Wednesday, June 23, 2010

ILM & HIS KANGAROO COURT

STATES OF JERSEY

CHIEF OFFICER OF THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE: REVIEW OF PROCEDURE REGARDING SUSPENSION

 

Lodged au Greffe on 18th December 2008
by the Connétable of St. Helier

  

STATES GREFFE


PROPOSITION

 

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion -

 

            to request the Minister for Home Affairs to commission a compliance check on the procedures followed by his predecessor, the former Minister for Home Affairs, in suspending the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police on 12th November 2008 and to report to the States on the outcome of this compliance check no later than 1st March 2009.

 

 

 

CONNÉTABLE OF ST. HELIER


REPORT

 

Introductory note

 

Given the provisions of Article 9(4) of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974, the debate on this proposition must take place in camera. It follows that the contents of this report have been kept as brief as possible and that there is as little enlargement as possible upon its subject matter in order that the provisions of the relevant law are complied with.

 

Purpose of the proposition

 

This proposition seeks a simple check by an appropriately qualified body such as the Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service, or any other independent body with expertise in the interpretation of industrial relations, into the actions taken by the Minister of Home Affairs in suspending the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police on 12th November 2008.

 

Any employee of the States of Jersey should be able to expect any complaints against them to be dealt with correctly. Therefore, the proposition has more general relevance as a willingness by the States to have their employment procedures checked for compliance should reassure all States of Jersey employees that their employer, the States, will not disregard the principles of good employment relations and of natural justice in their dealings with their employees.

 

Financial and manpower implications

 

Should this proposition be approved I would estimate that the work in reviewing the suspension procedure could be undertaken by a local, appropriately qualified and experienced Human Relations practitioner in half a day. The cost of this work would therefore be relatively insignificant.


APPENDIX 1

 

Statement by the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police

 

This Statement gives me no pleasure but I wish to inform the Assembly in accordance with my powers under Article 9 of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974, on 12th November 2008 I suspended the Chief Officer of Police from duty pending an inquiry under the Disciplinary Code applicable to the Chief Officer. The terms of that code place on me obligations of confidentiality and there is little that I can say about this matter at this time. I can, however, say that pursuant to that code I have taken steps to put an investigation in hand into matters of concern and that investigation is part of a process that when completed will result in a decision on the part of my successor as to what steps should then be taken. I am sure that Members will entirely understand that it would be most inappropriate to discuss any of the substantive matters that caused me to suspend the Chief Officer and to initiate the procedure under the Disciplinary Code. I cannot comment on them and I would ask the Assembly not to seek to explore them at this time. At some stage at the end of the process, my successor, whoever it will be, will need to make a decision about these substantive matters and he or she should not be influenced in any way by any views expressed by Members of the Assembly. In addition, of course, the Chief Officer cannot comment and has not yet had the full opportunity that the process allows to answer to these matters and to defend himself. Any debate would thus be unfair to him as the full facts are not yet known. I am sure, however, that Members will readily understand that a suspension in these circumstances is a neutral act and implies no finding one way or the other, but is rather an entirely prudent course to preserve the integrity of the investigation. If the Assembly wishes to ask questions I will endeavour to be helpful, but I do not propose to answer any questions that will breach the obligations, confidentiality or that I will disclose the detail of any of the substantive matters under investigation.

 

The Bailiff:

Now Members will be aware, I am sure, that the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 requires that any discussion in the States regarding the suspension of the Chief Officer shall take place in camera and I must, therefore, ask the transmitters to close down the transmission and ask those in the public gallery to withdraw so that the period of questioning allowed by Standing Orders may take place.

 

[Questioning proceeded in camera]


APPENDIX 2

 So i thought i would take a quick look at this proposition brought by the Constable of St Helier in January 2009


The reason im doing this is because of my chat with Andrew Lewis last month. What stuck in my mind during that chat, was, Andrew Lewis saying he was trying to protect Graham Power. Now i thought this was strange, but, it makes a little more sense when you read the above statement which he made to the states in November 2008.


