Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Deputy Bob Hills Letter In Full

Below is the Letter from Deputy Bob Hill that appeared in tonight's JEP.

I have had permission from Deputy Hill to reproduce it in full.

The reason the full letter appears here is because of the word restriction on letters in the JEP

In my opinion I believe the JEP have done a good Job with Deputy Hills letter, and its good to see, its all we bloggers ask.

Deputy Hill is also thankful of the coverage the JEP gave his letter

It appears here so people overseas and none readers of the JEP can read it

All yours BOB


Dear Sir,

Now that we have had time to reflect on the Acting Police Chief’s announcement that he will not be seeking appointment to his former boss’s job it may be opportune to give readers an insight to some of the facts which seem to have gone unnoticed.

From comments that have been published it appears that the Home Affair’s Minister, the JEP and Mr Warcup himself believe that a significant part of the blame for his departure rests with certain States Members who are allegedly Graham Power supporters. From the context of these comments it appears that some of these criticisms have been directed towards me on the basis that I have repeatedly raised issues regarding the manner in which the case of the suspended officer has been handled. Just in case anybody has forgotten, it might be appropriate to remind readers that I am an elected Member of the States. It is part of my role to challenge the actions of Ministers and to hold them to account. These challenges are part of the democratic process, and in the circumstances of this case it could be argued that we need more such challenges rather than less. This is especially the case when the Ministers appear to be acting with so little regard for the human and financial cost of their actions, or the reputation of the island.

The suspension of any employee is a serious matter and is one that must be handled with sensitivity and extreme caution. It is apparent that this was not the case with the former Chief Officer’s suspension. In its judgement dated 8th September 2009 the Royal Court expressed its “serious concern at the fairness of the procedure apparently adopted by the previous Minister. He was dealing with the person holding the most senior position in the police force who had enjoyed a long and distinguished career. Bearing in mind the implications of suspension, we would have thought that fairness would dictate firstly Mr Power being given a copy of the media briefing and Mr Warcup’s letter and secondly an opportunity to be heard on whether there should be an investigation and if so, should he have been suspended during that investigation.” (Judgement paragraph 19). Anyone who has examined the case cannot entertain any serious doubt that, whatever the merits or otherwise of the criticisms directed against the former Chief Officer, the suspension and subsequent investigation has been miss-managed at significant public cost. To claim that a dubious suspension followed by a disciplinary process lasting 21 months and costing over a million pounds, which is then abandoned without a single charge being brought, is anything other than incompetent government, is to ignore reality.

It should be recalled that on January 21st 2009, Ministers and fellow States Members had the opportunity of agreeing to Connétable Simon Crowcroft’s Proposition P182/2008 which was to request the Minister for Home Affairs to commission a compliance check on the procedures followed by his predecessor in suspending the Chief Police Officer and to report to the States on the outcome of this compliance check no later than 1st March 2009. Such a review could have cleared the air and paved the way for a swift and relatively low-cost resolution of the issue.

Unfortunately the proposition was opposed by the Ministers and as a consequence it was rejected by 29 votes to 21.


Last February the Chief Minister resisted the opportunity of accepting my proposition P9/2010 which called for a Committee of Inquiry which could have started work immediately, to conduct a 3 month review of the suspension process. Initially the Chief Minister opposed the suggestion of a Review on the grounds that Wilts Police were doing so. That assertion was completely incorrect and it was only after I had lodged my Proposition on 2nd February that the Chief Minister conceded that he was wrong. However rather than accept my proposition he persuaded States Members to agree to his allegedly quicker and simpler alternative arrangement whereby an Independent Commissioner would review the suspension process. It is now August and the Chief Ministers “quicker and simpler” process has yet to be concluded.

On 16th March 2010, The Minister for Home Affairs lodged P30/2010 seeking to appoint Mr Warcup to succeed Mr Power. The Minister appeared to be oblivious to the fact that 3 weeks earlier he and 25 fellow States Members had rejected my proposition for a Committee of Inquiry in favour of the Chief Minister’s alternative proposal. It should have been obvious that until the outcome of the Review was known, he could hardly expect Members to debate the appointment of Mr Warcup, who was one of the leading players in the suspension process,

It follows that no one should have been surprised when a few days later I lodged P33/2010 which asked the States to agree that no proposition to appoint a new Police Chief Officer should be debated until the outcome of the Commissioner’s review was known. One should recall that at a Scrutiny Hearing on 30th March the Home Affairs Minister stated that he would resign if Mr Warcup was not appointed. Had the Minister been so confident about Mr Warcup’s appointment it was down to him to set a date for debate, but he never did. The fact that Mr Warcup no longer wants his boss’s job can hardly be down to those Members who for months have sought the truth about the suspension.

