LETTER FROM EXILE: # 19

LOOKING INTO THE MICROCOSM
FROM REALITY.

Blanche Pierre –

The Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity.

Part 5.

J’ACCUSE.

“In conclusion we are of the opinion the decision of the Attorney General [Michael Birt] to discharge the prosecution on 24th November 1998 was in the whole wrong.”

States of Jersey Police Report, 2008.

“My duty is to speak, I do not want to be an accomplice. My nights would be haunted by the specter of innocence that suffer there”.

Emile Zola.

“‘The Judge smiled. He spoke softly into the dim mud cubicle. You came forward, he said, to take part in a work. But you were a witness against yourself……For it was required of no man that he give more than he possessed nor was any man’s share compared to another’s. Only each was called upon to empty out his heart into the common and one did not. Can you tell me who that one was?’

‘It was you’, whispered the Kid. ‘You were the one.’

The Judge watched him through the bars, he shook his head. ‘What joins men together’, he said, ‘is not the sharing of bread but the sharing of enemies. But if I was your enemy with whom would you have shared me? With whom? The priest? Where is he now? Look at me. Our animosities were formed and waiting before we two ever met. Yet even so you could have changed it all.’

‘You’, said the Kid. ‘It was you.'”

Blood Meridian
Cormac McCarthy

“Clearly, based solely on the information to hand questions must be raised as to the motivation of prosecution for this case to succeed as on the face of it, despite clear difficulties with the case, the prima facie evidence was there for this matter to go to trial.”

“Should it become apparent that Mr Maguire was not suffering from a terminal illness or his illness was not as serious as made out then consideration should be given to an investigation into offences of perverting the course of justice.”

“Why then, if all legal tests had been satisfied to the extent that it would be committed to the Royal Court, did the prosecution then feel the need to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to proceed?”

“Most concerning of all it appears the Prosecution Advocate Mr Christmas who was present in Court played no part in proceedings.”

“Defence witness Richard Davenport who was the child care officer for the home at the time and provided a statement claiming he never had any concerns over ill treatment at Blanche Pierre is now a suspect for sexual abuse at Haut De La Garenne.”

“Concerns were raised over defence witnesses for the Maguires. The opinion of the prosecution appears to have been this evidence was too supportive to the Maguires. However, no consideration appears to have been given to testing their evidence in Court. If prosecution simply accepted defence evidence as fact very few cases would actually ever get to Court.”

“Mr Christmas made comment that the presiding Magistrate Judge Trott appeared to have dismissed too quickly representations from Mr Harris that his client Jane Maguire had no case to answer.”

“In relation to Question 3, the most apparent change since the decision was made to drop the charges is the continued apparent good health of Mr Maguire. A lot of emphasis was placed on concerns over Alan Maguire’s health and the adverse effects it may have on the conduct of a trial and the sympathy it would evoke in a jury for prosecuting a terminally ill man. Ten years on he appears to be still living a very active life.

“To date we have yet to locate any medical evidence to confirm the claims of Maguire’s Advocate, Mr Lakeman, that his client was “seriously ill”. In light of any evidence to the contrary we are of the opinion that at best it was naive for the prosecution and Courts to simply take the word of Maguire and his Advocate.”

“As already discussed the alleged terminal illness of Alan Maguire does not appear to have been investigated and too much weight appears to have been placed upon this claim. It is not even known what type of illness Maguire claimed to have yet alone how long he had to live.”

“In conclusion, abuse of process will no doubt be raised as an issue by defence should the decision be made to bring the Maguires back from France. The main argument being that the case was dismissed through lack of evidence, however, based on the evidence alone we are of the opinion that this decision was wrong and the matter should have been allowed to go to trial as instructed by Judge Trott. Should the incorrect decision of the prosecution be a valid argument for abuse of process then from a Police point of view there is little we can do to counter it. However based on evidence alone and concerns over the conduct of the case at Magistrates Court we feel there are sufficient arguments to robustly counter an abuse of process argument. Therefore pending legal decision we are of the opinion both Jane and Alan Maguire should be returned to Jersey for proceedings to be recommenced against them.”

