Jersey's Bailiff--- The Times are a Changing

States Members have just spent over a day debating the future role of the Bailiff. It could be said that the matter is an old chestnut but has been too hot to handle because people’s fingers would be burnt if they picked it up. This was proven to be the case as Connetable Crowcroft and fellow States Members discovered yesterday.

Connetable Crowcroft had lodged his proposition P160/2013 last December and asked the States “to agree that from the date of retirement of Sir Michael Birt as Bailiff of Jersey, Recommendation 2 of the Review of the Roles of the Crown Officers (the ‘Carswell Review’), namely that “2. 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” should be implemented.

The current Bailiff is to retire at the end of this year and Connetable Crowcroft obviously thought it would be a good time to bring about change, however the Proposition was doomed from the outset and completely wrecked by the lodging of amendments by Senator Bailhache and Deputy le Herissier relating to a referendum to be held during the October Elections.

It was back in 2000 when Sir Cecil Clothier’s Machinery of Government Panel recommended that the Bailiff should cease to act as president of the States or to take any political part in the Island’s government and the States should also elect their own Speaker. The Panel made no recommendation as to who the Speaker should be.

It was also recommended that the Chief Minister should be the direct link to the Home Office in London. And the office of Bailiff should continue to be the highest in the Island. Apart from an unsuccessful proposition lodged by former Deputy Shona Pitman a few years back the matter has not been addressed.

Because of my concerns about the lack of the Crown Officer’s accountability and the States having no appetite to address the issue of the Bailiff’s dual role I lodged P 5/2009 which asked the States to agree that an independent review be conducted into the current roles of the unelected members of the States, namely the Bailiff, the Lieutenant-Governor, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Dean. Very importantly I also requested that the means of achieving that goal should be via the Council of Ministers and Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC).

This was approved and eventually led to the Carswell Review which again reported that the Bailiff’s dual role was untenable.

In his report Connetable Crowcroft stated that the Privileges and Procedures Committee, of which he once was its chairman, had been working on the matter, but because the present Bailiff was retiring at the end of 2014 he thought it would be a good time to address the matter. I believe the Connetable was being unrealistic because not only was the time scale too short but so was his report too short of detail which was a matter shrewdly picked up by Senator Bailhache.

As mentioned above Senator Bailhache lodged an amendment which stated that if the Crowcroft proposition was approved the matter should be included in a referendum to be held at the same time as the elections on 15^th October. The public would be asked if they wanted the Bailiff’s role as President of the States to end. Deputy le Herissier’s amendment made the result of the referendum binding.

It soon became evident that if the amendments were approved there would be insufficient time for PPC to draft the necessary legislation before the October election. Also if the public was to be asked for their view then surely they needed to be consulted but who would be responsible particularly as time was so short.

I listened to parts of the debate and it became evident that sentiment over logic became the order of the day. I heard one Connetable state that if it’s not broke why fix it and parishioners were asking why the Bailiff was being kicked out of the States. The comment was certainly an own goal because one the reasons why Connetables claim their role in the States is so important is because they are the direct Parish link to the States. If that is so, how many Connetables arranged Parish meetings to discuss the proposition or other propositions for the matter? I stand to be corrected but I doubt whether any parish meetings were held to discuss the matter.

Senator Bailhache whose main election platform is supposed to be States reform which seems anomalous given his support for Connetables remaining in the States, quickly reminded Members how important the Bailiff’s role was at Liberation Services, other civic occasions and meeting dignitaries but steered well clear of explaining the Bailiff’s lack of accountability or that in other democracies (apart from Guernsey) the Speaker is subservient to the House.

It was left to the likes of Deputy Sam Mezec and Senator Ozouf in excellent speeches to remind Members that what the Bailiff does outside the Chamber is one thing but what he does in the Chamber is another and has no place in the 21^st century. Unfortunately the wise words went unheeded. The world is changing and so too in Jersey which is not as it is once was but some die hards are hanging onto the belief that pomp and ceremony can over ride the need for democracy and accountability.

The late Sir Cecil Clothier wrote “Change can be uncomfortable but it is inevitable. The proper attitude to change is not to resist it but to try control its direction.” These are wise words which should not be ignored.

Sir Cecil Clothier rightly stated that the Bailiff’s role should not be political, with this I concur because the Bailiff’s role as President of the States is political. It is he who approves or rejects propositions submitted by Members and also their amendments and questions. The Bailiff as Speaker has a critical role in deciding when a Member is called to speak during a debate or ask supplementary questions.

