LOOKING INTO THE MICROCOSM
Blanche Pierre –
The Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity.
"The Judge was standing in the gently steaming quite picking his teeth with a thorn as if he'd just eaten.….
…..In the meantime someone had found the boy. He was lying face down naked in one of the cubicles. Scattered about on the clay were great numbers of old bones. As if he like others before him had stumbled upon a place where something inimical lived."
Of all trades involved in the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster – the one that stands damned upon the facts – and most desperately in need of redemption – is that of lawyers.
Legal advisers – magistrates – prosecution lawyers – defence lawyers – malign clerical bystanders - attorney generals – judges.
No matter the various forms and sub-specie of this most vile phylum – wherever one observes the passage of lawyers in the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster – one looks for the examples of simple honest failure - to ease one's sight of the burden of so much naked depravity; a landscape sacked in a debouch of such despicable charlatanry one struggles to find as much as one human not left wounded and wrecked who's misfortune it was to be in need when encountering this barbarian horde.
From all of Jersey's vast plague of lawyers – officially, the most expensive upon the face of the planet – I could name you but five with a genuine and ethical commitment to child protection; a mere five – who see the gross toxicity of power in Jersey – and who know it's their duty to fight the cause of the failures.
Alas – they wouldn't thank me for naming them, living as they do in trepidation of the great mass of their brethren who's very raison d'être – gorging upon the billions their transnational gangster clients connive out of the world's tax systems – would be threatened by any vulgar intrusion into the status quo of an out-break of ethics and honesty.
Lawyers: no matter where one looks across the blasted, desolate terrain of decades of failure to protect the most vulnerable people in our community – one sees the passage of the lawyer.
And – most strikingly – it makes not an atom of difference which "side" the lawyers were notionally on – as they acted-out their ancient charade. Prosecuting, judging, defending, advising the police, advising the criminals, representing the interests of the victims, earning money protecting the abusers – all – on the evidence – acted to a shared agenda – a collective goal – a common purpose.
Expending minimum possible effort – whilst acting out their assigned roles – to maintain the pretence of challenge and defence; of scrutiny and interest; of the administration of the law; of professionalism – of care - but all the while ensuring that what they did bore as much relation to reality – and exhibited as much threat to tradition – as an exercise in Japanese Noh theatre.
Not at all an inappropriate analogue – as the primary actors in a Noh drama are called Shites.
In Part 1 of Blanche Pierre – The Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity, we considered our collective failures – our seeming inability as humans to readily and simply do that which is the right thing.
The Jersey Child Abuse Disaster – in all its sustained magnitude – over all those decades – would make a powerful study indeed, for any student of social psychology.
But because such considerations can be too abstract – too distant – we need to begin to comprehend that our disengaged and distant regard to such tragedies – with the attendant feeling that it's 'somebody else's problem' – makes our view of ourselves as 'the good guys' nothing but a dangerous fantasy.
As casually condemnatory as we may be of child abuse and the ever-present gross failures to protect children – we do not grasp powerfully enough the fact we are considering real people – real lives – real, helpless, children.
Children in danger – who each and every one of us – no matter how distant – could do something to protect. Even if only something as simple as refusing to tolerate the Culture of Concealment any longer.
Which is why in this series of articles, we are examining a real, actual case – the Blanche Pierre atrocity; the repeated failure to prevent, or punish, the two psychotic child abusers – Jane and Alan Maguire.
The failure – even now – to help and support the victims.
In Part 1 – we considered a key item of hard, documented evidence – the internal disciplinary report written by Dylan Southern – which was prepared in 1999 – only after the corrupt abandonment of the prosecution of the Maguires – which was, itself, merely the latest grotesque failure – amongst a catalogue of such failures in respect of the Maguires – going back to at least fifteen years before that date.
In this posting we are going begin the process of building upon that evidence – with an examination of some documentation which illustrates dramatically – just how those investigative and prosecutory processes were run into the sand – and sabotaged – back in 1998/9 – and the various roles played by lawyers in that tragedy.
And, in forthcoming postings – we will consider yet more documentary evidence; evidence which will go yet further – in securing that unarguable 'guilty' verdict – upon lawyers – in our court of public opinion.
