Guest Entry by Mark Le Sueur
(Mark lives on the island of Jersey and told me this about his entry - The first part is all in the media. Note: as of yesterday we are now deficient; the magistrate, the Home Affairs Minister; and now, our police chief. What a place.
The second part is my case. I have named names in the knowledge that there is hard copy to support what I say.)
Jersey’s justice system: 2008
• February 2008 - Haut de la Garenne becomes the focus of international media.
• 9 May 2008 - the Bailiff (Chief Justice) made his very political and much criticised, ‘Liberation Day Speech’, proclaiming that there would be no cover-ups.
• June – the Magistrate designate suspended – police raid and ongoing investigation.
• August 2008 - Haut de la Garenne investigating officer speaks out on national media.
• August 2008- An action lodged in the English High Court seeking an intervention by the Justice Secretary, in the wake of Haut de la Garenne debacle and child abuse inquires, questions raised as to the ability of Jersey’s justice system to cope.
• 21 October 2008 – Jersey's Home Affairs Minister resigned unexpectedly after a disagreement with the Council of Ministers - told States members it related to an issue of moral conscience and principle – judges direction to juries on uncorroborated evidence.
• 22 October 2008 – Bailiff (Chief Justice) announces his early retirement.
• 12 November 2008 - There were no murders November 12, 2008 – 3:01 pm
at Haut de la Garenne, police have concluded after a major review of evidence gathered during the excavation of the former children’s home.
• 12 November 2008 - States Police Chief Graham Power suspended following the latest finding in the Haut de la Garenne historical child abuse inquiry.
Meanwhile a cautionary tale from the courts; ‘Justice the Jersey way’:
• In 1997 a Mr Leybourne a legal agent for a Mr Millar, appropriate estate by altering a contract without reference to the other parties, an act in common law which precludes innocent misrepresentation.
• In 2004 Mr Millar’s solicitor, Mr Pickersgill, drew up an Order of Justice making claim on the estate appropriated in 1997, a classic act deception; the plea being as per a 1983 contract, the de facto boundary; the claim however was as per the 1997 contract a misrepresentation to a court by Mr Pickersgill the solicitor.
• Mr Millar then compounded matter by fabricating evidence to uphold the misrepresentation.
• In August 2005, Mr Wilkins, the trial judge for the case, directs the removal of Mr Pickersgill’s name and signature from the Order of Justice, an irregular act compounded by a misrepresentation to the court:
i. WILKINS TO MILLAR “Do try and stray not too far away from your pleading” nevertheless, Mr Millar never once addresses his pleaded case;
ii. WILKINS “These pleadings were drawn by litigants in person I am satisfied” a disingenuous reference to Mr Pickersgill, an experienced solicitor and property specialist.
• contrary to the court practice he had laid down, Mr Wilkins did not hear the background to the lawsuit. Had the Mr Wilkins convened such a hearing, the sham nature of Mr Millar’s claim would have been exposed; half the estate claimed being owned by third party, a Mrs Speer who became an involuntary defendant in absentia.
• Spring 2006 - Mr Wilkin, went on to engage in secret communications, with Misters Leybourne and Pickersgill, while the case was current.
Misrepresentation is cheating and cheating wins cases; with the judge on side, you are made.
Thank you so much Mark - it really is a pity!
A follow-up to yesterday's story -
From the Belfast Telegraph
Warcup and Harper's war of words: The accusations and the rebuttals
Deputy chief officer David Warcup’s claims at press conference... and Lenny Harper’s response to the Belfast Telegraph in his own words.
? Warcup: There is no evidence that any children had been murdered or bodies destroyed at the former home.
? Harper: They said they have “no credible evidence of murder” and “no suspects for murder.” They announced this as if it was a contradiction to what I had said. Not true. I have always said we did not have a homicide enquiry but were treating the scene as one of a potential homicide. Surprisingly they seem to miss the distinction. Furthermore I told the Chief Minister Frank Walker, on the day that he brought his wife for a tour of Haut de le Garenne, in her presence and that of my team, that he should prepare himself for the fact that we might not be able to launch a homicide enquiry because of a lack of evidence. He said this would not be a bad outcome and he was confident that we would do what we could.
? Warcup: After being examined by experts from the British Museum, a fragment thought to have been from a skull turned out to be a piece of Victorian coconut shell.
? Harper: They spoke about the original find “probably being a piece of coconut or wood.” The truth is that the item has never been positively identified and the source they quoted was only one of a number of varying opinions. Furthermore, it has never been explained just how collagen, which is only found in mammals, was found in it. Additionally, we had, of course, ruled out the item anyway because our experts were telling us it was too old.
? Warcup: “Shackles” found in rubble turned out to be “a rusty piece of metal”, and there was no evidence to suggest it had been used for anything suspicious.
? Harper: They described the shackles as “just rusty pieces of metal.” Of course they are rusty pieces of metal — they have been in the ground for over 30 years. Furthermore, they ignore the fact that it was not only us who described them as shackles, which one pair obviously are. Builders who found them in 2003 and left them where they were, tipped off the media that we would find shackles.
? Warcup: The “secret underground chambers” were just holes in the floor, “not dungeons or cellars”.
? Harper: They said that the cellars are “not cellars or dungeons, but are merely floor voids.” Surprisingly, I never used the word dungeons. They are not floor voids. What we call the cellars (and what the victims call the cellars) are in fact what used to be the ground floor. What is certain is that victims described them accurately and the abuse that went on in there.
? Warcup: Most of the 170 pieces of bone found in the search came from animals. Three were human and two of these dated from between 1470-1670 and 1650-1950 respectively.
? Harper: “The bones could be hundreds of years old.” Well this is certainly not new. When detailing the results of carbon dating, I made it clear that the dates ranged from 1650 to 1950. The expert in the UK who had examined the first bones we sent (which included a piece of child's tibia) said that they were very likely the bones of a juvenile human, they had been burnt shortly after death and buried shortly after burning. In his view they were no more than a few decades old. I made it clear that in the light of the conflicting information which, if it remained the same, it was “obvious that there would not be a murder enquiry.” This is clearly confirmed by, among others, the BBC News website which carries a link from yesterday’s story to one called “Jersey Murder Enquiry Unlikely” which was posted at 5.46pm UK time on July 31, 2008.
Senator Syvret has sent a great email to Warcup and Gradwell.