Prejudging Issues

"At the conclusion of its deliberations, a Committee of Inquiry reports back to the States Assembly. It does not, however, make any finding of guilt or innocence in a criminal sense nor does it determine a legal right."

"Neither the States nor a Committee of Inquiry can give directions to the effect that criminal proceedings should be brought in any particular case or give any direction relating to the investigative or prosecutorial process."

I've been looking at the Attorney-General's comments on the terms of reference for the Committee of Inquiry into Historical Child Abuse, and it states these comments are " to provide legal advice to members considering the Terms of Reference of the Committee of Inquiry into historical child abuse."

One of the more obvious questions which springs to mind is this: why do these comments come dated 31 January 2013, so late in the day. The Verita report on the terms of reference has already been given to the Council of Ministers some time ago, the Williamson report on the terms has also been given. These have been out in the public domain for some time as well. You would have thought that if there was going to be a legal comment, it would requested and been given earlier, and yet, here it is coming almost at the same time as the proposition itself.

If there had been legal matters arising from the terms of reference, why on earth wait until now to bring them to the States attention? This last minute introduction of extra material appertaining to States propositions was almost commonplace under the Council of Ministers of Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur, but I had hoped that was a failing of a previous regime. Sadly, it appears not.

Probably one of the most important sections concerns "Paragraph 6" which is to do with how evidence is heard. Clearly there should be an opportunity to respond to claims of abuse if they are mistaken or malicious, but the Attorney General sees this as descending into a kind of adversarial and drawn out action:

Comments on Paragraph 6 - Evidence of Abuse

"Paragraph 6 of the draft Terms of Reference anticipates that the Committee of Inquiry will hear evidence from witnesses who suffered abuse or believe that they suffered abuse as well as from staff who worked in the services together with other relevant witnesses. It is left to the Committee of Inquiry as to whether or not such evidence will be heard in public or in private. The Committee of Inquiry has a discretion in the interests of justice or in the public interest, to hear matters in private, although the presumption is that evidence before a Committee of Inquiry will be held and heard in public."

"The Terms of Reference presuppose that evidence will be given not only by people who have suffered abuse but by people who 'believe that they have suffered abuse'. It must accordingly be anticipated that not all allegations heard before the Committee of Inquiry will be well-founded, and there is nothing to prevent witnesses making ill-founded allegations which are mistaken or simply wrong. It seems equally likely that persons who make allegations that have suffered abuse will wish to name their alleged abusers. One must therefore anticipate that anyone so accused will wish to have the opportunity to challenge the accusations made against them and to defend themselves."

"If the Committee of Inquiry is to hear evidence at length, then it seems likely that the evidence-hearing stage will be preceded by an evidence-gathering stage, a disclosure stage and, possibly, a statement-taking stage, so that the lawyers advising the Inquiry can prepare for any hearings and persons will know if they are to be accused and accordingly prepare their defence. It may be that the statements, either in full or redacted, made to the police by complainants can be made available to the Inquiry if the complainants consent. It is difficult to anticipate how long that process of evidence gathering will take."

"It is accordingly not difficult to anticipate that paragraph 6 of the draft Terms of Reference might potentially result in an extended process with significant evidence being given and challenged. It would be difficult to anticipate a situation in which a robust challenge would properly be prevented by the Committee of Inquiry and accordingly the process of taking evidence may be confrontational and challenging for all concerned. Further, it may be anticipated that such a process will be very costly."

"An alternative method would be, should the Committee of Inquiry believe it appropriate to do so, for that evidence to be given in private with the Committee of Inquiry then determining the nature of the report that it should make back to the States Assembly. This may make it possible for the Committee of Inquiry to place more strictures about the way evidence may be given in private and the extent to which it may be challenged, which might obviate the need for the potentially confrontational approach mentioned in the preceding paragraphs."

"It may accordingly be appropriate that the Chairman of the Inquiry should be consulted at length on the correct process for dealing with paragraph 6 before any final decisions are made."

What this means in effect is that the Committee of Inquiry should collect evidence largely in private where any individuals who are still living may be named, and only more general findings be given back to the States. Effectively, it looks as if the Committee of Inquiry is being muzzled from the outset, rather than letting the Committee decide for itself. The reason for this becomes apparent further on.

And this brings us to the other comments:

Comments on Paragraph 10 - Prosecution Process and Decisions

As presently drafted, paragraph 10 seeks to establish the process by which prosecution decisions were taken arising out of the historical child abuse enquiry and to establish whether or not that process -
- enabled those responsible for deciding on which cases to prosecute to take a consistent and impartial approach;
- was free from any political influence or interference at any level.

and the comment which follows on this is as follows:

"It is legitimate to enquire into a process surrounding the taking of a prosecution decision, it would be wrong as a matter of principle to subject individual prosecution decisions to public scrutiny either by a political assembly or by a body set up by such an assembly. There is a fundamental principle that the prosecution process should be free from any political influence or interference in any way (see the answer of the Attorney General given in the States Assembly on 6th July 2010 attached as Appendix 2). In the light of the public statements concerning process attached as Appendix 1, it may be difficult to see how this question will be addressed practically by any Committee of Inquiry."

Now it is clear that there is a grey area which the Attorney General is not considering here or further down, when he considers the "evidential test" whether a prosecution should go ahead. There are three classes of people who may come before the Inquiry:

- Those who have been abused, and whose abuse is a matter of public record, as for example in the case of a successful prosecution
- Those who "believe that they have suffered abuse" where they may be mistaken or simply wrong (as in Comments on Paragraph 6)
- Those who suffered abuse, but where the case for prosecution has been turned down on legal grounds for failing the "evidential test"

This third class of people seems to have been forgotten in the comments on Paragraph 6, and yet William Bailhache, when Attorney-General, noted in reply to a question that this class of victims did exist. Taking about the "evidential test", he said that:

"The expression 'more likely than not' means that the test is applied on the balance of probability. These rules apply to all prosecutions whether for historic child abuse or for other cases. The assessments are judgment calls made on a professional, objective basis. It should be emphasised that any decision taken to the effect that a particular allegation should not result in charges does not mean that the allegation is rejected as untrue, nor does it mean that it is considered in some way not to be a serious allegation. All it means is that the prosecutor has reached the view that an acquittal is more likely than a conviction."

And yet in his comments on evidence given, Tim Le Cocq gives virtually no weight to this class of people. As he states ""The Terms of Reference presuppose that evidence will be given not only by people who have suffered abuse but by people who 'believe that they have suffered abuse'." Where are the people who have suffered abuse, but whose evidence was insufficiently strong to pass the evidential test? They seem to have vanished. They have effectively become non-persons, silent victims whose voice has been muted.

What seems to be the case in his comments on Paragraph 10 is that he doesn't want the Committee of Inquiry to judge in effect whether the failure to prosecute was justified or not, or whether the outcome be different today. He makes no mention of the most significant change in the law, which is with regard to what are termed "corroboration rules"

That law, on which Frank Walker's Council of Ministers refused to budge, and which Wendy Kinnard decided to resign on a matter of principle, gave the situation in which a warning must be given to a jury over uncorroborated evidence from certain types of witnesses - children, sexual assault victims and other defendants. It was only altered by the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 3) (Jersey) Law, which was lodged in 18 October 2011. Hence a number of cases which may have been dropped on the grounds that they would certainly fail might conceivably have proceeded to prosecution. The change in the law must surely change the position on "more likely than not".

The change in the law was voted on 17 January 2012, and became law in March 2012. It passed by 41 votes, with no abstentions, but a lot of absences from the sitting. Deputy Roy Le Hérissier asked if more convictions had come about as a result of the changed law in the UK and elsewhere, and Sir Philip Bailhache, acting as rapporteur for this order, replied that: "I am not sure that I can give Deputy Le Hérissier any specific information about the number of cases which have led to convictions in other jurisdictions as a result of the changes in the corroboration rules, but logic would suggest that the absence of the requirement for corroboration has made it easier to bring guilty men to justice and I cannot, I am afraid, say more than that."

Now the statement by from the former Attorney General, William Bailhache on the legal processes in the "Jersey Historical Abuse Investigation", which is an appendix to these comments by the current holder of the post, was dated 3rd June 2009, and so does not take this into account in its deliberations. Of course, changes in law cannot be applied retrospectively to cases considered, but they do mean that - as Sir Philip noted, that this change "has made it easier to bring guilty men to justice."

There is, of course, another factor which needs to be considered, and that is benefit of hindsight. The Jimmy Saville scandal in the UK has exposed cases where the CPS was over cautious in its application of the evidential test. In the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service published a review of a decision in 2009 not to charge Jimmy Savile with sexual offences in relation to four complaints made to police in Surrey and Sussex. It said further action might have been possible had "police and prosecutors taken a different approach", and the current director of public prosecutions Keir Starmer apologised on behalf of the CPS saying that the report represented a "watershed moment". As the BBC reported:

An internal review by the CPS, published on 11 January 2013, concluded that Savile could have been prosecuted while he was alive over three allegations of sexual offences if police and prosecutors had taken a "different approach". The director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, apologised for the shortcomings of the CPS, saying that while their inquiry found "no improper motive", the alleged victims had been treated with "a degree of caution which was neither justified or required". (1)

Reading between the lines, it is hard to not suspect that the approach taken by the Attorney General in his comments on the Terms of Inquiry is designed to head off any potentially embarrassing shortcomings in Jersey's Prosecution Service. Should the Attorney General really prejudge the issue and narrow the scope of the Terms of Reference, or should it be a matter for the Committee of Inquiry to decide for itself, without fear or favour whether there has perhaps also been in Jersey "a degree of caution which was neither justified or required".



 Former Bailiff  Sir Philip Bailhache - Brother of William.  

Former Attorney General William Bailhache & Now Deputy Bailiff. When he is no longer in office - in my opinion - Jersey will become a better place

Simon Thomas - Independant? Read on







Jersey is nearing the end of its 'Feudal Reign' and the old guard know it. It is for this reason that Sir Philip Bailhache stood for Senator in 2011. He has been dropping grenades ever since being elected. He is Jersey's very own King Canute.  The establishment have been relentless in their cover-up after cover-up. They  forgot one very important factor, "The Jersey Disease"


Let me make this clear. The Feudal bloodline is near extinction. It has had a fantastic run. The current Attorney General, Tim Le Cocq is no Philip or William Bailhache. He is but a court jester to the main show being played out in front of him. And what of the Solicitor General, Howard Sharp? Is he of proud Jersey Feudal stock? Alas no. He is just a court Jester to the main show being played out in front of him. We have been under the Bailhache influence for a very long time. Sir Philip has been in the Jersey Law Office since 1975. He served as Solicitor General between (1975 -85) and Attorney General between (1986 - 93). He then became Deputy Bailiff in 1994 and became Bailiff in 1995 until leaving office in June 2009.

We have been in the grips of a Feudal Monarchy. 

 These 3 have been the real power in Jersey for some 40 years

Sir Philip Bailhache 

Sir Michael Birt  

William Bailhace 

The Child Abuse Cover-UP and all the dropped cases lie at their door. It lies at the stagnant door of the so called independent Lawyers called in by the then Attorney General William Bailhache.  We must take a very good look at these so called independent Lawyers and their connection to 
7 bedford row.  Like all regimes they have surrounded themselves with yes men and fear. No Jersey Lawyer will dare make a stand against these two. There is perhaps one. Advocate Sinel. There will be more to come concerning Advocate Sinel over the coming weeks and months. These will appear on the excellent VFC and


The Jersey Law Office under the Bailhache brothers in my opinion is a toxic edifice. It has gone unchecked. It has been left to its own devices for far to long. I believe Jersey will become a better place, being able to breathe more freely and become more open and transparent when the Bailihache brothers are removed from any decision making and influence. Jersey must move away from the dark clouds that Operation Rectangle exposed. We must move forward. Away from the old guard, who like a washed up boxer doesn't know when to quit. Do we really need some so out of touch as Philip Bailhache going around the world as our Foreign Minister? No, we need someone forward thinking, energetic and based in the 21st Century.  

Now, remember all the dropped Child Abuse Cases from "Operation Rectangle?"

There were many. Remember how they were all independently assessed. Complete rubbish. It was a closed shop. The first thing that the then Attorney General, William Bailhache, did was call in the trusted inner circle of lawyers. These Lawyers all being Independent we were told. Now, if someone told me that independent lawyers were reviewing cases I would be thinking that they had no connection with Jersey and would have a good knowledge of child abuse cases. This is not the case. Every dropped case from Operation Rectangle now needs proper independent reviews. This must be done in an open and transparent way. The Lawyers must be free from influence and have no connection to Jersey.

I must return to a blog posting from former Senator Stuart Syvret. His "Letter from Exile 9" posting gave us a first look at the involvement of the Legal Chambers  "7 BEDFORD ROW".

 Look out for the names of Simon Thomas and Jonathan Bertram.  These two were independent lawyers working for the AG's office. Just look at their field of expertise. Nothing to do with Child Abuse. 

This is what Mr Syvret said: 

“7 Bedford Row”.

And, indeed, it’s a very impressive looking outfit – judging from their website.

Lots and lots of terribly learned individuals – with very impressive CV’s.

And some most fascinating case-work on those CVs.

But – oh dear, boys and girls - I fear you’ve grown far too used to keeping very bad company.

I dare say that 7 Bedford Row and its Partners and Associates – and it’s “Door tenants” (hello Stephen) – are all legal masterminds, but – alas – the law – and politics – are not always the same thing – and don’t always mix successfully.

I begin to wonder whether 7 Bedford Row might not have just found itself ‘on the wrong side’. (Look, I know there is no ‘wrong side’ from a lawyer’s perspective, as long as that side is paying, but work with me on this.)

Indeed , so much so, the very name ‘7 Bedford Row’ could go down in legal firm infamy.

Let us take a closer look – at these “independent” chambers – employed by the Jersey oligarchy – to provide “independent” “opinions” on whether to prosecute the child abusers.

A little brief research reveals the following.

7 Bedford Row have extremely close and sustained professional relationships with Jersey’s Attorney General’s Office.

Each year the outfit and/or its partners receive astronomical sums of money in fees from Jersey’s Law Officers’ department – thus destroying any pretence to objectivity and “independence” claimed for the chambers.

How old is the connection with 7 Bedford Row?

How close can you get?

Michael Birt worked at the partnership of 7 Bedford Row – and to this day can be seen regularly dinning (at tax-payers’ expense) with David Farrer, the present head of chambers at 7 Bedford Row.

Guess who else used to work at 7 Bedford Row?

Why – none other than my old friend, Stephen Baker – who left those chambers to take up a full-time post in – this is getting too easy isn’t it – Jersey’s AG’s office – until he had qualified as a Jersey Advocate, then he left, and founded his own practice – Baker Platt.

And – so “independent” are all these arrangements – that another former employee of the AG’s office – Cyril Whelan – left in 2006 – to go and work for – Baker Platt.

And – (you know, this is getting like Friends Reunited) – guess who – along with Mick Birt – played an instrumental role in abandoning the murder investigation of Nurse M – back in 1999?

You know?

When he was a Crown Advocate?

Why, Cyril Whelan, of course.

I’m sure Advocate Whelan has been able to advise Advocate Baker most thoroughly in respect of the latter’s prosecution of me for exposing the serial killer, Nurse M.

I’m sure such a learned fellow as Advocate Whelan must remember aspects of the investigation, some of which are so startling, one couldn’t, surely, forget? 

Back to our “independent” extended family of lawyers.

When Advocate Whelan left the Attorney General’s office – to go and work in Baker Platt in 2006, a new lawyer was brought in to replace him, one Howard Sharp.

Do we know where Mr. Sharp came from? Yes we do!

7 Bedford Row.

What may be a little less known is where Mr. Sharp is going – which is widely rumoured to be the post of Solicitor General – much to the annoyance of several Jersey lawyers.

I think we’ve established – quite categorically – that – in no way, shape or form – can 7 Bedford Row be credibly termed “independent” of the Jersey Attorney General’s Office.

A veritable Amazon-flow of fees – Jersey tax-payers money – goes to 7 Bedford Row each year – and those who tire of the - err – taxation environment of London appear to have ready-made career opportunities in Jersey – via an ever-welcoming door in the Attorney General’s Office.

But – our familiarisation with this legal fraternity has scarcely begun.

Another alumni of 7 Bedford Row is one Mathew Jowitt – who left those chambers to work in – Jersey’s AG’s Office. However, his time there had to be cut, unfortunately, short because of his role in the illegal aspects of the Curtis Warren case, which saw the AG’s office authorising illegal actions in France and Belgium.

Illegal actions Bill Bailhache was - oh so very neatly – able to blame the police for – even though his Office authorised it.

But, when a chap has to make a sacrifice – as Jowitt did – a chap must be rewarded – so he has been appointed Crown Advocate in an on-going prosecution – the investigations for which are under the control and oversight of - David Farrer and Anwar Nashashibi – both of - 7 Bedford Row.

In all seriousness – I pause at this point to ask readers – perhaps especially those who usually disagree with me – to consider rationally – and in all decency – whether - for one instant – the non-prosecution decisions concerning the child abuse cases can be regarded as safe and credible?

Even vaguely?

The so-called “independent” UK-based legal chambers – which have provided William Bailhache with the “opinions” and excuses he required to avoid prosecuting at least nineteen cases of child abuse – are – in fact – extraordinarily closely linked with the Jersey AG’s office – appear to be almost a part of the same “firm” – serve as a career ‘feeder’ into Jersey law - and gather what may well be millions of pounds in fees each year from Jersey tax-payers.

Fees that would not accrue – if the chambers – 7 Bedford Row – were to fall out of favour with the Jersey oligarchy.

And what appears to be the dramatic dependency of 7 Bedford Row upon fees received from Jersey does not stop at the cases I’ve referred to so far.

Let me just touch briefly upon a few further examples – quoted in Partners’ CVs on the web site of 7 Bedford Row.

Anwar Nashashibi: -

“Instructed by the Attorney General of Jersey to investigate a Kenyan public official for corruption and money laundering worth millions of pounds;”

“AG of Jersey v Michel and Gallichan. Instructed by the Attorney General of Jersey to investigate and prosecute a financial services provider for multi-million pound tax evasion and money laundering. This was Jersey’s most extensive, complex and high-profile prosecution for a financial crime;”

Conor Dufficy: -

“Conor has a broad international business experience from his prior career and has spent a large part of his career at the bar working on civil fraud and trust cases in Jersey.”

Craig Carr: -

“Craig specialises in civil and criminal fraud, financial crime and regulation. He is currently instructed in the largest criminal fraud in Jersey having previously been instructed in a multi jurisdictional commercial trust dispute.”

“AG of Jersey v Bhojwani: trial concerning allegations of laundering US$ 43.9 million through Jersey.”

David O'Mahony: -

“He has worked with Bakerplatt - our 7 Bedford Row Alliance partner - in a number of cases involving civil claims by foreign governments for the return of allegedly misappropriated monies and on a multimillion dollar constructive trust action involving the proceeds of a hedge fund.”

“Re Abacha: Responsible for day-to-day management of Jersey Attorney General's investigation into Abacha's money laundering. “AG of Jersey v Bagudu: (Abacha's chief money launderer), US$ 320 million prosecution, and appeared for the Attorney General for Jersey in extradition proceedings.”

Nicholas Dean QC: -

“Operation Tetley (2001- 2003): a Jersey based investigation into “commission” payments by defence contactors.”

Jonathan Bertram: -

“In 2008 he was instructed by the Attorney General of Jersey, via Baker Platt to act as junior counsel to assist in the preparation of and disclosure in the prosecutions arising from the Jersey Historic Abuse enquiry “Haut de la Garenne”.

He has experience of cases concerning allegations of breaches of financial regulations and allegations of fraud, primarily obtained from his occasional practice in Jersey with Baker Platt.”

Nigel Povoas: -

“In Jersey, he has advised on multi-jurisdictional financial issues and has been regularly instructed in an advisory capacity by the Attorney General of Jersey.”

David Farrer QC: -

“AG of Jersey v Michel & Gallichan [2001-2007]: a multi-million pound money laundering by a trust and corporate services provider.”

Steven Gray: -

“Durant International and others v Attorney General of Jersey [2006] - Instructed to assist the Attorney General of Jersey in judicial review proceedings regarding a decision to disclose information pursuant to letters of request from an overseas jurisdiction. The letters of request concerned alleged political corruption in the context of large-scale construction contracts. Attorney General successful at first instance and in the Court of Appeal.”

Simon Thomas: -

“Simon has also worked closely with Bakerplatt and the Attorney General’s department in Jersey where he has been involved in financial crime cases with an international element, again, both prosecuting and defending. Work in offshore financial centres comprises a significant part of Simon’s practice.”

Collingwood Thompson QC: -

“Recently, Collingwood has been advising the Attorney General of Jersey on two large scale corruption and money laundering cases. The first concerned the ex-mayor of Sao Paulo in Brazil and the second (which is on-going), relates to relatives and associates of the late general Abacha of Nigeria. Both cases involve sums in excess of $250 million.”

Tom Elmer: -

“Instructed by the Attorney General of Jersey to assist in the investigation of an international money laundering case.”

And so it goes on.

And if those links to the Barristers of 7 Bedford Row were not enough – consider what are termed the “Door tenants”.

Stephan Baker – the Advocate who has committed at least 4 straightforward acts of perjury in his prosecution of me. Ex-Bedford Row; ex-Jersey AG’s Office; now of Baker Platt.

Cyril Whelan – ex-Jersey AG’s Office – now Baker Platt.

Howard Sharp – ex-7 Bedford Row, presently Jersey AG’s Office, and widely tipped to become next Jersey Solicitor General, if the poor treatment meted out to the Jersey based applicants is any gauge.

To the best of my knowledge – you would be very, very hard-put to find any major legal case in Jersey from the last decade - in which 7 Bedford Row have not played a significant, or the major, role.

So this is the source of the soi disant “independent” legal advice and opinion – that the Jersey abuse survivors, the island’s population – and the world – are supposed to accept as credible grounds for not prosecuting nearly all the Jersey child abuse cases?

Cases that would have been immensely damaging and problematic for the Jersey oligarchy – and its leaders – such as Michael Birt and William Bailhache?

7 Bedford Row, as an entity, clearly has a stranglehold over the Jersey Law Officers’ department - and its Barristers are plainly drawing mind-boggling amounts of money from Jersey tax-payers for case-work – not to mention the, no doubt, huge fees or retainers paid to members of these chambers in an advisory role to the Jersey AG.

Just how many Jersey cases has 7 Bedford Row been involved in?

Over what period of time?

Who, as individual lawyers, have been involved?

What “advisory” services have been provided by members of these chambers?

What have been the individual case-fees?

What is the total sum of money to date – spent by Jersey tax-payers on employing the lawyers of 7 Bedford Row and associates?

What is the likely value of future “business” from Jersey?

Have all business transactions between the States of Jersey and 7 Bedford Row been fully compliant with the Public Finances Law?

Given the immense sums of money flowing from Jersey tax-payers to 7 Bedford Row and its various members – and the residency and career doorway into Jersey provided by the Attorney General’s Office – and the extremely cosy and mutually beneficial relationship with private practice in Jersey – such as that of Baker Platt – can the “work” of 7 Bedford Row be regarded as objective, impartial - and safe?

The answer to that last question is no – of course it cannot be regarded – for one instant – as safe.

Plainly – what has been unmasked here is a profoundly toxic and deeply unhealthy relationship.

A set of financial and personal conflicts of interest so brazen and extreme – every prosecution decision advised upon by anyone involved with 7 Bedford Row must now be discarded.

All of the cases reported by the police in the course of the historic child abuse investigation must be re-opened.

But – who could oversee and determine such a necessary exercise? Certainly no one involved with Jersey’s Law Officers’ department.

What we see evidenced above, represents nothing less than the stark reality of a breakdown in good governance, the rule of law and good administration of justice.

The very circumstances in which London has both the power – and the duty – to intervene.

But – for mystifying reasons – London always seems reluctant to do so.

Perhaps Whitehall retain 7 Bedford Row too?

And that’s not even a joke.

But – the circumstances for intervention could be far easier for London this time.Let’s face it – when your two most recent and senior Crown appointees in Jersey – Bailiff Michael Birt – and Deputy Bailiff William Bailhache – both have to announce their resignation during the coming weeks – it furnishes you with an ideal opportunity to finally clean the stables.

But – no matter that the Jersey oligarchs and their crooked regime will probably continue to enjoy the inexplicable and mind-boggling protections of London and the FACAWs – what cannot be protected any longer – because it is smashed forever – destroyed by citizen media – and our ability to share the evidence above – is the “reputation” of these clowns and their institutions.

Henceforward – there will be no hiding from, nor escaping the fact that whenever London supports and protects the Jersey oligarchy – actually – all that is being supported, in truth, is a small claque of self-interested, dangerous and frankly inadequate individuals – who are nothing more than a stain upon the good name of the Crown.

Serial killers – not prosecuted.

Child abusers – not prosecuted.

Concealers of child abuse – not prosecuted.

Criminal conspiracies against child protection – not prosecuted.

Corrupt civil servants – not prosecuted.

Bent judges and Crown Advocates – not prosecuted.

Criminal conspiracies by civil servants against democracy – not prosecuted.

The Jersey oligarchy – and its protectors: rotten, twisted, stagnant and decadent.

Given lawyers feature so heavily in this posting, it seems apposite to finish with some Latin:

Quod erat demonstrandum.


This will lead me into the next postings and the work of Simon Thomas. His role in the eventual dropping of Child Abuse Cases. There were many. An independent Lawyer, who when googling, you get this:

Practice Areas: Business Crime, Crime; Public and Regulatory Law
Simon is a criminal practitioner with particular experience in financial crime and fraud.
Business Crime
Prosecution and defence work in cases brought by Serious Fraud Office, CPS Casework Directorate and Attorney General of Jersey. Experienced in work with an international element.

Notable cases include:
  • prosecution junior in education grant fraud involving 18 defendants.
  • defence junior in large corruption case prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office;
  • prosecution junior in 6 handed fraudulent trading case involving vehicle brokerages
  • defence junior representing estate agent charged with substantial mortgage fraud;
  • prosecution junior on a series of prosecutions involving VAT fraud and related large scale car-ringing.
  • prosecution junior in six-month banking and property fraud case
  • Defence brief in mobile phone fraud, prosecuted by the Post Office and investigated by T-Mobile, involving charges under the Telecommunications Act 1984.
  • defended a bookkeeper charged with theft of around £40,000 from employer
  • prosecuted a bank employee charged with theft in excess of £40,000
Offshore work
AG of Jersey v. Christine and Ryan Bryce-Richards: directed a three-year investigation and subsequent prosecution instigated by the Attorney-General of Jersey which concerned the fraudulent conversion by a director and her husband of a trust company. This involved:
  • evidence gathering from overseas by way of Letters of Request for Mutual assistance and related appearances in the Princely Court of Liechtenstein;
  • closely working with forensic accountants and fraud investigators;
  • obtaining orders freezing assets overseas, in particular in the Republic of Ireland, Liechtenstein and the Isle of Man;
  • High Court appearances in London successfully resisting a challenge to the validity of an extra-jurisdictional arrest warrant;
  • obtaining the extradition of one defendant from Spain;
  • the application for the enforcement of a £3.5m confiscation order.
Simon has also advised in relation to the prosecution of trust company managers in Jersey. He is experienced in confiscation work, including cases where assets are frozen overseas. Simon has acted for individuals and trustees who have had assets frozen offshore.
Simon has also been instructed in numerous cases involving large-scale drugs importations into the Channel Islands, both on behalf of the prosecution and the defence.

Simon regularly prosecutes and defends in cases of homicide, violence, drugs offences and sexual offences including rape.
Notable cases include:
  • prosecution junior in murder case arising out of an incident following a So Solid Crew event
  • prosecution junior in case of serial rapist/sexual offender
  • prosecution junior in case of gross negligence manslaughter against a mechanic
  • prosecution junior in manslaughter case in which the defendant drove his children over a cliff
  • defence brief in 18 handed conspiracy to supply heroin/cannabis case
  • defended alleged drug dealer on an indictment including a substantial amount of money laundering offences
  • prosecuted police officer in case arising out of Operation Ore
  • acted for the prosecution in case referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Other criminal work
  • Regularly prosecutes animal welfare cases for the RSPCA
  • Experienced in defending cases brought by the Environment Agency
  • Has prosecuted on behalf of the Maritime Coastguard Agency in relation to the unsafe operation of ships
  • Has been instructed in Health and Safety and Trading Standards prosecutions
  • Undertakes advisory work on behalf of accountants and others in the regulated sector in relation to their obligations under the Proceeds of Crime Act
  • Experienced in attending police searches and advising on privileged material
The Robert Hamill Inquiry - Instructed as part of a team of criminal barristers to analyse many years of police investigation in to the death of Robert Hamill in Portadown, County Armagh in 1997.

Public & Regulatory Law
A general common law practitioner for seven years, with experience in the whole range of advocacy before the civil courts, Simon's civil practice now focuses on police law. Simon is instructed in actions against the police. He also regularly acts for the Metropolitan police in relation to:
  • cash seizures under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
  • applications for Sexual Offences Prevention Orders
  • applications for Football Banning Orders (part of a dedicated team retained throughout the World Cup and other international overseas matches)
  • applications for closure orders
Recent cases
  • R v. Doyle: defence junior representing senior partner of an accountancy firm charged with stealing millions of pounds worth of client funds
  • AG v. Blatchly and Adams: instructed for the defence in alleged £2.5m VAT fraud in the Isle of Man - prosecuted in Jersey. The case was dropped when the defence through forensic computer evidence raised serious issues over the integrity of certian key documents.
  • R v. Sturnham: prosecution junior in case of "single punch" manslaughter 
  • Re C Trust:instructed on behalf of trustees to obtain the release of trust funds effectively frozen in Jersey pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime legislation. The release of those funds was obtained
  • Environment Agency v. CW Ltd.: represented defendant company in prosecution alleging breach of regulations governing the export of recyclable waste
  • R v. Hall; R v. Morris: defence brief in two separate and substantial money-laundering cases
  • R v. F: represented defendant charged with arson in a case involving issues under s37 and s41 of the Mental Health Act 1983
  • Police v. MM: acted for Metropolitan Police in civil application for a Sexual Offences Prevention Order under the Sexual Offences Act 2003
  • Grade 4 prosecutor - Midland & South Eastern Circuits
  • CPS approved rape prosecutor
  • Criminal Bar Association (CBA)
  • Midland Circuit
  • South Eastern Circuit
Contact Simon Thomas
Phone: +44 (0) 20 7242 3555
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7242 2511
Email: [email protected]


Simon Thomas was called to the English Bar in 1995 and has seventeen years’ courtroom experience.  He has appeared in Courts in England and Wales at all levels up to and including the Privy Council.  His specialism has been trial advocacy in the civil and criminal courts. 
Simon began working in Jersey in 2001 investigating money laundering allegations surrounding General Abacha, former dictator of Nigeria.  He went on to lead an investigation into trust company managers which lasted three years and spanned several jurisdictions, culminating in two successful prosecutions and substantial confiscation orders.

Simon’s association with Baker & Partners goes back to 2003 when Stephen Baker first established himself in independent practice.  He was instructed in the firm’s very first cases and has provided advice and assistance to Baker & Partners on a regular basis over the nine years that have followed.  As a result Simon has been involved in many of the major cases in Jersey over the last decade.  In July 2012 he accepted an offer to join the firm on a full-time basis.

In recent years his work on the Island has focussed on financial regulation.  He has represented senior directors of major financial institutions in relation to investigations by the Financial Services Commission.   He has also co-ordinated internal investigations within financial institutions where irregularities have been suspected.

Amongst Simon’s last cases in England before moving to Jersey was the defence of a director of two separate companies for conspiracy to defraud and also acting as independent counsel in the UK money laundering prosecutions involving James Ibori, a former state governor in Nigeria.

With many years’ experience in dealing with fraud and other serious crime (he was a Grade 4 prosecutor - the highest level awarded by the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK), Simon now concentrates on factually complicated matters which require careful analysis and tactical judgements.   He is currently working on a substantial piece of civil litigation involving a claim in respect of many millions of pounds of loans made and not recovered by an underlying company of a Jersey Trust.

Simon read law at Oxford University and was a tenant at 7 Bedford Row Chambers in London between 1997 and 2012.
For further information please contact

This is what former DCO Lenny Harper said of Simon Thomas and his role with "Operation Rectangle"

"Interesting to see Stuart, the comments alongside the name of Simon Thomas of those chambers. He was of course the “independent” and “very experienced in child abuse” lawyer appointed by the Attorney General to work alongside my team. Readers of this blog may recall the battle I had to fight as the AG wanted Mr Thomas placed in our Enquiry Office and to have access to all of our raw evidence and intelligence so that he could “make informed decisions at an early stage.” I resisted this by pointing out that he was a member of the same legal establishment against whom many of the complaints of cover up were directed. I pointed out that to place him in such a sensitive position with access to all information and intelligence that we received, would severely damage our credibility with victims and witnesses. Many, many, e mails are in existence detailing the efforts of the AG to over-rule me and to get Mr Thomas in our office as this “is the way the CPS operate in the UK.” Under severe pressure I had to agree to him having an office at Police Headquarters. We found it even then difficult to get hold of him as he seemed to spend much of his time in the UK. Certainly files, even simple ones, but most notably the Maguires, seemed to take an awful long time to be read and a decision given. (I was still waiting on the Maguires decision when I retired!) You may also recall that after he changed his mind about charging the couple who liked to hit children with cricket bats he and I had that conversation with me in Jersey, and him on the platform of a railway station in the UK. You will be aware that he denied any influence by the AG or any Jersey sources in the process which led to changing his mind. He seemed to suggest that he in fact had not changed his mind even though the couple were in custody and we had agreed to arrest only after getting his go ahead. I was warned that if I continued to repeat these matters his chambers would sue me. It was this decision which led to me issuing the Press Release in which I made it clear the decision to release the couple was against my wishes following which the AG demanded a report from me as to why I had issued the said Press Release. When I completed the report listing what I saw as the shortcomings in the service we had received from the Prosecuting Authorities and it found its way into the media, David Warcup instigated an investigation against you and I by Sussex Police under the Data Protection Act. (Whatever happened to that investigation?) Certainly, whilst I could see Mr Thomas’s obvious qualities, (particularly in Financial Crime investigations), wide experience in Child Abuse was not one of them.

Your comment about the AG being head of the Honorary Police may help explain to readers one other strange set of coincidences which I experienced and which I have related previously. In the five years before the Historic Abuse enquiry I was stopped by the HP on only one occasion. Shortly after the enquiry started I was stopped several times on spurious grounds. The ‘stops’ did not occur when I swopped to my wife’s car, but restarted when I reverted again to my own. On one occasion the person stopping me made an untrue and malicious allegation which the AG took no time in bringing to my attention and suggested I apologise and that I had damaged confidence in professional policing among the HP. When I supplied the true facts along with the details of the series of stops and followed it up with a letter and e mails making a formal complaint, all correspondence about the matter stopped. I still await the courtesy of a reply to any of the letters or e mails I sent to the AG about the matter." End

I believe all the cases need reviewing. It is imperative that this happens at a Committee of Enquiry.





Rico Sorda 

Part Time Investigative Journalist

Next Posting we look at two abuse cases that the Jersey Law Office catapulted out into the long grass.













The office of Jurat was created in the early years of the 13th century in a document known as the “Constitutions of King John” issued in 1204 and in which King John ordered that the Island should elect duodecim optimatos juratos - their 12 best sworn men to keep the pleas.
In the 13th Century, the Jurats’ role was both judicial and legislative; and the Jurats retained their legislative functions until reforms in 1948 reconstituted the States (the Legislative Assembly) without them.

Present day
Jurats are elected to serve in the Royal Court and to decide questions of fact in court cases. They sit next to the judge and not only decide the facts in both civil and criminal trials; they also award damages and fines as well as determine sentences.

Appointment of Jurats
The work of the Jurats is unpaid and they are appointed by the Electoral College, consisting of the Bailiff, Jurats, the Connétables of the 12 parishes of Jersey, the elected States members, members of the Jersey Bar and Solicitors of the Royal Court.

Election for Jurats
When there is a vacancy, a copy of a letter from the Bailiff announcing this is delivered to each member of the Electoral College. If there are as many candidates, as there are vacancies – all the nominees become Jurats. If there are more people wanting to be Jurats than there are vacancies, a ballot takes place at a specially convened meeting of the Electoral College held in the Royal Court. If the first ballot results in an equal ballot of votes for each candidate the Bailiff calls for another vote. If the result of the second ballot is inconclusive, only then is the Bailiff permitted to vote and declare the final result of the ballot.

Any person who contests the validity of the appointment of a Jurat by the Electoral College may present a Remonstrance (Representation) to the Superior Number of the Royal Court.
Every Jurat appointed by the Electoral College is required to take an oath of office before the Superior Number of the Royal Court. The oath is most likely to have been in existence since 1204.

Jurats and the Royal Court

Cases heard before Jurats in the Inferior Number of the Royal Court
The Bailiff and two Jurats constitute the Inferior Number of the Royal Court. The Inferior Number tries all contested civil matters (other than within the Petty Debts Court). Customary law offences such as murder, manslaughter, rape, grave and criminal / indecent / common assault, fraud, and theft are tried before a jury at a Criminal Assize (Crown Court).
The Inferior Number tries the more serious contraventions (e.g. breaches of a Law passed by the States), which are beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The criminal cases most commonly tried by the Inferior Number are contraventions of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 and Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 which can attract prison sentences of up to 14 years.
The Inferior Number may impose a custodial sentence of up to four years. However the Inferior Number tries all such cases even though the sanction that might be imposed in the event that the accused is found guilty might exceed the limit of its sentencing jurisdiction.

The Superior Number of the Royal Court
The Superior Number of the Royal Court consists of the Bailiff and at least five Jurats The Superior Number primarily sits as a sentencing Court in criminal cases where a custodial sentence is likely to exceed four years. The Superior Number also possesses a residual appellate jurisdiction to hear an appeal against sentence only imposed by the Inferior Number. The Superior Number does not sit to try civil or criminal cases at first instance.

Judicial functions of the Jurats and the Bailiff
The respective functions of the Bailiff and the Jurats are set out in Article 16 of the Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948. The Bailiff is the sole judge of law and procedure and has the power to award costs.
The Jurats decide the facts, award damages and determine the sentence or fine or the sanction in criminal cases. In all causes and matters, civil, criminal or mixed, the Bailiff has a casting vote:
(a) if two Jurats are divided as to the facts or the damages to be awarded or the sentence, fine or other sanction to be imposed; or
(b) if more than two Jurats are divided as regards any one or more of the matters specified above that a casting vote is necessary for the finding of a majority opinion

Other roles undertaken by Jurats
Jurats act as Returning Officers for all public elections i.e. where candidates stand to be elected members of the States of Jersey (Legislative Assembly) as Senator (12) , Connétable (12) and Deputy (29), as well as for Procureur du Bien Public and Centeniers. There are two Procureurs for each of the 12 Parishes in the Island and they have oversight of the finances of the Parish.
Jurats also sit as members of the Licensing Assembly (granting liquor licences), Gambling Licensing Authority, Probation Committee, Prison Board of Visitors, the appeal panels from disciplinary decisions of the Attorney General in relation to Honorary Police and from disciplinary decisions of the Chief Officer of Police in relation to officers of the States of Jersey Police.

This is just the first of many posting where I will be looking at the real power in Jersey. That is the Jersey Judiciary. The Judiciary has been led by the Bailhache brothers, Philip and William for a very long time. We will also be having another look at the farcical Judicial Review of former Chief of Police Graham Power QPM. There were more conflicts of interest in that one review than one would ever believe possible. I hear that the North Koreans fully endorsed it. 

We will be looking at the role by the Jersey Judiciary in the Jersey Child Abuse Cover-up.




"For anyone looking for a deep drill into Jersey’s ongoing political imbroglios, two outstanding citizen bloggers have been working slavishly for years to lift the curtain: Neil McMurray at Voice for Children and Rico Sorda. On an island where the established media serve as the de facto mouthpiece of those in power, these self-taught journalists, who work for free under grave pressure in thankless conditions, are the only independent press around.)"Leah Mcgrath Goodman

"It is largely due to two tenacious bloggers, Rico Sorda ( and Neil McMurray ( that Power's suspension has remained so high on the political agenda. Both complain that the JEP has failed to investigate what they see as the injustice of Power's treatment." The Guardian


Further to my previous posting this is the second part of my interview with leading Jersey Citizen Blogger VOICEFORCHILDREN

I would like to finish the year on the subject of the Jersey Child Abuse Cover-Up that has been the major reason for me in creating this blog site.  2013 will hopefully bring a fully independent - fit for purpose Committee of Enquiry into decades long Child Abuse.

These are the links to some of the postings I have done this year as discussed in the Video Interview.

Anybody who wants to know how Jersey got rid of former Chief of Police Graham Power  QPM should start reading from the link below.

I believe this has got to be one of the most complete pieces of investigative journalism that the island of Jersey has seen. His only crime was having the utter cheek to investigate child Abuse Investigation.

Please find the time to watch the Inside Out program on the Jersey Child Investigation

Thank you to everybody who supports us Jersey Bloggers.

The victims of abuse will not be forgotten.

We will fight this to the bitter end

A very Happy New Year to all of you.

Rico Sorda 

Team Voice

Part Time Investigative Journalist

Misleading News

"Jersey torchbearer Ralph Mauger, 77, guilty of child abuse"

You'd be forgiven for thinking from that headline that he was chosen to carry the Olympic torch and ran with it. In fact, once the allegations were made, as the BBC story goes on to say "Mauger had been chosen as an Olympic torch bearer in Jersey but pulled out following the charges being laid in March." But the headline gives the impression that he was a torchbearer - anyone just glancing fleetingly at headlines, or looking at a news aggregator, will have taken that as fact.

Ralph Cyril Mauger is frequently described as a "former Centenier", which can also be misleading. The JEP headline has "Ex-Centenier faces jail for abuse"

And this has led to some comments (as on the JEP Facebook page) such as "another pedo-centenier'; "islands full of them"; and, "Which Centenier is that they caught? - We know  there is more than one".

Now in the case of Roger Holland, he was serving in the Honorary Police, and abused his position. Three assaults took place during his time as an honorary officer between 1992 and 1999, although if the Attorney General [Philip Bailhache] had acted more prudently, that this might not have happened.

In the case of Ralph Mauger, however, he was an ex-Centenier, over two decades out of office, and his crimes were perpetrated sometime after that - so not as a serving Centenier. But like the Olympic Torchbearer - also misleading, the media seem to be obsessed with "former honorary" as part of the description of an offender when ever these cases break.

So let's look at the statistics, to gauge the kind of probability involved. 

The Honorary  Police have something in the order of 300 members with a turnover rate of half of that every three years. So, since 1991 approximately 2000 (or more)  citizens have held rank in the Honorary Police. The odds that one or  two of them will at some later stage be charged with a crime - has no  more incidence than you might find in any other organisation  (including the States) where a former member of staff held a position  of trust is brought before a court.

Don't get me wrong - Mr Mauger deserves everything coming to him and can be excused of nothing. But to label him as "former Centenier" in such a way as to suggest that the crimes were an abuse of his office is as misleading as "Jersey Torchbearer", and it also suggests that it was another Roger Holland case, which it was not.

That's not to say that a Centenier might not be found guilty of child abuse at some time in the future, but the vetting process is much more stringent today. Lessons have been learnt, and today's Attorney-General certainly would not have made the mistakes of the past, even in "good faith".

Attorney General Sir Philip Bailhache, allowed Roger Holland to remain in the service, despite a 1986 conviction for indecent assault against a young girl. That would not happen today.

It should also be noted that before Roger Holland's crimes came to Court, when a fellow Centenier heard of his previous conviction, she wrote to the Attorney General on 29th July 1999 expressing her concern that a person with such a conviction could be a member of the Honorary Police. Pressure was mounting for Holland to resign because of his past record coming to light, which in fact he did.

Since Roger Holland's conviction, Mitch Couriard, of the Jersey Honorary Police Association, said: "The process has tightened up and I can reassure you that, providing someone has got a record, we can produce it."

















"People are doing all sorts of weird things and lying"

Who could he be referring to?

I have come into possession of over 2 hours of secret recordings. These were made between November 2008 and November 2009. For legal reasons I'm only publishing the first 6 minutes of Mick Gradwell. The rest has gone off Island for safe keeping. They will appear at the forthcoming Committee of Enquiry as long as the terms of reference are fit for purpose. I will not mention or hint at what is contained in these recordings. They cover a number of different issues regarding Operation Rectangle.They were taken covertly. They were taken as Insurance against future lies

 Mick Gradwell was the Senior Investigating Officer of Operation Rectangle (Jersey Child Abuse Investigation) between September 2008 and September 2009 having taken over from Lenny Harper who left at the end of July 2008.  On the 12th November 2008 the Jersey Authorities suspended the Chief of Police Graham Power. This coincided with a press conference held on the same day by Deputy Chief Officer David Warcup and Mick Gradwell. 

 Between the 12th November and 15th November 2008 Mick Gradwell started up a working relationship with the one journalist who was hell bent on trashing the Jersey Investigation.  That Journalist was none other than David Rose of the Daily Mail. It is well documented on my previous postings how Mick Gradwell was caught leaking selective information to David Rose. The essential reading on this can be found here:

On the 15th November 2008 David Rose wrote this article in the Mail on Sunday:

Then, on the 18th November 2008,  Abuse Survivors were asked to attend the States Of Jersey Police Station meeting at 2pm on the former Summerland site. Dept/Supt Mick Gradwell wanted to explain to the survivors why they had called the press conference on the 12th November 2008.  The meeting lasted for about 30 minutes. They were shown evidence and asked to comment on it.  The ones I have spoken to have all said how crazy they found the situation. 

The Audio you can hear below is from that meeting. It starts off a little noisy. I would suggest best listened to with headphones if you find it hard to hear.

Recorded on the 18th - November - 2008 

6 days after the illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power.

I have also asked Lenny Harper for his reply on this audio. I produce his response below.

I have been asked by Rico Sorda to comment on the recording of Mick Gradwell talking to Abuse survivors in Jersey in 2008.  I have to confess that I have found this a fairly difficult thing to do.  The recording reveals bizarre and scarcely credulous behaviour from someone who rated himself very highly as a detective and who of course was championed by the journalist David Rose who spends a great deal of his time rubbishing and smearing victims of child abuse.

I do not think I have ever heard anything like this from a senior investigating officer ever before.  Why he felt the need to plead, rather pathetically, that he “is not bent” I cannot imagine.  It is almost as if he realised that the misinformation and untruths which he spouted at that Press Conference in November 2008 in relation to the cellars and more, had been well and truly nailed and that he had to try and somehow deflect the criticism from himself.  He couldn’t very well come out and say that he had been directed to say what he had said by senior figures in the Jersey establishment, but most certainly he and David Warcup had a very different relationship with William Bailache and senior politicians from those that Graham Power and I had.  Indeed, David Warcup spent several hours more with the AG in deep discussion than he spent with me before I left, and it was me he was taking over from.

Not much of what he says in response to those at the meeting makes sense or indeed rings true.  Let me comment on just a few of those things he said.
He states that “evidence Lenny Harper gathered indicates no murders.”  In this he is telling the truth.  The only thing is that I had been saying that for some months before him.  He and Mr Warcup told the public and media that I had been saying the opposite.  This is despite the vast amount of open source media evidence that proves otherwise.

He makes a comment about Jersey “not paying his wages.”  I am not sure about this. He was interviewed for the job from a shortlist of six.  You may recall that he was the only one of the six who could not be bothered to speak to me before the process was completed.  Coincidence?  Or did he know something we didn’t?  He says his salary and other aspects had nothing to do with Jersey.  Was he not interviewed by them and are we expected to believe that he was cost neutral to the island?

He also made the comment that “People in court are being linked to things that did not happen.”  This was a rather sad and lame attempt to justify the press conference during which he spread the misinformation about the cellars, bones, shackles, teeth, and my claims to the media.  The truth is that NONE of those in court were being linked in any way to the finds at HDLG.  Scan the evidence as long as you wish.  You will find no such link.  Gradwell must have known this.  His comment that this was the only reason the press conference was held is garbage.
He also utters the untruth that no human bones were found.  Here he conveniently ignores the evidence of Professor Chamberlain, whose statement incidentally, seemed to vanish in the world according to Gradwell.  Similarly the evidence about the teeth from, I think, Mr Lidwell.

Gradwell also claims that “Lenny Harper’s own scientist” also now believed there was no human bone.  This is a total fabrication as a quick perusal of the Anthropologists’ worksheet will show.  This document incidentally has been published on Rico’s blog.

I also take exception to his claim that some people had come forward who “had never been to HDLG in their lives.”  We certainly had some people claiming abuse at HDLG who were not shown on any official records and who had been labelled as liars by some corrupt senior police officers in the past.  However, we knew that the records at HDLG were incomplete, indeed worthless, and we had proved the activities of those police officers in trying to destroy evidence and obstruct a proper investigation.  Gradwell must have been aware of this. To attempt to portray the investigation as having a large number of false allegations stinks of the smear attempts made by David Rose and other so called journalists in recent weeks.

This recording gives a real insight into the mind and the capability of the so called (self labelled) top detective.  It is a pity he has not been so quick to come forward and explain himself to the Scrutiny Panel as he was to try and smear the investigation and those victims of the Jersey care system that the enquiry was trying to obtain some small measure of justice for.

Lenny Harper

This is Dept/Supt Mick Gradwell showing the BBC the evidence on the 12th November 2008. This upset many victims. What exactly did Dept/supt Gradwell do during his year secondment?  Remember, when I went to the Home Affairs Sub Panel with my evidence the only person who refused to take part was Mick Gradwell. The man who would not stop in trashing Lenny Harper had the perfect opportunity under  cross examination to explain his actions. He refused to take part. Yup, really had the Abuse Survivors close to his heart.

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist 

Tomorrow at 7.30pm the BBC should have a programme going out about the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation.