Monday, April 6, 2015



May 2008. Senator Bailhache had the audacity, on such a special day, to utter these now infamous words. Not just to the people of Jersey but to the world:

 "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".

We also have Senator Bailhache neck deep in the Sharp Report, the Roger Holland Affair and let's not forget his horrendous involvement with the  Church Abuse Case.  

When the Committee of Enquiry was finally passed in the States of Jersey guess who was missing for the vote after being present in the States Chamber up until this debate? You guessed it. Senator Philip Bailhache.

On the 24th March 2015 former Bailiff, Senator Philip Bailhache, made a speech in the Jersey parliament as an attempt to close down the ongoing Jersey Child Abuse Enquiry. 

During that speech, not only did Senator Bailhache defend an alleged paedophile, he took the opportunity to further smear the name of the former lead investigator Lenny Harper. Former DCO Lenny Harper, as readers will be aware, is a witness to this care enquiry and has issued a substantive statement. As if attempting to close down the child abuse enquiry,  defending an alleged paedophile and attempting to smear the name of the lead investigator wasn't bad enough, it further transpires that Senator Bailhache might have attempted to threaten and intimidate the witness (Lenny Harper) by proclaiming:

"I understand that the former Deputy Police Chief has recently filed an 80-page memorandum with the inquiry, and I think that we can be fairly sure that that would provide much lurid material for the media which neither he nor they would be likely to publish without the protection of a committee of inquiry."

Those words could be seen as a direct threat or intimidation of a witness and something (the conflicted) Senator Bailhache should be taken to task for.  We are aware that Mr Harper has issued a complaint along those lines. That said, Lenny Harper is quoted as saying that Senator Bailhache is as intimidating as "Winnie The Pooh".  

However, the question is not whether or not Mr Harper was intimidated, but more that the intention was present. 

Now this is a sentence I want readers to pay attention to, where Mr Bailhache said:

"I understand that the former Deputy Police Chief has recently filed an 80-page memorandum with the inquiry."

This statement is very specific in that it appears that Senator Bailhache is aware of how many pages are contained in Mr Harpers statement and the question is "how does he know?" and "who told him?" 

Team Voice can reveal that the Child Abuse enquiry received a number of complaints concerning Senator Bailhache's latest outburst and are taking this, from what we can see, extremely seriously. A number  of stakeholders have received an email from the child abuse enquiry which seems to signify that this latest alleged breach and Senator Bailhache are now under investigation. Team Voice can exclusively report that is is a requirement of the Committee of Enquiry: 

"all Interested Parties confirm by return, and in any event by 4:00pm on Tuesday 7 April 2015, that you have not:

1.       Shared or discussed the content of any statements released to the Interested Parties, that are not yet in the public domain, with anybody outside of your organisations; or
2.       Shared Mr Harper’s statement or any information about its content with "

The Care Enquiry has written to interested parties to inform them that: 

"It has been drawn to the Inquiry’s attention that the witness statement of Mr Harper was referred to by Senator Bailhache during the course of the debate at the States Assembly in respect of the ongoing funding of the Inquiry. We have reviewed the Hansard of the debate and note with concern that the detail provided by Senator Bailhache implies that he has seen a copy of the statement released to the Interested Parties on 17 March 2015.

Further, the enquiry states that it has.

"The Inquiry has carried out some checks and cannot locate any detail in respect of the statement being in the public domain before the debate in the States Assembly."

This looks to be a serious breach of confidentiality and trust. How can witnesses have the trust of submitting evidence if it is being leaked to those who were/are in power while the abuse was/is happening.

Team Voice are pleased that the enquiry is taking the alleged breach seriously. 

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist

Team Voice


Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...


As I've said in writing and published, I have a number of serious concerns with the prospect of engaging with this Committee of Inquiry.

Amongst those concerns are the past, current and future consequences for me of speaking frankly as a witness and of making public interest disclosures.

