Tuesday, April 27, 2010


Not my words, but words from a member of the public who was sitting in the states of jersey on the 20th April 2010. 

Miss Landers felt so incensed  she wrote a letter to the Jersey Evening Post about what she witnessed during question time, the conduct of some of the states members, and the total lack of respect for the Abuse Victims sitting in the Gallery . This is something I have witnessed  myself on numerous occasions.

The problem arises when there are questions concerning the suspension of Graham Power and questions relating to the Child Abuse Investigation, as soon as these are mentioned  Senators Perchard,LeMain and Shenton become very uneasy and so do Deputy Jeune & Dupre 'WHY' I have no idea, I have asked them about this as you will see later. There are others but they are the ones that stand out. 

Why is our Government struggling so bad with Child Abuse?

With 53 members you would think the charge for Truth and Justice would be huge but it's not to be. There are some very good states members and they are stepping up we need more.

I contacted Miss Landers and offered to post her letter if the JEP refused so here it is. 

Stuart Syvret has gone into great detail about the total breakdown in child protection concerning 'Blanche Pierre' and the total lack of justice for the children, please read his posts on this matter.


Dear Editor,

I for the first time am going to write a sentence that I never thought would ever come from my mouth I am ashamed to come from Jersey.  

I hope that you will print this letter so that my view can be put across to others and hopefully I am not the only one to feel that way I do.

On Monday I attended the States sitting and listen with interest to the questions put to the AG Tim Le Cocq  regarding the prosecution of the  Mangers of Blanch Pierre Mr and Mrs Maguire. I have to say that I was disgusted at the way in which certain members heckled the questions put to the AG by Monfort Tadier and  Trevor Pitman.

I have a friend who was indeed abused by the said managers and the things that she has had to go through in her life beggars believe.  I have listened to the extent of the interviews she and many others had to go through and the questions a child is asked during police videos and recordings was unreal.  

I can not get into my mind why these people were not prosecuted, 

Why the victims were not given their time in court to sit and tell of the horrific acts that were done to them?

Why Was it that the case was thrown out of court?

Why were the Victims told the accused Mr Maguire was so terminally ill that he could not stand trial?

Why was it later televised that in fact the said man was alive and well and living in France a decade later?

Why were the victims not informed of the fact that the said accused was alive and why was he not brought back to face his doings?

Why did the said accused not get brought back to Jersey to stand trial for perjury  as was it not a lie that he was terminal?

What Dr’s were involved and where was the supporting medical evidence to say the accused was terminal.  Was the then said Dr not also liable to stand trial for perjury 

These are all but a few questions running around in my mind today and having read the report last night about this case has made me very upset and sick in the stomach.

Any decent human being with any heart would allow these now adults the right to have their say but unfortunately our States government is run by weak cowards not able to stand up to those who keep them 


The comment that has made me respond to the article was as followed “ some information cannot enter the public domain because it will be frustrating difficult and painful for some people. Should it not be what about the pain and suffering and the difficulties that those abused have gone through if they are strong enough and brave enough and have the courage to speak out as it should be then let the victims decide if it is painful.  Never mind the states paying thousands and thousand on a court case for Mr Warren. 

A sexual physical and mental abuse case in my eyes is far more worthy of court then one of drug conspiracy 

 I certainly have lost a lot of faith in the states government and I shall be seriously looking into my votes for the future elections.  I can not see how any person can sleep at night when there is more then enough evidence to show abuse went on and more then enough evidence to show there has been cover ups. I will stand  behind my friend who has had to suffer to this day because of what was done to her., and I pray that those involved in not allowing her, her time on court never ever have to see any of their family or close friends go through it themselves.  

No doubt many reading this will not agree and I know many will it is a shame and I am truly disgusted to say I am from Jersey because of the unfair system we have running us.  

Bridget Landers 

I hope this gets published as my full letter and I will also be applying a copy on face book on the jersey news section. 


I have removed miss landers address 

These are my emails sent to Deputy jeune & Dupre

From: rico sorda
To: a.jeune@gov.je
Cc: a.dupre@gov.je
Sent: Tue, 20 April, 2010 19:00:31
Subject: Todays states sitting

Deputy Jeune 

I was in the states today for question time and was totally dismayed at your attitude towards questions concerning the suspension of the chief of police and the historic child abuse investigation.

Could you please explain to me why someone who represents me in the chamber has such a problem with these issues, I watched how yourself and deputy dupre acted during these questions, I even checked with deputy tadier if I was correct in my assumption.

The attitude you showed today is a disgrace to every abuse survivor and has left me feeling very angry.

I have been researching the abuse scandal for 18 months now, im very familiar with the  issues now surrounding the very suspect suspension of Graham Power and the ridiculing of the original investigation.

Instead of showing total contempt for your fellow members how about asking some questions yourself, the attitude you two deputy's showed today is one of the reasons our children are still at risk on this beautiful island,i just do not understand it, so could you please get back to me and explain yourselfs, not just for me but the abuse victims who were appalled up in the gallery.


From: rico sorda
To: a.jeune@gov.je
Cc: a.dupre@gov.je
Sent: Fri, 23 April, 2010 20:51:17
Subject: Re: Todays states sitting

Hi Deputy Jeune

I would like a reply to the issues I highlighted in my last email. You are in the states and represent me I really would like you and Deputy Dupre to explain your actions concerning questions relating to the Historic Abuse Investigation and Graham Powers suspension.

