Guernsey Watch and Jersey Musings

I've been looking over the waters to see what's been making the headlines in our neighbouring Island of Guernsey.

"Cut red tape from Sunday shops law" suggests a reform of the Sunday trading laws in Guernsey. These are tighter than Jersey, and until fairly recently, no garages could open to sell petrol on a Sunday, which could cause problems if a holidaymaker was running low on petrol, and not aware of the fact. But this story was not about reform of the laws, but reform of the red tape. A Bridge butcher took over a new shop, and had to wait for a month before the licence application was approved.

Mr Le Poidevin applied for a Sunday trading licence from the St Sampson's constables when he took over the former Johns the Butchers shop late last year. But he had to wait more than a month for his application to be approved and could not open on a Sunday during that time. (1)

Jersey has its own spell bureaucratic madness, when Liberation day fell on a Saturday, and Simon Crowcroft permitted Town retailers to open on a Sunday, with some Parishes following suit, and some not, according the whim of their Constable. Until persuaded that it was grossly unfair, Ransom's Garden Centre would have to remain closed because of the Constable of St Martin, while the Constable of St Peter was happy to see St Peter's Garden Centre open.

My suspicions are that nothing will be done to rectify this kind of mess until the same problem comes round again, whereupon we will see our glorious international high calibre finance centre being subject locally to what appears to the outsider to be narrow minded small town politics. And yes, the irony is intentional - it seems a bit much that we have all kinds of rules and regulations to make our finance industry comply with international standards, and it is talked up as world class at the same time as the internal framework of laws allow the Constables to have a law applied in one way for one Parish, one for another. We need a bit of Parish harmonisation!

Meanwhile, retailers are complaining about the delivery of fresh milk that stays fresh:

A review of the dairy industry said there were concerns that fresh milk products were presently being distributed to major retailers in un-refrigerated vehicles, with the exception of Marks & Spencer, whose milk was refrigerated in line with company policy. (2)

It turns out that the some large retailers have to take the milk from whichever roundsman has the control of the zone in which a store was located, and cannot insist on it being refrigerated. On a hot day, this does not seem a wise idea. Mind you, I have seen milk in Jersey, in one of the smaller group of retail outlets, just stacked up for at least an hour before being put into the cool cabinet, and I wonder how well Jersey does in this respect? I usually get the blue or green cartons, as skimmed or semi-skimmed milk seems to last longer anyway.

When I was at primary school, the school milk (then in the bizarre pyramid shaped "tetrapaks") was often just brought in and left in a corner of a classroom, so that in a hot summer, it was already curdling by break time, and virtually undrinkable. The pyramid shaped design was particularly ill suited to fridges, as they took up an extraordinary amount of space.

I remember the nascent new age pop-culture of the 1970s coming out with a book on "Pyramid Power", in which it was stated that the reason the Pharaoh's were buried in pyramids was because the shape was conducive to "earth energies" which would preserve anything, including dead bodies. The author even stated he had success with a small perspex pyramid and fruit. He obviously had never tried Jersey milk's Tetrapak, which produced thousands of refutations every day.

We have had violent incidents in Jersey recently, with people out at night being beaten up, but no single individuals who could perhaps be described as "dangerous loners" recently, as in a Guernsey case:

After shooting a chicken with a crossbow, Richard Le Conte pulled the trigger on an unloaded rifle he was aiming at his sister and waved a knife in her face. In the Magistrate's Court, Le Conte, 20, admitted causing unnecessary suffering to an animal and conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace. He was sentenced to nine months in prison, suspended for three years, and two years' supervision.

Advocate David Domaille said that his client, who was sent to youth detention for a year in 2008 for shooting a rifle at people from a car, accepted the facts but wanted to explain the 'spirit' of the offending. Judge Philip Robey said he was not concerned with what the defendant intended or did not intend to do.(3)

Interestingly, I came across a case of waving a weapon at another individual from Jersey, but within the police force. In Lenny Harper's affidavit, he mentions a number of incidents of bullying with the local police when he arrived, not as has recently been alleged by him, but rather stopped by him. Here is the case in question:

One male officer told how one night shift he was sitting in the Station Office with the Sergeant when the latter produced a 9mm semi automatic pistol. The Sergeant dismantled the firearm and cleaned it. When finished, he assembled it, put the magazine in and cocked the weapon. He then pointed it directly at the male officer's head for several seconds before lowering it and saying "No, not tonight." That male officer is still suffering the effects of the bullying by the Sergeant.

The recent mention of bullying in the force by Ian Le Marquand, appearing to suggest that Graham Power and Lenny Harper were bullies, ignores this kind of incident. It is well known that when bullies are stopped, they will themselves complain that they have been bullied, and it would be truer to say that Mr Power and Mr Harper brought about a change to a culture to that within which bullies would have felt intimidated.

Every profession in life attracts its share of bullies, but professions which involve the exercise of power (such as police or politicians) are probably more prone to attract the kind of individual who enjoys wielding power. This is, of course, not a Jersey problem, and we need to be aware of that. The brutal beating up of Ian Tomlinson, or the dragging of Jody McIntyre from his wheelchair during the recent student protests illustrate how some police, but not all, should clearly not be in the force at all.

But in terms of "dangerous loners", the most alarming case was that of the SOJ Police Firearms Clerk at the time himself, whose home address was searched by Lenny Harper:

At his address I recovered a huge number of firearms lying insecure in a bedroom. These included an RPG7 Rocket Launcher which was later found to have only a minor fault. Among the dozens of other firearms found at his address were some which had been handed into the police for destruction. Lying around the room on the floor next to weapons such as 7.62 rifles, machine guns, and magnum revolvers, was a large quantity of ammunition for these and other weapons. A 'SEACAT' Missile Launcher was also taken from his home.

Is the grass always greener elsewhere? Guernsey is opening up meetings to the public:

The doors of government will creep open further again next month. In the slow evolution towards open government, the Scrutiny Committee is following in the footsteps of Public Services and the States Assembly and Constitution Committee in allowing the media to sit in on some meetings. Also in February, Environment will take the long-awaited step of making planning decisions in front of the public. Planners have been leading lights on openness in recent months - their website is now something of a treasure trove of information if you know what you are looking for. (5)

But what amazed me was the following sentence:

Is it all enough? No, still the island lags behind Jersey, which has a freedom of information regime.

Jersey has freedom of information guidelines, but these fall far short of the UK. As the Telegraph pointed out in 2008:

The Freedom of Information Act gives journalists and members of the public the right to demand access to public documents in mainland Britain. Jersey, however, has its own independent legal system, with no such freedom of information laws.

In 2000 the States adopted a voluntary Code of Practice on Public Access to Official Information, which states that the public should be given access, "wherever reasonably possible", to information held by the States. However, there is no provision under the Code for people to apply for information held by the police, hospitals, or other public bodies (in the UK all publicly-funded bodies, from the BBC to local councils, are bound by the Freedom of Information Act). The type of information which islanders in Jersey can access is also limited; government committee agendas and minutes should be disclosed, for example, but documents supporting an agenda item do not have to be given out. (6)

It is voluntary, not statutory - hardly a "regime" as such, as like so much else, it depends on the whim of individuals involved. The salaries of top civil servants, for example, have not been revealed as they have been in the UK, and Terry le Sueur only grudgingly revealed information about the range of salaries particular jobs or groups of jobs had. It is a case of getting blood out of a stone, and if the stone in question is hard Jersey granite, as appears to be the case, it is difficult and what should be a simple process is often subjected to endless delay and prevarication.

