Wednesday, October 21, 2015








It became apparent at the end of Anton Conelissen's evidence to the Jersey Child Abuse Enquiry (public hearing) that former Health Minister, Stuart Syvret was leaked an email authored by Mr Cornelissen.  He (Cornelissen) alleges that the leak came from Lenny Harper. This was stated at the end of his evidence after being prompted by one of the state lawyers sat beside him. There was no evidence to back up this allegation other than by his own admission that it was hearsay.  

Readers ought to be aware that Mr Cornelissen had submitted his statement to the Care Enquiry that it is believed that it primarily focused on the Victoria Collage Peadophilia and Cover Up.  He was later prompted by the States of Jersey Lawyers to submit a further two statements which contained the complaint about Mr Harper and the leaked email. 

Are the State Lawyers trying to set an agenda against Mr Harper. 

Why wasn't the alleged leaked email mentioned in the first statement if he was so aggrieved by it?

Why did he need to be prompted and read from a note passed to him by the state lawyer condemning the actions of Stuart Syvret and Lenny Harper if he was so aggrieved? Was the State Lawyer feeding the Jersey Media a juicy headline to smear Harper and Syvret. 

All is not what it seems.  According to Stuart Syvret,  Mr Cornelissen was move than happy that his email had been leaked and published. This makes sense as the email in question shows Mr Cornelissen in a good light as an honest cop with integrity.  The question could be asked was it in fact Mr Cornelissen who leaked this email through a third party? 

Here is the email in question and below that a reply from Stuart Syvret when asked by Team Voice for a comment. 

From: Cornelissen, Anton
Sent: 6th August 2007 15:17
To: Fossey, Alison

Further to our earlier conversation, as requested I confirm in writing what I have alleged.
In 1996 I was deployed to B shift under Derek UPTON. I was seconded for a time to the Child Protection Team where Barry FAUDEMER was the DS and John DE LA HAYE the DI.
I took on an investigation concerning Mr. Andrew JERVIS-DYKES a Teacher at Victoria College who had allegedly assaulted students whilst either on Combined Cadet Force (Navy Section) outings or when taking pupils sailing either in and around Jersey or Greece. DYKES was later convicted of numerous indecent assaults committed on the pupils and possession of indecent images of children (pupils at Victoria College.)

During the investigation I had cause to conduct enquiries at the St Helier Yacht Club situated at South Pier. It was alleged that Dykes took pupils to the Club to socialise and teach them navigation. He would also supply them with alcohol. Unfortunately having made my intentions known, I was prevented by DE LA HAYE to attend at the Yacht Club without his presence. On attending there, DE LA HAYE viewed the Club log book/register and provided me with certain dates that DYKES had attended there. I was not allowed to attend at the Club without his presence, or to view the log book.

As the Club Secretary and Chairman were very much on-side, and not understanding the reasons as to why I was prevented from viewing the log book, I attended at the Club where the Secretary allowed me to view the log book. I then discovered that a group of senior officers frequently attended at the Yacht Club together, and who were apparently sailing buddies. From memory I seem to recall those officers documented were Rolly JONES, Trevor GARRETT and DE LA HAYE. I seem to recall discovering that at times when the officers had attended at the Club, DYKES was also present with students.

It is worthy of note that due to the high profile of the investigation, the Police were under pressure to drop the investigation as it was harming the reputation of the College. I personally received threats and promises that my career would be hampered. In addition certain exhibits went missing from the file. This resulted in the file being locked in the DI’s (then Barry FAUDEMER) office at the end of each day.

Derek UPTON would press me for an update of the investigation at every opportunity, and which I felt very uncomfortable. I would protest that the information was confidential but would be met with threats of rank. Then despite being up to full strength on shift, on the insistence of UPTON my secondment to CPT was terminated and I returned to shift. This caused such a surprise that the duty Sergeants on shift that to make a point they decided to have a shift photograph. The Sergeants Andy CROWEL and Gary PASHLEY could not understand the reasons for my return especially as the investigation into Victoria College had escalated.