Today – we are going to consider two exhibits.
The first of these is a letter.
The second is a States of Jersey Police 'time-line' – prepared during the recent investigations in 2008 – in an effort to help the police try and understand just how on Earth the 1998 prosecutions could have been abandoned.
Before turning to those two items of evidence – I want to explain why the Blanche Pierre case in particular – is so fundamental – so pivotal – and why what happened to those little children – and the continuing efforts of the Jersey oligarchy - 22 years later - to conceal it – is so central to any understanding of the entire Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.
The Blanche Pierre case can be seen as a kind of Rosetta Stone – a means of enabling us to read and understand the language of failure, of cowardice and of concealment – that underpins the entire, catastrophic failure of Jersey towards its vulnerable children.
The Blanche Pierre case straddles two eras. The very old fashioned approaches – and frequently reprehensible conduct – seen in the 1960's and 1970's – as carried over into the 1980's – and the more modern – supposedly enlightened and responsible era – of the late 1980's and the 1990's.
Of fundamental importance – many of the key facts – the evidence – relevant to the Blanche Pierre abuses – and consequent cover-ups – was far more recent than Haute de la Garenne. It was, and is – there – documented; and - in many ways – beyond all credible dispute.
Further – the case shows – all too graphically and powerfully – that when the authorities – in rare moments of frank remorse – acknowledge that things were foul and unacceptable at HDLG – they aren't being honest when they then go on to claim, "but that was all back in the 1960's – there haven't been such crimes for many decades."
Also – virtually all of the key individuals involved are still living.
The case also goes further than demonstrating sustained child abuse. Crucially – it also demonstrates – on an evidenced basis – the Culture of Concealment. The routine deployment of 'the cover-up' – by the Jersey authorities.
Even more testingly – many of the individuals responsible for the original failures to protect the children in the first place – and who then went on to engage – in one way or another – in the cover-ups – are still 'around', as it were; still prominent in Jersey society.
And – possibly most inescapably and unutterably damming of all – the Blanche Pierre case was a test.
For all the wish to project a civilised face to the world – for all the desperate claims by the Jersey oligarchy that, "things are different these days" – "it couldn't happen again" – "there will be no hiding place" - and – "there will be no cover-up" – all and any such words were going to be worse than meaningless – were going to be actually wicked – and actually be evidence of profound continuing danger to the island's vulnerable children – unless the nettle of the crimes of the Maguires – and the repeated cover-ups – was finally grasped. Unless that test was passed.
In the year 2008 – the States of Jersey wretchedly and dismally failed that test.
Indeed – worse than failed.
The abusers escaped justice.
And those many who perverted the course of justice also escaped.
The victims have been betrayed all over again.
The entire might and financial resource of the Jersey oligarchy has been swung into full cover-up battle mode – to an even worse extent than previously.
And the first and only politician in Jersey's history to identify and speak-out against the child protection failures and Culture of Concealment – has been raided, unlawfully arrested, had his home turned over from top to bottom – without a search warrant - denied legal representation – denied admissibility of the evidence needed for his defence – and has – consequently – been driven into constructive exile.
The Jersey Establishment.
It could scarcely have failed – or disgraced itself – to a greater degree.
Those reasons are why the Blanche Pierre case is central to any understanding of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.
Turning now to the first item of evidence in this posting.
The letter was written – back in 1990 - by the then responsible politician, President of the Education Committee, Iris Le Fevre. In those days, that Committee was responsible for child "protection" in Jersey, so people like Jane Maguire, Anton Skinner, Geoff Spencer and Richard Davenport were their employees.
As can be seen from the evidence in Part 1, for several years in the late 1980's, the utter barbarism and criminal conduct of the Maguires had been repeatedly noted – and reported – by several decent, conscientious members of staff.
All such complaints were ignored by Spencer and Skinner – until it became too difficult to keep the lid on it.
An internal investigation was conducted – during which such conduct on the part of the Maguires as routinely battering, starving, psychologically abusing and generally terrifying the orphans was established.
