Tuesday, June 5, 2012









The Committee of Enquiry was passed in the States of Jersey on the 1st March 2011. One must never ever forget that the previous Council Of Ministers (COM) tried to scupper this by lodging a Report in the States saying  it was not required.  This was an outrageous attempt to derail a 'COE' and showed exactly what the previous leadership was about.   The 'COE' is important for so many reasons. It's not just for the Abuse Victims getting closure. It's about how decade after decade of Abuse went on unchecked in Jersey. We have failure of all the major agencies in protecting Children the  States of Jersey, The local Media, The Police , Social Services everybody who had responsibility for Children complete failure.

The Committee of Enquiry is not just about Haut dela Garenne.  People can sometimes forget that this enquiry is about all the Care Homes including the Fostering of Children.  This should be a root and branch look as to what went wrong, what recommendations can be made, the future safety of Children. and why it was able to go so terribly wrong.

There are some people who don't want this enquiry and from all the evidence that has been published online one is not surprised.

As you will be aware I raised the issue of Sir Philip Bailhache now Senator Bailhache the Assistant to the Chief Minister.  This man is one of the most conflicted people on the Island when it comes to the Historic Child Abuse Investigation. He was the Bailiff of Jersey when Operation Rectangle started and when it went global in February 2008 but if one asked Sir Philip he might not see it that way. Shall we just forget about -  The Sharp Report, The Holland Affair, His Brother being the Attorney General during this period, Turning off Stuart Syvret's  2007 Christmas speech, May 9th Liberation Day Speech the infamous words "All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal". 

This could go on he was the Bailiff for heaven sake. The Bailiff is the Chief Justice, he is the president of the legislature. He has been Attorney General. Deputy Bailiff then rising to Bailiff. He might not see himself as conflicted. Add to that he is scaring people with the 20 million figure.

Senator P.M. Bailhache:
Dealing with that last point first.  I am not sure that I had any involvement in any of the issues relating to the child abuse inquiry but if I am wrong in that respect, then clearly I would have to consider my position as to whether I took any part in the decision-making process.  So far as the broader question is concerned, it is a sensitive and very difficult matter.  The Assembly has agreed to establish a committee of inquiry.  The cost of that inquiry was put by the Minister for Treasury and Resources at £10 million.  For my part, I think that was an underestimate and I think that the costs could very well mount to £20 million or even more, given the range of the terms of reference that have been adopted by the Assembly.  That perhaps is not the most important issue.  What is important is that we find a means to bring closure to an issue that has divided the Island and caused anxiety for far too long.  What is also important, it seems to me, is to bring reconciliation to those who have suffered from abuse in the past so that at the end of a long process by a committee of inquiry, if we have one, they feel that something has been gained.  There is nothing to be gained by creating a tortuous process which does not, at the end of the day, satisfy those who have suffered from abuse.  So it is a very difficult issue.

The Verita Report in full;



Report to the Council of Ministers:

Historical Child Abuse Committee of Enquiry

November 2011


This paper sets out for the Council of Ministers a summary of our visit to Jersey in September 2011 and proposals for and recommendations about commissioning a Committee of Enquiry (CoI) into historical child abuse. The report appendices contain draft terms of reference, cost forecasts and a note of actions needed to get commissioning underway. 

Purpose of our consultative work

The Council of Ministers asked us to seek the views of interested parties about the purpose, manner  and conduct of a CoI; to propose terms of reference; to forecast likely costs; to set out the practical implications of a decision to commission such an enquiry; and to make a written report with recommendations.

Ed Marsden, managing partner of Verita, and Patricia Wright, an associate, carried outthe work. Verita's finance team calculated the likely costs of any inquiry.

Structure of this Report

The paper is in three parts. Part 1 summarises what we have learned during our visit. Part 2 contains our analysis and recommendations. Part three contains the appendices.


Operation Rectangle and recent criminal prosecutions involving the physical, mental and sexual abuse of children in residential care in Jersey have raised serious concerns. A total of 533 alleged offences were reported and recorded by the States of Jersey Police Operation Rectangle between September 2007 and December 2010. Of these 315 were reported as being committed at Haut De La Garenne children's home. Eight people have been prosecuted for 145 offences and seven convictions secured. Police identified 151 named offenders and 192 victims. No more prosecutions are proposed.

The States Assembly asked the Council of Ministers earlier this year to propose terms of reference for a possible CoI. Ministers in turn asked Verita to report on how such an inquiry might be framed. 

We are satisfied that we have heard the views of those with an interest in this matter. We set out as requested our suggestion about the terms of reference that should govern the inquiry. We make proposals about the nexxt steps in commissioning it.

Part 1

The first part of this paper summarises what we learned during our visit.

Who we met and the overall outcome of our discussions 

1.1 We came to Jersey between Sunday 4 September and Friday 9 September 201. We prepared for our visit by office-based research. We held 21 meetings and heard from a range of people including victims and their representatives,  States officers and politicians, including backbenchers and ministers. Most of our interviewees had responded to our invitation to contribute to the development of the ters of reference. we visited the Jersey Archive and asked the head of archives and collections about the documents held concerning historical child abuse. We met representatives of States of Jersey Police who were familiar with Operation Rectangle.

1.2  Some interviewees provided information and opinions in response to our questions. Others expressed views without prompting.  The following summary represents an overview of the main points.

