Realism and justice
Friday 5th June 2009, 3:00PM BST.
THE name Haut de la Garenne – in the spotlight again because of this week’s announcement that there will be no further action in two alleged abuse cases, one involving the former children’s home – will be tainted for a very long time by the allegations and revelations with which it is associated.
Also, whether we like it or not, the disinformation, pure fantasy, speculation and exaggeration circulated in the last 15 months are likely to lodge in the popular imagination rather than any facts which have been established beyond reasonable doubt – or, indeed, the suffering of the victims whom we know to be all too real.
There can be no justification for minimising crimes committed at the home. Nor must uncertainties be used to undermine the sympathy and understanding which those who actually suffered abuse deserve but which, to date, they feel they have not received. We and the outside world must nevertheless be fully realistic about an episode in Island life that has, with scant justification in the final analysis, cast this community in an extremely unfavourable light.
Although they seem to be able to put the manifest errors and highly questionable tactics of the Lenny Harper investigation to the backs of their minds, far too many people here, in the UK and internationally are all too eager to make judgments based not on what has actually been revealed but what they convince themselves must have happened – in terms of offences and in the realm of supposed official conspiracies and cover-ups.
Although the whole issue has, quite properly, never gone away, new attention has been focused this week on the historical child abuse inquiry because the Attorney General, William Bailhache, has announced that cases that were still on the books have now been dropped.
Understandably, the decision has disappointed the complainants. It must also have been a tough decision for Mr Bailhache to reach and it is important to acknowledge the thoroughness and professionalism of his reasons for doing so. For that reason, it is to be hoped that as many Islanders as possible will study a vital document linked to yesterday’s announcement. Freely available on the Jersey Evening Post’s thisisjersey website and elsewhere is a statement explaining, with great care, why it was impossible to press ahead with the cases which have now been dropped.
It is clear that Mr Bailhache’s decision will not please everyone. Indeed, even those with no personal stake in the abuse inquiry might have preferred the processes of law to run their full course. But the truth of the matter is this – as the statement makes abundantly obvious to those willing to give it its due, there is no point, no virtue and no sense in the Crown pursuing prosecutions which, on the strength of the available evidence, would have have no chance of success from the outset.
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee
JEP Jubilee Editions
Saturday 2 June: Guide to Celebrations
Wednesday 6 June: Souvenir of Events
View The Queen in Jersey supplement
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
I personally find this evening’s editorial comment quite contemptible, and only serves to show even more how much in the Establishments pockets you are.
‘Realism and Justice’ was your header – really!
No justice and you are certainly not being realistic. Have you any concept as to how the abuse survivors felt yesterday, only to have to read this tonight.
Report abuse
I’m very much afraid there’s going to be bloodshed over this. The people of Jersey are angry enough. This is not me making threats, I assure you. It’s me expressing concern. The law, so carefully abused by the AG and his friends, is about to be removed from them and taken into public hands. This is not how things should be. What fools the Jersey establishment are to think they can get away with doing something like this and not have major repercussions…
Report abuse
Cobblers!
Report abuse
Well said JG!!!
It is blatently obvious how rotten Jersey is and has been for a very long time.
The stark lack of objective news reporting has said so much to the outside world that, like in the UK where the politicians are getting slaughtered, We’re becoming the laughing stock of the world resembeling some carry on program.
Report abuse
I totally disagree with what is written above. Is this to appease the masses or what?
People are raging over this, I wouldn’t be so bold to think this is going to conveniently go away, just because Mr.Bailache has decided this is the end.
This is surely his own opinion and if it is, he could be wrong could he not? This is denying those the chance to have their day in court. Nothing is guarenteed and the victims, know this, but to have their chance taken from them is in my opinion not putting justice first.
I can’t understand how someone can decide what might succeed and what might not. Surely it should go to court and let the court decide whether someone is guilty or not?
All this is going to do, in my honest opinion, is make people think there is something to hide and drive a bigger wedge between the establishment and the general population.
I have to say this is a spectacular own goal, in my honest opinion, and will further put a dent in Jersey’s reputation around the world.
