SINS OF OMISSION

Click on any image for a larger version

I haven't posted on Jersey for a while. This is mainly because not much has been happening. Yes, I know there has been an election and a new Chief Minister, and the "leader of the opposition" has become Children's and Housing Minister and so on. But it is too early to assess the significance of these changes, if any.

What has provoked me into print is a development relating to the Abuse Inquiry. I know I will be accused of being obsessed with this feature of Island life and that does not worry me one whit.

How the authorities react in this area is a litmus test of their sincerity across the board and it is a simple one that is easily accessible.

People will remember that, earlier this year, the Inquiry's web site was taken down pending further redaction to protect the innocent (and maybe a few of the guilty as well). Not everyone believed the reasons given for the take down as it conveniently (for some) deprived researchers of the raw material necessary for an in depth evaluation of the Inquiry and of the authorities' response to it.

Fortunately, some of us had already lost trust in the Inquiry and in the authorities so this may not prove to be as serious an obstacle as it first appeared.

We were promised that the site would be gradually restored as appropriate redactions were made to the content, and, lo and behold, the first phase of the restoration is now finally upon us.

Before I go any further, a technical comment. I would have imagined that the first redaction would have been to upgrade the site's security in line with what is happening generally, including in the case of my own web site and my blogs (at Blogger). However when I try to access the partially restored site under the security protocol (https) my browser tells me:

The owner of www.jerseycareinquiry.org has configured their website improperly. To protect your information from being stolen, Firefox has not connected to this website.

This is a serious omission for an Inquiry which has already had its security lapses when in session.

I have had neither the time, nor the inclination at this stage, to examine what has been put back up in any great detail, but there is one glaring omission which screamed out at me.

In the section on Key Documents, there is an index to the "rulings" of the Inquiry on various matters such as media accreditation (of which more another time) and provision of, or funding for, legal advice/representation.

The Inquiry unjustifiably rejected Stuart Syvret's application for such funding despite the fact that he was a key witness and had been put in a very tricky legal situation by the Royal Court.

That ruling was always absent from the index though the ruling itself could be found on the site if one knew how to look for it. The partially restored site not only continues to omit the ruling from the index, but the ruling itself has now been taken down.

In the face of this unjustifiable and provocative piece of vandalism, I have posted the ruling on my own web site so that people can judge this matter for themselves.

I have referred to the restoration as partial. By this I mean that only part of the site has been restored. The word also has another meaning which may also be relevant, we'll see.

Anyway, what has not been restored is the transcripts of the oral hearings and the vast volumes of evidence submitted by participants to the Inquiry. These would be the meat of any assessment of the Inquiry and of the authorities' response to it.

Had these not been posted in the first place, and subsequently clumsily redacted, I would not necessarily have known the identity of the person referred to as 737 and that they were still in a prominent position in the financial sector despite being scheduled for police interview under caution as a suspect in the rape of an adult female.

So the taking down and continued absence of this material is no small matter.

While I'm in full flight, I'd like to refer to a document which has been brought to my attention. It is a discussion by some legal bods on The Jersey Way in the context of moving on from the Inquiry.

While it is by no means comprehensive, understandably so in a document emaninating from within the Jersey legal fraternity, and while it retains a sloppy reference to the infamous "coconut", it does have some sensible things to say on the subject.

It is something of an academic work, containing as it does many references to other sources, but this may be a useful feature as it brings together some of the current thinking in this area.

A central theme is trust and transparency - how to regain popular trust by operating in a fully transparent manner. While Jersey is still a long way from this, it is worth mentioning here some of the observations in the document.

It has an extensive comment on the Inquiry's dealings with Stuart Syvret:

An obvious hole in the Jersey Care Inquiry Report is the absence of former Senator Stuart Syvret’s evidence. Syvret had been an outspoken critic of the way the Jersey establishment had dealt with allegations of child abuse dating back to the 1970’s. In 2007 he was dismissed from his post as the Minister for Health and Social Services after claiming that child abuse cases were being covered up. When Syvret called for an independent inquiry he was accused by the then Chief Minister, Frank Walker, of damaging Jersey’s reputation. Syvret was arrested in April 2008 and charged under the Data Protection Act in relation to articles written on his blog allegedly containing confidential information. The Care Inquiry report noted his refusal to assist the inquiry as regrettable. But Syvret himself told the Jersey Evening Post that he wanted to give evidence, but did not because he was not granted legal representation, something he felt he needed to prevent the breach of any of the court orders that were in place against him.

If the States of Jersey truly wanted to draw a line and turn a new leaf, which is what this inquiry sought to do, then legal representation should have been granted to Stuart Syvret. That would have served one of the strongest possible indications yet that the government wants to move forward into an era of transparency and honesty whilst at the same time demonstrating an element of humility, which has been so lacking in the eyes of the victims.

So I am clearly entitled to attach significance to this ruling by the Inquiry and am not surprised they have gone to some lengths to hide it as it is a perverse ruling and, in my view, undermines the independence of the Inquiry itself.

Furthermore, the document quotes

Specifically, McAlinden and Naylor argue, the inherent limitations of public inquiries, like narrow terms of reference, which are primarily focused on recommendations for law reform, ‘may impede the deeper systemic exploration of the context, causes and consequences of abuse that may be necessary in seeking a just process and outcomes for victims’.
A. McAlinden and B. Naylor, (2016) Reframing Public Inquiries as ‘Procedural Justice’ for Victims of Institutional Child Abuse: Towards a Hybrid Model of Justice, Sydney Law review, Vol.38, p.294.

This particular Inquiry narrowed its own terms of reference and then only went beyond them when it suited it. It ignored the term of reference which obliged it to go back to the States (parliament) before it set its rules and procedures in stone. It went outside its terms of reference in commenting on the Victoria College scandal but refused to comment on the significance of the illegal suspension of the Police Chief although this was a critical event in the attempted cover up of abuse and the effective shutting down of Operation Rectangle. There is no question but that this suspension was slap bang in the middle of its terms of reference. It also refused to follow up on the apparent abandonment of the scheduled police interview with person 737 in the immediate aftermath of the Police Chief's suspension.

