The Dean, Bishop and Good Shepherds, Fact or Fiction?

The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Winchester have both given unreserved apologies to the complainant known as HG. It is unknown whether the apologies were delivered personally or in writing but it appears that HG is the forgotten person as supporters on both sides make their positions known. There are calls for the Dean to be reinstated for a number of reasons, but cool heads are required and it is to the Acting Dean’s credit that he has circulated the following letter to the Clergy.
                                     ******************************
Friends,

The last week and a half has been enormously difficult for all of us. Thank you for your support.

Saturday’s meeting with Bishop Tim provided a welcome and much-needed opportunity to discuss the events leading up to Bob’s suspension. I was personally grateful for the opportunity to meet in person and for the service beforehand.

We now know that Bishop John Gladwin will be leading the upcoming investigation and visitation and I understand that he will be assisted in this by Norman Russell, Archdeacon of Berkshire. I do think the process being put in place is a welcome next step and I am sure all those involved will require our support and cooperation.

It goes without saying that there is there is considerable respect and love for Bob and Daphne in Jersey. Nevertheless, the recently-published Independent Review raised a number of very serious issues and it is absolutely for the best, not just for Bob but for the Church in Jersey and beyond, that these things are investigated properly. Support for Bob and support for what we trust will be a full and thorough investigation should surely be seen as mutually and entirely inclusive.

Finally, but not least today, there has been a great deal of unhelpful speculation in the press around constitutional questions. Much of this has only served to distract from the fundamental issue of safeguarding which, like the Bishop, we must be clear is at the heart of the Church’s mission. Whatever other conversations are required, the very best practice in safeguarding has got to be our overriding concern here. I know each of you places the greatest importance on safeguarding, as do I, and this is why we must look forward to the next steps in this process.

For now, I encourage you to continue in praying for all those involved and especially Bishop John Gladwin and Archdeacon Norman Russell in their leading of the inquiries.

Yours in Christ, Canon Geoff Houghton, Acting Dean of Jersey.
                               *******************************

Given the circumstances and the Review's/Report’s preliminary findings I don’t think the Bishop had any alternative other than withdraw the Commission of the Dean of Jersey, it is a pity that decisive action was not taken years ago whereby the former Bishop of Winchester could also have been “suspended” because I believe he has much to answer for.  If he was supposed to be a good shepherd he certainly allowed the wool to be pulled over his eyes. I may add that although in layman’s language the Dean is suspended, there is a difference between withdrawing the Commission and suspension. At last Tuesday’s States Sitting Members were reminded that as far as the States is concerned the Dean is at liberty to take his seat in the House. I am sure that statement was met with utter bewilderment by HG.

The Dean is reported as saying, “In Jersey there is a real feeling that suspending someone reverses the burden of proof in the public mind. Instead of our much cherished ‘innocent until proven guilty’, the suspended person becomes thought of (no matter what those in authority may say), as ‘Guilty until exonerated.’

I agree with that statement, the suspension is supposed to be a neutral act but has been used as a blunt but effective tool to end careers because of the time taken to complete the investigation. I can understand the Dean’s concerns, he is entitled to an even handed and timely investigation and hopefully that will be the case.

People will now have had time to read and digest the Independent Report written by Jan Korris. It would have been helpful if a Time Line had been included because it would have been easier to see how the matter was allowed to fester and like the Titanic was heading for disaster almost upon the Dean’s receipt of HG’s complaint.

As much as I respect protocols they do not override safeguarding victims or addressing their complaints, yet that appears to have been the problem with this case. It was in the autumn of 2008 that the Safeguarding Advisor (JF) informed the Bishop that the Diocese could be hugely exposed if the Church Warden was allowed to continue in post. Yet the warning went unheeded. It should be recalled that at that time the eyes of the world were focused on Jersey and the way it was investigating what became known as Jersey’s Historical Abuse. Concerns were being openly expressed about cover ups and old boy networks, yet this elephant in the room was not seen by the Dean nor the Bishop and his advisors.

I can understand the author’s difficulty in compiling a report and sifting through around 2000 documents, not having sight of the Dean’s nor the Vicar’s documents, plus meeting resistance from the Dean, his wife and the Island’s clergy, however I do believe there are some issues in the Report which needs to be addressed.

Whilst the Report is mainly about the Dean, it is evident that the former Bishop of Winchester was completely out of his depth and never got a grip of the situation. It is also evident that he never sought advice from senior church leaders including the Archbishop to overcome the impasse with Jersey’s Dean.

It is reported that “Bishop Michael described himself at interview as having been submerged in his role and facing very many tasks. He agreed that there was a difficulty in stopping and reflecting, or seeking external expertise and support. In an email to the Safeguarding Advisor in April 2009 Bishop Michael looks at the deteriorating situation and regrets he did not take a more forceful approach earlier on.”

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it cannot be used as an excuse for utter failure by a very senior church figure. The Bishop not only let himself down but it was at the expense of a highly vulnerable lady who was seeking his help.