1.3 Overall, we found clear agreement that the CoI should take place. Its purpose would be to:

. Understand what really happened to children cared for by the States and private foster care systems by; allowing victims of abuse to describe what happened to them; allowing those accused of abuse (but not charged with crime) to have their say and collating information from the range of investigations and reviews that have been undertaken over the last 20-30 years with a particular focus on those carried out since 2007.

. set this information in the context of social norms across the period to be reviewed 

. understand what went wrong, what was done at the time and who was accountable.

. ensure that current and future services are arranged so that children are protected

. ensure trust in children's services and the States supervision of them 

. ensure the reputation of Jersey with respect to child care

1.4 We found widespread agreement that the CoI was needed to close this chapter in the islands history and that the inquiry must be comprehensive.

1.5 We found general consensus that the CoI should;

. accept that abuse occurred and undertake a review within this context

. focus on systemic issues, although it was clear that individuals would want to have their say

. cover a period from 1960 - 2005, though some people thought it should be able to go back to the post-war period.

. take a historical perspective rather than review current services 

. deal with residential care and fostering services, state and privately provided

. focus as a minimum on all seven proposed terms of reference debated in the States Assembly earlier in the year.

1.6  Most people we heard from recognised that the inquiry was likely to be expensive. Some felt the money would be better spent on providing continuing support for the victims of abuse and improving services for children and young people.

People who have been in care

1.7 People who have been in care (care leavers) supported a systemic review and wanted individuals to have the opportunity to tell their story, even if it was traumatic. They felt the inquiry should work in public with the discretion to hear evidence in private. Some Wanted the opportunity to ask questions.

1.8 Care Leavers raised concerns about:

. Transparency of process for appointing the inquiry panel and the conduct of its work 

. Lack of trust of the Jersey 'Establishment'

. A perception that their concerns are not important

The inquiry process 

1.9 Our brief was to concentrate on what an inquiry would consider but the question of how it should be conducted was raised in many of the interviews. This section, therefore, highlights a number of points that Council of Ministers/States Assembly, the chair and panel will need to take into consideration if a satisfactory outcome is achieved.

Process of agreeing the terms of reference 

1.10 Everyone we head from appreciated that their views had been sought but some were sceptical about whether the full range of views would be incorporated into the proposition to be submitted to the States Assembly later this year. People recognised that the draft terms of reference would be discussed by the Council of Ministers before submission to the States but felt that care leavers and backbenchers should se the Verita report (including the draft terms of reference) before any proposition was laid in the States.

Recruitment of the chair

1.11 We found overwhelming agreement that whoever chaired the inquiry should not be connected with Jersey. The care leavers sought assurance that the chair would be independent and that they and others could play a part in the recruitment process so as to be confident of this.

1.12 We found mixed views about whether the chair should have a legal background or a caring background. People recognised that this may be determined by the availability of individuals interested in undertaking the role.

1.13  Most felt that the chair would need the following qualities;

. an appreciation of the historical and sociological features of the island 

. empathy

. trusted (by the people who had been in care)

.understanding of how to run an inquiry

. independence 

. unimpeachable integrity 

. strong but fair

. judicial background

Recruitment of the Panel

1.14 Views about whether panel members could be Jersey residents were more mixed and no consensus was achieved. Some thought that recruiting from the local community would give rise to concerns about independence.

Part 2

This part of the paper sets out our analysis and recommendations

Terms of Reference 

2.1 We took as our starting point the outcome of the States Assembly debate earlier this year. We reviewed the seven terms of reference the States debated. We also took into account views we heard during our visit and in particular we tried to reflect what victims and their representatives told us.

2.2 We suggest the inquiry focuses primarily on historical events but also considers lessons for services today ( see appendix 1 for terms of reference)  We propose that the inquiry should consider the 'system' of services rather than investigate individual allegations of abuse that might more properly be matters for  Jerseys criminal justice system.  The period to be covered is primarily 1960 to 2005. However, we drafted the terms of reference  with scope to consider the post-war period because abuse victims from that period are still alive.  We suggest that the inquiry considers the organisation  and supervision of services, how complaints of abuse where dealt with and what the government could learn from their handling of the matter following the events in 2008.

2.3 An inquiry is by nature inquisitorial but a number of people we met stressed the importance of the work being conducted in a non-adversarial way. The chair should set the tone of the inquiry.

Statutory basis of the Committee of Inquiry

2.4 The Committee of Inquiry would be commissioned under standing orders. It would have power to compel witnesses to attend and to have documents disclosed to it. The presumption is that most of the committees work would be in the public but the chair would have power to decide whether some proceedings took place in private in the interests of justice or in the public interest.

Scope of the Inquiry

2.5 The inquiry would gather evidence from interviews and documents. The evidential challenges are considerable because the inquiry would span about 50 years or more. However, our initial impression is that the CoI would have enough sources of information to meet its terms of reference.

2.6 We tried during our visit to establish the scale of the inquiry. We estimate that it would take evidence from between 60 and 100 victims (This figure cross refers to the number of civil claims and accords with views of the Jersey Care Leavers Association) We estimate that 100-125 other people may also be required to give evidence. It would take about six months to speak to this number of witnesses, assuming between three and four interviews a day.

2.7 A substantial amount of documentary evidence is available. The Jersey Archive holds about 500 boxes of documents, including admission registers, client files, staff and foster parent files and minutes and reports from oversight committees  (see appendix 2 for a description of the material) The education and law officers departments hold relevant material. States of Jersey Police hold information associated with Operation Rectangle, some of which the inquiry would want to see. Some of this is on paper, some of this is on paper, some is held on the Home Office  Large  Major Enquiry System (HOLMES) and only trained operators can retrieve it.

