Saturday, May 21, 2016

THE ESTABLISHMENT BLAME IT ALL ON HAPER -POWER AND SYVRET. SICK TOSSERS


FORMER DCO LENNY HARPER - ALL HIS FAULT ACCORDING TO THE JERSEY ESTABLISHMENT  - HAD THE CHEEK TO INVESTIGATE CHILD ABUSE


FORMER SENATOR STUART SYVRET- ALL HIS FAULT ACCORDING TO THE JERSEY ESTABLISHMENT
DATA COMMISSIONER EMMA MARTINS -  RUNS A SHELTER FOR THE  ISLANDS ANONYMOUS.



THE JERSEY CARE ENQUIRY


CLOSING STATEMENTS FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT INTERESTED PARTIES (IP'S)


THE DISGRACED MICK GRADWELL - JERSEY LAW OFFICE AND THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE  BLAME FORMER CPO GRAHAM POWER - SIO LENNY HARPER & FORMER SENATOR STUART SYVRET FOR UNCOVERING DECADES LONG CHILD ABUSE. 



THAT'S A BLOODY CRIME IN JERSEY



The Jersey Media have been headlining the attacks on Stuart Syvret, Lenny Harper and Graham Power.

The States of Jersey Police, The Law Office's Department and the States of Jersey, made their final submissions to the Jersey Care Inquiry a couple of days ago. So did the Jersey Care Leavers Association (JCLA)  but you won't have heard too much of the JCLA's submission because it wasn't used to attack those who lifted the lid off of Jersey's dirty secret. The final submissions were an opportunity for interested parties to make a closing argument after assessing all the evidence they had heard from witnesses to the Enquiry.

What these attacks tell us is that nothing has changed since this abuse was taking place for all those decades. Those who speak out against the abuse are STILL being marginalised and attacked, when the opportunity to discuss how things went so badly wrong for so long or how things can be made better/safer for the vulnerable, the opportunity is ignored, in favour of criticisms of those who exposed the failures/cover-ups. This is post-Savile/Hillsborough and Rotherham! 

Lenny Harper chose NOT to submit a closing statement and be judged on the evidence he had provided to the COI. His reasoning turned out to be correct in that it would take the focus away from the victims/survivors (again) and rehash unhelpful tittle tattle which benefits nobody, not least the victims/survivors.

The Inquiry, and public, must now question the motives of those who did submit a final statement in order to attack those who attempted to bring perpetrators to justice and support survivors.

The Inquiry, after this latest episode, is going to have to ask itself one very important question; "are we leaving Jersey a better, more mature, and safer place than what we found it?"

I would argue "NO." After all that has gone on, and evidence heard (from victims/survivors) it still feels like we are back in 2008/9/10/11........

Those who attempted to do the right thing are portrayed as the enemy by the Establishment and jumped all over by the State Media.

What lessons really have been learned from this dark period in Jersey's history? How much safer are our children now? Who will stick their heads above the parapet and be a voice for victims? How does this encourage whistle-blowers to come forward?


Why is it the Establishment STILL attacking, talking about Graham Power, Lenny Harper, Stuart Syvret? Why aren't they attacking the perpetrators of vile abuse against children? Why aren't the talking about those who covered up for the abusers?

Why demonise those who attempted to be a voice for victims instead of demonising those who abused them and those who covered it up?

Lenny Harper's, Stuart Syvret's Graham Power's names all being dragged through the mud again. How many perpetrators names do you know who are being dragged through the mud? How many of those who covered up that abuse do you know who's names are being dragged through the mud?

Why is the establishment and it's media still all talking about Syvret, Power and Harper? Why aren't they talking about the victims and the horrendous ordeals they were (and continue to be) put through and how this will not be allowed to happen again?

We are back in 2008 with the diversionary tactic of attacking those who tried bring justice to abuse victims and NOT talking about the abuse or the victims or those who covered it up.


 LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT WAHT POLICE ADVOCATE JEREMY GARROD SAID:

"THE States police ‘regret’ appointing Lenny Harper as the senior investigating officer of the historical abuse inquiry in 2007"

I bet they bloody well regret Graham Power making Lenny Harper the SIO of Operation Rectangle. 

What a complete ass of a statement. 

The Idiot should have said: 

"The States of Jersey Police regret appointing Lenny Harper as SIO of Operation Rectangle because it exposed the decades long physical and mental abuse of vulnerable children in Jersey. We had spent decades making sure that it was never exposed or uncovered or investigated. My God, not to mention, the many man hours spent hiding and removing files that might have exposed Club Buggery that have enjoyed such a successful and uninterrupted run in Jersey. Our Good friend at the Jersey Law Office, Oliver Glasgow QC, was absolutely correct when he told the Care Enquiry that "Lenny Harpers actions were a 'disservice' to the victims of Child Abuse."  Those poor souls must have been heart broken when that brash, uncaring bastard from Northern Island and his team of do gooders started to listen. We, the States of Jersey Police, apologise profusely to all victims of  abuse for this crass dereliction of duty.."

Next thing you know the SOJP will be telling us that removing a trouser belt outside leads to hypothermia. 

Do you laugh or do you cry? It's a tough call. You really couldn't make it up. Chuck in the Establishment poodle, Data Commissioner Emma Martins and you have the cherry on the cake.  One good thing out of this latest Establishment fiasco is that it just nails it home even further to the Care Enquiry just what a bunch of dangerous halfwits we and they  are dealing with. 


Kids being physically and mentally abused and it's all down to Syvret Harper and Power. 

What an Island. 

Still, not like the books are being cooked down at the Finance Centre. 

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist




Friday, April 8, 2016

ANDREW LEWIS AND THE POISONED CHALICE 6 - THE JEP GETS IT BANG ON.







DON'T WORRY ANDREW IT WILL ALL BE FORGOTTEN ABOUT NEXT WEEK -  OK  FRANK  




The “Andrew Lewis Effect.”

Readers will be familiar with the phrase “The Streisand Effect” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect or as it is known locally “The Emma Martins Effect.” In the case of Streisand she attempted to suppress photographs of her house being published, which caused them to be published on a far greater scale than they would have been had she not tried to have them kept secret.

In the case of Emma Martins, she brought, what was supposed to be, a secret court case using four proxies against former Health Minister Stuart Syvret. The names of the proxies were supposed to be kept a secret, along with the court case itself but within no time the names and court case almost went viral.

Now we might have a new phrase to add to the Streisand/Emma Martins Effect and that is “The Andrew Lewis Effect.” In my last posting I published the editorial from the Jersey Evening Post (re-posted below) where the paper, rightly, called Andrew Lewis out and exposed his lies when he suspended the chief of police back in 2008, what he told the States Assembly and what he told the child abuse inquiry.

It looks like Andrew Lewis, or a supporter, (if he has any) has complained to the JEP about its PREVIOUS EDITORIAL which has caused the paper to publish a correction/clarification which I publish below.

You have to ask, what the hell was Andrew Lewis (or his supporter) thinking? He had his trousers pulled down in the editorial and now – because of the complaint – he’s had his underpants pulled down as well!

Here is the original editorial from the JEP


THE JERSEY EVENING POST EDITORIAL



 DO the ends justify the means? And if they do, should those who adopt questionable tactics to achieve their objective be honest and transparent about what they are doing?

Those questions – and a good many more – are left hanging today after Deputy Andrew Lewis, the former Home Affairs Minister, finished giving his evidence to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry yesterday. He did so following the release recently of the transcript of the 2008 States debate about the suspension of former police chief Graham Power, which was held behind closed doors.

Deputy Lewis has long been accused of misleading the States during that debate. He has always denied the allegation and denied it again, and again, yesterday.
The case against him is that, during the debate, he said unambiguously that Graham Power should be suspended because of the findings of an interim report by the Metropolitan police, which was reviewing the States police’s handling of the historical child abuse inquiry.

