Wednesday, December 1, 2010

MARCH 31ST : THE CHIEF MINISTER AND THE MISSING PART D


Graham Power








Deputy Chief Executive John Richardson







Chief Minister?









So the removal of part (d)  of the Napier Terms of Reference.


 Is the Chief Minister misleading the House, telling porkies, being fed wrong information or something  else. 


This all started when R39 was lodged on the 14th April 2010 


R39 was the change in the TOR. This is when part (d) was removed concerning Mr Powers sworn Affidavit. No one was informed of its removal.


The Chief Minister and his Civil Servant have stated that this happened because Graham Power stated that  he would fully participate in the Napier Review before the 14th of April 2010




 We will start to look at the evidence 




This is part (d)

 

(d) Review all information relating to the original suspension procedure, 

including relevant sections of the published Affidavit from the 

suspended Chief Officer of Police. 

 


So why was part (d) removed? Now, you would think that there is a very simple reason or answer for this, think again.


 The Chief Minister has given a number of  different reasons , these can be found on Hansard. If you check oral questions on the 19th October and 16th November 2010 you will find them.


These are some points of reference



1. February 2010 - A review is called into the original suspension of the former Chief of Police Graham Power


2. February 25th- Graham Power emails John Richardson regarding information concerning said review



3. March 2010 - Brian Napier is appointed commissioner 


5. March 25th - Mr. Napier was also able to start the investigation immediately and following an initial meeting in Jersey on 25 March 2010, agreed the final Terms of Reference (copy attached) and also agreed to commence a review on 6 April 2010.  Mr Napier plans to complete his Review and submit his final report in early 

May. 


6. March 29th - Graham Power finally gets a reply from John Richardson 


7. March 31st - Graham Power reply's to John Richardson 


This is when The Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Executive said that Graham Power would fully participate in the Napier Review



Now we come to the point of this Blog and the question asked by Deputy Bob Hill


This Blog posting concentrates on the answers given by the Chief Minister to an oral question by the Deputy of St Martin


.     The Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

 

       “Given that the explanations given as to why and when the Napier Terms of Reference were altered refer to decisions taken after R.39/2010 was presented to the States, will the Chief Minister inform Members when this was done and who was party to the decision and explain why he and the Deputy of St. Martin were not party to the discussions?”


.


This is what Chief Minister Le Suer said in the States on Tuesday the 30th November and I thank "TheJERSEWAY"  for posting the audio 


quote


" As I have stated in questions from October and November by  the Deputy of St Martin. I refer to the change in terms of reference as the CONFIRMATION from the Chief of Police that he would fully participate in the investigation. I don't recall making any decisions after R39 was brought to the states.That date being well before R39 was brought to the States.

The former Chief of Police confirmed to the Deputy Chief Executive in a letter dated the 31st of March that he would fully participate in the investigation . that date being well before R39 was brought to the states" end quote


Now I fully thank the former Chief of Police for allowing me to publish his letter to the Deputy Chief Executive of the States of Jersey John Richardson.  I believe the Chief Minister should of had a copy of his letter when quoting it in the States.


I will let you read the letter and then make some points


*******

North Yorkshire,

*********

31stth March 2010.

Mr John Richardson,

Chief Ministers Department,

Cyril Le Marquand House,

St Helier,

Jersey.


Dear Mr Richardson.

Appointment of Mr Brian Napier QC.   Your letter dated 29th March 2010.

This letter is in response to the above letter which I received on 30th March 2010.

Your letter appears to be a response to my letter to you dated 25th February 2010 in which I asked for information regarding reports of some form of review in relation to my suspension, and sought clarification in respect of the confidentiality requirements of the Disciplinary Code and related issues.      I note that it has taken you approximately five weeks to reply.

For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, it is my firm wish to assist Mr Napier with his review, provided that I am able to do so with a clear understanding of my position, and the evidential status of any information gathered by Mr Napier, while I am still subject to disciplinary notices.   

In particular the following two issues remain to be resolved:

Whether any communication with Mr Napier, in itself, constitutes a breach of the confidentiality requirements of the code.

