Keir Starmer, the Dean and the Jersey Abuse Inquiry



Former Children's Home, Haut de la Garenne, pcitured in 2008

Almost five years to the day that a rally was held in Jersey in support of Child Abuse victims, following revelations of widespread 'historic' abuse, spanning decades, the States Assembly (Jersey's Parliament) voted 43 votes to 0 to set up a Committee of Inquiry into the abuse on Wednesday 6th March.

Time4Change Rally, in support of Abuse survivors 8 March 2008

CPS Overhaul

Keir Starmer:
'We cannot afford another Savile moment in 5 or ten years time"

It was the same day that Keir Starmer, Director of the England's Public Prosecutions, announced the need for far reaching reforms of police and prosecution for sexual abuse offences, and just days before the Jersey’s Anglican Dean, The Rt Rev. Bob Key, was suspended for his handling of a vulnerable woman’s complaint of abusive behaviour by a church-warden, Jersey’s The CoI is expected to last one year and cost around £6m (full report HERE)

Jersey's Chief Minister, Ian Gorst

Jersey’s Chief Minister Ian Gorst said: “It is right for us today to approve this CoI but I don’t want members to be shocked by some of the stories that we as a government and members of the community will hear throughout that process, because some will be shocking.

“I hope the CoI will help us to learn lessons from past failings. As I have said, it may not be pleasant, but it is something that we as a government and as a community must face up to.”

'Persistent Lobbying'

“The Terms of Reference for this Inquiry have been disputed from the day they were published.” said Deputy Montfort Tadier. 'In fact, in late 2010, we were told there was going to be no inquiry. But persistent lobbying by campaigners - abuse survivors - Bloggers and a small handful of politicians (past and present) - has ensured that the final TOR are fit for purpose. No aspect of child abuse in Jersey will be overlooked. It is a great victory for grass roots democracy.” (see below for TOR)

Carrie Modral, JCLA Chairman

Jubilant child abuse campaigners welcomed the decision. “It’s a great day,” said Carrie Modral, chairman of the Jersey Care Leavers Association (JCLA).

“The police investigation came to an end in December 2010 whereupon our Chief Minister at the time, Terry le Sueur, tore up the long-standing pledge to hold a full public inquiry. Now, at last, we know that the CoI will happen and we are cautiously optimistic that the abuse victims will be heard.”

-o0o-

 Terms of Reference, as approved by the States of Jersey on 6th March 2013

(Parts in bold are the amendments secured by the lobbyists)

The Committee of Inquiry (“the Committee”) is asked to do the following –

1. Establish the type and nature of children’s homes and fostering services in Jersey in the period under review, that is the post-war period, with a particular focus on the period after 1960. Consider (in general terms) why children were placed and maintained in these services.

2. Determine the organisation (including recruitment and supervision of staff), management, governance and culture of children’s homes and any other establishments caring for children, run by the States and in other non-States run establishments providing for children, where abuse has been alleged, in the period under review and consider whether these aspects of these establishments were adequate.

3. Examine the political and other oversight of children’s homes and fostering services and other establishments run by the States with a particular focus on oversight by the various Education Committees between 1960 and 1995, by the various Health and Social Services Committees between 1996 and 2005, and by ministerial government from 2006 to the current day.

4. Examine the political and societal environment during the period under review and its effect on the oversight of children’s homes, fostering services and other establishments run by the States, on the reporting or non-reporting of abuse within or outside such organisations, on the response to those reports of abuse by all agencies and by the public, on the eventual police and any other investigations, and on the eventual outcomes.

5. Establish a chronology of significant changes in childcare practice and policy during the period under review, with reference to Jersey and the UK in order to identify the social and professional norms under which the services in Jersey operated throughout the period under review.

6. Take into account the independent investigations and reports conducted in response to the concerns raised in 2007, and any relevant information that has come to light during the development and progression of the Redress Scheme.

7. Consider the experiences of those witnesses who suffered abuse or believe that they suffered abuse, and hear from staff who worked in these services, together with any other relevant witnesses. It will be for the Committee to determine, by balancing the interests of justice and the public interest against the presumption of openness, whether, and to what extent, all or any of the evidence given to it should be given in private. The Committee, in accordance with Standing Order 147(2), will have the power to conduct hearings in private if the Chairman and members consider this to be appropriate.

8. Identify how and by what means concerns about abuse were raised and how, and to whom, they were reported. Establish whether systems existed to allow children and others to raise concerns and safeguard their wellbeing, whether these systems were adequate, and any failings they had.

