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

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

But the world's not entirely to blame,

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

And Ian Le Marquand is one you could name.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jersey Bankruptcy-- And Friends in High Places.

The Nomination Meeting was held last night at the Town Hall for candidates seeking to replace former Deputies Trevor and Shona Pitman who lost their seats after being declared bankrupt by the Royal Court last month. The Pitman’s are barred from public office for 5 years as a result of being disqualified by virtue of Article 8 of the States of Jersey Law 2005.

The Pitman’s problems stem from a cartoon in a Broadlands the estate agents’ advert which appeared in the Jersey Evening Post. The cartoon gave me the impression that the Pitman’s were only in the States for the money and I am not surprised that they considered the cartoon to be offensive.

The Pitman’s like many other States Members and Parliamentarians throughout the world gave up their job following their election. Whether their salary was more or less than their previous jobs was irrelevant.  If the cartoon was intended to depict the Pitman’s as money grabbers why were they singled out?  Was it because they were seen as a thorn in the butt of some the perceived Establishment figures?

The Pitman’s sought justice and took the matter to the Royal Court where unfortunately they lost and have ended up with horrendous legal fees which not only have to be paid to their lawyers but also to the other side.  Not being in a position to pay they have been declared bankrupt whereby they not only lose their home but also their jobs. One may ask where the justice is and did it make sense for the Court to take such drastic action? If the creditors hope to see any money, making the Pitman’s bankrupt, destitute and jobless is hardly the best way of going about it.

At the end of last week in the same building a lady in her late 80’s was attempting to secure £30,000 in compensation from former Magistrate Ian Christmas who had been convicted in 2012 for fraudulently inducing the lady to invest £100,000 in a US property scam. The lady had lost over £500,000 in the scam and was ordered to pay thousands of pounds in legal fees following a failed bid to secure funds from Ian Christmas. Last year a £100,000 compensation order was overturned after the Court of Appeal had found that Christmas was “balance sheet insolvent” and could not afford to pay.

The lady and a number of other people had lost considerable sums of money after they were duped into parting with their savings in what turned out to be a property scam. Some may be asking what the Magistrate’s involvement was and indeed why was he using his position to give his fellow fraudsters credibility.  His three fellow fraudsters are currently serving 4 year plus prison terms.

In court is was claimed that Mr Christmas was not opposed in principle to paying compensation but a court order would present him with the choice of bankruptcy or returning to prison. I say “Big Deal.” Mr Christmas unlike the Pitman’s was not in financial difficulties because he was seeking justice. He was a well-paid judge with friends in high places and with all the trimmings who was using his position to persuade trusting people to part with their money which for many was their life savings.

Mr Christmas was given only a fraction of his fellow fraudster’s prison sentences and was in receipt of his full salary for around 4 years whilst suspended. He chose to enter into a business arrangement and as a judge must have or should have known how deep a hole his colleagues were digging. An investigation into his activities took years and like the Court Hearing was very costly. He chose to spend thousands of pounds defending his actions and lost. 

I knew Mr Christmas who was a charming man and I am saddened to see how he has fallen from grace, but he was the instrument of his own misfortune. However unlike the Pitman’s he still has a home, a pension and savings and not been declared bankrupt. He may have had to pay for his legal fees but not the cost of the investigation and prosecution. He does not have to pay any compensation to the other investors/victims and has been able to retire to Yorkshire and enjoy the rest of his life. To seek any compensation the investors like the 80 year old lady must invest their own money, however for most they have already given what they had to Mr Christmas and his fellow fraudsters who no doubt will again cry “foul” and claim hardship if ordered to pay anything.

The Advocate pleading for Mr Christmas claimed Mr Christmas had served a prison sentence, lost his matrimonial home, been vilified publicly, been forced to leave the Island and being asked to cover a great level of debt.  Whilst some the claims like the prison sentence might be true, Mr Christmas can hardly claim to be a victim of some conspiracy to inflict him with hardship when he had inflicted untold hardship on his victims who have no means of redress because Jersey’s Financial Services which claims to be world class still does not have an Ombudsman nor a compensation scheme.