Clearly the Inquiry itself baulked at any effort to pursue the trail into the financial sector, the reputation of which it put above its own purpose. And there is no point in saying to me that this was an alleged adult victim and so not relevant to the Inquiry. It was a classic demonstration of the psychology behind the whole cover up, and the Inquiry knew this.

So how could one trust this Inquiry to have due regard to the "deeper systematic exploration" referred to in the quote above.

Anyway, this post has gone on long enough. You can read the legal bods document yourself if you are sufficiently interested. It is worth the read and seems to me to represent some small awakening in the legal profession to the need to raise these issues in public if there is ever to be closure in this horrific area.

Just a parting footnote: I would not like to be taken as ignoring the efforts of Philip Sinel, single-handedly among the Jersey legal fraternity, to do precisely this at no small cost to himself.

OLD HAM SOON FORGOTTEN?

Click any image for a larger version

The Oldham Report has now been published for just a month and there has been time for initial reactions from players and commentators. So I thought I should add some reactions of my own given that I have followed certain aspects of the Inquiry in some detail.

The Inquiry's final report can be accessed here.

The Inquiry's home page also gives a link to Frances Oldham's summary statement on the publication of the report which can be accessed here. The page also gives links to the vast trove of documentation which covers both the appearance of witnesses and the documentation supplied by them.

Be aware that the Inquiry's website is a bit of a mess and has been very unsatisfactory throughout. So much so that many people have taken to downloading aspects which are of interest to them for fear they would vanish (as some have) or be further edited (which some were) or become otherwise unavailable, particularly now that the site has been abandoned by the Inquiry team and handed over to the States of Jersey.

How the States intend dealing with it and whether there are any plans to clean up the site and make the material more accessible is unknown at this stage.

What was expected from this report?

Different people had very different views of the nature of the Inquiry and what it might have been expected to produce.

At one extreme, some saw it as a court which would deliver a verdict on the behaviour of individuals, hold them to account and even throw them in jail.

At the other extreme the Inquiry was seen as a PR exercise, or whitewash, by the establishment which would lead to an admission of past failures, limit the apportioning of blame to institutions rather than individuals, and make some recommendations for future improvements.

I did a post in the run up to the publication of the report setting out what I expected to see in it. In that post I referred to a number of negative aspects of the Inquiry's behaviour to date and to my expectation of a very limited outcome.

What was in it?

The outcome is broadly as I expected but with some differences.

The report did criticise people, principally these five: Andrew Lewis, Philip Bailhache, Bill Ogley, Tom McKeon and Mario Lundy.

The criticism of Lewis looks like being the only one which will have any consequences for the individual concerned.

Lewis - Minister

To put Lewis in context, he is a weak man who was catapulted into a ministerial position to do the bidding of the establishment and then hung out to dry when he started digging himself (and others) into a hole and wouldn't stop.

His major gaffe was to have allowed himself to be the fall guy in the suspension (effective sacking) of the Police Chief in a process that broke every rule in the book.

He subsequently repeatedly lied in an effort to redeem himself and scared the pants off the establishment who feared that he might thereby put their corrupt and clandestine hold over the polity of Jersey in jeopardy.

The point at issue was the legality, fairness and reason for the suspension of the Police Chief. The case against Lewis, and his puppet masters, was that (i) they had planned the disposal of the Police Chief from way back but falsely presented it as a spontaneous reaction to a negative report from the Deputy Chief, (ii) they did not observe due process in the suspension, in fact they acted against legal advice, and (iii) the reasons for the hasty and botched suspension didn't hold water.

The Inquiry found that he had lied all over the place.

Philip Bailhache - Bailiff

Philip denied putting the welfare of the financial sector before the safety of children but accepted that his Liberation day speech, which may have given that impression, was unfortunately worded.

The Inquiry judged his words a serious political error but, it should be noted, did not absolve him of the attitude implied in his wording.

Bill Ogley - CEO

Bill was at the heart of carrying out much of the conspiracy. The Inquiry did not accept his version of events, particularly regarding the purported spontaniety of the suspension of the Police Chief.

The Inquiry also alluded to his form in these matters when he had earlier unsuccessfully attempted to involve the Police Chief and another officer in the sacking of the whistleblowing Minister Stuart Syvret.

Tom McKeon & Mario Lundy - Managers

The Inquiry censured these two managers for lying about the frequency of use of secure accommodation and their failure of management which led to inconsistent and at times excessive use of force by adults towards children.

Stuart Syvret

The Inquiry did also criticise Stuart Syvret on two grounds, namely that (i) his public attacks on civil servants were inappropriate and did not assist his cause, and (ii) his refusal to participate in the Inquiry.

The Inquiry (generously!) found that Syvret's actions did not amount to political interference in Operation Rectangle but that the manner of his dismissal was outside their terms of reference.

And in a paragraph that will surely go down in history for sheer brazen neck, it held:

Stuart Syvret has not given evidence to this Public Inquiry. Requests to him were made on a number of occasions seeking his assistance and any relevant evidence he might have. As a States member for many years, latterly as the Minister for HSSD, his contribution to the work of this Inquiry may have assisted. His refusal to assist is to be regretted.

My view is that Stuart Syvret was constructively excluded from the Inquiry and it doesn't take a genius to work that out.

He had been oppressed by the establishment, including through imprisonment. He had been subject to a supergag order (as far as we know) and he requested legal protection before he would bear witness to the Inquiry. In spite of the massive legal bills incurred in other aspects of the Inquiry his request was refused and the refusal was then hidden, unlike all the other Inquiry decisions, in an obscure corner of the Inquiry's website.

It is also significant that the Inquiry, while admitting his relevance, refused to subpoena him, an action which might effectively have led to him getting some degree of legal protection. In fact, he was not the only relevant witness who was not subpoened and this lack of action does not reflect well on the bona fides of the Inquiry itself.