Towards the end of my secondment, the DS in CPT was DS Roger PRYKE. I invited Mr. Piers BAKER the deputy headmaster of Victoria College into the CPT in order to view certain images previously seized from DYKES; this with a view to identifying the pupils obviously being abused. BAKER alleged he was unable to provide any information but made an outrageous comment that DYKES had abused the pupils in payment for the time he provided in taking pupils sailing. The Headmaster Jack HYDES was subsequently dismissed from the College and BAKER requested to resign. BAKER and HYDES instigated civil proceedings against me as I disclosed the comment BAKER made to me to PRYKE, and in my report summary. The only person who supported me in the action was Barry FAUDEMER.

It is worthy of note that DE LA HAYE and PRYKE were friends. At no time did PRYKE disclose that he was also a neighbour and a personal friend to BAKER. During the investigation PRYKE denied categorically that I informed him about the comment that BAKER made. I have no doubt that if it were not for Barry FAUDEMER supporting me, then I would have been in hot water. 

I provide this information in all good faith, but due to the passage of time, I can not be absolutely certain of the facts.
Anton Cornelissen

Quote from Stuart Syvret when asked today by Team Voice.

"A few years ago - I think it was in 2011 - I was sat outside of the St. Catherine Breakwater café, having a cup of coffee & a toasted sandwich. Whilst there, I noticed a couple who kept occasionally looking at me. As a former public figure, it's not uncommon to notice people glancing at you. I had finished eating and was rubbing my hands with a serviette and obviously getting ready to leave. At this point the man of the couple stood from were they were sitting a couple of tables away, and came over to me and said 'hello, are you Stuart Syvret?' I said, 'yes I am. And I then said, forgive me, but I don't know who you are?' He then introduced himself as "Anton Cornellison, I'm a former Police Officer, you published on your blog an e-mail I had written in connection with the Victoria College child-abuse cover-ups".

I thought, "this man's going to be angry - demand to know 'where it came from, who was the source', etc., etc. 
But - Anton Cornellison was not in that category. Instead of hostility, he shook my hand, told me I was doing brave & important work - and he actually - explicitly - thanked me for publishing the e-mail. He said words to the effect that he had been given a hard time from certain quarters, some former colleagues and others, who didn't know the facts behind him being taken off child-protection, but the publication of the e-mail, and the fact it had then been widely read, made former colleagues and friends suddenly recognise the truth of his position and the honour and integrity he had been bringing to the job.

That was the one and only time I met Anton Cornelissen - and far from him regarding the publication of the e-mail as something "bad" - he thought its publication was good - and he actively thanked me for publishing it. End

Since certain parts of Jersey’s  Media (notably ITV/CTV) have been trashing the integrity and reputation of Lenny Harper based on false allegations, backed with no evidence, from former cop Anton Cornelissen at Jersey’s child abuse investigation. I thought I would do a little digging and ask some questions of the man being trashed."

Team Voice emailed Lenny Harper asked for a comment.

Mr. Harper.

Yesterday's witness at Jersey's Child Abuse Inquiry was former Police Officer Anton Cornelissen who gave some pretty compelling testimony primarily concerning the Victoria College paedophilia and subsequent cover up by the school and Jersey authorities.

However he was reminded by the States Lawyer sat next to him throughout his evidence that you allegedly leaked an e-mail of his to Stuart Syvret who then published it on his Blog.

The island's State Media has been dominated by this latter allegation and we'd like to ask, firstly, has any of the Jersey Media contacted you for a comment, if so, which one(s) and when did they contact you? If not, have you any thoughts as to why not?

The allegations made by Mr. Cornelissen didn't appear to be backed up with any evidence and was just hear-say that you leaked former Senator Syvret the e-mail. 