He now says that he had never seen the report, but was acting on information supplied to him by former police chief David Warcup in a letter. At no point during the in camera debate did he mention the letter from Mr Warcup.
‘I have read an alarming report by the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place,’ he told Members. He added later: ‘I am purely acting on information contained in a report that was about the investigation.’

Mr Lewis said yesterday that everyone in the States Chamber during the secret debate knew perfectly well that he was referring to the letter and not the interim report. He says he made a mistake under the pressure of being questioned by States Members. During the 2008 debate, he was also asked whether it would be better to wait for the full report before suspending Mr Power. A few weeks ago, William Bailhache, the Attorney General in 2008, revealed that he had advised it would be better for the whole report to be available before any decision was made regarding Mr Power’s suspension. That advice was ignored.

So what of the questions posed at the top of this column?
Deputy Lewis has been left looking ridiculous at best and, to many, dishonest. Due process was not properly followed, advice from lawyers was ignored and warnings from elected representatives resisted. Whether or not the ends – the removal of Mr Power – were justified is a question for another day, and one for the inquiry to ponder.

But revelations about the means will do the reputation of this Island, the credibility of its politicians (and their ability to tell the truth under robust scrutiny) and the institutions of government no good. If Deputy Lewis is the fall guy for what went on behind the scenes in 2008 at the very top of government, he can have little to complain about.

The great irony is that, ultimately, the people who fought so hard to protect Jersey’s reputation in 2008 may end up seriously undermining it. The electorate will decide who they believe. And those privileged to sit in positions of power to serve Jersey must understand the obvious dangers of trying to run this Island in secret and away from public scrutiny


Deputy Andrew Lewis, and It really could only of been Deputy Andrew Lewis, must of put a complaint in about the above editorial. Instead of complaining - I would have thanked the JEP for not totally shafting me with the truth. Not this PR guru. 


Andrew Lewis must now wait. His disastrous testimony, and the conclusions drawn from it, are now in the hands of the Jersey Care Enquiry. 

Andrew Lewis suspended a Police Chief in the middle of one of the biggest Child Abuse Investigations ever. As Minister, it was only he who had the power to do this. His actions were going always going to be scrutinised. Obviously, nobody bothered to tell him this. If you read his evidence nobody actually bothered to tell him anything. He was kept out of the loop until the last minute. The Patsy. 

He knows what he did. And so do all of us. 

The JEP has been spot on with this. It's getting a lot better. If I'm going to slag the JEP then I'm also going to praise it. I only want the truth. Nothing more nothing less.

Below we have the response from the Jersey Evening Post.


Deputy Andrew Lewis and the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry

ON 18 February, the JEP published an editorial leader column under the headline “Lewis and the Truth”. The column was published the day after Deputy Andrew Lewis gave evidence to the Jersey Independent Care Inquiry.

The Deputy told the inquiry that he had suspended former police chief Graham Power on 12 November 2008 after receiving a letter from Bill Ogley, the then chief executive of the States. Attached to the letter was what Mr. Ogley described as a “report” written by David Warcup, the then deputy police chief.

This “report”, in effect a letter written by Mr. Warcup, included the officer’s own views on the management of Operation Rectangle, the State force’s investigation into historical child abuse, as well as quotes and comments which Mr. Warcup said were the preliminary findings of the Metropolitan Police’s review into the management of the investigation.

Deputy Lewis told the Inquiry that he had never been allowed to see the actual Met report as it contained victims’ sensitive personal data.

During an in-camera States debate on 2 December 2008 about the suspension of Mr Power, Deputy Lewis said: “Members will be aware that an investigation has been carried out by the Metropolitan Police and I was presented with a preliminary report on the basis of that investigation.” Towards the end of the debate, he added: “I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which lead me to this decision (to suspend Mr Power) in the first place.”

At no point during the debate did Deputy Lewis tell Members that the so-called “preliminary report” was written by Mr Warcup and not the Metropolitan police. When asked by the Inquiry to explain why he had said that he head “read an alarming report from the Metropolitan police” when he had not, he said that he had made a mistake under the pressure of questioning. He added that he was, in fact referring to the document produced by Mr Warcup and that he had made that “perfectly clear” during the in-camera debate. Deputy Lewis added that he did not believe his words were misleading and argued that no right-minded Member would have thought he was actually saying that he had read a report written by the Metropolitan police.

The leader column highlighted the discrepancy. It also asked a number of questions about the actions of those involved in Mr Power’s suspension in 2008. It did not state that Deputy Lewis lied to the States. The inquiry will give its view on the evidence put before it in due course.

The leader column stated that advice from the then Attorney General, William Bailhache, (that the full Met Report should be available before making any decision about suspending Mr Power was made) was ignored.

The JEP is happy to clarify that the advice was given in writing in a letter sent to Bill Ogley and Frank Walker. Deputy Lewis says that the advice was not communicated to him before he suspended Mr Power even though he alone, as Home Affairs Minister, had the authority to suspend the police chief.

The leader stated that “warnings” from elected representatives about the need to follow correct procedures in the suspension of Mr Power “were resisted”. The JEP is also happy to clarify that these concerns were raised during the in-camera debate on 3 December 2008, nearly a month after Mr Power was suspended by Deputy Lewis. The comment referred to Mr Power’s ongoing suspension, which lasted until he retired in July 2010.

The transcripts of Deputy Lewis’s evidence can be read in full at http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/hearings/transcripts They are numbered 136 and 138.  

These post below from VFC are essential reading. They beautifully expose the liar Lewis. 




Rico Sorda


Part Time Investigative Journalist.

Saturday, February 27, 2016

ANDREW LEWIS AND THE POISONED CHALICE 5 - THE JERSEY EVENING POST EDITORIAL






FORMER HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER - DEPUTY ANDREW LEWIS 


THE JERSEY EVENING POST EDITORIAL - REPRODUCED BELOW 


WE START TO LOOKAT THE GARBAGE GIVEN AS EVIDENCE BY ANDREW LEWIS

BUT FIRST


THE JERSEY EVENING POST EDITORIAL



 DO the ends justify the means? And if they do, should those who adopt questionable tactics to achieve their objective be honest and transparent about what they are doing?

Those questions – and a good many more – are left hanging today after Deputy Andrew Lewis, the former Home Affairs Minister, finished giving his evidence to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry yesterday. He did so following the release recently of the transcript of the 2008 States debate about the suspension of former police chief Graham Power, which was held behind closed doors.

Deputy Lewis has long been accused of misleading the States during that debate. He has always denied the allegation and denied it again, and again, yesterday.
The case against him is that, during the debate, he said unambiguously that Graham Power should be suspended because of the findings of an interim report by the Metropolitan police, which was reviewing the States police’s handling of the historical child abuse inquiry.

He now says that he had never seen the report, but was acting on information supplied to him by former police chief David Warcup in a letter. At no point during the in camera debate did he mention the letter from Mr Warcup.
‘I have read an alarming report by the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place,’ he told Members. He added later: ‘I am purely acting on information contained in a report that was about the investigation.’

Mr Lewis said yesterday that everyone in the States Chamber during the secret debate knew perfectly well that he was referring to the letter and not the interim report. He says he made a mistake under the pressure of being questioned by States Members. During the 2008 debate, he was also asked whether it would be better to wait for the full report before suspending Mr Power. A few weeks ago, William Bailhache, the Attorney General in 2008, revealed that he had advised it would be better for the whole report to be available before any decision was made regarding Mr Power’s suspension. That advice was ignored.

So what of the questions posed at the top of this column?
Deputy Lewis has been left looking ridiculous at best and, to many, dishonest. Due process was not properly followed, advice from lawyers was ignored and warnings from elected representatives resisted. Whether or not the ends – the removal of Mr Power – were justified is a question for another day, and one for the inquiry to ponder.

But revelations about the means will do the reputation of this Island, the credibility of its politicians (and their ability to tell the truth under robust scrutiny) and the institutions of government no good. If Deputy Lewis is the fall guy for what went on behind the scenes in 2008 at the very top of government, he can have little to complain about.