As a child it was drummed into me that crime does not pay, 60 plus years later I have found that some time’s crime does pay or/and some time’s the punishment does not fit the crime. It may well be that with hindsight the Pitman’s may have been better advised to swallow the insult inflicted on them, but hindsight is a wonderful thing and was their punishment when seeking justice really fair. I am told that the Privileges and Procedures Committee is looking into Article 8 of the States of Jersey Law and hopefully it will find that it is too draconian and no longer fit for purpose.

However the States are all the poorer for the loss of Trevor and Shona Pitman and the Investors are all the poorer for their involvement with Mr Ian Christmas, Mr John Lewis, Mr James Cameron and Mr Russell Foot. It is often said that life is unfair and justice is blind. Making the Pitman’s bankrupt and not Mr Christmas does not add up unless one takes into account who they all are and who has friends in high places.


Postscript Friday 21st February 2014.

I regret to inform readers that the elderly lady referred to in my Blog above has recently passed away. She was obviously a lady of principle who did not want to let those who had conned her get away with her life savings. As such she was prepared to risk what little she had left to pursue Mr Christmas to the end of her days.

She deserved better from the Courts and those who employed to safe guard the interests of justice. Mr Christmas was ordered to pay in instalments only a portion of the money he and his colleagues took from the lady. I don't know what the ruling is now that the lady has died, but I hope that what is still owed will be paid to the beneficiaries of her will.

May she rest in peace. 


Postscript  Saturday 8th March 2014

I am pleased to report that the Appeal Court has ruled that sum of money still outstanding must be paid in instalments to the lady's Estate.  

Jersey's Dean----- Press Release, No Peace, No Reconciliation, What's New?

The rumour that an arrangement was going to be put in place whilst the impasse between Jersey’s Dean and the Bishop of Winchester was resolved has now been confirmed via the following Press Release issued from Lambeth Palace earlier today.

“The Bishop of Dover, the Rt Revd Trevor Willmott, is to assume interim episcopal oversight of the work of the Church of England in the Channel Islands on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to whom the Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Tim Dakin, delegated the oversight of the Islands.

The interim arrangement, which has the fullest support of the Bishop of Winchester, will be in place within a matter of weeks. The reports commissioned by the Bishop of Winchester, being conducted by Dame Heather Steel and Bishop John Gladwin in relation to safeguarding issues, will be completed in due course.

The Bishop of Dover is a former Bishop of Basingstoke in the Diocese of Winchester, and therefore has significant knowledge of the Islands. He and the Bishop at Lambeth, the Rt Revd Nigel Stock, undertook a pastoral visit to the Channel Islands in December, during which they met local church leaders and Island authorities from both Deaneries.    

The interim arrangement is also entirely separate from issues to do with the Islands’ formal relationship with the Church of England. The Archbishop intends to appoint a Commission to look at the relationship between the Islands, the Diocese of Winchester and the wider Church of England.”

ENDS

It is now 10 months since the saga was first made public; it has been described as a mess where its origins began in the summer of 2008 when an allegation of sexual abuse was unsatisfactorily dealt with by Jersey’s Dean for which he has subsequently apologised. It is hard to estimate what the allegation has cost the Church of England not only to its purse but to its reputation. What is again evident is that the victim known as HG is not mentioned in the Press Release nor any safeguarding issues.

What is unknown is how long the interim arrangement will last and what arrangements are in hand to end the impasse between the Dean and Bishop. What is evident is that after 10 months, the Archbishop has felt it necessary to make an interim arrangement because two of his senior Clergy are unable to resolve their differences.

Church goers are entitled to expect their leaders to set examples and to practice what they preach. However we have two senior clergy who are unable to work together, where is the peace and reconciliation? How can they and fellow clergy espouse the virtues of peace and reconciliation as advanced by the likes of Nelson Mandela when two of its senior clergy are unable to practice what they should be preaching?