“Notwithstanding any abuse of process on the allegations from 1997, there is still the matter of the new allegations and that of [Female 2] against Alan Maguire. As stated these stand up to scrutiny on their own merits and all efforts should be made to pursue all avenues to return Alan Maguire to Jersey to answer these new allegations.”

States of Jersey Police Report, 2008.

Apart from the quote taken from Zola’s famous ‘J’accuse’ – and the quote from Cormac McCarthy’s great – and horrifying – work, Blood Meridian – the random passages I reproduce above are all taken from a secret report by the States of Jersey Police Force – written jointly by two Officers, after the taking of independent legal advice, in 2008 – following months of obstructions from William Bailhache, the then Jersey Attorney General & sole Director of Public Prosecutions in Jersey – and his various agents, such as Simon Thomas – of 7 Bedford Row – and Advocate Stephen Baker – formerly of 7 Bedford Row.

The entire report is reproduced below.

But so utterly damning – are so many passages from the document, I felt it important to quote extensively from it, at the outset.

For, as though there were not enough evidence already in the public domain – evidence that would not, nor could not, be obtained and published, even in the name of decency – had I not fled Jersey – the document I reproduce in this posting is proof – upon proof.

The report below – read in conjunction with other evidence now published establishes – beyond dispute – a number of facts: –

  • A large number of vulnerable children, who were resident at the States of Jersey Blanche Pierre group-home – suffered appalling abuses.
  • The monstrous crimes suffered by these children were able to take place – on a sustained basis – over a period of years.
  • The children suffered appallingly – and were all profoundly damaged by what they endured.
  • They carry those scars – that suffering – that damage – with them today – into their adult-hood.
  • On many occasions – during what now approaches a time-span of three decades – the island’s authorities – the States of Jersey – have had successive opportunities to prevent that abuse occurring in the first place – then to have stopped it happening – then to have rescued the children, and to have stopped placing other children in the very same danger – to have prevented Jane and Alan Maguire from having access to vulnerable children – to have reported them to the police – to have prosecuted them – convict them – punish them – hold the culpable professionals to account – to have learnt the lessons – and to have delivered protection, justice, care – and continuing support – to the survivors.
  • Notwithstanding nearly three decades – the public authorities of the island of Jersey failed – at each, relevant stage – and have continued to fail – to this very day – to do even any one of those things.

It is worse.

Even than that.

Not only was the accumulated damnation of such failure visible to any honest and thinking person two years ago [July 2007] still – in ever more crazed and extraordinary displays of amoral megalomania – the Jersey oligarchy engages in a continuing total war – against the truth – against those vulnerable, damaged people – against the victims of the Maguires – against the victims of the States of Jersey – to this very day.

For though the great majority of decent people in Jersey imagine themselves to be in a respectable, law-abiding society – where if anything dreadful happens, the authorities can be relied upon to protect you – the awful truth is the reverse.

You and your family can be the victims of the most unspeakably dreadful things – yet no matter how just your cause – should it clash in some way with the interests of the Jersey oligarchy – and its senior figures – not only will you and yours not be protected, you will actually be oppressed – and suffer further, in attempting to seek justice.

In Jersey – as I explained in Part 3 of Blanche Pierre; Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity –  – there are no effective or functioning checks and balances. There is no part of the state power apparatus – nor even of the Fourth Estate – that will intervene against the others, should any of those component-parts of the polity have become decadent or be abusing their powers.

But, who is there to state that truth? What power, what authority, what check and balance exists within Jersey – or, frankly, without, such as those who claim to be the ultimate protectors of Jersey’s ordinary people in London – to bring an end to such overtly practiced lawlessness?