In the case of the UK, a request was made to Kent County Council regarding the following - under the UK Freedom of Information Law in March 2009:

Please confirm if Kent County Council has ever placed any children into foster care placements in Jersey and/or made any payments to Jersey for foster care? In particular if any children have ever been placed in the Children's Care Home Haut de la Garenne in Jersey? Have any children placed into foster care in any area including any part of the UK, ever been sent there for a holiday or respite?

The reply gave the timetable for a reply:

I acknowledge your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Assuming we hold this information, I will endeavor to supply the data to you as soon as possible but no later than 6th April 2009 (20 working days from date of receipt).

In fact, Kent Council was not able to give the information because the records for the period after 1990 because the records were not in electronic form, and were poorly kept, after that date, they confirmed there were no placements. As far as Jersey is concerned, of course, the record keeping at Haut de la Garenne was also extremely poor and incomplete for earlier periods; this seems to be endemic for that period. But what is striking is that in the UK a request could be made, and a timetable placed for that data to be given.

Jersey has been trying to get a Freedom of Information law for ages. Draft legislation exists in a PDF form, but costs have been cited as a factor for delays. In 2008, the Telegraph noted that Jersey "has now drafted its own Freedom of Information Act". It is still there, still waiting.

Deputy Roy le Hérissier has stepped in after a committee said it could not take responsibility for implementing Jersey's Freedom of Information law. He is calling on the chief minister's department to draw up a plan for enforcing the new law. The St Saviour deputy is suggesting an implementation plan be drawn up to ensure the law is "not buried". (8)

It is another case of "poor practice", and the disparity between local laws, which are mired in a swamp of delays and petty fiefdoms, and the Island as an international finance centre, where legislation is continually been refined to make sure the Island complies with the best standards. We badly need laws which are as up to the mark for the local community as for the international community - what might be termed "law harmonisation"! We simply can't have "world class" finance laws without "world class" local laws.

Links:
(1) http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2011/01/13/cut-red-tape-from-sunday-shops-law/
(2) http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2011/01/12/retailers-are-cool-with-dairys-fresh-delivery/
(3) http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2011/01/13/crossbow-wielding-man-shot-chicken-threatened-sister/
(4) http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2010/10/sworn-affidavit-of-mr-lenny-harper_17.html
(5) http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2011/01/11/the-doors-of-government-set-to-open-a-little-wider/
(6) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1579981/Why-documents-in-Jersey-remain-secret.html
(7) http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/kent_county_council_children_pla
(8) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-11570450

The ACPO Scandal and Logical Fallacy

Well, it seems we have an answer regarding the ACPO reports. One of them was after Power's job. No wonder he said all was rosy when anyone with half a brain could see it was a circus. (Anonymous comment, on Montfort Tadier's Blog)

An ad hominem argument has the basic form:
Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false

The first premise is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The contention is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. The fallacy does not represent a valid form of reasoning because even if you accept both co-premises, that does not guarantee the truthfulness of the contention. (Wikipedia)

I remember hearing Senator Ian Le Marquand on "Talkback" talking about the "scandal" to do with ACPO. And certainly if one of the ACPO team was after Lenny Harper's job, then there was a potential conflict of interest, which apparently is the "scandal", although that is a rather emotive word to use.

What is remarkable is how easily it is assumed that this means that all the ACPO reports were thereby tainted, which is a perfect example of what C.S. Lewis called "Bulverism", and which is also an example of the "ad hominem" fallacy. Listening to comments about the ACPO reports, I have been struck by how much weight is given to who compiled them, and the compilation process, and that they might have missed out information (because as Ian Le Marquand noted, they relied on information to be given to them and not concealed).

That may be true, but it doesn't really get us any closer to assessing their reliability unless we have better evidence which shows their weaknesses or corroborates them. And at the moment, all we have is question marks placed against the motivation of the team writing them up, as if this thereby discredits them.

Writing about motivation, Lewis looked at the way in which truth ignored in favour of motivational analyis; he gave as particularly widespread examples (in 1944), Freudianism and Marxism:

Nowadays the Freudian will tell you to go and analyze the hundred: you will find that they all think Elizabeth [I] a great queen because they all have a mother-complex. Their thoughts are psychologically tainted at the source. And the Marxist will tell you to go and examine the economic interests of the hundred; you will find that they all think freedom a good thing because they are all members of the bourgeoisie whose prosperity is increased by a policy of laissez-faire. Their thoughts are "ideologically tainted" at the source.

Now this is obviously great fun; but it has not always been noticed that there is a bill to pay for it. There are two questions that people who say this kind of thing ought to be asked. The first is, are all thoughts thus tainted at the source, or only some? The second is, does the taint invalidate the tainted thought - in the sense of making it untrue - or not?

In other words, you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became to be so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism."

Some day I am going the write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father - who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third - "Oh, you say that because you are a man." "At that moment," E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.

Now looking at the ACPO reports, and the information about one of the team wanting to take over Lenny's job, and we can see Bulverism taking hold.

It could be the case that if he wanted the job, he tended to overlook deficiencies in the investigation. But it could equally be the case that he actually wanted to ensure the investigation was conducted as properly as possible, so that if he was presenting the final results, he would be assured that they were on a firm foundation.

As an analogy, consider an accountant's office. A is checking over B's accounts preparation work, and hoping that - perhaps as a result of this - he may have the opportunity to take over B's workload when B retires (as he has planned to do). Would A skimp over the checking, or would he or she be more likely to check thoroughly because otherwise A may have a mess to sort out later? From my experience, I'd say the latter was far more likely, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of skimping.

This means that this new information doesn't really get us anywhere. For of course saying that the results of ACPO are tainted - because the officer in charge wanted a job - doesn't tell us one inch nearer to decide whether, as a matter of fact, the ACPO reports were true or false, were accurate or deficient. Those questions remain to be discussed on quite different grounds - a matter of assessment, and evidence.

The farce that passed for a press conference in 2008 certainly was not a sober critique of the ACPO reports. Perhaps the Wiltshire report will shed some light on the matter. But however the accuracy or otherwise of ACPO is to be decided, the improper motives of some people, both for believing it and for disbelieving it, would remain just as they are. That a member of the ACPO team wanted Lenny's job complicates matters; it does not discredit the ACPO reports, unless logic is chucked out of the window. But logic seems to be in short supply nowadays.

