Ozzy's Place

JCLA Press Statement

2012-01-09T13:11:00.000Z

PRESS STATEMENT

Further to the Home Affairs Ministers statement on the Historic Abuse Police Enquiry and the role of the accredited media, the JCLA would like to offer the following response.

Whilst it is some small comfort, to at last have Senator Le Marquand’s recognition of the fact that matters were grossly exaggerated many times by the press, it could also be said to be too little, too late, as indeed Mr Harper has stated.

Had the BDO Alto Review not been held, it is doubtful that this statement would have ever been made. We must also, not lose sight of the fact that this review was held due to the hard work of a local blogger and the determination of the Scrutiny Panel headed by Deputy Trevor Pitman.

Notwithstanding the above, the reputations of two honourable police officers, and abuse survivors have also been brought into question, and the three conclusions mentioned by Senator Le Marquand from the Wiltshire Reports clearly show that the media frenzy that surrounded this whole sorry affair was very misjudged.

Indeed, Senator Le Marquand himself allowed this misinformation to be published, and indeed at times fanned the fire by his defensive answers to questions in the States Chamber. It was not helped at all by calling Mr Harper ‘an incompetent maverick’, amongst other derogatory statements which are well documented.

Part of an editorial comment in the JEP dated Monday 24^th August 2009 says: ‘In addition, on the strength of what was clearly a flawed investigation from its very outset and the hype which surrounded it, the Island has paid a terrible price through the enormous cost of misdirected police work and, more importantly, in terms of its reputation’. Quite clearly Wiltshire did not think this the case.

There will always be a case of ‘we beg to differ’ over the question of the child’s skull/coconut, but it cannot be dismissed that 65 children’s teeth were found under the floorboards, fresh, fleshed and burnt bones were found, the matter of the lime pits and many other questions left unanswered. There are the abused whose cases were never brought before the Courts despite ample evidence, who will never feel that the Police investigations were full and properly concluded, and questions relating to the behaviour of Mr Gradwell.

Only when a full, transparent and thorough Committee of Inquiry is approved and finalised will it be possible to say that there is a conclusion to this affair. (END)

Minister's statement on historic child abuse

2012-01-05T10:09:00.000Z

Jersey's Home Affairs Minister says he is satisfied that the police enquiry into historic cases of child abuse was fully and properly concluded. Senator Ian Le Marquand also says some reporting of the issue was exaggerated.

He has this morning made the following statement to States members:

"During the Review that was recently conducted in relation to the BDO Alto report into financial management of the part of the Historical Child Abuse Enquiry which related to Haut De La Garenne, I was reminded of the exaggerated nature of some of the reporting in this area and agreed, in fairness to Mr Power and Mr Harper, to make a press statement to seek to correct the worst exaggerations.

"These exaggerations included allegations that most of the cost of the Historical Child Abuse Enquiry was wasted and that digging should never have started at Haut De La Garenne. Some of the reported criticism of the Historical Child Abuse Enquiry has wrongly led some people to the conclusion that, in some way, the whole enquiry had been discredited.

"The definitive reports in this area are the two reports of the Wiltshire Police. Those reports conclude amongst other things:

1) That the Historical Child Abuse Enquiry was appropriately managed in its early stages.
2) That issues of serious concern did arise in relation to the financial management and other aspects of the investigation in relation to Haut De La Garenne.
3) That the decision to start digging at Haut De La Garenne was not so clearly wrong as to give rise to a disciplinary issue.

"In my press conference in July 2010, I indicated my view that, once a piece of material had been wrongly identified by an anthropologist as being part of a child's skull, it was reasonable that the digging at and around Haut De La Garenne should continue, but that once the forensic experts indicated that the item was not human skull, the reason for continued digging ceased.

"I also now wish to affirm and confirm that the Historical Child Abuse Enquiry was much wider than the Haut De La Garenne investigation, and that this enquiry led to a significant number of successful prosecutions as well as to the discovery of significant other allegations of physical and sexual abuse which did not, for a variety of reasons, lead to successful prosecutions.

"The Enquiry continued until 2010 and I am satisfied that the Police investigations were fully and properly concluded in relation to the various allegations of abuse which were made".

All I Want For Christmas......

2011-12-25T21:12:00.002Z

an open and transparent Committee of Enquiry with a fit for purpose Terms of Reference.

For the truth to be finally heard, the real truth, from those who were there who are brave enough to stand up in public and tell their harrowing stories and finally for someone to say 'we believe you and we are sorry'

ENOUGH SAID!

2011-10-28T12:38:00.001+01:00

Jersey's Haut de la Garenne abuse case at High Court

Seven people were convicted after the abuse inquiry, with four linked to Haut de la Garenne

A group of former residents of the Haut de la Garenne children's home are suing the Jersey government at the High Court in London.

They are seeking compensation over abuse at the home and say the States has taken too long to agree a deal.

Their lawyers believe the High Court can hear the case and it is the only way they will get redress.

The States said such cases had to be heard in Jersey's courts and it was dealing with compensation claims.

The compensation claims follow an inquiry, between 2007 and 2010, into historical abuse at the island's children's homes.

“Start Quote

[Jersey authorities] think if they ignore it for long enough, it will go away but it won't... there are too many people, there's too much come out”

Haut de la Garenne abuse victim

Police took 1,776 statements from 192 alleged victims during the inquiry, which led to seven convictions, four of which were linked to Haut de la Garenne.

However despite the prosecutions, Alan Collins, a UK-based solicitor representing nearly 40 former residents, believes going to the High Court is the only way they will get compensation.

"Not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done," he said.

"For them, that means taking proceedings to the High Court in London, they feel that is the only opportunity they now have to be recognised and to be compensated."

Jersey's Chief Minister, Senator Terry Le Sueur, insisted a system for compensation claims had been set up and the "process is ongoing".

"[However] the States of Jersey is not aware of any moves to bring action in the English High Court in relation to claims for compensation made in relation to the inquiry," he said.

"In any event, the English Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain an action for damages against the States of Jersey that relate to events that are said to have occurred in Jersey, and any such claim would need to be made through the island's separate and independent judicial system."

'Not our fault'

But Mr Collins disagreed and said: "The High Court in London is well used and has many years of experience of dealing with cases of this nature, I am unaware of any such case being tried in the Jersey court."

One victim, a woman who spent several years at Haut de la Garenne in the 1970s, said she was forced to have sex with a member of staff up to five times a week.

She said no one at the home seemed to notice or care and now feels the Jersey authorities are deliberately delaying dealing with compensation claims.

"They think if they ignore it for long enough, it will go away but it won't not this time, there are too many people, there's too much come out," she said.

"The only thing they'll understand is when, if necessary, we all stand up in a court and say 'Look this is what you did, this wasn't our fault, we were kids, we were wards of court, you had a duty of care, simple'."

2011-10-28T12:31:00.002+01:00

Alleged child abuse victims to sue at High Court

Above: Haut de la Garenne

A group of people who claim to be victims of mental and physical abuse at the Haut de la Garenne children's home in Jersey are to sue the States at the High Court in London.

They want compensation for the abuse they claim to have suffered and are angry over delays in the island over hearing their case, which hit the headlines more than three years ago.

Alan Collins, Solicitor-Advocate of Hampshire solicitors, Verisona, who is acting for 38 victims, said the cases - which will each be brought on an individual basis - have taken too long to be heard in Jersey.

Mr Collins explained: "In spite of assurances from the States of Jersey that there would be an attempt to address the victims’ claims outside the adversarial process, no proposals have been forthcoming and as far as I am concerned, no serious attempt at dialogue let alone negotiation
has been made by the States of Jersey.

"The victims’ cases have been treading water for far too long. Many have had to give evidence in
criminal proceedings which has resulted in abusers being convicted. This was a harrowing experience. They have shown great fortitude and patience with the States of Jersey, and so they can be forgiven for concluding, given the complete failure to attempt to resolve the claims on its part, that enough is
enough.

"Let’s get the case before the court and allow the judge to decide whether we should be
compensated."

Mr Collins explained that damages are being
sought for the pain and suffering arising from the physical and sexual abuse sustained whilst the clients resided at Haut de la Garenne. Many were abused by members of staff - some of whom have been convicted. He argues that the States as the employers are legally responsible for the abuse committed by the staff, and as a consequence, should compensate the victims.

Jersey’s historic abuse investigation ran from September 2007 until December 2010 with the conviction of married couple Morag and Tony Jordan, who were house parents at Haut de la Garenne in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Others were suspected of abuse going back 70 years but died before they could be prosecuted.

We have contacted the States and are awaiting their response to the above.

2011-10-28T12:26:00.002+01:00

Haut de la Garenne 'won't go away'

A group of former residents at a children's home are suing the Jersey government in the High Court in London after allegations of abuse.

Sancha Berg reports on the lack of movement on a public enquiry into the affair.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9626000/9626210.stm

Bob le Brocq's question District 3 St Helier Jersey election Oct 2011

2011-10-04T17:54:00.000+01:00

Astrid Kisch - A Personal Response

2011-09-03T05:16:00.002+01:00

Dear Miss Kisch,

I doubt you will read this, however I feel compelled to address some of what you have written in your letter to the Jersey Evening Post.

1. 'The alleged perpetrators of the care home discipline of those days have been convicted'

There is no 'alleged' about it, several people have been convicted in a court of law, case closed! I really don't know where you are going with the 'care home discipline of those days' thing, Are you really saying that the 'discipline' handed out by those people was acceptable because it happened in the past? I don't think having bars of soap forced down your throat, being dragged down flights of stairs by your hair, being punched, sexually abused, locked in a cell, mentally abused and living every day in fear of those who are supposed to be caring for you is acceptable in any decade.

2. 'so the revenge part has been dealt with and the wrongs righted-at great expense to the taxpayer'.

I cant speak for all the survivors, but, on my part 'revenge' never entered into it, All I have ever wanted was justice. I'm sorry but the wrongs done to me will never, I repeat, NEVER be righted, they will stay with me til the day I pass from this earth. As for the expense all I can say is 'what price justice?'

3. 'The care leavers have grown up and made their lives a long time ago'.

Really, are you serious? I am 50 years old and what happened to me as a child has impacted on my life everyday since. I have suffered depression, alcoholism, drug addiction, homelessness. I have struggled to maintain relationships, even struggled with being a father, can you even imagine what it is like to be scared to bond with your own children.

And let us remember those who never 'made their lives' but chose to end them.

4. 'Now, I understand, they are asking for 'compensation' by which I assume they mean money'.

I wanted an apology, not some half cocked heartless excuse for one but a real one. I wanted someone to stand up and say 'we believe you and we are sorry' As that has not been forthcoming from those in power I felt I had no choice but to pursue compensation.

No amount of money can compensate for the years of pain!

5. 'Why do other people i.e.the taxpayers,have to give them money and for what purpose?'

Haut De La Garenne - Run by the States of Jersey

Staff at HDLG - employed by the States of Jersey

States of Jersey - elected and employed by you the taxpayer

Need I say anymore.

I urge you to take up the offer by the JCLA and actually talk to survivors like me and then maybe, just maybe you will begin to understand.

yours

Ozzy

A proud Survivor

2011-09-02T17:58:00.001+01:00

Ill-informed views on care leavers

September 2, 2011 – 3:00 pm

From Carrie Modral, chairman, Jerssey Care Leavers’ Association.
THE letter (JEP, Tuesday 30 August) from Astrid Kisch cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

Overall, this lady appears to have a very ill-informed and blinkered knowledge of the child abuse issues and the ensuing matters, and if we may be permitted we would like to put the record and facts straight.

Firstly she mentions the ‘alleged’ perpetrators. Does she mean by this that innocent people have been brought to justice for their deeds? They are not alleged, because they have been found guilty in a court of law.

Furthermore not all perpetrators have been brought to justice. Revenge does not enter into the equation – doing the right and lawful thing does. Crimes were committed and those guilty had to be accountable. It really is that simple.

Now we are puzzled. Mrs Kisch talks about the ‘care home discipline of those days’.

Is she saying that severe sexual, physical and mental abuse was in the past acceptable discipline? We are not talking about a slapped wrist or a smacked bottom, but far, far worse than that. I do not think she will find many people in agreement with what was acceptable or not however long ago she may be talking about.

Indeed, the care leavers have grown up, but not necessarily ‘made their lives’. Many have been left very damaged by what they experienced and will have to live with the legacy of that for the rest of their lives. Some are unable to work and others have many various issues because of the scars that have been left both mentally and physically. Has Mrs Kisch ever spoken to or made any attempt to understand what some survivors suffered and indeed still do.

However, all these most important facts seem to be overlooked by what seems to be the main bugbear and that is compensation, which seems to be a very dirty word in Mrs Kisch’s book. Yes – compensation. Is that really too much to ask for lives damaged, childhoods (as she may have known it) lost and something abuse victims can never get back. Furthermore, it appears that with the attitude displayed in her letter Mrs Kisch is causing the victims to be victims yet again.

There has never been any question that compensation would not, or should not be claimed. Children, who for various reasons (and not because they were difficult), were placed either in care homes or residential homes under the supervision of people paid by the States of Jersey to give them the love, affection and nurturing that would have been afforded them in a normal home environment.

The fact that in many instances this did not happen, in fact quite the opposite, leaves the blame fairly and squarely at the door of the States of Jersey for failing these children. Indeed in Ireland most of the Catholic orders and institutions where abuse took place contributed sums of money to the redress scheme for survivors there. Here in Jersey, it is only the government who are accountable.

At present we are unsure whether the States have an indemnity insurance that will cover this, or how the compensation will be paid, but I am sure there are not many people who would begrudge this in any way, shape or form.
Finally, Mrs Kisch would be most welcome to visit our offices should she so wish to learn more about why we are here and the issues we deal with. Better an informed public than an uninformed letter.

Article posted on 2nd September, 2011 - 3.00pm

2011-08-08T17:51:00.000+01:00

No jail for Syvret - but 80hrs community service

Former Health Minister Stuart Syvret has escaped jail for contempt of court, but has been sentenced to 80 hours community service.

He has also been ordered to pay £5,000 in court costs and been fined £1,400.

Earlier today, facing being jailed, he released a statement in the Royal Square outside court saying that he will still stand for Senator even if he goes to prison.

He said: "Jail will not stop me standing for Senator. Only bankruptcy or assassination would stop me."

Syvret had been in court appealing convictions for breaching the data protection act and being in contempt of court.

Last year the former politician was fined for breaking data laws and sentenced to 10 weeks in prison for contempt after walking out of the trial.

But the former Senator served just one night of his sentence before appealing the term.

In court Syvret has said the evidence gathered against him and the manner in which it was collected was an Abuse of Process.

Insult to Jersey abuse case victims

2011-08-05T16:01:00.004+01:00

02.08.11

PRESS RELEASE

Insult to Jersey abuse case victims

Still no compensation for victims of Haut de la Garenne horrors

Victims of the notorious Haut de la Garenne abuse in Jersey are still awaiting compensation more than three years after the case hit the headlines.

The wait continues for the victims, despite their abusers Michael Aubin, Morag and Tony Jordan and Gordon Wateridge being successfully prosecuted and convicted during 2010.

36 of the victims, many elderly and in poor health are represented by Solicitor Alan Collins of Verisona Solicitors & Advocates in Portsmouth.

He said: “The victims of these appalling crimes believed that following the guilty convictions, the States of Jersey would accept the allegations of abuse, along with its moral and legal obligation to compensate for the harm that had been inflicted. In fact, the State is actually scrutinizing the investigation that led to the convictions; unbelievably politicians in Jersey have questioned the truth of the abuse despite the guilty verdicts.”

One victim, who cannot be named due to the impact it may have on any civil proceedings, said: “The States of Jersey seems to have done everything in its power to try to bury this historic child abuse investigation. Its attitude has been ‘move along folks, nothing to see here’, it’s appalling. Politicians seem to care more about Jersey’s reputation, than they care about those of us who were mentally and physically abused as children whilst in the care of the States of Jersey”.

Another victim added: “The States seem more involved in fighting each other then assisting the victims. We are, as quoted by a States Member, ‘a bunch of disturbed minds & criminals’.”

Alan Collins, a specialist in historical child abuse cases, added: “The failure to compensate the victims is a case of rubbing salt in to open wounds. Many of the victims, as a result of the abuse suffered, are vulnerable. The children were in the State’s care and the criminal trials clearly exposed that this care was wantonly lacking. The abuse went on year after year.”

A former member of staff at Haut de la Garenne, not linked to any abuse, and considering giving evidence at potential civil proceedings said: “I would like to see as much time, effort and money put into the aftercare of 'my children' as is put into all these investigations into investigations”.

Mr Collins believes that the only way victims can now get justice is by taking proceedings against the States of Jersey.

He explained: “Civil proceedings would be regrettable because of the stress involved to the victims and witnesses, as well as the cost implications. The States of Jersey have put the victims in an intolerable position though and it is about time they did the right thing. No amount of money would make up for what happened but the gesture of meaningful compensation helps victims draw a line in the sand and move on. The horror of what went on at Haut de la Garenne will not go away.”

Jersey's historic abuse investigation ran from September 2007 until December 2010 with the conviction of married couple Morag and Tony Jordan, who were house parents at Haut de la Garenne in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Others were also suspected of abuse going back 70 years but died before they could be prosecuted.

-END-

Alan Collins is a solicitor-advocate, and Director of Verisona Solicitors and Advocates. He can be contacted on 02392380112 for further comment.

2011-08-04T18:54:00.000+01:00

Hospital death experts called in on abuse inquiry

Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur

THE independent UK consultants who investigated the death of Hospital nurse Elizabeth Rourke after a routine operation went wrong will determine which parts of the historical child abuse inquiry are to be examined and how.

Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur has agreed that Verita, who have been involved in high-profile cases including the Baby P inquiry, can set out the terms of reference of a committee of inquiry into historical child abuse.

Senator Le Sueur refused to say how much the work would cost but said it would be finished by the end of September.

In My Room

2011-03-16T20:58:00.001Z

Made this today, one of my favorite songs, the lyrics say it all.

2011-03-14T12:00:00.001Z

WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?

WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT

DID YOU ENJOY THE POWER

WHY DID YOU TAKE AWAY

MY BOYHOOD INNOCENCE

CORRUPTING MY CHILDHOOD

WITH YOUR DIRTYNESS

WHY DID YOU DO THAT

PREY ON MY VULNERABILITY

WHY WOULD YOU

TAKE AWAY MY HAPPINESS

REPLACE MY SMILE

WITH TEARS AND SORROW

WHY DID YOU DO THAT

MAKE ME FEEL LOVED

WHY WOULD YOU

THEN ABUSE THAT TRUST

CONDEMN ME

TO A LIFE FULL OF PAIN

WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT

WHY?

©ALLAN SHEPHERD 2011

2011-03-06T23:40:00.002Z

My next few blogs will feature some of my poetry, I'm not a pro so please bear with me as I have tried to put things to paper that are very emotional for me.

ARRIVAL.

Alone, bewildered, scarred

a little boy lost

that's how I arrived

taken from school

'for my own good'.

Driven by car

by a faceless social worker

whose name I long forget

through unknown lanes

enveloped in loneliness.

All too soon

there you stood

in all your granite majesty

your imposing stature

too much for my young mind

to take in.

Your cold exterior

matched only by your sterile inside

you should have been my haven

but all that you did

was extinguish my spirit

and stifle my cries.

©Allan Shepherd 2010

States votes for historic care home abuse inquiry

2011-03-02T14:51:00.000Z

States votes for historic care home abuse inquiry

The States agreed there should be a committee of inquiry into abuse at care homes in the island

The States agreed to Senator Francis Le Gresley's proposition asking the Council of Ministers to reconsider its decision not to have an inquiry.

There were 37 votes in support of asking ministers to reconsider, with 11 voting against and one abstaining.

Senator Le Gresley said he was angry with the matter being dismissed in just one report.

He said: "I wanted the message to go out to the victims of abuse that it would be the States of Jersey that make this decision, not the Council of Ministers."

'Right and proper'

Last month the Council of Ministers presented a report into the issue and said there would be no committee of inquiry.

Jersey's Chief Minister, Senator Terry Le Sueur, said following the conclusion of the police investigation, the Council of Ministers did not think an official inquiry would be appropriate.

He said it was questionable whether an inquiry would find out what had happened 50 or so years ago.

But Senator Le Gresley said that States members should be given the opportunity to decide whether a committee of inquiry was necessary.

In the proposition he said: "I believe that it is right and proper that a debate should take place in the chamber on such an important issue, which has dominated the news headlines in Jersey for the last three years.

"The outcome of this will give the Council of Ministers either a clear endorsement of their decision not to set up a Committee of Inquiry or a strong indication that their decision needs to be reconsidered," he said.

Jersey care home couple jailed for assaulting children

2011-01-06T18:56:00.001Z

Jersey care home couple jailed for assaulting children

Anthony and Morag Jordan were found guilty of assaulting children

A married couple have been jailed for assaulting children at former Jersey children's home Haut de la Garenne.

Morag Jordan, 62, from Kirriemuir, Angus, was given a nine-month term for eight charges of assault against four children in the 1970s and 1980s.

Her husband, Anthony, also 62, was sentenced to six months, for eight charges involving two boys.

The sentencing, at Jersey's Royal Court, is the last stemming from the Historic Abuse Inquiry.

The Jordans worked as assistant house parents at the home.

'Cruelty and violence'

During their trial, the court heard how Morag Jordan was found to have rubbed one girl's face into urine soaked sheets after she had wet the bed.

She was also found to have hit residents with her hand and with a wooden shoe.

Jurors heard how her husband hit children with a metal spoon, a knife or with his hand.

Morag Jordan was acquitted of a further 28 counts of abuse and Anthony Jordan of four.

Sentencing, the Judge Sir Christopher Pitchers said: "All children from Haut de la Garenne have said what they needed was love, care and sympathy, not cruelty and violence."

But he added it was violence they received at the hands of the Jordans.

The inquiry was launched by police in the island in September 2007, following allegations of abuse at the former children's home.

Officers took 1,776 statements from 192 victims, identifying 151 alleged abusers. Seven people, including the Jordans, were successfully prosecuted.

WHAT A JOKE, SENTENCE NO MORE LIKE SLAP ON WRIST, GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Jersey historic abuse investigation ends

2010-12-13T19:44:00.000Z

1,776 statements from 192 victims, identifying 151 alleged abusers.Seven people prosecuted!
It Stinks!

2010-12-06T21:08:00.001Z

Jersey's chief minister apologises to abuse victims

Senator Le Sueur has apologised to victims of abuse at Jersey's care homes

Jersey's chief minister has apologised to people who suffered abuse at children's care homes in the island during the 1970s and 1980s.

Senator Terry Le Sueur told the States of Jersey that the residential care system "failed some children".

A couple were convicted of assaulting children last month in the final prosecution brought as a result of the historic abuse inquiry on the island.

Morag and Anthony Jordan, of Angus, Scotland, will be sentenced in January.

The court heard they carried out "casual and routine violence" while working as house parents at the Haute de la Garenne home.

Mr Le Sueur said the island's government sympathised with all those affected by the inquiry.

He said: "On behalf of the island's government I acknowledge that the care system that operated historically in the island of Jersey failed some children in the States residential care in a serious way.

"Such abuse has been confirmed by the criminal cases that has been before Jersey's courts.

"To all those who suffered abuse, whether confirmed by criminal conviction or not, the island's government offers its unreserved apology."

The statement was welcomed by States members and the Chief Minister was pressed to provide more information.

He was asked to include details of claims for compensation from anyone who's evidence did not lead to a criminal prosecution.

Senator Le Sueur said: "I'm very reluctant to speak in any depth about potential civil claims because they are ongoing.

"I would simply say that in broad terms any individual can bring a civil claim at any time and that claim will be judged on its merits."

He said the States members should see a report into the whole matter in the new year.

Senator Le Sueur added: "I was anxious to present an apology today in advance of any other activity that may be required to deal with that aspect of the matter.

"I do acknowledge the importance of this and we will consider it as a council of ministers at the earliest opportunity."

The apology brings to an end Operation Rectangle, a Jersey police enquiry into historic abuse in the island.

While the most high profile cases involved the former Jersey care home, Haut de la Garenne, not all of the cases were at the home.

Jail terms

Seven people have been found guilty of abuse as part of the operation.

Gordon Claude Wateridge was found guilty of assault on three girls while he was a house parent at Haute de la Garenne between 1969 and 1979.

Claude James Donnelly was jailed in June 2009 for 15 years for rape and indecent assault.

Michael Aubin was given two years probation for various sexual offences at Haut de la Garenne between 1977 and 1980.

Ronald George Thorne spent twelve months in prison for gross indecency between 1983 and 1984.

Leonard Miles Vandenborn was jailed for 12 years for the rape and indecent assault of two young girls in the 1970s and 1980s.

The final case as part of Operation Rectangle saw former house parents at Haute de la Garenne, Morag and Tony Jordan, found guilty of assaulting children in their care.

NO CELLARS AT HDLG ?

2010-09-05T01:42:00.005+01:00

Much has been said about the cellers not existing, so, here are two pictures of hdlg, one from during the investigation and the second from some years ago.