For example – one male child having his head smashed so violently against the frame of a metal bunk bed, it gave him concussion, and – in the case of a child around five years of age – being picked up and flung across a room a distance of approximately seven feet to smash against a wall, because the child was not tidying away toys fast enough for Alan Maguire.
Jane and Alan Maguire would also, between them hold down children – and pour liquid disinfectant – Dettol - down their throats.
But – finally - belatedly – in 1990 – the authorities were forced to take note.
Now – it is crucial to note what occurred next.
Because what is displayed and evidenced in this conduct – could be held up as an example of the very, core, fundamental systemic and cultural failing – that lays at the heart of the entire Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.
As I said above – the Maguire abuses – and the entire, wretched – and on-going – Blanche Pierre disaster – is like a malign and toxic Rosetta Stone – that enables us to decipher the entire Jersey abuse catastrophe.
What happened next was an eagerly embraced – collective act of - "Anything-For-A-Quite-Life".
Who wants a scandal on their watch?
The senior managers? The politicians?
Nobody, of course.
So with all the customary moral turpitude and cowardice that so defines public administration in Jersey – the big, metaphorical brush came out – and the even larger carpet was lifted – and the whole, messy and terribly inconvenient nightmare – was simply brushed away. Along with the futures of those little children.
Just as has happened to so many other cases in the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.
And - in Jersey – where the lawyers are bad – even by the standards of their dark trade – where the politicians are thick, possessed of no moral fortitude – and are without organised opposition – and where being a disgraceful moral coward appears to be written at the top of the job application form for all of the island's 'journalists' – all such cover-ups not only succeed, but are pro-actively participated in.
So – on the 26th July, 1990 – rather than the Maguires being reported to the police – for the years of gross torture they were – even then – known to have inflicted on little children – torture those children still suffer from today, in their adulthood – the Maguires had the following letter penned to them by Iris Le Fevre:
Iris Le Feuvre
President, Education Committee
Our Ref: ILEF/SJR/G.H
26th July 1990
Mr. & Mrs A. Maguire
Flat [Address Excised] Road
Dear Mr & Mrs Maguire
On Wednesday the 25th July, 1990, the Education Committee was officially informed of your decision to retire as house parents of the group home, Le Squez.
The Committee recalled that you have been house parents to the children of the group home since 1980 and during the past ten years had cared for many children on our behalf.
Several members of the Committee, including myself, were already familiar with your excellent work during this time having served on the Children’s Sub-Committee, and have always been impressed with your total commitment to the children in your charge.
It is therefore with regret that we learn of your retirement. Although we fully appreciate that after ten years of extremely hard work for our children a change of direction and a rest from the 24 hour-a-day commitment you have shown over all these years was well deserved.
My Committee therefore asked that I write on behalf of every member to thank you for your many years of excellent service on behalf of the children in your charge and to wish you all the very best for your future. We were delighted to learn that Mrs. Maguire will continue to work for the Committee in our developing Family Centre service and therefore would not be losing your services all together.
Once again many thanks for your 110% commitment and hard work, the proof of which will live on in the children for whom you have shown much love and care.
All best wishes
J. M. Le Feuvre
President, Education Committee.
It has become one of my clichés – I know – but, really – you just couldn't make it up.
If only I could convey to readers – just how devastating to the survivors – reading that letter was.
Kafka would have felt these events too implausible for his works.
And – again – one just couldn't make up the Jersey police time-line – our second piece of evidence in this posting.
This document was prepared in an attempt to grasp just how such a strongly evidenced - and so serious case – with such a number of different victims – can have managed to elude the full scrutiny of the Jersey courts.
Even though – so powerfully evidenced was the case – that, even by Jersey standards – the charges had had to be brought in the first place.
And the presiding magistrate, David Trott, had ruminated upon the case for a month – following an application of 'no case to answer' - before concluding that there was ample evidence to proceed with the charges.
But – fascinatingly – Part 1 of Blanche Pierre – The Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity, has provoked some e-mail correspondence amongst Jersey politicians. Montfort Tadier demanding answers – and even the usually quiet and obedient Jacky Hilton, expressing – quite rightly – grave concerns about what took place back in 1998.