The Press Release states that the interim arrangement has the fullest support of the Bishop of Winchester and that the reports he commissioned, the Steel and Gladwin will be completed in due course. It should be recalled that when I met Dame Heather Steel at the end of October she would not see HG on the grounds that her report was almost complete, there was nothing that HG could add to it which she was due to submit to the Bishop at the end of the month. If the report is not complete is it because steps are being taken to interview the Church Warden and HG.

What is also of interest is that not withstanding that former Bishop John Gladwin is investigating the Constitutional relationship, the Archbishop intends to appoint a Commission to look at the relationship between the Islands, the Diocese of Winchester and the wider Church. Has John Gladwin found insurmountable obstacles during his investigation and how much will the Commission cost and who will foot the bill?

Bishop Dakin has circulated a letter to his Clergy in which I am told he has apparently stated that what began as an important safe guarding matter has steadily become complicated by a range of political and legal issues but the safe guarding investigations will continue. It would be interesting to know what investigations are in hand. However what must now be evident to Bishop Dakin is that the short strip of water between Winchester and Jersey is not only hazardous but also shark infested and it must come as a relief that he is being released from an unenviable responsibility. 

Senator Gorst And His Double Headed Coin.

Deputy Duhamel and Senator Gorst.

On Wednesday 8th January the Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst lodged a proposition which can be read here P2/2014 seeking States approval to dismiss Deputy Rob Duhamel his Minister for Planning and Environment.

In his report he says "I do not bring this Proposition lightly. To call for the dismissal of a Minster is a serious
matter, but I do so because it is the right course of action." His report then sets out examples of the ways in which the Deputy had failed to discharge his Ministerial duties and obligations. Senator Gorst claims to have explored these issues in depth and has ensured that the Minister has been provided with opportunities to be heard and to respond.

However Senator Gorst was not satisfied with the Deputy's account and neither he nor his fellow Ministers believed that Deputy Duhamel should continue to hold office, but what is the substance to that claim and does the evidence justify the allegation let alone a verdict.

The issues Senator Gorst claims to have explored are in summary Deputy Luce's asbestos concerns which led him to lodge his vote of no confidence in Deputy Duhamel P148/2013 and can be read HERE .The Co-op and JEC Planning applications and failing to conduct a timely review of the Island Plan. However Senator Gorst really twists the knife by accusing Deputy Duhamel of failing to be open and honest with the Council of Ministers, States Members and the public. If Deputy Duhamel is in the dock why is he alone?

It is no secret that Senator Gorst and other Ministers have been travelling the world in their endeavours to portray Jersey as a paradise and a paragon of virtue. It would appear that on their travels they have trodden on the road to Damascus and have been converted to honourable, virtuous and upstanding fellows who will no longer be economical with the truth and will only give straight and honest answers to questions. I can hardly wait for next Tuesday's Question Time.

Senator Gorst and his Ministers are so squeaky-clean that they cannot work with some one like Deputy Duhamel whom it can be said has often ploughed a lone furrow and is not one of the greatest of team players, however does that make him a bad Minister? From a personal view I think his decision to permit a new school to be built on its existing playing field was illogical because there was a better alternative site. However it is the system that is wrong and one that Deputy Duhamel inherited from former Minister Freddie Cohen.

One could ask why the Chief Minister has not sought to change a practice which allows one Minister so much control/power in Planning matters with little or no affordable appeal system. To an outsider it could be perceived that the Co-op and the JEC are using their influence to remove Deputy Duhamel so he can be replaced by a Minister who will give consent to their planning applications. Deputy Duhamel's failure to support Senator Corst's Plemont proposition must also grate.

It is all very well for Deputy Steve Luce to seek Brownie points over the long standing asbestos concerns. but most people are unaware of the asbestos and that can only been down to the failure of the Trappist States Members who have failed to raise the matter during question time. If the matter was so serious why has so little been done to raise awareness? Had Deputy Luce the courage of his convictions he would not have withdrawn his proposition at Senator Gorst's behest.