The great irony is that, ultimately, the people who fought so hard to protect Jersey’s reputation in 2008 may end up seriously undermining it. The electorate will decide who they believe. And those privileged to sit in positions of power to serve Jersey must understand the obvious dangers of trying to run this Island in secret and away from public scrutiny



We know that Andrew Lewis misled the house in 2008. On that issue there is no doubt. This is a strongly worded editorial. It really does call into question the integrity of Andrew Lewis. Why did Andrew Lewis come to the Jersey Care Enquiry and lie? He came in, swore the oath, then delivered lies, more lies and damn lies. Why? Why didn't he take this opportunity to set the record straight? Instead he was prepared to make himself look like an idiot.  He told the Care Enquiry that the States of Jersey politicians in December 2008 knew that he was referring to a Warcup Letter and not the Met Interim Report - with the one small issue being that none of them knew that the Warcup Letter even existed in December 2008.


Just recently we have had the Dame Janet Smith Jimmy Savile inquiry. What was interesting was the reaction to the evidence given by Tony Blackburn. His evidence fell well short of what was expected. This could be said of Andrew Lewis. His evidence was quite simply shocking. One could also say that he made a mockery of the Jersey Care Inquiry. We must wait for their final report but one can't help that for Mr Lewis it's not going to be good.  


The JEP editorial spells it out quite clearly. I have no doubt that they will also be awaiting for the final report.. 


Andrew Lewis swore an oath. It obviously meant absolutely nothing to him. 



BBC NEWS


DJ Tony Blackburn has "parted company" with the BBC after failing to fully co-operate with the Jimmy Savile inquiry, director general Tony Hall has said.

Lord Hall said Dame Janet Smith's inquiry had rejected the evidence from the Radio 2 DJ.

The veteran DJ, who has threatened to sue the BBC, said the report included an accusation he was among celebrities who "seduced" a 15-year-old girl.

Mr Blackburn, 73, denies the allegation and says he was cleared of wrongdoing.

In a statement, he accused the BBC of making him a "scapegoat" for its own "cover-up" of abuse.

Dame Janet's report found the BBC had repeatedly failed to stop "monstrous" abuse by DJ Jimmy Savile and broadcaster Stuart Hall because of a "culture of fear".

Lord Hall told a news conference in the wake of the report's publication: "My interpretation is that Tony Blackburn fell short of the standards of evidence that such an inquiry demanded."

He said it was "one of the most important inquiries in the BBC's history and that has put an even greater responsibility on everyone who took part in that inquiry to co-operate fully and to be open".

"So many survivors and witnesses have honestly and openly co-operated fully - and at great personal cost to themselves.

"As Dame Janet has said, she's rejected his evidence and she's explained very clearly why. I have to take that extremely seriously."


Wednesday, February 17, 2016

ANDREW LEWIS AND THE POISONED CHALICE 4 - LIES - MORE LIES AND DAMN LIES AT THE CARE ENQUIRY



"COME ON ANDREW - THINK OF THE FAMILY- THE VICTIMS OF ABUSE - THE TRUTH - SOME SAVING GRACE  AT THE 11TH HOUR - DON'T DO IT TO YOURSELF. PEOPLE HAVE SACRIFICED THEMSELVES FOR QUEEN AND COUNTRY BUT FOR FRANK WALKER AND BILL OGLEY…"


HE SACRIFICED HIMSELF AND HIS  INTEGRITY FOR FRANK WALKER AND BILL OGLEY. 






FORMER HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER - DEPUTY ANDREW LEWIS


FINISHES HIS EVIDENCE TO THE JERSEY CARE ENQUIRY


YOU HAD TO BE THERE TO BELIEVE IT


IT WAS UNBELIEVABLE (LITERALLY) AND AS EQUALY SHOCKING.



It was an incredible two hours. The audience gathered for what was to be the most jaw dropping conclusion to a fantastic witness (Mr Lewis) who tied himself in so many knots that even the great Harry Houdini would have walked away with "not a chance" ringing in his ears. 

Council to the enquiry Cathryn McGahey deserves the medal of honour in her attempts to get Mr Lewis to agree to the obvious. Not even taking the oath was going to stop Mr Lewis sticking to his line that everyone else was wrong and he was right. This is just a quick posting. Most of this is taken from my notes and not entirely verbatim. 

I explained in my last posting that Deputy Lewis was going to have to stick to the line that he was going to have to turn the Met Interim Report into the Warcup Letter to get out of being accused of misleading the States of Jersey during the In Camera debate of December 2nd 2008. Even though this was quite a ridiculous assumption for me to make it was his only option. Well you are not going to believe it he did exactly that. Everyone in the room - in my opinion including council to the enquiry were left speechless at the utter contempt that Deputy Lewis showed not only to himself but towards the Jersey Care Enquiry. 

Andrew Lewis told the enquiry that what he was referring to was not in fact the Met Interim Report but that it was the Warcup letter.

He then tried to say that the States Members present during this in camera debate knew that he was in fact referring to the Warcup Letter when mentioning the preliminary report and the Met Interim Report. Even when council tried to give him every chance to think about this impossibility he stuck to his story.

Why is this such an incredible lie from Andrew Lewis?

Simple

In December 2008 no one knew that the Warcup Letter existed. 

After 20 days to prepare for this 20 minute statement and questions he forgot that to tell the States that he had in fact suspended Graham Power on a letter from David Warcup. Bonkers. Complete and utter bonkers. 

LET US REMIND OURSELVES AT SOME OF THE QUOTES FROM THE IN CAMERA DEBATE




The Deputy of St John:

This is exactly what the process is about. That investigation is now under way and that is why the Chief of Police is being temporarily suspended.




1.3 Deputy F J Hill of St Martin:

Yes, could I just follow up on that answer surely that should have been carried out before the suspension. Why was it not carried out?



The Deputy of St John:

Members will be aware that an investigation has been carried out by the Metropolitan Police and I was presented with a preliminary report on the basis of that investigation. So as far as I'm concerned that is the preliminary investigation. I acted on the information that was contained in that and in order to pursue a disciplinary investigation it was necessary to suspend the police officer.



1.17 Senator S Syvret

The Minister has made great reference with great store on the preliminary or interim review by the Metropolitan Police. But, having taken action he has done, that review remains incomplete, it is not yet finalised. No final review document by the Metropolitan Police has been produced. Does he not recognise the fact …. the Chief Minister is no. I know because I have been in contact with Mr Sweeting of the Met and I know that he has still got a great number of people yet to interview, germaine witnesses. So does the Minister not accept that his actions have been pre-emptory and quite unacceptable, given that the Met Review itself is not complete.? The second question is this and I think the Minister needs to think very carefully about his answer to this: The Chief Constable of the States of Jersey Police Force, along with another one of his senior officers who is still employed by the force,he is - they both are - witnesses to the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice as they were present at meetings when this conspiracy was taking place, which they noted and duly recorded in evidence. Does he not accept that, given that the conspiracy did involve the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers that this action is totally unacceptable and will only do Jersey colossal damage.?




The Deputy of St John:

The Senator's conspiracy theories continue to astound me. I was not part of the Council of Ministers until but a few weeks ago. I am not conspiring in any way at all. The Senator consistently conspires in his own mind to work out conspiracies. This is nothing about that. This is a matter of great interest to me as the Minister for Home Affairs, as a resident of Jersey, as a custodian of the public purse. I am bringing a Chief Officer to account. I am giving him every opportunity to defend himself. As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all.

