Select a region
Evidence, allegedly indicating that Deputy Gavin St Pier holds a personal "vendetta" against Dr Sandie Bohin, has been revealed, alongside the repercussions of his actions in naming her in relation to complaints about safeguarding policies.
The States are debating the outcome of an abuse of parliamentary privileges panel - which cleared him - after he was criticised for naming the doctor during a previous States meeting.
Deputy St Pier had been attempting to convince States members to debate an annual report on the regulation and revalidation of doctors. He used a personal experience of failed care, for which his family lodged a complaint against the MSG, to make his case.
“It is only by debating this annual report that this Assembly can begin the process of holding the Responsible Officer at Health & Social Care and the Medical Specialist Group, through their publicly funded contract, and the specialist paediatric team and the safeguarding lead and the doctor in question, Sandie Bohin, to account,” he said during that debate in 2022.
Following that, Dr Bohin argued that naming her could have led those listening or reading to believe that she was personally involved in the care of his child, whereas her role was as the Named Doctor for Safeguarding at the time.
Dr Bohin, the consultant paediatrician at the Medical Specialist Group, has also since said her “reputation has been tarnished by the wholly misleading comments".
Pictured: Dr Sandie Bohin was the named officer for Safeguarding at the time of Deputy Gavin St Pier's complaints.
Yesterday, during the opening speeches of the States debate intended to 'note the panel's decision', Deputy Peter Ferbrache claimed that Dr Bohin's house has been vandalised twice as a direct result of Deputy St Pier naming her in the States.
"I hope everybody here, where they exercise their rights under the relevant code and high degree of privilege realises that what we say in a small community such as this carries great weight, because for every bit of responsibility there is a duty to act reasonably, a duty to act responsibly," said Deputy Ferbrache.
He also accused Deputy St Pier of acting on a personal vendetta against Dr Bohin.
He revealed information which he said Dr Bohin had shared with him at a meeting recently, after the decision had been made to clear Deputy St Pier of abusing his parliamentary privilege.
Deputy Ferbache told the States that he was told of a meeting held in April 2021, attended by Dr Bohin, Deputy St Pier, and others, during which he said a threat was made by Deputy St Pier against Dr Bohin.
"In that meeting, Deputy St Pier told the responsible officer, Dr Bohin that he wanted her sacked and he wanted her head on a stick," Deputy Ferbrache explained.
"We should have been told that, because it would have affected whether this was a malicious comment made by Deputy St Pier in April 2022 or not."
Today, Deputy St Pier has vehemently refuted that allegation and cited evidence from other people present at the meeting who also said that he did not say what Deputy Ferbrache had accused him of.
Pictured: Deputy Peter Roffey.
Other States members who also sat on the panel convened to consider whether Deputy St Pier had abused his parliamentary privilege included Deputy Peter Roffey who yesterday defended deputies right to parliamentary privilege.
"The existence of absolute privilege for parliamentarians is dangerous in the sense that the consequences can be quite serious. But I would contend that that absence of absolute privilege for parliamentarians is even more dangerous," he warned.
Deputy Roffey, along with Deputies John Gollop and Lyndon Trott voted to clear Deputy St Pier of abusing his privilege while Deputies Ferbrache and David De Lisle decided that he had.
Deputy Roffey insisted that no matter what else is said now, he won't change his opinion on clearing Deputy St Pier of not abusing his parliamentary privilege because he believes that Deputy St Pier believed he was acting in the public interest by naming Dr Bohin in the States.
"...it's not a question of whether I think they're acting in the public interest, but whether that member thinks they may be acting in the public interest and I have to say that I was in no doubt on the panel, and I mean, no doubt today even after hearing what Deputy Peter Ferbrache has said..." explained Deputy Roffey.
"...whether I agree with (Deputy St Pier) is absolutely neither here nor there. But I think that he believed that the safeguarding system was being weaponised," Deputy Roffey said, continuing: "There may be absolutely no truth in that. I have no reason to believe that whatsoever. And yes, it was a motivated to some extent, from his personal experience....that's not the question either. The question is, whether he believed on that day, he was acting in the public interest."
Deputy Roffey concluded that in his opinion, Deputy St Pier did believe that he was acting in the public interest and therefore had not abused his parliamentary privilege.
The debate continues...
Calls to curb 'parliamentary privilege'
Medics slam investigation into Deputy St Pier and question process
Three Code of Conduct complaints lodged against Deputy St Pier .
Bailiff intervenes after confidentiality of St Pier complaint process
Many safeguarding recommendations "completed", final few "ongoing"
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.