It should be pointed out that Syvret has cast doubt on the vires/legality of the whole Jersey administration and also on that of the Inquiry itself. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that he would have chosen to participate given appropriate legal protection.

Suspension of Graham Power

I have already done a fairly long post on Graham Power's evidence to the Inquiry and don't intend repeating myself here.

I know I run the risk of being accused of being obsessed with this aspect of the case rather than the core matter of the abuse of children. However, one of the Inquiry's terms of reference involves its looking into whether there was any political interference in the earlier police inquiry into abuse of children.

As far as I am concerned, Graham Power's suspension is a text book case of such interference. It is also a litmus test for such interference. That's why I make no apology for stressing it.

The Inquiry itself went on to

... record our disquiet at the manner in which the suspension was handled and in respect of some of the evidence given to us about it. We refer, in particular, to the following issues:

• Graham Power was suspended with no notice in respect of alleged past failings, when there was no suggestion that those past failings could have an effect on his ability in future to carry out his duties;
• Those responsible for his suspension did not heed the advice of the Solicitor General or Attorney General about the risks of reliance on the Metropolitan Police interim report, the need to show any report to Graham Power and permit him to comment on it, or the wisdom of awaiting the full Metropolitan Police report before taking action;
• David Warcup exaggerated to Bill Ogley the extent to which his own concerns were supported by the Metropolitan Police interim report;
• Andrew Lewis used the interim report for disciplinary purposes, knowing that this was an impermissible use;
• William Bailhache QC, as Attorney General, understood that the decision had already been made by the evening of 11 November 2008 that Graham Power was to be suspended. His evidence to us on this point was at odds with the evidence of Bill Ogley. We prefer the evidence of William Bailhache QC;
• It is clear to us that, when Graham Power attended the meeting on 12 November 2008, his suspension was inevitable. We accept Graham Power’s evidence that he was given time “to consider his position” – in other words, to resign as an alternative to suspension;
• Andrew Lewis lied to the States Assembly about the Metropolitan Police report, pretending that he had had sight of it when he had not;
• Andrew Lewis told Dr Brian Napier QC that he had discussed the suspension of Graham Power in October 2008, while telling us that he knew nothing about it until 11 November 2008;
• Andrew Lewis denied that he had discussed with Wendy Kinnard and Christopher Harris the possibility that Graham Power would be suspended. We do not accept his evidence in this respect

Nevertheless, the Inquiry came to a very firm conclusion that the suspension was in no way intended to derail Rectangle, that it did not affect it, and that the Inquiry's own terms of reference did not therefore permit it to consider the matter further.

This is a significant funk on the part of the Inquiry and they have no way of knowing to what extent Power's suspension may have affected matters out of the public gaze.

For instance, Rectangle Senior Investigating Officer, Mick Gradwell, had already scheduled, for the week following Power's suspension, an interview with John Averty, as a suspect and under caution. Now John Averty was being investigated in relation to alleged serial rapes of an adult female or females. And John Averty was one of those people who Graham Power identified as possibly being behind his suspension. John Averty is a very influential member of the Jesey establishment.

So, did the Inquiry check whether this interview took place or not? If the interview did take place, what was the result? If it did not, should this not be taken as prima facie evidence of outside influence on the conduct of the Inquiry?

All this was known to the Inquiry as it is contained in the evidence submitted to them by Graham Power and (however incidentally) by Mick Gradwell.

The Inquiry would not have been justified in ignoring this on the basis that the allegations did not refer to children. Interference is interference and would be indicative of a prevailing culture. Over the years many victims/survivors have complained that their complaints were not taken seriously or that they had been intimidated into withdrawing them.

Strangely, the Inquiry took a completely opposite approach when it came to the older Victoria College scandal:

The SOJP investigations into Victoria College, Paul Every and the Sea Cadets are not within the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference. We considered evidence about these investigations on the basis that the conduct and attitude of Police officers and others to those investigations might be relevant to the Police response to allegations of abuse of children in care.

This raises the question of whether the Inquiry itself has, despite all its protestations, been subject to interference.

The Legacy

So was there any point to this Inquiry? Were there any positives? What will happen next?

As far as I can see the the main achievement of this Inquiry has been to assemble and record evidence of the widespread abuse which permeated the Island for years. This may have brought some consolation or closure to victims/survivors whose complaints had not been heeded over the years. It may have given others the courage to come forward and bear witness and this may have helped them come to terms with their predicament.

It may just have awakened people in Jersey to what had been done to their children for decades and might, hopefully, lead to them reclaiming Jersey politics for the people - though this bit of wishful thinking might be stretching it.

The Inquiry has been quite hard hitting in those matters it chose to follow through on. But the big omission is in the raft of people it has not held to account. you can see a sample of questions not asked by the Inquiry or in some mainstream media reports here.

It has also ducked some of the deeper questions by just mentioning them in passing. The Bailiff's control of the legislature is one, and perhaps something will be done about that. But the vital missing element is the lack of a firm finding that the UK, or some Higher Power, needs to intervene to ensure that the Island has a properly independent prosecution system and that there are adequate channels of appeal when justice is miscarried on the Island.

As things stand there is effectively no appealing the decisions of the Jersey courts or the actions of its Crown Officers. The Lieutenant Governor is a joke. And the Queen's Privy Council refers all complaints back to the Jersey courts.

The Inquiry has recommended the establishment of a Children's Commissioner and work is in hand to appoint one. There seems to be some confusion in Government as to the degree of independence of such a Commissioner and to whom or to what body the Commissioner would report. Hopefully this will be sorted and the Commissioner will not end up simply reporting to the Chief Minister as was suggested in a recent Government news release.

The Website etc.

The Inquiry's website has been a disgrace from day one. It is not user friendly, particularly when it comes to finding material. It was not used to communicate with the public except in the most cursory way. In fact virtually all of the Inquiry's communication with the public has been one way. Material has come and gone and been redacted and re-redacted without any commentary or explanation from the Inquiry.

