As I laid upon the hard and too narrow bunk of my prison cell during the night of Wednesday the 17th November – I thought of Wendy Kinnard.

When we used to be States members, Wendy was a friend and political ally of mine.

Contemplating the vast, memorised cataloguing-system of the evidence to be used in the coming months and years – only a tiny part of which is referenced in the Order of Justice I publish below – I couldn’t help but recollect the specific e-mail – also published below – sent by Graham Power to Wendy Kinnard at 17:18 on the 25th July 2007.

I wondered – as I cast my eyes over the hardened grey plastic of the table, the manky floor, the reinforced glass and steel of the window, through which, even at 1.00 in the morning a harsh, sodium light burned – where Wendy was?

In which of her several, multi-million pound houses – the luxury converted farm-house in St. Lawrence – with indoor swimming-pool – the huge, tax-efficient tenement property with surrounding lands in Sark, the luxury Covent Garden apartment – she was residing in at that moment?

Perhaps she was on the beach in Mauritius?

I thought of Wendy – because – back in the day – she used to share my views about the protection of vulnerable people – children and women. As someone who helped to establish the Women’s Refuge in Jersey, she certainly wouldn’t have wanted vulnerable, terminally ill women in private-sector nursing homes to be at risk of being raped by maniacs such as nurse M.

Nor would she have wanted frail, elderly ladies to be murdered in their beds at 3.17 a.m through the use of massive diamorphine overdoses.

OK – as I lay there, speculating – I could imagine her not necessarily agreeing with my Wikileaks-style methods. She would – I thought – almost certainly prefer the “official” approach. But – by way of counter-argument – as I stared at the built-in plastic toilet – the words, ‘that does, of course, assume the “official methods” to work’, drifted idly through my mind.

In my thought-experiment, I imagined Wendy, sternly disapproving of my public-interest disclosures and saying – “There’s no need for that. The appropriate public authorities and safe-guards can be relied upon to protect elderly patients – and vulnerable children.”

‘Well’ – I thought – ‘you would certainly hope so – wouldn’t you?’

For example – in the protection of vulnerable children, if the person with the relevant public authority discovered a series of appalling examples of child abuse and resultant cover-ups – then that authority could use his or her legal powers to expose the truth and fix the system.

Vulnerable children could be protected – without such an extraordinary thing occurring – as an evidenced criminal plot – engaged in by the culpable civil servants – to obstruct the public authority.

‘Why – surely if any such plot came into their knowledge – all decent people in authority would immediately oppose it?’

They would have to – if there were to be any chance of the “official approach” to dealing which such wrong-doing ever working.

And it was at that point that my thought-experiment repeatedly foundered upon the rock of that e-mail.

Because as I lay there – in my prison-cell – I just couldn’t square Wendy’s ‘right-on’ politics – and her likely condemnation of my public-disclosure methods – with the brutal reality – that she had received – the evening before the Council of Ministers’ meeting on the 26th July 2007 – an e-mail from the Chief of Police, Graham Power – in which he drew to her attention the plot by the civil servants to unlawfully engineer my dismissal in their attempt to conceal child abuse.

She knew.

Even before the whole criminal enterprise had really taken off – Wendy Kinnard – my friend and ally – knew.

And if Wendy – of all people – couldn’t be relied upon to speak-out against such improper attempts to obstruct the “official systems” of protecting the vulnerable – especially as I was a friend and political ally of hers – then could – and can – the “official systems” ever be relied upon?

Well – I just never could make sense of her conduct – ever since seeing the e-mail – so perhaps Wendy will give us the benefit of an explanation?

Preferably before I get jailed again for having tried to stop vulnerable women from being abused by a psychopath.

And whilst we wait – as desperate as the Jersey oligarchy is to “draw a line” under the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster, the real task of exposing – and fixing – the rotten, broken system that permitted decades of child abuse to be unlawfully concealed, is scarcely just beginning.

I publish the first legal action below.

During the coming months – and years – in various legal and political forums – a lot of people are going to have a lot of questions to answer.

Not just Wendy.

And I don’t refer to only the obvious culprits – the well-documented usual suspects from within the Jersey oligarchy.

When the inevitable detailed examination occurs of the systemic child protection failure – an examination of all parts of the system, including the political – one of the most stark and accusatory questions that stands to be faced is this:

Where have the political ‘opposition’ been?

Certainly, it’s true that there have been two or three debates on different aspects of the whole disgusting scandal; questions get asked, and a couple of States members – noticeably Bob Hill and Simon Crowcroft – have fought resolutely to expose the criminally improper suspension of Graham Power.

But given the nature of the disaster – its overt criminality – its sheer scale – and the huge mass of documented evidence available – in reality, Jersey’s self-styled ‘progressive’ politicians have been stunningly ineffective – and absent – and silent.

Those politicians – some of who sought election on expressions of concern for vulnerable children – are going to have some explaining to do.

Because when reading the Order of Justice I publish in full below – it will be seen that the evidenced nature of the scandal is – indeed – the kind of thing that would bring down a government in any other western democracy.

Any ‘opposition’ would have – and should have – eaten a government for breakfast in the face of such a collection of atrocities.

It is nothing short of staggering that 99% of the culpable individuals remain un-touched and armour-plated.

But in addition to the Order of Justice – I am publishing three other examples of the evidence.

They being an e-mail from Detective Inspector Alison Fossey, to Marnie Baudains, the Directorate Manager of Social Services – Baudains’ response to DI Fossey – and the e-mail from Graham Power – to the then Home Affairs Minister, Wendy Kinnard – as referred to above.

Wendy Kinnard.

A person who has some explaining to do.

Whilst there are certain aspects of the whole saga that are justifiably confidential – the political scandal – and the unlawful cover-ups – are not.

The criminality of Jersey’s senior civil servants – the conduct of people such as Frank walker and Bill Ogley – of William Bailhache – of events surrounding the unlawful suspension of Graham Power – and those events in July 2007, which Mr. Power’s e-mail to Wendy Kinnard deals with – all are matters that require – in the public good – thorough examination.

Why has she refused – to this day – to speak-out concerning the improper political pressures she was placed under to interfere with and obstruct the historic abuse investigation?

Why has she not spoken publicly in defence of Graham Power or Lenny Harper?

Why has she allowed the dysfunctional power-structure responsible for the abuse of vulnerable children – to remain in place and unchallenged?

And why – I am personally interested to know – did she receive the apocalyptic e-mail from The Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force – informing her of a criminal conspiracy by civil servants to engineer the dismissal of a Health & Social Services Minister – and she fail to speak-out about it?

Why – when the civil servants in question were breaking the law in an anti-democratic attempt to conceal their many gross child protection failures – did she not even have the decency to inform me – a political ally – and supposed friend of hers?

It may be that she does have an explanation for such extraordinary conduct?

If so – I’m quite sure we’re all looking forward to reading it.

And it had better be a very, very convincing explanation.

Because – in light of the evidence published here – her reputation depends upon it; and that quite aside from the possible legal ramifications.

Former Senator Kinnard was one of those kinds of States members who like to imagine themselves as being ‘progressive’ –  of being a ‘reformer’ – of being some kind of fearless campaigner for the broad public good, against the stagnation of the traditional oligarchy. In her case, an avowed feminist and campaigner against the abuse of women, a ‘right-on’ Open University lecturer – who didn’t even need the excuse of having to worry about money, as she is married to a multi-multi-millionaire tax lawyer; a bit of an all-round Bollinger-Bolshevik is Wendy.

Moreover – she is a card-carrying member of the Labour Party.

But – these days – that is a fact I find far more disturbing – than I do reassuring.

My own politics are on the centre-Left. There was a time – God, how innocent and foolish I was – when I used to assume Labour, the unions, and the Left in general – to be on the side of the powerless and the weak.

The last four years have disabused me of that notion.

Today I can state with absolute confidence that a majority – a clear majority – of the culpability for the criminal concealment of child abuse in Jersey during the last four years, lays with the traditional Left – and with the union-movement in the island.

The nakedly self-interested protectionism of public employees – of all grades – the ruthless closing-of-ranks, the absolute rejection of any concept of accountability – the frequently criminal concealment of wrong-doing and incompetence – the bullying and victimisation of employees who try to do the right thing – the sheer, a-moral corruption by which the broad public interest is trampled into the dirt – has been nothing less than frightening.

Employee representatives and the union movement in general have – in the course of these last four years – actively striven to criminally conceal the abuse of children in Jersey.

And that influence has not been confined to these shores. Union and Labour Party contacts were actively lobbied – to prevent the recently departed – Labour – government from properly intervening – as it should have done – to restore the proper rule of law and good administration of justice in Jersey.

Yes, the atrocious history of child abuse in Jersey was able to be finally exposed during these last four years.