I believe the second half of this statement needs to read by every states member, and, more importantly should be stuck on the wall at the bottom of Senator ILM'S bed.


This is where i believe ILM is loosing all track of what is going on


Who would of thought that the former Magistrate after having 15 months to sort this out is going to hold a 'KANGAROO COURT' in the States Chamber.


So let us look at that statement.


1."At some stage at the end of the process, my successor, whoever it will be, will need to make a decision about these substantive matters and he or she should not be influenced in any way by any views expressed by Members of the Assembly"


No chance of that happening with ILM. How can he make a decision when time has run out and not for Graham Power but ILM. Suspension is a neutral act.


2."In addition, of course, the Chief Officer cannot comment and has not yet had the full opportunity that the process allows to answer to these matters and to defend himself."


Now this is a very important, read it again, what a crucial point Andrew Lewis makes. This is why i believe a former Magistrate will be holding a Kangaroo Court on the 19th July. 


When has Graham Power had the  'full opportunity  that the process allows  to defend himself'.


All Graham Power has had is the suspension reviews and the Judicial Review and this is without Wiltshire. ILM has said he is bringing information to the house in July, my guess it will be the 19th, just before summer recess and then ages before he  faces any questions.


A former Magistrate is going to tell all states members how guilty Graham Power is without first bringing any disciplinary charges against him, or allowing him to defend himself against these allegations. He will bring in hand picked pieces of information and then the communications unit will work out a front page headline for the JEP.  'Simples'


They have had 18 months to bring charges against Graham Power and the yellow belly cowards have waited until he retires, this in my opinion, its a complete and utter disgrace.


The Attitude of Sen ILM is an utter disgrace. To think a former man of the law is going to condemn the former Chief of Police without first giving him the chance to defend himself against these allegations is Shocking beyond belief 


Listen to the audio on 'thejerseyway' blog site. ILM goes on about ground hog day, lol he is learning, he  knows it diverts the question.


He then gets asked about the Met complaints investigation and totally ignores it,check the audio.


The other puzzle about the rejection this Proposition is that in June 2010 we are still waiting for Commissioner Brian Napier QC who in February was only meant to take 6 weeks.


For my next blog i will be asking you readers to write the JEP headline for ILM 


Because believe me they are working on it all ready


Who could ever forget this headline from Di 'scoop' Simon


Abuse inquiry: Power ‘at fault’

By Diane Simon


SUSPENDED police chief Graham Power should be disciplined for failings in his supervision of the investigation at Haut de la Garenne, the Wiltshire Constabulary report has recommended.

But the report has taken so long that it is now unlikely that a full disciplinary hearing will take place. Mr Power is to retire in July.

The Wiltshire Constabulary’s report has not yet been released, but the JEP has discovered that in its present form it criticises Mr Power’s performance in relation to a number of areas of the inquiry.

Criticism is made about the way in which the investigation at the former children’s home was described by the police to the media and the financial management and organisational structure of the investigation.

Article posted on 1st April, 2010 - 3.00pm


Do you see how clever that front page was, and then on the inside bugger all,oh and a question and answer with ILM that was a joke and one he had to backtrack on in the states so funny.


Be prepared its coming


My Headline is this


GRAHAM POWER IS 'GUILTY' 

   of something 


rs




37 comments:

Anonymous said...

Are you Graham Power's love child?

Anonymous said...

Performance Power failure
Serious Power failure

Anonymous said...

Di Simon only reports facts

What planet are you on, let's ask Lenny Harper about her factual reporting

GeeGee said...

The JEP report is so contradictory with the ACPO reports isn't it Rico??

Anonymous said...

No doubt any email that Graham Power may consider sending to the MSM in public defence of any blame portrayed by ILM, will receive the same response as Lenny Harper's factual rebuttal email to the JEP, zilch!

rico sorda said...

Anonymous

Thats a very good point.