9. Review the actions of the agencies of the government, the justice system and politicians during the period under review, in particular when concerns came to light about child abuse and establish what, if any, lessons are to be learned.

10. Consider how the Education and Health and Social Services Departments dealt with concerns about alleged abuse, what action they took, whether these actions were in line with the policies and procedures of the day, and whether those policies and procedures were adequate.

11. Establish whether, where abuse was suspected, it was reported to the appropriate bodies, including the States of Jersey Police; what action was taken by persons or entities including the police, and whether this was in line with policies and procedures of the day and whether those policies and procedures were adequate.

12. Determine whether the concerns in 2007 were sufficient to justify the States of Jersey Police setting in train ‘Operation Rectangle’.

13. Establish the process by which files were submitted by the States of Jersey Police to the prosecuting authorities for consideration, and establish –

• Whether those responsible for deciding on which cases to prosecute took a professional approach;

• Whether the process was free from political or other interference at any level.

If, for these purposes, or as a result of evidence given under paragraph 7, in the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee, it would be of assistance that one or more of the prosecution files underpinning any prosecution decision may be examined in a manner to be determined by the Committee.

14. Set out what lessons can be learned for the current system of residential and foster care services in Jersey and for third party providers of services for children and young people in the Island.

15. Report on any other issues arising during the Inquiry considered to be relevant to the past safety of children in residential or foster care and other establishments run by the States, and whether these issues affect the safety of children in the future.

Four Years Later: The Fight for Justice Still Goes On

Four years ago this week a group of more than 400 islanders gather outside the Jersey Parliamentary Assembly, in St Helier's Royal Square, to remember the victims and survivors of decades of abuse whilst in the care of the States of Jersey.  They also came to demand change to what some called the 'Jersey Way' - the political and administrative systems which allowed this abuse to take place right under our noses, without being picked up. The questions were many. How could this happen? Why was this not picked up? It became apparent that children at the time had tried to tell those in authority that they were being abused, but they were either not believed or threatened. I heard first hand from one of my constituents who said how she and some of the other children had 'run away' from Haut de la Garenne and its culture of abuse and try to tell the police. She says how they were told that they were 'bad children', put in the Black Maria. Those who should have listened were deaf to the pleas of young children, and surely must be partly as guilty as the abuses themselves.

Those who would seek to detract from the suffering of the abused say such things as, 'Most of the children went to Haut de la Garenne were happy and well looked after.' This is no doubt true, but it completely misses the point. Not one child should have had to suffer. They were vulnerable children taken in for different reasons and should have expected the protection of the State, not to have to fear abuse. Moreover, the fact that the abuse remain hidden for so long, signals that there must have been a cover-up on more than one level.

So where are we now?

Well much has happened since. Many attempts have been made, and largely succeeded, by those in power to distract and discredit the abuse victims and the Police inquiry that led to the abuse scandal being blown open. It would take to long to list these here, but other sites deal with these in more detail here and here.

Last year, Senator Le Gresley, former Deputy Bob Hill and myself were successful in our motion to secure an independent Committee of Inquiry to look at the whole area of historic child abuse (More details will followin part 2). I say 'secure', however, as we have seen from this weeks events with the Independent Electoral Commission (now lack of),  there is nothing to stop one man overturning that and cutting back on the most important terms of reference. We must be vigilant and not allow this to happen.

More to follow. In the meantime, keep up the good fight and do not lose faith.    

*Photos courtesy of BBC Jersey 

Good Conflict. Bad Conflict

A man with many hats:
Attorney General, Tim Le Cocq

Minister for TTS, Deputy Kevin Lewis

You may have read in Friday's Jersey Evening Post that the 'Transport and Technical Services could (here is the operative word) face prosecution over beach polution.' Could, would, might, may... Indeed. 

Now when I read this headline, two questions immediately flashed up in my mind. One inquisitive and one rhetorical: (1) 'Who exactly is going to do the prosecuting?' and (2) What is the actual likelihood of them getting [sucessfully] prosecuted?

As I read on, I found the answer to my first question (I'll leave you make up your own minds re: the second one) 'Environmental protection officers have now submitted a file of evidence about breaches of the plant’s discharge permit to the Attorney General, who is considering whether to bring the matter to court.'

From what I know of the current Attorney General, he seems like a genuinely nice guy, polite, genial, but more important intelligent and a great asset to have in the Assembly when legal questions arise that most non-legally trained members easily struggle with. 

