Wednesday, July 28, 2010

And Then There Was One- A skeleton Argument














J.A. Clyde Smith,Esq,Commissioner, and Jurats Le Breton and Clapham

This Judicial Review was between

Graham Power-Applicant

Minister for Home Affairs -Respondent

(2009)JRC180

The reason the Judicial review is important is because it deals with the original suspension and also states that the current Home Affairs Minister followed proper procedure. This Judicial Review does not state whether Graham Power is innocent or guilty but focuses on procedure.

What we don't have is what Senator Le Marquand uses in his argument relating to Graham Power getting a fair hearing by way of Disciplinary Proceedings. What I can be sure about is that he didn't say " I will stop all disciplinary proceedings and then hang him out to dry in the media via a nearly fully redacted Wiltshire Disciplinary Report" now I could be wrong on this.

All matters relating to the original suspension are very important as it is where it all began.

Now, i,m not sure how many of you have been fooled by the utter garbage that has been fed by the JEP these past couple of weeks but we can all sleep easy knowing our gleaming new Incinerator wont be short of rubbish to burn.

I for one do not fall for the PR Spin concerning APC David Warcup. I cant accept that a man who has spent his life in the force and who has dealt with many issues including Institutional Child Abuse and their Alleged Cover Up that he cant handle a backwater like Jersey. What we do have are issues surrounding the original suspension, issues that involve David Warcup and issues that are being investigated by Brian Napier QC.

There are parts in Graham Powers Skeleton Argument that relate to the Napier Investigation and don't appear here for obvious reasons and nor do I have them.

Just Some of the Issues

1.Warcup sent a letter to Bill Ogley on the 10th November 2008 with the Met Interim report attached. This set off a chain of letters that resulted in Graham Power being suspended.

a) The draft dates where before the 10th november. ( GP suspension review hearing which TLS fought like crazy to keep secret)

b) The Met sent over an 'Interim' review of Operation Rectangle which should never be used in suspension ( It was). This was sent over by Brian Sweeting of the 'Met', a report that he has denied sending in some quarters, and a matter that is being investigated by the IPCC. Did the Author of the Met Interim report authorize Sweeting to send it over?

c) Why didn't Warcup inform Ogley that this couldn't be used?

d) Graham Power gets pulled in on the 12th November and all procedures go out the window, along with, the note shredding sketch from Bill Ogley. He then gets suspended under 2.3.3 of the code ( very serious concerns)

e) The Met kick off about their report being used for suspension. ILM must remove all reference from it as he keeps Graham Power suspended

f) Graham Power remains suspended from a letter written by David Warcup concerning Operation Rectangle, this remained the case until ILM dropped all disciplinary hearings.

g) From the 12th November 2008 until July 28th 2010 Graham Power has been denied all chance of a fair and just hearing.

h) You do not have to be Brian Napier QC to realize we have a huge problem concerning the original suspension of Graham Power.

In the JEP dated Tuesday 27th July this little article nearly went unnoticed . Bottom of page 3

The Final report on the suspension of former police chief Graham Power is expected soon.

The Napier report focuses on procedure used in the suspension,the role that other senior officers played and the question whether procedural mistakes where made. It is understood that letter have been sent to some of those likely to be criticised by the report,which is being compiled by Brian Napier QC. The letters give those who are being criticised a final chance to put their side of the story and defend their actions. Professor Napier's report was originally eant to be published in early May, but it has been delayed.

( Looks like Terry le Main might have some others in class with him, oh hang on, Walker gone, Lewis gone,Critch ( HR) gone, Mick Gradwell gone, and yes Warcup has handed his notice in) when did those letters go out. Still the Chief Executive is still there, hang on surly not?)

'AND THEN THERE WAS ONE'

This is Graham Powers Skeleton argument for Judicial Review

THE SKELETON ARGUMENT


BACKGROUND.

• On 12th November 2008 the applicant was suspended from his duties as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police by the former Minister for Home Affairs. Documents provided to the applicant in consequence of that suspension are at Tab 1. It should be noted that the documents make reference to the interim findings of a report by the Metropolitan Police. It has subsequently been agreed by the respondent that this report is withdrawn in respect of the matters subject of this application. This decision is recorded in the transcript of a subsequent suspension review meeting at Tab 3 (pages 65 and 73).
• On 13th February and 15th March 2009 the current Minister for Home Affairs held suspension review meetings attended by the applicant and his professional representative, Dr Timothy Brain, Chief Constable of Gloucestershire, who is the Chairman of the Chief Police Officers Staff Association (C.P.O.S.A.) Transcripts of those meetings are at Tab 2 and Tab 3. At the conclusion of the suspension review meetings the Minister decided to keep the suspension in place. It is the decision of the Minister on 5th March 2009 which is now subject to grounds 2 3 and 4 of the application.
• Presentation of evidence. The applicant is a litigant in person and has sought to set out the evidence in a readable manner, with supporting documents placed for the most part, in the order in which they appear in the main text. There are two affidavits enclosed both of which were sworn in support of applications to the Bailiff for a Judicial Review. Both make reference to appendices which were attached in connection with those applications. Now that the matter has progressed to a full hearing those documents which were in the appendices, and which remain relevant, are enclosed in this file in a revised order. It follows that the appendix references in the affidavits should now be ignored, and reference made instead to the documents identified in this skeleton argument.

THE APPLICANTS UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF A JUDICIAL REVIEW.
• The Applicant is a litigant in person. His understanding of the nature and parameters of a judicial review is based on personal research undertaken since the suspension was put in place.
• It is understood that a Judicial Review is a process which all parties are expected to approach in a relationship of mutual respect and cooperation with a view to achieving a common aim of the “maintenance of the highest standards of public administration,” (R v Lancashire County Council, Ex P Huddleston [1986]) and to address any conduct by a public body which is “contrary to the spirit of fair dealing which should inspire the whole of public life.” (R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p Matrix-Securities Ltd [1994]). Public Bodies have a “duty to act fairly in accordance with the highest public standards.” (R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p Unilever Plc [1996]). It will be the applicant’s position that these obligations are particularly acute when the government ministry involved is one concerned with matters of criminal justice. It is submitted that in those circumstances the conduct of the ministry should exemplify fairness in public life, and set a standard for others to follow.
• A Judicial Review is not an appeal (R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p Datafin Plc [1987]), and nobody is on trial. Nobody has to be proven guilty of anything. If unfairness arose, irrespective of whether anyone was at fault, then that may provide a basis for a Court to intervene. (R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex p A [1999])
• That said, the powers of the Court are limited. Nobody is compensated and no decision is irreversibly overturned. An outcome of a Judicial Review could be for a Court to decide that a public authority had not addressed a question in a fair and proper manner, and for the Court to provide guidance on how the issue might be more properly addressed. It would then be open to that public authority to address the issue again by proper means and, if appropriate, come to the same decision again. ( R [Ali] v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003]). Nevertheless, the findings of a Court can be highly influential in determining future public policy. Copies of the legal precedents referred to above can be found at Tab 4 pages 104 to 110.

THE MOTIVES OF THE APPLICANT.
• The Applicants motives were initially summarised in paragraphs 1 and 35 of the first Affidavit which is at Tab 5. It is acknowledged that the second and third bullet-points in paragraph 35 now fall away in light of the amended application. Nevertheless is it submitted that there has been a consistency in the applicants approach from the beginning of this matter namely:
• That he is seeking to reverse so far as possible the damage to his professional reputation arising from an unjustified suspension and,
• He wishes the court to consider matters of public interest arising from the structure and process through which he is accountable, and submits that these are inherently unfair and have the potential to undermine the independence of law enforcement and thereby the independence of Justice as a whole.
• As the application has progressed parts of the original affidavit have been overtaken by events, and the submission to the court has been amended in accordance with the grounds for the application as they now stand. Nevertheless it is hoped that the core principles which underpinned the original decision to seek redress before the Court are still evident.

“INHERENT UNFAIRNESS.” THE LEGAL PRECEDENT.
• In the case of R(Refugee Legal Centre) V Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005) it was held that:
“Potential unfairness is susceptible to one of two forms of control which the law provides. One is access, retrospectively, to judicial review if due process has been violated. The other, of which this case is put forward as an example, is appropriate relief, following judicial intervention to obviate in advance proven risk of injustice which goes beyond aberrant interviews or decisions and inheres in the system itself.” Tab 4 (pages 111 - 112)
• Paragraphs 20 onwards of the first affidavit (Tab 5) are no longer a substantive part of the amended application. However, they do seek to set out a history of how the suspension process was initially applied. The Court may feel able to conclude that the suspension came “out of the blue” in the midst of a family holiday and that no opportunity was afforded to challenge any inherent unfairness in the system prior to the suspension being enacted. It is therefore submitted that the Court is entitled to address this issue and to come to a view as to whether the processes governing the accountability of the Chief Officer of Police can be considered to be inherently unfair.

THE ACCOUNTABILITY ARRANGEMENTS AND THEIR RELEVANT HISTORY.
• The legislation governing the accountability of the Chief Officer of Police is the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974. A copy of the Law is at Tab 6. It will be noted that the law has, in common with other legislation in the Island, been translated into the language of Ministerial Government. The practical effect of this is that the Chief Officer is no longer accountable to a Committee but to a single Minister. Article 9(1) empowers the States Employment Board to determine the terms and conditions under which the Chief Officer is appointed. The applicant believes that the only exercise of this power which is relevant to this case is the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of Police.
• On the information available to the applicant, the origins of this code are not clear. Two documents have been provided by the respondent. The first is a code which refers to the Home Affairs Committee and other structures relevant to the governance arrangements which existed at that time. That code is at Tab 7. The second is the code on which the respondent now relies, which is at Tab 8. The second document appears to be a translation of the first document into the language of Ministerial government. It is believed by the applicant that this translation took place shortly before the suspension was enacted. The applicant has no further information on this issue. The applicant’s position on the first document is that its origins appear to be unknown. The applicant has corresponded with the respondent on this issue and no further information has been forthcoming. The applicant recalls that the document was in existence at the time of his appointment in 2000, and it therefore appears probable that it was drafted by a person now unknown, at some time during the latter part of the 20th century in order to meet the perceived requirements of that time.

THE APPLICANTS VIEW OF THE 1974 POLICE LAW.
• The applicant’s position is that the law and the disciplinary code taken together form a foundation for a system of accountability which is inherently unfair and inappropriate in a 21st Century democracy operating in accordance with the Convention on Human Rights. At the core of this position is the accountability of the Chief Officer to a single Minister who is under no obligation to consult with other parties, and whose powers are not subject to any of the checks and balances which are seen as fundamental in comparable jurisdictions. Details of the arrangements applicable in such jurisdictions will be given later in this document.
• The applicant is not alone is his concerns regarding the current relevance of the 1974 Law as a basis for modern and accountable policing, nor are the concerns of others recent in origin. In the mid-1990s the States felt it appropriate to establish a committee of distinguished individuals under the Chairmanship of Sir Cecil Clothier. The Committee was established in consequence of an Act of the States in 1995 which charged the then Defence Committee to commission:

“a full and thorough review of the policing system in Jersey including the powers of the police to combat crime and the protection afforded by law to the individual citizen together with the level of service provided.” (Tab 9. Page 174)

• In its report, commonly known as “Clothier One,” the Committee considered the accountability arrangements for policing set out in the 1974 law and observed:

“That Law is curiously oblique, seeming to prescribe more that the Defence Committee should be responsible for the administration of the States Police, than that it should constitute the political entity to which the police should be answerable.” (Clothier report, paragraph 7.3.1. Tab 9. Page 175)

• In order to provide for effective oversight of policing in the island the committee concluded that “We are of the opinion that Jersey needs a Police Authority.” The Committee then went on to offer alternatives as to the nature of such an authority. (Clothier report paragraph 7.3.3. Tab 9. Page 175)
• The report was considered by the States and this recommendation was agreed by way of proposition 49 of 1998 (Tab 10) which charged the then Defence Committee to establish a police authority with a mix of political and lay membership. Although the concept of a police authority was new in Jersey, the principle of such an arrangement was well established in the U.K., where local policing had for some time been overseen by comparable local bodies in a relationship with the Home Secretary.
• At the time of the applicant’s appointment in 2000 the Defence Committee had changed to the Home Affairs Committee and there was a “Shadow Police Authority” established along the lines of proposition 49 which worked in partnership with the Home Affairs Committee. The then Chairman of the Shadow Police Authority was a member of the selection panel which appointed the applicant. When Offered the appointment the applicant was told that it was intended that the Police Authority would progressively assume the responsibility for policing which at that time was held by the Home Affairs Committee. By this means the applicant was clearly led to believe that his accountability would for the foreseeable future be to a corporate body operating under the customary rules of conduct and procedural safeguards, including the requirement for a quorum, prepared papers, an agenda, a right to be heard by affected parties, and majority voting.