The asbestos matter is in hand but can that be said of the extending waiting list at the General Hospital or a malfunctioning incinerator purchased at exorbitant cost, the re-location of the police station, tenancy legislation, updating Jersey's Licensing Law and many other long standing issues?

It can be said that the pot is calling the kettle black as far as the review of the Island Plan is concerned. Senator Gorst and many fellow Ministers opposed my amendments to establish a Committee of Inquiry into Jersey's Child Abuse. They have been dragged kicking and screaming to the wire and it has taken three years for the Inquiry to get under way..

Senator Gorst is feeling hard done by in that he does not have the power to hire and fire Ministers. If he feels that way why has he not sought to change the Law to give him that right. However I doubt whether enough States Members would be that stupid to give so much power to one person. It has been reported that the Chief Minister cannot select his Ministers, that is incorrect, he can select but it is down to fellow Members to approve his nominations. It should be remembered that Senator Gorst nominated Deputy Duhamel warts and all but only narrowly defeated Deputy Eddie Noel who opposed him for the position.

I was present on 11th September 2007 when the States debated P117/2007 which was the proposition lodged by the former Chief Minister Senator Frank Walker seeking support to dismiss the former Senator Stuart Syvret. The proposition contained 82 pages compared to the 39 paged Gorst proposition. Interestingly on page 22 of the Walker proposition is a letter signed by all the Ministers with the exception of Senator Kinnard who abstained, calling for Senator Syvret's dismissal. Senator Gorst's proposition does not contain a similar letter.

I was one of the 19 who voted against the proposition with 30 members in support in what was a very acrimonious debate. When comparing the 2 propositions, the latest is pretty flimsy and certainly not worthy of success. However the States like God moves in mysterious ways and some Members are likely to support the proposition to enhance their political position rather than consider it on its merits. Very importantly they should also compare Deputy Duhamel's overall performance with other Ministers including the Chief Minister's.

As mentioned above I believe that Deputy Duhamel's decision to approve the application to build on St Martin's School Field was illogical but that is not one cited by the Chief Minister who could have quite easily have saved the field had he accepted my nomination for it to be Jersey's Diamond Jubilee's Playing Field. Unfortunately Senator Gorst not only ignored my nomination but he failed to conduct the selection process in a proper and timely manner where not only was the playing field lost but Jersey does not have a Diamond Jubilee field.

Senator Gorst has accused Deputy Duhamel of dishonesty and by implication being dishonourable but is he being hypercritical? It is apparent that he wants his cake and eat it too. He is tossing a double headed coin so that what ever way it falls will result in him remaining as Chief Minister. This is because it has been reported that he will not resign if Members do not support his proposition. Surely if his relationship and confidence in Deputy Duhamel is so strained that he wants him removed, how can he work with him should his proposition fail?

Dismissing a Minister is a very serious and divisive matter but should be the last and not as in this case the first option. Senator Gorst has pressed the nuclear button but his report does not provide any evidence of relationships being so bad that the end of the road has been reached which clearly it has not. This is evident by the fact that Senator Gorst does not have unanimous Council of Minister's support and is prepared to work with the Deputy if his proposition fails.

This being the case Senator Gorst should show Leadership by withdrawing his proposition thus preventing a debate which will leave only losers, will weaken his position and the credibility of an already lack lustre Council of Ministers, will bring the Island into disrepute and at the cost of valuable States time and public expense.

Post Script

On the day before the debate Senator Gorst withdrew his proposition because he claimed that he and Deputy Duhamel had met and in affect had kissed and made up after Deputy Duhamel had apologised. At the States Sitting next day Senator Gorst would not get drawn into explaining when or where the meetings were held and/or witnessed. Given that he had accused Deputy Duhamel of being dishonest no one knows why he was still willing to work with him.

Deputy Duhamel has not made a statement or publicly commented on the reason for the u turn, however according to Senator Gorst, Deputy Duhamel will not meet applicants unless accompanied.

