Saturday, May 29, 2010


So what could be contained in the 'Metropolitan Interim Police Report' well i believe some of the answers are to be found in Graham Powers Judicial Review.

This Interim report was requested by David Warcup so it could be used with his letter to Chief Executive Bill Ogley on the 10th November 2008

So Mistake number 1 is made right there and as far as i understand it is this.

The Metropolitan Police were carrying out a ' Critical' Oversight of Operation Rectangle and what David Warcup allegedly received on the 10th November 2008 from Brian Sweeting was an Interim report. Now what happens next is a bit shocking and seriously need explaining.

Surely Someone of David Warcup's experience would have known that the Metropolitan Police were carrying out a 'Critical' Oversight of Operation Rectangle and so cannot or must not be used in any Disciplinary Matters. Make no mistake and its very public knowledge The Metropolitan Police have been very upset about what has happened, why was it allowed to happen.

This is from Senator Le Marquand 

Suspension review 1    ( Voiceforchildren)

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

There is no issue with those, but we must make sure you get those. This is the sensitive area. The sensitive area is that in his letter which you have not seen Mr. Warcup makes reference partly to the Metropolitan Police report of which you are both aware. I have not seen that report, and indeed the previous Minister did not see that report, and the reason for that is because that report contains highly sensitive information regarding individual cases, naming potential offenders, victims, et cetera et cetera. Now my advisors do not want me to see that report because of that sort of sensitive information but I am aware that because reference has been made to it in Mr. Warcup's letter that it not unreasonable that Mr. Power or yourself or some representatives, which in this case might not include lawyers because of the very sensitive area, be able to see the report and to check that in fact that which has been quoted from it has been accurately quoted. This is sensitive because even my own advisors do not want me to see it, I believe for good reasons, because I am not an operational police officer and I am the Home Affairs Minister. What we have been looking at, and this has again been a reason which has slightly delayed the responses in other matters, is mechanisms for dealing with the difficulty of it containing information which frankly is not relevant directly because only the information which

is referred to by Mr. Warcup in his letter is really relevant. So what we have been looking at is different possibilities which are canvassed for you now to try and get around the difficulty. One of the difficulties is to try and persuade the Metropolitan Police to produce a redacted, reduced version of the report which would only effectively make reference to the matters which related to management structures and so on, and not to individual cases. But I am not sure whether they are going to agree to do that because there is a second difficulty which I will be absolutely open with you about, which is this, and it is a relationship issue in relation to the States of Jersey

Police and the Metropolitan Police who are not entirely happy that a report was produced for a particular purpose and is now going to be involved for a different purpose. But let me see if I can ... if it was not referred to in the letters it would not be in play at all.

Now the question must be asked why didn't David Warcup know that the Met Report couldn't be used in the suspension of Graham Power

Now was the so called Met Interim Report really an official report? The Metropolitan Police have refused to confirm its existence even when requested through the Freedom Of Information. Brian Sweeting when interviewing Lenny Harper on the 18th November 2008 denied its existence and when Andre Baker was interviewed he was told that it didn't exist.

What if it's not an official report?

What if it's not on Metropolitan Police Headed Paper?

What if its just some notes sent over by Brian Sweeting and with no idea what David Warcup and Team Ogley had planned with them?

There is a very good reason that ILM is not seeing that report

Also remember the Met had only been working for 70 odd days and before the 10th November had not even interviewed Lenny Harper 


Brian Napier QC was meant to be a quick investigation into the original suspension of Graham Power, the ones who are investigating this know the complete and utter Farce he has walked into.

So what could be contained in those notes/report from Brian Sweeting. ILM is expecting to find a substantial report. This is some of what he will find

Judicial Review

On 9th January 2009 Mr Power applied for leave for judicial review of the decision of the Previous Minister made on 12th November 2008.  In the meantime, the new Minister (who had taken office in December 2008) had familiarised himself with the events, taken advice and decided to review the suspension.  Mr Power was formally informed of this by the Minister’s letter of 30th January 2009.  He expressed the wish to see Mr Power in advance to review the material that he would be considering in deciding whether or not to continue the suspension so that Mr Power could make representations to him about that material.  Accepting the principle that leave for judicial review should not be granted if an alternative remedy is available, Mr Power agreed to the adjournment of his application to await the outcome of the Minister’s review.