I leave you to make up your own minds.

Personal attacks prompt Warcup resignation

2010-07-19T23:24:00.000+01:00

Statement of Jersey's Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand - 19/07/10

"Sir I rise to inform the States that the Acting Chief of Police, David Warcup has informed me that he is no longer willing to be considered for the post of Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police and that as a result he will be leaving the force on 31st December 2010.

It is with great regret that I have accepted his decision. I have asked the Greffier to circulate a copy of his statement which is now on Members desks.

Members will know that I lodged a Proposition in March of this year in which I asked the States to agree to his appointment. Mr Warcup was originally appointed under Appointments Commission oversight. At that time he was assessed against the requirements of the Chief Officer of Police post. He was therefore appointed with the express commitment that he would become the Chief Officer subject to a further assessment at that time and subject to the agreement of the States.

I confirm that Mr Warcup has demonstrated his ability and suitability during his time as Acting Chief Officer and this has been validated by the panel chaired by the Appointments Commission.

I am therefore extremely disappointed that the delay and subsequent politicisation of the process has resulted in his decision to leave the States of Jersey Police.

As Home Affairs Minister, I have worked with Mr Warcup for the past 19 months. I have found him to be a man of integrity with a deep understanding of Policing in all of its aspects.

He has demonstrated his ability to manage and motivate police officers in order to improve performance and increase the professionalism of the Force. What has most impressed has been his selfless commitment, regardless of the personal consequences, to expose the failings that have been identified by the Metropolitan Police and Wiltshire in order that justice could be served.

I would also like to recognise that Mr Warcup has shown his empathy for policing in a small island community and under his leadership, with my full support, the Police Force is starting to demonstrate a real recognition that effective policing is not done to a community, but only with the support of the community.

I am extremely saddened that events of recent months have resulted in the loss of an extremely able and committed officer who I believe would have lead the States of Jersey Police to become a more effective Police Force.

Whilst I am saddened by the loss of Mr Warcup, we have secured his services until 31st December 2010 in order to manage as smooth a transition as possible to a new Chief Police Officer.

Under the Appointments Commission oversight, I will be starting the appointment process immediately and I hope to have secured the appointment of a suitably experienced and qualified officer by the end of September. This should allow the new Chief of Police to be in post at or very soon after Mr Warcup's departure.

I think that we as the States' elected representatives must seriously reflect on our roles in the events of recent months and how we will avoid any similar repetition in the future.

I hope that Members of the Assembly will join with me in thanking Mr Warcup for his selfless and unstinting commitment to serving the Community of Jersey and that we will all wish him well for the future."

Statement of David Warcup, Acting Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police - 19/07/10

"Following discussions with the Minister for Home Affairs, I have advised the Minister that I no longer wish to be considered for the post of Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police and that I will be leaving the force on 31st December 2010.

In April 2008, I was appointed as Deputy Chief Officer, with the express intention that I would progress to be the next Chief Officer when the serving Chief Officer retired, no later than December 2010. The selection process involved an assessment against the full requirement for the post of Chief Officer and was overseen by the States of Jersey Appointments Commission.

In January 2010, a further review and formal assessment process was carried out by a review panel consisting of the Minister for Home Affairs, a representative of the Appointments Commission, the Chief Executive and the Director of Human Resources.

As a result of the assessment, the panel made a strong recommendation, endorsing the proposal that I be appointed to the post of Chief Officer on the retirement of the existing post holder.
It has therefore been my reasonable expectation since April 2008, that I would succeed the Chief Officer, Mr Power, on his retirement.

I am grateful for the support of the Minister, but I have made it clear to him that the primary reasons for leaving are due to the political hostility which has been directed towards me, the attacks on my personal integrity and the resultant delays in securing my appointment.

In recent months there has been a concerted effort to challenge my integrity and to postpone my appointment. It is apparent that no consideration was given to the impact that such actions would have on both me and my family.
The role of the Chief Officer of Police has been drawn into a heavily politicised debate, the outcome of which has been the failure to secure my appointment in accordance with the previously publicised commitment in April 2008.

The unfounded accusations from a small number of people concerning my conduct during the Historical Abuse Inquiry as well accusations made relating to my role in the suspension of the Chief Officer were malicious and unfounded. The publication of reports following enquiries by Wiltshire Police, clearly vindicate my position in raising what were serious concerns regarding the conduct of the Historical Abuse Inquiry.

I believe that I have acted at every stage, honestly, as well as demonstrating courage in challenging those matters which were manifestly wrong and could have potentially prejudiced trials.

In the face of provocation and persistent attempts to undermine my authority as the Acting Chief Officer of Police, I believe that I have acted professionally, maintaining a focus on my role in ensuring that the force performed effectively, protecting the public and preventing and detecting crime. The results achieved by the force during the period in question amply demonstrate this.

I have always maintained that the police should be fully accountable, but that they should be free from political interference. It is also a basic tenet of policing that any Police force must be operationally independent if it is to deliver professional and impartial policing, but equally we can only police with the consent of the public.

The actions of a few have only served to undermine the position of the Chief Officer and therefore my mandate to carry out that role independently and effectively. On this basis I believe my ability to undertake the role of Chief Officer within the States of Jersey has been undermined to the point where it would be untenable and was therefore a significant factor in my decision not to take up the post.

It is my fervent hope that whoever is appointed Chief Officer of Police, is afforded the freedom and respect to enable him or her, to carry out their duties within a properly structured accountability framework without the interference which has been such a significant part of events in recent months.

It is with great disappointment that I leave the officers and staff who work for the States of Jersey Police, who despite difficult circumstances have worked with professionalism to deliver high quality policing services.

I am grateful for their support and commitment over the last 21 months as Acting Chief Officer, and I believe that together we have made significant progress in ensuring that the Force is better placed to deliver effective policing in Jersey."

Police Chief disciplinary action abandoned

2010-07-08T12:50:00.000+01:00

Disciplinary action against the former head of Jersey's police force has been dropped.

Mr Power retires in 12 days' time and Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand says there's no time left to complete the inquiry which has so far cost more than £1m.

But Senator Le Marquand told States members there had been 'ample evidence' against Mr Power and he'll be making a further statement next week.

Mr Power said the abandonment of disciplinary proceedings means he can now be regarded as having been exonerated of all allegations.

No specific charges have ever been made against Mr Power, but his suspension is believed to be related to his handling of the historic child abuse investigation.

Mr Power has always said he's done nothing wrong.

Below is an extract from the States debate:-

Senator Le Marquand (Minister for Home Affairs)
Sir in relation to the contribution of the Connétable of St Helier he is, in my view, perpetuating a myth which has also been perpetuated for some time by the Deputy of St Martin both of whom have chosen to be, to nail their colours to the ‘Power’ mast, if I may put it that way, most firmly, perpetuating the myth that somehow Mr Power would have gone away

Greffier of the States (in the Chair)
If we could use his title please Minister

Senator Le Marquand (Minister for Home Affairs)
I’m sorry Sir, somehow the Chief Officer of Police would have gone away. The fact is, that he chose from day 1 to seek to say ‘I have done nothing wrong, I want to come back, in fact I’m going to bring legal proceedings against the Home Affairs Minister so that I can be reinstated. The fact is that there never was the option open to the Home Affairs Minister to simply pay him off – that was not something he was going to accept, that was not something he was ever going to agree to. So this is a complete myth which has been put over that somehow I had some other option open to me – the fact is it will very shortly be demonstrated when I reveal reports – which I hope to do next week – in relation to these matters that the Chief Officer of Police was very seriously at fault in a whole number of different ways, and members will then be able to judge whether my opinion of the matter.

Connétable of St Helier
Sir I think I ought to raise a point of order. I think for the Minister to pre-empt the disciplinary process is entirely wrong – the person concerned has no right of reply – this is not a judicial court – I suggest the Minister withdraws his remarks.

Senator Le Marquand (Minister for Home Affairs)
I am not withdrawing the remarks they are absolutely true and I have had to wait a very long time to say it and I will demonstrate that that is absolutely true next week from the reports which I have. I am well aware of the discipline matters, I am able to inform members if they are interested that I have today abandoned the discipline proceedings against the Chief Officer of Police upon the basis that it is impossible to finish them in the time – solely on that basis – there are ample grounds for disciplinary proceedings as will become apparent shortly [Interruption] I am not giving way, but maybe those members who have chosen to nail their colours so firmly to the mast - without actually checking with me as to what the real facts have been - may have to eat humble pie.

The following statement has been released by friends of Graham Power.

'Disciplinary proceedings against Mr Power are to be formally abandoned on 20th July 2010.

Mr Power will retire from the Police Service at midnight on 19th July 2010 after completing over 44 years service as a police officer. He is currently on leave prior to his retirement date.
Once he retires he will no longer be subject to the Chief Officer’s Disciplinary Code. Accordingly all disciplinary proceedings will cease.

Background:
Mr Power was suspended from duty on 12th November 2008 by the former Minister for Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis, who claimed that he had evidence relating to the management of the Historic Abuse Enquiry which justified action under the Disciplinary Code. His suspension was subsequently continued by the current Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand.

Mr Brian Moore, Chief Constable of Wiltshire, was appointed in December 2008 to carry out a disciplinary investigation and report to the Minister. Senator Le Marquand originally indicated that he expected Mr Moore to report to him by March 2009. Mr Power cooperated fully with the Disciplinary Investigation and at one stage provided a written statement of over 62,000 words.
No disciplinary action was taken in 2008.
No disciplinary action was taken in 2009.
No disciplinary action was taken in 2010.
No disciplinary charges were ever brought.
No disciplinary hearing was ever called.
The costs of the suspension and disciplinary investigation have been officially confirmed as exceeding one million pounds. In a recent written answer in the States the Minister for Home Affairs said that up to the end of May 2010 the cost of the suspension and disciplinary investigation had reached a total of £1,069,776. This figure does not include the costs of the time of the Civil Servants and Law Officers who have assisted the Minister. Costs will continue to rise both in relation to cover for the absence of the Chief Officer, and in connection with the enquiry into the suspension currently being carried out by Mr Brian Napier QC.

The suspension was controversial from the onset. In January 2009 the Connétable of St Helier, Simon Crowcroft, brought a Report and Proposition to the States requesting an independent review of the suspension before further expenditure was committed. The proposition was opposed by Ministers and narrowly defeated. In the summer of 2009 the suspension was the subject of a Judicial Review in the Royal Court, and on regular occasions since 2008 there have been questions and exchanges in the States.

In September 2009 Mr Power successfully applied to a Complaints Board hearing for the Chief Minister to be required to disclose information relating to the creation of the original suspension documents. The subsequent disclosure cast doubt on the truthfulness of the previous accounts given by Ministers of the suspension process.

Following a Report and Proposition from Deputy Bob Hill, the Chief Minister recently agreed to an independent review of the manner in which the original suspension was carried out, with terms of reference not dissimilar to those first proposed by the Connétable of St Helier in January 2009. That review is currently being carried out by Mr Brian Napier QC.

There have also been questions in the States regarding the length and cost of the investigation led by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire, with some specific questions focussed on the scale of expenses claimed for hotels, travel and meals.

At every stage Mr Power has denied any wrong-doing whatsoever in relation to the management of the Historic Abuse Enquiry or any other issue, and said that he would defend himself against any disciplinary action that was brought against him.
Mr Power has made the following statement in relation to the imminent abandonment of disciplinary proceedings:

“I am obviously pleased this unnecessary and unjustified disciplinary enquiry is now to be abandoned. In common with everyone else, I am entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The abandonment of disciplinary proceedings after almost two years means that I can now be regarded as having been exonerated of all allegations. That is not a matter of opinion. It is an accepted principle of justice. In these circumstances it is inevitable that attention will now be focussed on the actions of those responsible for initiating and continuing my suspension. While it would not be appropriate for me to become involved in any political exchange, I remain willing to assist with any legitimate enquiry in respect of the actions of those concerned.”

It is understood Mr Power has already given detailed evidence to the enquiry being conducted by Mr Brian Napier QC and has indicated his willingness to assist Mr Napier further should that be required.

Further details in respect of Mr Power’s retirement:

Mr Power joined the States of Jersey Police in 2000. Prior to that date he held a number of senior positions in the Police Service both in England and Scotland. Under the States of Jersey regulations relating to pensions and retirement the “Normal Retirement Age” for his position is 60. Mr Power reached that age in June 2007 but agreed to continue serving due to a number of retirements from senior positions in the Force which were taking place around the same time. He is now aged 63 and is therefore more than three years beyond the date on which he was expected to retire.

On the question of his retirement Mr Power has said:

“While I considered retiring in 2007 I felt at the time that it was right I should work beyond my retirement age in order to provide continuity of management for the Force. Since November 2008 I have further postponed my retirement in order to give the Minister for Home Affairs a fair opportunity to resolve the outstanding issues under the Disciplinary Code. I did however become frustrated at the continuing delays, and on a number of occasions in 2009 I issued public statements confirming that if matters were not resolved by 2010, I would delay my retirement no further. In January 2010 I effectively set a deadline by giving the Minister written notice that, come what may, I would retire in July of this year. This allowed the Minister a further 6 months to bring matters to a conclusion. For whatever reason, the Minister did not make effective use of that opportunity and in consequence I will retire on the date notified to the Minister at the start of this year.”

It is understood that Mr Power is retiring to England and has already left the island.

AND THE ANSWER IS........

2010-05-28T20:35:00.002+01:00

Here are the answers given to the questions asked in the states as referred to in my previous posting. What do you think ?

4.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the number of alleged abuse cases relating to the cellars at Haut de la Garenne:

Would the Minister advise the Assembly how many of the 30 alleged abuse cases relating to the cellars at Haut de la Garenne are still part of the ongoing historic abuse investigations; how many, if any, are not being pursued, when was it decided to discontinue their investigation and for what reason?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):

In answer to a question previously I indicated there were 30 such allegations. Those, in fact, were made not by 30 people but by 8 people. These were all properly investigated by the police, sometimes with the benefit of legal advice and none of these complaints passed the evidential test so as to warrant a prosecution.

4.1.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Could the Minister clarify whether the former lead officer in the case, Mr. Gradwell - I do not believe I can avoid naming him - invited some of the Haut de la Garenne survivors to the police station to show them some examples of evidence, i.e. shackles that had been found in the cellars. If this is correct would this action not have made the evidence inadmissible in a court of law?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am unaware of any such occurrence. That does not mean I am saying it did not happen, I am simply not aware of it. I would have needed to have specific notice of such a detailed question.

4.1.2 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Could I ask that the Minister seek out the information and report it back to me? Would that be possible, please?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

It would be helpful if I could have something precisely in writing so I know exactly what the question is, I am then happy to make inquiries.

4.1.3 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Yes, if I could just follow up on the question. Is it usual in criminal cases for an investigating officer to show evidence such as the things that have been said in a criminal case to witnesses before they have gone into court?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

There are grave dangers in criminal investigations of police officers revealing too much detail which can subsequently contaminate the evidence of witnesses. That is a particular concern in all criminal investigations and therefore officers should be very careful not to lead witnesses in any way by providing them with information or showing them items in such a way that might contaminate their evidence.

4.1.4 Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:

Will the Minister confirm that among the 8 people who made the allegations that one of them was made through an advocate? Will the Minister confirm?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Again, I do not have that level of detail.

The Bailiff:

Deputy Pitman, final question.

4.1.5 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Could the Minister clarify whether the whole media strategy surrounding the historic abuse inquiry was a Home Affairs strategy or a police strategy? If a police strategy, was the lead individual still overseen by the Minister?

The Bailiff:

It is not clear how that arises out of this question but, Minister, it is up to you if you want to answer.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am answering with some caution because I do not want to trespass into expressing an opinion in relation to disciplinary matters as Members will understand. But it is my understanding that the media strategy was a police strategy not a Home Affairs strategy. I could be wrong on that but that is my understanding.

4.8 The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding allegations made in relation to abuse in the stone bath or immediate area of Haut de la Garenne:

Will the Minister inform Members how many allegations were made in relation to abuse in the stone bath or immediate area at Haut de la Garenne; why and when was the bath demolished, who gave authority to demolish it and what did its demolition and removal cost?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):

I cannot give a figure in relation to the first part of the question because of the general nature of many of the allegations made in terms of place et cetera, but of course this figure is within the figure of 30 made by 8 people which I have previously given. The bath and the drain were dismantled for evidential purposes on instructions of the Senior Investigating Officer at the time who was the former Deputy Chief Officer prior to the building being handed back, with his agreement, on 10th July 2008. I cannot quantify the cost in relation to the dismantling for evidential purposes.

4.8.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I think this saga may well run on because I gather that a sample was removed ... a sample of blood was found by the Bedfordshire Police and sent off to a forensic laboratory. Is the Minister able to give us a result of that particular sample ... sorry, I will come again, is the Minister able to give us a result of the examination of that blood? Was a prosecution followed?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

No, I am not. This is clearly an operational matter and it is not matter that I would delve into unless I had a very, very specific question and thought it appropriate to answer.

4.8.2 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Could I again get back to the demolition of the bath, is the Minister able to say that ... could I ask where the Minister has received information that the bath was demolished prior to the departure of the former Deputy Chief Officer? Because my understanding is that a sample of the stone was removed to be taken away for sample but certainly not that the stone bath was demolished.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I can only act in a case like this on the information which is provided to me which in this case has been provided to me by the Acting Chief Officer.

The case of the disappearing bath

2010-05-08T15:28:00.002+01:00

This 'bath' has featured so much in the Haut De La Garenne abuse enquiry with a lot of allegations made about it and its use. Blood was found in it and a sniffer dog made very strong indications that there was something there.

Imagine then my surprise upon learning that it has been removed, albeit in secret, from the site.

Surely it must be classed as physical evidence and therefore should have been preserved in situ until such time as all investigations and court cases have been concluded.

One wonders who gave the order and what their reasoning was, to me it looks like willful destruction of evidence in an ongoing investigation and therefore the person/persons responsible should face criminal charges.

Anyway, it seems others would like answers as 2 questions will be asked in the states next Tuesday (11th May) and I cant wait for the answers if they are forthcoming.

I reproduce the actual questions to be asked in full below.

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –

“Would the Minister advise the Assembly how many of the 30 alleged abuse cases relating to the cellars at Haut de la Garenne are still part of the ongoing historic abuse investigations; how many, if any, are not being pursued, when it was decided to discontinue their investigation and for what reason?”

8. The Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –

“Will the Minister inform Members how many allegations were made in relation to abuse in the stone bath or immediate area at Haut de la Garenne; why and when was the bath demolished, who gave authority to demolish it and what did its demolition and removal cost?”

Affidavit of the Chief of Jersey's Police Force

2010-02-12T23:02:00.002Z

Just in case you, dear readers, thought that the abuse enquiry was dead and buried (Lets face it THEY would like that to be the case) I reproduce below, in full, Graham Powers affidavit.

"There will be no cover-up" - famous words of Frank Walker in 2008 at the start of the HDLG investigation.

IN THE ROYAL COURT OF JERSEY

(Samedi Division)

In the matter of the application of Mr. Graham Power, Q.P.M., Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police (hereinafter called “the Applicant”) for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Minister for Home Affairs to suspend the Applicant from office.

1. I, Graham Power, Q.P.M., (address) make oath and say that the contents of this my affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge information and belief.

I am the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. I am currently suspended from duty and seek leave to apply to the court for a review of my suspension. My feelings of grievance in this matter are summarised as follows:

· The suspension is an unjustified and unwarranted scar on the latter stages of a long and occasionally distinguished career. I would like to see that scar removed.

· In my suspension a disturbing precedent has been set which I believe needs to be challenged in the public interest. If it remains unchallenged there are potentially serious consequences for the independence and integrity of law enforcement in the island and an additional risk that future police actions will be subject to inappropriate political pressure and intimidation.

2. My professional background is that I have 42 years police service and have served in the senior ranks of four police forces. Prior to my current appointment I was Deputy to H.M. Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland. I have been decorated by the Queen for distinguished service. My contract as head of the islands police has been extended twice, the most recent extension being in 2007 following as assessment of my performance in post. Successive reports by H.M. Inspectorate of Constabulary have described the force under my leadership as a progressive and high performing organisation with a well motivated workforce. I have been vetted by the relevant U.K. authorities to “top secret” level and have access to security material of extreme sensitivity. In addition to my local duties, I sit on a U.K. committee which addresses sensitive policy issues relating to security matters and I am an assessor for the body which selects potential Chief Officers for U.K. police forces.

3. During my period in office, crime levels have repeatedly fallen and public satisfaction surveys show confidence ratings which are exceptionally high by any recognised standard. I am in possession of letters and reports from political leaders and others which praise me professionalism and commitment. I am physically fit and regularly perform front line operational duties in the island, including nightshifts at weekends. There is no history whatsoever of poor performance or public confidence issues relating to my command preceding the events described in this application. Indeed, all of the recorded evidence points to outstanding performance in the discharge of my duties. Independent evidence to confirm this picture can be produced should any of it be disputed. Since my suspension I have received many messages of encouragement. I am regularly stopped in the street by complete strangers who want to express their support for me and their condemnation of what has occurred. I am one of a handful of the most senior appointed public figures in Jersey. My suspension is seen by many as an event of major significance with far reaching implications. It cannot be described by any fair means as a neutral act. My suspension made world news. My daughter heard of it while listening to her car radio in Australia. The damage to my professional standing and reputation has been considerable. I will now attempt to explain briefly the legal and constitutional background to my position and how it may have affected events.

4. As Chief of Police I am directly accountable to the Minister for Home Affairs on a day to day basis. This was not always the case. Prior to the relatively recent introduction of Ministerial Government I was accountable to the Home Affairs Committee. While this arrangement was far from perfect, the inevitable differences of view and political perspective within the Committee, or even the requirement for the Committee to arrange meetings as a corporate body, created a loose system of checks and balances which presented a barrier to arbitrary action by the Committee President. This arrangement changed on the introduction of Ministerial Government. The Minister for Home Affairs now has sole initial decision making responsibility in respect of any disciplinary issues and can act without any obligation to consult with political colleagues or any other person. As illustrated in my case, this power also has some potential for retrospective use. In this instance a Minister has initiated suspension and disciplinary proceedings in respect of matters which occurred during the tenure of the previous Minister, and has done so apparently without consulting with the previous Minister and in the probable knowledge that the Minister in power when the alleged acts or omissions took place would have taken a different view. This has now been continued by a third Minister.

5. Police Officers of less senior ranks have the protection of the Police (Complaints and Discipline) (Jersey) Law 1999 and the Police (Complaints and Discipline Procedure) (Jersey) order 2000 both of which are held to be compliant with the islands human rights obligations. The interpretation section of the order specifies that it shall not apply to the Chief Officer, and unlike other jurisdictions, Ministers have not created a corresponding set of “Senior Officer Disciplinary Regulations” or similar legislation to provide comparable process and protections for more senior ranks. The document used to justify the suspension was the non-statutory Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of Police (appendix “A”.) This document was apparently produced within the hours preceding my suspension and is based on an earlier code approved by the former Home Affairs Committee some time in the years before my appointment in 2000. On the face of it the changes from the earlier code consist entirely of a translation into the language of Ministerial Government. However, a practical effect of these changes is that the decision-making responsibility moves from a corporate body to a single individual, namely the Minister, with no obligation to consult with any other party. In that respect this is a significant change. The original code was produced before the adoption of the Human Rights Law and has not been amended in consequence of that law. No claim is made by the Minister that the translation from the old code to the new code was accompanied by any form of consultation or human rights audit. The code contains no statutory protections, and no provisions for appeal or review in the event of suspension. As events have shown is it capable of creative interpretation by a minister who is so minded.

6. I am therefore now in a situation in which a Minister, on his own individual authority, is seeking disciplinary action against the Chief Officer in respect of matters which took place under the political oversight of the Minister before last, using a code written just hours before the event and based on a document produced in a previous political era with none of statutory provisions and protections afforded the more junior officers.

7. The Jersey legal system does not have a position equivalent to a Procurator Fiscal or an Investigating Judge or Magistrate. For all but a fraction of cases the police service, under the command of its Chief Officer, is the single point of entry for cases into the Criminal Justice System. A court may wish to consider whether, in those circumstances, such close individual political control of the leadership of the force provides for the independence of justice, and is consistent with the principles of Human Rights.

8. In 1996 a committee appointed by the States under the Chairmanship of Sir Cecil Clothier published a report which recommended the establishment of a Police Authority for Jersey. In the twelve years which have followed nothing of substance has been delivered by those in government. Other small jurisdictions have recognised the need to preserve the independence of policing and a number of measures have either been put in place or are under active consideration. For example in Gibraltar there is a Police Authority charged with maintaining the independence of policing and in Guernsey there are draft proposals for the establishment of an Independent Law Enforcement Commission. While these developments have been taking place elsewhere, the movement in Jersey has been in the opposite direction with the removal of the committee structure and a focus on a direct line of accountability to a single politician. It is my contention that this places the Chief Officer of Police at a structural disadvantage in any situation in which the proper requirements of law enforcement and the interests of political expediency collide and is contrary to the principles of Human Rights and Good Governance. This is particularly the case when a new Minister takes a different view from that taken by his or her predecessor.

