voiceforchildren

Suspension Reviewed??????

2012-02-24T08:28:00.000Z

The Former Chief Police Officer of the States of Jersey Police was suspended from duty on the 12th November 2008 by the then Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis who, just weeks later, retired from politics. Although he did attempt to get re-elected in 2011 but was not successful "thankfully" some might say.

The Chief of Police who had been suspended, Graham Power QPM, was in charge of a police force that was involved in possibly the largest investigation this island has ever seen, or is ever likely to see. The force were investigating Child Abuse that occurred, in State run institutions FOR DECADES.

The circumstances surrounding the reason(s) and process used to suspend the Police Chief can be described as dubious at best or illegal at worst.

As the former Home Affairs Minister retired from politics there was a lot of hope put into a candidate running for office in 2008 who had declared, if elected, he would stand for the position of Home Affairs Minister. That candidate was the island's Magistrate, Ian Le Marquand, who most believed would be the ideal person to sort out the mess left by his predecessor and go on to re-instate the Former Police Chief.

Ian Le Marquand went on to top the poll in the 2008 elections and was subsequently voted in has Home Affairs Minister. This gave a lot of us much hope that things will now be sorted out. The newly elected, former magistrate, will "do the right thing." Alas, as regular readers will be only too painfully aware, this was not to be.

Senator Le Marquand not only failed to sort out the original suspension of the Police Chief, but he refused to even look at it as these couple of paragraphs from the first "suspension Review Hearing" demonstrate.

Dr. T. Brain:

"If I am allowed in due course to develop the argument it is that the procedures of 12th November were improperly applied, therefore the suspension was inappropriate and improper; I will hesitate to use the word “illegal” in these circumstances. Then there is the one of proportionality as to whether the suspension should be re-imposed. So I would invite you to consider whether the suspension was properly imposed on 12th November……… It is simply this morning that we should look at the issues of 12th November to see whether they were properly applied because, as I say, that does have a material bearing on Mr. Power’s current status. Then we can consider whether suspension is any longer appropriate. I think it will come as no surprise to you that I will be suggesting that that is not any longer appropriate.

Senator Ian Le Marquand:

I am not going to look at the original circumstances. That is my decision on that.

Dr. T. Brain:

May I clarify, Minister, whether therefore you will not be hearing what I have to say about the issues of 12th November?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

That is correct, yes." (END)

Below is the full transcript of that hearing and it makes for very uncomfortable reading as to how "The Jersey Way" operates. Of course, regular readers will be aware, that Senator Le Marquand has since been on a "Kangaroo Court Roadshow" (with the help of Jersey's State Media) in trying to discredit the Former Police Chief by publishing extracts of the prosecution case against him and not releasing a single word of the defence case. The defence case being a 62,000 word document that the BBC have been in possession of for around four months and have not reported a single word of it either despite being a willing participant in the Kangaroo Court Roadshow with the prosecution case.

Dr. T. Brain is the former Police Chief's representative at this hearing, and the name "Walker" that is in the transcript should read "Warcup."

STATES OF JERSEY

SUSPENSION REVIEW MEETING
FRIDAY, 13th FEBRUARY 2009
Present:
Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs)
Mr. G. Power (Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police):
Dr. T. Brain (Chief Constable, Gloucestershire):
Mr. M. Pinel (Head Of Employee Relations, States of Jersey):

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):
Good morning. I am Ian Le Marquand, the Home Affairs Minister, and this is a review of the suspension of the Police Chief, Mr. Graham Power. Today is 13th February at just after 11.45 a.m. It would be helpful for the tape if I asked all the other people who are here just to speak and identify themselves so if there was a transcript produced at any stage it helps the transcriber.

Mr. G. Power (Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police):Graham Power, Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police.

Dr. T. Brain (Chief Constable, Gloucestershire):
Dr. Timothy Brain, Chief Constable of Gloucestershire and the representative of the Chief Police Officers staff association.

Mr. M. Pinel (Head Of Employee Relations, States of Jersey):
Mick Pinel, Head of Employee Relations, States of Jersey.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Thank you very much. We will check in a moment when the lady comes back in that the sound system is working properly. That is fine. Good. Today the situation is that you are representing Mr. Power, Dr. Brain, and Mr. Pinel is really here to assist me but nobody is presenting what I might call “the prosecution side” because that is not thought to be appropriate at this stage. If matters proceed to a full disciplinary hearing then it is anticipated that that will be presented probably, I think, by Mr. Pinel rather than by a lawyer. I think that is right, is it not?

Mr. M. Pinel:
What will happen, Minister, is that I would sit with you representing the Director of H.R. (Human Resources) who is Ian Crich and who will have left his post by then. I do not know who will present the case but I think the idea is that Jane Pollard in the Human Resources Department would be the H.R. officer who would present the case.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Sorry, I got the wrong personnel there but just to let you know what is suggested in relation to that. I have read the very helpful letter from Mr. Power, which was dated 12th February. Thank you for that. I also, of course, have made reference to the judicial review of documentation which conveniently puts together a lot of different matters. What I have done in preparation for today is I have sought to analyse that letter and points which are raised in the judicial review stuff. I have tried to analyse the letter from Dr. Brain and I have also analysed my own letter to try and work out what was the best way of proceeding and what were the different issues. I want to give you the opportunity to address me on the different issues. There are quite a number of different issues but I think we probably need to start somewhere in the area of the interplay of the disciplinary code, the law, the change of roles from committee to minister and so on. The point is that whereas in my letter I presupposed we would start in relation to construction of the disciplinary code and the law in terms of my receiving submissions as to what was the right procedure to follow in relation to what we are doing today, I am aware that Mr. Power has some misgivings in relation to the change from committee to minister, which he sets out in some depth. I do not want to make any submissions on that. In a sense, we are looking at the issues as to what procedure I should be following.

Dr. T. Brain:Thank you very much, Minister. Before we go any further I would like to just take this opportunity of thanking you for initiating this review of suspension. Clearly it has been 3 months since the suspension, which is a very long time indeed, and to have the opportunity of review I think is important, both in respect of the status of the States of Jersey Police but also in respect of Mr. Power, our member. So I really am very, very grateful for you setting aside time today.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I am sorry that I have not been able to do it before. As I think you have understand, there have been substantial delays on my getting advice.

Dr. T. Brain:
I am not in any way seeking to infer any criticism on you but I simply wished to say thank you very much for the review today. You do have reference to Mr. Power’s affidavit for judicial review and he does indeed raise a number of issues around the propriety of the procedures and the general status of the Chief Officer Discipline Code and its relationship to other legislation. If I can be of assistance this morning I think it is to invite you to consider the circumstances of the suspension first. I think if you do wish to consider other matters about the status of the code, its applicability its relevancy, how it is developed, I would invite you to consider that after considering the actual application of the code on 12th November and its continued relevancy since then.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:I have to say it was not my intention to do that and I am sorry if the letter did not make it clear. My intention today is, and always has been, to conduct a review of the issue as to whether Mr. Power should continue to be suspended and not to conduct a review as to whether or not procedurally he was properly suspended in November.

Dr. T. Brain:
Thank you. I think it is, however, important to consider whether he was properly suspended on 12th November because, of course, if he was not properly suspended on 12th November that would negate his suspension and therefore it would be necessary to consider whether he would need to be suspended again in the event of us finding that all that is at issue is the correctness of the procedure on the 12th. If I am allowed in due course to develop the argument it is that the procedures of 12th November were improperly applied, therefore the suspension was inappropriate and improper; I will hesitate to use the word “illegal” in these circumstances. Then there is the one of proportionality as to whether the suspension should be re-imposed. So Iwould invite you to consider whether the suspension was properly imposed on 12th November. What I am, for the sake of clarity this morning, proposing is that we do not consider at the first instance the mix of issues that you have raised that are quite proper to consider and quite right to be the circumstances of the judicial review. It is simply this morning that we should look at the issues of 12th November to see whether they were properly applied because, as I say, that does have a material bearing on Mr. Power’s current status. Then we can consider whether suspension is any longer appropriate. I think it will come as no surprise to you that I will be suggesting that that is not any longer appropriate.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Thank you for that but I am not going to look at the original circumstances. That is my decision on that.

Dr. T. Brain:May I clarify, Minister, whether therefore you will not be hearing what I have to say about the issues of 12th November?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
That is correct, yes.

Dr. T. Brain:
May I consult with Mr. Power?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Indeed, yes.
(a short break)

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:I have restarted the tape.

Dr. T. Brain:Thank you, Minister. I must formally state for the record that we are most concerned that before we have been given the opportunity to state our case considerable amounts of that case seems to be something that you will not consider. We have to make it quite clear that there have been material breaches of points 1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.3.1 of the code. These are not technical breaches, these are material breaches and render null and void the original suspension. I do hope that we can consider these matters today as we are keen to support the administrative process that you have entered into in good faith. We would rather that we are addressing these matters as part of an administrative review before we have to consider these matters in a judicial review. So I would ask you to reconsider your opinion that you have just offered there in order that we may fully state the grounds for the reinstatement of Mr. Power. I would make it quite clear that the material breaches are only part of the submission but they are nevertheless an integral part of the submission.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:There is no problem with you making submissions in relation to the effect of the various different parts of the disciplinary code; I anticipated and expected that you would do that. But in the context of how I should now be dealing with the matter what I am not prepared to do, and have not at any point indicated I would do - and indeed made it clear, I believe, in proceedings in the States that I would not do - is to seek to conduct a review of the decision of the Home Affairs Minister when originally suspending. To do that, because the Home Affairs Minister is a corporation sole, effectively I would be reviewing my own decision and that I cannot do. Mr. Power has sought redress in relation to that matter, as you know, through judicial review but I am not going to open an investigation into whether or not the procedure was correct initially. What I want to do today is to start looking at what is the correct procedure that ought now to apply in relation to the matter, not as to whether or not it was correctly applied originally. Does that clarify my position?

Dr. T. Brain:I think probably if I can offer the opinion that the best thing for us to do is to state what we consider to be the issues and then you will have to deal with the points I raise as you see fit. I am not, I think it is fair to say, in this administrative process questioning the decision; what I am doing is questioning the application of the procedure that led to the decision. But I think in all fairness to Mr. Power, if you hear what has been said you can then make your own assessment of the submission that we make.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Well, tell me what the issues are that you want to raise? There may be others which I think need to be raised as well.

Dr. T. Brain:That is very helpful. Thank you very much indeed. We are not at this hearing questioning the existence of the procedures. That will be something that Mr. Power will raise in his judicial review but it is not something we are considering today. I think if that is of help to you that would get us moving.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Yes, thank you.

Dr. T. Brain:
Effectively, the suspension procedure has breached Mr. Power’s natural justice rights and his human rights as suspension was disproportionate to the original allegation such as it was made. No notice of a specific breach of the discipline code has been provided to Mr. Power nor, crucially, was any available at the time of his suspension on 12th November 2008, save the general letter that was handed to him on the day. If such a breach has arisen since, that is of the discipline code, no further notice has been provided to Mr. Power. It is the understanding of Mr. Power and myself that an investigation has now commenced but no notice of any discipline allegation has yet been provided to him. So, in summary, no specific allegation was presented to Mr. Power on 12th November and none has been presented since. Of great relevancy to the decision that you are seeking to make today, Mr. Power is an officer of unquestioned personal integrity. There is no reason that he would have sought to interfere with the conduct of any disciplinary or management investigation and furthermore that was not given as a reason for suspension on 12th November. There is no reason to suppose that he would interfere if he was reinstated now to his office. It was open on 12th November, and it is open now, to give consideration to alternative measures short of suspension in dealing with Mr. Power. There is no indication that any issue of public confidence had arisen at the time of the suspension on 12th November and if issues of public confidence have arisen since they have been in the form of questioning the conduct of that original suspension. It is my view that there have been material breaches of paragraph 1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.3.1. If I could just draw your attention to those relevant paragraphs.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Yes. Do you want to tell me how you believe those should be construed?

Dr. T. Brain:Thank you. If we look at paragraph 1.1 the paragraph reads: “In the normal course of events the Home Affairs Minister will raise and attempt to resolve issues arising which concern the performance, conduct, capability, et cetera, of the Chief Officer on a personal basis. The procedure described in this code will be used only where such efforts to resolve problems arising have failed.” The investigation into the children’s home and the investigation into the historic allegations of child abuse have been running for over 2 years. There has therefore been ample opportunity to raise any concerns with Mr. Power. No concerns have been raised by the Home Affairs Minister. No discussion on a personal basis has taken place before 12th November 2008. Of assistance to your deliberations today I would point out that it is open now for such discussions to take place should, of course, Mr. Power be restored to full duty. It is the absence of that discussion which is a material breach of the disciplinary code.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Okay.

Dr. T. Brain:Thank you. If we look at paragraph 2.1.1, this paragraph reads: “If circumstances arise where the Home Affairs Minister considers it justified he will notify in writing the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers of any complaints relating to discipline, performance or capability against the Chief Officer. A copy of this letter will be given to the Chief Officer. At the discretion of the Chief Executive of the Council of Ministers there may be a meeting between the Home Affairs Minister and the Chief Officer to determine the requirement for the complaints to be pursued. While the calling of a meeting is at the discretion of the Chief Executive, the requirement to notify in writing the Chief Executive of the Council of Ministers of any complaints relating to discipline, performance or capability is mandatory. Similarly, the requirement to provide a copy of that letter to the Chief Officer is mandatory.” A letter only arrived at Mr. Power’s address 2 days after the meeting on 12th November. Consequently neither of these requirements have been fulfilled. These amount to another material breach of the discipline code. I will continue when you are ready, Minister.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Yes, okay, thank you.

Dr. T. Brain:Thank you. With respect to paragraph 2.1.2, this paragraph reads: “In the event that the complaints are pursued by the Home Affairs Minister a preliminary investigation will be undertaken by the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers to establish the relevant facts. Facts will include statements from available witnesses and the Chief Officer. Following the investigation, the Chief Executive of the Council of Ministers will produce a written report which will be given to the Home Affairs Minister and the Chief Officer. The results of the preliminary investigation will be discussed by the Home Affairs Minister, Chief Officer and Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers.” There is no evidence that such a preliminary investigation has taken place.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Could I stop you a moment?

Dr. T. Brain:
Certainly.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:My understanding is that there is currently an investigation taking place by the Wiltshire Police.

Dr. T. Brain:
That is not a preliminary investigation.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:I see, okay.

Dr. T. Brain:That is an investigation.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
That is why I need you to explain your position.

Dr. T. Brain:That is a substantive investigation. I have to say, of course, Mr. Power has not been served a disciplinary notice and has not been counselled in respect of his rights. So that investigation is, I submit, a subsequent stage to the preliminary investigation that should have taken place before any engagement with the Chief Constable of Wiltshire.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
So your submission is that what is referred to here is a preliminary investigation and Wiltshire is a substantive investigation?

Dr. T. Brain:It is.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Okay. I will just note that down.

Dr. T. Brain:
Thank you. If I may just reprise for a moment. So there is no evidence that such a preliminary investigation has taken place. If it has taken place, a written report has not been presented to and shared with the Chief Officer. Again, that amounts to amaterial breach of the discipline code.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I am not aware of any investigation other than the Wiltshire one that would fall within this category, if that helps you.

Dr. T. Brain:Thank you. I think if we just may explore this for a moment. The strong impression I gain from the discipline code is that this preliminary discussion, the preliminary investigation, is intended to allow for matters to be cleared up, particularly where they relate to the management of the force. It could also be used where very minor complaints are made or very minor breaches of discipline are alleged in order to prevent the institution of a full investigation. So that is a necessary preliminary step. It does allow Mr. Power to then engage in a discussion about what is actually alleged and for him to present his point of view. Of course, if after that preliminary investigation and that discussion it is determined to proceed with the full investigation that would be right and proper if it amounted to that degree of seriousness which would necessitate that investigation but this has not happened in this case. There was not a preliminary investigation, there has not been a preliminary notice, there has not been an informal engagement, all of which could have happened and all of which may have prevented the suspension of Mr. Power. If I could go on, Minister?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes. I have got one question, I will just flag it up, not necessarily for you to answer it at this point. Following your logic, if this is a preliminary investigation then there must be logically somewhere in here a provision for a substantive investigation. Do you see my point? If there is only one investigation referred to anywhere then your argument would be weakened, I think.

Dr. T. Brain:Well, the code itself at 2.1.2 uses the words “preliminary investigation”. That is not my words; it is the code’s words. That implies that there is at least 2 stages to an investigation, if not 2 investigations. I think we could have an interesting discussion about whether that amounts to 2 separate investigations or whether it is part of a continuum but the term “preliminary investigation” is used and it does say that that preliminary investigation is conducted by the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers. So we have a very specific event here. It would seem that in no way that the current state of inquiries conducted by Mr. Moore could be construed preliminary. I have to say we are at some considerable disadvantage because we do not know what Mr. Moore is doing but the little that we have been able to assess would suggest that his investigation is already gathering strength and momentum and has well passed any preliminary stage.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Okay, thank you.

Dr. T. Brain:Thank you very much. The exploratory search of the former care home at Haut de la Garenne commenced on 19th February 2008 and that was at an advanced stage of the original historic abuse inquiry. There has therefore been ample opportunity to discuss any strategic management issues relating to the force since that date and therefore to properly engage the procedures set out in paragraphs 1.1, 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. Paragraph 2.3.1 states that: “If the preliminary investigation indicates that a more serious breach of discipline/performance/capability has occurred or if the Chief Officer fails to improve and/or maintain improvements in conduct or job performance following the issue of oral warnings the issue will be considered by the Home Affairs Minister.” It has already been established that no preliminary investigation has taken place. No discussion has taken place about any alleged breach of discipline/performance/capability. No opportunity has therefore been given to rectify any failings, real or perceived, or to respond to any warnings as no warnings have been issued. If I may go on, Minister?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Just bear with a moment. I am just reading through the paragraph.

Dr. T. Brain:Yes, certainly.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes, okay. Thank you.

Dr. T. Brain:Thank you. If I can go on to paragraph 2.3.2, this states that: “The Chief Officer will be provided with in writing (i) sufficient notice of the hearing, (ii) full particulars of the complaint, (iii) a statement of rights under these procedures, and (iv) details for the procedure for the hearing.” Only (iii) has conceivably been complied with. Consequently there has been an additional breach under paragraph 2.3.2 of the procedures.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:There is an issue, is there not, as to what type of hearing is envisaged by 2.3.2. Do you want to comment on that?

Dr. T. Brain:I think, Minister, the fact that we are even having this conversation about interpreting something that should be a straight forward managerial process gives me cause for concern about the propriety of the discipline code. It seems to me that what is intended is that if you have a strategic management problem or if there is a capability issue about the Chief Officer you engage in an informal discussion. I have to say that seems entirely reasonable. It seems a very, very sensible procedure to put in. If that does not resolve issues you go on to the next stage which is the preliminary investigation and the opportunity for the Chief Officer to respond to the outcome of that preliminary investigation. That seems entirely reasonable too. Now, what we have had is a conflation at best of all of those procedures, colliding on 12th November. We have not got to the stage of a full investigation; we are considerably short of that. We have certainly not got to the stage where Mr. Power has been given an opportunity to put his case and we have not got to the stage where there is a full disciplinary hearing that will consider whether he stays in post or not. We are at the very beginning of this process and it seems that the discipline code quite properly and helpfully allows for there to be an informal engagement and a general ratcheting up of the issue before you get to the full blown investigation and before it is necessary to consider the issue of suspension. Had that process been gone through we may not be sitting here today but it was not and so consequently we have to look at that suspension. So my view is that the hearing we are talking about is one in which Mr. Power is given notice of the outcome of any preliminary investigation and is given the opportunity to comment on that and engage in a conversation, as the discipline code sets out, with the Minister and with the Chief Executive. All of those points, I have to say, seem entirely reasonable should they be complied with.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Okay.

Dr. T. Brain:Thank you. It is appreciated that under paragraph 2.3.3 the Chief Officer may be suspended from duty on full pay by the Home Affairs Minister, pending the outcome of procedures in relation to: “More serious circumstances.” These more serious circumstances are not defined. It is not contested, and in my view there is no doubt, that the historic child abuse inquiry and the investigation at the Haut de la Garenne home amounts to a serious case but that is not the test of suspension under the code of conduct. To require immediate action in terms of suspension it would have to relate to an issue of personal misconduct, of which there has never been any suggestion, or a serious lapse of public confidence, of which there is no evidence, or a systemic
mismanagement of the force which had become critical in some way. There certainly is no evidence of the latter. On the contrary, the latest Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary’s report for the Island praises the force for its management.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Sorry, you said a bit about systemic. I started making notes and then lost it. A systemic lack of something, you said.

Dr. T. Brain:I will repeat what I said: “Or a systemic mismanagement of the force which had in some way become critical.”

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Can I just interject a few things?

