Advocating The Jersey Way

Advocating The Jersey Way

In Connect magazine this month, local Advocate Olaf Blakeley focuses on a phrase which has gained notoriety in recent months, following the publication of the report of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry: "the Jersey Way..."

"Words and their interpretations differ from time to time and from person to person. A few years ago you could type ‘Olaf Jersey’ into Google and you’d find me; nowadays, when you type that, you get a list of pages showing children’s jumpers with a snowman on the front, who likes warm hugs.

"The problem with the negative interpretation of ‘The Jersey Way’ is that it is based on beliefs which cannot stand up to logical assessment. The words, negatively used, imply there is a corruption that exists between cliques and clans to keep things secret which should be public. Well, what things? And how? Secret meetings between those in power who huddle together and plot? Really?

And yet Ian Gorst, speaking about the behind the scenes machinations which led to Philip Ozouf being dismissed as Assistant Minister, commented on “skulduggery in dark corridors”. Indeed he mentions that there had been “Conversations had behind closed doors, along darkened corridors, shadowy figures with half-truths and innuendo with supposed facts.”

So who is correct? Olaf Blakely, who does not sit in the States, who is only an outside observer, or the Chief Minister, who can see all too well what has been happening? I would say that the weight of probability is that Olaf Blakely is presenting a far too rose tinted picture, which cannot stand up scrutiny.

"If people believe it’s the States - our politicians - who do this, where do they do it? It can’t be in the open debates where propositions are passed in front of the glare of the public. That’s not secret. If people believe it’s the judiciary how is that possible when court sittings are in public? I’ve tried and failed to have private court hearings, with judges rejecting my submissions for a private hearing on the basis that they must be open to the public.

But not all the decision making is in the public domain, in the States. It is disingenuous of the Advocate to suggest that everything that goes on is public. If he reads the Care Inquiry report, he will see many case where matters never get to the States or to the Courts.

He will see how Anton Skinner decided to conceal the abuse by the Maguires because he thought it would be easier to get them out from their post, and a letter thanking them, which he admitted was phoney, was concocted as part of that process.

And while it is open to scrutiny in part by the public, has he noticed the raft of Ministerial decisions which don’t all come before the States. Often the details are noted to be in a report, which is not available because of “commercial sensitivity” or one of the other excuses to keep information secret.

And just look at the delays which Scrutiny had in trying to prise information about the Finance Centre from the States of Jersey Development Fund.

To say nothing of the JEP leader which said:

“Rather than giving the most vulnerable young people the security and safety that each one of us would want for our own children, on countless occasions the people charged with their care ignored their concerns, their allegations of suffering, and the abuse went unchecked. The States was described as an 'ineffectual and neglectful substitute parent'.”

Not doing something, or trying to avoid doing something – as Terry Le Sueur did with the Care Inquiry itself when he was Chief Minister, may not be as visible, but it is still there. Look at the way in which we didn’t really need a Commissioner for children because we had the Williamson report, and everything was on track – and then read Chief Inspector Alison Fossey on how the Williamson report was defective in a number of ways.

"To be frank, I’m a little fed up with people moaning and asserting there is a ‘Jersey Way,’ applying a negative definition. It makes no sense. I would never try to deny that it’s possible that some people may have a little sway here and there where others may not: a parking ticket ‘overlooked’ or, more seriously, a planning application passed, which ought not to be. But to label this the ‘Jersey Way’ insinuates that if it exists, it only exists in Jersey. Get a grip. Do people honestly think the UK, France, Germany or Spain are all absent of such possible practices? It’s absurd.

Of course such practices do occur elsewhere, and they often get names associated with them. The government of John Major was associated with the word “sleaze” depicting low moral standards, and financial chicanery that was just short of illegal.

Now the practices which have gone on in Jersey – neglect, looking the other way etc – have been clustered into what Richard Dawkins would call a “meme”, a phrase into which all kinds of bad practice and malpractice and neglect

“The most recent criticism of the phrase has come from the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry. The Inquiry heard the term used frequently by those appearing before it and, oddly, seemed to latch onto it. I am very surprised. I’m very surprised that an intelligent chair of the Inquiry allowed a recommendation to be made that in order to dispel or remove the perception of the Jersey Way there should be a separation of powers between the political and the judicial sectors. There is already.”