But in this post, I am not concerned with the person of the Attorney General, rather the rôle itself. Or rather, I should say 'rôles', for his jobs are multiple. 

JOB DESCRIPTION FOR HM ATTORNEY GENERAL

1) The Attorney General gives legal advice to Ministers and Scrutiny Panels. 

2)He is also the head of Jersey's prosecution service and, 

3) as 'Titular head' of the Honorary Police, carries out the duties that arise from that position. 

4)His department also assists overseas law enforcement agencies and carries out conveyancing work for the States. The Solicitor General deputises for the Attorney General.

It is the first two, primary rôles of the Attorney General which are of interest to us in this case.

(1) The Attorney General gives legal advice to Ministers (and their departments).
(2) The Attorney General Decides whether to prosecute (Ministers)

So, he gives legal advice to the Environment Department (who have submitted evidence to him regarding the alleged negligence of TTS). He gives legal advice to TTS, who may be facing charges from ... from the Attorney General. (Presumably, he gives legal advice to himself too).

A veritable one stop shop, is our Attorney General.

Now, for the conspiracy theorists amongst you, the alarm bells will be going off in your head. 'Surely this is a conflict of interest!' How can the AG possibly be considered impartial, when he has to balance so many potentially conflicts of interest!'. Shame on you. How dare you cast aspersions or Her Majesty's esteemed Attorney General to be able to balance the near impossible demands of each aspect of his job. The AG is a Crown Officer and therefore well experienced in dealing with conflicts of interests.

BAD CONFLICT

St Helier Deputy, Mike Higgins

When it comes to Elected States Members, however, or at least those outside the cosy inner circle, the rules are somewhat different. Last Year, Deputy Mike Higgins was prevented from carrying out a Scrutiny Review looking at the management of the Airport and Harbours and, in particular, its shadow board (one of the non-executive directors is former Chief Minister, Frank Walker). Deputy Higgins was probably the only States Member of carry out this review, but he was stopped because certain members saw his rôle as 'organiser of the Battle of Britain Air display as a conflict of interest.' Deputy Higgins gave assurances he would not be looking at areas that affected the Air Display, but this did not satisfy other members. The review never did happen and Deputy Higgins resigned from Scrutiny all together as a result

Deputy Trevor Pitman

A similar thing happened to another St Helier Deputy, Trevor Pitman, when he decided to chair a scrutiny into the handling of a review of Operation Rectangle, very much linked to Haut de la Garenne Abuse inquiry. The review was set to find out some damning revelations about how the review was handled and, in the end, succeeded in being carried out, but this was not without Deputy Pitman being dragged over the coals. Apparently, because he had 'asked questions' in the States on the issue and written a blog, he was 'conflicted' and therefore an inappropriate person to now lead a review. That is, considered inappropriate by The Home Affairs Minister, Senator Le Marquand (who was conflicted) and by Senator Ferguson (head of scrutiny at the time).

So you see, in Jersey, it is OK for Crown Officers to be able to be expected to balance their rôles, to over-ride their human nature and to always act in a clinical and impartial way, whether they are advising States Members, telling them when they can speak (some of which with whom they may get on very well, others not so well) or deciding whether to prosecute them. But for those outside the political establishment, even the most contrived suggestion of conflict can be sufficient to scupper valid democratic checks and balances from taking place.

Conclusion

Now, the matter of nitrates going into the sea is one thing. It is no doubt serious, but much more serious is the matter of Historic* Child Abuse (*for those still hoping for justice  in our island, there is nothing 'historic' about it). The potential conflict of interest, from the Attorney General (not necessarily Tim Le Cocq), who is one the one hand advising the Council of Ministers legally, and even politically, whilst also being the one deciding which child abuse cases to prosecute is immense. 

This is why I was so keen to make sure that long awaited Committee of Inquiry in Child Abuse also had the following as one of its terms of reference:

'Was a consistent and impartial approach taken when deciding on which cases to prosecute; and was the process free from political influence or interference on any level?'

This amendment was adopted as part of the Terms of Reference by the States Assembly, but it is already under threat, which figures like the former Chief Minister suggesting to me that it would be 'too costly' to include, and Senator Bailhache, who has said he thinks the CoI is a 'waste of money' altogether.

The minor battle this year will be fighting to secure an Independent Electoral Commission - which Senator Bailhache wants to derail. 

The major battle is fighting for the rights of abuse survivors and making sure that the same Senator and his authoritarian sympathisers are not allowed to derail Child Abuse Inquiry.