Reviewing the Year: February

Reviewing the Year: February

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-jersey-way.html

William Bailhache speaks about reclaiming “The Jersey Way” as an expression of doing something well: “To me 'The Jersey Way' means doing something competently, with integrity, fairly and with compassion.”

Yet in the same paper which reported the William Bailhache’s words, there was a witness statement to the care inquiry about someone who went to the police with a complaint of abuse, and discovered later that one of his original complaints had been lost but recorded, and the other did not even seem to have been recorded. He had also been told that the Attorney General would explain to him that the reasons why the case would not be prosecuted, and then was told the Attorney General didn’t have time to see him.

There is not much in that account that displays competence, integrity, fairness or compassion. It does seem shabby. And it is not the only such case like that, of people treated badly.

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2015/02/nothing-in-world-can-stop-me-now.html

The Waterfront moved ahead like a juggernaut. But note what Alan Maclean said in 2008 when he stood for Senator:

"I also like the idea of quality public spaces, especially the winter garden. The practical and economic case for sinking the road will join the Waterfront to the town and produce the funds to regenerate St Helier."

But there are no longer any Winter Gardens or "quality public spaces" in the immediate plans./

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-waterfront-finance-centre-gardens.html

“At the heart of the JIFC is a new public park that will provide an attractive setting for the new buildings and a valuable amenity for the wider community. The park will be predominately soft landscaped showcasing the varying characters that the landscape of Jersey has to offer. The new park will include a number of semi-mature trees that will provide shade on sunny days and an array of foliage colour and blossom through the year.” (Waterfront Document)

My horticultural expert, Adam Gardiner said:

"The architects and concept artists always show a scene that is considerably overstated and in reality would take 20 years or more to achieve even assuming optimum growing conditions."

"While there are several species of tree that may suit the site, the chances of them growing to the dimensions and shape as often shown is at best hopeful. The soil can be ameliorated to give trees a good start, but beyond the reality is no one gives them any of the attention they would need to be able to achieve anything near their potential - as all too often depicted in concept drawings."

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2015/02/bulldozing-ahead.html

Save Our Shoreline commented:

"The planning conditions that were approved with Building 4 have changed. If the temporary car park works (by the underpass) are done under the building 4 consent, then the JDC should be replacing the car park immediately, on the Esplanade, under the phasing plan they submitted with the building 4 application. The JDC are not replacing the car park, under the new phasing with building 5, now, and this will be at least 10 years before it is replaced instead of the one year promised."

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2015/02/seven-deadly-sins-of-states-of-jersey.html

I look at The Seven Deadly Sins of States Members - see the link for all of them. Here is one:

Greed

The inability of the States to say no to pay rises, while simultaneously saying there must be pay freezes in the public sector, is a good example of greed. Of course, greed in the modern setting is dressed up in all kinds of excuses, such as having to obey the dictates of an independent body, however much they would like not to, and promises to give that increase to charity.

But there is also a kind of greed that invades everyone’s lives with stealth taxes (such as the proposed sewage tax), more “user pays” etc. That approach is the Treasury greedy for more revenue, the avaricious monster devouring our income.

Look for: more stealth taxes which will be described as “user pays” rather than “user pays twice, once by taxation”, which would be the honest description, and a lot of hand wringing when States members pay increases.

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2015/02/some-recent-ministerial-decisions.html

"The current Shipping (Fishing Vessels Safety Provisions) (Jersey) Order 2004 replaced and slightly updated an old regime of triennial Regulations."

Perhaps prompted to finally get something changed by the accident when the Condor vessel struck and destroyed a fishing vessel, and one man died, Jersey is finally getting its act together. Apparently this has been a long time in consultation, but now is ready to go before the States. Much needed, I think.

The sea is treacherous enough, the Grey widow maker, as she is often called, and for once it is not health and safety gone mad, but very sensible regulations needed to keep crews safe.

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2015/02/cinderella-is-bankrupt.html

Food security – while we have not got enough land area to wholly sustain the local population, it is important to keep at least a toe-hold in local produce. The island is dependent on imports, and it is not sufficiently realised that food chain is like a delicate jugular vein, easily ruptured. At present fuel costs have gone down, but as they go up, food prices will rise commensurately.

Education – not enough has been done to educate people about the wasteful nature of our food chain. Food is sourced from many miles away to ensure the same produce is available all the year round. The ethical concerns about this are kept very low key. For a start, long-distance food hauling releases harmful greenhouse gases. It is also incredibly wasteful of fossil fuels to transport food long distances. But while it is cheap to do so, and people buy it, the market trumps ethics.

Since Agriculture and Fisheries became part of Economic Development, it has become the Cinderella of Jersey. Finance has top priority, and tourism moved up with the Visit Jersey initiative. But when he was talking about the future to the Chamber of Commerce, Ian Gorst not once mentioned agriculture.

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-centralisation-of-power-in-jersey.html

Guest Post from John Young

The way the trees'- removal was carried out with no advance warning despite a States scrutiny inquiry into the development shows just how powerful our government has become. The dismissive remarks of the chairman of SOJDC about the scrutiny review show that the executive is under instructions to press ahead with the Esplanade development, regardless.

There are other worrying signs, the support of the Council of Ministers for the proposed high-density development of the Gas Works site against the views of residents. They supported the Port Galots development which would have removed the last remaining open view of the Harbour and Elizabeth Castle from the residents of St Helier. It has taken a public outcry to put a`stop to it. We as taxpayers are left with the loss of £400,000.

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2015/02/spock-remembered.html

Today's poem is an acrostic, written in memory of Spock, and the man who brought him to life, and imbued him with wonderful touches - the Vulcan neck pinch, the mind meld, and the Vulcan salute, and turned what could have just been any old alien into a real person. RIP Leonard Nimoy.

Spock Remembered

Live long and prosper, you used to say
In Star Trek, as through the milky way
Vulcan wisdom, imparted with a hand
Ever boldly going, towards a promised land
Looking back at your Jewish past, you said
Only Vulcans live long, but you are dead
Now we mourn your passing, Vulcan lore
Going where no one has ever gone before
And you will be remembered, the pointy ears
Never seeming to age, even in the Deadly Years
Dead, but not forgotten, in memory yet alive
Perhaps that is all we can every wish to strive
Reaching with a mind meld, enter another place
On the good ship Enterprise, trekking into space
Spock, a work of art, an acting masterpiece
Producer, director, actor, poet, you never cease
Easily as Spock though, that you stood so tall
RIP Leonard Nimoy, remembered by us all

The Political and the Pastoral

“There are still no plans to publish a report into how the Jersey church handled an allegation of sexual abuse of a vulnerable person by a churchwarden, despite a delegation from Jersey meeting the Archbishop of Canterbury earlier this month.”

“Chief Minister Ian Gorst met the Archbishop along with Lieutenant-Governor General Sir John McColl and Bailiff William Bailhache in Canterbury at the start of the month to try to resolve the issue – Senator Gorst has previously said that he wants the Steel report to be published”

(Bailliwick Express)

My first thought on reading that story last week was incredulity that the Chief Minister – a political role – should be involved in Anglican Church politics. I know the Dean sits in the States (and is remunerated for his time in the Assembly), but I have disquiet that the Chief Minister seems to have gone on a private jaunt, not at the bequest of the States (no vote or proposition was made), and yet gone as Chief Minister, rather than in a private capacity as Mr Gorst.

Someone has to pay for that little jaunt, and I wonder who is. I have put in a request to find out, as it seems to be of interest to the taxpayer, who will probably pick up the tab.And now have the results

What the travel costs of this journey were? And how they were apportioned?:

Chief Minister Ian Gorst £251.34 (funded by the Chief Ministers Department)
Lieutenant Governor Sir John McColl £281.54 (funded by Office of the Lieutenant Governor)
Bailiff William Bailhache £281.54 (funded by the Bailiffs Chambers

So it was not funded privately by the individuals concerned in from their own purse. It does seem a rather casual attitude to departmental expenses which are, after all, for official States business, and this does not exactly seem to fit that remit.