It is agreed by all sides that the sole evidence relied upon to suspend Mr Power was a letter from Mr Warcup dated 10th November 2008 which was apparently supported by an Interim Report supplied by the Metropolitan Police at 1527 hours that day. However reference to the letter and report can be found in the suspension letter dated 12th November 2008 but drafted on 8th November. It appears from the information available, that the decision to suspend Mr Power was taken first and then evidence to justify the decision assembled afterwards. It is also evident that the Met Police has withdrawn its Interim Report and one of the officers involved with it is the subject of an official complaint. This sequence of events puts Mr Warcup at the heart of the controversial suspension of his then Chief Officer. A suspension which is now to be the subject of a report by an eminent QC. Having taken such a pivotal role, Mr Warcup has no basis to complain that he is now caught up in the controversy surrounding his actions.

Mr Warcup was aware that the Metropolitan Police had been requested to produce a review of the Haut de la Garenne investigation. The purpose of the review was to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the States Police’s handling of the investigation. The time to evaluate the Report was when it had been completed. If there were concerns which were deemed to be so serious to warrant a suspension Mr Warcup should not have allowed himself to become involved for a number of obvious reasons not the least of which was his substantial professional and financial interest in the outcome.

Mr Warcup’s participation in the suspension process was a high profile and unprecedented act. The political and media fallout from the event was entirely foreseeable and should have been taken into account by all involved. There is however one aspect of this matter on which I believe that Mr Warcup and myself will be of the same mind, that is, that the pressures and exposure which have been associated with these events have gone on for far too long,. I suggest however that in attributing blame Mr Warcup looks more closely at the actions of his own Minister who has repeatedly blocked attempts to bring about a timely solution, and who now stands empty handed at the conclusion of one of the most expensive disciplinary enquiries in the Island’s history. The Chief Minister and Minister for Home Affairs have emerged from this saga with no disciplinary case, no Chief Officer, a pending report from a QC likely to be critical of the Island’s Government, and a bill for over a million pounds. They are not well placed to criticise the actions of others.

Deputy F.J. (Bob) Hill, BEM

The 'Sailors' Spit


36 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well done Deputy Hill

Stick with the FACTS and you cant go wrong

TonyTheProf said...

Thanks - I missed it in the JEP

Anonymous said...

A true Chief Minister statement Deputy Hill,honest & clear,hope bbc Bridget gets to read it before spouting on the beeb talkshow her normal one sided mutterings.

Anonymous said...

Deputy Hill says it all really. But if the QC says all this in his report, and more if the truth is to be known, will action be taken eg suspensions or dismisals. Or will TLS & ILM's conclusion be allowed to stand which will be "hindsight is a wonderful thing, we will get training, learn from our mistakes and look forward to the future"....

Not this time. Too much complete incompitence, lies and delays on display for the world to see!!

rico sorda said...

I see the JDA are on the case

What is in that Napier Report that has our boys reaching for the toilet paper. Surely they didn't stich up the Chief of Police with a totally bungled suspension so that they could then go on a fishing trip and cover stuff up.

What must future Chiefs make of this back in the UK?

Scary stuff

Jersey twinned with North Korea

Anonymous said...

Well done Bob Hill one of the few honest decent states members

Anonymous said...

well said Bob Hill, keep going truth and justice is all we want

GeeGee said...

Hear, hear Rico. An excellent letter from Bob Hill, and a very good posting on the JDA blog. This is clear and concise type of information we need, and not the waffle and half truths from the Bumble Brothers (Le Sueur and Le Marquand).

What we want now, and asap, is a NON redacted Napier Report, which is long overdue.

rico sorda said...

Why is it left to a politician?

So a Deputy has got to write a letter explaining the facts regarding the very suspect suspension of Graham Power.

Are our Journalists looking at or asking questions on these very important issues

The reason politicians are asking the questions is because our 'cutting edge' journalists are banned.

We have the foot stamping lackeys who obey the leaders of the Mother Land at all cost,along with the JEP they are the real danger to this island, the ones with no backbone,the ones who stop important propositions going through, without these foot licking lackeys the Establishment cant control the Chamber.

I have seen enough over these past 2 years and seen enough states sittings to know what I say is true.

We have so much work on at the moment we will keep you posted but there are cans of worms opening all over the place.

rs

Anonymous said...

The Chief Minister and Minister for Home Affairs have emerged from this saga with no disciplinary case, no Chief Officer, a pending report from a QC likely to be critical of the Island’s Government, and a bill for over a million pounds. They are not well placed to criticise the actions of others.


Will Minister Le Marquand fall on his sword?

Will the Chief Minister just go now

Anonymous said...

Napier - where is it? A good and very reasonable question to ask. At least in a democracy. Hill, Pitman, Wimberley & co will be in for a kicking if they keep up this line of uncomfortable questioning when the powers that be hoped it was all done and dusted.

Anonymous said...

Good posting Rico and from 'Big Trev' on the JDA blog reference Napier.These things just must not be allowed to slip off the radar.

rico sorda said...

From the JEP

"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"

Now lets not forget this is the Suspension of the the former Chief of Police, if you are going to get one suspension right its this one ' Right ' errrrrm 'Wrong' looks like they messed this one up.

Remember Andrew Lewis said he was getting advice, now who would he be getting advice from back in 2008?

And what of 'he who destroys notes'

When your ready Mr Napier

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

For those who are that little sceptical of the JEP's reporting, they could be forgiven for believing that the JEP are already paving the way to start repoting about how "mistakes" might have been made after reading this sentence.

"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."

The thought that Graham Power QPM might have been suspended purely because he was about to expose some high level figures for either abusing children or covering up for abusers doesn't seem to even be on the radar......still.

Or perhaps the fact that he was, possibly, about to investigate some very "curious" land re-zoning involving very high profile island figures doesn't get a mention either.

It could be the old mistakes were made and we must learn from the past sketch is going to get another outing.........We shall have to wait and see?????????

rico sorda said...

Maybe ' he who destroys notes' will be at the same 'Must do Better Class' as TLM.

But joking aside this is serious stuff, before we get going on Wiltshire we must know what Napier says. It always comes back to the original suspension you must also remember FW & AL were leaving office, they had 1 chance GP went on holiday and hey presto we had a full show.

Now remember how Wiltshire had disclosed about the sexed up press conference on the 12th November 2008 can someone tell me if that is in the report released last month

rs

Ian Evans said...

Well,

Thats just bloody typical of Bob Hill isn't it?

Clear, concise, honest, virtuous, fair, just, and BLOODY TRUE!!!

Well done Bob, and the very few who backed him.

A simple method to prosper is honesty and integrity, someone should tell the other four fifths of the house!

Ian Evans said...

"He who exercises government by means of his virtue may be compared to the north polar star, which keeps its place and all the stars turn towards it."

Anonymous said...

Lest anyone forget, this proposal attributed to the Chief Minister comes from individuals who, with all of the strength, finance, time and resources they could muster, have at every stage and with every sinew, opposed, obstructed and sought to deflect, any enquiry or investigation whatsoever, into the actions of Ministers and their advisors in November 2008. The Chief Minister now offers this concession, not because he is persuaded that it is a good thing. He does so through clenched teeth because he is now cornered and can think of nothing else. Why should anyone trust the Chief Minister to deliver anything which is impartial and fair now? He has opposed fairness, justice, and transparency at every turn. I regret to say that he does not deserve to be trusted, and nobody should accept his assurances. His ineffective proposal should be rejected and a proper, independent and robust Committee of Enquiry be established in accordance with my proposition.


APPENDIX

A review of the management process that led to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police.

Commissioner ( We now know is Brian Napier)


The Chief Minister wishes to appoint a Commissioner to undertake a review of the manner in which the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police was suspended from his duties on 12 November 2008. Given the length of time that has elapsed since the Chief Officer of Police was suspended, and the concerns raised by States Members particularly following the publication of the Affidavit from the suspended Chief Officer of Police, the Chief Minister is proposing to commission an independent review to assure himself and States Members that the management of the process was conducted correctly.


2. Terms of Reference 
The purpose of the Review is to:- 
Examine the procedure employed by the Chief Minister’s Department and the Home Affairs Minister in the period leading up to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police on 12 November 2008. 

Review the manner in which senior officers collated the information and presented it to the Home Affairs Minister that ultimately led to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police. 

Investigate whether the procedure for dealing with the original suspension was correctly followed at all times including:-

The reason for the immediate suspension of the Chief Officer of Police

Whether there were any procedural errors in managing the suspension process.

Review all information relating to the original suspension procedure including relevant sections of the published Affidavit from the suspended Chief Officer of Police

The Report should highlight any areas where in the opinion of the Commissioner sufficient evidence exists that would support in the interests of open government a full Committee of Inquiry into the manner in which the Chief Officer of Police was suspended on 12 November 2008.

