ABUSE survivors will be “upset” by “inappropriate and insensitive” comments made by the senior government officials regarding safeguarding, a lawyer who represented victims during the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry has said.
Alan Collins questioned whether Jersey’s government had learnt the lessons of the care inquiry and said comments made by police chief Robin Smith and former government chief executive Dr Andrew McLaughlin in a leaked video could lead people to conclude that “nothing has changed”.
Mr Smith was captured on a video seen by the JEP describing the 2017 Independent Jersey Care Inquiry as a “noose around the Island’s neck”, while Dr McLaughlin stated that people are “dining out on what happened a decade ago. It’s got to stop”. The video – which the government has fought hard to suppress – was of a safeguarding meeting from January 2025.
“Whilst I do not know the context of the meeting what I can say is that I find some of the reported comments not just surprising but troubling,” Mr Collins said.
“I am sure many survivors who had the tragic misfortune to be abused in Jersey’s care system will be upset by the reported comments. As will the families of those survivors who are no longer with us. Some of the reported terms and phrases used by senior people in positions of authority in Jersey are very inappropriate and insensitive given the suffering endured by so many.”
The inquiry uncovered decades of abuse in the Island’s care homes and a flawed system that allowed that abuse to remain undetected. The panel, chaired by Frances Oldham, also stated that at the time that children may still be at risk from a care system which was not “fully fit for purpose”.
One of the core failings highlighted by the inquiry panel in its report was that there was a “failure to establish a culture of openness and transparency, leading to a perception, at least, of collusion and cover-up”. The report continued: “Jersey’s culture has not encouraged the reporting of poor and abusive practice. Such attitudes have fostered the suspicion, within parts of the community, that most politicians and States employees cannot be trusted and that abusive practices have been covered up.”
In dramatic scenes at the employment tribunal of former safeguarding partnership lead Alison Renouf, the government’s lawyer attempted to block the public from seeing the video, as well as reporting of the transcript of the meeting which had already been submitted into evidence.
Tribunal chair Dr Elena Moran threw out the government’s application, but an appeal has been made to the Royal Court which will be heard next week. In the meantime, no reporting restrictions were placed on the evidence already presented.
Discussing comments made by Mr Smith that the Island has “punished ourselves enough” and needs to “move on” from the inquiry, Mr Collins said that dismissive attitudes from senior officials make it impossible for victims and survivors to move past their experiences.
“I am sure many survivors and their loved-ones would like to move on too, but how can they when those in senior positions do not appear to have learnt from the work and findings of the IJCI?,” he said. “It found a dismissive mindset which treated child welfare issues as secondary ones effectively distorted and disturbed good governance which allowed, sadly, child abuse to flourish. Cynical readers of the JEP may conclude that nothing has changed in Jersey despite the government repeatedly saying it accepted the findings of the IJCI and would implement its findings.
“This was accepted in good faith, and I have witnessed the considerable efforts made to improve safeguarding in Jersey although I am conscious that, perhaps, there is still some way to go.”
He added that the comments would leave him to question “whether that commitment is real”.
“Child abuse is not going to go away anytime soon, it causes considerable damage, and those with safeguarding responsibilities have to be forever vigilant,” Mr Collins continued. “The past shapes the future. The IJCI report is in many ways a road map to follow to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. I trust all of those who attended the reported meeting read it, if not they need to explain why not and justify, publicly, their comments.
“Language is, to state the obvious, important. The choice of words reported is unfortunate because it brings into question Jersey’s commitment both to safeguarding and to learn from the inquiry. The language used was inappropriate, insensitive, and on the face of it showed a lack of insight into survivor trauma. We have to hope that we see that deeds speak louder than words.”