1.22 The Connetable of St Helier:

The Minister said that part of his action has been motivated by concern for Mr Power. Does he, therefore think it is satisfactory that Mr Power's daughter learned of his suspension on the public radio and does this not indicate that the process that has been followed was an accelerated one? My second question, and it is an effort to be helpful and it is a question I have already asked the Minister and the Chief Minister, is will he not go away with the code and with his legal advisers, and with an HR (Human Resources) professional -preferably one that has not resigned from the States, but one who is going to be here to serve the Island - and check that he has fully compiled with the code? If he ahas not, not only is he putting Mr Power and his family through unnecessary grief, but he will put the Island through an extraordinary embarrassment and repetitional damage? I really do think it would be more courageous to admit that we have got the process wrong. It often happens in HR; goodness knows I have done it myself. The process has to be correct or we will be in trouble and I would urge the Minister to go away and at least agree to look again at the decision making process.

The Deputy of St John:

I will deal with the first matter and that is a matter of the media. As we are in camera I am happy to state this. On leaving the with myself and the Chief Executive to the States, the Chief Officer went immediately to the BBC; he was there within 5 mins of leaving that office. That is why it became World News - not of my making; not of the Communications Unit's making. Secondly, as far as the process is concerned , I have taken advice. I have taken advice from other HR professionals within the States of Jersey HR department. I am perfectly satisfied that the code has been followed appropriately. I have taken advice from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, they feel that such action is wholly appropriate in the circumstance. I HAVE READ AN ALARMING REPORT FROM THE METROPOLITAN POLICE which led me to this decision in the first place. I can do no more(Approbation- Foot Stamping)

Deputy P.N Troy of St Brelade

Can the Minister confirm that the suspension is only in relation to the management of the Haut De La Garenne Inquiry and that there are no other reasons for the suspension? The Minister said that they were very serious allegations, but can he just confirm there were no other reasons? Can I ask why it is that Mr Harper, who probably did untold damage to the reputation to the island, was not suspended prior to his retirement? Why was he not put through the disciplinary process?



The Deputy of St John:

No there are not. I am purely acting on information contained in a report that was about an investigation into an operation that was code-named Rectangle and that is what the report was about and that is where my concerns were. No other concerns have I currently got, other than those of a serious nature.

NEVER EVER MENTIONED DAVID WARUP BECAUSE HE COULDN'T 

ANDREW LEWIS MISLED THE HOUSE - FACT.

But that's not all. 

It got worse. 

In June of 2009 Andrew Lewis gave a statement to Wiltshire Constabulary regarding the Disciplinary Investigation into Graham Powers handling of Operation Rectangle. 

In 2009 when everything was fresh in his mind and not having to worry about everything that was to follow Andrew Lewis said this in his statement to the Jersey Care Enquiry: 

( This is from my notes but was on screen long enough to get it down as accurately as I could)


154. "I have been referred to my witness statement given to the Wiltshire Inquiry. Paragraph three of the statement reads "up until I received the letter from David Warcup, I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well." It is now clear that as a result of the independent review of the investigation by the Metropolitan Police, the investigation was flawed. I should point out that I did not draft my statement to Wiltshire Police and it is not written in my own words. The statement was taken by police officers from Wiltshire Police and I was provided with a limited opportunity to make corrections. This line slipped through the net during my relatively review of the statement and should have been qualified."


"The statement was taken by police officers from Wiltshire Police and I was provided with a limited opportunity to make corrections. This line slipped through the net during my relatively review of the statement and should have been qualified." 

He was asked repeatedly today by counsel how long did he have to review his (4 page) statement to Wiltshire before signing it off? He consistently said; "I don't recall" or "I can't remember." He was asked for a ball park figure i.e an hour, a day, a week, a month? He just replied "I can't remember."

4 Pages. His Wiltshire statement was only 4 pages long. This is paragraph 154 of his Jersey Care Enquiry Statement. 

There are roughly 4 paragraphs per page in a statement. That means that this was from page 39. He has remembered an awful lot over the years yet couldn't remember what he used to suspend Graham Power after  20 days. 

Im sure Deputy Lewis could have properly read a 4 page statement but hey lets not get "I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well." get in the way of the establishment line. 

Let us also not forget that Council to the enquiry said words to the effect:

"that they (COI) have taken witness statements from a vast array of people. From Police Officers, victims, care workers, professionals etc. It has NEVER received a statement from anybody quite like his where he has consistently personally attacked those who took a different view to his."

Every time he was asked to back up what he had said in his statement he just couldn't. It was embarrassing. He spent 10 paragraphs impeaching the integrity of Graham Power and Wendy Kinnard. When asked to back up his assertions he couldn't. It was embarrassing. 

Deputy Lewis couldn't praise David Warcup and Mick Gradwell enough. He gave all the credit to prosecutions to them. Until he was reminded by council that all the work was done by Lenny Harper and his team. Andrew Lewis has serious memory issues. 

His whole evidence was embarrassing. 

Sold his sole to the Jersey Way. 

Once we have the transcripts we will take a closer look. 

I will finish with this. 

At the end of his evidence Deputy Lewis asked to make a statement. As I started to listen to him waffle about how he had been the victim over these past years - how he cared about the abuse investigation etc etc I stood up and walked out. The man made me feel sick.

I left with not elation or joy - no triumphant celebration that after years of hard work we had been proved right. I felt sadness and some dejection.

Deputy Lewis treated the Care Enquiry with the same disdain that he treated Graham Power when suspending him and in doing so Operation Rectangle and all it stood for.
 In doing so he allowed the cancer to live and breathe. That is unforgivable and no cause for celebration.


"COME ON ANDREW - THINK OF THE FAMILY- THE VICTIMS OF ABUSE - THE TRUTH - SOME SAVING GRACE  AT THE 11TH HOUR - DON'T DO IT TO YOURSELF. PEOPLE HAVE SACRIFICED THEMSELVES FOR QUEEN AND COUNTRY BUT FOR FRANK WALKER - BILL OGLEY…"

HE SACRIFICED HIMSELF AND HIS  INTEGRITY FOR FRANK WALKER AND BILL OGLEY. 



Rico Sorda


Part Time Investigative Journalist

Saturday, February 13, 2016

FORMER HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER ANDREW LEWIS AND THE POISONED CHALCE PART 3 - RIPPED APART AT THE CARE ENQUIRY

Add captio

1.17 Senator S Syvret

The Minister has made great reference with great store on the preliminary or interim review by the Metropolitan Police. But, having taken action he has done, that review remains incomplete, it is not yet finalised. No final review document by the Metropolitan Police has been produced. Does he not recognise the fact …. the Chief Minister is no. I know because I have been in contact with Mr Sweeting of the Met and I know that he has still got a great number of people yet to interview, germaine witnesses. So does the Minister not accept that his actions have been pre-emptory and quite unacceptable, given that the Met Review itself is not complete.? The second question is this and I think the Minister needs to think very carefully about his answer to this: The Chief Constable of the States of Jersey Police Force, along with another one of his senior officers who is still employed by the force,he is - they both are - witnesses to the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice as they were present at meetings when this conspiracy was taking place, which they noted and duly recorded in evidence. Does he not accept that, given that the conspiracy did involve the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers that this action is totally unacceptable and will only do Jersey colossal damage.?




The Deputy of St John:

The Senator's conspiracy theories continue to astound me. I was not part of the Council of Ministers until but a few weeks ago. I am not conspiring in any way at all. The Senator consistently conspires in his own mind to work out conspiracies. This is nothing about that. This is a matter of great interest to me as the Minister for Home Affairs, as a resident of Jersey, as a custodian of the public purse. I am bringing a Chief Officer to account. I am giving him every opportunity to defend himself. As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all.n

1.22 The Connetable of St Helier:

The Minister said that part of his action has been motivated by concern for Mr Power. Does he, therefore think it is satisfactory that Mr Power's daughter learned of his suspension on the public radio and does this not indicate that the process that has been followed was an accelerated one? My second question, and it is an effort to be helpful and it is a question I have already asked the Minister and the Chief Minister, is will he not go away with the code and with his legal advisers, and with an HR (Human Resources) professional -preferably one that has not resigned from the States, but one who is going to be here to serve the Island - and check that he has fully compiled with the code? If he ahas not, not only is he putting Mr Power and his family through unnecessary grief, but he will put the Island through an extraordinary embarrassment and repetitional damage? I really do think it would be more courageous to admit that we have got the process wrong. It often happens in HR; goodness knows I have done it myself. The process has to be correct or we will be in trouble and I would urge the Minister to go away and at least agree to look again at the decision making process.

