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 (15)----Phase 2, Halfway Point.

          

 

          The next phase of the Hearing will commence next Tuesday 20th October.
 

In Part 1, the Panel heard evidence from former residents of the Jersey care system, those who worked in child care services and those accused of abuse.

Phase 2, will look at the decisions taken in relation to the timing of the police investigation, subsequent decisions to prosecute alleged abusers, whether or not those responsible for deciding which cases to prosecute took a professional approach and was that process free from political interference.

 

In Phase 3, the final phase of the Inquiry, will examine whether the child care system since the war was adequate, what went wrong, has the system changed for the better and what is the way forward.

Those who have been following the Inquiry will have been impressed with the Panel's attempts to seek out the truth and it is now evident that there were victims of abuse and their concerns were not adequately addressed.

In Phase 2 the Panel will seek to establish the competence of those entrusted with responsibility of safeguarding the interests of the victims and did they short change those who sought justice. Among those due to appear during the next few weeks are police officers, politicians, Crown Officers past and present and from all ranks.

 

We should hear what led to Operation Rectangle, was it justified and was it the failure that critics with vested interests have claimed. Were the Crown Officers even handed and were their decisions really in the public interest? I also hope the Panel will seek answers as to whether there was justification to suspend the Police chief and how was it that around £2million was spent trying to justify the suspension and to cover up the actions of those involved.

The schedule for next week’s Hearing is posted on the Jersey Care Inquiry Website, however for reader’s convenience I can report that proceedings get under way at 10am next Tuesday with an opening address which will be followed at 11am with the first witness Anton Cornelissen giving his evidence.

On Wednesday at 10 am, Brian Carter will give his evidence and at 2pm will be followed by Emma Coxshall.  I understand the 3 witnesses are from police headquarters.

On Thursday at 10am I am due to give evidence and note that I am to be followed at 2pm by an unnamed public witness which awaits confirmation.

Whilst I have no wish to stay in the witness box for as long as Alastair Cook is at the crease during the current Test Match, given the length of my statement I will be surprised if we don’t need a bit of extra time.

 

I believe the next Phase will be illuminating and with the approach of Guy Fawkes it’s likely that there will be a few extra fireworks coming our way.  It is evident that the Panel has been doing its home work and has been prepared to challenge witnesses to substantiate claims made in their statements. Therefore it will be interesting to see how well the so called heavyweights cope with their evidence.

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (7) Mounting Cost-- The Cost of Success?

The Independent Panel enquiring into child abuse in Jersey is coming to the end of its first year and it is quite clear that it is far exceeding the estimated cost. It is now evident that the estimated cost of £6 millIon was very much a poor guesstimate and Panel Chairman Frances Oldham made the Council of Ministers aware of the potential costs in May last year. Please see pages 24/25 of proposition 20/2015 which can be opened by clicking HERE.

It is evident that little attention has been given to the COI’s progress or resultant cost and it is only now that Chief Minister Senator Gorst has lodged a proposition asking the States to agree that up to a further £14 million should be made available in order to provide additional funding to allow for the Committee of Inquiry to complete its task.

One of the difficulties in setting a cost for the Inquiry was that no one really knew of the extent of the abuse or of its covering up. What is becoming abundantly clear is that as confidence in the Panel has grown further witnesses have come forward. That in itself is a success; however it comes at a cost.

What should be noted is that the Committee of Inquiry (COI) has yet to get its teeth into the Terms of Reference relating to Operation Rectangle whose spiralling costs were so heavily but unfairly criticized and was one of the excuses given for the unprecedented suspension of our police chief. As confidence in the police grew more witnesses, information and evidence became available and like the COI is now experiencing, this led to spiralling costs.

Sadly certain irresponsible and mischievous sectors of our community took pleasure in ridiculing the police investigations by questioning the cost of flights and menus of some of the inquiry team rather than expending their energy on supporting the police and encouraging witnesses to come forward. Fortunately the COI has not yet suffered that indignity however it does not mean that it has a licence to print money.

In her response to Senator McLean’s concerns about the spiralling cost Mrs Oldham quite rightly reminded him “of the extremely serious matters relating to the history for care of children in Jersey which must be explored and addressed if the victims and indeed the whole Island is to move on from what has been a very negative experience over recent years.” Mrs Oldham is clearly not enamoured by the Minister’s protestations nor will she be diverted from her goal. 

Goodness knows how much money was spent on covering up allegations of abuse and malpractice and those costs are now coming to haunt us. Whilst I abhor wanton waste and a tight reign must be kept on expenditure, particularly legal fees it is not acceptable for the Chief Minister to attempt to put a cap on the cost of establishing the truth.

It is interesting to note that Senator Bailhache who did not vote in support of the Committee of Inquiry is now suggesting that the final bill could be in the region of £50 million. Whilst I don’t have a crystal ball, I don’t have a hidden agenda either and to curtail the Inquiry or to pull the plug on it because it’s getting expensive would be nonsense. There are some who might think that citing cost and putting caps on expenditure is not only scare mongering but another attempt to stop getting to the truth.

I note that the Chief Minister is proposing that the Inquiry and the States publish jointly on their websites details of their expenditure on a monthly basis. It was my understanding that that proposal had been agreed at the outset so the sooner more sets of eyes are looking at the costs the better.  

As mentioned above the proposition relating to the request for future funding is P20/2115 which also be reading by clicking HERE.

Voiceforchildren has recently published a blog on the funding and can be read by clicking HERE

2014=== A Reflection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.