A Reflection on 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jersey's Dean---Unofficial Report on the Bishops' Jersey Visit.

It was reported that the Rt Rev Tim Dakin had sought the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury to initiate a pastoral visit to the Channel Islands so that a fresh perspective could be taken on safeguarding. The visit was to be undertaken by the Rt Rev Nigel Stock Bishop of Lambeth and the Rt Rev Trevor Willmott Bishop of Dover who were to visit Jersey and Guernsey.

It was also reported that the Bishops were to meet with local church leaders and Island Authorities from both Deaneries in order to help understand how the current situation might be progressed. No details were forthcoming as to who the local church leaders were but the visit would enable further conversations to be held which he was sure would benefit the Islands and the wider diocese. The two Bishops are due to report back to the Bishop by the end of the year.

It was interesting to read that Bishop Tim had sought the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury. It now seems ages ago when the Archbishop was praising Bishop Tim for his swift, decisive and wholly necessary actions following the receipt of the (Korris) Report and wholeheartedly supported the investigation that had been launched. Does Bishop Tim still have the Archbishop's wholehearted support?

It was also interesting to see that the visit was in relation to safeguarding and not to constitutional matters which seems to be the only thing that matters to some of the perceived great and the good. That is borne out by how little interest they have shown for HG's well being, meeting her or investigating her complaints.

The Bishops' visit appeared to be shrouded in mystery and although it was supposed to be about safeguarding matters, from what little is known of the meeting, it appears to have been more about the relationship between Jersey and Winchester. This is evident as the Bishops were wined and dined at Government House where I doubt whether HG's well being or complaints were ever discussed.

Having more than a passing interest in the visit, I contacted the Bishops and Luther Pendragon the PR company asking for an itinerary of the visit and that I and others would be pleased to meet them. My emails never received a reply so it was quite obvious that the visit was not a fact finding but a spin and one sided one.

In a festive spirit I will report on one of the meetings that was held at a very secret location in which a number of very important people were invited. I must confess that I have had to rely on the information passed on to me by a church mouse who reported that the meeting was so shrouded in secrecy that all attendees wore burkas to ensure that even they did not know who was attending.

Apparently the two bishops arrived in a burkamobile.

Entry was by invitation only and in line with strict security all attendees had to produce their ID cards before entry was approved

On entry all attendees had to select a chocolate egg which had number inside. There were two main prizes which had been kindly donated by the Jersey Magistrates'  Association. The first prize was a one night stay outside the Jersey Deanery, the runner up won a two night stay.

As one can see the location had ideal air conditioning, spacious surroundings and an uninterrupted view of the moon and stars.

It was also an opportunity for Dame Heather Steel and Senator Sir Philip Bailhache to meet again and for him to ensure that her still incomplete report is now suitably amended. Thereby after the words; "no disciplinary action is being taken," the following words are added; "and the Dean is wholly holy exonerated."

The ever bashful Bishops Trevor and Nigel took the opportunity of photographing themselves.

                                       

Thus inspiring lesser mortals to do so at a less auspicious event.

It was also an ideal occasion for attendees to witness the official shredding and burning of the Korris Report and the transcript of the Bob Hill and Dame Heather Steel October meeting.

The meeting ended with some pole dancing but I am told that it was not the sort of pole dancing that some of the attendees were expecting.

Although I have tried to take a humorous approach to the Bishops' visit one wonders what it was all about because I am not convinced that it was just about safeguarding. The one thing that has become evident during the past 9 months is that religion is playing second fiddle to politics. Regretfully it is also evident that what you see is not what you get and the way our church and political leaders have acted it is definitely a case of do as I say not as I do.

Nine months on there are still more questions than answers, hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent, but what for and is anyone the wiser? Well I suppose Bishop Tim now is because he now knows that the Winchester Way is a route and completely different from the Jersey Way which is a culture.

However he can take credit for at least having the courage to instigate an investigation which is something our Ministers would run a mile to avoid as evidenced by their lack of support for an inquiry into Jersey's Historic Abuse.