This stirring within the ranks of the usually placid – has clearly struck terror into the heart of the Jersey oligarchy – and elicited a response from no less a figure than William – Barking Bill – Bailhache – until recently the Attorney General – and now, promoted to the post of Deputy Bailiff.
In passing – one cannot help but notice how highly unusual – nay – unprecedented – it is for a Deputy Bailiff to be sullying his hands, entering a political e-mail exchange.
For if such intervention is deemed to be required – it would be the current Attorney General who would undertake the task. But – not a bat-squeak to be heard from Dim Tim. The fact he is on holiday is immaterial. Jersey Attorney Generals do not remain silent – when the resignation of both of his predecessors is demanded – as it has been, by me.
Either a response is made – or a response is not made. But if one is – it comes from the relevant Office. But not – it seems – this time.
Perhaps Tim – is not quite so Dim – after all?
Perhaps he sees his hirsute chops upon a Bailiff's portrait – and that trip to the Palace for the obligatory Knighthood - fifteen years earlier than expected?
Bailhache – feverishly reminds Deputy Hilton and other members of the fact that he issued a public statement when still Attorney General – in which he explained fully – so none need have any concerns – just how in 1998 – and, especially in 2008 – "significant amounts of attention was given to these cases by numbers of highly professional and competent lawyers, both inside and outside the island."
I wouldn't doubt that statement.
Not for one femtosecond.
Indeed – the Jersey oligarchy – in such utterly desperate straits – that heaven knows just how many millions upon millions of pounds of tax-payers money they have stolen - stolen – to spend upon their friends in the chambers of 7 Bedford Row – in order to buy themselves legal excuses to not prosecute most of the abusers – and to help conceal their various past malfeasances?
Yes – for once we can most certainly believe Barking Bill.
The lawyers will have been working over-time.
The island's disastrous budget deficit begins to look less surprising.
But what is most striking in Barking Bill's e-mail – is the utter desperation evident in it – to try and convince anyone who will listen – that the alleged serious "terminal illness" of Alan Maguire – had nothing – I mean absolutely nothing – to do with the decision to abandon his prosecution in 1998.
According to Barking Bill Bailhache and his allies – such as Michael Birt and Stephen Baker – the decision to abandon the prosecution of the Maguires was solely – absolutely solely – an evidential test.
Now – this is a very curious assertion.
Not least because – even if the claim were true – it scarcely helps the Jersey oligarchy.
Because – upon any objective analyses of the evidential grounds for prosecuting – both in 1998 – let alone 2008 – the prosecutions most certainly should have proceeded.
So why – are the Jersey oligarchy quite so desperate – to nail their colours to the mast of a ship – that's already so holed – it rests on the seabed?
As the evidence will show?
Could it be – that the very clear considerations that were given to Maguire's supposed "terminal illness" – and the "sympathy it might illicit from a jury" – were mere corrupt excuses?
Eagerly seized upon – by an oligarchy apparatus that was desperate to back-out of the whole terribly, terribly embarrassing and politically damaging scandal?
A bit like in 2008.
Might the fact that very – very - clear "regard" was had for Maguire's alleged "terminal illness" – be the worst possible truth to emerge – given that not so much as one - single - one of the prosecution-side lawyers – up to and including the then Attorney General himself – Michael Birt – bothered to ask for as much as one scrap of professional, medical evidence?
That – so corrupt – so devoid of application and will to see the prosecutions of the Maguires through – that even – to this day – the police were unable to locate a single, meaningful piece of medical "evidence"?
I know what my assessment of those questions is – and I'm certain a great number of readers will agree with me – once we reach the end of this series of postings.
Whilst much of the document reproduced below is self-explanatory – it is worth expressly observing that at least seven lawyers are involved in the chain of events depicted.
Seven – at least – Jersey lawyers.
Ian Christmas – The police prosecuting lawyer.
Mr. Harris – defence lawyer for Jane McGuire.
Advocate Christopher Lakeman – defending lawyer for Alan Maguire.
Mr. David Trott – the presiding magistrate.
Advocate Alan Binnington – crown Advocate for the Attorney General's department.
Michael Birt – the then Attorney General – presently the Bailiff.