Bloggers were denied full press facilities when they constituted the only independent media on the island. Written queries to the Inquiry were either not answered or were acknowledged in a dismissive way. And to cap it all the "press conference" introducing the report to the public resembled a bootcamp Tannoy, with its quasi-stripsearches and no Q&A.

Person 737

To those who may wonder at my cheek in naming John Averty as Person 737, I would simply point out that it is not me what dunnit Gov. It was the Inquiry itself which failed miserably to protect the anonymity it originally conferred on him, as I have pointed out here.

THE RAG: THE SEQUEL 2

Click on any image for a larger version

Various establishment entities are lining up their ducks for the big day. The Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry is due to report on 3 July 2017. It is expected that the report will attract a lot of attention from the UK and international press and these will be sniffing around for stories.

The BBC are "cleaning up their act" by taking offline various of their exposés and reports on what had been going on in Jersey since the Liberation (from Nazi occupation) after WWII.

The Inquiry itself has put vast amounts of witness testimony online. This was redacted before posting in order to protect both the (alleged) guilty as well as the innocent. Some of the redaction was so incompetent that the texts would have been better left alone. But to cap it all, the Inquiry has been quietly carrying out further redactions which have only compounded the incompetence.

In one case, for example, the sacked Chief of Police's evidence was redacted to protect the identity of a Jersey notable who was alleged to have raped a number of adult women. I pointed out in a blog post that the person in question (given the number 737 by the Inquiry) was easily identifiable to anyone with half a knowledge of the Jersey scene, but I did not name him.

The Inquiry quietly returned to the posted text and added further redactions which actually only identified the man definitively.

When I discovered this recently I updated my earlier blog post and wondered what to do next.

My substantive comment to the JEP
Click on image for a larger version

I eventually decided to draw attention to this in a comment to Jersey's only newspaper, the Jersey Evening Post (JEP aka The Rag). I did this in preference to commenting on a Jersey blog which would only leave the blogger open to retribution by the Jersey authorities.

The next thing was to find an appropriate news item under which to plonk the comment. The most recent such item appeared to be the Bailiff's Liberation Day speech. In his speech the Bailiff was trying to sanitise the term "The Jersey Way", a shorthand moniker for the many interrelated layers of corruption on the island.

Now, readers of this blog will be familiar with my earlier encounter with The Rag's editor where a comment of mine, made in good faith, was parked in moderation and then deleted. ( here and here ) So I did not hold out great hopes of getting this comment through.

The comment referred to the Bailiff's speech, to people tidying up their online material in anticipation of renewed scrutiny on 3 July, and it gave a link to my blog update.

My second comment identifying myself
Click on image for a larger version

When I realised I had posted it under my Irlpol account, I added another comment under my subsequent Pól Ó Duibhir account to say the earlier comment was mine. I had opened the latter account in the course of my earlier arguments with the editor and as a challenge to an anonymous and malicious troll to do likewise.

Well, the Irlpol ID was clearly on "moderator watch" and went straight into moderation to be carefully scrutinised before publication. The Pól Ó Duibhir ID went straight through.

Original tweet

Meanwhile, while I was waiting for my comment to exit moderation I decided to reply to a tweet by Stuart Syvret, former Health Minister and whistleblower, who had been ruthlessly and vindictively screwed by the Jersey régime.

Stuart was complaining that Commissioner Clyde-Smyth, who was obliged in justice to reveal certain information to him, was not just refusing to reveal it but was also refusing to engage in correspondence with him.

Now, in their second round of redactions, the Inquiry had attempted to conceal the fact that the Commissioner had earlier been acting for person 737 and I decided to reply as above and put a bit of pressure on the JEP to hurry up and do their moderation bit.

Original tweet

And just for good measure, I thought I'd again draw attention to the fact that person 737 had originally been scheduled to be interviewed under caution as a suspect, but, since the sacking of the Police Chief, we had heard no more of this.

Original tweet

Meanwhile the JEP had posted an item deploring how signage was ruining some beauty spots on the island. The piece, entitled Five Jersey Eyesores included signage overlooking the picturesque port of Gorey with its magnificent Mont Orgueil Castle.

It struck me that the picture had been taken from a position just outside Haut de la Garenne the infamous child abuse home. So I did a tweet suggesting an additional sign. I got no reaction to this so far.

Original of Gorey/HDLG photo
Click on image for a larger version.

Just in case you want to see the full picture, I have included it separately above.

Original tweet

Then I got back to reminding the JEP directly about my comment languishing in moderation.

Original tweet

And a little more gentle pressure via Twitter.

Click image for a larger version
Original tweet

And then, I got the biggest surprise of my life. The JEP actually published my comment. I couldn't believe it. I was convinced it would be too hot for them to handle. But here they were becoming complicit, in a sort of a way, in revealing the Inquiry's revealing of the identity of the Jersey notable.

On the assumption that they knew what they were doing, and that their left and right hands were fully coordinated, I have to take my hat off to them on this one.

Check if the Irlpol comment is still there
[Update 13/1/18: I have just noticed that the comment referred to above is no longer there. The JEP recently "upgraded" their site in the course of which operation the comments have conveniently vanished.]

Jersey Abuse Inquiry

Frances Oldham QC, Chair of the Inquiry
“Straddles criminal and family matters to great acclaim”

Now that we are in the run up to the appearance of the report of the "Independent Jersey Care Inquiry" into child abuse on the island, it might be an idea to review some aspects of the Inquiry itself to date in order to set a context for evaluating the report.

This inquiry was called for as far back as 2008 and it is only due to sustained pressure from a few States Deputies and bloggers that anything at all has happened. The jury is still out on whether the inquiry is actually independent of the authorities and others whom it is supposed to be investigating.

There have been a number of disquieting developments/events in the period since the Inquiry was set up which would lead to a negative opinion of its competence and good faith.