9. In spite of this background I have attempted to ensure that at all times the force operates “without fear or favour” particularly when investigating matters affecting the interests of politicians, other senior figures, their families and associates. Such investigations are not rare. It is customary for at least one such enquiry to be live at any one time. I cannot remember the last time when the force did not have at least one enquiry of that nature. In an environment in which Ministers and others are accustomed to a more direct control over public services I have found it necessary to make the point that the police are not a department of government, and to assert the independence of the force from direct political control. Ideally these assertions should be founded on some established and widely accepted principles of law and good practice. In the current circumstances they have more often been founded on the determination and strength of personality of the Chief Officer and the former Deputy Chief Officer. No Chief Officer of Police should be required to operate under such arrangements.

10. The events which gave rise to this application did not begin with the suspension meeting on 12th November 2008. Their roots lay in a series of events associated with the historic abuse enquiry. This enquiry, known as “Operation Rectangle” began over a year before it became publicly known and long before the crime scene work at Haute De La Garenne. The investigation took place against a background of widespread rumor, speculation and political controversy. The establishments which the police were investigating were owned and run by the States of Jersey, and for which members of the Council of Ministers had political responsibility. In the early stages a significant number of people were named as “suspects”, either of abuse or of covering up abuse in a way which may have constituted a perversion of the course of justice. Although the suspect list was later refined as the evidential picture became clearer it was extensive in the early stages and, significantly, included a number of people who, currently or recently, held positions of seniority or influence in public services. This provided further grounds for tension and prevented the adoption of a partnership working model common elsewhere for enquiries of this nature. Maintaining the independence of police operations, difficult enough in ordinary times under the accountability arrangements described above, became a full time challenge as the enquiry unfolded.

11. Against this background there followed a series of events and confrontations in which the leadership of the force became isolated from an inner group of politicians and civil servants loyal to the then Chief Minister and hostile to the independent line taken by the police. By way of illustration I will give examples of three events which typify this developing state of affairs.

12. In July 2007 a case came to public notice following a Serious Case Review (S.C.R.) carried out by an independent person appointed by the States. The review concerned the completed criminal case of a (removed for anonymity)who had been subject of sexual abuse by two local men. The matter had been investigated by the police and the two men were convicted. Following the circulation of the review report the then Health Minister, Senator Stuart Syvret, was critical of the depth of the report and asked a number of questions of all of the agencies involved, including the police. I agreed with the Health Ministers assessment of the report. I thought that it avoided some of the more difficult questions and lacked challenge. I did not think that the Ministers criticism of the police was well founded but I arranged for him to be provided with a full reply in response to whatever he asked. I did not see this as a particularly unusual thing to do. In any healthy environment it is open to politicians to challenge the heads of public services and only right that they should get a full reply. As I see it that is how the system is supposed to work. I had assumed that others would dee things the same way. On the afternoon of Wednesday 25th July 2007 I discovered that this was not the case. I attended a meeting of the Corporate Management Board (C.M.B.) This is a body which brings together the heads of the islands public services to discuss policy issues and provide collective advice to Ministers.

13. T he feeling in the room was tense and there was general talk about the questions asked by the Health Minister and the need for some sort of action in response. I had the feeling that “something was going on” to which I was not a party. After the meeting the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley, asked me to stay behind. Also remaining were the head of States H.R., Ian Crich, the Chief Officer of Health, Mike Pollard and the then Chief Officer of Education, (Tom McKeon who has since retired.) The Chief Executive said that it was anticipated that the Council of Ministers would tomorrow be asked by the then Chief Minister, Senator Frank Walker, to pass a vote of “no confidence” in the Health Minister and that this could result in his removal from office. I was then told of measures that had apparently been put in place to facilitate this. I was told that the islands Child Protection Committee (C.P.C.) was due to meet at the same time as we were meeting and that arrangements had been made for it to pass a vote of “no confidence” in the Minister. It was then suggested that as the heads of the relevant public services we should do something similar and that this would give support to the proposal that the Chief Minister would bring forward the next day.

14. I was shocked by this and initially did not know what to say. I eventually made two points. Firstly I said that the Minister was entitled to ask difficult questions. As I saw things that was his role and it was our role to provide a response, and secondly, even if that was not agreed, what was being proposed was civil servant and police engagement in political activity. I stated clearly that I did not see that as acceptable and that I would have nothing to do with it. At this point the Chief Executive asked me to leave the meeting which I did. I then made contact with a police colleague who had been at the C.PC. and discovered that this colleague had also had left their meeting for similar reasons. Shortly afterwards we both made brief notes in relation to what had happened. This was my first noteworthy experience of the formation of an “inner circle” of politicised senior civil servants loyal to the Chief Minister. The Chief Executive and the head of H.R. subsequently played a significant role in my suspension.

15. Further indications of an gulf between the Chief Minister and his associates, on one hand, and the force, supported by the then Home Affairs Minister, Senator Wendy Kinnard, on the other, emerged the day on which it was decided that Senator Kinnard was no longer able to maintain political oversight of the Historic Abuse Enquiry. This was because a few days previously she had made a witness statement which created a conflict of interest. At the time of writing I do not have access to my diary and notebooks and cannot be sure of the exact date. A meeting was arranged to discuss how this would be managed. The meeting was attended by me, Senator Kinnard, The Chief Executive and the then Chief Minister. The Chief Minister entered the room and immediately began a verbal attack on the historic abuse enquiry claiming that it was causing damaging publicity for the island. Senator Kinnard, who was the Minister to whom I was actually accountable, attempted to defend the enquiry but she was effectively shouted down.

16. I knew that the views being expressed by the Chief Minister were not the views of the Home Affairs Minister. She had been regularly briefed on the enquiry by members of the force and by senior advisors appointed by the Association of Chief Police Officers and had expressed her strong support for the conduct of the investigation. The Chief Minister said that he was “under pressure to suspend both the Chief and the Deputy Chief”. He did not say where the pressure was coming from but he said this in a way which gave the impression that he was not hostile to that pressure. The heat of the exchanges rose and the Chief Minister spoke to Senator Kinnard in a way which I found offensive and I saw that she was clearly becoming upset. She was the only woman present and I was her only friend in the room. I intervened forcefully and told the Chief Minister that from my management experience, I considered that he was behaving in a way which, in a workplace, could be classed as bullying and lead to a claim or constructive dismissal.

17. After a while things calmed down and the options for re-allocating Ministerial responsibility for the enquiry were discussed. I later learned that Deputy Andrew Lewis, who was the Assistant Home Affairs Minister, had been asked to take the Ministerial lead in respect of the enquiry. (On a later date, when Senator Kinnard resigned as Minister, Deputy Lewis was briefly appointed as Minister for a few weeks before he left politics.) I left the meeting in no doubt that the then Chief Minister was actively seeking a justification to use the power of suspension in a punitive way against either myself or the then Deputy Chief Officer or both. At no stage did he mention any substantive allegations which might justify suspension. He gave the impression of regarding suspension as a weapon in itself. The Chief Executive, who was present throughout, played a significant role in my suspension, and during the suspension meeting the Chief Minister was in the next room. The Chief Minister presided alongside the new Minister for Home Affairs (Deputy Lewis) at the press briefing at which my suspension was announced.

18. Since my suspension a member of the States who is otherwise unconnected to any of these events, has come forward and offered evidence. The States member speaks of overhearing a conversation in the corridors of the State building between the then Chief Minister and Deputy Lewis. This discussion appears to have occurred in the weeks following the meeting mentioned above. During that discussion the possibility of suspending or dismissing the Deputy Chief Officer was being actively discussed. It might be useful to add at this stage that if Minister had taken legal advice concerning their suspension powers in relation to police officers (which they presumably have at some stage) they would have been told that in an apparently unintended consequence of the way that the law is drafted, they have no powers whatsoever in relation to the Deputy Chief Officer. That authority rests entirely with the Chief Officer. If suspension is on their mind then the only target within their range is the Chief Officer. There is nobody else that they are able to suspend.

19. The third example I have chosen relates to a Strategic Planning Workshop held at the St Pauls Centre on Friday 24th October 2008. The Workshop was attended by a number of senior public servants including myself and the Chief Executive. At the commencement of the workshop the Chief Executive asked for silence and said that he had an announcement to make. He named a senior civil servant who was present. The person named is a suspect in the abuse investigation but has not been suspended. The Chief Executive said that the suspect had his total support and that “if anyone wants to get…….(the suspect)…….they would have to get me first”. This announcement was applauded by some but not all of the persons present. I took it as a further indication of the “in crowd” closing ranks against the “threat” of the abuse enquiry. The Chief Executive later played a significant role in my suspension.

20. I now turn to the events more directly related to my suspension on Wednesday 12th November 2008. There was no long “run up” to what occurred. It was all very quick and unexpected. On the evening on Tuesday 11th November 2008 I was on holiday having returned from the U.K. earlier that day. I was unexpectedly telephoned at home by the then Home Affairs Minister, Deputy Andrew Lewis. Given the nature of my professional responsibilities telephone calls during leave and other “off duty” periods are not uncommon, although it was unusual to be contacted by a Minister. The Minister sounded anxious. He told me that he wished to see me in the office of the Chief Executive at 11 a.m. the following day. He said that the meeting was to discuss the content of a presentation and meeting which had taken place that evening, attended by himself other Ministers and the new Deputy Chief Officer. He said that those present at the meeting had seen reports and documents relating to the Historic Abuse Enquiry. I was surprised by this. I did not know that such a meeting had been planned and if I had known I would have attended. In a telephone conversation with the Deputy Chief Officer a few days previously we had discussed forthcoming events and I had been told that there would be a press conference on the historic abuse enquiry on Wednesday 12th November but no mention had been made of any briefing to the Ministers on the evening of 11th.

21. I attended the following morning as requested and was asked to wait in the area outside of the Chief Executives office. I had been there for a few minutes when I sensed a movement and on looking up I saw the Chief Minister apparently leaving the Chief Executives office and return to his own office which was next door. I then saw the Head OF Human Resources, who seemed “flustered” enter the Chief Executives office carrying papers, and leave shortly afterwards. I noted at this stage the time was 11-10a.m. but I did not think to note any times thereafter. Shortly afterwards I was invited into the Chief Executives office. He and Deputy Lewis were seated together and I was invited to sit opposite. They were in possession of documents. It later emerged that these documents were as follows:

21.1. A copy of the disciplinary code for the Chief Officer of Police which I attach at Appendix “a”

21.2. A letter headed “Disciplinary Code” which was addressed to me. Appendix “b”

21.3. A letter headed “Suspension from Duty” which was also addressed to me. Appendix “C”

21.4. Also, two days later I received through the post a copy of a letter headed “Disciplinary Code” signed by the Minister and addressed to the Chief Executive. I attach this at Appendix “D”.

22. The Minister read out to me some of the content of the letter at “B” and showed it to me. This was the first indication that I had been given that the meeting was of a disciplinary nature. I had been given no notice, no time to prepare, and was not offered any representation. The Chief Executive said that in view of the content of the letter I would be allowed up to one hour to “consider my position.” With hindsight I recognise that the Chief Executive may have chosen his words carefully. However, at the time neither myself, nor I believe anyone else in the room, had any doubt that this was an invitation to resign. I treated it as such and said that I was rejecting the opportunity and denied any wrong-doing. I also protested at the unfairness of what was happening, the fact that I had not seen the documents to which the letter referred, and had been given no chance to offer representations or a respond to their content. These comments were noted but nothing was done.

23. It was at around this point that I became aware that the Chief Executive was taking handwritten notes. These appeared to be detailed and I saw him turn an A4 or similar sized page at least once. At one point I slowed down what I was saying in order that he could capture the words. The Minister then said that he had decided to suspend me with immediate effect and I was handed the letter “C.” This was the first indication I had been given that suspension was a possibility. Suspension had not been discussed until seconds before it was actually invoked. A short conversation followed during which I made representations on the manner of any enquiry and for “equality of arms” by means of legal representation. It was during these exchanges that further information emerged from the Minister, who made a number of unscripted comments which continued in spite of interruptions and other attempts by the Chief Executive to get him to be quiet. It was stated by the Minister that the press briefing to announce my suspension had already been arranged for that afternoon, and that Ministers had already agreed “lines to take” on such matters as confidentiality during any enquiry and that it would be claimed that the suspension was a “neutral act”.

24. The Minister then appeared to have an attack of guilt. He told me that he had always admired my commitment and professionalism and that he regarded me as an outstanding Chief Officer. He offered me his best wishes and sincere hopes that I would be successful in defending myself against these allegations. He did not seem to see any contradiction between what he was saying and his actions of a few minutes previously. It was on this surreal note that the meeting ended. According to my recollection it all happened very quickly although I did not think to note the time. It was subsequently said on behalf of the Minister that the meeting lasted less than 35 minutes but how much less was not stated. (The Ministers account of the meeting will be referred to again in this application and is set out in Appendix “h” to follow)

25. I have subsequently had an opportunity to study the documents provided to me in more detail. Based on the documents I have been given, and my long experience in operating similar procedures from a management perspective, I offer the following observations. The letter from the Minister to the Chief Executive (Appendix “D”) requires the Chief Executive to “conduct a preliminary investigation under paragraph 2 of the discipline code” Paragraph 2 of the code describes the process for a preliminary investigation. The Chief Executive is required to establish the “relevant facts” These will include “statements from the available witnesses and the Chief Officer.” Paragraph 2.3 of the code is headed “continued or serious breach of discipline/poor performance/capability.” It begins in paragraph 2.3.1. by stating “if the preliminary investigation indicates that a more serious breach of discipline … has occurred … the issue will be considered by the Home Affairs Minister.” Paragraph 2.3.2. describes how a hearing in consequence of paragraph 2.3.1. will be established. Paragraph 2.3.3. states “In more serious circumstances the Chief Officer may be suspended from duty…pending the outcome of this procedure.” I submit that there can be no reasonable doubt that the Discipline Code for the Chief Officer of Police creates a legitimate expectation that the suspension will be preceded by a period of preliminary investigation, assessment of evidence, a right of response, and an appropriate level of consideration and reflection. I submit that this is not only an expectation created by the code but a requirement of fair play and natural justice. No such entitlements were provided in my case.

26. As I understand it, the Minister may attempt to argue that he was entitled to conclude, without any preliminary investigation, that “more serious circumstances” had arisen and that he was thereby entitled to suspend without any preliminary process. It is agreed that the circumstances could conceivably arise in which the procedure may need to be condensed. For example the Chief Officer being arrested while committing a crime might be one such circumstance which could possibly justify a shortening of the expected process, although even in those circumstances some form of preliminary consideration and representation might be appropriate. In such an event it would be for the Minister to record and justify why such extreme action had been taken. “more serious circumstances” should not be used as a “get out clause” Which allows the Minister to by-pass the legitimate expectations of process created by the code, and act without warning, without offering representation and without providing a fair opportunity of response. In this paragraph, and some to follow, I have argued that the Minister has not complied with his obligations under the disciplinary code for the Chief Officer of Police. I would nevertheless ask that all of these comments be viewed in context of paragraphs 5 to 7 of this application which raise questions regarding the appropriateness and Human Rights compliance of the code itself.

27. I will now set out some of the reasons why I consider that it would have been fair and reasonable for the Minister to consider the issues before him at greater length and in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and hoe he has failed to take into account matters which it was his duty to consider. In some cases I have asked the Minister to provide further information relevant to this application. At the time of writing this has not been provided. I do however have copies of the original letters from the suspension meeting which form part of the appendices and I have since received the proposed terms of reference for the Investigating Officer. These are attached at Appendix “E”. The reasons which, in my submission, provide grounds for overturning the decision of the Minister in addition to those already stated include the following:

27.1. So far as is known, whatever is alleged (and over six weeks after the event I have still not been shown the documents containing the allegations which gave rise to my suspension) relates to management processes and structures in the early part of the investigation. I understand that nothing relates to the current management of the force and that there is support for the management structures which I have either put in place personally, or have been put in place by others acting on my instructions.

27.2. On the 12th November 2008 I was part way through a holiday, was not in command of the force, and did not intend to return to work for several days. There was ample time to apply proper process and to allow representations.

27.3. The Minister appears to have placed high emphasis on reports to the effect that the early part of the investigation was not conducted in accordance with the multi-agency model more common in such investigations. He has failed to take into account the strong impediments to partnership working set out in paragraph 10 of this application.

27.4. In seeking to determine my culpability the Minister appears to be relying on an assessment of compliance with policing guidelines which apply in much of (but not all of) the U.K. He has failed to address the question of whether he or his predecessors have ever approved the application of those guidelines to this jurisdiction.

27.5. The Minister places heavy reliance on a document which purports to set out the interim findings of a review by the “Metropolitan Police” into the early staged of the investigation. This review was carried out on my authority. He does not appear to have taken into account that the actual authors of the report are understood to be one police officer, who. In the context of these allegations, is of relatively junior rank, and one civilian assistant. It is believed that neither has ever exercised strategic oversight of a major crime enquiry from the rank of Chief Officer or equivalent. (At the time of writing more details relating to this have been requested and are awaited.)

27.6. The Minister has failed to take into account the reports and verbal briefings provided to him and others during the relevant stages of the enquiry by a team of senior expert advisors appointed by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

27.7. He has failed to take into account the prompt and full response of the force to all of the issues raised during the process described at 27.6 above and the fact that at no stage did he or any other political representative express any dissatisfaction in the consequence of the high level briefings given by the senior A.C.P.O. team.

27.8. He has failed to take into account the fact that the senior A.C.P.O. advisors referred to above were internationally recognised for their expertise and were led by a person with many years experience in the strategic oversight of major crime enquiries from a rank equivalent to that of Chief Officer.

27.9. So far as is known he failed to give due weight to the fact that none of the alleged events took places during his tenure as Minister and he failed to take reasonable steps to establish whether the person who was Minister at the time had any views on the matter.

27.10. The Minister failed to take into proper account the fact that prior to his retirement the former Deputy Chief Officer was awarded a certificate of commendation by the previous Minister for outstanding leadership and media management in the investigation. The Minister has failed to reconcile this award with the retrospective view of events which he has now chosen to take.

27.11. The Minister has failed to take into account the frequently expressed wishes of political leaders and others that the policing of the island should be developed along the principles of local solutions to local issues and that the creation of excessive bureaucracy, processes, and management structures should be avoided. In seeking to hold the Chief Officer to account for allegedly failing to comply with U.K. policing guidelines the impact of such a precedent on the wider agenda of protecting the independence of law enforcement in Jersey has not been given due weight.

27.12. The Minister has failed to take proper account of the 2008 report by H.M. Inspectorate of Constabulary which states “At the time of the Inspection the force was investigating a series of criminal allegations relating to a children’s home spanning a number of decades. In addition to committing substantial local resources, the force sought and was receiving specialist operational assistance from forces on the U.K. mainland to allow the force to effectively investigate these allegations whilst maintaining core business. The investigation was being led by the deputy chief officer and was of a very high profile.” The Inspectorate made no critical comment concerning this arrangement.

27.13. The Minister has failed to fully address the question of whether, against all of the background, and the known performance of the force under my leadership, the action taken was a necessary and proportionate measure.

27.14. The suspension occurred on 12th November 2008 and on 2nd December the Minister made a report to the States. In that statement, and in subsequent exchanges, he makes no claim to have sought any further information, or considered ant representations since the original suspension. He refused to provide members with a copy of the Disciplinary Code under which he had acted. By his actions the Minister prevented members from engaging in proper scrutiny of what had occurred and has sought to defeat the apparent intention of the law that, although initially accountable to the Minister, the Chief Officer is ultimately accountable to the States as a whole.

28. While guidelines approved by the U.K. H OME Office do not have a direct application to Jersey, they can sometimes provide background information as to what is seen as appropriate elsewhere. For this purpose I attach at Appendix “F” a copy of the current guidelines which are applicable in most of the U.K. It can be seen from the document that suspension is positioned as part of an incremental process, usually associated with a history of poor performance and public concerns. The procedure of addressing these issues typically involves a partnership between the Home Secretary, The Inspectorate, and the Police Authority. Suspension may be invoked when the relevant parties have concluded that a point has been reached in which a requirement to resign or dismissal is appropriate and there are significant public concerns. The guidelines state “suspension is a grave matter and the authority or the secretary of State will need to make a judgement about whether suspension would enhance or diminish public confidence. While it is accepted that these guildelines are of marginal relevance to my case, they nevertheless give some support to a legitimate expectation that the suspension of the head of a police service will be seen as a last-resort option, preceded by careful consideration ans assessment involving a number of parties. It should also be noted that under U.K. guidelines any suspension needs to be subject to a monthly review.

29. I now turn to some associated issues which may be seen as undermining any argument by the Minister that some form of due process or proper consideration was applied in my case. The first concerns the text of the letter of suspension which is at Appendix “C”. This letter was handed to me at the conclusion of my discipline meeting. I had received no prior warning of this possibility. The final paragraph of page 1 states “At our meeting earlier today, I informed you that I was considering whether you should be suspended from duty. I now write to inform you that I have decided, in accordance with the terms of the Police Force (Jersey) Law, 1974, to suspend you from duty, on full pay, pending the outcome of the investigation and any subsequent hearings.” I do not believe that it is disputed that there was no meeting “earlier today.” I have challenged this and other aspects of the process and received a letter sent on behalf of the Minister dated 19th November 2008 which I attach at Appendix “G”. The letter refers to the discipline meeting on 12th November 2008 and makes the following claim. “the Minister, having outlined his concerns about the command and control structures in place as regards the Historic Abuse Enquiry and your role within that, informed you that he was minded to invoke the disciplinary code and suspend you. You were offered a period of time (up to an hour) to consider matters and you were offered unsigned copies of the letters it was intended to give you should the process be subsequently activated. The purpose of this was for you to have access to the matters that would be subject of possible investigation and to give you the opportunity to consider those and comment back to the Minister before any decision to commence the process was taken.

30. Taken as a whole this statement is almost entirely untrue. Firstly it seeks to explain the offer of up to an hour to “consider my position” as not an offer to resign but an opportunity to have “access to the matters that would be subject of investigation.” Given that both the discipline letter and the suspension letter make it clear that these “matters” are set out in documents which, over six weeks later, I have still not been shown, and relate to an enquiry which had been running for around two years, I suggested that this claim is transparently false, as is any suggestion that a period of up to one hour, with no notice and no representation, constituted anything approaching a fair opportunity for to make a reasonable submission. If this is doubted then I refer to the initial comments of the Chief Constable of Wiltshire who has been appointed Investigating Officer into the allegations made by the Minister. In seeking to agree the initial process for the enquiry he states in a letter dated 11th December 2008 that “Based on what I know now, I do envisage that relevant inquiries will probably take a number of months to complete.” Even if a period of “up to an hour” had been offered to comment upon the allegations (which it was not) then it could not be seen as fair in the circumstances.

31. Also relevant to the conduct of the Minister is his claim in the letter that the possibility of suspension was mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, and that he informed me that he was “minded.” To suspend me. On reading his letter, I saw this as an attempt on his part to handle the issue of the reference in the suspension letter to the meeting “earlier today.” I anticipated that this may be the beginning of an attempt to argue that the meeting in some way had two parts and that some form of consideration took place in the middle. This might be somewhat implausible in a meeting which, by the Ministers own account lasted less than 35 minutes and by my recollection was rushed and quickly concluded. However, this position changed a few days later when, on 29th November 2008 I received a typed document signed by the Minister. (Appendix “H”) This purported to be a record of the disciplinary meeting. This at least makes it clear that no mention of suspension was made until the Minister handed me the suspension letter thereby putting the process into effect. I wrote and challenged the typed record of the meeting on the basis that it claimed things which were not true and omitted things which were in my favour. In order to clarify matters I asked for a true copy of the handwritten record made by the Chief Executive during the meeting.

32. On 5th December 2008 I received a further letter on behalf of the Minister (Appendix “I”). This informed me that the original notes of the meeting had been destroyed. It is my belief that, in the sequence of events, this destruction took place at a time when the Minister and his civil servants were on clear notice that I was preparing a legal challenge to my suspension, and may have been done because the notes contained evidence which was in my favour. I have made a separate formal complaint in respect of this.

33. Taking all of the evidence into account I consider that I am entitled to believe that the decision to suspend me was in fact taken by the Chief Minister and the Home Affairs Minister, probably in collusion with others, on the evening of Tuesday 11th November 2008. Civil Servants were then tasked with producing paperwork and a procedure for use the following morning. This was done with the intention of creating an impression that some form of due process and consideration had taken place. This latter task was however performed in a rush with the consequence that mistakes in procedure and the attempted deceptions are evident.