Report abuse
Unbelievable, how can the JEP support this nonsense.
Why is one man in the form of the AG allowed to use his own value system and prejudices to be judge and jury without any resort to appeal by those who believe they have a grievance.
2009? – more like a 1409 medieval society where those in power believe they are vested with infallible divine wisdom.
Report abuse
The JEP has a decades-long track record of ignoring, vilifying or ridiculing any in Jersey who dare to challenge and question.This editorial is yet another to add to this sorry history.
Frankly, I think I’d rather read the Pyongyang Times.
Report abuse
I see the “Jersey lynch mob” have got their knickers in a twist again.
thankfully in Jersey a person has to be PROVED guilty of a crime in a court of law before they are punished and long may that idea continue!
Report abuse
Since this article was published I have read that money has been put aside to pay compensation to the survivors of child abuse.
Surely if there has been no trial-and no abusers convicted- then there are no abused so therefore theres no need for compensation?.
The States cannot have it both ways and survivors of the abuse that happened in Jersey will not be bought off this way.
Let them have their day in court like a civillised society.
Report abuse
Please do not even insult us with the suggestion that the AG had a tough decision to make, cos it looks like the EASY way OUT to people who care.
This is horrifying, and certainly not Justice.
My son met a girl who had been in the couple’s care home long before anything was published about the abuse, and my heart went out to her at the tale she had to tell of the place.
Since then I have only heard from other people who were similarly abused, plus a neighbour who was a witness to abuse.
Maybe a lone voice might mean a lack of evidence, but this is a ridiculous statement by the AG.
Not good enough–he should have let it go to court, if only to prove it could go no further, this way, of course the words ‘cover-up, excuses’ etc. come to the fore, because that’s the way it looks from here.
He has done himself and more so the poor victims, no favours whatsoever with this decision.
Report abuse
Well there wouldn’t be any point trying a cover up these days, because in the Internet Age it wouldn’t work and it certainly won’t be the end of it!
Report abuse
Never give up the fight for justice.
Most of us know the score,and i believe lenny harper,after all he had nothing to lose.
It took ten years for ireland,s victems to have their day in court and expose the perpetrators of their heinious crimes.no matter what they try and do truth will out
Report abuse
Paolo (8) – Yes, but they also have to be gotten into Court first.
The victims are being denied seeing even this, and the abusers have got away scot free, even though last year they were within hours of being indicted.
Sounds a bit suspect to me doesn’t it?
Report abuse
I agree that it cannot be correct that one man can make an enormous decision such as this.He could have any number of personal reasons for not wanting these cases to get to court and the population of Jersey is supposed to accept his word and let the whole matter drop? I have read his statement in full and I am still of the opinion that these cases should have gone to court.I am sure that many cases do get brought to court where a lot less evidence is available but then perhaps they are not potentially so damaging to the good name of Jersey! What a joke.
Report abuse
The victims of institutionalised abuse are again let down by incompetance and/or unwillingness to investigate nasty home truths.
Thankyou Stuart Syvret and all the other bloggers/leakers for letting us know how deceitful and pitiful our Leaders really are.
Report abuse
An interesting legal development has occurred in Northern Ireland regarding civil redress against offenders.
Perhaps a fund should be set up so that the victims can pursue these people through the civil courts. It would have the effect of getting all the evidence into the public domain and we would all see how ‘insufficient’ it was.
Report abuse
Lets try them now on the evidence we have, inevitably they will be found inocent.
Then when incriminating evidence does turnes up we canot retry them .
who is letting who down.
Report abuse
PJG
I agree with everything you said (#17) except for the first two paragraphs.
Firstly, I cannot see how an aquittal would be inevitable. If the result of a trial is a foregone conclusion then there is a serious problem – don’t you think? The AG’s opinion is just that – an opinion. Opinions are often wrong and usually, in an ideal world, challengable.
Secondly, there are circumstances when a new trial can take place in the face of new incriminating evidence.
Other than that, you were spot on.
Report abuse
I cannot understand the logic behind most of the comments above.
