Police to Care Inquiry: “You should have heard evidence from Stuart Syvret”

Friday 20 May 2016

The police have told the care inquiry that the panel’s decision not to listen to one of the force’s most vociferous critics has been “unhelpful”.

Summing up the police’s evidence to the £23m inquiry, Advocate Jeremy Garrood said that the enquiry would have benefited from hearing from a wider range of witnesses, including the former Health Minister, who was a fierce opponent of the States’ and police’s response to allegations of child abuse.

Although Mr Syvret said he would not appear at the inquiry – and went as far as calling for the panel to resign or be sacked if they refused to go – the inquiry had the power to subpoena him, which they chose not to do.

Advocate Garrood said the inquiry should have also heard from two retired officers, who would have given evidence on child abuse investigations in the 1980s. Without their insight, there was a “hole in the inquiry’s memory, which is potentially problematic.”

Overall, the lawyer said that the States police force had come a long way since the ‘darker times’ of 1960s, when there was more chance of safeguarding issues and abuse allegations being ignored. He also denied that the police had ever been involved in a conspiracy to hide child abuse.

“The word ‘cover up’ has been banded around in evidence,” said Advocate Garrood. “There is no evidence of any cover up in relation to abuse, certainly by the police. Allegations do not appear to hold water. There is no evidence of political interference or institutional corruption in the evidence that relates to the terms of reference of this inquiry.”

Mistakes had been made, he conceded, but the police had learned from them. There was particular criticism of the management structure of Operation Rectangle – the investigation into claims of child abuse at Haut de la Garenne.

“We believe it was inappropriate that Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper was also Senior Investigating Officer [of Operation Rectangle]. He was ill advised to lead the investigation and he was ill advised to announce the potential remains of a child before the forensic investigation had been completed. This caused an unfortunate diminution in the public perception and public trust in SOJP and distracted the public from what was ultimately a successful investigation.”

Concluding the force’s submissions as the two-year inquiry enters its final stages, Advocate Garrood asked the panel to ensure that any individual criticised in its report should have a chance to respond before publication. He also paid tribute to the bravery of victims who had come forward.

On a day of two halves, the inquiry later heard from a lawyer representing the Law Officers' Department that Mr Syvret had undermined prosecutions by "circulating ill-informed and unsubstantiated rumours about cover ups, which inevitably proved extremely difficult to rebut".