However, the corrupt, dangerous and lawless public administration of Jersey responsible for the child abuse disaster has escaped the necessary exposure and reform – ironically – because of the bent protections of the Labour / Left.

Perhaps – with hindsight – not entirely surprising – when we observe creatures such as Jack Straw – having been in the post of Justice Secretary.

Who knows – perhaps a few hefty “donations” were made to Labour Party coffers during recent years? It isn’t as though there is a shortage of money amongst the powerful in Jersey.

This being British ‘power’ at work – in all its toxic and varied stripes – it is going to be interesting to observe the award of future ‘honours’.

Perhaps it isn’t only the likes of Mick Birt and Bill Bailhache who have been hoping to secure the proverbial ‘gong’?

Perhaps Jersey readers will now be able to understand a little bit more, just why I grew sickened of politics – and would never seek election again.

The political environment is no place for an honest person.

It is bad enough when a deeply corrupt, all-powerful oligarchy is forever trying to do you down.

When it is also routine for your own supposed political allies – and friends – to utterly betray you and the causes they themselves effect to support – politics is simply not endurable.

But that doesn’t mean I’ve given up fighting for what is right.

The documents published below – are free to be legally used by Jersey child abuse survivors in the legal claims they can – and should – bring against the States of Jersey, and, if need be, those in power in London, who have protected the Jersey oligarchy.

The e-mails re-produced below – as with a very significant amount of other documents – are verifiable.

The facts as laid out in the Order of Justice are likewise evidenced.

I – and a number of other significant witnesses – are prepared to attend in court – and give evidence under oath on behalf of the justifiable claims for damages that Jersey abuse survivors will rightly wish to bring.

All of the many, many items of documented evidence published on this blog during what is now approaching three-years can be adduced in court on behalf of any such claims.

I strongly advise all survivors of Jersey’s child abuse, no matter where they now live, to think seriously – I mean, really, really seriously – about whether they can actually be certain that “their” lawyers are on their side?

Believe me – you would be amazed at just who you can’t trust.

When the very system that Jersey tax-payers spend millions of pounds on each year for the supposed “protection” of vulnerable children – is – in itself – often the greatest danger to those children – we cannot rest.

When the response of the Jersey child protection apparatus to child abuse – is to immediately focus almost entirely upon protecting itself from scrutiny – children are going to be abused.

The dangers are self-evident.

Here is Graham Power’s e-mail to Wendy Kinnard.

And – below it – is a further e-mail exchange between DI Alison Fossey – and Marnie Baudains – THE civil servant most culpable for the systemic child protection failures.

“From: Graham Power
Sent: 25th July 2007 17:19
To: Fossey, Alison; Du Val, Shaun
CC: Harper, Lenny
Subject: Fw: Child protection and the comments of the Health Minister
Sensitivity: Confidential

For your interests.

Graham Power
Chief Officer

—–Original Message—–
From: Graham Power
Sent: 25th July 2007 17:18
To: Wendy Kinnard
Subject: Child protection and the comments of the Health Minister
Sensitivity: Confidential

Wendy, Alison Fossey and myself have both this afternoon independently withdrawn from meetings at which the above was discussed. Allison withdrew from a meeting of the Child Protection Committee. I was asked to leave a meeting of selected members of the Corporate Management Board after I indicated I wanted nothing to do with what was under discussion. In both cases the reason was the same. We both while attending independently and without any pre-knowledge felt that we were being unexpectedly being asked to add our names to a statement or resolution which might have serious implications for the position of the Health Minister. This was in response to recent critical comments he has made regarding the standards of child protection arrangements in the island and the competence of some of the parties involved. (It is also fair to say that understandable points were made regarding the manner and tone of his comments.) In both cases our line was that as police officers we can have no part in such political controversy and cannot be associated with any representations of the kind which appeared to be envisaged. I do not believe that it was coincidental that these two separate meetings addressed the same issue on the same afternoon and it was clear to both Allison and myself from comments made that there had been political discussions outside the membership of the meeting. Both Allison and I have separately made notes as a record of our experience and of the lines taken.

So far as what is the subject of the controversy I have the following comments which are mine alone.

1: The Serious Case Review report is an interesting document with some valid points but some hard questions are missed. It could not be described as either thorough or penetrating.

2: The Minister’s point that there is a lot of focus on what happened after the matter was reported to the police but little on the years preceding the report, when it was clear that that there was some manner of problem is a fair comment. There might be a perfectly good answer but I see nothing wrong with a Minister making this challenge.

3: Likewise in respect of the Children’s Service not prioritising the case. There may be a good answer but it is a fair question.

4: There is little critical comment of substance relating to the Police. Our position is that we have nothing to fear from any enquiry.

I hope this is helpful. I understand that the matter will be on your agenda tomorrow. That being the case I naturally wanted you to be fully sighted on an unusual afternoon’s events.

Best wishes and enjoy your day.


Graham Power
Chief Officer”

“From: Fossey, Alison
Sent: 25th July 2007 16:38
To: Marnie Baudains
Cc: Kate Rogers
Subject: Meeting of JCPC on 24th July

Dear Marnie
Following my attendance at the meeting and subsequent early departure I have had an opportunity to consult with Mr. Power and I would like to ensure that my abstention from the decision of the meeting is formally recorded. I fully support the JCPC and its aims and objectives, however, my role as a Police Officer requires me to be independent and impartial in particular from political matters. I hope you understand.


Detective Inspector Alison Fossey
Public Protection
States of Jersey Police

—–Original Message—–
From: Marnie Baudains
Sent: 26th July 2007 08:52
To: Fossey, Alison
Subject: Re: Meeting of JCPC on 24th July

Thank you Alison

I can confirm that Iris that the following phrase be inserted in the list of representatives present at the meeting: ‘States of Jersey Police representative was present to observe but was unable to contribute to the decision of the Committee due to the requirements for the Police Service to remain independent and impartial’.


Marnie Baudains

Directorate Manager, Social Services
Maison le Pape”

The gravity of the situation revealed by the above correspondence cannot be over-stated.

What we have evidenced here is without precedent in any modern democracy on the face of the planet.

Here you have the senior civil servants – including THE civil servant with overarching responsibility for child protection in Jersey – Marnie Baudains – engaging in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice – and committing misconduct in a public office – and directly attacking and undermining the very basis of representative and accountable democracy.

In order to conceal child abuse and child protection failures.

And all witnessed and recorded by senior police officers.

Bill Ogley has only been right about one thing during his criminal and destructive tenure at the head of Jersey’s civil service.

When he and Walker were told by the Police of the historic child abuse investigation – he said to Lenny Harper – “you realise this could bring down the government?”

In Ogley’s statement – we see embodied the entire motivation – the real priority – the entire – disgusting conduct of the Jersey establishment – explained.

The entire wholly bizarre and disgraceful farrago – explained in those few words.

But – as things stand – the decadent system – and the corrupt individuals within it – have survived.

The system remains rotten – the individuals remain corrupt.

There has been – so far – no accountability.

Vulnerable children remain at risk.

The Order of Justice below represents the first serious attempt to expose and then fix that broken system, since I attempted to do so in 2007.

The evidence published here – and my personal testimony – are at the disposal of all the survivors in any legal actions they take against the States of Jersey.

I was – for eight years – the head of Jersey’s so-called child protection authority; I carried the relevant legal powers and responsibilities. But unbeknownst to me until January 2007, the entire child “protection” apparatus of Jersey was in the habit of routinely concealing child abuse and child protection failures – and had been acting in that criminal manner for decades.

I consequently became the first ever Jersey politician to recognise and speak-out against the many decades of concealed child abuse.

But the system – far from responding lawfully – not only betrayed children yet further – actually set about oppressing me in a criminal attempt to keep the decades of abuse hidden.

Everything I know about that gross and corrupt conduct by the States of Jersey is evidenced – and I am prepared to provide a detailed affidavit – and be cross-examined under oath – as a witness against the island’s authorities.

The States of Jersey:


All public authority in this island – at one time or another – and in one way or another – culpable.

Decade after decade of incompetence, neglect and abuse towards vulnerable children.

Not only is it entirely right and justifiable that survivors should seek some kind of justice from the States of Jersey – it is also massively in the interests of current and future child-protection that they should do so.


Because notwithstanding some of the truth being exposed – and some of the abusers being brought to justice – the Culture of Concealment has survived. It remains largely in place – and zero meaningful scrutiny has been brought to bear upon its criminal malfeasances.

The very systemic failures – the very ‘culture’ – in many cases, the very individuals – responsible for criminally brushing child abuse under the carpet for decades – have escaped challenge and accountability.

And in Jersey – that dangerous and criminal culture of invulnerability has been held in place by a toxic pact of mutual protection, between the Left and the Right.