Given that I have been served with notices informing me that anything I say may be used in evidence, it is important to establish whether information gathered by Mr Napier may subsequently be used in disciplinary proceedings by either party.   While I note what is said in Part 3 of the Terms of Reference, I am nevertheless aware that in matters of proceedings conducted under statute, there is no such thing as a “confidential report”.

In addition to the above, there are practical issues relating to my need to speak to Mr Napier in circumstances which allow me to have ready access to all of my files and records.   It is also possible that I may wish to be accompanied at any meeting, or at the very least take professional advice before any meeting occurs.   It is also possible that my Professional Association may wish to make representations in its own right.   This can be decided once more is known of the review.

I hope that you are able to bring clarification to these issues in order that further consideration can be given to how I can most effectively assist with the review.

I recognise that my repeated request for clarification may present some difficulties with your intended timetable.   If this proves to be the case then I would regard the problem as one which is entirely of your own making.   Had my initial request for clarification been dealt with in a prompt manner such difficulties may not have arisen.

I look forward to hearing from you in order that I can give further consideration to how I can support the work of Mr Napier.


Yours sincerely


Graham Power.



Graham Power states:  "For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, it is my firm wish to assist Mr Napier with his review, provided that I am able to do so with a clear understanding of my position, and the evidential status of any information gathered by Mr Napier, while I am still subject to disciplinary notices"


Chief Minister states :The former Chief of Police confirmed to the Deputy Chief Executive in a letter dated 31st March 2010 that he would fully participate in the investigation. 


 

I think  from Graham Powers perspective in his letter  dated 31st March  he sets out the terms under which he would be prepared to meet with Napier and asks if these terms will be met.   That is admittedly a short version of what it says but neverthless I think a fair summary.   It is clear that he is asking for more information and that he will decide what he will do when he has that information.   And it is clear that this view is shared by the Chief Ministers Department. 


I have it on very good authority that on the 


  16th April 2010 John Richardson writes to Graham Power with more information and ask if he can confirm if he will meet Napier.   


On 21st of April 2010 they send Graham Power what is effectively an ultimatum to agree by a given date.


This goes on until  the end of April when Graham Power knows he can legally  speak to Napier.


April 28th Graham Power speaks to Brian Napier for the first time on the phone 


April 28th the date Graham Power knows he can take part in the Napier Review 


Yet the Terms of Reference get changed on the 14th of April with the excuse that Graham Power would be fully participating in the review.

 

Team Voice are making enquires about obtaining copies of the letters sent from the Deputy Chief Executive John Richardson. We will be doing this through the Chief Ministers Department 


In the name of Honest, Open and Transparent Government


This Madness has got to stop


rs










45 comments:

Anonymous said...

RICO
your a star
keep going and don't let the bas---s get you down

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Reading through this posting - I paused in a moment of self-consciousness, and realised - I simply wasn't surprised by any of it.

It just seemed so normal.

I guess that's the danger of being exposed to so much Jersey establishment scheming and chicanery for so many years?

You can read through hard evidence such as this - proving that the Jersey authorities at the highest level simply brazenly lie on a routine basis - and, moreover, do so, so incompetently - and be unsurprised by it.

It is easy to forget that in a law-abiding, functioning democracy, many of those who engaged in the overtly unlawful suspension of a Chief of Police in this way would simply be in jail.

Not spouting lies in what passes for a parliament.

Stuart.

rico sorda said...

"Chief Minister states :The former Chief of Police confirmed to the Deputy Chief Executive in a letter dated 31st March 2010 that he would fully participate in the investigation"

Why did he say that? Surly the Chief Minister would be checking his answers, especially on such a hot topic.

I find it very hard to take this madness in.

They are lawless they really are

Treat the States Chamber with utter contempt. The lackies let them get away with this.

Take a step back and just look at what has happened to the people who spoke out

rs

Anonymous said...

The two statements that sum it up, the Chief Minister mislead the States Members.

[Chief Minister states :The former Chief of Police confirmed to the Deputy Chief Executive in a letter dated 31st March 2010 that he would fully participate in the investigation.]

[16th April 2010 John Richardson writes to Graham Power with more information and ask if he can confirm if he will meet Napier.]

It is so blatantly, done. No CONFIDENCE in TLS!!

Don't tell me, TLS was advised by the AG not to read the letter from GP!!

rico sorda said...