Logistical needs of the inquiry

2.8 The inquiry would need a secure base in Jersey and access to a neutral venue for conducting interviews. It should have its own confidential email and electronic document storage system.

2.9 The chair would be likely to need the services of a project manager/ inquiry secretary and a part -time legal adviser (we allow for four days a month in the costs). The legal adviser would need to be an advocate qualified to practise Law in Jersey. The chair might also request the servces of council.

2.10 The administrative burden asssociated with the inquiry is likely to be daunting. It would include, for example, establishing administrative system, receiving and responding to correspondence, organising and scheduling 200 or so interviews and making arrangements for travel and accommodation. A small dedicated team would need to carry out this work. This would be in addition to current resources available.

2.11 The chair would need a small team to gather, sort and read the available documents. This team would serve the documentary needs of the panel and liaise with the administrative team once hearings began.

Cost of the Inquiry

The costs of the inquiry are driven by a number of factors. The main ones are;

. The size of the panel - clearly the larger the panel the higher the costs 

. Whether the panel has counsel and witnesses are granted legal representation

. the number of interviews to be conducted 

. the quantity of documents to be reviewed 

. the organisation of the inquiry - robust management will help to ensure that timetables are adhered to and prevent unnecessary costs being incurred.


. The inquiry will run for about 1 year - 3 months in preparation, 6 months for hearings and a further 3 months for evaluation and drafting the report.

. the inquiry will have a chair and two panel members

.the panel will have a legal adviser for 1 day a week for the duration of the inquiry

. there will be just over 200 interviewees and the panel will see between three and four interviewees per day

. a project manager will act as inquiry secretary for 3 days per week for all phases of the inquiry ( i.e probably 12 months). He/She will have a small administrative support team working 5 days per week during the three month  preparatory stage; 6 days per week during the hearings and reducing to two days per week during the final evaluation/writing stage.

. a document team to review and identify the key documents for the panel . We have estimated this will take three people nine weeks on a full time basis.

. on this basis we estimate the cost, excluding legal fees, to be approximately £2.040 million (see appendix 3). T his splits into approximately £1.175 million of panel fees and £585K of fees for support to the inquiry panel including some support for the communications unit.  In addition we have allowed for travel and accommodation costs for the panel and support team as well as some travel costs for interviewees and the transcribing of oral evidence.

. The legal fees could be significant. They may be incurred under three headings: Legal advise for the panel (other than as above), legal costs of interviewees (if chair agrees to allow such) and legal costs for a review of earlier decisions about prosecution 

This is our best estimate based on the above assumptions and our knowledge to date. If there are material differences the estimate is likely to change 

2.14 There will be other requirements for the inquiry which we have assumed will be met from the internal resources, such as venue, offices for the inquiry team, a suitable room for the hearings , IT , telephones and general office costs.

2.15 From our discussions it is clear that the inquiry is likely to have cost implications foe a number of States departments and States of Jersey Police. For example, these could include liaising with the inquiry team, recovering documents, taking legal advice about disclosure and supporting those who are witnesses. It has not been possible to put a value on these costs

Disclosure of and Data Protection

2.16  Two potential obstacles came to light during our meetings. They concern disclosure and data protection.

2.17 First, it is likely that States of Jersey Police would need to take legal advice before releasing some of the information they hold.

2.18 Second, consent will be needed if the inquiry wanted access to the personal records of someone still alive.

2.19 We have asked the advice of HM Attorney General about these matters. He agrees that the States of Jersey Police will need to take  legal advice before releasing some of the information they hold. It may be appropriate that some of this advice is provided independently of the Law Officers Department 

2.20 We and HM Attorney General suggest that there should be a further discussion between the Jersey Data Commissioner and the Law Officers Department. We also recommended that there should be a discussion between the Committee of Inquiry and the Data Commissioner to ensure that Data is processed in an appropriate manner. This should include developing a protocol in relation to the processing of personal data.

Identifying and appointing a chair

2.21 We strongly recommend that the chair is independent of the island with no relationship or commercial interests with politicians, senior officers or other interested parties. On balance, we think the chair should be a senior lawyer because we think the inquiry might face significant challenges, including those to do with fairness. 

2.22 We advice that we prepare a role description and a person specification for the post of chair. We suggest we take informal soundings of suitable candidates and in doing so explain to them the task and the appointment process. Those interested should then be invited to apply through perhaps through the Jersey Appointments Commission. We suggest that victims representatives have the opportunity to meet the chair. This would be after the formal appointment but before the nomination was put to the States for approval.

2.23 We recognize that recruiting panelists from the island may seem desirable but we think it could undermine the perceived independence of the inquiry and that membership could put undue pressure on the individuals concerned. We favor seeking panellists from outside Jersey, with ideally at least  one from an island community. We suggest our advice is discussed with the chair once she/he is appointed.

2.24 The inquiry will also need access to independent expert advice including from a senior, experienced prosecutor from outside Jersey.

Handling the next steps

2.25 We heard the views of many people. We made clear that the decision about commissioning an inquiry rests with the Council Of Ministers and the States Assembly. Even so, the very act of consultation has inevitably raised expectations. Backbench politicians are keen to keep abreast of developments, while victims and their representatives want to ensure that the inquiry takes place and that their opinions count. We recommend that all parties are informed about progress and engaged in further discussions.