Will be very interesting watching how the MSM will play this. Will they give GP a fair go or will they run full steam ahead with the ILM propaganda my guess it will be 'thanks Graham but no thanks, you went after child abusers.'

Geegee

The JEP will run with the headline A.C.P.O = C.R.A.P.O

rs

Anonymous said...

I see Chris Bright and Diane Simon have now taken to contributing to your blog under 'anonymous!!' No one else would have the brass neck to claim that Ms Simon has any connection with facts. I seem to recall the nonsense she wrote about Lenny Harper being told the day after it was found, that the initial fragment was too old to be relevant, and yet, evidence since then proving that the experts were still digging at that same section of HDLG in March and did not date the context until then. I also remember the incorrect "facts" she laid out about the cost of the enquiry only for us to find that in fact more was spent after Lenny Harper left. It was also she who peddled the rubbish about there being no cellars, only three feet voids which Bob Hill seems to have demolished. However, perhaps her most spectacular piece of misinformation has been that highlighted by Rico in his last posting, where she accused Lenny of introducing the term 'shackles' when it was her own self who put it into the public domain, having got it no doubt, from the builder spoken about on a number of occasions. What planet are this lot on indeed!!! A planet where journalists of the only newspaper can play games with the truth and call black white, truth lies, abuse victims criminals and deny their own stories. It's called Jersey of course.

rico sorda said...

4.13.6 The Deputy of St. Mary:
Can the Minister confirm therefore that Members are going to be faced with the debate and vote on the appointment of the Acting Chief Officer as Chief Officer without seeing, apparently, any of the Wiltshire Reports, even though selected extracts have been on the front page of the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post)?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Selected extracts have not been on the front page of the J.E.P. The J.E.P. have not seen the contents of any of the Wiltshire Reports. What they have done is seen outside of the document, but they are most certainly not selected extracts. Now I have forgotten what the first part of the question was because I felt it necessary to repudiate the second part.

So mr Neutral ILM told Di

[11:3

Anonymous said...

This blaming the messenger for Harper and Power's very poor work reads very desperate now.

If you want to look at a proper Kangaroo Court look no further then Syvret's blog.

I am starting to see now why none of these posts mean anything to anybody but the writer.

rico sorda said...

Anon

Why do you bother coming on here if it all means nothing?

Stuart does his own thing

My main concern is the Power suspension Farce and the bigger picture it has concerning the Abuse Victims.

Simple

Operation Blast- £250,00 and ILM says you can make your own minds up lol

rs

Jon H (the real one) said...

Rico you write whatever you want to write and I agree the suspension has become a joke and should of been wrapped up a year ago.

Anonymous said...

I do not believe for one minute that Ian Le Marquand is running any form of Kangaroo Court and this obsession of yours with Graham Power does make one wonder what your involvement is in it all?

One question, what do you intend getting out of it all?

Anonymous said...

It is illegal to run criminal record checks on anyone without a reason. Power must have known this yet he did it anyway with Operation Blast. As a former policeman Bob Hill surely knows this as well yet he still defends Power. How would you feel if you'd been investigated and files kept on you without having committed ay crime? It stinks of a police state and for this alone he should be suspended.

This on top of from the horrendous handling of the Haut de la Garenne case and the media circus that ensued. Power resigned before disciplinary proceedings could take place taking his big fat States pension with him. No wonder people are seriously pissed off with him.

Anonymous said...

I agree it should have been wrapped up a year ago and thats before he was allowed to retire so that whatever the conclusions were, they were made to everybodies satisfaction. Now the situation is that nobody is happy about this and I don’t support Graham Power because I agree that the handling of Haut de la Garenne was just a fiasco, but because he has retired early they cannot hit him with any disciplinary now. Rico with Power retiring early he has ducked the issue here and I hope you can see that because throughout your postings it appears to be on purposely ignored.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

It is unfortunate that some of your commenters are still so poorly researched considering the effort you have put into publishing the facts and evidence concerning the (illegal?) suspension of CPO Graham Power.