FROM the 16th November

2.4 The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding alterations to the Napier Terms of Reference:
I would just ask that Members, I know they are entitled to footstamp but could I just ask the footstamping commences after the answer is given, so Members this side of the Chamber are able to hear all the answers. [Approbation] [Laughter] In his answer to an oral question on 19th October 2010 about altering the Napier terms of reference, the Chief Minister advised that they were altered when it was established that the previous Chief Officer of Police would fully participate in the investigation, will the Minister inform Members when this willingness was communicated and, if by letter, when was it received?


Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

I am advised that Mr. Napier himself contacted the former Chief Officer of Police and ascertained that the former Chief Officer was indeed willing to participate fully in the investigation. He did indeed participate and Mr. Napier has also had access to a copy of the affidavit prepared by the former Chief Officer of Police in connection with subsequent appeals in the Royal Court.

Graham Power says

I had my first conversation with Napier by phone on 28th April and we met by arrangement in Edinburgh on 13th May.

Why did the TOR get changed

rs

Anonymous said...

I would urge all readers to email their respective lackey with a link to this posting and ask them for a response within 2 days. Ask them if its okay to publish their response online. Then post it here. It could be facinating.

rico sorda said...

How funny and ridiculous is this. These are the people who voted against Bob Hills committee of enquiry and went with the Chief Ministers Commissioner then when Bob Hill asked the Chief Minister to bring a statement to the house concerning the Commissioner Brian Napiers Report nearly everyone of them voted against it.

It makes no sense


Senator Terry Le Sueur
Senator Paul Routier
Senator Philip Ozouf
Senator Terry Le Main
Senator Ben Shenton
Senator Freddie Cohen
Senator Alan Breckon
Senator Sarah Ferguson
Senator Alan Maclean
Senator Ian Le Marquand
Connétable Ken Vibert
Connétable John Gallichan
Connétable Mike Jackson
Connétable Graham Butcher
Connétable Peter Hanning
Connétable John Refault
Connétable Juliette Gallichan
Deputy Ben Fox
Deputy James Reed
Deputy Jackie Hilton
Deputy Ian Gorst
Deputy Phil Rondel
Deputy Angela Jeune
Deputy Ann Dupré
Deputy Eddie Noel
Deputy Andrew Green M.B.E.

Vote in favor of the report

Then vote against hearing a statement about the report

What is going

rs

Anonymous said...

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The terms of reference are a fluid arrangement. At the time of the agreement in this House of those terms of reference the disciplinary process involving the former Chief Officer was still in place. Accordingly, it was questionable whether the Chief Officer would be willing to participate in such an inquiry. After Mr. Napier had established that the former Chief Officer of Police was prepared to assist in these investigations, that particular aspect of the terms of reference was no longer relevant.

My comments: [The terms of reference are a fluid arrangement.] depending on whether GP was legally allowed to discuss certain matters, when it was determined he would, the terms were changed so the real truth would not fall within the remit.

Anonymous said...

They are not acting in the public interest even contradicting themselves as shown.

Is it the perks of the job?

rico sorda said...

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

I am advised that Mr. Napier himself contacted the former Chief Officer of Police and ascertained that the former Chief Officer was indeed willing to participate fully in the investigation.

Mr Advise again

Can anyone believe anything the Chief Minister is saying

I can see why he wants it put to bed

Not a chance

rs

TonyTheProf said...

Well done for getting the letter (and permission to publish it) and for providing the chronology. I really can't see any good reason for amending the terms of reference of Napier (a few bad ones, however!).

Will we ever find out what "disciplining" Mr Ogley received? Was it the same kind as Senator Le Main over the Court case? What I call the "Life of Brian" disciplining - Terry Le Sueur says "he's a very naughty boy, and we'll tell him not to do it again".

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Mr. Le Sueur is under the same fear Mr Le Claire was under.

Was he given the Chief Ministers job to be the fall guy?

rico sorda said...

Tony

What is going on over here. where does this leave the states chamber,

All we are getting is spin and lies

And out of this utter mess the Abuse survivors are still treated with contempt from the majority of our elected representatives.

rs

Anonymous said...

Will the JEP be writing a comment piece about the discrimination caused to two people who were achievers in their chosen careers.