• Never at any time was it proposed that the accountability of the Chief Officer would be to a single individual to whom none of these safeguards applied. Had such a prospect been raised it is probable that the appointment would not have been accepted. The applicant will argue that such an arrangement is contrary to all recognised good practice and will draw attention to the fact that, for example, in the U.K., even the powers of the Home Secretary are balanced by those of a local police authority.

• As it transpired, the arrangements which applied in 2000 did not survive to the present time. The Shadow Police Authority suffered from changes in membership, and became discouraged by the lack of political progress in taking its status forward to that of a statutory body. It was never formally abolished but simply “drifted away.” The changes from Committee to Ministerial government removed the Home Affairs Committee and vested the same powers in a single Minister. In 2008 a further attempt was made to revive the concept of a Police Authority by means of a new Police Law. The applicant and others had been closely involved in the drafting of the law over a period of two or more years. The proposed law made it as far as scrutiny hearings but then ran out of time. Not long afterwards there was an election and a change of Minister. The intentions of the present government concerning the creation of a Police Authority are unknown to the applicant.
• It is the applicants position that the current arrangements by which the Chief Officer of Police is accountable to a single Minister, who is under no obligation to consult or agree with any other party, has not been arrived at in consequence of any considered policy process. It has arisen as a side-effect of other events, and is contrary to the expressed wishes of the islands legislature.

• In the context of the laws and precedents relating to Judicial Review the Court may hear of the rule of “Legislative Supremacy” which in earlier cases may have been expressed as meaning “Parliament can do as it likes.” It is now understood to be an accepted rule of law that domestic legislation must be compatible with the Convention on Human Rights. Nevertheless, it is the applicants position that insofar as this rule applies, it is in the applicants favour. In Jersey, “Parliament” has clearly recorded its wish that there should be a Police Authority, and charged those in government with implementation of that decision. There has now been more than sufficient time for government to implement the decision of the States. The applicant’s view is that it is for government to manage the consequences of the failure to implement proposition 49 of 1998. The applicant should not be expected to forgo his legitimate rights in consequence of the inaction of Ministers.

• The applicant hopes to convince the Court that his accountability to a single Minister is now part of a structure which is contrary to recognised good practice, contrary to the will of the States, and part of an arrangement which is inherently unfair. This is particularly the case in circumstances in which the Chief Officer of Police perceives his duties and responsibilities in a way which is contrary to the political agenda of the single Minister to who he is accountable.

HOW ACCOUNTABILITY IS ADDRESSED IN COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS.

• Countries in the U.K. The applicant hopes that he can take it as accepted that the arrangements which apply in the U.K. are familiar to the parties. It is within the applicant’s knowledge that in the member-countries of the U.K. local Chief Constables are appointed by, and are accountable to, a “Police Authority” or “Police Board” which operates as a corporate body. In England and Wales the Authority consists of elected and appointed representatives and there is a defined relationship with the Home Secretary on matters affecting the performance of the force and its Chief Officer team. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary has an advisory role to all parties. Taken overall this is often described as a system of “checks and balances” which precludes premature or unjustified action by any party.

• In Scotland, Police Boards consist only of elected representatives and are mostly “joint,” in that their membership is made up from the different unitary local authorities which are contained within the area policed by the force, and thus often represent a wide range of local and political interests. A Minister in the Scottish Government and H.M. Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland discharge roles similar to those in England and Wales. The arrangements in Northern Ireland are less familiar but it is understood that a Police Authority has been established and that there is a defined statutory relationship with a Minister, and an advisory role exercised by H.M. Inspectorate of Constabulary.

• The new arrangements in Gibraltar. The applicant makes reference to Gibraltar because it is a comparable small jurisdiction under the British Crown, and also because it has recently undergone a transition from a Colony to a largely self governing democracy. Gibraltar’s history, and the international profile of the issues concerning its status, are well known. The applicant offers the view that in this context it is reasonable to assume that some of the most senior and experienced legal and constitutional minds will have been engaged in establishing any new arrangements for Criminal Justice, including law enforcement. Against this background the applicant invites the court to consider the Gibraltar Police Act 2006 which is at Tab 11.
• While the Court will view the law as it sees fit, the applicant wishes to draw attention to what he sees as the features particularly relevant to this case. Part 1 of the Law sets out the constitution of the Police Authority, which is charged, among other things, with maintaining the independence of policing. Section 6 provides for majority voting and in various sections, the islands Governor, as the representative of the Queen, has a role in nominating members to the Authority and in overseeing its work. Section 13 gives the Governor power to suspend the Commissioner in lieu of action by the Authority, but in doing so there is a requirement to notify the Chief Minister. Section 32(1) empowers the Governor to appoint the Commissioner on the advice of the Authority. Section 34(1) deals with the removal of the Commissioner and requires the involvement of the Authority, the Governor and the Chief Minister.

• In the submission of the applicant the key feature of the Gibraltar Law which is relevant in this case, is the system of “checks and balances” which precludes action by any one party without the involvement of others.

• The position in Guernsey. The applicant has made enquiries and understands that following the transition to Ministerial Government, Guernsey has retained a departmental structure, and in the case of the Home Department the Minister is supported by a Board consisting of four elected and two non-elected members. As the island continues to seek to improve its governance, a view has emerged that the present structure for the oversight of law enforcement may not be sufficiently independent of direct political control to meet modern expectations. Accordingly the Department produced outline proposals for the creation of a Law Enforcement Commission. These proposals were presented in a BILLET D’ETAT which was approved by the States on 24th September 2008. A copy of the Billet is at Tab 12. The Court may note the emphasis on transparency, the need for “checks and balances,” and the view that “there is now a need for a greater degree of operational independence.” Work is now taking place to develop these proposals into legislation, which it is understood will take into account best practice in the U.K.

• In the applicant’s view this is a further example of a small jurisdiction recognising the need to establish checks and balances in the oversight of law enforcement, and to remove both the reality and the perception of any direct political control over the operational activities of law-enforcement agencies. It should be noted that no comparable measures are being progressed in Jersey.
• The views of H.M. Inspectorate of Constabulary. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary have consistently supported the introduction of a Police Authority at all stages of its attempted development. In 2008 the Inspectorate reviewed the latest attempt to revive the concept and reported as follows:

“Her Majesty’s Inspector was pleased to be informed that discussions to consider the introduction of governance arrangements along the lines of a UK police authority had commenced. This development of corporate governance arrangements will provide a clear delineation between that of the law enforcement agencies and politicians.”

A copy of the relevant part of the Inspectorate report is at Tab 13.

THE DISCIPLINARY CODE FOR THE CHIEF OFFICER OF POLICE.

• The known history of the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of Police is set out in paragraph 13 of this skeleton argument, and the former and current versions of the code are at Tab 7 and Tab 8. While the changes from the first to the second document may appear, at first sight, to be largely administrative, in one aspect the impact is substantial. Disciplinary powers are moved from a corporate body, namely the Home Affairs Committee, to a single individual, namely the Home Affairs Minister. Thus at a stroke, all of the procedural protections of a committee are removed and authority is vested in one individual, who is under no obligation to consult or agree with any other person. It is acknowledged that this amendment was part of island-wide changes in legislation arising from the change to Ministerial Government. Nevertheless, the impact on the relationship between law enforcement and any political agenda was substantial. The applicant recalls expressing reservations at the time but these were mitigated by the declared intention of Ministers to press ahead with the establishment of a statutory Police Authority. As explained earlier, this intention subsequently came to nothing, leaving the single line of accountability in place.

• At this stage the applicant wishes to make the following additional brief points regarding the Disciplinary Code.

• It was written before the Human Rights Law came into the force. No claim has been made by any party that the code has been subjected to an audit in respect of its human rights compliance.

• In recent years almost every person in the island who is in paid employment has benefited from the introduction of laws which provide statutory protections in the event of issues at work. Most workers have the protection of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003. The Chief Officer of Police, who is not an “employee” but an “office holder” sworn by the Royal Court to “serve the Queen,” is exempt from that Law. This was recently re-affirmed by H.M. Attorney General who said “The States of Jersey Police are not States employees; in my view, they are Officers of the Crown by the nature of the oath which they take which is scheduled in the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974.” (Hansard. Wednesday 29th April 2009) (Tab 14.)

• All Police Officers other than the Chief Officer and to some extent the Deputy Chief Officer have the Protection of the Police (Complaints and Discipline) (Jersey) Law 1999, and the Police (Complaints and Discipline Procedure (Jersey) Order 2000. These are both modern items of legislation which have been deemed to comply with Human Rights. In spite of representations, no comparable legislation has been brought into force in respect of the most senior members of the force.

• Thus, by a process of seemingly unconnected events, the Chief Officer of Police has been placed in a position in which he is accountable to a single politician, with no modern statutory code governing employment issues, and none of the checks and balances considered essential elsewhere.

• The interpretation of the code has been a matter of contention from the very beginning of the suspension. The applicant argued that any suspension should be preceded by a “preliminary investigation” under the code. The applicants view is set out in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the first affidavit which is enclosed at Tab 5. The Minister, at the suspension meeting on 13th February 2009, (Tab 2 page 61) argued that there were circumstances where this requirement did not apply. Had this particular issue come to Court the applicant would have drawn the Courts attention to the possible relevance of the principle of “legitimate expectation,” and argued that the code creates a reasonable expectation in the mind of the lay reader that some form of investigation and process will be applied before a suspension is put in place. It would have been further argued that this expectation cannot be removed by learned legal arguments which assert that the code can be interpreted differently if viewed in a particular way. For the information of the Court some of the authorities on “legitimate expectation” are enclosed at Tab 4 pages 112 to 113.

• In view of the amended application, the Court is no longer asked to resolve this issue. However, the applicant wishes the Court to consider whether the continuing disagreements as to the proper interpretation of the code in respect of suspension powers, are in themselves evidence that it lacks the clarity appropriate to a document of such significance, and is therefore inherently unfair. In determining this matter the Court may wish to consider the length and complexity of the Minister’s analysis of what he believes the relevant parts of the code actually mean. This is set out in pages 48 to 61 of the transcripts and elsewhere. It is commonly known that the Minister is an advocate of long standing. This is a consequence of political events, and the applicant respectfully asks the court not to be distracted by this issue, and to address the question of how the code might be understood by persons who are not legally qualified, and who may have occasion to refer to it for whatever reason. The applicant invites the court to take the view that the Ministers own detailed attempts to explain the suspension powers under the code are evidence in themselves that the code is not fit for purpose as a document that can be understood and applied by those it affects, and that it is therefore inherently unfair.

• The known view of the Minister. At the suspension review meeting of 13th February 2009 the Minister indicated that he had, prior to the meeting, taken legal advice on the code. He nevertheless found it necessary to devote almost half a day to discussing its proper interpretation. At one point he refers to the document (referred to in the transcript as the “agreement” probably due to a transcription error) and says “I think it fair to say there is no secret about the fact that my view is this is a very poorly produced document. I suspect that may be Mr Power’s view as well, nevertheless it is what we have.” (Page 48.) At a later stage he says “It is, I believe, common ground that the code was not well drafted.” (Page 59.)

• It can be seen from the transcripts that Dr Brain, on the applicant’s behalf, repeatedly suggested, that in view of the absence of clarity in the Jersey code, the Minister should make reference to comparable guidelines in the U.K. and that the Minister declined to do this. The applicant will later compare this stance by the Minister with his willingness to rely on U.K. guidelines in respect of other matters, where those guidelines are more consistent with his apparent agenda.

• In light of the above it is the applicants position that the Minister was in error in “pressing on regardless” in his use of the code when it was agreed by him and all parties that the code was flawed and that relevant alternative guidelines from comparable jurisdictions were available.