Firstly, its the AG’s office that makes these decisions. Its not one man, its the law officers department – just like the crown prosecution service in the UK which headed up by the AG over there.
Secondly, abosultely nothing would be achieved by putting someone on trial where there is clearly insufficient evidence for a conviction. It would be a waste of time and the inevitable not guilty verdict can only damage the victims more.
Report abuse
What a load of higwash from the lynch mob.
One comment sums it up:
“Why is one man in the form of the AG allowed to use his own value system and prejudices to be judge and jury without any resort to appeal by those who believe they have a grievance. ”
Err, because he is the Island’s chief prosecutor and has to form a judgment as to whether he can show, beyond reasonable doubt, that someone committed an offence. But his judgment is not based on his values, it is based on his assessment of the strength of the evidence.
If any individual wants to challenge it they can subject it to judicial review but they will have to show it is irrational according to the Wednesbury principles. In other words, that the AG had reached a decision that is unreasonable in the circumstances.
If any victim wants to bring a case they can. They can bring a civil action for negligence and assault against the States and the individuals whom they alleged abused them. There may be issues of a time limitation but I doubt it in a case of this sort. Then the victim merely has to prove on the balance of probabilities (i.e. 50/50) that the offence occurred.
Report abuse
How you can you write such rubbish is beyond me, the AG is trying to be Judge and Jury totaly wrong! bring the ACCUSED TO COURT to decide there innosence or guilt in an open and honest way.
Report abuse
Thanks I took your advice and read the paper for myself.
http://www.gov.je/NR/rdonlyres/58A20F03-8C74-4E25-BA89-64996BE58EB2/0/HCAPressRelease040609.pdf
For Case 5 being generous to the AG you could see the difficulty with the evidence from a technical point of view.
However Case 6 the couple were originally investigated in 97. The case was closed and apparently one of the couple had a terminal illness. 11 years later they were helped with enquiries initially but apparently in feb this year they could not be contacted it doesn’t say how hard this was followed up. The release also talks about reputational risk to Jersey.
One has to ask how seriously did Jersey take child abuse 12 years ago? Was the initial case taken seriously or investigated properly? One only has to look at the Roger Holland case to see how ok it is for child abuse to be seen to be ok and still get appointed to a position of trust within the community with legal powers.
Holland openly declared the fact that he was a convicted paedophile when he applied to become a part-time policeman in 1992. Six years earlier, he had indecently assaulted a mentally impaired 14-year-old girl whose trust he had gained through his ambulance work.
and guess who was AG at the time…. “Sir Phillip has issued a statement today making it clear he has no intention of resigning. He claims he had no knowledge of Holland’s conviction when he allowed him to take office, saying “I am afraid it is easy to be wise after the event.”
So for case 6 hard to be objective when you are examining your older brother’s judgement.
Report abuse
Fact….Our fellow islanders suffered as innocent children and were psychologically destroyed…No non state controlled Therapy available to them even when requested.
Fact….over £12 Million pounds of our money
spent ….what for ?
Fact..The rest of the world sees us as a closed community afraid of the truth
Fact…The survivors do not feel validated or honored.
Fact..the only politician fighting their corner was raided
Fact…This whole thing is a shameful disgrace
Report abuse
The victims won,t get their day in court. Get an independant judge and a jury and keep the un-elected a-g away from the case
Report abuse
Truthseeker:
“Fact….over £12 Million pounds of our money
spent ….what for ?”
- so its a good idea to spend another £12 million prosecuting without sufficient evidence?
“Fact…The survivors do not feel validated or honored.”
- how do you think they would feel when after going through a stressful prosection, giving their evidence etc., the court, faced with the inevitable reasonable doubt, must acquit the defendant?
The AG has to make these tough decisions all the time, in the public interest. If all complatints to the police or all charges were prosecuted regardless of the evidence available, not only would there be unjust persecution, our court system would fail and it would cost the taxpayer an unecessary fortune.
If there was a cover up in this case, or we were ‘afraid of the truth’, there would have been no prosecutions at all.