Where is the alarm at the injustice toward Mr Power, Mr Harper and their families as a direct result of States of Jersey & Crown officers behaviour?

Anonymous said...

R39 was the change in the TOR. This is when part (d) was removed concerning Mr Powers sworn Affidavit.
No one was informed of its removal.
why? if there was a good reason for altering the TOR why not in the spirit of openness and honesty raise the issue with the concerned parties.

TLS quote "the terms of reference were a fluid arrangemet" you have got to be joking !!what is the point of commissioning an inquiry with the ability to be "fluid"
giving carte blance to make it up as you go along,

Anonymous said...

Rico,

You ask, "Why did the terms of reference get changed?" You know the reason as do your readers and the crooked ministers, themselves:

There are far too many powerful people in Jersey who simply do not want anyone else to know why Power was suspended. This is their last gasp attempt to hold on to the support of the rapidly diminishing number of uninformed residents.

To have Napier investigate and answer basic questions about the whole suspension process is as unthinkable as having the HDLG forensic evidence honestly and transparently tested. It is as unthinkable as allowing the former Father of the House make a Christmas speech about the plight of Jersey's children. As unthinkable as making a sincere apology to the abuse survivors, despite recent abuse convictions.

It is wildly impossible to imagine the most basic moral integrity from these weasels anymore. I think that is what Stuart means about being unsurprised. What does it take for people to read these facts and fail to see the terrible pattern? Willful ignorance!

If I lived in Jersey I would be appealing for help from the outside media to try to enforce any remaining shred of democratic society.

Shame, shame, shame to those elected to uphold the law but who do not have the courage to do the right thing.

Anonymous said...

Do these states members know what they are doiing. You have just shown that the chief minister has mislead the house. What will happen now

Anonymous said...

When Deputy Hill said he had proof the the Chief Minister was misleading the house did any journalist or fellow politician ask to see such proof.

Anonymous said...

The Jersey media do not seem to be interested in any proof, Stuart knows only too well.

If this was for example David C, then it would be top of the news and people would be calling for him to resign. But Jersey, not a whimper from any of the poodles.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

All of this chicanery, lies and spin, has been allowed to happen BECAUSE of our local "accredited" media. What you have posted here, proves that Graham Power QPM did not confirm his willingness or ability to take part in the Napier Review on the 31st of March 2010.

So either Terry Le Sueur has been misled by whoever is advising him, or Terry Le Sueur has knowingly misled the house and the public.

If we had an independent and objective media they would be all over this.

What you have published is documented evidence, not hear say or conspiracy theories and any self respecting "journalist" would be getting on to the Chief Minister's Department and asking to see the letters sent by John Richardson to Graham Power QPM.

Naturally they'll not bother so we will have to, furthermore our "independent" States Members should be doing the same.

Canada Free Press said...

I would strongly advise you to forward this information to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association www.cpahq.org

Request that the matter be drawn to the attention of all association members at the next conference and ask what the associations views are on Ministers who have proven to have misled the house. Ask for it to be brought onto the agenda at the next conference.

But please note, your Bailiff is the Jersey representative and may try to dispel any concerns through the official channels.

But as momentum grows it can do no harm and will bring the issues to a much wider and well informed audience.

Good luck.

Anonymous said...

If it wasn't for such brave politicions like bob hill, trevor pitman, daniel wimberley simon crowcroft, paul le claire mike higgins all this would have been drushed under the carpet and warcup would now be the chief of police. as well as these brave politicions you rico, and team voice should be thanked for your courage and keeping us informed of the truth.

Anonymous said...

I know why the Chief Minister thinks that the former Chief of Police CONFIRMED he would fully participate in the investigation on 31 March, because the Chief Minister probably came to a different conclusion after taking 'advice' and it doesn't really matter because GP did in fact participate in the end!!!!!

Oh what a big fool TLS is showing himself out to be.

GeeGee said...

Like Stuart, why am I unsurprised? Dismayed and angry but no, not surprised as this sort of behaviour is par for the course from our Chief Minister, those who 'advise' him and the FSLM.

However, quite clearly as you say Le Sueur has misled the house, and there has to be some form of repercussion over this, unless of course as with the Euro millions fiasco, someone else has to shoulder the blame.

