THE FINAL BLOG POSTING OF 2011
The work for 2012 has already started.
The Matt Tapp Files & The Committee of Enquiry will feature heavily at the turn of the year.
All the serious separate issues running headlong into one big crossroads.
The failure of Child Protection in Jersey that led to decades of Abuse in the State Run Care Homes. There was a serious failure and no one wants to take any blame for what and is going on. I have explained why the 'CoE' is so important and must be brought forward with a very robust terms of reference. Lets also be honest and say that this CoE is about as welcome as the plague. They, the real power in Jersey, don't want it at any cost. Remember back in 2007 when Stuart Syvret stood up in the States and said that if he was asked in the States if he had faith in the Jersey Child Protection Apparatus the answer would be no. That one statement set off a chain of events that is still being felt now.
At the time no one new that the SOJP were investigating Child Abuse in Jersey.
What I find most interesting about Stuarts case against the Chief Minister is that it goes to the heart of the very matters that concern us about the agencies who were responcable for Child Protection. We even had two Senior members of the SOJP leaving meetings because of what they were hearing and logged their concerns at the station. One was non other than the former Chief Of Police Graham Power QPM.
Now you would have thought that the former Chief Minister would have had this out in open court with everyone having their say and the evidence heard, but no, he was advised that a Strike Out was best. Stuart said he tried to sue the States for damages, claiming public officials had engaged in a conspiracy against him when he was dismissed from the post of Health Minister in 2007.
He said "they engaged in a plot to cover up child abuse in the island, which he was trying to expose, causing harm to his emotional and physical health as a result"
The judge said none of the defendants owed him a duty of care as a private individual and that he was the "author of his own misfortune".
He said Syvret was trying to bring a private claim against a public wrong, at a time when he, as a public person, possessed no greater rights than anyone else.
Jonathan Sumption QC also refused to authorise a judicial review- which would have subjected the powers of public authority to scrutiny- and ordered Mr. Syvret to pay the defendants' costs.
After the judgment Mr. Syvret said: "I've done my best, indeed I thought it was quite funny in a tragic kind of way that Mr. Sumption suggested in the judgment that the stress, the harm, the difficulty I had suffered in 2007 in trying to expose these child protection failures and being opposed by the civil servants was self inflicted upon me, that I needn't have done that work, therefore I had no claim, which I think sends a very terrible message to public officials, that essentially means anyone who's in my position needn't bother to doing their duty, need not bother taking on significant challenges in their job, because if it's difficult and bad for you to do that then that's just tough."
Mr. Syvret claims he had a legal obligation as Health Minister to investigate allegations of child abuse, but that he was intentionally obstructed by public officials from carrying out his duties.
This is what former Chief Minister Le Sueur said ;"The ability of the court to strike out proceedings is a mechanism to enable the early stopping of proceedings that have no real legal prospect of success. It is a decision generally taken on the documentation before the court and is only ordered in plain and obvious cases. I am advised by the Solicitor General that this is such a case."
You see, this goes to the very heart of the issues concerning The Jersey Child Abuse Enquiry (Operation Rectangle), The States of Jersey, The Crown , Child Protection and Stuart Syvret, it's all linked.
Now Remember the Chapman Report. He was brought in by the States Employment Board and conducted a report into the harassment of States Employees and the effect it had on staff
This is from the Chapman Report and the reason I've put it here is because again it goes to the heart of everything. When Our Chief Minister gets asked to PUT UP he STRIKES OUT. Chapman says;The Chapman Report clearly states.
“ I have a clear view that I had formed shortly after commencing my
investigation and pressed on me by many of those who gave evidence to me that it is the responsibility of the SEB as the employer to refute publicly any such allegation that is made in clear, unequivocal and firm but moderate language that the allegation is baseless. On each occasion the statement should be backed up wherever possible with the evidence refuting the allegation. In addition to making the denial as widely available as possible staff should be made aware it has been done and the material widely disseminated. It should be posted on the blog. If the Senator refuses to accept the posting that fact should also be publicised“
Why do you think are ruling elite are running away from any chance of full evidence being heard in an open court of law? When you look at what they are doing you will notice it's all action and no substance. Again, this is why I come back to the committee of enquiry.
Someone asked me if I was covering the Advocate Tim Hanson request for an Internal Report written by the Children's Service concerning the Special Case Review (SCR) into family X. I have now read the article written by Ben Querre it has left me stunned. It really does tie in with what I was saying about Stuart Syvret and his Sumption strike out. Again we see the concealment brigade in action. The children in question were subject to care proceedings dating back to 1999 but it took them 9 years to be removed from their parents. They received years of Abuse and neglect as a result. The SCR can be read online here SCR
As Ben Queree states in his article An SCR Review concluded last year that they had suffered for years because the authorities failed to take them into care despite being warned that they were at risk. What also is a serious worry is that Advocate Tim Hanson who is representing the children says the the report will indentify the failings by the Health and Social Services Department children's department.
Remember what happened with Stuart Syvret and the strike out by Sumption.Stuart Syvret said that there were failings in the Child Protection department but as it was stuck out none of the evidence was heard be any of the people who had responsibility for children and their possible failings. Now lawyers acting for Health Minister Anne Pryke are fighting disclosure. In my opinion this goes along with why they don't want a committee of enquiry they simply don't want any of the hard evidence coming out but what is even more staggering is this is being backed by the head of the Jersey Child Protection Committee Dr Mike Taylor. Now I really wish that Ben Querre had asked Dr Taylor why he is taking this stance but there is nothing in his article on this point.
Advocate Claire Davis has argued in court that the States do not owe the children 'a private law duty of care' - they are not liable to a compensation claim. Advocate Hanson said that stance put the Island at odds with European and English Law he said " They have denied liability. The main plank of that is that they say that as a matter of Jersey law there is no duty of care to Children in the care system,which we say is nonsense."
Now look again at what Judge Sumption said to Stuart Syvret on his strike out;
"The judge said none of the defendants owed him a duty of care as a private individual and that he was the "author of his own misfortune".
Do you see the pattern here. Who has responsibility for children here? There are better minds out there than mine who can get a better grasp of it than me but I believe they are trying to keep the lid on a can of very angry worms. They never want any of the evidence heard. It's always blocking and stalling. This is what I have been going on about in my interviews concerning the agencies. This goes from the bottom to the very to top make no mistake.
I would like to thank Ben Querre for reporting this and I hope he will follow it up with some real investigative work and keep the people informed as to what is going on.
Is Child Protection a Dirty Word in Jersey?
What happens if it's the same names that keep coming up in the failure of Child Protection?
This is all heading down the tracks as we head into 2012
Team Voice would like to thank our readers new and old the world over for their continued support.
We wish all a Merry Christmas and prosperous and safe New Year
NO ONE SEEMS TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING IN JERSEY CONCERNING CHILD PROTECTION