Ian Gorst on BBC Radio Jersey was saying how the terms of reference included publishing the final version, suitably redacted, in the public domain. He suggested that all parties involved in drawing up the terms of reference had agreed to that.

However, he failed to mention that the lady at the centre of the report had not been privy to drawing up terms of reference, and did not wish to revisit a very traumatic time in her past by having it published.

That is very important, because it suggests that the Bishop of Winchester might have pastoral reasons for keeping the report under wraps, because it could damage a vulnerable adult. Even if he doesn't have those reasons, they are still good reasons for not publishing. The pastoral card should always trump the political one, at least if you read the New Testament, Jesus acts that way.

That is something also not mentioned by the Dean of Jersey when he was speaking on BBC Radio Jersey.

Church people in positions of authority – clergy, churchwardens, lay readers etc in Jersey have just finished safeguarding training, and are presently rolling out safeguarding materials to websites and church notice boards also mention this, and there and leaflets are also being put at the back of churches.

Just a few churches, the last time I checked, were somewhat dilatory about getting these notifications about safeguarding done, but many had done so, and more were due to, and almost certainly have done. Training has also been done. This is good news and should be welcomed.

Now one of the things mentioned in the safeguarding policy is the care which needs to be taken with vulnerable adults. This is quite an important section, and was carefully drafted.

And yet, despite the damage that the Steel report being made public could do to a vulnerable adult, the Dean seems determined to press ahead with the call for publication! It seems that double standards apply, or at the very least, that what putting safeguarding in practice has not been thoroughly thought through. It is not enough just to have the policy: it should be put into action, even if that means putting the Steel report aside. Church politics should not take precedence over pastoral care. Safeguarding must not just be tick-boxes.

Of course, reason for restricting publication would be legal matters or data protection issues. If the report was likely to face a legal challenge, for example, from the author of the Korris report, that might well delay publication until the legal issues could be resolved. After all, it could cause professional reputations to be damaged, and that is the sort of matter which could lead to a writ for libel – defamation of character.

And as it is a UK report commissioned by the Bishop of Winchester, it should be probably be subject to "Maxwellisation". This is a procedure in current British legal practice where individuals due to be criticised in an official report are sent details of the criticism in advance and permitted to respond prior to publication. It’s meant to stop any factual errors – or misinterpretations – getting into the public domain.

This means that in principle any interested parties should have been sent a copy of those parts concerning them for comments. And, of course, this has almost certainly not been done.

It was interesting that despite the case being pressed for the report going to the public domain, the Dean appeared to intimate, on BBC Radio Jersey, that he would at present be quite happy for the report to be just sent to a privileged number of people – the Chief Minister, the Bailiff, maybe one or two others - and of course himself.

“I’d rather like to read it”, he said, giving the impression in his tone that nothing he wanted more to do was to sit down with a mug of cocoa in an comfy armchair by the fireside one evening, and peruse it.

But the way in which reports have a very nasty habit of leaking out – a letter from the Bishop to the Dean being one example – shows that this approach is simply not safe. One senior layman - Sir Philip Baihache - (brother of the Bailiff) was criticised for reading confidential files on a plane trip in view of others on the plane, who were shocked by that lack of care. And leaks are selective: usually designed to damage. That's not good as an example of pastoral practice.

The Church in Jersey has shown in the past that it is not to be trusted with confidential information. I’m not saying the Dean would leak it, but in all likelihood be leaked by someone, probably believing they acted for the best intentions, but selectively. The road to hell may well be paved with well intentioned leaks.

And does it really matter? We are told that churchgoers are concerned, but I have yet to meet many who are. For most, the orderly routine of church services continues as before, and if the prayers now include the Bishop of Dover rather than Winchester, that is hardly a major or disruptive change.

I notice that Christenings, Weddings, Funerals, Family Services and Communion continue very much as they have done. It begs the question: is it really that important in the grand scheme of things? Isn't it time to just forget about it and move on? 

Brothers in Faith

Reflecting on the conflict between Deputy Montfort Tadier, and the Bailiff, William Bailhache, it is worth reflecting on an earlier exchange in 2008:

Deputy G.P. Southern Here we are today debating that very thing. We are told there is no alternative. “Thank God there was an alternative last week” some people are saying. So we could safely…

The Bailiff: Deputy, I am not sure the expression “Thank God” in that context is an appropriate parliamentary expression.

Deputy G.P. Southern: Can I use the expression “Thank heaven,” Sir?

The Bailiff: You are invoking the deity.

Deputy G.P. Southern: May I use the expression “Thank heavens”?

The Bailiff: “Thank goodness.”

Deputy G.P. Southern: “Goodness,” all right. Thank goodness it was there a week ago

The Bailiff in question was Sir Philip Bailhache, brother of William. And we see here the same strange and almost puritanical religious belief which cannot even allow idioms such as “Thank God” to be used in a States Debate.

It is even more notable because the idiom was never taken as unacceptable when others were sitting in the chair, such as the Deputy Bailiff, Michael Birt, or the Greffier, Michael De La Haye:

In 2006, Senator Terry Le Main said: “When the Housing Committee met in the past it was nothing to sit all morning listening to hardship cases and every politician in this Assembly was involved in many of these cases. Thank God that has now past.”

The Deputy Bailiff did not call him up for inappropriate language.

Again in 2008, the Deputy Bailiff did not prevent Terry Le Main for saying: “Quite honestly, I have got my lovely house at home and most of you have got your lovely homes and thank God I can leave here at night and go in my home and close my door and live in decent comfort.”

In 2007, the Greffier did not bat an eyelid when Deputy Paul le Claire said: “Thank God, the Housing Minister does not close his doors at 5.30 p.m. because this was about 8.00 p.m. You will remember it well when I brought the lady down with me. She was crying her eyes out.”

And in 2009, the Greffier did not correct Deputy Southern for his language when he said: “Member of the States reason to think: “Well, could that happen to me, and if so, how would have I reacted?” or even to say: “Well, thank God it happened to him and not to me” in some cases.”

It is only Sir Philip Bailhache who reacted with extreme sensitivity to what is now just an expression of relief, which the dictionary will tell you is now as devoid of religious connotations as saying “Bless you” when someone sneezes, and has been for many years. Even when Shakespeare uses it in Much Ado About Nothing - "Yes I thank God, I am as honest as any man living, that is an old man, and no honester then I", it has little religious meaning.

The Deputy Bailiff of the time, Michael Birt, and the Greffier, Michael De La Haye did not take issue at all..

So perhaps it is not surprising that Sir Philip should not only take issue with “Thank God”, but on another occasion, reject the use of the word “Godforsaken”, again from Geoff Southern. Again, the word has become idiomatic, the the dictionary tells us that it was "Originally: (chiefly of a person) abandoned by God; consigned to evil ways, depraved, profligate. Subsequently: (esp. of a place) lacking any merit or attraction; desolate, dismal, dreary."

Sir Phillip's attitude, like that of his brother recently, seems curiously like that of the Puritans of the 17th century or, more locally, in Jersey, that of the severe Calvinists who took control after the Reformation; for they too had a very acute sensitivity to such phrases. Of course, back in the 17th century such idioms still had religious connotations which they have lost today.

Incidentally, such language as "Thank God" has become a commonplace in the House of Commons for many years, long predating even Sir Philip Bailhache.

Here are a few examples:

Examples of “Thank God”

HC Deb 14 May 1835 vol 27 cc1071-112

Dr. Lushington And I am speaking on that same subject. On this point, thank God, there can be no misunderstanding between us.

HC Deb 20 July 1914 vol 65 cc173-93

Mr. T. M. HEALY Thank God we have a House of Lords.

HC Deb 04 April 1913 vol 51 cc708-81

Mr. BURNS: The next point is the finance. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury) is a financial expert and authority. Thank God, I am not.

HC Deb 10 February 1914 vol 58 cc53-152

Mr. LONG

The Angel of Death has, thank God, not been yet abroad in this dear land of ours.

HC Deb 13 April 1927 vol 205 cc385-517

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON

We have still the Road Fund, thank God, intact, but he has gone very near doing away with it. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer is capable of standing up, I think he is getting very wobbly on this particular point, urged on, no doubt, by the Treasury.