Well, The Bailiff makes decisions about who may or may not be allowed to speak, or put questions in the States, or about the propriety of a member’s conduct. Such decisions may well be challenged in the Royal Court on grounds of illegality but, of course, the Bailiff cannot sit to hear and determine those challenges to his own actions.

Recently the Bailiff was sitting over a States sitting discussing the Bellozanne covenant, which had of course, been subject to a court case, which at the time was ongoing. He had presided over the Court, and was now presiding over the States. After challenged by Simon Crowcroft, he recused himself.

Can the learned Advocate please explain to me how this ties in with his assertion that there is a separation of powers between political and judicial sectors, because it seems to be that he is living on another Island?

"The politicians who make up the States Assembly are not our judges. True, some used to be lawyers but none of the politicians make judicial decisions. The only common parties are the Bailiff and/or the Deputy Bailiff. But, with the greatest respect to both of those office holders, they do nothing in the States. Of course, they have a role, but they don’t make decisions or even influence decisions. How on earth could an intelligent committee come to such a conclusion applying logic? Applying sensible reasoning, how on earth could the replacement of the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff in the States suddenly signal the death of the Jersey Way (if ever it lived)?

But what about reform of the Bailiff’s office to make it fit for purpose? The Advocate cannot see that there are problems with the position of the Bailiff as it stands and this needs changing if the role is to be kept.

"I honestly believe that those who believe that secret handshakes exist between those in power have never either properly thought about the issue, or stepped foot in either the States or our Island courts. I have. Both. I have been in numerous court hearings in which judges have declared at the onset possible conflicts between their roles and the subject matter to be adjudicated. I have been called into judges’ chambers where a judge has explained to me he/she cannot sit on the forthcoming matter because of a possible conflict. I have attended the Bailiff in his chambers on urgent legal matters which have either been audio recorded, or conducted in front of the Judicial Greffe, for record keeping purposes.”

This is a straw man argument. Olaf Blakely paints an idea of conspiracy with secret handshakes as if this is the way things are done. He knows that is hardly likely to be the case. He also concentrates on the Royal Court, where behind the scenes deals are far less likely to occur, and where the scope is proportionally more limited than the States Chamber.

But real life works much more like that described in C.S. Lewis essay “The Inner Ring”, when he look at War and Peace, and comments:

“In the passage I have just read from Tolstoy, the young second lieutenant Boris Dubretskoi discovers that there exist in the army two different systems or hierarchies. The one is printed in some little red book and anyone can easily read it up. It also remains constant. A general is always superior to a colonel, and a colonel to a captain. The other is not printed anywhere. Nor is it even a formally organised secret society with officers and rules which you would be told after you had been admitted. You are never formally and explicitly admitted by anyone. You discover gradually, in almost indefinable ways, that it exists and that you are outside it; and then later, perhaps, that you are inside it.”

And he describes how this semi-informal group works out in practice:

“There are no formal admissions or expulsions. People think they are in it after they have in fact been pushed out of it, or before they have been allowed in: this provides great amusement for those who are really inside. It has no fixed name. The only certain rule is that the insiders and outsiders call it by different names. From inside it may be designated, in simple cases, by mere enumeration: it may be called “You and Tony and me.”

"When it is very secure and comparatively stable in membership it calls itself “we.” When it has to be expanded to meet a particular emergency it calls itself “all the sensible people at this place.” From outside, if you have despaired of getting into it, you call it “That gang” or “they” or “So-and-so and his set” or “The Caucus” or “The Inner Ring.” If you are a candidate for admission you probably don’t call it anything. To discuss it with the other outsiders would make you feel outside yourself. And to mention talking to the man who is inside, and who may help you if this present conversation goes well, would be madness.”

This is far more what happens out of site than the Dan Brown fantasy of Olaf Blakely. There is no secret society of the Illuminati in the States. But it would be a fool indeed who assumed therefore that there would as a consequence be no inner rings.