Sunday, March 29, 2015

P20/15 THE SPEECHES OF EDUCATION MINISTER - DEPUTY BRYANS AND DEPUTY TRUSCOTT -JERSEY CARE ENQUIRY

DEPUTY TRUSCOTT - VOTED AGAINST P20/15 

DEPUTY BRYANS -EDUCATION MINISTER VOTED AGAINST P20/15





P20/15


SECURING EXTRA FUNDING FOR THE JERSEY CARE ENQUIRY



TWO  MORE SPEECHES TO LOOK AT



BOTH DEPUTY TRUSCOTT AND DEPUTY BRYANS VOTED AGAINST P20/15




Deputy Truscott is Deputy of St Brelade No.2 district. 



His speech on p20/15 can be listened to below.









Deputy Bryans is the Education Minister. When I was listening to his speech I had him down for a vote in favour of extra funding only to go the opposite way right at the end. He seemed to have a lot of empathy for the victims of abuse yet voted in favour of the Committee of Enquiry to be stopped in its tracks. Being the Minister for education I thought that he would have been all in favour. Could it be that his allegiance is really allied with Senator Bailhache? I will let you listen to his  speech and come to your own conclusions. 



Rico Sorda Part Time Investigative Journalist 

Team Voice would also like to welcome TheJerseyWay to the team.

Thursday, March 26, 2015

P20/2015 THE SPEECH OF SENATOR PHILIP BAILHACHE - JERSEY CARE ENQUIRY

SENATOR PHILIP BAILHACHE






SENATOR PHILIP BAILHACHE


HIS SPEECH ON P20/15 



SECURING EXTRA FUNDING FOR THE JERSEY CARE ENQUIRY



SENATOR PHILIP BAILHACHE WANTED THE ENQUIRY STOPPED AND HE WANTED IT STOPPED NOW.





On Wednesday 25th March the States of Jersey passed P.20/2015.  This proposition was to secure extra funding for the Jersey Care Enquiry.  The proposition was passed 34 in favour 4 against and one abstention. The abstention being Senator Bailhache. 


Had the extra funding not been granted the enquiry would have ended. 


More on these related issues can be read on the links below.






This is what I said on my previous posting. 


This was before he made his speech during the debate. There is so much contained in his speech that I will just let the you listen to it. 





SENATOR PHILIP BAILHACHE


WHY DOES THIS MAN HAVE SUCH A PROBLEM WHEN IT COMES TO CHILD ABUSE????


NEVER ANYTHING POSITIVE


THIS OUT OF CONTROL SENATOR NOW TRIES TO POLITICALLY INTERFERE WITH THE COMMITTEE OF ENQUIRY THAT IS MEANT TO BE FREE FROM POLITICAL INTERFERENCE


ARE SOME AFRAID OF THE TRUTH?


 Senator Bailhache started showing his true colours in December 2007 when  shutting down former  Senator Stuart Syvret's Christmas speech.  

Here is what former Senator Stuart Syvret said:

"Indeed, later that year, in December 2007, I attempted to give a Christmas speech as ‘Father of the House’ in which I was expressing recognition of the victims of abuse and expressing empathy with them. Astonishingly I was heckled, barracked, shouted-down, abused – and the Dean’s friend, the conflicted Philip Bailhache, cut my microphone and adjourned the meeting. Robert Key let this happen – and said not one syllable in support of the victims, or even my right to speak of them. I’ve written previously about Key’s conduct in this blog-posting, Of Millstones and Secret Reports:"


Then we have the horrendous  Liberation Day speech of 9th May 2008. Senator Bailhache had the audacity, on such a special day, to utter these now infamous words. Not just to the people of Jersey but to the world:

 "All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal".


We also have Senator Bailhache neck deep in the Sharp Report, the Roger Holland Affair and let's not forget his horrendous involvement with the HG Alleged Church Abuse Case.  

When the Committee of Enquiry was finally passed in the States of Jersey guess who was missing for the vote after being present in the States Chamber up until this debate? You guessed it. Senator Philip Bailhache.