34. On 3rd December 2008 I received a copy of the proposed terms of reference for the Investigating Officer in respect of the allegations against me (Appendix “E”). The Investigation has been given the title of “Operation Haven” and is headed by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire. The Investigating Officer has since made it clear that he does not regard matters relating to my suspension as falling within his remit and consequently he will make no enquiries in respect of what occurred. On my reading, the terms of reference invite an investigation into the extent of my compliance with guidelines applicable to police services in England and Wales. No evidence is offered as to why these guidelines should be deemed to be applicable to Jersey I have made separate representations to the Investigating Officer in respect of this and other aspects of the proposed terms of reference for “Operation Haven.”

35. In summary, I suggest that the following are some of, but not all of, the matters in respect of which the court may wish to take a view.

· Whether the actions of the Minister, and the structures of accountability, legislation and process on which he founded those actions, are consistent with the general principles of fairness and compliance with Human Rights.

· Whether the actions of the Minister were consistent with legitimate expectations of process, representation, proper notice, and the right of response created by the disciplinary code and the general expectations of proper procedure relating to the suspension from duty of the Chief Officer of Police.

· Whether the Minister took into account all of the things which he had an obligation to consider before taking the serious step of suspension.

· The public interest issues arising from the creation of a precedent and the possibility of the future abuse of that precedent by a Minister who is inconvenienced by the proper execution of police duties, and of the wider implications for public confidence in the independence and integrity of the police service and of the Criminal Justice System as a whole.

2010-01-10T10:25:00.000Z

Paedophiles’ sentences ‘need review’

By Ramsay Cudlipp

Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand

PAEDOPHILES’ sentences should be reviewed now that there is a greater awareness of the extent of victims’ suffering, according to the Home Affairs Minister.

Senator Ian Le Marquand said that the historical abuse inquiry had made people more appreciative of how victims of sexual abuse can be affected.

He will be discussing sentencing parameters with the Bailiff, Michael Birt, later this year. ‘There may be a case for reconsideration for paedophile offences and I will be looking into it,’ he said. ‘But these matters are up to the courts and all I can do is act as a catalyst.

‘What has changed is that there’s far greater realisation of the serious psychological damage suffered by victims. I don’t think it is a matter that was really appreciated until the last five years.’

Article posted on 9th January, 2010 - 2.59pm

SO THIS IS CHRISTMAS?

2009-12-17T02:01:00.002Z

And so this is Xmas
For weak and for strong
For rich and the poor ones
The world is so wrong
And so happy Xmas
For black and for white
For yellow and red ones
Let's stop all the fight
(John Lennon)

Its that time of year when most are looking forward to that special day with family, seeing the joy on childrens faces as they open presents, mothers wondering just how their going to fit that bird in the oven, fathers snoozing in the armchair during the queens speech.............

But, for others christmas has no cheer!
The homeless are still homeless, maybe they might have got into a 'hostel' for xmas if they can find a place, alot will still be bedding down for the night on christmas eve in doorways, derelict buildings etc. Others are the so called invisible homeless, families in b&b accomodation, those in womans refuges, couch surfers etc etc.
Then there are our old folk, some without family, some abandoned, some isolated, others left to see out their days in often uncaring 'care homes' where pound signs mean alot more than a smile on a face.
And there are those that just survive on the edge of society, some suffering mental illness, who just have no one to turn to and have been abandoned by our so called caring society.
They all of course have one thing in common, Loneliness!

So dear reader, take a minute or two to take a look around you, maybe you could take a xmas card over the road to the old lady in the bungalow, enquire how she is, ask if she needs anything?
When you see the homeless person sitting in the cold, there are alternatives to giving them money, for instance, why not go get them a hot drink, youll be suprised how welcome it is.
What about that fella thats moved in next door, the one you rarely see, perhaps you could leave a little present/card for him at the door, it may be the only one he gets.
For the more adventurous how about making an extra plate on christmas day and dropping it round.

I could go on and on but in essence what I'm saying is in this season of goodwill to all men and in the spirit of giving please take time to think of those less fortunate than you, after all, This Is Christmas.

2009-11-26T18:51:00.000Z

Irish Church accused of abuse cover-up

Four archbishops turned a blind eye to child abuse

A damning report into child abuse in the Dublin archdiocese has criticised the Catholic Church hierarchy for covering up the abuse.

The report investigated how Church and state authorities handled allegations of child abuse against 46 priests.

It found that the Church placed its own reputation above the protection of children in its care.

It also said that state authorities facilitated the cover-up by allowing the Church to operate outside the law.

Reacting to the report, the current Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin said "no words of apology would ever be sufficient" and offered "to each and every survivor, my apology, my sorrow and my shame for what happened to them".

He added that the "many good priests of the archdiocese" shared his sense of shame.

The "Report of the Commission of Investigation into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin" covered a period from 1975 to 2004.

It has laid bare a culture of concealment where church leaders prioritised the protection of their own institution above that of vulnerable children in their care.

Victims

The report said the avoidance of public outrage, which would inevitably follow high-profile prosecutions, appeared more important than preventing abusers from repeating their crimes.

Victim Marie Collins: "This is the end of a very long road"

Instead of reporting the allegations to civic authorities, those accused of horrific crimes were systematically shuffled from parish to parish where they could prey on new, unsuspecting victims.

The report stated: "The Dublin archdiocese's pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets."

It also said that the archdiocese "did its best to avoid any application of the law of the state".

It found that four archbishops - John Charles McQuaid who died in 1973, Dermot Ryan who died in 1984, Kevin McNamara who died in 1987, and retired Cardinal Desmond Connell - did not hand over information on abusers.

The report said that authorities in the Dublin archdiocese who were dealing with complaints of child sexual abuse "were all very well educated people".

It added that, considering many of them had qualifications in canon law, and in some cases civil law, their claims of ignorance were "very difficult to accept".

Above the law

Civic authorities in Ireland, especially the police, were also criticised for their cosy relationship with the Church.

Irish Justice Minister Dermot Ahern: "Persons who committed these dreadful crimes...will continue to be pursued"

The report states that senior members of the force regarded priests as being outside their remit and it claims some police officers reported abuse complaints to Church authorities instead of carrying out their own investigation.

The commissioner of the Irish police, Fachtna Murphy, said it made for "difficult and disturbing reading, detailing as it does many instances of sexual abuse and failure on the part of both Church and State authorities to protect victims".

He added: "The commission has found that in some cases, because of acts or omissions, individuals who sought assistance did not always receive the level of response or protection which any citizen in trouble is entitled to expect from An Garda Síochána (the Irish police).

He said he was "deeply sorry" for the failures.

Cardinal Sean Brady said he was 'deeply ashamed'

The Irish Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern, whose department commissioned the report, called it a "scandal on an astonishing scale" where the "welfare of children counted for nothing".

He vowed to bring those who had carried out the abuse to justice, regardless of the amount of time which had passed.

The Commission's work concentrated on a "representative sample" of complaints made by 320 children against 46 priests, 11 of whom were convicted of sexual assaults on children.

The number of complaints of abuse made by boys was more than double those submitted by girls.

The Commission said it was satisfied that "effective structures and procedures currently in operation" and that all complaints of clerical child sexual abuse are now reported to police.

Thursday's report comes six months after the publication of the Ryan report in May, which took submissions from 2,000 people who said they had suffered physical and sexual abuse while in the care of Catholic-run institutions.

The Ryan report, also known as the report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, found church leaders knew that sexual abuse was "endemic" in boys' institutions.

THE SUM OF A MANS LIFE?

2009-10-25T00:47:00.002+01:00

I was at a funeral yesterday, a friend who passed in his sleep recently. He was a quiet and private man but he was an alcoholic and in the end it killed him. Whilst I was sat in the crematorium I thought how sad is this, only ten people including the vicar attending, can this really be the sum of a mans life?

It has caused me to reflect on my own life, or more to the point where its at right now. Here I am 48 years old, failed marriage, failed business, failing health, lonely, isolated, homeless and broke. The only upside are my 3 wonderful children without whom I may have given up long ago.

I am without doubt a product of the 70's care system in Jersey, locked away or my own good, labelled as 'a difficult child', subjected to mental and physical abuse, deprived of love and affection and sadly unable to cope with life and relationships.

However, I wont give up, for the one thing I gained whilst in care was my inner spirit and strength. So, like the phoenix I will rise again and as the song says 'THINGS CAN ONLY GET BETTER!'

2009-10-16T20:46:00.001+01:00

Education pair will not be prosecuted

By Diane Simon

Attorney-General William Bailhache

THE senior Education Department civil servant investigated by the police as part of the historical child abuse inquiry will not be prosecuted, the Attorney General has decided.

It is believed that this decision was made after the file was examined by independent advocates and a Queen’s Counsel in the UK.

A decision not to prosecute has also been made about a former member of the Education department who was also investigated as part of the inquiry. It is believed that the Attorney General, William Bailhache, informed the States Police of the decision about six weeks ago.

After being asked this week to confirm that the two men were no longer being investigated, the Law Officers’ Department issued the following statement: ‘As the Attorney General informed the States in July 2009, it is not the practice of the Law Officers’ department to comment on individual decisions not to prosecute. It is not appropriate to make any further comment.’

Article posted on 16th October, 2009 - 2.57pm, This is Jersey

Many rivers to cross

2009-10-04T04:20:00.003+01:00

Been caught in a bad bout of depression for a few days now but was listening to some tunes earlier and this just caught my interest. Its just one of those songs that I listen to and think 'thats me'.
Hope you enjoy it and I've included the lyrics.

Many rivers to cross
But I can't seem to find my way over
Wandering I am lost
As I travel along the white cliffs of dover

Many rivers to cross
And it's only my will that keeps me alive
I've been licked, washed up for years
And I merely survive because of my pride

And this loneliness won't leave me alone
It's such a drag to be on your own
My woman left me and she didn't say why
Well, I guess I'll have to cry

Many rivers to cross
But just where to begin I'm playing for time
There have been times I find myself
Thinking of committing some dreadful crime

Yes, I've got many rivers to cross
But I can't seem to find my way over
Wandering, I am lost
As I travel along the white cliffs of Dover

Yes, I've got many rivers to cross
And I merely survive because of my will...

JCLA STATEMENT

2009-09-10T23:47:00.002+01:00

Yesterday Jersey Care Leaver Carrie Modral held a Press Conference in response to the past two weeks of one-sided media coverage of the historical abuse enquiry. The statement says it all so here it is in its entirety.

STATEMENT

For the past 2 years or so the people of Jersey have lived with the horrors of the unfolding story of Haut de la Garenne and related matters. We, on the other hand, the so called “victims of historic child abuse” have lived with the horrors for decades.

We are a group of people only because we all share a similar dreadful experience. We were all innocent children but we are as different from one another as any other people in society. We all had our own individual characters, ambitions and abilities.

Some of us have survived our experience better than others. Some have found happiness with our own families but some have found personal relationships impossible to achieve. Others sadly have succumbed to despair. But, we were all damaged in some way as a result of the abuse that we suffered whilst in the care of the States of Jersey.

When the States of Jersey Police announced 2 years ago that investigations were being commenced into child abuse allegations at various care homes, we responded with some reluctance to the call to come forward with our testimonies.

Many of us have tried to make complaints to officials about our abuse in the past, but have not been believed or have been further humiliated or worse. To re-live the experiences of our childhood abuse, even amongst family and friends, is an extremely stressful experience and it is not something that we undertake with any enthusiasm.

Nevertheless, we were given every assurance by Lenny Harper and his Police team that our experiences would be treated seriously and would be properly investigated and so far as we are aware, the investigations by Lenny Harper and his team were carried out with care and sympathetically.

We had no reason at all to believe that the Jersey Police were not managing our cases in a professional manner. We were at all times kept informed of the progress of our individual cases and we were led to believe that those who had abused us would be prosecuted where ever possible. We had no complaints about our treatment by the States of Jersey Police whilst Lenny Harper was in charge of the investigations.

However, since Lenny Harper retired, we have found that the States of Jersey Police have consistently failed to communicate directly with us, or to keep us informed of progress on our individual cases or the investigation in general.

On the contrary, we have repeatedly discovered through the media that the standards of Police conduct are hotly disputed; that there are allegations of incompetence and malpractice and such information has not been the result of casual rumour, but the deliberate outpourings of the most Senior Police Officers themselves. And most of us have learned, by the same means that more and more cases have been abandoned and that now, only one or two prosecutions only might yet be initiated, but we do not know which these might be, if any. There have only been three cases taken to Court to date, all of which came back with a guilty verdict and all as a result of the work carried out by Lenny Harper and his team.

During the past 2 years we have had the most private and painful details of our lives broadcast world-wide. These details have been discussed, analysed, argued and fought over, in public, by police officers, politicians, lawyers, journalists and every Tom, Dick or Harry. Our emotions have been mangled. Our dignity stripped bare and our reputations and motivations called into question.
We did not and do not deserve such treatment.

During the past two weeks the public of Jersey has been exposed to a barrage of information via the Jersey media from, and interviews with, retiring police officer Gradwell which has totally rubbished the credibility of the entire investigation carried out by Lenny Harper and his team. In addition, the public have been told that the enormous expenditure is not justified.

All this has taken place in an Island where the Chief of Police is suspended from duty for reasons which have not been made public and our Political and Judicial heads seem to take every opportunity to discredit us, our complaints or the manner in which these have been dealt with. Yet, nobody made any official attempt to prior warn us that these things were likely to happen or that our cases might have been handled with such incompetence. Nobody has offered us even the hint of an apology that such things have been allowed to happen. They should all hang their heads in shame.

Once again, we who were abused as children and at every turn when we sought help have been treated with contempt by the Jersey Police and other island authorities. We have been humiliated yet again and are now presented in the public mind as the cause of many problems whereas we are, in fact the totally innocent victims.

Now, the investigation is in disarray. But our lives are more damaged than they were 2 years ago because we have dared to trust in the Jersey Judicial system and to cooperate with the Jersey Police, we are being abused all over again.

We are reluctant to offer any public statement on these matters because every word that is uttered only adds to our grief and the discontent among our families and friends. We are also aware that enquiries still continue and we do not want to say anything that could harm these cases.

But we want the public of Jersey to understand that we did not wish for any of these things to happen. We have only sought to achieve justice for the wrongs committed against us when we were children whist in the care of the States of Jersey and we have been let down very, very badly, all over again.

May God forgive you.

THE TRUTH IS OUT!

2009-09-06T00:04:00.003+01:00

I am reproducing the following from Sen Syvrets blog as its important that as many people as possible read it and understand just what has been going on.
Most shocking for me was that Mr Harper was told not to charge Wateridge, a man who was subsequently convicted! I wonder how many more have escaped justice because of the AG's interference?
Thanks to Stuart and Lenny for the following.

Saturday, 5 September 2009

A GOOD, STRAIGHT COP RESPONDS

TO THE JERSEY ESTABLISHMENT’S LIES.

Some “Inconvenient” Conclusions:

Attorney General William Bailhache
Tried to Stop Wateridge Being Charged.

Documentary Evidence Proves Dig at HDLG
Was Justified.

Evidence of Mr. Harper’s Professionalism and Integrity
Destroys Jersey Establishment Smear-Campaign.

Police Had Intelligence of Forced, Illegal Abortions
And a Still-born Baby at HDLG.

Anthropologist’s Records Showed Many
Suspected Human Bone Fragments.

Police Had Intelligence of Children
‘Not Being Seen Again’.

Expert’s Theory That Solid Fuel Furnace in the West Wing
Was Used to Dispose of Human Remains.

Possibility of Unexplained Child Deaths
Still Unresolved.

ACPO Reports Endorsed Investigation.

The Successful Prosecutions
All Work of Mr. Harper’s Team.

Many Serious Suspects Still at Large.

Gradwell and Warcup Fail
To Bring them to Justice.

Political Pressure and Interference
By Jersey Establishment.

Gradwell and Warcup Press-Conference
Discredited.

Spin, Lies and Smear-Campaign by Jersey Establishment
Proves Existence of Culture of Concealment.

To some readers – those, for example, who rely on Jersey’s traditional media for their information – the conclusions listed above will be shocking, and will be at variance with many of the assertions of, and all the ‘impressions’ conveyed by, the Jersey authorities during much of the last 12 months.

To those of us who have had to take a detailed interest in the awful subject of decades of concealed child abuse in Jersey, many of the conclusions written above will come as no surprise - on the basis of personal experiences, documentary information – and a weary understanding of the true nature of the Jersey oligarchy. One way or another - the truth has been known to us.

But regardless of whether you knew the truth – or whether the Jersey establishment’s propaganda had misled you – you should read this posting. Below is a detailed, evidenced response – written by Lenny Harper – in which the necessity, professionalism and integrity of the States of Jersey Police Force investigation into decades of concealed child abuse is robustly established and defended.

I would like to thank Lenny for taking the time to write this guest posting, and remaining committed to justice and integrity. As a retired man, with a family to care for, he could have washed his hands of these issues and simply walked away. Fortunately for the survivors and this community, he continues to be a fighter for justice; a man who’s instinct is to protect the weak from the powerful.

Stuart.

Lenny Harper’s Guest Posting:

I have been away from Scotland for the past two weeks and have therefore missed the intellectually challenged journalistic nonsense from Diane Simon of the JEP, including the interview with Supercop Mick Gradwell. My thanks to those who have updated me.

I began counting the inaccuracies and downright falsehoods but gave up there were so many of them. Mick Gradwell said in a letter a few months back to a Daily Mail journalist that “the best I can say about Mr. Harper is that he is a man who has difficulty in understanding basic facts”. But it seems to me that he and Diane Simon cannot recognise facts even when they are laid out in front of them several times. I will return to Mr. Gradwell later when I yet again make clear how ludicrous and dishonest some of the assertions made by various people are, including his rather nasty and juvenile attack on some senior staff of the States of Jersey Police. First however, and I am sure all the readers of this blog will understand, I need to defend myself against some of the personal attacks made on me by Messrs Gradwell, Warcup, Simon - and a few others who have reasons to see the Abuse enquiry fold.

When the e-mail from Ms. Simon slithered under my virus defence my initial instinct was to delete it and ignore it. There were a number of reasons for this. Firstly, she had asked me all these questions on at least two previous occasions, one of them a sunny Saturday at Haut De Le Garenne. On each occasion I had not only answered the questions, but I had also e-mailed the answers to her, such was my mistrust of the way the answers would be used. Presumably, she still had those e-mails. My mistrust was well founded as her questions, although not my answers, were to provide the basis of an article attacking me which was posted in a national paper by one of a group of journalists who mentioned her, and who had previously produced books and articles in support of perverts such as the North Wales Care Abusers and Frank Beck, the Leicestershire Child Rapist. Indeed, some of these journalists had even given evidence to Parliamentary Committees in which they said that the above abusers were victims of miscarriages of justice and the “False Recall Syndrome” of victims, or indeed, just made up allegations. Therefore, on this occasion I had no doubt as to what her motives were and this was confirmed when I was told the first story had appeared even before she received my reply. Her plea in the e-mail for me to answer the questions so that she could “tell all sides of the story” was as sincere and believable as the “Trusssst in me” uttered by Kaa the snake in Disney’s version of the Jungle Book. Ms. Simon must be the only person she knows who believes that this type of ingratiating fawning is not totally transparent.

Notwithstanding my absolute belief that the seeking of my views was a total sham, I realised that it would be better not to give her the opportunity to claim that she had sought my views and I had refused. I therefore answered all her questions which meant of course that she just had to ignore most of what I said. To ensure that I did get my point across to the majority on the island who actually wanted the truth, I copied my response to Stuart Syvret and he posted it on his blog.

Ms. Simon and officers Warcup and Gradwell seem to be saying that I became a really bad cop “overnight.” (I will explain why I say ‘overnight’ below.) Ms. Simon is a journalist of course and is at a disadvantage, but her view of me as a cop seems to be only slightly better than my view of her as a journalist. Each is entitled to their opinion, even if it is from a distance. However, the claims from Mr. Warcup and Mr. Gradwell need closer examination and perhaps a more detailed dismantling.

I do not know a lot about Mr. Warcup or the now retired Mr. Gradwell. I do not know the extent of Mr. Warcup’s practical experience; whether he spent his career at the sharp end as I did, or whether all his years with Northumbria Police were spent in departments like Personnel. What I do know is that the only reference I can find on the internet to him relate to allegations (perhaps unfounded) that he hid the true extent of crime from the public through the use of spin, and some other comments of a personal nature criticising him for something which frankly is no one’s business but his own.

However, I do know that he has admitted destroying evidence in the abuse case - which perhaps does give some clue as to his motivation or professional judgement.

As for Mr. Gradwell, again I do not know a lot about him. He is fond of telling people, including one of the journalists I mentioned above, that he is known for investigating the tragic incident when foreign workers drowned on a beach. I believe that manslaughter convictions resulted for some of the people connected with the employment of these unfortunate victims. This must have been a very challenging enquiry for him. I am pretty sure also that he must have investigated some more conventional manslaughters and murders - where the suspects were not known. I cannot speak for him, only myself. I know that I have a number of commendations for “detective ability,” leadership, and other professional skills earned in the investigation of many murders including terrorist murders, gang murders, stabbing murders with multi victims, domestic murders, and huge experience gained in South London in the investigation of Rapes and Child Abuse.

I hope this does not seem like some sort of Lenny Harper ego trip, but when people like Mr. Gradwell, Mr. Warcup, and Ms. Simon, criticise my ability, I cannot help but refer to others who have expressed a contrary view. Over the past few years I have worked with and for some of the most respected senior police officers in the UK. Others who I have never worked for have come and independently examined what I have done in Jersey. What they say is in marked contrast to the three above, and what they say illustrates what I mean by saying that I must have become a disaster ‘overnight’. Forgive me for running through some of these professional assessments, but it will show the operational calibre of people with very different views to those which have appeared in the JEP of late and in the public utterings of Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup.

Her Majesty Inspector of Constabulary came to review the SOJP in 2002, two years after Graham Power had taken over and some months following John Pearson and I arriving. They noted huge improvements from the Inspection Report prior to Mr. Power’s arrival and spoke in complimentary terms about the Senior Management Team, its leadership style, and how the force supported the changes made.

A different Inspection team carried out another examination of the force in 2008. It made the following comments under the heading of ‘Strengths’.

“The current Senior Management Team has continued to make improvements in performance, resources, management and capability.”

“The force has an effective Professional Standards Department which is effectively led by the DCO (who) drives the need for integrity across the force.”

Under the category of ‘Leadership’, the HMI wrote; “The Chief Officer Group is forward thinking, proactive in terms of the development of the force, and accessible to staff. They seek and utilise good practice from UK forces in ways that are applicable to the operational context of Jersey.” The Report team went on to say that they were “impressed with the receptiveness, drive, and commitment of the Chief Officer Team to make Organisational changes in line with areas of improvement.” They also said “The Chief Officer Team promotes a culture of empowerment, innovation, and learning through various means.”

Finally HMI, in summing up said “there is strong evidence to indicate that the SOJP is perceived as modern, fast moving with high expectations of operational and cultural change amongst a motivated workforce.”

As I stated above, I have worked with, and for, some of the most respected and professional police officers in the UK. A number of them have carried out assessments on my performance and ability. Again, apologies for what seems almost self congratulation, but among them Sir William Rae (former Chief Constable of Strathclyde) said in 2002, just before my move to Jersey, that I was currently “serving with distinction.” He went on to say the following.

“Superintendent Harper is an intelligent and articulate officer who is performing his current duties to an extremely high level. Since transferring to Strathclyde Police he has shown himself to be a dedicated and highly responsible team player who maintains a consistently professional approach to his duties at all times. The excellence he has shown since joining Strathclyde Police was mirrored during his time with the Metropolitan Police. In April 1989 when stationed at Peckham his Divisional Commander stated that in his role as Detective Inspector he was ‘one of the most effective I have ever known.’ Praise such as this has followed Superintendent Harper throughout his career and for good reason. A modest individual, he has received five commendations, all relating to the investigation of serious crime including one relating to the arrest and conviction of two INLA terrorists.”

Sir William went on to say that my appraisals in Strathclyde had been of an extremely high standard with senior managers universally praising my diligence and abilities at both the operational and strategic levels. He attached copies of my last three staff appraisals which had been written by two senior officers who are now both Chief Constables in Scotland.

Against that backdrop of unimpeachable professional commendation, the trinity of Simon, Warcup, and Gradwell have made it their mission in life to tell as many people as possible how unprofessional and incapable (and even worse) I am. All this on very little knowledge of me, and bolstered by, to borrow Ms. Simon’s words, “lies and half truths.” She would certainly know about lies and half truths, wouldn’t she? With such a volume of informed and respected professional opinion to the contrary, no thinking person would prefer to believe the nonsense, of Simon, Gradwell & Warcup. So am I bothered?

No.

Now let me turn to the actual substance (an ill chosen word to describe what was in these pieces of journalistic rubbish) of Ms. Simon’s articles. I will start with the interview with Mr. Gradwell. I do feel rather weary at this point as I have made all these points before to Simon and others. At least this time however, I am making them to people who will have the ability and willingness to assimilate them.

The attention seeking headline in the Gradwell article was that the operation at Haut de le Garenne was “a waste of time and money.” According to Mr. Gradwell, as reported in the JEP, the decision to excavate was made without hard evidence or intelligence. Up until then, he said, the enquiry was being run “essentially along UK lines.” Okay – if I understand him then, we were doing OK until we decided to excavate HDLG. It follows then that he would not have done so. He would have ignored all that we found and walked away. Here again are the (much repeated) reasons why we excavated - in chronological sequence.