The Abuse Survivors present in the gallery would also like to know


rico sorda

And this is from today

Re: Todays states sitting
rico sorda  
View Contact

Hi Deputy Jeune
I would still like a reply to the issues i raised in my previous emails. Or can deputy Dupre get back to me
Thank you

I will put any reply's I have up on here. Every member of the public should email their  Senator or Deputy and make sure you get a reply

Searching for the Truth


Thursday, April 22, 2010

The Financial Management of the Historic Abuse enquiry

The Financial Management of Historic Abuse enquiry has been in the news lately as it seems this is one of the areas Wiltshire have been investigating regarding the suspension of Chief of Police Graham Power.

I have always been interested in this aspect of the enquiry, it was the reading of the infamous David Rose article of the 4th october 2009 that run with the headline; 

' Bungled Jersey Child Abuse Probe Branded a 20 million Shambles'

This one article is used often by Abuse Deniers as some kind of 'Holy Grail' on the abuse investigation.

So the noises coming out of Home Affairs is that graham power lost financial control over the Abuse Investigation but what role did the Chief Officer Steve Austin Vautier play in the financial management?

I now turn my attention to a written question asked by Deputy Bob Hill to the minister of Home Affairs on tuesday 20th april 2010

"Will The Minister Inform the Members"

a. of the cost of the Historic Abuse Enquiry from 23rd february 2008 to the date the former Deputy Chief Officer's retirement.

b. the cost since the appointment of his replacement 

c. how the expenditure is monitored and who is the Accounting Officer legally responsible for expenditure.

d. who has political responsibility for the expenditure and how closely it is monitored 


a. cost of the Historic Abuse Enquiry from the 23rd February 2008 to the date of the former Deputy Chief Officer's Retirement  £3,202,600      (  lenny harper retired in august 2008 )

b.the cost since the appointment of his replacement from September 2008 to end of March 2010 £3,710,800

c. financial management of the enquiry is overseen by a multi-agency Gold strategic c0-ordinating group. The Chief Officer of the Home Affairs Department is the Accounting Officer,and member of the Gold Strategic co-ordinating group. 

d. The Accounting Officer of a states funded body is personally accountable for the proper financial management of the resources of the body in accordance with article 38 of the public finances law( jersey) law 2005 law.

The Accounting Officer is not responsible for making decisions on policy issues but is accountable for the implementation of policy with due regard for value of money. Policy descisions are the responsibility of Ministers. Furthermore, the accounting officer does not have managerial oversight of,nor clearly any operational responsibility for the states of jersey police. Departmental expenditure is monitored on a regular basis and reported to the minister in the quarterly financial report in accordance with financial direction

So looking at the above I would say that the multi-agency Gold strategic c0-ordinating group must have been set up by David Warcup. What role did Chief Officer Vautier play in the financial management when Lenny Harper was in place?. 

This is what Lenny Harper said

"I dealt with SAV on all matters relating to finance and the investigation.  I had a number of meetings with him in which I kept him up to date with what we were spending money on.  He was always satisfied with the deals we were getting on accomodation and the way we were doing things.  He was supportive (at least I thought he was) in respect of the infamous trip to Australia.  On two of the meetings the States Head of Finance was there - Liz something.  Both of them professed satisfaction at what we were doing and SAV always gave the impression that he knew Walker and Co. were out to shaft us - excuse the use of Walker speak!!  At no time did he ever raise any concerns about our spending - he did ask questions and pointed out frequently to me that it was he and not Graham that would take the rap if it was wrong, but he always agreed we were getting it right." 

So the total spent from the 23rd february 2008 till Lenny retired in August 2008 was £3,202,600. Now I was expecting a lot higher figure especially after looking at the David Rose headline. Most of this money must have been spent Investigating Haut de la Garenne and Victoria Tower War Bunkers. 

I will let Lenny Harper explain where some of the money was spent

"Due to the volume of contact and reports by victims I had to build up the team to levels not seen in Jersey before.  I couldn't use too many local officers because to do so would have left no cover for ordinary policing.  I had to bring in detectives from outside. I couldn't get enough from UK forces so also employed experienced investigators on contracts - mainly former detectives.  They all had to be placed in reasonable accomodation - my PA did a great job in getting cut price deals in hotels.  They also had to be given a couple of days off every fortnight to go home.  It is worth noting that the size of the team decreased as I left and very few of them were replaced.  I also had to employ a team of Forensic Archaeologists to carry out the dig - they were recommended through the National Policing Improvement Agency, and of course the Forensic Anthropologists who came in the same way.  They were ever present in differing numbers throughout our time at HDLG.  We also employed, on the recommendation of the NPIA, Martin Grimes and his human remains/blood dogs.  Gradwell focussed on Martin as a 'waste of money' and the states threatened not to pay him until his lawyer got involved and said I would testify to his value, which was immense, both in respect of the involvement of his dogs and his own experience as search advisor.  Other experts we hired at the outset were geo-physical and Ground Penetrating Radar teams.  The latter were needed several times but our contacts in the Met helped us out.  We also had costs for the forensic examinations, and of course the high cost of guarding the crime scene at HDLG, which was done on overtime to prevent withdrawing police cover for the island.  Very little of this would have been a cost for Gradwell and Warcup, as they reduced the team, HDLG was cosed and did not need guarding, and of course all the experts were gone.  I used my own contacts in the UK to get many freebies, such as the sifting machine from the Anti Terrorist Squad at Scotland Yard and security inspections, as well as advice on other aspects of the enquiry.  We had the sifting machine for several months and only had to pay for the cost of transporting it and cleaning it after use."

And lets remember Aubin,Wateridge and donelly were all pulled in by Lenny's team, and the file submitted for the arrest of the Jordans.

