Sir Thomas More: You threaten like a dockside bully.
Cromwell: How should I threaten?
Sir Thomas More: Like a minister of state. With justice.
Cromwell: Oh, justice is what you're threatened with.
Sir Thomas More: Then I am not threatened.
(A Man for All Seasons, Robert Bolt)
Bailiff beats no confidence vote
I'm not surprised about this - a proposition to the States "that they have no confidence in the Bailiff as President of the States, and to agree that Her Majesty be requested to dismiss him from office."
The grounds were flimsy in the least. With regard to the Roger Holland affair, the bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache, has already admitted he should not have allowed Roger Holland to join the honorary police in 1992
I am afraid that it is easy to be wise after the event. My decision in 1992 not to refer the election of Roger Holland as a Constable's Officer back to the Royal Court was made in good faith on the basis of the facts known to me at that time. With hindsight it is certainly possible to say that a different decision ought to have been made, particularly given the harm done to the victims of some of his assaults. We owe it to those victims to make sure that the Island is alert to the problems which arose, and to ensure that they do not arise again.
That is about as close as a lawyer can get to saying (1) I've made a mistake (2) I will see that it doesn't happen again. Let's be realistic about it! It is probably in part why the appointment of one Centenier in St Brelade was questioned because he had a thirty-year old offense of theft from a school canteen (and nothing since) - the message being we will not mess up again.
There was no evidence that he has in any way failed in his judicial role, as attested by a recent letter in the JEP by Advocate Charles Thacker (president of the Law Society of Jersey). Although it would be interesting to know what Advocate Sinel might have said about the Cantrade scandal, and the Bailiff's role in that. But Shona Pitman didn't bring that much more interesting matter up.
Regarding the Liberation Day speech, the topic was a gross miscalculation by both Sir Philip and Frank Walker, and as I've said before, people I know who were here during the Occupation (I'm not quite that old) were pretty disgusted with it, especially saying that the child abuse is not as bad as media reporting of Jersey . He should have apologised for that. A greater man would. He also blundered into the political arena when he said that "Senior politicians, should know better than to attempt to subvert public confidence in our judicial institutions in pursuit of a personal agenda." as it was clear he was pursuing his own agenda.
I don't know why everyone is going on about dismissals and so-and-so should resign, as if they expect them to do just that. We've had calls for Mike Pollard, the Bailliff, Frank Walker, the Council of Ministers and old Uncle Tom Cobbley and all to resign. People just don't resign like that despite the belief that somehow they should and if enough people vote on blogs they will see that and go.
This is apparent if you look at here and Guernsey. Over here - Gerald Voisin had to be voted out, he would not resign. In Guernsey, over Fallagate, Laurie Morgan refused to resign, and was only removed when his Council of Ministers resigned completely.
Reasons people resign:
a) Financial
Jeffry Archer resigned - an embarrassing bankruptcy forced him to give up a seat in the House of Commons. In recent times, two ministers accused of taking cash in return for asking questions resigned.
b) Sexual scandal
Mark Oaten resigned from the Lib Dem leadership election. His departure appeared to be because he had failed to attract enough support from within the parliamentary party (he was backed by two MPs). Two days later the News of the World revealed he had a relationship with a male prostitute a year earlier.
c) Political Rows
Michael Heseltine resigned from his cabinet job after a row with Thatcher over the Westland affair. Heseltine thought his views on the future of the helicopter company were being ignored and stormed out of No 10.
d) Knowingly Lying (and being caught out)
Profumo's sexual relationship with Keeler and his false statements to the House of Commons regarding its nature led to Profumo's resignation.
e) Criminal Matters
For example Peter Hain, Jonathan Aitken
I'm sure there are others, but my main point is that very few Jersey politicians or Chief civil servants can be shown to have come under any of those headings, and despite suspicions (for example about lying) there is no hard evidence to support their critics.
Why do we need strong evidence? I'll finish with one of my favourite quotations from Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons, which says it all:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Café
-
Drop-in Jèrriais chat today 1-1.50pm at Santander Work Café (upstairs in *LISBON
*room)
4 days ago
2 comments:
Tony, at the 2002 inquiry into the Roger Holland affair, the offical record shows:
"The then Attorney General told this Committee that, in the light of these facts, even if he had been aware of them before Mr. Holland had been sworn in, he would very likely have agreed that the matter was in the past and would have moved that the oath be administered."
So, only 6 years ago (with the benefit of 10 year's worth of hindsight), the Bailiff clearly stated that even with full prior knowledge of Holland's child abuse conviction, he would have allowed Holland to remain a Police officer.
Fast forward 5 years to 2008, dust is being kicked up left, right and centre about his 1992 decision - and all of a sudden that 2002 hindsight (don't forget, already a decade's worth of hindsight by that stage) completely backflips to become "With hindsight it is certainly possible to say that a different decision ought to have been made".
Throws a somewhat different light on things doesnt it?
A good point.
I think the argument made by the Baillif is that the significance of incidence involving children in a past record, if in the past, had changed, in other words, what would have been passed over almost as a "spent conviction" would no longer be so by today's more rigourous standards. That was his argument on BBC Radio 4's "The Investigation". With hindsight - i.e. given what happened - he can now see the standards should have been more rigorous.
I suspect, however, that had his children ever been molested, he would have taken a very different line, even back then. But to imagine that would require an act of empathy, and his liberation day speech showed that he seems to have very little of that - see my entry - "An Aspergers Bailiff?" at:
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2008/05/aspergers-bailiff.html
Post a Comment