"That meeting took place on 13th February 2009 and was attended by the Minister, the Head of the Employee Relations for the States of Jersey, Mr Power and representing him, Dr T Brain, Chief Constable of Gloucestershire.  The meeting was taped and we have a typed transcript.  The meeting went on into the afternoon and much of it was taken up with the status of the Disciplinary Code and its relationship to the statutory provisions.. The Minister ultimately determined that he had power under Paragraph 2.3.3 of the Code to suspend the Chief Officer at the outset of the procedure and certainly before any preliminary investigation. There were discussions about the material he would rely on. It was agreed that Mr Power should have the letter from Mr Warcup of 11th November 2008 and the briefing notes for the media presentation.  Issues arose in relation to the Metropolitan Police report referred to in Mr Warcup’s letter in that the report contained sensitive material in relation to ongoing inquiries.  The Metropolitan Police were not prepared for it to be used for the purposes of disciplinary proceedings.  The provisional view at this meeting was that a redacted version would be made available.

The Suspension Review meeting took place on 5th March 2009 with the same attendees.  It was also taped and transcribed. Further problems had been encountered with the Metropolitan Police report and the Minister resolved to proceed by ignoring the sections of Mr Warcup’s letter which related to that report, which proposal was ultimately accepted by Dr Brain"

So because of problems encountered with the Met report they would proceed by ignoring those sections in Warcups letter and they are listed as follows

This is part of the now 'INFAMOUS MET REPORT' Below are the points quoted f

““There are no specific terms of reference for Operation Rectangle – given the potential size, complexity and sensitivity of the enquiry, one would have expected a more precise terms of reference.

From a command control perspective, if ex DCO Harper was SIO then it raises the question of who supervised him at a strategic level.

There is no policy book dealing with forensic strategy which is a critical area in this investigation.

A major factor affecting the planning of Operation Rectangle was the decision to limit it to a single agency led investigation, e.g., Police only.”


Why didn't they call Graham Power in and discuss those issues why the big show on the 12th November 2008

Well the reason for the big show is this

 The Chief Minister & Home Affairs Minister were both leaving office  in November 2008

The Chief Minister had never recovered from his Newsnight humiliation 

The Jersey Image had to be protected at all costs " State Sponsored Child Abuse is not good for business"

The Child Abuse Investigation had to be made out to be a total cock up, again i will leave the last word to Dr Brain 

Dr. T. Brain:

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

Now by doing what they did with just a letter written by David Warcup would not be enough. No it needed backing up with something that people could relate too, something that people trust so would believe its true, something that would allow them to suspend a Chief of Police, something so powerful that it would never be questioned ( the jersey way-ref local media) so LORDS,LADIES & GENTLEMAN I GIVE YOU 



Wednesday, May 26, 2010


"Just what is that Bungling Minister doing"

Not my words but the words of a sitting senator who will remain Anonymous

So the States sitting on Tuesday the 18th turned out to be a real beauty.

Just what has happened to the poll topping senator over these past 14 months. ILM is now looking stupid yet last year we were tipping him as a future Chief Minister.

The fall from grace could have and should have been avoided,  the Senator will have another chance as i will explain later.

Lets now look at Deputy Pitmans written question 










“Given that the Minister has previously stated that he has never personally seen the 'Metropolitan Police Interim Report’ but only an electronic version of an e-mail apparently attached to this document; will he investigate and clarify whether this 'report' actually exists as a physical (paper) document or just in electronic format; whether it exists in the accepted 'report' format most professionals would be familiar with i.e. a detailed document of several pages; or whether this is in the form of just a simple e-mail of a small number of paragraphs; and whether, irrespective of the format the 'report' takes, the words 'Metropolitan Police Interim Report’ appear as a title?”






Yes, I will investigate and clarify as requested.