One could ask what lessons have really been learnt and where does HG fit into the equation, but then again does any of the clergy really care as not one of them has asked to meet her. Remember that when it was known that HG was due to meet Dame Heather at Church House she was not allowed on the premises so another venue had to be found. At least Mary and Joseph were offered a stable.

Jersey's Dean---States Police or Police State?

On Wednesday Tony the Prof published another thought provoking blog in which he reported on some of the comments that had been reported in the Guernsey Press. It included a comment from Guernsey Deputy Ellis Bebb when offering a view on the possible break between the Diocese of Winchester and Jersey and Guernsey in which he said "I think that the question we should ask ourselves is whether Winchester is the right diocese for Guernsey. I think that what happened in Jersey poses a lot of questions, but I'm convinced that as with any breakdown in relations, there's plenty of blame to go around for everyone. One small correction, the woman wasn't deported but bound over by the Jersey courts; the decision to do so was at the courts discretion and nothing to do with the church."

Tony corrected the statement because the Court case was all about the Church as it was their Clergy which levelled the complaint and pressed for charges as Readers will see below.

At the States Sitting on Monday afternoon the unelected Deputy Bailiff drew Members attention to the Bishop's press release and then said that Members would be pleased to know that the Dean following an investigation by Dame Heather Steel had been exonerated. Thus wrongly echoing his brother's remark and now repeated by the Dean during an interview with the BBC. What the press release said was that no disciplinary action was being taken, but certainly did not state that anyone had been exonerated, that may well the case but until the Steel Report is published it is wrong to speculate.

What is fact is that Dame Heather did not interview the Church Warden or HG nor did she fully investigate HG's arrest, detention and deportation in line with the Korris recommendation. Therefore how can she honestly arrive at a decision not to recommend disciplinary action? What is interesting is that the Bishop published a press statement saying for legal reasons he can't circulate the Report, yet at same time saying that Dame Heather is still finalising it. It should be recalled that when I met Dame Heather on 24^th October she was finalising her report and intended submitting it by the end of the month. How long does she want before she finishes finalising her report? I will also add that I was promised a transcript of the meeting but that too is being withheld by Winchester.

The (miss) information given by the Deputy Bailiff was met by a round of appreciative foot stamping from States Members in the presence of the Dean who like the Deputy Bailiff is an unelected Member. Soon afterwards answers to Written Questions were formerly lodged which are often unreported by the media. Included in the Written Questions was a question to the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Le Marquand from Deputy Mike Higgins. 

It is evident to those who have been closely following the Dean's handling of HG's complaint is that the Jan Korris Report is slowly being rubbished and it wont be long before she and HG will be seen as the real villains and the Dean, his church colleague and the Church Warden are the victims.

There is no doubt that having failed to be satisfied by the Dean, the Bishop and the Safeguarding Officer's handling of her complaint HG was zealous in her pursuit for justice. Not only did she complain about the alleged abuse but also at the way it was handled by the aforesaid Church officials but her complaints were ignored. She was clearly an embarrassment to the Church and a way had to be found to silence her, particularly as they wrongly believed that she might disrupt a Confirmation Service being held on Sunday 26th September.

Readers will know that I have previously written how HG after appearing the Magistrates Court on Monday 27th September was remanded in custody in La  Moye Prison for 2 weeks before appearing  before Magistrate Richard Falle and being bound over to leave Jersey where later that evening where she was left destitute at Southampton Airport whilst still wearing her pyjamas.

Thanks to questions being asked by Deputy Higgins the truth is slowly emerging of the shocking and callus way in which HG was treated when held in custody and denied bail on that fatal Sunday whilst the people responsible for levelling the complaint which led to her arrest were conducting a Confirmation Service at St Mary's Church.

 It is all very well for Deputy Bebb from the safety of the Guernsey shores to claim that no blame can be attributed to the Church. It is all very well for Messrs Philip and William Bailhache and indeed the Dean himself to claim that he has been totally exonerated. No disciplinary action is being taken but can the Dean be really proud of the part which he, his wife and former Bishop Scott Joynt played in incarcerating and eventually deporting HG because she may have disturbed their Church Service.

