Tuesday, September 15, 2015








  1. 1. 1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs 

  2. “Could the Minister please inform members how many arrests have been made in relation to Operation Whistle and state whether any allegations have been made against former Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath which relate to his time in the Island and whether any investigations are taking place in this regard? 



4.1 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding arrests made in relation to Operation Whistle:

Can I thank Members and those involved for the accommodation?  Could the Minister please inform Members how many arrests have been made in relation to Operation Whistle and state whether any allegations have been made against former Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath, which relate to his time in the Island and whether any investigations are taking place in this regard


Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Peter (The Minister for Home Affairs):
There have been 4 arrests arising from the Operation Whistle investigation and 2 further voluntary interviews have been conducted with individuals subject to allegations of abuse.  The States of Jersey Police have received one allegation made against the former Prime Minister, Sir Edward Heath that took place in Jersey.  This is being investigated jointly with the Wiltshire Constabulary, which has been appointed as the lead force.  The Independent Jersey Care Inquiry has been kept apprised of all developments.

4.1.1 Deputy M. Tadier:
Could the Minister give more information about the allegation that has been made in Jersey about the former named Prime Minister and when this was made in particular and whether that resulted ... it is a new allegation since Operation Whistle was set up?

The Deputy of St. Peter:
I am afraid that, as Members will appreciate, this is an operational matter and I do not have operational responsibility for the police and those are merely details that I do not have in my remit, and I am unable to answer that question.

4.1.2 Deputy M. Tadier:
It seems to me that we know that parallel investigations are going on in the U.K. (United Kingdom) and if I understand correctly it was really as a result of those investigations in the U.K. that this Operation Whistle was opened up.  Can the Minister state why the investigation seems to have been relatively low profile if the police should be encouraging members of the public who might have been here at the time to come forward and give evidence, surely the publicity surrounding this case, at least locally, should be of a much more high profile nature?

The Deputy of St. Peter:
I think the operation has been relatively high profile, particularly over the summer, and in response to the publicity that has been nationwide in relation to Operation Hydrant.

4.1.3 Deputy M. Tadier:
Will the Minister confirm again in this public forum, as we have seen, I think, in the U.K. both from the police and perhaps from other individuals that there is an investigation going on.  Anybody who has information about any high or low profile individuals who were in Jersey at the time of Sir Edward Heath and who may have information relating to any of that kind of nefarious activity should come forward and they will be given full support both by the Minister for Home Affairs and the Jersey Police?

The Deputy of St. Peter:
That is entirely the case.  When this unit was established there were initially 6 members of staff placed in the unit.  That staff quickly increased to 8 just to deal with the sheer volume of work that was coming forward.  So Operation Whistle is very much an active piece of work that is being conducted by the States of Jersey Police and every allegation that is brought to them is taken very seriously.END 

The second question was asked by Deputy Higgins. 

The relevant blog posting can be read here:


  1. . Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister – 

  2. “Will the Chief Minister explain why two officers, appointed to liaise with the Committee of Inquiry for document provision, are present at the majority of hearings and explain how their normal duties are being covered, at what cost, and where the budget has been allocated from, and whether he is aware of any concerns regarding the potential impact of their attendance at hearings?” 

4.4 Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Chief Minister regarding officers appointed to liaise with the Committee of Inquiry for document provision:
Will the Chief Minister explain why 2 officers, appointed to liaise with the Committee of Inquiry for document provision, are present at the majority of hearings and explain how their normal duties are being covered, at what cost, and where the budget has been allocated from, and whether he is aware of any concerns regarding the potential impact of their attendance at hearings?

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):
The 2 officers are working alongside the States lawyers to ensure all the required documents are identified and made available to the Inquiry as soon as possible.  These positions were established to help control the States legal costs for the Care Inquiry.  Previous duties of these officers have been covered by recruitment and service redesign at no additional recurrent cost to the Health and Social Services Department.

4.4.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
Yes, the role of the 2 officers, as has just been stated, is to supply the Committee of Inquiry with the documents they require, something which States departments and the Law Officers’ Department appear to be failing to do, according to the chair of the Inquiry.  Should these officers, rather than sitting in the hearing, be going into the departments and getting the documents the Care Inquiry requires?

Senator I.J. Gorst:
They are instructed to deliver documents requested by the Inquiry as soon as possible, and that is my instruction to them.  How they break up their duties is a matter for them.  If it is not working satisfactorily then of course I am pleased to speak to them.

4.4.2 Senator Z.A. Cameron:
Given that these 2 officers were previously employed as managers of that service is it appropriate that they should be employed by the taxpayer in this role?  As a former employee of that service I do find their presence concerning.

Senator I.J. Gorst:
Of course I answered questions on this issue at the time of the change and the service redesign.  If I recollect, certainly one of the officers - I am not sure about the other - was involved in the Historic Redress Scheme and was aware of cases and supported the States lawyers and therefore was ideally suited to be able to help with the sourcing of documents and was aware of those issues.  The Senator has, prior to my vacation, met with me to say that she is concerned, and I need to explore those concerns further.  I know that the officers are aware of not being present in the hearing room if they think it might cause distress or if there are other staff members perhaps who consider themselves to be whistle-blowers, so I think they do handle it carefully but they have to continue to do so.