Links:
http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html

Lenny Harper and The Media Myth

"Senator le Marquand tried to say that prospects of successful prosecution might have been  damaged by Mr Harper's media handling.  He asserted they would have come forward even without media profile. The evidence on the trust issues of care leavers in general and abuse victims in care in particular clearly indicates otherwise.  Had there been no profile there would have been few if any victims coming forward, and hence no prosecutions at all."(Mark Forskitt)

Senator Le Marquand, according to the Minutes of the Suspension review meeting, appears to have bought into the version of history that says Lenny Harper's handling of the media was bad, and may have damaged prospects of a successful prosecution. This is along the lines of the Daily Mail version of 2008:

A bluff, straightforward and extremely experienced Lancashire detective, Det Supt Mick Gradwell, who had taken over the investigation after Mr Harper retired in August, was telling them that most of what they had been told about Haut de la Garenne and Mr Harper's £4.5million inquiry was nonsense. 'There are no credible allegations of murder, there are no suspects for murder,' Mr Gradwell

But there never were any suspects for murder, and Lenny Harper was advised - at the time - by the ACPO team that the right decision had been made to treat the investigation as involving a potential homicide, not a proven one. The media ran away with the story, ignoring the qualifying adjectives, and proceeded to produce lurid headlines. A good example of this in the Times. The sub-headline text says:

"Jersey police have discovered the partial remains of at least five children at Haut de la Garenne, the former children's home at the centre of the island's child abuse investigation. "

But Lenny Harper's actual statement, reported in the same article, tells quite a different story:

"At the end of the day there may not be the evidence there to mount a homicide inquiry and an attempt to bring anybody to justice for whatever crimes took place there," he said. Mr Harper said: "We were pinning our hopes on the process of carbon dating. The latest information we're getting is that for the period we're looking at, it's not going to be possible to give us an exact time of death. The indications are that if the results come back the same way as they have now it is obvious there won't be a homicide inquiry."

When it comes to abuse, the situation is different, because people had come forward:

The police search has unearthed valuable pieces of evidence which "substantially corroborate" accounts of abuse at the home, Mr Harper said.

But the Times is not the only newspaper to indulge in this kind of misleading talk. I have had a number of people who are genuinely concerned about the headline "GST 'must go up to 12%'" in the Jersey Evening Post in extremely large bold print. The text of the story said: "GST will have to rise to 12% if the States do not rein in deficits, according to the independent spending watchdog." - the qualification was not in the headline, and people just skimming the paper will come away with an entirely different perspective. The Evening Post has also blown up figures on burglary out of all proportion by a misleading use of percentages.

And the BBC website also has this more balanced news report, from 2008:

The Jersey Police Deputy Chief Officer, Lenny said there was no evidence of a cover up by The Jersey Government. He said at a press conference that the police have "no evidence of a cover up by the Jersey Government. There may be evidence that things haven't been done the way they should have done but governments don't normally get involved in child abuse investigations."

Now that is on the BBC, and is also quoted on Fox News, but no other television channel or newspaper reports those words from the press conference - "no evidence of a cover up by the Jersey Government" - Lenny Harper's own media briefing at the time.

So I'm not convinced the fault is Lenny Harper's, so much as the papers who decided to sensationalise the story as much as possible to maximise sales, and there is very little that can be done about that. The only thing Lenny Harper might have done would have been to emphasise more strongly the tentative nature of some of the evidence, but from the Times, it seems likely that even if he had done that, it would not have been highlighted in their reporting, as can be seen from the above example.

That is a matter of judgement, but the supposal that Harper's media strategy deliberately inflamed matters is not a cast iron certainty. We simply do not know how the media would have reacted if he had done otherwise.

What the media attention did gain was publicity that enabled the victims of abuse to come forward, and the confidence that there was now a police team who could be trusted to listen to them and not dismiss their claims as specious.

Bad publicity also accrued to the Island, but I suspect that this was less to do with Lenny Harper than the very public spat between Frank Walker and Stuart Syvret, in which, in from of an audience of millions, Frank Walker accused Stuart Syvret of "trying to shaft Jersey internationally", and then denied Paxman's argument that this in any way implied that he was mainly concerned with Jersey's international reputation.

Although Frank Walker, Jersey's chief minister, has dismissed allegations of a cover-up as politically motivated, he appeared to give some credence to Syvret's claims when cameras caught an off-air exchange between the two men following an interview for BBC Radio 4. As they rose to leave the studio, an exasperated Syvret exclaimed: ''We're talking about children here'', to which a clearly annoyed Walker responded: ''You're trying to shaft Jersey internationally."

It could be argued instead that it was Senator Frank Walker who fueled the media frenzy, and the bias often against Jersey society as a whole, no doubt in part because he was so obviously a soft target who could not bear to apologise for ill chosen words; given the media love of confrontational politics, he could be counted on to provide good copy with the clear antagonism between him and Stuart Syvret. Even before his words appeared on Newsnight, people were making comments such as:

I heard the debate on the Today programme between Senators Syvret and Walker and I think I've been around long enough to judge the difference between an honest man and a time-serving politician.

An inept press conference held at St Martin's Public Hall, where an attempt was made to exclude Stuart Syvret from sitting at the table did not help either, especially as again the burning animosity between the two showed up very clearly to the viewer. It was like watching two schoolboys having a fight in public.

Andrew O'Hagan, in The Daily Telegraph wrote about " a toleration of cruelty to children" and commented that:

Obviously, such cruelty wasn't known to everybody, nor would I suggest that every institution was complicit in the harm allegedly being done, but the island's culture has long been haunted by suggestions of Draconian systems of care that are sealed off from criticism.

And noted that:

This week, spokesmen for the island authorities have been making a terrible fist of it during interviews, compounding our worst suspicions by managing to sound like a bunch of tight-lipped, unreconstructed Puritans in a morality play, offering Channel Islands legalese in place of plain speaking.

Digging into the murkier waters of Island life, BBC Radio 4's "The Investigation", unearthed the case of Roger Holland, a known sex offender when he became an honorary policeman in 1992. Philip Bailhache, then Attorney-General, on being given the knowledge of Holland's past after he had been appointed to the honorary police, decided against removing Holland from that position. Incidents like this, where the judgement of the Attorney-General certainly appears in hindsight to be very poor, as he himself acknowledged, also coloured the media view of Jersey.

The Victoria College case of Jervis-Dykes, as illustrated in the Sharp report, which was cheerfully handed out by Stuart Syvret, showed another case of individuals who were not up to date, as they should have been, with correct procedures in cases like this, and whose actions and comments (as reported in the Sharp report) instead seemed to be more concerned with the reputation of Victoria College than the victims.

Senator Mike Vibert's attempt to hold back the Kathy Bull report from the public domain also played into this, as did the removal of Simon Bellwood from his position, and the details of the Grand Prix system which also emerged.

Neither of these were directly related to the events unfolding at Haut de la Garenne, but they helped to shape the story about a culture of concealment, or in some of the less balanced media, a conspiracy to keep silence. Had there not been so many instances of trying to protect reputations, or manage the disclosure of bad news, there would have been nothing for the media to latch onto.

Let's be clear about what was happening. This was not something specific to Jersey. The UK Government is full of instances of trying to protect reputations, and prevent bad news from leaking out (as in the recent case of MP's expenses) - just look at the notorious email from Jo Moore regarding the destruction of the Twin Towers as being a good day to "bury bad news". And other jurisdictions and organisations are just as poor - the Catholic church over child abuse is particularly bad. When the spotlight was on Jersey, the same kind of behaviour could be seen. The media tended to play this up, as the media does, but that was not because of Lenny Harper's actions, but because the dirt was already available.

So was Stuart Syvret responsible? Certainly, while his release of information, and bombastic manner of release, may have fueled the speed at which the reporting took place, if there had been nothing for him to hand out, the media frenzy would not have occurred. The only way for the authorities to undermine Senator Syvret would have been for them to make available any reports themselves, or offer to make any available, to display transparency, but the desire to hold back was too strong.