You are so, so right Rico - this Island is lawless and corrupt, and even more frightening is the fact that it is those who wield the power who are making it so.

Fortunately, more and more people are starting to realise just what goes on here, and hopefully understand the uphill battle that Stuart has fought long and hard to expose this. A battle that you and Team Voice are continuing undaunted.

Chief Minister - I always told my children that if they told lies they would always eventually be caught out. May I suggest you take heed of that little piece of advice as you ARE being caught out.

Anonymous said...

This is just crazy how is he getting away with. What can be done. This concerns the running of the whole government on all issues.

Hymie said...

It will be interesting to see who votes against the £184 000 needed to complete the sex offenders register. I cannot see any reason whatsoever why anyone would vote against the protection of our children. But then again this is Jersey the perverts paradise. As Stuart says " You coudn't make it up."

rico sorda said...

Mondays States Sitting


14. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Will the Chief Minister inform Members of the dates when Mr. Napier visited Jersey in connection with his review and what the total cost of his review was?”



15. The Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Will the Chief Minister inform Members whether he is content with the present complaints procedure whereby complaints made against Ministers are considered by the Council of Ministers, and, if not, what steps, if any, is he taking to establish an alternative body?”

Anonymous said...

Here is my guess at what is going on here.

The terms of reference were in fact quietly altered behind the back of the Chief Minister, almost certainly by Bill Ogley and that TLS was not told of the change. When he has faced questions his department has told him assorted porkies which he appears to have swallowed whole.

A competent Minister would not have given todays answer without having a copy of Graham Powers letter of 31st March and would have made obvious enquiries regarding any reply that was sent. He would also have seen that it did not lend itself easily to the line he was being asked to take. But he did not do this. He did not, or perhaps chose not, to aquaint himself with the facts before he spoke. It is also interesting that when Deputy Hill asked him in the States if he would allow all of the correspondence to be seen he said no.

He knows that the story does not join up but he prefers to bury it rather than confront it.

Perhaps he is afraid of the "Real Chief Minister."

rico sorda said...

Whilst I was researching this Blog Posting I went for a browse through the States of Jersey website. On my journey through the Abyss of that site I came across this little gem.

5. March 25th - Mr. Napier was also able to start the investigation immediately and following an initial meeting in Jersey on 25 March 2010, agreed the final Terms of Reference (copy attached) and also agreed to commence a review on 6 April 2010. Mr Napier plans to complete his Review and submit his final report in early
May.

What caught my eye is the part that says Mr Napier had an initial meeting on the 25th March and agreed the final terms of reference.

What we are trying to finding out, is , what are those TOR'S

Was part (d) removerd on the 25th March?

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Let's see the letters

Anonymous said...

Don't forget about ILM he is worse.

Anonymous said...

What is the code of conduct for the chief minister? what code does he fall under if he is found to be misleading the house?

rico sorda said...

The Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Now that the States Police have advised that there are unlikely to be further prosecutions emanating from the Historic Child abuse investigations at Haut de la Garenne, will the Chief Minister inform Members what actions, if any, have been arranged to investigate the management of Haut de la Garenne during the periods when recent convictions have shown that children were being abused?”

This is a very good question from the Deputy

Yes, all abusers deserve to be convicted but cant help but feel that the Jersey law office offered up some easy targets and protected other high placed abusers. Abuse was going on and no senior management new?

After what I have seen from TLS and ILM anything is possible over here that is for sure.

This will not go away

rs

rico sorda said...

1.1.5 Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:

I would like to refer to page 7 of the proposition and the first paragraph after the bullet points in which the Deputy of St. Martin states: “Members may consider it reasonable that the Chief Minister considers whether disciplinary action against the Chief Executive is appropriate.” Then I refer Members to part (6) of part (a) of the proposition which reads: “The Chief Minister has been requested to advise whether any disciplinary proceedings have been taken as a result of the findings of the Napier Report and, if so, to update Members on the outcome of those proceedings.” Very briefly I would just like to remind Members that some months ago I was elected as a new member to the States Employment Board and I take the view that all matters that I deal with and that I hear as a member of the board should be treated in confidence. I would just like to clarify for the House that the matter of any disciplinary proceedings to be taken as a result of the Napier Report have not been brought to the States Employment Board for discussion, and the reason is that the disciplinary code for the Chief Executive is set out in an addendum to his contract. The code requires that such matters are dealt with by the Council of Ministers or their delegate and accordingly it is not a matter in which the States Employment Board can be involved

rico sorda said...