Team Warcup has spent £3,710,600 over a 16 month period this must be on lawyers and legal issues seeing as the main part of the investigation was over when Warcup and Gradwell joined.

So what did Graham Power mess up concerning the financial management? according to CTV Harper had a curry at Bombay Nights. The Financial Management issue ' i just don't think so'

This is what Chief Officer Vautier says on the matter
 Steve Austin-Vautier

Steve Austin-Vautier

POLICE spending on the historical abuse inquiry has exposed ‘serious weaknesses’ in Home 

00545141_cropped.jpgPOLICE spending on the historical abuse inquiry may have run out of control under Lenny Harper, Home Affairs are claiming.

Home Affairs chief officer Steven Austin-Vautier has told the Treasury Department that he cannot justify some of the money spent. The money includes £2.6 million for extra staff costs, and £1 million to cover travel, accommodation and other expenses.

The news comes as Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf has signed off another £1.5 million to the Home Affairs, Health, Chief Minister’s and Law Officers’ departments to fund various elements of the investigation.

In the report behind the decision, the chief officer of the Home Affairs department Mr Austin-Vautier – who is also the accounting officer legally responsible for the department’s expenditure – raised concerns for the first time about the bills coming in.

• Police officers on duty at Haut de la Garenne. Last year the States agreed funding of £7.5 million for the investigation 

Article posted on 28th January, 2009 - 2.57pm 

POLICE spending on the historical abuse inquiry has exposed ‘serious weaknesses’ in Home Affairs’ accounting arrangements, according to its chief officer.

Steven Austin-Vautier has for the first time revealed that the major inquiry, which has cost the Island millions of pounds, put the arrangements under severe strain.

Last year the States agreed funding of £7.5 million for the investigation and the Treasury department gave an extra £5.9 million to Home Affairs for Haut de la Garenne.

This week the Public Accounts Committee wanted to know who was responsible for the £5.9 million overspend.

In the past Mr Austin Vautier – who is also the accounting officer legally responsible for the department’s expenditure – suggested that police spending may have run out of control and said that he could not justify some of the money spent. The money included £2.6 million for extra staff costs and £1 million to cover travel, accommodation and other expenses.

Speaking at a Scrutiny hearing this week Mr Austin-Vautier explained how the Home Affairs budget was managed.

Article posted on 25th July, 2009 - 2.58pm



Monday, April 19, 2010


This is a must read scrutiny hearing.

So is ILM saying its to late to bring  disciplinary proceedings against Graham Power?

He says Wiltshire are embarrassed ( well thats fine, but where does that leave Graham Power who is still suspended under a neutral act)

He gives the JEP a 'scoop' instead of telling scrutiny

He wants to bring the infamous met report to the house (lets hope its the one warcup received on the 10th and not one from a year later.

Are we now entering the cherry picking season 

This is about finding the truth 'nothing more nothing less'

The Abuse survivors deserve the truth and after the 'SCR' & 'Blanche Pierre' my god they deserve it



Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel 

TUESDAY, 30th MARCH2010 


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour(Chairman) 

Deputy T.M. Pitmanof St. Helier(Vice-Chairman) 

Deputy M. Tadierof St. Brelade 


Senator B.I. Le Marquand(TheMinister for Home Affairs) 

Deputy J.A. Hiltonof St. Helier (Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) 


Ms S. Power (Scrutiny Officer) 


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour (Chairman): 

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I will formallystart this session.  First of all, before I 

explain what we are about, we will just introduce ourselves. 

Scrutiny Officer: 

Sam Power, Scrutiny Officer.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: 

Roy Le Hérissier, Chairman, St. Saviour. 

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier (Vice-Chairman): 

Deputy Trevor Pitman, St. Helier No. 1

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade: 

Deputy Montfort Tadier of St. Brelade.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: 

Our 2guests …


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

I am Senator Ian Le Marquand, the Minister for Home Affairs. 

Assistant Minister for Home Affairs: 

I am Deputy JackieHilton, Assistant Minister for Home Affairs. 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Thank you.  I will not read the witness requirements because you are obviously 

familiar with them and we can leave it there.  The purpose of this fairly short meeting 

is to examine the reasons as to why the Minister is proceeding with the appointment 

of a Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police as per P.33 and, as a result of our 

discussion this afternoon, we will submit comments to the States and see what 

transpires.  At the moment, this proposition is due to be debated on 20th April.  I 

would like to thank you all for coming.  We have got the refreshments organised, we 

will start the questioning. 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: 

Okay.  The first question I will ask the Minister and, basically, my colleagues will 

really provide supplementaries from there on.  Mr. Minister, could you explain why 

you are moving ahead with this appointment at that particular date?


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

Yes.  The position is that, even if Mr. Power had been going to remain in office until 

the end of this year -which, of course, he was entitled to do under the terms of his 3- 

year extension-I would have been proceeding with the process for the appointment 

of a new Chief Officer at roughly the timing that I am doing it.  The reason for that is 

simply this: that we have to have certainty as to whether or not Mr. Warcupis going 

to be the next Chief Officer of Police.  The process which occurred when Mr. Warcup 

was initially appointed as Deputy Chief Officer was also that he was assessedas to his 

suitability to be the Chief Officer Designate; I have with me, for instance, a copy of 

the advertisement that was sent out which makes that clear.  Indeed, all the 

documentation relating to this makes this clear.  What had happened was that it was 

recognised that there was a need for succession planning.  A numberof senior officers 

were going to go within a short period: Mr. Power was indeed, of course, due to go 3 

years before, at the end of 2007, his deputy was due to go in the summer of 2008 and, 

number3 in theforce, the role of Superintendent, was also due to go about the same 

timeso there was an urgent need.  There was an urgent need for a plan which would 

not just give a new Deputy Chief Officer of Police but also a Chief Officer of Police 