Anyone for a Scott letter

Anonymous said...

And here is the best bit


3. Report
 
A Report should be prepared for the Chief Minister. The Commissioner must be aware that the entire disciplinary process for the Chief Officer of Police is conducted under his Terms and Conditions of Employment which include a Code of Conduct for Disciplinary Process. This Code requires confidentiality to be maintained by all parties throughout the disciplinary process. As such, the report should therefore be in two parts:-

Part I should consist of matters appropriate for immediate publication to States Members and the Public;

Part II relating to those matters specific to the Chief Officer of Police which under his Code of Conduct have to remain confidential until the disciplinary process has been completed.

Seeing as the disciplinary proceedings have been dropped the full report can be published

Go get em boys

Anonymous said...

This is from Graham Powers letter to PPC

"It is requested that the Committee study all of the attached documents in conjunction with this letter.
In my application to the Board I summarised what I described as the “Official Version” of the events which led to my suspension. I can find no record of any claim on behalf of the Chief Minister or others that the “Official Version” was not effectively summarised in my application. In brief, the “Official Version” of the sequence of events is that on 10th November 2008 the Deputy Chief Officer, Mr David Warcup, wrote to the Chief Executive, Mr Bill Ogley, expressing concerns regarding aspects of the management of the Historic Abuse Enquiry, (document bundle page 28.) This was received on 11th November 2008 by Mr Ogley who, the same day, wrote to the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis, enclosing a copy of Mr Warcup’s letter. (Statement of W Ogley, document bundle page 30.) In his statement to Wiltshire Police Mr Lewis states “Up until (received the letter from David WARCUP, I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well” (Statement of A Lewis, document bundle page 33.) The Minister for Home Affairs and the Chief Executive along with other Ministers and Civil Servants attended a presentation and briefing the same evening, given by Mr Warcup and the then Senior Investigating Officer, Mr Mick Gradwell. The briefing on 11thNovember 2008 is said to have given details of the content of a press briefing which was to take place the following morning"

Did Wiltshire clear this up

"In considering these issues the Committee might find it helpful to be alerted to the apparent relationship between the suspension, and what was said to the media and the outside world in general on Wednesday 12th November 2008. During the course of his enquiries on behalf of the Minister, the Chief Constable of Wiltshire has disclosed to me a number of documents. The two most relevant in respect of this issue are the draft media presentation script which was shown to me by Mr Warcup on 5th November 2008, my last working day before a short period of leave, and the script actually used on 12th November 2008. There are significant differences between the two which must have resulted from changes made between 5th and 11th November 2008. For example, the draft script says “It has never been suggested by the States of Jersey Police that Child Murder took place at Haut de Ia Garenne.” The script actually used in the briefings on 11thand 12th November 2008 says “Statements which were issued by the States of Jersey Pa/ice suggested that serious criminal offences had been perpetrated against children and a/so that there was a possibility that children had been murdered, bodies had been disposed of and buried within the home.” Other differences between the scripts are of a similar nature. Against this background it is legitimate to consider another possible explanation for the actual sequence of events. That is, the decision to suspend was taken on or before 8 November 2008 by persons unknown for reasons at present unknown. The media script was then subjected to significant changes (I believe that “sexed up” is a popular term used to describe this type of process) in order to enable the Minister to claim that he took a decision after being shown the content of the presentation on 11th November 2008, and in order to conceal the real reason or purpose behind the action taken. This may or may not be what actually occurred. Until the truth is known we cannot be sure"

Anonymous said...

''That is, the decision to suspend was taken on or before 8 November 2008 by persons unknown for reasons at present unknown.''

For me this is the million pound question. By persons unknown for reasons at present unknown.
I wonder who could it be?

rico sorda said...

Seeing as all disciplinary action against GP has been dropped looks like the Napier report has the green light for public consumption

The TOR are broad enough for us to get the answers

rs

rico sorda said...

I received a comment this morning saying check out my new blog posting you ******** so I did.

This is all I will say

Please go get some help. It has now moved beyond funny and is more of a reflection of you and your obsession with SS, it really is just very sad, I cant explain it any other way.

How many people are there that would go to the lengths you do.

Why do you do it?

Jersey is a small place

Just sad very sad

rs

GeeGee said...

Rico - apropos your last comment, I was intrigued, so for the second time only since its 'inception' I had a look at the Farcical Blog to see what you were talking about.