And now his oral question

  Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –


       “Given that the Minister has consistently advised the Assembly that he has not personally seen the ‘Metropolitan Police Interim Report’ relating to the process leading to the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, will he advise whether he has now been able to obtain a copy and confirm that the report does exist as a physical document?”


We all know how important this Metropolitan Interim Police report is 

Here are some quotes from ILM concerning the Met Interim report 

" I have not seen contents of the relevant Document"

" I have seen an email and an attachment to an email,I did not look at the contents"

" I have wanted to check the contents of the document but has been absolutely impossible as the Chief of Police is away"

We then learned that the Metropolitan Police Interim Report is in the Safe at Police HQ 

"The Acting Chief of Police has the only key to the safe and access to his computer,but i will look at it as soon as I can"

"I have agreed that i would now look at the document"

Ilm also goes on to state " One reason for not looking at this document is that it contains a great deal of information and advice about individual prosecutions" and he fully expects it to back up all that he has been told about its contents.


Now when Senator ILM gets a look in that safe what will be staring back at him is not the "Met Interim Report" what will be sitting in that safe will be his

Political Future and Reputation 

Make no mistake that will be his last chance his only chance.

He knows what should be in it. He has been told what should be in it. Dave Warcup used it to back up his letter in one of the most controversial acts seen in Jersey for many many years

The Stalling Tactics could become rather fun, they know Deputy Pitman is waiting at the next States Sitting. So we have had the Holiday Sketch what will be the next excuse, they are not going to let ILM see that so called report not a chance and they cant even make another one up, what will they do.

Next Posting I will be looking at Brian Sweeting the Metropolitan Policeman that sent some notes/Interim Report to David Warcup on the 10th November 2008 and this was before he had even interviewed Lenny Harper.

And there is so much more 

All we are doing is looking for the truth. Through hard work and research the appointment of David Warcup has been put back, in the bad old days that would never had happened.

Citizen Media and Politicians working for the greater good how it should be.

But ask yourself this "WHERE IS THE LOCAL MEDIA" what have they uncovered what questions have they asked NOTHING THATS WHAT, ZERO,ZILCH.

So you have normal working people putting it on the line, getting abuse, and you know what its all worth it.

The Truth is Coming 

" Was this a political shaft job by the Walker Administration?"


Thursday, May 20, 2010

Former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis 1

Andrew Lewis 

So its time to have a look at Andrew Lewis the ex Home Affairs Minister

The reason for looking at his role is because he had 'Political Oversight' of the Child Abuse Investigation and also as Home Affairs Minister had ultimate power over the Chief of Police,only the Minister can suspend.

We must find out what the hell happened between the 10th and 12th of November 2008

Only two things matter concerning the original suspension of Graham Power

  1. 1. The Letter written by DPO David Warcup on the 10th November 2008 to Chief executive Bill Ogley
2. The Metropolitan Police 'Interim' report sent to DPO David Warcup on the 10th November 2008 via an email attachment 

Without those two documents being fully explained  I  just cant see how David Warcup can be promoted to the top job.

So back to then Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis

Andrew Lewis was given 'Political Oversight' of the Child Abuse Investigation on the 29th May 2008 this was because Home Affairs Minister Wendy Kinnard was conflicted as reported in the JEP

HOME Affairs Minister Wendy Kinnard has been interviewed by her own officers as a potential witness in the historical child abuse inquiry
Senator Kinnard released a brief statement this morning saying that she had been interviewed, and saying that she had handed over responsibility for the inquiry to her deputy.

Senator Kinnard’s statement says that she has passed over ‘political oversight’ for the investigation to Assistant Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis, with the backing of the Chief Minister, to avoid ‘any perceived conflict of interest’.
It is not clear in what context or capacity she was interviewed, but the statement says that she retains all her other ministerial responsibilities and will make no further comment on her interview.

On the 23rd September 2008 Wendy Kinnard announces she is to step down from the states. Andrew Lewis becomes Home Affairs Minister after being put forward by Chief Minister Frank Walker,  on the 12th November 2008 he makes a decision that will follow him forever.