We are now counting the cost of failure. Failure, over decades, to protect  CHILDREN. 

INNOCENT VULNERABLE CHILDREN.  

Failure by all the services including the Police . Failure that allowed paedophiles and abusers to inflict mental and physical torture and to ply their trade in the Jersey Care System with such ease. We are now counting the cost. The real cost is not the £20 million or even £50 million that Bailhache is touting around to any sympathetic ear he can find, but the innocence that was snatched by these predatory individuals. Yes, lives and families destroyed. That is the real cost Senator Bailhache. The cost is the failure to protect children for decades. 

Should Senator Bailhache and Deputy Andrew Lewis be even allowed to vote on the proposition for extra funding seeing as they are conflicted? And one would hope that the judiciary won't be chairing this debate. 

The Jersey Evening Post have run some articles concerning the level of expenditure of the Committee of Enquiry and it can be read here:


This is quote from Senator Bailhache from said article. Lets

"Today, Senator Sir Philip Bailhache is reported as saying that the cost of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry could be at least £50 million, many times more than the estimate of £6 million put before the States when Members voted in favour of a public inquiry.

The States must now decide whether to cap the cost of this inquiry. They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Handing over a blank cheque could wipe out savings in the Strategic Reserve which have been built up over decades. The alternative – to borrow the money – is equally unappealing for a community with an innate dislike of public debt.
Senator Bailhache wants to hear Islanders’ views on what the States should do – and whether the cost should be capped."

Let's not forget that Senator Bailhache held the role of Attorney General then Bailiff when the abuse was taking place. He, along with his brother, and now Bailiff William Bailhache are highly conflicted as the Jersey Judiciary fall under the terms of reference for the Committee of Enquiry. Senator Bailhache should be remaining quiet as there is a high chance that he will be having to give evidence to the committee of enquiry along with Deputy Lewis who as Home Affairs Minister suspended the then Chief of Police, Graham Power, on 12th November 2008 based on nothing but a pack of lies. 

Chief Minister Gorst must now rein in his out-of-control External Relations Minister. This debate regarding the extra funding is a chance for us to see exactly where these new politicians, and the established ones, come down on the issue of finding the truth. We all agree that it shouldn't be an open cheque book and checks and balances should be in place, as I believe they are but to not issue the extra funding will bring further shame and ridicule to the island of jersey.

Senator Bailhache obviously doesn't think about the victims when he says he wants the view of the Islander's regarding extra funding. All this shows is that the old guard still won't let it go. What are they so afraid of?  Does he not understand that it is him that is tarnishing this island.  I for one won't be sorry to see the back of him and his brother. The Island needs to breathe once more and be free from this stranglehold.


Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Reporter




Sunday, March 1, 2015

SENATOR PHILIP BAILHACHE - COMMITTEE OF ENQUIRY - POLITICAL INTERFERENCE

SENATOR PHILIP BAILHACHE





SENATOR PHILIP BAILHACHE


WHY DOES THIS MAN HAVE SUCH A PROBLEM WHEN IT COMES TO CHILD ABUSE????


NEVER ANYTHING POSITIVE


THIS OUT OF CONTROL SENATOR NOW TRIES TO POLITICALLY INTERFERE WITH THE COMMITTEE OF ENQUIRY THAT IS MEANT TO BE FREE FROM POLITICAL INTERFERENCE


ARE SOME AFRAID OF THE TRUTH?


 Senator Bailhache started showing his true colours in December 2007 when  shutting down former  Senator Stuart Syvret's Christmas speech.  

Here is what former Senator Stuart Syvret said:

"Indeed, later that year, in December 2007, I attempted to give a Christmas speech as ‘Father of the House’ in which I was expressing recognition of the victims of abuse and expressing empathy with them. Astonishingly I was heckled, barracked, shouted-down, abused – and the Dean’s friend, the conflicted Philip Bailhache, cut my microphone and adjourned the meeting. Robert Key let this happen – and said not one syllable in support of the victims, or even my right to speak of them. I’ve written previously about Key’s conduct in this blog-posting, Of Millstones and Secret Reports:"


Then we have the horrendous  Liberation Day speech of 9th May 2008. Senator Bailhache had the audacity, on such a special day, to utter these now infamous words. Not just to the people of Jersey but to the world:

 "All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal".