Dr. T. Brain:Yes, of course.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:You will appreciate that one of the complications of the procedure which we are conducting today is that I have received legal advice in relation to various different aspects and advice on the issue of the construction of the documents. It is only right and proper that I put matters to you to give you an opportunity to comment on possible alternative ways of construing the matter, because otherwise you are in the dark and it would not be right at all that I hear your submissions, go away and suddenly pull a rabbit out of the hat or something which you have not had an opportunity to comment on. You did, in correspondence, ask that we have a mutual disclosure of positions. That would have been appropriate, I think, if there had been somebody representing the “prosecution” side today. As it is, of course, one of the difficulties I have is the advice I receive is confidential and there are ongoing issues as to whether confidentiality is solely in the recipient or also in the Law Officers’ Department, the Law Officers’ Department’s view being that the confidentiality is both ways. So that is a further complication which arises in this particular case. Can I perhaps put a series of questions to you, and you may need time to consider these, for comment on? Firstly, in terms of construction of the agreement, I think it is fair to say there is no secret about the fact that my view is this is a very poorly produced document. I suspect that may be Mr. Power’s view as well, but nevertheless it is what we have. If one looks at the words “in more serious circumstances” they appear at 2.3.1: “If preliminary investigation into cases where more serious breach of discipline/poor performance” and they appear in a different form in 2.3.3: “In more serious circumstances.” What is Mr. Power’s submission in relation to those words? Do the more serious circumstances in 2.3.3 have to be more serious than the serious circumstances in 2.3.1 or are they coterminous or does it say something entirely different?

Dr. T. Brain:
I think it would be helpful if we considered these one at a time, if you are in agreement with that. Can we go to the code itself and can I ask you to go through those paragraphs again, please?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes, I have them in front of me.

Dr. T. BrainI have the full code open in front of me. Could I just ask you to repeat the context of the 2 serious circumstances again?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes, 2.3 says: “Continued or serious breach of discipline/poor performance/capability.” 2.3.1 says: “If the preliminary investigation into cases where more serious breach of discipline/poor performance/capability has occurred, or if the Chief Officer fails to improve and/or maintain improvements in conduct or job performance following the issue of oral warning(s), the issue will be considered by the Home Affairs Minister. The hearing will be conducted by the Home Affairs
Minister and the Minister will be advised by the Director of Human Resources.” So that is the first context. Then 2.3.3: “In more serious circumstances the Chief Officer may be suspended from duty on full pay by the Home Affairs Minister pending the outcome of this procedure. In this event the matter will be referred to the States of Jersey in accordance with Article 9 of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974.” My question is are you saying that the “more serious circumstances” of 2.3.3 have to be more serious than 2.3.1 or that they mean the same thing?

Dr. T. Brain:
It is impossible for me to determine what the original drafters of this code meant in those circumstances. I am grateful for you drawing these intricacies to our attention, but I think for the benefit of today we just have to go through them one at a time. We have to have a preliminary investigation. If I can just draw your attention to that fact alone. The preliminary investigation must indicate that a more serious breach of discipline/poor performance/capability has occurred. We have already established that no preliminary investigation has taken place or if it has it was not disclosed to Mr. Power. I think, Minister, you indicated a moment ago that if it was not quite your understanding it was at least possibly your understanding that it was Mr. Moore’s investigation that amounted to the preliminary investigation. Consequently, we have
not got to the first base at 2.3.1. There has not been a preliminary investigation to establish whether a more serious breach of the discipline code has occurred. In order for the Minister to make that decision on or near to 12th November he would have to have been in possession of a preliminary investigation. If a preliminary investigation has occurred, Minister, I must ask you to disclose it, either to us now or at least in advance of the judicial review hearing. In all reasonableness, I have heard nothing from you today that would suggest such a preliminary investigation has occurred. So we have not got to there even being a glimmer of suggestion that a more serious breach of discipline/poor performance/capability has occurred. So I hope you do not mind me taking that at some length because I think that is important for our understanding of what we might consider to be a more serious breach or in more serious circumstances.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Can I just check what you have received now because my understanding is that Mr. Power has now received a copy of the letter/report of the Deputy Police Chief, Mr. Walker? Is that right?

Dr. T. Brain:I can be very helpful in terms of what I have received. What I have received amounts to practically nothing and I certainly have not been copied into anything relating to the investigation by Mr. Moore or anything relating to the Deputy.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:No, but I had thought that you had been provided with ... because the time scale has been quite short and it is possible that it is stuck in the post which does not help anybody.

Mr. M. Pinel:
This is Mr. Walker’s letter of 11th November, Minister.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
You were about to get it, as I understand it. I am sorry that you have not got that already.

Mr. M. Pinel:What the legal advice is, Minister, is that there is no reason why that should not be given to Mr. Power and Mr. Brain, but that there would be some sort of confidentiality agreement between us because of the bigger issues.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
That has been agreed in principle. Just check what you have.

Dr. T. Brain:
I am glad that you sought to do this because clearly if you were under the apprehension that we were in possession of more information than you thought we were ...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:I thought it was on its way.

Dr. T. Brain:It may be, but obviously it has not arrived on any of our desks prior to our hearing today.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Can I just take it back to the 2.3.3? I understand the point you are making. What I need to put to you to have an opportunity to comment on is that of course there is a line of argument in relation to construction of this, that 2.3.3 is dealing with something more serious than 2.3.1. In other words the “more serious” is more serious than that which is above in the section, in other words something very serious which would justify an immediate suspension without the holding of a hearing.

Dr. T. Brain:It is difficult for us to contest that as we have not been given anything up until now to suggest that there are more serious circumstances. As I said a moment ago, nobody doubts the seriousness of the investigations which were taking place, but what are the more serious circumstances in which the Chief Officer may be suspended from duty? These are not defined so we are in the difficulty of not being able to contest it because we are not in a position to understand what we are supposed to contest. Of course, had there been some preliminary investigation and had there been the opportunity for informal dialogue which the code specifically allows neither of us would be in doubt about the application of paragraph 2.3.3.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I understand what you are saying, but I am trying to press you on the principle because I think this may be at the core of part of the decision that I will need to make today. The issue as to factual basis, I suppose evidential basis if I can use that in a very wide sense, in a sense I had envisaged would be a secondary stage of today where I am trying to establish what principles, what the correct procedure is and then issues of which documents or other matters I should review come in later. So you will start to make submission on that latter area and say: “We have had nothing”, which I accept. Depending on where we go today, I had envisaged that would be an issue that might then come into play, but I have to make decisions first on the first set of submissions.

Dr. T. Brain:I understand. I will seek to be helpful, but I wish it to be noted that I believe (and I use the term hesitantly here because I do not think it is quite the right term but you did allude to it earlier on) the “prosecution” ... if we just use it for convenience today, I think we all know what we mean. We are not implying anything. It is just otherwise we would bounce around that term all day. To describe to us what are the more serious circumstances, but to give some inkling and I have to say we must reserve our defence because there could be, first of all, an interview at which Mr. Power has rights; secondly, a hearing in which Mr. Power has rights and we are entitled to know
the case that has been put against us and that has not happened. We do have a letter dated 12th November. What we contest is the timing of that letter, of course, because it was not available to Mr. Power before his interview on 12th November. Some bullet points are set out there in respect of Operation Rectangle. Operation Rectangle, in my understanding, is the historic abuse investigation and not the Haut de la Garenne investigation as a specific part. That is quite important because Operation Rectangle is, of course, very old. It is a much longer inquiry than the investigations at Haut de la Garenne so if there were concerns about Operation Rectangle there had been plenty of time to raise them. There are some bullet points set out in that letter of 12th November which raise concerns. It is my view that none of them amount to “more serious circumstances” because at the end of the day the Haut de la Garenne and the Operation Rectangle investigations were part of the strategic management of the Jersey force and not the totality of the Jersey force. There are many issues that are raised in that set of bullet points, but it is highly questionable whether they were either individually or in total relevant to the suspension of Mr. Power. They are all capable, I believe, of (a) either an explanation at the time and being cleared up, or (b) if they are thought to be of sufficient seriousness to merit some kind of remedial action being dealt with as a result of the conversation that is envisaged in the disciplinary code. I cannot guess why certain stances were deemed to be more serious on 12th November than they were perhaps on 11th November or more to the point perhaps on 19th
February 2008 or indeed earlier in 2007. What I can say is that the bullet points outlined in the letter of 12th November do not amount to more serious circumstances, but I can only guess whether those are the bullet points that the Chief Executive and the Minister had in mind on 12th November. I am not wishing to be obtuse on this issue but it is very difficult for us to offer a contention about something we do not fully understand.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I understand, but I want to take it back a stage because I accept you want to make submissions as to whether the factual or evidence basis which existed and which exists would fall within the category of “more serious circumstances”. I want to make a decision in principle on the construction of this first and then go on to look at that later because that then brings into play what documents or other materials I should be looking at in order to do that. In a sense, I need to press you on this and perhaps I need to also introduce another aspect because one of the complications of construing the disciplinary document is that it exists within the context of the statutory framework. I take it somewhere you have copies of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 and particularly Article 8?

Dr. T. Brain:Would you like to read that?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Sorry, I did not bring copies. I assumed you had that.

Dr. T. Brain:I have it, but I did not appreciate that you would be bringing it in today. We are quite happy if you would like to read it, Minister. I will listen to it and form a view.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
We will organise some photocopies. It is Article 9. Article 8 deals with the duties and powers of the Minister. I will read sections of Article 9: “The Chief Officer and the Deputy Chief Officer. (i)The Chief Officer should be appointed by the States under such terms as the salary and conditions of service as the States Employment Board may from time to time determine.” I will come back to that in a moment so that you understand the point: “(ii) The Chief Officer may be suspended from office by the Minister which shall refer the matter to the States at their next sitting and may be dismissed from office by the States.” I would just comment that it says “which” rather than “who” because initially this law also made reference to the committee, not to the Minister which is why the language seems a bit odd. A question arises particularly in relation to Article 9(i) and (ii) as to the interplay of the statute and a disciplinary code. You may wish to say, I do not know, that the disciplinary code has been incorporated in by virtue of the words: “On such terms as the salary and conditions of service as the States Employment Board may from time to time determine.” You may wish to say that the disciplinary code was part of the conditions of service and, therefore, binding on the Minister. Do you see what I am saying?

Dr. T. Brain:
I think that is an entirely reasonable construction. One has to say that if that is not the case I am not at all certain what status the disciplinary code has at all. Either it is something which Ministers and the individuals involved would follow or it is not. There is another point I think to make which is there may, and I am not accepting that there is, be unfettered discretion for the Minister, but there certainly is not for other participants in the procedure, including the Chief Officer and the Chief Executive. So while there may be some unfettered discretion, or unfettered discretion for the Minister, it is not for the other parties to the agreement. If it is not part of the
conditions in terms of employment I am not at all certain what status we have here and I cannot say there is any basis for the suspension at all. It would seem to have been dealt with under some kind of prerogative. I think it is fair to say that in the situation in which we find ourselves in the first decade of the 21st century, the idea in a democracy of any Minister being able to operate unfettered discretion seems at odds with all the principles of human rights. There are procedures; these need to be followed. They are there for the defence of everybody. If we were talking about employment law in the U.K. (United Kingdom), and I am not seeking to draw any
parallels, simply that this relates to my experience, that is the whole point of that employment law - it does give protection. If we are talking about chief officers of police then I would submit that discretion has to be very carefully used and it emphasises all the more the importance of following due process because clearly in democracies chief police officers must be allowed to operate with full operational discretion. They are answerable, of course, to the courts, but they are not answerable to political processes. It is vitally important that the discipline code is used in the circumstances where a suspension or investigation of a chief officer is under consideration because the alternative is the potential for misuse, or more seriously the perceived potential for misuse which can amount to the same outcome. Again, I cannot second guess the relationship that government and the legislative intended between the articles that you have read and this discipline code, but it is entirely reasonable to proceed on the assumption that that is its meaning. If it is not, I think that is a very serious matter because it does mean that a chief officer, setting aside Mr. Power and what has happened on 12th November, of police could be suspended without due process. That is a grave weakness. I am sure that is why the law is construed as it is and the disciplinary code exists. You said at the beginning, I think most helpfully, that this is a poorly written document. That is as may be, but we are where we are and we deal with it. One then has to say if it not part of the terms and conditions under Article 9(i) then it is difficult to conceive what status it has.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Can I try and summarise what you have said, because you have said a lot of different things? I am not criticising you for that because it is complex. I think what your submission is, if I have correctly understood it, is that the discretion under 9(ii) to dismiss should be seen as being fettered by the procedure of the disciplinary code as incorporated under 9(i). Have I understood that correctly or is it more subtle than that?

Dr. T. Brain:I think it is capable of being construed in that way. I did not use the word “fettered”. I said I do not think ministers of democracies can have unfettered discretion which is maybe putting it in the negative, but I think is a subtle variation on it. I am not here to pass comment on the operation of the States of Jersey Government. What I am here to say is that everybody has rights. If what we are saying is that a chief officer of police, and in the case of Mr. Power, can simply be suspended and possibly sacked without due process that is very unsatisfactory.

Mr. M. Pinel:
Could I just interject, Minister, with my H.R. hat on? Having been the officer who was involved in Mr. Power’s original appointment back in 2000, I can confirm that the disciplinary code was issued to Mr. Power as part of his contract of employment and I would say that it is contractually binding on the States.

Dr. T. Brain:
I think that is most helpful.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
So then effectively under 9(i). That is helpful, thank you. Nevertheless, at the end of the day I think we would agree that I am going to have to decide what the 2.3.3 paragraph means in the context of the statutory provisions, is that not right?

Dr. T. Brain:I think you do have to decide that. I am trying to find a way of being more helpful to enable you to make that decision. I think it is difficult for us and I am not seeking to be obtuse on the issue to envisage what “more serious circumstances” are without further guidance on the issue from the code itself. It is very open-ended, but I think the word we have to concentrate on here is “serious” and that goes back to the issues that are raised in the letter of 12th November, but they do have to be raised in context. While these issues could be serious, we have to then say is it possible still for Mr. Power to have been given the opportunity to consider addressing them because while there are matters that have been raised here they are capable of explanation? Certainly they are capable of being placed in context. I do not wish to put all of the matters of what would properly be the investigation of potentially a hearing, but we do have to consider where some of the things that are fully applicable in a U.K. context relate to the circumstances of Jersey and the investigations which are under consideration. All of these matters here are capable of an explanation had the opportunity been given to provide that explanation and maybe any misunderstandings could have been cleared up at that point. Of course, what we had was a presentation which raised these issues of Mr. Power so in effect what we had was an accusation and a trial without a hearing and that amounts to lack of due process, lack of compliance with the code and I think, more crucially a failure to comply with human rights. Accusations were made; they were not made to Mr. Power and he was given no effective opportunity of answering them. These were management issues. These are not issues of personal misconduct. These are management issues and they are capable of a management explanation which could have been given and for which there was no opportunity to give. Can I just pause for a moment, because I have been talking for a long time? Issues have been raised and we are very happy that you raise these and we explore them in depth, but could I just take the opportunity to pause and just consult with Mr. Power for one moment?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Please do because my next question (I am trying to operate within the structure of my letter of 30th January) and it is right that you speak to Mr. Power about it at this point, is whether that concluded your submissions in relation to what I have categorised here of the relationship of the disciplinary code and the Police Force Law to my review and its procedure.

Dr. T. Brain:I am conscious that Graham has not interjected so I must be going along the right lines, but I think that is a very relevant point to take time and clarify that issue. Thank you very much.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Okay, thank you.

ADJOURNMENT
Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
We had a short break so that you could consider whether there were further matters you wanted to submit in relation to the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of my letter of 30th January and also to check that Mr. Power was happy with the submissions you had made.

Dr. T. Brain:
Thank you for that summary. Yes, there are 2 points that we would like to make. The first is that the document, the code, raised the doctrine of legitimate expectation, in other words what would a reasonable person expect from this document. The legitimate expectation that has been raised is that there would be some form of preliminary investigation and discussion, the reasonable person would so conclude. The second point made is that in Jersey, and I bow to everyone else in the room here, you follow Jersey law and procedures, but where local laws and procedures are unclear or absent then you quite usefully look for guidance in comparable jurisdictions. Here I can help. In England and Wales the chief executive to a police authority does indeed have the role of conducting a preliminary investigation in the event of a complaint being made and indeed to either not proceed with it at that point because it does not meet the technical requirements of a complaint or to seek dispensation from the Independent Police Complaints Commission to absolve the authority from an investigation. Should the Home Secretary be seeking to exercise his powers under section 42 of the Police Act 1996 to retire a Chief Constable in the interests of effectiveness and efficiency the Home Secretary (even the Home Secretary) must comply with the protocol both in respect of the suspension, which is very detailed, and with respect to the hearing that would follow. The process allows for the opportunity to put things right first. So if we look at the rights of legitimate expectation these were properly raised and could have been expected and indeed, as Mr. Pinel has helpfully explained, were part of the terms and conditions of appointment. In terms of using a precedent from elsewhere then the clerk, the chief executive, in a police authority in England and Wales has the ability to conduct preliminary investigation and section 42 does indeed fetter the discretion of the Home Secretary before an officer can be suspended.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
This is referred to somewhere in the bundle to do with the application for leave for future appeal I think. I have certainly read something somewhere which contains the section of the statute. There is a section 27, is there not?

Mr. M. Pinel:
The page numbers are 37 to 50.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I have paragraph 17 to 33 in which it seems to be suspension.

Mr. M. Pinel:Yes.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Thank you for that. Can we go to (f) which is paginated; it is page 44, paragraph 17 to 33. Can I just press you on this?

Dr. T. Brain:
I have the protocol in front of me. Could I ask you to repeat the page number?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:It is paginated at the bottom, by hand on my copy, as page 44.

Dr. T. Brain:And the paragraph number?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Paragraph 17 to 23. Can I just press you on this submission? I think it is not that you are saying that this applies directly, because obviously this is a provision of a foreign statute in the terms of private international law; it is a U.K. statute. It is that you are asking me to look to U.K. principles, I suppose, as guidance in the absence of clear principles in Jersey, is that right?

Dr. T. Brain:
Certainly in absence of the kind of detailed principles that are set out in the various matters that deal with the suspension and investigation of chief officers. Clear distinctions are drawn in England and Wales which are less clear in this document, the code of practice that we are talking about today. The clear distinctions are between suspension for misconduct and a process that may result in suspension for management failings. The 2 are quite separate and trying to explore the discussion that you opened around “more serious circumstances”, I believe it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the “more serious circumstances” in 2.3.3 relate to issues
of personal misconduct, for example the commission of a crime, the interference with an investigation, misconduct with respect to a member of staff, more serious matters that would result in a criminal investigation and possibly a criminal conviction. Those I offer as a set of circumstances that are more serious. What we have in the circumstances we are describing here, if they amount to anything, relate to management issues that, while in themselves are of concern, are capable of being answered and had the preliminary investigation been concluded and had the discussion that the code allows for taken place they may have been answered. We have not been able to get to that position because the events of 12th November conflated all those purposes. What I am saying is that what you have in England and Wales is that clear blue water between misconduct around personal misconduct, alleged personal breaches of discipline, alleged criminal conduct and strategic management issues. They are distinguished in the England and Wales examples. I hope that helps you also move to what we might consider a greater understanding of the circumstances of 2.3.3 and will only say from our perspective that we are not in a position to articulate what might be more serious circumstances because these were not fully articulated in the circumstances of 12th November.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I understand that. You still do not know so I understand that. That probably dealt with your submissions in relation to the first part of the first part, if I can put it that way. In the first part: “I look forward to the opportunity to make representation in writing or in person as you prefer about the relationship of the disciplinary code and the Police Force Law to my review and its procedure.” I think we have probably got to the end of that.

Dr. T. Brain:
I will have an observation to make around the use of language of 12th November. I would like to put that submission in at the appropriate place in the way you are conducting matters now. I would not want to take you off on another direction, but if I can just give you an indication of what that would be and then you can tell me whether it is right to raise it now or later, and that is the use of the term “consider your position”. After what appears to have been a 20-30 minute interview, Mr. Power was given the opportunity to consider his position. It is our understanding that this may be interpreted as in some way suggesting that he had the opportunity to respond to the matters that had been raised. I think in fairness an hour to do that is wholly inadequate in any circumstances, but particularly not having full details and not being given the opportunity to consult with a representative. The observation that I have to make is the use of the term “consider your position” is a well-understood euphemism for being asked to resign. That is the observation about the use of that language that I would want to make. I am more than happy to develop that in more detail now, but I will want to make an observation about that before we conclude.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I am not sure we can go down that route because that is back into the area which right at the outset I indicated I was not going to look at.