• The view of the Investigating Officer. The Chief Constable of Wiltshire, Mr Brian Moore, has been appointed by the Chief Executive on behalf of the Minister to conduct a disciplinary investigation which has been titled “Operation Haven.” The terms of reference for “Haven” are at Tab 15. During the course of the investigation Dr Brain, acting on my behalf, has corresponded with Mr Moore, seeking to establish the nature of his enquiries and how he proposes to operate within the terms of the Disciplinary Code. On 5th March 2009 Mr Moore sent a letter of reply. A copy of the letter is at Tab 16. Part 3 of the letter deals with “Notifications, caution and updates.” In that part of the letter Mr Moore states “I am advised that it is States Law and procedures that should prevail in this regard. That said, I have a duty to ensure that natural justice and fairness are available to Mr Power.” He later states an intention to “balance Jersey law with the principle of fairness.” The applicant offers the view that a reasonable interpretation of Mr Moore’s comments is that, in so far as his enquiry under the Disciplinary Code is concerned, he views Jersey law and procedures, and the requirements of justice and fairness, as separate things which need to be reconciled.

• How a comparable matter might be approached in England. In England and Wales the statutory processes distinguish between matters of alleged misconduct and those of efficiency and effectiveness. The local code does not make this distinction. In this context the applicant has enclosed documents provided by relevant authorities in England which may be of assistance in providing a comparison. They are:
• The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008 which integrate disciplinary procedures for all ranks of the service. (Tab 17.)
• Informal guidelines circulated by the Chief Police Officers Staff Association (C.P.O.S.A), which are intended to assist with cases involving more senior ranks. These are at Tab 18. It is acknowledged that the Association has not felt it necessary at this time to update the guidelines in light of the most recent regulations. Given that the guidelines are concerned largely with procedures prior to any statutory process they may nevertheless be helpful to the Court and are therefore included, with appropriate reservations, for whatever benefit they may bring to the proceedings.

• The protocol relating to efficiency and effectiveness. (Tab 19).
• Guidelines provided by the Gloucestershire Police Authority with attached printout from the website of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. (Tab 20.)

• While the Court may wish to study the documents in detail, it might agree that there are common themes throughout, namely, the positioning of suspension as a last resort measure to be invoked only when no other alternative will suffice, and the clear distinction between “preliminary inquiries” by the Chief Executive, and full formal investigation by a senior officer from another force. U.K. authorities take the sensible (and affordable) view that the full mechanism of a formal investigation, let alone any suspension, should only be activated after there has been a preliminary examination of the allegation by an appointed committee of the police authority.

• In the applicants view this is one area in which the Jersey disciplinary code is particularly flawed. The concept of a “preliminary investigation” makes no sense if there is no other type of investigation. It is as though the person drafting the document has simply missed out a stage of the code with the consequence that a Minister is able to move directly to the “Nuclear Option” without the degree of preliminary corporate review and reflection which is required elsewhere. It is submitted that a more reasonable, and fairer way of addressing any concerns which the Minister had on 12th November 2008, would have been to inform the Chief Officer of the position and invite him, or a nominee, to submit a report and other relevant documents in response. The applicant believes that had this procedure been followed any matters of concern could have been resolved without the need for a formal investigation, a suspension, and all of the associated public expense and attendant publicity.

• Inherent unfairness and the “right to be heard.” The Courts have frequently given consideration to the “right to be heard” in the context of a Judicial Review. In the case of R V Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Doody (1994) it was said that:

“Fairness will often require that a person who may be adversely affected by the decision will have an opportunity to make representations on his own behalf either before the decision is taken with a view to producing a favourable result; or after it is taken, with a view to procuring its modification or both.” Tab 4 page 114.

In R (Khatun) v London Borough of Newham (2004.) it was recorded that:

“A right to be heard is truly so called ..... it is an end in itself: it is simply the doing of justice which requires no utilitarian justification.” Tab 4 page 115.

• It is argued therefore that if the Disciplinary Code does not include the right to be heard then it is fundamentally flawed and inherently unfair. It is of course the case that the applicant considers that such a right is in fact provided for in the code by way of a preliminary investigation prior to the enactment of a suspension. The Court will note that at paragraph 26 of the first affidavit (page 133) the applicant acknowledges that there may be pressing and serious circumstances in which a shortening of the expected process could be justified. (Although the applicant maintains that there was no urgency in his own case as he was on holiday and not in command of the force.) (1st affidavit paragraph 27.2 page 134.) However, at the meeting of 13th February 2009 the Minister appeared to offer a conflicting view when he said “So to summarise, my position is that 2.3.3. (suspension) is capable of standing on its own without going through the other procedures. If the allegation or circumstances are sufficiently serious and if other factors are present......” (page 61)

• It is the applicants position that the Minister is simply wrong, and that his stance has more of an appearance of retrospective justification of his predecessors actions than any attempt to offer fair play or justice. Nevertheless the applicant makes the point that the Minister apparently considers that the code allows for suspension without a “right to be heard” The applicant submits that the mere fact that a Minister can come to such an interpretation (even if flawed) is further evidence that the code does not unambiguously provide for one of the basic principles of fairness, namely the “right to be heard” and is therefore inherently unfair.

• Finally, in this section of the argument, the applicant wishes briefly to ask the Court to view the evidence set out in the first affidavit paragraphs 20 onwards (pages 130 to 140). Although no longer a substantive part of the applicant’s case, this part of the affidavit sets out the applicant’s account of the process applied in the original suspension. It is the applicants position that proper process was not followed and that the suspension was flawed. The Minister at the time made public statements, and assured the States, that this was not the case, and that the process set out in the disciplinary code had been followed correctly. In light of the amended grounds for review the Court is no longer asked to rule in this matter. However, the applicant nevertheless asks the court to consider the view that whoever was right on that issue, the outcome is in the applicant’s favour. If the applicant was right, then the process used in the suspension was seriously flawed and the current Minister has inherited and maintained an unlawful act. If the former Minister was right, and the code did in fact allow for the process described in the affidavit, then it is submitted that this is further evidence of the inherent unfairness of the code itself.

SOME WIDER ISSUES ARISING FROM THE CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE POLICE.

• At this stage in the argument the applicant hopes to show that the combined effect of the Police Law and the Disciplinary Code creates a situation in which Human Rights are at risk, the independence of justice is open to challenge, and a Chief Officer of Police can be placed in a situation which is inherently unfair.

• The Jersey Legal system does not have a position equivalent to a Procurator Fiscal or an Investigating Judge or Magistrate. For all but a fraction of cases, access to justice for victims and witnesses is through the States Police under the command of its Chief Officer. It sometimes appears to be a popular belief that in matters of criminal justice, human rights are primarily for the benefit of an accused. In reality, free and independent access to justice is essential for the exercise of a range of rights by persons who may feel that they are the victims of threats or injustice by others. The rights in question include a fair trial (article 6), liberty and security (article 5), private and family life (article 8), and the right to life itself (article 2.) An independent system of justice is considered essential for the exercise of these rights. However, if access to justice is through a single gateway, and if that gateway has a political gatekeeper who is a member of the government in power, then the true independence of justice is open to question.

• By the standards of any liberal democracy, the powers of the Minister of Home Affairs in relation to the Chief Officer of Police are unfettered and draconian. The combined effect of the Police Law and the Disciplinary Code as now amended, is to allow the Minister, with a single stroke of his pen, without consultation or agreement with any other party, without a hearing, without a right to be heard, and without representation, to effectively remove the Chief Officer from office for an indefinite period and to do so to a point (it will be argued later) where the Chief Officer is effectively dismissed without a right of defence. It is the applicants submission that such a position is inconsistent with any claim for a society to be a 21st century
democracy compliant with Human Rights, and is a matter in which it would be entirely appropriate for the Court to intervene.

• The Court may also wish to consider the wider potential effects of action, or even threatened action, under the code. Chief Officers are commonly working in the island on licence. Action of the kind described can impact not only on the Chief Officer, but on his wife’s career, his children’s education, and the family home, thus potentially imposing a collective family punishment without a hearing or a right of defence. This potentially undermines a range of Human Rights not least of which is Article 8 which protects private and family life.

• Whereas a decision by the Minister that he proposed to dismiss the Chief Officer would provide a right of an appeal to an independent panel, under paragraph 3.1 of the code, there is no corresponding right when subject to a suspension, no matter how prolonged. The only form of appeal open to the Chief Officer is by way of a judicial review, which, for a lay person, is a long and complex process delivering limited redress. As experience has shown, in such an action, the Minister can be assisted by the full resources of the Law Officers Department at public expense, and the Chief Officer can be refused comparable representation. The Court will be aware that the applicant has given some consideration to asking the Court to review this refusal. However, the Solicitor General, on the respondent’s behalf, has indicated that such an application would be opposed, and it is clear that were the applicant to press ahead this would cause further legal argument and delay, which would distract the course of this case from its core purpose. The Court may note that the protocol for England and Wales, referred to previously, (Tab 19), contains at paragraph 35, provision for a Chief Officer to be reimbursed for legal costs. The local code contains no such provision
.
• The Court will be familiar with the established tradition of policing without “fear or favour,” which to be effective needs to be free of direct political control, intervention, or pressure. In order to preserve this principle it is a commonly held view in comparable jurisdictions, and the declared wish of this Island’s Parliament, that the police service should be accountable to a corporate body which is so comprised that no single political interest is paramount. It is the applicants position that the situation progressively created by the Law and the Code has placed Jersey on a reverse course to accepted good practice and has vested in a single Minister powers which are potentially oppressive, draconian, and contrary to the principles of Human Rights. In any difference of view in which the interests of policing without “fear of favour” collide with political expediency, the Chief Officer is placed in a difficult if not impossible position with no effective route of appeal or redress.

• The possibility of a situation in which law enforcement and political interests collide is not academic. It is the applicants view, based on long experience, that it is impossible to lead any police service effectively without engaging at some time in activity which is seen as politically controversial. Paragraphs 10 to 19 of the first affidavit (pages 125 to 129) describe the progressive development of such a situation in which tensions developed between the leadership of the force and some politicians and civil servants, during the course of which the possibility of suspension was suggested in a threatening manner. It should also be noted that the previous and current Minister have applied the Disciplinary Code in a way which is capable of being seen as retrospective action, in that everything that is apparently alleged occurred during the tenure of a previous Minister who, it is believed, may have a different view of events from her successors. Given the frequent and sometimes unexpected manner in which Ministerial office can change hands, the implications of this precedent are substantial.

• The Applicant hopes that he has provided sufficient evidence to enable the Court to conclude that the arrangements through which the Chief Officer of Police is accountable to the Home Affairs Minister, and the powers used to suspend the Chief Officer, are inherently unfair and are therefore unlawful.

THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW CRITERIA BY THE MINISTER AND HIS FAILURE TO ALLOW A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS.

• The Second of the four grounds for the application relates to the conduct of the Minister in relation to the two suspension meetings of 13th February and 5th March 2009, but primarily in respect of 5th March. This part of the skeleton argument is supported by the second affidavit which is at Tab 21. Transcripts of the two meetings have already been referred to by the applicant and are at Tab 2 and Tab 3. In arguing this aspect of the case the applicant will rely again on the authorities already introduced at paragraph 45 which relate to the “right to be heard.”
• It is the applicant’s position that the right to be heard makes little sense unless it is a right which is focussed on the issue in question. In holding this view the applicant is supported by Ridge v Baldwin (1964) in which it was said:

“the essential requirements of natural justice at least include that before someone is condemned he is to have an opportunity of defending himself, and that in order to do so that he is to be made aware of the charges or allegations or suggestions which he has to meet.”; “ here is something which is basic to our system.” ( Tab 4 page 106)

Support is also offered by Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB (2007) in which reference was made to:

“(control orders and individuals’ Art 6 right to be told the case against them)” (Tab 4 page 116.)

• With these considerations in mind, Dr Brain wrote on my behalf to the Minister on 6th February 2009 in an effort to prepare to make relevant representations at the suspension meeting scheduled for 13th February 2009. Dr Brain asked for reciprocal disclosure and in particular for details of any counter-arguments to the case for lifting the suspension. The purpose of this was to enable the applicant to exercise the right to be heard in respect of whatever reasons the Minister felt justified maintaining the suspension up to that point. The letter from Dr Brain is at Tab 22.