We also have Senator Bailhache neck deep in the Sharp Report, the Roger Holland Affair and let's not forget his horrendous involvement with the HG Alleged Church Abuse Case.  

When the Committee of Enquiry was finally passed in the States of Jersey guess who was missing for the vote after being present in the States Chamber up until this debate? You guessed it. Senator Philip Bailhache.


We are now counting the cost of failure. Failure, over decades, to protect  CHILDREN. 

INNOCENT VULNERABLE CHILDREN.  

Failure by all the services including the Police . Failure that allowed paedophiles and abusers to inflict mental and physical torture and to ply their trade in the Jersey Care System with such ease. We are now counting the cost. The real cost is not the £20 million or even £50 million that Bailhache is touting around to any sympathetic ear he can find, but the innocence that was snatched by these predatory individuals. Yes, lives and families destroyed. That is the real cost Senator Bailhache. The cost is the failure to protect children for decades. 

Should Senator Bailhache and Deputy Andrew Lewis be even allowed to vote on the proposition for extra funding seeing as they are conflicted? And one would hope that the judiciary won't be chairing this debate. 

The Jersey Evening Post have run some articles concerning the level of expenditure of the Committee of Enquiry and it can be read here:


This is quote from Senator Bailhache from said article. Lets

"Today, Senator Sir Philip Bailhache is reported as saying that the cost of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry could be at least £50 million, many times more than the estimate of £6 million put before the States when Members voted in favour of a public inquiry.

The States must now decide whether to cap the cost of this inquiry. They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Handing over a blank cheque could wipe out savings in the Strategic Reserve which have been built up over decades. The alternative – to borrow the money – is equally unappealing for a community with an innate dislike of public debt.
Senator Bailhache wants to hear Islanders’ views on what the States should do – and whether the cost should be capped."

Let's not forget that Senator Bailhache held the role of Attorney General then Bailiff when the abuse was taking place. He, along with his brother, and now Bailiff William Bailhache are highly conflicted as the Jersey Judiciary fall under the terms of reference for the Committee of Enquiry. Senator Bailhache should be remaining quiet as there is a high chance that he will be having to give evidence to the committee of enquiry along with Deputy Lewis who as Home Affairs Minister suspended the then Chief of Police, Graham Power, on 12th November 2008 based on nothing but a pack of lies. 

Chief Minister Gorst must now rein in his out-of-control External Relations Minister. This debate regarding the extra funding is a chance for us to see exactly where these new politicians, and the established ones, come down on the issue of finding the truth. We all agree that it shouldn't be an open cheque book and checks and balances should be in place, as I believe they are but to not issue the extra funding will bring further shame and ridicule to the island of jersey.

Senator Bailhache obviously doesn't think about the victims when he says he wants the view of the Islander's regarding extra funding. All this shows is that the old guard still won't let it go. What are they so afraid of?  Does he not understand that it is him that is tarnishing this island.  I for one won't be sorry to see the back of him and his brother. The Island needs to breathe once more and be free from this stranglehold.

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Reporter

Saturday, February 21, 2015

"ANY QUESTIONS" 24TH FEBRUARY - ST CLEMENT PARISH HALL.




On Tuesday,  February 24th between 7:30pm - 9:30pm there will be a "Any Questions" debate at 
St Clement  Parish Hall.

Following on from the success of its  successful debut I hope that this one will also be well received. I will be sitting on the panel alongside:

Constable Len Norman 

Education Minister - Deputy Rod Bryons

Reform Jersey Chairman - Deputy Sam Mezec

Advocate Vicky Milner


I hope as many people as possible come down to this event.  