HC Deb 24 February 1927 vol 202 cc1965-2012

Mr. JAMES BROWN

People may scoff, the Sassenach may scoff, but it still, thank God itI remains true that the dearest thing to the heart of a Scotsman or a Scotswoman is independence. There is nothing they cherish more.

HC Deb 01 June 1927 vol 207 cc403-517

Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: I often observe in this House that, when an hon. Member has forgotten what he is going to say, or cannot think of anything else, or wishes to rouse a little enthusiasm, he generally says, "Thank God, I am not a lawyer!" I have not heard the expression as yet during this Debate, but I confess there have been occasions when I have felt inclined to join in the thank-offering.

HC Deb 18 February 1927 vol 202 cc1275-361

Mr. BANKS

Mr. Cook, in a speech on 3rd June, said: "Thank God for Russia," and he added that there was a cheque for £270,000 received last week, that the Central Co-operative Societies in Russia had sent £40,000, that the Central Russian Union had sent £70,000, and so on.

HC Deb 17 March 1977 vol 928 cc635-766

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

I pay the hon. Gentleman the compliment of saying that I followed his argument right through. I thought he was very clear. I disagreed with every word of it.

Mr. Kinnock Thank God for that.

HC Deb 02 December 1975 vol 901 cc1609-45

Mr. Les Huckfield (Nuneaton)

I can only say that their policies have pretty well laid waste the whole of the industrial Midlands since they have been in Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Thank God they have not been in Government.

Mr. Spriggs Do not thank God. Thank the electors.

HC Deb 27 July 1977 vol 936 cc647-67

Mr. Norman Tebbit (Chingford)

However, time is a great healer and after a suitable interval for consideration the Liberals have got together somewhere in the Central Lobby, where I understand that there is adequate room for them to do so and, indeed, on neutral ground.

Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight) Thank God there are only two days left.

Examples: Godforsaken

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

HL Deb 16 July 1901 vol 97 cc551-69

I refer to the Admiralty because that is one of the most deplorable buildings ever seen in this country, and you have thrown away one of the best sites. You had, opposite, the Treasury building, that beautiful pedimented building; all you had to do was to put up a similar building on the other side. Instead of that you put this God-forsaken, nondescript thing, which is a disgrace to London.

HL Deb 26 June 1973 vol 343 cc1840-969

LORD THOMAS

I know that Maplin—or Foulness, to give it its more properly descriptive title—is a God-forsaken place as it stands; beautiful in its loneliness would grant, but not a good place for contractual development, and we shall find that the ten-year period needed before it is anywhere near completion will soon be exhausted.

HC Deb 28 March 1901 vol 92 cc95-163

MR. LABOUCHERE

If the French were to vanquish us, and if we were to be told, after being harried and having our houses all burned down, that we were to receive a little sum of money out of the French Treasury, and that we must thank God that we were going to have occasion to cease to be Englishmen to become Frenchmen, we would not consider the terms liberal.

In order to meet that, what does the Colonial Secretary propose to do? He sent out a Commission to discover whether South Africa was a fitting place for English colonists. Probably anybody on this side of the House could have told, him that a more God-forsaken place for English colonists did not exist

HC Deb 13 July 1978 vol 953 cc1895-906

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Kinross and West Perthshire) There is one point that I want to make, Mr. Deputy Speaker upon the Bill. The national debt, as I understand it, was created in the year 1694. Two hundred and eighty years later, in 1974, after two and a half centuries of war and two world wars, it had reached £40,000 million. But it took only four years of this god-forsaken, dreadful Government to double it. It is now £80,000 million.

Mr. Fairbairn But I also happen to represent those who live in an area of 8,000 square miles, which is one and a half times the size of Northern Ireland. Before Labour Members make silly remarks let them reflect on that. But thank God that I represent those people. I represent one-thousandth of the people of this country.

HC Deb 05 May 1978 vol 949 cc715-24

Mr. Fairbairn

The Bill is saying that the Minister shall have, by arbitrary decision—or on advice, if he cares to put it that way, by some Godforsaken tribunal of his creation—the power to say that the conduct or behaviour of a person on one occasion is a 723 reason for him to declare that that person shall no longer be entitled to do his job

HC Deb 11 July 1978 vol 953 cc1445-67

Mr. Pardoe

Why have the Government suddenly changed their mind? We shall want some firm comment about that from the Chief Secretary, because he is supposed to be in charge of the Inland Revenue—though it is a God-forsaken job to have, I must say.

Our Bailiff, Who Art in the States

Deputy Tadier had said that there was some hypocrisy in the States Chamber. He said that if Jesus were alive today he would not be at the Conservative Party conference - he would be standing up for the little guy.

The Bailiff told him that the remark fell foul of rules against "offensive, objectionable or unparliamentary language" and told him to withdraw it, but the Deputy refused. Mr Bailhache told him to leave the Chamber - prompting Deputy Tadier to say that the Bailiff was abusing his own powers.

Bailiwick Express

The Assembly voted to adjourn the meeting for an hour and when they returned Mr Tadier was allowed to continue his speech without apologising or withdrawing it.

BBC News

The Bailiff, William Bailhache is clearly rather out of touch and presumably has not read any House of Commons debates since the time of Queen Victoria.

I say that because he said that mention of Jesus was not "parliamentary" and would be offensive to Christians, later clarified to "offensive to some".

Now if he is going to make statements about "offensive, objectionable or unparliamentary language" with regard to the name of Jesus Christ, he could at least do his homework, and review the situation in the Mother of Parliaments, that of the United Kingdom.

I have spent about an hour looking through past Hansard speeches, and I can say categorically that it is taken as a quite acceptable part of the cut and thrust of Parliamentary debate.

Had Mr Bailhache done his homework, he would have seen that there are a good many comments, both in the Commons, and made by the noble Lords in their Chamber, which refer to Jesus, sometimes in very much the same fashion as Deputy Tadier. The Speakers in the Commons have never intervened or told the member of Parliament that those comments "would be offensive to some" and should be withdrawn.

One can only hope that the appointment of Dr Mark Egan – a chief clerk from the House of Commons - as the new Greffier will mean that William Bailhache can at last be enlightened as to what is acceptable as parliamentary language, and desist from imposing his own personal prejudices upon the States.

Clearly the present Greffier, Michael De La Haye, with whom the Bailiff conferred, has also not kept up to date with of what is "parliamentary" in the House of Commons.

I say "kept up to date", but in fact I can see the mention of Jesus in Parliamentary debates going back at least as far as the 1960s. If the States are to look to Erskine May, as the Greffier informed me they do, then they should certainly also look to established precedent in speeches in the Commons.

The States Chamber should not be a place in which a Bailiff, acting as speaker (although unelected), use his position to make interventions in a way which would be thought unthinkable in the House of Commons.

This has many of the hallmarks of the kind of mistaken intervention that Bailiff Frank Erault made when effectively banning the Life of Brian, which led to the setting up of a Bailiff's Panel, as it was judged that such arbitrary powers should not be subject to the whim of one individual.

Here is a small selection of many showing that back in the 1970s such language was acceptable, as it was even in the 1990s and also is today.

HC Deb 18 December 1972 vol 848 cc927-91

Sir E. Brown

He claimed: We had to push the unions from below. They were reluctant to have the strike. Only the weight of feeling we uncovered forced the strike to escalate. Let me quote Lou Lewis. Do right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite know him? He is a carpenter—

Mr. Skinner: So was Jesus Christ.

Sir E. Brown Yes, but he was on the other side.

HC Deb 02 May 1973 vol 855 cc1337-96

If the Price Commission goes on in the lamentable way in which it has started, I can see the day coming when the present chairman will write a book like that written by Mr. Aubrey Jones about the Prices and Incomes Board, showing that everybody was wrong but Mr. Aubrey Jones—"There goes Jesus Christ; everyone else was to blame." If he had only been allowed a free hand, he would have solved all our problems——

Mr. Heffer: We all know what happened to Jesus Christ.