The Bailiff is appointed by the Crown and his office is high and honourable and ancient. In ancient times Bailiffs played a significant part in government but this was when there were no parliaments, no elections and no appreciation of accountability. Speakers must be accountable to their Parliament and that should be the case for Jersey.

Surely no one should hold or exercise political power or influence unless elected by the people to do so. Who has elected the Bailiff and for that matter the Dean, Attorney and Solicitor Generals? None of them are entirely non political and all have the right to speak in the States. The Bailiff as Speaker should be a servant of the Assembly but can’t be unless he is elected to that post?  Also as he is appointed by the Queen’s Letters Patent to the high and ancient office how can he hold an office to which he should be subservient to the States?

Connetable Crowcroft’s proposition was lodged on quicksand and soon began to sink. To his credit he correctly realised that his proposition was wrecked and even he could not support it as amended so when the States resumed yesterday morning he sought support to with draw it. However Members rejected his request which was then confirmed by 27 votes to 23 when put to the vote. This led to a full morning and early afternoon being spent on recycled speeches which did nothing for Member's credibility. When finally the vote was taken on the proposition as amended, it was heavily defeated.

The matter will not go away but it needs more than a back bencher to address it. However unless there is a will and leadership from the Council of Ministers supported by a genuine desire from all States Members to bring Jersey into the 21st Century the Bailiff's dual role will be untenable and if change does not come from within it will be imposed upon us from outside the Island. 

Connetable of St Helier Proposition P160/2013

Privileges and Procedure Committee Comments

Senator Bailhache Amendment

Deputy Le Herissier Amendment

Deputy of St Martin P/5/2009 re review of role of Unelected Members of the States.

Tasers---Mission Creep and Abuse of Human Rights

It was almost 7 years ago when Deputy Gerard Baudains asked a question of the Minister of Home Affairs about the possibility of the States of Jersey Police being armed with Taser Guns.

Two years ago the Taser issue again came into the public domain when the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel decided to scrutinise the desirability of the Home Affairs Minister’s intention to approve the purchase of Tasers as an addition the States Police’s armoury.

At that time I published two Blogs whereby I raised a number of concerns which received a number of  comments. The Blogs can be accessed below.

I was the founder and am a member of the Jersey Human Rights Group and naturedly had an interest in the matter and our Group made written and oral submissions to the Scrutiny Panel. The Panel subsequently published a report in which it identified 8 key findings and 20 recommendations.

The Home Affairs Minister recently lodged a proposition P18/2014 seeking States approval to endorse his intention to authorise the deployment and use of Taser Guns by the States Police in accordance with a number principles. These principles were pretty much in line with what the Jersey Human Rights Group and others had recommended. They are really safeguards to prevent abuse when deploying Tasers.

It was a case of taking a pragmatic approach because the States Police already has a wide range of firearms in its armoury and they did not require States approval to purchase Tasers. I believe there are few people; police included who wish to see police officers kitted out with firearms as seen in some countries around the world. Therefore it is to be hoped that Tasers and other guns will remain firmly locked in the armoury and only deployed as a very last resort.

In support of the case for Tasers I was amused at some of reasons put forward by the Minister, Senator Le Marquand who was the same Minister who defended the disgraceful suspension of the former police chief Graham Power and who released the Wiltshire Report but denied Mr Power the right of a Hearing. Where were Senator Le Marquand’s concerns for Human Rights? And more recently where were his concerns for Human Rights in relation to the arrest, detention and deportation of the lady in the Jersey Dean case.

Senator Le Marquand was of the view that Tasers are urgently required to allow for the States Police to comply with the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000. In his opinion the absence of Tasers in the police armoury renders the police and therefore the States of Jersey potentially vulnerable to a claim arising from the Human Rights Law.

National guidance on the management, deployment and command of Armed Officers requires that every action taken, including the issues of firearms and Tasers, be proportionate, lawful, appropriate and necessary to the prevailing circumstances and must be the least intrusive means of resolution. This therefore requires the complete compliance with the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 and the European Convention of Human Right Article 2. The absence of Tasers in Jersey, arguably, does not allow for compliance with this stance.