The fact is that Graham Powr did in fact retire late and not early. Indeed he intended on resigning 3 years ago but was persuaded to stay in post, by the very same people who are attacking him now.

It soon became apparent that after the Wiltshire Constabulary missed every set deadline that they were dragging this on and on and even if their report would have only taken a couple of weeks, there still would have been very little or no chance of ever getting a disciplinary hearing together which would or could take well over a year just to get started.

The truth, in my opinion is, the States of Jersey have wasted vast amounts of money employing Wiltshire to conduct an investigation or a report that never was going to get anywhere and was totally pointless, other than to wait for Graham Power to retire and to prevent "the bungling one" from answering any questions because "there is an investigation ongoing". Wiltshire has served its purpose!

GeeGee said...

'One question, what do you intend getting out of it all'?

One answer - I think Rico and others want as close to the truth as it is possible to get now.

Agree VFC, some commenters have obviously not bothered to read all the facts and information that has been put up, otherwise they would have been better informed before making comments which are plainly wide of the mark,

Anonymous said...

VFC, you are ignoring the fact that 'if' Mr Power was innocent then he could of held back from retirenment until the end of the year and picked up a further £75,000.00 in wages for doing nothing. It is strange how when they said in February that conslusions were now being drawn that Power then in a space of 24 hours retired. I would call this very 'selective' research, hence why it is not being taken very seriously.

Anonymous said...

None of this research is being taken seriously because its just a one sided view of it all and we cannot expect anything different from the likes of Rico Sorda. By the way Rico Sorda, you said that whatever Stuart Syvret does has nothing to do with you. Well I hold you and all his other election nominators equally responsible for what he has done and continues to do because you signed that nomination. I hope one day that one of the people that has suffered from his blog splits your head open because I will have no sympathy.

voiceforchildren said...

I am working on a Blog that will address (again) the concerns you raise. You might want to ask/answer the question, if Wiltshire were drawing conclusions in February 09 why is it that in June 2010 those "conclusions" are still nowhere to be seen?

rico sorda said...

Anon

I said Stuart does his own thing

I signed Stuarts nomination paper and i would always sign it.

Stuart does and says things i don't agree with. He stood up and brought child protection failures to our attention and has fought very hard when no one in the states gave a crap about Abuse Victims, most still don't.

As for having 'my head split' grow up you child and you slag stuart off.

Anon

Wiltshire was meant to report in March 2009 then June 2009 then ILM said he had it in November 2009 then he said he was still waiting for some drafts GP could be waiting for ever lol.

rs

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but just reading this. If the Home Affairs Minister has said that all will be revealed next month then what is the point of even discussing any of it until then? He mentioned Ground Hog day on Monday and nothing can be further from the truth because this is pointless chitter chatter.

rico sorda said...

Hi Anon

"I do not believe for one minute that Ian Le Marquand is running any form of Kangaroo Court and this obsession of yours with Graham Power does make one wonder what your involvement is in it all?"

I have said this on many occasions why im doing this.

Im just a member of the public who was shocked when the Abuse Scandal broke. Three things made me think we had a serious cover -up on the go

Liberation day speech from Phil

Then the ridicule of Lenny Harper

Then the suspension of Graham Power

One of the things i had going for me from the very start was that i new the JEP was full of shit. So, i thought you know what start investigating this yourself and thats what i have done.

There is much much to the story. I will do a blog about how i got involved with citizen media and met VFC

This is about plebs putting it on the line and asking questions

I have done it all under my name.

I believe in what im doing

We will not stop

rs

One question, what do you intend getting out of it all?

Anonymous said...

COMMENTS ON CAPS LOCK

Liberation day speech from Phil
THAT WAS PROVEN AS RIGHT IN THE END BECAUSE THE CLAIMS OF TORTURE CHAMBERS AND MASS GRAVES WAS ALL CAUSED BY AN OVER ZEALOUS LENNY HARPER WITH THE MEDIA.