[11:00]

I just remind Members that had it come to the States Employment Board I am sure that all Members would have treated it with the confidentiality that would have been expected of them and which we, as a good and responsible employer, must treat all matters that we hear of at the board whether they are disciplinary proceedings or any other proceedings, and I just want to confirm that whether they have been taken against the Chief Executive, it has not come to the States Employment Board, it is a matter for the Council of Ministers or their delegate, in this instance that is the Chief Minister, but I am sure all Members will recognise that whatever has taken place must be treated with the confidentiality with which it deserves. Thank you.

As if Terry would discipline Teflon Bill

rico sorda said...

1.1.7 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:

The Deputy of St. Mary has done an excellent job in forensically examining the evidence in this matter and exposing the inconsistencies and the true facts. Therefore I will not repeat any of this but look at this matter from another perspective. When I was standing for Senator in 2008 I remember very clearly a question being put to candidates at the hustings in St. Saviour by the Dean. That question was about our moral compass. I remember answering that I have a very strong sense of right and wrong and that if I was elected it would guide me together with my conscience. My moral compass tells me that the initial suspension of the then Chief Officer of Police was wrong and that the actions of the then Chief Minister, the then Minister for Home Affairs, the current Chief Executive, the current Acting Chief of Police and the Human Relations Director was not only wrong but unjust. In the case of the States Members involved, unworthy of Members of this Assembly. My view of the wrongfulness of the process followed in the initial suspension was also the view of the Royal Court which carried out the judicial review of the initial suspension, also the view of Mr. Napier and the current Minister for Home Affairs who had himself to commence another suspension action because he also thought the first was flawed and wrong. My moral compass also tells me that the actions of the current Chief Minister, the same Chief Executive, the current Deputy Chief Executive and the Chief Minister’s advisers are also wrong and unjust. We have a Chief Minister who, in standing for election to this position, stated in this House that he believed in openness, transparency and inclusivity. But he has demonstrated throughout his period of office to date that he believes in no such things. Although the Power affair is perhaps the worst example of this, there have been many others, such as the suspension of Dr. Day at the General Hospital and the need for an investigation into the death of Nurse Elizabeth Rourke at the General Hospital. His term of office has been characterised by smoke and mirrors, by an inability to admit mistakes and failings by his tendency to be led by others. He has been dragged kicking and screaming into any investigations into wrongdoing and I hope he will reconsider his position and actions to date otherwise his political career or legacy will be remembered for these failings. That is if he is remembered at all. The Chief Minister is a Christian who I believe regularly attends church.


That is calling it the way it is.

rs

rico sorda said...

1.1.8 Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:

We are not hearing much in the way of defence of the Chief Minister’s position on this and it may be that his supporters are waiting to go last. If that is the case I look forward to hearing their arguments. I cannot believe I wrote this down on my paper but when the Chief Minister was speaking he justified his refusal to apologise in terms of the reputational damage done to Jersey by the person concerned. The other argument he made was to apologise would be a slap in the face to the former Chief Minister, Minister for Home Affairs and Chief Executive Officer. Those are not particularly powerful arguments. I must say that the comments by the Chief Minister are equally cursory and terse, almost to the point of being disrespectful to the Member who has put in a lot of work in preparing P.166. They amount to not even 2 sides of a report. But I have been asking myself how to get through that barrier that I am sure Members are aware of. That barrier of irritation, of resistance, the wish to move on that seems to be affecting quite a few Members of the House. The impatience with the dogged efforts of a handful of States Members to try to get closure. Members, of whom it was said by the current Minister for Home Affairs not that long ago, would be eating humble pie when the first part of the Wiltshire investigation was published. I say first part because it was incomplete. Members of whom it was said by the former Chief Minister should apologise. Members who voted against my proposition to indeed seek an early and inexpensive closure to this matter have kept very quiet today. I am not going to list them, I am not going to rejoice in an “I told you so” position, although it is fairly clear to me - I have been over this morning to read the transcript of the in camera debate in January 2009 - that what Napier has said in his report is more or less what I said would happen. If Members doubt that there are 2 things they can do. They can go across and read the transcript or in due course it may be that I will be asking the States to agree to publish the transcript of that debate, because I think it was a very important debate. The States of Jersey - and it is the States that is at fault here, not any individual officer or politician - refused the opportunity to step back from the brink and to just check that we got the H.R. (human resources) right. In that debate - and I am not allowed to say what I said, not verbatim - I outlined 5 important principles of H.R. management that I have learnt in my time in the Parish of St. Helier. Five things that seem to me to be common sense. First of all, that any process of discipline must be open. There should be no surprises. A Deputy just referred to this, nobody should get to a meeting to discover it is a suspension meeting without knowing it. Obviously allied to that, a person being suspended should be allowed to take a buddy with them, an adviser with them, to give them help and to record and so on. The third principle, there must be a formal resolution before you go for the nuclear option. The fourth principle, records management is crucial in any suspension process. Fifthly, you must deal with everything in a timely manner.