• The Minister did not answer the letter. At this stage the applicant records that this behaviour is not untypical of the approach taken by the Minister to correspondence from the applicant’s professional association which has been sent with a view to opening a dialogue in respect of his interests. Dr Brain wrote to the Minister on 19th December 2008 seeking a suspension review. After making further enquiries Dr Brain received an acknowledgement from a civil servant, but no substantive reply. On 13th January 2009 Dr Brain wrote again to the Minister again raising the issue of the need for a suspension review and other issues. The Minister did not acknowledge or reply to that letter. Both letters are at Tab 23
.
• Intentionally or otherwise, the approach of the Minister to legitimate correspondence from the applicants appointed representative, who sought on his behalf to challenge the suspension and to highlight the need for a proper review, has created the impression that the Minister is reluctant to engage in the process, or observe the basic courtesies of correspondence between professional parties. Taken together the letters from Dr Brain raise serious questions regarding fair play, due process and human rights. The Court may wish to consider whether the Minister did not answer the letters because he does not have any effective answers on these issues.

• In the letter of 19th December 2008 (page 358) Dr Brain draws attention to “the principles of the Human Rights Act that no action should be taken against an individual should be disproportionate to the matter alleged.”
• In highlighting the issue of proportionality Dr Brain had in mind a number of legal precedents and authorities some of which may be of assistance to the Court. The Judicial Review Handbook by Michael Fordham Q.C. Fifth edition. states on page 388:

“Proportionality means state proof of action as appropriate and necessary to achieve a legitimate aim.” (Tab 4) (page 117)

In R v Secretary of State for Health ex p Eastside Cheese Company (1999.) the Court asked whether measures are:

“appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the objectives legitimately pursued by the legislation in question; when there is a choice between several appropriate measures recourse must be had to the least onerous, and the disadvantages caused must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued.” (Tab 4) (page 117)

• Prior to the second suspension review meeting the applicant and his representative became further concerned that in the absence of a response from the Minister they were not in a position to make effective representations. In a further attempt to obtain clarification of the nature of any enquiry, and what might be alleged, on 20th February 2009, Dr Brain wrote to the investigating officer, Chief Constable Brian Moore. That letter is at Tab 24. A reply was not available prior to the meeting of 5th March 2009.

• During the meeting on 5th March 2009 Dr Brain made representations on a large number of issues, sought to determine the nature of the Ministers concerns, and the purpose of the investigation being conducted by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire. He asked whether it was an investigation into the management of the force, issues of effectiveness and efficiency, misconduct or discipline. Representations made by Dr Brain can be found in the transcripts at pages 85 to 86 and elsewhere.

• It is acknowledged that during the meeting there was discussion of material disclosed by the Minister prior to the meeting. This related to allegations concerning the management of the historic abuse enquiry and will be covered in more detail later in this argument.

• At the conclusion of the meeting the Minister delivered a judgement, which in the applicants view, introduced new criteria. This was in a statement which began “But put at its simplest, the issues boil down to this. Was the historical abuse enquiry mismanaged with resulting unnecessary adverse international publicity for Jersey and its people, difficulties in the conduct of resulting prosecutions and wasted expenditure.”

• The applicant has no recollection, and can find no record, of the matter of adverse publicity, or the difficulty in the conduct of prosecutions, being put to him, or he being asked to respond to these matters in any way at any time. These issues are not, at this time, included in the terms of reference for “Operation Haven” (Tab 15) and so far as is known, nobody has been tasked with seeking evidence to support or refute what the Minister alleges. The Court is asked to consider whether the introduction of these issues by the Minister amounts to an “ambush defence,” which has been introduced by him after the opportunity to make representations had ended. If this is the case then it may support the conclusion that the “right to be heard” has been denied in respect of these two matters.

• It is noted that in the Ministers affidavit at paragraph 26 he links the issues of adverse publicity and public confidence in the police, and points out that the matter of public confidence was raised by Dr Brain. In raising this issue it is probable that Dr Brain would have in mind the English and Welsh protocol at Tab 19 (page 335) which states “A senior officer should only be suspended from duty under section ............. where this is required for the maintenance of public confidence in the force. Suspension is a grave matter and the authority or the Secretary of State will need to make a judgement about whether suspension would enhance or diminish public confidence.” It is the applicant’s position that a decision relating to a “grave matter” ought to be evidence-based. If reputational issues were in the Ministers mind, and if he saw them as relevant to his deliberations, he should have responded to the prior requests to disclose the grounds on which he was maintaining the suspension. This would have enabled focussed representations to be made. Instead, in paragraph 27 of his affidavit, he simply asserts that he is right by stating “As the Minister responsible I was sufficiently well placed, in the context of a review of a suspension, to make value judgements about the likely effect on the reputation of the States of Jersey Police of the Media coverage of Operation Rectangle.” The applicant invites the Court to consider whether the Ministers approach on this and related issues shows significant acceptance of the burden of proof which rests with him.
• In considering the Ministers conduct of the suspension reviews the Court may find it helpful to consider the case of R (Banks) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2004) in which the Court addressed whether a defect in an earlier decision had been cured by a further consideration. In that case the Court found:

(no evidence of a “fair and open-minded and comprehensive” reconsideration) (not “a genuinely open-minded review” rather “striving to defend an earlier decision in the context of adversarial litigation.” ) (Tab 4. Pages 119 to 120)

• In this context the words of the Minister recorded in the transcript of the meeting of 5th March 2009 (Tab 3. Page 101) may be of relevance, when he said “I appreciate that Mr Power may now wish to pursue judicial review proceedings in some amended form and obviously that is entirely a matter for you, Mr Power. Unfortunately we will find ourselves as adversaries in that matter if you do but there it is.”

• The Court may also find it helpful to consider the Ministers comments on reputational matters and expenditure alongside those attributed to the former Chief Minister at the time of the suspension by “Times Online” (Tab 25.) The applicant invites the Court to consider whether there are similarities between the statements made by the then Chief Minister and those made later by the current Home Affairs Minister, and if they are, to consider whether the comments of the Minister in his judgement on 5th March 2009 have more of the characteristic of a “party line” rather than a genuine open-minded review based on a fair reconsideration of the evidence.

• “Adverse publicity” and “prosecution difficulties.” The possibility of opposing arguments. It is the applicants position that these are two matters which were clearly in the mind of the Minister when he came to his decision, that he refused to provide this information prior to the suspension review meeting, and then structured the meeting in a way which ensured that neither matter was mentioned until the opportunity to make representations had passed. The purpose of what briefly follows in this and the following related paragraphs, is not to explore alternative views in depth, or to ask the Court to determine the strength of those arguments, but to illustrate that alternative arguments exist and that, in the interests of fair play, they should have been heard.

• The matter of publicity and reputational impact is explored in more detail in the second affidavit paragraphs 11 to 13 (Tab 21 pages 349 to 350). The Court is asked to note that an argument can be constructed, that the reputational impact of the abuse enquiry had positive features, and that reference can be made to the corresponding 152% increase in reports of historic abuse unrelated to the enquiry. (The relevant statistics are at Tab 26.) The applicant, if given the opportunity by the Minister, would have argued that this showed improved confidence in the Islands systems of justice and challenged the Minister to produce hard statistics which supported any contrary view. It could also be argued that the publicity concerning the enquiry projected a positive image of the island as a modern transparent democracy, willing and able to confront and address difficult internal issues. The actions of the Minister prevented these arguments from being heard or considered.
• Without further information it is not possible to address the matter of alleged difficulties in prosecutions in detail, or to understand more fully whether the Minister believes that this alleged issue is related to matters of publicity. At this point the applicant can only observe that it is understood that the cases which are currently subject of prosecution relate to alleged actions which occurred a number of decades ago. They were not prosecuted at the time or in the decades which immediately followed the alleged crimes. They were not prosecuted in the early part of this century. They appear to have been prosecuted only when additional evidence became available, and it is believed that this additional evidence was offered by witnesses only after the publicity surrounding 2007/2008 phases of the enquiry. This is the only information which the applicant has. Without any more information the applicant can only observe that the Ministers position appears to be the reverse of the truth but can take the matter no further. It is noted that the Ministers affidavit sheds no further light on this issue. There may be an opportunity during the hearing to explore with the Minister where his information on “difficulties in prosecutions” came from and how it assumed an apparent evidential value.

• The applicant hopes that he has provided sufficient information to enable the Court to conclude that the Minister conducted the suspension review process in a way which denied the applicant the “right to be heard” in respect of two key issues which appear to have been at the forefront of his thinking. The Court is also asked to conclude that in this and other respects, the Minister has failed to discharge the burden of proof, which rests with him, that the continued suspension is justified, proportionate and necessary.

THE FAILURE TO CONSIDER RELEVANT EVIDENCE.

• It is the understanding of the applicant that the duty of an authority to properly consider relevant evidence is a well established principle in law. By way of illustration, in the case of R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Greater London Council (1985) the Court identified ways in which a decision under review might be procedurally improper. These included:
“Failure properly to marshal the evidence on which the decision should be based. For example, taking into account an immaterial factor or failing to take into account a material factor or failing to take reasonable steps to obtain the relevant information.” (Tab 4. Page 111)

• From the beginning of the suspension period the applicant has sought information on the evidence on which the Minister is relying in maintaining the suspension in order that consideration could be given to seeking a Judicial Review. Typical of these endeavours is a letter dated 11th December 2008 from the applicant to the Minister seeking eleven items of information. This letter is at Tab 27. In spite of this and other attempts to establish the nature of the case against which representations could be made, little was achieved until the first suspension meeting of 13th February 2009. It was at this meeting that the Minister undertook to provide additional information. The applicant later received the following:

• A copy of a letter from the Deputy Chief Officer, Mr David Warcup, to the Chief Executive, Mr Bill Ogley, dated 10th November 2008. (Tab 28.)

• A script and visual aids said to have been used for a briefing to Ministers and others on the evening of 11th November 2008 and for a media briefing the following morning. (Tab 29.)

• At earlier stages in the process mention had been made of a review report prepared by the Metropolitan Police. At the meeting on 5th March 2009 the Minister indicated that he was withdrawing this report for any purpose relating to the suspension, (transcript page 73.) It therefore became clear that in sustaining the suspension the Minister was relying totally on the documents listed in the above paragraph. The Deputy Chief Officer of the Force, Mr David Warcup (now Acting Chief Officer) is the sole author of the first document and is believed to be the principal author of the second documents.

• In his affidavit (paragraph 28) the Minister States that “Mr Power complains that I am relying totally on parts of the letter from David Warcup to the Chief Executive dated 10th November 2008. I decided that I would not rely on those parts of the letter which relate to information provided by the Metropolitan Police. I did this to be fair to Mr Power because neither he nor I had seen the report and could not therefore assess whether the relevant extracts were taken out of context or not.” With due respect to the Minister, this is not entirely true. In the transcript of the first suspension review meeting (Tab 2 page 65) the Minister is recorded as saying “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 (say?) if I can ... if it was not referred to in the letters it would not be in play at all.” At the meeting on 5th March 2009 the Minister referred to the matter again Tab 3 page 73) and said, “The Metropolitan Police are absolutely against this being used in any way in the context of this hearing or my having access to it in any form whatsoever.”

• On the information which is currently available, and based on the applicant’s experience, the position regarding the Metropolitan Police report appears to be straightforward enough. The Metropolitan Police refuse to allow the Minister to rely upon it for suspension purposes. This is no surprise. The use for such a purpose of a “quick and dirty” review by junior officers mandated to provide critical challenge, would be contrary to all recognised practice. It would also set a precedent, with consequences detrimental to the public interest, including the probability that no Chief Officer of the future would be willing to commission such a review.

• The consequence of the decision by the Metropolitan Police is that the Minister now relies totally on the opinions of the Deputy Chief Officer Mr David Warcup. The applicant asks the Court to agree that a fair decision-maker, particularly one who is making a decision of major public significance, should show caution when acting upon the opinion of one person. This is particularly the case when the person offering the opinion has a significant professional and financial interest in the outcome. It is even more so when the opinion of the one source relied upon is open to challenge.

• The transcript of the suspension review meeting of 5th March 2009 (Tab 3. Pages 92 to 97) shows that Dr Brain, a senior and experienced Chief Constable, had little difficulty in raising challenges to the accuracy of what is claimed in the letter of 10th November 2008. This matter is referred to in more detail in the second affidavit paragraphs 15 – 18 (pages 351 to 352.) It may also be noted that the letter from Mr Warcup also makes some general comments relating to the overall management of the force. These will be briefly addressed in the final part of this document.