Dr. T. Brain:
Well, apart from the fact, Minister, that it gave Mr. Power no room for manoeuvre to respond. He has been told to take it or leave it.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:I understand well Mr. Power’s concerns in relation to the initial procedure, and they are well documented in the judicial review document, but, as I say, that is not an area that I want to look at today. Can I then look on in this because the way I had structured this was so that at some point I would start making decisions so that we would all know where we were going in terms of this. There is an issue as to whether I should break at this point to start making decisions or whether we can just carry on in terms of submissions so I will try to make 2 sets of decisions at the same time. Depending upon decisions I make, of course, the next sentence may or may not come into play. I will also give you the opportunity at this point to make representations about which documents or other information I should have before me in making my decision as to whether or not to continue your suspension because if I find that I could not properly suspend under the code until hearings have taken place then obviously I am going to find in favour of Mr. Power. If, on the other hand, I find that 2.3.3 has a life of its own, as it were (I am saying that in general terms rather in a specific sense), then of course one might move on in a different direction. So it is clear I have to make decisions in relation to the status of 2.3.3 and the interaction with that, which is what I said in the letter. If one looks down to the next paragraph of my letter, the next sentence then goes to deal with documents and other information and that is a separate issue. If we get to that point there are issues that need to be canvassed, but cannot realistically be canvassed until such time as I have made decisions in principle on the matter so far. Then we have in the second part of the review which may, depending on the outcome of the first part, take place on such an occasion immediately after the first part (“I look forward to the opportunity to make representations to be either in person or in writing as you wish”) as to the criteria which should govern my decision. In fact, you have started making submissions on that and what I wanted to canvass with you is do you want to carry on making submissions on that at this stage or not? I suppose I could hypothetically make decisions as to what the criteria are for me to follow if I get that far or if you prefer if I now adjourn for lunch and also to consider
my decisions on the submissions which are under the first part.

Dr. T. Brain:I think it would be helpful to break at this point and consider the first part because clearly we do view this as a continuum, but there is a stage in that continuum and if we are going to have to make representations as to why Graham should remain suspended it is helpful to have that initial consideration first. Having said that, I did hear a sharp intake of breath there so, Graham, you might want to say something.

Mr. G. Power:
No, I think that is fine. I think a time to break to discuss our position is good.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Yes, okay. Should we adjourn now? I am going to need to have some lunch. It is now just after 1.15 p.m. I am also going to need to consider the points that you have made and if I am able to give a decision on these issues then I will do so, although in an ideal world I would probably prefer to do those in writing. I may find myself able to do so verbally talking from notes, but we will see. It depends how complicated it gets in relation to that. Can I just check timeframes with you?

Dr. T. Brain:Yes, I have to fly out at 5.10 p.m. and I need to obviously be at the airport half an hour before that otherwise I have an impromptu weekend in Jersey which is not partof the timetable. So I have to be at the airport no later than 4.40 p.m.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Shall we adjourn to 2.30 p.m? It gives me a little time to have some lunch. It gives me time to consider the decision, seeing if I can reduce that into writing or whether I am able to communicate it verbally in which case I would follow up with something in writing.

Dr. T. Brain:
I am only just making sure that we have complete clarity here: this is on the first part? We would obviously then make observations depending on the outcome, should it be necessary, as to why a suspension is no longer, from our perspective, necessary as distinct from it was improper in the first place. We understand that is what we are resuming to do after 2.30 p.m.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
That is correct. This is purely on the first part of the first sentence of the first part in the fourth paragraph of my letter.

Dr. T. Brain:
Thank you, and can I thank you for the diligence with which you have conducted the first part of these proceedings.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes, that is all right and thank you for your presentation. I have tried to give you every opportunity to make submissions on other views or other possible views.

Dr. T. Brain:
I have no complaints at all about the way the ...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
At the end of the day, although I have received legal advice, I am going to make my own decision, as you would expect.

Dr. T. Brain:
Of course, thank you.

ADJOURNMENT

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:It is now just after 2.50 p.m. I am going to give a preliminary decision in relation to the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of my letter. I am sorry I have taken longer than I anticipate, but because I decided to attempt to deliver this verbally so we can go on and possibly look at other matters, I have to be more careful about wording than I would have been if I had a written text just to read out. I have to first make a decision about the relationship of the disciplinary code and the Police Force Law to the review and its procedure. Article 9(i) of the Police Force(Jersey) Law 1974 says: “The Chief Officer should be appointed by the States on such terms as to salary and conditions of service as the States Employment Board may from time to time determine.” Here is part of the employment package that was given to Mr. Power, that there was agreed a disciplinary code of conduct for the Chief Officer of Police. That has, in my view, become part of the conditions of service of the Chief Officer. I mentioned in passing that the code referred to the Home Affairs Committee and that has subsequently by operation of law become the Minister. That point was not in fact taken today, but I would have found that happened by operation of law because when ministerial government came in every reference in every agreement or document to “committee” becomes to “Minister”. However, Article 9(ii) reads: “The Chief Officer may be suspended from office by the Minister which shall refer the matter to the States at the next sitting and may be dismissed from office by the States.” There are before me issues in relation to the meaning of this code and the relation to the interaction of the code and the law. It is, I believe, common ground that the code was not well drafted. However, notwithstanding that, I have to seek to determine what it means, looking both at it and at the underlying law. Again, I quote various different sections. Firstly, section 1 is headed “Application principles” and it starts: “1.1 In the normal course of events the Home Affairs Minister will raise and attempt to resolve issues arisingwhich concern performance and conduct with the exception of the Chief Officer on a personal basis. Procedures described in this code will be used only where such efforts to resolve problems arising have failed.” Now, the complaint of Mr. Power (I am going to say complaint of Mr. Power although Dr. Brain was speaking on his behalf today as his representative) is that the disciplinary action has been taken without going through the provisions of section 1.1, in other words that section 1.1 has been bypassed and there has been no attempt at formal resolution and that, therefore, that is incorrect particularly because of the last sentence: “The procedures described in this code will be used only where such efforts to resolve problems arising have failed.”The next section is section 2 and section 2.1, the start of the preliminary investigations, and 2.1(i) reads as follows: “If circumstances arise where the Home Affairs Minister considers it justified he will notify in writing the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers of any complaints relating to the discipline and performance capability against the Chief Officer. A copy of this letter will be given to the Chief Officer. At the discretion of the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers there may be a meeting between the Home Affairs Minister and the Chief Officer will determine the requirement for the complaints to be pursued.” 2.1(ii): “In the event a complaint is pursued by the Home Affairs Minister a preliminary investigation will be undertaken by the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers to establish the relevant facts. Facts will include statements from available witnesses and the Chief Officer. Following the investigation, the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers will produce a written report which will be given to the Home Affairs Minister and the Chief Officer. The results of a preliminary investigation will be discussed by the Home Affairs Minister and the Chief Officer and Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers.” The second complaint of Mr. Power is that procedure has not been followed through either in a sense that no preliminary investigation has ever taken place and here, through Dr. Brain, has sought to distinguish with the concept of a preliminary investigation and the concept of a substantive investigation as if there were 2 stages of investigation. Now, I cannot see that is so and indeed I asked Dr. Brain to indicate to me where there were indications within the document itself that made this differentiation. If one looks at the section itself, of the longer section which I read out at 2.1.2, it appears to me that a matter which involves statements being taken from available witnesses and the Chief Officer, that kind of matter is in fact in itself that which Mr. Power is seeking to categorise as a substantive investigation. In short, what I am saying is that there are not 2 stages of the investigation, there is one, and that the preliminary investigation is of a substantial nature, if I may put it that way. Section 2.3 is headed: “Continued or serious breach of discipline/poor performance/capability” and that starts at section 2.3.1 in relation to a more serious situation and that can arise in 2 different ways, either by virtue of there being a more serious breach of discipline/poor performance/capability or by virtue of a second complaint, as it were, in relation to the same matter which has not been put right. The procedure which then follows includes number 2.3.2, the provision of notice of a hearing, full particulars of the complaint, a statement of rights under the procedures and details of procedure for the hearing. One of Mr. Power’s complaints again today was that he had not been given full particulars of the complaint but merely a general statement that it was an investigation in relation to management of the historic abuse inquiry. I note, of course, that in fact, even under the document as it is headed here, full particulars only come in when the matter is clearly heading towards a full hearing and not at an earlier stage. That is what I construe at 2.3.2. Then the next section is 2.3.3. This is the core of what I have to decide today and I note first of all that it is inserted between 2.3.1. and 2.3.2 and 2.3.4. In other words, it is inserted before the provisions in relation to a full hearing which is evidence, statements or whatever. Of course, its very terms by virtue of reference back to Article 9, reference to the matter of referral to the States of Jersey which is included in Article 9(2), indicates that this is so attached in this document to tie in the rest of the code with the provisions of Article 9(2) of the law and provides a unified system. The question which arises is as to whether this is a power and provision which can only be applied after the previous full procedure has been followed or whether it exists in its own right in more serous
circumstances. In other words, is this something that requires to have gone through the stage of preliminary investigation and heading towards a full hearing or can it happen in its own right and independently? Frankly that is the point that I really need to decide today. Now, it is clear to me that there must be circumstances of such seriousness that suspension is warranted prior to any of the other provisions having come into place. It would be extraordinary to find otherwise and I can take extreme examples of this which, of course, do not apply in this case. I want to make it clear that they do not apply in this case, but I can take extreme examples of dishonesty or serious criminal misconduct. In such cases it would be absolutely obvious and it would be nonsense to say that one has to go through all the preliminary stages before a decision on suspension could be made. Indeed in such cases emergency suspension could be the only reasonable way forward. The normal principles of personal resolution of a disagreement or intervention of the chief executive, or of a preliminary investigation as I have categorised it, followed by a hearing simply does not apply. I will comment in passing that 1.1 is not very well drafted but that the essence of it is the starting words: “In the normal course of events.” I construe the final sentence of that procedure described in this code in the context of those words and not as any sense overriding 2.3.3. However, the question arises as to how serious and what type of issue would be sufficient to warrant a 2.3.3 intervention without going through the other procedures. Mr. Power is suggesting it could only be if there was personal misconduct, any of these examples I have already given would be examples of personal misconduct, rather than management failure. There is nothing in the document here and nothing in the statute to help him in relation to that, or indeed to help me in relation to that, except this. The very section in which 2.3.3 is found is headed: “Continued or serious breach of discipline/poor performance/capability.” In other words, it does not seek to distinguish between personal misconduct and professional failures of management. I have no doubt that a matter of very poor performance/capability could be sufficiently serious in its own right to fall within 2.3.3. I mention in passing that today Mr. Power through Dr. Brain has sought to put before me matters of alleged failure in relation to the original procedure in relation to the suspension, that kind of thing, lack of notice that it was going to happen, lack of opportunities to address the Minister, et cetera. Of course these are matters which are already subject to judicial review. I have declined to judge these matters today. They are subject to the judicial review application but I have also taken a view that even if hypothetically Mr. Power was correct I would still have to keep up with the present review which I am conducting in order to determine whether he should be suspended pending the results of the current investigation. Of course that review I am seeking to conduct fairly and impartially, because I can. So to summarise, my position is that 2.3.3 is capable of standing on its own without going through the other procedures. If the allegation or circumstances are sufficiently serious and if other factors are present it would warrant a suspension, which of course I have not been addressed on. Thank you, gentlemen, for listening patiently to that. I think that we can now go in 2 different directions, although the time is starting to catch up on us. Can I make a suggestion of what I think is going to be the most useful use of our time? I think it would be most useful if we could address the issue of documents or other information I should have before making my decision. Already Dr. Brain has made some
submissions in relation to criteria which should govern my decision, which I have not dealt with in the decision that I have made, because I must confine myself to a very specific decision, but I suspect that the most urgent issue for us to address is the issue of documents and other matters. It is clear that the hearing is going to be continued on another day and it is right and proper to have that because yourself and Mr. Power need to have notice of whatever documents and materials are going to be put before me on that occasion.

Dr. T. Brain:

Yes, it would be helpful to have that.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

You must have them. It is essential in my view.

Dr. T. Brain:If that is to be the case, I propose that we do not continue at this point but adjourn until we have got a full disclosure of documentation.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Can I just explain what the problem is? There is a problem which I need to canvass with you, otherwise we are going to come back on 3 occasions or more. You do not know what the problem is; I do know what the problem is. In terms of initial documentation, my understanding is that the former Home Affairs Minister had before him essentially 2 things, although he also had been privy to briefings which I have not been privy to and to avoid it being privy to you. You will understand that one of the reasons why you have not been getting rapid responses from me was that the advice I was getting, both from the Solicitor General and from Human Resources, was that I should as far as possible distance myself from the arbitrary matters and the other disputes about disclosure and so on, so that I could be entirely independent. It has been made more difficult by the judicial review proceedings in which I am a party but I am still trying to maintain a professional distance as it were. So there are 2 documents. There is firstly a report written by the Deputy Police Chief. Now I think that it is generally accepted it is essential that you see that. I thought that was going to be disclosed anyway in the context of the judicial review and that, as you have gathered, I thought it had been, although I have misunderstood the position. That is essentially, but there may be some issues and Mr. Pinel may be able to help here of confidentiality and so on, and one of the concerns that I have in relation to proceedings, if I may be absolutely straight about it, is that I have tried as far as I have been able to, despite the efforts of politicians to ask me questions in the House repeatedly in this area, keep to the terms of the confidentiality clause. Unfortunately material has been getting into the public arena in relation to the proceedings which have not been coming from me or from any of my advisors, therefore I must assume has been coming from people with whom Mr. Power has confided. Now, I know there was a special difficulty in relation to the States hearing, I am well aware of the difficulties there, but I think I have to make it clear that if documents are going to be provided they must be provided on a strictly confidential basis to Mr. Power and to yourself and not be shared with other parties. We cannot have them appearing on blog sites or things of that nature.

Dr. T. Brain:If I may, I trust, Minister, I did not infer but I think it is capable of being inferred that you thought I have released these documents?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:No, I did not say that.

Dr. T. Brain:Well, can I have this for the record?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Yes. There is no suggestion.

Dr. T. Brain:Thank you for clarifying that.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:If I can make it plain, the problem arose by the political route. The matter came up for debate in the States --

Dr. T. Brain:
That is as it may be.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:-- that copies of documents were available. Now, that was a particular situation which within the political ambit I accept happened, but obviously we cannot have a situation where Mr. Power is going to be providing them to his political advisors who are going to be using them in States debates.

Dr. T. Brain:Of course I am not a political advisor. I have the advantage of not being in that situation.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:I mean the point ...

Mr. G. Power:I understand the point. Again for the record, I am not conscious that I have released anything into the public domain at all, in fact I am sure that I have not. But I do have a problem and the problem is that I am not legally represented, I cannot offer you a single point of confidential contact that I would be able to offer you if I was represented and accordingly I need to take advice from whoever will offer it for free. That is the position I am in and that means that my circle of contacts and the people I consult with is greater than it would be in other circumstances. That is just a reality.

Dr. T. Brain:
I think if perhaps we can move on.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
We have that document which clearly ...

Dr. T. Brain:Sorry, I am relating to this document. When I say “move on” I do not wish to ... you have heard what Mr. Power has said and you have heard what I have said in respect of any disclosures we have made to anybody, so if we can just move on from that basis to discuss the disclosure of the document that you are now talking about. I think we need to just discuss this for a moment, because I am not a qualified legal practitioner here in Jersey, nor in England and Wales. Mr. Power is not represented. We do need, though, to have the capability of taking professional legal advice if we can and so we understand that, of course, legal practitioners, whether here or in England and Wales, are bound by their own professional codes of conduct and therefore the only caveat which I wish to consider discussing with you now and I enter into the basis of discussion at this point, not a submission, is that we should be allowed to get legal advice if that is available to us. Up until now it has not been available through the representative route of the staff association, but clearly I might want to look at whatever we are going to look at in a moment with professional legal advice. I am simply saying that under those circumstances confidentiality is between Mr. Power, myself and his legal advisor, should one be appointed.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Of course. Of course that must be so.

Dr. T. Brain:Thank you very much.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
But there are assumptions which I have, as a lawyer of 30 years’ standing, which I am sorry, but that is absolutely right, but I am just concerned that there is going to be confidential ... and I am going to move on to another document in a moment which is very, very confidential and where any leaking of that document to the public sector would be a very serious matter indeed. Okay. So the second area which is not a problem because it is in the public domain anyway, which I have not seen yet but we have available also, is the briefing notes in relation to the presentation that took place in November. I have not yet seen those, they were meant to be provided to me but I have not seen them yet. Those are in the public domain anyway so there is no problem with those.

Mr. G. Power:
I know nothing about them.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
But you should have them.

Mr. G. Power:
Is it the presentation of Ministers?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:No, this was the press presentation in relation to ...

Mr. G. Power:
I do not have those.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Well, you must do and there is no difficulty with those.

Dr. T. Brain:

The press presentation given by David Walker plus the script that David followed, those are in the public domain and there is no problem.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:There is no issue with those, but we must make sure you get those. This is the sensitive area. The sensitive area is that in his letter which you have not seen Mr. Walker makes reference partly to the Metropolitan Police report of which you are both aware. I have not seen that report, and indeed the previous Minister did not see that report, and the reason for that is because that report contains highly sensitive information regarding individual cases, naming potential offenders, victims, et cetera et cetera. Now my advisors do not want me to see that report because of that sort of sensitive information but I am aware that because reference has been made to it in Mr. Walker's letter that it not unreasonable that Mr. Power or yourself or some representatives, which in this case might not include lawyers because of the very sensitive area, be able to see the report and to check that in fact that which has been quoted from it has been accurately quoted. This is sensitive because even my own advisors do not want me to see it, I believe for good reasons, because I am not an operational police officer and I am the Home Affairs Minister. What we have been looking at, and this has again been a reason which has slightly delayed the responses in other matters, is mechanisms for dealing with the difficulty of it containing information which frankly is not relevant directly because only the information which
is referred to by Mr. Walker in his letter is really relevant. So what we have been looking at is different possibilities which are canvassed for you now to try and get around the difficulty. One of the difficulties is to try and persuade the Metropolitan Police to produce a redacted, reduced version of the report which would only effectively make reference to the matters which related to management structures and so on, and not to individual cases. But I am not sure whether they are going to agree to do that because there is a second difficulty which I will be absolutely open with you about, which is this, and it is a relationship issue in relation to the States of Jersey
Police and the Metropolitan Police who are not entirely happy that a report was produced for a particular purpose and is now going to be involved for a different purpose. But let me see if I can ... if it was not referred to in the letters it would not be in play at all.

Dr. T. Brain:Thank you.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:It is because it is referred to that it is only right and fair that you have the opportunity to check that the references are fair and reasonable.

Dr. T. Brain:
Thank you. If I can try to help. No, no, I am trying to help. I think as far as and I literally mean “I am concerned” I would only be happy with a redacted version. I would not want there to be any suggestion that a name has inadvertently got into the public domain through this source. Now, I think it is slightly different for Mr. Power in that he is in situ here and it is a matter for his choice, but I think I would only wish to see a redacted version. It is of course very difficult to make a judgment about the value of a redacted version in advance of not seeing that. I think it is fair to say that should I think that having read it in the context of what we are talking about today, not in the context of the ultimate investigation and any hearing, that I cannot at first hearing think about the value of an unredacted version, if that is of assistance to you. The fact that it was A or B or C is not relevant to the question of management oversight.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I think that is right.

Dr. T. Brain:
So if that helps you in respect of the document to which you are referring it would certainly help me because I do not wish to have the burden of being given an oversensitive document in these circumstances, and that would then be quite clear that a name did not get into the public domain from this source. But I would go one stage further, that I am not sure that that is crucial to considering the question of the management issues at the point we are talking about now. It may - and I am not seeking to prejudge the outcome of that - become relevant as we move through the stages of the investigation, but if we are talking about a review of suspension, its continued relevancy, its continued propriety, then I am not sure that knowing what A, B, or C did at this stage is relevant to me. It could possibly be to Mr. Power and I will leave him to speak for himself at this point because the only reason I say it is because he might say: “There is a name here that links with another name and this has an outcome.” So I am not seeking to prejudge what his view might be but I will let him advise me on that.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:I do not think that will happen but, okay, can I suggest a way forward, having indicated the problem to you? I think what we have to do is to dispose of the other 2 documents, the letter of Mr. Walker and the other document which is in the public
sector anyway. We then basically will seek to get a redacted version which only deals with the relevant areas of text references. If we can get that done all well and good. If we cannot get that done by the Metropolitan Police because they refuse to co-operate with the process then I think it is going to have to be done by some third party which is difficult at the moment to see who. The alternative, of course, is simply to allow Mr. Power to have access to the document which he would probably need to have anyway if there was a redacted version, so that he could satisfy himself that the report did say the things which Mr. Walker says it says.

Dr. T. Brain:The only difficulty with the latter course of advice is Mr. Power is entitled to receive advice and representation and consequently he would have every reasonable expectation of being able to discuss his findings with either a legal representative, which seems unlikely because one cannot be obtained within his means, or with me. I have already stated my own opinion about the necessity of receiving specific details from individuals which will mean absolutely nothing to me and I do not believe be of help in determining the issues that are relevant to the circumstances.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:I am fairly relaxed about that because Mr. Power is still the Police Chief and he is still bound by confidentiality in consideration of which is quite well known and he will be well aware in relation to that. But can we try and get a redacted version? If we get a redacted version then we will disclose it subject to ...

Dr. T. Brain:
You obviously saw that we did not have time for a consultation and I gave my opinion. I am just checking with Graham that he is content that we work on the basis of a redacted version from this point onwards?

Mr. G. Power:Yes, that is okay.

Dr. T. Brain:So if that assists in ...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
That is very helpful. Because I do not want to sift through the detail either, it is best if I do not. The trouble is Jersey is a small place and what might be known to some party or other ...

