Sunday, July 27, 2014





Over the coming weeks I will be explaining to my readers the actions I had to take to try and protect my wife. Everything I do and say on my blog is my opinion based on research and fact.  My wife is not political, does not contribute to my blog and simply gets on with her own life.  So why she should become a target of a  Jersey Cyber Stalker is beyond me. Or, does he see her as my Achilles heel? If he did, then that was a mistake on his part. One of many that he has made. 

Having got married in September 2013, I decided to change my Facebook picture. Having kept my wife away from someones prying eyes for years I decided to put a picture up of us getting married. That was a mistake on my part.  She was identified and then it started. October 2013 the comments started coming to my blog - anonymously of course.  Vile comments. This time I just took stock. I then acted. Kept it quiet. Did what I do best. Investigated. Time to tell our story. 

I had to wait for permission to come through before I could start explaining what has gone on. This has now been obtained. There will be a Guest Posting coming up in part 2 or 3.  That person, along with myself, will be explaining on camera exactly what has gone on. No, it will not be my wife for all the above reasons. 

Not long after getting married my wife became pregnant. She became very ill during her pregnancy. This was a worry to all of us and a very dark time.  But still the stalker carried on. Still the Stalker hiding behind anonimity and his multiple fake Facebook accounts carried on. On June 23rd 2014 our baby was born safe and well. That was the greatest feeling in the whole world.

Now I can focus on the Stalker.

I have had enough.

 Everything has been put in place. Even if you think about sending more emails - we are waiting. Who did I get permission from to do this I hear you ask……. wait till Part 2 for the answer. 

What a story we have coming.

How many chances did I give you? How many times have I asked you to come down the police station and sort this out?  You might still get one more chance.

Cyber Stalking is alive and kicking in Jersey. It can be mainly found on a Facebook group called Politics Jersey With Free Speech.  I will be honest. The Fake profiles on there,  ones such as Sue Young - James Pearce etc have been used to harass but were only a small part of my investigation. No. I had to go beyond the screen. I had to go to the fingertips and then start the journey up. Only then do you start finding the answers. Computers aren't to blame. Its the people operating them. 