Did you leak the e-mail and have you any thoughts on how it is that allegations made against Child "Care" "Professionals" cannot be put to those professionals under their own names and these suspected paedophiles are given multiple identities by the Child Abuse Inquiry? Yet any allegations against yourself are permitted to be published, whether substantiated or not?

Reply from former DCO Lenny Harper

"None of the State media outlets have contacted me for a comment on this latest charade.  One prominent UK media organisation have contacted, but they see yesterdays events as part of a bigger picture that they are exploring in relation to why the Jersey authorities are so keen to make the child abuse scandal go away.  I can only think that as they wanted to use the headline, they believed that if given the opportunity, I would have made it look exactly what it is; an unsubstantiated, un-evidenced, wild allegation, fed to him by the current SOJP regime, who are so desperate that they are willing to apologise to a corrupt individual who was in a self admitted corrupt relationship with almost ten per cent of the force some years ago.

Of course the allegation was not supported by any evidence.  I have the email, along with dozens of other copy documents which would never have seen the light of day if I hadn't retained copies. However, Jersey famously (or infamously) leaks like the proverbial sieve, and any number of people could have leaked that email to Mr Syvret, including Mr Cornelissen himself.  He had more to gain than I from the leak.  What benefit was it to me?  The leak would have at least re-established some of the credibility among colleagues that he lost over his involvement in other matters which were briefly alluded to in his evidence.   He gave a strong indication of how affected he was by the shocking manner in which he was treated simply because he tried to investigate child abuse.  That will sound familiar to you and many other honest people in jersey.  It was not I who leaked the email.  

Mr Syvret has received many, many, States documents from whistle blowers, some of them from anonymous sources.  There are many decent people in Jersey who see him as one of the few honest outlets, along with yourself and one or two others. 
Coincidentally, I have this morning complained to the Inquiry about the apparent (I really mean obvious) manner in which they have allowed attacks on me whilst protecting certain prominent individuals to give evidence twice to the inquiry - once under their own names, and once anonymously, thereby allowing them to have allegations of serious crimes against children put to them without them being named, whilst allowing them then to give evidence again as apparently respectable people.  I copy the text of the email below."  

Good morning,

In the light of the ongoing extreme limitations being imposed on the ability of my "appointed" solicitor to attempt to do his job in preparing for my proposed evidence to the inquiry, I again send this email direct and copy Mr Cameron into it.

Recently the inquiry facilitated a number of prominent people within the Jersey Care system, past and present, in the unusual step of giving evidence twice.  One occasion was anonymously where allegations that they had committed serious crimes against children were put t them without revealing who they were.  This was to protect their "good names" and to prevent any embarrassment.  "Fairness" is what I think the Inquiry called it.  This concession however, did not stop them from attacking my character for daring to investigate the allegations against them.

Then they were allowed to give their evidence as themselves.  Upstanding members of the community.  The fact that many children in their care had made numerous allegations of abuse against them was not even hinted at.  Again however, they launched the same attacks against me and the investigation into the abuse.

When I queried this the inquiry told me they had thought long and hard about it but believed it to be the correct thing to do.  I wasn't happy about it but had to accept it.

Yesterday, a former police officer who never served or had any part in the investigation led by me, but whom I had moved from the CID following his involvement in trading stolen guns and gun parts with the disgraced police firearms clerk, was permitted to launch a wild and unsubstantiated attack on me by stating as a fact that I had leaked a document to Stuart Syvret. He makes it clear in his statement that the SOJP fed him this.  They did so without a shred of evidence despite a number of investigations including one by Sussex Police that I was not even told about and during which Stuart Syvret was arrested and his computers seized. 

The obvious question is, why was I not afforded the same degree of courtesy and protection that you so willingly gave to suspects of child abuse? 

Team Voice has again stepped in to fill the void left by the Jersey Media who just ran with an unsubstantiated allegation without contacting the target of that allegation. 