And – though not directly involved at that time – the Senior Partner of the law firm that was – supposedly – representing the interests of all those young victims –
Advocate William Bailhache – the Senior Partner of Bailhache La Besse.
Being lawyers – of course – no doubt each and every one of those individuals would have robust arguments by which to attempt to justify their various actions insofar as they had – or have come to have - a bearing upon the Blanche Pierre atrocity.
But – of those seven – only one – on the evidence so far known to us – can escape criticism; Mr. Harris. After all – the job of a defence lawyer – is to defend your client.
So why, then, not extend the same acceptance toward Christopher Lakeman?
On two grounds. One established. The other – for the time being at least – speculative.
Being a defence lawyer – does not confer upon you a licence to lie – to deceive and manipulate the court with falsehoods – to pervert the course of justice.
It is now clear – as though it required further demonstration, following the Panorama programme – that Lakeman's client – Alan Maguire – was not ill. Let alone "terminally ill."
It is clear that in advising and assisting Maguire in peddling this falsehood – even to the extent of writing false claims to the prosecuting authorities, the police and the court – Lakeman was committing a serious criminal offence.
He was perverting the course of justice.
That much is established.
It could be mere sad coincidence that Christopher Lakeman recently committed suicide. But having such things on one's conscience cannot have helped.
However – Lakeman's representation of Maguire did not stop back in 1998/99.
He resumed representing him in 2008 – when police attention had returned to the Blanche Pierre atrocity – and the clear and evidenced crimes of the Maguires.
The Maguires at this time – were living in France – as is well-documented. But – terribly conveniently – Alan Maguire mysteriously "died" – right around the time when the pressure upon the then current Attorney General – William Bailhache – to extradite the Maguires, was becoming irresistible.
We do not know for certain – but many of the survivors have a very understandable suspicion – that Alan Maguire is not dead. That the death-notice in the Jersey Evening Post was bogus.
The survivors suspect that Advocate Christopher Lakeman – may well have advised and assisted Maguire – in pretending to have died.
After all – Lakeman has – evidentially – perverted the course of justice once, already – to protect Maguire. Why should he not do so again?
Especially when the "death" of Maguire would be so terribly convenient - all-round – not only for Lakeman – but for the then leadership of the police investigation – the disgraced and discredited Mick Gradwell – and his two pet cops – Mark Cane and Julia Jackson, who – whilst pretending to be liaison officers for certain of the survivors – were actually spending the vast majority of their time – doing nothing – except unlawfully monitor me and subject me to criminally intrusive surveillance.
And – of course – the "death" of Maguire would be terribly convenient to one William Bailhache; the Attorney General who was doing - in full co-operation with his 7 Bedford Row alumni – such as Stephen Baker – everything in his power to ensure the charges and extradition against the Maguires did not take place.
Because – had the proper thing happened – and the Maguires been extradited and prosecuted – well – not only would it have been reputationally devastating for Bill Bailhache himself – given he had been the Senior Partner of the firm that so catastrophically failed the young victims back in 1998.
It would also have destroyed his predecessor as Attorney General – the lawyer who corruptly and improperly let the Maguires off back in 1998 – one Michael Birt – until recently, Deputy Bailiff – and now Bailiff.
And – of course – not only would the truth be terminal to both men – it would also be terminal to the whole plastic, fake, toxic, anti-public interest, anti-democratic institution they occupy – as Jersey Crown Officers.
Of course – Maguire may well have actually died. But I can't blame the survivors for feeling as suspicious as they do. Not after what they have endured. Especially as Julia Jackson refused to actually provide the survivors with an actual, French-reproduced and certified copy of the death certificate – instead fobbing them off with a mere quick look at a part of a barely legible supposed fax-print-out.
If I were to return to Jersey – one of the tasks I would undertake on the survivors behalf would be establishing the truth in respect of the death of Maguire.
But – frankly – dead – or not dead – the increasingly indefensible and disgusting conduct of Jersey's lawyers – remains an inescapable damnation upon them.
The time-line reproduced below – whilst immensely revealing in so many ways – provides but a flavour of what was – at best – a disastrous performance – and, at worse, frankly criminal conduct – by a selection of Jersey's lawyers.