Under those circumstances – no vulnerable child in Jersey can be regarded as being truly well protected.

Together – we will fix the broken system. We must. Because if we don’t – children will remain at risk. Most States members remain in a state of perverse immoral denial. As Rico Sorda wrote on his blog: –

“These States members are a Danger to Children in Care, the reason for saying this is simple. Who now will be prepared to blow the whistle in Jersey if they see malpractice towards Children? Do these States members not recognise the magnitude of what they are doing?”

Until – and unless – we make the system itself accountable – sadly, the atrocities will occur again.



(Samedi Division)


First Defendant


Second Defendant


Third Defendant


Fourth Defendant


1. The Defendants

2. The four Defendants were at all material times in positions of direct or indirect authority, control, power and/or influence over the child protection systems of the island of Jersey and/or those public functions which bore upon matters related to the proper and lawful functioning of Jersey’s child protection systems.

3. The four Defendants have each – in their official, public and/or statutory roles – done wrongs to the Plaintiff that are unlawful, and which have caused the Plaintiff suffering, harm and damage.

4. The wrongs inflicted upon the Plaintiff were so caused in respect of his efforts to secure lawful and effective standards of child protection in Jersey.

5. The First Defendant is the Chief Minister, leader of the island’s political executive, the Council of Ministers. He is responsible for the conduct of his department, including those senior civil servants who work within it, its Communications Unit, and all functions associated with the Office of Chief Minster. He is also head of the States of Jersey Employment Board. He was also, for a period of the relevant time, the Deputy Chief Minister.

6. The Second Defendant is the States Employment Board. It is the public authority responsible for the employment, performance, conduct, discipline and legality of the conduct of public employees. In the context of these pleadings, such responsibilities are especially relevant in respect of senior civil servants, including departmental Chief Officers and the Chief Executive.

7. The second Defendant carries vicarious liability for wrongs engaged in or committed by its employees.

8. The second Defendant has a clear duty of care to ensure standards of basic competence and lawfulness in the conduct of its employees.

9. The second Defendant has a clear duty of care to ensure that its employees do not act in improper and/or unlawful ways that cause harm, suffering and damage to any person, such as the Plaintiff.

10. The Third Defendant is the States of Jersey, being responsible for legislation and policy matters in respect of the governance of the island. The Third Defendant has a duty to ensure its Ministers, Departments and employees act lawfully in the discharge of their duties and that the general interest of the public is the overarching priority. The States of Jersey owes a duty of care to the population of the island. It also owes a duty of care to ensure that its elected members are able to undertake their democratic functions freely, fully and without molestation, harassment or oppression. It is responsible for ensuring that the democratically chosen representatives of the population of the island are able to fulfil the people’s fundamental right to be represented by those they have elected. It has a duty to ensure that minority or opposition members are able to freely express themselves and pursue the policies for which they were elected without being subjected to oppressive tyranny by the majority grouping. It has a duty of care to ensure that in discharging their democratic duties, elected members are not subjected to unlawful actions and pressures that may be harmful, damaging or injurious to them.

11. The Fourth Defendant is Her Majesty’s Attorney General, the sole prosecutory authority in Jersey – the de facto director of public prosecutions, the principle legal adviser to the island’s parliament, the principle legal adviser to the island’s cabinet – the Council of Ministers, and the head of the island’s 12 honorary police forces.

12. The Plaintiff

13. The Plaintiff was, at the material times, a Senator of the States of Jersey. He was elected to the island’s parliament as a Deputy for St. Helier in November 1990, and elected by the whole island as a Senator in October 1993. Throughout his near-twenty years as a States member, the Plaintiff consistently opposed the traditional political/judicial ‘establishment’ of Jersey and consistently argued for different political policies, for improvements in public administration and for the introduction of effective checks and balances.

14. The Plaintiff had very substantial public endorsement for his political views, his policies and his fearless approach to challenging entrenched power in Jersey. This is evidenced by the fact that in the last two general elections he contested, in 1999 and 2005, the Plaintiff came first in the island-wide poll. Until recently being unlawfully driven from Office, he possessed the largest political mandate in Jersey, and was the only member of the States assembly to have been elected on a clearly and openly declared intention to seek appointment to the post of Chief Minister.

15. The Plaintiff, therefore, had a highly credible political mandate; one that had been hard-earned during the preceding twenty years, during which the honesty and integrity of the Plaintiff won the acknowledgment of the public, and, conversely the consistent hostility of the political ‘establishment’.

16. The Plaintiff has, therefore, often been subjected to political hostilities and obstructions by those in power in Jersey, certain of which harassments have been unlawful.

17. The unlawful oppression suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of his lawful attempts to expose child protection failures was an extreme example of the political obstructions he has endured.

18. The illegalities, torts, malfeasances and injustices raised in this Order of Justice were first made officially known to the Plaintiff on the 21st November 2007, when – in response to an e-mail from the Plaintiff – the then Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, Graham Power, Queens Police Medal, informed the Plaintiff that he had been present, and witnessed several very senior civil servants engaging in an unlawful plot to engineer the dismissal of the Plaintiff from the Office he then held as Minister for Health & Social Services.

19. In addition to the wrongs pleaded in this Order of Justice, the Plaintiff has further been the victim of numerous other unlawful acts committed by a number of different public authorities in Jersey. For the avoidance of doubt, those wrongs will be subject to separate, distinct proceedings in due course.

20. In summary, the plaintiff is the victim – as is pleaded in detail below – of many unlawful acts, inter alios: –

20.1.1. Various breaches of his Human Rights, contra the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000;

20.1.2. Incidental breaches of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002;

20.1.3. Various conspiracies to pervert the course of justice;

20.1.4. Various Torts;

20.1.5. Various breaches of Article 47 of the States of Jersey Law 2005;

20.1.6. Various examples of misconduct in a public office;

20.1.7. Various examples of misfeasance in a public office.

21. As a victim of these unlawful acts, the Plaintiff has suffered wrong, harm and injury, the destruction of his career and of his family life, personal financial ruination and great suffering and mental anguish, and seeks appropriate reliefs from the court.

22. Background

23. From December 1999 until December 2005, the Plaintiff was President of the then Health & Social Services Committee.

24. Following a change to a Ministerial system of government, the Plaintiff became the Minister for Health & Social Services from December 2005 until 11th September 2007.

25. Unlawful Obstruction of the Plaintiff in the Discharging of his Lawful Responsibilities and Obligations as Minister for Health & Social Services.

26. In addition to the broad common law responsibility to ensure a public department such as Health & Social Services (H & SS) operates lawfully and to a high standard, the Office of H & SS Minister carries with it a number of statutory duties, obligations and consequent powers.

27. For the purposes of these proceedings, the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 is specifically cited.

28. The Children Law.

29. The Minster for Health & Social Services is the public authority with responsibility for child protection in Jersey, with the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 being the primary legislation defining such responsibility and conferring the relevant powers.

30. Of particular, but not exclusive, relevance to these proceedings are the following Articles and relevant Paragraphs: –

30.1.1. “Article 42: Minister’s duty to investigate: –

31. Where the Minister –

31.1. is informed that a child is the subject of an emergency protection order or is in police protection; or

31.2. has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm,

31.2.1. the Minister shall make, or cause to be made, such enquiries as the Minister considers necessary to enable the Minister to decide whether he or she should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.”

31.2.2. “Article 42, Paragraph 8: –

31.2.3. “8: Where the Minister is conducting enquiries under this Article, it shall be the duty of any administration of the States to assist the Minister with his or her enquiries (in particular by providing relevant information and advice) if called upon by the Minister to do so, unless it would be unreasonable to do so in all the circumstances of the case.”

32. In early 2007, the Plaintiff began to receive information from unofficial sources; information which should have been fully and frankly reported to him by the relevant senior States of Jersey employees.

33. This information, when combined, in some cases, with certain information made officially known to the Plaintiff, caused the Plaintiff to be seriously concerned that a number of examples of poor practice, and of child protection failure had occurred.

34. The Plaintiff became alarmed and concerned with what he was discovering, as it was very clear that a number of important facts, and a number of general failures on the part of child protection standards in Jersey, had been improperly and unlawfully withheld – over a period of decades – from the relevant political authorities of the day, including himself.

35. The Plaintiff, as H & SS Minister, having reasonable cause to suspect that children had suffered, were suffering, or were likely to suffer significant harm, sought to fulfil his legal obligations – as defined in the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 – by pursuing several lines of enquiry into a number of different examples of child protection failure with a view to protecting children from harm and determining what action he should take to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

36. In seeking to discharge this fundamentally important and unambiguously stated lawful duty, the Plaintiff had a right to expect full and honest support, co-operation and assistance from all relevant States employees, States departments and Ministerial colleagues.