Dr. T. Brain:
Just to clarify one further point. We did say that we might be in a position, and I do not think we will be, to seek some legal advice on this particular stage of proceedings. Before we would do that I would think that we would notify you that we were moving to that process and with whom the representative, the advocate or the legal representative in England and Wales would be so that this would not be something that would move to a legal representative without your knowledge. It is not about seeking permission but it is about just due notice so that you know the stage of
disclosure which is reached and with whom. I think that would be reasonable.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
That is right. I, in the meanwhile, will have to get advice from my own advisors on what we should be seeking in terms of assurances on confidentiality and things like that. We are talking openly but do you understand, because I am a Minister I have to have advice? I do not always take the advice, but I have to receive it.

Dr. T. Brain:
We are not in any way quibbling with that proposition.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Okay. Now the other issue is this: what else should I have before me, because at the moment there are no other reports other than the interim report from the Metropolitan Police? There is nothing else at this stage in time. What would you want to put before me? Clearly I do not want to be conducting a full hearing with evidence and I do not think you are urging me to do that from our discussion, but having seen the thing it is right and proper that I should be able to put in some sort of written rebuttal or whatever which I can consider alongside.

Dr. T. Brain:Yes, you are absolutely right, I think we have to all be careful here and I sought to do this today, not get into a preliminary hearing before there has been a preliminary investigation, so I think that is undesirable at several levels. So I think this is ... again we are discussing these points. We should endeavour mutually to restrict ourselves to the issues at stake for the purposes of the review, although the question of seriousness is --

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
A matter for observation.

Dr. T. Brain:
-- still in play.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Indeed the question of criteria, although you started talking about the criteria is still in play.

Dr. T. Brain:
I think what you said there is a very helpful suggestion. I think this gives us the opportunity in view of your observations around the process and submissions so far. To enable us to ensure that you have the full documentation that we consider relevant we would need some time to consider that but I think what I would suggest is that we receive the documentation that you have been referring to, we have time to absorb it, we have time to consider how we then resubmit for the remaining considerations. That may include some of the documentation that we have referred to already. We have alluded to various practices and procedures elsewhere that may be helpful. It will be a matter ... I have to say in advance, all of these things are available but they might be relevant and helpful to you.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
That is fine. Of course one of the difficulties I have is that I have only within the documents that we will be looking at, will still only have preliminary stuff until there is a report or whatever I have nothing more than preliminary things.

Dr. T. Brain:Of course. We are all labouring under that problem.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
We do not even have them.

Dr. T. Brain:I mean clearly there are ... sorry.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I have not had access to a mass of information, in fact.

Dr. T. Brain:
No, and nor would we, I think, feel that that is relevant to this morning’s and this afternoon’s proceedings, because we are talking about an administrative review of suspension, whether that suspension should be continued, in our view whether it was lawful and appropriate in the first place, but whatever our view of that is we have reached a position now of whether that suspension should be continued and we do not want to get into, any of us I think, trying aspects of the case properly reserved for other parts of the procedure.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes, okay, I am happy with that.

Dr. T. Brain:
So I would like to just, if I may, take a couple of minutes with Graham and then we will come back and determine from our perspective the next steps. So we will be a few moments.

ADJOURNMENT

Dr. T. Brain:First of all, thank you very much for your very full explanation as to why you have come to the conclusion that you have and, secondly, thank you for the offer of further documentation, subject to the steps and processes that we discussed earlier. I am very grateful for that. Having said that, while thanking you for your very full disclosure of your findings, I am sure it will come as no surprise to you that we still disagree with them and they may be subject to further process, but we are not going to make further representations about that today.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:I accept that. Part of the process that I have been doing is trying to set things out very clearly and carefully should you wish to judicially review the matters. It assists the court and is part of the reason for the tape recording.

Dr. T. Brain:Thank you. In a sense of mutual exchange of documentation, we did say that we will be considering what other documents may be helpful for your deliberations, but I think there is some documentation that you should be aware of in the short term and may be of help to you in that time, and that is referred to on page 3 of Mr. Power’s letter of 12th February and it is the penultimate paragraph that commences: “You might wish ...” I will just wait for you to have that paragraph in front of you, page 3, the last but one paragraph: “You might wish ...” I will read it anyway: “You might wish to be satisfied that appropriate steps were taken to address the skill gap at the relevant time and in this respect you may wish to consider the role of senior experts
recommended by the Association of Chief Police Officers who provided their consultancy service for the investigation and produced detailed reports and advice. My recollection is that these reports contain positive comment on the extent to which the recommended actions were being followed. I do not recall if the reports covered the extent to which these experts gave direct briefings to Ministers but if this is doubted I am sure that those in office at the time will recall that this happened on a regular basis.” The point is that this is not the report or briefing that triggered the events of 12th November. These are other reports by A.C.P.O. (Association of Chief Police Officers) experts and the chief of which was André Baker who heads the A.C.P.O. Homicide Working Group and we would commend your attention to those reports. We think there are at least 3, there may be more, and I am afraid we are not in a position to be specific on that but I am sure some inquiries with States of Jersey Police will clarify that matter. I think we have just 2 more observations to make for today and, as it were, for the record. The first is that Mr. Power has now been suspended for 3 months and, to put it simply, nothing has happened. This is the first move that we have seen in respect of the investigation. We are grateful as I said right at the start of this proceedings, that you, Minister, have initiated the review process. We understand your desire that you are fully briefed and advised and that is not subject to any criticism from us, but what is subject to a great deal of concern is that Mr. Power has been suspended for 3 months and that there has been no activity in respect to providing him with further notice of the detailed concerns with respect to his conduct or the opportunity for him to clear his name. The second point is that in respect of the continued suspension - and we leave this as a hanging indent for further consideration - the burden of proof for continued suspension rests with the suspending authority. Now we will take the opportunity to make further submissions. There were submissions that we could have made today in respect to continuing the suspension but you have helpfully indicated that those submissions will be aided by the further documentation that you have decided to make available to us and obviously we would want to give those documents full consideration before finalising our submissions. So, in essence, we are disappointed that we cannot resolve the matter of suspension today but we are grateful that this matter has been given a very full consideration by yourself and I hope you will view the submissions that we have made to be helpful in that detailed consideration, but we now do need to take time to look at the further documentation and submit our final views on the validity of
continuing suspension after considering those documents.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Okay, that is fine. Thank you very much. I think that is probably as far as we can go today.

Dr. T. Brain:I think it is, Minister.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Obviously I will be in touch or my representatives will be in touch, we will be seeking to fix a date for continuation as soon as everybody has had time to consider the matters.

Dr. T. Brain:Yes. Just an observation of practicality about that. I am sure you are very well aware, given the high office that you hold, that being Chief Constable of a force in England and Wales is a busy job and I do not have the luxury of a clear diary, I think, between now and the end of June, but we will set that to one side. I will do my utmost endeavour to make time available and we have been very fortunate today to get me in and out in a day. In the event of that not proving possible, I would hope that we perhaps can make conference either phone or better still video facilities available. That will enable me to represent Mr. Power remotely. I in no way view that as a satisfactory arrangement but I think it just may be the best we can do in the circumstances and certainly I would not want to delay consideration of the continued suspension just simply to find the date that we could clear in the diary. Of course, if we can clear the date we know it is at least feasible for me to fly in and out in a day.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

My situation is that after 2 months which were absolutely manic coming in as a new politician, although very experienced in the public sector, a new Minister at the same time as under our very interesting Jersey political system we do the strategic plan for the next 3 years, the same time as we are learning our own departments, but things are starting to clear, hence I was able to offer 2 days, in fact I had 2 days in the week before, so I will make myself available at whatever dates suit.

Dr. T. Brain:I am sure we can work around it, I notice that there is a conference phone in front of us which is I think we are halfway there, but I think if we can have video conferencing that would be preferable.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:I think somebody has those provisions because it is something that has happened with the Court of Appeal judges, they have delivered judgments. I think the Judicial Greffe may have.

Mr. M. Pinel:Yes, I have done a video conference here in the States, but I will check on that.

Dr. T. Brain:That would be our first preference because obviously it is handy to be able to do as we have just done, just move out for 5 minutes and chat and all of those sorts of things, but as I say the object of the exercise is not to cause a delay for you or Mr. Power.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Yes. In terms of the press they will be pursuing me, and no doubt Mr. Power, and I will simply say that the hearing started today has been adjourned on to another day.

Dr. T. Brain:That is all we will say. That is all we will say, and I have already indicated, because the B.B.C. (British Broadcasting Corporation) did ask me for a statement, and I said that we would only consider a statement in the light of the outcome of today. We do not have an outcome after today and, while I appreciate you have made your views clear on the first part of this, I do not view that ... this is a continuing process, not a 2-part process.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Absolutely. It will not affect the technical issues anyway.

Dr. T. Brain:
No, so we will all be saying the same thing.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Thank you very much.

Dr. T. Brain:Thank you.(END)

Regular readers will be aware that we published these transcripts back in March 2010 and it is a damming indictment on Ian Le Marquand and the entire Jersey administration that they are as relevant today as they were back then.

For the benefit of the current Police Chief, Mike Bowron, you can't say you haven't been warned.

Voice For Victims

2012-02-18T16:53:00.001Z

From the Guernsey Evening Press.

Why Voice For Victims needs your support…

Saturday 18th February 2012, 2:30PM GMT.

GUERNSEY’S Court of Appeal has again reduced the sentences handed out to two local men convicted of paedophile-related offences.

Unlike the earlier – and more significant – cuts the same court applied last summer to former hotel manager Mark Gunter’s jail term, the seven judges have not explained why they believe men who seek out vilely indecent images of children deserve a softer sentence.

They may do so in a written judgement and the panel of seven may also take steps to clarify what sentencing options local courts actually have in the wake of the Gunter case, which dropped a 15-month term to just three.

From yesterday’s outcome, that is likely to be along the lines of saying Guernsey can have a deterrent sentencing policy – as long as it’s not too painful for the perpetrators.

If so, and with respect to the court, that is not good enough.

As an appeal judge, the Bailiff has already drawn attention to the public outcry that greeted Gunter virtually being let off for a crime many here view as being at the top end of the spectrum of awfulness.

Three months for looking at small children being maimed, tortured and abused in the most sexually depraved fashion but mega years for a bit of spliff…

It makes no sense even to those who rightly condemn all forms of drug use.

The Guernsey Court of Appeal will come to what conclusions it will in line with the law.

And it is precisely that which makes it so important for people to support our Voice for Victims campaign. Every signature on the petition is another call to Guernsey lawmakers to take heed of what islanders believe are appropriate sentences for paedophile offences.

This island has the right to set those and the petition provides the opportunity for people to say what penalties they think are right rather than relying on the rather shadowy process at present.

Crown Advocate Gary Perry was absolutely correct when he said that lower sentences strike at the fabric of this society.

His must not, however, remain a lone, if authoritative plea.

Support him, support justice and the abused: sign up for the Voice for Victims.(END)

How fortunate are Guernsey to have a newspaper who campaigns for the victims of Child Abuse rather than the perpetrators of it?

BBC Jersey Impartial, Balanced, Honest?

2012-02-15T17:17:00.001Z

Just what is BBC Jersey's role in island news gathering and imparting that news to its listeners and viewers, fairly, objectively, honestly and impartialy? Below are a set of e-mails, mostly ignored by managing director, and editor of BBC Jersey, Jon Gripton.

Readers will note that the first e-mail (below) from VFC to Mr. Gripton, sent four months ago, (which was ignored) merely asks the question is the BBC going to add balance to a prosecution case they reported on, now that they are in possession of the defence case? Readers will also note that the last e-mail asks that very same question, which too has been ignored.

Bloggers in Jersey have torn apart the "official line" concerning the Child Abuse Enquiry under the leadership of Gradwell and Warcup. Bloggers have torn apart the "official line" concerning the (possibly illegal) suspension of our most senior Police Officer Graham Power QPM. We have been the first with the breaking news, all with documented evidence, and the silence of the BBC has been deafening.

We (Bloggers) have done all we can to encourage the BBC to adhere to its charter but to very little, or no, avail. We hoped that since the JEP (Jersey's only "news"paper) and ITV's Channel Television have lost just about any credibility they might have enjoyed at one time, we hoped that Mr. Gripton would not want the BBC to been shown in the same light............

Mr. Gripton, in one of his very rare replies tells us "We remain impartial, independent, fair, balanced and honest in all aspects of our work" but continues to ignore the questions and offers no evidence of his claim.

E-MAILS

26/10/2011

Mr.Gripton.

In anticipation of a possible up-coming Blog posting and in order for me to be factually correct, and accurate, could you please clarify a couple of things for me?

Firstly, as we are all aware, Mr. Syvret furnished you with a copy of the Former Jersey Police Chief Graham Power's statement to the Wiltshire Constabulary. Could you please let me know the date this was given to you?

As the BBC extensively covered the Wiltshire Report, by reporting on the Press Conference and States Sitting given by Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand as well as interviewing him and considering the Wiltshire Report is/was the prosecution case against Mr. Power do you not have some kind of an obligation to report on Mr. Power's defence case? If so, could you tell me why you haven't reported any of it?

You will be well aware that there are a growing number of people who believe that the BBC are State Controlled and by not reporting Mr. Power's defence case will add weight to this theory/assumption. If you do intend on reporting on it, could you let me know why it is taking so long? One would imagine you have been handed an "exclusive" by Mr. Syvret and there is always the risk that another "news" outlet could obtain this document and lose the BBC this exclusive. That is of course unless you are confident that none of Jersey's Mainstream Media have, or are looking for, a copy of Mr. Power's statement or will not report on it even if they did have a copy?

Hope you are able to address my concerns/questions and help try and restore a little confidence and trust in the BBC.

VFC.

14/11/2011

Jon.

Although my latest Blog Posting here http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2011/11/state-sponsored-paedophilia.html is an exclusive I have no objections should the BBC wish to report any, or all, of it should you find anything of public interest or "news"worthy in it. There will be no need to credit VFC should the BBC choose to report it as my primary purpose it to protect children and families in, what has become a lawless island.

VFC.

16/11/2011

Jon.

I am saddened and worried that you found nothing newsworthy, nor of public interest in the statement (below) released by the Former Chief of Police. Unfortunately though, Im not at all surprised.

VFC.

16/11/2011

From Jon Gripton.

I acknowledge receipt of your emails.

22/01/2012

Jon.

I would like to bring to your attention the latest Blog posting by Rico Sorda
http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/01/matt-tapp-files-6.html and ask if you believe (as I and others do) that the BBC have an obligation to Report on Mr. Sorda's and Former Police Chief Graham Power's findings?

Do you (BBC) see anything newsworthy or of public interest in the Blog posting?

VFC.

27/01/2012

Jon.

Have any of your "journalists" even thought about contacting Rico Sorda or Graham Power concerning Mr. Sorda's latest Blog Posting? http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/01/matt-tapp-files-8-october-8th-hubris.html

VFC.

09/02/2012

Jon.

I enclose a link to Rico Soda's latest Blog Posting. You will note that he has published the Letter from David Warcup that resulted in the (possibly illegal) suspension of Jersey's most senior police officer. The Warcup letter, in my opinion, proves that there is/was corruption at the highest level in Jersey's administration. Could I ask if the BBC believe there is a "public interest" in broadcasting/reporting this letter and if not why not? http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/02/warcup-letter-operation-end-game.html

VFC.

12/02/2012

Jon.

Along with Graham Power's 62,000 word statement to Wiltshire, David Warcup's letter that got Mr. Power illegally suspended, that you have buried. I would like to offer you the loan of a shovel (yours must be pretty worn out by now) as here is another document you will be able to bury in that ever growing whole. http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/02/metropolitan-interim-police-report.html

Don't you feel any shame, or embarrassment, as a supposed "journalist" when a Blogger is, not only leaked this stuff and you, the "accredited" media are clearly not trusted with it? Do you feel any shame, embarrassment or guilt that a Blogger HAS to shoulder the worry and burden of publishing this material because you bury it? Rico Sorda has to live in the daily fear of having his door kicked in by a 10 strong politicised police force because he's doing your job.

Hang your head in shame Jon and please don't ever insult the profession of journalism by proclaiming to be a journalist, you're nothing of the sort.

VFC.

14/02/2012 From Rico Sorda to Jon Gripton.

Dear Mr Gripton,

Could you please explain to me why BBC Jersey haven't covered the David Warcup Letter or the Met Interim Report that I have published on my blog. These are probably the most infamous two documents concerning the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation and the illegal suspension of a Chief Of police. We have a breakdown of the rule of Law in Jersey. What is BBC Jersey going to do?

Is it all really about carrot cake and a bit of rugby on a Saturday afternoon? If it is then please just tell me. The safety of children in Jersey depends on the Media to break the stories that the goverment try to hide. This isn't happening. This is what I will be explaining to a Committee of Enquiry. Whay does my BBC remain silent on such grave issues? I need and require an explanaition please. It will help me understand when the Jersey Stazi kick in my front door served with a warrent from the Bailhache burger bar.

Kind Regards

Rico Sorda

14/02/2011 Jon Gripton reply's.

Dear Mr Sorda and VFC.

Thank you for the emails and the familiar insults.

As I have previously communicated, I do not provide a running commentary on our journalism.

I am aware of your blogs.

You will be aware we have reported on some aspects of your material, and will continue to do so.

We remain impartial, independent, fair, balanced and honest in all aspects of our work.

Kind regards

Jon Gripton.

14/02/2011

Jon.

How can you claim to be impartial, independent, fair, balanced and honest when you have had Graham Power's "defence case" for around four months and not reported a single word of it? You broadcast and published sections of the prosecution case, therefore in the interest of just basic fairness you have an obligation to report on the defence case.

The question is a simple one why won't/haven't you added some balance to the prosecution case that you published/broadcast?

VFC.(END)

Readers are encouraged to view the links contained in the e-mails sent to Mr. Gripton. Ask yourselves have you seen, or heard any of them, from the BBC? Then readers might want to ask themselves if they agree with Mr. Gripton when he said "We remain impartial, independent, fair, balanced and honest in all aspects of our work."

Due to the death threats, threats of physical violence and threats to harm my children because of this Blog's campaign in seeking the truth behind the Jersey Child Abuse and related events, the name "VFC" in the e-mails is a replacement.

How things are done in Jersey.

2012-02-08T18:06:00.000Z

A letter sent by the Former Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, to the Privileges and Procedures Committee, (PPC) is as relevant today as it was back in January 2010 when we "exclusively" broke the story. It sets out the chain of events leading up to and including the Chief Officers (possibly illegal) suspension.

The official version of events just didn't, and still don't, stack up and on top of this the PPC did not act on the evidence they were given.........And still haven't by claiming it's not in their remit.

This is how Chief Police Officers, who's force investigate, alleged "State Sponsored Paedophilia" are gotten rid of.

To give readers a flavour of how things were done, in the words of the Former Police Chief, we offer these snippets from the letter below.

"It is a matter of public record that the Chief Executive has admitted destroying the original notes of the suspension meeting on 12 November 2008."

"The claim that the decision to suspend was a result of a proper process entered into in consequence of evidence viewed on 11 November 2008 is plainly false."

"It is now disclosed that this letter was created at 0848hrs on Saturday 8 November 2008. This date is three days prior to the receipt of the information which is alleged to have given rise to the suspension, and four days before the disciplinary meeting at which the Minister allegedly “decided” that I was to be suspended from duty."

Letter From Former CPO Graham Power QPM to PPC.

Dear Chairman,
Outcome of my appeal under the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982. Complaint arising from the disclosure of information regarding the events preceding my suspension

This letter arises from the recent disclosure of information regarding the times and dates on which documents relating to my suspension from duty were actually created. You will be aware that this information was first requested by me in November 2008, and that its release has been consistently opposed by the Chief Minister and others. You will also be aware that as a result of a hearing before the Complaints Board under the above law, the information has now been released.

Enclosed with this letter are documents relevant to the complaint which will be set out below. It is believed that the documents are largely self explanatory and that it is not necessary to repeat the content in any detail. The relevant documents are:

A copy of the document bundle setting out details of my appeal to the Complaints Board at a hearing on 16 September 2009, which was conducted in accordance with the law set out in the heading to this letter. My application to the Board related to the refusal of the Chief Minister to disclose details of the times and dates on which certain documents relating to my suspension from duty were actually created.

A copy of the findings of the Board published on 14 October 2009 and presented to the States on 20 October 2009.

A copy of a letter from the Director of Information Services dated 19 October 2009 providing the information requested in the initial application.

It is requested that the Committee study all of the attached documents in conjunction with this letter.

In my application to the Board I summarised what I described as the “Official Version” of the events which led to my suspension. I can find no record of any claim on behalf of the Chief Minister or others that the “Official Version” was not effectively summarised in my application. In brief, the “Official Version” of the sequence of events is that on 10 November 2008 the Deputy Chief Officer, Mr David Warcup, wrote to the Chief Executive, Mr Bill Ogley, expressing concerns regarding aspects of the management of the Historic Abuse Enquiry, (document bundle page 28.) This was received on 11 November 2008 by Mr Ogley who, the same day, wrote to the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis, enclosing a copy of Mr Warcup’s letter. (Statement of W Ogley, document bundle page 30.) In his statement to Wiltshire Police Mr Lewis states “Up until I received the letter from David WARCUP, I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” (Statement of A Lewis, document bundle page 33.) The Minister for Home Affairs and the Chief Executive along with other Ministers and Civil Servants attended a presentation and briefing the same evening, given by Mr Warcup and the then Senior Investigating Officer, Mr Mick Gradwell. The briefing on 11 November 2008 is said to have given details of the content of a press briefing which was to take place the following morning.