Those who know me will know that I won't be holding back in my opinions concerning the shambolic States of jersey and other such issues close to my heart.  You ask me a question and you will get a straight answer.

This is also a great opportunity for the keyboard warriors to come down, ask some questions and say hello to me.

I look forward to seeing James Pearce and Sue Young.

 Lets not forget the others that hang on a certain Facebook page and have plenty to say about me. See you next Tuesday. 

If James Pearce and Sue Young come down and introduce themselves  to me I will donate a £100 to a charity of there choice.  

I will be speaking from a grassroots level as I see the direction jersey is going in from an ordinary citizen. I would like to thank Change.Je for having such a diverse panel and giving me the opportunity to voice my views on any questions asked. 


Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist.

Thursday, February 5, 2015

THE STATES OF JERSEY. HAVE THE MAJORITY OF MEMBERS LOST THEIR TONGUE?









DEPUTY NORTON - LETS ALL HAVE A STREET PARTY AND NOT BOTHER ABOUT LODGING ANY QUESTIONS 




DEPUTY McLINTON - MY DEPUTY - NO QUESTIONS LODGED 




STATES OF JERSEY


"CLASS OF 2014"


"LOBOTOMISED???"


"FOLLOWING TUESDAYS  MARATHON TWO HOUR SESSION IN THE STATES CHAMBER - THERE WERE 7 ORAL QUESTIONS LODGED AND 11 WRITTEN QUESTIONS. WHAT IS GOING ON?"


Now that we have had two states sittings in 2015 is this a pattern of things to come? In what has been described as the most illagitmate states assembly in decades we have 11 out of 12 Constables unelected and 6 Deputies who did not contest an election. That is a third of our states members unelected. Is it any wonder alleged Chief Minister didn't want independent electoral observers to oversea the last election?


One of the fundamental tools in a democracy is holding the executive to account. This comes in the form of written and oral questions. Are we now witnessing one of the most ineffective, unelected lobotomised nodding dogs states assembly this Island has ever seen post war. How is it that the newly elected (class of 2014) who had so much to say at hustings, manifestos, radio and TV interviews have now become so mute that question time is becoming obsolete . Are we saying there isn't any serious issues facing our Island that Ministerial policy making and decisions doesn't deserve any questions from our elected representatives? This is a shocking indictment on those who don't engage with the  electoral process. Hence, we end up with nodding dogs.


The only opposition or questioning in the States Chamber comes in the form of the only political party Reform Jersey (and Deputy Higgins). Is it right that this burden should fall on the shoulders of so few when we have 38 "independent" backbenchers who can ask questions. Are we really to believe that they can't ask a single question of the executive? Hansard is there to record states debates. This is why all questions should be asked in the chamber and not in the corridors of power. They are recorded for history and the answers can be relied upon for future research and debates and holding candidates to account in future elections. 

I would like to see Deputy Norton spend a little more time holding the executive to account and formulating policy by lodging propositions than by organising a 25mile long street party for Liberation Day. This nonsense is best left to others who aren't tasked with formulating policy and steering the direction of the Island.

There are grave concerns that the Law Office and Council of Minister will be dusting off all those dodgy pieces of legislation and propositions that they know would not have stood a chance of being passed by recent assemblies. Now with the nodding dog class of 2015 anything (everything) is possible. After the Constables horrendous erosion of parish democracy by raising the number of signatures required to call a parish assembly from 4 to 10 one has to ask what else are these clowns going to pass in the states.

In the flawed recent referendum the majority voted to keep the constables in the states as they are the link between their parishioners and the assembly . Is that all parishioners want?silence in the states as their constables haven't lodged a single question this year as indeed as mentioned above. All they have managed so far is to erode democracy by making it harder for their parishioners to have a voice. 

As the year progresses we shall be keeping an eye on this shambolic states assembly and the silent assassins who remain silent and vote continually with the executive in the hope of a future Ministerial Position. In the mean time here are a few stats on the questions that have been asked so far. 


3rd Feb 2015.

