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.

Jersey's Dean--- True Christians or Pontius Pilate?

At the States Sitting on Tuesday 19th November 2013 Deputy Mike Higgins lodged two written questions for Senator Le Marquand the Minister for Home Affairs in anticipation of receiving answers relating to HG's arrest, detention and removal from Jersey in October 2010.

As Written Questions cannot contain more than 200 words it was necessary for the questions to be in two halves, both of which can be found below as Part 1 and 2. The Minister had a week to carry out research so States Members and the public should have received accurate answers. Alas this was not the case.

As a matter of interest I sent my last Blog to Senator Le Marquand and said I had quite a file and would be pleased to clarify any discrepancies. Unfortunately my offer was rejected. Had we met his answers below would not only have been different but nearer to the truth.

As in my previous Blog my comments will be in red

Questions

Further to answers given on 5th November 2013, will the Minister inform Members?

1. When and what time the States Police received an allegation of harassment which led to the arrest of a woman known as HG?

Answer. The States of Jersey Police received the allegation of harassment at 0934 hours on 26 September 2010. Not so. On Saturday 25^th September 2010 between 545 pm and 821 pm HG phoned and emailed the Dean’s wife and the Bishop and it is alleged that at 645 pm she was rude and told the Dean’s wife that she would see the Bishop and Dean in Church the following morning.  It is apparent that the Bishop, the Dean and his wife did not contact  police until the Sunday morning. If they were so concerned for their safety why did they not contact the police on the Saturday evening?

When I saw Dame Heather Steel she informed me that the matter was not reported to the police until the Sunday morning, she could not remember the time but promised to send it to me. She has since told me to obtain the time from my own contacts. The arresting officers arrived at HG’s home address at 934am and arrested her on suspicion of harassment. So they must have been informed some time earlier and the action taken was certainly in a panic. 

2. Whether a female officer was present when HG was arrested at her flat and, if not why? 

Answer. No female was present during arrest. There is no requirement for a female officer to be present when a female is arrested; only for search purposes.

The officers were arresting a lady whom it was alleged was harassing people and had to be immediately arrested and who was later charged and refused bail on safety grounds. Most police officers for their and the prisoner’s own safety will give the prisoner a quick frisk to ensure that they are not armed with any instrument to cause harm. It would have been good practice for a female officer to be present. It is also possible that had a female officer been present HG would have been able to confide in her and ensure that she was able to change into day clothing.

3. Was HG given time to change from her night attire and into appropriate day clothes and, if not, why not?

Answer, both arresting officers and the custody officer have been spoken to and cannot recollect what she was wearing. There is no custody photo from the date of arrest. CCTV in custody is kept only for 90 days. The States of Jersey Police say that it is inconceivable that either they or the Court would have allowed her to appear in Court on 27 September 2010, for the remand hearing wearing night attire. When she arrived at the Prison on 27

September she was wearing a navy blue sweat shirt, a navy blue polo shirt, blue tracksuit bottoms and training shoes. Furthermore, the custody photo taken when HG returned from Court awaiting her departure from Jersey on 11 October 2010, shows that she was wearing appropriate clothing including a blue sweat shirt and blue polo shirt.

The question was short and to the point the Minister was asked if HG was given time to change and if not, why not? If the officers cannot recollect what HG was wearing then the answer must be no and she was not allowed time to put on day attire.

The Minister also claims that there is no custody photo from the date of arrest. When people are arrested and charged most police forces take a photograph and fingerprints. This does not appear to be case or is it another mistake?

In my previous Blog, the Minister in answer to a similar question from Mike Higgins said that the claim “is, frankly, totally ludicrous and totally inaccurate.”  If the Officers cannot remember what HG was wearing how can the police and the Minister claim that it was inconceivable that she went to court or prison wearing night attire?

4. Was HG placed in a police car whilst her flat was searched and, if so, why?

Answer yes; she was placed in a police car, guarded by a Police Officer, whilst another Police Officer searched for evidence relating to the alleged offence.

The Minister has again failed to answer as to why she was placed in the police car when her flat was being search. HG‘s flat should have been searched in her presence to prevent allegations of police “planting” evidence or putting themselves in a position where they could be accused of stealing property. As a former Magistrate the Minister should be mindful of good police practice so why did he avoid answering the second part of the question?  By placing HG in the car with one male officer also opened the officer to allegations of indecent assault. Not that HG would be the type of person to make a dishonest allegation.