• under the legislation setting it up it was obliged to consult with the States (parliament) on the finalisation of its terms of reference. It failed to do so and just went on its merry (predetermined?) way with amazing impunity. If you really want to pursue this aspect in depth, check out this VFC post from 2014 as the public hearings were about to commence. I understand Daniel Wimberly never got a satisfactory response to his questions. The main question here was the Inquiry itself restricting its remit in defiance of the wishes of parliament
• it located itself in premises beside those occupied by a law firm which risked being called to account in the course of the inquiry. It used a similar law firm as its agent for the Inquiry itself
• it accepted the Government appointing people, to collate and forward required official documentation, who were themselves liable to investigation by the inquiry
• it facilitated the creation of false impressions from the evidence submitted by allowing alleged perpetrators to appear under multiple identities
• it denied a principal potential witness independent legal advice which led, at least in part, to his not appearing. It then refused to subpoena him. It also, not very subtly, attempted to hide its ruling in this matter on its website
• it refused to use its full powers to acquire official documentation in a timely manner. This resulted in some witnesses being quizzed on documents that they had barely seen, to the detriment of a probing of their more substantial contribution.
• it did not permit cross examination of witnesses, either by the Inquiry's lawyers or other parties. Questioning was limited to clarifying the content of witness statements.
• it apparently permitted a private meeting with a former bailiff/current foreign minister or his representative when the person in question was to appear as a witness.
• it limited press room access to "accredited media" ignoring the central role in this matter played by bloggers on the island. This simply underlined the Inquiry's complete (wilful?) ignorance of the situation on the island where the mainstream media have been complicit in the cover up of abuse.
• it sent highly explosive and confidential documentation in the ordinary post where it subsequently showed signs of having possibly been interfered with
• it refused absolutely to engage via social media when material failed to appear on its website, or appeared and then disappeared, only to subsequently reappear with slightly different meta-data. It never explained or apologised properly for downtime of its website. These may appear small things but they are vital in an environment where there is a lack of trust
• it has made no reference to the fact that in the oral session of Mr. K (an alleged abuser), reference is made to his written statement, but there is no sign of any such statement on the Inquiry's site. Mr. K, who is rumoured to be a friend of William Bailhache (currently Bailiff but then Attorney General), had a prosecution against him dropped by the Attorney General, on grounds that were subsequently shown to be false and so known by the Attorney General at that time. Surely in an atmosphere of lack of trust, precisely the wrong witness statement to be missing from the Inquiry's website?
  
• initially at least there was a lack of counselling backup for abuse survivors giving testimony. This surely is standard practice these days
• it redacted published evidence to protect the identities of both alleged abusers and abused alike. But it did so in a manner that shows it hasn't the faintest conception of the environment in which it is operating. I have given a blatant example of this in an earlier blog post

This list just goes on and on.

And it is even claimed that the Inquiry itself has no legal standing due to the way it was set up and its continuing misbehaviour - a non-vires extension of the Potemkin Village that is the Jersey justice system.

So what does that suggest we will get from the report of the Inquiry when it finally sees the light of day?

I suspect it will be very much a general critique of the appalling system that pertained in Jersey, with no one living individual held to account. This will likely be followed by an enumeration of lessons learned and some admission that there may be more to do to ensure the future safety of the island's children. There will be no condemnation of the illegal suspension of the police chief in 2008. No mention of the lack of separation of powers on the island which has facilitated the continuation of abuse and cover up. No mention of the vicious circle of Jersey "justice" where complaints to Her Majesty's Privy Council arising from the system are simply referred back to that same system to be dealt with. No reference to the fact that the ultimate aim of the Jersey "justice" system is the preservation of the island's financial sector from shafting by abused citizens.

Plus ça change ... ? On verra.

POWER POINTS

Graham Power
Click on any image for a larger version

Background

In 2000 Graham Power was recruited from the Scottish Police to take over as Jersey's Chief of Police. This was against a background where the Jersey administration knew there was a problem both within the police force and in policing on the Island.

Jersey is a small tight community ruled by a few families and there can be a general resentment of people or ideas imported from other jurisdictions. Scotland, however, has its own legal system distinct from that of England and Wales and this was a factor in Power's favour. It was expected that he would be adaptable and sensitive to the local environment, at least up to a point.

Lenny Harper

When Power felt he needed a strong Deputy, in 2002, he recruited Lenny Harper, who was then with the Scottish Force, but who had served in the London Met and the Northern Ireland RUC.

The pair were in the process of cleaning up the Jersey scene when the child abuse scandal broke in 2007. At first the police operation (Rectangle) was covert. The rationale was to get it established without political interference and then launch it in public with such a high profile that it would have its own momentum and in this way not be subject to political interference. The fear of political interference came from Jersey being a small community where the concept of the rule of law was tempered by kinship and proximity. There was also a fear, in this case, that many prominent people could ultimately be found wanting in the area of child protection.

To cut a long story short, the island administration finally came to the conclusion that the high profile investigation, accompanied by some riveting, if not entirely evidence based publicity, was shafting the island's reputation internationally. This was a serious problem as Jersey was highly reliant on its financial sector, effectively a tax haven.

Within a fairly short space of time, the Health Minister who had responsibility for child protection and who was not only supportive of the police investigation but had carried out his own investigation, was dumped. The Home Affairs Minister, also supportive of the police, resigned under pressure, to be replaced by more pliant successors. The Deputy Police Chief (Harper) retired in the normal course but was subject to a concerted campaign of maligning by the administration. And finally the Police Chief (Power) was himself suspended from duty in a rushed, botched and illegal operation by the administration. Following all this, the police operation was shut down and life appeared to have returned to normal.

Frances Oldham, Chair of Inquiry

But the thing just won't go away. Following pressure from a variety of sources within Jersey, and particularly a few parliamentarians and a group of bloggers who just wouldn't let go, a public inquiry into child abuse by State run institutions was eventually set up.

Effectively, this was to determine (i) the extent of child abuse that occurred since the end of WWII (ii) who had been responsible (iii) if the State's response had been adequate, and free from political interference and coverup and (iv) what should be done next.