The Report states that the situation was not helped because the Diocesan Chief Executive A.R. was away from July 2009 – September 2010. I ask how that claim can be made. HG first made contact with the Bishop’s Office on 13th September 2008 which was almost 10 months before AR temporally left his post, what was AR doing in the meantime? He claims “the Diocese takes its safeguarding duties very seriously.” If it does, there is little evidence of this being the case in 2008.

It is also reported that upon receipt of HG’ s email to the Bishop on 13th September 2008, the Bishop’s Lay Assistant (M.S) in forwarding the letter to J.F. on 14th September, commented in the referral, “I have been in contact with [R.K.], and he thinks it’s all a lot of nonsense.” One may ask why did the Lay Assistant make contact with the Dean and what was his motive? Surely his job was to forward the email directly to the Safeguarding Advisor ?

On page 25 the author covers the arrest and HG leaving the Island, I believe the matter needs clarification because what is recorded is not accurate. What is evident is that in September 2010 the Bishop was visiting the Island, staying with the Dean and was to attend a Church Service on 26th September. There was concern that HG might disrupt the Service and somehow a Harassment Order was obtained to prevent HG disrupting the Service. There is no explanation as how the Harassment Order was obtained or the circumstances in which it was executed.

However it is apparent that HG was arrested on or just before the Church Service on 26th September then charged and held overnight in police custody to appear before the Magistrate on Monday 27th September. It is evident that HG was remanded in custody at La Moye Prison and appeared before the Magistrate two weeks later on Monday 11th October 2010. It is also evident that the Safeguarding Advisor became aware of the situation because in her Report she records "her concern at these extreme measures and worked at setting up care for her with the prison chaplain.” However we do not know what she achieved or what help or advice HG received.

What is known is that the Safeguarding Advisor (JF) was shocked when on 11th October H.G. was bound over and summarily deported from the Island for three years and put on a plane with no-one to meet her, no planned accommodation and no money. J.F. wrote to Bishop Michael, “Whilst I don’t think this is our responsibility in that the court decision and action was not of our making, I do feel we have a basic responsibility, as we would have for anyone, to do all we can to ensure her wellbeing.”

I have made enquiries into the matter and it is apparent that when HG appeared before the Magistrate on 28th September there was a Duty Advocate in attendance but it is not known what advice, if any was given to HG. I have been unable to ascertain what advice or assistance was given during the 2 week remand period but at the Magistrate’s Court on 11th October HG was represented via Legal Aid by an Allocated Advocate. I do not know what pre court time was given to HG but I am advised that the Court has no authority to deport any one from the Island and contrary to what is recorded on page 25 HG was not summarily deported.

In cases of Harassment the accused is given the option of being bound over to leave the Island or accepting what ever sentence the Court considers to be appropriate. I am told that on the advice of the Advocate HG chose to be bound over to leave the Island. Given what is known of HG’s health one wonders whether she received the appropriate help and advice at the time of her arrest, whilst in custody or at her Court appearances.

What is evident that despite JF stating that “in her opinion the Diocese had a basic responsibility, as we would have for anyone to do all we can to ensure HG’s wellbeing,” it is unknown whether anyone accepted any responsibility and I include the Jersey authorities? Surely it must have been or should have been made evident to the Court that shipping HG to the UK was akin to sending a time bomb which was likely to explode at any time.

On page 41 the author records, “The decision and manner of H.G.’s deportation requires further investigation. It is clearly a matter of concern that a vulnerable adult in such a distressed state could be removed from Jersey with no thought to her imminent care needs. It seems surprising that the complainant against H.G., in this case the Dean of Jersey on behalf of the Church, was not consulted or informed about the decisions taken, or action planned, concerning H.G.’s future. There are no records of communication from R.K. with the Diocese at this time and Bishop Michael later expressed shock and distress that the deportation had occurred.”

This is a statement I entirely endorse the need for further investigation and to this end I shall forward details of this Blog to our Chief Minister. I believe  this is an Island matter and should be addressed via an Inquiry/investigation. I will request the Chief Minister to take immediate steps to address the matter and make his intentions known via a Statement before or at the next States Sitting which because of the Easter holidays is not until Tuesday 16th April.

The author records “the Church let H.G. down. Despite the difficulties of her background and disablement, and struggle with some everyday practicalities, H.G. was none-the-less in employment, pursuing hobbies, socializing and wanting to be accepted in the church community. Over the next three years H.G.’s life changed from having no history of being in trouble with the law, to having a police record and being a displaced person, homeless on the streets of the mainland.”

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.

Jersey’s Historical Abuse Inquiry—the Nelson Touch?

It has been said that a week in politics is a long time, I don’t know if it was for those actively involved in politics but last week was certainly one of interest as I picked up news from afar in Tenerife. A few months ago my wife and I decided that we would take a 10 day break in early March to find some sun. We are pleased to say we found plenty but were disappointed to find that Jersey was still deep in the throes of winter on our return. The snow was that deep that we could not return to our home and spent the night in a hotel.

I knew little of Tenerife’s history and visited the site where a fort once stood and from where the musket ball was fired shattering Lord Horatio Nelson’s right arm when attempting what turned out to be a futile invasion in 1799. I will return to Lord Nelson later.

Whilst away the Child Abuse debate was successfully concluded and there was also the revelation of the Dean’s alleged failure to satisfactorily deal with a complaint from a lady who claimed to be an abuse victim. This is a matter which has been well covered by Voice for Children Blog.

I had hoped to be present when the States debated the long awaited proposition but because it was twice deferred it clashed with our pre-planned holiday. However in my Blog which I published a couple of days prior to my holiday, I said I was hopeful that all the amendments, including Deputy Tadier’s would be unanimously approved. I also said that the eyes of the world would be looking on and in particular on those Members who had previously unsuccessfully opposed the proposition to establish a Committee of Inquiry.

To get back to Lord Nelson, prior to the Battle of Trafalgar he sent a message to all under his command that “England expects that every man will do his duty” On Wednesday 6th March the Jersey taxpayers and in particular those who had in any way been subjected to abuse were expecting that every States Member would do their duty. Although I had hoped that all Members would give their support it was perfectly in order for those with opposing views to express them and vote accordingly.

Unfortunately not every States Member did their duty, and when asked to support Midshipman Tadier’s amendment to provide the Committee of Inquiry with balls for their muskets Admiral Gorst and Rear Admiral Le Gresley declined to do so and before any one could say “kiss me Hardy” 11 members of various ranks jumped ship and retreated no doubt to the safety of the Members’ tea room.

Fortunately following several broadsides from the lower ranks both Messrs Gorst and Le Gresley remembered that they were supposed to be at the helm and agreed to provide the musket balls. However it was apparent that neither could persuade the 11 deserters to return to their posts. There are times when Members do get out caught short and because the toilets are some distance they may not be able to return to vote if suddenly called upon to do so. Given that Deputy Tadier had to sum up that should have provided ample  opportunity for every Member to return to their seats not only to listen to the summing up but also to vote. It is hard to believe that all 11 were stuck in the toilet so why were they not present to vote?

It is now on record that Deputy Tadier’s amendment was approved by 38 votes with no one voting “Contre.” However no one will ever know how many of the 11 absentees would have voted against had they been present.

What is known is that 4 of the absentees were also among the 6 absent when the vote was taken on the proposition as amended. The 4 were Senator’s Bailhache and Ozouf along with Connetable Rondel and Deputy Rondel. No doubt each will have their own reasons for not being present but given the importance of the vote one would have expected each to have given reasons for their absence, particularly as they could have been valid.

I don’t want to speculate on the reasons for their absence or pick on any one particular member but I was disappointed to note Senator Bailhache’s lack of involvement. Had he asked to be excused from participating in the debate due to the fact that as a former Crown Officer he was conflicted one could have accepted his absence.

As he chose not to declare an interest one would have assumed that given his position as Assistant Chief Minister and with responsibility for affairs outside the Island he would have spoken and voted in favour of both parts of the proposition. It should also be recalled that as Bailiff in 2008 he strongly condemned the World’s Press for publishing what he considered to be misleading and derogatory information about the Historic Abuse Investigation and the Island in particular. So why was the Senator absent and why was he not doing his duty to the Island’s electorate?

Now that the mechanism for appointing the Committee of Inquiry and its Terms of Reference have been approved it will be for the Chief Minister to ensure that there is no further procrastination and the wheels are kept turning. Not that anyone should be thinking of erecting a Gorst Column in the Royal Square, but due credit should be given to Senator Gorst for the manner in which he eventually accepted amendments to the original proposition and by proposing them it certainly ensured a smoother passage through the States.

It is to be hoped that he is now a wiser man and his performance in the debate will have done much to enhance his leadership whereas the colours of the other would be Chief Ministers were badly shredded and are irreparable.

There is still a long way to go and no doubt there will be much soul searching along the way because it is almost inevitable that some unsavoury acts or omissions will come to light during the Inquiry. However I am confident that Senator Gorst will have now realised that it much better to be true to his beliefs and of his duty to the public he serves than be swayed by the views of some Ministers close to him. Who knows he too may develop the “Nelson Touch.”

Jersey's Historical Abuse Inquiry--No Stone Left Unturned??

On 1st March 2011 the States approved P19/2011 as amended; which requested the Council of Ministers (COM) to establish a Committee of Inquiry (COI) into Jersey's Historical Child Abuse. It has taken the COM two years to draft a proposition seeking to provide a mechanism to appoint a COI along with its Terms of Reference (TOR).

The public is entitled to know why it has taken 2 years to lodge a proposition which is due to be debated next Tuesday 5th March. Very few people are aware of the reasons for the procrastination or the difficulties a small group of interested stake holders had to overcome to ensure that the proposals will do justice to the Island and the abuse survivors in particular.

Two years ago Senator Le Gresley lodged a proposition P19/2011 requesting the COM to reconsider its decision not to establish a COI into the Historical Child Abuse. I was of the view that the COM would be only too pleased to accept the proposition, would take months to reconsider and come back to the House saying that it was retaining its original decision.