37. Further, the Plaintiff was guaranteed such support as the Minister for H & SS, it being a statutory obligation upon “any administration of the States” to provide such assistance, as described in Article 42, Paragraph 8 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

38. The Plaintiff, following, and during, his enquiries into child protection issues, began to express his concerns to relevant public employees, and to express his concerns publicly when providing an honest and frank answer to a question asked of him in his capacity as H & SS Minister during a meeting of the island’s parliament on the 16th July 2007.

39. The Plaintiff, rather than receiving the assistance and support he could properly expect from the relevant public employees, and receiving the statutory assistance, as guaranteed by Article 42, Paragraph 8 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, was, instead, subjected to a criminal conspiracy to obstruct him in the discharge of his duties, harass him, to damage his public standing and to unlawfully engineer his removal from Ministerial Office. These actions all caused great personal harm, damage and loss to the plaintiff.

40. The action against the Plaintiff being – unambiguously – an attempt to sabotage effective child protection in Jersey, thus permitting, failing to prevent, sustaining and concealing the abuse of children.

41. The Plaintiff, being lawfully engaged in attempting to expose several criminal offences against children, the obstructive and sabotaging actions taken against him constituting a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

42. Further, given that many, if not all, of those so acting to obstruct and sabotage the Plaintiff’s lawful duties, being the holders of ‘public office’, the actions against both him and the vulnerable children of Jersey amounting to the common law offence of ‘misconduct in a public office’.

43. The aforesaid criminal conspiracy against the Plaintiff is evidenced and demonstrated by Exhibit 1, appended to this Order of Justice.

44. Exhibit 1 being a file-note written by the recently retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, Mr. Graham Power, on the 25th July 2007. Mr. Power wrote and filed this note immediately following a meeting of some senior civil servants at which Mr. Power was present.

45. Involved in the meeting in question – in addition to Mr. Power – were: –

45.1.1. Bill Ogley, Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers and the Head of Jersey’s Paid Services.

45.1.2. Mike Pollard, the then Chief Executive of Health & Social Services.

45.1.3. Tom McKeon, the then Chief Executive of the Education Sport and Culture department.

45.1.4. Ian Crich, the then Director of States of Jersey Human Resources.

46. Exhibit 1 is self-explanatory, but particular attention is drawn to this sentence of Mr. Power’s file note:

46.1.1. “I was left with the clear impression they were attempting to draw me, in my capacity as Chief of Police, into a civil service led attempt to remove a Minister from Office.”

47. It is plain from this evidence from an authoritative and highly credible witness that a conspiracy was undertaken against the Plaintiff in order to prevent him from discharging his lawful duties in respect of child protection.

48. Further, similar evidence exists in the form of the corresponding file note and e-mails written by Detective Inspector Alison Fossey, who was present at the contemporaneous meeting of the then Jersey Child Protection Committee, which was likewise involved in the criminal conspiracy against the Plaintiff.

49. Also particularly involved in the conspiracy against the Plaintiff were, inter alios: –

49.1.1. Marnie Baudains, the Directorate Manager of Social Services;

49.1.2. Richard Jouault, the Deputy Chief Executive of H & SS.

50. The criminal conspiracy against the Plaintiff representing nothing less than a complete breakdown in the rule of law, of democracy, of accountability and of functioning child protection in Jersey.

51. The criminal conspiracy against the Plaintiff by the senior States of Jersey employees in question, was joined by the then Chief Minister and Council of Ministers, who agreed to undertake the necessary procedures to have the Plaintiff dismissed from the Office of Health & Social Services Minister.

52. Further, the then Chief Minister and Council of Ministers acted unlawfully in inappropriately assuming to themselves the legal powers of the Plaintiff to investigate child protection issues, by usurping his statutory powers, ideas and intentions to commission an external, independent investigation.

53. The Chief Minister and Council of Ministers instead chose to appoint a tame placeman in the person of one Andrew Williamson, who proceeded to produce a profoundly defective and dishonest report into Jersey’s child protection failures.

54. That Mr. Williamson produced a dishonest and defective report is evidenced through comparing the Williamson report, with profoundly shocking evidence submitted to him, his final report being anodyne and equivocating when – had it been honest – it would have reported the evidenced truth, namely that child protection standards and practices in Jersey were in a state of catastrophic failure.

55. The aforesaid failure of the Williamson report to reflect the truth is evidenced and demonstrated by Exhibit 2, appended to this Order of Justice.

56. Exhibit 2 being a report written by the then Police lawyer, Bridget Shaw, and submitted to Mr. Williamson during his inquiry, in which she itemised an extensive and deeply shocking catalogue of very serious child protection failures.

57. In acting in that way, the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers were acting criminally, and in direct contradiction of child safety and the public good.

58. The above described malfeasances were compounded by the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers in the unlawful ‘fast-tracking’ of the Council of Ministers’ meeting at which a Minister is required to have an opportunity to defend himself – as prescribed by law, namely Article 21, Paragraph 6 (a) of the States of Jersey Law 2005.

59. Rather than the scheduled date of the next Council of Ministers’ meeting, the Chief Minister and other Ministers decided to hold an extraordinary meeting, of which the Plaintiff was only given five days notice, and which he was unable to attend.

60. Further, this malfeasance and abandonment of due process was compounded by the Plaintiff only receiving the written ‘case’ against him – less than 24 hours prior to the unscheduled meeting, when the relevant documentation was e-mailed to him.

61. The Plaintiff sought a ruling through the States Greffe of the vires of such ‘fast-tracking’. His request was forwarded by the States Greffe to the Deputy Bailiff – at that time Michael Birt – who was asked to rule as to the legality of this denial of an effective opportunity for the Plaintiff to defend himself, as prescribed in the States of Jersey Law 2005, and as in keeping with the Plaintiff’s rights under Article 6 of the ECHR.

62. Mr. Birt, presently the Bailiff, failed to declare his very significant conflicts of interest in this matter, and, instead, proceeded to wrongly rule that the Council of Ministers could abandon proper due process.

63. The meeting of the Council of Ministers duly took place, without the Plaintiff being able to be present and to properly represent himself. The meeting agreed to table for debate in the Jersey parliament, a proposition for the dismissal of the Plaintiff from the Office of Health & Social Services Minister.

64. The following five paragraphs are include to further show and contextualise a consistent pattern of oppression against the Plaintiff; it is not argued that the court can intervene in the internal business of the States legislature.

65. Notwithstanding the fact the Plaintiff had, before this decision, tabled for debate a vote of confidence in his position, the States assembly refused to debate it, instead choosing to debate the proposition of the Council of Ministers first.

66. The Plaintiff carefully prepared, as he was entitled to, a set of ‘official Comments’ in response to the dismissal proposition; these Comments being reinforced by a substantial body of documentary evidence in the form of a series of appendices.

67. The then Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache, brother of then Attorney General, now Deputy Bailiff, William Bailhache, unlawfully prevented the Comments from being officially published and lodged.

68. In acting in this way, the then Bailiff failed to declare a serious conflict of interests, in that a significant part of the evidence in question demonstrated a child protection failure in which he had been involved, namely an abuse episode at the Jersey school, Victoria College when he had been a member of the Board of Governors.

69. The dismissal debate against the Plaintiff was chaired by the then Deputy Bailiff, who prevented the Plaintiff from fully arguing and evidencing his case during the proceedings. The debate resulted in the Plaintiff being dismissed from the Office of Minster for Health & Social Services.

70. In every important sense, the Plaintiff was pro-actively prevented from undertaking and fulfilling his statutory duties, he was obstructed in his efforts to further the cause of child protection, he was denied natural justice, denied his human rights, and, in general, subjected to political oppression and harassment, all of which was unlawful and served no legitimate purpose.

71. Enduring this catalogue of unlawful oppression and abuse has been immensely demanding and a very damaging experience for the Plaintiff, who was simply attempting to undertake not only his statutory duties, but also to act ethically and address the unacceptable sufferings of vulnerable children in Jersey.

72. The Plaintiff has effectively had to pay with his welfare, his career, his family life and his health, for having become the first ever Jersey politician to recognise and speak-out against the child protection failures and the accompanying culture of concealment.

73. Since the summer of 2007, the Plaintiff has suffered a deliberate campaign of misinformation, often peddled by the Defendants – designed to portray him as some form of “troublemaker”, who has either exaggerated – or completely invented – the child protection failures and the long-term practice by public administration in Jersey of unlawfully concealing such failures.

74. Such dishonest campaigns against the Plaintiff and others are unlawful, as they constitute an inchoate part of a broader unlawful exercise designed to thwart the right and proper purposes of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

75. The Plaintiff will prove the honesty, public importance, and veracity of his concerns in respect of child protection failures and the unlawful concealment of such failures, by demonstrating – on an evidenced basis – a consistent pattern of failure, neglect, abuse and harm towards vulnerable children in Jersey, as seen in the conduct of the island authorities over a period of many years.