HC Deb 27 July 1976 vol 916 cc399-483
Mr. Canavan

I frankly do not believe that those who religiously abstain from alcohol on Sunday have a monopoly of belief in God or a monopoly of belief in Christianity or any other religion. Even Jesus Himself turned the water into wine. Perhaps the Reverend and hon. Member for Belfast. South (Mr. Bradford) can quote me the Biblical reference and tell me whether He did it on the Sabbath or not. Even if He did not perform that particular miracle on the Sabbath, I am sure that Jesus Himself must have had many a drink on the Sabbath day.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie) Is my hon. Friend aware that when Jesus changed the water into wine, it was ginger wine?

Mr. Canavan: I was not aware of that I should have thought that Jesus has more taste than that.

HC Deb 16 March 1990 vol 169 cc795-850
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

Too often, Churches and Church leaders simply engage in political diatribes which are useless and unhelpful for families, who want leadership, saying, "Let us have an end to easy divorce and let us put children first in marriage and in every way." That is what Jesus taught. He was not concerned with the illegal immigrant who broke the law 15 times and was expected to be deported from a church in Manchester back to Sri Lanka. That was not the business of the bishop of Manchester, who should be teaching his flock the word of God, the gospel and how that relates to family life, and the relationship of the broad family of God with the nuclear and wider family.

HC Deb 21 May 1992 vol 208 cc509-60
Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)

As a nation, we bask in the unconscious realisation of our effortless superiority. Whether or not it is true that Jesus was born in Bethlehem—and we doubt it—we know that God is an Englishman, and that, had we not become a secular society He, God, would have gone to Maastricht on our behalf and pulled down the temples of Europe.

HC Deb 01 July 1993 vol 227 cc1120-32
Mr. Rooker

Sheffield student union organises help for 26 local campaigns, such as Crisis at Christmas. Is it political to provide breakfast in the cathedral? It may be nasty party politics to Tory Ministers, but it is what Jesus Christ would have done.

HC Deb 26 May 1993 vol 225 cc949-1014
Mr. Morgan

I recall the words of a Texas senator when the question first arose as to whether Spanish should be taught in the primary schools of San Antonio, near the Mexican border. He said that if the English language was good enough for Jesus Christ it should be good enough for the Texas school board.

Justice in Jersey

"I have completely lost faith in Jersey's judicial system," he said. "It's a joke. Jersey's legal system is utterly corrupt, incompetent and overly politicised. They will have to drag me back." (Stuart Syvret, reported in The Independent)

I have mixed feelings about Stuart Syvret's case against the Jersey judiciary.

I think he is probably right to say that it would be extremely difficult for him to get justice in Jersey. However the Court events play out, the appearance of bias would certainly be there, and a Court simply cannot afford to have even the suspicion that it cannot deliver justice.

It is also true that case like the handling of the non-prosecution of the Maguires, despite manifest evidence, and the neighbour alerting the police in the first instance, display a weakness in the judiciary. But I'm not convinced it is all part of a conspiracy to cover up.

The much cited "evidential rule" may well go back to the failure of a court case in the late 1980s, when the Attorney-General Philip Bailhache failed in a prosecution against three former police officers, where it was shown that copybook records had been altered after events in which they were involved. The failure to convict meant the case was something of a fiasco.

I know that he was extremely busy putting together the case at the time, working at weekends, and its failure may well have led to a general loss of confidence. This is, of course, surmise, but it would provide an alternative and equally reasonable explanation of  why the judiciary is unwilling to take on cases where they think they may fail, and have perhaps raised the bar too high in the requirements of evidence needed.
 
This can also be seen in the resignation of Wendy Kinnard. The point on which she resigned was the "corroboration rules" - to change the current situation in which a warning must be given to a jury over uncorroborated evidence from certain types of witnesses - children, sexual assault victims and other defendants. These were abolished in 1994 in the UK, but in Jersey they remain, which I think is again symptomatic of a failure of nerve.

There may also be a case for saying that the fine levied on the JDA was disproportionate, especially as two other cases of a similar sort were dismissed because it was deemed that they were not deliberate flouting of the law; moreover, the level of fines was extremely high. The law itself seems to have been deliberately crafted against the JDA, and does not exist in other jurisdictions such as the UK, but it is the court's duty to uphold the law, not to make it. Given the furore over corruption with UK MPs, and the fact that the law was deliberately flouted - why not just call someone independent to help with the forms - I think it is difficult to maintain the court was deliberately against the JDA, especially as they were neither suspended, not forced into a re-election, both of which would have been likely had there been any "conspiracy".

But outside of these areas, there are no grounds at all for the blanket claim that Jersey's judiciary cannot dispense justice. The general run of ordinary cases - assault, fraud, drug smuggling, drink driving, fines for non-payment of loans, tax etc - that turn up in the Police Court or Royal Court - have had no complaints against them on the grounds of some kind of bias in the justice system.

So the statement that "Jersey's legal system is utterly corrupt" simply doesn't stand up. It is an over-generalisation and it does Stuart Syvret no good, because it overstates his case. To say "I won't get justice" is something else entirely, for which there are much surer grounds, and perhaps he would be better to concentrate more on that.

Child Abuse: Can we Learn the Lessons?

I have been reading the Attorney-General's statement about the decisions not to prosecute in relation to Haut de la Garenne. He writes that:

A decision not to prosecute is capable of being perceived as denying the complainant the right to be heard. Indeed, this can lead to a pressure to allow the complainant to have his or her day in Court.

Reading the comments in the JEP, especially by those who have been abused, I think that it is not particularly to have "a day in Court" that is the strongest feeling, although that sentiment is expressed; it is the way in which the Island seems to want to "move on" and forget about the whole matter, even to "write it off" as unfortunate incidents in the past. It is this kind of silence which Daniel O'Leary, writing in The Tablet last week about the Irish child abuse scandal, noted:
 
Most commentators pointed to that deliberate silence as the most serious failure of both Church and State. This was the kind of silence that has outraged the victims of abuse. It is the unspoken collusion with darkness, they believed. It is institutional power at its worst - the prolonged, corrosive cover-up to save its own face at any cost.

He notes that:

These are very hard, even terrifying, words, and a first instinct is to react defensively... But that is not the way to go just now.

One of the lessons learned in Ireland, and which Daniel O'Leary notes is from a comment by Einstein that "the mindset that causes its own inner collapse can never carry the seeds of its own renewal":

The necessary paradigm shift we long for cannot happen only from within any more. A new source, maybe from a place as yet unknown to us, must be found for another start, a new healing, a new hope. Otherwise, in systemic thinking, left to itself, the organisation will clone itself back into business as usual.

I think that steps are being taken with the Williamson report to address this issue, as in particular, with the policy on whistle blowing, which was seen by the Wales Child Abuse enquiry as essential - not just that it was available, but that employees had a duty to blow the whistle when they saw abuse, and failure to do so was in some degree, a measure of complicity. It is not a question of witch hunts, but of a "change of mindset".

Moreover, a serious concern must surely be that the employee responsible for thinking out and implementing the "Grand Prix" system is still employed by the States of Jersey for working with children. Now it is entirely possible that he admits that system was flawed, and has had a complete change of perspective, but there is no public record of that.  One of the figures involved in oversight of child care has been reported in the Guardian as saying that "My father always used a belt on me. It did me the world of good." It is this mindset which may still lurks beneath the surface, which must be addressed, or the same problems, as Einstein warned, will return again.

The Kathy Bull report - still not in the public domain, which is also an indicator that we have a long, long way to go - condemned the Grand Prix system. I think that for those children who suffered under the Grand Prix system, and those who suffered at Haut de La Garenne and elsewhere, there is a duty to seek some kind of closure, and there are avenues available apart from the legal ones, which no one seems to want to explore, such as the Truth and Reconciliation model from South Africa.

In their book "Public inquiries into residential abuse of children" by Brian Corby, Alan Doig, Vicky Roberts - which should be in the States library - the authors note that "there is reason to believe that having the opportunity to give their evidence may have cathartic effects for some".  When looking for a model, they were impressed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in that - although the subject was apartheid rather than child abuse - the underlying principle was that "it was trying to find a way forward without ignoring the past", and it was "concerned to compensate the victims both spiritually and financially".