Written questions.

Sam Mezec (RJ)  (4)

Mike Higgins   (2)

Geoff Southern (RJ) (5)     11 written questions (3 members) Without RJ there would be 2 Q’s asked by 1 States member…………..No Constables.


Oral Questions

Sam Mezec (RJ)  (2)

Montfort Tadier (RJ)   (2)

Geoff Southern (RJ)  (2)

Kevin Lewis   (1)   7 Oral questions (4 members) without RJ there would be 1 question there would be 1 question asked by 1 Member………….No Constables



20TH JANUARY 2015


Written questions (11)

Andrew Lewis  (1)

Sam Mezec (RJ)  (3)

Geoff Southern (RJ) (5)

Montfort Tadier  (2)   11 questions (4 members) without RJ there would be 1 question asked by one Member……….No Constables.




Oral Questions (11)

Sam Mezec (RJ)   (2)

Louise Doublet   (1)

Mike Higgins  (2)

Geoff Southern (RJ)  (2)

Jackie Hilton   (2)

Judy Martin   (2)  11 questions (6 Members) Without RJ there would be 7 Q’s asked by 4 members………… NO CONSTABLES

Over the last 2 Sittings there have been a total of 40 questions asked (Written and Oral)

RJ has asked 31 of them.

Other than RJ only 5 States Members have submitted questions in the last 2 sittings. Which means, in two States Sittings, without RJ there would have been 9 questions submitted between 5 States Members…………… NO CONSTABLES. 

Some more maths could be done, like 38 members could have asked (oral) questions (maximum of 2 each) which could have made a total (of the 2 Sittings) 304 where it is that out of those 304 possible oral questions there has been 18.

You are allowed 5 written questions each? Anyhow my head is scrambled now so can’t handle tackling the written question sums but the stats I’ve given you should be of use.



The Rico Sorda Blog is now back in business after a long overdue rest. The below link take you to the Deputy Mézec Blog and is well worth a read.




Rico Sorda

Team Voice

Part Time Investigative Journalist 



Wednesday, December 31, 2014

MATT TAPP FILES - 6




























Former Chief Minister Frank Walker & CEO Bill (GOLDEN HANDSHAKE) Ogley







Matt Tapp -6


Take your time reading this



Former Chief Of Police Graham Power Replies.



The Jersey Child Abuse Cover-up


This Posting concerns;


Former Deputy Chief Officer David Warcup


Former Chief Minister Frank Walker


And last but not least; Former Chief Executive Bill Ogley and Media Consultant Matt Tapp



Just like I did with the BDO Review I followed my hunch. I new something wasn't quite right and investigated. The role of outside Media Consultant Matt Tapp has bugged me for a long time. I found it strange how not long after Warcup turned up in Jersey Matt Tapp wasn't far behind.


Stranger still, is how this report found its way to the Defence council in the pre-trial of Donnelly, Wateridge & Aubin. We had Judge Pitchers quoting it in open court as some kind of Gospel on Operation Rectangle. We then have the Jersey Evening Post forgetting about an abuser being jailed and using it through Judge Pitchers judgements to trash the living daylights out of Operation Rectangle under former Senior Investigating Officer Lenny Harper.


This just isn't right. It doesn't look right.


To use the phrase of the former Chief Of Police "It Stinks"



Read carefully what Graham Power is saying here.


Even more bizarre is the actions of Judge Pitchers and his use of this report in court.


Matt Tapp gave a statement to Wiltshire. It must be very reveling to say the least. Anyone who has an understanding of what went on during the lead up to Graham Powers suspension on the 12th November 2008 will understand the gravity of what is unfolding here.


This is only the beginning. I have uncovered more. A lot more.