• A particular feature of the letter and presentation material is the apparent “revelation” that the forensic evidence obtained during the abuse enquiry did not provide a basis for the commencement of a murder enquiry. The “Times Online” entry at Tab 25 is headlined “Jersey Police Chief suspended after police rule out murders at children’s home.” Other local media and political statements took a similar line. Basic research from open source material can readily show that the supposed “revelation” was in fact old news which had been released almost four months earlier. An extract from the B.B.C. website at Tab 30 gives details of an interview in July 2008 with the previous senior investigating officer who gives what the Court may view as a calm and balanced assessment of the forensic evidence, and comes to the conclusion that it is unlikely that a murder enquiry will be opened. If the Minister did not know this prior to 5th March 2009 he was left in no doubt on the day, and was provided with a copy of the website entry.

• Given the apparently undisputed fact that the Minister is relying on evidence from a single source, and given that he was shown that the accuracy of evidence from that source did not appear to be reliable, it is submitted that he had a clear obligation to view any other evidence which could confirm or refute the one source of evidence in his possession. The applicant can show that such evidence has been available to him from the very beginning of the suspension, and that it has been repeatedly drawn to the Ministers attention. Yet, he has refused to view it or to take it into account. This issue is covered in detail in paragraphs 18 – 24 of the second affidavit (pages 351 to 354). In particular the Minister was reminded of the importance of this evidence in letters sent to him prior to both review meetings. Copies of the letters are at Tab 31. The Minister did not reply to either letter.

• For the purposes of the skeleton argument the applicant simply records that in the earlier stages of the enquiry, it was recognised that the force had skill gaps in the strategic management of a major crime enquiry, and in consequence an approach was made to the relevant U.K. authorities who appointed a team of experts to provide advice and guidance. The team was drawn from a group which advises the Association of Chief Police Officers (A.C.P.O.), and was led by an internationally recognised expert in the investigation of serious crime. There is a wealth of open-source material relating to his investigative background, a small sample of which is at Tab 32. During the course of the investigation the team under his leadership briefed Ministers on the progress and standards of the investigation, and prepared reports and assessments which are available to be viewed and taken into account by the Minister. At the time of writing the terms of his suspension prevent the applicant from having access to the reports. They appear nevertheless to have been seen by others including the media. The applicant has seen one media report which states that at one point 27 recommendations were made and that the force was subsequently commended for the speed at which these were acted upon. So far as the applicant is able to recall, this report appears to be accurate.

• In his affidavit (paragraph 16) the Minister states “I came to the conclusion that in order to consider the SOCA reports properly and determine what weight to be attached to them, I would have had to hear oral evidence from the author(s), consider what information had been given to them and the nature of the enquiries conducted by them.” The applicant would point out that these reports are the only reports which he has asked the Minister to take into account and that he has done so repeatedly from the first minutes of the suspension. It should also be noted that the requirement for oral evidence and the assessment of the information provided, does not appear to have been applied to the unsubstantiated opinions of the Deputy Chief Officer upon which the Minister now entirely relies.

• The applicant has repeatedly drawn these reports to the attention of the Minister and has asked that in the interests of fairness, they be taken into account. The Minister has consistently either ignored, or refused these requests. In the light of the Ministers refusal it is the applicant’s position that the Minister has failed in his legal duty to properly marshal the evidence on which a decision should be based and to take into account material factors.
• The Court might also see as relevant the apparent fact that had the Minister conducted a “preliminary investigation” in the manner of a Police Authority in the U.K., or as appears to the applicant to be a requirement of the Jersey Code, it would have been open to the applicant to determine which documents were put forward to support his own position. By not following a preliminary process, and by denying the applicant access to all relevant files and documents as part of the suspension conditions, the Minister has effectively assumed the roles of prosecutor and judge, and in addition exercised a veto of what may or may not be put forward on the applicant’s behalf.

• There is one further aspect to this matter which the Court might find of assistance in its assessment of the Ministers actions. At Tab 33 there is a copy of an email dated 4th March 2009 from a Mr Wayne Bonne of “Operation Haven” and related correspondence. Mr Bonne advises the Minister against disclosure of the reports compiled by the experts appointed by A.C.P.O. but does so in the context of a disciplinary investigation rather than a suspension review, or indeed, the business of this Court. The email from Mr Bonne was one of the reasons offered by the Minister at the meeting of 5th March 2009 for not considering the reports. It will be noted that Mr Bonne uses as part of his authority the English police misconduct regulations. There is no record of the Minister expressing any reluctance to be guided by these regulations in this particular matter. The applicant draws attention to the apparent contrast between the Ministers position in respect of this particular issue, with his earlier reluctance to be guided by English procedure in matters of suspension. The applicant will refer to another comparable example later in this document.

THE DRIFT TOWARDS “CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL.” AND OTHER ASPECTS OF UNFAIRNESS.
• The Applicant was suspended on 12th November 2008 and at the time of writing there is no indication of when that suspension will end. The applicant’s professional association (C.P.O.S.A,) has no record of any police officer of equivalent rank being suspended for a significant period and then successfully resuming a career, even if totally vindicated from any allegation. Either the officer does not return to work at all, or the return is for a brief period before departure. This precedent is well known to the Minister and has been known from almost the beginning of the suspension. This aspect is covered in more detail in the second affidavit, paragraphs 25 – 30. (Tab 21 pages 354 to 355.)

• The applicant invites the Court to consider whether the Minister is in fact engaged in a process of “dismissal by stealth” which would effectively by-pass the need for an evidence based assessment and a fair hearing In any event, the applicant asks the Court to agree that the potential for a long suspension to evolve into a constructive dismissal, and the unanimity of the precedents, entitles the Court to set a higher test of whether the Ministers actions are justified, necessary and proportionate, and whether he has successfully discharged his burden of proof in that regard.

• The affidavit also draws attention to the fact that the terms of reference are crafted in a way which makes a long and difficult enquiry inevitable. The terms of reference also contain no specific allegations of misconduct.

• At this stage it may be appropriate to note that in his affidavit at paragraph 24 the Minister states that “It is incorrect to say that Mr Power has no information about what is being alleged against him. The letter of suspension of the 12th November contains details of concerns and Mr Power has been provided with the terms of reference for the disciplinary investigation currently underway.” The letter of suspension is at page 34 of the bundle. The Court will note that what appear to be the significant elements of the allegations are preceded by the statement that they are “Examples of these concerns from the Metropolitan Police Report.” These include allegations relating to the supervision of D.C.O. Harper and the forensic strategy. As stated earlier in this argument, at the meeting of 5th March 2009 the Minister said that the Metropolitan Police report was withdrawn for the purposes of considering the suspension and should be treated as “not being in play as it were.” (page 73) Later in the same meeting the Minister gave his reasons for sustaining the suspension and these included “the possible lack of supervision of Mr Harper, in relation to the forensic strategy.” (page 99.) This appears to be evidence which he had stated his intention to exclude a short time previously. Against this background the applicant can make no sense of the position of the Minister, who appears to include and exclude evidence in a way which is inconsistent, contradictory, offers no fair basis for a response. The outcome is that the suspension is continued with no prospect of a return to work in the foreseeable future.

• In his affidavit (paragraph 17) the Minister refers to the constructive dismissal aspect of the application and states “I do not consider that there is any reason to conclude that the situation has developed in which Mr Power is effectively constructively dismissed. Apart from any other arguments in response to this contention, there is the obvious point that in order to claim that he has been constructively dismissed, Mr Power has to resign from office.” The applicant hopes that the Minister will not be too disappointed to learn that such a resignation will not be forthcoming.

• It may be however that the key point of this argument has been misunderstood by the Minister. The applicant does not argue that he has already been constructively dismissed. He draws attention to the fact that from the very beginning it has been pointed out that all of the precedents and all of the relevant guidelines, indicate that the suspension of a person of Chief Officer rank is normally a career-ending event and that in perpetuating the suspension the Minister knows full well what he is doing. The longer a suspension, the less the probability of a Chief Officer successfully resuming a career. The applicant is simply making the point that against this background the standard of proof for sustaining the suspension, which rests with the Minister, should be set at an appropriately high level.

• Finally on this particular issue, there is the Ministers view of the timescale of the investigation which is set out in paragraph 17 of his affidavit, in which he says “I do not accept the fact that that the disciplinary investigation is taking longer than perhaps initially anticipated justifies reaching the conclusion that this is tantamount to a constructive dismissal. I do not have any control over the timescale of the investigation, which has been commissioned by the Chief Executive.” The applicant challenges whether the Minister is entitled to distance himself from the inevitable timescale of the investigation, and its potential consequences. The Chief Officer is not accountable to the Chief Executive, who in any event has no political role and is not accountable to the States. If the Minister claims that he does not have political responsibility for the length of the investigation within the terms of reference, then he may wish to identify who does.

• There is however a further reason why the Court may find the terms of reference of value in assessing the extent to which the Minister is committed to be fair, balanced and reasonable. That is, that the terms of reference for the disciplinary investigation itself, as set out in paragraphs one to three of the document, consist entirely of an assessment of performance against policing guidelines for England and Wales. The applicant understands that the guidelines do not apply to all of the U.K. and have certainly never been adopted in Jersey. Again, in contrast to his approach to U.K. guidelines on matters of suspension, the Minister has no difficulty on relying on U.K. guidelines for the purposes of a disciplinary investigation.

• Against this background the disciplinary investigation can only reach one conclusion. The applicant accepts that it is probable that the investigating officer will discover that in Jersey, the police do not always operate in accordance with the policing guidelines written for use in England. Given the unique laws, customs, and policing traditions of the island it would be remarkable if it were otherwise. The Minister must be aware of this, and he must also be aware of the future implications for the islands policing if the precedent is set that the Chief Officer can be disciplined for failing to apply English guidelines locally. The applicant sees this as further evidence of bias, and also of a willingness to override precedent and tradition in the pursuit of a single goal.

• In further assessing the extent to which the Ministers actions are proportionate and fair, the Court might find it helpful to refer again to the English guidelines dealing with suspension and removal on the grounds of efficiency and effectiveness at Tab 19. The Court might agree that these powers are set in the context of a force, and a leadership, which has given rise to concern regarding matters of efficiency and effectiveness over a period of time, and that this should be evidenced by independent assessment and performance statistics. Although the Minister himself has raised no direct allegations of this nature it was noted earlier that the letter from Mr Warcup at Tab 28 made some general comment of a negative nature. It might therefore be helpful for the Court to attempt to assess to what extent if any, there is evidence of performance, efficiency, or leadership issues being of concern locally. To assist with this process the applicant has assembled some documents dealing with these issues. They are placed together at Tab 34, and are as follows:

• Extract from report of H.M. Inspectorate of Constabulary 2006.
• Extract from report of H.M. Inspectorate of Constabulary 2008.
• Letter from the Minister for Home Affairs. 2007.
• Performance Review and Appraisal by the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers. Completed in 2007.

• The Court may note that the documents (in the same order as above) include the following statements:

• “The current senior management team has continued to make improvements in performance, resources, management and capability since the 2000/1 H.M.I. Inspection Report which identified significant weaknesses in management and performance. There is now evidence to indicate that the organisation is perceived as modern, fast moving with high expectations of operational and cultural change amongst a motivated workforce.”
• “this is the third consecutive year in which crime has fallen”............. “the overall detection rate for 2007 was 40% compared to an average detection rate for the 43 police forces in England and Wales of 27% in 2006/7.”................ “The Home Affairs Minister said in the (annual) report: This is the final Police Annual Report for my period as Home Affairs Minister. During this period, crime has fallen significantly and public confidence in the safety of our community has grown. I know that much of this has been due to the hard work of the police officers and staff who work day and night to preserve our safety. As Minister, I am proud to be associated with their achievements.”.................. “The current S.M.T. (Senior Management Team) has continued to make improvements in performance, resources, management and capability since the 2005 Baseline Assessment Report, progress being driven through regular senior management meetings and a detailed action plan. There is strong evidence to indicate that the organisation is perceived as modern, fast moving with high expectations of operational and cultural change amongst a motivated workforce.”
• “Dear Graham ........ I just wanted to thank you for the excellent 2006 H.M.I. Report. This is a testament to your leadership ...............Your personal style embodies the vision, values and standards we have come to expect from a modern, go ahead police force, fit for purpose for the new challenges ahead.”
• “Graham is a high performer both as Chief Police Officer and as a member of the Corporate Management Board”................ “Graham continues to modernise and enhance the professionalism of the service. This means that at times he has to place ‘doing the right things’ above ‘doing things the easy and traditional way.’ I recognise and support his unflinching determination to maintain and enhance the integrity of the Police in all respects.”