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist 

Here are my previous two postings on the subject

Below is a question asked by Deputy Higgins in the States of Jersey in June 2014

3.8 Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the States of Jersey Police internet investigations into cyber bullying complaints:
Will the Minister give Members an update on the work of the police internet investigators who took up their post on 31st January 2014 and inform Members how many cyber bullying complaints have been received since the beginning of 2014 and how they have been dealt with, including how many prosecutions have been brought against the perpetrators of these acts and the penalties imposed on those convicted of an offence?
Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):
The States of Jersey Police internet investigator has been actively involved with reports of cyber bullying - currently recorded as harassment - and has also assisted in a wide range of other cyber-dependent and cyber-enabled crimes reported to the organisation - for example, drugs importations, assaults, road traffic offences and sudden deaths, et cetera - and in the development of online intelligence, thereby helping the force to most effectively prioritise their work.  This particular role is linked to the continuing force-wide development of all cyber-related matters, a theme that features as a high risk, high harm focus within strategic assessment and one that continues to increasingly impact upon all areas of policing.  Since 31st January 2014, the States of Jersey Police have recorded 9 criminal reports of either harassment or bullying over the internet.  Of these 9 allegations, 3 of the alleged offenders received words of advice from the police.  In 2 others, harassment notices were served.  Two offenders were charged and prosecuted with the offence of harassment, one receiving a 12-month binding-over order, the other a 6-month binding-over order and a 2-year restraining order.  The other 2 cases are currently under investigation.
3.8.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
A supplementary.  Just looking at his previous answer given to Deputy Trevor Pitman on 10th December, I see he has included some of those figures, which happened in the 6 months prior to the investigator coming forward.  The Minister has just said that this officer has a range of other duties.  Cyber bullying is a particularly horrendous offence.  It has led to the death of a number of people in this Island.  Does he not feel that it should be highly prioritised given the damage that can be done?  What can he tell the States about a prolific offender who has been repeatedly reported to the police who has yet not been brought before trial, a person who brought, with others, a data protection complaint against former Senator Stuart Syvret?  That person is going around this Island causing all sorts of mayhem, going to employers, telling them that people have committed all sorts of acts and so on, and yet the police are taking no action.  So, 2 questions: should a cyber investigator first of all be giving a much higher priority to cyber bullying and, secondly, what can he tell us about this prolific offender and the lack of action?
Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
In relation to the alleged prolific offender, I know absolutely nothing.  It is not my role as Minister to get involved in operational matters.  Indeed, since we now have a Police Authority I am even further removed from operational matters and my role is setting policy and priority.  I recognise and have recognised that there is a priority area and hence why this role has been set up, but hence my fairly lengthy answer to demonstrate this is not just a question of employing one person who is going to play a particular role.  We are trying to change the culture of the police force so that there is a general awareness.  In the last 6 months, a States of Jersey Police cyber policing strategy and action plan has been developed under the chairmanship of the Superintendent of Crime Services.  A programme of work subsequently commissioned involves all members of the organisation.  Partnership working features heavily in the plan.  One area of particular relevance has been the development of appropriate legislation to cater for those instances of grossly offensive or abusive messages that are not captured by current harassment legislation.  That work is being led not by Home Affairs but by Economic Development, however supported by the States of Jersey Police and the Law Officers’ Department.
3.8.2 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
It is all very well the Minister ... in fact, he has answered a question on this before and he has mentioned that Economic Development is leading on this and earlier he expressed dissatisfaction at it.  Is the Minister pleased with the progress of the work of the Economic Development Department and how soon does he expect legislation or new policies to be brought forward?  In fact, can I ask one other thing ...
The Bailiff:
Well, no ...
Deputy M.R. Higgins:
No, it is in answer to his question.  He said that they had come up with a strategy.  When is it going to be on their website so we can all see what the strategy is as well?
Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I have not seen the draft strategy myself and will be interested to look at that and to see that finalised.  In relation to the piece of legislation, I have previously expressed disappointment that it was not Home Affairs who were running with this as a priority because the danger is with it being with E.D.D. (Economic Development Department) that it will not get the same high priority as it would have been given by Home Affairs.
Deputy M.R. Higgins:
I did ask the question was the Minister satisfied with the progress of E.D.D. at the present time.
Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I am unaware of the progress they have made, in fact.  They have not been talking to me about it.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014







There still seems to be serious concerns with the protection of vulnerable children in Jersey. The  issue was raised by Deputy Hilton in the States of Jersey on the 3/6/2014. The answers left me horrified and I reproduce it below. Have we, as an Island, not learnt a single thing regarding the protection of  vulnerable children since 2008 and Haut De La Garenne going global?  Im sick of tired of hearing the immortal  quote of "Lessons have been learnt". 

"Lessons being learnt" is a  get out clause for the Minister answering the questions.  This is simply not good enough. Where were the concerns from the other members? We have 51 states members and only 2 other deputies had something to say. The children need a champion and I hope that Deputy Hilton keeps getting the questions in. Lessons don't get learnt in Jersey. Remember the secrecy around the sex grooming case? I hope the Jersey Media pick this up and also demand answers as it can't be left to the bloggers to carry this fight alone. 

Who will have oversight of any reports and recommendations that come from these horror stories? 

Lets be honest here. You can have the greatest policies in place but unless you smash the culture that still persists to this day then nothing will ever change. 

I really hope that the Committee of Enquiry brings a sledge hammer to bear on the Jersey Way of dealing with  abuse. If they ever mention the immortal words of "Lessons have been Learnt"  I will simply cry. 

This should be headline news as what is more important than the plight of venerable children.