It should be noted that soon after the outset of the police investigation into Jersey's historical abuse in late February 2008, the Chief Minister at the time Senator Walker lodged a Report R27/2008 which contained 6 relevant issues and said that if they were not addressed the COM would establish a COI. He also said there would be no cover up, no expense would be spared and no stone would be left unturned.

I lodged an amendment to Senator Le Gresley's proposition asking the States to consider whether the 6 issues had been addressed, and if not then the COM should establish a COI. I also made it clear that if it was agreed to establish a COI its TOR should include addressing any other issues that had arisen during and/or had emanated from the investigation.

Deputy Tadier lodged an amendment to my amendment in which he very importantly asked that the TOR should include a review of the role of the Crown Officers and "Was a consistent and impartial approach taken when deciding on which cases to prosecute; and was the process free from political influence or interference at any level?”

Following a 5 hour debate Deputy Tadier's along with several of my 6 issues received States support by 37 votes to 11  and the COM was charged to lodge a proposition to establish a COI along with its TOR. It should be noted that at the end of that debate a promise was made by the then Chief Minister, Senator Le Sueur that, I along with a member of the Jersey Care Leavers Association, Deputy Tadier and Senator Le Gresley would be involved in drafting the TOR.

We were of the opinion that there had to be transparency in the appointment of the COI and its TOR should ensure that all avenues were explored and in the words of the former Chief Minister Frank Walker that “no stone would be left unturned” It also wanted to work closely with the COM to ensure that both parties were satisfied with the TOR and that the COI could get underway without undue delay.

In June 2011 we were asked to comment on a proposal to appoint Verita to draft a set of proposals along with TOR. We unanimously supported the proposal. In November 2011 following wide ranging consultation Verita came forward with a set of proposals along with TOR which appeared to be sound and robust.

It was evident that they were too robust for the COM because last summer it appointed Andrew Williamson to comment on the Verita Report. Mr Williamson came up with a watered down set of proposals which clearly influenced the COM.

Following a further period of procrastination on 6th November 2012 the COM lodged its proposition P118/2012 seeking States approval to establish a COI along with its TOR.  The date for debate was set for 15th January.

Unfortunately although the COM was frequently reminded, it did not keep its promise to discuss the way forward with Deputy Tadier, the Care Leavers represented by Ms Carrie Modral and myself (the Group). Following the Proposition’s lodging the Group was enlarged to include a small number of States members and very importantly Daniel Wimberley the former Deputy of St Mary.

The Group noted that the TOR fell far short of Verita’s recommendations so on 5th December wrote and submitted a set of amendments to the COM asking to meet to discuss them. Unfortunately on 18th December without consultation the documents were submitted to Verita for comment. They replied on 7th January and were generally supportive of the Group’s amendments.

Unfortunately the COM again declined to meet the Group to discuss the amendments or Verita’s response and on 5^th February went ahead and lodged most but not all of the Group’s amendments.

Doing this without meeting the group has turned out to be premature. Since that date (February 5th), we have had to lodge amendments, there have been meetings with the COM, they have lodged amendments and we have lodged a final amendment. It is all very confusing and could (mostly) have been avoided. However, as the saying goes, we are where we are.

The Group was of the view that after the COM lodged its amendments on 5th February that some lacked clarity, excluded some important areas and the issue of the Crown Officers position fell short of  Deputy Tadier’s approved amendment to P19/201. As a consequence of the COM's failure to accept or even discuss all of the Group's amendments Deputy Tadier lodged amendments to the COM's amendments on 12th February 

As a result a meeting was quickly arranged for the next day and the Group finally met the Chief Minister Senator Gorst and Senator Le Gresley to discuss the amendments and what common ground could be agreed.

The Group has always been of the belief that it should be for the COM to lodge any amendments to the TOR as they were more likely to be approved than if lodged in Deputy Tadier's name. The meeting on 13th ironed out a number of wrinkles and the Group is appreciative of the support, although belatedly from Senator Gorst but as I have pointed out above, it all could have been so much easier if Ministers had met with us far earlier. In a spirit of compromise it was agreed that Deputy Tadier would withdraw his amendments and some would be incorporated in further amendments which would be lodged by the COM.

On 27th February the COM lodged a further amendment(3) which will widen the scope of the COI to consider alleged abuse in non-States run establishments providing for children. It has also amended a limb of TOR 13 which relates to the Crown Officers. The amendment is subtle and instead of the words "whether those responsible for deciding on which cases to prosecute took a consistent, professional and impartial approach?" the words consistent and impartial have been removed.

The COM's reason for the amendment is based on an assurance from Verita that the word "professional" is sufficient. Verita says that "A characteristic of professional behaviour is one of objectivity. Objectivity means thinking and action undistorted by emotion or personal bias. The word "professional" therefore implies the characteristics of both consistency and impartiality."

Whilst the Group was willing to compromise by supporting the above amendment, it was of the view that the COI should not be constrained when reviewing the Crown Officers' role particularly in view of the States approving Deputy Tadier's amendment 2 years ago. It believes that the COM is being too prescriptive and should not be setting out the exact and only mechanism by which it will allow the COI to examine prosecution files.