The above paragraph can be found in the P18/2014 below. I found it an interesting comment and well worth a second read and in particular noting the last sentence were the word “arguably” appears. It is also of interest to note that the Solicitor General was not asked for a view because he is often asked for one when a Backbencher argues that a particular proposal he/she is proposing would render the States to a Convention challenge if the proposal was not approved.

If a Backbencher had brought the proposition which was not supported by the Home Affairs Minister it is highly likely that he would have opposed it on the grounds that “arguably” it was not a Convention breach and would have sought support from the Solicitor General as evidenced in his successful opposition to the removal of Jurats from the Visitors Panel at La Moye Prison.

It may well be that Tasers are less lethal than conventional firearms but they are lethal and the public is also entitled to their Human Rights. They will not be enamoured to learn that the Human Rights Law is being used as justification for Tasers being used against them .It could be “argued” that whilst Tasers are less lethal than some of the weapons in the police armoury, there are also less lethal weapons than Tasers which could be used, such as truncheons, batons, CS gas or even just being talked out of a situation.

Tasers are just part of a mission creep approach away from traditional policing and the Human Rights Law should not be used to justify their introduction.

One further piece of information that came to light was the lowering of the bar when it comes to justification for the deployment of firearms. The former wording stated that a firearms authority could be granted if a person is, “in possession of, or has access to a firearm.” The revised national authorisation wording now sets an authorisation criteria when a person is “in possession of, or has access to a firearm or any other potentially lethal weapon.”

It is another example of mission creep which will now allow for armed police to be deployed in circumstances where a suspect may be in possession of a screw driver or similar tool that can be interpreted "for lethal use."

One of the reasons why it has taken nearly 7 years for the Minister to lodge the proposition was because of export restrictions between the UK and Jersey for Tasers. The UK had an export ban for such weapons to over seas territories until it was lifted in 2012. It does seem strange that it was legal to export lethal weapons such as high powered rifles and pistols yet illegal to export less lethal weapons like Tasers.

It was claimed that Jersey was the only place in the UK where there was a ban on Tasers. That should a record that the Island should be proud of. One record the Island can be proud of is that our Police have never had cause to fire at anyone. It is to be hoped that the record will not be broken in the mistaken belief that Tasers are supposedly less lethal and do not kill anyone. Whilst it was claimed that no has been shot dead by a Taser, never the less people have died as a result of being shot by one. It matters not whether it was a direct hit that killed you or as a consequence of being hit. Once dead you stay dead.

The States Members heavily supported Senator Le Marquand’s proposition. One is now left to wonder how soon Tasers will be deployed in Jersey.

Proposition P18/2014

Taser Guns-- The Jury Still Out.17th February 2012

Taser Gun Submission 28th April 2012

Jersey Human Rights Group

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry-- Preliminary Hearing

Three years after the States approved P19/2011 as amended to establish a Committee of Inquiry into allegations of abuse by young people in States care, a Preliminary Hearing was held at the St Paul's Centre this morning.

The fifty plus attendees received a very slick and professional 50 minute presentation from the Chair of the Inquiry, Frances Oldham QC who was accompanied by fellow members Alyson Leslie and Professor Sandy Cameron along with their legal team and administrators.

The presentation was filmed and it can seen on HERE  along with the transcript. The website also displays a number of documents including Inquiry Protocols relating to Legal Representation, General Procedure, Media Conduct, Providing Evidence to Inquiry and Protective Measures. Would be witnesses and other interested people are recommended to read the protocols because there are time restrictions for those wishing to partake in the Inquiry.

Given the lengthy presentation which included going through the Terms of Reference one would have hoped that Mrs Oldham would have allowed for a short time to answer questions, however it was not to be. Much was made of the Inquiry being truly independent and that it had been set up to establish what went wrong in the care system over many years and to find answers for people who suffered abuse as children. I hope that the inquiry will interpret the care system as including educational establishments such as Victoria College.

The Inquiry will be known as “Independent Jersey Care Inquiry,” had there been time allowed for questions I would have like to have asked how independent the Committee was going to be. It is hoped that unlike those involved with the Bishop of Winchester’s Visitation the Panel will not be having coffee with the Chief Minister, biscuits with the Bailiff and cocktails at Government House.

Who is the Committee accountable to, who will it present its report to, will be the report be published without redactions and when presented will it be in the public arena and time allow for questions?