In its first phase the inquiry, apart from scoping its work, heard from survivors of child sex abuse. In its present phase it is examining the role of those on the State side with responsibility for this area. And that is where the former Police Chief comes in. He has just given his oral testimony, over a day and a half, and this, along with some 1,200 pages of background documentation which he submitted to the inquiry, is now online.

I have just finished reading that material and I am setting out below some of the points that struck me as particularly interesting.

For those who may wish to go directly to the source, documentation it is available online as follows: documentation submitted by Power (PDF 67MB); day one transcript (PDF 580KB); day two transcript (PDF 643KB). [Update - 11/11/2018: This material has been taken down for "redaction" and is not expected to be available to the public for at least another 12 months.]

Power's Submission

Power's submission consists of

(i) a personal statement on oath. This is 181 pages long and is a serious indictment of the administration.
(ii) a further 1,026 pages of backup documents, some of which are particularly revealing:

• Decision by Complaints Board on request for dates of suspension letters.
  This may sound trivial but it shows the lengths to which the régime will go in an attempt to protect its own wrong doings. It contains blatantly ridiculous reasons for refusing access to the information sought. It may, however, have attained one of its goals, ie obstructive delay. I have looked at this in more detail under the suspension heading further down this post.
• Report of the Wiltshire Constabulary on the conduct of the child abuse operation (Operation Rectangle).
  This report was commissioned by the Jersey administration to provide the basis for disciplinary action against Power. It is a flawed report which judges Power (and Harper) against criteria which apply to the police in England and Wales, but not in Scotland, and particularly not in Jersey. It is therefore very critical of both CO Power and DCO/SIO Harper. Power is seen as weak and not properly supervising Harper. Harper is seen as headstrong and resisting appropriate oversight and customary checks and balances. The report accuses them of a lack of strategy for dealing with the evolving inquiry, sloppy paperwork, and their risking jeopardising upcoming court cases by leaving the States of Jersey Police open to accusations of abuse of process, where their "sensationalist" publicity could preclude a fair trial.
  
  Presentation of the report faced the authorities with a dilemma. If they chose to act on it and further discipline Power, they were admitting that English standards and procedures were all applicable in Jersey. If they chose not to act on it they were exposing its flawed terms of reference and the waste of £1m on a useless report. So with a customary Jersey sleight of hand, they just published a slightly redacted version and simply indicted Power in the court of public opinion.
  
  This is now the first time that the unredacted version is published. You can get an idea of the original redactions here. I should clarify that I am only talking here about the one 383 page summary report, a redacted version of which was published by the Jersey authorities, and the unredacted version of the same report included in Graham Power's documentation publishd by the Inquiry. I understand that the full documentation of the Wiltshire Report would fill the boot of a family car and that the extent to which the summary report reflects the voluminous evidence is hotly contested.
• Power's interim statement to the Inquiry by the Wiltshire Constabulary
  When the authorities refused Power legal representation for what was expected to be a week long interview with Wiltshire, he chose, as was his right, to confine himself to a long written statement in which he contests points being put to him arising from the statements of other witnesses. While this statement preceded the drafting of the final report it is effectively a critique of the report itself. A further and more pointed critique is contained in an interview with Power by the Voice for Children blog. Power's statement to Wiltshire was published on Stuart Syvret's blog and leaked to the BBC in Jersey. However, the broadcaster has not referred to it to this day.
  
• Transcripts of phone calls
  These were only made available to Power on his way into the Inquiry and he was then quizzed on them. These are very confusing and even the Inquiry's lawyer seemed at a loss in trying to interpret them.

To follow the story it is important to clearly distinguish between two things.

The first is Power's suspension from duty. This is a basis for criticising the régime and Power is the victim here.

The second is the conduct of Operation Rectangle itself, which shows up shortcomings by the state administration but has also led to criticism of the roles of Power and Harper.

These are dealt with separately below, insofar as it is possible to separate them, and all this is in the context of Power's appearance before the Inquiry.


The suspension

On 12 November 2008, Power was called into his office by his Minister (Andrew Lewis) and in the presence of the Chief Executive (Bill Ogley - head of the Civil Service) served with (draft) letters of suspension and told he had an hour to "consider his position". He was informed of a letter written to the Minister by Power's deputy (David Warcup) which, largely on the basis of a review report from the London Met, said he had mishandled Operation Rectangle.

Power took it that he was being given an opportunity to go quietly but he refused and objected to what was being done and the way it was being done. This seemed to have surprised those present and they were ill-prepared to deal with this turn of events. In the event Power was suspended (on full pay) on the spot.

When Power joined the Jersey police he was accountable to the Home Affairs Committee, under the committee system which was the form of government then in operation in Jersey. This was subsequently replaced by Ministerial government and he was now accountable to a single person, the Minister for Home Affairs. And there was no appeal mechanism against the Minister's decision. The administration were careful to suspend him on full pay as otherwise it would be construed as a dismissal and would have to be got through the Jersey parliament.

Despite the fact that proper procedure had not been observed on the day, Power felt there was even more to this kangaroo court than appeared and he subsequently asked for a load of information, including the dates on which the various letters which had been produced at the meeting had first been drafted. The point here was that the grounds for his suspension were a letter from Power's deputy which the Minister had received only the previous evening and which the Minister claimed was the sole factor leading to the suspension. Power eventually succeeded in determining that two of the three letters had actually been drafted three days earlier. And the London Met report was subsequently withdrawn as it was confidential to the force and specified not to be used for any disciplinary purpose. The Met subsequently confirmed that it had not criticised Power or Harper in the report.

So, all in all a very serious abuse of process. This abuse was subsequently compounded by the Minister for Home Affairs when he scuttled Power's Judicial Review of the original decision by a masterful sleight of hand which should not have been allowed. He confirmed the suspension, but this time surrounded by minimal legal hocus pocus, and this made the original (illegal) suspension decision obsolete and not subject to judicial review. At every turn the administration dragged out its dealings with Power in the hope of keeping him at bay until his official retirement in 2010. It succeeded in this.