Desmond Tutu said "Ultimately we must concentrate on forgiveness and reconciliation because if we concentrate on retribution, I am fearful that the spiral of violence, resentment and payback will never end." And the Commission noted that: "the road to reconciliation requires more than forgiveness and respectful remembrance .. reconciliation requires not only individual justice, but also social justice". This is one path to closure. Again to quote Tutu: "Having looked the beast of the past in the eye, having asked and received forgiveness and having made amends, let's shut the door on the past - not in order to forget it but in order not to allow it to imprison us".  This statement draws attention to why Tutu thinks forgiveness and reconciliation are so important, that is to free us from history, and this is one approach which could be applied in Jersey.

The book also notes that in the Canadian case of abuse, in most of the states, "victims of abuse had been given apologies by the state, another concept that had might be considered in Britain". They comment that "we are convinced that a broader-based acknowledgement of victims' needs that is not reliant on the courts or a series of full blown public enquiries should be considered in response to the large number of allegations of residential abuse that are still emerging"

This is why the statement by the Attorney-General's statement, has caused so much dismay, because it is sending out the message that the matter is closed. This again is a fear that is taken up by Daniel O'Leary:

That is why many fear that religious and state leaders are now pushing too fast for closure without learning any vital lessons. What alarms them now is that in the wake of the recent report, church leaders are already looking anxiously for a premature closure. The experience of an abuse, they say, that has turned you into a depressive, unemotional father, a hopeless alcoholic, a suicidal introvert, just cannot be set aside like that. Regaining a lost trust takes ages. Too many take the pain to the grave.

He says that politicians "should resist attempts at quick closure to the shocking revelations of criminal mental, physical and sexual abuse perpetrated on the country's most vulnerable children. Rather, they should spend a lot of time of their knees." This is why he argues against closure that is premature: "There is a necessary waiting time - to feel the shame of the abused, to hear in our soul the abandoned lament of theirs, to stay in that place of utter confusion and desolation - and even then, we will never even remotely glimpse the awful anguish they will carry to the grave. "

There is still much that remains to be done in Jersey so that that voice is heard, and not forgotten, not silenced, so that Jersey can come to terms with this part of its past. As John Donne remarked, "No man is an island", and this child abuse diminishes all of us. But O'Leary ends on a hopeful note:

Nothing is ever completely hopeless. If we doubt that then indeed all is lost. Sooner or later, grace will always find a way to enter in. And in that, at least, we can trust.

Useful resources:

Public inquiries into residential abuse of children By Brian Corby, Alan Doig, Vicky Roberts
Edition: illustrated Published by Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2001
ISBN 1853028959, 9781853028953

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/college/specialinterestgroups/spirituality/publications/newsletter3.aspx
http://www.articlearchives.com/government-public-administration/government-bodies/873181-1.html

 

The Tablet

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/13189

The Attorney-General and the Law

Economies with the Truth

In a Black Widowers detective story by Isaac Asimov, an individual is the chief suspect for stealing from a safe some cash and some bonds. He declares "I did not steal the cash or the bonds". And we are told he is pathologically honest - he never tells a lie. So how did he do it? The answer, as supplied by the clever Henry, is is discovered when Henry asks him: "Did you steal the cash AND the bonds?" and that is a question he cannot answer without admitting his guilt. That came to mind when reading recent reports about the Attorney-General, when he appears not to have any involvement with the police raid, but later admits that he did. Is he lying? Like the thief in the Asimov story, if you follow the wording closely, you will see that he is not.

The JEP reported the story as follows:

ATTORNEY General William Bailhache has denied that he instigated the arrest of Senator Stuart Syvret on suspicion of breaching data protection laws. The Senator was arrested outside his Grouville home on Monday morning and held at police headquarters for some seven hours, much of the time in a cell. But Mr Bailhache  says that the arrest has nothing to do with repeated criticism that the Senator has heaped upon him.

When reading this, the main impression one gets is that "it was nothing to do with me". But with a typical lawyer's acumen, the words are precise, and it is what they do not state that is as important as what they do. What he does not say here, and never said, was (a) whether he was aware of the raid; (b) whether he advised the police on the legal aspects of the raid in advance. Because people reading the news report came away with the superficial impression that he had not any involvement in the raid, they now think that he lied. But he clearly did not; it was rather that he did not reveal - at the time - the whole truth. But we now know the answer to (a) - that he was aware of the raid.

Now the recent news on the subject appears at first sight to contradict this impression. Again, from the BBC News and the JEP:

The attorney general has said a search of a senator's home, which was carried out without a warrant, was legal. William Bailhache told the States he was confident police followed the law when they searched Stuart Syvret's home after his arrest earlier this month...The attorney general, who said he knew about the search in advance, was responding to a question by Deputy Trevor Pitman.

During questions from Deputy Trevor Pitman, he also said that he had been aware in advance that the Senator was suspected of committing offences under the Data Protection Law and of the decision to search his home.

Are we then to believe that the police - as well as informing the Attorney-General of their intentions, did not ask for advice or were not given advice on what they could and could not do - including the search of premises without a search warrant - item (b) above? Again, nothing has in fact been said one way or the other by the Attorney-General on this matter, and should it emerge that there was considerable involvement in giving advice beforehand, this will not mean that he has lied, but simply been "economical with the truth".

Meanwhile, no apology seems to have been issued to Deputy Labey, who has suffered with her children, what appears to amount to a kind of legalised burglary, when the police raid included searching through her private possessions and those of her children.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

DEPUTY Carolyn Labey has attacked the States police for raiding her home during the arrest of Senator Stuart Syvret. She says that it was unlawful and unnecessary. In a strongly worded statement, the Deputy said that she felt violated by the search and added that her elderly mother had found the raid more hostile than the Blitz.... Deputy Labey, who was on holiday abroad with her children at the time of the raid, condemned the police action as over the top. She said: 'I struggle to find words for the shock, upset and sense of violation felt by my family and myself at what has happened.'

Now under the law, a police officer may only exercise powers of entry and search if he has reasonable grounds for believing that the person sought is on the premises and he can only search them to the extent that is reasonably required for that purpose.

I would not have thought this was "reasonable exercise" of powers of search. I can see the need in cases of terrorism, but here, in these circumstances, it seems beyond belief that the police can just descend and - in effect - ransack a property - without the owners' knowledge or consent or a search warrant. The last time this kind of thing happened in Jersey occurred during the period 1940-1945, which is undoubtedly why Freddie Cohen voted for a debate on the subject, and against its postponement. The public needs to know that there are safeguards against the police acting like "Gene Hunt" in "Ashes to Ashes", and their human rights are not violated.

A Game of Top Trumps by the Attorney-General

The law on these matters is also inconsistent. Article 29 allows the police to search without a warrant, but the Data Protection Law specifies that investigations require a search warrant to be issued. It seems that when the laws contradict one another, the Attorney-General is free to pick and choose which one can "trump" the other one, and there is no consistent legal framework for saying when one law abrogates another.

In order to determine which law has priority in any particular case, judgment must be exercised, hence the need for judges. But the main principle, laid down in International Law, is

lex posterior derogat priori - more recent law prevails over (abrogrates, overrules, trumps) an inconsistent earlier law. One test that is applied in circumstances when (1) both customary and treaty sources of law exist and (2) these two sources cannot be construed consistently.

Aharon Barak, in his "Purposive Interpretation in Law" (2005), explains how this works. He writes:

What happens when two norms of equal normative status, embedded in different texts, contradict each other. The typical example is a contradiction between provisions in two statutes or two regulations, but it can also happen with two contracts between the same parties, or two wills of a single testator. Of course, judges should first exhaust every interpretative possibility of showing the contradiction to be "imaginary." But what happens if the contradiction is real. The generally accepted rule is that the later norm trumps the earlier norm: lex posterior derogat priori: a later statute trumps an earlier statute, a later contract trumps an earlier contract; a later will tramps an earlier will. This rule reflects the autonomy of the a creator of the norm. Just as he or she is authorized to create a norm, so is he or she authorized to create a contradictory norm that (implicitly or explicitly) nullifies the original norm.