4.4.3 Deputy M. Tadier:
It follows on.  Is it not the case that these individuals themselves are being put in an invidious position given the fact that they work for the department which is, albeit perhaps in the past, having allegations made of it about the duty of care before the Committee of Inquiry?  Perhaps the Chief Minister is already thinking along those lines, that perhaps in hindsight and perhaps going forward there should be a different set of individuals without any kind of perception of conflict fulfilling that administrative 

4.4.4  Senator I.J. Gorst:
Sadly, in such an inquiry there could be a perception of conflict from any States employee.  I hope they manage that conflict well.  As I said, I have been made aware that there are concerns and I want to consider those further.  But there are reasons why certainly one of those individuals is experienced in this area, and I think that that brings value to the support that the States needs to give to the Inquiry.

4.4.4 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
Is the Chief Minister aware that one of these individuals is the subject of complaint from myself for a modern day cover-up of trying to suppress information getting to an elected Deputy?  Does he think in those circumstances that person should be involved with this Inquiry, which is supposed to be getting to the truth?

Senator I.J. Gorst:
The Inquiry is independent of the States and of States employees but the States have to provide information that the Inquiry requests, where they can, in a timely manner.  I of course would not be aware, and I do not know to whom the Deputy has made the complaint or what form the complaint was in.  If it is appropriate for me to see that complaint and consider it - and I cannot see that it would be - then I would. 
But surely the people to whom the complaint has been made are the ones who should adjudicate upon it if it is within their remit.  If they ask me to take action then I will do so accordingly. END 

The above question has to do with Richard Jouault. This is what I wrote in the above blog link.

3 August 2015

"The Chair of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry, Mrs Frances Oldham QC, on Thursday (13/8/15) made the following statement at the end of Phase 1b of Public Hearings:
“During this phase of evidence, the Inquiry has received excellent cooperation from the vast majority of witnesses, who have assisted the work of the Inquiry. 
“However, we have been hampered by the late and non-disclosure of important documents, largely by the various States’ Departments, but also from the Law Officers Department. These include HR records, disciplinary and other investigations, policies, procedures, reports and emails, which have either failed to be disclosed, or have been disclosed after the relevant witness has given their evidence. Over the coming weeks, the Inquiry will review the recent disclosure and any documents which are forthcoming and will consider whether witnesses need to be recalled as a result. 
“Furthermore, in relation to specific disclosure requests that have been outstanding for a number of months, the Inquiry will consider setting a final date for the provision of these documents or written confirmation that the documents do not exist.  Failure to provide documents may lead to adverse inferences being drawn by the Inquiry in its final report.”
Public hearings will resume on Tuesday 8 September with four days of hearings to hear evidence from various members of committees of the States of Jersey.
A detailed timetable will be made available at the beginning of September.
In the meantime the Inquiry team will continue their intense preparation for the next phase of the Inquiry.
Hearings will recommence in earnest the week beginning 12 October with the Panel hearing any outstanding evidence relating to Phase 1b of the Inquiry. They will also hear evidence relating to Phase 2 where they will look at the decisions taken in relation to the timing of the police investigation and prosecutions of alleged abusers."

"The statement by the Chair of the Inquiry is carefully worded in lawyers language but its message seems to be clear enough. States departments and the Law Officers are not co-operating with the Inquiry and appear to be withholding essential documents.What have they to hide? Could it be that more uncomfortable truths have been blatantly buried by the Jersey Establishment? No wonder why Senator Philip Bailhache and his followers wanted to bring the Inquiry to a halt.

In the disciplinary hearing arising from the Warren case the panel made similar criticism saying that Home Affairs and the Law Officers, having commissioned an investigation, had not co-operated with it.

It seems that they would rather be criticised for not co-operating than give the COI the information and documents they are asking for which invites speculation as to just what the documents may contain and why they are so desperate to withhold them?  

Ironic that even in the midst of a Committee of Inquiry investigating cover-ups they engage in further cover-ups right under the noses of the Inquiry and defy anyone to do anything about it. Only this time the world is watching.

Questions now need to be asked of Richard Jouault who's position was solely created at tax payers expense to assist the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry with obtaining crucial documents from States Departments. 

For some unknown reason Richard Jouault is present almost every day at every hearing of this Inquiry.  Thus far he has failed (according to the care inquiry) to fulfil the one purpose he has been charged to do and that is to obtain documents to assist the inquiry in its work.  One must remember that Richard Jouault is Deputy Chief Executive Officer of Health and Social Services. A department that is under investigation by this inquiry for serious failure, over decades, in the protection of vulnerable children. So, it is reasonable to argue that he is wholly conflicted and shouldn't be allowed in a country mile of this inquiry except for the sole purpose of giving evidence.  Another legitimate question to ask, due to the apparent conflict of Mr Jouault, is it he who is hampering the production of these crucial documents. 