The Deputy of St John:

I will deal with the first matter and that is a matter of the media. As we are in camera I am happy to state this. On leaving the with myself and the Chief Executive to the States, the Chief Officer went immediately to the BBC; he was there within 5 mins of leaving that office. That is why it became World News - not of my making; not of the Communications Unit's making. Secondly, as far as the process is concerned , I have taken advice. I have taken advice from other HR professionals within the States of Jersey HR department. I am perfectly satisfied that the code has been followed appropriately. I have taken advice from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, they feel that such action is wholly appropriate in the circumstance. I HAVE READ AN ALARMING REPORT FROM THE METROPOLITAN POLICE which led me to this decision in the first place. I can do no more(Approbation- Foot Stamping)









FORMER HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER ANDREW LEWIS


GIVES EVIDENCE TO THE JERSEY CHILD ABUSE ENQUIRY 


IT WAS COMPELLING  


IT WAS  JAW DROPPING 


WE HAVE TO REMIND OURSELVES THAT MR LEWIS TOOK THE OATH


IT WAS ONE OF THOSE YOU JUST HAD TO BE THERE TO BELIEVE IT. 

WHY NO MENTION OF THE DAVID WARCUP LETTER DURING THE "IN CAMERA DEBATE?"


The hearing was adjourned at 12.30pm on Friday 12th February. This was a first. Council to the enquiry Cathryn McGahey was absolutely superb in her questioning of Mr Lewis.  Researched and on the money.  Mr Lewis was caught out so many times that it was stated by a lawyer sitting next to me that had this been a court of law he would have been dragged down a long time ago. 


How the story has changed over these past months. Now, like Frank Walker, Andrew Lewis is now saying that it was the Warcup Letter that led to Graham Powers suspension and not the Met Interim Report. We now learn that Frank Walker, Bill Ogley and everybody else for that matter where keeping Andrew Lewis out of the loop.  The Minister who has responsibility for the Chief of Police. The only person who can suspend a police of chief was told nothing.  Mr Lewis states that he was getting advice and everything else. 


Mr Lewis didn't produce one email chain to show the advice he was getting. He is the first witness I have seen who has failed to produce anything. Unbelievable. How was he getting advice.


Mr Lewis was taken apart by Cathryn McGahey

The story is now almost complete. 

In the middle of a huge Child Abuse Investigation the former Minister of Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis bowed to pressure from those he feared above him. As he told the enquiry who was he to challenge such highly paid experts. You were the Minister Mr Lewis. 

Mr Lewis also stated to the council that he had no knowledge of any plans to suspend the Chief of Police until the 11th November 2008 the day before he suspended Graham Power. 

Let us look at this comment that was left on the VFC blog. 


Extract from Napier report paragraph 54.

"As early as 28th October (2008) there was in existence a document created by Mr Crich (Head of HR) setting out a possible scenario for "Possible disciplinary proceedings against the Chief of Police". By this time Mr Lewis had taken over as Minister from Senator Kinnard. Yet no steps were taken by Mr Lewis to try to resolve the differences that were seen as emerging, not only by him but by his senior advisers. Mr Lewis' position was that he did question the need to proceed by way of possible suspension with both Mr Crich and Mr Ogley at around this time." (i.e. around 28th October 2008.)

Perhaps when he next gives evidence Mr Lewis will be given an opportunity to explain how what he appears to have told Napier can be reconciled with his claim to the Inquiry that he did not discuss suspension before 11th November 2008, the day before it happened.


Mr Lewis needs to be reminded that he took the oath when giving his evidence. I believe this is one of the reasons his evidence was cut short. He was all over the place. He is the first person to have been stopped in this way. 


THE DAVID WARCUP LETTER. 

Now here we have a right old mess. 

Bill Ogley, Frank Walker and now Andrew Lewis are saying the Met Interim Report had nothing to do with the suspension of Graham Power - it was a 7 page letter from David Warcup.  But the letter from David Warcup had some extracts from the Met Interim Report in it.  Oh what a mess. Why is this important we might ask? Well we have to go back to the In Camera debate of the 2nd December 2008 when the then Home Affairs Minister had to report back to the States of Jersey and issue a statement. He also had to take questions from States Members. 

So where does he mention that he had received a letter from David Warcup? Where? Is he going to have the utter cheek to try and pass the letter of David Warcup off as a report?  He is going to have to give it a go because what else can he tell the Care Enquiry? 

Andrew Lewis knows he misled the house. On that issue there can be no doubt.  


Readers, what we are looking for below is where Andrew Lewis tells the States of Jersey that he suspended Graham Power because of a letter he received from David Warcup via Bill Ogley on the 11th November 2008. 

Lets go. 

I will highlight all the references to the Met Report and the Warcup Letter




1. Questions on Statement by the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police:



The Bailiff: (Sir Philip Bailhache)



1.1 Deputy Roy Le Hérrisier of St Saviour:

I wonder if the Minister could confirm that, in considering this matter, this house will act as the body which makes the final decision as to the fate that will befall the Chief Officer. Could he please confirm our precise role in this process?



The Deputy of St John ( The Minister for Home Affairs): Andrew Lewis

I assume the Deputy is talking about the possible further disciplinary process. If indeed the decision was made to dismiss the Chief Of Police, then that matter would be referred to this assembly.



1.2 Deputy G.P Southern of St Helier

My question concerns the process that was undertaken during the suspension, leading to the suspension of the Chief Officer. In a statement circulated by the Chief Officer, he states:

"Paragraph 2.1 of the code requires that in the event the Minister having disciplinary concerns he will write to the Chief Executive."

It then goes on to say:

"Two days after my suspension as provided with what was said to be a copy of that letter. It is dated 12th November 2008 and in it the Chief Executive is instructed to conduct a preliminary investigation under paragraph 2 of the code. Part 2 sets out the actions which the Chief Executive is required to take. These included the obtaining of statements from available witness and from the Chief Officer."

Those statements were never sought nor made. Why then was the officer concerned suspended?



The Deputy of St John:

This is exactly what the process is about. That investigation is now under way and that is why the Chief of Police is being temporarily suspended.




1.3 Deputy F J Hill of St Martin:

Yes, could I just follow up on that answer surely that should have been carried out before the suspension. Why was it not carried out?



The Deputy of St John:

Members will be aware that an investigation has been carried out by the Metropolitan Police and I was presented with a preliminary report on the basis of that investigation. So as far as I'm concerned that is the preliminary investigation. I acted on the information that was contained in that and in order to pursue a disciplinary investigation it was necessary to suspend the police officer.



1.4 Deputy J. Gallichan of St Mary:

Will the Minister advise the Assembly whether, in the time since the suspension took effect, he has received any correspondence from the body which would represent the Chief Constable's interests in the Uk and if so, can he elaborate further on it.



The Deputy of St John:

Yes I have, and No,  I cannot elaborate further on it otherwise that would interfere with the process of the Chief Officer of Police defending himself.



1.5 Senator S.Syvret

Will the Minister inform the Assembly of which Ministers took part in the earlier discussion on the Tuesday evening concerning the issue and will he also, in particular, inform the assembly whether he is aware of the fact, given the involvement of the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers and the Head of the Civil Service , that particular individual is one of the potential suspects in the perversion of the course of justice investigations being undertaken by the police force of which Mr Power was the head?




The Deputy of St John:

I am not aware of any such investigation but I can assure Members that the investigation will be undertaken by an independent body and in this case, the chief Constable of Wiltshire will be investigating this. He is a policing expert. He has been asked by the Chief Executive of the States of Jersey to investigate these allegations.