Rico Sorda 

Part time Investigative Journalist

3.8.1 Deputy J.A. Hilton:
Is the Assistant Minister aware there are a number of serious child sexual abuse cases to be reviewed by the Safeguarding Board and does this fact cause him alarm, as it would appear the protection of Island children is failing yet again?
Senator P.F. Routier:  
I am aware that there are some more cases to be reviewed and, as we have not been used to having as many cases as are currently coming forward, it is of concern.  What is, I think, positive about these reviews taking place is that it is being looked at very seriously that we need to ensure that, when a case is being reviewed, some learning is made across all the services and that it is identified, if there had been some failings, that best practice is brought forward in the future.
Deputy M.R. Higgins:
As the question is about when reports are going to be published, I would like to ask when the report on the woman known as H.G. is going to be reported by this panel?  Because there seems to be cases being reviewed but no reports coming out and made public.  Can the Assistant Minister tell us when it will be ...
The Bailiff:
Sorry, Deputy, that is not related to this question.  It is not the same body at all.  Very well, Deputy Le Hérissier?
3.8.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:
The rapporteur referred to learnings.  If several cases are alive at the moment, could the rapporteur tell us what lessons have been learned?  Because surely it could be construed as a failure that cases have reached this level.  Given all the money that has been ploughed into these issues over the last few years, why were the warning signs not picked up at the appropriate management and organisational levels?
Senator P.F. Routier:
The establishment of the Safeguarding Boards for Children and Adults, which have only been established in recent times, is, I think, a real positive step forward for the States generally.  The Deputy is quite right: there has been extra investment put in after the Williamson Report to ensure that services are the best we can possibly have them.  There is, obviously with these cases coming forward, a recognition that there needs to be some improvements to services, and that will be highlighted when the reports are finalised. 
But I need to remind Members about this particular case that, until the family and the people who are involved are spoken to, it is very difficult; we cannot talk about it until that happens.
3.8.3 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:
Can I get clarification: could the rapporteur tell us - and I appreciate in a way it should be the Minister - has he been able to draw any conclusions where the failings are as opposed to just focusing on this case?
Senator P.F. Routier:
Not as yet, no. 
3.8.4 Deputy J.A. Hilton:
It would seem to me that with the X Family, the G Family and numerous other families, the States of Jersey are still failing our children badly [Approbation] and we need to address this as soon as possible.  I am very concerned that the Assistant Minister has agreed with me that there are a number of serious child sexual abuse cases coming forward; we need to establish as soon as possible exactly what is going wrong.  Is the Assistant Minister satisfied that we have the expertise available in the Island to establish when sexual abuse is occurring within families?
Senator P.F. Routier:
I can only agree with the questioner with regard to the concerns that she has.  I, too, share those concerns and want to ensure that everything is looked at in an appropriate manner.  The question with regards whether we have the correct facilities and expertise in the Island to look at these cases is something we need to look at very closely.  I think we need to ensure that with the help of the safeguarding chairperson who is doing these reviews, she is going to come forward with recommendations which we will have to act on.  I would not be able to stand here and defend a service which was not performing correctly and I would hope that if it does require extra resources they would be coming forward.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014


The success (or otherwise) of the Inquiry will depend on what evidence it receives and if anybody needs any help/support submitting their evidence or any Abuse Victim/Survivor, or family member/friend of, need any kind of support, whether submitting evidence, or not, the Jersey Care Leavers Association (JCLA) are more than happy to help and can be contacted by e-mail  or telephoned on 01534-738351.

4 June 2014

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry to hold Public Preview Afternoon

Members of the public will have a chance to look around the offices where the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry will begin hearings this Summer.
The public areas of the Seaton Place offices in St Helier, including the hearing room, will be open for anyone who would like to visit on Monday 9 June, between 13.30 and 15.30.
Members of the Legal Team will be on hand to answer any questions and to explain exactly how the proceedings will run. A member of the Inquiry’s witness support group will also be available to outline what services will be on offer.
Anyone wishing to take photographs on the Preview Day may do so only during the final 15 minutes of the session.
Building work at 11 – 15 Seaton Place is now complete and the facilities are designed to ensure the comfort of witnesses who will be giving evidence. Particular care has been taken to allow those who wish to give evidence anonymously to do so without risk of being identified.
When the hearings get underway, the first expert witness will be Professor Roger Bullock of Bristol University who will provide evidence about Jersey’s care system. The Legal Team are still gathering witness statements and documents and it’s not too late for anyone who wants to give evidence to get in touch.
The latest technology is being used to handle the tens of thousands of documents used during the Inquiry. These will be shown on large screens throughout the hearing centre and then uploaded onto the website.
The Inquiry Chair, Frances Oldham QC, says: "The Panel are looking forward to beginning the public part of the Inquiry and would like to assure everyone that we will work as openly and transparently as possible. We urge anyone who thinks they can contribute to our work to contact us in what is a very safe environment. We will be robust and independent in our approach to uncover the truth about what went wrong in Jersey's child care system over many years." End

Sunday, May 18, 2014



"The total policing costs of the Historical Abuse Enquiry to date is £7,574,636, of which £5,088,328 is staff costs and £2,486,308 comprising non-staff costs (e.g. accommodation, travel and forensic costs)."