76. The Plaintiff will also evidence a number of examples of the deliberate and unlawful concealment of child protection failures by the Jersey authorities.

77. In doing so, the Plaintiff will establish before the Court not only the legal correctness of his concerns and actions, but also the inescapable public interest need to have exposed and rooted-out the culture of concealment. Thus the wrongs suffered by the Plaintiff will be seen in context as the unlawfully motivated consequences of a broader conspiracy to disguise failures towards children.

78. A Pattern of Misfeasance:

79. Victoria College

80. For a number of years, child abuse was being committed against children who were pupils of Victoria College. An abuser, one Andrew Jervis-Dykes, was eventually charged and convicted.

81. However – as is evidenced in the “Sharp report” numerous complaints of abuse were made to staff and governors at the school, but were – for many years – simply ignored.

82. However – as is evidenced in the Sharp report, the approach of the school authorities to the abuse was far worse than failing to take the complaints seriously. Instead, pro-active decisions were made to disregard the complaints – and even to humiliate and intimidate some of the children concerned in attempts to make them drop their complaints.

83. The evidenced conduct of senior figures at the school in seeking to conceal – over a period of years – complaints of child abuse is an evidential example of the same culture of concealment that has striven to unlawfully obstruct and oppress the Plaintiff, with the resultant wrongs suffered by him.

84. The Victoria College abuse is of further – and especially relevant – evidential importance to the case of the Plaintiff, in that several of the senior figures who failed to properly discharged their duties towards the protection of children during that episode, are senior figures in the conflicted judicial / political environment of Jersey – and have, notwithstanding their involvement with that episode, persisted in involving themselves in child protection matters in their official capacities – including many of the malfeasant and unlawful acts committed against the Plaintiff.

85. For example, the former Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache was a member of the Board of Governors of Victoria College for a period of time when abuse was occurring and was being ignored by the school authorities. Yet he unlawfully and improperly prevented the formal publication of the Plaintiff’s Ministerial Comments in response to the dismissal proposition tabled against him by the Council of Ministers.

86. Sir Philip Bailhache engaged in this unprecedented interference in the publication of a parliamentary document – notwithstanding the fact he was personally and directly conflicted, given that one part of the evidence the Plaintiff had attempted to publish was the Sharp report into the Victoria College abuse episode.

87. At the time of the abuse episode in question, the Vice-principal of the school was one John Le Breton – now one of the twelve Jurats of the Royal Court, a colleague and associate of the other Jurats, and of the former Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache, and present Bailiff, Michael Birt.

88. Also involved in the unlawful attempts to conceal the child abuse occurring at that time was the then Deputy Bailiff, one Frances Hamon; Hamon having advised the then Principal of the school – one Jack Hydes – to ignore the complaints of abuse; this advice offered during “a game of squash”.

89. Closely involved in the unlawful concealment of child abuse committed against pupils of Victoria College was one Piers Baker, a senior member of staff who accompanied the abuser, Jervis-Dykes, when taking pupils on sailing trips.

90. According to the Sharp report, Baker consistently obstructed the Police investigation, and sought to protect Jervis-Dykes.

91. According to Police sources, Piers Baker – upon being shown by the police, seized video footage of acts of abuse being committed against intoxicated pupils, responded with the words, “teacher’s perks”.

92. The Principal, Jack Hydes, was permitted to resign with a substantial pay-off, rather than being prosecuted for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and for breaches of the Children (Jersey) Law 1969.

93. The Vice-Principal, John Le Breton, was likewise permitted to resign, rather than being similarly prosecuted – and was subsequently elected as a Jurat of the Royal Court.

94. Piers Baker was also permitted to resign, again rather than facing the appropriate prosecutions, and was subsequently employed by the States of Jersey in a senior post in the Harbours Department, where, amongst other duties, he has responsibility for maritime child protection issues.

95. The Plaintiff, upon discovering that Baker had the aforesaid responsibility for maritime child protection issues, complained to the then Chief Minister, Frank Walker, the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers, Bill Ogley and the then Economic Development Minister, Philip Ozouf, and required that Baker be dismissed from the post he occupied.

96. The Plaintiff’s complaint – made in his formal, lawful capacity as H & SS Minister, was not only dismissed by the aforesaid relevant public authorities; his complaint was then improperly used as a ground for seeking the dismissal of the Plaintiff.

97. The subsequent dismissal debate being the occasion when the former member of the Board of Governors of Victoria College – Sir Philip Bailhache – improperly prevented the Plaintiff’s formal Ministerial Comments from being published as a States document.

98. These events show the culture of concealment to be powerfully embedded within Jersey public administration – often with the pro-active involvement of senior figures. The maintenance of malfeasant concealments that were begun in the past is a clear motivation for many of those who have unlawfully oppressed the Plaintiff, given how high the reputational, legal and political stakes are. These unlawful and improper acts have caused actual harm to the Plaintiff.

99. Les Chenes

100. Throughout much of the 1980’s, the 1990’s and early into the 21st century, Jersey’s principal child secure unit was Les Chenes, a converted farm house at Five Oaks, St. Saviour. The name of this institution was changed to Greenfields, and a new, purpose-built facility was constructed immediately adjacent to the old building.

101. The regime used against children in care at Les Chenes – in particular the male children, was routinely barbaric, abusive and unlawful.

102. The unlawful conduct towards children frequently included long periods of punitive and coercive solitary confinement.

103. It was also the practice of certain staff members to routinely engage in seriously violent criminal assaults against the children in care.

104. Amongst the staff who were abusively violent assailants were one Tom McKeon, and one Mario Lundy. McKeon earned the nick-name “The Pinball Wizard” due to his habit of grabbing children and swinging them violently across his office, to impact from walls and furniture.

105. McKeon and Lundy progressed over the years, through the ranks of the Education Department, to the point at which McKeon became the Chief Officer of the department, and Lundy his deputy.

106. Following the retirement of McKeon, Lundy succeeded him as Chief Officer of the Education department.

107. McKeon was one of the senior civil servants who participated in the unlawful conspiracy to engineer the dismissal of the Plaintiff as H & SS Minister, at the meeting led by Bill Ogley, as witnessed and recorded by Graham Power on the 25th July 2007.

108. The involvement and actions of McKeon against the Plaintiff were unlawful on several grounds, and led to harm being caused to the Plaintiff.

109. Although Lundy was a suspect in the historic child abuse investigation – and the police issued a Disclosure Notice to his employers – the States of Jersey – in the authority of the States Employment Board, as chaired by the Chief Minister, and administered by the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley – not even a suspension – as ‘a neutral act’ was conducted in respect of Lundy. This evidenced protection of Lundy – when contrasted with excessive actions taken against other public employees – for example, Graham Power – shows inconsistency, discrimination and bias on the part of the Jersey authorities, of the kind that has been unlawfully manifested against the Plaintiff.

110. Greenfields.

111. The child secure unit underwent a name change, from ‘Les Chenes’ to ‘Greenfields’. In due course the old building was replaced with the modern structure.

112. However, whilst still operating within the old building, multiple examples of unlawful practices against children were committed.

113. Amongst such practices were violent assaults, the failure to provide proper education, the failure to protect and maintain the health and welfare of the children, and psychological and emotional abuse.

114. Of particular note was the unlawful and criminal practice of the use of sustained periods of punitive and coercive solitary confinement against already troubled children.

115. In some cases, the periods of unlawful solitary confinement continued for months.

116. A whistle-blower member of staff – one Simon Bellwood, drew these practices to the attention of the Plaintiff as H & SS Minister in early 2007. Although having been provided with no training by the States of Jersey, and having been unlawfully prevented from receiving professional, ethical and objective advice from his senior civil servants by the negligence of the States Employment Board, the Plaintiff immediately recognised the validity of the concerns raised by Mr. Bellwood, and the abusive and unlawful nature of the practices employed against vulnerable children in Greenfields.

117. Mr. Bellwood had been unlawfully oppressed and sacked from his employment at Greenfields because of his opposition to the unlawful practices employed.

118. The Plaintiff took up Mr. Bellwood’s case – and, even more so, the question of the unlawful, abusive and damaging practices used against children.

119. Even though he was the Minster – and thus the lawful public authority, the Plaintiff was lied to, misled, obstructed and pro-actively undermined by senior civil servants of his own department, when seeking to discharge his lawful and proper duties.