Now the two laws in question are:

    Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003
    Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005

So clearly the Data Protection Law, with its requirement for violations to be investigated with a search warrant, should take priority? Under International Law, this would appear to be the case. Has the Attorney-General been using "Lex posterior derogat priori" as a guiding rule for his judgment? Or if not, what other grounds has he for prioritising an earlier law over a later? Is it his private game of Top Trumps, or can anyone join in?

Links:
http://people.virginia.edu/~rjb3v/latin.html
http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/04/08/syvret-it-wasnt-me-says-ag/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/jersey/8023514.stm
http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/04/29/syvret-search-was-legal-confirms-ag/
http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/04/22/syvret-raid-i-felt-violated/

Number Crunching

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/jersey/4994766.stm

Thursday, 18 May 2006, 14:54 GMT 15:54 UK

States staff earning above £150k

More than 20 States of Jersey employees are earning more than £150,000 a year, new figures have shown.
The salaries were detailed in annual accounts released by the States.
Three of the Crown Officers - who serve as the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff, Attorney General and Solicitor General - earn between £210,000 and £229,000.

These are 2006 figures!

Could this be the same Attorney General and Solicitor General who have just asked for free parking at the taxpayers expense? A saving to them of probably at least £960 a year!

Barking up the Wrong Tree

An interesting extra snippet of information in Sky News:

Mr Harper's leaked memo gives an insight into methods of justice and governance on Jersey. It reveals that the island's Attorney General, William Bailhache, wanted to appoint an independent lawyer to assist the inquiry. Mr Harper quoted Mr Bailhache as saying this was "in order to prevent you from barking up the wrong tree at an early stage". Mr Harper wrote: "There was some discussion over his wish to have the lawyer placed within the incident room. I, the Association of Chief Police Officers, and others saw this as a highly unusual step, and objected to that situation." It also reveals that the Attorney General questioned the publicity that the police were giving to the investigation. Mr Harper claims in the memo that Mr Bailhache was of the view that "the circulation list for... police press releases is too wide and encourages wider comment". In response to that concern, Mr Harper wrote: "What would happen if we did indeed cut our circulation list? (The media) would... ask why. "When we gave the truthful answer that the AG thought it a good idea to curtail circulation and a wider coverage they just might, in the light of the many allegations of cover up against his office, think that they had here positive evidence of the 'wilful obstruction' which he was recently accused of. "No matter how unjust that might be, it would be an obvious outcome." Mr Bailhache told Sky News: "I can assure you that I am not going to discuss with the media any memoranda going to and fro with me and the police." He added: "The position is that Jersey has been delivering justice week in, week out for centuries. "There is no reason to think that it will not be delivered in any of the cases that are part of the current investigation."

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Jersey-Abuse-Investigation-Obstruction-Claims-In-Leaked-Memo/Article/200808215078407?lpos=UK%2BNews_2&lid=ARTICLE_15078407_Jersey%2BAbuse%2BInvestigation%253A%2BObstruction%2BClaims%2BIn%2BLeaked%2BMemo

Should the Attorney General be effectively directing the course of the enquiry? It seems that the phrase "in order to prevent you from barking up the wrong tree at an early stage", which I have not come across in any other media reports on the leaked memo, would indicate precisely that!

It is also interesting to see the comment that about police press releases being "too wide and encourages wider comment". Why should there not be wider comment? I think Lenny Harper's observation that this might just be considered "wilful obstruction" are very sharp and to the point.

Can we really rely on William Baillache's word that "There is no reason to think that it will not be delivered in any of the cases that are part of the current investigation", or if cases come before the jury, will he be issuing notes from the bench ""in order to prevent you from barking up the wrong tree at an early stage"? This is a strange notion of justice!

As for the note that "The position is that Jersey has been delivering justice week in, week out for centuries.". I suggest that he decide instead of going by what appears to be received hearsay, look into Jersey history. Here is an interesting example from Ragg's "A Popular History of Jersey", which I think is precisely pertinent to the present situation:

A curious case, too, occurred in the April of 1822, concerning the relationship of Lieut.-Bailiff Sir Thomas Le Breton, to John W. Dupre and J. Poingdestre, two complainants in a trial for forgery held in the Royal Court, which appears to have caused no little stir on the Island, and resulted in an appeal to higher powers, the plea being that the Bailiff, as both brother-in-law and nephew to the persons defrauded, was thereby not a fitting person to act as presiding Magistrate in the case. At least, such was the opinion expressed in Court by a Jurat named Anley, who proposed that the matter should be referred to the whole body of the Court. This was done on April 22nd, 1822, with the result that the full Court decided against the Bailiff. " From which extraordinary decision," says Le Quesne, "John Dumaresq, Procurator General, and Francis John Le Couteur, Advocate-General, appealed ; upon which it pleased His Majesty that the said order of the Royal Court be rescinded and the trial proceed with Sir Thomas Le Breton as presiding Magistrate.

So not much change then about "justice" either! How would Mr Bailhache comment on that case? Does he think the outcome - that Sir Thomas Le Breton should try the case - was just - given the clear conflict of interests? Was this one of those examples of delivering justice "for centuries", or was it more obviously a case where a principles of disinterested jurisprudence were overruled? I feel that if this happened today, the Attorney General would absent himself from the case because of a perceived potential conflict of interests, but in those days, justice - this is the "centuries old justice" - ran on different lines.

How would Mr Bailhache comment on that case? Answers on a postcard to the : The Bailhache Foundation for Historical Ignorance.

Independence Day - The Invisible Report

The JEP had a whole big spread on the recent paper produced on the possibility of Jersey going independent:

INDEPENDENCE is well within Jersey's grasp, a top-level government advisory group chaired by the Bailiff has concluded. In a document that goes further towards setting out a blueprint for independence than anything yet published, the Constitution Review Group found that there were no insurmountable reasons why the Island could not become totally self-governing. The group, which includes Sir Philip Bailhache, Attorney General William Bailhache, States chief executive Bill Ogley, States international finance director Martin de Forest-Brown and States international affairs adviser Colin Powell, has been considering the issue since 2005. Mr Ogley said that the 83-page report amounted to an insurance policy should it ever become necessary to break away from the UK to safeguard Island interests, particularly its finance industry. He stressed that its purpose was not to look at the advantages and disadvantages of independence, but rather simply to analyse what the impact might be on various areas of Island affairs.


http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/06/28/jersey-could-go-it-alone/

This was also reported by the Guernsey press, no news as yet from the Isle of Man:

The release of the report, by Jersey's Constitution Review Group, appears to have caught Guernsey's authorities by surprise. Despite the significance of the group's conclusions, that there is nothing to be feared from breaking the 800-year link with the UK and its implications for Guernsey should Jersey do just that, no official Guernsey line had been prepared. Asked about the report yesterday, Chief Minister Lyndon Trott (pictured) said he had not yet looked at it in detail. However, he is today attending a meeting between the Crown Dependencies in the Isle of Man and said that the paper would be on the agenda at the meeting when its conclusions would be discussed.

http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2008/06/30/independence-from-uk-is-a-real-option/


This report (according to the JEP) was apparently commissioned by Frank Walker. As the report notes (along with the time frame being extended at December 2006, so that it has just surfaced now):

To submit to the Chief Minister, by March 2006, a draft Public Consultation Document ("Green Paper") which outlines the factual information and objectively evaluates the implications of independence.

All this has been going on behind the scenes, and for those who like either a culture of concealment, or the notion that Frank Walker is just plain stupid (and contradicts himself), just cast your minds back to Wednesday, 14 February 2007, when the BBC News reported something quite different. There is no mention of any report here. Has Frank changed his mind? The magazine Private Eye delights in showing how politicians contradict themselves, and assume that no one notices. But here is the Frank Walker take on independence back a year and a half ago. Quite different words! How amazing that in little over a year, we could have a complete U-Turn, and there is also no mention here of the report being produced in the background, behind the scenes:

Jersey's chief minister says it would be a bad move for the Channel Islands to seek more independence. Senator Frank Walker's comments follow calls for Guernsey to look again at its ties to the UK. Islanders led by Advocate Roger Perrot want a written constitution and a more hands off approach from London. But Mr Walker does not see the need to meddle with the current arrangement and the island is now thought of as more independent than ever. He also disputes the idea the UK sometimes bullies the island into making decisions. However, he does feel it is important Guernsey and Jersey regularly meet and share information, in order to keep on top of the situation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/6361043.stm

Indefinite?