Much concern has been expressed about the perceived inconsistency whereby some people have been prosecuted whilst others particularly in more senior positions have not. To echo the words of the former Chief Minister Walker, "there will be no cover up." So how will the COI address that allegation if its hands are tied? On 26th February Deputy Tadier lodged a further amendment Amd (2) asking the States to approve his amendment whereby the prosecution files "may be examined in a manner to be determined by the Committee."

The Group is mindful that the COM is being advised by the AG who is conflicted and is concerned that in paragraph 11 in his Comments lodged on 31st January he states "Neither the States nor a Committee of Inquiry can give directions to the effect that criminal proceedings should be brought in any particular case or given any direction relating to the investigative or prosecution process."

If the States or the COI cannot give directions, then who can? With respect to the AG and other Crown Officers they are public employees and should be accountable in some way to the Taxpayer. It may be that neither the States nor the COI can give directions, but surely someone should be able to ask the Crown Officers' to account for their decisions. That is what Deputy Tadier is seeking in his amendment and believes that the COI should have discretion in the way it conducts its inquiry into the prosecution process and it should not be constrained by the States Prosecutor who is also the legal advisor to the COM.

It is most unfortunate that the Chief Minister did not adhere to the promise given by his predecessor and work with the Group whose only objective was for an independent COI armed with the tools to do its job. Had he done so, not only would the matter have proceeded more expeditiously but there would have been a clear set of coherent Terms of Reference at the outset which would have made much easier reading than at present.

However "we are where we are" as the saying goes and hopefully the COM will lead from a united front including those Ministers who 2 years ago voted against establishing a COI.

It is important to show not just Island residents but the watching world that if the proposition and ALL the comprehensive and robust amendments are approved, it should allow the Committee to conduct an effective and timely inquiry which "will leave no stone unturned.”

I have previously published 3 Blogs relating to the Historical Abuse issue which may be helpful to those wishing further information.

Previous Blogs 30th  October 2012      Savile skeletons in the cupboard
                           6th    November 2012   One small step
                           28th November 2012    Possible amendments




.

Soft touch Jersey and the Improbable Knights

In my Blogs on the Curtis Warren Affair it became evident that a considerable sum of money was wasted on pointless investigations, suspensions and disciplinary hearings yet no one is accountable nor does it seem that anyone cares about it.

However it appears that the Police and the Home Affairs Minister are not the only ones to turn a blind eye to wanton waste because it seems that the Economic and Development Department (EDD) is also partial to a bit of wanton waste and can be seen as a “soft touch” when it comes to handing out £200,000 of tax payer’s money.

The matter would have remained under wraps had it not been for a keen eyed member of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) who then decided to scrutinise an application for £2million to finance a film. It should have been the Economic Development Scrutiny Panel’s responsibility to have scrutinised the application but somehow it flew under that Panel’s radar.

The PAC has recently held a Public Hearing to question the EDD’s Chief Officer and the transcript can now be found on its website but for reader’s benefit it can be downloaded here.

As one will see that in October 2010 a small group of people headed by an anonymous Jersey resident made an application to the EDD for support to finance a film which allegedly is to be partly filmed in Jersey. The original application was for £2m which is a considerable sum in any one’s language. It appears that figure was just a softener and rather than disappoint the applicants and with money coming out of EDD’s ears it eventually settled for doling out £200k on the spurious grounds that it might be on to a winner.

Unfortunately the chances of seeing any return on its bet oops sorry investment are as good as Arsenal winning this year’s Premiership. The film is supposed to be called Knights of the Impossingworth's. In 2005 a film company with the same name, Canbedone Productions produced a film called Knights of Impossingworth Park.

How successful was that film? There is no mention of it in the Ministerial Decision but it contains so many gaps and unanswered questions so why would that fact be of any interest? It is unclear as to whether the Ministerial Decision was included in EDD’s bundle, but if it was a pity that no questions asked about the ambiguities in the Chief Officer’s evidence and what is contained in the Ministerial Decision?

In the transcript one will see that a group of well intentioned States Members assisted by two members of the public interviewed the Chief Officer, however there did not appear to be anyone on the Panel with a film background, why? They never the less did ask some searching questions which received unsatisfactory answers. There does not appear to be any evidence to support the Chief Officer’s claims. Also when will the documents he said he would produce be forwarded to the PAC and does that Committee intend to hold further Hearings? It certainly should because there are a number of other pertinent questions that should also be asked of EDD’s Minister who signed the Ministerial Decision.

Questions like,

How was money allowed to go into a UK company? It is Jersey tax payer’s money after all. All receipts should be for money spent on the Island. To date it appears that no receipts have yet been produced, why has this been allowed to happen? At the very least questions should been asked by the EDD staff when the first sets of receipts were due, that was many months ago.

There is a mention of a Jersey Resident, who is he? Surely he should have some questions to answer.

Is there a 'script,' if so, has anyone read it? How much of the film is really to be shot in Jersey and if some is what are the scenes because it now appears that filming will take anywhere other than in Jersey.