Is it better to be criticised for not handing over crucial/critical documents than allowing the truth to be revealed. 

If you have nothing to Fear then you have nothing to Hide.

The States of Jersey have asked for this Child Abuse Inquiry and a pattern seems to be developing as in where the BARTON REPORT  States Departments refuses to co-operate with said inquiry they themselves have asked for."

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist 


Anonymous said...

Gorst's non answer ".... Previous duties of these officers have been covered by recruitment and service redesign at no additional recurrent cost to the Health and Social Services Department."

no additional "recurrent" cost LOL

There is a cost to Richard Jouault sitting in on the CoI but Gorst avoids answering the question but tells us the cost is not "recurrent".


Anonymous said...

Kind of along the same lines........I recently heard someone from HSS Dept. (high up) told the CoI that Syvret was made aware of the Maguire problem as he attended a Dept HSS Meeting when it was raised. That officla then said Syvret dented knowledge of the Maguires until a later date...... Ok, so it's possible he was asleep or has a poor memory. It's also possible that when the issue was raised, it wasn't addressed in the serious way it should have been, perhaps it was played down to the 'enth degree so that it wasn't really raised at all. Or perhaps it's just too easy to amend the minutes of the meeting and retract Syvret from the apologies section and add him to the attendees section. I would like to see these minutes.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says: -

"I would like to see these minutes" - in reference to a meeting when Jane and Alan Maguire were mentioned to the old Health & Social Services Committee.

Thanks to my blogging, people have been able to read those minutes - and more significantly a factual account of what the Committee was - and was not - told, and the conduct of the department generally, since I published the material on 6th May - 2008.

The Posting in question - titled "JERSEY CHILD ABUSE DISASTER" - can be read at the following URL: -


Also published in that posting is the false and corrupt statement made by then Attorney General Michael Birt to Jersey's Royal Court when wrongly abandoning the prosecution of the Maguires.

That posting is another example of how the blogs have been way ahead of the curve compared to Jersey's polity, its MSM, and this CoI.

If anyone has questions arising from that posting, feel free to ask them here. I'm willing to answer anything sensible and civilised.

Stuart Syvret

voiceforchildren said...


You, and your readers, are encouraged to read the link Stuart left in his comment or click HERE which will take you to the posting.

Those who have been following the on-going Child Abuse COI will be aware (Anton Skinner's evidence to it) that what Stuart published in that posting concerning the Maguire's/Skinner and much more was bang on the money. The COI (as well as Skinner, and others) have vindicated Stuart and backed up his version of events.

Anonymous said...

Makes you wonder where these two very substantial lever-arch files, and one smaller ring-binder, of evidence on the Maguire's, are now. Are they even still in existence? Been destroyed? Or are they being purposely withheld?

Anonymous said...

Not to mention of course the boxes of documents that Trevor Pitman was made aware of that were allegedly found at Property Holdings. These documents caused the person that saw them a great deal of distress, and have already been mentioned by a witness who also knew of them, at the Care Inquiry.

One would ask, where are they now?

Curiouser and curiouser........

Anonymous said...

In the event of collecting files at a certain site today for the purpose of the coi. Who knows why the files were empty?

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"Makes you wonder where these two very substantial lever-arch files, and one smaller ring-binder, of evidence on the Maguire's, are now. Are they even still in existence? Been destroyed? Or are they being purposely withheld?"

I can say for a fact that, as of early November 2007, that evidence had been gathered up by the Jersey Police Force and it was, most definitely, forming a core part of their investigations.

Of course, what happened to that evidence after the illegal suspension of the good Police Chief Graham Power and the criminal high-jacking of the Jersey policing function by the fascistic David Warcup, Bill Ogley, and their puppet-masters such as the fatally and case-specific conflicted Philip and William Bailhache - who knows?

But these are questions of such profundity - questions that go to the absolute heart of the very functioning of the rule-of-law in the British state - that we shouldn't have to be asking them, then attempting to answer them. These are questions that sit on the desk of the UK Government - of its successive Ministers - of Whitehall mandarins - of the Privy Council - of the Cabinet Office - and - given Jersey's status as a feudatory not brought within the accountability of the Act of Settlement - on the desk of the Monarch.

Children - abused, tormented, battered, sexually assaulted - people who've suffered life-wrecking harm and damage; that this was able to happen - and then able to be covered-up - again - and again - and again - at - and by - the very highest levels of authority in Jersey - through the captured and perverted power of the Crown - is the question the British state faces.

Is the apparatus of the British state sufficiently free of decadence - of systemic contaminations and incompetence - to even recognise that question exists?

Sadly, I'm not sure it is.

Stuart Syvret

Anonymous said...

Jersey has layer upon layer, decade upon decade of uncleaned pond slime. The UK pond is far bigger but is hopefully having it's bottom feeders flushed out.

Too little too late.


IPCC launches 13 more probes into paedophile cover ups bringing the total of current IPCC investigations to 31 !!!!

That these things could happen in the first place is symptomatic of a system riddled with sleaze and shysterism.

Hang them from the lamp-posts???