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

I've been looking at how "indefinite" is treated, especially regarding the headline in the Jersey Evening Post on Saturday -: "Now they can lock you up indefinitely." The States sitting recently covered this.

The full text is at http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/hansard/22715-25297-2662008.htm, and I have yet to see a more shifty evasive performance by a politician who, it seems, does not have the grace to simply say "I got it wrong" but has to apologise not for herself, but over the way in which it entered the public domain.

Senator W. Kinnard (The Minister for Home Affairs) said:

I make this statement because of public and Members' concern following an article that appeared on the front page of the Jersey Evening Post on Saturday, 14th June, under the headline: "Now they can lock you up indefinitely." The report alleges that I had authorised the indefinite detention of suspects without charge under delegated powers and that I had not consulted with interested parties. The word "indefinite" means "not clearly defined or stated." In my view therefore, it is quite wrong to associate this with the law in Jersey on limits for detention and subsequent review.

This was picked up by Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Minister not accept 2 things; that the popular usage of "indefinite" is: "Lasting for an unknown and unstated length of time" and that to say "indefinite" is not indefinite is utterly confusing.

Senator W. Kinnard returned stating that the word "indefinite" must be interpreted in the way in which she stated because of the legal and procedural measures which the order must be consistent and fit in with:

First of all, the word "indefinite" does not fit with the actual situation, which is the long-stop of 96 days and, indeed, the situation where the police are required to bring people before the court promptly. I do not accept what is being asserted by the Deputy.

And yet, earlier, Mr. W.J. Bailhache Q.C., H.M. Attorney General, used the word "indefinite" in the other sense of the word because he is talking in terms of limits (or no limits):

The fact that there are no statutory limits to detention before charge does not mean that the police can detain a person indefinitely

In fact, indefinite, like many words, is slippery in meaning, having a broad semantic sweep. The Oxford English Dictionary gives several meanings to it, and two of the main ones are:

"Without distinct limitation of being or character; having no clearly defined or determined character: indeterminate, vague, undefined. "

"Of undetermined extent, amount, or number; unlimited. "

It is important to understand what dictionaries do - they do not dictate what the meaning of words are and should not be used in a prescriptive way. They collate the different meanings that have arisen over the years, and list common usage, together with some etymological notes.

Words may change meaning, and may pick up extra meanings over the years. Arguments over "real meanings" belong to the Victorian Age of prescriptive grammars, where verb infinitives could not be split because the model was Latin, where a split infinitive is impossible. Original meanings of words are not "real meanings" either - in Semantics, that is caused the genetic fallacy. They are important, because if looking back at old documents - and old laws - the words used may have changed significantly.

C.S. Lewis noted how the 1928 revision of the Prayer Book altered "may truly and impartially administer justice" to "may truly and indifferently minister justice". He asked his gardener, Paxtead as an experiment to see what an ordinary man thought. Paxstead answered that he knew well enough what it meant to minister justice indifferently: that was fairly, without making any difference between people. But as for impartially, "I don't know that word, guv'nor". Nowadays, the meaning of "indifferent" has changed significantly to mean more like unconcerned, incurious, aloof, detached, disinterested - we see this in headlines such as "Black juveniles face indifferent justice system", or "Murderous clients and indifferent justice".

It is ironic that one of the definitions of "indefinite" is "Unclear; vague". I wonder whether it is sensible for politicians to criticise the JEP, simply on the Humpty Dumpty approach of saying "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

Generally, they will slip between meanings, much as Richard Dawkins does in "The Selfish Gene", where he says he uses the word "selfish" as a technical term - "Selfish", when applied to genes, doesn't mean 'selfish' at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process." - and then comes out with tripe like this: "Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have a chance to upset their designs", in which he mixes up his "technical term" with the common usage.

Reading the debate in the States over the use of the word "indefinite", it is clear that it is changing in meaning take place all the time, and Wendy Kinnard is using the imprecise meaning (and the JEP using it) as a shield against criticism against the crux of the matter, which wasn't the JEP use of "indefinite" but the wording of the order regarding continual reviews and detention, a point well picked up by Gerald Baudins -

"That all that does not alter the meaning of the Order because I would like the Minister to advise why her Order included the words: "and may conduct further reviews and authorise further periods as such detention" which is quite unambiguous and the crux of the matter because it clearly indicates a never-ending process. It is not a misinterpretation, Sir, as alleged by the Minister but I believe a failure on her part to create an Order that did what was allegedly intended. "

Senator S. Syvret later asked a very good point:

It would appear from what the Attorney General has said and what the Minister has said that this wording of the now removed Order is simply not compatible with and is in conflict with statutory legislation. Would the Minister not then accept that this is simply an unholy mess and she might have got more credit from this Assembly had she simply come here and admitted this is a mistake and an error rather than engage is this sophistry?

Once bitten, twice shy...

Two people arrested in connection with the investigation into child abuse at a former children's home in Jersey have been released without charge. A 70-year-old man and a 69-year-old woman were arrested yesterday in relation to three "grave and criminal assaults".

The Times had a detailed report on the release of two couples, in which it noted that "Detectives said that there was sufficient evidence to charge the couple with serious sexual and physical assaults within the childcare system during the 1960s and 1970s. A member of the island's volunteer police force refused to do so after seeking legal advice from the office of Jersey's Attorney-General." Yet, in a seemly contradictory statement, it also reported that "William Bailhache said: "When all the evidence has been received and assessed, the decision on whether or not to charge will be made. This case is being handled by an independent Crown Advocate with advice from a barrister from London and there has been no interference by me or anybody else in the Law Officer's Department."" The key phrase is obviously "from the office", but it doesn't say who the "independent" Crown Advocate is, or what the advice was.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4215024.ece


The Guardian had a quotation, apparently verbatim, from the police:

An investigating officer invited a Centenier, an elected senior police officer with the power to charge suspects, to police headquarters yesterday. "Despite stating that the evidence was present, the Centenier declined to charge," said a police spokeswoman. "The States of Jersey police have no alternative, therefore, but to release the two suspects without charge."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/25/jerseyisland.childprotection


Channel Television actually quotes from Lenny Harper

Lenny Harper from States of Jersey Police told Channel Online: "At five o'clock last night as a result of some communication with the Lawyer whose acting on behalf of the Attorney General's office and working with us there was some delay. After the discussion we decided to get the Centenier in to charge. The Centenier came in and although he said there was sufficient evidence to change he declined to do so at that time."

http://www5.channelonline.tv/news/templates/jerseynews2.aspx?articleid=15327&zoneid=1

The Telegraph gives a slightly different story, and notes that:

Detectives had initially been told by a legal adviser that they had sufficient evidence to charge a 70-year-old man and his 69-year-old wife with serious sexual and physical assaults, but the legal adviser, a barrister appointed by the island's Attorney General, then changed his mind and police had to let the couple go free


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2200177/Jack-Straw-urged-to-intervene-in-Jersey-children's-home-abuse-case.html

The States of Jersey Police press office released this official statement:

RELEASED TO MEDIA AT 10.50 PM: After consultation with their lawyer appointed by the Attorney-General, two people were arrested today (Tues 24 June) in connection with three grave and criminal assaults by the historical abuse team. At about 5 pm today (Tues 24 June) the lawyer revised his advice to the investigating officers. Following discussion, the investigating officers requested a Centenier to attend Police Headquarters to charge the suspects. Despite stating that the evidence was present, the Centenier declined to charge. The States of Jersey Police have no alternative, therefore, but to release the two suspects without charge. Louise Nibbs, Press Officer, The States of Jersey Police


So far it seems that explanation has been given why the honorary officer, Centenier Danny Scaife declined to charge, although clearly it was on the basis of as yet unknown legal advice. Conspiracies flourish in such a climate, and suggestions that people might have friends in high places (or play at the same golf club) have been made.