Where the hell did DAVID ROSE GET 20 MILLION POUNDS FROM when he wrote his article in October 2009. 





As you might be aware D/Supt Mick Gradwell declined to give evidence to the Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel (HASSP). Quite remarkable really when you see what he gets up to during this posting.  CTV also declined to give evidence to the 'HASSP'.  One of the main reasons these two didn't come and give evidence is simple (in my opinion).  They knew they had been caught out. Someone started asking questions.  How could they explain the 2 programs  they aired in September 2009. I want to explain to my readers exactly what is going on here hence the interview with VFC.  

First up you must remember that the HISTORICAL CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATION  was still  live in 2009.  In fact it didn't get closed down until the end of 2010 

That's what makes the actions of Mick Gradwell & CTV appear even more despicable than they already are.


First up a timeline. 

The 2 programs

1.  Ist September 2009 -   CTV ran with - Abuse inquiry has cost £20m

2.  3rd September 2009- CTV ran with -How was £20m abuse investigation bungled

3. 4th October 2009 - Daily Mail article appears with the Headlines 20million Shambles -

So there we have the two programs.  What jumps out at me straightaway  and differs from the normal CTV offering is how professionally the Gradwell Interview is conducted. This is a properly staged interview. Gradwell has his Sunday best on - he is sitting in a nice studio - he has moody lighting - two camera angles and a very high opinion of himself. 

 One very important factor is that we don't hear who is conducting the Interview. We only hear Gradwell talking.  Where was the challenge as to what Gradwell was saying? There isn't any. This is shambolic. The whole two episodes are nothing more than "OPINION MANAGEMENT"     The two programs were brilliantly done. Lets be honest here. There can be no doubt that people believed the waffle coming out of Gradwells mouth. The reporter even talks about findings that was in the BDO Report.   This was all staged. I just cant see how it was done without the full co-operation of CTV.  .

On the 4th October 2009  one month after these programs were aired Journalist David Rose wrote an article in the Daily Mail called "Bungled Jersey Child Abuse probe branded a £20million Shambles".

This is the infamous article where Mick Gradwell was leaking drafts of Police Consultant Mike Kelletts work to David Rose. This is not a coincidence . The CTV and Rose articles all in the space of one month is not a coincidence. This was a properly managed media blitz on Opinion Managing the people of Jersey's take on the 'HCAE'.   Who organised this? There isn't a chance that Mick decided to do this all on his own. Now do you see why he stayed away from the Scrutiny hearings. What could he say? How could he justify it? He would have to take the  blame. That is why it's important that CTV get dragged before the 'COE' and explain their reporting on such an important issue.  They are not alone in their trashing stance. I will leave the JEP till last . 

D/Supt Mick Gradwell was the Senior Investigating Officer of the 'HCAE'

The Abuse Survivors trusted this man to do the best by them. He gives it large with CTV and leaks to the man trashing the 'HCAE'. Have any of our local media tried to track him down and get an interview? He has got to explain himself on his abhorrent actions. 

Remember what Karin Rankine said in her letter to Ben Shenton

"An increasing number of online community sites, blog sites and other content sources will unquestionably find their place within society. However the fundamental principles which underpin the delivery of authoritative and credible news are unlikely to change. 

Those principles of quality journalism which encompass accuracy, impartiality, fairness and legal knowledge underpin the role that the ‘traditional’ media plays in our society and is the basis of those news services provided by existing public service broadcasters and which remain highly valued within our society."

"So while the internet has challenged the idea of journalism, the need for in-depth research and reporting does not disappear. Our role as a public service broadcaster carries with it responsibilities to our viewers and to those involved in our reporting.  And it is those responsibilities which distinguish our service from certain new types of ‘citizen media’ or blog sites that we see emerging at both a national and a local level."