And – in particular – in the case of the continuing Blanche Pierre atrocity – finally bring an end to this disgusting – on-going – reprehensible spectacle?

Most certainly not the judiciary – nor the prosecution system.

On the contrary – both of those unscrutinised and excessive powers in Jersey – have become – plainly – subverted and suborned to the opposite ends.

Both of those state powers, that in any functioning society would be seeking to protect the vulnerable by bringing wrongdoers to justice and punishing the guilty – instead – in Jersey – have striven to crush the weak – and to protect the guilty.

As the evidence proves.

And it is no coincidence that the two previous London-appointed Jersey Attorney Generals, the all-powerful head of Jersey’s prosecution system – have each now ‘progressed’ – and are, respectively, the head Judge and deputy head Judge of Jersey’s judiciary.

They are –

Michael Birt.

And –

William Bailhache.

All decent, thinking people – will now join with the Blanche Pierre survivors and with me – with the call we now make – in demanding the immediate resignations of both men.

Michael Birt – and William Bailhache.

On the evidence – their positions are utterly untenable.

Doubly so – because in Jersey, the role and power of the judiciary is manifestly excessive. There is no clear separation of powers; a profoundly unhealthy overlap existing between the legislature and the judiciary. The undesirability of that state of affairs is there to be seen in the overt politicisation of the Jersey “justice” system.

In fact – the posts occupied by Birt and Bailhache – those of Bailiff and of Deputy Bailiff – serve also as unelected and highly politicised ‘Speakers’ of the Jersey parliament. Both men – like their predecessor, William Bailhache’s brother, former Attorney General and former Bailiff Philip Bailhache who corruptly first buried the crimes of the Maguires in 1990 – routinely exhibit undisguised bias when chairing States of Jersey debates, and when controlling question time. Just as they abuse the quite remarkable power they possess to vet, alter, block and edit – all propositions and questions tabled in the Jersey legislature.

And I will provide you with a topical – and quite staggering – example.

For notwithstanding the fact both men are – on the evidence – hopelessly conflicted in all issues relevant to the child abuse scandal – let alone the Blanche Pierre atrocity in particular – Michael Birt, just this past week – actually prevented an elected member – Deputy Trevor Pitman – from asking a question concerning the existence of an authenticated death certificate for Alan Maguire. The rest of the question was ‘permitted’.

But not that one, crucial point – as to whether the Jersey authorities ever obtained a death certificate in respect of the alleged “death” of the child abuser – Alan Maguire.

The improper and unlawful obstruction of that question – by Michael Birt – can only reinforce the theory of the Blanche Pierre survivors – that Maguire did not die.

Michael Birt – the then Attorney General – who corruptly permitted Maguire to escape justice in 1998.

Now – obstructing efforts to scrutinise that matter, by members of the island’s parliament.

One simply could not invent such conduct.

And now, Birt’s successor as Attorney General, and as Deputy Bailiff, William Bailhache, is – if anything – even more conflicted than Birt.

On the evidence – Bailhache’s overt and continuous obstructions of the Police in their attempts to bring the Maguires, belatedly, to justice during 2008 – is even worse than Birt’s conduct a decade earlier. For not only was there more evidence available – making the case for prosecution in the Blanche Pierre atrocity even more crushingly overwhelming – there were lots of other cases, too.

Cases that should have been brought to court – but were not. Cases that were not prosecuted – because William Bailhache adjudged that to have prosecuted such cases – would – in one way or another – have been massively damaging to the interests of the Jersey oligarchy.

Not, though, it ironically transpires – as catastrophically damaging as the consequences of his actions and disastrous misjudgements.

But Michael Birt – and William Bailhache – remain so culturally blinkered, so inured to the requirements of modern accountability, so assured in their plainly toxically excessive powers – that not only do they fail to see the plain fact that each is so hopelessly conflicted, that it is quite improper for either to play any role – at all – in any aspect of the child abuse issues that come before the Jersey parliament – they also, frighteningly, imagine it is acceptable for both to actually interfere in, and obstruct, such scrutinies.