The applicant asks the Court to agree that whatever is in the Ministers mind in sustaining the suspension, it cannot relate to evidence of an under-performing force and leadership. In the absence of such evidence it is submitted that the corresponding tests of justification, necessity and proportionality for whatever is offered in support of the suspension, need to be set at a level which takes fully into account the contrary evidence relating to the performance of the force and its Chief Officer.
• The applicant hopes that he has provided sufficient evidence to entitle the Court to conclude that the Minister has failed to achieve “the highest standards of public administration,” that at least some of his actions are “contrary to the spirit of fair dealing which should inspire the whole of public life,” and that in parts of the process he has failed to “act fairly in accordance with the highest public standards.” The applicant hopes to convince the Court that the Minister has failed to discharge his burden of proof that the suspension is a lawful sanction in all of the circumstances and that the Court should rule accordingly.

.

This is a long read and one that must be done many times. Sorry for the long post but we are only at the beginning.

Where does this leave the Appointment of a future Chief of Police who will know that in the past 18 months

A.Deputy Police Chief wrote a letter that got his boss suspended

B. They used a Met Interim Review in that Suspension

c. The Chief of Police was suspended with no right of reply and under no procedure on the 12th november 2008

d The Chief Executive destroyed the Notes before they were signed off by all parties

c A full scale Media attack saying what a Shocking job they had done

d Suspended for 18 months

e Then has all Disciplinary Charges Dropped

f Then has a Trial by Media again

THEN WE BLAME THE BLOGGERS FOR MAKING WARCUP LEAVE

WAKE UP ILM AND GANG THIS IS 2010

RS

52 comments:

Anonymous said...

That wasn't your comment read out on Channel News saying well done to Mario Lundy was it?

rico sorda said...

lol no

It was probably Malcom/Paul on the email with multiple IPs

How desperate

rs

Anonymous said...

27:20 http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_channelreports/home.asp

Anonymous said...

You are right when you say Walker gone, Critch gone, Lewis gone, Gradwell gone, Warcup going, that could be one of the reasons for Warcups resignation, to join those others so as to be unaccountable because gone(method in their madness). But its got to be remembered that a new highly qualified person from the mainland was brought over to take over Critches position, her first job should have been to sort out this mess of a suspension and discussions with Ogley and the rest of her Human Resources Department should have taken place, but she didnt do this therefore the buck stops with her, Ogley and a few of her HR Senior Managers and HR Managers.

Terry Le Sueur will have sorted out his Terms of References with Napier, as a condition in choosing him (Napier) not to involve him (TLS) in this mess. Its not going to go way the way that he had hoped though.

The pressure is on Napier now to come back with an honest factual report then maybe there will be one other person to keep his crediblitiy, besides Graham Power.

rico sorda said...

3.15 Senator F.duH. Le Gresley of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the publication of extracts from the Wiltshire Police Report:

Can the Minister advise whether he consulted with the States Employment Board and/or the Chief Minister before he decided to publicise extracts from the Wiltshire Police Report and whether the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police was made aware of the likelihood of such disclosure in the letter he was sent dated the 8th July 2010, in which the Minister indicated that the disciplinary process was to be discontinued?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):

I did consult with the States Employment Board. I briefed the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers in relation to what I intended to do and I believe that I had their support. The Chief Officer of Police was aware of my intentions prior to my letter to him. Indeed, on 5th July 2010 I received a letter dated 28th June 2010 from his representative who was aware of my intention to cause the Wiltshire reports to enter the public domain. Furthermore, the effect of my making a statement during a speech on 7th July 2010 was to bring my intention to the attention of the Chief Officer of Police quicker than my letter of 8th July 2010 which also explained to him my intentions. In that letter I warned him that I would shortly be making public the outcome of the various investigations made by the Wiltshire Police Force, together with a report from accounts. But of course I had said in this Assembly before that I was going to do that and, in any eventuality, got his notice before. Frankly, it is obvious from the way in which the Chief Officer of Police responded, prior to my briefings to Members, and has responded subsequently that he was very well prepared for this.

3.15.1 Senator F.duH. Le Gresley:

Page 2 of the main report that was presented by the Minister refers to an obligation to confidentiality and if I may quote it says: “The outcome of any particular case arising under the discipline code would not, as a general rule, be publicised.” It also refers to the report being an independent disciplinary investigation and I would point out that the front of the Minister’s report referred to an investigation into the management and supervision of the historic child abuse inquiry by the Chief Officer, which are different things; could the Minister advise whether he considers his decision to discontinue the disciplinary process is an outcome under the terms of the obligation to confidentiality?

Senator

rico sorda said...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Yes, I do indeed. That was the whole reason why it discontinued early rather than letting matters run out in terms of time. That was so that I could today be answering questions in this Assembly in relation to the matter. It is quite clear from the disciplinary code that the Minister has discretion as to what to do with the material, once the disciplinary process has finished. I exercise that discretion in favour of the public interest in this matter being absolutely overwhelming in favour of my bringing to the attention of the general public the material and the matters which had come to my attention in relation to that matter. I felt, as I indeed said in my press statement and indeed my briefing to colleagues, that I was under a public duty to do so.

3.15.2 The Deputy of St. Mary:

I am fascinated that the Minister exercised his discretion in favour of the public interest. Can he explain to Members why he has published extracts from the Wiltshire Police Report and not a word of the 94-page rebuttal, in effect, by the former Chief of Police or the summary indeed which is also missing? We have absolutely one side of the story and not the other. How can that possibly be in the public interest where it is essential that this perception of fair behaviour is upheld?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I would explain why it was necessary to only publicise at this stage certain parts but the point here is this, this is the assessment of a professional body, namely the Wiltshire Police, particularly the Chief Police Officer there, and having considered all the evidence, having considered all the case, having considered the account or accounts of the Chief Officer of Police, that this is his judgment. These are his finding of facts. Frankly, I find it absolutely amazing that the Deputy of St. Mary and other Members of this Assembly should suggest that I should have suppressed that information, that I should have held that back from the public. I thought that the Deputy of St. Mary and other such Members were always in favour of openness in relation to such matters. Suddenly it appears, when it does not suit them for political reasons, that that openness is no longer a matter in issue.

3.15.3 The Deputy of St. Mary:

I shall be sending the Minister a list of questions, none of the answers to which are in the redacted report with which we have been presented with and hopefully he will be able to reply to those. Again, how can the Minister think that it is in the public interest, on a highly divisive issue, to present one side to the media without a shred of the other side? I just find it unbelievable that he thinks that can be seen as fair.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

This is absolutely not one side. This is a judgment produced by an independent senior police officer after taking expert advice, after spending a great deal ... this is his opinion in relation to the matter. It is not one side whatsoever. He has fully taken into account the statement or statements of the Chief Officer of Police and of other witnesses who may have given evidence in favour. This is the key issue, this is a judgment, as it were, as far as we have got to so far on the matter.

rico sorda said...

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I almost feel I should ask for a definition of judgment. Could I ask the Minister - and I stand to be corrected as always - he has made reference to the fact that the Chief Police Officer brought forward his retirement, being a major reason why disciplinary proceedings could not continue and happen. I am sure in Scrutiny the Minister told us, even if the Chief of Police had stayed until the end of his contract disciplinary proceedings still could not have taken place. So is that not being a bit disingenuous, if the case?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

It would have been tight, there is no question, it would have been tight to complete the whole process, bearing in mind that there are 3 stages to the disciplinary process, even after I have received the reports and the underlying evidence.

[16:15]

The first stage being a hearing conducted by myself, that would have required numerous preliminary hearings to determine what was the appropriate procedure in relation to issues of disclosure of documents, in relation to issues as to witnesses to be called live, et cetera - proprietary work. Then there would be the main hearing and after the main hearing there was then a right of appeal to a group of people, composed from people outside the Island who had been especially brought over for that purpose. Thereafter, after the right to appeal, the process was that the Minister could either take on board the effect of the appeal or not take it on board, but make a decision on that. Finally the matter would have to come to the House. I have expressed the view that this was a very complex matter which would have taken a great deal of time, but one thing that is absolute certain is that once the Chief Officer of Police had given his earlier notice, and once I only received the documents in February of this year, it was not going to be possible to proceed and to complete that entire process.

3.15.5 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville:

Would the Minister confirm who redacted the Wiltshire Police Report and other reports, who drew up their terms of reference, under whose authority, and just so we can absolutely clear, it is not just names that have been removed, what percentage of the reports was released to the public?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The report was redacted after consultation with myself as to which parts we would seek to redact and which parts we would not, effectively, jointly by a person working for the Law Officers’ Department and the Deputy Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers. There was reference there to terms of reference and I am afraid I will need to have greater clarity as to what the Deputy of Grouville means by terms of reference in this context.

The Deputy of Grouville:

I mean, what terms of reference did they have for redacting the report? Clearly it was not just the names that they had to remove. I would like to know what instructions they were given in order to redact the report.

Senator

rico sorda said...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Well, instructions were given in terms of agreement as to which parts we could reasonably attempt to achieve at this stage and which we could not. Because there were some very long sections, particularly in relation to the first report. But in terms of the redaction process itself, the intention was, first of all, to achieve anonymity for individual witnesses and for other people referred to in the reports who are not public facing. Also, in a very small quantity of cases, to remove information which was of a personal nature.

3.15.6 Senator F.duH. Le Gresley:

Does the Minister now accept that this precedence means that all States employees now run the risk of the contents of disciplinary reports being put in the public domain?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

This was an unprecedented case of huge public interest and huge public concern following on the events of February 2008 and a subsequent press conference in November 2008. Also, Members of this Assembly must remember that the Chief Officer of Police, through his political agents and on blog sites and other ways, has caused huge amounts of material of his own case to be put into the public arena in any eventuality. That, in my viewing, is in breach of the terms of the confidentiality clause. When you have a matter of such huge public interest, public interest is overwhelmingly in favour of the people of Jersey knowing the best information that I can provide as to what happened.

It does get worse i can assure you

rs

Anonymous said...

The Chief Constable of Wiltshire, Mr Brian Moore... states “I am advised that it is States Law and procedures that should prevail in this regard. That said, I have a duty to ensure that natural justice and fairness are available to Mr Power.” He later states an intention to “balance Jersey law with the principle of fairness.” The applicant offers the view that a reasonable interpretation of Mr Moore’s comments is that, in so far as his enquiry under the Disciplinary Code is concerned, he views Jersey law and procedures, and the requirements of justice and fairness, as separate things which need to be reconciled.



“INHERENT UNFAIRNESS.” THE LEGAL PRECEDENT.
• In the case of R(Refugee Legal Centre) V Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005) it was held that:
“Potential unfairness is susceptible to one of two forms of control which the law provides. One is access, retrospectively, to judicial review if due process has been violated. The other, of which this case is put forward as an example, is appropriate relief, following judicial intervention to obviate in advance proven risk of injustice which goes beyond aberrant interviews or decisions and inheres in the system itself.”


Out of the mouths of outsiders. "Mr Wiltshire", Brian Moore acknowledges that "the Jersey Way" system of law - not just the way it is applied or interpreted but the actual written laws themselves - are inherently unfair.

The second quote highlights the very centre of the hurricane of injustice that is too often Jersey justice - the meek people who just apply the established way without criticism or protest - the belief by those who apply them that merely accurately following procedures and applying the letter of the law - that that is enough. Mindlessly following procedure and the letter of the law without seemingly noticing or highlighting or protesting about the injustices or unfairness is the Jersey Way - anthing for a quiet life as long as the career keeps going and the money keeps rolling in.

There seems to be something missing in the local psyche whereby they cannot realise that accurately applying procedures that too often lead to "proven risk of injustice which goes beyond aberrant interviews or decisions and inheres in the system itself" IS BAD. What is worse is their reaction if people try to point this out to them - the skin deep nice friendly Jerseyman disappears instantly and a nasty, small-minded, aggressive, arrogant, bolshy little piece of fury takes his place and invites you to take that boat in the morning.

The Jersey Way is a boozed up red-faced furious honorary policeman screeching his car to a halt on the pavement because he saw you accidentally drop a piece of paper and booking you for littering despite your protests and your pointing out his own much worse transgressions.