If there is a script is it based on a book? Who wrote it and who owns the rights, does the book actually exist?

If Jersey is seeking to diverse its economy, how would Jersey be able to expand into the film industry by working with the Production Team?

There is a sum of £167k for rights, what does this mean?

Who is Noel Castley-Wright?

What track record does Kevin Cavelle have?

Should monies given not have been in the name of the Film 'Knights of the Impossingworth'? Is this not good housekeeping so that the Production Company is able to show receipts in a tidy way.

Why were the cheques in the name of the Production Company? This means money could be spent on anything to do with any other projects.

We know that legal advice was sought but what advice was obtained from anyone involved in the film industry? What due diligence was really applied and who checked any replies received?

The only relevant information that made sense in the Hearing’s transcript was that Tesco would not come in with funding until the film was bonded, quite right! They do finance movies that is correct but only when the film is bonded and ready to shoot!

Of course Tesco runs its company in a business like manner and is answerable to its shareholders. If only our civil servants and Ministers took a take a leaf out of Tesco’s book, just think of the savings Jersey could make.

Unfortunately we do not do business like Tesco and what odds would any one give that heads will roll if the Knights of Impossingworth don’t exist or get off the ground?


Friday 6th September 2013.

Since I published the above Blog there has been continued readership, as such I thought it would be helpful to update readers.

Below are are number of websites which are self explanatory. What is evident is that it is questionable whether anyone will be taken to task for what the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) claimed to be a "catalogue of errors."

A 5 strong Treasury Team, led by a chief internal auditor will review the entire affair, however what will it find that the PAC did not? One questions why there should be another Review when it is clear that the Knights are by name but not by nature and if any horses ever existed, they have certainly bolted.

For further information please click onto the sites below.

PAC Report

Minister's Response

States Employment Board Report

JEP Editorial 

Curtis Warren--- "Outrageous Questions"

There were 8 Curtis Warren related questions seeking answers in the States this morning 3 Written and 5 Oral where audio recordings can be found on “The Jersey Way” Blog later tonight.

The 3 Written Questions all lodged by Deputy Higgins are below along with the answers. The first about the Crown Officer’s accountability is one which has been raised in many of my Blogs. Whilst the AG has stated that the question was unclear as to what is meant by “complaint” I believe he has given a clear answer.

WRITTEN QUESTION TO H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER

Question

(a) Will H.M. Attorney General set out clearly each of the steps that need to be taken by anyone wishing to make a complaint (including misconduct) against the actions of any of the following office holders, explaining in detail each step and each level, until the matter reaches the persons or bodies ultimately responsible for determining such matters:

(i) Legally qualified members of the Law Officers Department;

(ii) Solicitor General;

(iii) Attorney General;

(iv) Deputy Bailiff;

(v) Bailiff;

(vi) Jurats;

(vii) Magistrates?

(b) To whom are the office holders (i) to (vii) listed above accountable for appraisal purposes?

Answer
a) The question is not clear as to what is meant by “complaint”, particularly in respect of the officer holders who are listed at (iv) to (vii) whose functions require them to act as judges in the Jersey courts. It is important to distinguish between two types of complaint in relation to a judge.

In so far as the complaint relates to matters occurring in the course of legal proceedings (for example, a complaint that the judge’s decision is wrong or that he or she has behaved unfairly or should not have sat because he or she had a conflict of interest) then the appropriate remedy is for the aggrieved party to use the judicial process and appeal or apply for doléance (an alternative method of review) where available.

Where the complaint alleges misconduct other than in the course of legal proceedings, then the appropriate course in respect of a complaint made against a Jurat or a Magistrate is to lodge that complaint with the Bailiff. The Bailiff can then decide if the complaint requires investigation. If it does, he will seek to replicate the procedures applied in England and Wales as far as possible and, where appropriate, will appoint an independent person to investigate the matter.

The process thereafter in respect of a Jurat is set out in the Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948.

The Bailiff can convene the Superior Number at the conclusion of any investigation so that the Royal Court can consider whether or not to petition the Privy Council seeking the removal of the Jurat (if no resignation is forthcoming) by Order in Council.

A Magistrate may only dismissed by Order in Council. Should the independent investigation merit such a course of action, the Bailiff would make a recommendation accordingly.

The Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff are appointed by Her Majesty and may only be dismissed by Her Majesty.

If a complaint of misconduct outside court proceedings concerns the Bailiff or the Deputy Bailiff then the complaint should be lodged with the Lieutenant Governor as Her Majesty’s personal representative. If he decides that the complaint requires investigation, he may appoint an independent person to investigate in the same manner as described above. Should the result of the investigation merit such a course of action, a recommendation can then be made to Her Majesty.

The Attorney General and the Solicitor General are appointed by Her Majesty and may only be dismissed be Her Majesty. The procedure for a complaint against either of them would be analogous to that in respect of the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff.

The Law Officers’ Department has its own internal disciplinary procedures and any complaint about a legally qualified member of staff should be made to the Attorney General in the first instance.