Ministers and others have consistently put forward the claim that the decision to initiate the disciplinary process was taken in consequence of information which came to the notice of the Minister for Home Affairs in the form of the correspondence received, and the briefing given, on Tuesday 11 November 2008. I understand from States Members that this line has been repeated during “in camera” discussions of the suspension. I also understand that it is the line taken in response to States members who have made individual enquiries.
Following almost a year of requests and applications, information has now been disclosed in relation to the times and dates when documents relevant to the suspension were created. It is self-evident that the facts now disclosed are incompatible with the “Official Version” of events.
The Disciplinary Process relating to the Chief Officer is set out in Article 9 of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 and in the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of Police, which sets out the process to be applied in the exercise of powers under Article 9. A copy of the relevant Disciplinary Code is at page13 of the document bundle.

It will be noted that no person other than the Minister for Home Affairs has any disciplinary powers in respect of the Chief Officer of Police, and that the disciplinary process can only be initiated by a letter from the Minister to the Chief Executive under paragraph 2.1.1 of the Code. The code does not appear to permit action on any other basis. Suspension powers are set out in paragraph 2.3.3 of the Code and are again, vested entirely in the Minister for Home Affairs.
It might now be appropriate to examine the information which has subsequently been disclosed. In the interests of consistency I have followed the sequence set out in the letter of the Director of Information Services dated 19 October 2009. All of the three letters referred to are dated 12 November 2008 and refer to information received on 11 November 2008. They can be found at page 21 of the document bundle. (It may be noted that the letters make reference to a review by the Metropolitan Police. The comments made in the review were subsequently withdrawn by that force in respect of their use for suspension or disciplinary purposes.) The information which has now been provided in relation to the three letters is as follows:
The letter from then Deputy Andrew Lewis to Mr Ogley initiating disciplinary action under paragraph 2.1.1 of the Disciplinary Code
It is now disclosed that this was created at l400hrs on Tuesday 11 November 2008. This is the day on which it is stated that Mr Ogley received the letter from Mr Warcup, which he forwarded to the Minister for Home Affairs the same day. The time of the letter does however precede the presentation and briefing which took place later that day.

Letter from the Minister for Home Affairs notifying me that the disciplinary process had been commenced
It is now disclosed that this was created at 0844hrs on Saturday 8 November 2008. This is three days before the receipt of the information which is claimed to have led to the decision to commence the disciplinary process, and three days before the creation of the letter from the Minister instructing the Chief Executive to take action under the Code. Former Deputy Andrew Lewis in his statement to the Wiltshire Police investigation claims that he instructed that the letter be drawn up on Wednesday 12 November 2008 and he is supported in this claim by Mr Ogley. (Document bundle pages 32 and 31.) The disclosure reveals that these statements are untrue.
Written notification that I was suspended from duty

It is now disclosed that this letter was created at 0848hrs on Saturday 8 November 2008. This date is three days prior to the receipt of the information which is alleged to have given rise to the suspension, and four days before the disciplinary meeting at which the Minister allegedly “decided” that I was to be suspended from duty. It should also be noted that the suspension letter was created three days prior to the letter which, under paragraph 2.1.1 of the code, is required to commence the disciplinary process.

While there remains uncertainty regarding some of the events surrounding the creation of the documents, it is evident that the “Official Version” of the decision-making process cannot now be sustained. The claim that the decision to suspend was a result of a proper process entered into in consequence of evidence viewed on 11 November 2008 is plainly false. Against this background and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the following questions would appear to fall within the remit of the Committee:

Whether any person in Government has made false and misleading statements to myself or persons enquiring on my behalf, during the suspension and disciplinary process which could have denied me my entitlement to fair treatment under the Disciplinary Code.

Whether the proper preparation of my defence has been wilfully impeded by false information provided from within the Island’s Government.

Whether false and misleading statements have been made to the States and to those States members who have enquired about the integrity of the process.

Whether any person has made a false statement to the disciplinary enquiry.

Whether any person currently in office has been a party to a “cover up” of the facts which have now come to light.

Whether any person who had a duty to ensure that processes conducted under the law and the disciplinary code were carried out in a proper and lawful manner, failed in that duty.

In the light of the disclosures, the real reasons for the suspension must be regarded as uncertain. Clearly this is an unsatisfactory position to be in after a year, and places me at an unfair disadvantage in the preparation of my defence.
The 1974 Police Law and the Disciplinary Code set out arrangements for the Political Oversight of the Chief Officer. There is a widely held view that these arrangements are imperfect. The absence of a Police Authority and of the checks and balances common in other jurisdictions are seen as significant defects. Nevertheless the Law and the Code, taken together, clearly identify the intention of legislators that the power of suspension should be vested entirely with the Minister for Home Affairs, and that this power should only be exercised through due process and the proper consideration of evidence.

If Ministers and others have colluded in a common endeavour to frustrate the intentions of the Law and the Code and to produce a misleading account of events, then this would be a serious matter. In the course of the Complaints Board Hearing, which was held in public, I had an opportunity to respond to the Chief Ministers submissions on the question of public interest. In doing so I said “Mr Chairman, if Ministers, assisted by Civil Servants, have, for whatever motive, put together a false account of events, and have produced paperwork and made statements to sup port that false account, and if others have subsequently become aware of what has been done, and have used their position to cover up the truth and attempt to prevent it from becoming known, then there is certainly an issue of public interest.” In setting out the reasons why I believed that the Board should support disclosure I said “Finally on this issue, but certainly not least, there is the question of the integrity of government, and the degree of trust we can place in the statements made, and assurances given, by those in executive positions.” The Committee will be aware that the Board found in my favour.

The Code of Conduct for Ministers requires them to act in accordance with the relevant laws and procedures and emphasises the importance of providing “accurate and truthful information to the States” (paragraph 3ii.) Additionally Ministers are required by the Code to be “as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take” (paragraph 3) and to “conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the publics trust and confidence in the integrity of the States of Jersey,” (paragraph 8.) The Committee will be aware that the States of Jersey (Powers, Privileges and Immunities) (Scrutiny Panels, PAC and PPC) (Jersey) Regulations 2006, provides the Committee with the relevant powers to investigate any alleged breach of the Code.

It may be that I have provided sufficient information to enable the Committee to consider a way forward on this issue. However, in the hope that it may be helpful, I will offer some personal thoughts and additional information which may assist.
On a straight reading of the available evidence it may occur to many people that the most likely probability is that the former Minister for Home Affairs knowingly provided an account which is distant from the truth. That may be the case, but there are other possibilities. One is that he was not the main author of the process. The known facts allow for an alternative explanation. That is, that the decision to suspend was in fact taken by others for motives of their own, and that the then Minister was brought in at the final stages to provide his signature, and thereby appear to legitimise a process which was conceived by others. Such an interpretation would of course raise the possibility of a “Government within a Government” in which unidentified and unaccountable individuals exercise power outside the parameters of the law. If that was the case then the constitutional implications would be significant. This would be particularly true in the context of a potential impact on the independence of a part of the Criminal Justice System.

In considering these issues the Committee might find it helpful to be alerted to the apparent relationship between the suspension, and what was said to the media and the outside world in general on Wednesday 12 November 2008. During the course of his enquiries on behalf of the Minister, the Chief Constable of Wiltshire has disclosed to me a number of documents. The two most relevant in respect of this issue are the draft media presentation script which was shown to me by Mr Warcup on 5 November 2008, my last working day before a short period of leave, and the script actually used on 12 November 2008. There are significant differences between the two which must have resulted from changes made between 5 and 11 November 2008. For example, the draft script says “It has never been suggested by the States of Jersey Police that Child Murder took place at Haut de Ia Garenne.” The script actually used in the briefings on 11 and 12 November 2008 says “Statements which were issued by the States of Jersey Police suggested that serious criminal offences had been perpetrated against children and also that there was a possibility that children had been murdered, bodies had been disposed of and buried within the home.” Other differences between the scripts are of a similar nature. Against this background it is legitimate to consider another possible explanation for the actual sequence of events. That is, the decision to suspend was taken on or before 8 November 2008 by persons unknown for reasons at present unknown. The media script was then subjected to significant changes (I believe that “sexed up” is a popular term used to describe this type of process) in order to enable the Minister to claim that he took a decision after being shown the content of the presentation on 11 November 2008, and in order to conceal the real reason or purpose behind the action taken. This may or may not be what actually occurred. Until the truth is known we cannot be sure.
Finally, in assessing the integrity of Government actions in this matter the Committee may find it helpful to be reminded of the following:

Although the Royal Court, in considering my application for Judicial Review, was not able to formally pass judgement on the initial suspension, it did say “we feel constrained to voice our serious concern as to the fairness of the procedure apparently adopted by the Previous Minister.” (Published judgement of the Royal Court, paragraph 19.)

It is a matter of public record that the Chief Executive has admitted destroying the original notes of the suspension meeting on 12 November 2008.
Although there may be insufficient information to formulate specific complaints against named individuals at this stage, I hope that the Committee will agree that there is a sufficient basis to provide reason to believe that one or more persons at the heart of Government have used their positions in order to engage in a deliberate abuse of process, and have made false and misleading statements to conceal their actions.

I am aware that complaints which are specific against serving Ministers should be addressed to the Council of Ministers. However, given the difficulty in identifying who is responsible for what, and the possibility that one or more members of the Council of Ministers may or may not be implicated, the Committee may agree that the general complaint against the conduct of Government falls within its remit and merits further enquiry.

Although some of the facts remain in contention it is believed that the following are not in dispute:

The suspension is almost one year old.

The public cost is reported to be in excess of half a million pounds and rising.

No disciplinary charges have been brought.

No hearing has been called.

No conclusion is in sight.

This matter is placed in the hands of the Committee in the belief that its remit covers the circumstances of this complaint and that the Committee will see the need to take further action. However, if the Committee considers that I should progress this matter by some other route then I will of course consider whatever is recommended, in consultation with my professional advisors.
I hope this is sufficient for your purposes at this time, and that you will ask if you need any further information.
Yours sincerely
Graham Power
Cc Dr I Brain. Chairman. Chief Police Officers Staff Association.
The Connétable of St Helier

Former Police Chief speaks on controversial "Interim" Report.

2012-02-01T09:11:00.000Z

Former Jersey Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, at the request of VFC, has set out his knowledge of the so-called Met "Interim" Report and related matters It once more lays bare the facts from the perspective of Jersey's former most Senior Police Officer which tells us a different story as to the one we are told by our rulers and the State Media. A PREVIOUS POSTING sparked a lot of interest in this document and many questions were asked and in this posting the Former Chief Officer has set out to answer them.

One of the most "popular" questions was "does an official Met Interim Report exist?" We at Team Voice have been of the view, since November 08 that it DOESN'T and Mr. Power appears to be of the same view where he tells us "It has subsequently become clear that this is the document which some have claimed is the “Interim Report” from the “Metropolitan Police.” It is patently nothing of the sort."

In his trademark clinical manner the Former Police Chief chronologically explains certain events that surround his very dubious (possibly illegal) suspension and the Met "Interim" Report as some call it or other descriptions could be "Officer's Report", "memorandum" or "favour to David Warcup."

From Former Jersey Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM

I have been asked to provide a short summary of the Metropolitan Police Review of the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry, known as “Operation Rectangle.” As I am now long retired I do not have access to current police files and records relating to this issue. I have however searched my own files and consulted with others who were involved, and on this basis I have constructed the following narrative which may be of value to interested parties.
In early 2008 the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) appointed an independent team of experts to advise and assist Lenny Harper in his role as the Senior Investigating Officer for “Operation Rectangle.” The team was headed by a former Commander (a rank equivalent to Assistant Chief Constable) in the Metropolitan Police who was then a Deputy Director of the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA.) He is an internationally recognised expert in the investigation of Serious Crime.
As the relationship with the ACPO team developed there was discussion regarding the need for a Review of Operation Rectangle by another Police Force. Such Reviews are recognised good practice in the investigation of serious offences. The purpose of a review is to provide a “critical friend” examination of the enquiry and to make recommendations to improve its effectiveness. The ACPO team advised that the Review should be conducted by the Metropolitan Police and that it should be timed to form an agenda for the new management team who were to take over from Mr Harper. This recommendation was accepted.
In the Summer and Autumn of 2008 the Metropolitan Police team and the new management team for “Operation Rectangle” were on the ground and taking up their responsibilities. The Met Review team were headed by a Bryan Sweeting who is a Detective Superintendent in the Metropolitan Police. He is assisted by a Mr Peter Britton who was described as a former Detective Chief Inspector who was then working for the Met as a Civilian Advisor on Major Enquiries. It may be of note that neither of the Met representatives had ever overseen a major crime enquiry at Chief Officer level, and that neither had significant experience outside of London. In terms of seniority and experience they were several levels below the ACPO team which had been advising Lenny Harper since early 2008. That said, the Met team communicated their views as they progressed with their work and all of their comments were acted upon by the Force.
In October 2008 the new police management team consisting of David Warcup as Deputy Chief Officer, and Mick Gradwell as Senior Investigating Officer was firmly in place. Lenny Harper had retired some months previously and all significant recommendations made verbally by the Metropolitan Police team had been implemented. Their full written report was awaited but it was expected that it would not contain anything which had not already been discussed and acted upon, (which subsequently proved to be the case.)
On 10^th November 2008 the Chief Officer was off the Island attending to an urgent family welfare issue in the UK. The Deputy Chief Officer, David Warcup, wrote a letter to the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers (Bill Ogley.) He said that he had that day received an “Interim Report” from the Met which documented their “Initial Findings.” He did not attach a copy of the Met report which he said was “restricted” due to the sensitivity of the information it contained. (Subsequent readers of the alleged “Interim Report” who have offered comment have not been able to identify any content in the report which justifies it being withheld by Mr Warcup, or which could not have been addressed by simple redaction. Those expressing this view include Brian Napier QC who was commissioned to review the matter and whose report is in the public domain. Mr Warcup resigned shortly before the publication of the Napier report.)
On 11^th November 2008 the letter from David Warcup was considered by the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis. Mr Lewis was about to leave office. He had not stood for re-election in the 2008 Jersey elections which were reaching a conclusion around that time. It was the last, and perhaps only, significant issue he had to deal with during his short political career. In a subsequent statement to Wiltshire Police, prior to which he signed a legal declaration making the statement admissible as evidence in Court, Lewis claimed that he had no concerns regarding the Historic Abuse Enquiry until he received the letter from Warcup on 11^th November 2008. The report by Brian Napier QC makes it clear that this part of his statement is untrue. Napier established that for some months Lewis had been meeting secretly with others, including the Chief Executive Bill Ogley and the then Chief Minister Frank Walker, in an effort to devise a means by which the Chief Officer of the Force could be suspended. To what extent Lewis was his “own man” in these discussions and to what extent the decisions he subsequently took were genuinely “his” are matters on which it is legitimate to speculate. That evening Lewis contacted the Chief Officer on his mobile phone in the belief that he was still out of the Island but due to return soon. He discovered that travel arrangements had changed and that the Chief Officer was at home. He asked the Chief Officer to attend a meeting in the office of the Chief Executive the following morning.
On 12^th November 2008 the Chief Officer attended the arranged meeting with Lewis and Ogley. The Chief Minister Frank Walker was in the adjacent room. After a short encounter lasting about 30 minutes the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police was suspended from duty. Events determined that he never returned to duty. The brief meeting with Andrew Lewis and Bill Ogley therefore became the final event in a police career spanning over 40 years throughout the British Isles. The Chief Officer was not shown the letter from Warcup or the alleged interim report from the Met. He was not told in advance of the purpose of the meeting or given chance to prepare. He was not offered representation or an opportunity to consult with his staff association. Ogley made notes of what was said at the meeting but destroyed these after he was given notice that the matter may be referred to the Royal Court.
The Jersey Government quickly publicised its actions. The Chief Officers elderly mother learned of his suspension by means of a news item on her local TV station in Yorkshire. The Chief Officers daughter learned the news on her car radio in Sydney. With hindsight the Chief Officer now sees these actions as those of a corrupt and malicious administration resolved to trample over every rule of fairness and justice in an effort to break the spirit and resolve of an individual who is an obstacle to their plans and intentions. It did not work. What they in fact achieved was to initiate a long running and divisive controversy which is alive more than three years afterwards, and which in terms of reputational damage and cost exceeds anything which they may have been seeking to avoid. Their malice is matched only by their stupidity and incompetence. In the absence of the Chief Officer, David Warcup was appointed “Acting Chief Officer” with the pay and entitlements of the Chief Officer. He then moved into the Chief Officers Office.
In January February and March of 2009 the new Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand was legally responsible for the continuing suspension and was said to be familiarising himself with the case. A number of prominent local figures and States Members urged him to bring the matter to an end by seeking a swift pragmatic solution which acknowledges that the suspension was an unjustified act and to seek an outcome through consultation. He rejected all of these approaches. He conducted two suspension review meetings with the Chief Officer and his professional representative. The meetings were recorded and the transcripts are in the public domain. During these meetings the Minister disclosed that the Met would not allow him to see the review report, they will not allow its use for disciplinary purposes, and that its use for suspension purposes has caused a rift between the Met and Jersey. He nevertheless decided to keep the suspension in place.
In July 2009 Wiltshire Police, who have been appointed by the Minister to conduct a disciplinary investigation into the Chief Officer, begin to make arrangements for the Chief Officer to respond to their enquiry. They deliver statements and other documents to his home address. The documents fill three large boxes and are carried to the house by two people. The Chief Officer is given a list of questions to which he is asked to respond. The questions refer to statements and documents which are in the three boxes. A deadline is set. The deadline for reading and digesting the material in all of the boxes and for making a response is, on the face of it, totally impossible and may have been intended to be such. But is it not. Plans have been made. Family members and friends have been assembled to act as administrators, proof readers and editors. The Chief Officer submits a written response within the deadline. The response is over 62,000 words (the size of a small novel.) At various times the Minister has promised to publish this response. He has never done so.
Among the documents in the three boxes are two reports relating to the review by the Metropolitan Police. One is their full report which bears the crest of the Force on its cover and is clearly a document of which the Metropolitan Police have corporate ownership. The other is a different type of document. It is an 18 page document headed “Officers Report” and is a memorandum from Mr Peter Britton who, as described earlier, was a civilian member of the Met Review team. The report is not bound. It does not have the force crest on its cover, and it makes no claim to be a report by the “Metropolitan Police.” The document sets out the emerging thoughts of Mr Britton. It is heavily qualified. It is clear from the report that Mr Harper has not been interviewed. Paragraph 1.1 of the report states “any observations in this report may be subject to amendment.” It has subsequently become clear that this is the document which some have claimed is the “Interim Report” from the “Metropolitan Police.” It is patently nothing of the sort. In the controversy which has followed, the views of Mr Britton have been notably absent. We do not know what was said to him in order to persuade him to produce his memorandum. In the light of subsequent events it seems certain that whatever he was told it was not the truth. It is simply inconceivable that the Metropolitan Police would allow a relatively junior member of staff to associate the Force with a Review document to be used as a pretext for the suspension of the head of a police force. There is no precedent for such an action, and if one was to be established it would destroy the basis of mutual trust which is vital to the proper review of major enquiries.
To complete the story, in 2010, almost two years after my suspension, I retired as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police more than three years after my official retirement date. No disciplinary charges were ever brought, and the Wiltshire Enquiry, costing variable amounts according to different accounts, but almost certainly well over £1m when suspension costs and other matters are included, was abandoned.
It has since been learned from other sources that Mr Harper has complained that he was treated unfairly by the Met in that they allegedly criticised him (and myself) and the Abuse Investigation without proper consultation or a right to respond. It is understood that the Met may have at some stage denied that there was an “interim report” and then modified that view to say that an interim report was prepared by staff engaged in the review. The Met have however given specific written assurances that no review report by them makes criticism of either myself or Mr Harper or of Operation Rectangle. Mr Harper has published these assurances on the internet.
I hope that this information is of assistance to those with an interest in these events. In particular I hope that they will be of value to the most important people in the whole affair, namely the survivors of the long running and systematic abuse of vulnerable children which was conducted in establishments run by the Jersey Government and which went unchallenged for decades.

He Could Be In The Toilet.

2012-01-30T10:00:00.000Z

Further to our PREVIOUS POSTING where we published an open letter from Former Senior Investigating Officer of Jersey's Child Abuse Enquiry, Lenny Harper to the Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand.