So what has all this to do with child abuse and why is Power testifying to the Inquiry? Well, for one thing, the whole suspension process shows very clearly the lengths the administration will go to in order to cover its tracks when it makes a mistake or does something illegal.

This is really well illustrated in the attempt by the administration not to reveal the dates of the original drafts of the letters mentioned above. I suppose that this aspect appealed to me because it was a saga in an attempt to get access to information. I have operated Freedom of Information legislation within the Irish administration and the antics of the Jersey administration in this one were really something to behold. Jersey did not have FOI legislation at this time but there was a code for access to information which more or less amounted to the same thing.

After going unsuccessfully through a number of hoops Power ended up at the States of Jersey Complaints Board (on administrative decisions) which, to give them their due, found resoundingly in his favour. But what really caught my fancy was the Chief Minister's varied and ridiculous reasons advanced for refusing access.

In the first place he claimed that the information was not information in the sense covered by the code because it was on a computer. Then, to give it to Power it would have to be transcribed and that would then be different from the original, something newly created, and which would not be covered by the code. And if that failed the Minister was claiming that it was legally privileged. And remember this was effectively metadata relating to documents in Power's possession and it was also germane to his (original) judicial review. When the Complaints Board had some difficulty understanding the legal privilege objection, the Minister explained that the the time intervals involved could possibly have allowed Power to figure whether legal advice had been obtained or not. Now Power was only looking for three specific dates, and nothing more. As I said he got them in the end and they were devastatingly significant.

The Jersey administration had tied itself up in legal knots along the way, with the Minister for Home Affairs even abusing the concept of corporation sole to avoid overturning the original suspension decision, but that is sort of another story.

Ian Le Marquand vs Ian Le Marquand (aka Andrew Lewis)

The reason I'm labouring the above story is that it is such a clear example of the lengths the administration went to to cover up its wrong doing. If it does it for this what will it not do it for?

While the Complaints Board's report is included in the documentation submitted by Power it was not specifically referred to at the oral hearing. I thought that a pity as its message is so clear.

You can read the Board's full report here or just it's conclusions here.

Operation Rectangle

Operation Rectangle must have scared the living daylights out of a lot of people in the upper echelons of the administration. They had succeeded in sacking the Health Minister because he was critical of the level of child protection on the island and now they were faced with a full blown police investigation into child abuse which was attracting international attention.

Their instincts would have been to close down the inquiry as quickly as possible, but they were now hoisted on their own pétard. They had brought in two policemen from the "mainland" to clean up the place and they were now faced with the same two policemen who were determined to see this investigation through no matter whose boat was rocked.

This led to serious tension between the police and the rest of the administration, particularly the AG and the lawyers. Power was the Chief of Police and Harper the Senior Investigating Officer for Operation Retangle. They divided their tasks with Power fending off political and other interference and Harper ploughing away at the investigation.

Harper was seen by some in the administration as indulging in unnecessarily sensationalist publicity involving possible human remains and homicides. Harper felt he needed to keep the investigation in the public eye to reassure survivors who were coming forward. He felt he was also attempting to pre-empt leaks to the press. The whole situation was very murky and at times it seemed the operation was spinning out of control.

In the heel of the hunt Harper retired in the normal course and Power was illegally suspended. Their replacements, who had not distinguished themselves, scarpered when the going subsequently got rough, and by then the operation had been quietly closed down.

The current Inquiry is probably the last chance of vindication for Power and Harper but the chances of another police operation are slim, and there are even doubts about the bona fides of the current inquiry which has been sloppy and unprofessional in many respects. It may turn out that its only long term benefit will be the publication of documentation and the hearing of witnesses, not in itself a small matter, but way short of many people's expectations of closure for the survivors and justice for the perpetrators.

In any event, at this stage of the proceedings Power's sworn statement (pages 1-181 of his 67MB submission) is well worth reading in full.

Power at the Inquiry

I have only read a few of the statements submitted to the inquiry, but having read them and then followed the related transcripts, I am struck by the lack of focus in the oral hearings. I know that the oral hearing is not a cross examination strictly speaking. The Inquiry lawyer is supposed to be helping the witness present relevant material from their statements and endeavouring to test this for consistency.

But my strong impression in the cases of Bob Hill and Graham Power is that the lawyers "interrogation" of the witness simply serves to dilute their contribution. In Hill's case he was quizzed on documents he hadn't seen and the lawyer was jumping all over the place. In Power's case, as I mentioned, there was no following up on the access to information angle which would have encapsulated the stance of the administration and seriously undermined their overall credibility. And Power was also quizzed on confusing documentation which he had not had a chance to consider in advance.

Equally a major revelation about missing files in the statement from Trevor Pitman was not followed up. There is also an impression that witnesses are being rushed through and boxes being ticked.

None of this bodes well for a good result from this inquiry.

Some revelations in passing

There have been some further interesting points arising out of Power's submission.

Wendy Kinnard
As Minister for Home Affairs and Power's political boss, so to speak, Wendy Kinnard had been very supportive of Operation Rectangle. Power reveals, however, that she was being bullied by her male ministerial colleagues, and at one point she relinquished her responsibility for Operation Rectangle to her more pliant deputy Andrew Lewis. This was followed sometime later by her resignation as Minister and Lewis taking over just as Power was about to be suspended.

Wendy Kinnard

The unredacted version of Wiltshire in Power's documentation suggests that she relinquished control of the operation because she had a personal interest in the case. While this is revealing it poses more questions than it answers. No doubt it will provoke speculation over the next while and we may learn a little more in response to this. It was generally felt that her ultimate resignation resulted from a refusal to become involved in Power's illegal suspension but other more mundane reasons have been speculated on. She has so far refused to comment on any of this.

Person 737
The inquiry has redacted some of the submitted statements before publication. They have done this in an unbelievably clumsy and incompetent fashion. I have seen this in the case of both Hill's and Power's statements.