The conduct you report on here, by Sir Senator Philip Bailhache, is an example of the abuse-of-power and of witness-tampering that causes me to be concerned, concerned for myself, but even more so for certain other witnesses.

Unfortunately, even if we ascribe fully good faith to this public inquiry, ultimately, it has no powers outside the context of the Jersey "judicial" function.

Ultimately, any protocol enforcement, regulation, evidence-gathering, subpoenaing or witness-protection that may be invoked by the public inquiry is wholly dependent on Jersey's "courts" for authority and enforcement.

And who is the head of Jersey's judicial function - and who will recruit, appoint and choose every judge who will ever hear any such legal proceedings?

William Bailhache - Philip Bailhache's equally conflicted and culpable brother.

Just as Philip Bailhache himself - and the equally conflicted and culpable Michael Birt - have done previously.

Just as the equally conflicted and culpable Tim Le Cocq will do in future.

This is the plain ultra vires which the Bailhache Brothers and their chosen successors have reduced the integrity of the Crown to.

Stuart Syvret

Anonymous said...

Inevitably Sir, External Relations Minister, poll-topping Senator, Former Bailiff, Attorney-General, distinguished lawyer and Jersey's most eminent statesman, Philip Bailhache (Jersey's Royal family) was going to trip up. The CoI is rightly concerned about him, the excellent Jersey blogs like yours have been reporting serious concerns about him for years.

Póló said...

Always worth while continuing to highlight particular aspects of these cases. Apart from anything else it allows people to reference them in a handy way.

For example I tweet on a lot of the (high standard) comments on the posts of the Jersey bloggers, not to mention the posts themselves.

As far as Sir Pillock Bellyache is concerned, you might also have mentioned the airplane incident which suggested that he had ongoing permanent unauthorised access to confidential documents, and was not above using this for his own nefarious purposes.

Rath ar an obair (keep up the good work) and it's good to have you back blogging again. Don't let it get you down.

The Jersey bloggers are finally coming into their own as far as public recognition is concerned, and justifiably so. The MSM are continuing to dig their own graves.

Anonymous said...

How does Bailhache get access to all these confidential documents? Remember the confidential police documents he was reading on the plane and now this? He shouldn't have been allowed to speak on the debate in the States because of his conflict and must be feeling pretty stupid now that he has revealed he has access to witness statements from the care enquiry. He just doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut.

Anonymous said...

Bailhache should face criminal charges for intimidating a witness SIMPLES!

Anonymous said...

Another Team Voice exclusive and the silence of the state media is deafening. If it was Stuart Syvret who was accused of receiving leaked documents would the state media be so quiet?

Anonymous said...

Quoting the Bailhache speech more fully:

"The third answer is that, whatever happens to our inquiry, there will be reputational flak. I understand that the former Deputy Police Chief has recently filed an 80- page memorandum with the inquiry, and I think that we can be fairly sure that that would provide much lurid material for the media which neither he nor they would be likely to publish without the protection of a committee of inquiry. I think that we have to be prepared to face down wild and inaccurate headlines in the tabloid media."

Firstly, the Deputy Police Chief's signed statement of fact would only contain "lurid material" if it was reporting lurid goings on (under the stewardship of Bailhache and others).

Headlines would not be "wild and inaccurate" if they are reporting fact, and Bailhache's choice of words "face down" could certainly be seen as reinforcement of attempted intimidation of witnesses
"to face someone down":to make a face-to-face stand with someone who eventually backs down

So Bailhache would rather drag Jersey's name thought the muck again rather than face unpleasant truths or let vital lessons actually be learnt.

Anonymous said...

I'm a trainee lawyer presently serving a pupillage with a significant Jersey legal practice.

I hope to have a long and prosperous career in Jersey law.

I dare not say this to my senior colleagues, but I can say it here, I'm extremely disappointed in the senior legal profession in Jersey that no collective action has been taken, or appears to have been discussed, to object to or protest against the conduct of this recent generation of Crown Officers.