1.6 Senator Syvret:

Is the Minister, or does he think his successors will be, prepared to explain to the national media and to the Royal Court of Justice in London just why it is that the Government of Jersey chose to mount this coup against the Chief Constable of its police force being engaged in and participated in by the people who are potential suspects in the investigation?



The Deputy of St John:

They only appear to be potential suspects in the eyes of the Senator. As far as I am concerned this investigation is being conducted in a thorough and professional manner and I would not have it any other way.(Foot Stamping -Approbation) I find it quite disingenuous that the Senator in the past has called for accountability for the people in the public sector, senior officers in particular, we have brought the Chief Officer to account and I would expect him to have every opportunity to defend his position. That is what the process is all about.





1.7 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

This whole process regarding this statement and questions on it, given the statement, strikes me as somewhat bizarre. In his statement , the Minister says: "At some stage at a the end of the process, my successor , whoever it will be, will need to make a decision about the substantive matters and he or she should not be influenced in any way by any views expressed by Members of the Assembly". How is it possible that the successor to the Home Affairs Ministry is going to be somehow isolated from anything that is being said in here this morning, from Members that are taking part in this? Surely, if there is a process that requires independent and isolated adjudication, then this statement and these questions should not be occurring today. It should have been parked and left over for his successor, otherwise what are we doing is we are contaminating the membership and that Minister will have an Assistant Minister who will have heard these things going on.




The Deputy of St John:

The Deputy is absolutely right. That is why I would urge Members to resist from questioning me on the subject in this Chamber. Although we are in camera, there are Members here that may well become involved with the Home Affairs in the near future, so I would urge members to keep their questions to the bare minimum. If It is about the process, I am happy to answer them. If it is about the investigation I am not.





1.8 The Connétable of St Helier:

I want to look at the procedure followed by the Minister and ask him, he has already confirmed to me that the correct procedure has been followed and yet he has just said now that the preliminary investigation was carried out by the police after which the suspension was carried out. According to the Disciplinary Code which we have , some of us, had supplied to us, bizarrely it was considered to be secret: it says quite clearly:

" A complaint will be followed by a letter to the person concerned and then there will be an investigation and then the person concerned will have the chance to comment with the presence of a companion."

Now will the Minister not agree that this process has not happened? That no companion was offered to Mr Power when he was brought into the office and that the investigation in fact was not proceeded by a letter to the officer who was on holiday at the time?




Deputy of St John:

The Constable refers to item 2.2 of the code which refers to minor breaches of discipline or poor performance. Im sorry, but I do not regard this as a minor infraction of the code. This is a serious infraction of the Disciplinary Code and therefore he is not afforded that process.




The Connétable of St Helier

Sorry the Minister is not reading the code properly. It is quite clear that section 2 on the procedure, as it must and as we all expect in our own departments, offer any person who is accused of disciplinary matter to have the chance to be accompanied to a meeting. It is outrageous that he has carried this out in his high handed way and not given the person the opportunity to be represented. I did a disciplinary myself this morning before the States and the person had a companion with them. It is simply wrong the way this is carried out and I do believe the Minister should accept that.




Deputy of St John:

No. I do not accept that. My interpretation of the code is that I had every right to take the action I did. Furthermore, under the law, I also have that right too, outside of the code. So I believe it to be in the interests of the police force,the interests of Jersey and the interests of justice for the Chief Officer of Police to take this action.




Deputy A Breckon:

I would like to ask the Minister what experience, if any, he has in handling employment grievance and disciplinary procedures?





1.10 Deputy of St John:

As it happens, I happen to have a great deal. But in this instance I took advice, as all Ministers should. I took advice from the the Chief Officer of Human Resources, I took advice from the Chief Executive and I took advice from the Solicitor General. I would not have expected to act in this way without taking thorough and proper advice, even though I have some experience of dealing with these matters.

Sir, if I could just….. If I may, I did urge Members in my statement not to prolong this question time as attractive as it may be, because this does run the potential of muddying the waters and affecting the process and not protecting the Chief Officer of Police which is what the code is intended to do. So I would urge Members to bear that in mind, if you prolong this questioning to any great extent, it could have a major impaction the investigation should this information leak out to people that would use it at a later date. So would urge Members to be very careful with their questioning and I will say to members now, I will refuse to answer certain questions and I will say to members now that I will refuse to answer certain questions that I feel would impinge on that investigation




1.12 Deputy P.V.Le Claire

This is a remarkable second statement by the Minister after I had asked him in regard to this whole process this morning how bizarre it is that we are here doing this..


The Bailiff:

This is a question? A question arising out of a statement



1.12 Deputy P.V.Le Claire

This is a question. When the Chief Officer had his contract renewed by the States of Jersey recently, to somewhat surprise by Members of the public and the States of Jersey thinking that he was retiring, was that contract renewed after said infractions or before said infractions were known?



1.10 Deputy of St John:

It was well before and not only that, it was renewed by the Appointments Board, nothing to do with me at the time and a proper process was followed. These allegations were not in place at the time.



1.13 Connétable D.J Murphy of Grouville:

I assume from the Deputy's statement that the Chief Constable of Wiltshire who is going to carry out this investigation is a member of the Association of Police Chief Officers (ACPO). I also assumed that our Police Chief here is a member of ACPO. Does he think it is right and proper that 2 members of the same organisation should sit in judgement of each other?



Deputy of St John:

Yes, this is the way it is done both in the UK and we would expect to be done here in that it has to be investigated by obviously a policing expert. Not only that, somebody of substantive rank, i.e. somebody the same rank or higher than our Chief of Police. So that is the process that is adopted elsewhere and would be the process we would adopt here. But these are unusual circumstances, it has not occurred before as far as I am aware, but it is very important that somebody of that rank investigates this because they have got full understanding of the obligations of a Chief Officer of Police.



1.14 Senator F H Walker:

The Minister has referred to the advice he has taken, could he confirm whether or not Her Majesty's Inspector of Police has been consulted on the process and if so, to what effect?




The Deputy of St John:

Yes, I took it upon myself to consult with her Majesty's Inspectorate as I felt that they were a useful arbitrator in such matters and the question I posed was did they feel that the action that we have taken was proportionate and appropriate and I was told by Senior officer of that organisation that it was wholly appropriate in the circumstances to suspend an officer to instigate a proper and thorough investigation.




1.15 The Connetable M.K. Jackson of St Brelade:

I note that in the disciplinary code for the Chief Officer of Police there is an appeals procedure, paragraph 3. Would the minister confirm whether the Chief Officer has in fact invoked that appeal procedure and has the Minister in fact been in contact with A.C.A.S (Advisory. Concilliation, and Arbitration Service) in the UK as laid out in that paragraph?




The Deputy of St John:

The Chief Officer will have every right to do that. This process has just begun and he will have the right to appeal. The Constable of St Brelade is quite correct, but the process has just begun and he will have every right to defend himself and if he chooses to take advantage of such organisations including his own organisations, then I would obviously encourage anybody in that position to do that and seek advice and assistance. The Chief Officer will have every opportunity to do that.



1.16 The Connetable of St Helier: (Simon Crowcroft)

I take the Minister back to the disciplinary code, the first paragraph of which states and I quote:

" 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 the code will be used only where such efforts to resolve problems arising have failed "

Will the Minister tell us how he complied with that first paragraph of the code betore moving further on with the procedure?



The Deputy of St John:

When I took over as having Ministerial oversight of the investigation in question, I began to ask a number of questions and it would seem right and proper to appoint another force to investigate such matters which the Chief of Police agreed to. The result of that is some fairly damning evidence about the command, control and supervision of that investigation. So, Yes, the process was adopted and the outcome was a report that was presented to me that gave me absolutely no choice other than to suspend the Chief Officer of Police in order to investigate the allegations of gross misconduct in terms of management, supervision and control of quite considerable sums of money and quite considerable resource. That is a matter that I know Members here are most concerned about in other areas I saw an absolute necessity in order to investigate these things thoroughly to suspend the Chief of Police so that we can have an uncontaminated investigation with him having the full right of appeal and process so he can defend himself.



The Connetable of St Helier: (Simon Crowcroft)

Sorry, it is quite clear from the Minister's comments that he has now jumped into part 2 of the disciplinary procedure and that he did not attempt, on a personal basis which means in discussion with the officer concerned, attempt to elucidate the problem.



The Deputy of St John:

I would dispute that. The Chief Officer of Police was requested to come to a meeting with myself and we attempted to discuss the matter with him and he refused to discuss it. He wished to leave very soon after we had the discussion. I gave him an opportunity to retire and to….. to retire to another room rather….. I would add he was never given the option to retire, he was never given the option to resign either, that is complete fabrication on his part. I do not know where that came from. But he was given the opportunity to consider the suspension and that is what he was offered
. He chose not to take that opportunity so the suspension was immediate.



1.17 Senator S Syvret

The Minister has made great reference with great store on the preliminary or interim review by the Metropolitan Police. But, having taken action he has done, that review remains incomplete, it is not yet finalised. No final review document by the Metropolitan Police has been produced. Does he not recognise the fact …. the Chief Minister is no. I know because I have been in contact with Mr Sweeting of the Met and I know that he has still got a great number of people yet to interview, germaine witnesses. So does the Minister not accept that his actions have been pre-emptory and quite unacceptable, given that the Met Review itself is not complete.? The second question is this and I think the Minister needs to think very carefully about his answer to this: The Chief Constable of the States of Jersey Police Force, along with another one of his senior officers who is still employed by the force,he is - they both are - witnesses to the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice as they were present at meetings when this conspiracy was taking place, which they noted and duly recorded in evidence. Does he not accept that, given that the conspiracy did involve the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers that this action is totally unacceptable and will only do Jersey colossal damage.?




The Deputy of St John:

The Senator's conspiracy theories continue to astound me. I was not part of the Council of Ministers until but a few weeks ago. I am not conspiring in any way at all. The Senator consistently conspires in his own mind to work out conspiracies. This is nothing about that. This is a matter of great interest to me as the Minister for Home Affairs, as a resident of Jersey, as a custodian of the public purse. I am bringing a Chief Officer to account. I am giving him every opportunity to defend himself. As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all.




The Bailiff:

Minister, do not go down this road please.





The Deputy of St John

the actions that I took are justified and we will wait the outcome of the investigation as to whether it was.




1.18 Senator S Syvret:

Will the report be published when it is completed



The Deputy of St John

No, it will not because the report of the Metropolitan Police contains Crown evidence that will be used in the prosecutions that are currently underway and potential prosecutions that may come from this investigation.



Senator T.J Le Main:

Can I have some advice from the chair please? In view that this is being held in camera what is the repercussions of a Mmember putting out information gained in this Chamber in camera this Morning on a blog site or internet which is currently being done by an arrogant Member in this Assembly? What is the legal implications of standing in camera this morning and that information being put on the internet?



The Bailiff:

When the Assembly agrees to meet in camera in order to discuss matters which should not be made public, there is an inevitable consequence that Members are not expected to reveal anything which took place during an in camera discussion. So far as… if a member were to do that I would need notice, Senator, having regard to the specific facts involved, but I am inclined to think that it would be a gross brach of the privilege of the Assembly and could be dealt with by the Assembly accordingly



Deputy DGP Southern:

In answer to the Constable of St Helier's question referring to Article 1 of the code, if the Minister, by suggesting that the meeting which lasted 35 minutes, that the Chief of Police was called to meeting on Thursday, 12th, was his interpretation of trying to resolve the issue on a personal level, he is deliberately, I believe, misinterpreting Article 1. It cannot be interpreted that way surely. Does he not admit that he has failed to meet the terms of Article 1 before proceeding to Article 2?




Deputy of St John:

I took advice. Im satisfied with the advice and I acted on that advice and I stand by my decision(foot stamping -Approbation)





1.20 The Deputy of St Martin:

The Minister, no doubt, will have received a copy which has been circulated this morning from the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey police and in paragraph 6 it said:

"I had been given no notice that this was to be either a disciplinary meeting or a suspension meeting. I had been offered no time to prepare, no opportunity to make any report and not offered any representation. I was handed the letter and disciplinary code and the Minister spoke briefly regarding its concepts. He then told me that he was minded to invoke the disciplinary code, but that I would be allowed up to one hour to consider my position."

Will the Minister accept that this is a true statement from the Chief Officer? If it was, why did he offer the Chief Officer to consider his position?




The Deputy of St John:

I never used the word "position". I used the word "consider the correspondence" that was laid out before him and he was given every opportunity to do that. He chose not to so the code was invoked and he was suspended.



Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier

I come back to my original question and perhaps the Solicitor General might be able to offer us some timely words of advice. I do not see how a political body of 53 people is going to transform itself. Were we to reach this stage, without presupposing, I do not see how it can transform itself into some kind of independent employment tribunal, utterly impartial and objective when the body is totally split on political grounds. Is there any way, having got into this cleft stick because of the phrasing of the law, which the situation can be avoided and meet, for example, the rights of a person under the European Court of Human Rights and their right to a fair trial?


The Bailiff:

Deputy, I am sorry, but that question is not in order. It is a hypothetical situation.



Deputy R.G Le Herissier:

But, Sir, we are considering, in a lot of questions that have come up, has due process thus far been followed? Obviously when the final decision is looked at the whole issue of correctness or otherwise of the process surely will be key and we will be asked to make a judgement and we, as politicians, should not be doing that.



The Bailiff:

No, the Minister for Home Affairs has followed strictly the provisions of the law. He has informed Members of the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police and he has done so by means of a statement which enables members to question him on that statement. He did not have to deal with matters in that way. He has done it in a that way in order to enable Members to question him on that process which is what Members have quite properly done. Moving further down the line is hypothetical and I am not prepared to allow that question.


1.22 The Connetable of St Helier:

The Minister said that part of his action has been motivated by concern for Mr Power. Does he, therefore think it is satisfactory that Mr Power's daughter learned of his suspension on the public radio and does this not indicate that the process that has been followed was an accelerated one? My second question, and it is an effort to be helpful and it is a question I have already asked the Minister and the Chief Minister, is will he not go away with the code and with his legal advisers, and with an HR (Human Resources) professional -preferably one that has not resigned from the States, but one who is going to be here to serve the Island - and check that he has fully compiled with the code? If he ahas not, not only is he putting Mr Power and his family through unnecessary grief, but he will put the Island through an extraordinary embarrassment and repetitional damage? I really do think it would be more courageous to admit that we have got the process wrong. It often happens in HR; goodness knows I have done it myself. The process has to be correct or we will be in trouble and I would urge the Minister to go away and at least agree to look again at the decision making process.

The Deputy of St John:

I will deal with the first matter and that is a matter of the media. As we are in camera I am happy to state this. On leaving the with myself and the Chief Executive to the States, the Chief Officer went immediately to the BBC; he was there within 5 mins of leaving that office. That is why it became World News - not of my making; not of the Communications Unit's making. Secondly, as far as the process is concerned , I have taken advice. I have taken advice from other HR professionals within the States of Jersey HR department. I am perfectly satisfied that the code has been followed appropriately. I have taken advice from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, they feel that such action is wholly appropriate in the circumstance. I HAVE READ AN ALARMING REPORT FROM THE METROPOLITAN POLICE which led me to this decision in the first place. I can do no more(Approbation- Foot Stamping)



1.21 Senator S Syvret:

Will the Minister state whether legal advice he has been given at any stage of this particular episode has come from the Attorney General (William Bailhache. rs) and Solicitor General ( T.Le Cocq. rs)?


The Deputy of St John:

I have taken advice from the Law Officers and that does include the Solicitor General.



Senator S Syvret:

Does it Include the Attorney General?



Deputy St John:

No



Deputy P.V.Le Claire:

The Minister has made reference to the Metropolitan Police Report which, as an interim report, he has described as alarming. As an interim report he has said that has swayed and made his decision, something he has relied upon. The full report, which is due to be tabled and considered by the next Minister, was put in a question by Senator Syvret whether or not it would become public available. The answer was it formed part of the Crown Prosecution case it would not become a public document. How does that square with the full disclosure in an appeals process where defendant and the prosecution are entitled to see all the documents and evidence laid before a court?


The Deputy of St John

I think that is precisely the reason for my answer and from a technical point of view I think that question should be directed at the Solicitor General, if he is prepared to add to that.



The Bailiff:

I'm not sure that I understood the question, Deputy. You are speaking about the right of the Chief Officer to appeal against his suspension, are you?



Deputy P.V.F Le Claire

Yes, Sir, and surely under any normal process - maybe we do not do it here - I would understand that full disclosure would enable a person that is being sent to court to have access to all the evidence that is being put against him and that would include the Metropolitan Police Report.



The Bailiff:

Mr Solicitor, can you assist on that?




Mr T.J.LE Cocq., Her Majesty's Solicitor General:

I'm not sure what the report from the Metropolitan Police will contain. I anticipate that it will contain factual matters and that some of these factual matters we be germane to prosecutions, which may take place in the future, outside the ambit of this particular matter. But it is right that in the event that the contents of a document form the basis of complaint against an individual on which a judicial decision is made then in almost all circumstances, other that with the leave of the court, that individual must see that full document. It may be under conditions of secrecy, it may be under conditions of privacy in one form or another to whoever is going to be dealt with on the strength of why it may or may not say.



Deputy P.V.F Le Claire

Thank you very much, Solicitor General. Could I just add one small query on that because that is very informative and helpful?I just have a question mark over the "available in one form or another". Surely the full interim report should be available because the full interim report has been given to the Minister of Home Affairs and it has been that interim report that has given him this position.

The Bailiff:

I do not think the matter can really be advanced any further, Deputy, at this stage.




Deputy P.N Troy of St Brelade

Can the Minister confirm that the suspension is only in relation to the management of the Haut De La Garenne Inquiry and that there are no other reasons for the suspension? The Minister said that they were very serious allegations, but can he just confirm there were no other reasons? Can I ask why it is that Mr Harper, who probably did untold damage to the reputation to the island, was not suspended prior to his retirement? Why was he not put through the disciplinary process?



The Deputy of St John:

No there are not. I am purely acting on information contained in a report that was about an investigation into an operation that was code-named Rectangle and that is what the report was about and that is where my concerns were. No other concerns have I currently got, other than those of a serious nature.



Deputy Troy

Are there any other reasons for the suspension



The Deputy of St John

No, there are not. I am purely acting on information contained in a report that was about an investigation into an operation which is code-named Rectangle and that is what the report was about and that is where my concerns were. No other concerns have I currently got, other than those, of a serious nature.



Senator J.L Perchard:

As a Minister rightly said the suspension is a Neutral act I am sure there is one subject we would all agree on, that this neutral act comes to a speedy conclusion. Would the Minister give some indication as to how long he estimates the suspension will stand before it is dealt with finally one way or another?



Deputy of St John:

Unfortunately, I cannot. Such investigations can take time and so they should if they are going to be done thoroughly and I want the Chief Officer to have every opportunity to defend himself. To gather evidence on his side and, of course, on the side of the employer will take some time. I could not put a timescale on that, but it should be given sufficient time in order to present good cases on both sides.



2. Senator Syvret will ask of the Minister of Home Affairs regarding the non-disclosure the States Assembly of the disciplinary code applicable to the Chief Officer of Police:

Will the Minister explain why he refuses to supply Members with a copy of the code under which Authority he suspended the Chief of Police, how he considers the Assembly to be competent to question him on the subject in the absence of such key information, and will assure the Assembly to be competent to question him on the subject in the absence of such key information, and will he assure the Assembly that all procedural and legal requirements of the code have been observed.



The Deputy of St John:

The authority to suspend the Chief of Police is contained in Article 9 of the Police Force Jersey law of 1974. I have, however, refused to provide copies of the the disciplinary code applicable to the Chief Officer of Police because that is confidential to the parties while proceedings under it are being progressed. The parties are expressed in the code as been parties involved in the operation of this code, which means primarily the Minister and the Chief Officer of Police. I am charged under the law with Ministerial responsibility in this matter and I intend to follow the express terms of the code. U under the law it is exclusively my decision whether or not to suspend the Chief Officer of Police. My obligation is to refer the decision to do so to the assembly and this I have done. I am satisfied that my actions have been accordance with both the law and the code and that procedual and legal requirements have been observed. I note that the Chief Officer of police, through his lawyers, has elected to share the code with Members of this Assembly. That is a matter for him and other than reserving my position and that of my successor Im not prepared to comment on this matter any further.


Senator S Syvret:

The Minister has not properly answered my question. I asked how he considers the Assembly to be remotely competent to question him on this matter in the absence of the code.



Deputy of St John;

I think the code explains that. You are not in a position to question it and that is why I have resisted strongly that we should extend what has turned out to be a debate after my statement. You are not in a position to question it.



Senator Syvret:

We are not here questioning the code, we are here questioning the Minister. the Minister is being held to account by the legislature, by this Chamber. That is in entirely appropriate and I cannot see how the Assembly can be remotely expected to be competent to question this Ministeror any other Minister without access to the key relevant documentation.



Deputy of St john:

If the Senator feels that then I would suggest we recommend the code is changed. At the moment that is the code. That is the advice I have received end.


We also have this from Channel TV

Excerpts from a police report were used as justification for the suspension of Jersey’s Police Chief, against the wishes of the authors, the Jersey Care Inquiry heard today.
The Metropolitan Police Force wrote a peer review into Operation Rectangle, the 2008 investigation by the States of Jersey Police into historical child abuse.
Former Home Affairs Deputy Andrew Lewis today told the panel looking into historical abuse in the island that he based his decision on to suspend Graham Power on excerpts he’d been sent from that review .
He made the decision to suspend Mr Power in November 2008 over what Deputy Lewis called ‘a lack of confidence with how Mr Power handled the police investigation’.
When commissioned to look into the States of Jersey Police’s handing of Operation Rectangle, the Metropolitan Police said the report should under no circumstances be used for disciplinary purposes - as it was a peer review and it would be ‘inappropriate’ to do so.

Deputy Lewis today said he had never seen the report itself and instead based his reasoning for suspending the former Police Chief on concerns outlined out in a letter from his Deputy Chief Officer David Warcup.
But that letter included verbatim quotes from the report and it was on those quotes that Deputy Lewis said he made his decision.
“Deputy Andrew Lewis: We didn’t use extracts. We used information that David Warcup had relayed to us in his letter.
“Counsel to the Inquiry, Cathryn McGahey: They’re verbatim extracts aren’t they?
“AL: There is information in there from the Met Report.
“CM: They came in quotation marks and you described them as excerpts, so there are direct quotations.
“AL: Yes.
“CM: Did you think it was appropriate to take those into account.
“AL: Yes in the round.”



I believe that every fair minded person who reads the above transcript will agree that Andrew Lewis is stating that he has read a preliminary report from the Met Police and its so damning that he had to suspend the Chief Of Police.   Where does he mention that he had received a letter from the former DCO David Warcup?

 Surely the politicians who were asking the questions have a right to know why their Minister had suspend the Police Chief.  Why was it that Andrew Lewis had no problem using the name of the Met Police and not that of David Warcup?  Why did David Warcup have to remain such a secret during this debate? 


What goes around comes around Mr Lewis. 


You not only suspended a Police Chief but more importantly you followed the Jersey Way and allowed yourself to be used in trashing the Child Abuse Investigation. 

You  have been given one more opportunity. 

Don't waste it. 

See you Wednesday 


Rico Sorda


Part Time Investigative Journalist