It is – frightening.

I can think of no more appropriate a word.

It is frightening – to observe two men – who would, in any respectable society now be belatedly penning their letters of resignation – and be facing arrest and prosecution for the many startlingly evidenced cases of misconduct in a public office, and conspiracy to pervert justice – feel so absolutely assured and confident in their power – that, instead of resigning – merely strive more mightily and nakedly to abuse their powers – to heap more cover-up – upon the cover-up.

I have observed throughout this series of posts, how Jersey possesses no functioning checks and balances.

The spectacle of Birt and Bailhache – not only remaining in post – but further abusing their powers to conceal the truth – provides yet further proof of that fact.

For which power in Jersey could – or would – say “enough!”?

What power in Jersey can act in the obvious public interest – and take these two, frankly dangerous, eccentrics by the collar – and lead them out the door?

Not the judiciary. Not the executive. Not the prosecution system. Not the Fourth Estate. And not the legislature. Such is the nature of power in Jersey that – even if Birt and Bailhache were not obstructing the opposition members – the ruling oligarchy grouping possess not the wisdom to see when the higher public good requires them to act against their own institutions gone bad.

As far as the Jersey oligarchy is concerned – the maintenance of the status quo is all. It is the cause – to which all others are suborned.

Which is why – sadly, in so many ways – only a very long – a very difficult – and a very damaging – war – through the courts of Jersey, London and Strasbourg will eventually succeed in treating that madness.

But treated, it must be.

That fact is an evidenced and inescapable by-product – that comes along with the truth about the Blanche Pierre atrocity.

How sad – for the survivors – that they must endure yet more years of hurt – of injustice – when, instead, their suffering could be ameliorated and their wounds tended – now – if only power in Jersey possessed any capacity for self-criticism – or even for shame.

Stuart Syvret.

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THE MAGUIRES.

STATES OF JERSEY POLICE REPORT:

2008.

Telephone: (01534) 612612

POLICE HEADQUARTERS.
P.O. BOX 789
JERSEY. JE2 314.

REPORT

Submitted by: DC 3961 HOLMES & DC 663 NEWTH

Subject: Alan and Jane Maguire Case Review

Sir.

Whilst at a meeting on Tuesday 20th May 2008 with our legal advisor Simon Thomas to discuss the ongoing investigation into Jane and Alan Maguire certain questions were raised concerning any possibility of abuse of process being brought forward at a future date by defence, should a decision be made to proceed with charges against the Maguires.

Five specific points have been raised and research requested, these are;

1/ Why were the sexual allegations made against Alan Maguire not proceeded against at the time?

2/ What was said to the Maguires in Court about the case being dropped other than what is contained within the letter of discontinuance?

3/ What has changed since the decision was made and was that decision wrong, if so why?

4/ What might Maguire say to show he has acted to his detriment once he was told of the decision to discontinue?

5/ Have any new facts not known at the time come to light since the decision was made to discontinue the case?

In response to Question 1 we have liaised with the investigating officers, in particular Nick Troy, as well as examining existing paperwork held by the enquiry. It appears the decision not to pursue the allegations of sexual assault made by [Female 1] and [Female 3] was made by the [then] OIC based on the information held at the time, the view was that there was little or no corroboration to support these allegations.

With regard to Question 2 it is not known what was said to the Maguires in Court concerning the dropping of the charges. It would appear that the decision to stop proceedings was made following the Court appearance on 7 July 1998. The Maguires do not appear in Court again after this date. Therefore it can only be assumed the Maguires were notified either verbally or via letter either by the Courts or their Advocates.

In relation to Question 3, the most apparent change since the decision was made to drop the charges is the continued apparent good health of Mr Maguire. A lot of emphasis was placed on concerns over Alan Maguire’s health and the adverse effects it may have on the conduct of a trial and the sympathy it would evoke in a jury for prosecuting a terminally ill man. Ten years on he appears to be still living a very active life.