By the closing weeks of 2007, we had been carrying out the enquiry for some time. A recurring feature of the evidence and information gathering process as we moved into January 2008 was that a number of victims and witnesses had told us they had been assaulted and abused at the former home. There was evidence from one witness that a child had been chased by a member of staff through an upper floor corridor and in desperation had leapt out of a high window. The child had not been seen again. At that stage we had no name. (Mr. Gradwell was to say that over a year later he traced the child – perhaps he did. However at that time we had what we had.) We had non-specific information from a number of witnesses that they had witnessed children being dragged away at night and not being seen again. There was intelligence of illegal forced abortion and of a still born child.

I found all of this highly alarming and worrying but I did not consider at that stage that it warranted a full excavation of HDLG. (This is an important point, because after speaking to Gradwell and Warcup, the Met Police accused me of ordering the excavation on the evidence of a few “disturbed” people. I took issue with this description of the victims and made this clear in a number of e-mails to those concerned.) Mr. Gradwell confirms my suspicion about the origin of this slur on the survivors by his comments to Diane Simon. He and David Warcup at their infamous and discredited press conference last year also peddled this myth about the reasons for digging. The truth is simple to illustrate, because it is well documented.

I arranged to go to the UK to meet experts who would be well qualified to advise us on the way forward. On 5th February 2008, I went to Oxford with our Forensic Services Manager and other staff, and at the Headquarters of LGC Forensics met with Karl Harrison, their lead scientist, National Policing Improvement Agency Homicide Search Advisors, and forensic staff representing Forensic Archaeology and Anthropology, as well as a Cadaver Dog Advisor. We had already asked Mr. Harrison to prepare a desk based study brief of HDLG and he circulated this at the meeting.

The decision made at this meeting was that we should carry out an initial reconnaissance of the site over a short period to seek to clarify a number of objectives. It was decided that we would deploy several different assets, to be deployed in a “systematic fashion using best value and best practice guidelines.” In simple terms, we wanted to establish if there was anything there which would need further investigation - or if we could “walk away” from it -without further investigation.

Two weeks later we moved in to the grounds of HDLG. We deployed Geophysical assets and Ground Penetrating Radar in order to identify anomalous areas for further investigation. We also used Gridded probing techniques to assist the dogs, and of course we had the anecdotal evidence of witnesses and victims. We decided we would not at any time carry out speculative searching but would deploy the forensic and archaeology assets in areas where there was corroboration that something needed further investigation. Before we excavated, we would give full consideration to possible explanations given by earlier work or utilities. We also studied in depth building plans and maps. It was during this process that builders who had worked on the site told us that a few years before they had found bones they were convinced were human but had been told to ‘forget them’ and “let bygones be bygones.” (This phrase became a catchword among my team whenever the subject of attempts at cover up would arise.) One worker was so convinced they were human he took them home to examine them against computer images which only strengthened his fears. (Eventually these bones were examined by a Jersey Pathologist after police had called her to the home. She told the officer “I don’t like the look of this,” but was later to say she could not remember making that comment. She was “not saying it wasn’t made, but just couldn’t remember it.” She took the bones to her boss whose extremely short (five lines) report said the bones were too large to be human but also stated that one of the bones “could not identified.” He gave the measurements of the bones and our anthropologist took issue with his findings saying that the size of the bone concerned was within the size range of a child. Unfortunately the bones were destroyed by the pathologist without being examined by an anthropologist. Our advice was that they should have been so examined as the pathologist was not qualified to rule on whether or not they were human. The builders told us that they had found two child’s shoes with the bones. The pathologist told us that he had sent them for examination and had been told they were Victorian. The person he said he sent them to remembered no such incident. Unfortunately the shoes too had been destroyed and were unavailable to us.

At the same time as we were digesting this deeply puzzling sequence of events, we received a positive reaction from the dog trained to find traces of human remains. This reaction came at the same spot as the builders had found the bones mentioned above. At this point, I took the decision to authorise the archaeologists to dig at that location. I would do the same again. It beggars belief, and I am at a loss to imagine why, Mr. Gradwell and David Warcup should say they would have taken a different decision. To me that would be gross negligence. My decision was fully endorsed by the ACPO team who were mentoring us and this team included the former head of the Met Homicide Department and a vastly experienced Senior Investigating Officer. It was also unanimously supported by all of my senior team including the UK Homicide Search Advisors. The dig was necessary because there were matters which needed further investigation. Indeed, the advice of the ACPO Homicide Team was that we had no choice but to treat the scene as one of a potential homicide. This advice was expressed frequently, and I know it was given to Frank Walker.

I will deal in more detail later with the charred bones found in the cellar areas, but for now will concentrate on the reasons for excavating that area. We had evidence from victims who said they were confined and/or abused in what they described as cellar areas. We could not find them until a local builder who had worked at the area came forward and said he knew where the entrance to these ‘cellars’ were. He showed us and we were eventually able to uncover them. Before excavating further we put the dogs into the area. As we did so, the Chief of Police arrived with the Home Affairs Minister, Wendy Kinnard. They were actually present when the dogs reacted strongly in the cellar and where we were then to find the charred bones and teeth. So, the question is obvious when one thinks that Mr. Gradwell is still claiming that we should not have searched HDLG. At what point should we have walked away? Should we have not started at all - and therefore not found anything – and left the remains (because that is what they are) where they were? Should we have stopped at the wing where the dog initially reacted and, instead, ignored all we knew about the bones found by the builders? Or should we have ignored the dog’s possible corroboration of the victims in the cellar area?

Messrs Gradwell and Warcup said there was no evidence of murder and that my team was wrong to say there was. They are not telling the truth, deliberately or otherwise - because I had never said there was evidence of murder - only evidence that there was something that needed investigation. A subtle, but crucial, distinction which people could be forgiven for not understanding, given the utter nonsense that’s been peddled recently. There are many, many examples of what I did, actually, say, to be found still. Check the BBC News website on 31st July 2008. Read David James Smith’s excellent article in the Sunday Times. (Reproduced in Stuart Syvret’s blog on Sunday, 10th May, 2009). They all state - clearly and unequivocally - that I was saying ‘we did not have evidence of murder’. Why would Ms. Simon and the two senior cops say otherwise? I and many others know why. However, we still do not know how, where, or when those children died and probably never will. We think we know how the bones ended up where we found them, and that was expertly laid out by Karl Harrison in his Archaeological Theory of the Burnt Debris including Human Bone Fragments and teeth found in the East wing. His view was that the Solid Fuel Furnace in the West Wing was used to dispose of human remains and they were then transferred to the East Wing around 1960-1970. We included his report in the document we posted on our website. Strangely enough when the Sunday Times journalist David James Smith attempted to access this document it had been removed under Warcup’s leadership. David James Smith was told by the Press Officer that there had been a problem with the computer. Of course there was! In any event, I reproduce a quote from the report by Karl Harrison below. You might ask the question that if an independent expert such as Karl Harrison is giving us this information, what kind of police officers would we have been to walk away and ignore it? As I say, it beggars belief. Unless your name is Diane Simon, David Warcup, or Gradwell that is.

Here is a quote from the report by Karl Harrison:

“With regard to the human remains recovered from cellars 3,4 & five. Karl Harrison, LGC Forensics lead archaeologist explains :

Detailed archaeological analysis of the building and its structure, in conjunction with archive plans, has provided time lines for historical renovations within the building. Phase I – area above the cellars is a School Room - Victorian styli and slates are dumped in large quantities on the cellar floor. These are in such quantities that it would suggest the floors were being taken up when they were deposited. Although they are mixed throughout the cellar deposits, many slates are lying on the base of the earthen floor, suggesting an early fall. A number of dateable Phase I items (Victorian coinage, Napoleon III coin, Victorian Jubilee medal) have been found in close association with this material.

Phase II/III - At the extension of the building following the major works over the bathhouse directly south of the School Room, educational activities move southwards to our Press Room (as was). The School Room becomes a Play Room in the early 20th C. This would explain the lack of pen nibs such as those in the cisterns entering the record here.

With the exception of a few coins of the period, native Phase II/III material seems to be in short supply. Instead we seem to have imported material - masses of shoe leather and heel irons relate to the shoemakers that functioned through the 20s and 30s, along with buttons and thimbles from the neighbouring dressmakers room. This is closely associated with concentrations of kitchen waste (bottle glass, jar glass, plain domestic ware, patterned ware and charnel), which seems contemporaneous based on design and scraps of printed labels remaining.

All of this is mixed with two distinct non-native soils - a virgin 'potato' soil which provides much of the compressed material, and a concentration of charred material - coke, clinker and some charcoal (in very small fragments) - whilst the charred material is associated with smoke stained masonry, none of the goods in the cellar have been burned (as opposed to cooked in the case of animal bone) - other than some of the bone fragments.

Phase IV - Phase IV is characterised by sweeping, evidenced by changes in texture of the cellar fills and the presence of large numbers of plastic bristles and brush head fragments stuck through lower elements of the contexts. In terms of depositions in phase IV, these are (with the exception of a single coin) native in character - the room above the cellars remains a Play Room, and we have a profusion of glass marbles, toy soldiers, play money, farmyard animal figures)

Phase V - Access is gained through the floor by hatch cutting for the 2003 refurbishment - some of the outlying bone and teeth fragments perhaps owe their position to cable laying. What I now think has happened is that a mass of material has been imported from the west wing at a time when the floor of the Play Room was up. This would explain the mix of material from north to south along the wing (glass and ceramic from kitchen larders, leather goods from the shoemakers, buttons from the tailors and high-temperature char from the bake house foundations) These renovations to the west wing have been carried out since 1960 (the brush bristles relate to sweeping of floor surface elsewhere and have been incorporated into the fill elsewhere, rather than someone bothering to sweep a cellar's earthen floor) - they have involved cleaning, but also significant digging into underlying soil (we have small concentrations of Phase II/III pot sewer pipe, as well as the mass of potato soil). Whilst some of the material might have been taken off site, some has been ditched in barrow and bucket loads on the cellar floor, hence the complex lensing of charred and virgin soils, especially along the footing trenches.”

Fairly significant is it not? Yet, we should not have been in there according to Gradwell, Warcup and Simon. We should have walked away and left the remains there. It was, supposedly, all a waste of time and money, not to mention professionally inept. We may not have found the answers but I am in no doubt that we had to ask the questions. That is what we were police officers for.

Let me now move on to other criticisms levelled by Warcup in his “interview” with Ms. Simon. Firstly, his strange allegation that I was offered the services of a top Senior Investigating Officer and his “matrix” but refused and ordered him to leave the island. Well, I must have had powers I didn’t know about. I was not aware I could order or ask anyone to leave Jersey. The truth here is that I was asked if an officer from the UK could come and talk to some of my staff as he had experience of child abuse investigations and in particular in a number of administrative areas we were utilising. Whatever his experience as a senior investigating officer it was nowhere near that of the ACPO Homicide Detective who was mentoring me and reviewing my work. There was never any suggestion that he should usurp what the ACPO man was doing. Apart from anything else, it would have been duplication. The officer did speak to my staff and I recall they did get some useful stuff from him. However, he came up with this “points system” or matrix in the new, intellectual, politically correct police world of jargon. It was explained to me that it helped prioritise crimes by giving, for example, ten points to a rape, seven for an assault, and one for a towel flick. Now, that might be helpful in a case where you are looking at many dozens of different types of offences, but here although we were dealing with a large number of offences, the types of crime were few and similar. Mr. Gradwell might need a points scoring system to help him tell the difference between a rape and a cuff around the ear. I do not. That is why we said no thank you. It is just another example of how the abundance of talent in today’s police force is hamstrung and prevented from doing their jobs properly by bureaucracy introduced by people frightened of their own shadows and the effect that mistakes may have on their progress up the ladder.

Mr. Gradwell makes the comment that some journalists saw through me and others did not. Well, that depends on whether you are in the camp that wanted the enquiry to fail or not. At least one BBC journalist was in the camp Gradwell felt had not got it right - judging from the abusive text message he sent the journalist.

Mr. Gradwell says he inherited an ill managed mess, that there were no proper papers left behind. Here, he is in conflict with the ACPO Review team, who said, in their report, the policy books were properly kept and maintained. Gradwell’s assertion about the team’s “embarrassed looks” and comments that “we told them so” are bizarre, but sadly predictable, given the propaganda campaign that has been waged to falsely depict a divided team.

I wouldn’t choose to provide the following evidence of the team’s cohesion, and appreciation of my leadership, but as it’s important to combat the lies being fed to the people of Jersey, I do so. All of the team wrote messages to me on my leaving the island. They did not have to. They could not have been forced to as I no longer worked there. Below I reproduce an e-mail sent out by one of my team to all those working for me. I had already said I did not wish to have a retirement function, and knew nothing of these plans until asked to be available for an evening. Would the team have done this if Gradwell was correct in what he has said? I have removed the name of the sender for obvious reasons.

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 25 June 2008 16:06
To: All HAT Officers
Cc: Coupland, Vicky; Nibbs, Louise; Bentley, Fraser
Subject: SIO Lenny Harper's Retirement

Greetings to you all,

As you are aware Lenny Harper is fast approaching his last few weeks as the Deputy Chief Officer here in the States of Jersey Police and will be putting his hat and coat on for the final time in August 2008. Most of us have only come into close contact with him as the SIO on 'Operation Rectangle' where we have found him to be extremely professional, affable and a thoroughly good 'Governor' to work for.

We don't have a 'Social Club' for our group of investigators but having chatted amongst a few of us we have taken the decision to book a restaurant for an evening meal where we as a group can see Lenny off in style. Lenny has agreed to be available on the evening chosen and we will ask him if he would like to bring his wife too. This is not going to be a leaving function linked with the States of Jersey Police who may well organise their own function to mark his departure, as too, may the Politicians and Government ministers on the island.

The arrangements are to meet at The Tenby Public House at St Aubin Bay at 19.00hrs on Wednesday 6th August 2008.

Then to move on a few steps to the Bon Viveur Restaurant , Le Boulevard, St Aubin to sit down at 20.00hrs.

Travel to and from the venue can be organised by getting private hire Taxi vans in different groups.

I am assured that the food at the venue is excellent and for a 3 course meal with wine you will be paying £30 to £40 dependant upon how much you want to eat and drink. Bills can be organised separately.

I have a selection of menus and a wine list to view should you so desire.

Should you wish to participate in this function I would like you to reply to me by 'email' ASAP in order that we can confirm numbers with the restaurant owner who has booked us in as a group of 30 to 35. Do bear in mind that we have chosen to go out mid week so that the maximum number of us are available. Additionally it will be in the middle of the Tourist season so we have had to book early.

If you do wish to attend please give me a deposit of £20 ASAP. We would also like to present Lenny with a gift to remind him of his work with the 'Operational Rectangle' team so if anyone has any ideas please see me too.

Kind Regards,

xxxxxxxxxxx

As further evidence of just how ‘reliable’ super-cop Gradwell is, I reproduce below the comments written by the team on my retirement card, after I had finished working. These are not the kind of comments which get written by the members of a team of the kind depicted by Gradwell; a fact which indicates just how little weight should be attached to his words.

"Sir, you have brought Jersey integrity + transparency, have a long happy retirement. thank you."

"Enjoy your retirement - it has been a pleasure taking on the system. Enjoy your season ticket."

"Hope to see you at Old Trafford when Sunderland thrash the red devils. All the best for the future. Enjoy it."

"And don't forget the Hull City Tigers thrashing the red devils - well all right, even I am not putting any money on it. Boss, it's been a pleasure working with you, all the best."

"Mr. Harper, as a fellow dinosaur it has been a great pleasure to have put our heads together to sort out this plot. Many thanks for your time, efforts and sincerity. Enjoy your retirement."

"Wishing you the very best for your retirement boss. Take care for the future."

"Best wishes from the Dorset contingent."

"You have been a top boss. Enjoy your retirement."

"Mr. H., it has been an absolute pleasure working for you. This island won't seem the same without your face on the news every week or so. All the best, have a fab retirement."

"Boss, it’s been great working for you but I hope to see you in Cumbria soon. All the best for your retirement."

" I will not even mention Southend, November 2006!! Enjoy your retirement boss - enjoy the rest." xx

"Mr. Harper, it has been a pleasure working for you and being involved on the enquiry. All the best for the future."

"All the best, enjoy your retirement like I am."

"All the best. Happy retirement."

"Best wishes for the future. Enjoy your retirement go and watch West Ham. You will be missed."

Sir, Boss, Lenny, (first two scored out) What a trip - ups and downs. Many more ups than downs. I've had a ball. Enjoy the trip - you have not seen the last of me."

"Good luck, best wishes."

"Have a happy and long retirement and all the best. xx"

"If nothing else you will have contacts throughout the country. All the best."

"Wish you were staying longer. Enjoy your retirement. -x-"

Mr. Harper, cheers for having us here. You have certainly left your mark. Have a great retirement and enjoy your family."

"Sorry to see you go. Hope you enjoy your retirement. All the best."

"Does this mean I can now wear my green and gold T shirt?"

"To a fellow scouser - enjoy your retirement."

"Mr. H - thanks for the opportunity to come to Jersey. Have a long and happy retirement. All the best."

"Having made a great commitment to Jersey and certainly placed the island on the map it’s now time to have an enjoyable and fantastic retirement."

"All the best."

"Have a fantastic time and a well deserved rest."

"It's been great working with you. Have a great retirement."

"Have a wonderful retirement."

"Good luck."

All the very best - enjoy your time."

"Have a wonderful retirement."

"Wonderbar!! Kielen donf fur die gelagenheit."

"Have a long and happy retirement. Best regards."

"Lenny, thank you for being a great boss and a wonderful friend. I will miss you." x

As I said, I would prefer not to publish these personal messages, but as so much effort has been expended by certain people in trying to portray me as some deeply unpopular and isolated figure, I feel the people of Jersey deserve to see the true picture. (Some may recall that the above messages were part of what the Attorney General insisted I hand over as he felt they constituted “unused material” critical to the case and warned me I might put the victims at risk of not getting justice if I refused.)

Which brings me to another very inconvenient fact for Mr.Gradwell, which is this:

All three convictions so far have resulted from the work done by my team’s enquiry.

He looked very proud and self-important as he stood on the steps of the court after the Wateridge conviction. It must have crossed his mind, surely, that all three convicted had already been charged and made their first court appearances before he’d even arrived in the island?

And, as the lawyers had made it clear they would not take a job to court unless there was a good chance of conviction, the evidence must have been pretty good from the outset. However, the papers, evidence, and files I left him on the priority suspects – including the Maguires - were obviously not much help to him as he has not been able to charge any of them. Though perhaps Mr. Gradwell’s inabilities were not the sole cause of this?

One has to wonder why the Attorney General, William Bailhache, sent instructions to me not to charge Wateridge? It is fortunate indeed that I was a rather thick cop and “misunderstood” the instructions conveyed to me by a lawyer. Otherwise it is possible the now convicted Wateridge may never have even been charged.

A few other things about that Gradwell JEP interview: He said in it, when referring to the disgraceful case where the lawyer changed ‘his mind’ after telling us to arrest the ‘lovely’ pair - who delighted in hitting children in the back of the head with cricket bats - that it was one of my own team who told the lawyers there was not enough evidence. I find this rather unlikely for a number of reasons. Firstly, my team were very angry at the late changing of the decision. They had been told by the lawyer that subject to interview this pair should be charged with serious assaults. We of course had an agreement that we would arrest no one unless we got the go ahead from the lawyers appointed by the AG. We adhered to this. It was forced on us after the establishment became worried we were arresting people they would rather we didn’t - and after they’d lost control of the Wateridge process. The team arrested this pair - only to have the rug snatched from under their feet. After a rather strained conversation with the AG’s lawyer, who was sitting on a platform in a railway station in the North of England with trains running in the background, I ignored his instructions and called the Centenier into the police station to charge these two. Mr. Gradwell of course would not have done this he says. In any event, the Centenier stated that although he agreed that there was ample evidence to charge, he did not want to go against the lawyer’s ‘revised’ instruction. Never mind justice or the victims!

This left me with a dilemma. I knew word would get out in minutes that we had released these two without charge and that it would confirm the worst fears of the victims of a cover up. I therefore put out a press release making it clear that it was not our wish and that it had been imposed on us. The Attorney General was not happy and demanded a report from me explaining why I had issued the press release. I did the report - but put in it a little more than the Attorney General wanted - by going through a whole catalogue of events where I felt we had been let down by his office. Someone gave that report to the media, and it can now be read on Stuart Syvret’s blog of the 27th August, 2008. Mr. Warcup has instigated a very expensive investigation into who leaked it, he and Mr. Gradwell telling journalists ‘off the record’ that Stuart Syvret and I were being investigated. Compare that with my failure to get the Attorney General to prosecute corrupt cops for leaking intelligence off police systems!

Mr. Gradwell says that the problem was I promised the victims £1m too much and he only had £1 to give them. In some respects he hasn’t even given them that. I promised them that I would believe them and that I would do my best to get them justice. It seems to me no one else had ever done that before. I never promised huge numbers of convictions and the victims never demanded that. I promised them I would do my best, and the officers who went and saw them achieved that. The numbers of letters, e-mails and phone calls from victims who said that they felt as though a weight had been lifted from them by the officers who spoke to them was incredible and a great testimony to those officers. If promising to believe them, making my belief obvious, and doing my best to get them justice is the equivalent of £1m then so be it. The world now believes in what happened to them. And the evidence is there against other abusers. It is those in power in Jersey that are refusing to use that evidence. They are indeed offering the victims £1 or even less.

Although not directly linked to the Abuse case, we must deal with Mr. Gradwell’s little snide remark about the senior team above the rank of Inspector. Mr. Gradwell is obviously (perhaps) basing his remarks on his experience in the Lancashire force, although as politicians in Jersey kept pointing out to me, policing in the UK is totally different from Jersey. And, whilst I know that Stuart has some differing views on some of those we are talking about, I think I can claim to know those individuals better that either Stuart or Mr. Gradwell in both the professional and personal contexts. I have worked in all the jurisdictions in the UK and I found almost all of the senior officers in SOJP at least the equal of their counterparts in the UK. They had as much skill, professionalism, commitment and integrity as anywhere. In respect of integrity and courage they probably had more than most. I watched two of them, despite having to live on the island, stand up to and continue with a course of action which they felt to be correct and which brought them into conflict with senior figures in the political and legal establishments. This would of course be something Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup would not be comfortable with. One of these officers who had a hugely successful period tackling corruption and misconduct later filled my post more than capably when I was involved in the enquiry. For some reason Mr. Warcup curtailed this and brought someone in from the UK. It would seem that Jersey politicians are now backing away from their previously stated aim that we should be training and preparing local officers for most of the senior posts in the force. Mr. Gradwell was in Jersey for a specific purpose. He played no part in the everyday policing of the island. Just what qualifies him to make critical comments about people he knows little about? It seems to come easily to him.

Of course, Mr. Gradwell didn’t just sound off to the JEP. On the BBC he asked the question why, if I had evidence or intelligence about rapes 20 or 30 years ago did I then dig for human remains? I think that question is answered clearly above. He said there were no human remains found. I beg to differ. For a start, there were approximately 70 children’s teeth. Of course, Mr.Gradwell thinks they are down to the Tooth Fairy. Forget what two experts said. But let us look at his claim that “only one human bone was found and that was from the ‘Plantagenet’ era.”

It is useful to look at what I was being told by the Anthropologists we had on scene. There are two documents which detail this. Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup quoted selectively from them at the Press Conference and since. One of these documents is the Workbook of the Anthropologists and the other is the Bone and Teeth Summary.

There are numerous entries in the Bone and Teeth Summary which relate to bones found and identified as human by the Anthropologists working at HDLG with my team. It is worth bearing in mind that Anthropologists go through many years training to be considered as experts in the identification of human bones. Those that we used were highly experienced, committed, and ethical. Here are some of the entries they made during the course of their work at HDLG. They are reproduced exactly as written. They are not my interpretation. These are the words of the experts. The entries made by the Anthropologists are a record used by them, and formed the basis for the advice I was given. The reference number which each entry begins with is unique to each fragment, and the accompanying information for each exhibit describes archaeological phase and date, as well as possible origin. I have not mentioned all the teeth in the list as there were just too many. The comment below, in brackets, is mine.