2.26 we suggest two possible ways of handling the commissioning of the inquiry (see appendix 4) 

2.27 The first option is for the chair to be recruited and his/her nomination should put to the States for approval at the same time as the draft terms of reference are debated. This will allow the chair to comment on the draft terms of reference and possibly speak to them before the debate in the states. We think this is an important way of binding the chair into the remit of the inquiry. It may also provide confidence to States Members about how the chair will conduct the inquiry. Approving the terms of reference and the chair nomination is likely to reduce the time needed to commission the inquiry but it is nevertheless only right to point out that this approach could mean that a chair who was already appointed was faced with significantly altered terms of reference as a result of amendments from States members during the debate.

2.28 The second option is for the States to debate the terms of reference and for the the chair to be recruited after this. The appointment would be subject of a further proposition to the states. This will allow the States the opportunity to debate the terms of reference and the likely costs and provide more time for recruiting the chair and panellists. However it assumes that the chair will not want a say in the terms of reference or the resourcing of the inquiry. Given the likely stature of the chair, we think that they are sure to want a say in both matters. This approach is likely to extend the timescale for commissioning the inquiry.



1. The council of ministers should commission a Committee of Inquiry into historical child abuse. We suggest that the attched terms of reference form the basis of the committees work. We advise that these are proposed to the States Assembly.

2. The states should appoint an inquiry chair independent of the island. He/She should be appointed in a transparent and open manner and, ideally, should have the opportunity to comment on the terms of reference before they are finalised. On balance, we suggest that the chair has a legal background because He/She may need to deal with complex procedural challenges. We recommend that a role description and person specification be produced to guide the appointment process. Jersey appointments commission should be asked wether they wish to handle the appointment.

3. We advice that the chair be supported by one of the panellists not from the island: one panellists should have child care experience and a lay member should come from an island community

4. We suggest that the inquiry is supported by independent, robust project-management to ensure that it is conducted efficiently and effectively 

5. We suggest that victims representatives  and backbench politicians are kept informed of the inquiry commissioning plans.

6. We recommend that the CoI is conducted in a through and timely way so that this matter is laid to rest. We advise that it is commissioned and conducted properly or not al all.

7. We suggest that the inquiry commissioning actions suggested in the chart at appendix 4 are set in train.

8. We recommend that the attached terms of reference, cost estimate and nominations for chair and panellists are put to the States Assembly at the earliest opportunity 

Ed Marsden                          Patricia Wright 

Managing Partner               Associate

Appendix 1

Committee of Inquiry into historical Child abuse in Jersey


The States of Jersey is the commissioner of this Committee of Inquiry. It is commissioned under standing orders and with reference to the powers laid down in the States of Jersey (powers, and Privileges and immunities) (committee of inquiry) Regulations 2007.


The States of Jersey has commissioned this Committee of Inquiry to investigate the organisation, management and oversight of children's residential and fostering services in Jersey with an emphasis on the period after 1960. The inquiry will look at how concerns about reported abuse were dealt with by the relevant States organisations.

The purpose of the inquiry is to establish the facts, to provide learning, to enable reconciliation and resolution, to rebuild public confidence and trust, to hold to account and to demonstrate transparency of government by the inquiry examining this matter on behalf of the States of Jersey.

Terms Of Reference

The Committee of Inquiry is asked to do the following:

Establish the facts

. Establish the type and nature of children's homes and fostering services in Jersey in 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

. Determine the organisation (including recruitment and supervision of staff), management, governance and culture of children's homes and the social norms under which they operated.

. Examine the political oversight of childrens homes and fostering services 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.

. Establish a chronology of significant changes in child care practice and policy during this period with reference to Jersey, the UK and, if appropriate, France

. Consider and appraise the independent investigations and reports conducted in response to the concerns raised in 2007

What was done in response to concerns of abuse?

. Consider the experiences of those witness who suffered abuse or believe that they suffered abuse and hear staff who worked in these services.

. Identify how and by what means concerns about abuse were raised and how and to whom they were reported. Did systems exist to allow children and others to raise concerns and safeguard their wellbeing?

. Consider how the education, health and social services department dealt with concerns about alleged abuse, what action they took and whether they were in line with the policies and procedures of the day.

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

. Determine whether the concerns of 2007 were sufficiant to justify the States of Jersey Police setting in train Operation Rectangle

. Determine whether, on reviewing files submitted by the States of Jersey Police for consideration as to whether, on reviewing files submitted by the states of Jersey Police for consideration as to whether or not a prosecution should be brought, those responsible for deciding on which cases to prosecute took a consistent and impartial approach and whether the process was free from any political interference at any level

Children's services in 2011

. Set out what lessons can be learnt for the current system of residential and foster care services in Jersey


Review what actions the government took when concerns came to light in 2008 and what, if any, lessons there are to be learned 


. Report on any other issues arising during the inquiry considered to be relevant to the past safety of children in residential or foster care

The inquiry should make full use of all the work conducted since 2007

At an appropriate moment, the inquiry should hold a seminar(s) to enable a broader discussion of some of the themes raised by the evidence. The seminar(s) will not make recommendations to the chair but will provide ideas and information that will form of the material to be considered as the report is drafted 

Appendix 2

List of documentation held at Jersey Archive

Information provided by Linda Romeril, head of Jersey Archives and collections

Children's Home Inquiry

The following records are held at Jersey archive:

Social Services

Haut de la Garenne 

Admission registers 

. 4 admission registers from relevant period 1933-1984

. 2 admission registers from relevant period for Jersey Home for Girls, 1915- 1959

. 3 admission registers from Westaway Creche, 1914 -1965

Case File Sheets 

c. 500 green case file sheets (generally only 1-2 foolscap pages). Green case file sheets have been fully listed in excel with name of individual, date of birth, last date of file and any comments.