Designate so that there would be continuity.  That was the basis of the initial process 

and the initial interviews and Mr. Warcup was the successful candidate as a result of 

that.  Clearly, that being so, it was necessary for me to move sometime in 2010, and 

preferably early, towards the process of putting the matter before the States of Jersey, 

who make the ultimate appointment.  The point being that if, hypothetically, “par 

impossible”I might say, the States of Jersey were to decide that Mr. Warcupwas not 

a suitable person, then a new process would have to be put in train to find the next 

Chief Officer of Police other than Mr. Warcup.  Towards the end of last year, and 

earlierthis year, it was explained to me that it was important that we start to proceed 

with this process so that there could be certainty for the future.  Of course, once Mr. 

Power gave the 6 months notice of termination of retirement, effectively, that became 

even more urgent in the sense that his date nowof retirement is 20th July.  I hope I 

have answered the question; I have probably given you far too much detail.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: 

Were there any circumstances under which you think you could have delayed the 

process, given that there is obviously a highly-sensitive processgoing on in regard to 

Mr. Power himself?


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

The process was, in fact, initiated in early January.  It was initiated for the reasons I 

said and it was initiated before I got the letter from Mr. Power.  Mr. Power’s letter 

then came in and dates had already been fixed for the formal meeting.  What I want 

you to understand is, because he was initially appointed, obviously subject to States 

approval, but initially appointed as Chief Officer of Police Designate, the process in 

terms … 

Deputy M. Tadier: 

Sorry, can I stop?  I do not wish to be photographed, so if the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening 

Post)photographer wishes to photograph then I would certainly have to just leave the 

room.  I object to being photographed by the accredited media when they have not 

given notice, I am afraid. 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: 

Do you want to go to the side, then?  Sorry, kindly …


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

Sorry, I have forgotten where I was; if you could just remind me or ask me the 

question again andI will try again.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: 

What I was asking you, Mr. Minister, and you have gone a certain way to answering 

it, is when you re-examined the situation in the light of the very sensitive issues 

surrounding Mr. Power-which have yet of course to come to some kind of resolution 

-why did you not delay it? 

he Minister for Home Affairs: 

Yes.  Because for the reasons I have just said: (a) there needs to be certainty in terms 

of the future and indeed, of course, alongside the issue of certainty for the Island in 

terms of who the next Chief would be, there needs to be a degree of certainty for Mr. 

Warcup himself who, after all, was appointed on the basis of the expectation that he 

would become the next Chief Officer.  He needs to know for himself because there 

are issues that arise in his life in terms of his ability just to settle down, potentially 

buy a house, or whatever.  At the moment, all he has is a 3-year contract which ends 

at the end of this year, so there are issues there.  But my primary issue was the need of 

certainty of the process because, if the States, “par impossible”, decided not to 

appoint him then we have to go back through an assessment process.  We then have 

the issue of what does he do, does he remain on as Deputy, et cetera, et cetera.  We 

have had a great period of uncertainty in the police force caused by the lengthy 

suspension of Mr. Power and one thing that the States of Jersey Police will need for 

the future is certainty and one of the certainties they will need is certainty as to who 

will be the next Chief Officer.

Deputy M. Tadier: 

Mr. Chairman, could I come in?  You can let Trevor, I think, if he wants to go first.


Deputy T.M. Pitman: 

Thanks, Montfort.  You have talked about the need for urgency but it seems like this 

is an indecent urgency, if I can put it this way.  Many of the public think Mr. Power’s 

political corpse is not in the ground and here we are replacing him with someone who, 

like it or not, is intrinsically involved in the situation.  It looks appalling to the public.  

I have got no axe to grind, I must point that out, with Mr. Warcup, it looks appalling 

and what people are saying out there, if there is not a conspiracy, it looks like it.  

What is the harm, Minister, in delaying this?


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

Are you putting to me that there is a conspiracy? 

Deputy T.M. Pitman: 

I am saying if there is not one, it looks like it and this is just making that even more 



The Minister for Home Affairs: 

It is a conspiracy to do what? 

Deputy M. Tadier: 

Can I come in because I think my point is very much related to what Trevor has just 

raised?  I think you have given us some straw men, if I may say that.  First of all, you 

have said that, even if Mr. Power was not suspended and even if he were currently in 

his job then you would be looking to appoint Mr. Warcup, but the point is we are not 

in that scenario, we are in a scenario where Mr. Power is suspended and that is the 

whole point, it is a completely different scenario.  This is not the ordinary event of 

things and it is exactly because of this suspension, because there is a suspension going 

on with the relevant review and the inquiry pending by the Chief Minister, that there 

is this sense of: “Let us find out whether Mr. Warcup” …  As to the matter of 

certainty, we all have sympathy for Mr. Warcup, we know that obviously he does not 

want to be left in limbo but I think there are 2 points: first of all, you talked about an 

expectation that he will become the next Chief Officer; I mean, that is not necessarily 

the case.  He was appointed to be an Acting Chief Officer.  We know, for example in 

education circles, just because a deputy head teacher - if I can use the analogy- is 

acting as the Head Teacher does not necessarily mean that person will go on to be the 

Head Teacher.  I would maintain that it is exactly the same for the Chief Officer of 

Police.  The third point I would make, when it comes to certainty, we need certainty 

from States Members and the public that Mr. Warcupis the correct person for the job 

but also that this is the correct time to appoint him.  As I say, a lot of people maintain 

that this is not the correct time to be appointing Mr. Warcup.


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

Can I just say, that is more of a speech than a question but I will try and deduce 

questions from it, nevertheless.  Firstly, he was appointed as Chief Officer Designate, 

not just as Deputy;that is the whole point of what I am saying.  That is clear from the 

documentation in terms of the advert and various other things.  There was a clear 

indication that after the initial appointment, provided that his service record was

appropriate, that he would move on.  Obviously, also, subject to States approval; there 

is a very clear difference between those 2 different situations.  Secondly, you started 

to ask me a different question.  The question I was asked by Deputy Le Hérissierwas 

in fact a question in relation to why I was taking the matter forward when I was taking 

it forward.  The actual meeting took place in January in terms of the assessment of his 

ongoing capacity and so on.  You must understand that, unusually, we have had a 

situation here that we are not just assessing that in relation to his functionality as 

Deputy but we have been able to see him in operation as the Acting Chief and 

therefore we have had a better ability to gauge that.  There was then a delay in relation 

to the decision, coming back to a decision, which was caused by illness of the 

Chairman.  There then had to be a process in relation to the putting together of my 

proposition.  My own personal view-you may say I was wrong in this, you may say I 

was naïvein this-was that once I had the firm recommendation from the Board with 

which I agreed it was my duty to put that before the States as soon as possible.  The 

issue as to then precisely the proposition is to be debated is a quite separate issue.  

Indeed, I am still formulating an opinion as to how soon that can happen because, of 

course, the issues quite properly raised by the Deputy of St. Martin, Deputy Bob Hill, 

in relation to the outcome of the report of … I cannot think of the name, the 

gentleman who has been appointed.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: 

This is the gentleman who has come to review the whole process? 

The Minister for Home Affairs: 

Yes.  The Deputy of St. Martin has been very much involved in setting this up.  We 

have got that issue and I am being told that the outcome of that is likely to be 

available towards the end of April, early May, and that the terms of reference are 

sufficiently wide to look at issues like the involvement of Mr. Warcupin that process.  

But, quite independently from that, you must understand there are matters that I 

would want to put before the House myself in relation to this.  I particularly would 

want to put before the House the contents of the interim Metropolitan Police Report 

and I particularly would want to put before the House issues such as the ultimate 

recommendations of the Wiltshire Police.  I cannot do all those things at this moment 

in time because of confidentiality issues which still exist, but I would hope to be in a 

position to do that before a debate.  Indeed, one of the things I was going to do is to 

start talking to Deputy Hill as to a possible date to adjourn the matter to on the 

understanding that I would not be seeking to have a debate of the matter until such 

time as we had the outcome of the report that he has an interest in and also had the 

availability of the materials that I have an interest in.  Because I think the States 

Members should have a maximum amount of information available. 


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: 

Do you not think the issues are getting conflated, Mr. Minister?  Because what we are 

seeing is you are saying that some documents that are germane to the suspension and 

the disciplinary issue, you want them to be put before the States and, presumably, the 

whole idea of that is that the States will make some kind of assessment of these 

documents.  But, surely, that suspension of disciplinary procedure should come to an 

end on the basis of correct procedure and then we should look at this appointment.  

Deputy T.M. Pitman: 



The Minister for Home Affairs: 

That may well be so.  Can I handle this very simply?  As I understand it, the concerns 

that are being expressed by individuals are not in relation to the competence of Mr. 

Warcup, per se, or to his ability, per se.  The sort of concerns which have been 

expressed are in relation to the role which he played in connection with providing 

information to the former Minister for Home Affairs which then led on to the initial 

suspension process.  That is my understanding.  If I can put this very simply in the 

vernacular, as I see it, there are 2 possibilities here: there is the possibility that he 

exaggerated things, that he had made things up, that he had some motivation for so 

doing and that he is effectively a snitch.  That is not my opinion but that is effectively, 

if I may put it, where people are coming from who have a concern; I think that is not 

unfair.  The alternative possibility is, of course, that he was fullyjustified, that there 

were serious issues that he, in fact, had advice from the Metropolitan Police which 

fully backed this up and that his concerns are justified and have been backed up by the 

outcome of the Wiltshire Police.  In which case, he has done his duty as an officer, a 

painful duty, but nevertheless a duty of a senior officer discovering that things have 

gone seriously wrong in termsof bringing that to the attention of the officer’sseniors.  

That, it seems to me, is the crux of the matter and the crux of the concerns.  Am I 

being unfair or are there other issues? 

Deputy M. Tadier: 

Could I point out, I would suggest there must be a third possibility there, must there 

not?  It is very polarised the 2 options that you have given.  Presumably, the third 

option of anywhere in between would be that Mr. Warcupis essentially an honest 

man but that he was leaned upon and he was manipulated in such a way so that he 

thought the information he wasgiving out was correct and that any behaviour he was 

partaking in was quite correct when, in fact, he was being led by some higher power.  

That is not necessarily my opinion, that is obviously a third possibility and that is 

probably a possibility which many individuals have concerns about.


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

Okay.  I had not thought my way through to that possibility that somehow he was 

misled into acting in a particular way.  Yes.  Okay.


Deputy M. Tadier: 

I think the point is, the concernis that, even if he is a good individual-and we are not 

here really to discuss that -the fact is, some would say that he is already so involved 

in the issues and, in fact, it is not really appropriate for him to be appointed.  That is 

why, I think, we would at least appreciate more time as States Members.


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

Can I say, with respect, that does not make sense at all because constantly we are 

hearing, and I am-andDeputy Pitman is one of those to cry this the most loudly, if I 

may say so, and that is no criticism of him- that if things have gone wrong, why is 

nobody being held accountable for it?  If things had gone fairly wrong in relation to 

this and if it came to his attention, how can he possibly be blamed if he brings that to 

the attention of those above him?  I really cannot see that is logical at all; he was 

under a duty to do that so there is no question about it.  It is no different to any other 

situation in which a number 2 in an organisation might hypothetically find that the 

number one was doing something very wrong.


Deputy T.M. Pitman: 

But with due respect, with both scenarios you paint, it still comes to the same 

conclusion that, if you are talking about certainty-and that must be certainty for Mr. 

Warcup- because certainly, if this goes ahead, I for one have got no grudge against 

Mr. Warcupbut I would be tempted to vote against his appointment simply because it 

is entirely inappropriate to have this appointment while that other process with the 

suspension has not been played out and made public.  It is logical and I am really 

shocked that you do not see it that way, to be honest, Minister.

The Minister for Home Affairs: 

To me, the issue is simply an issue as to whether or not he was justified in relation to 

the role he played.


Deputy T.M. Pitman: 

He may be but we do not know that yet and that is …


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

No.  That is why I am agreeing with you that, before the appointment debate would 

take place, I would want the Members to have access to information which would 

enable an informed judgment.  I am not disagreeing with you on that. 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: 

I think, Mr. Minister, we are partly talking at cross purposes because I think you are 

changing the terms of the discussion.  I think what we are suggesting, what we are 

putting to you, is that there is a process in place, it has been a very unhappy process, it 

is one you have to handle as having inherited.  It has not come to an end, it has caused 

enormous distress, obviously, tothe individual and would it not be proper, on the 

basis of whatever evidence you are still accumulating- and there still seems to be 

some-and decent for that process to finish before you then look at the appointment of 

a new Chief Officer, even though it will lead to slight delays, given that present 

incumbent, in any case, has got till the end of the year on theircontract?


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

No, he has not, he has until 20th July. 


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: 

Sorry, the present Acting …


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

I am sorry, the Acting … yes, but the difficulty that arises, at what point is the process 

completed?  It is likely, because of the lengthy nature of the disciplinary process … I, 

today, at last received the report from the Deputy Chief Executive to the Council of 

Ministers which is required under the Disciplinary Code and will now be activating 

the next step which is a meeting with Mr. Power to discuss issues before deciding if 

he is going to face formal disciplinary charges.  But the reality of the situation is that 

there is a matter of complexity involved in this, and I am talking here in relation to 

what is generally called Haven 1, which is the matters to do with the management of 

the Haut de la Garenne Investigation, the financial issues and so on and so forth.  It 

would take a great deal of length of time to come to a full hearing.  In addition to that, 

or subsequent to that, there is an appellate process and subsequent to that there is an 

issue that goes before the States.  In reality, there is no way I can complete all those 

stages and therefore the disciplinary process, in terms of Haven 1, is unlikely to come 

to any conclusion uponthe facts by aneffluxtionof time with the resignation on the 

20th.  If you are talkingabout it will be over in terms of coming to a conclusion, it is 

not going to come to a conclusion, in reality, via a hearing by myself because I am not 

going to be conducting hearings, nor would Mr. Power want to be after a date when 

he no longer is in office; that makes no sense whatsoever.  Do you see my point?  

Therefore, at the end of the day, the only sources of information that people are going 

to have in relation to these issues are going to be the foundation reports, the report 

from Wiltshire and, indeed, whatever Mr. Power may wish to say about it.  Do you 

see what I am saying?  If you are suggesting it all has to be left over until the process 

has been completed, when is that, 2020, 2025?  It is not going to be completed in 

terms of that, there isnot sufficient time. 

Deputy M. Tadier: 

That would almost beg the question, then, should we be appointing Mr. Warcupat all, 

why not just appoint somebody whose hands are clean, and I say that without any 

kind of … 

The Minister for Home Affairs: 

His hands are clean.  I am sorry, Deputy, I very much resent your suggesting his 

hands are not clean.  Could you please apologise for that?


Deputy M. Tadier: 

Let me qualify …


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: 

Do you want to clarify that? 

Deputy M. Tadier: 

Yes.  I was about to qualify when the Minister interrupted.  I am not inferring any 

kind of wrongdoing, but what I am saying, there is a perception out there that he is 

implicated.  Just because a mechanic’s hands will become dirty from dealing with 

work that does not mean the mechanic is a bad person.  All I am saying is that Mr. 

Warcup is implicated in this whole affair and that is certainly the perception.  There 

may have been necessary things he had to do but, until there is closure of the whole 

issue…and you yourself, Minister, said that this may take years and years.


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

There is not enough time for there to be closure of the initial matter by the means of 

hearings;that is very apparent in relation to that.  I myself had estimated that the time 

period that would be involved for the entire process, from the time when I got the 

reports to the time when the States would deal with the matter, would be somewhere 

in the order of 9 to 12 months.  That is purely an estimation, it might be a great deal 

longer than that.  But my point is this: if people wish to believe tittle tattle and they

ish to believe innuendo, that is a matter for them; I will go on the facts as presented 

to me and the objective opinions of experts who have looked at the matter.  I would 

hope that my colleagues in the States would do the same.  If they do not, then that 

casts very severe doubts on their ability and also their objectivity.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: 

Just going back to the point, you said you were going to enter into discussions with 

the Deputy of St. Martin while the proposition has been delayed and the date for 

debate could well be negotiable.  What period are you looking at? 

The Minister for Home Affairs: 

Absolutely.  I would hope that I would have in line all the information I would need 

and be able to disclose the maximum amount in terms of a debate on the second States 

meeting in May, that is my hope.  Certainly, the information I have got, and I am 

looking towards Deputy Hill, is that the initial report will be available in late April, 

early May.  I think that is my understanding.


Deputy T.M. Pitman: 

Could you just clarify something, because you talked about tittle tattle and innuendo?  

Are you suggesting that everyone who questions what has gone withMr. Power is just 

relying on innuendo and tittle tattle? 

The Minister for Home Affairs: 

No, I am not.  It is a question for your colleague who is basically trying to say that if 

somebody out there thinks that there may be some suspicion of somebody they are 

therefore guilty.  That is simply not correct.


Deputy M. Tadier: 

I think you are putting words into my mouth, there, Minister. 

The Minister for Home Affairs: 

Mr. Warcupis entitled to be dealt with objectively and fairly;that is all I ask.


Deputy T.M. Pitman: 

As is Mr. Power. 

The Minister for Home Affairs: 

As is Mr. Power.  That is all I ask.


Deputy M. Tadier: 

I think, Minister, you have missed my point.  I am not inferring any kind of 

wrongdoing on Mr. Warcup, I am simply saying that there isa perception out there 

and it is correct because Mr. Warcup has been involved in the process of the 

suspension of Mr. Power; one way or the other, he is there.  If we were simply in a 

scenario where we hadsuspended a Chief Officer, he had been removed and his 

contract had come to an end then after that, completely separately, we bring in 

somebody else who is not implicated in any way, who has got no knowledge of the 

case that is ongoing, we would not be in this scenario.  That is all I am saying.  

Unfortunately, we are not in that position.


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

I think there is going to be an abundance of evidence, if I may say so, that Mr. 

Warcup acted fully properly in this matter.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: 

Sorry to interrupt, Minister, but surely the issue is that that evidence should be fed 

into the disciplinary and suspension process, should it not?  The idea of the States 

acting as some kind of assessor of evidence, some of which will form part of this 

other process, do you not think that this is rather odd?


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

Are you suggesting that the disciplinary process should continue after 20th July 

because that, to me, does not make sense, with respect?

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: 

No, I am not.  It is all highly regrettable, obviously, where it has all ended up and 

where you have had to end up and it is very unfortunate.  But it seems very odd that 

what you are suggesting is there is going to emerge, very shortly, some very powerful 

evidence which is apparently going to address one side or the other in this issue.  But, 

yet, the process where this evidence should have played a key part is somehow just 

going to fritter out.  It just seems very sad and very unfortunate.


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

I can only agree with that.  I think that it is fair to say that the Wiltshire Police are 

embarrassed by the length of time that the processes have taken and, indeed, the costs.  

As you know, when we started out on this road,or when my predecessor started down 

this road, hewasbeing told that he would have reportsas early as March 2009, and I 

was being told the same when I arrived as Minister in December. In fact, I have just 

recently given an interview to the Jersey Evening Post explaining the various reasons 

for variousdelays upon the way.  I do not want to expand on that because I promised 

the reporter that she would have a scoop. 


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: 

Okay.  Are there any further questions?  Can I ask you, Mr. Minister, okay, you have 

argued that there is this substantial evidence coming along and I suppose, without 

putting too many words in your mouth, you have inferred it is going to sort of start 

clarifying things, indeed, maybe clarifying them.  But would you be prepared to defer 

-given what you have heard today and having had the benefit of reflection-a debate 

on the appointment of Mr. Warcupuntil Mr. Power’s situation has resolved itself, be 

it through his end of service, through retirement or be it through the unlikely event of 

completing the disciplinary process? 


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

No.  The answer to that is no.  I have considered the possibility of putting back a 

debate until July.  By coincidence, there is a States meeting in July, I consider that too 

late.  As said if, hypothetically, the States were to decide against Mr. Warcup, for 

whatever reason, it is simply much too late for us to be going through a process of 

finding somebody.  We are then going to be in a situation of having a Deputy Chief 

Officer, Acting Chief Officer, who has not got the support of the States of Jersey, 

hypothetically, and his position is going to be extraordinarily difficult and the position 

of the States of Jersey is going to be extraordinarily difficult.  I am content to put 

things back by maybe a month, till May, but I will not put it back any longer, because 

then that really does start to create difficulties.  I cannot personally see why, if I am 

able to put before the Members the guts as it were, if I may put it that way, of the 

Wiltshire Report and recommendations and the guts of the Metropolitan Report, why 

Members would not then be able to formulate a view as to whether or not Mr. Warcup 

acted properly, because that is the issue:either he did or he did not.


Deputy T.M. Pitman: 

I have to ask, Minister, are you prepared to stand or fall by those beliefs?  You are 

quite happy that all will be revealed: Mr. Warcup, the whole process that has gone on 

will be proven to be entirely correct.  If it is not, and you cannot give us that evidence, 

are you prepared, as a Minister, to take those consequences?


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

If the outcome of the Wiltshire Reports does not effectively demonstrate that the 

behaviour of Mr. Warcupwas proper and appropriate, I would not have been bringing 

a proposition to the States.  Remember that I have known since October of last year 

what those reports say. 


Deputy T.M. Pitman: 

If only we knew.


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

If only I could tell you at this stage but, although its confidentiality has, in myview, 

been substantially liftedon a variety of different areas which has allowed me to speak 

more freely, I still do not feel completely free.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: 

Okay.  Are there any final … 

The Minister for Home Affairs: 

If it helps you, if thevote were to go against Mr. Warcup, I would resign, it would be 

the only matter of integrity available to me;of course, I would.

Deputy T.M. Pitman: 

Do you feel it to be fair that you are putting Mr. Warcupin a fair position because, 

certainly, some States Members I have spoken to probably will not support his 

appointment for this very lack of concern and, on the other hand, the very issue this 

fact is going on before the Power situation is resolved.  Is that fair on Mr. Warcup? 

The Minister for Home Affairs: 

I think that Members must be fair to him by waiting to see the contents of the 

information I can put out first, I expect people to judge him and his performance in 

relation to his role in relation to the initial suspension, on that.  I think when people 

see that theywill see that the other arguments just fall away.  I have discussed this 

with him on a number of occasions and, frankly, he would like things to move 

forward as soon as possiblebut he also would like me to be in a position to put the 

maximum amount of information before the House; as I said, those are the 2aims that 

I am trying to achieve.  

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: 

Have you tested with him whether he indeed would be agreeable to the kind of 

suggestion we are making, that the debate be deferred until the situation with the 

current chief is resolved? 

The Minister for Home Affairs: 

If we are talking about July, it is too long.  It is unnecessary and too long, provided I 

can put the information in.  If I could not put the information inby then, then I might 

have to consider that.  I do not want to go with the debate without the Members 

having had the opportunity to effectively see what Wiltshire and the Met. were 


Deputy T.M. Pitman: 

Just for clarity, is it correct that you have already accepted that the Deputy of St. 

Martin’s proposition will be heard before the proposition to appoint Mr. Warcup, is 

that correct? 

The Minister for Home Affairs: 

Yes.  That is logical.  But I hope that we can reach an accommodation by which I 

would simply agree to put the matter back to a date and undertake that I would not 

bring it forward until after the matter.  Can I just make a comment on that?  I had not 

anticipated that the terms of reference in relation to that report would be quite as wide 

as they were, and that may be my fault or my misunderstandingbut initially I had not 

expected that they would cover the issue of the role played by Mr. Warcup.  I now see 

that that is so and that issues can be looked and dealt with within that context and that 

there will be access to the Metropolitan Report and so on.  As I said, I have slightly 

changed my attitude.  Initially, when Mr. Hill was lodging it, I thought it was going to 

be irrelevant because the report would not cover it but I now see that it is not because 

the terms of reference have been widened.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: 

Are there any final words? 


Deputy T.M. Pitman: 

Just for clarity, obviously you were ill at the last States session, unfortunately, but I 

did ask the question when areMembers likely to see this interim report; could you 

just clarify that for me, when are we likely to see that?


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

Yes.  Thank you.  You did ask that question.  Can I just explain the nature of it, and 

this is dealt with in great depth in the written answer that I put in.  The trouble is that I 

have now discovered the best way of keeping a secret is to put it in the written answer 

because nobody seems to read them. (WRONG I DO )  But if you would like to read the very lengthy 

and detailed written answer which I made to the question of Deputy Hill, you will see 

that I explained that the Metropolitan Police report was produced on the 

recommendation of the A.C.P.O. (Association of Police Chief Officers) Homicide 

Working Group and it was produced as a general management report, it was a report 

in relation to where are we in relation to the investigation generally and where are we 

in relation to specific investigations.  The difficulty that arises is that there is highly- 

sensitive information contained therein relating to individual matters.  But I would 

expect that there would be some parts of the report which would contain general 

comments in relation to the management, et cetera, et cetera, and those are the parts 

that I would hope to be able to put into the public arena fairly quickly.  My own 

personal view at the moment is that they do not impinge on the disciplinary matter at 

all because they were not used by me or anybody else for disciplinary purposes but 

they are highly relevant to the issue as to whether Mr. Warcup had grounds for 

bringing matters to the attention of the Minister of the time.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Getting back to the question, when was the date that you said that you hoped that 

Members would be able to see it for themselves?  Go on, you know you want to tell 


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

I am hoping before the next States sitting but why I am being my normal cautious self 

though is because there are issues of discussions with the Met. themselves in relation 

to use of the document.  I cannot personally see that they could have any objection for 

the document to be used for the purposes of demonstrating what Mr. Warcup had 

before him when he gave his letter of advice, and so that could be quite soon.  But I 

am in theprocess of taking advice.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: 

Will it be quick advice or …


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

I hope so.  But at the moment I cannot see a problem in relation to that.  But it would 

only be those parts and the document would have to be redacted to confine it to those 

parts that did not relate to individual investigations.  But I do not know if that is a 

complex or simple process because I have not seen the document.  I have seen the 

document in terms of the existence of a document but I have not seen it in terms of its 

contents because it was decided that it is not appropriate for me to look at it in the 

context of the disciplinary matter.  It is quite a different matter if the credibility of Mr. 

Warcup is being put into play as to whether it existed or not because that is a different 

purpose.  Thank you very much.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: 

Okay, Mr. Minister.  Are there any final comments that you or your Assistant 

Minister wish to make?  What we will do, we will produce some written comments.  

We will look at the issue of whether the thing can be delayed, if we have any power in 

that delay; there seems to be a debate about that, so we will look at that.  I would like 

to thank you very much for coming.  Thank you.


The Minister for Home Affairs: 

Okay.  Thank you very much indeed.