KSH/137: Archaeological phase and Date: 3-4: 1940s to 1980s.
Sixteen fragments of bone submitted to University of Sheffield and positively id’d as human bone. (These were the fragments examined by the UK Anthropologist Andrew Chamberlain who issued a report saying the bone examined was human juvenile, had been burnt soon after death, and buried soon after burning. He also said that the bones were no more than a few decades old. His report, strangely enough, has never been mentioned by Mr. Warcup or Mr. Gradwell. When the bones were sent for carbon dating we got two results back for the batch. The first, as I recall said the bones examined dated between the 14th and 17th century. The next day we were told the rest of the bones were of a person or persons who died between the 1650s and 1950s. This led to me giving all those press briefings, even reported in the JEP, in which I said the evidence was contradictory and made it unlikely there would be a homicide enquiry. Again, all this seems to have escaped the radar of Messrs Simon, Warcup, and Gradwell. Furthermore, when David James Smith, the Sunday Times journalist spoke to Andrew Chamberlain he said he had never heard me say anything which contradicted his findings and revealed to David he had even waived his fee so impressed was he with the way we were going about our business. In an e-mail to me I was told that Mr. Chamberlain “stressed over and over again that everyone he dealt with, especially you, showed great care and professionalism.” This has obviously not reached the ears of our trio either.)

KSH/158: Archaeological Phase and Date. 3-4. 1940s to 1980s.
Single fragment of bone resembling KSH/137. Submitted to Sheffield University.

JAR/30: 3-4; 1940s to 1980s. Two fragments of burnt bone one is fragment of longbone? Tibia. Submitted to University of Sheffield with KSH/158. Origin confirmed as human. Submitted for dating awaiting results.

JAR/33: 3-4; 1940s to 1980’s.
Calcined fragment of bone. ?human.

JAR/53: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
5 fragments of calcined long bone ?human.

JAR/54: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
4 fragments of calcined bone ?human.

JAR/55: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
1 fragment of calcined bone ?human.

JAR/57:183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
2 fragments of bone of unknown origin.

JAR/56: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
1 fragment of bone ?human.

JAR/67: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Human Tooth: deciduous left maxillary first molar, age 9 yrs ± 3 yrs. Could have been shed naturally (Anthro exam).
Submitted to odontologist, see report.

JAR/69: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragments x 3 of possible human cortical bone.

JAR/61: 183 Zone 4 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
23 Fragments of bone:
1 Burnt fragment which closely resembles a human juvenile mastoid process.
2. Burnt fragment of ?human mandible.
3. Fragments of burnt long bone x 3 measuring between 11.3 and 16.3 mm.
4. Fragments of unidentified burnt cortical and trabecular bone x 7.
5. Fragment of slightly burnt long bone measuring 33 mm. The cortex of the
bone resembles human but it is quite thick and the trabeculae can not be seen because it requires cleaning. It appears to have been cut at one end.
6. Fragments of unburnt unidentified long bone. x 3 The appearance and texture of the cortex of the fragments appears more animal than human but it is advised that further examination should be undertaken in order to confirm this.
7. Fragments of unidentified long bone x 7. 5 have been burnt and 2 haven’t. Species
uncertain although two of the burnt fragments could possibly be human

JAR/90: 183 Cellar 3 Zone 3 East.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragments of unidentified bone of unknown species. One which is calcined is possibly human bone.

Cellar 4 Context 169 (redeposited char material from fire elsewhere. Unsealed)

JAR/36: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of bone ?human.

JAR/37: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of burnt bone. ?human mastoid process

JAR/39: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of burnt bone ?human.

JAR/40: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of bone ?human.

GMK/18: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Human tooth. Anthro exam – deciduous left maxillary lateral incisor. Age range 6 yrs ± 2yrs.

The above is only part of the information that I was given by the Anthropologists. It gives a vastly different picture to that supplied by Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup and so enthusiastically promoted by Ms. Simon. These entries, made at the time by the Anthropologists, make it clear, that not only did they believe that they were finding human bones, but that the bones had been deposited there fairly recently, in some cases as recently as the 1960’s onwards. Reading the above, could anyone say that the dig at HDLG was a waste of time and money? Where do they get the conclusion that only one human bone was found? More puzzling perhaps, how can Mr. Gradwell or Mr. Warcup claim that I should not have authorised the search at HDLG? The problem was not identifying the bones as human – the expert Anthropologists did that very well. The problem was the contradictions in the carbon dating process which is not that reliable. When we questioned the company who pioneered the process we used they told us that they had taken a live fish out of the sea and carbon dated it several days later. The process told them the fish was thousands of years old. Our Anthropologist told us a similar story about a baby found dead in a house. Although they knew the baby had only been dead since the 1970s, the carbon dating gave a vastly different date. The carbon dating was at odds with the respected expert in the UK who said the bones were only a few decades old. Who was correct? More importantly, why did Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup make no mention of all of this and why quote only selectively from the above document. The document is not being revealed here for the first time. Messrs Gradwell and Warcup quoted from it, albeit selectively, and the Sunday Times also referred to it. What it does do is completely and utterly destroy the suggestion that I exaggerated or lied about what I was told. It will make you wonder though why Mr. Gradwell should say that the dig was a waste of time and money.

One thing is a certain fact: the document quoted above proves – unambiguously – that there was sufficient evidence to justify digging – and that the digging did find concerning artefacts, thus further justifying the process.

We might not have found all the answers - but as police officers we had to ask the questions. At least that is my view.

Mr. Gradwell puzzled me somewhat with his rant about “noble cause corruption.” I know what it is – one example of it was when the Guildford Four were arrested in Heysham, Lancashire, and were then wrongly convicted. But what on earth has that to do with HDLG? Mr. Gradwell said this was like an example of it – we had decided on guilt and then went on a ‘fishing expedition’. He went on to ask if this was what people wanted – a return to the days when police decided guilt and the era of miscarriages of justice? Now this takes me back to Mr. Gradwell’s comments about me that I “could not understand basic facts.” This is maybe why I can’t figure out whose guilt we had, supposedly, made our minds up about when we went into HDLG. We did not even know what crimes may have been committed in relation to the human remains there, never mind who the guilty party may have been. Bizarre!

There was also, of course, his comments about the Media Strategy. ‘When’, he asked, ‘did you ever see routine daily briefings on a police enquiry?’ Plenty of times would be my answer. However, I did not give daily routine briefings. As I am sure the Press Officer would confirm I faced the Press when I did because they were there in numbers and besieging her office with interview requests. On one occasion they even knocked the system out.

So there we have my perspective on what Mr. Gradwell said together with Mr. Warcup. Lies and half truths was the phrase that Diane Simon used. Make your own mind up. Which brings me to Ms. Simon.

“Harper lied about the fragment” seemed to be the gist of her recent story. I have already gone through this with her two or three times, personally face to face, and a couple of times on e-mail. It seems I am not the only one with difficulty in grasping what I am told. She continues to peddle the myth that this fragment was identified as coconut very early on and that I lied about it. I will come to that. Let me once more relate the facts about this fragment known in the media as JAR/6.

The fragment was found on the morning of 23 February 2008. I was telephoned and went to the scene. When I arrived I was briefed as the entry on the Anthropologist’s worksheet reproduced below dated 23 February 2008. I was also told that a News of the World journalist had been caught with a camera in the bushes outside. I knew therefore that someone had leaked our work to the media and I also knew that it would only be a matter of time before the JEP found out about the fragment. Over the previous couple of years we had mounted several enquiries to find the source within the force who kept leaking details to various journalists of the JEP. My view was that if the media reported it before we did we would lose credibility with our vulnerable victims and witnesses. The entry below is quite clear. Note that it was found in Trench 3.

“23 February 2008
09.10 hrs
Examined JAR/6. Recovered from Context 011 Trench 3. Degraded fragment of bone thought to be human skull, probably from a child (see full inventory for details). Associated with mixed debris including animal bone, buttons and a leather “thong”. Discussed findings with SIO Lenny HARPER and Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND. It was decided that the bone should be sent for C14 dating*.”

Diane Simon, Mick Gradwell, and David Warcup have all said that I was told the next day that the context of the area I found pre-dated the enquiry. This is simply not true. The fragment was found under the stairs in Trench 3. Anyone who thinks that the inch by inch, painstaking, search conducted on their knees by the Archaeologists and Anthropologists took only one day knows nothing about this sort of work. Page 2 of the Anthropologists worksheet shows that they were still working on Trench 3 on 6th March and were still working under the stairs on 20th March. It was sometime around then that the work on this context was completed and we were told that the context meant the fragment was probably too old to be important to the enquiry. We then immediately ruled it out of our enquiry. Further confirmation of this is given on Page 16 of the Worksheet when the Anthropologist Julie Roberts made the entry reproduced below. This entry was made on 9th April and refers to the 8th April. Note what she say says in the entry because it totally contradicts what Gradwell, Warcup, and Simon say. For instance, where she says “now that the phasing of the area under the stairs has been completed,”; this would certainly seem to contradict the information given to the media by Gradwell and Warcup that it had been completed as early as the 24 February.

“9 April 2008
On 8 April 2008 I read the C14 dating results relating to JAR/6. The report stated that the fragment was too degraded to obtain a date. The fragment can however be dated by archaeological context now that the phasing of the area under the stairs has been completed. JAR/6 was found in Context 003, Trench 3. This Context is thought to belong to the earliest phase of the building, phase 1, which has been dated to the Victorian period. It certainly predates the 1940’s aggregate 008.

On 8 and 9 April 2008 I re-examined JAR/6. Since I initially examined the fragment it had dried out considerably and changed in colour, texture and weight. These changes caused me to reconsider my initial observation that the fragment was human bone, although I cannot reach a definite conclusion without conducting further chemical analysis. I reported my findings to Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND and SIO Lenny HARPER and we discussed a number of options regarding how to proceed with the fragment. Our conclusion was that as the fragment had been found in the pre 1940’s phase of the building, no further work would be conducted on it.”

Note also what Julie Roberts says about the fragment. Gradwell and Warcup told the media she had changed her mind and now thought it was something else. That is not what she is saying, even after examining it again and reporting changes to it. She clearly says that she cannot be sure without conducting further chemical analysis.

Furthermore, Miss Roberts says that she discussed it with myself and the Forensic Manager and that we discussed a number of options regarding how to proceed. She then says that “our” conclusion was that as we had already ruled it out of the enquiry, no further work would be conducted on it. “Our” obviously includes her in the decision. According to Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup, I rode roughshod over her opinion. More misinformation.

It is the same also with the myth that this was identified as a coconut during my time in the island. I detail below the sequence of events relating to the examination of the fragment. This is fully corroborated by copy e-mails from the lab which examined the fragment. I am not aware that it has ever been identified as a coconut. Anthropologists are trained to identify human remains. The only anthropologist to examine it thought it part of a child’s skull. On seeing it later when it had changed its appearance she was not so sure. People carrying out Carbon Dating are trained for that process, not identifying the matter. Even then, they gave contradictory and confused information to us. When reading below, bear in mind that collagen is found only in mammals, not wood, not coconut.

We sent the fragment off for dating around the 3rd or 4th March. If Gradwell and Warcup are to be believed I already knew it was hundreds of years old. Why would we send it off for dating if we already knew? However, my remarks above and the Anthropologist’s worksheet make it clear this was not true. The accompanying form completed by the Forensic Services Manager which went with the fragment also makes it clear that we did not know its age when we sent it off in March. Why would Mr. Gradwell claim that we did? There are also e-mails which must still be within the SOJP system which make it clear that we did not know the age of the fragment when sending it off, particularly those sent by the Forensic Services Manager.

On 28th March we received an e-mail from a Ms Brock at the Laboratory in relation to the fragment. Here are some excerpts from the e-mail.

“Hi Vicky. Here are the details of the Jersey skull as discussed on the phone earlier. As I said, the chemistry of this bone is extremely unusual – nothing I am familiar with.”

“During the first acid washes we often get a lot of fizzing as the mineral dissolves. The Jersey skull didn’t fizz at all, which suggested that preservation was poor, and which led me to test the nitrogen content of the bone.”

“The Jersey skull had 0.60 nitrogen, which suggested that it contained virtually no collagen. Once we had this result, Tom phoned you and told you it would be unlikely that we could date the sample, but that we would continue with the pre-treatment just in case.”

“Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”

“As there is no nitrogen it cannot contain collagen unless it is highly degraded. The chances are it is highly contaminated and any date we get for it might not be accurate. I have e-mailed the director and asked if we should proceed with a date.”

Now, if you look at that e-mail, it makes clear a number of things. Firstly, they, the experts on dating, are not sure they can date it. Secondly, they make it clear they have found more than enough collagen (only found in mammals) to date the fragment, but then change their mind again and say it is too badly degraded. Also, note the use of the terms ‘skull’ and ‘bone.’ If the experts cannot be sure on 28th March, how can anyone say that I knew on 24th February? On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’ She went on to say “If it isn’t bone I am really sorry,” but then finishes with “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as I described it.”

It is clear from those e-mails that the lab did not know what the fragment was. Why, then, have Messrs Simon, Gradwell, and Warcup insisted that the fragment was identified as a coconut by a person qualified to do so? By the time I retired, the only person to suggest the item might be a fragment of coconut was a technician who was trying to date it. No Anthropologist has ever identified it as such. One way to clear this would be to have it further examined, and I am not aware if that has ever been done. I am told, rightly or wrongly, however, that it has been lost. If true, how convenient.

At the time, I e-mailed the laboratory and asked them two questions. The first was “Are you saying definitively that this is not bone?” The second was “If you do not think it is bone how can you explain the presence of more collagen than is usually needed to date bearing in mind that collagen is found only in mammals?”

In answer to the first question they told me they did not think it was bone but the only way we could be sure was to have it re-examined by someone qualified to do so. I am still waiting on an answer to the question about the collagen.

I am therefore at a loss, given the above, which is all documented and evidenced, how either Mr. Gradwell, Mr. Warcup, or Diane Simon can say that I knew at a very early stage that the fragment was definitely old and that it was definitely a piece of coconut. The truth is that, as I left the island, we did not know what it was. The Anthropologist who declared it a piece of a child’s skull could not be as certain after seeing it six weeks later when it had changed pretty substantially. Even then she said it would need further examination, which in effect is what the lab said. Why would anyone try to make out this was not the case?

I have had to explain those details in response to so much nonsense which has been peddled by the Jersey establishment – but we shouldn’t be diverted by the issue of this, one fragment.

The crucial fact – that the powers-that-be in Jersey don’t want people to understand – is that the single fragment in question had been discounted from the investigation.

The important thing of course is not what it is. That stopped being important when we found out how old it was. Gradwell, Warcup, and Ms. Simon have totally ignored that fact. They have tried to tell the public that I knew it was coconut and/or too old to be of interest very early on, but nevertheless pursued the investigation solely on the basis of that, one, fragment. Their story is a total fabrication.

I am aware that this is a long and pretty dry document so I will try and be brief with the rest. Ms. Simon casts scorn, along with Mr. Gradwell, on the shackles we found. No matter what he may have found someone to later say about what they could be, the facts remain as follows.

I did not introduce the term shackles to the media. When builders heard that we were searching the area they had been working in, they went and told reporters that the police would find the ‘shackles’ they had found several years before when they were working there. Without knowing this, and with the evidence of victims in our minds, when we recovered these artefacts we all felt that the items were shackles. This means that the builders and ourselves, several years apart, came to the same conclusion; these items were shackles. I do not know what Mr. Gradwell showed to the media when he described them as something to do with roofing. I do know that never have I seen anything on any roof or gutter with a length of chain and a bracelet type affair at each end. When I emerged after being told of the find I was careful not to mention shackles. However when the media asked me what I had found and I replied that I had found some items which corroborated the victims evidence, one of them said, “Ah, so you found the shackles then!” It was to be several weeks before I admitted that we thought they were shackles as by that time it seemed rather daft to keep denying it.

Something else which caused me some angst, and consternation among a large number of journalists, was the pronunciation by Mr. Warcup and Mr. Gradwell at their press conference that they had to now contradict me and say there was no evidence of murder and no murder suspects. They must have somehow missed all the press conferences and media interviews that I gave in which I said exactly the same thing. Why they should try and give the impression that I was saying something different I do not know. They only have to look at the BBC News website for the 31st July to see that I was saying that in view of the contradictory evidence from the experts in respect of the evidence of the age of the bones, unless things changed there would be no homicide enquiry. Even clearer, the Sunday Times on 10th May made it clear that I was actively discouraging their journalist from believing the more lurid headlines. A large number of journalists from television, radio, and print contacted me on the day of the Gradwell/Warcup press conference, to ask what on earth they were talking about. They all said they had checked their records and I had never said that there was evidence of murder. Why did Gradwell and Warcup get it so wrong? Why did they sit there and smugly tell the public something that was simply just not true?

Let me deal with some of the other allegations and mud that has been thrown. Diane Simon, Mr. Warcup, and Mr. Gradwell have criticised the use of Mr. Martin Grimes and his dogs, pointing to the case in Portugal as evidence of their lack of usefulness and criticising the cost, including the cost of the accommodation at the hotel we used for him. Firstly, they fundamentally misunderstand the role of the dogs. They do not, and cannot tell us that has happened at a location nor indeed, if there has been a murder or even a dead body there. What they tell us is that there is something which needs investigating. They are trained either to detect the presence of the scent of dead human flesh or blood. This they did, as in the cellar where they reacted and led us to all the bones and teeth. There were thousands of animal bones in that area and we recovered many hundreds. The dogs ignored them all. David James Smith, the Sunday Times journalist summed it up by saying that the difference between my team and the police in Portugal was that we knew the limitations of what the dog was telling us. That said, I am a great admirer of the dogs and their handler. They worked long and hard hours. We carried out frequent tests on them and they succeeded every time. One such test was when one of the Anthropologists brought some sand which had been in contact with a mummy in another country. It was put on the beach and the dog went to it. Again, it was telling us there was something there to ask questions about. Nothing else. Ms. Simon asks why we had to use Martin Grimes for so long. The answer is simple. At the outset we had Homicide Search Experts from the National Policing Improvement Agency with us. (Incidentally, they recommended our operation at HDLG as an example of good practice), but they could not stay indefinitely. The expert who was there was called to Australia to assist with a high profile murder of a British subject in which the body was never found. With his agreement and advice, Martin Grimes acted as Search Advisor in his absence, a role that he filled with skill and dedication.

As for the hotel costs which Ms. Simon criticised, what were we to do? Put him in a tent? We received excellent rates for bed and breakfast way below what the hotels would normally charge. Not only that but Steven Austin Vautier at Home Affairs, and the Treasury, were well aware of the rates, and at frequent meetings agreed that they were good value. Mr. Grimes himself reduced his rates and did not charge for many expenses. All costs were known to the Treasury as they were incurred, and of course the Chief Minister continually assured us that we should use whatever resources were necessary, even to the extent of criticising me for daring to suggest to the media that cost was an issue. “Cost is irrelevant” said Bill Ogley in an e-mail, “the investigation is the important thing.” How then can they now criticise Graham Power or myself for the cost of the enquiry?

I keep seeing criticism of our actions which mention that there were no bodies and no reports of children missing. I have dealt with the findings of the human remains above. In respect of no reports of children missing there are a number of things to be considered. Firstly, children were brought casually to HDLG and sometimes no one even knew they were there. Records of missing persons were only held until comparatively recently by the parishes. Unlike in the UK, the professional police had no involvement. Also, children arrived from the UK without proper records being kept anywhere. One example was the Local Authority in the West Midlands area of the UK who contacted us to say they had sent six children to the island’s care system and had lost touch with them, never hearing of them again.

There is also, of course, the alleged book deal which the Jersey Evening Post and Ms. Simon seem to be fixated with. I wonder if some clue can be gleaned from the fact that Elaine Byrne of that paper telephoned at least one member of the literary world in London and told him that they had been told he had signed me to a book deal. She told him that they were interested in serialising the book and asked how much he had paid me and what the arrangement was? The person quite correctly said there was no such agreement. He had contacted me he said, (as have many others) but I had refused, saying I could not consider it until I finished working. She then asked how much he would offer in such a case. She was given short shrift and the man contacted me. I have to say I was grateful for the call. However, it shows that either the JEP are hypocritical in the extreme in wanting to serialise such a book by me, or Elaine Byrne was lying. Which would you bet your money on? Now, of course, Diane Simon is talking about a £200,000 book deal. I wish!!! No, it’s simply more literally incredible nonsense from the JEP.

In any event, there is no book deal, and as yet, no book. But, who knows? One sure thing, money will not be the motivation if I do. Besides, with the circulation this will get on Stuart’s blog who needs to write a book?

Another thing which Gradwell has criticised me for in the media was the fact that relations with the lawyers and the Attorney General’s office were abysmal.

Yes.

And his point is?

They were abysmal because I refused to accept a shoddy service and constant moving of the goal posts. Anyone in any doubt as to what I mean should read the report I produced to him, on his instructions, as to why I issued a press release disclaiming responsibility for the release of two sadists who liked to hit children with cricket bats, and which someone leaked to the media. As already mentioned above, it can still be read on Stuart Syvret’s blog. That report illustrates exactly why relations were bad. What would he or Mr. Warcup have done if they had been in charge of the investigation when we arrested the now convicted Wateridge - and the AG told me not to charge - shortly before we were going to do so? I think I know. Relations were not helped either by him trying to control my dealings with the media, as shown in a number of e-mails.

Which reminds me of another criticism by Gradwell and Ms. Simon – that of the media policy and the high profile of it. I thought the Daily Telegraph summed it up well way back in February when one of their columnists said that she saw three reasons for the media policy. Firstly, it was to reassure the victims that this time someone believed them. Secondly, to attract witnesses - and thirdly to protect myself and my enquiry from the same forces that had covered up everything before.

Exactly.

Make no mistake about it. If it had not been for the National media I would have been shunted off the island long before I found anything. I have a number of e-mails which detail how Frank Walker was continually saying that he was under pressure to sack or suspend me. I know for a fact that Graham Power told him, “Just you dare!”

A couple of years back a valued and trusted senior colleague caused a furore by describing the JEP as “a comic” in an e-mail to one of its journalists. The journalist ran to the Editor Chris Bright who wept, wailed, kicked up a tantrum, and then made a complaint against the officer. He did not like being called the editor of a comic. The matter was resolved without my colleague apologising. It is clear to me now that he was doing Biffo the Bear, Corky the Cat, and all those other endearing characters a gross injustice.

Oh yes, one more thing which I need to defend myself against. Several journalists have told me that Mr. Gradwell and indeed his boss in Jersey, have alleged that I was a bully, and that I aroused fear among officers. I certainly hope I did arouse fear among a small minority of officers. Let me explain.

Within a week or two of arriving on the island I had been approached by a number of officers who were obviously sounding me out. I was asked by both male and female officers how I would deal with bullying. My answer was always the same. Ruthlessly. And so, officers started coming to John Pearson, I, and other members of the Senior Management Team with complaints of bullying. There was a confidential reporting line run by a company in the UK but it was rarely used. Our staff preferred to come to us. We investigated all allegations and did so with the overwhelming support of the majority of the force. There were some unbelievable instances and I reproduce below part of the affidavit which I gave to the High Court in London for a recent court case. I have left the first paragraph in to show the type of tensions there were with some of the politicians.

"In those early days I also had a number of differences of opinion with the then Deputy Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee who was the Connétable of one of the country parishes. He objected to States of Jersey Police Vehicles driving through his parish on training duties and complained several times that they had answered emergency calls without asking his prior authority to go enter his parish. This was an early foretaste of many battles to come where politicians would seek to control our day to day operational activities.

During my time as a senior officer in the United Kingdom I had become known as someone who, whilst critical of the damage that over- zealous political correctness could do, would not tolerate bullying which caused people to feel uncomfortable at work and in some cases made them ill. I became aware that a small number of officers in the SOJP were making life difficult for others through bullying. A number of the victims came to me personally and I took firm action against the bullies. I will describe a few such examples in order to put into context the response our actions brought from the Jersey establishment.

Shortly after I arrived I held a ‘forum’ for the Constables of the force. I did this in response to complaints from officers that they had never been listened to. Towards the end of the meeting I asked if anyone had anything else to ask. A female officer asked how I would deal with bullying. “Ruthlessly,” I replied.

The woman officer left it at that and I forgot about the exchange until about six weeks later when I was about to fly out from Jersey Airport to the UK. The officer approached me and asked if I remembered her asking the question. We spoke for some time and she relayed a horrific tale of abuse, assault and bullying by a Sergeant in the force against her, which was witnessed on a number of occasions by other senior officers who did nothing. When she complained to one Inspector he told her he understood her situation but if he did anything the Sergeant would “turn on him.” The female officer had eventually gone to a very senior officer who had told her to forget it or her job would be at risk.

I started enquiries and found that her story was corroborated by over a dozen officers. One male officer told how one night shift he was sitting in the Station Office with the Sergeant when the latter produced a 9mm semi automatic pistol. The Sergeant dismantled the firearm and cleaned it. When finished, he assembled it, put the magazine in and cocked the weapon. He then pointed it directly at the male officer’s head for several seconds before lowering it and saying “No, not tonight.” That male officer is still suffering the effects of the bullying by the Sergeant. The female officer concerned has a civil action pending against the force which I do not believe is being contested.

On another occasion, I was approached on behalf of a vulnerable member of staff who had reported a domestic assault on herself. The investigating officer, a long serving detective, had asked her for her mobile phone number and had given her his “in case they needed to contact each other.” A couple of evenings later she received a lengthy series of text messages spread over several hours which started with comments about her physical appearance and what she looked like bending over the photo copier to extremely explicit texts about what the sender would like to do to her. These messages all came from the phone of the investigating officer. After I obtained the transcripts of these messages I challenged the officer. He at first denied it but changed his story. I returned him to uniform but did not discipline him as the victims vulnerable state would have meant that she would have suffered even more from a prolonged drawn out saga.