Clients included in these files have dates of birth which range from 1940-1975

Client files c.400 boxes

There are c.12,000 client files from central Children's Services and individual children's homes including c. 1,240 from Haut de la Garenne at Jersey Archive.

This series also includes files from La Preference, Blanche Pierre Nursery, St Mark's Hostel, Brig-y-Don, Grand Veux, Greenfields, Les Chenne and Tevielka.

There are often several files for one individual, eg a central children's services file, a file from Greenfields for the individual and a file from La Preference.

Client files can relate to one individual or to a family

Client files range in size from a single sheet up to 10 large folders.

Client files have all been listed on individual spreadsheets which have been merged to one master spreadsheet.

The master spreadsheet includes details of client's name, date of birth, year of last entry and children's home.

Date of Birth for client files range from the 1940s -2000s.

Staff and foster careers files c.35-40 boxes

There are c. 1.900 staff and foster careers files at Jersey Archive. These include staff working at specific Children's homes and staff working for central Children's Services.

Most staff files are for those who left the service between 1978 - 2009

Files have all been listed on individual spreadsheets which have been merged to one master spreadsheet.

The master spreadsheet includes details of individual's name, adress, employee number, start date and year of last entry/year left service.

Miscellaneous c. 500 boxes

There are c.675 misc. files from Children's services and Children's Homes at Archive Jersey 

These include c.60 children's report books, petty cash and pocket money books, daily diaries, rules and regulations, secure cell log books etc.

These files in this section date from the 1930s - 2000s

Children's services additional records

There are 8 boxes of records that were deposited at the Archive in 1997.

These boxes include copies of the minutes and reports of the Children's Sub Committee, copies of Education Committee Acts, some admission forms to the Jersey Home for Girls, Foster Parent Books and some startegic/planning papers.

Judicial Greffe

. Criminal Court records to 1984

. Magistrates Court criminal records to 1964

. Magistrates Court civil records to 1982

. Police charge sheets on Microfilm from 1949 - 1979

. Depositions in criminal cases 19th century  - 1968 (later depositions are held at the Judicial Greffe)

Law Officers department

. Correspondence files concerning children at risk index, 1963 -1991

Education Sport and culture

. Staff files - NB These files are still at ESC for pension purposes

. Departmental correspondence files

. Individual school headmaster's diaries and punishment books e.g:

.D/JN8/8 - St Helier Vauxhall Boys school Punishment Book, 1965 -1975

. D/J/N29/3 - Les Landes School, formely St Ouens Parochial School-Punishment book, 14/09/16 - 07/06/1962

. D/J/N34/C/1 - Punishment book for St Clement Parochial School, 15/02/1944 - 29/01/1965

General background archives

. Acts an Minutes of the States of Jersey, e.g D/AU/Y2/C/18 Projects du loi relating to the punishment of indecent conduct towards children, 1961

. A/D1/C34 Correspondence relating to corporal punishment in Jersey, includes extracts from the Jersey Evening Post   29/04/1960  - 18/04/1979

Costing Calculations

Chair - fee per day £2,800 - Total Days 206 - Total fee calculation £576,800

Panel Member -  fee per day £2,000 - Total Days 171 -Total fee calculations £342,000

Panel Member - fee per day £1,500 - Total Days 171 Total fee calculations  £256,500

Cost of Inquiry Support Team is - £583,510 - This includes Project manager, Legal/advocate, Admin, Document Team and Comms

Total Fees -  £1,758,810

Transcription Costs -  £87,075

Travel & Acomm -  £194,040

Total estimated costs £2,039,925

These costa are supported by a detailed spreadsheet held be Verita finance team.


Citizen Investigator


voiceforchildren said...


Chief Minister Gorst and Andrew Williamson should be justifying Williamson's involvement. Questions should be getting asked in the States about this as it has that familiar smell of another "Our Chap" Report on its way.

That is of course if Gorst it the Chief Minister for much LONGER

voiceforchildren said...


Forgot to mention how I agree with you that Senator Bailhache is that conflicted that he should not be allowed within a country mile of this COE.

Larry Rivers said...

Questions need to be asked of both Philip Bailhache and Phil Ozouf in respect of this spurious claim that a COI would cost in the region of 10 to 20 million.

Verita say its 2 million.

They are the experts.

Why do the Establisment feel they can persistently lie like this? They always get found out and they always look as if they have something to hide as a result.

Anonymous said...

Bailhache said of the abuse inquiry "if we have one." Then went on to scaremonger after Verita estimating £2m Bailhache is trying to scare people into believing it will be £20m. He obviously doesn't want this committee of inquiry and it's high time people started asking why not?

Anonymous said...

Thank you for publishing the full verita report. Again you bloggers give us the documented evidence. I for one can't see the problem with this report from verita. Has anyone asked the chief minister what the problem is?

Anonymous said...

It would seem that the 20M cost, Bailhache keeps banging on about, would be the cost to The Law Office to further cover things up!?

rico sorda said...

Don't the States of Jersey have an Insurance scheme?

2.4 Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the source of the compensation to be paid to the victims of historical chid abuse:

Could the Chief Minister confirm whether any compensation paid to the victims of historical child abuse will come directly from an insurance fund rather than from the public purse?

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):

The funds to be paid to victims of historic child abuse will initially come from reserves held by the States. The process of addressing the historic child abuse claims is at an early stage and I cannot give details at the present time over the exact financing of those claims, but intend to do so at their conclusion

What is this "initially" bit? Are they then claiming it back somehow?

Can the states pay out then just get it back from somewhere that isn't from the states coffers?


Anonymous said...

One can more easily understand the back story of the current conflict between Gorst and Bailhache in terms of how much more desperate Bailhache is now to prevent a thorough COE. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, he won't do to prevent exposure of what really happened at Haut de la Garenne. Nothing at all.

Anonymous said...

OK, so we know that Senator Bailhache does not think an inquiry is needed, does not think he is conflicted in the matter, does not think it can be done at the cost estimated by Verita, refuses to explain where the money for survivor restitution is really being funded, and thinks the big tragedy is to Jersey's reputation. How much more do we need to know?

The man is a State sponsored paedophilia cover up merchant of the highest (lowest) order. We now know this, so yes, the big question is why. Keep digging.

rico sorda said...

This was the email I sent Senator Bailhache in December 2011 his reply was I will think about it.

From: rico sorda
Subject: Committee of Enquiry
To: p.bailhache@gov.je
Cc: i.gorst@gov.je
Date: Sunday, 4 December, 2011, 10:56

Dear Senator Bailhache

I refer to your recent comments concerning the Committee of Enquiry ("COE") into decades long abuse in the Jersey Care Homes / Fostering Care ("Operation Rectangle").

As Senator Le Marquand will be aware, I have been investigating and asking extensive questions during the past 3 years.

Senator Bailhache, if you watch the interviews and read the links provided, you will get an idea of where I am coming from regarding my work.




Sir Philip;

During the nomination for Chief Minister you were asked a question by Deputy Tadier. One of the issues raised was your conflict of interest . I hope you can clear this up for me but in my opinion you are probably one of the most conflicted individuals in Jersey when It comes to the Historical Child Abuse Investigation ("HCAE"). When Operation Rectangle was launched were you not the Bailiff of Jersey? When the HCAE went global in February 2008 were you not still the Bailiff? As you are well aware, the Bailiff is also Chief Justice, president of the legislature. Additionally your brother, William Bailhache, was Attorney General during the HCAE, the Sharp Report and the Holland Affair. You the 2007 Christmas Speech, which was not permitted to be concluded, and the Liberation Day Speech of 2008 when these infamous words were spoken;

"All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal".

You have been Solicitor General, Attorney General, Deputy Bailiff & Bailiff during the decades of unchecked Child Abuse in the Care Homes of Jersey. I have no doubt that you will be giving evidence to the forthcoming COE. For these reason I do not believe you should be involved in any shape or form with the COE. I note the scare mongering has started over the cost of the enquiry (a classic tactic). Let me finish with this:

Decades of abuse occurred in Jersey. We need a root and branch enquiry. All the agencies that failed the children of Jersey need a thorough review. They include the police, the media , all social services, the Crown and anybody in positions of responsibility for the children of Jersey.

I look forward to your response regarding my concerns.

I have Cc; Chief Minister Gorst

Truth Honesty & Integrity

Kind Regards

Rico Sorda

Anonymous said...

"It would seem that the 20M cost, Bailhache keeps banging on about, would be the cost to The Law Office to further cover things up!?" - anon.@ 7:21 PM

So perhaps both sides are right. Verita is talking about the amount to conduct an honest and thorough investigatory inquiry, and Philip Bailhache is correct that many many more millions would be invested to cover up and defend the actions of his friends.


rico sorda said...

I believe Senator Ozouf suggested 10 million so Bailhache just added an extra 10 as 20 million should scare enough people off


rico sorda said...

"I have undertaken to submit the Terms of Reference for the Committee of Inquiry into the Historic Childcare Abuse to the States. There is a clear commitment for a Committee of Inquiry to provide help with closure of this difficult and long- running period in the Island's history. It has been important to develop clear terms of reference that will be effective and provide help with closure, but not subjecting witnesses to the potential of undue cross examination in a Committee of Inquiry which would result in all parties having to receive legal representation. This has required careful consideration of the original terms of reference before being submitted to the States for approval."

That is from the Chief Minister. Does it stack up?

Anonymous said...

Why would be people giving evidence at a coi be facing a possible cross examination? Is the chief minister correct here.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

An interesting question:

Phil Bailhache has claimed that the huge alleged costs he cites will arise because lawyers will have to be paid to represent many of the people - such as civil servants - who would be called before such an enquiry.

Why is there an automatic assumption that these people should have legal representation paid for them - or even actually need it - for merely being a witness before a public inquiry - when I was repeatedly and absolutely refused any paid legal representation - at all - whilst Phil's brother, Bill Bailhache was having me prosecuted - for embarrassing their friend Michael Birt?

Surely - if paid legal representation is important - in the legal hierarchy of seriousness, paid legal representation is most important for a person being prosecuted?

Oh - I forgot. Jersey is the Crown's sewer - where only the vassals of the feudal oligarchy get any protection.

Happy jubilee Your Majesty.


Anonymous said...

The Chief Minister has been told by Bailhache to scare people away from the Committee of inquiry if you ask me.

rico sorda said...

I think the important question would be do they need it? This could be the excuse to knock the cost up and scare people off. Chief Minister lets the cat out with his answer at the last sitting

"It has been important to develop clear terms of reference that will be effective and provide help with closure, but not subjecting witnesses to the potential of undue cross examination in a Committee of Inquiry which would result in all parties having to receive legal representation. This has required careful consideration of the original terms of reference before being submitted to the States for approval"

So, do people need a lawyer when giving evidence at a COI? And if they do - how many? Not all would need one. You can't help but smell a rat here.


Ian Evans said...

If you turn up at any hearing with a lawyer, you are deemed a child, an incompetent, a ward of State.

You cannot speak for yourself, therefore, you are 'lost at sea'....And that is by their own admission!!!

Anonymous said...

"...which would result in all parties having to receive legal representation."

Really? ALL parties?

This is simply a tactic to scare the states into rejecting the COI.

Not all parties would need a legal rep. Certainly not the victims.

The only people who might have something to worry about are the staff of the various homes, some civil servants /lawyers etc and certain politicians, past and present.

In other words, those who might not wish to reveal their culpability.

rico sorda said...

Without embargo – issued 7 June 2012

SOCIAL SECURITY & TENANTS’ ACTION GROUP next public meeting will be

Thursday 14 June at the Eastern Good Companions Club (Le Marais) St Clement
from 3 pm in the lounge. There is car parking.


On the agenda is a discussion about the housing of convicted sex offenders in Jersey.
Where is safe?
Can children be adequately protected?
What are the rights of the ex-offender?

Notices have recently appeared in the Le Marais area warning that a convicted sex offender has been housed by the Housing Department in the locality.
SSTAG believes that this raises valid issues that need to be discussed and clarified.

We have invited both the Home Affairs and Housing Departments to send representatives to explain their policies together with the Constable and Deputies of St Clement’s Parish.

OTHER MATTERS ON THE AGENDA will focus on SSTAG’s interests in Social, Health & Welfare, Income Support, Housing and Disability matters and rights.


Mike Dun
Information Officer tel 01534 862929 email HYPERLINK "mailto:mikedunjersey@gmail.com" mikedunjersey@gmail.com

Denise Carroll MBE
Chair tel 01534 876727 email HYPERLINK "mailto:dcarroll@localdial.com" dcarroll@localdial.com

SSTAG blogsite sstagjsy.blogspot.com

Ian Evans said...


Anonymous said...

I can think of no stronger reason why the COI should must definitely go ahead as per Verita, on the basis that there must be some very serious concerns for the consideration that some "witnesses will require legal representation", so I guess they must be the ones who may be guilty of a cover up if not why the need for legal advice!!!!

I also note that there is this constant rant of "closure", whereas as closure may be the result for some, perhaps those guilty of wrongdoings and not knowing if their lives will come crumble apart for, but it is not really about "closure", its about finding out what went wrong, what has been done about it and more importantly is the system now completely different.

Zoompad said...

There isn't any "closure" for victims of institutional child abuse at the moment, because even while they are saying with one face that they will investigate what went wrong, they are busy with the other plotting against the victims and whistleblowers, so all they do is add extra layers onto the abuse.

The system is different now, but not improved, if anything it is even worse, and will continue to get more and more dangerous for children caught up in the "care" system, thanks to the secret family courts and armies of secret family court lawyers and the so called experts they employ who have elbowed social services out of the way.

If I could have had a proper apology and a very little help, I would not have wasted so much of my life in clinical depression for years and years. I wanted to do something, but I could never "get over" the horrible depression and feeling that I was just a waste of space that didnt deserve anything but just to be abused. Why did they plot against me? Why did they try to cover up the abuse? Why didn't they just spend a tiny fraction of the money they squandered on lawyers fees to take my hand and help me out the pit of depression that I was in? When I collected my Social Services paperwork, I wept when I saw what they had done, it was like a punch in the face to read the falsified paperwork, they paid someone to try to cover up the abuse, and they should come clean about it now, because they have done this to other Pindown abuse victims as well, and its not on. I had to go to Newcastle Under Lyme to pick up the paperwork, and I remember they had a big silver coffeepot on the table, and it was in the basement of the building, it was bizzarre the way they treated me, and they tried to shift all the blame for the abuse onto my mum and dad, but my mum and dad were struggling with poverty, it wasnt their fault I got abused, and my mum and dad certainly would never have locked me in a cell and given the key to a pimp of children!

I would like closure, but how am I ever going to have that without an apology? My past remains a raw and open wound, and probably always will, as getting a proper apology from them seems less likely than a camel walking through the eye of a needle. I was NOT evil from birth, as they have tried to make out, I was a child when I got abused, I had no idea what sex was until I got abused, I was not Lolita and didn't think they should have put that crap about me being Lolita in my medical records - or taken them out again without telling me!

Ian Evans said...


Anonymous said...

JEP, today Saturday 9th June 2012.

"New bid to save coastal site" (by Senator Bailhache)

In brief: Senator Bailhache wants the States to buy Plemont. The owner's architect values the land at £14.7 million, ignoring demolition costs.

So, we can find £15m+ for Plemont, but not the £2-3m (plus legal costs) estimated by Verita for the CoI?

Interestingly, the JEP say that when the issue was last voted on, Senator Gorst and most of the current Ministers voted against using public money to buy Plemont.

Full story not online yet, see cover at http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/get_image.aspx?pbid=7e167572-56ec-4878-bdf0-e542f200dd61&w=227

rico sorda said...

. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Will the Chief Minister clarify precisely what the perceived problems are with the terms of reference for the historic abuse enquiry as proposed by Verita; would he state whether Mr. Andrew Williamson has been engaged to review the terms of reference and, if so, what the cost of his engagement is?”

This is oral question number 4 for this Tuesday

They really must get to the bottom of this. I have published the Verita Report. It is a very straight forward report. Why is it such a problem for the COM?

What is the thinking behind bringing in Williamson?

Is it they they believe the TOR'S don't go deep enough?

We will find out next week - Andrew Williamson will be in Jersey next week and he will be asked these very questions



rico sorda said...

Questions are being asked after a man convicted of gross indecency against two ten-year-old girls was found to be living just yards from a children's play park.

Residents of the States housing estate in Jersey have called a meeting with the authourities after they found out the convicted sex offender was living there.

He carried out the attacks against two ten year old girls in 2006, but the conviction only came to light after someone put up posters in the blocks of flats at the Le Marais Estate in St Clement, warning parents to keep thier children safe.

Mike Dun, from the Social Security and Tenants' Action Group said: "This raises issues that we hadn't really though about before.

"Here is a person that obviously needs to be housed but there are other people in the area that also need to be housed - they have got families and children and they need to be housed safely, so there is a bit of a conflict and we are interested to see how it is going to be resolved."

A Spokesman for Community & Social Services said: "The label sex offender applies to a range of people prosecuted under this legislation and it can be unhelpful to apply the same broad brush description to all cases.

"In this case the Children's Service has worked with the young man in question for many years, he has lived with other children and young people in our care and attended main stream education without concern.

At the time of referral to housing in 2011, there was no prosecution pending for the offences for which he has subsequently been convicted. These offences are historic, committed as a minor and are not seen to place members of the public at undue risk. This was therefore reflected in the information provided at the time of referral.

"As far as possible all information of relevance and concerning the safety of others is shared in between agencies. In this instance the risk was perceived to be low and therefore this did not occur, thus providing the young man in question with confidentiality of his situation.

"The Children's Service will be reviewing its processes in such situations."

This lack of communication meant the Housing Department had to be alerted to the situation by Le Marais residents.

The offender has now been moved for his safety and that of the estate's residents.

But with 35 people on the Sex Offenders register in the island, these circumstances have raised questions about one of the most complex issues facing our society.



rico sorda said...

What concerns me about the above article is the comment from Community & Social Services

"At the time of referral to housing in 2011, there was no prosecution pending for the offences for which he has subsequently been convicted. These offences are historic, committed as a minor and are not seen to place members of the public at undue risk. This was therefore reflected in the information provided at the time of referral."

It is the term "Historic" they said that the crimes were committed in 2006 in the main article. So, is 4 yrs so there far in the past? This Historic term seems to be the norm when talking about Child Abuse. I would hardly say 4yrs is Historic but very recent.


Anonymous said...

"It is the term "Historic" they said that the crimes were committed in 2006 in the main article. So, is 4 yrs so there far in the past? This Historic term seems to be the norm when talking about Child Abuse. I would hardly say 4yrs is Historic but very recent."

That is a very good point. There seems to be little professional understanding of sex crimes within the relevant agencies in general. Did they fail to get the memo that says this is not a fleeting one-time thing, that compulsions to commit sex crimes against children do not go away because the perpetrator went through a court system???

This should be a very different concern than someone caught in a Romeo/Juliet type situation with a slightly underage teenager, perhaps only three or four years younger. This is not a case of two small children of similar age playing "doctor". Those who act out on a sexual attraction to children who still look like children are paedophiles, and child molestations are not just a temporary compulsion for them. Must be an "historic" problem, too, because they never have learned that those who have committed sex crimes against them can't ever really safely interact with children.

Jersey has entirely too much tolerance for child molesters and too little tolerance for the truth.

rico sorda said...

4 yrs and its Historic. I would expect something better than the comment from Community & Social Services.

It really should be a worry.

Have we learnt anything?


Anonymous said...

Have we learnt anything? Only a thorough COI will tell us if they even want answers to that question.

Anonymous said...


Its the same pattern.

Bailhache said this when talking about Holland's early child abuse: He will grow out of it?!

voiceforchildren said...


Jersey Finance WELL REGULATED?

Tom Gruchy said...

SSTAG points out that the next public meeting will include a discussion on the allocation of housing in Jersey for convicted sex offenders. Where is safe?
All are welcome to attend from 3pm at the eastern Good Companions Club, Le Marais, St Clement to discuss this and other social issues.

Fuller details on the SSTAG blogsite

Anonymous said...

Lets hope TJW is recording Deputy Pitman's oral question 4 to CM Gorst on Tuesday.

Zoompad said...

It's funny how some things are classed as historic after 4 years and other things even after 10 years are not. For example, overpayment of housing benefit to a vulnerable adult who is on the autistic spectrum. Funny how someone like that can be hounded after 10 years, for a debt that ought never have been inflicted onto him, yet really bad criminals who do unspeakable things to little children get protected from prosecution.

I am not in a very good mood today as I have got to help the aforementioned vulnerable adult to battle against the ones who have decided to bully him.

voiceforchildren said...


Vote of Censure LODGED