During the 50 minute presentation I was interested to hear that in 1970 Haut de la Garenne was inspected by two UK Home Office Children’s Department Inspectors. Later in 1981 a similar inspection took place into other child care establishments. This is the first time I had learnt of the visits and one wonders why they were not mentioned by Ministers during the States debate to establish a Committee of Inquiry when they worked so hard to oppose the proposition.

Mrs Oldham said that the panel will examine the visits and establish whether recommendations were in fact implemented. Given that many allegations were made from victims who were in care during that time, one wonders whether the recommendations were implemented and was this why no reference was made to the visits during the debate.

It is as a result of a lot of hard and persistent work by a small but dedicated group of people that the Committee of Inquiry has been established. This morning was just the beginning and it is evident that the Panel has already started its work.

The Terms of Reference will give the Panel the power to require Departments to provide documents and to account for them and their acts or omissions. The Panel has the tools to do the job, it is independent and this morning it certainly gave the impression of being professional and efficient. It is now down to those who have a tale to tell to come forward. There might never be another chance so I really hope that the opportunity is not lost.

I have previously published blogs on the Establishment of the Committee of Inquiry and related matters which can be found below;

30th October 2010 Savile, Skeletons in the cupboard

6th November 2012 Jersey Historic abuse Inquiry  One small step

28th November 2012 Jersey Historic Abuse Inquiry  Possible Amendments

1st March 2013 No stone left unturned.

15th March 2013 The Nelson Touch

Jersey's Dean-- Bob Hill-- Matthew Price Interview.

As a follow up to the Dean’s interview on signing the Agreement and a look back on the events over the past year I appeared on Matthew Price’s programme yesterday morning in which it was hoped the Bishop of Winchester would also appear but alas he did not.

Matthew and I covered a number of issues including why Winchester commissioned to review a matter which had been dead and buried for some time.Why was Jan Korris commissioned to review a complaint which was made 5 years earlier, particularly as the main person in what has become a sorry mess was to be ignored. In her opening paragraph Jan Korris states “I have been asked by the Safeguarding Panel for the Diocese of Winchester to look into the response of the Diocese to a complaint made by a vulnerable adult against a church warden in a parish on Jersey.” However no reason was given as to why and for whose benefit?

On page 37 of her report Jan Korris wrote “The Church let HG down. Despite the difficulties of her background and disablement, and her struggle with some everyday practicalities, HG was none-the-less in employment, pursuing hobbies, socialising and wanting to be accepted in the church community. Over the next three years HG’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.”

That comment was written a year ago, but apart from tendering a meaningless public apology what has the Church done to right the wrong, the answer is very little but has caused even more harm by breaking promises and treating the Bishop and Dean as the victims. 

It will be for readers to comment on the 10 minute interview which covered a number of issues, but given the failure of Winchester to communicate with me and others including BBC Radio Jersey many questions will remain until the Bishop comes out from what appears to be his self imposed exile, or is it from the doghouse?

Please listened to the interview below

Jersey's Dean--- The Canterbury Agreement---Appeasement/ Sell Out.

On Tuesday in line with the announcement in January and at the fifth attempt the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Winchester, the Bishop of Dover and each of the Deans of Jersey and Guernsey signed an Agreement to give effect to the interim oversight arrangements.  It is not known what the actual wording is but apparently it will allow for the Bishop of Dover to have temporary Episcopal oversight of Jersey and Guernsey and ending the Winchester link.

There are a number of issues arising from the Agreement and one must ask why it was deemed necessary and is it not hypercritical? On one hand the Church of England preaches the virtue of loving thy neighbour and seeking peace and conciliation yet it has two of its senior members not only acting as spoilt children by not practising what they preach but causing a 500 year split from Winchester without any thought of the thousands of ordinary church goers and the general public whose offerings and taxes pay for their keep and salaries.

Just what is the Archbishop of Canterbury playing at? In his press release he said: “I am delighted that we have found a way forward which engages the full support of everyone concerned, and which will enable the ministry and mission of the Church of England to flourish in the Channel Islands while acknowledging on the long and complex history of the Islands’ relationship to the Church on the mainland, and I look forward to doing so from the secure understanding we have now reached.”

Who are the everyone concerned, it would be unforgivable if they just happened to be the five people signing the Agreement.  What consultation has there been with the congregations within the Diocese, don’t their views count for anything?