The most tantalising and amusing redaction has been of the identity of person 737 in Power's statement. This person was suspected of sexual assaults on adult females but, as far as is known, was not arrested or charged. The extracts below, reproduced from the statement, do not leave anyone with a knowledge of Jersey in any doubt about the identity of the person in question. Now if the island had more than one newspaper, it might be a different matter entirely.

Person 737
Click on image for a larger version

---

Update 9/5/2017
I am very heartened to think that the Inquiry is reading my blog. They need all the help they can get.

You will see, above, that I pointed out significant deficiencies in their original redactions of material relating to Person 737, but I stopped short of naming him myself.

Well, the Inquiry have revisited this material and, inter alia, redacted the reference to the newspaper which had been a dead giveaway.

The final paragraph of the above extracts had not been redacted previously and it is simply Graham Power's guess at who might have been behind the political campaign against him. It is not solely linked to the activities of Person 737. Nevertheless, the Inquiry have made an unnecessary redaction by overstamping John Averty's name with their 737 stamp, thus definitively letting the cat out of the bag. Headless chickens.

Person 737
Click on image for a larger version

The latest additional redactions, in the current Inquiry online documentation, are highlighted in the above extracts.

I expect, however, that the additional damage attributable purely to the overstamping itself may be mitigated by Advocate Sinel's naming of John Averty at a conference on offshore financial centres on the mainland last year.

While I'm at it I should draw attention to something else I noticed in the course of my update.

Graham Power's hearing was on 5 November 2015 (Day 107) and the online documentation is filed under that day. His statement appeared online on 26/27 November 2015 some three weeks later, which is par for the course. The current online index (extract below) suggests that the latest redaction was on 9 December 2015, but internal document evidence says that the current document was created/modified on 18 February 2016.

This suggests that the indicator in the index is updated manually and not by the system so it cannot be trusted at all. This is just another example of the sloppiness of this abysmal website.

End of Update

---

Update 20/12/2020
Following Mick Gradwell's evidence that he was to interview 737 I wondered if Power's suspension had put paid to that. I asked but never got an answer.

Today I had reason to look through some of my own comments on the Voice for Children blog and I see that I had actually answered my own question but had forgotten about it since.

This is Alison Fossey's evidence to the Jersey Inquiry on 3/12/2015 which makes it clear that John Averty was interviewed and arrested; an advice notice had been prepared for the AG and legal opinion was received. But no further action had been taken. So the AG blocked any further action. No surprise there.

Click on image for a larger version

Unfortunately, all the transcrips of daily sessions and evidence submitted to the Inquiry have been taken off line. There was a promise at the time that this was temporary but so far there is no sign of anything going back up. The Jersey Way I suppose.

End of Update

---

Brian Moore, Chief Constable, Wiltshire
The Wiltshire report, referred to above, has played a big role in demonising Power and Harper, so I thought you might like to see Power's own view of this flawed report. It is not contained in his statement or oral contribution to the Inquiry. It is taken from an interview with Power by the Voice for Children blog and dates from June 2012.

Brian Moore

Moore was an "absentee investigator" if there ever was one. He never met with me and he even planned to have the disciplinary interviews conducted by subordinates. He did not get the basics right at the beginning. He accepted terms of reference which invited him to assess my conduct against the rules which apply in England and Wales (which were incorrectly described as the "UK"). At an early stage I pointed out that these rules did not even apply to Scotland, let alone Jersey, and that I had a clear political mandate to disregard any UK guidelines which were not consistent with local practice. I also drew attention to the fact that the political mandate not to apply UK guidelines in Jersey had been re-enforced by the advice of the Attorney General of the time (now the Deputy Bailiff William Bailhache) who would be called as a defence witness should the matter ever come to a hearing. But Moore carried on regardless without ever resolving that contradiction. In the end he could only do his report and ask an English Lawyer what disciplinary offences would apply to an English Chief operating under English rules. He then said that it was up to the Jersey authorities to decide whether to apply the same reasoning locally. This was an awkward problem for the Jersey Authorities. If they decided that English Guidelines did not apply in Jersey then the whole case collapsed. However, if they decided that English guidelines did apply then those guidelines would then become the "bible" for policing the Island and 800 years of policing tradition would go out of the window. This dilemma presented quite a problem. In the end Ministers dealt with this in the time honored way. They put off making a decision until it was too late anyway. That is after all "the Jersey Way". What a waste. An enquiry built on sand. No matter how much work is done, if the foundations are not sound then the whole thing falls over. Having accepted wide ranging terms of reference Moore compounded his error by authorizing "fishing expeditions" which involved trawling through every email I had sent and every document I had created. Interviews were conducted with people I worked with 20 years ago, asking them to remember something, anything, that could stick. By any standard this was foolish, wasteful, but also contemptible. A more professional approach would have involved a tight "ring fenced" enquiry focusing on specific relevant issues and bound by clear timescales and budgets. This was never done, and in consequence the investigation took on a life of its own, perpetuating one line of enquiry after another until the original purpose became lost in the mass of data. He also failed to get a grip of the timescales and the spending behavior of his own staff whose apparent determination to leave no expense unclaimed provided a welcome boost to the local hotel and hospitality industry, but did nothing for law enforcement. Perhaps he could not believe his luck that so much Jersey money was being siphoned off into his Force accounts. In all probability he will have made good use of it for the benefit of the citizens of Wiltshire. The benefit to the citizens of Jersey is less apparent. I expect that he will have his excuses but the result speaks for itself. Over £1m and nearly two years spent on an enquiry with no result. And he was the Investigating Officer. Not “overseeing” the enquiry, not the person with executive responsibility, he was the named person in charge. Nobody with their name on the failed Wiltshire enquiry should have the nerve to criticise anyone else's conduct of any enquiry ever. They have forfeited their right to criticise anyone else. They have allowed themselves to be drawn into a political vendetta, they have wasted over a million pounds, and they have produced a flawed report when they knew it was too late to do anything with it.