These are some of the findings from the Scrutiny Sub Panel

The Whole Report can be read here. It is a must read for anyone who has an interest in the Jersey Historical Child Abuse Investigation

  • It is clear from the evidence we have received that Mr. Gradwell was responsible for leaking information from draft sections of the work which Mr. Kellett had prepared for the BDO Alto review. The information was published in an article in the Mail on Sunday in October 2009 but it also appears to have been made available to Channel Television for a programme in September 2009. Mr. Gradwell also gave an interview to the Jersey Evening Post in which he voiced extensive negative comments on the investigation carried out by his predecessor which he labelled ‘a poorly managed mess’.  The disclosure of information from the review of financial management was then part of a broader criticism of the investigation by Mr. Gradwell.
  • Mr. Gradwell’s views on the investigation were already well known. As Senior Investigating Officer he had been a key figure in the press conference on 12th November 2008 which had called into question the previous direction of the investigation. 
  • Mr. Rose had previously written a number of other articles critical of Mr. Harper’s conduct of the investigation going back to May 2008 (18.05.08; 24.05.08, 15.11.08). In May 2008 he made a reference to the ‘leaked’ cost of the investigation (£6.5milion) but did not develop any criticism. In his article in November 2008 in which he interviewed Mr. Gradwell he stated that the police were said to be concerned at the enquiry’s profligate spending (eg decision to send two officers first class to Australia and a £100,000 bill for the use of Eddie the sniffer dog). In the course of the article he stated that he had obtained confidential documents including an email from Mr. Harper and the official log book kept by the forensic science team. 
  • Channel Television also appeared to have access to information from the review into the financial management of the HDLG enquiry.  In their two programmes in September 2009 they interviewed Mr. Gradwell on his retirement and referred to a number of specific details from the BDO Alto report such as dinners in specific London restaurants, overnight stays for one hour meetings and the failure to appoint a finance manager.

Below is the 3rd part of the CTV Interview with D/Supt Mick Gradwell. It is a must watch. His little smirk at the end is very telling. 

My first Interview can be watched here -RICO SORDA

All im doing here is looking at the evidence and forming an opinion.  I believe that this was a proper orchestrated piece of 'OPINION MANAGEMENT'. This was not just the work of Mick Gradwell.  The States Communication Unit could well have had a hand in this.  This was about trashing an Abuse Investigation and protecting the image of Jersey. The most important people in all of this - The Abuse Survivors-
have been treated with utter disdain. When and where have the local media come out on their side? When and where have our local media done a balanced piece of reporting?

The evidence speaks for itself

The ruling elite don't want a Committee of Enquiry 

You don't need to be Einstein to work out why

Rico Sorda

Team Voice

Saturday, April 19, 2014



Just a quick posting.

As you are all well aware the Committee of Enquiry into decades long child abuse in Jersey is starting to get going.  There has been a lot of dialogue with the Lawyers representing the enquiry panel. I must say they have been very good in getting back to us regarding the issues we have had with the protocols. There will be more on this in a later date. I really do hope that as many people as possible will come forward to give their accounts to the enquiry panel.

We, at Team Voice, have got a lot of work to do over the coming weeks. We will be giving our wealth of evidence to the enquiry team. This is what we have been working towards since 2008.  This is what all the hard work has been about. We can't thank the people who have supported the blogs enough. We mean it from the bottom of our hearts. It has not been easy.  It is about stepping up and doing something positive from a very negative situation.  We have amassed a serious amount of documentation over the years. VFC has done an incredible amount of work on the cover-up of Operation Rectangle and the suspension of former Chief of Police Graham Power QPM.

For me on a personal level it has been an incredible journey.  Before 2008 if someone has said that I would become a part time investigative journalist I would have said you were nuts. Life can change very suddenly. You only have to speak to survivors of abuse to know this. I was deeply touched on day one and remain so to this day. I can't imagine what it must be like to have your life torn apart at such a tender age due to it being physical or mental abuse. For me as an outside observer I would say both are as bad as each other and must be treated as so. Both can leave devastating effects that can be felt for a life time. I know the trauma I have felt since losing my father. That is a pain I will carry till the day I die but it has also given me an insight as to how victims of abuse have had to travel through life carrying this horrific trauma.