To date we have yet to locate any medical evidence to confirm the claims of Maguire’s Advocate, Mr Lakeman, that his client was “seriously ill”. In light of any evidence to the contrary we are of the opinion that at best it was naive for the prosecution and Courts to simply take the word of Maguire and his Advocate.

Consideration may have to be given to obtaining a production order for any medical records still held within Jersey for Alan Maguire in an attempt to refute or confirm his illness. It should be noted that at no stage is the exact nature of Mr Maguire’s illness disclosed.

Should it become apparent that Mr Maguire was not suffering from a terminal illness or his illness was not as serious as made out then consideration should be given to an investigation into offences of perverting the course of justice.

Another reason supplied by Advocate Binnington for discontinuing the case were concerns over the credibility of the victims, including previous convictions, drug and alcohol abuse. It is accepted that the victims do have “issues” covering these concerns but it was recognised at the time in the report of Carolyn Coverly that these ‘issues” are classic signs of the effect of childhood abuse, a fact that was clearly ignored at the time. Today this view is readily accepted and expert witness viewpoints could be sought by prosecution to validate this.

[Female 2] did not provide any evidence at the committal hearing as she did not turn up and as a result her allegations were never heard. Her reasons for not appearing are already well documented. However, today as an adult she fully accepts her responsibilities to provide her evidence. No real effort appears to have been made at the time to locate her or have the case adjourned for a short time so she could be located. Considering how emotionally disturbed she was at the time ( as described in psychiatric reports ) the decision to dismiss her evidence so quickly appears now to be very premature.

Defence witness Richard Davenport who was the child care officer for the home at the time and provided a statement claiming he never had any concerns over ill treatment at Blanche Pierre is now a suspect for sexual abuse at Haut De La Garenne. (ongoing)

In conclusion we are of the opinion the decision of the Attorney General to discharge the prosecution on 24th November 1998 was in the whole wrong. The basis for this view is a follows.

1/ Too much consideration was given to the negative effects of the victims’ characters, previous convictions etc and what effect they would have on a successful prosecution. No consideration what so ever appears to have been given to the positive aspects of these facts. It was recognised that the associated problems of drugs, alcohol and offending were all the classic signs of being subject of childhood abuse yet this appears to have been ignored or simply viewed as too difficult to overcome.

This also applies to concerns the prosecution had over inconsistencies in the witness evidence. It was again recognised by Carolyn Coverly that the evidence provided by the victims was “wholly accurate” considering the trauma suffered. No consideration appears to have been given to calling on “expert” witness opinion to support the prosecution case or taking this into account when assessing their evidence.

2/ There appears to have been no system of care put in place for the victims at the committal. Even allowing for the differences between Jersey and UK procedures it is apparent the witnesses were simply left to their own devices when giving evidence. Special measures were put in place in the form of screens but this led to difficulties in evidence being heard with answers often having to be repeated on several occasions, only adding to the stress of the witness. Most concerning of all it appears the Prosecution Advocate Mr Christmas who was present in Court played no part in proceedings. Legal reasons for this aside, this led to the witnesses being at the mercy of defence Advocates who, whilst accepting they had a job to do, where simply allowed to savage people who it was accepted were vulnerable and who should have had the full protection of the prosecution.

3/ Concerns were raised over defence witnesses for the Maguires. The opinion of the prosecution appears to have been this evidence was too supportive to the Maguires. However, no consideration appears to have been given to testing their evidence in Court. If prosecution simply accepted defence evidence as fact very few cases would actually ever get to Court. Defence evidence must be tested at trial as robustly as defence would test prosecution evidence or at the very least investigated for its voracity prior to the trial. This was not done.

4/ As already discussed the alleged terminal illness of Alan Maguire does not appear to have been investigated and too much weight appears to have been placed upon this claim. It is not even known what type of illness Maguire claimed to have yet alone how long he had to live.