5. Was HG charged 11 hours after her arrest and, if so, what was the reason for the delay?

5. No. HG was in police custody for 9 hours and 25 minutes prior to charge. She arrived at the police station at 1022 hours and was charged at 1947 hours. Delays were due to the need for a mental health assessment by a doctor (Force Medical Examiner) in consultation with a consultant psychiatrist and the need to obtain an appropriate adult to support her at

interview.

The official documents record that HG was arrested at O934 and charged at 2032 which is 10 hours 58 minutes after arrest. Whether it is nine or eleven hours the time taken is unacceptable. One relevant omission is that statements were not taken from the Dean, his wife and the Bishop until between 4 and 6 pm that afternoon. That is over 8 hours after the arrest and would have required a senior officer’s approval to permit HG’s continued detention. Why were statements not taken before the arrest? It implies an arrest first and obtaining the evidence after mentality. It is also evident that HG was not treated in a fair and impartial manner. Also if there was a need to require the presence of a doctor and a consultant psychiatrist and an appropriate adult, that assistance should have been called for on her arrival and it would not have taken over 9 hours for them to attend.

6. Why, given that HG was of good character, employed and had a fixed abode, was bail denied after she was charged?

Answer. Decisions as to whether or not a person should be retained in custody prior to presentation before a court and as to whether bail should be opposed in Court are made by prosecutors and not by the Police. The Minister has avoided answering the question. Again the question is simple, why was HG not bailed after being charged? The Minister attempts to confuse Members by mentioning the bail arrangements at the court.  There were no valid reasons for refusing bail, given HG’s good character she was entitled to be bailed after being charged at the police station where the decision to bail falls squarely on the police. She was arrested early on the Sunday apparently because the Dean and Bishop thought she was attending their Confirmation Service at St Mary’s Church later that morning. They appear to have conducted the Service first and that is why they did not make their statements until well after the Service and the possible threat was over. The reason given by the Clergy men for pressing charges was because they believed the best way of helping HG was to arrest and place her in the hands of the police and courts. This view can also be found in the Korris report.

Bail was opposed in Court on 27 September 2010 by a Centenier upon the basis of the risk of re-offending and upon the basis of the protection of HG herself. The Centenier was different from the one that charged HG how did he come to that conclusion, where was the evidence? When considering bail the Magistrate said, “With a case such as this conditional bail would be quite normal, which would mean that you would be released from custody and be subject to a condition not to contact people, who ever they might be. I am not sure this is… this is not an ordinary run of the mill case (why, was HG not equal in the eyes of God and the Law?) and before I grant bail I need to be satisfied that you still have accommodation available to you and I would also like to know that you still have employment because obviously you would have been at work today.” Why was it necessary to carry out further checks? The Duty Advocate had made a strong case for bail pointing out that HG had been arrested from her home and was in work and would also abide with what ever conditions the court would impose. She also said that to hold HG in custody would be detrimental to her health. Her pleas were ignored. To deny HG bail and detain HG in prison for two weeks was inhuman, a disgrace and totally disproportionate to the alleged offence which was unlikely to attract a custodial sentence. The Magistrate indicated that the reasons for the refusal of bail were the risk of further offending and also for HG’s own protection and he was influenced by information that HG’s landlady did not want her to reside at her former accommodation. I have spoken to the land lady who has confirmed that she would have been happy for HG to continue her tenancy had the police not with held the reasons for arrest. 

Part 2 of the Written Questions is as follows;

Question

Would the Minister advise whether the woman known as HG within the Korris report appeared at the Magistrates Court on Monday 11th October 2010, in the night attire she was wearing when arrested at her flat two weeks earlier despite having been held in custody in La Moye Prison for

two weeks?

Further to the response given on 5th November 2013, that HG was dressed in appropriate clothing when being deposited at Jersey Airport for onward journey to the UK, will the Minister inform members what the appropriate clothing was?

Will the Minister inform Members whether any provision was made for HG to collect her personal effects and clothing from her home before being put on the aircraft?

Will the Minister inform Members whether, when agreeing to HG’s request to call at her flat to collect some clothing and personal effects, the officers did not allow her out of the police car to collect them herself and, if so, why? 

Answer

As I advised Deputy Higgins in my response to his oral question on 5 November 2013, I can confirm, again, that the woman known as HG was not wearing night attire when she appeared in Court on 11 October 2010. I have personally seen a custody photograph taken of her on that day after court and she can clearly be seen to be wearing a navy blue sweat shirt and a navy blue polo shirt. For the avoidance of doubt why didn't the Minister produce the photograph, is it because the only photograph available is the usual head and shoulders. That appears to be the case because there is no mention of what HG was wearing below her waist. Further, I am advised by the Prison Governor that on HG’s arrival at the Prison on 27 September 2010 she was wearing a blue polo shirt, blue sweat shirt, blue tracksuit bottoms and training shoes. These clothes were removed from her on arrival for laundering and placed in her personal property. She was given prison clothes to wear whilst in prison. On exit to attend court, on 11 October 2010 the Prison records confirm that her own clothes were returned to her. Whilst the Prison do not record the fact that she was actually wearing these clothes on departure from the Prison, the custom and practice is for prisoners to change into their own clothes, in the reception area, prior to departure for Court. HG did not have any night clothes in her property and prison staff would not have permitted her to leave the prison in night attire in any case. HG is clear as to what she was wearing and given that she was arrested at 934 on a Sunday morning it is likely that she was wearing night attire. There is no record of her being given other clothing whilst in prison so it stands to reason that she was put on the aircraft in the clothes she was wearing two week previously. 

I am unable to say precisely what HG was wearing upon leaving Jersey, although it is reasonable to assume that this included the navy blue sweat shirt, navy blue polo shirt, blue tracksuit bottoms and training shoes.

At HG’s request, post sentence, and en route for the airport, the escorting officers called at a St Brelade address in order to collect some of HG’s personal property, including clothing. HG remained in the car whilst the property was collected for the purposes of police security and in accord with the Court decision that she stay in custody until she left the Island.It should not have been at HG's request as mentioned in the States on Tuesday the proper procedure is for the officers to have allowed HG to collect sufficient clothing and personal effects. As it was she remained in the police car with her land lady whilst the police rummaged through her clothing and personal effects

The issue as to what HG was wearing is really a minor issue when compared with her arrest, the time taken to charge her, refusal of police bail and then being held in custody for two weeks. However even if those events are bad the manner in which the court via her Advocate and Magistrate came to remove HG from Jersey and leave her destitute is the real issue and should have been reviewed in line with the Korris recommendation.

Clearly HG was posing problems by sending any number of emails to the Dean, Winchester staff and the Bishop when seeking redress for the manner they had handled her complaint. The Bishop's statement records that he thought that by levelling complaints to the police HG may be further helped with her needs. Unfortunately he did not explain what he had in mind and did not attend at either of HG's two court appearances? 

Why were the Clergy not in court to explain what the problem was and that their reason for pressing charges was to help HG. From the supporting papers it is apparent that pressure was put on HG whilst in La Moye Prison to agree to leave the Island but she was opposed to that idea. Yet a few days later she is apparently agreeing to plead guilty and be bound over to leave the Island. Why and why 3 years and why was no provision made to help HG on her arrival? The Clergy men's reasons for pressing charges was to help HG but what were they doing about it?

HG’s deportation has all the hallmarks of a done deal where she says she was given the choice of leaving the Island or returning to prison. The Charge involving the Bishop was dropped, some may say it was to pave the way to get HG out of the Island. Why was she Bound Over to be left destitute in the UK when she could have been bound over to be of good behaviour in Jersey where she had friends, a home and a job? On reading the court transcripts it appears that the Defence Advocate and Magistrate had more concern for the alleged victims than for HG.

We shall never know the answers because both Winchester and Jersey have refused to properly investigate the matter. Clearly if a proper investigation was undertaken they would be embarrassed by the findings. However the matter leaves a nasty taste in one’s mouth and the matter will rumble on. The Clergy men's actions was very much akin to that of Pontius Pilate and were washing their hands of HG who was left a broken and destitute woman in the UK. Hardly the act of Christians let alone high ranking Clergy men.