Then the ridicule of Lenny Harper
IT WAS LENNY HARPER THAT DECIDED TO HOLD BACK IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON THE SKULL FRAGMENT FOR 6 WEEKS AND IT WAS ONLY HIM THAT ANNOUNCED THAT THE PATHETIC FIND WAS PART OF A CHILDS SKULL. READ THE FARCE BLOG ON THAT ONE AND THE DAVID ROSE ARTICLES.

Then the suspension of Graham Power
THIS IS YET TO BE FINALISED AND UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT THE WILTSHIRE POLICE FOUND ITS TOO PREMATURE TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS.

I WILL ONLY AGREE ON TWO THINGS, A) YOU BEING THREATENED IS PATHETIC & B) THIS HAS GONE ON FOR FAR TOO LONG.

Anonymous said...

"We will not stop"

What going around in circles or trying to sell everybody else an inaccurate warped view of whats real?

Anonymous said...

IT has been well documented in recent days that many Islanders feel strongly that it was inappropriate for the Chief Minister and the Bailiff to use their Liberation Day speeches as platforms to attack the press coverage of the continuing investigation into child abuse.

While agreeing that their choice of subject matter on such a special day was ill-judged, I would like to draw one particular statement by the Bailiff to the attention of readers. My quotations are taken verbatim from his speech.

Directly after referring to the matter as ‘the Island’s so-called child abuse scandal’ (in the context of his speech a clear derogation of the issue), the Bailiff continued: ‘All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal.’

The real scandal? Let us be clear here. The Bailiff – the president of the legislature and the Royal Court, who speaks for and to Islanders on matters of law – is saying that the ‘real scandal’ is not the issue of child abuse in Jersey, but rather the manner of its press coverage. Child abuse, then, according to the Bailiff, while being a scandal, is a minor or insignificant matter compared with the way it is reported by the press.

The Bailiff is a lawyer. As such, he is a man who chooses his words carefully; he says what he means, and means what he says. These are admirable qualities. The Liberation Day speech will be one of his most high-profile speeches in the course of a year, and, as such, will have been carefully drafted. It’s inconceivable, then, that this will have been a slip of the tongue, or a throwaway remark. He clearly genuinely believes that a fortnight or so of frenzied press coverage is a more serious problem for the Island than the potential of decades of child abuse and its associated blind-eye turning.

Clearly both the Bailiff’s and Chief Minister’s speeches must be seen within the context of the recent criticism which both of them have received in the press and on internet forums.

I believe that the Bailiff’s words were gravely ill-judged. They were insulting to victims of child abuse, to those who work with vulnerable children, and to the continuing police investigation. Furthermore, they demonstrate an extraordinary lack of empathy with the populace which he serves.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Isn't it ironic that the people who are "anti Syvret" can condone such violence as this "I hope one day that one of the people that has suffered from his blog splits your head open"

But as you well know, that is extremely mild compared so some we have recieved. But it does beg the question, what kind of people could even think such a thought? And to even hold you, or anybody else responsible for what Stuart Syvret writes on his Blog is just plain ludicrous.

In the know said...

Has Stuart told eiher of you yet about the writs that have now been issued suing him?

You two have recently signed a nomination paper and you pretend nothing is happening because he doesn't tell you the truth about anything that is actually happening.

Just make sure you don't get dragged into it because it could be very costly.

Ian Evans said...

Hi Rico, great post mate.

I wonder if you could mention the against child abuse rally on your next posting please, its going to be a biggy!!!

rico sorda said...

Hi Ian yeah for sure mate no prpblem

Anonymous

Could you please explain how i could be dragged into anything, not sure signing a nomination paper is a criminal offence but hey this is jersey better get my suit ironed lol.

I hope the hospital guy has issued a writ then it can get all cleared up in court.

Who has issued the writs you seem to be in the know?

Jon have you issued a writ?

rs

Anonymous said...

You are behaving just like him.

Ask Stuart, other States members know a lot about it and there are a number of writs in issue against him, but he claims nobody is taking action against him so who is lying? Did you ever believe nobody was ever going to take action against him for being accused of being a paedophile or an abuser?

Anonymous said...

How bizarre it is that, regardless of who is using what forum to highlight this whole thing the fact remains that people are being ignored in their personal plight to have justice done.

Those here who note the negativity of Rico's blog, Stuart's, Ian's, VFC or anyone else highlighting this whole issue. Please stop for a moment and ask how it must feel to have suffered sexual, physical or mental abuse for a period of time and not have that recognised or justified in any way? WHERE is your morale, WHERE is your ethic?!

To know and understand that "I was put in the 'cell' and because I wet myself I had my face rubbed in it" is completely ignored and, in fact portrayed as lies, how that must feel for an individual? Those of you who "report" your "truths" please come and justify your lies, your so called professionalism and you awful sell out to the very people who do nothing more than wish to be acknowledged, who do not wish even justice but just to be heard and to be understood. Lest we forget, PLEASE, never forget who this is for. It is not for RICO, for STUART, for VFC not even GP or LH. It is for people who have been criminally abused, NOTHING more x

rico sorda said...

Look if people are issuing writs then good on them lets hope they all have their day in court.

I don't have a problem with that good on them then least all the evidence stuart says he has can come out so sooner the better say i

but no matter what ILM is still up for a Kangaroooooo court

rs

rico sorda said...

First up Anonymous could not off put it better myself you really nailed it.

When We get truth and justice i stop blogging simple as that.

I have stopped the comments now concerning Stuart i believe i have been fair in publishing them but it's going nowhere and distracts from the main subject and we wouldn't want that now would we

rs

Jon H (the real one) said...

Jon have you issued a writ?

rs

Who knows :-)

Though I would like to see more people come forward and challenge what is actually being said them.

I feel like I am in a small party.

rico sorda said...

Hi Jon

Thanks for the reply and your previous comment. If you want to hook up and have a chat over the issues im raising then you can get my contact details from VFC.

I prefer meeting people and discussing the issues, i find it easier.

Will leave it with you

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico

Some of these comments are coming from the Isle of White thought you should know.

Keep up the Great Work

If they try and hound you out i will forward more information

Anonymous said...

Firstly, it has been admitted that the Chief Executive destroyed the original record of
the suspension meeting.

Secondly, the Royal Court in a judgement given on 8th September 2009 expressed its
“serious concern at the fairness of the procedure apparently adopted by the Previous
Minister. He was dealing with the person holding the most senior position in the
police force who had enjoyed a long and distinguished career. Bearing in mind the
implications of suspension, we would have thought that fairness would dictate firstly
Mr. Power being given a copy of the media briefing and Mr. Warcup’s letter and
secondly an opportunity to be heard on whether there should be an investigation and,
if so, whether he should be suspended during that investigation.” (Judgement
paragraph 19.) In considering the implications of the Royal Court judgement members
may have been misled by a statement which sought to imply that the Court had in
some way found that the current Minister was “right” in maintaining the suspension.
In a Judicial Review a Court will determine whether a Minister acted lawfully and
within his powers. One test of this is “procedural fairness.” Courts do not pass
judgement on the wisdom or cost-effectiveness of Ministerial decisions, only their
legality. Thus the Court found that “the procedure adopted by the Minister in
conducting his review was procedurally fair, in contrast we have to say, to the
procedure apparently adopted by his predecessor in November 2008,” (paragraph 63.)
Having considered all of the evidence the Court finally concluded that “there has been
no abuse of the Ministers powers,” (paragraph 65.) It is suggested that members do
not become distracted by the decision of the Court in the Judicial Review. This
proposition is about the actions of the then Minister and others in November 2008 and
what may have been done subsequently to conceal the truth of those events. The
finding that the current Minister acted within his legal powers at a subsequent review
is not relevant to the purpose of this proposition.