I set out in April 2010 to find the truth about the multiple suspension of the former Chief Of Police Graham Power QPM.  A Chief of Police who was suspended 3 times for have the bared face cheek to allow an investigation into decades long Child Abuse in Jersey.  What I discovered along the way with the help and guidance of VFC was just astonishing. I will not set it all out again here but it led me all the way to then Dept/Supt Mick Gradwell leaking information to notorious Daily Mail Journalist David Rose. A journalist who was trashing the investigation that Mick Gradwell was running from September 2008. This led to the BDO review. I also discovered how the powers that be employed a media spin doctor Matt Tapp behind the back of Police Chief Graham Power to undermine him. This list could go on.

Why is this important?

This is important because it shows the culture that existed before the cover-up, during the cover-up and after the cover-up. Nothing has changed in Jersey.

The Sex Grooming Case?

Le Rocquier School starting-pistol incident?

La Moye Prison Scandal?

All just left to go quiet so everyone can move on.

I have posted the interview that Lenny Harper gave VFC.  From this interview I realised that the BDO review needed to be re- looked at.

Rico sorda 

Part Time Investigative Journalist

Thursday, April 3, 2014




Having attended the public meeting today by the Chair of the Enquiry Team, Francis Oldham QC, we, at Team Voice, believe that it is imperative that all victims/survivors of abuse in the Jersey care system come forward and give evidence. We fully understand that it has taken an age for this committee of enquiry to get going and that you must be thinking is it worth it.  I hope that you will contact the enquiry team through their website. The link is above.

This really could be the last chance to have your accounts of horrific abuse listened to by an Independent panel and help towards some form of closure where possible. Phase 1 of the enquiry is to listen to your accounts and start the process of investigating what went wrong. All of your evidence is crucial. It's not for us to second guess the outcome of the enquiry but let us be under no illusion that it will be weakened by the lack of first hand testimony.

All victims of abuse have shown tremendous courage and strength since it went public in 2008. You have been left in the dark for far to long. You showed immense bravery to come forward and give statements to the Operation Rectangle Team. We know that not all cases were prosecuted and you felt let down. We know that most were very impressed with how the Rectangle Team handled your accounts of horrific abuse and the compassion that was shown to you. We know you felt let down by the lack of prosecutions from the Jersey Judicial System. This really is the last chance to give your accounts of what must of been a very dark chapter of your life. I hope you all can find the strength and courage to come forward one last time.

This is about you. 

VFC - Bob Hill and Stuart Syvret will also be writing about today's meeting so I haven't mentioned it here.

No matter what you decide you all have our utmost respect.

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist 

Team Voice

Thursday, March 13, 2014





"MARCH 2011 - MARCH 2014 IS LONG ENOUGH!!!!!"



All information concerning the Committee of Enquiry can be found on the website provided here.  

As the Committee of Enquiry gets closer to starting there are still many concerns as to how this committee will pan out. The wait for this committee of enquiry must  seem like an age for all those concerned.  What is important,  very important,  is that everyone who can give  evidence to the committee of enquiry does so. The committee must recieve every piece of oral and written evidence available. It is not for us to judge what the outcome will be at this early stage but concerns have been raised as shown below.  I for one will be very interested in those who will offer evidence and those who will decline or simply not show. There must also be a support structure in place for all abuse victims giving evidence as I have no doubt it will be a harrowing experience.

We must again look at the Terms of Reference. I have published them below. 

On the 20th December 2013 we emailed  Mike Haden, the committees point of contact with our concerns. We are still awaiting for a reply from the enquiry team.

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist

December 20th 2013

Dear Mike,

We were pleased that some of the interested parties were able to meet with the panel on Monday, and delighted that the Committee of Inquiry is now moving forward and will be under way at last. We hope that it will fulfil its role of getting to the truth in all aspects of its remit.

May we (through your good self) put a few questions to the panel of a procedural nature arising from our meeting on Monday?

Can the CoI Panel assure us that the Inquiry will not just be about the   victims “telling their story” (i.e. truth and reconciliation), but will cover the TOR in full?

Can the CoI Panel assure us that the membership and brief content of all meetings with third parties will be logged, and that the log will be made publicly available?

Will all documents read by or on behalf of the Panel be uploaded to a website immediately, i.e. as soon as possible?