Regular readers will not be surprised to learn that the Home Affairs Minister did not even acknowledge receipt of the e-mail let alone answer the questions it contained. This type of behaviour is not uncommon for the Minister who has form when it comes to "uncomfortable situations"

For those who listen to State Radio you would have heard Deputy Trevor Pitman, Friday just gone, (28th January 2012) being interviewed concerning his up-coming questions to the Home Affairs Minister. Despite attempts the State Media were unable to make contact with the Home Affairs Minister as they wanted him to be a participant on the radio programme also. For those who missed the interview it can be listened to HERE

This is in stark contrast to when the Home Affairs Minister received the discredited Wiltshire Report (prosecution case against Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM). The Minister was all over the State Media telling anybody who would listen that in the Wiltshire Report there were "findings" against the Former Police Chief, when they were nothing of the sort. They were un-tested, un-proven "allegations" or "the prosecution case" against the Chief Police Officer. The Home Affairs Minister, in the words of the Former Police Chief, "Chickened out of a fair fight." The Minister abandoned the disciplinary action and published, broadcast, the prosecution case, and not a single word of Mr. Power's 62,000 word defence case. We called it a KANGAROO COURT.

So there was a "no show" from the Home affairs Minister when he had some uncomfortable questions to answer live on State Radio with Deputy Trevor Pitman. Regular readers will be aware that the Minister told us some time previously that he was going to reveal "A Scandal" he had concerning an Officer from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Homicide Working Group (HWG) who was mentoring, the then Senior Investigating Officer in the Child Abuse investigation Lenny Harper. He was going to deliver this "Scandal" in the island's Parliament but guess what? HE DIDN'T TURN UP!

So it appears fair to say that the Home Affairs Minister can be elusive when uncomfortable situations arise which brings us on to why we believe he could have been on/in the toilet on these occasions.

We had happenstance to be chatting with an acquaintance of the Former Police Chief Graham Power QPM. This person, relayed to us, a situation that was so comical and almost unbelievable that we had to verify it with Mr. Power for ourselves. We promptly did this and offer it to our readers as it was told to us by Mr. Power QPM.

"In early 2009 I prepared an application and affidavit for my suspension to be reviewed by the Royal Court. The Court told me that I had to serve a copy of the papers on the Minister. I did not think that it was appropriate for me to serve them personally. So my wife arranged to visit the Home Affairs Department offices and serve them on the Minister.

She made an appointment. She was shown in by staff. They went to the Ministers office but he was not there. They thought that was strange because he had been there when she knocked on the door and the appointment was in his diary. So she waited...............and she waited..................staff searched the building but the Minister could not be found.

He had not left the building so the only place he could be was in the toilet. So they waited..........And they waited. But the Minister remained locked in the toilet and showed no sign of coming out.

After it all became very embarrassing a member of the department agreed to accept service on the Minister's behalf..................... they apologised. And she left the building.............with the Minister still locked in the toilet.........................."(END)

The Home Affairs Minister will no doubt have his own version of this story. Unfortunately he won't acknowledge our e-mails either. So if anybody would like to ask him his version, if they can get him out of/off the toilet for long enough we would like to hear it.

This coming Tuesday the Minister has a number of "uncomfortable" questions to answer from back-bench politicians in the parliament. He is also up for "Questions Without ~~Answers~~ Notice"..............................Somebody had better start warming the seat up..............And he might be in there for a while!

Open letter To Home Affairs Minister.

2012-01-25T13:01:00.000Z

		This e-mail from former Senior Investigating Officer of Jersey's Child Abuse Investigation, Lenny Harper to the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, is self explanatory and came about because of Mr. Harper's, Former Police Chief Mr Graham Power's, the Victims/Survivors of Jersey's Child Abuse atrocities and a couple of Bloggers determination to get to the truth behind the State Media's and government's spin and "official line." We, as Bloggers, have ripped apart with documented facts and evidence all the spin and Tooth Fairy nonsense given to us by the State Media and government concerning the Child Abuse atrocities. This e-mail further adds to it..........And there is much more to come! from Lenny Harper

to:		"i.lemarquand@gov.je"
cc:		voiceforchildrenvoiceforchildren , ricosorda , "ASibcy@jerseyeveningpost.com" , BenQueree , "chris.stone.01@bbc.co.uk" , "news@channel103.com" , "radiojersey@bbc.co.uk"
date:		24 January 2012 19:41
subject:		Revelations in Met Report to IPCC Dear Mr Le Marquand; I am unaware if you have read the latest blog from Rico Sorda, but in that he talks about the Met Interim and final reports which you, Andrew Lewis, and David Warcup regularly and frequently used as the reason and justification for suspending Graham Power and the savage smear campaign against myself in which you referred to me as an "incompetent maverick", and also, I presume, authorised the States of Jersey Police to tell Scotland Yard that I would be facing a discipline investigation over the Child Abuse Enquiry if I was still in the force. Whilst I am grateful for your subsequent clarification that nothing in the decision to enter HDLG justified discipline considerations and that indeed Mick Gradwell would be the person facing serious discipline charges were he still in the force, the revelations contained in the Met report submitted to the Independent Complaints Commission (as a result of my complaint against the author of the Met reports), that in fact neither the Met Interim report nor the final report contained any critical or damning comments about myself or any other officer, raises series questions as to where you received the information that it did, and even more significantly, if it didn't come from the Met, where did it come from. As for your own part in spreading the perception that the Met reports (interim and final) were indeed critical and damning of myself and Graham Power, I have been quoted in the blog posting as asking a number of questions concerning your role. I reproduce the relevant excerpt below and would ask that you give me the answer to the questions in respect of your role. My complaint was rejected not because any of the criticisms were true, but because NO SUCH CRITICISMS HAD BEEN CONTAINED WITHIN THE MET REPORT. Paragraph 5.3 of the Sweeting Met report lists the complaints that I had made, i.e.; that the report was “critical and damning of me without ever speaking to me. That it had criticised me for my handling of the financial management of the investigation, my victim support policy, the lack of a Gold Group, the finding and labelling of human remains, my use of the term ‘shackles’ and the use of the term ‘cellars.’ In reality, according to the Met report to the IPCC, “having reviewed the report written by DSU Sweeting and his team, it is clear that no such criticisms are levelled at Mr Harper.” The report goes on to say in Para. 5.4, “The report was neither critical nor damning.” The implications of this are profound, and extremely disturbing. David Warcup did not submit the Met report to the Home Affairs Minister but instead wrote him a letter outlining what was allegedly in the report. It was critical and damning enough to launch a brutal smear campaign against me, and by extension, against the victims, and to justify the suspension of Graham Power. According to Ian Le Marquand, what Warcup told him was in the Met report gave him no option but to suspend Graham and to label me an “incompetent maverick.” So, if there was no such criticism in either the Met interim or the final report, where did David Warcup get it from? Rico Sorda has one theory involving the consultant shown the door by Graham Power for attempting to misrepresent the facts and who was then immediately engaged by Shredder Ogley and Frank Walker. So why did Warcup and Gradwell tell the world that it came from the Sweeting report? Could the gradual unfolding of this be the real reason why Warcup scampered away from the island pleading blog harassment and why the previously media loving Gradwell retired to wedding planning never to be seen again or to give any evidence to Scrutiny or anyone else? It also raises huge questions about t Ian Le Marquand. Was he duped by Warcup into believing that the criticism was indeed contained within the Metropolitan Police Report? If so, why did he not ask some hard questions? Or, was he fully aware that the whole thing was a charade and a pack of lies intended to discredit the whole child abuse enquiry and so marginalise (once again) the victims of cruel abuse in Jersey’s government run homes? As you can see, in the final paragraph of the excerpt, (immediately preceding this paragraph,) I pose three questions about yourself. Put simply, Mr Warcup did not send the Met report to the HA Minister. He summarised it in a letter. Were you indeed duped, or did you know the whole story about the so called critical Met interim report was a charade and a pack of lies? I would appreciate answers to the questions above. Lenny Harper. (END) Readers will note that Jersey's State Media are copied into this e-mail. Mr. Harper has not received as much as an acknowledgement of it from the Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand, let alone had his questions answered. Questions are - will the State Media even report on this huge turn of events? Will they seek to get the answers from Ian Le Marquand that not only the victims/Survivors of Jersey's Child Abuse deserve but so do Mr. Harper, Mr. Power QPM, all the good officers that worked on the Child Abuse Enquiry under Mr. Power and Harper but the tax paying public who have paid for the smear campaign, witch-hunts and vendetta's against these people?

Andrew Lewis or CPO Graham Power QPM Re-Post.

2012-01-24T18:17:00.000Z

We offer this re-posting in conjunction with the posting of Rico Sorda where he has published the findings of "OPERATION TUMA."

Operation Tuma was an investigation conducted by the Metropolitan Police in response to a complaint made to them by Jersey's Former Deputy Chief Police Officer and Senior Investigating Officer of the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) Lenny Harper.

Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM (DCO Harper's Boss) was suspended on very dubious circumstances during the ongoing "Operation Rectangle" and DCO Harper had already retired.

Below is a posting we published back in February 2010 and readers are advised to take note of what was said by Former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis concerning "The Met Report."

Andrew Lewis Or CPO Graham Power

Below is a statement written by former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis in response to Chief Police Officer Graham Power’s sworn affidavit.

But below that is Chief Police Officer Power’s response to the former Home Affairs Minister. I believe it is fairly safe to say that one of these two gentlemen look way out of their depth and are being somewhat more than economical with the truth.

It might be a slightly lengthy read but for those who take the 10-15 minutes out to read it you will be left with little doubt that somebody’s version of events just do not stack up.

From Andrew Lewis.

Response to P9 and allegations by Graham Power in his recently published Affidavit
　
February 2010
　
Suspension of the States Of Jersey Chief of Police

My knowledge of this matter stems from my role as Home Affairs Minister. As such I am bound by the confidentiality requirements in the Chief Police Officer's disciplinary code. Although the decision to suspend the Chief of Police was my decision, at all times I sought legal advice and that of HR professionals and took this advice into account.

To the best of my knowledge the actual decisions were taken on the dates recorded in the correspondence. The earlier dates of creation simply reflect the preliminary work by the legal and HR advisers, which was contingency preparation in the event that the full disclosure of information by the Deputy Chief Officer might result in a decision to invoke the disciplinary code. This was sensible contingency planning.　
Up until the 11th February I was not aware of Mr Power’s Affidavit despite his claimthat he had sent it to me. Consequently I feel I have no alternative other than to make a brief and measured response to the allegations contained in the document.
　
1. I have sympathy for the concerns that Mr Power has for his family but it must be pointed out that the reason that his daughter became aware of his plight whilst driving to work in Australia was because Mr Power, upon leaving the meeting with me and Mr Ogley at Cyril Le Marquand House, went directly to the BBC radio station to make a statement despite being advised not to do so. This story was immediately syndicated across the world.
　
2. Mr Power also suggests that I should have discussed my actions with the previous Minister Senator Wendy Kinnard before carrying them out. In the context of the reasons for his suspension this would have been quite inappropriate as the Minister had handed over responsibility for oversight of the abuse inquiry many months before due a conflict of interest.

3. The act of suspension was fully in line with the disciplinary code and is designed as a neutral act in order to give the Chief Officer sufficient time to defend his position uncompromised by the constraints of office. The code has a clear process of appeal despite Mr Power’s allegations that such provision does not exist.
　
4. Mr Power also claims that the code was rewritten hours before it was invoked, this is quite misleading. The nature of the code was not rewritten it was simply amended for use under the new ministerial government system, which involved replacing the word committee with that of minister. The same has applied to numerous documents right across the States since the inception of ministerial government
　
5. Both Mr Power and Deputy Hill claim that the decision to suspend the Chief of Police was somehow rushed, “done on a whim with little consideration and without seeking advise”. I refute this suggestion most strongly. I had been aware for sometime of concerns about the command and control of the Child Abuse enquiry and in my capacity as Minister had been regularly briefed by the Deputy Chief Officer on the progress of an independent review of the case, being carried out by The Metropolitan Police.
　
6. Mr Power had also been regularly briefed on the progress of the review in even more detail than I. He was also informed that the Deputy Chief Of Police was planning to brief Ministers on the 11thNovember on the findings of the review that were expected to be shocking. Despite this Mr Power decided to go on holiday. I questioned this with him but he claimed that there was nothing in the Met report to be concerned about. Subsequent revelations that are now well documented were of course quite the opposite.
　
7. During my final meeting with Mr Power he was not asked to resign he never has been, it was an action that I did not wish to invoke because it was important that a thorough investigation of the allegations made in the Met review was undertaken before any further action was taken in respect of Mr Power’s position. Hence the suspension was an important neutral act. I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Met Report as I am bound by the disciplinary code. However I refute strongly the repeated suggestion by Mr Power that he does not know why he has been suspended, full details of the reasons are contained in the two page letter that was given to him at our meeting with him on the 12th　November 2008.
　
8. Mr Power also claims that the notes taken at the meeting on the 12thNovember which were later typed from Mr Ogley’s notes some how differed from Mr Power’s recollection of the meeting. The transcripts of the meeting were forwarded to me for my approval. I can categorically state that they were a true and accurate record of the meeting. Mr Power has never corresponded with me to the effect that they did not reflect the meeting.
　
9. I am deeply concerned that the subsequent enquiry into this matter conducted by Wiltshire constabulary has taken so long. I was advised that such an investigation would only take until March 2009. The longer such matters are left the more open they are to wild allegations of conspiracy. Such allegations I most strongly refute. The reasons for suspension were compelling; the process was diligent, professional and painstakingly considered in accordance with the disciplinary code. I took full legal and HR advice from highly competent professionals and followed the prescribed procedure of the day.
　
10. I had on a number of occasions publicly and privately extolled my respect and admiration for Mr Power as competent manager and Chief Police Officer. Which was why I was deeply shocked by the revelations and allegations presented by other competent independent policing authorities concerning Mr Powers command and control of Jerseys biggest ever criminal investigation.
　
11. Such allegations must be and I am led to believe have now been thoroughly investigated. I now look forward to the publication of the Wiltshire Constabulary’s report, which I have fully cooperated with. If further enquires are proved necessary I would fully support and cooperate with such a process.
　
Andrew Lewis-19th February 2010

　
The following statement has been issued by Graham Power QPM.　Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. 22nd February 2010.　

Since my suspension in November 2008 I have complied with the confidentiality requirements of the disciplinary code. I have however always made it clear that if the code is breached by Ministers, or those acting on their behalf, I would not hesitate to respond.

I have tonight seen the statement issued by the former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis. In my view his statement constitutes a clear breach of the code and one to which I am entitled to respond. Accordingly I do so in the comments set out below. It may be noted that my comments relate entirely to the statements of Andrew Lewis. I have attempted not to stray into other areas in order to stay within the spirit of the code. I offer this compliance in spite of the totally unfair, unjust and disproportionate manner of my treatment. Andrew Lewis and his associates are assisted by the full wealth and power of the state. I have been refused legal assistance and in consequence I am required to defend myself with only the resources of myself, family and supporters. I do my own research and I type my own letters. I do not have expensive staff, civil servants, or legal advisors supporting my work. I have only the resources of a private individual. Nevertheless, I hope that the following comments will assist in the growing debate relating to the actions of Ministers and others in November 2008.

I do not have the technical capability to insert my comments alongside those of Andrew Lewis. It may therefore be necessary for the reader to be in possession of the comments of the former Minister while reading my comments. If this causes difficulty I apologise. It is the best I can do with the resources available.

Preamble.

In the introduction to his recent statement Mr Lewis says　“at all times I sought legal advice and that of HR professionals and took this advice into account.” In his statement to the disciplinary investigation by Wiltshire Police he says “Up until I received the letter from David WARCUP, I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” (Statement to Wiltshire Police paragraph 3.) In his statement to the disciplinary enquiry, the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers, Bill Ogley states “On 11th November I received a letter from David WARCUP .......... I then wrote to Andrew Lewis that day.”　(Statement to Wiltshire Police page 7.) It follows therefore that the evidential statements made by Mr Lewis and Mr Ogley claim that the letter which led to the suspension was received on 11th November 2008, and Mr Lewis states that until he received that letter “I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” On the evening of 11th November Andrew Lewis asked me to attend a meeting the following morning, and I was suspended on the morning of 12th November 2008. It follows therefore that if the statements of both Mr Lewis and Mr Ogley are true the “legal advice and that of HR professionals” must have taken place between 11th and 12th November 2008 which is a tight time frame and hard to reconcile with the claim that this advice was taken “at all times.” What we now know, from separate disclosures obtained in the face of strong opposition from the current Chief Minister, is that the suspension documents were in fact prepared early in the morning of Saturday 8th　November 2008, a fact which is hard to reconcile with the previous statements made by Andrew Lewis, presumably with the advice and support of the legal and HR professional experts upon whom he relies. If such experts have in fact assisted Mr Lewis in preparing his statement, then they are inevitably associated with what he has said and done and they may therefore be compromised. This would appear to re-enforce the need for any review of these issues to be fully independent.

The dates on which the suspension documents were created is referred to by Mr Lewis in his recent statement when he says “the earlier dates of creation simply reflect the preliminary work by the legal and HR advisors.” Given that under the Police Law and the Disciplinary Code it is the Minister for Home Affairs and nobody, literally nobody else, who has any jurisdiction whatsoever in relation to the Chief Officer of Police, we are entitled to ask on whose authority the Law Officers Department and “HR advisors” determined that on a Saturday morning in November 2008 it would be appropriate to draft suspension notices for the Chief Officer of the Islands Police Force. In his statement to Wiltshire Police the timeframe given by Mr Lewis indicates that it could not have been him. So who was it? Or is it possible that the truth is not being told?

On a relatively minor point in the preamble Mr Lewis states “Until 11th February (2010) I was not aware of Mr Power’s affidavit despite his claim that he had sent it to me.” Just for the record, no such claim was made. It has been truthfully stated that the affidavit, sworn in January 2009, was sent to the Minister for Home Affairs. This was of course another person by that time. It rather appears that the legal and HR professionals who have apparently assisted Mr Lewis in preparing his release have let him down on this point of detail.

I now turn to the numbered paragraphs in the recent release by Andrew Lewis:

1. In this paragraph Mr Lewis attempts to blame me for the publicity regarding the suspension. During the suspension interview he made it clear that it had already been decided that he and the then Chief Minister (who had no lawful role in the matter whatsoever) would shortly be giving a press conference, the arrangements for which had been put in place the previous day, presumably in anticipation of the outcome of the suspension meeting on 12th. It is natural and understandable that in light of this information I should decide to ensure that my side of the story was given comparable coverage.
　
2. Mr Lewis claims that any consultation with the previous Minister would have been a conflict of interest. He misses the point. The relevant period of the historic abuse enquiry was undertaken under the political oversight of another person who is not recorded as having expressed any formal concerns. In his actions of 12th November 2008 Mr Lewis was applying retrospective judgement in respect of actions which occurred prior to him assuming office. He was, in common parlance, moving the goalposts after the event. His failure to consult with the person who was actually in political office at the relevant time is a breach of the basic principles of fairness.
　
3. Mr Lewis claims that the process he applied was in accordance with the disciplinary code and he appears to imply that it was in some way fair and “neutral.” This claim is made in spite of the strong criticism of his actions by the Royal Court. He does not address this criticism and appears to prefer to pretend that it does not exist. Contrary to his claim, the disciplinary code provides for no appeal against suspension. There is a right of appeal against the findings of a disciplinary hearing. No such hearing has yet occurred and none has been arranged.
　
4. Lewis says　“Mr Power also claims that the code was rewritten hours before it was invoked, this is quite misleading.” If this is genuinely misleading then I am quite happy to be led towards the truth. If it was re-written at an earlier time, who did this and who asked for it to be done? Could it by any chance be the same as yet unidentified person or persons who decided, apparently without any Ministerial authority, to spend a Saturday morning drafting suspension notices for the Chief Officer of Police on the off-chance that the Minister, who according to his statement to Wiltshire Police, “had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well” might suddenly change his mind? Or was it intended that the Minister would have his mind changed for him? Without a proper enquiry we will never know.
　
5. In his recent statement Mr Lewis says “I had been aware for some time of concerns about the command and control of the Child Abuse Enquiry.” In his formal statement to Wiltshire Police he states　“Until I received the letter from David WARCUP, (on 11th November 2008 – the day before the suspension) I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” (Paragraph 3.) Is Mr Lewis now admitting that his statement to Wiltshire Police is not true? If it helps, it appears that prior to signing his statement to Wiltshire Police, Mr Lewis signed a declaration which among other things (such as page numbers and the like) states “This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything in it which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.” If the signed statement to Wiltshire Police is not true then it is a serious matter. On the face of it, his recent public statement, and the statement to Wiltshire cannot both be true. This is something which may require a more formal investigation. I will return to this issue later.
　
6. Mr Lewis states that I was aware of the planned briefing to Ministers on 11th November 2008. This is just plain untrue. Pure and simple. This was planned and executed without my knowledge. If he claims that I was aware it might be useful for him to state who told me, and when. He then states “Despite this Mr Power chose to go on holiday.” This is almost a total reversal of the truth. Mr Lewis knows, or at least he should know, that my absence was not a “holiday.” I was attending to family welfare issues in the UK which had by that time been postponed for too long due to work commitments. The evidence indicates that far from my absence being some form of abdication of responsibility on my part, it was seized upon in a series of events which bear all of the characteristics of a planned coup d’ état. The first day of my leave was 7th November 2008. By the following morning persons unknown were preparing suspension notices and, on the evening of my return to the island I was told to attend a meeting the following morning.　　
　
7. Lewis states that I was not “asked to resign.” All parties agree on at least one thing. That is that at the start of the meeting I was asked to“consider my position.” I leave it to others to decide what is commonly understood to be meant by this statement. Interestingly Mr Lewis states “I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Met Report.” According to his statement to Wiltshire Police he could hardly do so given that he claims “I never saw the Metropolitan Review Document.” (Paragraph 14.) Again, it is hard to reconcile these two statements.
　
8. In his recent statement Lewis refers to the typed notes which are alleged to be a true record of the disciplinary meeting and says　“Mr Power has never corresponded with me to the effect that they did not reflect the meeting.” In a letter addressed to the Minister dated 1st　December 2008 I begin “Dear Minister.” I then go on to list a number of issues. In paragraph 5 and 6 I refer to the alleged typed notes of the meeting and list areas of the notes which I consider to be untrue.　On 5th　December 2008 I received a reply which had been sent on the Ministers behalf. I have copies of both letters. The recent claim by Lewis that　“Mr Power has never corresponded with me to the effect that they　(the notes)　did not reflect the meeting”　is a further transparent falsehood and can be shown to be so.
　
9. I am grateful for the comments of Andrew Lewis in this paragraph.
He confirms that he and others were apparently misled as to the duration of the disciplinary enquiry, stating that he was told that it would be concluded by March 2009. It is now of course almost March 2010 and the matter is still outstanding. He does not say who misled him or speculate as to their motives. He says that he is “deeply concerned” about this issue. His concerns, if authentic, are appreciated. During this time he has of course been getting on with his life. I am the one who has been suspended until such time as there is no possibility of a return to work, and I have therefore effectively been dismissed.　　
　
10. In this paragraph Mr Lewis praises my professional virtues. He then says that he was shocked by the revelations presented by “competent independent policing authorities.” He does not say who these authorities were. Whoever they were they could not have been the Metropolitan Police whose report he “never saw.” (Witness statement paragraph 14.)
　
11. Mr Lewis states that he will now “look forward to the publication of the Wiltshire Constabulary’s report.” In that respect he may be disappointed, given that Wiltshire have ruled their report to be confidential and stated that their report is exempt from any Freedom of Information laws on a number or grounds, including the claim that any disclosure would be “likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey.”(Confidentiality rules. Wiltshire report.) I will of course abide by the confidentiality rules imposed by Wiltshire. Andrew Lewis apparently intends otherwise. In this paragraph Mr Lewis goes on to state that he would fully co-operate with any further enquiries which may be necessary. I am pleased to hear this in view of what I have to say below with regard to this issue.
　
Personal Comment.　