Before we look at this more closely its important we read the press release from Graham Power where he responds to Andrew Lewis who was saying he followed proper procedure ( AFTER GETTING ADVICE)  and had concerns about the management of the Abuse Investigation and this is where he contradicts himself.
The more I look at the whole sorry mess I come to the opinion that Graham Power was totally and utterly shafted by the higher reaches of the Jersey Government 
The question the people of Jersey have got to as is 'WHY'

The following statement has been issued by Graham Power QPM.   Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.   22nd February 2010.
Since my suspension in November 2008 I have complied with the confidentiality requirements of the disciplinary code.   I have however always made it clear that if the code is breached by Ministers, or those acting on their behalf, I would not hesitate to respond.
I have tonight seen the statement issued by the former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis.   In my view his statement constitutes a clear breach of the code and one to which I am entitled to respond.   Accordingly I do so in the comments set out below.   It may be noted that my comments relate entirely to the statements of Andrew Lewis.   I have attempted not to stray into other areas in order to stay within the spirit of the code.   I offer this compliance in spite of the totally unfair, unjust and disproportionate manner of my treatment.   Andrew Lewis and his associates are assisted by the full wealth and power of the state.   I have been refused legal assistance and in consequence I am required to defend myself with only the resources of myself, family and supporters.   I do my own research and I type my own letters.   I do not have expensive staff, civil servants, or legal advisors supporting my work.   I have only the resources of a private individual.   Nevertheless, I hope that the following comments will assist in the growing debate relating to the actions of Ministers and others in November 2008.
I do not have the technical capability to insert my comments alongside those of Andrew Lewis.   It may therefore be necessary for the reader to be in possession of the comments of the former Minister while reading my comments.   If this causes difficulty I apologise.   It is the best I can do with the resources available.
In the introduction to his recent statement Mr Lewis says “at all times I sought legal advice and that of HR professionals and took this advice into account.”   In his statement to the disciplinary investigation by Wiltshire Police he says “Up until I received the letter from David WARCUP, I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.”  (Statement to Wiltshire Police paragraph 3.)   In his statement to the disciplinary enquiry, the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers, Bill Ogley states “On 11th November I received a letter from David WARCUP   .......... I then wrote to Andrew Lewis that day.” (Statement to Wiltshire Police page 7.)  It follows therefore that the evidential statements made by Mr Lewis and Mr Ogley claim that the letter which led to the suspension was received on 11th November 2008, and Mr Lewis states that until he received that letter “I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.”   On the evening of 11th November Andrew Lewis asked me to attend a meeting the following morning, and I was suspended on the morning of 12th November 2008.   It follows therefore that if the statements of both Mr Lewis and Mr Ogley are true the “legal advice and that of HR professionals” must have taken place between 11th and 12th November 2008 which is a tight time frame and hard to reconcile with the claim that this advice was taken “at all times.”   What we now know, from separate disclosures obtained in the face of strong opposition from the current Chief Minister, is that the suspension documents were in fact prepared early in the morning of Saturday 8th November 2008, a fact which is hard to reconcile with the previous statements made by Andrew Lewis, presumably with the advice and support of the legal and HR professional experts upon whom he relies.   If such experts have in fact assisted Mr Lewis in preparing his statement, then they are inevitably associated with what he has said and done and they may therefore be compromised.   This would appear to re-enforce the need for any review of these issues to be fully independent.
The dates on which the suspension documents were created is referred to by Mr Lewis in his recent statement when he says “the earlier dates of creation simply reflect the preliminary work by the legal and HR advisors.”   Given that under the Police Law and the Disciplinary Code it is the Minister for Home Affairs and nobody, literally nobody else, who has any jurisdiction whatsoever in relation to the Chief Officer of Police, we are entitled to ask on whose authority the Law Officers Department and “HR advisors” determined that on a Saturday morning in November 2008 it would be appropriate to draft suspension notices for the Chief Officer of the Islands Police Force.   In his statement to Wiltshire Police the timeframe given by Mr Lewis indicates that it could not have been him.   So who was it?   Or is it possible that the truth is not being told?
On a relatively minor point in the preamble Mr Lewis states “Until 11th February (2010) I was not aware of Mr Power’s affidavit despite his claim that he had sent it to me.”   Just for the record, no such claim was made.   It has been truthfully stated that the affidavit, sworn in January 2009, was sent to the Minister for Home Affairs.   This was of course another person by that time.   It rather appears that the legal and HR professionals who have apparently assisted Mr Lewis in preparing his release have let him down on this point of detail.
I now turn to the numbered paragraphs in the recent release by Andrew Lewis:
In this paragraph Mr Lewis attempts to blame me for the publicity regarding the suspension.   During the suspension interview he made it clear that it had already been decided that he and the then Chief Minister (who had no lawful role in the matter whatsoever) would shortly be giving a press conference, the arrangements for which had been put in place the previous day, presumably in anticipation of the outcome of the suspension meeting on 12th.   It is natural and understandable that in light of this information I should decide to ensure that my side of the story was given comparable coverage.
Mr Lewis claims that any consultation with the previous Minister would have been a conflict of interest.   He misses the point.   The relevant period of the historic abuse enquiry was undertaken under the political oversight of another person who is not recorded as having expressed any formal concerns.   In his actions of 12th November 2008 Mr Lewis was applying retrospective judgement in respect of actions which occurred prior to him assuming office.   He was, in common parlance, moving the goalposts after the event.   His failure to consult with the person who was actually in political office at the relevant time is a breach of the basic principles of fairness.
Mr Lewis claims that the process he applied was in accordance with the disciplinary code and he appears to imply that it was in some way fair and “neutral.”   This claim is made in spite of the strong criticism of his actions by the Royal Court.   He does not address this criticism and appears to prefer to pretend that it does not exist.   Contrary to his claim, the disciplinary code provides for no appeal against suspension.   There is a right of appeal against the findings of a disciplinary hearing.   No such hearing has yet occurred and none has been arranged.