In another incident, a young Detective Sergeant reported a member of staff for carrying out particularly nasty racial bullying of a Portuguese woman officer. A short time later property belonging to him was vandalised in the CID office. We were told the suspect’s name in confidence by several detectives but had nothing we could use in evidence and no one was forthcoming. The Head of CID, who had also just come from the UK, and myself gathered every detective in the force together and warned them that if there was any repeat of this all of them would be returned to Uniform and we would re build the CID from scratch. We never did have a repeat despite only using local officers in a number of high profile anti corruption investigations which started off as covert operations.

It was clear however, that many Jersey politicians did not approve of our efforts to tackle bullying. We were openly criticised in the media by these people and on one occasion were referred to as the “politically correct KGB stalking the corridors of Police Headquarters.” At the same time however, it was clear that we had the support of the vast majority of the force as was illustrated by what Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary found when they carried out their first inspection during my time there. They found that Graham Power, myself, and John Pearson, had already made many changes which had transformed the force and the morale of its officers. The fact that the leadership style was supported by the rank and file was one of the findings. A second Inspection a few years later was to single out the work that had been done on Professional Standards and the strong leadership which had played a part in turning the force into a professional and innovative organisation."

The arrogance of the small minority who were carrying out this type of unprofessional behaviour was illustrated by the example of one senior member of staff who was the subject of several complaints to me from female colleagues. They complained about sexual innuendo and worse. Eventually I had him in my office one afternoon and warned him that another similar incident would result in disciplinary action. That night he took a visiting police staff member from the UK out to dinner and continually ran his hand along places he should not have. She complained and he left our employ soon after.

There was no doubt we did deal firmly with the bullies and the few corrupt members of staff. All of the allegations of bullying made against me seem to have come from those who were dealt with in this fashion. Bullies do not take kindly to being stood up to. Several of the corrupt cops that we removed from the force complained about their treatment. Without exception their complaints were found to be malicious or unsubstantiated. Several of them even tried to damage the historical abuse enquiry. The sister of one local businessman, who twenty police officers admitted taking favours or services from, even wrote to most of the news desks in London accusing me of abuse myself. Stuart Syvret was contacted and told not to trust myself or my deputy in the investigation. Of course, being Stuart, the first thing he did was pick-up the phone and tell me about the approach. Again, I should emphasise. The bad and the corrupt were a small minority in a force brimming with talent and commitment.

I have been asked to explain what the ACPO reports were. Gladly. The evening we found the first fragment I contacted ACPO in the UK and asked them to appoint a team to oversee the enquiry and quality control it. This was something I readily agreed with Graham Power. I did so because I already knew the hostility that existed among many politicians and other areas of the establishment. I had my first taste of this back in 2007 the day I went public with the enquiry. I was ordered to attend at the office of Frank Walker, the Chief Minister. I went there with Graham Power and found that also present with Walker were Bill Ogley and Home Affairs Minister Wendy Kinnard. Let me make quite clear now, that Wendy Kinnard was a staunch supporter of this enquiry and had to endure some difficult times because of it. An early example came at this meeting.

Walker started off by telling me I was looking at a very angry Chief Minister. I asked why. The conversation then went as follows:

FW. “You have been talking to Stuart Syvret.”
LH. “Yes I have. It was necessary for me to talk to him as not only does he have evidence that I may need, but the victims trust him and he may be able to persuade them to come to us.”
FW. “But you told him that you were going public.” (Stuart had released a press statement that morning to coincide with mine – a move which I have to admit, I did not anticipate!!)
LH. “Yes, but I also told you I was going public.”
FW. “But you showed him your press statement.”
LH. “Chief Minister, I showed it to you.”
FW. “But we’re the Government.”

Bill Ogley then intervened to ask me, “You do realise this could bring down the Government?” I told him that was not my concern. My concern was getting to the truth.

There then followed an argument about my use of the word “victims” in the media release. Walker ordered me not to use it. He explained that there were no victims until someone was convicted. I told him that was not the case. When someone alleged that they were a victim of crime, they were a victim. In a similar manner those who alleged that they were the victims of a racially motivated attack had to be treated as such even where there was not a shred of evidence of a racial motive. Walker argued, Wendy Kinnard spoke strongly in agreement with me and I continued to use the word “victims” for the rest of my time in Jersey.

Anyway, back to ACPO. Three members of the ACPO Homicide Review Group were appointed to oversee the enquiry. The team was led by the former head of the Mets Homicide Teams who now works for the Serious and Organised Crime Agency. He was probably the United Kingdom’s most experienced Murder investigator. He was assisted by an expert in the HOLMES computer system on which we were running the enquiry. A female member of the Review Group made up the trio. Their terms of reference were drawn up by them and signed by their leader and Graham Power. Included in the signed terms of reference was the commitment to quality control of the investigation and personal mentoring for myself, my deputy, and the office manager who was responsible for the computer systems used. For some reason, Mr Gradwell and Mr Warcup have sought to make people think that it was no part of the ACPO team’s remit to quality control the investigation. This is untrue and can clearly be seen to be untrue by simple examination of their terms of reference and their reports. David James Smith, of the Sunday Times, made this point in his article.

The ACPO team duly arrived and over several visits set about examining all aspects of our work. After each set of visits which lasted several days, they would issue a report and hand that report to Graham Power, the Home Affairs Minister, and onwards to the Chief Minister. Indeed, two members of the team even had an hour long meeting with the Chief Minister, Bill Ogley, and, I think, the HA Minister during which time they briefed them on the way the investigation was proceeding and their thoughts on it. This was in the absence of Graham Power and myself. If there was anything wrong with the enquiry, given Walkers hostility to it, it would surely have been made known after that meeting.

During their visits to the island the team would speak to myself and many other members of my team. They spent many hours examining the computer system and the entries on it. I had to hand over all my policy books to them for examination. They were to comment in one of their reports that the Policy Books were being properly maintained. These are the documents that Gradwell said were a ‘mess’, and led to his comments about taking over “a poorly managed mess.”

Who is likely to be correct? The ACPO Homicide Review Team or Mr Gradwell?

Each report by the ACPO team would give their comments on the way the enquiry was progressing and would make recommendations. In the second report they stated that we were to be congratulated on the speed with which we had implemented these recommendations. The Team leader told me that it was the quickest he had ever seen recommendations being implemented. Gradwell told journalists that one of the team had told him that we had said we implemented things which, in fact, we had not. I asked the leader of the ACPO team about this. “Nonsense, it was never said,” was his response.

Of the two or three ACPO reports made whilst I was there, none contained any serious criticism. As with all such reviews there were things they felt we could do, or do differently, and we always had discussions around those. If I felt that it was not applicable to the Jersey context, I said so.

For example, one of their early recommendations was that I should have a ‘Gold Group’ which would include senior figures from the “caring agencies” in Jersey. I said some of those were among our priority suspects. The ACPO team accepted that it was not a good idea.

Gradwell bitterly criticised my media strategy and one press conference in particular came in for strong criticism where they accused me of brandishing a tooth in front of the media. The truth is simple. It was an excellent idea but it was not mine. I was at HDLG and it was just after we started finding the teeth and were being told that some of them could not have come out from children who were still alive. I was going out to answer questions at the demand of the media. The head of the ACPO team suggested that as a means of showing just how small the teeth were, and of illustrating what a good job the Archaeological and Anthropology teams were doing, I should show the media a tooth. He suggested displaying it alongside a five pence piece. I did so. I was criticised by someone in the States that afternoon for using a Jersey five pence piece and making the island look bad when I could have used a UK coin.

The ACPO reports are of course there to be seen but they seem to have been ignored by Mr Gradwell and Mr Warcup. The Sunday Times has seen them of course and they posed the question as to why Warcup and Gradwell are so intent on rubbishing my work when the man who “made a little boy’s head bob up and down in the water” (whilst sexually assaulting the boy), is still free? A good question indeed.

I think that probably covers most of the allegations made against me, the enquiry, the team and indeed the victims over the past few months. A well known journalist told me he could not understand Mr. Gradwell’s obsession with me and that in other circumstances we would probably have got along very well. I do not think so. Our fundamental beliefs in the purpose of good policing are too different. I believe that police officers are there to protect the vulnerable and to put the bad guys away where they will do no harm. Simplistic I know. Mr. Gradwell tells Diane Simon that a person’s guilt is not a concern of the police. That is one reason I am glad to be out of it.

I am sorry this is such a long and dry document. Of necessity it had to be that way to deal with all the nonsense that has been written and spoken about myself, my team, the enquiry, and most of all, the victims. I hope it has not seemed too much like Lenny Harper congratulating himself, but in circumstances where people who do not know me are labelling me as all sorts of monster, I needed to redress the balance. For those who have persevered this far, my thanks. My thanks also to everyone who has written to me, e-mailed me, or expressed support in other ways. It all meant, and continues to mean, a lot.

Lenny Harper

5th September, 2009

SMOKE SCREENS!

2009-08-30T21:41:00.002+01:00

I have waited a while since the Wateridge trial ended before making a post, I wanted to see what the 'fallout', if any, there would be and what reaction there would be from The Jersey oligarchy and their propaganda machine that is 'The Rag' (JEP).
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at what has ensued, rubbishing of the investigation, attacks on Lenny Harper, sniping about costs and of course Det Supt Mick Gradwell's parting shot as he leaves his post 'THE excavation of Haut de la Garenne was a complete waste of public money' and that 'there was no justification for the police excavating at Haut de la Garenne as part of the abuse inquiry'.
Now, if your going to make such statements at least back it up with some kind of explanation or evidence, here I'll help you a little, just complete the following Mr Gradwell...

1.) The lime pits were dug for ....................................................................................................

2.) We wont carbon date the teeth because ............................................................................. even though it would only cost a couple of thousand pounds (a small amount in context of the overall cost of the enquiry).

3.) We have only prosecuted two people connected with HDLG even though we have hundreds of pages of statements etc because ................................................................................................

Please dear reader, don't hold your breath for any answer, it wont come.

So, in conclusion, you carry on with your attempts to cloud (or should that be cover up) the real issues and protect the ones who should really be in the dock but remember this, 'the truth will always out' and when it does your whole sorry house of cards will come tumbling down.

2009-08-20T17:52:00.000+01:00

Jersey carer convicted of abuse

Gordon Wateridge worked at the Haut de la Garenne home in Jersey

A former worker at a Jersey children's home has been found guilty of eight counts of indecent assault against three teenage girls in his care.

Gordon Wateridge who worked at the Haut de la Garenne home, was cleared of a further 12 charges of indecent assault.

The 78-year-old, who lives in the parish of St Clement, was described as "a persistent sexual bully" during his trial at Jersey Royal Court.

The convictions relate to his time as a house parent at the home in the 1970s.

Wateridge was also found guilty of assaulting a teenage boy.

He had denied all the charges against him and told the court that staff at Haut de la Garenne were advised not to have any physical contact with the children in their care.

He was released on bail pending sentencing in September, but Judge Christopher Pitchers warned him he had betrayed a position of trust and there was an overwhelming possibility that he would be given a custodial sentence.

'Some comfort'

Wateridge, who was born in Croydon, south London, was the first person charged in connection with an inquiry into historical abuse at the home.

Speaking after the verdict, Det Supt Mick Gradwell said in a statement: "Gordon Wateridge, a house parent at Haut de la Garenne, was a sexual bully towards vulnerable young girls in his care.

"We hope the complainants involved in this trial have received some comfort from the decision reached by the court.

Haut de la Garenne l

"The historical abuse inquiry is continuing and there is another case in the court process.

"We would like to emphasise that the States of Jersey Police take reports of historical abuse seriously, and are committed to investigating them."

The historic abuse team has submitted further evidence to the island's Attorney General, and he and the police are expected to make a detailed statement within the next few weeks.

2009-08-18T18:34:00.001+01:00

Jersey abuse trial jury retires

Gordon Wateridge denies all the charges against him

The jury in the trial of a carer accused of abusing teenagers at a former children's home in Jersey has retired to consider its verdicts.

Gordon Wateridge, who worked at the Haut de la Garenne home, denies 19 counts of indecent assault relating to five victims between 1970 and 1974.

The 78-year-old is also charged with assaulting a teenage boy and incitement to indecent assault.

Jersey Royal Court has heard he was a "persistent sexual bully".

Prosecutors said he would grope girls' breasts, kiss them on the neck and, in one instance, forced his hand inside an alleged victim's underwear.

Mr Wateridge worked as a house-parent at the home and lived in a flat there with his wife and two children at the time of the alleged offences.

He has pleaded not guilty to all 21 charges and claimed the allegations have ruined his life.

Giving evidence at the court in St Helier, he said: "I did my best in the care of the children. I looked upon the children the same as I would my own.

"I've never struck a child, I've never even struck my own."

Mr Wateridge was born in Croydon, south London, but now lives in the Jersey parish of St Clement.

DONT MAKE ME LAUGH!

2009-08-14T10:21:00.002+01:00

Reading back my previous post the following quote from Lord William Wallace caught my eye......
"They benefit a great deal by being seen to be within the British system of law".
I just had to laugh, this man needs to take a look at what has been going on lately in Jersey.
The Jersey oligarchy aren't interested in "being seen to be within the British system of law", in fact, one could argue that they are not interested in any system of law at all. OK, maybe that's a bit harsh, they are interested, as long as its in their interests, or the interests of high ranked overpaid civil servants who are obviously the puppet masters.

You only have to look at the current state of play in the historical abuse enquiry, only 3 people charged, 11 cases dropped without any explanation and those who conspired to keep it quiet for so long seemingly untouchable.

And what have the UK government said or done? Nothing!!
Despite pleas to Jack Straw to intervene and use his constitutional powers to ensure the good administration of justice in Jersey.

I have seen a lot of people saying "justice has to be seen to be done"
Not me, I want justice to be done, all those responsible held to account no matter who they are or what their position, not just a few 'token' prosecutions to keep the citizens happy.

Will justice happen?

DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH!

UK review of crown dependencies

2009-08-13T09:33:00.001+01:00

UK review of crown dependencies

Crown dependencies still need royal assent for new legislation

Questions have been raised in the UK whether crown dependencies, such as Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, should retain their independence.

Lord William Wallace, a House of Lords peer, has said autonomy is no longer appropriate and the constitutional relationship needs to be reviewed.

As dependencies, the islands are not part of the UK or the European Union.

Although governed independently, they remain a "possession" of the British Crown and are not sovereign nations.

Crown dependencies need royal assent for new legislation.

They benefit a great deal by being seen to be within the British system

Lord William Wallace

Lord Wallace said the House of Commons Justice Committee would be looking at how the relationship between the UK and crown dependencies is managed in the autumn.

"I think there are problems with all of them," he told BBC News.

"They benefit a great deal by being seen to be within the British system of law.

"But in terms of the revenue flows, tax exemptions and the contributions they make to the United Kingdom, I think we definitely have to look at that again."

New evidence in historic abuse inquiry

2009-08-11T15:50:00.000+01:00

New evidence has temporarily put Jersey's historic abuse trial on hold.

The trial of Gordon Claude Wateridge was due to restart this morning with the questioning of the third victim who he is accused of assaulting. But new evidence has been introduced which needs to reviewed.

Yesterday the court heard the alleged victim was trying to stop his sister being indecently assaulted and was physically assaulted himself.

The defence counsel Advocate Mike Preston was due to start cross-examining the alleged victim today.

The case has been adjourned until tomorrow morning. Mr Wateridge denies the charges.

Jersey carer 'was sexual bully'

2009-08-10T14:46:00.000+01:00

Jersey carer 'was sexual bully'

Gordon Wateridge denies the charges

A carer at a former children's home in Jersey was a "persistent sexual bully" who repeatedly abused children in his care, a court has heard.

Gordon Wateridge, 78, used his job at the Haut de la Garenne home to touch teenage girls in a sexual manner, Jersey's Royal Court was told.

He is charged with 19 counts of indecent assault relating to five victims between 1970 and 1974.

Mr Wateridge, who lives in the parish of St Clement, denies the charges.

He is also charged with one count of assault against a 12 or 13-year-old boy and one count of incitement to indecent assault against a 12 or 13-year-old girl.

The court was told he would grope girls' breasts, kiss them on the neck and, in one instance, forced his hand inside an alleged victim's underwear.

The alleged attacks led to children at the home nicknaming Mr Wateridge "The Perv", the jury was told.

'Bear hugs'

Opening the case for the prosecution, Stephen Baker said Mr Wateridge had worked as a house parent at the children's home from 1970 to 1974.

He said: "It is the prosecution case that Mr Wateridge abused that position of responsibility in respect of the children in his care named in the indictment. He was a bully and he used his position of authority to touch girls in his care in a sexual fashion.

"As you hear the evidence, you may conclude that he was a persistent sexual bully, frequently touching young teenage girls in a sexual manner."

As he opened the case, Mr Baker advised the jury to ignore "lurid" reporting in the press about Haut de la Garenne.

He made out that everything was a joke but he really was not very nice to anyone

Alleged victim

Mr Baker said Mr Wateridge would use his strength to overpower the girls by giving them inappropriate "bear hugs".

On other occasions he would sit on a snooker table at the home, grab girls walking past and pull them towards him.

The court heard he would place his mouth on the girl's neck and then allegedly grope the victim.

One of the alleged victims told the court that she had been left feeling "dirty" after being groped by him.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is now 53 and revealed girls at the home referred to Wateridge as "Perv".

She said: "He made out that everything was a joke but he really was not very nice to anyone."

"He would do things like smacking your bottom, grabbing you and giving you bear-hugs. It was all very impersonal."

She added: "When he grabbed you from behind, he would more often than not touch your breasts in some way."

When asked how she felt at the time about it, she replied: "It made me feel dirty, to be honest."

The trial continues.

Questions for my readers

2009-08-03T00:29:00.002+01:00

OK I have a couple of questions that I need answers to, I'm hoping someone will have the answers.

Q1.) Having given two lengthy interviews to the abuse enquiry team am I entitled to ask for a copy of the tapes or paper statements from them? If so, how would I do this or would I need a solicitor to act on my behalf.

Q2.) Am I entitled (as is the case in UK) to have access to files kept on me whilst in care/HDLG (if they exist) and how would I go about this?

If anyone can help i will appreciate it greatly
Thanks
Allan

2009-08-01T19:19:00.001+01:00

ARRIVAL

Alone bewildered scared
A little boy lost
That’s how I arrived
Taken from school
‘For my own good’

Driven by car
By a faceless social worker
Whose name I long forget
Through unknown lanes
Enveloped in loneliness

All too soon
There you stood
In your granite majesty
Your imposing stature
Too much for my young mind
To take in

Your cold exterior
Matched only by your sterile insides
You should have been my haven
But all that you did
Was extinguish my spirit
And stifle my cries

© Allan Shepherd 2009-08-01

2009-07-23T10:31:00.001+01:00

WHY?

Why would you do that?

Did you enjoy the power?

Why did you take away,

My boyhood innocence

Corrupting my childhood

With your dirtiness

Why did you do that?

Pray on my vulnerability

Why would you

Take away my happiness

Replace my smile

With tears and sorrow

Why did you do that?

Make me feel loved

Why would you

Then abuse that trust

Condemn me

To a life full of pain

Why would you do that?

Why

Investigated care home man dies

2009-06-23T14:29:00.000+01:00

A former Jersey children's home worker who was investigated by social services into child abuse there in the 1980s has died from cancer.

Alan Maguire, who ran the former Blanche Pierre children's home with his wife, Jane, died in France.

An internal States inquiry into care at Blanche Pierre found Mrs Maguire had carried out "gross acts of physical and psychological abuse".

Mr Maguire was also mentioned in a covering letter for the inquiry.

Insufficient evidence

The Maguires were later allowed to "retire" from Blanche Pierre. Jane Maguire was moved onto another job within social services and still allowed to work with vulnerable people.

She was not finally recommended for dismissal from social services until 1999 in a confidential social services report into Blanche Pierre from 1999, which was obtained by the BBC in 2008.

The report looked at alleged abuse in the home between 1986 and 1990 when the home was run by the couple. It found Jane Maguire guilty of gross misconduct.

Mr Maguire, who was not employed by the States, was accused of carrying out acts of abuse by former residents of Blanche Pierre.

The couple's actions were twice investigated by Jersey Police, but on each occasion it was decided there was insufficient evidence for the case to proceed to court.

Mr Maguire had been diagnosed with liver cancer and Jersey Police had believed he was already dead at the time of a previous investigation.

He was subsequently found to be alive and living with his wife in France in 2008.

The couple were the focus of a BBC Panorama and BBC Inside Out South West programme last year in which they were challenged about their activities as carers in Jersey.

When confronted by reporters, they made no comment.

BBC Jersey contacted the French authorities directly, who confirmed his death.

Two historic abuse cases dropped

2009-06-04T11:07:00.001+01:00

Two cases in the Jersey historic abuse enquiry will not be prosecuted after they were dropped "for legal and evidential reasons".

The first case involved an employee who used to work at the former Haut de la Garenne children's home.

The second case involved house parents of a former St Clement children's home.

Jersey's Attorney General, William Bailhache said he had not found sufficient grounds to prosecute in either case.

Nine alleged victims gave evidence about the Haut de la Garenne case but Mr Bailhache questioned the credibility of some of it.

He also said the complaints did not support each other enough.

The couple who ran the former St Clement children's home, now live in France and attempts to interview them have been unsuccessful.

Charges against the couple were dropped by the island's Attorney General in 1998 and the current Attorney General said he had not found sufficient evidence for overturning his predecessor's decision.

Those claiming to be victims in the two separate alleged abuse cases which have now been dropped were notified by police on Wednesday night that their cases would not be going any further.

Historic abuse investigations are still ongoing in Jersey however, with three cases currently going through the island's court system.

(BBC Jersey)

Harper cleared of all charges

2009-05-28T18:33:00.000+01:00

Harper cleared of all charges

By Ben Quérée

Former deputy police chief Lenny Harper

FORMER deputy Police Chief Lenny Harper has been cleared of all internal charges against him.

Investigations into Mr Harper – who retired from the States of Jersey Police a year ago – began after former officers and associates claimed he carried out ‘witch-hunts’ against them, and that he bullied some of them out of the force.

But Mr Harper says that the States of Jersey Police have written to him saying that he had been cleared of all the allegations after a lengthy investigation, and that the inquiries are over.

He said that there had been five complainants in total, four former policemen and tow truck operator Roy Boschat. ‘All have now been found unsubstantiated or vexatious,’ said Mr Harper.

Life's Loves Lost!

2009-05-25T03:07:00.002+01:00

Someone asked me last week 'have you ever had a proper relationship?'
I took a step back and took a long hard look back over my life and reluctantly admitted that actually I didn't think I had.
I never really had a 'girlfriend' until I was about 16, sure I had crushes, mainly on girls in HDLG but in the main I was too shy to do anything about it. There was 'THE' one of course, my first love. To me she was the most beautiful girl ever, she lit up my life, but, alas, it was unrequited and she broke my heart.I never forgot her.
For the most part I stumbled along from one relationship to another, one night stands were 'the norm' but there were three significant relationships that I can recall. The first ended because I was in prison, The second ended after she went off with my 'mate' and then there was my marriage.
I spent 14 years with my ex-wife and we had three wonderful children together. I know what you're going to say 'surely that must have been a real relationship' but no in reality it wasn't. To be honest I don't know how she put up with me for that long. Every time it got difficult I did what I did best.....ran away! Don't get me wrong, I did and still do love her but there was one thing that was always in the way....The wall I had built to 'protect' myself so many years ago.
That wall was built upon the feelings of abandonment as a child, the mistrust caused by those who 'loved' and cared about me but still felt it was OK to abuse me and my determination to never allow myself to be hurt ever again.
So, there you have it, a life of running away, pushing people away and hurting those who got close before they could hurt me.
And still the wall remains!

The Search For 'Belonging'

2009-05-15T01:01:00.002+01:00

I've had enough! enough of the bullshit, enough of the political posturing, enough of the denial, enough of it all already.
Somewhere along the line during the historical abuse enquiry alot of people seem to have forgotten that more than anything its about people, real people who were once children, children who should have been nurtured, loved, cared for, inspired by and guided into adulthood by those who were employed and trusted to do so. The system that should have protected those children failed miserably.
I'm gonna share with you some of my reality!
As I entered HDLG aged 9 my feelings of rejection overwhelmed me, rejected my my natural mother twice and then by my adoptive parents it didnt take long before I started to believe the adults around me when they said 'you're no good, nobody wants you, you'll never amount to anything'
I never really fit in during my time at hdlg, I didnt have many friends, I was what you would term as a 'loner' moody and withdrawn.
I was the perfect target for those who would abuse me.
I wanted to 'belong', oh god I so craved acceptance from my peers but, apart from a very few, it never happened.
School was the same, especially secondry where the stigma of being from hdlg coupled with my quiet nature made me a target for bullies and off the cuff remarks that really hurt.
Over the years I have craved for that sense of belonging, I have lived on the streets in London, become part of the drug scene, stumbled from one failed relationship to another, been a punk, been a biker, joined an outlaw bike club and been to prison, I even spent a year in a hari krishna temple but through it all I just wanted to be accepted and belong.
Even now, aged 47, I still crave that acceptance, but those words still haunt me,
'you're no good, nobody wants you, you'll never amount to anything'

Late plea change in abuse hearing » News » This Is Jersey

2009-05-12T19:01:00.001+01:00

Late plea change in abuse hearing » News » This Is Jersey

Posted using ShareThis

NO CHILD ABUSE IN JERSEY.........