I'm not sure whether there is another explanation. I'm not saying it is the right one - we won't know that unless we know the legal advice - but back in 1987 (I remember it being at the time of the hurricane in October), there was a Court case against three former police offices (one a senior detective inspector, one a sergeant) charged with conspiring to pervert the course of justice - one part of the case involved them falsifying their notebooks.

The Attorney General of the day, a certain Philip Bailhache, failed to make his prosecution stick despite a considerable amount of work, and what seemed at the time to be a watertight case - and the case collapsed. This must have been discussed by Crown lawyers since, and be at the back of their minds when it comes to any prosecution, especially where there is a chance of those charged getting off. So it could be a case of treading extremely carefully - probably over carefully - because once bitten, twice shy.

The Law is Crap(aud)

William Bailhache, QC, the Attorney-General also said that if a police enquiry into alleged abuse at a former children's home on the island led to lengthy trials, an outside judge was likely to be brought in to handle them....He said the allegations of abuse at the children's home should be handled largely by Jersey's legal system, but added that if several defendants were involved who pleaded not guilty, a judge from outside the island was likely to be brought in. "I don't think there's any doubt that justice can be done," he told the newspaper. "The Jersey Royal Court is very well respected. When any community, wherever it is, has this sort of problem, the community must deal with it."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2064076/Jersey-abuse-case-Thousands-to-be-added-to-sex-offenders-register.html?service=print

I love the way in which we are told contradictory things.

First, Jersey can handle its own cases and does not need outside help.

Then the Attorney General says that they may bring in judges from outside, and notes (in another version of this interview) that can be standard practice for long drawn out and involved cases.

But that doesn't mean the Island courts can't handle matters on their own!!


Of course it is and always has been the case, as the Edward's report notes:

The Bailiff may appoint persons from outside the Island, mainly QC's from the United Kingdom, as Commissioners to hear particular cases when pressure of business or conflicts of interest require.

But that doesn't mean the Island courts can't handle matters on their own!!!

A difference that makes such a difference makes all the difference, to paraphrase Spock.

But that doesn't mean the Island courts can't handle matters on their own!!!!!

And on a lighter note, but still of interest, a few extracts from Matthew Jowitt's law review from 2003:

http://www.jerseylaw.je/Publications/jerseylawreview/Oct03/JLR0310_Postscript.aspx

To an English lawyer wearied by Government performance targets and fatuous attempts to apply the 'user friendly' culture of fast-food restaurants to a criminal justice system, Jersey's dignified adherence to its legal past is refreshing, if not a little off-putting at times.The most immediate aspect, because the most obvious, is the Island's apparent love for arcane titles. In England we used to have all manner of exotic legal creatures: stipendiaries, serjeants, assistant recorders, Lord Chancellors - even silks. All sadly extinct, or about to become so. In our brave new legal world the colour of history and tradition is being bleached away. Titles now are prosaic: district judge, list officer, minister of justice - like quick-dry paint, they do exactly what it says on the tin.

For some time I thought 'Judicial Greffe' was pronounced 'judicial grief' - and assumed that must be what advocates received in the Court of Appeal. I suspected that a 'Bâtonnier' was a type of French gateau, probably with marzipan. Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff, Lieutenant Bailiff, Acting Deputy Lieutenant Bailiff (second class) - what is the newly-arrived Englishman to make of this? When I first heard a lawyer talking about 'the Jurats' I assumed he meant an island chain somewhere off the coast of Norway.

But the differences between our two criminal legal systems are more than skin-deep, no matter how familiar much of Jersey criminal law and practice is to the English barrister. In the Island I am repeatedly struck by how involved the prosecution are with matters which, in England, the prosecution not only do not trespass upon, but it is felt should have nothing to do with as a matter of sacrosanct principle.

In Lincoln Crown Court you would not only never hear a prosecutor giving the judge his opinion on what the sentence should be. If he were to do so the judge would come down on him like a ton of bricks. An English judge may well ask a prosecutor what his sentencing powers are as a matter of law, but anything more than that and defence counsel - rightly - would be jumping to his feet to object. In England it is considered somehow unseemly for the Crown to be seen demanding its pound of flesh.

In Jersey things are very different. A Crown Advocate is required, through his submissions, to recommend to the Court a particular conclusion, and give relevant indications from case law about sentencing practice and tariffs. Custody thresholds and starting points are debated at length.

In England it is accepted without being said that the tribunal which sentences an offender should be the tribunal which tried him. There are good reasons for that: the trial judge will have heard the evidence, assessed each and every witness, formed a view as to where the truth lies, or whether certain aggravating features, notwithstanding a guilty verdict, were sufficiently proved to be reflected in sentence. Chiefly, the trial judge will have been able to assess the defendant himself, if he gave evidence, (and in England the fact that an adverse inference cannot be drawn from a defendant's failure to give evidence means that most do). I have often heard a sentencing judge express his opinion as to a defendant's character on the strength of his earlier performance in the witness box. Any English judge asked to sentence a man following his trial before another judge would - unless that judge were seriously ill or dead - decline to deal with it, and send it back to the trial judge.

In Jersey it is difficult for the English barrister to see the point of Inferior and Superior numbers. One manifestation of the Royal Court, with the power to sentence to any length of imprisonment, ought to suffice as it does in the English Crown Court. One manifestation of the Royal Court both to try and sentence the same defendant would be a simpler, more elegant solution than that which pertains as present.

It may be that I have missed point, but it does strike me that this procedural complexity is exacerbated by Jersey's peculiar dual system of trial by judge and jury for customary law offences, and trial by judge and jurats for statutory offences.

It is a system which has the potential too for wide-reaching constitutional problems. English common law offences grow few and far between: violence, dishonesty, drugs and sex are all now, for the most part, codified in statute. Statutes have a distinct advantage over customary law: subject to construction, and some interpretative case law, their meaning is clear and fixed. To an English lawyer, Jersey's customary law is a particular headache - varied in origin, not always clear in substance. The molly-coddled London counsel, used to turning up statute to discover what an offence involves, can be tempted to conclude that Jersey customary law is no move than a misnomer for a piecemeal assortment of ad hoc decisions by different people at different times over a course of ages.

In this new age of human rights law the principle that law should be clear, consistent and unambiguous grows more important that ever. The law should say what it means, and mean what it says. Similarly, defence lawyers will grow ever more astute to argue against changes which detract from those rights - chief amongst them, perhaps, the hallowed right to jury trial. Here lies the seed of conflict: on the one hand the potential need to clarify customary law through codification, on the other the erosion of trial by jury which such a course would entail. Short of abolishing the dual system of juries and jurats, it is not immediately obvious how such problems would resolve themselves.

Mixed Messages: Bailhache vs Bailhache

In last Saturday's Jersey Evening Post, William Bailhache, the Attorney-General, spoke out against honorary police who were off duty doing anything directly about minor misdemeanours, and he cited two examples:

a) a car which swerves occasionally over the white line (and whose driver may by implication have drunk too much)
b) individuals who were only "mildly drunk"

Instead if they were to do anything, it would be to notify the duty centenier, who would deal with it.

This seems to be a piece of lunatic advice, since the car would be long gone, and even the "mild drunk" would have staggered off some distance before anyone could get there.

But how do you define "mildly drunk"?

Answer: from the Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache, in Tuesday's Jersey Evening Post, in his role as head of the Judiciary:

There is no such thing as "slightly drunk", and the police should - as a matter of duty - clamp down on any case where they see an individual is drunk.

At least this shows that the two brothers do not confer all the time. It gives out a mixed-message, which makes Jersey's judicial system look both inconsistent and rather foolish, as if no senior legal authorities can agree on how to police drunken behaviour, but having read the two contradictory pieces of advice - given in the JEP within a few days of each other - it does blow any "conspiracy theory" out of the water.

Or perhaps the Tuesday's ruling was an April Fool? Someone certainly appears foolish!