rico sorda said...

None of those 5 principles was met in the course of the suspension. That is why, shortly after it happened, I went along to the then Minister and I said: “Can you assure me that you have got this right? I am not an expert but it looks to me like you have made some mistakes.” He gave me his categoric assurance that everything had been done properly with full advice from the Crown Officers, and indeed the then head of H.R. gave me a similar assurance. I then emailed the Chief Minister and I said: “Will you tell me categorically that every legal step was taken, every procedure was done properly?” The then Chief Minister assured me - and I am happy to circulate the email - that the whole process had been done properly. I went to the States when we had the debate at the end of January 2009 and I made these points. Sadly, if was just after the election of the new Chief Minister, the new Minister for Home Affairs, new Council of Ministers, the debate turned into - and we have had these debates since then - is the current Minister a good bloke or not and shall we leave him to deal with this or shall we listen to this Back-Bencher? Towards the end of that debate and, again, I am not allowed to quote verbatim but the current ...

The Bailiff:

I think you want to be very careful here, Connétable, that was an in camera debate, it is in camera because the States has agreed it should remain secret.

The Connétable of St. Helier:

Okay, Sir, I will move swiftly away from that. I will not refer to that too much. I do, however - and this is the main reason why I am speaking today - want to raise what to me is a burning question. I would like some answers to this question. When we had the in camera debate we were given no advice from the Crown Officers about what I was asking the States to do. Put another way, I was given no support from the Crown Officers. The Crown Officers could have said in that debate: “We did indicate to the Council of Ministers that they needed to be sure that the interim report by the Metropolitan Police was watertight. That is what they said but Napier tells us that there were warnings given, but why was it that when I stood here and asked the States to take a step back from what was going to be a very expensive, and that was right, and a very protracted and painful process, why was it that the Attorney General did not tell the House that he had had misgivings.

[11:15]

That is my burning question and I would like to know the answer. When you look at the timetable that Napier has provided: 24th September the Chief Executive Officer asks the Solicitor General about procedures for disciplining the Chief Officer; 8th October, Attorney General phones the Acting Chief of Police to ask what progress with the former Chief of Police. The Attorney General phoned the Acting Chief Officer to ask what progress with the then Chief Officer. 16th October, this is an interesting meeting. It was a meeting of the Acting Chief Officer, the Attorney General and the Chief Executive. Discussion of need to get agreement over a media release. Clearly the Crown Officers had a concern ... what I want to know is what was the state of their concern and why, as I said earlier, was the States of Jersey, who I take it is the principal authority here, not told about these concerns. It seems to me that is a sin of omission, and if I am wrong I am happy to be corrected but I have not heard that yet. Now, I just want to say a few things about the Chief Minister’s position as set out in his report to the proposition. It is a rather strange introduction because he says he is going to set out below a more detailed commentary. Then we have 5 paragraphs. The first matter is he has not yet got it in terms of notes of meetings

rico sorda said...