Having concluded my comments on the recent release by Andrew Lewis, I now offer the following thoughts:　

Among all of the conflicting accounts and confusion a number of things appear to be evident. Nobody appears to dispute that important evidence, in the form of the original record of the suspension meeting was wilfully destroyed.
　
There is evidence that suspension documents which bore the date 12th November 2008 and which claimed to be in response to information received the previous day, were, shall we say, deficient in authenticity.

There is an apparent conflict between things said in the legally admissible statement made by Andrew Lewis and the things which he is saying now. There might be an explanation for this, although none is immediately apparent.

In these circumstances I believe that there is a compelling case for a full independent investigation with intrusive legal powers, into the actions of Andrew Lewis and others on and around 12th November 2008 and that given the circumstances, a full criminal investigation, by an independent police force, may be appropriate. This is of course a matter for others to decide. Nevertheless, notwithstanding my effective dismissal from the police service, I remain fully committed to support any enquiry, criminal or otherwise, into the events of November 2008.(END)

Inside.

2012-01-23T16:22:00.000Z

As a direct result of our PREVIOUS POSTING we were contacted by, and subsequently have had a meeting with, "An Insider" of the States of Jersey Police Force.

The insider, (who is neither a supporter, nor a detractor of, the Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM) contacted us after being a long time reader of the Blog and thought it would be beneficial to share with us (you the reader) a chain of thought/theory that exists from within the Police Force in Jersey.

Regular readers will be aware that Mr Power QPM was the Chief Police Officer who was suspended (possibly illegally) from duty in the middle of the biggest Child Abuse Investigation this island has ever seen. An act (the illegal(?) Suspension) that the Police Force, according to our insider, has still not recovered from and might take many years yet to recover from. Mr. Power's suspension and, subsequent events, were covered in-depth as part of an exclusive and possibly the most revealing interview ever conducted with the former Chief Officer published HERE.

Mr. Power was replaced by the discredited David Warcup, who according to our insider, united the force in one respect. Whether they (the Police Force/Civilian staff) were supporters of Graham Power, or not, the huge majority were not supporters of David Warcup, regular readers will have a good idea as to why this could be the case.

In our previous posting we published the answers given by the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, to Deputy Trevor Pitman's questions regarding the cost, and outcomes, of a number of external police investigations the Home Affairs Minister is responsible for since November 2008 to date.

The answers the Home Affairs Minister gave, regarding the cost of these Investigations, are widely believed to be just a fraction of the true cost to the taxpayer, which is something we will be following up on in an up-coming Blog.

It was the "purpose" of these external (and other internal) Police Investigations that prompted our insider to contact us. The Investigations were into Jersey Police Officers allegedly involved in professional/criminal misconduct. Unsurprisingly, to some, (in the force) out of the four separate external Investigations not one of them brought a single successful criminal or disciplinary charge against any Officer.

We have also been told there were a number of Internal disciplinary enquiries initiated by David Warcup, under the leadership of Senator Ian Le Marquand.

Since Senator Ian Le Marquand has been in post as Home Affairs Minister, our insiders tells us, there has been some kind of a witch-hunt for those who show/have shown any support for the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

Whatever the claimed intention of some of these investigations the real effect has been to isolate and put under stress a number of officers who are suspected of loyalty to the former Chief Officer with the consequence that a number have left the service rather than endure what they see as persecution by the regime led by Senator LeMarquand and the now departed David Warcup.

If what our Insider tells us is fact then, Senator Le Marquand's multi million pound witch hunt is only serving to divide and demoralise the States of Jersey Police Force. Forcing good cops to leave a career they intended would be for life.

For a number of those still left in the force, we were told, they live in the daily fear at work of showing any loyalty to the Former Police Chief incase word gets back to the Home Affairs Minister and they will be next in the firing line.

Of course we have no way of verifying what our source has told us although it has been substantiate by others either in or close to the force but we offer this posting as "A Theory" It will be up to readers to draw their own conclusions. We can verify that the source is genuine and is trustworthy in our opinion.

A question arises, once more, as to why our Insider hasn't taken these concerns to Jersey's State Media and we offer this as a reason WHY.

The (Multi?) Million £ Minister

2012-01-20T08:22:00.001Z

As a result of written questions asked by Deputy Trevor Pitman of the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, we can see that under the Ministers leadership he has cost the Taxpayer in the region of £1m on at least four investigations into alleged police misconduct. Not one of these investigations have resulted in a single disciplinary charge against any Police Officer let alone a criminal charge.

It would appear that, in the Minister's answers (below), legal advice and Lawyers fees are not included which means the true cost of these investigations could be millions of pounds.

Millions of pounds, in these times of austerity, spent so ‘Words of Advice’ can be given. The most notorious of these investigations has got to be that of the Wiltshire Constabulary's bungled Investigation where Chief Constable Moore never did get back to us.

Regular readers will be aware that Senator Le Marquand released, to Jersey's State Media, parts of the Wiltshire Report (the Prosecution case against Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM) but still has not released Mr. Power's statement to Wiltshire (the Defence Case). Naturally the State Media were only too happy to peddle it out to all and sundry. A disciplinary investigation that cost in the region of a million pounds (possibly lots more) that produced not a single disciplinary charge just like all the others that Senator Le Marquand has been responsible for.

BBC Jersey has been in possession of Mr. Power's statement to Wiltshire (defence case) for approximately FOUR MONTHS yet despite the fact that they have reported on the prosecution case, they've still not published/broadcast a single word of the defence. More about that in an up-coming Blog.

The questions and answers below beg the question "can the Jersey Taxpayer carry on paying for this multi million pound Minister?" Another question is "why have Jersey's State Media never challenged the Minister on his waste of Taxpayers money?"

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 17th JANUARY 2012

Question

What investigations, if any, have taken place in respect of the allegations that States of Jersey Police officers acted illegally during the investigation of the case of Curtis Warren and others; and if there has been an investigation, what was the total cost and the outcome?

Answer

An independent operational review followed by a criminal and misconduct investigation has been conducted by Hampshire Constabulary in respect of this matter.

The Cost of the Investigation is £17,084.

Case considered by Law Officers’ Department – now the subject of consideration of internal discipline.

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 17th JANUARY 2012

Question

Will the Minister provide details of how much money has been spent on external inquiries and reviews in respect of alleged disciplinary issues since November 2008 and how many police officers, if any, have been convicted of any criminal or disciplinary charges as a consequence?

Answer

The States of Jersey Police has engaged four UK Police Forces since November 2008 to conduct enquiries into alleged misconduct matters –

1. 2008 – Thames Valley Police

Investigation conducted at nil cost to the States of Jersey Police Travel costs of £690 met. No officer convicted of criminal or misconduct charges.

2. 2009/2010 – West Midlands Police

Internal Personnel matter Investigation conducted at nil cost to the States of Jersey Police Travel costs of approximately £1,800 met. One officer given ‘Words of Advice’.

3. 2009 – Warwickshire Police

Organisational complaint Investigation conducted at nil cost to the States of Jersey Police Travel and accommodation costs of approximately £1,200 met. Complaint Unsubstantiated.

4. 2011/2012 – Hampshire Constabulary

Operational Review; Criminal and Misconduct investigation Cost of Investigation £17,084. Case considered by Law Officers’ Department – now the subject of consideration of internal discipline.

Additionally, in November 2008 the Chief Minister’s Department engaged the Wiltshire Constabulary to investigate the management and supervision of the Historical Child Abuse Enquiry by the Chief Officer of Police. The cost of that investigation was £572,532.

In 2009, I commissioned a further investigation by the Wiltshire Constabulary (Operation Blast), which was completed at a cost of £301,088. 3 Police Officers and a civil servant were given ‘Words of Advice’.(END)

A word of advice (that won't cost millions of pounds) for Senator Le Marquand: Stop wasting time and money on what appears to be a personal vendetta against the Former Police Chief, give him, and the survivors of Jersey's Child Abuse, something that resembles justice and then resign.

"Historic" Abuse? A Guest Posting From Tom Perry.

2012-01-16T09:29:00.000Z

For those readers who have not yet watched the BAFTA Award Winning Documentary "Chosen" you might not have heard the names Tom Perry, Mark Payge or Alistair Rolfe.

BAFTA for Chosen from True Vision on Vimeo.

These three men, with the help of multiple Award Winning "independent" Television Production Company "True Vision" and Director Brian Woods, brought the taboo subject of Paedophilia to the world of mainstream media thanks to the courage of Channel 4.......Notably not ITV or BBC.

Their story is humbling, heart wrenching, educational, emotional, frightening, graphic, sad, inspirational, courageous, and for those who have read "The Sharp Report" the private school talked about in their story could quite easily have been Jersey's very own Victoria College.

This is a story that cannot be covered in a single Blog posting and one we shall be returning to in the near future. The guest posting came about after we received an e-mail from Mr. Perry where he brought to our attention the (mis)used word "Historic." We subsequently replied and asked if he would consider a "Guest Posting" and thankfully he agreed.

From Tom:

I am writing to Voice for Children as someone who in 2001 filed a police complaint about the sexual abuse I experienced as a child. The Case was stayed in 2003 using a pre-trial "abuse of process hearing grounded on the Selwyn Bell precedent which was established just a few months earlier. It says - "as a result of the passage of time the defendant cannot receive a fair trial." This meant that the man I accused of abusing me did not have to answer the question in court, and no stayed criminal case has ever returned to court. Following the ruling I approached an independent television production company and four years later the BAFTA award winning documentary Chosen was broadcast.

When in adulthood I finally managed to face the abuse I’d experienced as a child, even I referred to it as ‘historic abuse.’ The police did the same and media reports on similar cases were and continue to be peppered with the adjective and just look at the Voice blog and others that do such sterling work on the Jersey child abuse cover up, all of them describe child abuse complaints made in adulthood as: ‘historic.’

People wishing to see truth and justice for abusees should cease using this offensive description. Why?

It is prejudicial and serves to discount, denigrate and dismiss the crimes that abusees have experienced. “Oh that was all in the past, things are different now.” In reality little in safeguarding has changed since the 50’s. There is still no mandatory requirement in England, Wales or Scotland to report allegations of child abuse or actual rape to the police or social services. Just in case you don’t believe

it:http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/questions/child_protection_legislation_in_the_uk_pdf_wdf48953.pdf - see page 3 or search key word ‘mandatory.’

Regrettably the appalling description “historic abuse” entered the lexicon sometime ago unnoticed and to the detriment of complainants. It needs to cease. The mainstream media on Jersey are addicted to this offensive description and here is just one example from the BBC with their latest effort. In England the recent conviction of Father Nick White for child abuse when he was teaching at Downside was reported by all parts of the media in the default ‘historic’ format despite the abuse on which the trial was predicated occurring only nineteen years ago. Nineteen years!

Would Mrs Doreen Lawrence consider her son Stephen’s murder nineteen years ago ‘historic?’ For her, just like me and other abusees who have not had the benefit of having their cases heard in court, it is all too current. Yet the media do not use the ‘historic’ word to describe Stephen’s murder. Why not? Take a few other serious crimes such as aggravated burglary, grievous bodily harm, drug smuggling, or assault, and all are free of the dismissive adjective ‘historic.’ I have also never seen the crime of rape described as historic. So what is it about child abuse?

For authorities, care homes, schools, young offenders institutes that knowingly and unknowingly employed pederasts to work with children and then concealed discovered crimes, the use of the adjective ‘historic’ helps dismiss, discount, and consign to history a scandal they wish no one had noticed and which the employer does not wish to address. The same authorities delight in this self-harming description being consistently applied to crime they wish would vanish, but which remain all too current for all Jersey’s abusees.

Its child abuse.

Lenny Harper Responds to State Media.

2012-01-11T15:13:00.000Z

As a result of yesterday's (Tuesday10 Jan 2012) editorial in Jersey's only "news"paper, re-produced HERE where the paper described former SIO Mick Gradwell as a "whistle-blower" we sought, and obtained, the reaction from the man who preceded Mr Gradwell Jersey's Former Deputy Chief Officer and Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) of the Child Abuse Enquiry "Operation Rectangle" or "Jersey's Dirty Secret" as it has been described.

Mr. Harper, under the leadership of Former Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, unmasked the veil of secrecy, in that children in State Run "care" Institutions, had been abused FOR DECADES. Mr. Harper, nor Mr. Power, have ever been called, by the JEP or any of Jersey's State Media "whistle-blowers." Yet Mick Gradwell is accused of leaking confidential police information, during a live Child Abuse Enquiry, to a "journalist" with a history of supporting convicted paedophiles and the JEP herald him as a whistle-blower?

Thankfully for them (The JEP) they have no credibility left to lose and this latest editorial, in our opinion, displays its total disregard for the documented facts and evidence in order to pursue their agenda of discrediting those who sought/seek the truth behind "Jersey's Dirty Secret."

Mick Gradwell was the man who told us there were NO CELLARS AT HAUT DE LA GARENNE.

The JEP wrote, about Mick Gradwell "He quite correctly identified the frantic pursuit of forensic evidence that was never there." Again we see a blatant disregard, by the JEP, to the facts. There was more forensic "evidence" than one could shake a Sh-tty stick at HERE.

Once again, in our opinion, the JEP demonstrates its true agenda by making play of the oh so sacred "good name of Jersey" and they fail to acknowledge any pain and suffering of those children who were abused for decades in Jersey's State run Institutions and still fail to ask how it was able to go on for decades until Lenny Harper and his team exposed it.

In this interview with the former SIO, among much more, we hear his reaction to the JEP editorial, his opinion of the JEP and its agenda. He questions the motives of Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, and how he (Mr. Harper) believes Mick Gradwell might be auditioning for the lead role in "The Invisible Man."

Stuart Syvret and The Fourth Estate.

2012-01-09T10:55:00.000Z

In this next instalment of our exclusive and in-depth interview with Former Senator Stuart Syvret we discuss Jersey's media, or "State Media" as it is increasingly becoming known. In particular we look at the BBC and its role as a credible, reliable and impartial news source.

Mr Syvret's opinion of the BBC is, just like a growing number of others, very sceptical and untrusting and, in our opinion, deservedly so.

The BBC has reported on the "prosecution case" against Former Police Chief Graham Power QPM, The prosecution case being the discredited "Wiltshire Report." This Report has been, by a number of our State Media, peddled as an "independent" Report and that it's contents are "findings." We offer the view that firstly this Report was not independent it was commissioned for disciplinary purposes which produced not a single disciplinary action against the Former Police Chief. It's "findings" are nothing more, in our opinion, than unfounded, un-proven allegations, yet our Home Affairs Minister and the State Media cling on to it as if it has some kind of credibility.

The BBC has been in possession of the Former Police Chief's response (defence case) to the Wiltshire Report (prosecution case) for somewhere in the region of 3 months or so yet they've not reported a single word of it as they have the prosecution case. It is believed that the Former Police Chief's defence case, on a journalistic level, is "dynamite" and could blow the official version of events surrounding the Historical Child Abuse Enquiry clean out of the water, although we have already done that on this, and other Blogs. But regardless of whether this document is dynamite, or not, it is still the defence case and the BBC have an obligation, in the interest of fairness and balance, to publish it, or parts of it like they have, parts of the prosecution case.

Bloggers in Jersey are fast becoming the Fourth Estate because of this perceived, or actual, bias displayed by the State Media and it is a burden none of us should have to shoulder. Mr. Syvret tells us in the Interview (below) that he might be forced into publishing, on his Blog, Mr. Power's defence case if the State Media won't, should he or any Blogger have to do this just to add some balance to the stories put out by the State Media?

Of course we must concede that we are not professional "accredited" journalists and there could be a plausible explanation as to why the BBC can report on a prosecution case, then hang onto the defence case for so long, which it has been said, could be redacted in two hours and a bottle of Typex . If there is a plausible explanation for this then we would like to hear it.

The distrust of Jersey's State Media is compounded by the Press Statement released by the Jersey Care Leavers Association (below). It was sent to, as far as we know, all island Media. The JCLA is not convinced it will be published in any of the island's State Media so we are more than happy to publish it, in its entirety here. It is another reminder of the part played by the island's media concerning the Child Abuse atrocities that were able to occur, for decades, until the veil of secrecy was lifted by Former DCO Lenny Harper, Graham Power QPM, and their team who were the first Police Officers, in Jersey's History, to investigate the allegations concerning institutional Child Abuse. It is also another reminder that amongst all the legal/political wrangling there are real people who have had their lives, dreams, hopes, confidence and trust in humanity shattered by the very people who were supposed to care for them............The State of Jersey.

PRESS STATEMENT

Further to the Home Affairs Ministers statement on the Historic Abuse Police Enquiry and the role of the accredited media, the JCLA would like to offer the following response.

Whilst it is some small comfort, to at last have Senator Le Marquand’s recognition of the fact that matters were grossly exaggerated many times by the press, it could also be said to be too little, too late, as indeed Mr Harper has stated.

Had the BDO Alto Review not been held, it is doubtful that this statement would have ever been made. We must also, not lose sight of the fact that this review was held due to the hard work of a local blogger and the determination of the Scrutiny Panel headed by Deputy Trevor Pitman.

Notwithstanding the above, the reputations of two honourable police officers, and abuse survivors have also been brought into question, and the three conclusions mentioned by Senator Le Marquand from the Wiltshire Reports clearly show that the media frenzy that surrounded this whole sorry affair was very misjudged.

Indeed, Senator Le Marquand himself allowed this misinformation to be published, and indeed at times fanned the fire by his defensive answers to questions in the States Chamber. It was not helped at all by calling Mr Harper ‘an incompetent maverick’, amongst other derogatory statements which are well documented.

Part of an editorial comment in the JEP dated Monday 24^th August 2009 says: ‘In addition, on the strength of what was clearly a flawed investigation from its very outset and the hype which surrounded it, the Island has paid a terrible price through the enormous cost of misdirected police work and, more importantly, in terms of its reputation’. Quite clearly Wiltshire did not think this the case.

There will always be a case of ‘we beg to differ’ over the question of the child’s skull/coconut, but it cannot be dismissed that 65 children’s teeth were found under the floorboards, fresh, fleshed and burnt bones were found, the matter of the lime pits and many other questions left unanswered. There are the abused whose cases were never brought before the Courts despite ample evidence, who will never feel that the Police investigations were full and properly concluded, and questions relating to the behaviour of Mr Gradwell.

Only when a full, transparent and thorough Committee of Inquiry is approved and finalised will it be possible to say that there is a conclusion to this affair. (END)

It remains to be seen if this Press Statement will see the light of day in any of Jersey's State Media.

It also remains to be seen who will publish the defence case of Mr. Graham Power QPM first, a Blogger (The Fourth Estate in Jersey) or the State Media.

Part one of this interview can be viewed HERE

Stuart Syvret Exclusive Interview (Part 1 of 3)

2012-01-05T16:06:00.000Z

Subsequent to our exclusive brief interview with Former Jersey Senator Stuart Syvret, on his release from PRISON we have, as requested, been able to interview Mr. Syvret in-depth and exclusively.