120. Such unlawful obstructions were conducted by, inter alios:

120.1.1. Mike Pollard;

120.1.2. Marnie Baudains;

120.1.3. Richard Jouault;

120.1.4. Phil Dennit;

120.1.5. Linda Dodds;

120.1.6. Ian Dyer.

121. The unlawful and damaging obstructions conducted against the Plaintiff were, in part, motivated by the wish to prevent him from discharging his lawful duty in recognising the veracity of the concerns brought to his attention by Mr. Bellwood, and thus addressing the question of how it was senior staff had been able to oppress Mr. Bellwood in order to conceal their malfeasances in running an unlawful regime against children in secure care, contra the professional purposes for which they were employed.

122. Notwithstanding the success of the unlawful plot to obstruct and oppress the Plaintiff, he succeeded in inviting the Howard League for Penal Reform to come to Jersey and undertake their own independent review of child justice and custody practices.

123. The Howard League proceeded with this work, notwithstanding unlawful efforts by the then Chief Minister, Frank Walker, to smear and hamper the Plaintiff.

124. The report of the Howard League, when published in November 2008, roundly echoed and endorsed the concerns of Mr. Bellwood, the Plaintiff, and several of the Plaintiff’s former constituents who had drawn their experiences to his attention.

125. The obstructions and oppressions suffered by the Plaintiff – and all of the resultant wrongs and harm to him – whilst discharging his proper duties in an effort to halt a set of practices that were self-evidently criminal, were unlawful and extremely damaging to the Plaintiff.

126. Haute de la Garenne.

127. Haute de la Garenne (HDLG) a former children’s home, was closed in 1986.

128. In recent years, following the first ever wide-ranging and generalised Police investigation in Jersey into historic cases of child abuse, HDLG has attracted world-wide notoriety as an institution in which many examples of child abuse occurred over a period of many decades. Several individuals having belatedly been prosecuted and convicted for such crimes.

129. It remains the factual case that certain remains of children were recovered from the site following an extensive police investigation; such remains including a significant quantity of children’s teeth, and a number of bone fragments, some of which have been identified by forensic anthropologists as having been cut, and partially burnt, with the attempted burning having taken place when the bones were still “fresh and fleshed”.

130. The remains of children recovered were insufficient to mount an actual homicide investigation, a fact made clear in public statements by the then Senior Investigating Officer, Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper. However, the possibility of unexplained child deaths having occurred at HDLG remains unresolved.

131. What is factually established is that numerous examples of child abuse, of varying kinds, were committed at HDLG over a period of decades, but yet virtually all such cases of abuse remained unexposed and unpunished by the Jersey authorities, with the clear pattern of crimes against children only being seriously addressed from 2006 onwards by the States of Jersey Police Force under the leadership of Graham Power and Lenny Harper.

132. In all of the post-war years, no Jersey politician had publicly recognised and spoken-out against the systemic child abuse that the States of Jersey had unlawfully permitted to occur in its children’s homes until the Plaintiff did so. Yet the Plaintiff was unlawfully oppressed and harmed by the Defendants for attempting to fulfil his statutory duties.

133. The Blanche Pierre Group Home.

134. The Blanche Pierre Group Home (BPGH) was a family-scale foster home, operated by the States of Jersey, and staffed on a full-time residential basis by a States of Jersey employee, one Jane Maguire, and her husband, Alan Maguire.

135. Throughout much of the 1980s, the Maguires routinely subjected the vulnerable children in their care to psychological and physical abuse and torture, often to a horrifying degree.

136. Alan Maguire also engaged in sexual abuse of children.

137. Much of the abuse committed by the Maguires was known to their employers, the States of Jersey. However, senior managers regularly ignored expressions of concern by more junior staff members, and failed to obey the law, and protect the children in care from such criminal conduct.

138. Amongst those senior managers who failed to prevent, or halt the abuse of the children were: –

138.1.1. Geoff Spencer;

138.1.2. Anton Skinner.

139. Eventually, in 1990, the abuses became too well-evidenced to continue to ignore, so the aforesaid two managers conducted an internal investigation into the matter.

140. Even though it was clear that the Maguires had committed many criminal offences against the children, the managers concerned failed to report the matter to the police, instead merely permitting Jane Maguire to ‘retire’ from running the BPGH, and, instead taking up employment in the Family Development Centre.

141. The politician in charge of the then Children’s Service was one Iris Le Fevre, the then President of the Education Committee. Mrs. Le Fevre wrote, at that time, a letter of thanks to the Maguires.

142. In 2007, Mrs. Le Fevre was the Chairperson of the Jersey Child Protection Committee. In league with, and co-operation with, Marnie Baudains, Mrs. Le Fevre acted unlawfully in causing the JCPC to engage in the improper attempts to obstruct and oppress the Plaintiff.

143. Following a meeting of the JCPC, a letter was faxed to the Chief Minister, via the Chief Executive Bill Ogley, which letter demanded the dismissal of the Plaintiff. Both Ogley and Walker were active participants in the unlawful conspiracy against the Plaintiff.

144. The Police only became aware of the abuses committed at the BPGH by happenstance, in or around 1998; a discovery which led to the arrest and charging of the Maguires.

145. However, the attempted prosecution was then abandoned under the authority of the then Attorney General, Michael Birt – currently, the Bailiff. Amongst the reasons for abandonment discussed by the prosecuting authorities at that time was a supposed ‘terminal illness’ of Alan Maguire. No attempt at all was made to verify Maguire’s alleged illness. It is clear that Maguire was feigning illness, as he lived for another decade in retirement in France, and was in sufficiently robust health to attempt to assault a cameraman from BBC Panorama when confronted by journalists from that program in 2008.

146. The Plaintiff, through his own investigations, became aware of the true nature the BPGH abuse episode, and the associated history of concealment in or around August 2007. This led the Plaintiff to track-down and make contact with the survivors of the crimes of the Maguires.

147. In his capacity as H & SS Minister, but only shortly before his dismissal, the Plaintiff was able to obtain and read the BPGH files as held by Social Services. He was also to later be able to listen to the survivors own accounts of what they suffered.

148. The Plaintiff found every aspect of the BPGH episode – and the various unlawful concealments of those crimes, to be deeply shocking, disturbing and distressing.

149. In November 2007, upon being made aware of the existence of the historic abuse investigation being conducted by the Police, one of the very first cases the Plaintiff asked them to address was the BPGH episode, with the Plaintiff informing the police of the existence of the files at Social Services.

150. Throughout much of 2008, the Police re-investigated the criminal actions of the Maguires, and were of no doubt the two abusers should be extradited from France, and prosecuted for the original offences, and further offences which had come to light. However, the police were repeatedly obstructed by the then Attorney General, William Bailhache, brother of the former Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache and Crown Advocate Stephen Baker.

151. It is evidenced that the Maguires could have, and should have been prosecuted, and that the Police regarded the various failures and obstructions to the prosecution of the Maguires to be improper.

152. It is clear that the BPGH episode, and the Maguires, represented another embarrassing history of child abuse – and the sustained and repeated unlawful concealment of child abuse – by the Jersey authorities, and like many other examples of child abuse in Jersey, so long-term and extensive have been the cover-ups, the authorities generally, and the Defendants, have a powerful political and reputational stake in maintaining the unlawful concealments.

153. It is that well-documented culture of concealment that the Plaintiff was attempting to expose and halt, when being unlawfully obstructed, oppressed and harmed by the Defendants.

154. 42 Don Road Family Group Home.

155. The Don Road Family Group Home (DRFGH) was another States of Jersey operated family-scale orphanage, run by a Mr & Mrs Bonner.

156. The Bonners – like the Maguires – routinely inflicted savage assaults and other abuses upon the children in their care.

157. The States of Jersey Police Force, as a part of their historic abuse investigation, attempted to have the Bonners charged and prosecuted.

158. However, notwithstanding that they had received advice from a lawyer employed by the then Attorney General William Bailhache, that sufficient evidence to charge was present, and having arrested the Bonners, the Police were forced to release them without charge following interferences by Mr. Bailhache.

159. Like the BPGH episode, the DRFGH episode shows a systemic failure on the part of the Jersey authorities to protect vulnerable children, and an ingrained culture of concealment.

160. In becoming the first Jersey politician to attempt to address such crimes, the Plaintiff was unlawfully obstructed, oppressed and harmed by the Defendants.

161. Former Home Affairs Minister.

162. During 2007 and most of 2008, the Home Affairs Minister was the then Senator Wendy Kinnard.

163. The Minister was supportive of the historic abuse investigation being conducted by the Police Force – yet such was the degree of extreme political hostility to the investigation by the then Chief Minister and other Ministers, she was bullied, harassed and placed under intolerable pressure to unlawfully politically interfere in the investigation, for example, by undertaking some form of spurious and illegitimate “disciplinary” action against either the Chief Officer, Graham Power or the Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper.

164. The then Senator Kinnard rightly and properly resisted such unlawful interferences, but eventually resigned from the Office of Home Affairs Minister in late 2008, with the post being taken over by her Assistant Minister, the then Deputy Andrew Lewis.

