mr Andreas Whittam Smith as First Church Estates Commissioner gave the following answer: 

“The Church Commissioners agreed with the diocese of Winchester we would pay 50% of the costs of the Steel investigation and the Gladwin visitation, both of which relate to safeguarding, though not to Episcopal oversight.  To date this has amounted to about £95,000 including all professional fees and expenses.  Further costs are expected to be incurred before the Steel report is published and the Gladwin visitation is concluded. The Commissioners have not paid any costs associated with the arrangements for Episcopal oversight in the Channel Islands.”

I seem to recall that at the outset of the investigations the sum of around £500k was being banded about as the likely cost, therefore the sum of £95k must have been a figure plucked from the air or paid at the early stage of proceedings because they do not in any way relate to the estimated cost or to the figures leaked to BBC Radio Jersey which are as follows: 

Church Commissioner Support to Winchester Diocese (Matched funding) £195K

Winchester direct expenditure £200k

 Gladwin Report fees (estimated) £ 50K. Steel Report fees (estimated) £ 50K,

 Dean’s legal fees £150K

 Estimated total £645K 

Bishop Dakin had been invited by Radio Jersey to comment on the figures but he declined, however Bishop Wilmot was interviewed. He promptly disputed the figures but declined to give the actual cost which seems self defeating.

The one thing we can all agree on is that lawyers do not come cheap so to claim that £95,000 covers all professional fees and expenses does raise eyebrows and I am far from convinced that the £95k will be anywhere near the final total.

It interesting to note that the Dean’s legal fees are estimated to be £150,000, which seems to be extortionate, hopefully they are wildly exaggerated but leads one to ask who should pay for the Dean’s legal fees, particularly as it was his handling of the abuse complaint which led to the very expensive events that followed.

When the former Police Chief Graham Power was suspended he received no financial assistance to challenge the decision or defending the allegations that followed. I am not advocating that the Dean should be placed in the same position but ask who is responsible for paying his legal expenses and is there a capping policy because the system is open to abuse.

I hope that when the final bill is paid a breakdown of the costs will be published because in addition to the legal fees nearly £400,000 has been spent by Church Commissioner Support to Winchester Diocese (Matched funding £195K) and Winchester direct expenditure (£200k). What is that expenditure for?

One also has to ask what have the ordinary Winchester and Jersey members of their congregations got for their money and will anyone be taken to task for what seems to be obscene expenditure? Whilst asking that question there is another, because it appears that as a result of the “temporary” oversight of Jersey from the Bishop Winchester to the Bishop of Dover it is likely to lead to the ordinary Jersey taxpayers, many who are not members of the Church of England paying for additional support for the Dean, why? 

Last month Deputy Le Fondre who has yet to ask of HG's welfare lodged another question in respect of the Dean’s hardship. The question to the Chief Minister was as follows,

Question

In view of the passing of interim Episcopal oversight from Winchester to Dover announced by the Dean of Jersey in the Assembly on 13th May 2014, and the recognition by the Deanery Synod on 3rd June 2014 of the additional administrative burdens laid upon the Dean in consequence, would the Chief Minister consider investigating the resources available to the Office of the Dean of Jersey and consider whether some assistance should be provided to support the Dean in the performance of his official duties?

Answer

I am content to consider the resources available to the Office of the Dean of Jersey and whether some assistance should be provided to support the Dean in his official duties. Although the Office of the Dean of Jersey is a non-Ministerial States funded body, and no Minister is responsible to the States Assembly for its administration or funding, given the unique circumstances, I am content to consider this matter, consult with the Deanery Synod and make recommendations.

The answer is interesting because no explanation is given as to what the unique circumstances are and why the” temporary” transfer should require additional resources.

At present the Office of the Dean of Jersey receives £25,900 per annum which if the Budget (page 169) is approved will rise to £26,100. No explanation is given as to why that sum is paid or what the expenditure is for. Perhaps Deputy Le Fondre will ask that question.

At the outset of the investigation, Bishop Gladwin described the situation as a mess. 15 months on he might agree that it is now  “a very expensive” mess.