 

The other way to fight back was to create a powerful counter-myth, that of the "Harper Media" frenzy, and the extraordinary Mr Gradwell and Mr Warcup press conference did just that. After that was reported widely in the media, Senator Frank Walker could now say that any criticism of him was unjustified, as he had been right to deny a conspiracy all along. This story is no less a myth, and is just as potent, but it relies on an extremely selective use of sources, and its promotion as "a fact"; hence we hear the refrain "now we know...". In fact, it clearly contradicts statements made by Lenny Harper at the time.

The current situation, where debates about Mr Power's suspension are held "in camera" (because of the requirements a law which Guernsey does not need to have) shows that the desire to control and restrict the flow of information, especially where it may be bad news, is still strong. Lessons have yet to be learnt.

So I am not at all convinced by the "Harper media frenzy" story, as it seems to leave out significant facts, is extremely selective in its use of evidence, and indeed seems to be becoming the "official line" simply by dint of repetition; in this respect it is like one of those internet urban myths that circulate so widely. I suspect that future historians will wonder at the naivety of its acceptance, when they are not so close to events, and so closely involved. I think Senator Le Marquand should look just a bit more critically at his sources before taking it at face value.

Lies and Lawyers

Just been reading the Veritas report regard Mr John Day. Readers will recall that various allegations were made against him during Dr Moyano's trial, and as he was not called as a witness by either side, those allegations were allowed to stand; a matter with which even the judge expressed surprise.

If Mr Day had appeared in Court, it would, of course, be his word against Dr Moyano and the lawyer making the accusations on her behalf. Where the Veritas report is so much better is that the authors have access to background checks, they seek, time and time again, to verify from external and uncontestable sources what the truth of the matter was.

Example 1:

Dr Moyano recollected that after leaving the operating theatre she telephoned Mr Day again because she was not happy with his advice. He does not remember receiving this call and the hospital phone log does not show any calls to his mobile or consulting rooms at that time.

Example 2:

It was suggested at the trial that Mr Day left the hospital to see patients in his private consulting rooms eight to ten minutes drive from the hospital. Mr Day's private Tuesday afternoon clinic ran from 2.30pm, but he had patients booked from noon that day. Mr Day told both us and police that he had phoned his secretary during the morning list to cancel these appointments. His mobile phone records and the phone records of the hospital show that a short call using the hospital phone was made to his private rooms at 12.02pm and a shorter one on his mobile at 12.10pm. His private clinic diary for 17 October shows that the appointments of patients booked in before 2.30pm were cancelled. The first of these patients has written to confirm that she recalls arriving for her noon appointment and being told by the receptionist that it had been cancelled, with the receptionist apologising that she had not been able to contact her before she left to come to the clinic. This fits with Mr Day's mobile phone call to his secretary at 12.02pm.

They note that "the only evidence that Mr Day wanted to leave early comes from Dr Moyano and is contradicted by the stronger evidence that Mr Day cancelled his pre-clinic appointments and remained in the day surgery unit until Mrs Rourke was in theatre."

Example 3:

Was Mr Day speaking constantly on his mobile phone while he was in the operating theatre? This criticism is based on comments in Dr Moyano's statement. Other people in the operating theatre made no mention of this in their statements and no one could remember this behaviour. Mr Day's mobile phone records for 17 October show that the only calls he made on it that day before leaving the hospital were one to his home at 12.05 pm lasting less than two minutes, one to his private rooms at 12.10pm referred to in section 7, which lasted for 10 seconds and one at 12.33pm lasting 23 seconds which was unrelated to the events of the day.

It seems to us that others present on the day would have noticed if Mr Day's phone was constantly ringing. They have no such memories. The only calls Mr Day made from his mobile that morning were during a 10-minute period between patients. The weight of evidence is against the allegation that Mr Day was constantly on his mobile phone.

Would the Court case regarding Dr Moyano have been adversely effected had these checks been part of the record? It is impossible to say, but it is very clear that the allegations made in the Court case against Mr Day were based upon one individual's recollection - Dr Moyano - and for whatever reason or motive, these recollections were massively incorrect. 

I'm not going to say she was lying, because the memory can play tricks, especially when stressed, and the work of Elizabeth Loftus on False Memory Syndrome demonstrates conclusively that a vague recall (perhaps mixed with other memories) can harden into certainty by going over the memory again and again, something which she would certainly been asked to do. But clearly allegations were made which it was possible to check on - phone records, appointment diaries etc - and it was extremely lax for them to be left standing unchallenged in Court.

It was not for the Dr Moyano's defence to check on the veracity of the statements. Acting on her behalf, it was quite proper for them to take what she said at face value. But the prosecution - Crown Advocate Howard Sharp - clearly failed to investigate these claims.

In summing up, he asked four questions

Did Dr Moyano owe Mrs Rourke a duty of care? Did she breach that duty of care and expose Mrs Rourke to risk of death? Was that breach a cause of death? And was Dr Moyano's conduct so bad in all circumstances that it amounted to a criminal act?

The fifth question was left unsaid: Was the mitigation by Dr Moyano's lawyer that Mr Day failed to provide proper supervision and support justified, or was it her memory at fault?

The question not asked, or even raised by Advocate Sharp, meant that the allegations against Mr Day were unchallenged, and therefore presumed to be true. It would be extremely odd if this mitigation argued for by the defense was not in the minds of the jury when they left to deliberate.

Perhaps Advocate Sharp would now like to explain why he did not challenge the evidence, or even perhaps call Mr Day?

The Pick and Mix Approach to Reporting

I was listening to BBC Radio Jersey this morning, as they finally caught up with the entry of Lenny Harper on Stuart Syvret's blog, with a presentation. It was quite disconcerting, as having read the entire entry, it was clear that it was being quoted in an extremely selective manner, a "pick and mix" approach to reporting. Here are the details.

First, they took the audio clip of Mick Gradwell saying that going into Haut de La Garenne and starting an excavation had been a complete was a complete waste of time and money. Then they quote Lenny as saying:

"we received a positive reaction from the dog trained to find traces of human remains. This reaction came at the same spot as the builders had found the bones mentioned above. At this point, I took the decision to authorise the archaeologists to dig at that location. I would do the same again."

The suggestion from this is that it was the dog that was the prime indicator of whether to dig or not. What was missing was the following detailed explanation of why they went in, which was based on many other more weighty considerations:

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

Two weeks later we moved in to the grounds of HDLG. We deployed Geophysical assets and Ground Penetrating Radar in order to identify anomalous areas for further investigation. We also used Gridded probing techniques to assist the dogs, and of course we had the anecdotal evidence of witnesses and victims. We decided we would not at any time carry out speculative searching but would deploy the forensic and archaeology assets in areas where there was corroboration that something needed further investigation. Before we excavated, we would give full consideration to possible explanations given by earlier work or utilities. We also studied in depth building plans and maps.

Lenny Harper also notes - again missed out of the BBC Report, that the ACPO team fully endorsed his decision. I have yet - as I have stated in blog entries before - to see any local journalist who has looked into this aspect of the investigation. The ACPO team seem to have been airbrushed out of history, apart from the Sunday Times reporter, who painted quite a different picture of the investigation, probably as a result of having seen the reports.

My decision was fully endorsed by the ACPO team who were mentoring us and this team included the former head of the Met Homicide Department and a vastly experienced Senior Investigating Officer. It was also unanimously supported by all of my senior team including the UK Homicide Search Advisors. The dig was necessary because there were matters which needed further investigation. Indeed, the advice of the ACPO Homicide Team was that we had no choice but to treat the scene as one of a potential homicide. This advice was expressed frequently, and I know it was given to Frank Walker.