165. The unlawful conduct towards Senator Kinnard being an example in kind, of the same unlawful and oppressive obstructions engaged in against the Plaintiff by the Defendants, with the principal difference being the extraordinarily extreme nature of the unlawful and harmful conduct pursued against the Plaintiff.

166. Jersey Care Leavers Association.

167. Following approaches from representatives of a UK-based organisation for people who had been in care as children – the Care Leavers Association – the Plaintiff assisted in the establishment of a Jersey equivalent organisation, the Jersey Care Leavers Association.

168. However- it has since become clear that the organisation had become subverted, run in ways that were not lawful by the terms of its constitution, that legitimate members and committee members were being obstructed and prevented from being properly involved.

169. The JCLA has since – after a long and difficult struggle – been restored to the proper and lawful control of its membership.

170. During the period when it was not being run correctly, significant sums of public money, provided to the organisation by the Health & Social Services department, were improperly and fraudulently used.

171. This criminal activity was reported on several occasions by legitimate, concerned members, to the H & SS department, however, no appropriate response was forthcoming as having the JCLA run in an improper – and ineffectual manner – suited the purposes of the H & SS department, given their concerns that an effective campaigning organisation may expose further child protection malfeasances by the department.

172. The unlawful use of public money has been reported to the Police by the properly elected and recently empowered Chair of the JCLA. The Police, however, in a reversion to the culture of concealment that was dominant before Mr. Power and Mr. Harper were employed, have declined to even investigate the matter, instead informing the complainant that “she would have to investigate and find the evidence”.

173. Such official tolerance of criminal acts when those acts or the concealment of them suite the purposes of the Jersey authorities, is a further illustration of how the unlawful conspiracy against the Plaintiff arose.

174. The Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, Graham Power, QPM.

175. The then Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, Graham Power QPM was unlawfully suspended from his post – without the benefit of proper due process – on the 12th November 2008.

176. The suspension was conducted in the presence of the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley, and the then Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis.

177. The suspension conducted against Mr Power was improper, unjust and unlawful.

178. It was a politically motivated act – undertaken by an organisation – the States of Jersey – which was at that time under serious criminal investigation for many decades of concealed child abuse and attendant conspiracies to pervert the course of justice.

179. The action taken against Mr. Power was, itself, another example of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

180. The investigation into the allegations against Mr. Power has been slow, partial, biased and of questionable competence in many respects.

181. Further, the exercise has been delayed to so great an extent as to improperly deny Mr. Power his lawful right to mount a defence against the allegations prior to his retirement. However, even though, in light of the failure of the exercise Mr. Power is totally exonerated, the Jersey authorities have chosen to publish certain – highly redacted – documents arising from the failed and incomplete investigation in what is plainly a politically motivated attempt to diminish the value of the historical child abuse investigation in the eyes of the public.

182. It has since been officially determined in the Napier report that the suspension action conducted against Graham Power was unlawful.

183. The unlawful oppressions suffered by Mr. Power were of a similar kind to those suffered by the Plaintiff, and, indeed, were not unrelated.

184. The Deputy Chief Officer, Lenny Harper.

185. The former Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, Lenny Harper, had numerous experiences of improper attempts to obstruct his work from certain of the island’s traditional authorities.

186. Before the historic child abuse investigation became public, Mr. Harper’s attempts to root-out what was almost routinely practiced corruption had made him unpopular amongst certain traditionalists.

187. However, the degree of obstructions, abuse and lies he was subjected to by the Jersey authorities dramatically increased in respect of his leadership of the historic child abuse investigation.

188. Many direct and highly improper obstructions were placed in the path of Mr. Harper and fellow Police officers in the course of their efforts to fully investigate child abuse and to bring perpetrators to justice.

189. Mr. Harper at least had the protections of the Police Force, his Chief Officer and the then Home Affairs Minister; the Plaintiff, having no such protections, suffered highly unlawful and harmful obstructions in his efforts to fulfil his statutory duties.

190. Deputy Paul Le Clair.

191. Deputy Paul Le Clair was present in the States building on an occasion before the unlawful suspension conducted against Mr. Power.

192. On that occasion he overheard a conversation between the then Chief Minister, Frank Walker, and the then Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis, in which they were discussing ways and means of attacking and obstructing the leadership of the States of Jersey Police Force.

193. Deputy Le Claire heard them discuss the possibility of suspending or sacking the then DCO, Lenny Harper, but Mr. Harper’s retirement rendered such an action redundant. Instead, the conversation turned towards the taking of some kind of “disciplinary” action against Graham Power.

194. This is further evidence of the criminal conspiracy engaged in by the Defendants for the purposes of obstructing and suppressing the investigation, exposure and punishment of child abuse, and – as such – it demonstrates their motivations in their unlawful and damaging and harmful actions against the Plaintiff.

195. Criminal Complaints by the Plaintiff.

196. The Plaintiff has – in respect of many of the criminally unlawful acts described above – made several formal criminal complaints to the States of Jersey Police Force; these have involved the giving of several signed statements.

197. It is clear on the available evidence that several serious criminal acts have been committed, of which the Plaintiff is aware, and for which more than prima facie evidence is available.

198. The offences complained of, include: –

198.1.1. Breaches of the Children (Jersey) Law 1969;

198.1.2. Breaches of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002;

198.1.3. Conspiracies to pervert the course of justice;

198.1.4. Misconduct in a public office.

199. The individuals complained of include, inter alios: –

199.1.1. Mike Pollard;

199.1.2. Bill Ogley;

199.1.3. Marnie Baudains;

199.1.4. Tom McKeon;

199.1.5. Mario Lundy;

199.1.6. John Le Breton;

199.1.7. Piers Baker;

199.1.8. Frances Hamon;

199.1.9. Emma Martins;

199.1.10. Frank Walker;

199.1.11. William Bailhache;

199.1.12. Iris Le Fevre.

200. Notwithstanding the powerfully evidenced case against these individuals none have been charged. Indeed, the Plaintiff is unaware if any of them have even been interviewed.

201. The failure to prosecute those who have – prima facie – committed criminal offences against the Plaintiff and others is unlawful.

202. The Plaintiff enjoys – as do all people – the protections described in the European Convention on Human Rights. Many of those fundamental rights have given rise to case-law which shows a right to be protected from criminal acts.

203. The same failure to prosecute those who have committed offences against the Plaintiff, is of a very similarly kind to the politically motivated and contaminated decisions to not prosecute States employees who have abused children, those in positions of authority who have concealed child abuse, and public departments of the States where such departments have – as public authorities – broken the Children Law themselves.

204. Jersey does not possess regional Crown Prosecutors, overseen by a central Director of Public Prosecutions.

205. In Jersey the Office of Attorney General is the sole public authority with the power and responsibility for decisions upon prosecutions – and for the conduct of prosecutions.

206. It is also the case – in a further example of the extraordinary concentration of power the Office holds, that in Jersey it is not possible at law to mount private prosecutions for alleged criminal acts.

207. It should also be noted that the role of Attorney General in Jersey is not limited to only prosecutions.

208. The post-holder also enjoys an automatic, non-voting, but un-elected and speaking seat in Jersey’s parliament, where the custom and practise is for the Attorney General to make both political and legal speeches and interventions, thus exercising great influence upon proceedings in the assembly.

209. Further – the Attorney General also enjoys an automatic right of attendance at all meetings of the legislature’s Privileges and Procedures Committee, where the post-holder dispenses “advice” and contributes to discussions.

210. Of even greater conflict in the role of Attorney General in Jersey is the fact the post-holder enjoys an automatic right of attendance at all meetings of the island’s cabinet – the Council of Ministers – where he participates in the political discussions of the executive – in addition to acting as the legal adviser to the said body.

211. The Office of Attorney General is also responsible for providing legal advice to the States of Jersey Employment Board.

212. The Office of Attorney General is also responsible for legal advice to individual departments of the States of Jersey.

213. That latter point obviously leading to dramatic conflicts of interest, with the Attorney General’s Office being responsible for determining whether to prosecute those same departments of the States to which his Office has been providing legal advice.

214. It can be seen, therefore, that the post of Attorney General in Jersey carries with it immense power and influence – both legally and politically.

215. It is equally unarguable that the multiple roles and functions of the post make it a profoundly politicised – and deeply conflicted – Office, and one which is, therefore not presently lawful.

216. The politicised and conflicted nature of the prosecution system in Jersey has the effect of denying to the public the protections of one of the very fundamental checks and balances that respectable, modern democracies have traditionally enjoyed: the objective and impartial enforcement of the law.

217. That lack of protection is further compounded in the unusual circumstance of Jersey by the broader absence of many of the normal checks and balances that would be found in functioning democracies.