Lewis says “Mr Power also claims that the code was rewritten hours before it was invoked, this is quite misleading.”   If this is genuinely misleading then I am quite happy to be led towards the truth.   If it was re-written at an earlier time, who did this and who asked for it to be done?   Could it by any chance be the same as yet unidentified person or persons who decided, apparently without any Ministerial authority, to spend a Saturday morning drafting suspension notices for the Chief Officer of Police on the off-chance that the Minister, who according to his statement to Wiltshire Police, “had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well” might suddenly change his mind?   Or was it intended that the Minister would have his mind changed for him?   Without a proper enquiry we will never know.
In his recent statement Mr Lewis says “I had been aware for some time of concerns about the command and control of the Child Abuse Enquiry.”   In his formal statement to Wiltshire Police he states “Until I received the letter from David WARCUP, (on 11th November 2008 – the day before the suspension) I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.”  (Paragraph 3.)  Is Mr Lewis now admitting that his statement to Wiltshire Police is not true?   If it helps, it appears that prior to signing his statement to Wiltshire Police, Mr Lewis signed a declaration which among other things (such as page numbers and the like) states “This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything in it which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.”   If the signed statement to Wiltshire Police is not true then it is a serious matter.   On the face of it, his recent public statement, and the statement to Wiltshire cannot both be true.   This is something which may require a more formal investigation.   I will return to this issue later.
Mr Lewis states that I was aware of the planned briefing to Ministers on 11th November 2008.   This is just plain untrue.   Pure and simple.   This was planned and executed without my knowledge.   If he claims that I was aware it might be useful for him to state who told me, and when.   He then states “Despite this Mr Power chose to go on holiday.”   This is almost a total reversal of the truth.   Mr Lewis knows, or at least he should know, that my absence was not a “holiday.”   I was attending to family welfare issues in the UK which had by that time been postponed for too long due to work commitments.   The evidence indicates that far from my absence being some form of abdication of responsibility on my part, it was seized upon in a series of events which bear all of the characteristics of a planned coup d’ état.   The first day of my leave was 7th November 2008.   By the following morning persons unknown were preparing suspension notices and, on the evening of my return to the island I was told to attend a meeting the following morning.   
Lewis states that I was not “asked to resign.”   All parties agree on at least one thing.   That is that at the start of the meeting I was asked to “consider my position.”   I leave it to others to decide what is commonly understood to be meant by this statement. Interestingly Mr Lewis states “I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Met Report.”   According to his statement to Wiltshire Police he could hardly do so given that he claims “I never saw the Metropolitan Review Document.” (Paragraph 14.)   Again, it is hard to reconcile these two statements.
In his recent statement Lewis refers to the typed notes which are alleged to be a true record of the disciplinary meeting and says “Mr Power has never corresponded with me to the effect that they did not reflect the meeting.”   In a letter addressed to the Minister dated 1st December 2008 I begin “Dear Minister.”   I then go on to list a number of issues.   In paragraph 5 and 6 I refer to the alleged typed notes of the meeting and list areas of the notes which I consider to be untrue.   On 5th December 2008 I received a reply which had been sent on the Ministers behalf.   I have copies of both letters.   The recent claim by Lewis that “Mr Power has never corresponded with me to the effect that they (the notes) did not reflect the meeting” is a further transparent falsehood and can be shown to be so.
I am grateful for the comments of Andrew Lewis in this paragraph.   He confirms that he and others were apparently misled as to the duration of the disciplinary enquiry, stating that he was told that it would be concluded by March 2009.   It is now of course almost March 2010 and the matter is still outstanding.   He does not say who misled him or speculate as to their motives.   He says that he is “deeply concerned” about this issue.   His concerns, if authentic, are appreciated.   During this time he has of course been getting on with his life.   I am the one who has been suspended until such time as there is no possibility of a return to work, and I have therefore effectively been dismissed.   
In this paragraph Mr Lewis praises my professional virtues.   He then says that he was shocked by the revelations presented by “competent independent policing authorities.”   He does not say who these authorities were.   Whoever they were they could not have been the Metropolitan Police whose report he “never saw.” (Witness statement paragraph 14.)
Mr Lewis states that he will now “look forward to the publication of the Wiltshire Constabulary’s report.”   In that respect he may be disappointed, given that Wiltshire have ruled their report to be confidential and stated that their report is exempt from any Freedom of Information laws on a number or grounds, including the claim that any disclosure would be “likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey.” (Confidentiality rules.   Wiltshire report.)   I will of course abide by the confidentiality rules imposed by Wiltshire.   Andrew Lewis apparently intends otherwise.   In this paragraph Mr Lewis goes on to state that he would fully co-operate with any further enquiries which may be necessary.   I am pleased to hear this in view of what I have to say below with regard to this issue.
Personal comment.
Having concluded my comments on the recent release by Andrew Lewis, I now offer the following thoughts:
Among all of the conflicting accounts and confusion a number of things appear to be evident.
Nobody appears to dispute that important evidence, in the form of the original record of the suspension meeting was wilfully destroyed.
There is evidence that suspension documents which bore the date 12th November 2008 and which claimed to be in response to information received the previous day, were, shall we say, deficient in authenticity.
There is an apparent conflict between things said in the legally admissible statement made by Andrew Lewis and the things which he is saying now.   There might be an explanation for this, although none is immediately apparent.
In these circumstances I believe that there is a compelling case for a full independent investigation with intrusive legal powers, into the actions of Andrew Lewis and others on and around 12th November 2008 and that given the circumstances, a full criminal investigation, by an independent police force, may be appropriate.   This is of course a matter for others to decide.   Nevertheless, notwithstanding my effective dismissal from the police service, I remain fully committed to support any enquiry, criminal or otherwise, into the events of November 2008
We must find the truth concerning the original suspension and we will
The Letter from David Warcup and the Interim Met Report
This is Lenny Harpers take on his dealings with former Home Affairs Mnister Andrew Lewis