The ACPO team come up again, and again have not been mentioned by Mick Gradwell, who really does not seem to have done his homework properly when it comes to investigating what part they played at Haut de La Garenne.

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

That Gradwell could have missed this means that he clearly had not contacted the ACPO team to review his statement for accuracy before making it, and nor, it appears, did the JEP journalist Diane Simon think to cross check the story.

Regarding the dogs, again missed from the presentation, is the note by Lenny Harper as to how they were deployed, which indicates, if there could still be any doubt, that the dogs were only an indicator, and not proof that there were dead bodies or anything else. Common sense would suggest that, but the presentation of the dogs has been highlighted so much in the media as if they were the litmus test of homicide. As Lenny makes absolutely clear, he did not see them this way:

Firstly, they [Mick Gradwell and Diane Simon] fundamentally misunderstand the role of the dogs. They do not, and cannot tell us that has happened at a location nor indeed, if there has been a murder or even a dead body there. What they tell us is that there is something which needs investigating. They are trained either to detect the presence of the scent of dead human flesh or blood. This they did, as in the cellar where they reacted and led us to all the bones and teeth. There were thousands of animal bones in that area and we recovered many hundreds. The dogs ignored them all.

The BBC will be giving further coverage to other parts of the rebuttal by Lenny Harper.

This is in contrast to earlier in the week, when they stated that "BBC Jersey says it can not and will not report on this posting unless Lenny confirms it was written by himself." Lenny commented that:

The BBC know very well that this entry is from me. None of the material on there is new. I have given it to a number of their journalists, local, regional and national, before. It is still on record on their own website. I will not speak to the Jersey media. Their coverage last week went beyond news reporting to being gratuitous and personally insulting. I am not tarring them all with the same brush - Chris Stone for example, I have always found to be a tough questioner but fair and objective. The same cannot be said about many of the rest. Me talking to the BBC will make no difference other than to give them something to fill space with. They did enough of that last week.

It seems strange that the BBC - especially Chris Stone - did not contact Lenny simply to confirm for themselves simply confirm that the presentation came from him, or notice that most of the details (although not their collation) were . Instead of taking the initiative (as you might expect from a news service), all they quoted this morning was "I will not speak to the Jersey media", which again is wrenched from the context above, and given at the start of their presentation, without any explanation, but with an implication that "we tried to contact him but he would not speak to us" - in other words, a surly individual who had a chip on his shoulder about the media, because he didn't want to face a direct question. Given the selective coverage of Lenny's rebuttal this morning, and his comments above, I think it is quite understandable.

Obviously any presentation on the BBC would of necessity have to be a summary, although that did not stop them presenting a lengthy press briefing from Mick Gradwell, which seems to have been only lightly edited. But what is interesting to me is that we have the original source, and we can compare, and see what is selected, even if the reasons why must remain speculative. By doing so, it is clear that their presentation is deficient in omitting various salient aspects of the story, not least the ACPO team's oversight.

Will they contact the ACPO team to ask them questions - as one would expect a professional journalist to do so, simply as a matter of checking Lenny's story and either corroborating or disconfirming it? That remains to be seen.

Association of Chief Police Officers Review was "A Waste of Time"

Readers would be surprised to see this headline in the JEP, and yet the logic of it is clear.

THE excavation of Haut de la Garenne was a complete waste of public money, time and effort, the senior police officer who led the historical abuse inquiry for the past year has said. Det Supt Mick Gradwell, who left the Island yesterday when his contract ended, told the JEP that there was no justification for the police excavating at Haut de la Garenne as part of the abuse inquiry. Mr Gradwell said that there had been no hard evidence or intelligence indicating that such a search should take place.(1)

Now - after the excavations of the floor had begun - Lenny Harper had called in a team from ACPO. The general brief of the organisation is as follows:

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is an independent, professionally led strategic body. In the public interest and, in equal and active partnership with Government and the Association of Police Authorities, ACPO leads and coordinates the direction and development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In times of national need ACPO - on behalf of all chief officers - coordinates the strategic policing response.(2)

This is relevant, because the review covered the period after the excavations had begun, and hence the period where Mick Gradwell said the investigation had gone off the rails:

Wendy Kinnard [Home Affairs Minister] said she had commissioned an independent review from the Association of Chief Police Officers to look into how Harper's team had handled the inquiry so far. The first, confidential report from Acpo, which covered the period between February 29 and March 2, showed the police were doing their job well, she said.(3)

This was also noted in The Times this year:

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

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

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

Mention was made of these visits briefly by Graham Power, after his suspension. If they did not comment in depth on the enquiry, then there can surely be no problems with releasing their reviews into the public domain so that we can see that this is the case. If this was, then it is clear that Lenny Harper and Graham Power may well have "gone off the rails". If they are not released to the public domain, and not even mentioned in any of the briefings I have read from Mick Gradwell, perhaps because it would be an embarrassment to lambast that body, then clearly we are still not getting the full picture, and the arguments that this is a smear campaign may have some truth.

I have not made up my mind yet on the truth of the matter, but without those detailed reviews, it is impossible to know who is telling the truth. Mick Gradwell was extremely forceful in his presentation on BBC Radio Jersey today, and in the Jersey Evening Post. He mentioned the press reports as unusual, although again these came before the ACPO review and do not have been critiqued by that.

 

The fact that was no mention of the Association of Chief Police Officers and their part in the affair makes the press briefings by Gradwell seem rather like the curious incident of the dog in the night time. Where was ACPO's bark?

Links
(1) http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/08/29/haut-de-la-garenne-dig-was-waste-of-time/
(2) http://www.acpo.police.uk/
(3) http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/30/ukcrime
(4) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6241652.ece

Jersey in the News Again

Jersey has been making the news again. On Saturday, we had Lenny Harper airing his comments - taken from an affidavit he made:

The Haut de la Garenne inquiry developed when, as part of the worldwide Operation Ore, the commanding officer of the Jersey sea cadets was arrested in 2006 for downloading pornographic images of children. Paul Every was subsequently convicted of child pornography offences. Harper discovered that allegations against sea cadet volunteers went back years. 'Some of the victims were children from Haut de la Garenne, taken sailing for a treat. The victims described being taken into international waters, where guests were invited to abuse them.....After Harper's departure last summer, the course of the investigation was radically altered. The inquiry has now, Harper claims, effectively ground to a halt. Before leaving the island he succeeded in charging three suspects with serious sexual offences. But nearly a year later, none has been tried.

Perhaps as a response to that, the Sun now reports on a further development in the case of one of the suspects charged:

THE first man to be charged in connection with child abuse at a Jersey children's home will face a string of new charges. Gordon Wateridge will face eight additional indecent assault charges after police investigated allegations made by a sixth victim, the Jersey Royal Court in St Helier heard. The trial of Wateridge - a former house parent at Haut de la Garenne children's home in St Martin in the 1970s - expected to start today, was adjourned to August 10 to enable the new charges to be included. The 78-year-old, born in Croydon, South London, but living in the Jersey parish of St Clement, now faces a total of 19 counts of indecent assault and one count of incitement to indecent assault involving five victims between 1970 and 1974. He is also charged with one count of assault involving a sixth victim. None of the victims can be named for legal reasons.

In fact, this has not just made the Sun, but also the Scotsman, the Guardian, and ITV news. Despite Lenny Harper's misgivings, this is one trial at least which is still attracting attention from a sizable spectrum of the media.