To many readers the Agreement has more to do with appeasement than leadership. It is a sell out which is akin to Neville Chamberlain’s “Peace in Our Time remark.” Does the Archbishop not see the harm being caused by the split and also the message going out that personalities are more important than principles?

There are a number of outstanding issues which include the completion of the Gladwin and Steel Investigations. Does the Agreement transfer the oversight of the Visitation to Bishop Trevor? What about the promise to help HG and for her to give her account of events. What about the promised transcript following my meeting with Dame Heather. What about the Safeguarding issues, does Jersey follow the Canons Law or the Church of England Safeguarding Policies? Are these issues included in the Agreement?

One would have hoped that in the spirit of openness and transparency the Agreement would have been published at the time the Archbishop of Canterbury circulated his press release. I have emailed both Bishops requesting a copy but do not expect a reply as they have ignored my previous emails relating to other issues.

We may not know what is in the Agreement but there is one person who is overjoyed with its contents and that’s the Dean who can’t wait to work with Bishop Trevor. However the Dean seems to be oblivious to the fact that the split from Winchester and the hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on the Visitation and other related issues stem from his handling of HG’s complaint against a Church Warden in 2008.

Also he was party to HG's arrest and deportation from Jersey and left destitute in England. In his interview on Radio Jersey on Tuesday the Dean asks that we pray for Bishop Trevor but conveniently ignores HG who is the real victim. Where is love thy neighbour and peace and conciliation, where is the Christianity?

On BBC Radio Jersey on Tuesday morning Matthew Price interviewed the Dean about the Agreement which can be heard by clicking here.

I am grateful to BBC Radio Jersey for the link and inform readers that I shall be appearing on Radio Jersey after the 8am news on Sunday morning to discuss the events over the past year I understand that the Bishop of Winchester has been invited to participate, I hope he will accept the invitation.

Jersey's Dean----Steel and Gladwin Reports On The Rocks

It was last March that the Bishop of Winchester Tim Dakin suspended Jersey’s Dean, Bob Key. It was also last March that I published my first Blog on the matter. One year on I thought I would look back at what has or has not happened and what has been achieved.

The Dean was suspended following a review conducted by Ms Jan Korris into his handling of a complaint made in 2008 against a Church Warden by a young lady known as HG.

One question that has never been answered is what prompted Winchester to engage Jan Korris to conduct a review and what did it hope to achieve particularly as neither HG nor the Church Warden were ever interviewed. HG was never made aware of the review or received a copy of the report nor asked to comment on it.

The Korris Report contained a number of the recommendations and also identified a number of failings by the Dean and the Parish Vicar in the way they dealt with the complaint. The report also recommended that the way HG in 2010 was arrested, detained in La Moye Prison for two weeks, then removed/deported from Jersey in her pyjamas and left destitute at a UK airport on cold October night should be investigated.

The Korris Report is dated March 2013 yet within a matter of days of it's publication the Dean was suspended, unreserved apologies given to HG  and it was announced that a Visitation would be conducted by John Gladwin the former Bishop of Chelmsford. Quite dynamic action but thereafter it has been down hill all the way as those at the helm have struck one rock after another and is now stranded.

In looking back what has been achieved? At some stage it was unwisely decided that John Gladwin would only address the Constitutional issues and Dame Heather Steel would address the Dean’s handling of HG’s complaint but no immediate Terms of Reference were published. However when published they were narrow and unclear. There was also the issue of Dame Heather's perceived conflict which has never been addressed.

It was soon evident that Winchester was totally unaware of “the Jersey Way” and that questioning any establishment figure would be seen as an attack on Jersey. It only took a letter from Senator Bailhache to the Archbishop of Canterbury to lift the Dean’s suspension even before he had been interviewed by the Investigators so why he was suspended in the first place.

However it should be noted that on being reinstated the Dean apologised for mistakes made in 2008 and publicly apologised to HG, but not personally.

Last June with HG I met John Gladwin and Christine Daly in London and some very important promises were made. Meetings would be recorded and reports to be agreed. Further interviews would be arranged so that HG’s side of story could be recorded and acted upon. Tangible assistance would be given to help her and to avoid unnecessary stress all communications would come via me. Also reference was made of Dame Heather’s perceived conflict. It is now evident that these promises were not forwarded to Winchester or Dame Heather, why?