The procedures described above are designed to provide for effective investigation when merited but at the same time preserve the independence of the office holders as the independence of the judiciary and the prosecuting authorities is vital to the maintenance of the rule of law.

b) The management at the Law Officers Department conducts appraisals of legally qualified members of staff. The Law Officers and members of the Judiciary are not the subject of appraisals. The members of the Judiciary receive training on a regular basis. The Court’s judgements are subject to public scrutiny and litigants are able to exercise any rights of appeal.

****************************************************************************
I only heard a few of the Oral Questions this morning but I heard Senator Le Marquand the Home Affairs Minister complaining that the questions about the Discipline Hearing were “outrageous.” In his answer below he says he “strongly deplores the decision of the disciplinary tribunal being used in this way.” The Minister is entitled to that view but there are members of the public who are outraged and strongly deplore the spending of hundreds and thousands of pounds and thousands of police hours on pointless investigations and discipline hearings. Someone must be accountable, if it is not the Chief Police Officer or the Home Affair’s Minister, who is?

The criticism of the unsigned statements came from Chief Constable Barton; responsibility for the evidence being used by the prosecution was not that of Hants Police but the Jersey Police. The unsigned statements were not the only things that troubled the Chief Constable and clearly he chose to express his displeasure.

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
BY DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER

Question

Following the unauthorised publication of the judgement of the disciplinary hearing against 3 police officers will the Minister -

a) explain why the signed statements of the three police officers who faced a disciplinary hearing over the bugging of the hire car of one of the defendants in the Curtis Warren case were not made available at the disciplinary hearing which resulted in unsigned statements transposed onto Hampshire Police paper being introduced instead;

b) state whether or not the evidence in the unsigned statements was disputed by any of parties to the hearing and, if so, the nature of the disputed evidence?

Answer,
I strongly deplore the decision of the disciplinary tribunal being used in this way. Not only was the hearing by law held in private, but also, the presiding Chief Officer expressly stated in his verbal decision that he did not expect to see his comments in the media and that he did not authorise the use of his comments other than for this hearing; and, in his written decision that he did not authorise the publication of his written judgement other than for the purposes of this hearing.

Although I was initially minded to continue to decline to answer questions on the written decision, the outrageous nature of some of the questions posed to me which imply serious misconduct on the part of senior police officers has forced me into clarifying the position by answering a number of procedural questions.

(a) The Hampshire Police loaded the relevant statements into the HOLMES computer system as part of the investigation. Unfortunately, it was the printout of the statements which were presented as part of the agreed and disclosed bundles to the presiding Chief Officer and not the original statements. I am informed that the original signed statements were available at the hearing but the presiding Chief Officer did not refer to them.

(b) It would appear that one officer raised a question as to whether the HOLMES version of his statement was accurate.

*******************************************************************************
With reference to the question below, I agree with Senator Le Marquand that police officers must expect to be the subject of complaints, indeed to could be considered an occupational hazard particularly for those exposed to the sharp end of policing. However where this complaint differs from about 99% of all complaints is that it was instigated by the Chief Police Officer and supported by the Minister.

It has been reported that the 3 officers feel betrayed and one can understand their reaction when one reads the Discipline Judgement and sees that Hants Police were obstructed from completing their investigations by both the Police and Law Officers. We now hear that it was Hants Police who recommended disciplinary action how can that be if it did not have all the facts?

The decision to proceed with the disciplinary action rests squarely on the shoulders of the Deputy Police Chief who like the former Deputy Police Chief; Lenny Harper is responsible for discipline. It is evident that he got it wrong and it must have and I am told has left a bad taste and sadly a loss of respect for the senior management.

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIR'S By DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER

Question
Will the Minister explain how, following the recent disciplinary hearing which led to the exoneration of the three police officers involved in the Curtis Warren car bugging case -

(a) the police officers will be able to work closely and harmoniously with the senior officers who brought the disciplinary charges against them;

(b) how a trusting relationship between the police and the Law Officers’ Department will be restored; and,

(c) what the effects were of the illegal bugging in France, Belgium and Holland on the relations between those countries and Jersey and what steps have been taken to restore the trust and confidence of those authorities in the Jersey police and Law Officers’ Department?

Answer
(a) Disciplinary charges were brought following the recommendation of the investigating police force. Police officers are well aware that they will be subject from time to time to complaints and may be subject to a disciplinary hearing. The position in relation to disciplinary hearings is similar to that for a civil servant or other public employee. There should be no reason why a police officer who has been exonerated or made subject to a disciplinary sanction short of dismissal, and who remains able and fit for work, should not be able to return to normal duties.

(b) A strong professional relationship exists between the States of Jersey Police and the Law Officers’ Department and has not been harmed in any way by this action.

(c) There has been no detrimental effect to continued international relations with enforcement agencies. Requests for international assistance are undertaken in accordance with the law through appropriate letters of request and close scrutiny by the police and legal authorities.