I have said before that when Graham Power was suspended they didn't use anything to do with the Metropolitan Police but in fact they used the Tapp Report and Warcups own opinions. The Tapp report that was put together under strange circumstances. This is what Graham Power says;



"I since learned that shortly after his meeting with me Mr Tapp had a further meeting with the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley and the Chief Minister Frank Walker (Matt Tapp Communications Review page 5.) It was agreed at that meeting that Mr Tapp would produce a report for the "States of Jersey." (Tapp review page 5.) This might be significant. Having originally been engaged by the Police it appears that Mr Tapp now accepted a second commission, from the Chief Executive and the Chief Minister and that it was this second commission which resulted in the production of his report. I have no information as to what fee was agreed for that commission"



Please keep following my posts as very soon I will blow the lid completely off


Years of very hard work is now paying off. The bloggers have not gone away but stuck to the task at hand



What Im producing will have a profound effect on Operation Rectangle under the leadership of Warcup & Gradwell. We already know what Gradwell was up to and his no show at the Scrutiny Review. We already know about the lies and misleading of the States Chamber by former Chief Minister Terry Le Suer. There are many more who should be worried. This cant go on.



THIS IS ABOUT DECADES OF CHILD ABUSE



I REPEAT - THIS IS ABOUT DECADES OF CHILD ABUSE



I will now let the former Chief of Police Graham Power explain exactly what happened with Media Consultant Matt Tapp and his report.



This is just the beginning


After reading the reply from Graham Power read again the answer given by Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand in reply to a written question from Former Deputy Daniel Wimberly on this very subject. No mention of the issues raised by Graham Power and submitted by Matt Tapp under oath.


Don't underestimate how serious this is



Rico Sorda - Team Voice





Graham Power QPM

I have been asked to make comment on the role of a Mr Matt Tapp, a media consultant, in some of events relating to the abuse enquiry in 2008. I base my comments on my recollections of events and on documents which came legitimately into my possession during the course of the disciplinary enquiries by Wiltshire Police which followed my suspension from duty. Where I make reference to information which is in a document I have given the relevant document and page reference in brackets.
I met Mr Tapp only once, that was on 8th October 2008. The meeting had been arranged by David Warcup who was the new Deputy Chief Officer. At some time previous to that meeting Mr Warcup had told me something to the effect that he was taking advice from a media person who he had worked with earlier in his career. I made no objection to that although by nature I am not sympathetic to the engagement of expensive consultants. I believed then and I believe now that highly paid senior officers should for the most part be able to manage without this kind of assistance. I have since learned from other documents that Mr Tapp was in fact approached by David Warcup in August 2008 and formally engaged in mid-September of that year. My meeting with Mr Tapp did not go well. He began by telling me that we needed a plan to announce that "the murder investigation had finished." (Statement made by M Tapp to Wilts Police paragraph 14.) Given that over a period of time we had been repeatedly stating that there was no murder investigation I did not see this as an impressive proposal. Mr Tapp went on to suggest that we should stage a high profile media conference in which the force should effectively denounce some aspects of the early enquiry. I saw this as a bad idea. A gradual and carefully managed process of expectation management had been taking place for months and it was my view that it should be allowed to continue in a careful and balanced way. I felt that the type of event which he proposed would re-ignite sensationalist media interest, create controversy and divisions within the Island, and confuse and demoralise victims and witnesses. I believe that subsequent events have shown that I was correct in those beliefs. At the end of that meeting I concluded that Mr Tapp was not a suitable person to assist the Force and that the further expenditure of public funds for his services could not be justified.
I since learned that shortly after his meeting with me Mr Tapp had a further meeting with the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley and the Chief Minister Frank Walker (Matt Tapp Communications Review page 5.) It was agreed at that meeting that Mr Tapp would produce a report for the "States of Jersey." (Tapp review page 5.) This might be significant. Having originally been engaged by the Police it appears that Mr Tapp now accepted a second commission, from the Chief Executive and the Chief Minister and that it was this second commission which resulted in the production of his report. I have no information as to what fee was agreed for that commission.
I have seen the report which Mr Tapp produced in consequence of that meeting. It is dated "November 2008." but no specific date is given. This may be significant because I was suspended on 12th November 2008. I do not know whether or not the report by Mr Tapp was available to the Chief Executive and the Chief Minister prior to that date. In the conclusions of his report Mr Tapp is critical of the media performance of the former Senior Investigating Officer, Mr Lenny Harper. It is these conclusions which are most often quoted and referred to, particularly by those who are sympathetic of Mr Tapps position. But an examination of the full report reveals that the evidence which is offered in support of this conclusion is less straightforward. Media releases and statements made by Mr Harper and quoted in the report include references such as "we have no allegations that anyone died or was murdered here" and " Haute de la Garenne would be treated as a crime scene although there were no allegations that anyone died or had been murdered there." (Tapp report page 22.) Elsewhere in the report there are references to the role of the media attention in persuading witness and victims to come forward. To some extent this aspect of the Tapp report is similar to the work undertaken by Wiltshire Police who tasked an officer to review records of media interviews by Mr Harper, perhaps in the expectation of finding something inappropriate, only to discover that the officer could find only records of repeated attempts to "tone down" the media coverage and a repeated emphasis that there were no allegations of murder (Wilts Media Report pages 586-582.)
Some time during my suspension I read in a newspaper that evidence from Mr Tapp had been given at a Court hearing connected to an abuse trial and that apparently Mr Tapp's evidence had been critical of myself, and that the Court had made some negative comment relating to my role. I cannot offer further informaiton in relation to this. I was never told of any hearing, let alone asked to contribute or to challenge whatever it was that Mr Tapp had to offer. I have since leared that apparently the report by Mr Tapp was used in some evidential way the the defence team representing a person who was subsequently convicted of Child Abuse.

It might be that the purpose of the Tapp Review has been misunderstood and that it has mistakenly been seen or even represented as an independent review prepared on behalf of the Force to assist the investigation. That does not appear to be the case, and for those with the will to find them, Mr Tapps own words make his mandate somewhat different from the norm. The significant revelation appears to me to be that in the text of page 5 where Mr Tapp tells us that he prepared his report following a meeting with the Chief Executive and the Chief Minister and that the report was for the the use of the Islands Government and not the Force. It is probable that Mr Tapp did not know it at the time, but it has since been revealed in the report by Brian Napier QC, that the two persons with whom he met and who commissioned his report had for some months been meeting secretly with others to devise a means by which the Chief Officer of the Force could be suspended from duty. Against that background their meeting with Mr Tapp, fresh from his disappointment with his meeting with me, and ready to be critical of the Abuse Enquiry, could have appeared as a golden opportunity to move their secret agenda forward.
In this context it is difficult to see how either Mr Tapp, or his report, could be fairly described as "independent."






35 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE AUTHOR OF A REPORT ADVISING THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE ON MEDIA-RELATED MATTERS:
Question
In his reply to a written question from the Deputy of St. Martin on 23rd March 2010, the Minister referred to the lengthy quotation which forms part of the judgement in the matter of the Attorney General v. Aubin and others [2009] J.R.C. 035A. in the following terms “The quotation above which is attributed to an outside expert is a quotation from the report of an independent media expert who was called in to advise the States of Jersey Police on media related matters.” Would the Minister inform members who called for this report, when and why, who conducted it, how were those who undertook the review were selected and what their qualifications were? Will the Minister release the report to members as it has already been used in a public court judgement?
Answer
In September 2008 an external media consultant, experienced in working at ACPO level in the UK, was formally engaged by the then Deputy Chief of Police with the knowledge of the Chief Officer of Police to develop an appropriate external communication strategy regarding Operation Rectangle. This was primarily to ensure:
  • That trials and ongoing investigations were not compromised or challenged on the grounds of an abuse of process, based on the information supplied to the media by the States of Jersey Police.
  • That the public were presented with accurate facts.
The external media consultant gave advice on these matters and subsequently resigned from his role. He then produced a written report in relation to his advice. Other issues relating to the report fall both within the ambit of the enquiry being conducted by the Commissioner and the terms of the first Wiltshire Police Report and it is not appropriate for me to express an opinion thereon at this stage.