I receive a number of calls from people who cannot believe that we in Jersey could allow such uncaring action against a vulnerable young lady of previous good character who had made Jersey her home, had a job and a home but all were snatched from her thanks to senior church figures. I have previously published official documents which although are in the public domain are rarely to be found in what is called the mainstream media.

Below is the written answers given to the questions asked by Deputy Higgins and are in the public domain but I have added my comments in red. 

Question,

Will the Minister set out a detailed timeline showing from the time of the arrest of the woman known as HG to the moment she appeared in court to face charges of harassment, the times anyone interacted with her, who those interactions were with and the times at which witness statements were taken, the charges were drawn up and read to her?

Answer

This timeline covers the period from the time of arrest to the time when HG first appeared before a Magistrate.  The timeline does not deal with routine interactions with the custody staff or other routine matters.

26 Sept   9.34    Arrest

At 0934 hrs on Sunday 26th September HG was arrested at her home address by a Police Constable. She was arrested on suspicion of harassment. Another officer was also in attendance.  She was calm and following caution answered the officer’s question about the location of her laptop.  She walked unaided to the police officers’ car where she remained while a search of her room was carried out.

While waiting in the car HG started to show slight signs of distress. On arrival at Rouge Bouillon Police Station (10:17) HG was able to walk to the Custody suite.  Once there she sat on the floor and began to show signs of distress. 

Despite repeated efforts to calm her down officers were unable to communicate with HG and she was eventually carried by three officers into a cell where she was placed on the floor and a cell guard posted.  At this time the police Force Medical Examiner (FME) was unable to carry out any assessment of her due to her demeanour.

10:45 Detention Authorised Did the FME actually assess HG before this decision was reached?

Detention authorised by Police Sergeant on 26 September 2010 at 10:45:00. The grounds for detention are: I am satisfied that the arrest is lawful, proportionate and necessary. There is insufficient evidence to charge at this time. I authorise the detention for the purpose of obtaining evidence by questioning and process. It is incumbent on the police to take immediate steps to obtain the evidence, but it appears that the process did not begin until 3 pm when the first statement was taken from the 3 witnesses.

11:12  Doctor  (FME)

Doctor's comments:  Removal to cell observed, not possible to assess because of agitation I suggest minimal stimulus in terms of intervention until HG is calmer and then assessment may be possible.  Currently, fit for detention, I will assess fitness for interview at 12:45 What background medical information did the doctor possess or attempt to obtain which would helped him to understand why HG was agitated. It should have been obvious that the agitation was aggravated by HG being confined in a cell which because her health concerns was causing her untold harm. 

13:00 Doctor Fit for detention, I will review again in 2 hours. It was now three and a half hours since arrest yet no statements had been taken which was totally unfair. Those who made the complaint should have placed that action ahead of their other arrangements and the police should have ensured that it was the case..

13:10 Duty Sergeant note of Medical Review,

Task Medical Review Required completed. Comments: Medical review complete fit for detention FME to return in two hours

15.00 Duty Sergeant’s entry

Police officers’ notes:  Appropriate adult located. When was it decided that an Appropriate Adult was required and why did it take so long to obtain one? After numerous phone calls to a number of agencies I have been put in touch with the on call Mental Health Social Worker via the hospital switch board and she has stated that she has heard of HG and will be happy to act as an Appropriate adult.  Will be attending at 17:30hrs  This is now 8 hours after HG's arrest.

15:04-15:45 Statement recorded - Statement of first witness taken from Mrs Key, the Dean's wife at the Deanery. Why was her statement not taken earlier, she was not conducting the Church Service?