The other Jersey story is a mention in The Telegraph about the canceling of the reciprocal health agreement. In the course of an article on travel insurance in general, the newspaper noted that:

The reciprocal arrangements between health authorities on the British mainland and those on Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, Sark and Herm came to an end at the end of last month, meaning that all British visitors will have to pay for their treatment if they become ill while visiting the islands. This means that now, tourists must cover their own medical costs in all cases and the same applies to Channel Islands residents visiting the UK.

So at least Telegraph readers will be aware of the situation, should they come to Jersey. It is the first UK Newspaper to mention this in its travel section, which is alarming, to say the least. Perhaps there should be a vendor offering short stay travel insurance for people easily available at the airport, or by a phone call from hotels, where a representative would come round to take particulars, and give cover for a modest cost, not unlike hiring a car on arrival.

Links
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1171744/The-alleged-victims-Jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-expect-justice-reveals-detective-centre-case.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2385906.ece
http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Childabuse-suspect-faces-new-charges.5187837.jp
http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/Jersey-pensioner-accused-of-abuse-806712445.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/5187857/Medical-insurance-Are-you-sure-your-health-is-covered-for-Europe.html

Lenny Harper - Breaking News

With the fallout in Jersey about Bill Ogley and his shredder, disposing of important documents, it is worth casting an eye on Scotland, where Lenny Harper wisely has decided that if he has to answer questions it will be in a British court, rather than a Jersey court where justice can disappear down a waste disposal unit. The idea  (already mentioned on Stuart Syvret's blog) that a farewell card contains evidence is one of the stupidest statements ever, and now all the readers of the Sunday Mail in Scotland, the largest regional paid-for Sunday paper up there, can also be privy to this act of lunacy by Jersey legal authorities. I'm still waiting for an official denial to be published, until then I can only assume that was an act of supreme carelessness, which it was hoped would never get out.

http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2009/01/18/scot-in-charge-of-jersey-abuse-case-accuses-force-of-hounding-him-78057-21050583/

Scot in charge of Jersey abuse case accuses force of hounding him
Jan 18 2009 By Norman Silvester

THE POLICE chief who led a probe into child abuse at a Jersey children's home is under criminal investigation. Scot Lenny Harper, 56, has been called back to the island for a court hearing but has refused because he fears arrest as a "scapegoat". Harper, the former deputy head of the States of Jersey Police, has been accused of witholding vital information about the investigation to the police team that replaced him.  And he is also alleged to have breached data protection and official secrets laws by leaking information about the investigation to the media.  Harper, who was previously a deputy divisional commander for Strathclyde Police, was interviewed by Crown Office staff last week.  On Tuesday, he received a letter from Jersey attorney-general William Bailhache ordering him to attend a hearing at the island's Royal Court on January 28.  Harper, who lives in Ayr, said last night he did not have any evidence or documents which were not already in the possession of the Jersey authorities.  He said: "I have been ordered to appear in Jersey at the Royal Court to give evidence and provide notebooks.  "They also want to see a farewell card which my former staff signed which they say contains evidence. 

"The order is not enforceable in the United Kingdom.  "I have no evidence whatsoever to give or documents which the Jersey authorities do not have. They have spent many thousands of pounds trying to implicate me in Official Secrets Act and data protection offences on no evidence.
"I am being told that certain officials in Jersey are falsely briefing against me and I would need to be stupid to expose myself to these people."
Harper added that he had told the Crown Office in Edinburgh he was prepared to answer the questions in any British court.

He went on: "They are using me as a scapegoat so they can drop all the abuse charges. "Nothing should detract from the fact that there remain serious, credible allegations about the abuse of children in care in Jersey and these must be investigated." The inquiry centred on claims that children had been tortured and killed in secret chambers beneath the Haut de la Garenne children's home in Jersey. Police teams dug in the foundations of the disused home amid speculation that an abuse ring had been covered up for up to 40 years. But detectives now in charge of the case say there is no evidence that any children were killed despite Harper insisting the remains of "at least five children" had been found. Media reports claimed police had found evidence of a secret underground chamber, metal shackles and sites where children might lie buried.

The inquiry led to three men being charged in connection with abuse on Jersey involving girls and boys as young as eight. The Crown Office in Edinburgh confirmed yesterday they had been asked by the Jersey authorities to carry out investigations in Scotland into the abuse case on their behalf.  A Crown Office spokesman said: "We are co-operating with the States of Jersey authorities in connection with their investigation regarding Haut de la Garenne."  Graham Power, Jersey's chief of police and formerly deputy chief at Lothian and Borders, remains suspended in the fallout from the inquiry.

A Matter of Interpretation - Rusty Metal

What is the truth about those pieces of metal? Are they the remains of shackles, or are they bits of rusty guttering?

I'm not convinced we will ever know the truth. The evidence is so patchy that - as it stands - it is open to several interpretations.

If we can look back by analogy at the "Venus figurines" which have been found at archaeological sites, and which date from the Upper Paleolithic, the first explanation is that they were votive depictions of a goddess. This can be seen in the work of Marija Gimbutas - in her books The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe (1974); The Language of the Goddess (1989), which inspired an exhibition in Wiesbaden, 1993/94; and her final book, The Civilization of the Goddess (1991).

Later archaeologists such as Peter Ucko were more critical, and saw that the interpretation of the artifacts could be distorted by the frame of reference in which the archeologist viewed it. For instance, if the archeologist assumes a goddess culture, then the figurines are goddesses. They could equally be fertility charms, or even toys. Certainly it was arguable that the idea that they demonstrated worship of a single "mother goddess" was something brought to the material, not taken from it, and there could have been a pantheon of deities, if that is what they were.

Ian Hodder, commenting on Gimbutas, noted that "She looks at squiggles on a pot and says it's a primeval egg or a snake, or she looks at female figurines and says they're mother goddesses. I don't really think there's an awful lot of evidence to support that level of interpretation." Instead, Gimbutas has a habit of habitually presenting debatable assertions as fact. Ruth Tringham, another archaeologist, says the evidence from early societies is far too incomplete to allow such definitive statements. "I would never write, 'This is the obvious conclusion' - there is nothing obvious about what we write. Whatever we write is always, 'it could be this, it could be that'. Our problem is that the public isn't attracted by that kind of ambiguous thinking."

When we look at the evidence for the pieces of metal found at Haut de la Garenne, the evidence is even more open to interpretation. The metal has degraded over the years, and there is little certainty over what it could be.

Lenny Harper's reasoning over the finds is plain enough. We can see the logical steps by which he arrives at his conclusions because he is basing the interpretation on the location of the metal, and the witness statements which tell of shackles in an underground chamber. Whether this is valid or not is open to question; it is possible that his interpretation is conditioned by the statements he has heard. Questions clearly need to be asked. What should have happened is for the evidence to be submitted double-blind to suitable third parties, to see what interpretations they could place on it. That this does not seem to have occurred is a failing, but not one which occurred in Warcup's presentation.

David Warcup's reasoning is not so clear. His review identifies the metal as corroded parts of a guttering drainpipe, but he has not given us the chain of reasoning by which he places the metal in its location, although it might be taken as part of builders rubble as infill (in which case, the builders clearly did some shoddy work). What is amazing is the certainty in which he boldly states that the metal cannot be shackles, when as Harper correctly points out, the metal has degraded to the point where positive identification is near impossible. Moreover, no comparative materials have been brought to light from other building sites which could be positively identified as part of guttering, and so make this case firmer.