Will all transcripts of hearings held in public be made available within 24 hours on the proposed website?

What privilege will witnesses enjoy when speaking to the Inquiry (e.g. immunity from prosecution under the Island’s Data Protection Law etc.)?

What guarantees will be made available to witnesses coming from outside Jersey regarding immunity from prosecution when arriving in Jersey to speak to the Inquiry?

We would be most grateful if these points could be raised as and when possible, and look forward to the response.

Again, could you please thank the Panel for their time on Monday.

Kind Regards

JCLA, Deputy Montfort Tadier, Deputy Trevor Pitman,
Daniel Wimberley, Bob Hill, Rico Sorda

Terms of Reference, as approved by the States of Jersey on 6th March 2013

The Committee of Inquiry (“the Committee”) is asked to do the following –

1. Establish the type and nature of children’s homes and fostering services in Jersey in the period under review, that is the post-war period, with a particular focus on the period after 1960. Consider (in general terms) why children were placed and maintained in these services.

2. Determine the organisation (including recruitment and supervision of staff), management, governance and culture of children’s homes and any other establishments caring for children, run by the States and in other non-States run establishments providing for children, where abuse has been alleged, in the period under review and consider whether these aspects of these establishments were adequate.

3. Examine the political and other oversight of children’s homes and fostering services and other establishments run by the States with a particular focus on oversight by the various Education Committees between 1960 and 1995, by the various Health and Social Services Committees between 1996 and 2005, and by ministerial government from 2006 to the current day.

4. Examine the political and societal environment during the period under review and its effect on the oversight of children’s homes, fostering services and other establishments run by the States, on the reporting or non-reporting of abuse within or outside such organisations, on the response to those reports of abuse by all agencies and by the public, on the eventual police and any other investigations, and on the eventual outcomes.

5. Establish a chronology of significant changes in childcare practice and policy during the period under review, with reference to Jersey and the UK in order to identify the social and professional norms under which the services in Jersey operated throughout the period under review.

6. Take into account the independent investigations and reports conducted in response to the concerns raised in 2007, and any relevant information that has come to light during the development and progression of the Redress Scheme.

7. Consider the experiences of those witnesses who suffered abuse or believe that they suffered abuse, and hear from staff who worked in these services, together with any other relevant witnesses. It will be for the Committee to determine, by balancing the interests of justice and the public interest against the presumption of openness, whether, and to what extent, all or any of the evidence given to it should be given in private. The Committee, in accordance with Standing Order 147(2), will have the power to conduct hearings in private if the Chairman and members consider this to be appropriate.

8. Identify how and by what means concerns about abuse were raised and how, and to whom, they were reported. Establish whether systems existed to allow children and others to raise concerns and safeguard their wellbeing, whether these systems were adequate, and any failings they had.

9. Review the actions of the agencies of the government, the justice system and politicians during the period under review, in particular when concerns came to light about child abuse and establish what, if any, lessons are to be learned.

10. Consider how the Education and Health and Social Services Departments dealt with concerns about alleged abuse, what action they took, whether these actions were in line with the policies and procedures of the day, and whether those policies and procedures were adequate.

11. Establish whether, where abuse was suspected, it was reported to the appropriate bodies, including the States of Jersey Police; what action was taken by persons or entities including the police, and whether this was in line with policies and procedures of the day and whether those policies and procedures were adequate.

12. Determine whether the concerns in 2007 were sufficient to justify the States of Jersey Police setting in train ‘Operation Rectangle’.

13. Establish the process by which files were submitted by the States of Jersey Police to the prosecuting authorities for consideration, and establish –
  • Whether those responsible for deciding on which cases to prosecute took a professional approach;
  • Whether the process was free from political or other interference at any level. 

If, for these purposes, or as a result of evidence given under paragraph 7, in the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee, it would be of assistance that one or more of the prosecution files underpinning any prosecution decision may be examined in a manner to be determined by the Committee.

14. Set out what lessons can be learned for the current system of residential and foster care services in Jersey and for third party providers of services for children and young people in the Island.

15. Report on any other issues arising during the Inquiry considered to be relevant to the past safety of children in residential or foster care and other establishments run by the States, and whether these issues affect the safety of children in the future.