In the document I have excised the names of the victims, and of the 'civilian' witnesses. All other names remain.
Compare and contrast the amount of time – of money – of effort – that lawyers such as Bill Bailhache, Stephen Baker and Bridget Shaw – have expended – are still expending - on the unlawful oppression of me – with the actually indecent willingness to seek-out and find excuses not to prosecute the highly evidence, child-torturing maniacs, the Maguires – as exhibited by Michael Birt, Allan Binnington, David Trott, Ian Christmas - and Stephen Baker - and William Bailhache.
Contemplate that sad and wretched spectacle – as you read the evidence below.
I will be posting Part 3 of Blanche Pierre – The Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity – on Saturday – when we will be taking a further look at the disgusting conduct of the lawyers.
It doesn't get any better.
STATES OF JERSEY POLICE FORCE.
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS: MAGUIRE INVESTIGATION
(All entries based on records held)
DATE - EVENT
10/05/97 Alan Maguire complains to police about threatening letter he has received (Exhibit AJG/1 and 2)
30/05/97 [Female 1] interviewed by PC Nicholson. Statement obtained covering physical and sexual assault by Alan and Jane Maguire.
09/06/97 [Female 2] makes complaint of indecent assault and physical on her, committed by Alan and Jane Maguire when she was age 7-10 years. Interview on tape. No statement made.
25/06/97 [Female 3] makes statement of physical and sexual abuse committed on her by Alan and Jane Maguire.
25/06/97 [Mail 1] makes statement concerning physical abuse by Alan and Jane Maguire.
30/07/97 [Female 1] makes further statement clarifying physical and sexual abuse committed on her by Alan and Jane Maguire.
04/08/97 [Female 1] makes third statement clarifying points regarding abuse.
06/08/97 [Male 2] provides statement alleging physical abuse by Alan and Jane Maguire.
14/11/97 Joyce Symons provides statement covering witnessing physical abuse by the Maguires.
20/11/97 Susan Doyle provides statement concerning witnessing physical abuse by Alan and Jane Maguire.
26/11/97 Karen O’Hara provides statement concerning witnessing physical abuse by Alan and Jane Maguire.
05/12/97 [Male 3] makes statement concerning physical abuse by Alan and Jane Maguire.
I5/12/97 [Male 4] provides statement concerning physical abuse by Alan and Jane Maguire.
08/01/98 DS Troy and DC Melvin inform Maguires of allegations and make arrangements for interview.
10/01/98 Alan Maguire interviewed, denied all allegations put to him until 3rd interview when he admits to washing the children’s mouths out with soap and using corporal punishment.
**No allegations of sexual abuse put to him**
20/01/98 Jane Maguire interviewed by officers and declines to answer any questions on advice of legal rep.
29/01/98 Alan Maguire charged with 7 offences under Article 9 (Jersey Law) 1969 and Jane Maguire charged with 5 offences under the same act.
12/02/98 [Witness A] and [Witness B] provide witness statements. Corroborates [Female 3].
26/02/98 Reports for Magistrates Court on 05/03/98 prepared by J. Andrews child care officer concerning [Male 3] and [Female 3].
27/02/08 Further reports completed by J. Andrews for [Male 4], [Male 1], [Female 2] and [Female 1].
05/03/98 Maguires' first Court appearance. Not guilty pleas entered. Adjourned until 31/03198.
26/03198 [Defence Witness W] provides defence statement to Police.
30/03/98 Letter from Ian Christmas to Chris Lakeman stating the charges are to be changed to common law offences and that he believes summary trial is not appropriate.
31/03/98 Maguires' second court appearance. [Defence Witness W] appears as defence witness for them. Also, Police legal advisor, Ian Christmas changes charges to that of assault under common law. Not guilty pleas entered to these charged and case adjourned until 21/04/98.
09/04/98 Letter from Ian Christmas to Chris Lakeman clarifying revised charges and confirming the court bundle to be supplied to the Magistrate will have any reference to sexual allegations removed.
21/04/98 Maguires appear at Court, case remanded until 8/06/98.