Rico Sorda Part Time Investigative Journalist 

Team Voice 


Anonymous said...

thanks for giving this in depth explanation to this latest evidence from the Inquiry. Am I correct in believing that Radio Jersey(I don't read the JEP)has not interviewed any witness or accused involved in the inquiry ?

rico sorda said...

I'm not sure on that. I know Mr Harper hasn't been contacted. In fairness to BBC Jersey they have done some good pieces on the Care Enquiry. We are getting into the parts that us bloggers have spent many years on.

Truth, Honesty, Integrity said...

Outstanding investigative journalism, Rico.

Yesterday, I was surprised to read the brief summary of Mr Cornelissen's evidence on the Inquiry's website at where it states, as fact:

"Referring to his statement, he said he had authored an email setting out some of the difficulties he had experienced investigating Victoria College at the request of Mr Harper, never believing for a second that it would subsequently be made available for public consumption because he disclosed it to former Senator Stuart Syvret who published it on his blog."

It is only on your blog that I have been able to read Mr Harper's emphatic denial of any such leak by him to Mr Syvret.

It is also interesting to read more of the back story, for example, that there were further repercussions from the incident with the firearms clerk.

You know, you're not bad for a pipe fitter mate...

Truth, Honesty, Integrity

rico sorda said...


I couldn't work it out at first as to why Cornelissen didn't want to mention Harper and the email. He said he was distraught at the leak but didn't want to mention it. Well it's obvious now. It was only positive for him. Hence thanking Stuart. The establishment are trying to smear Lenny. This ties in with the Deputy McDonald proposition lodged for debate in December.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

In his e-mail to the "public inquiry" / Eversheds, Mr Harper says this: -

"When I queried this the inquiry told me they had thought long and hard about it but believed it to be the correct thing to do. I wasn't happy about it but had to accept it."

A point which must be always borne in mind is that - in fact - if Jersey had the real administration of justice - as opposed to the overt, gangster, fake "judiciary" we suffer under - we wouldn't just "have to accept" such plainly ultra vires - unlawful - assertions from this fake "public inquiry".

The conduct - the acts and omissions - of Eversheds and the Panel would be able to be challenged in an objective court-of-law - and such overtly unlawful decisions as rigging the process of a "public inquiry" by enabling the child-abusing, child-abuse-concealing, criminals to have the advantaged and protection of "appearing" before the "public inquiry" - under three different identities" - would be struck-down by the court.

The Jersey child-abuse "public inquiry" is able to be a fake - to be a rigged and corrupt process - only because Jersey's "judicial" function is - in-and-of-itself - a criminal enterprise.

And ironically enough - the Jersey "public inquiry" / Eversheds couldn't mount any credible denial of that fact - because - no doubt to their great discomfort - they've already received enough evidence to show that is the true case - several times over.

The undisguisable fact is this: - in truth what the public need to have inquired into in Jersey is not only child-abuse - but the more fundamental - all-encompassing - dark toxin of judicial corruption.

That is what we're dealing with in the British Crown tax-shelter of Jersey - judicial corruption.

It's as plain as that.

Stuart Syvret

Anonymous said...

Nice work, Rico. The PowersThat Be are still desperate to find something, anything, to tarnish the reputations of Lenny Harper and Graham Power. I suppose we'll continue to see more of that slant from the State Media. At some point, though, the cover-up complicit media must realize that the only accurate, well evidenced record of all this has been, and continues to be, rigorously chronicled on blogs like yours, VFC's and Stuart's. Because you have the evidence on your side, history will be kind to you.


voiceforchildren said...



Anonymous said...

So - Operation 'Destroy Lenny Harper' has now commenced.


Anonymous said...

More like: Operation 'Destroy Lenny Harper.... to justify the establishments suspension of Graham Power?!

Anonymous said...