Peace out.
Report abuse
Quite an appauling editorial in the JEP. They continue to criticise Lenny Harper, who has achieved not one but four police commendations for his previous work in top police forces in the UK.
An independant enquiry should be initiated by the UK and not presided over by the local A.G. to investigate the whole child abuse situation.
Jersey continues to look like a “banana republic”.
Report abuse
Civil Serpent
We agree once again.
The AGs opinion is just an opinion, yes but a very learned one don’t you think, backed up by eminent advice and years of experience, Probably much more informed than the braying lynch mob posters on this thread ?
Should we take these people to court even against such advice. Spend loads of money, more so, should we make the victims relive their anguish through cross examination by eminent, experienced and sometimes ruthless defence lawyers. because maybe, just maybe, we may get a conviction, remembering that if we get an acquittal the difficulties that will be encountered obtaining a retrial.
Are you a gambler civil serpent, do you think this is a game to be played against the outside odds, on the off chance, these are lives he is dealing with not spare change.
Yes civil serpent as you say “there is a very seriose problem here” its called lack of, and unsafe, conflicting evidence.(Lenny Harper may think there is enough evidence, But remember he is a copper not a lawyer, when has he ever prosecuted a case in court ?
Should these cases go to court and end up in an acquittal what message would that be sending out to the world, the victims, the accused and the paedophiles of the world. Come to jersey and get away with it. The coppers cant get a case together and the prosecutors waste their main chance on dubious evidence.
At the moment new evidence can be added to strengthen the case, to prosecute expecting to lose is no good for anyone
And !! yet once again I agree with you ! “opinions are often wrong” yes, but sadly this time I think its yours.
Report abuse
Thank you for your response PGJ.
I am not one of the lynch mob, far from it.
When a case is weak it is usually challenged at the committal stage by the ‘ruthless defence lawyer’. At that stage the Magistrate decides whether, on the prosecution evidence taken at its highest, there is a case to answer.
Committal comes before indictment (usually before the AG gets the case) and therefore a Magistrate must have concluded that there was a case to answer. The Magistrate is also a very learned lawyer, backed up by years of experience.
Lenny Harper may not be a lawyer but I dare say that he has seen many a trial succeed and fail. I am sure he has more than a basic grasp of the rules of evidence. Probably, I guess, more than you and I.
I believe that most of the lynch mob simply see the AG making decisions that cannot be challenged and for various reasons, including my example above, do not believe the reasons to be genuine.
Report abuse
all nicely out of the way before the promotion of the current AG and the retirement of the then AG and currently our baliff (his brother), or maybe I am just getting cynical in my old age?!
pg 2 today’s JEP
Also not part of the lynch mob – just asking a few questions. But maybe freedom of speech and having an opinion in Jersey is not allowed? Are we to all accept without question what we are told as those at the top know best? Don’t rock the boat – nod and a wink keep quiet – all in the name of protecting the golden egg. It is a very old fashioned point of view and one that breeds all sort of ‘isms in society including child abuse. an educated and challenging debate is required both in society and in our media on all sorts of subjects not just this one.
Report abuse
Another kick in the teeth for the victims today. AG now promoted to Deputy Bailiff after deciding not to pursue two cases of abuse.
Report abuse
The AG got promoted for one simple reason: nobody else has the experience and wants the job. Whatever else you say about the Bailhaches, they have a strong ethic of public service. Very few others do.
After all, if you are a successful lawyer in private practice, why would you take a 50-70% pay cut to become AG other than because you think in time you will be promoted and get a gong?
If you break that tradition, there will be no techinically able local lawyers who are willing to enter into public service. Now Tim Le Cocq will no doubt be promoted to AG, and watch how tricky it will be to fill the Solicitor General role.
Pay cut and endless grief from the public and allegations of bias from States members or stay where I am and retire at 50? Looks like a no brainer to me.
Report abuse
Civil Serpent,
I think were singing from the same hyme book just diferent pages.
The protection of the victims is paramount.