2009-05-10T19:30:00.001+01:00

Article from the Sunday Times Magazine 10/05/2009

As one dissident Jersey politician who wished to remain nameless said to me when we huddled together one lunch time in a cramped St Helier cafe, you might have thought Jersey — its politicians and civil servants, its police force, its tourist industry — had something to celebrate when the police concluded that there had been no murders at Haut de la Garenne, the now-notorious children’s home.

Good news at last! Nobody died! Jersey’s reputation is restored. Well, perhaps that last sentiment might have been taking things a bit far, especially bearing in mind what you are about to read, but still, no news was good news, up to a point… Weeks of digging, dog sniffing, soil sifting and bone-fragment analysing had resulted in what appeared to be a clear verdict: no bodies at the old children’s home.

So perhaps it is now time for the perpetrators of the abuse to be brought to justice. We know who they are, the police know who they are, the authorities know who they are. So what is holding things up?

While the media had been fixated on Haut de la Garenne’s cellars, the police inquiries had been wide-ranging. As part of their investigation, they examined the accusations of abuse and cover-up that had reached into the heart of the Jersey government. Many of those accusations are being made public for the first time here, and while we are bound by laws that prevent us naming names, we know the identities of those said to be involved. We do not know why they have not been charged, and that is exactly what the alleged victims would like to know too. The victims have been waiting for action since November, just over eight months after the digging had begun at Haut de la Garenne. We know there were no bodies, but it still seemed the inquiry should move forward. Nobody could have guessed what would happen instead.

On November 12 last year, the media were summoned to a press conference at police headquarters, where one team of senior police officers proceeded to launch an unprecedented attack on the work of another, effectively accusing the former head of the inquiry, Lenny Harper, of misleading the world with inaccurate, sensationalised claims of multiple homicides, and of wilfully misrepresenting the evidence he had found during the searches at the former home.

Harper had been the senior investigating officer for the child-abuse inquiry until he retired, as planned, in August. He had also served six years as deputy chief officer of the Jersey force, second in command to Graham Power, the chief officer who was still just over a year away from retirement, and a recipient of the Queen’s Police Medal for distinguished service. Harper and Power must have been doing something right: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary had assessed the Jersey police as an efficient organisation with strong leadership.

That morning, while Harper’s work was being traduced in front of the press, Power had gone to a meeting with the then Jersey States home-affairs minister, Andrew Lewis. The chief executive, Bill Ogley, was also there and took notes. Notes he later admitted he had destroyed. Power had been summoned to the meeting in a call by Lewis the previous evening, without being given any idea what the theme of the meeting would be. He was told that the Jersey Council of Ministers — the equivalent of the cabinet — had been briefed by his own police colleagues the night before and the content of the briefing had been so bad they had no option but to suspend him. The officers who had given ministers the briefing were the same two officers who were just then delivering the stinging judgment on Harper to the media.

Power said that he refused an offer to take an hour to consider resigning. He was then handed a letter that referred to an earlier meeting when he had been warned he faced the suspension that was now being put into effect. There had been no earlier meeting. It looked like an unsubtle, outrageous attempt to belatedly satisfy a disciplinary code. Power returned home and was still there at the time of writing this article; he has just won the right to have a judicial review of his suspension.

I had written in detail about the child-abuse inquiry last year. I had never given much credence to the more lurid tales of possible homicides, mainly because I had been counselled against them by Lenny Harper. There were no missing children, he said, clearly and often, and there was no evidence of murder. I knew, too, that Harper believed he was engaged in a struggle with vested interests among Jersey’s ruling elite, who were trying to undermine the inquiry and would rather the whole thing went away. It soon became apparent that allegations of abuse were widespread throughout the Jersey childcare system and had been around for years, but only a handful of the most blatant cases had ever reached court.

When I looked at the story again, I found allegations that point to years of systematic abuse among a loose structure of suspected abusers. Meanwhile, the officers who replaced Lenny Harper have continued to brief against him, off the record, and to minimise or downplay the extent of the claims. In two specific cases the alleged abusers were men who had risen up through the care-home system, where they were said to have ruled by terror, to become high-ranking officials of the States of Jersey. Both men stand accused of numerous assaults. The Sunday Times Magazine knows their identities — half of Jersey knows who they are — but we are forced by law to protect them from public exposure.

One among many of the two men’s alleged victims is Rickie Tregaskis, who claims to have been subjected to endless assaults and abuses while a teenager in a Jersey care home: being made to lie naked on a mattress every night for two weeks in front of a female member of staff; being made to stand in the dining room while one of the men poured food over his head; repeatedly punched and knocked about by that same man, and once having his nose broken by him. At least three of Tregaskis’s peers from the home committed suicide or died young of drug abuse. Others have led chaotic lives, often in and out of prison and/or psychiatric care. Tregaskis himself is serving life for the violent murder of a disabled man in Cornwall in 1997. “In a way,” Tregaskis had once written, not without bitter irony perhaps,

“I have to thank people like him [his abuser] for teaching me discipline and refining my later life talents.” So, while there may be no bodies at Haut de la Garenne, make no mistake, there is certainly a trail of corpses across the wider inquiry.

Since Harper retired, there have been no new charges against alleged perpetrators. Only three people face trial for abuse, and one of those is nothing to do with Haut de la Garenne or any childcare institution. In one case, the charges went ahead only because Harper pretended he had not received a last-minute message from a senior official trying to stop the prosecution going ahead.

The police are now hinting that there may be few, if any, further charges. I heard that one officer is saying he has “bad news” to deliver to alleged victims — the bad news being they may never get their day in court. The officer clearly believes, or wants us to believe, that Harper is to blame for raising expectations and misrepresenting the evidence and the scale of the abuse. Is this true — or are Harper and Power being made scapegoats?

The claims of misconduct, incompetence and self-interest against Harper are so many that it is difficult to know where to start. His replacements certainly have it in for him, letting it be known they think he has lied and jeopardised future prosecutions with his public pronouncements.

During the inquiry he sought and acted on a great deal of external advice, and was told by a security department of the Metropolitan police not to maintain “day books” that could be read by others. So, no daybooks, only a diary in which, he says, he kept personal records relating to his wife’s illness and other matters unrelated to the inquiry.

During the press conference, and in subsequent briefings and interviews, Jersey police have sought to create the impression of Harper as a maverick, bullying figure. Yet, far from going it alone, Harper early on sought the advice and support of the homicide working group of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), who sent a team of three officers to Jersey to monitor and review the inquiry. The team was led by one of the country’s most eminent detectives, André Baker, now a deputy director at the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca). The others were Anne Harrison and John Mooney of the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA).

If you mention this team to the new Jersey police, they will say they were not there to review the inquiry and only had a limited role. This, so far as I can tell, is not true. I have seen the team’s terms of reference, and they clearly state that its role was to “quality assure” the investigation. They did indeed make many recommendations, and all were implemented except, by mutual agreement, two or three that were deemed not relevant.

The team made four visits. Its role was to “monitor the 27 recommendations, to maintain the role of mentors, and to identify any further work”. Later it reported: “The recommendations from the initial visit have been acted upon, some within a very short period. The States of Jersey Police are to be commended for their positive reception of the report and for their extremely prompt response in implementing recommendations.” Two team members also gave a private briefing to Frank Walker, the then chief minister, and some of his most senior colleagues, which would have presented another opportunity to report concerns. There were none.

Harper first contacted Acpo on February 23 last year, the day of the discovery of the now notorious fragment that was initially considered by the forensic anthropologist who found it as having the appearance of a small piece of a child’s skull. The inquiry was then in the fourth day of what might be called a recce, a preliminary dig to see if anything would turn up. This approach had been agreed at a conference Harper had organised with the NPIA and scientists from LGC Forensics in Oxford, where the discussion took place. If they did not find anything, they would pack up and leave, but if anything significant turned up they would start a more thorough search.

The decision to start digging was not taken idly. Haut de la Garenne had cropped up repeatedly during other earlier child-abuse inquiries, touching on a number of organisations such as the Jersey Sea Cadets, St John Ambulance, Victoria College and the St Helier Yacht Club. Haut de la Garenne was a common thread. One of Tregaskis’s two alleged abusers had also worked there before going on to manage the residential home where Tregaskis lived during his time in care. Those two alleged abusers are linked to a series of allegations. One victim claims he was punched by both men; another that he was punched by one of them; still another that he was punched and stamped on by the other man. This victim also claimed to have been “pinballed” — bounced around the walls of that official’s office — by that official, punched to the floor by the other man, assaulted by both regularly. He also witnessed the second man hit another boy, now dead, with a cane so hard that he drew blood. Another resident saw someone assaulted by a third member of staff before being dragged by the second man into his office to be “pinballed”. He later emerged marked and bruised. In one further case, a victim claims to have been punched and kicked for 20 minutes by the second man while the other one was there, and also took part in the assault by kicking the boy. This same boy saw two other fellow residents being “pinballed”, one after complaining to his mother about an earlier assault. A boy also said he was picked up by his ears by the official before being punched in the stomach. A witness watched as that same man punched a boy in the face after pinning him against the wall by his throat.

Neither of the men has ever been charged over the allegations, though The Sunday Times Magazine is aware that the police have assembled a file of statements from both alleged victims and witnesses to incidents of abuse. The police say the inquiries are continuing. Let’s not hold our breath.

A former employee at Haut de la Garenne is Jane Maguire, who went on to run the care home Blanche Pierre with her husband, Alan. A case against them for alleged physical abuses reached court in the late 1990s before collapsing for lack of evidence, even though a number of alleged victims were ready to give evidence and some of the more routine abuses had actually been recorded in a daybook. A court official said the correct procedures had been followed before the decision to throw out the charges.

The victims were told about the collapse of the Maguire case at a meeting attended by a senior childcare officer, who was himself a former volunteer at Haut de la Garenne and who had left the police force to join social services. This man’s name is also known to The Sunday Times Magazine and to the police. There are claims he failed to act on several occasions after children reported allegations to him, and also that he abused them himself. He had first been arrested and questioned in 2003. He was not charged.

A second claim of assault did not result in any charges either. He has always denied the allegations. He was arrested for the third time last year over three fresh claims of assault, one on a female, two on boys.

I have also learnt the name of a man whose identity was protected during a 2004 trial in Jersey when he was the victim of blackmail. The alleged blackmailer, Raymond Duchesne, claimed to have been repeatedly sodomised between the ages of 6 and 10 while he was in care at Haut de la Garenne by the man he was now trying to blackmail. After some debate, the court agreed to accept the allegations were true, for the purposes of the case. The man, a volunteer at Haut de la Garenne, used to take children out on boat trips from the St Helier marina — a recreational activity common to many Jersey abusers. Andrew Jervis-Dykes had adopted it while he was a maths teacher at Victoria College, taking teenage boys out on sailing trips as part of Combined Cadet Force training. Jervis-Dykes was eventually jailed for six indecent assaults between 1984 and 1991.

There were suspicions that others might also have been involved in sexual assaults alongside Jervis-Dykes, but when one officer tried to investigate at the St Helier Yacht Club, he was hindered by a higher-ranking colleague. That officer, who has since retired, was known to other abusers.

The Jervis-Dykes inquiry in the 1990s was reportedly plagued by internal obstruction and claims that exhibits were going missing. Three junior detectives were so troubled by the obstacles being put in their way that they went over the heads of their team leaders, including the officer with his own boat, to report their concerns to senior colleagues. There was no action, but the suspicions lingered. Then the name of the officer turned up in text messages between two civilians accused of indecent assaults on boys. He appeared to have leaked information to them, and the two paedophiles agreed he was “one of the boys”. One of the two men, David Powell, was convicted and jailed for 3Å years in 2007. His co-accused, Paul Romeril, was suspected of around 60 offences of serious sexual assault on boys, most of which had taken place on his two boats. Romeril hanged himself while on remand at Jersey’s La Moye prison. Two other suspects in the inquiry were not charged. Meanwhile, long before Harper took an interest in Haut de la Garenne, other officers had been concerned by allegations, and one of them produced a report proposing further inquiries at the former home. Duchesne’s alleged abuser was the subject of a number of allegations of vile abuse.

Nobody should be in any doubt about the extent and seriousness of the crimes being considered: in one claim he was abusing a boy who was draped over the side of the boat, the abuse so violent that the boy’s head was bobbing in and out of the water while the offence took place. The report was passed on to a senior police officer in early 2006, but it was ignored until Harper’s inquiry began. The officer who had produced the report at one stage asked his superior what was happening and was told: “I haven’t got to it — other priorities.” An outside force was brought in to consider the officer’s conduct in sitting on the report. That was early last year, involving officers from South Yorkshire. This all formed the background to the beginning of Harper’s own inquiries at Haut de la Garenne.

Harper has since been challenged that the supposed claims of dead or disappeared children came from unreliable witnesses and should not have been given credibility. Many of the victims told me that they have been trying for years to get someone to take their claims seriously. They had never felt listened to or believed until Harper came along. I don’t imagine, however, that Harper was driven by sentimental regard for the victims. As he told me in March 2008, and is still saying now, he could not ignore the information, but did not at first believe it warranted a full-scale dig. Hence the recce. The dog was brought in. The cadaver dog that alerts to human remains, the same dog that nearly did for Kate and Gerry McCann after it alerted at the boot of their car. Unlike the Portuguese police, apparently, Harper’s team understood that the dog’s alerts were not evidence of a crime being committed, merely an indicator of something to be explored. I have heard that Harper’s replacements have spoken cynically about the dog, implying that its handler, Martin Grime, fixes the dog’s demonstrations by priming it in advance with his own scent. But Harper gave convincing accounts of how the dog would pick up the merest trace of human remains and ignore animal remains, and how it would not be tricked into making errors. They decided to dig where the dog alerted and where radar equipment picked up anomalies in the ground. One of those locations was the stairwell where the builders had found bones in 2003, and also where the “skull” fragment was found by the LGC anthropologist Julie Roberts on February 23. The item was labelled JAR/6. She described it as “degraded fragment of bone thought to be human skull, probably from a child”.

Did Harper, as his detractors have claimed, misrepresent the fragment, or claim it was one thing when he knew it was another? Perhaps too, though he would deny it, he was keen to find something to justify the more thorough dig. He would say he was simply passing on what the anthropologist said. Certainly he told it as she had described it. The anthropologist’s employer has since said they told the inquiry the very next day, February 24, that JAR/6 was in a 1940s layer and so “would appear to have been beyond the parameters of the investigation”. Harper denies ever hearing this. He says the first scientific doubts about the age were raised by the radiocarbon-dating lab at Oxford University on March 14, when they suggested it was very old or badly degraded. Everyone then was still assuming it was a fragment of human skull. But there is a clue to Harper’s real thinking in a Jersey Evening Post story, dated March 3: “The deputy police chief Lenny Harper told the JEP that it was not possible to say whether the skull fragment was from recent times or from before the 1950s, the period to which the inquiry dates back. ‘It could be a red herring — we just don’t know yet. But if it is, we will not have wasted much time during the inquiry on the item, as it has been bagged, sealed and sent to the UK for forensic examination,’ he said.”

On March 14, the scientists told the police that there was not enough collagen to date the fragment; a week later they said there was enough after all. Collagen is only present in human bones — not in wood or coconut shells. Then another week later, they changed their minds again: there was probably no collagen after all. It was only in early April that the experts began to suggest it was probably — not definitely — not human after all. So far as Harper is concerned, that is still the position now. The suggestion was that it could be wood or a seed. The idea that it might be a fragment of coconut shell was a secondary opinion never given directly to the inquiry. The anthropologist who had originally thought it was a piece of a child’s skull re-examined it over April 8 and 9 and noted it had changed texture, weight and colour since she first saw it. Now she thought it might not be bone, though she too could not be certain. But by now it was established that the fragment, human or not, came from a pre-1940s/Victorian layer of the dig. They agreed to put it to one side and not waste further resources on more tests. It was no longer relevant.

Harper says that perhaps he should have made the message clearer that the possible partial human remains were probably not human in origin. But at the time, with all the political flak around the inquiry, he decided it would be best to put it to one side and move on. Still, the press office would tell anyone who asked that the fragment had now been ruled out of the inquiry. There was never any attempt to maintain a deception that it was still a skull fragment.

One victim claimed to have been shackled in the cellars, and the 2003 builders had described finding shackles. When the inquiry recovered the items the builders had apparently seen, they did not describe them as shackles, but that was the word the media picked up from the builders. Harper says that he resisted the word for a long time, but eventually began using it himself. I have seen the “shackles” and, taken out of context, they are not convincing: one looks like an old stretched-out bed spring. But taken with the victim statement, the builders’ accounts and the circumstances in which they were found, you would not rule them out altogether.

The new inquiry told me that only three pieces of bone that were likely to be human had been found at the former home. Harper said it was 16. In fact, they were both wrong, though the Sheffield University anthropologist Andrew Chamberlain, who had examined those pieces, went out of his way to emphasise that he had never heard Harper say anything that contradicted or distorted his findings and had never found the inquiry to be anything other than professional.

A total of 65 children’s teeth had also been found — an extraordinary number, made more extraordinary by the anthropologist who had found them suggesting that some appeared to have been deliberately concealed in the cellars and elsewhere and by further evidence that many had not been shed naturally. The new police had attempted to make light of the discovery, suggesting the “tooth fairy” was the explanation, as a dentist had given evidence of removing teeth and handing them to staff for the children. Perhaps the staff had not bothered playing the tooth fairy and simply hoarded all the teeth. Perhaps. There was no witness evidence to explain the teeth. Perhaps they too were very old. Perhaps. Nobody could say unless they were dated. I was told the new inquiry had considered sending the teeth to be dated, but had been told not to, to save the cost.

During Harper’s inquiry, under public pressure to be seen to be doing the right thing, the Jersey States had told Harper that money was no object. Indeed, the chief executive had complained when Harper had said in a press release that he was weighing up the financial implications. Don’t do that, he was told. Spend what you need to spend. In truth, Harper is still not convinced that there were no relevant human remains at Haut de la Garenne. He points to all the odd circumstances: the teeth, the burnt bones, the builder’s finds, the stories of former residents, the pits dug in the grounds and lined with lime — nobody has ever explained what they were for. But, as he knows, the bodies just never materialised.

When Harper retired, his role had been split in two and he had been replaced as deputy chief officer by David Warcup from Northumbria police and as senior investigating officer for the abuse inquiry, known as Operation Rectangle, by a Lancashire detective, Mick Gradwell, widely praised for his handling of the inquiry into the deaths of the Chinese cockle-pickers in Morecambe Bay.

I believe that Mick Gradwell came to Jersey with his reputation as a major-league senior investigating officer expecting to run a multiple-death inquiry, and was disappointed and frustrated to discover there were no murders after all. He packed his desk and took his plaques down from his office wall before Christmas and was about to resign and go home to Lancashire after only four months, only changing his mind at the last minute. He tells colleagues he is not putting the plaques back up, since he doesn’t anticipate staying for long. Whatever has gone on in the police camp, it has certainly meant that resources — and the long, painstaking work of once-trusted officers — have been squandered.

Perhaps, you will wonder, as I have, why they are spending so much time picking over Lenny Harper’s work and reputation when men who helped turn children into murderers and suicides, and a man who made a small boy’s head bob up and down in the water, have not been called to account.

George Gently moves me to tears

2009-05-04T17:32:00.002+01:00

I finally plucked up the courage to watch the BBC show Inspector George Gently-Gently with the Innocents this afternoon and it moved me to tears.
The similarity between it and HDLG were obvious and I wonder if the writer got his inspiration from the coverage of the historical abuse enquiry and in particular HDLG.
I wont go into too much detail but to say that the scene in the 'celler' involving the bath was almost to much to take, I had tears streaming down my face.
The programme is available on BBC iplayer and I have included the link at the end of this post.
If you can watch it then do, I know it will be hard for some as it was for me.
Let me know what you think.

Inspector_George_Gently_Series_1_Gently_with_the_Innocents

Freedom of speech

2009-04-27T16:35:00.004+01:00

from bbc jersey

States to debate victim 'freedom'

Jersey politicians are to be asked to allow victims of child abuse to talk about their experiences.

Senator Stuart Syvret is asking the States to guarantee that, in future, it will not "seek, offer or impose" any confidentiality clauses on victims.

The police are investigating claims of child abuse in Jersey from the early 1960s to 1986.

The proposed projet, or motion, is expected to be debated in the States this week.

Mr Syvret said the projet was necessary to make sure child abuse victims were free to speak out, regardless of any legal compensation agreements which may be reached in future.

It quotes Article 10 of the Human Rights Act which states that "everyone has the right to freedom of expression".

If the States agree to adopt the proposal, victims of child abuse in cases where the abuser has been found guilty would also be free to write books about their experiences and take part in public debates.

My View.

I will be very surprised if this gets through, maybe its a reflection of my complete distrust of the states, maybe its that they and their puppets have continually strived to rubbish the victims and their steadfast denial of whats staring them in the face.

If its true that they have 'offered' compensation ensconced in 'gagging' deals they should be ashamed but moreover the public of Jersey should be asking what it is that the states don't want them to know?

As I have said in a previous post, no amount of money can make up for what happened and given the choice I would rather people knew the truth of what was happening under their noses than take money to 'go away'.

Trial put off again

2009-04-20T21:15:00.002+01:00

What can I say, more delay tactics?

Warden to face child sex charges

Gordon Wateridge denies the charges

A warden at a former children's home in Jersey has appeared in court charged with a series of indecent assaults against children in the 1970s.

Gordon Wateridge, 78, from St Clement, worked at the Haut de la Garenne children's home.

He denies 21 counts of indecent assault and assault including 19 indecent assaults on five girls under 16.

He was bailed until a hearing on 10 August at Jersey's Royal Court. None of the victims can be named.

2009-04-19T20:38:00.002+01:00

Well its going to be a big week in Jersey, Tuesday sees the states emergency meeting which in itself will make for some interesting headlines but for me The start of a trial in the historical abuse enquiry will make the national headlines. For the first time we will get testimony from the 'alledged' victims, finally after years of fear these brave souls will have their day in court. One wonders what the doubters and naysayers will do when confronted with the TRUTH! Those Syvret/Harper bashers and of course the Jersey Oligarchy must be feeling a little uncomfortable just now.
ITS TIME FOR ALL THE VICTIMS TO GET JUSTICE!

Senator James Perchard Resigns

2009-04-15T15:49:00.001+01:00

Jersey's health and social services minister has resigned over what he says is his failure to protect colleagues from allegations about serious crimes.

Full story from BBC Jersey HERE

Why did it take you so long Jim?

Silent Peaceful March.

2009-03-24T13:34:00.000Z

Dear All

ref Silent Peaceful March.

We would like to let you all know that there will be a Silent Peaceful March taking place at Midday on APRIL 25th in support of the JCLA & all victims of Abuse Past & Present..

The route will be from Peoples park to the Royal Square with the Emphasis being on Silent & Peaceful, along the lines of the Belgium White March.

White ribbons will be handed out to all those who wish to show their support by wearing one.

We hope everyone will take the time out to come along and show support.

For more details you can contact us at

carrie@jerseymail.co.uk

ricosorda@yahoo.co.uk
rs and Carrie

Another cover up in Jersey?

2009-03-24T13:21:00.002Z

From 'This is Jersey'

THE States police are reviewing the files of an alleged potential mass murderer who worked as a ward nurse at Jersey’s General Hospital. Almost ten years ago to the day that investigating police officers raised serious concerns that the male nurse could have killed 13 patients – and possibly more – officers are reopening the case.
Their move follows claims made on the internet blog of Senator Stuart Syvret, who has published police reports and court documents from the time.
The former Health Minister is alleging that despite strong police evidence and recommendations that the nurse should have been investigated for alleged mass murder, the case was dropped by the then Attorney General, Michael Birt, who will take over as the Island’s Bailiff in June.

Yet again 'the old boy network' show they are prepared to do anything to protect themselves. I wonder how many more skeletons are lurking in their cupboards.

Have you noticed how well they have managed to 'hush up' the historical abuse inquiry.
A quote from Stuarts blog....

"I understand Mick Gradwell was trying to insinuate that it would be easier to drop allegations and take the compensation at the JCLA meeting last night!"

Shame on him! I hope and pray that most of the Care Leavers have more sense than to fall for what amounts to a sugar-coated gagging order

Proud Survivor

I for one want to see justice done, no amount of money can make up for the destruction of a life,and believe me it does affect you forever!