15:48 Duty Inspector

Duty Inspector’s notes: I have attended with the intention of conducting the formal review of detention. however HG appears to be in a heavy sleep and is unresponsive to attempts to wake her.  HG is in the care of the Custody staff and the FME is also in attendance.  It is therefore intended to let the FME assess HG prior to additional attempts to conduct the review process Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) stipulates that a review of detention before charge must be conducted after 6 hours of being in custody. This review is not conducted by an independent person but by another police officer. 

16:00-17.00 Statement recorded - Statement of second witness Former Bishop Michael Scott Joynt at the Deanery

16:28 Doctor

Seen in cell, since last review, now lying on the floor. Have spoken with Mental Health Social Worker who will read hospital notes prior to arrival.  Fit for detention at present.

17:20-17:45 Statement recorded - Statement of third witness The Dean at the Deanery.

17:43 Doctor

I have contacted the duty consultant psychiatrist directly, who will attend in due course.

18:21 Doctor

Seen by duty Consultant Psychiatrist, for detention, no mental illness 

19.30-19.45 Statement recorded - Statement of Arresting Officer Why was this not taken soon after the arrest when the facts were still fresh in his mind.

19:47 Entry -Charged by Centenier Phillip Coffey whose report shows that he charged HG at 2030 hours and remanded in custody. Jersey does not have an independent Prosecution Service and the decision to charge rests with an unpaid voluntary/Honorary police man. Pleaded guilty after charge. When a person is charged they are cautioned and what they say is recorded. It would be interesting to know where HG’s alleged plea is recorded.

21:43 PACE Status Changed

PACE status changed from PACE to Non PACE for the following reason: 

Centenier has refused bail in order to prevent further offences. Why was HG not bailed, what evidence did the Centenier have to deny bail, she had been arrested from her home and was of good character she had been receiving medical attention since her arrival at the police station and was clearly distressed and unwell so what evidence was to hand that HG would commit further offences? 

Held at Police HQ overnight

27 Sept 2010 07:52 Doctor (FME) Comments

No evidence of dehydration although not drinking fit for detention and court

09:50 ENTRY

Handed to court officers and taken to court

10:00 Magistrate’s Court Sitting

Seen by Duty Advocate Jane Grace, Appeared before a Magistrate at 1216 hours. Represented by the Duty Advocate who was not in court when he decided to remand HG in custody at La Moye Prison for two weeks, why?

Readers will know from my previous Blogs that HG later appeared before Magistrate Richard Falle, pleaded guilty and agreed to be bound over. On paper it appears that HG was dealt with according to Law and proper procedure. However it is claimed that the Clergy’s decision to press charges was for HG’s own good, if that is so what did they actually do to help HG to benefit from being arrested. The Dean and Bishop were conducting a church service whilst HG was detained in a police cell waiting for them to write their statements. It would be interesting to know what the sermon was, but hopefully it was not based on “Judge not lest ye be judged” or “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”

It is evident that HG was sending any number of emails and was proving to be a nuisance however it does appear that a sledgehammer was used to crack a nut which has had a life changing affect on HG, for which the Archbishop, Bishop and Dean have all publicly apologised.

Was it necessary to arrest HG, was she deserving of the callus and unchristian treatment she received and is it some thing that the Island and the Church of England can be proud of?

It is not disputed that HG contacted the Dean’s wife and the Bishop early on the Saturday evening when it is alleged that HG was rude and allegedly said she would see the Bishop in St Mary’s Church, but did it mean that she was going to attend or what were her motives. There is no mention of that question being asked by the arresting officer. Why was the decision to inform the police left until early Sunday morning and was it necessary to arrest and go to such extraordinary lengths to detain and deport HG from Jersey?

The decision to arrest HG has left no winners but only shame on those involved with the arrest and subsequent action. The States Police will say that they were responding to an allegation of harassment but could be said HG was treated even handily. If it was decided to arrest her why it did it take so long to obtain the evidence and why was she not bailed? Was the Force's action an example of good States Police practice or more akin to that of a police State? 

Unfortunately neither Winchester nor Jersey cares a damn about HG or Safeguarding and it is doubtful whether these matters will even be discussed by the two Bishops during their flag waving visit to Jersey.