Before the Magistrates court a suspect (and that is all they are at that stage)has to be charged. The states of Jersey police collect the evidence and make recommendations to have a suspect charged. The evidence is then considered by a Centenier of the parish in which the offence was committed and if he is satisfied that he can prosecute successfully he will charge the suspect with the offence and take him to the magistrates court, from then on it is as you say.
A paid legal advisor is always on hand 24/7 to advise the Centenier who is of coarse answerable to the AG, I am sure in a case such as this the AG would be consulted, there is legal precedent where the AG has overturned a Centeniers decision on whether to charge or not, so his is the final decision. In seriose cases such as this the AG will consult specialist advisors before making his decision. The decision in this instance I am sure has not been taken lightly, I am sure the AG as well as drawing on his experience has taken advice from other extremely eminent specialists before taking the decision not to charge. The most important thing to remember, especially at the stage this investigation is at, is that once a suspect has been charged they can no longer be questioned by the police on the offence, This of coarse is another barrier to getting a conviction in a case with weak evidence.
We all want to see the guilty punished but most of all we only want the innocent to be acquitted not the guilty getting away with it through a hasty ill-considered reaction to the mob at the investigation stage, which is really where we are now.
Report abuse
the frenchie #26, it should have been tried by the UK in the first place.
I know someone who stayed at HDLG and given the number of people allegedly involved and especially who some of them are alleged to be and the jobs they have gone on to do, in an island of 90,000 people it is not possible to have an unbiased investigation never mind an unbiased trial.
As I pointed out before, if this had taken place in one region of the UK and involved the types of people allegedly involved here, the whole investigation would have been handed over to a different region for the sake of being seen to be independent!
Report abuse
31. sounds plausible…Unless your trip is POWER the most addictive substance known to man………Vainglory for in the end no one cheats death.
Report abuse
Agreed Truthseeker – and we all know what is said about power.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!
Report abuse
I hear you PJG and don’t disagree on the essence of what you say.
My gripe (for want of a better term) is that, unlike the uk, the AG’s decision appears to be final. I think that is unhealthy.
The AG’s other role is to advise and protect the interests of the government so inevtitably the perception that a cover-up is possible is ready fodder to those with a conspiracy theory.
As a general point,a conspiracy theory is not something that should be, in every case, dismissed as the rantings of the paranoid. Some such theories have substance.
In the uk the AG does not bring charges the CPS does. If the CPS decide not to prosecute a case the decision can be challenged and the DPP can take a second look and order a prosecution if it thinks fit.
I am concerned that these decisions are made transparently and free of any reasonable suspicion or perception of cover-up.
Another difficult situation now is that if the new AG, whoever that might be, decides to review the case and concludes that the case should go to trial, the ex AG, now Deputy Bailiff, will be unable to sit on any trial as it is public knowledge now that he considers the evidence insufficient.
For what it’s worth, my opinion is that Jersey should have an independant CPS and DPP deciding on whether to bring charges. While the current system exists there will always be a lynch mob screaming ‘cover-up’.
Report abuse
Civil Serpent is right. One person is deciding the validity, or not, of every case.
Who does one appeal to if one isn’t happy with his verdict?
What happens if he makes a mistake?
How does one know if he has made a mistake and how does one get it rectified?
Will the AG ever admit to making a mistake?
Indeed if no cases are prosecuted would people agree that there is no need to pay compensation?
If compensation does get paid to anyone would peoples’ opinion change?
Report abuse
Adrian
In the first instance its the Centenier who decides whether to charge or not.
Centeniers are elected to position by the parishioners, even you could stand if you really wanted to help your fellow islander, you know, do something instead of griping about it. Also Centeniers are unpaid so corruption should be less of a problem. The position of Centenier has been a successful Jersey tradition for the last 700 odd years, Are you distrustful of them ?
“How does one know if he has made a mistake and how does one get it rectified?
Will the AG ever admit to making a mistake?.”
The AG can overturn a Centeniers decision but do you honestly think that the elected Centeniers of the island through the Honorary police association would back a corrupt AG,Quietly ?
Report abuse