5/ Mr Christmas made comment that the presiding Magistrate Judge Trott appeared to have dismissed too quickly representations from Mr Harris that his client Jane Maguire had no case to answer. However, Judge Trott heard most of the evidence including that of defence witness [W] as well as being provided with statements from all witnesses seen prior to the committal. He then took a whole month to consider his decision eventually finding that there was a case to answer. Why then, if all legal tests had been satisfied to the extent that it would be committed to the Royal Court, did the prosecution then feel the need to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to proceed?

Clearly, based solely on the information to hand questions must be raised as to the motivation of prosecution for this case to succeed as on the face of it, despite clear difficulties with the case, the prima facie evidence was there for this matter to go to trial.

The answers to Question 4 are very hard to establish, at present there is no [record] of what the Maguires’ response to the ‘no further action’ was. Clearly after the dropping of the Court case an internal hearing took place that clearly found Jane Maguire guilty of inflicting and condoning severe physical and mental abuse on the children in her care. These findings do not appear to have been contested by the Maguires, the question has to be asked, ‘why?’ If they believed they were not guilty of the allegations?

Also, it would appear that Alan Maguire must have known about the further allegation of sexual abuse made by [Female 2] after the case was dropped as reference is made to his Advocate Mr Lakeman contacting officers on the day Maguire was placed as wanted on PNC to state Alan Maguire was seriously ill. The Maguires have family and friends on Jersey yet despite this Alan Maguire has never returned. If he believed himself to be innocent of the allegation why has he never returned in the last ten years to answer the allegation and clear his name?

There appears to be no evidence of any witness intimidation by any party involved in this matter but it is not known what if any other contact has been maintained.

In connection to Question 5 a number of new allegations and further information has come to light. Most notably the new allegations of sexual abuse against Alan Maguire made by [Female 4] (albeit the assault occurred in French jurisdiction) [Female 5] and [Male 5]. These are totally new allegations that have never been put to Alan Maguire and stand against him in their own right, but also in respect of [Female 4]and [Female 5] add great support to the earlier allegations made by [Female 3] [Female 1] and [Female 2]. [Female 5] in particular is a very strong witness who was at Blanche Pierre as a helper and has no other motivation to her complaint than to help the enquiry.

The allegation made by [Female 2] has never been put to Alan Maguire and to this day he still remains as wanted for interview should he return to Jersey. [Male 5] aside all the allegations of sexual abuse against Maguire are of a similar vein and taken together provide a reasonable case against him.

The new allegations also give new evidence of physical abuse committed by Alan and Jane Maguire against [Female 5] and [Female 4] provides strong corroboration to the accounts of physical abuse against a number of original witnesses.

As you will be aware all the witnesses have been re-visited and asked to review their original statements. Without exception all have stood by their original allegations and no attempts have been made to ‘flour” them up.

In conclusion, abuse of process will no doubt be raised as an issue by defence should the decision be made to bring the Maguires back from France. The main argument being that the case was dismissed through lack of evidence, however, based on the evidence alone we are of the opinion that this decision was wrong and the matter should have been allowed to go to trial as instructed by Judge Trott. Should the incorrect decision of the prosecution be a valid argument for abuse of process then from a Police point of view there is little we can do to counter it. However based on evidence alone and concerns over the conduct of the case at Magistrates Court we feel there are sufficient arguments to robustly counter an abuse of process argument. Therefore pending legal decision we are of the opinion both Jane and Alan Maguire should be returned to Jersey for proceedings to be recommenced against them.

Notwithstanding any abuse of process on the allegations from 1997, there is still the matter of the new allegations and that of [Female 2] against Alan Maguire. As stated these stand up to scrutiny on their own merits and all efforts should be made to pursue all avenues to return Alan Maguire to Jersey to answer these new allegations.

DC 3961 HOLMES
DC 663 NEWTH

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.