Frankly Rico, I really don't know why you even bother to read/respond to this childish, immature, pathetic nonsense. Just let 'him' get on with it. I am convinced this is not a lot more than a one man band. That type of posting leaves a very bad taste and whilst 'he' may hope to do damage to Stuart, it is also dragging his ex-partner into it and also the lady who has kindly offered Stuart a roof over his head.

Not funny, not news, not constructive, not in the public interest - just truly pathetic.

Let the kids get on with it Rico. That was the second and last time I will waste my time looking at that blog again.

rico sorda said...

GeeGee

Don't worry people can make up there own minds

"That type of posting leaves a very bad taste and whilst 'he' may hope to do damage to Stuart, it is also dragging his ex-partner"

That has it in one

Right back on Napier Again

rs

rico sorda said...

When you think about everything that has happened to Graham Power

Dodgy suspension

Suspended for 18 months

1 million Spent on 2 disciplinary investigations

All Disciplinary Action Dropped

Innocent of all Allegations because of dropped disciplinary

Found Guilty by our Home Affairs Minister and local Media on Conclusions from the Dropped 1 million pounds Disciplinary Investigation

So after all applicants have checked the facts about what is going on in Jersey one would say there will be a stampede for these vacant jobs

rs

Anonymous said...

As you say Rico, lets get back onto Napier again.

As you know, over the last few weeks you have been receiving a good new knowlegeable interested class of supporters and posters on your blog.

Ignor farsical gazza, probably the same sad person who emails radio Jersey at phonein times with bogus names and addresses with negative comments, anytime Syvret, GPower, HDLG, etc, get the positive mention which that sad person knows, is the truth!

Anonymous said...

Two looses now at war with each other.

Le Sueur and Corbel.

Anonymous said...

Keep up the good work Rico. You are frustrating the abuse deniers so you must be getting close to something or somebody.

rico sorda said...

After reading Tony's fine blog I thought I would make some points. I have tried twice to leave a comment on his blog but twice it crashed so will leave it here.

I don't believe the Napier report is about exonerating GP.

Wiltshire was meant to do that and we all no what happened there. The Napier Report is looking at the reasons that led to his suspension and if proper procedure was followed. Suspending the Chief of Police is no small matter. Seeing as some letters have been sent out it looks like all is not well.

The original Suspension is very important because all that followed was from this act. You can walk into any work place suspend the boss and find fault, what is important that the person you are suspending is given a chance in defending himself.

Now reading Bobs excellent letter he raises the questions that need answering.

This is the Chief of Police in the middle of the biggest Police Investigation since the Beast of Jersey and one that involves Child Abuse. We had the bailif liberation day speech saying how Jersey was the one who had suffered this set the tone for what was to follow.

Make no mistake the Napier Report is very important, I hope it will let us see what exactly happened in that crazy November.

I always believed GP was suspended as some kind of sacrificial lamb and if you think that is being plain stupid then i say take a look at what happened to JOHN DAY.

Cases get dropped GP is suspended, it was meant to show the world 'look it was all a mistake no one got abused, all is fine and dandy, we are open for business and the chief is suspended'

Sometimes its very simple

So what went wrong

Simple no one was meant to ask any questions and no one called Napier was meant to look into it

rs

rico sorda said...

"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"

The more I go back and read what ILM is saying the more I think the guy has Shafted Wiltshire.

rs

rico sorda said...

I sent Senator Ozouf an email concerning the below statement for ILM. As always Senator Ozouf found the time for a reply.

I asked if the SEB and the COM gave their backing to ILM but as always your are never sure if Senator Ozouf gave you an answer.

I have asked for permission to reproduce the email but as the good Senator is out the island on vacation I will await his return

This was the exchange

.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.

Anonymous said...

<< So what went wrong >>

I think it all went wrong the moment Graham Power did not resign when expected!!!

No one foresaw the questions that have, and are still to, come.

Anonymous said...

Lets face it TLS was rushed and under pressure to get a report sorted. This time it didnot give him much time to accumulate information as to was QC Napier "one of the boys"? Unlike Chapman, who conveniently was.

rico sorda said...

Still no Napier

Lets see what happens next week. Jersey post might have been a bit late getting those letters out.

One of the first things i decided when I started this was to show no fear hence I post under my name and stand by what I say.

Let me just remind those who keep telling me to stop, give it up,it will only harm you, we will tell your boss, we will do this we will do that, blah blah blah

Sorry

Only just getting started

rs



rs

TonyTheProf said...

Well done for asking Philip Ozouf's permission before publishing - he's an election observer for the Ruandan elections, heard this on BBC Radio. It's not at taxpayers expense, and it is in his own holidays, and they're all checking the elections go fairly.