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. 









rico sorda said...

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 various delays upon the way. I do not want to expand on that because I promised
the reporter that she would have a scoop.

So wiltshire are embarrassed about the length and costs, oh snigger snigger and red fasces all round. This is a bloody joke, over a million quid, a police chief is suspended and i should add under 2.3.3 of the code very serious so serious in


Now ILM is saying he has run out of time who's fault is that not Graham Powers or was this the way it was always going to be?


rico sorda said...

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.

This is a fair point outlined my deputy tadier and one I thought ILM would have taken into consideration.

He also cant forget the press conference given by warcup & gradwell on the 12th november 2008 which can be found on voiceforprotest

They mention the voids/cellars teeth etc etc and backed up with zero forensic proof it was all just opinion.

If you read it the piece of skull is not even confirmed as being coconut. So should watcup and gradwell be pulled up about the wild media stories concerning this, CTV JEP have milked this to death

And what about the media expert as described in my last posting


GeeGee said...

Rico - read Stuart's latest posting too regarding the admittance by Warcup that he had 'destroyed' evidence as he did not think it credible!!!!


rico sorda said...

Hi geegee

Yeah i remember that statement about destroying evidence strange have wiltshire looked at this?

What a day in the states ILM went a bit quiet about the ACPO scandal or not a scandal as the case may be. Ilm has not made a complaint to ACPO so cant be that serious


GeeGee said...

Yes - what a day, what a sham, and a shame for Dannie to have to listen to all that utter c**p.

It's mentally exhausting because it is so very frustrating, but a glass of wine or two later and the strength comes back to fight another day!

Reference the 'destroyed' evidence (like the shredded notes!), I seem to recall somewhere on a blog not too long ago that one lady said they she, or more than one person, had been called to Police HQ by Warcup and his gang and taken to a room to look at exhibits and asked if they were anything to do with their particular cases. I know it was queried then whether or not this was correct procedure. In fact I feel it was Lenny that said this should not happen.

I wonder if this was done as a reason to destroy some of the evidence, although how the hell evidence can be destroyed at any stage is beyond me.

Proud Survivor said...

Hi Rico - I have read your very informative posting and decided it is time to follow you! When you live outside the island as I do it is vital to stay informed about matters close to your heart. I stopped subscribing to the Rag a long time ago. With you, VFC and Stuart the job is done. Keep up the good work!


rico sorda said...

Hi Lorna

Thanks for the message sure beats all the abusive ones i receive.

We will keep searching for the truth.

I know myself and VFC have stepped into the void left by our local media,this is not something i ever saw myself doing but what do you do,I cant walk away from this.

I like many others just want the truth and we will get it. I herd today that there were 30 allegations of abuse in the cellars under HdelaG the cellars that some say don't exist the cellars warcup and gradwell say are voids.

I believe VFC will be doing a post on this so look out for it.

Thanks again for the message

Take care


Proud Survivor said...

Thanks for your message Rico. As you will know from Stuart's blog I lived in HDLG for two years in the 60's and am passionately committed to helping other survivors to get justice.

"Voids" my a**e! Those cellars are real and the abuse that happened there was all too horribly real too. I look forward to VFC's post.


Anonymous said...

I hope to have a new blog up tonight where i will be looking at the " 20 million abuse shambles" with some more researched facts.

It all ties in with graham powers suspension and is one of ILMs concerns.

ILM also mentioned in the states that the Warcup debate could be put back till the 21st july,that is when Graham Power retiers.

So was that the paln all along

A total fecking Joke


voiceforchildren said...


20 million quid!!!?? where did you get that figure from? I trust it was a reliable source?

rico sorda said...

It comes from an article from david rose and one i knew i would need some day.Hope to have the blog up tonight i


GeeGee said...

Yes - I well remember that damning article Rico, full of inconsistencies, and the £20 million pound figure was allegedly quoted by a States of Jersey spokesWOMAN, so I wonder who she was.

Bit of egg on face I think after ILeM's condsiderably lower figure quoted yesterday!

rico sorda said...

Just to let you know im still working on my new blog post and it will be up tomorrow