218. The present – profoundly conflicted – nature of the role and Office of Attorney General in Jersey is not lawful.

219. It is not capable of meeting established standards of objectivity.

220. It is not capable of fulfilling – nor being seen to fulfil – those requirements that are placed upon a prosecutory authority through the practical application of the ECHR as applicable to all public authorities.

221. Moreover – in the specific case of the Plaintiff, and as pleaded in this Order of Justice, the conflicted role and powers of the Attorney General have given rise to – and enabled the continuance of – many unlawful breaches of the Plaintiff’s rights by the defendants, and has enabled various torts against the plaintiff.

222. Further, the Plaintiff is the victim of breaches of Article 47 of the States of Jersey Law 2005, which states: –

222.1.1. A person who blackmails or attempts to blackmail or who offers any threat, assault, obstruction or molestation or attempt to compel by force or menace any member of the States, member of a committee of inquiry established under standing orders or officer of the States in order to influence him or her in his or her conduct as such member or officer, or for, or in respect of the promotion of or of opposition to any matter, proposition, question, bill, petition or other thing submitted or intended to be submitted to the States, the Council of Ministers, the Chief Minister, any other Minister, an Assistant Minister or any committee or panel established under standing orders, or who is a party to such an offence, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of 5 years and a fine.

223. The Plaintiff was – in respect of several important aspects of his duty as a States member – and in respect of his statutory duties as the then Minster for Health & Social Services – subjected to threats, obstructions, molestations, attempts to compel by menace – in order to influence him in his conduct – in respect of propositions, questions, bills and other things submitted, or intended to be submitted to the States, the Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister.

224. The committing of these criminal offences against the Plaintiff has caused him hardship, suffering, harm and loss.

225. The Plaintiff has also not received the proper protections of the law in respect of these unlawful acts against him, given the exclusive power of the conflicted Attorney General’s Office to authorise prosecutions.

226. The States of Jersey owes a duty of care to the Plaintiff to have protected him from any and all unlawful obstructions and molestations engaged in against him in response to his efforts to fulfil his lawful duties. The States of Jersey failed in that duty of care.

227. The actions of the Defendants

228. The First and Second Defendants – the Chief Minister – and the States Employment Board – failed to properly and lawfully discharge their duties.

229. Both failed to require proper, ethical, competent, honest and lawful conduct from their employees; in particular, those senior civil servants named above who unlawfully obstructed, misled, lied to, hampered and undermined the Plaintiff.

230. Such failure was so gross it goes very substantially beyond mere negligence.

231. Rather than merely negligent, the repeated and very extensive derelictions of duty by the First & Second Defendants occurred as pro-active malfeasances designed to thwart the Plaintiff in the proper and rightful discharge of his statutory duties.

232. Further – rather than only failing to properly control their employees – the First and Second Defendants instead pro-actively joined in with the unlawful conspiracy to engineer the dismissal of the Plaintiff as H & SS Minister.

233. Such conduct was a direct breach of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

234. Further, the First Defendant has responsibility and authority for the Communications Unit. This publicly funded unit was repeatedly involved in partisan political attempts to publically undermine, smear and damage the Plaintiff. This activity constitutes an unlawful use of public funds, as the Communications Unit is funded by tax-payers to assist with legitimate communications that serve the broad needs of the community – not politically partisan spin-doctoring.

235. All of the above actions of the First and Second Defendants were and are unlawful and all caused great harm, suffering and damage to the Plaintiff.

236. The Third Defendant – the States of Jersey.

237. The Council of Ministers as a body, in acting improperly – in flagrant contradiction of the rules of natural justice – and in obstructing and menacing the Plaintiff – and, in particular, unlawfully usurping his statutory powers as described in the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, were acting unlawfully.

238. This unlawful conduct of the Council of Minsters was further amplified by becoming parties to the criminal enterprise being pursued by the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley and other senior civil servants against the Plaintiff.

239. These manifestly unlawful acts have caused damage, suffering and harm to the Plaintiff.

240. The Third Defendant has a duty of care in addition to statutory obligations, to ensure the free and safe discharge of the duties of its elected members.

241. In particular, it is bound to ensure that the democratic and human rights of the public to participate in the free expression of the legislature are protected.

242. The States of Jersey are culpable Defendants because of their failure to have in place proper procedures, safe-guards and checks and balances to ensure that those charged with discharging statutory duties – as in respect of the requirements of the Children (Jersey) Law, in the extant case of the Plaintiff – are able to so discharge such duties without suffering intimidation, oppression, obstructions and harm.

243. The failures of the Third Defendant to provide such protections is unlawful – and has caused very real and serious suffering, damage, harm and loss to the Plaintiff.

244. The public interest has been profoundly damaged by the malfeasant actions committed against the Plaintiff. He has, in effect, been made an ‘example of’ – which has the effect of intimidating other politicians and potential politicians from speaking-out against malfeasances that have been committed by, or with the knowledge of, senior civil servants.

245. The Fourth Defendant – the Attorney General – unlawfully supported – and pro-actively engaged in – the criminal obstructions placed in the path of the Plaintiff when he was attempting to discharge his statutory duties as described in the Children (Jersey) Law.

246. The Attorney General has unlawfully failed to prosecute those who have committed criminal offences against the Plaintiff.

247. The Attorney General is unlawfully conflicted as a public authority – in seeking to discharge the mutually exclusive functions of legal adviser to the legislature, the executive – and that of prosecutor.

248. The unlawful acts of the Fourth Defendant have caused real harm and suffering to the Plaintiff.

249. The Plaintiff has suffered emotional and psychological injury as a direct consequence of the systemic culture of concealment to be found at a high-level in public administration in Jersey in respect of child protection failures, and – expressly and in particular – as a consequence of the unlawful actions conducted against him in attempts to maintain that culture of concealment.

250. The concealments – and the overt obstructions and oppressions inflicted, or caused, or permitted to be inflicted, upon the Plaintiff by the Defendants directly resulted in the Plaintiff having to shoulder and carry the burden – virtually single-handidly – of investigating many examples of child protection failure and of concealed child abuse.

251. The Plaintiff had been provided with no training of any description in respect of coping with the emotional and psychological impacts of often harrowing interviews with the survivors of child abuse.

252. The Plaintiff had been provided with no support, assistance, counselling or respite in respect of engaging in such work.

253. The systemic failures of public administration in Jersey to correctly address child protection, and the pro-active efforts to obstruct and oppress the Plaintiff, had the effect of making the burden upon the Plaintiff of undertaking work which would have been immensely demanding at the best of times, dramatically more difficult, damaging and harmful to him.

254. In addition to the unlawful harms inflicted upon the Plaintiff, it is obvious and undeniable that a number of profoundly important public interest considerations arise from these issues, and in respect of the pleadings made by the Plaintiff.

255. All public authority in Jersey is prone to engage in mutual protection – and the closing of ranks in the oppression of dissidents – rather than fulfil the established functions of the three arms of the state – legislature, judiciary and executive – and the expected roles of acting as a check and balance upon each other.

256. The extant case powerfully illustrates the inimical detriment to the public good of having all meaningful power in Jersey effectively concentrated into the hands of the same narrow power-clique. If people in comparatively strong positions – such as the senior Senator, as the Plaintiff used to be, and the Chief Officer of the Police Force, can be so brazenly and unlawfully oppressed as has evidencedly happened, then ordinary members of the public – let alone the more vulnerable, such as children – will never be able to look to authorities and champions to protect and defend them from the self-serving abuses and malfeasances of those who control all power in the jurisdiction.

257. The manifest failures of functioning checks and balances in Jersey – and the clear oppressions of those seeking to properly discharge their statutory duties on behalf of the vulnerable, is unlawful.

258. The evidenced unlawful conduct of the Defendants – res ipso loquitur – could not be other than damaging and harmful to the Plaintiff.

259. The Plaintiff has – therefore – been the victim of a variety of torts.

260. Of misfeasance in a public office.

261. Of misconduct in a public office.

262. Of abuses of his human rights.

263. Of offences against Article 47 of the States of Jersey Law.

264. Of conspiracies to pervert the course of justice.

265. These wrongs are all foreseeable, unlawful and, variously, the direct responsibility of the Four Defendants, whose torts and various misfeasances and malfeasances have caused suffering, damage, harm and lose to the Plaintiff.

BY REASON OF THE MATTERS AFORESAID – the Plaintiff seeks general damages, exemplary damages and actual damages.

WHEREBY the Plaintiff has suffered wrongs.

WHEREFORE the Plaintiff claims against the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Defendants:

1. Damages;

2. Interest on the said damages;

3. Declarative judgment against the actions of the Four Defendants;

4. Declarative judgment, where applicable, of non-compatibility with the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000.

5. Costs.


Stuart Syvret


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.