Bailiff’s views on the ‘Jersey Way’

Tuesday 22 August 2017

Jersey’s Bailiff believes there was never a ‘deliberate’ States’ policy of sweeping child abuse failings ‘under the carpet’.

Writing about one of the independent child abuse inquiry’s main recommendations - to scrap the dual role of the Bailiff - Sir William Bailhache also comments on what he thinks happened, who was responsible, and how he believes the term ‘the Jersey Way’ is becoming debased.

In an open letter to all States members, Sir William is highly critical of what he sees as the inquiry’s description of the ‘Jersey Way’, and how it has attempted to link the dual role of the Bailiff to child abuse failings. The Bailiff is both the speaker of the States – the people who make the laws, and the judiciary – the people who decide whether people have broken the law.

He writes: “The Committee links an alleged system of sweeping serious issues under the carpet so that people avoid being held to account for abuses that have been perpetrated with the Bailiff’s dual role. The link between any so called brushing under the carpet and the judiciary is not just unproven but it is intrinsically illogical. Once issues get to the judiciary (that is, the court) they have by definition not been brushed under the carpet, because the court sits in public.”

He goes on: “of course I am personally sad that the Committee of Inquiry appears to have given fresh impetus to the negativity of those who have taken and abused the expression ‘The Jersey Way’ – which I have previously tried to overcome by re-capturing that expression and using it in a more positive context for the future. The negative use of the expression carries the connotation that somehow it is the people of Jersey who sweep things under the carpet. That is simply not the case. If anyone is guilty of this, it is not the people but the States of Jersey, whether the politicians or the administration. My own view is that the evidence before the Care Inquiry clearly demonstrated that the States did not set out to do so deliberately but rather failed to give sufficient attention to having a proper system in place and to monitoring appropriately the limited number of people who were actually responsible for the abuse which took place.”

Critics of the dual role say even if the conflict is more perceived than real, for reasons of clarity and openness it is still important to separate the jobs. Those critics, say this latest intervention by the Bailiff is further proof that – whatever he might say – the Bailiff is not apolitical, and is getting himself involved in matters that shouldn’t involve him.