Philip Bailhache, Michael Birt, William Bailhache and Tim Le Cocq have behaved so reprehensibly and incompetently they have jeopardised the island's stable jurisdictional settlement vis-à-vis the Crown.

The blind loyalty and deference (and fear) shown towards the incumbents by otherwise intelligent and high-calibre individuals in Jersey law is remarkable.

Philip Bailhache should have been, as should Michael Birt, subjected to a vote of no confidence by senior Jersey lawyers several years ago. There remains a clear, pressing need for the same against William Bailhache and Tim Le Cocq now.

The history of Jersey as a functioning jurisdiction is, in truth, the history of the Island's lawyers.

That honourable status of the Island's legal profession, and even such economically necessary privileges as our exclusive rights-of-audience before Jersey's Courts are imperilled now in ways that have not occurred in the last 800 years.

It is ironic that we've reached this pass because of the starkly obvious cowardice and total failure of leadership in Jersey's legal profession.

If the professional future I have worked so hard to achieve becomes constrained or ruined because of the consequences of this shabby era it is not the child-abuse victims, bloggers or well-noted political agitators I will blame.

I am not alone amongst those in the early stages of careers in Jersey law saying 'where oh where are our profession's leaders in this time of crisis?'

Póló said...

Anonymous @ 10.27AM

Your points are well made, but there is an additional gem in the paragraph you quote.

And that is the significance of the phrase "which neither he nor they would be likely to publish without the protection of a committee of inquiry".

This is what is really getting to these guys. Without the legal protection of such a committee, those concerned would be left at the mercy of the Jersey judicial system, and we know how they would fare there.

Such protection is putting the frighteners on the powers that be and Sir Pillock's attitude underlines very well the fears expressed by Stuart Syvret and why he wants his position legally copper fastened before he engages with the inquiry.

rico sorda said...

I believe Stuart Syvret should give evidence. Not much else these clowns can do to him. Nothing will ever be perfect but better the evidence be heard than not at all. This COI will continue with or without Stuart. They will come to their conclusions with or without Stuart. He needs to be heard and that's his decision.

voiceforchildren said...


I don't quite understand what went on with Philip Bailhache and his speech during the debate.

I would have guessed that, being a Minister, he has advisors, whether it be the States Communications Unit, Civil Servant(s) or Spin Doctor. I'm also guessing one of that lot, or a number of them, would posses a modicum of common sense/brain cells.

He would (should) have been advised NOT to take part in the debate, due to his conflict, and the fact that he could be leaving himself/Jersey in the line of fire due to his "pre-Savile/Yewtree" stance on paedophilia. Notwithstanding his disgraceful attacks on Abuse Victims/the Roger Holland Affair, the Victoria (Sharp Report) College scandal, his Liberation Day hijack in 2008 and so much more anti Victim attacks.

Supposing he wasn't advised by any of his advisers to keep his mouth shut, and head down, then one needs to ask why not? If he was given that advice is he that much of an ego maniac that he (unwisely) chose to ignore it?

He looks to have attempted to intimidate, and threaten, Lenny Harper who is a witness to this Inquiry, defend a paedophile, and claim that the Victims/Survivors have been "generously compensated." He then reveals that he has almost certainly read Mr. Harper's "80 page" witness statement.

Philip Bailhache is an embarrassment to our Island and looks to be completely out of control and one needs to ask how much embarrassment can London take before it is forced to step in?

There is, or could/should be, a little bit of poetic justice here. Where Senator Bailhache hijacked a debate on extra funding for the Child Abuse Inquiry in order to further smear and bury the lead investigator (Lenny Harper). It just might be that this latest poor judgement by the Senator is what ends up burying him!

Anonymous said...

Phil Bailhache threatened and intimidated a witness of whose statement he's been leaked and needs to be held to account for it. Who can hold him to account? but the more important question is who will dare to hold him to account?

Anonymous said...

This blog has been up since last night and if it was Stuart Syvret who acted as criminally as Pip Bailhache the heritage media would have been all over it by now and Syvret would have appeared before a secret court and sent to prison. Any word from media or courts on PIP Bailhache?