At the beginning Lewis kept a really low profile as evidenced at the start of May 2008 when I was trying to get hold of him to speak urgently with him regarding an article in the Guardian the day before which had claimed that the AG was wilfully obstructing the abuse enquiry and there was other political interference.  I also needed to update him about the Jersey odentologist's view that a tooth he had examined that day could not have come out naturally before death.  Despite leaving messages at his offices in Jersey and Guernsey and his mobile over a period of 24 hours, he did not surface until he telephoned Graham Power to register Frand Walker's concern over my alleged comments to the Guardian.
In June, shortly after I enraged the AG with my report giving the true facts of his lawyers u turn on charging the couple who were arrested for beating children with cricket bats Lewis rang to tell us that the Council of Ministers were already whispering about another "police cock-up and another mess".  Lewis said this was totally unfair and ill-informed and he would brief Frank Walker. (Its amazing how people forgot that calls to police HQ were recorded on a number of lines!!)  Later that day he rang again to tell us that the AG was "beside himself" with the events over the cricket bat couple.
In the middle of July Lewis phoned me and told me that he and the AG were in agreement on two points.  1.  My circulation list for media releases was too wide and that from then on I should leave out the national and international media.  2.  Any work on a second site should be kept secret from public and media.
A couple of days later he rang to tell us that the Bailiff was writing to complain that someone at PHQ was too close to Stuart Syvret.  This followed Stuart getting to learn of the fact that we had been refused a warrant to search the Sea Cadet offices for evidence and had to resort to a subterfuge with the aid of the UK Chiefs in the Cadets.
At the end of July Graham Power confirmed to me that the AG had leant on him, in the presence of Andrew Lewis, to force me to restrict media releases.  Graham said he was fairly sure that the AG had given incorrect information to the BBC about this.  Indeed, he was correct, as Louise Hubble the BBC reporter had confirmed to me the day before that the AG had totally denied putting any such pressure on.
And then of course there was the touching scene at Government House a day or two before I left the island when Andrew Lewis stood side by side with me and told my wife how he and I had stood together and fought for the victims, and that sometimes talking to Frank (Walker) was like talking to a brick wall.  Walker, he said, just didn't want to listen to the stories of the victims.