Curtis Warren, the Jury Nobbler and the Phantom Cop

As predicted the Disciplinary Hearing Judgement has been leaked and it was critical of the police management and law officers. The Judgement which can be read via the Voice for Children Blog raises serious concerns about missing letters, money set aside for the potential expert and it seems inexplicable that senior officers aided by an Advocate would submit unsigned statements to a Tribunal. Surely an explanation must be forthcoming.

What also requires an explanation is the Hampshire Police’s claim about the lack of co-operation which can be found in paragraph 8 of the Judgement which states: “Be that as it may, and having now been informed that the letter was never sent, the position in relation to the co-operation by the Attorney General and the States Police in Jersey remains the same. I do find it odd that having asked the Hampshire Police to investigate the matters surrounding the Curtis Warren police operation, the authorities in Jersey did not co-operate fully in the way that I would have expected given that it was they that asked for the enquiry to be carried out. Mr Cessford made this very clear and I have no reason to doubt it and that caused me some considerable surprise. I maintain that this lack of co-operation or, perhaps more accurately, lack of complete co-operation, can only have compromised the Hampshire enquiry and limited the full facts available to me to make a decision in this case. I stress again that this is just one of the unsatisfactory elements of this case which have either been decided upon or affected the Crown about which more later.”

I agree with Mr Barton that it was odd to ask Hants Police to investigate matters and not co-operate, it is also an affront to the Jersey taxpayers who paid Hants Police in excess of £117k to conduct what now appears to have been an ill conceived investigation.

What was the lack of co-operation which compromised the Hants enquiry? No doubt rumour and speculation will ensue until both the Attorney General and the Police come forward with the facts and an explanation; however I am afraid that the odds of that occurring at present are as great as Arsenal winning the Premiership this season.

One issue which must have frustrated Hants Police and should be investigated is the allegation that someone attempted to “nobble” the Jury. During the course of the Royal Court trial in September/October 2009 it is alleged that a Jury member now known as Juror 125 was approached by some person claiming to be a police officer and it is alleged that the police officer said “you know they are guilty” or something similar.

In summary, the Jury member was discharged with the trial continuing with 11 members. I don’t know what investigation was undertaken by the States Police but it is evident that Hants Police tried to do so in the summer of 2011 but its request for the Juror’s name was rejected by the Crown Officers. Why?

What is also strange is when a potential witness came forward that summer he was advised not to reveal the name of the jury member in his statement which was submitted to the Court of Appeal. After Warren and Co had been found guilty in the Royal Court in October 2009 they later appealed to the Privy Council which heard the case in February 2011 and upheld the Royal Court’s verdict.

At the end of September 2011 Warren having obtained a statement from a potential witness requested the Court of Appeal to make an order requiring the AG to disclose the name of the juror in their trial so that a statement could be taken from him to assist the Hants Police into alleged police misconduct in connection with their trial.

It is evident that the Court of Appeal was unable to assist on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the appeal.

The Court of Appeal Judgement dated 29th September 2011 makes interesting reading because apart from the possible witness being told not to disclose the name of the Juror it is also apparent that he has not been interviewed by the States of Jersey Police, why?

The nobbler could have been a police officer, but he could have been a stooge for the Defence, however the upshot was that the Juror was discharged from the Jury and steps to identify the nobbler have been thwarted.

I hold no brief for Warren and Co, the Police or the Crown Officers but I do support the principle of a fair hearing and every one being equal in the eyes of the law. The case is not just about Warren who is a career criminal but includes a naive/foolish 20 year old man with no previous convictions. He received a five year prison sentence for a crime which was estimated to be in the region of £1m. Only recently a local magistrate received 15month’s imprisonment for defrauding elderly people out of £1m., where is the equality?

There are a number of unanswered matters which have already been published but there are others such as what happened to the person Warren and Co were purchasing the cannabis from, where is the cannabis, why was the Juror’s name withheld and why did the Jersey Police and Crown Officers fail to co-operate with the Hants Police?

These are among the increasing number of questions which need answers but who will ask them and even if asked, will the full answers be given?

It is alleged that the Police Chief Officer does not wish to respond to the concerns raised in the Disciplinary Judgement on the grounds that it is an internal matter. He is entitled to that view which perhaps was acceptable in other jurisdictions where he has served. However it is no longer just an internal matter but is very much of public interest. It is his Force which is under scrutiny and whose reputation is being challenged. It is evident that something has gone wrong and the public’s confidence in his leadership is being questioned. For his own sake and that of the States Police he should respond.

It is also evident that a jury member was “nobbled” because he was discharged. It will never be really known what affect if any, the “nobbling” had on the Jury, but surely in the interest of justice efforts should be made to assist the Hants Police to trace the "nobbler." As a result of a recent question in the States we know that over £2m of taxpayer’s money has already been spent on the legal costs, no doubt some of which will have been spent withholding the identity of the Juror.

The application on 29th September 2011 is not the only occasion that attempts have been made to obtain the Juror’s details in what is becoming a tug of war between Curtis Warren and the Crown Officer’s Department, but why is it withholding the Juror’s name, what has it to hide, who is it protecting and is the withholding justified or just an abuse of power?

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.