In conclusion, I can see weaknesses in Harper's identification of the metal as shackles, but it also appears that Warcup's review is also seriously deficient. The most blatant example of spin is the seeming certainty, bordering on arrogance, in which it has been presented - contrast with Ruth Tringham's comments on archeological finds. Either this is because Warcup is not trained in archaeology, and hence is making statements outside his field and beyond his competence, or it is a deliberate attempt to discredit the original interpretation for political reasons.

The only good thing about it is that it does highlight the dangers of bringing one's own views to interpretation of evidence, but the failure to conduct a double-bind identification, or to provide comparative materials, makes it as deficient as Harper's original interpretation. The certainty with which it is presented is not warranted, and if questions should be asked about Harper's presentation of the evidence, Warcup's presentation is equally flawed.

Harper's Reponse

They claim to see fern-seed and can't see an elephant ten yards way in broad daylight.  - C.S. Lewis

Interesting detailed reports coming in from the Belfast Telegraph. Having listened to Andrew Lewis saying he was not briefed properly on BBC Radio Jersey yesterday, it is especially interesting to see Harper contradict this. It is a pity Wendy Kinnard, always supportive of Graham Power against the critics, is not available for comment.

And what on earth was Frank Walker's wife doing on a tour of Haut de La Garenne with him? Is it common practice for Minister's wives to have guided tours of crime scenes? As she is the editor of "Jersey Now", I would have said that even if there could be a press case for her involvement, it seems a little unusual to allow one member of the press to have a privileges that other journalists clearly did not have!

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/jersey-probe-lenny-harper-hits-back-14059307.html

"What I have said has been deliberately, or otherwise, totally misrepresented," Mr Harper told this paper. "I am bemused as to why this press conference was held to say nothing substantially new. I never said we had credible evidence of murder or murder suspects. I have always said we did not have a homicide enquiry but were treating the scene as one of a potential homicide. I would have thought they would have understood the difference. As for the bones, they said they could be hundreds of years old - we said that months ago. And the fragment thought to have been from a skull - we ruled that out of the investigation months ago. They are not saying anything I have not said previously."

He added that officers had never labelled the cellars at Haut de la Garenne as torture chambers and had been acting on evidence from victims. "We never called them dungeons. The victims were telling us that they were lowered down into these rooms, which we always made clear, used to be the ground floor of that building," he said.

Mr Harper added that Mr Warcup's comments came at "an opportune time" for the Jersey government, as a report into the island's care system by the Howard League for Penal Reform was due to be released on Friday.

"I'm totally mystified as to why he should issue this non-event. I'm sure it is a coincidence that the Howard League for Penal Reform is publishing its report on allegations of abuse within the Jersey care system. That will be interesting," said Mr Harper.
He added: "I am not going to let this get to me. I have no regrets about the way this investigation was handled by myself and my team. Some of the criticisms made (yesterday) were made by Andrew Lewis the new Home Affairs Minister who said they had not been told all details. "I briefed Andrew regularly when he took over the role. Indeed, the night before I left the island he told my wife and myself that my team and myself had done a fantastic job, despite all the political nonsense and backbiting we had to endure."

Warcup and Harper's war of words: The accusations and the rebuttals

Deputy chief officer David Warcup's claims at press conference... and Lenny Harper's |response to the Belfast Telegraph in his own words.

Warcup: There is no evidence that any children had been murdered or bodies destroyed at the former home.
Harper: They said they have "no credible evidence of murder" and "no suspects for murder." They announced this as if it was a contradiction to what I had said. Not true. I have always said we did not have a homicide enquiry but were treating the scene as one of a potential homicide. Surprisingly they seem to miss the distinction. Furthermore I told the Chief Minister Frank Walker, on the day that he brought his wife for a tour of Haut de le Garenne, in her presence and that of my team, that he should prepare himself for the fact that we might not be able to launch a homicide enquiry because of a lack of evidence. He said this would not be a bad outcome and he was confident that we would do what we could.

Warcup: After being examined by experts from the British Museum, a fragment thought to have been from a skull turned out to be a piece of Victorian coconut shell.
Harper: They spoke about the original find "probably being a piece of coconut or wood." The truth is that the item has never been positively identified and the source they quoted was only one of a number of varying opinions. Furthermore, it has never been explained just how collagen, which is only found in mammals, was found in it. Additionally, we had, of course, ruled out the item anyway because our experts were telling us it was too old.

Warcup: "Shackles" found in rubble turned out to be "a rusty piece of metal", and there was no evidence to suggest it had been used for anything suspicious.
Harper: They described the shackles as "just rusty pieces of metal." Of course they are rusty pieces of metal - they have been in the ground for over 30 years. Furthermore, they ignore the fact that it was not only us who described them as shackles, which one pair obviously are. Builders who found them in 2003 and left them where they were, tipped off the media that we would find shackles.

Warcup: The "secret underground chambers" were just holes in the floor, "not dungeons or cellars".
Harper: They said that the cellars are "not cellars or dungeons, but are merely floor voids." Surprisingly, I never used the word dungeons. They are not floor voids. What we call the cellars (and what the victims call the cellars) are in fact what used to be the ground floor. What is certain is that victims described them accurately and the abuse that went on in there.

Warcup: Most of the 170 pieces of bone found in the search came from animals. Three were human and two of these dated from between 1470-1670 and 1650-1950 respectively.
Harper: "The bones could be hundreds of years old." Well this is certainly not new. When detailing the results of carbon dating, I made it clear that the dates ranged from 1650 to 1950. The expert in the UK who had examined the first bones we sent (which included a piece of child's tibia) said that they were very likely the bones of a juvenile human, they had been burnt shortly after death and buried shortly after burning. In his view they were no more than a few decades old. I made it clear that in the light of the conflicting information which, if it remained the same, it was "obvious that there would not be a murder enquiry." This is clearly confirmed by, among others, the BBC News website which carries a link from yesterday's story to one called "Jersey Murder Enquiry Unlikely" which was posted at 5.46pm UK time on July 31, 2008.

The Unanswered Question - Haut de La Garenne

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2086677.0.home_truths.php?act=login

Harper and the Jersey police, to be certain they are carrying out their work correctly, they have voluntarily called in a review team from the UK mainland. The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) Working Group will review the investigation so far. With Jersey not being part of the United Kingdom and therefore not under Home Office jurisdiction, Harper is nevertheless keen to ensure his investigation is working by the book, even if it is someone else's.

Will someone explain how Acpo didn't spot anything wrong with the investigation? I read the JEP report tonight but was unable to find any mention of this!

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.

Culpability and Respectability

The second blind spot in the Gaffer's make-up was that he, with an eagle eye which could pin-point a boy throwing a stone at two hundred yards, who knew every trick his charges could perpetrate, failed to understand that we had both resident and visiting pederasts.

Two gentlemen, always welcomed by The Gaffer and matron, shared a house in the town and asked the boys there for tea on Sundays. More than tea and cakes were involved however. I went to the house only once (the host's aged mother was blindly knitting while it all went on around her) and left quickly through a window when I could not dodge around the rooms any more. Others described how they had made similar getaways. One of these genial householders used to come to our home to play the piano for hymns on a Sunday evening and he later attained high civic office and sat as a magistrate.