In early August a full page advert on behalf of the Jersey Laity appeared in the Jersey Evening Post. It asked members of the public who had experienced inappropriate or unbecoming behaviour by Bishop Dakin to write to Dame Heather Steel. The advert clearly placed Dame Heather in both camps but neither she nor Winchester took any steps to refute or clarify the Adverts’ claims.

Dame Heather’s investigation has been a disaster where she not only failed to interview HG or the Church Warden but her report which she claimed to have completed last October is apparently still incomplete. I wrote to Dame Heather on seven occasions asking to meet her but somehow my emails which were also copied in to the Bishop’s Chaplain and John Gladwin were ignored until late October when by that time Dame Heather had almost completed her report.

It was hoped that HG would accompany me to Church House in Westminster but on learning of her visit, the venue was changed because the powers that be refused to allow her on the premises. Unfortunately HG did not attend the meeting but Dame Heather promised that my meeting with her would be recorded and I would be given a copy of the transcript.

However Dame Heather has reneged on her promise and has refused to give me a copy. I have made repeated requests to Bishop Dakin for a copy but although first promising to let me have it he now fails to even respond to my further requests.

In November Bishop Dakin announced that although Dame Heather had not completed her report no disciplinary action would be taken against the Dean and the Vicar. He also announced that the Bishop of Dover would now have oversight over Jersey and that another review would be commissioned on the Constitution issue.

We are now into the third week of March but what has been achieved? It might be easier to ask what has not been achieved. For a starter John Gladwin has not published his report but now that a similar review has been commissioned his report is irrelevant.

Dame Heather submitted her report at the end of October yet almost 5 months later we are told that it has not been completed. If that is the case why has she refused to see HG or arranged for some one else to interview her so that her account of events is recorded? At the States Sitting on 4^th March Deputy Le Fondre via a written question asked the Chief Minister to provide an update on the likely date for the publication of the Dame Heather Steel review?

Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst replied “The position has not changed since I made my statement to the States Assembly in January. I continue to expect that the Bishop of Winchester will honour the commitment made in the terms of reference of the investigation by Dame Heather Steel that, upon receipt of the final report, the Bishop of Winchester will supply a copy to the Bailiff, the Dean and the Ministry of Justice. Lambeth Palace confirmed in January that the reports being conducted by Dame Heather Steel and Bishop Gladwin will be completed in due course. I hope that the Steel report will be completed as soon as possible in order that our community can be strengthened through reconciliation and healing based upon integrity and transparency.

I thought the Chief Minister was being hypercritical because he has commissioned a report on HG’s arrest which has not been satisfactorily investigated because like Dame Steel, the investigator Ms Glenys Johnson has not interviewed HG so her report will be as worthless as Dame Heather’s. Where is the integrity where is the transparency?

Following my meeting with Dame Heather I published a Blog on 28^th October 2013 Jersey’s Dean--- The truth, the whole truth or nothing but a whitewash? At  its conclusion I said the following, “What is becoming abundantly clear is that the Visitation is a waste of time and money, the guilty will be found innocent and the innocent condemned. What sort of message is the Church of England sending out to the poor, needy and vulnerable members of our society?

I stand by that statement, the Visitation has been a meaningless and financial disaster as events have overtaken it. John Gladwin’s report is pointless and Dame Heather’s should be confined to the dustbin. Not only has she failed to conduct her investigation in a satisfactory manner but her conflict and bias is evident by her failure to see HG and supply me with a copy of the transcript in which Dame Heather was less than discreet in her support for the Dean and her condemnation of HG.

The promise to assist HG has not been kept and Winchester’s decision last November to refer her to the NSPCC without consulting her or me was a disgrace. In his press statement dated 22^nd November the Bishop said he was praying that HG would accept what she had been offered. He knew full well that his offer was totally unacceptable and has since been reminded that it is action not prayers that is needed, but alas my advice is still being ignored.

Over £200k has been spent, no reports have been published, Winchester no longer has oversight for Jersey, apologies have not been given personally, promises made have not been kept and HG is still being ignored. What is interesting is that the Church Warden is certainly still within the fold and it is strongly rumoured that he is a candidate for the Church Warden’s position at the Town Church. If that is the case then God really does move in mysterious ways.

I have tried to find the positives from the past 12 months but to no avail. Perhaps readers may be able to inform me.

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

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

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

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

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

Answer

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

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

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

The nature of the offences committed included:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

" Dear all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Officer FF having affair with inmate, no action taken

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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