In part one of this interview (below), among the subjects discussed is, "Data protection." Is this being used as a political tool to silence people who speak out against the government in Jersey? Is the Data Protection Law applied fairly? Has the Jersey government captured the courts/judicial system and the police? If you speak out against the Jersey government will you get a fair trial?

Have you got a Facebook page, a Twitter account, a Blog or website and live in Jersey? Do you believe the charges faced by Mr. Syvret have no significance to you?

Stuart Syvret Released from Prison.

2011-12-30T13:57:00.000Z

Former senior Jersey Politician, and Health Minister, Stuart Syvret was today released from prison after serving approximately two months for Data Protection/contempt of court charges.

Mr. Syvret who in 2007 stood up in Jersey's Parliament, while still Health Minister, and said.

Senator Syvret in 2007 as Health Minister

“I have serious concerns, to be honest, about the whole child protection, child welfare standards of performance of Jersey, not just within my own department, Social Services and the Children’s Service, but across the board. I am aware of a number of issues, this being one of them, a number of cases, a number of incidents that lead me more and more strongly to the conclusion that we are failing badly in this area. I am probably going to be seeking to initiate a major independent review into the whole sphere of child welfare, child protection in Jersey. So if you are asking me honestly, do I believe the performance of certain senior individuals within this field and of the departments generally is acceptable, no, it is not.”

Did this statement trigger the political downfall of the former Senator? How many other Data Protection offences have warranted a 10 strong police squad, without a search warrant, turning over a place of residence in what has been described as "a fishing expedition?"

There will be an in-depth and exclusive interview coming up with Mr. Syvret at the beginning of 2012.

Team Voice.

Hope

2011-12-24T16:30:00.000Z

Below is a video created by OZZY a survivor of Haute de la Garenne and we would like, once more, to share it with our readers and viewers and pay tribute to those who have, and are still, suffering from the atrocities committed in that place (HDLG) and others.

Here's hoping 2012 will bring us a judicial system that will be there to protect, rather than, crush and oppress those of us seeking the truth. Here's hoping 2012 will bring us an independent media who will hold our Law Offices and government to account. Here's hoping 2012 will bring an open and transparent Committee of Enquiry with a fit for purpose Terms of Reference.

For the Paedophiles and those protecting them who are hoping there will be a let up in 2012......BOB and NO.

Merry Christmas to all our readers across the world and a happy and safe New Year.

Team Voice.

Lucy Panton and Lenny Harper.

2011-12-19T15:36:00.000Z

Not for the first time there are those conspiracy theorists and people wishing to link Jersey's Former Deputy Chief Police Officer and Senior Investigating Officer Lenny Harper with some kind of improper dealings concerning the (then) Chief Crime Reporter on the News of The World Lucy Panton.

First off we must stress that Mrs. Panton, to the best of our knowledge, has not been charged with any offence. She certainly hasn't been found guilty of any offence so in the eyes of the law she is innocent.

But this does not prevent those who are hell-bent on trashing the name of the first Police Officer in Jersey's history to lead an investigation into widespread and DECADES of Child Abuse in the State run institutions with innuendo and gossip.

Regular readers/viewers will be aware the we (Team Voice) pride ourselves with dealing, as best we can, in "evidence and facts." The "fact" is somebody from the States of Jersey Police was leaking information, during the live Child Abuse investigation to at least one "journalist." The "evidence" points us in the direction of the officer who took over from Mr. Harper and that is Mick Gradwell.

Mick Gradwell has been named by a number of witnesses (under oath) as the officer leaking this information. He has also been named by Jersey's Home Affairs Minister as the leak. The Home Affairs Minister has also told the SCRUTINY REVIEW that if Mr. Gradwell had not been seconded and was a States of Jersey Police Officer then he would very likely be facing serious disciplinary action. Yet still Jersey's State Media don't think any of this is newsworthy or of public interest? But what Lenny Harper "might" have done is?

The first time it was inferred that Mr. Harper "might" have had improper relations with the NOTW Chief Crime Reporter "Lucy Panton" was back in July this year when Former Senator's Perchard and Shenton with current Deputy Sean Power took their concerns to Jersey's Attorney General.

We at Team Voice put the accusations to Mr. Harper as part of an exclusive and in-depth interview we did with him and here is what he told us.

Every move Mr. Harper has made and every penny he spent during the Child Abuse Enquiry has been meticulously scrutinised by all and sundry including the State Media. Should our (or their) attention now be turned towards Mick Gradwell................And why hasn't it been??

Revisit the credibility of State Media

2011-12-13T12:26:00.003Z

As the credibility of the BBC is once more being called into question surrounding the alleged duping of the public in the "Frozen Planet" episode recently screened concerning the baby Polar Bears. We thought this would be an ideal opportunity to revisit a Blog posting we published back in October last year (2010)

Of course there are any number of occasions that could be mentioned when it comes to the BBC allegedly duping the public, whether it be Panorama and the supposed sweat shops, the Blue Peter child being asked to pose as a competition winner, the Queen being edited to look like she was walking out of a photo shoot, when in fact she was walking IN. Again there are probably many more that could be mentioned, not least The Wiltshire Report, or as it is commonly known, the (discredited) prosecution case against Former Jersey Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

The BBC, along with the rest of Jersey's State Media, published/broadcast/reported on this Wiltshire Report (prosecution case) quite extensively. The BBC has now been in possession of Mr. Power's 62,000 word submission to Wiltshire (the defence case) for TWO MONTHS and have not reported a single word of it. What are the chances that the BBC will be leaked anything again in Jersey? Haven't they got an obligation to tell both sides of a story? How can they expect trust and credibility? Why won't they report it?

"Leaks, Trust and Credibility Revisited" (October 2010)

After today’s announcement that Mike Bowron is the preferred choice of our Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian (P9-26) Le Marquand, to be our next Chief Police Officer very serious and very probing questions need to be asked of our “accredited” media.

These questions should go right to the very top echelons of the BBC, ITV and the “Independent” Press Complaints Commission, or whoever it is that are tasked with the job of watching over the JEP .

The Home Affairs Minister’s announcement raises many, many questions to the credibility and trustworthiness of our “accredited” media. Regular Readers/viewers of this site will be aware that we were provided with information, not only to the identity of the new (subject to States approval) Chief Police Officer, but the alleged “cover story” that enabled David Warcup to secure his pension, that the selection process was just a PR exercise, Mr. Bowron was “the chosen one” before the selection process had even commenced and It enabled him (David Warcup) to resign before the Napier report became public and thereby claim that he was leaving because of political and Blog criticism.

After doing everything we could to substantiate the information we were given, we decided to publish it HERE

NINE DAYS LATER the “accredited” media announce that Mike Bowron is “the chosen one”. It is a known fact that the “accredited” media read this Blog, and have in the past, used it as a source for their own news, but why not this story? So a few of the questions that need to be asked are “how long have they been in possession of this information?” How is it that they report it as “news” NINE DAYS after it appeared on here? Why wasn’t this information provided directly to them? And many more questions besides.

For now we’ll just concentrate on the “trustworthiness” of the “accredited” media, their credibility and that of Team Voice. If this information wasn’t given to the accredited media, then why not? Could it be that they could not be trusted with it? And Team Voice could? Let us just suppose they were provided with this information then we must ask, why didn’t they report it? Are they as “independent” as they claim to be? Were they “encouraged” by our powers that be to keep it under wraps? If so then how can they claim to be an independent media? Either scenario suggests that they cannot be trusted.

As for the credibility, we at Team Voice, believe ours has never been in question. That is because, to the best of our (somewhat limited in comparison to the “accredited” media) ability, we research the facts and rely on documentation to substantiate these facts. We do as best we can to only publish evidenced facts. By doing this and reporting “in-depth” on the more embarrassing (to our government) stories we have gained the trust of some very courageous, knowledgeable, trustworthy, and conscientious people from inside the very heart of our government/Civil Service. These contacts can not be thanked enough, they are taking a huge risk to their livelihoods, their pensions, mortgages and so forth in order to have the truth told. They are, along with the Abuse Survivors, the unsung heroes in this very dark period in Jersey’s History……But why are they not giving, or leaking, this information to the “accredited” and “independent” media?

Our source was right about the name of the successful candidate and it is reasonable to assume that they were also right about the other things in the same story. Or are we to assume that getting the name right was a lucky guess and the rest should be ignored? This is further evidence of how Ministers could be systematically lying to the public about these issues and how the "accredited” media are falling for it hook line and sinker, or are complicit in their party line and deliberately keeping the public ignorant. If Ministers are willing to lie and cover up about these things what else are they willing to lie/cover up about?? Can anything they say be trusted and can we believe anything the Jersey media repeats on their behalf?

It must be said that we (Team Voice) know little about Mr Bowron himself apart from what is available on the internet. From what we do know he appears to be a respected and capable officer and wish him well in his new position. However, his apparent (alleged) association with David Warcup and the "cover story" for Warcup’s departure is not a good start and we hope that Mr Bowron will take an early opportunity to assert his independence from the “untrustworthy?” political leadership of this island. We hope that he will strive to create a politically independent Police Force. We hope that he will also strive to rigorously pursue the perpetrators of Child Abuse and bring them to justice without fear or favour.

What (or who) must also be in serious question is the Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand. Regular readers/viewers will be aware that he gave the Wiltshire Report to the “accredited” media before he gave it to his fellow States Members as we reported, with great thanks to Deputy Trevor Pitman, HERE, with a follow up
HERE

Despite all the promises made about keeping Members informed, he (ILM) has again failed to show respect to his colleagues. We have just checked the States website and there is no proposition lodged to appoint the next Chief Police Officer. Given the concerns about the Police Chiefs one would have hoped that ILM would have ensured that proper etiquette was followed and his fellow States Members wouldn’t have to learn about it through the “accredited” media…………..or on here!

The credibility, trust and independence of our “accredited” media are seriously in question. If any of it was in any doubt concerning Team Voice then this should now have been dispelled……………You heard it HERE first.

What a difference a Child Abuse Investigation makes.

2011-12-09T10:16:00.001Z

Below is a previous post from one of our sister sites revised and revisited and the question still remains, how could it be that Former Police Chief Officer Graham Power QPM and Former Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper forgot all their police training and experience once they started investigating Institutional Child Abuse in Jersey's State run "care" homes?

Back in early 2007 Chief Police Officer Graham Power and Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper were “the good guys”. They were rooting out the alleged corruption in Jersey's “outdated” Police force and according to Jersey's only "News"paper, the Jersey Evening Post, “ It goes without saying that in the police - beyond all other institutions - there is no room whatsoever for corruption or malpractice. If the professional standards section of our force determined that it was necessary to act with exemplary firmness, its stance deserves support rather than criticism.”
Below is that editorial published by the Jersey Evening Post early in 2007 where one would believe, after receiving glowing reports from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate, Lenny Harper and Graham Power were doing this right. This appears to be endorsed by the Jersey Evening Post, hence their “positive” Editorial.

But along came a Child Abuse Investigation, and these two cops who had received glowing reports from HMI and others also the support of the Jersey Evening Post - before you know it - they’re the bad guys! Come on JEP you can’t have it both ways, at what point did they lose your support, when was it that they went bad?

Everything all seemed Hunky Dory until these guys started investigating institutional Child Abuse.

I should like at this point to throw out a challenge to the Jersey Evening Post.

In their Editorial of February 23rd 2010 (below) they have written “One is that Mr Power’s deputy, Lenny Harper, was not effectively supervised as he pursued with ever increasing public zeal his unsubstantiated suspicions that torture, murder and institutional cover-up had taken place at the former children’s home.”

Could you please point us in the direction where Lenny Harper has ever said there was any “murder” at HDLG?

JEP Editorial from 2007.

Police Chief delivers change.
Six years ago the States of Jersey Police were the subject of a less than flattering report compiled in the wake of a visit by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. Since then, problems clearly have been solved and new standards have been set, the latest HMI report

having described the force as “modern and fast-moving”.
Police Chief Graham Power and his officers can be proud of this achievement. In common with forces up and down Britain, the States Police are a complex and many-layered organisation. Accomplishing the turn-around of the past six years can therefore, have been no easy undertaking. Nor can it have been particularly pleasant. The process of major change is always likely to upset those set in their ways or content to roll along in accordance with comfortable but outdated routines.

This process of transformation was undoubtedly at its most challenging when the professional standards department, led by Mr. Power’s deputy, Lenny Harper, embarked on a systematic programme to root out corruption. Mr. Harper’s determined efforts have been attacked - to the extent that they have been described as “out of control” by a prominent former politician - but the result of the latest HMI inspection would seem to justify the decision to probe as deeply as possible and to remove those officers who were less than a credit to their uniform.
It goes without saying that in the police - beyond all other institutions - there is no room whatsoever for corruption or malpractice. If the professional standards section of our force determined that it was necessary to act with exemplary firmness, its stance deserves support rather than criticism.

There are, of course, areas of the force where improvements can still be made. Indeed, the inspectorate has listed 78 suggestions for further change. With the combination of improved morale, high levels of confidence in the top echelon and firm political support, Mr. Power and his colleagues are in an excellent position to deliver that change.
We in Jersey are fortunate to live in a community where serious crime is mercifully rare. While important questions remain over the failure of the States to establish a new police authority , the force itself is organised and led in a way more than capable of maintaining this happy state of affairs.

But along came a Child Abuse Investigation and the JEP are not so supportive. As the Editorial from the same "News"paper, some three years later, demonstrates.

Mr Power: Time to call a halt
February 23, 2010 – 3:00 pm

ALMOST exactly two years since the name of Haut de la Garenne hit the world’s headlines, Jersey is still dealing with the fall-out.

The ramifications of how the police and politicians handled that dramatic escalation of the Island’s historical child abuse inquiry will once again tax the wisdom of States Members this week when they debate Deputy Bob Hill’s call for a committee of inquiry into the suspension of States police chief Graham Power.
We may never know precisely what arguments he will make because the debate is to be held in private, but they will need to be powerful ones to justify the protraction of an already extensive examination.

There seems to be little, if any, doubt over the two key points. One is that Mr Power’s deputy, Lenny Harper, was not effectively supervised as he pursued with ever increasing public zeal his unsubstantiated suspicions that torture, murder and institutional cover-up had taken place at the former children’s home. The other is that in suspending Mr Power because of that failure of oversight, the powers that be slipped up in one or more parts of the procedural minefield that now surrounds employer/employee relations in Jersey.
Unequivocally damning evidence in respect of the first of those points has already been presented by the States police’s own review of the conduct of the abuse inquiry, carried out by a suitably qualified senior officer from the UK. More expert comment on the whole affair is due soon from the Wiltshire Constabulary, who have been commissioned to take a further independent view.

Meanwhile, Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur has offered a review of the way Mr Power’s suspension was carried out. All this has already taken longer and cost more than is reasonable, with the delay providing a field day for conspiracy theorists in the process.In reaching a decision this week, the States will have to balance a number of tricky questions, including, crucially, what is fair to Mr Power but also what is fair to Jersey and to the taxpayer.
Mr Power has been suspended for more than a year. He is now near retirement and, one way or another, will undoubtedly leave Jersey well rewarded for his ultimately disappointing time in the Island. There is, nevertheless, understandable sadness that a dedicated, respected police officer who has given long and distinguished service should find himself in this position at the end of his career.

Depending on one’s point of view, that sympathy will either be diluted or reinforced by the knowledge that Mr Power and Mr Harper co-existed as two sides of a triangular relationship with a weak Home Affairs Minister in former Senator Wendy Kinnard.
From any perspective, though, there is strong evidence that Mr Power has largely brought his troubles on himself through his failure to control Mr Harper. For that reason Deputy Hill, himself a former Metropolitan Police officer of the old school, will have a hard task convincing the States that there would be any overwhelmingly important purpose served by dragging out this whole grim process even further.(END)

What a difference a Child Abuse investigation makes.

Briefing Note Number 5 Revisited.

2011-12-05T13:47:00.000Z

Below is one of a series of "Briefing Notes" issued by the Former States of Jersey Chief Police Officer Mr. Graham Power QPM to the local State Media (although the State Media didn't get this one) and VFC. Although the only place these briefing notes saw the light of day was on the Team Voice Blogs.

We published this particular Briefing note back in August 2010. Naturally a lot has happened since then, not least the "Road Show" that our re-elected Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand DID, as predicted, go ahead. The Home Affairs Minister held a Press Conference (for State Media only) gave one-one interviews (to State Media only) and gave a presentation to Jersey's Parliament. All to parade the "prosecution case" against the Former Chief Police Officer AFTER the Home Affairs Minister had abandoned any disciplinary hearing. He did not, and still has not, published one single word of the Former Police Chief's 62,000 word defence case. The same 62,000 words that BBC Jersey have had for the best part of two months and, just like the Home Affairs Minister, BBC Jersey have not published a single word of it either.

Mr. Power's own words sums up the crux of all that has been able to go on unchecked and un-challegened (except by Bloggers) and they are.

"And if, reader, you consider this all very amusing and distant from your own concerns, then remember what has been said by many from the very beginning of this saga. If they can do this to a Chief Police Officer and get away with it...............think what they could do to you. Then it might not be so funny."

This all coincides with an Early Days Motion (EDM) submitted by Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming which reads.

"That this House notes the imprisonment of Stuart Syvret; believes that the public authorities of the island of Jersey do not operate in a manner compliant with the requirements of the European Commission of Human Rights (ECHR), there being overt and significant overlaps and contaminations between the legislature, executive and judiciary; further notes that Her Majesty's subjects in Jersey are not protected by effective checks and balances, and that there has been the political repression of former Chief Police Officer, Graham Power and former Senator Stuart Syvret; further notes that, notwithstanding the responsibility the Secretary of State for Justice has for good governance and Convention Rights in Jersey, the island's authorities are permitted to repress opposition activists, and that the Secretary of State for Justice and Jersey's Lieutenant Governor have failed to act; further notes that successive governments of the United Kingdom have committed this nation to securing real democratic freedoms and the rule of law in other jurisdictions, yet in the British enclave of Jersey on the United Kingdom's very doorstep, ordinary powerless people are oppressed by an entrenched oligarchy; and calls on the Secretary of State for Justice to appoint an independent Commission similar to that which investigated corruption in the Turks and Caicos Islands, to investigate the conduct of Jersey's public administration and to urgently bring the protections of the ECHR to Her Majesty's subjects in the island."

There is also an e petition that supports mr Hemming's EDM and we encourage our readers from the Channel Islands and Britain to sign it. Although it might well be that we don't have a corrupt Government, Administration and Judicial System, and if this is the case then there is nothing to fear an enquiry that will prove it. On the other hand if we do have this amount of corruption then it is time to rid Jersey of it. Either scenario gives good reason to sign this e-petition which can be done easily HERE

Briefing note 5.
The following note has been prepared by Graham Power and is intended to assist Editors in reporting issues arising from the announcement by the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand, that he is abandoning all disciplinary proceedings.

Topic:

So what happened to Justice?

It has been said that a Fascist is a Liberal who has just been mugged. I am inclined to wonder whether an autocrat is a Magistrate who has been appointed Minister for Home Affairs.

There are two principles of Justice which most people know and respect. One is that a person who is not proved guilty is presumed innocent. Another is that judgement should not be reached until both sides of the case have been heard. As the Island’s Magistrate, Ian le Marquand was generally respected for upholding both principles. So what happened to him once he was “anointed” as the Minister for Home Affairs?

If his own claims on live radio are to be believed then he is shortly about to engage in a public diatribe in which he will denounce the actions of the writer who is still, at the time of writing, Chief Officer of the States Police. I am of course the same person who has been subject to a suspension and disciplinary investigation lasting 21 months and costing Jersey taxpayers, of which I am one, an admitted sum of well over one million pounds, and a suspected real sum of considerably more. All proceedings are now abandoned and there will be no charges and no hearing. By anyone’s fair reckoning that is an acquittal. It can be nothing else. All proceedings are abandoned. I am convicted of nothing and therefore innocent of everything. Everyone understands that. Everyone that is apart from the Minister for Home Affairs (the person charged with promoting justice in the island no less.) He apparently thinks that his abandonment of the case (and a lot of our money as well) now entitles him to put on a road-show intended to demonstrate that I was guilty all along, it was just that he was not clever enough or fast enough to do anything about it (should he be admitting that??)

But it does not stop there. According to his own reported comments his presentation will entertain no nonsense about any defence case in respect of the allegations. We will hear the case for the prosecution, but anything of value to the defence will be edited out or banned. It is also claimed that the Minister will express his confidence that had the matter gone to a disciplinary hearing then I would have been found guilty on all counts. In that respect I have to confess that he is probably right. I say this because according to my latest information the Minister intended to appoint himself as both prosecutor and judge in the case. While such an arrangement (or something very similar) is not entirely unknown in the Jersey context, it might not accord with what the man or woman in the street considers fair, although it must be doubted whether the Minister would consider that important.

And if, reader, you consider this all very amusing and distant from your own concerns, then remember what has been said by many from the very beginning of this saga. If they can do this to a Chief Police Officer and get away with it...............think what they could do to you. Then it might not be so funny.