- Leslie Thomas, In My Wildest Dreams: An Autobiography

I am not suggesting that any of the current Jersey judiciary is compromised in the Jersey child abuse enquiry to the extent given in the quotation above. What it does show - very clearly I think - is how these kind of people can be - to the outside world - devout and upstanding citizens, the kind of people in authority whom no one - especially those in authority above them - would easily believe to be capable of such crimes.

It is notable that with the case of Victoria College, and Jervis-Dykes, that this was very much the attitude of the Headmaster and the Deputy Head - that their colleague was a fine teacher, someone whom they and they boys respected, the head of mathematics, and therefore could not be guilty - it was the boy's word against his. Even when they could see that there was sufficient evidence accumulating of misconduct on off-Island trips, the Deputy Headmaster (now a Jurat) judged (or perhaps misjudged) that Jervis-Dykes should be allowed to resign "with dignity" because Jervis Dykes had served the College "in an outstandingly competent and conscientious way". If this had been so allowed, goodness knows where he might be teaching now.

Similarly, the mention of Wilfred Krichevski as connected with the Haut de La Garenne case has been greeted with considerable derision because he was a notable and respected politician, and therefore - it is assumed - could not be connected with the case. Why someone who was a child at Haut de La Garenne should pluck such a name out of the distant political past, or why someone should have such a grudge against him after so many years, seems to be questions not asked, and make me more inclined to believe that there might well be something in it.

Witnesses are deprived of credibility, and anyone in child care are vouched for by their colleagues, who cannot consider that their own judgement might be in error. More recent cases of this happening was (1) Anton Skinner, a man named in Panorama as being responsible for the child protection services when many examples of appalling abuse were concealed (2) The case of the McGuire's conduct at Blanche Pierre was unacceptable, but - in a report from 1990 - said that "by way of mitigation it was a stressful job...Mrs McGuire agreed to retire voluntarily from running the group-home - and would, instead, come and work in the Family Development Centre." (3) The letter written by Iris Le Feuvre thanking the McGuires on their retirement for their excellent work.

Or take this account by Stuart Syvret which highlights this problem:

I was asking Frank Walker a supplementary question to the effect that when I was H & SS Minister, senior civil servants had lied to me about the case of Simon Bellwood. Did he think it acceptable for civil servants to lie to politicians? Before he could answer, Senator Terry Le Main... interrupted and began shouting that it was "disgraceful" to ask such a question and that "civil servants didn't lie."

It is no wonder that a recent story in the Times notes that:

A furious memorandum from the senior detective in the Jersey child murder and abuse investigation claims that it has been hampered by prosecutors, destroying victims' faith in the justice system...Mr Lenny Harper claims that the island's Attorney-General and his office are held in "total contempt" by victims of child abuse after repeatedly failing to bring offenders to justice. Mr Harper's memo gives warning that potential witnesses are keeping silent because suspects are being freed without charge on apparently spurious grounds.. In another child abuse case, Mr Harper writes, the police experienced delays after sending a file this April to Mr Thomas about Jane and Alan Maguire, who had run a care home. A previous prosecution against the Maguires for assault was dropped for lack of evidence in 1998 by Michael Birt, QC, then the Attorney-General. Mr Birt is now the second most powerful judge as Deputy Bailiff. "Naturally, as I was Attorney-General at the time, I would not sit judicially in any case which may be brought in the future involving the Maguires," he said this week. The Maguires retired to France and no extradition has yet been sought.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4526531.ece

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 an Obstructive Ass

Yesterday the Council of Ministers met and confirmed our fullest support for the Home Affairs Minister, the Police and our Criminal Justice authorities. (February 2008, Statement by Chief Minister, Frank Walker)


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/30/ukcrime/print

Just been reading the online Guardian page, where it is noted that:

At the states meeting yesterday it was also revealed that the law officers' department, Jersey's equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service, had turned down requests by the inquiry team for search warrants. Police sources yesterday said they had been refused three times when applying for permission to search the headquarters of the sea cadets in St Helier, where abuse has been alleged. The search was eventually carried out with help from officers from the mainland.

A source close to Harper yesterday said he had been so "severely and willfully obstructed" in his investigation that he had come within "hours" of resigning. But the source stressed that Harper's retirement in August was unrelated and had been planned for some time.

Now who was it who said back in February 2008?

Whilst the Council of Ministers prime concern is protecting our current vulnerable children, our next priority is to ensure that anyone who has perpetrated crimes against children is identified and prosecuted. We have complete confidence in our Police, The Law Officers and the Judiciary. We know they will do everything in their power to ensure that the criminal investigations and any subsequent prosecutions are thorough, professional and totally impartial. (Frank Walker)

So much for the Law Officers doing everything in their power not to obstruct the investigation! I wonder what Frank Walker would say?

http://www.gov.je/ChiefMinister/StatementontheHistoricChildAbuse.htm

Excellent Police Strategy at Haut de La Garenne

I see that an internal (and rather informal and jokey) email sent only to the council of ministers by Ben Shenton has been leaked to the press. At least he had the grace to apologise publically - unlike a certain Chief Minister, whose continual refusal to apologise continues to damage Jersey's reputation, and (for those of us of an older generation) is inconcevable. The sooner he goes, the sooner Jersey has a chance to redeem its reputation, but - as readers of C.P. Snow's "The Affair" would note - some people are so thick-skinned and determined to keep the reigns of power that they never do the honourable thing. But enough of that.

It looks as if Shenton's disapproval of the way the Council of Ministers press conference was "unanimous" without telling him has been damaging, and the knives are out. Hence the leaked email.

The problem is that some serious concerns he raised will now be ignored in preference to the more Sun-Readership issues.

Let's look at one of these.

One question was about the initial press reporting was handled. "Remains of a child" was very ambiguous, and for most of us who heard that police report, it suggested far more that "fragment of a child's skull"; the issue over whether than pre-dates the inquiry was also not made clear at the time.

I imagine that the reason for this was twofold:

a) The police don't want, if they can help it, to release all the information at one time. That way, if a suspect does emerge from the woodwork, they know something that only that suspect also knows, and if they can get him or her to admit that, they are well on the way to building a very credible case. That is true of police work in practice, not just for this inquiry. Admission of "hidden details" is a fundamental strategy; the more that is in the public domain, the more it can be excused by a potential suspect.

b) Lenny Harper undoubtably also wanted to grab a lot of media attention in order to get as large a field of publicity as possible, and spread the net widely. This was so that former residents or staff of Haut De La Garenne, who had left Jersey, and might have pertinent information, would be more likely to come forward. Indeed, some people have come forward from as far as Australia. Also by publicising the numbers of people who had come forward, he hoped to have an escalating effect; as more people came forward, those who had been indimidated by the usual silencing blackmail and threats of the abusers would feel safer speaking out as part of a crowd, and this would snowball. I would say that strategy has been a great success.

I would think that the police strategy has been an extemely good one, and gaining reports from victims before opening the cellar has also led to corroborative evidence coming to light, which again supports the picture what took place there. Once the information about the cellar was public, there is always the danger that a clever lawyer could argue that victims modified stories to take account of that; by taking interviews first, Lenny Harper has avoided that possibility, and can produce a very strong case.

So while Shenton was right to raise these concerns, I think that he should have thought a bit more about why the police adopted the strategy that they did, and even to talk to Lenny Harper directly.