Great post. What an intriguing witness Mr Cornelissen was! Particularly interesting to me was learning of the clear dishonesty of Jersey Jurat John Le Breton. In the former police officer's own words bullying Vic College abuse victims not to make complaints and attempting to interfere in the prosecution process. All of this evidently taking place while a Jurat? With Mr Cornelissen's evidence coming on top of the Sharp report it must be said it fully backs up what Stuart Syvret claimed about this reprehensible individual. As for the Pitman's (two more of the tiny number of political good guys through all of this) they must be absolutely sickened. The case they lost really must be re-opened. We just can't have dishonest Jurats.

Anonymous said...

Looks like the Jurat Le Breton chickens are finally coming home to roost. Tangible. Irrefutable proof that those controlling Jersey's judicial system fully condone the Jersey Way.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

It's interesting to note - and this will be of value to curious external observers of "The Jersey Situation" - that all of Jersey's heritage media had exactly the same - very obvious - step available to them in pursuit of a serious public-interest story as that taken by Jersey's bloggers, of e-mailing me or phoning me, to put to me questions arising from testimony and evidence before this so-called "public-inquiry".

Not one single journalist - from any of the Jersey oligarchy's MSM - took that obvious step.

Had they done so I would have willingly told them the same facts I gave to Jersey's bloggers when they contacted me.

There are plain conclusions any dispassionate observer will draw from this story; such as that Jersey's trad MSM is so biased and politicised - and, more significantly the community of Jersey is so deliberately "pacified" - that the bosses of Jersey's heritage media are so confident (or complaisant?) in their hegemony they feel secure in simply ignoring blindingly obvious and unavoidable journalistic steps?

I've made the point before - and no doubt I'll make it again, so we can be certain there's no hiding place - that in connection with any question or issue arising in the course of this defective "public inquiry" into decades of concealed child-abuse in Jersey, which falls within my knowledge or responsibilities - I am fully prepared to answer any reasonable journalistic questions from any media.

I'm not holding my breath in anticipation of such questions, because the media "Just Asking The Damn Question", doesn't fit with the PR strategy of which the Jersey /Eversheds "public inquiry" is just a carefully crafted component.

Those curious as to what I might have to say in respect of the Jersey child-abuse disaster will have to carry on relying on Jersey's vital blogs. You will find my views reported by Jersey citizen media - in contrast with the self-chosen deafening silence of Jersey's heritage media.

Stuart Syvret

Anonymous said...

Brilliant blog- thank you

Anonymous said...

can anyone throw any light as to why deputy Pryke allegedly tried to get through the police cordon at Haut de la G?

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Deputy Anne Pryke tried to get through the Police cordon into Haut de la Garren - in the company of a core, priority - multi-complainant - child-abuse suspect (a child-abuse suspect who has been granted privileged - unlawful - protection by the Jersey CoI/Eversheds) for the purpose of removing evidence from the HdlG crime-scene.

The fact this woman remains a member of the Jersey parliament let alone a member of the Jersey cabinet - shows, in addition to what a weak, worthless worm Ian Gorst is, that the ordinary people of Jersey can never be protected from the dangers of rampant corruption until the British monarchy is made accountable under the rule-of-law.

Stuart Syvret

Anonymous said...

I can't throw any light, but I am aware of the issue.

A question was asked in the States by (then) Deputy Trevor Pitman of (then) Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand on 5th March 2013. Ian Le Marquand gave a typical obfuscating answer, available here:

Trevor Pitman did blog about it a bit more, in July 2013:

He wrote:

"...And confirmed by no less an authority than former Senior Investigating Office for Operation Rectangle, Lenny Harper. For I quote:

"On 19th February at 3pm Ann Pryke attended HDLG. I was asked to go to the entrance by officers on security duty there. Pryke was demanding entry and a full update on our activities. She was complaining loudly that we had not pre-informed her of our entry to HDLG. I told her it was police business and she should leave."

More info at the above blog post.

I am not aware that any Jersey journalist has even asked Deputy Pryke to confirm or deny what Lenny Harper said. You would think they would at least ask the question. :-/

Anonymous said...

Anton Johann Cornelissen's witness statement has been published on the inquiry's website. I recommend that people read it: