Proposition - Vote of No Confidence in the Bailiff

It is surely the most important task of any individual elected to office to be prepared, no matter how difficult or controversial, to do what is in the best interests of the people. This then, I assure my fellow States Members, is why I now bring this proposition forward.

For far too long it has been portrayed by some that any challenge to the political status quo, whether that be within the anachronistic dual role(s) of the Bailiff or otherwise, is in some way a personal attack. Indeed, I feel it must be added that there have been some who have even warned me off about any challenge or criticism toward the Bailiff. To those I say without apology, there is not a single thing whether position, tradition, regulation or protocol that is sacrosanct if it may be proven to undermine the best interests of the people of Jersey. As the old saying goes, ‘the people are all - those who would genuinely serve them are secondary and should rejoice in that’.

This proposition to call for a vote of no confidence in the Bailiff is grounded firmly in the incompatibility of recent actions and public statements set against the expected high standards of his role. Thus, for the specific reasons I outline below, I feel that such is the damage to public confidence in the Bailiff’s judgement, that I feel his position is now untenable.

Key background

In laying out for the Assembly my underlying concerns in bringing this proposition, I am mindful that of the three specific incidents to which I will refer one, though only recently coming to full light, has its roots at a time when the present Bailiff previously held the position of Attorney General. It might be seen as unusual to ask for consideration of such a circumstance to be accepted against an individual’s ability/suitability to continue in a different office, I fully accept.

However, it is the gross error of judgement demonstrated here and the nature of the Bailiff’s defence upon this incident coming to light within the climate of community-wide shock and abhorrence arising from the current child-abuse investigations, that I think makes it relevant.

Bailiff’s Statement to BBC on the Roger Holland affair (1992) – 17^th April 2008.

(APPENDIX 1 – pages 2-3).

I do not feel it is necessary to labour over repeating details now well-aired within the public arena, members of this Assembly will by now be painfully aware of them. Nevertheless, it is necessary to include basic details of this regrettable incident as this serves to put the first point underlying this ‘no confidence’ proposition into context.

The core fact marking this action on behalf of the man later to become our present Bailiff is essentially this: following on from what must be acknowledged to be a less than glowing example of the process ensuring only suitably safe and trustworthy individuals are accepted into the Honorary Police force - it came to the attention of the Bailiff (then Attorney General) in the of 1992 that Roger Holland, recently sworn in as a Constable’s Officer, had a previous conviction for indecently assaulting a 14 year old girl (this child having the assessed mental age of just 10).

The Bailiff (as Attorney General) chose to do nothing about initiating the removal of this convicted paedophile from office. Shocking enough in itself it is the Bailiff’s subsequent justification, sixteen years later that I find as clear indication of his unsuitability to continue in the role of Bailiff. I quote from his statement:

‘The facts confronting me were a man who had expressed a wish to give voluntary service to his parish; had been honest about his convictions…’

I put it to Members - this of a man who was a convicted paedophile…

And just as damning:

‘I quite understand the reactions of the victim’s father as reported on the BBC…but in context, on facts as known at the time – 1992, when not as much was known about the long term paedophile tendencies of those abusing children, and before the rash of child abuse investigations which took place in the UK in the 1990’s – I hope the decision seems more understandable’.

The above judgements made by the Bailiff (in his then role as the Attorney General) clearly illustrate that by allowing Mr Holland to become/continue as an Honorary Policeman, was a gross error of judgement and failure to the safety of the Jersey public, and in particular, young women and girls.

Since becoming Bailiff, in 1999 he published an article in the Jersey Law Review (APPENDIX 2) about his role as Bailiff:

‘… in a real sense (the Bailiff) is also accountable to the people of Jersey…’

Furthermore, that the Bailiff should:

‘…uphold and maintain the laws and usages and the privileges and freedoms of this Island and that you (the Bailiff) will vigorously oppose whomsoever may seek to destroy them’.

As can be seen, the (now) Bailiff did not adhere to his own principles of upholding the privileges and freedoms of the girl who was sexually assaulted by Mr Holland, her family and the Jersey public. Further still, I am of the strong opinion that his decisions at the time have led to little public confidence in him as the President of the States of Jersey.

Whether this should be through simple insensitivity, incompetence or gross negligence I put it to the Assembly is, quite frankly, all but irrelevant. It is my contention that had revelation of the original gross error of judgement back in 1992 not damned him the Bailiff’s truly unbelievable contention in April of this year that “not as much was known about the long term paedophile tendencies of those abusing children” surely does so: I put it to the Assembly: this was 1992, not 1852, not even 1952 – just 16 years ago!

The Bailiff’s Liberation Day Speech (APPENDIX 3)

Few of us within this Assembly will quickly forget the events surrounding Senator Syvret’s 2007 Christmas address as Father of the House. The content of the Senator’s speech is of no relevance to the context of this proposition. However, having ended the Senator’s speech and condemned him for making his points at an inappropriate time, within a matter of just a few months we then see the Bailiff doing the same - utilising another long established tradition - in this case the Liberation Day address.

If Senator Syvret was misguided in his use of the Christmas address in the Bailiff’s judgement what utter hypocrisy was this, what double standards and ill-judged foolishness.

I ask this Assembly to consider: was Liberation Day, a date so emotionally locked within the hearts of so many islanders, brave men and women who suffered then and in many cases are still suffering more than six decades later, an event where a Crown appointed Official of the highest tier of rank would be expected to show such insensitivity and colossal lack of judgement? I quote:

‘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’.

The Bailiff further spoke of there being as yet:

‘No bodies, no evidence of any murder, and no evidence of cover-ups by government’.

In the most basic sense this may yet be true. Yet with almost daily discoveries of clear evidence, both physical finds and heartbreaking testaments form an ever-growing number of former residents that all within the walls of Haut de la Garenne was clearly not as it should have been, but was in fact a place of torment for some of those in society who were most vulnerable - were these the words and actions of a man fit to preside as head of both the island’s Judiciary and Legislature?

Were these the words to inspire confidence in a public reeling from the shock of what has recently come to light? Perhaps even more tellingly, to inspire reassurance and confidence in those who have been abused and suffered that they will eventually receive justice?

Further, to act in a manner seemingly demonstrating a belief that he is above and removed from the same standards he would impose upon others can do nothing other than transmit to the ordinary working people of Jersey a message of arrogance and doubles standards. It is not acceptable!

Bailiff’s disregard for the ‘apolitical’ mandate of his role: Keynote Address – Liechtenstein Dialogue

(APPENDIX 4)

In highlighting this further example I am aware that there may well be some who will argue that the issue at hand is a subjective one, even that this is not of any real importance. To argue so, however, I believe is to completely overlook the fundamental democratic point at hand; just as importantly set within the context of this proposition this would ignore yet further evidence of an individual lacking the judgement and political sensitivity that is demanded of his appointed role.

“What is the Bailiff? He has no political functions or authority.”

Words not written by a disgruntled politician or some independent review committee such as Clothier – but by the Bailiff himself within his keynote address at the Liechtenstein Dialogue on the 6^th October 2006. Yes…the Liechtenstein Dialogue…a high profile gathering focussed on the highly political issue of the future of international financial markets and taxation strategies.

The Bailiff’s role is an apolitical one and should at all times remain so. This was set out quite clearly when the role first came to be. As far as I am aware, and I make no claim to be a fully-fledged constitutional expert, nothing has come to pass over the following years that have seen this apolitical mandate be refined.

Yet here, once again, we see this Bailiff failing in his judgement, displaying disregard for protocols and constraints that he would, as President of the States Assembly, be quick to castigate were they made by others. International financial markets and the intricacies of taxation are beyond doubt ‘political’ – the mandate of the island’s Bailiff was clearly intended not.

If the Bailiff wishes to become a politician (once again) then let him put himself up for the democratic process of election and seek to become one. This apparent lack of judgement or disdain to adhere to the mandate of his appointed role can only further damage public confidence in the impartiality of his position.

Conclusion

I fully accept there will be some who will struggle to separate these criticisms between the actions they highlight and the individual himself. But separate them we must, for as I made quite clear within the preamble: this is not a personal attack.

This proposition is about the inappropriate statements, actions and behaviour of an individual, the Island’s serving Bailiff that have both brought his position into disrepute and significantly damaged the public’s confidence in its Government as a result. These are serious issues which I feel Members must take into consideration. To shy away from this would be to do the people of this island a deep disservice.

I believe we have no choice but to pass a vote of no confidence in this Bailiff and petition Her Majesty the Queen to remove him from office.