Sunday, May 16, 2010

DISMISSAL BY STEALTH? The Suspension of CPO Graham Power QM 1


The players

Chief Executive Bill Ogley

Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis

DCOP David Warcup

Chief Minister Frank Walker

On the 10th November 2008 David Warcup wrote a letter to the chief executive bill ogley raising his concerns on the handling of the Haut de la Garenne Abuse investigation, he backed this up with an Interim report by the Metropolitan Police. On the 11th November Dave Warcup and Mick Gradwell gave a press briefing to ministers including Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis where they called into question the handling of the HdelaG investigation. Their presentation consisted of opinions by David Warcup backed up by the Infamous Met Report, their had also been an outside media expert who had been working in the background ( more on his role at a latter date).

Andrew Lewis was so convinced after that meeting that on the 12th November 2008 CPO Graham Power QM was suspended under 2.3.3 of the code. Now lets look at the facts

On the 12th of November 2008 CPO Graham Power was suspended under 2.3.3 of the code for alleged management issues of the Haut de la Garenne Abuse enquiry, here is what the code states. so

2.3.3 In more serious circumstances the Chief Officer may be suspended from duty on full pay by the Home Affairs Minister, pending the outcome of this procedure. In this event, the matter will be referred to the States of Jersey, in accordance with Article 9 of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974

It was the previous Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis who invoked this part of the code. Why did Andrew Lewis invoke 2.3.3 of the code? for the answer we have to look at Graham Powers Judicial Review.

"The Previous Minister( Andrew Lewis) then handed Mr Power a letter dated 12th November 2008 headed “Disciplinary Code” in which he informed him that he had received a letter from the Chief Executive enclosing a copy of a letter he had in turn received from Mr Warcup on the 11th November concerning an interim report that Mr Warcup had received from the Metropolitan Police into the conduct of Operation Rectangle. Mr Warcup’s letter included extracts from the report from the Metropolitan Police and concluded that there are significant concerns about the command and control structures in place with regard to the inquiry and Mr Power’s role within that."

The Previous Minister’s(Andrew Lewis) letter went on to say that having considered the letter from Mr Warcup and the pre-press briefing given the night before, the overall management of Operation Rectangle would be publicly called into question. In the light of this and in the light of Mr Power’s accountability under Article 9(3) of the Police Force Law, the Previous Minister had decided to invoke the Disciplinary Code relating to the Chief Police Officer. He considered that the issues raised in the report relate to alleged serious matters of performance and capability which could not be treated as something occurring in the normal course of events and could not therefore be dealt with on a personal level pursuant to paragraph 1.1 of the Code. He had asked the Chief Executive to investigate the matter in accordance with the Code. It would appear that Mr Power was not given a copy of Mr Warcup’s letter.

Again according to Mr Power, the Previous Minister then informed him that he had decided to suspend Mr Power with immediate effect and handed him a second letter, also dated 12th November, 2008. It reiterated the same concerns as in the first letter, but then went on to state:-

“My view is that the issues raised in the report of the( interim) Metropolitan Police and the letter from the Deputy Chief Officer of Police fall into the category of “serious circumstances” as set out in Paragraph 2.3.3 of the Disciplinary Code which was given to you when you started work for the States of Jersey by letter dated 3rd August 2000. I will write to you separately with a copy of the Disciplinary Code.

Lets also look at what Andrew Lewis says about 2.3.3 of the code. Remember these are allegations of management issues, suspension is a neutral act.

I also believe Andrew Lewis has not seen the MET INERIM report but was referring to the press briefing

In reaching my decision to suspend, I have taken into consideration the following:

Whether, or not, by remaining in post whilst the investigation is undertaken you may potentially be subject to an accusation that you were in a position to influence the investigation, unintentionally or otherwise

Whether or not, by remaining in post whilst the investigation is undertaken you may potentially be subject to an accusation that you were in a position to repeat the conduct or performance which is itself the subject of the allegation

Whether, given the nature of the allegations, it is possible for you to continue to fulfil the full duties and responsibilities of your office whilst the investigation is undertaken.

This is a precautionary suspension only and does not imply that any conclusions have been reached about your alleged role in the management of the historic abuse inquiry at this stage.”

So lets look at this last point

" This is a precautionary suspension only and does not imply that any conclusions have been reached about your alleged role in the management of the historic abuse inquiry at this stage"

So we now know Wiltshire police were called in to investigate the allegations. Wiltshire were meant to produce their report in March 2009 but delay after delay meant the new Home Affairs minister Ian le marquand didn't receive the report until November 2009. We are now in May 2010 and still no disciplinary procedures have been brought.

Graham Power has been suspended for 18 months and retires on the 21st July 2010

I find this absolutely Shocking

It now seems that the Home Affairs Minister ILM is saying time has now run out regarding bringing disciplinary action (if any is needed) against Graham Power but will bring as much information as he can to the states chamber after Graham Power has retired. If that happens then there should be some very serious questions aimed at the Home Affairs Minister because we now enter the realms of


Brian Napier QC is now looking into the original suspension of Graham Power checking if proper procedures were followed. Deputy Bob Hill is also overseeing this report and its one we all look forward to seeing. I do find it strange that this can go on with one of the big players still in post Chief Executive Bill Ogley but hey thats the " Jersey Way"

So if Graham Power retires and nothing is done where does that leave the Home Affairs Minister and the States of Jersey, are we just at the beginning of another huge "SCANDAL"

Can ILM seriously think he can just waltz into the states chamber after Graham Power has retired and just say

" Well he would have faced disciplinary charges but we have run out of time, here is some information. I know he cant reply but hey this is the 'Jersey Way' look David Warcup is a good egg i like him and it was just a little letter so lets all move on, tea and biscuits at mine"

Times have changed now and thank god,some states members can see what is going on and are very researched on this subject.

CPO Graham Power is suspended because of a letter written by David Warcup that is 'FACT'

This is the first of a number of posts that I will be doing on this issue, the original suspension is very important and the truth must be found