23/04/98 [Defence Witness X] provides defence statement to Police.
13/05/98 Anton Skinner provides statement and views exhibits relating to internal enquiry re: the Maguires. (Exhibits SD/I, 2).
23/05/98 Richard Davenport provides statement stating he never had any concerns over the children in the care of Maguires.
26/05/98 [Defence Witnesses Y and Z] provide defence statements to Police.
08/06/98 Maguires appear at Court under presiding Magistrate Mr Trott, the following witnesses give evidence [Male 2], [Female 1], [Male 1], [Male 4], Sue Doyle, Karen O’Hara, Joyce Symmons, DC Melvin and DC Troy. An application of no case to answer was made by Mr Harris, legal rep for Jane Maguire. Case adjourned until 07/07/98 for Mr Trott to review the evidence.
***Alan Maguire becomes "unwell" during evidence of [Male 1] and a brief adjournment takes place, Court is informed he is seriously ill but hearing continues.***
09/06/98 Report from Carolyn Coverly, a child Psychiatrist, dated today concerning her views as to the accuracy of the children’s evidence at Court. Concludes that the evidence appears wholly accurate given the trauma suffered. This was instigated at request of Mr David Trott presiding Magistrate.
07/07/98 Maguires appear at Court. Mr Trott having considered the evidence decides there is a case to answer and remands case to the Royal Court.
17/08/98 Dorothy Inglis provides statement stating she reported her concerns about the child care practices of the Maguires in the early 1990s (Exhibit SD/I).
26/09/98 Full case file completed and submitted to OSU by DC Troy.
09/10/98 Ian Christmas sends memo to AG, expressing concerns over the way the Magistrate handled the committal and mentions that Mr Maguire may be terminally ill (No mention of where this info came from) and the fact compassion may be a reason to abandon the prosecution.
06/11/98 Advocate Binnington sends report to Attorney General stating he has revised the Maguire case and concludes it is not in the Public interest to proceed based on 5 main points:
1/ Age of witnesses at time of incidents.
2/ Difficulties due to passage of time.
3/ Likely defence witnesses.
4/ Likely jury sympathy for the Maguires.
5/ Character of prosecution witnesses.
Comment is also made of Alan Maguire’s medical condition and a copy of a medical report submitted by Advocate Lakeman was attached (no trace of any copy), also mention is made of court transcripts and the fact Alan Maguire's health may interrupt any trial.
06/1l/98 Attorney General sends memo to Ian Christmas seeking a conference with him and Advocate Binnington for a final decision. Request this takes place within the next week.
16/11/98 Memo from DC Troy to Custody and patrol Sgts informing them of the decision to drop the allegations against Maguires and asking for extra attention to the victims due to concerns over past suicide and self-harm attempts.
17/11/98 Fax from Police to Victim support requesting urgent referral for all the complainants as the case had been dropped.
24/11/98 Declaration from the Attorney General that the prosecution against Alan and Jane Maguire is to be abandoned on the grounds of insufficient evidence, stamped with date 24/11/98.
24/11/98 Letter from legal firm of Bailhache La Besse acting on behalf of all complainants stating they were instigating civil proceedings against the Maguires and requesting copies of statements.
25/11/98 Letter from Jersey Police to Bailhache La Besse stating it would cost £10 per statement.
11/01/99 Further letter from Bailhache La Besse enclosing cheque for £220 for copy statements. Also consent forms signed by all plaintiffs authorising release of their statements.
26/06/99 Alan Maguire informs Police/Courts that he and family had moved to France.
12/08/99 [Female 2] provides statement alleging sexual abuse by Alan Maguire.
07/09/99 Report to legal advisor regarding new allegations made by [Female 2].
10/09/99 DS Shearer submits report regarding [Female 2] stating that as the earlier charges had been dropped a warrant to return Maguire from France to answer new allegation of [Female 2] was not suitable, locate trace warrant issued pending any return to Jersey.
23/09/99 DI Faudemer agrees with recommendation of DS Shearer and Maguire placed on PNC.
24/09/99 [Female 2] informed of decision.
24/09/99 Adv Lakeman states Alan Maguire is seriously ill (not known how this info was provided).