Anonymous said...

Rico, why should Stuart Syvret give evidence when he knows he'll certainly be subjected to further retaliation and reprisals by Jersey's corrupt judicial system for doing so? I know other whistle-blowers and witnesses have suffered bullying and intimidation, but look at what's been done to Syvret? He's had the whole police force, prosecution and judiciary mobilised against him to destroy his life and he's already been jailed twice by these lunatics. They hate Syvret for some reason to the point of madness. No other whistle-blower has suffered anything like as badly as Syvret. Yet you and others think its ok to put the burden on Syvret of having to risk even more of that, without so much as the guy even getting legal advice? You know what, I think its time that everyone did something to help Stuart Syvret like signing a letter to the COI asking then to give him legal advice. What would be the big problem with that?

Póló said...

Anonymous @ 5.22PM

The more noise that is made about this the better the chance that he will be held to account in the longer term when he becomes an embarrassment to his masters.

rico sorda said...

Anonymous, you missed the point of what I was saying. The COI will continue and come to their conclusions with or without Stuart Syvret.

I dont have a problem if he decides not to do so.

This is the only gig in town. Once this opportunity is gone then its gone and won't matter anyway. He has been persecuted and jailed twice already. Go give evidence and give it everything or he should walk away.


Anonymous said...

There should be no hesitation whatsoever as to Stuart Syvret giving his vast amount of undisputable evidence to the COI team. After all what more can they do to him?
He is either playing the martyr. Or has been threatened with something a lot worse than he has encountered in the past few years!?

Anonymous said...

Bailhache said he was not reading the correspondence to do with HD on the aircraft, as the two businessmen who allege he was refuse to be named, we can only deduce from this he was telling the truth, and this was just lies.

Anonymous said...

Bailhache said he was not reading the correspondence to do with HD on the aircraft, as the two businessmen who allege he was refuse to be named, we can only deduce from this he was telling the truth, and this was just lies.

Anonymous said...

Good idea to sign a letter / petition to the CoI about SS getting legal advise. If SS is holding back, there must be good reasons. Ask yourself this- Has he ever been wrong?
I think you're a little harsh on him Rico but on the other hand, I appreciate your point about this being the only opportunity. That said SS is right about the Jersey courts.

Anonymous said...

This is an 'interesting' comment: 'Bailhache said he was not reading the correspondence to do with HD on the aircraft, as the two businessmen who allege he was refuse to be named, we can only deduce from this he was telling the truth, and this was just lies.'

I haven't followed events closely enough to be certain of this, but ultimately didn't Philip Bailhache apologise in the States via a personal statement for having falsely defamed the witnesses in question? If so, then obviously those two business men were telling the truth and it is Bailhache who had been lying. If not, why else apologise?

If my memory is correct, I recommend you don't publish comments such as that which make false claims about matters which are already established. It's obvious trolling, designed to divert from real debate.

But, in light of all of the accumulated evidence in respect of these matters generally, not least the latest example of overt threats against witnesses you refer to in this blog-posting, if the two witness did not want to be publicly identified, who on Earth could blame them?

After all the willingness and power of Philip Bailhache and his brother William to actually persecute and carry out reprisals against witnesses is well-documented.

rico sorda said...

You are correct. Bailhache did apologies in the States. I'm not sure how that comment slipped through the nett. I don't normally publish the trolling nonsense.


rico sorda said...

I'm not having a go at Stuart about the COI I'm just giving my opinion. Give everything you have to it or don't. The fact that Bailhache is worried about it is good. Its the one and only chance.


Póló said...

While I'm sure Stuart can be very difficult at times I see no reason why he should be playing the diva on the Inquiry.

He is clearly a key witness, both from his personal experience and the evidence he has accumulated. He has assembled key material in a way that is readily comprehensible if somewhat crudely expressed at times.

But he, more than most, is aware of the danger he is in. He has, in the past, been legally silenced (has all that gone away or is he still under some edict?). He has seen the extent to which the establishment will go to silence and punish people and completely pervert the "justice" system in the process.

He has stuck his neck out and served two prison sentences to prove his point, whatever the proximate causes of those imprisonments.

He is more aware than most of the extent to which corruption and cover up are embedded in the system, not only on the island but among the island's masters in London.

That he is still alive and compos mentis must surely be put down to incompetence on their part.

Would you, in his place, expose yourself to official and covert retaliation without some form of legal advice and indemnity?

By refusing to finance a lawyer of his choice, the Inquiry is playing into the hands of those they are supposed to be investigating.

Given what is happening to whistleblowers generally and the mess that is being made of setting up an Inquiry in the UK one must question the good faith of the Jersey Inquiry in this matter.

The ball is in their court.

Anonymous said...

Reference the obvious troll comment about the two businessmen.

Bailhache did have to back down after his disgraceful lies and smears against the pair and Deputy T Pitman who the two men approached with their concerns.

Remember PB had used terms such as liars and malicious. And just because he had been cauaght out doing exactly what he is doing now with this speech. he had access to confidential documents to which he had no right.

The troll also knows full well that the two businessmen did reveal their identity. For as I recall Deputy Pitman made it clear they accompanied him to a meeting with Chief Minister Gorst.

If the troll is put out they didn't make their identities known to the whole net then this is hardly surprising given that they will have known the troll would have been smearing them and their families all over the net as he has been allowed to do by our AG and police for several years.

This intimidation by PB in his speech really should be the final straw for getting external intervention. maybe from International Rescue as our UK authorities don't appear to give a fig?

Anonymous said...

Polo, I'm having trouble with my computer and can't see your link. Please can you explain what it goes to- I'm thinking and hoping this may be a petition to the CoI to amend Stuart's lack of legal advise which was suggested in an earlier comment. Perhaps it isn't? Anyway, if you could explain it, that would help. thanks.

Póló said...

Anonymous @ 11:47

Not sure what link you mean. There is none in the text of my comment above. My intention was to await publication of the comment so I would have a permalink and then tweet it to the Inquiry. I'll be doing that.

An earlier commenter has suggested that we all address comments to the Inquiry, and that sounds like a good idea to me.

I have been sniping at them on Twitter over the past while. Whether they're paying any attention or not is another matter.

Anonymous said...

Anyone with any sense in the City of London Corporation/Jersey off-shore machinery must rue the day, absolutely rue the day either of the Bailhache Brothers were ever allowed to become Crown Officers?

Between them these two men have done more to bring close to destruction Jersey's privileges than anything in the last 800 years.

The question for the 'system' must be why has it been so unable to defend itself against dangerous maverick individuals for the last 2 or 3 decades?

Perhaps its the failure of the 'system' which is the real problem, and the Bailhache Brothers are just symptoms? If the 'system' does not purge itself of William Bailhache and Tim Le Cocq within 6 months, we'll have the answer to that question.

The time could be very fast approaching when those significantly invested in Jersey, or those advising them, must look to Guernsey and the Isle of Man. This is the 21st century. Only a fool could imagine there are not going to be significant consequences arising because of the derangement of the Island's highest authorities in recent years. There are limits to what is defensible. We breached those limits in 2008. Consequences were made immutable then.

Anonymous said...

At 7:57 comment says 'I'm sure Stuart Syvret can be very difficult at times'. Even if he is isn't that the thing that's made him be on our side? How many 'quiet, non-argumentative, team-player' politicians came along and spoke out and fought against child-abuse in Jersey before Syvret? None, that's how many. Didn't the COI really miss a trick here? If Syvret had been given a lawyer there'd be someone who could speak with him and negotiate issues with him.

Anonymous said...

Lets be real.
Ok. Rico, VFC, and others have done wonders on assisting to expose alleged cover ups and corruption.
But without Stuart Syvret we would be no where near this far.
Stuart Syvret has really got to finish the way he started and prove he was right all along.
After all he's almost there.

Póló said...

Anonymous @ 3:37PM

I agree completely.

I made the comment acknowledging him being difficult sometimes, whether this was true or not, to stress that it should not affect how he is dealt with by the Inquiry.

I thought it necessary to say that because others have attempted to write him off as too difficult to deal with or to suggest that he is playing ego games.

He knows the seriousness of what is at stake and of what is going on.

I feel, though I may be wrong, that, despite the known faults of the Inquiry which he has highlighted, he would engage constructively with them if they played straight with him.

There is no reason they should not consider him a special case in view of his direct experience in the area both as a Minister and a representative politician, and, even more so, in the light of the efforts made by the establishment to silence him.

I'm quite sure the Inquiry has the discretion to do so and I don't understand why they have not done already done so.

I have no doubt that the establishment have been conducting a whispering campaign against him from the beginning and this is what makes Philip Bailhache's informal contacts with the Inquiry a serious matter for concern.

Anonymous said...

Polo @8.35p.m. you've nailed it. (incidentally, the links gone- pop up issue with my laptop- now sorted).

voiceforchildren said...


Former Jersey Politician and THE JERSEY WAY.

Anonymous said...

Another disturbing eye-opener from team Voice on the link above.

Tthis evidenced instance of another former opposition politician being abused by the forces of 'law' and 'justice' show precisely what Stuart Syvret has been saying for years.

This island is lawlessness personified with a police and judiciary completely politicised.

Anonymous said...

I cant see Bailhache being a SIR for very much longer, and to think this guy is representing Jersey around the world.God help us.

Anonymous said...

I cant see Bailhache being a SIR for very much longer, and to think this guy is representing Jersey around the world.God help us.

Anonymous said...

Tim Hanson -Barrister/Jersey Advocate writes:-
April 27th 2015
Earlier this year, in February, the Royal Court delivered an important judgment that emphasized the importance of open justice. Ironically, however, you would be forgiven for not having heard about it.
In the case of The X Children v Minister for Health and Social Services, three children sought compensation from the Minister for failings which resulted in the Children suffering neglect and abuse.
The Minister had admitted liability from a particular date but a trial was listed for two weeks in May as to whether or not negligence had occurred before that date.
For several years, the proceedings had been conducted in private without the media being able to attend until it was suggested on behalf of the children that this was wrong in principle: there should be open justice but the identities of the children should be protected simply by ordering their identities to be kept secret.
Pamela Scriven QC, sitting as Commissioner in the Royal Court, notified the media of the issue by letter last year and invited the media to make representations at the hearing in February. In doing so, she anticipated an approach that was yet to be adopted even in England until the recent Court of Appeal decision there in JX MX-v-Dartford and Gravesend NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 96.
Jersey was ahead of the game in that respect.
The approach was a bold one and, despite the parties being agreed on the need for open justice while restricting the identities of the children, the Commissioner insisted that the hearing go ahead because the media had been informed.
The hearing took place, unfortunately, without any media attending. It was just the judge, two lawyers and the court usher. As the lawyer for the children, I had to apologize to the judge that despite her travelling many hours in bad weather, not a single reporter was there to hear her order and write down her judgment on the importance of open justice.
In a further curious twist, the Court’s Judgment emphasizing open justice was ultimately published in what is known as the “restricted” area of the Jersey Law website which, as it name suggests, is not fully accessible to the public.
I have always cared deeply about the principle of open justice and the linked notion of access to justice. Despite the fact that this important judgment was not reported on by the media (who must have had too much on their plate that day) and that the Jersey Law website has ironically restricted it, I still care about such notions.
But it just goes to prove that without an energetic media, and proper reporting, open justice can turn out to be a bit of a damp squib.
Like · Comment · Share

David Moody Surely this is more important than using the Freedom of Information Laws to tell us how much private schools spend on entertaining???
Just now · Like
David Moody

Write a comment...