The way that the suspension case has shown up the sheer unfairness of Jersey and the way that the representatives in power of the Jersey psyche seems incapable of realising their, and its, own huge shortcomings beggar belief. Writ large, and put in sophisticated lengthy reports and urbane concepts and words, there is no difference between the way the Jersey law too often operates and my hopefully clear illustrative example of obvious bad practice.

rico sorda said...

"I did consult with the States Employment Board. I briefed the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers in relation to what I intended to do and I believe that I had their support"

I believe i had their support.

Well on something as big as supporting a public lynching you would think he would be very clear on that issue.

So did the COM and the SEB support him

I will find out and let you know

rs

rico sorda said...

3.15.3 The Deputy of St. Mary:

"I shall be sending the Minister a list of questions, none of the answers to which are in the redacted report with which we have been presented with and hopefully he will be able to reply to those. Again, how can the Minister think that it is in the public interest, on a highly divisive issue, to present one side to the media without a shred of the other side? I just find it unbelievable that he thinks that can be seen as fair."

I will also be finding out if the Deputy has received a peply from ILM.

Knowing the deputy for research it will be bang on.

I really think that GP'S Skeleton arguement is a good read, this is all we want to do get the Information out so you the public can read it and form your own opinions.

rs

Anonymous said...

"Against this background the disciplinary investigation can only reach one conclusion. The applicant accepts that it is probable that the investigating officer will discover that in Jersey, the police do not always operate in accordance with the policing guidelines written for use in England. Given the unique laws, customs, and policing traditions of the island it would be remarkable if it were otherwise. The Minister must be aware of this, and he must also be aware of the future implications for the islands policing if the precedent is set that the Chief Officer can be disciplined for failing to apply English guidelines locally. The applicant sees this as further evidence of bias, and also of a willingness to override precedent and tradition in the pursuit of a single goal".

This is a very important point. Is it Law for the SOJP to use ACPO and NPIA guidelines or are they used as Guidance.

The TOR for Wiltshire were based on ACPO/NPIA now if they are not part of some kind of Jersey Policing Law how were they used in a disciplinary investigation.

Confused

Anonymous said...

Its been confirmed that letters have already gone out to the people that are to be criticised in The Napier Report. Therefore this means the Napier Report is ready.

So why are they delaying the inevitable?!

rico sorda said...

They must get their stories sorted lol

Should be very interesting

The party line will be

" we will learn from this and move forward"

"Our leader is great our leader is powerful"

rs

Anonymous said...

The Jersey Legal system does not have a position equivalent to a Procurator Fiscal or an Investigating Judge or Magistrate. For all but a fraction of cases, access to justice for victims and witnesses is through the States Police under the command of its Chief Officer. It sometimes appears to be a popular belief that in matters of criminal justice, human rights are primarily for the benefit of an accused. In reality, free and independent access to justice is essential for the exercise of a range of rights by persons who may feel that they are the victims of threats or injustice by others. The rights in question include a fair trial (article 6), liberty and security (article 5), private and family life (article 8), and the right to life itself (article 2.) An independent system of justice is considered essential for the exercise of these rights. However, if access to justice is through a single gateway, and if that gateway has a political gatekeeper who is a member of the government in power, then the true independence of justice is open to question.

100% correct

rico sorda said...

Anonymous

"The second quote highlights the very centre of the hurricane of injustice that is too often Jersey justice - the meek people who just apply the established way without criticism or protest - the belief by those who apply them that merely accurately following procedures and applying the letter of the law - that that is enough. Mindlessly following procedure and the letter of the law without seemingly noticing or highlighting or protesting about the injustices or unfairness is the Jersey Way - anthing for a quiet life as long as the career keeps going and the money keeps rolling in."

Are you familiar with the way our states of jersey works.

You name it we have it in that chamber, what we seem to have in abundance is yellow bellied, keep my head down and is it now time to stamp my feet along with our glorious leader like it was a Nuremberg Rally. Just SHOCKING

Then we have Politicians who ask questions on these grave matters and they get called trouble makers and in someway get the Syvret Treatment.

Its the ones who sit there and say nothing that I detest, the ones who shack there heads in disapproval at any question concerning the CHILD ABUSE and Graham Power, looking for some sort of approval rating from the Glorious Leader and his henchman.

They are not interested in Justice & Fairness oh no its protect the State at all costs.

They don't have a clue if Warcup is a good Cop bad Cop or if he is even a cop.

I will find examples that make me sick

rs

rico sorda said...

Right the ones who have remained silent and now come out of the wood work. This after ILM has informed the states that Warcup cant cut it and is running.

Case number 1

.1.1 Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:

As a retired Member of the States of Jersey Police, I think it is proper that I should be allowed to speak. It is proper also to say that the police service, all the way through the years, goes through periods of ups and downs and we have been through a very down period for an awful long time.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Just questions to the Minister, Deputy.

Deputy J.B. Fox:

Yes, Sir. But if you would allow me to just say one word. I would like, if the Minister would agree, to send our thanks to this current Acting Police Chief Officer, who has brought back some dignity to the States of Jersey Police and ask that if he would kindly do that on behalf of myself and my previous colleagues who have spoken to me over the period of time.

Just brilliant, who is this Intrepid Fox, has he not read the little Wiltshire report lol. All the coppers are leaving Fox, don't just wake up and start spilling what you think is the party line. Even Wiltshire said it was a well run Force.

Now we have the plumber from St John getting in on the love fest

6.1.2 The Deputy of St. John:

I too would like to thank Mr. Warcup for what he has done to date for this Island and keeping a level head when other people have been carrying on in certain ways. Will the Minister be taking a report to P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) about the manner in which certain States Members have been acting in relation to Mr. Warcup [Approbation] over the next few weeks?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I deeply regret the way in which certain States Members have acted in this matter. I deeply regret the petty insinuations that there have been that Mr. Warcup is a liar, that he has acted in his own self interest, et cetera. Those were, in my view, disgraceful assertions. I have sought to deny them as strongly as I can at all times. I am afraid now the consequences of such behaviour have come home to roost. If we are going to continue to have such unwarranted attacks on loyal and honest members of the staff, who work within the States remit, then we are not going to be able to keep good people and the Island will pay the consequences for that. I was most moderate in my initial comments in relation to this. Mr. Warcup, for himself, has made plain in his statement that he had reached a point where he accepted that no matter what he did, there would remain a remnant, there would remain a part this Assembly and a part of this Island who would view him with disfavour for ever and would always seek to trip him up and to find the worst possible view of anything which he did, and that is one of the reasons why he has decided not to stay so that, at least, the next person coming in will, hopefully, have a clear run and will be able to start without this unwarranted black mark against his name. [Approbation]

Kleenex

rs

rico sorda said...

Do you now see Anonymous.

Its this attitude that is sinking this island. Le Main gets hung out like a rabbit in the old market yet he still longs for the head table they have no shame. And what now for Perchard, went again for health but was rejected by his colleagues now concentrates on the Jersey Anthem.

Rondel wake up.

Take politicians to PPC for asking questions christ Syvret was right it is North Korea.

Then Jeune woke up w

.3 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

"While I believe that any right-minded person abhors abuse of any kind to anyone, especially children and others who are vulnerable, and we would seek to bring to justice any perpetrators and ensure that the care and treatment of victims and perpetrators is provided, would the Minister agree that while there have been very regrettably cases of abuse in Jersey, there are those for whom Haut de la Garenne gave them safety and security when they needed it most and they have predominantly happy memories of their childhood at Haut de la Garenne and of those house parents who cared for them and the environment which they were fortunate to have enjoyed"

is that aquestion or a statement

rs.

Anonymous said...

''I would explain why it was necessary to only publicise at this stage certain parts but the point here is this, this is the assessment of a professional body, namely the Wiltshire Police, particularly the Chief Police Officer there, and having considered all the evidence, having considered all the case, having considered the account or accounts of the Chief Officer of Police, that this is his judgment.''

Does Mr. Le Marquand not mean this a % of a judgement based on uk code of conduct.

Anonymous said...

It is all well and good to state personal beliefs but I do hope Deputy Jeune is not making assumptions given his position.

rico sorda said...

Hi Anon

Deputy Jeune is a 'She' she features in a previous post.

Im reading ' A Little Brief Authority ' by Peter Crill at the moment and a very good read it is. The reason for doing this is so i can try and get an insight into why this place is the way it is.

Interesting how the JEP has always been viewed as a bit of a Joke

rs

Anonymous said...

Deputy Jeune has , on previous occasions spoken about Haute de Garrene and what a nice place it was. I believe her husband had been a resident at the home as a child, teenager. not really sure what age but he according to the deputy has fond memories of his time there.
perhaps Deputy Jeune should watch the documentary CHOSEN about the sexual abuse of three boys at a public school.
The three boys that were victims are now grown men and somehow met by chance and discovered they had all been the CHOSEN ones.
They made this documentary (which won a Baffta) after many disappointments and doors being closed on them, you see no one wants to have open discussion on sexual abuse.
Not a nice subject, is it Deputy Jeune

Ole Razzy said...

Interesting to know that you are reading the late Peter Crill's memoirs. I would point you to the chapter on Jersey's previous attempts to attain independence. All very funny and food for thought in the weeks leading up to Philip Bailhache's constitional conference in the autumn. Crill was not everybodies cup of tea but he was intellectually streets ahead of his successor and knew far more about constitional affairs.

rico sorda said...

Hi Razzy

It's a very good read and makes a change from my usual war books.

I have just read where the young Peter Crill lands in France after his daring escape, all good stuff and it was always good getting one over jerry lol

What would he make of this mess lord only knows

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico

Hope you don't mind but i have dug out this post out from 'isthisjersey' website.


so on the 15th of july deputy shona pitman brings her vote of no confidence against the bailiff........

I fully support deputy pitman and i dont care if she was a member of the uda,jda,ira,kkk,left wing,right wing or fitness first it doesn't matter this is about the bailiffs poor poor poor form..
He was AG at the time of the holland affair then he shut down stuart syvret's christmas speech his liberation day speech was an utter utter disgrace now he is involved in our independence....

IS this man prepared to put his arm around a person that has been abused and say led into a dark cellar and say to them look i know that being sexually assaulted and violently abused is bad but look the real victim here is JERSEY yup thats right JERSEY this man was asked for an apology from the care leavers did they get one can someone let me know...

i was born into a caring loving family its all i could ask for but i know some kids WERE'NT so lucky thats why i feel very passionatley about this i will be in the states that day offering my support to deputy pitman and the abused children of jersey and to see what states members support the bailiff....

BECAUSE LETS GET THIS STRAIGHT THE BAILIFF ABUSED THOSE KIDS WITH HIS LIBERATION SPEECH, WAS IT ONE MORE TIME FOR LUCK...........HE HAS GOT TO GO ......STATES MEMBERS.. THE REAL JERSEY WILL BE WATCHING......

RICO SORDA

Keep going son

rico sorda said...

lol July 2008, been at this a long time, still stand by every word.

And just like the others he did go, but with reputation intact the 'Jersey Way.

Thanks for that but please no more

rs

Anonymous said...

"There is simply no website or forum or published article which justifies or explains away the appearance that a Police Chief was systematically denied a fair defense at nearly every turn"

I agree with you about some of our states members. How they can go along with this is a real 'SCANDAL'

Anonymous said...

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

In view of the criticism of the former Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police in relation to expenses in the recent Wiltshire Police Report, and of the BDO report, at a time when he was responsible for the professional standards unit, will the Minister be reviewing the cases where the D.C.O. (Deputy Chief Officer) was making judgments on officers and compelling to leave the police service? Will he also be reviewing the complaints file for that period?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):

The question makes a valid point in relation to the behaviour of the former Deputy Chief Officer of Police. I think I have the name in this case, Mr. Harper, in relation to totally unacceptable expenditure on accommodation and meals for himself and colleagues. It is deeply unfortunate and ironical that a person who was apparently on a mission to root out corruption in the States of Jersey police should have behaved in this way. However, there is no intention to reopen previous disciplinary matters in relation to which the former Deputy Chief Officer played a role, bearing in mind that the Deputy Chief Officer is normally responsible for suspensions only and not for full hearings. The Senator added an extra question to what was written down. I am afraid I cannot now recall what it was, I would be grateful if she could repeat that.

4.1.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Will the Minister also review the complaints dealt with over that period where it happened that a complaint was made about the Deputy Chief Officer? It was reviewed by the Professional Standards Unit and the letter to the complainant saying that there was no case to answer was also signed off by the Deputy Chief Officer about whom the complaint had been made.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I have to say, the latter does sound a little strange that someone would sign off something in relation to a complaint about themselves. No, it is not my intention to review matters. Frankly, I am well aware that there were outstanding complaints against the former Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police which were never investigated or proceeded with simply because he had ceased to hold that office.

[16:45]

Anonymous said...

Skoda

There is an anti Stuart Syvret site on Facebook, the Admin Guy is the Farce Blog owner.

Mike Vibert once let it slip on the radio.

Last name Harris first name like a mad gunman

' Babylon is burning '

Keep Fighting

Anonymous said...

Rico,

Do you or can you get a copy of a letter from DCO Mr Warcup, to CE Mr Ogley, dated 10th Nov. 2008 (tab28).
To display on here.
After all it was the letter that started it all off.

rico sorda said...

Hi Anon

Believe me that is one letter I cant wait to see. I believe it will be part of the Napier report so will see what happens there.

Hi Anon

lol thanks for that and cheers for the link it makes sense thats for sure. Probably why im to old for a catch up and why he has no idea about what is happening in the states lol

rs

rico sorda said...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):

The question makes a valid point in relation to the behaviour of the former Deputy Chief Officer of Police. I think I have the name in this case, Mr. Harper, in relation to totally unacceptable expenditure on accommodation and meals for himself and colleagues.

Wait till the full extent of the Wiltshire expenses are published. If Lenny Harper was 'Hollywood' then Wiltshire was the' Playboy Mansion' with the investigating officer Hugh Hefner at the Helm.

My next Blog will be concentrating on this.

1.Was the expenses for Wiltshire paid out of the HdelaG pot

2.Was this overseen by the most exciting thing ever to happen in UK Policing, a' Gold Command'

3. Was Warcup & Austin Vautier overseeing the finances of Wiltshire through this nothing can go wrong 'Gold Command'

4. Oh Dear

5. The Wiltshire expenses are mind boggling

Who is responsible for the failure of Wiltshire?

It was a disciplinary investigation due out in March 2009.

So many questions that need answering and when we get the Wiltshire report we will be looking at it in full

rs

Anonymous said...

"My next Blog will be concentrating on this.

1.Was the expenses for Wiltshire paid out of the HdelaG pot"

Jersey Evening Post
Wednesday 21 July 2010
Page 7

News In Brief: "Expenses File".

Anonymous said...

Interesting comments from Ted Vibert on his blog on how he too now thinks ILM made a complete farce of the suspension process i.e. everyone should be able to expect to have theeir side of a story heard. He must have been been talking to the big fella!

Anonymous said...

ILM and Deputy Sarah Ferguson (she who made the corrupt approach to the AG in the case of the bent businessman and who had meetings with the corrupt ginger cop to try and get his job back at a time when he was actively trying to discredit the abuse investigation) seem to be making a lot of the so called "celebrity lifestyle" allegedly enjoyed by myself and a number of my colleagues. I have so far avoided comment on this but the straws they are grasping are getting ever more desperate with Ferguson now wanting her corrupt buddies re-instated. Let me make one thing clear first. Despite the fact that Wiltshire seem to have raised this point and that they questioned Scotland Yard staff about it, I was never at any time asked a single question about my entertainment and hospitality budget. Not at any time did Wiltshire raise it with me. This is despite that fact that I took part in two lengthy interviews with them one of which lasted over three days and the other over two. Scotland Yard laughed at their description of the restaurant as 'plush' and even went to the trouble of getting a menu for them. However, if I had been asked for my side of the story, this is what I would have said. In common with other departments and states members, our budget had an entertainment and hospitality figure built in. No one complained at all when contacts made in the UK resulted in huge benefits such as free tactical firearms training when two officers came to Jersey for over a week to train six of ours. There was no charge. This was achieved through contacts after UK forces had quoted us for many thousands of pounds some months down the line. Nor was there any protest when a lengthy secondment was obtained to the Met Homicide Teams for the Chief Inspector taking over the CID in Jersey. No cries of foul were made when another Inspector was seconded to Central London for a spell during which he was involved in valuable experiences including protests against the US President. These were only a few of the benefits gained from contacts made in the wider policing environment which was so important in the island context. Then, when the Abuse Enquiry started, Steven Austen Vautier himself wrote the hospitality and entertainment budget into the costs of the enquiry. Once again, the cost in outlay was exceeded greatly by the benefits brought in, including the sifting machine which saved so much time, and many expert assessments and security reviews which were all delivered free of charge from contacts made. Many of these contacts made this clear to Wiltshire. The expenditure was submitted monthly to the Treasury, who were also fully aware of the cost savings from contacts in many areas. As for the snide comment about trying to hide the cost by sharing it among credit company cards? The truth is rather less exciting and if Wiltshire had bothered to ask me I would have told them. Anyone who has had a credit card refused will know how uncomfortable that is. It happened to many of us on a number of occasions because the States were late or slow in paying the bills. To avoid too heavy expenditure on one card, costs were often split and thereby the hope that one card would not run the risk of refusal. But as Wiltshire did not ask me I never had the opportunity to tell them. One wonders why they avoided this issue completely. So yes, I had a fully authorised entertainment/hospitality budget which I used and which brought in many many times more than was spent on it. That should be easy to check. I would happily compare my return for hospitality with any of the States members who so regularly entertained each other at the Airport restaurant or in town. I would hazard a guess that I brought in more financial savings than all of them put together. As for Wiltshire, I wonder what their entertainment was spent on. Trying to persuade former colleagues of Graham Power to dish non-existent dirt perhaps? Lenny Harper

Anonymous said...

Well well Mr. Vibert. Too little too late although I am sure a few more will crawl out with the same sentiments.

Anonymous said...

Rico, do you want to meet the "corrupt ginger cop".

I have known him for over 30 years and I went to school with him.

rico sorda said...

Ok Then

Lets try and hook something up

rs

rico sorda said...

Rico, do you want to meet the "corrupt ginger cop".

I have known him for over 30 years and I went to school with him.

Anon

From the above i was under the impression that you new the person not that I should look him up on facebook and drop him a line

same old same old

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

I know the bent ginger one and can tell you a story or two about him. I also have friends that could tell you alot more about him.

voiceforchildren said...

Lenny.

Let me get this straight. Wilstshire Police have just delivered "The Holy Grail" of all reports, including close to FIFTY TWO THOUSAND POUNDS worth of meals and entertainment, they've slagged you off for your expenses and haven't even interviewed or questioned you?????????????

Have you told this to Diane Simon? I'm sure she would want to keep the record straight and make sure the JEP reader(s) is/are as well informed of the "facts" as possible.

Anonymous said...

VFC, you have it spot on. In two interviews which spanned five days, the bulk of which were taped and recorded, Wiltshire did not mention nor ask about my expenses once. One wonders why. Lenny Harper

Anonymous said...

Rico
The way I read what Lenny Harper is saying, is that he was never questioned about entertainment and hostility budget even though he was interviewed by Wiltshire twice once over 3 days and once over 2 days.

Maybe I am reading wrong? Perhaps the entertainment budget only came in as an afterthought.

Damocles said...

So Lenny, you had an entertainment/hospitality budget and you used it and indirectly got free/cheaper services for Jersey from the mainland police force. That kind of sounds corrupt to me - not major corruption but the sort of favours for favours that are common in the business world.

Should the people you entertained have done what they did, even though Jersey benefited?

Anonymous said...

Redacted Wiltshire Report:-

2.42 CO POWER made inappropriate use of the Force e-mail system.

2.43 There are two examples of e-mail communications from CO POWER which this Inquiry finds to be inappropriate. Firstly, in an internal e-mail sent on 23 February 2008, when making reference to the electronic debate between politicians, he writes ‘I think that all of our politicians have approached this investigation with honesty, openness, a desire to find the truth... and a solid determination to put political differences aside in the common interest... and so do my friends the elves and pixies’.

2.44 Given the legitimate concerns of some politicians about the handling of Operation Rectangle, particularly members of the States of Jersey Police who read it. One of those was DCO HARPER, whom CO POWER was expected by politicians to be challenging about the Deputy’s handling of the media.

2.45 The second example is an external e-mail dated 29 February 2008 sent by CO POWER to a friend, ‘W’ who resides elsewhere in the UK. CO POWER’s e-mail says ‘according to stories doing the rounds in the pubs, the abuse enquiry is a cover story; we are really selecting the winner of the world hide and seek championships. Or if you prefer what is the difference between a jersey royal and a jersey orphan?? Answer a jersey royal gets dug up after three months’. This unprofessional comment by the Chief Officer can have no excuse or mitigation and suggests a deeply concerning attitude at such a critical time for his Force and the States of Jersey.

2.46 This Inquiry concludes that in each case, the e-mails sent by CO POWER were inappropriate and particularly so when sent over the Force network.


On the basis that nothing has been redacted from the above numbered statements, and taking into account a posting on Stuart Syvret’s blog which adds more detail giving context to GP’s email to friend ‘W’, if that context is correct, surely this brings the Wiltshire report into disrepute!? How can one take any conclusion seriously if such a fundamental context can be ignored.

Here is that post:-

Context is important said...
GP's email to a friend was simply commenting on how bad things were, that sick jokes were already circulating. This is just commenting upon fact, not passing it on as a jolly good laugh -

(2.45) "according to stories doing the rounds in pubs, the abuse enquiry is a cover story; we are really selecting the winner of the world hide and seek championships. Or if you prefer what is the difference between a Jersey Royal and a Jersey orphan?? Answer a Jersey Royal gets dug up after three months"

Context is everything.

You can include a "joke" as part of commenting upon the situation without necessarily thinking it funny. And in case, the point of the joke is how victims were abused and the whole thing covered up. It seeks to highlight the failings over here.

Nowhere near the big deal the spin doctors and the gullible would have you believe.
Thursday, 15 July 2010 15:34:00 GMT+01:00

My own thoughts on 2.43 where it is stated that GP wrote (although it too might be out of context)

‘I think that all of our politicians have approached this investigation with honesty, openness, a desire to find the truth... and a solid determination to put political differences aside in the common interest... and so do my friends the elves and pixies’.

Perhaps it was a tongue-in-cheek truth, especially when you consider the JEP quotes from Senator Ben Shenton in March 2008 he voiced suspicions that the murder inquiry was not justified and in 13 November 2008 said that Mr Power’s position had become untenable.

It could be that Ben Shenton had said things to GP which made his statement truthful. I for one can never take Ben Shenton seriously since the 2008 JEP reports in which he contradicted his position on the council of ministers within a couple of months..

Anonymous said...

Damocles: If the services were provided only because of the hospitality (although it would need to be a heck of a lot more than a meal) then you would have a point. The idea of a hospitality budget is to cultivate contacts, get to know them, and build a relationship with them to the point where you can work with each other without abusing trust. It is about getting to know them and to discuss in a relaxed atmosphere areas of mutual benefit. for instance, one of the UK forces we received help from were actually being rated on outside contacts and help given. It was not a case of "here is a meal, now do us a favour." We left that to politicians and Waterfront contracts, and then the demands were much greater. Lenny Harper

Anonymous said...

entertainment and hostility budget

LOL, I love that typo!

Anonymous said...

"We left that to politicians and Waterfront contracts"

Please tell more

TonyTheProf said...

Thanks for this document Rico

Anonymous said...

It would be interesting to know over what period of time the £52,000 was spent on wineing, dining and accommidation for the Wiltshire investigators?

Because if they had been quicker in completeing it, a lot less would have been wasted on the above!

rico sorda said...

I will be taking a close look at the whole Wiltshire Investigation, starting with the finance, I will be seeing how it went so wrong, over a Million pounds spent, no disciplinary proceedings, huge amounts of tax payers money, all signed off by David Warcup & Austin Vautier.

Then we end up with a report with nothing in it which our local paper ran like it was the start off the uprising in 30's Germany ,didn't question one single little bit, nothing, zilch like a lap dog obeying it's master a total joke.

All the evidence was missing

There are glaring holes in it that need explaining, and we will be looking at it, how our local media didn't ask the questions just leaves me lost

rs

Anonymous said...

Shiny blue Audi and a paler shade than purple Mercedes
Jacksons
Now ask your selves , why there has never been any corruption in Jersey