Can we just spell this out completely that when you have an important meeting you transcribe your notes and you then send them to the other parties of the meeting and you say: “Do you agree this is a true record of our meeting?” That is why, when we all to go to committee meetings we have to approve the minutes to see whether it is a common and a shared understanding of what took place. What the Chief Minister says in his response in (i) is: “Officers have been advised to continue to use their discretion on these matters.” That is not good enough. I want to hear from the Chief Minister a categoric assurance that important meetings involving people’s careers will be minuted and those minutes will be agreed with the person affected by the meeting. Is that so difficult for the Chief Minister to agree to? But, no, he says at the top paragraph (a) should be withdrawn or opposed. Secondly, he says he does not agree that the actions taken were contrary to legal advice. I think he is just being a bit clever here because what he could have said is that we were warned that there might be problems, that the evidence had to be robust and the process had to be robust, but we decided to ignore the advice. That would be honest, to say they ignored the legal advice that we now know was given to them. What he says is: “I had regard for it and I set it aside because there was other information and other considerations to take into account.” I think that makes a nonsense of having advice from the Crown Officers. The next paragraph, he then takes issue with Mr. Napier’s findings. He says that the suspension was inadequate, that was Napier’s view, and he says: “Well, that may be his view, I do not agree.” I do not know how anybody who had read Napier can share the Chief Minister’s refusal to accept that the initial suspension was inadequate. At the start of my speech I outlined the 5 grounds, in common sense terms, for a fair suspension, none of which were complied with. Yet the Chief Minister says at the end: “The procedure could have been improved upon.” The procedure was wrong, the procedure was unsound and that is why I asked the States not to go to war on the basis of an unsound suspension, but the States, off they went. So what is going to happen next? I hope the Deputy of St. Martin is going to win the debate. That will be something. I do not agree with him though when he says that it will bring closure, because I do not think it will. Even if he wins it seems to me, and I know there is going to be a sigh around the Chamber, that the committee of inquiry promised by the former Chief Minister is the only way that we will get closure on these matters, not least - it will not have escaped Members’ attention - that we have so far had a Wiltshire investigation into the former Chief of Police’s handling of the investigation and we have had a Napier Report into the original suspension, but nobody has scrutinised the current Minister of Home Affairs’ handling of the matter since he took office. I think that needs to be scrutinised. I think the other reason we need a committee of inquiry…

rico sorda said...

and this was referred to, I thought, very tellingly by Deputy Tadier when he read out the Care Leavers’ Association statement. This whole business has been a terrible distraction from the business of getting to the bottom of what took place at Haut de la Garenne. It has taken media and public attention away from where it belonged. I believe we need a committee of inquiry into Haut de la Garenne, it’s management and what took place afterwards, and whether the investigation itself is, indeed, satisfactory and whether we need to do more. I believe that is why we need a committee of inquiry. I do not happen to share the view ... although there are aspects of this that remind me of The Crucible by Arthur Miller which he wrote in respect of the McCarthyite trials. I do not think there is possibly a play to be written about this, I do not believe there is something rotten in the States of Jersey as some people seem to think, but I do believe - to borrow from Hamlet again - that there are perturbed spirits that need to be laid to rest. I do not believe that whatever happens in this debate that that is going to happen unless we have a committed inquiry.


This is a brilliant speech by constable crowcroft

He raises some brilliant points concerning the law office ones we will be looking at

rs

Anonymous said...

" I do not think there is possibly a play to be written about this, I do not believe there is something rotten in the States of Jersey as some people seem to think"

Yes there is


Senator Terry Le Sueur
Senator Paul Routier
Senator Philip Ozouf
Senator Terry Le Main
Senator Ben Shenton
Senator Freddie Cohen
Senator Sarah Ferguson
Senator Alan Maclean
Senator Ian Le Marquand
Connétable Ken Vibert
Connétable John Gallichan
Connétable Mike Jackson
Connétable Graham Butcher
Connétable Peter Hanning
Connétable John Refault
Connétable Juliette Gallichan
Deputy Ben Fox
Deputy James Reed
Deputy Jackie Hilton
Deputy Ian Gorst
Deputy Phil Rondel
Deputy Angela Jeune
Deputy Ann Dupré
Deputy Eddie Noel
Deputy Andrew Green M.B.E.

rico sorda said...

So having recovered from another hangover I have started working on my blog posting for tomorrow. I want to stay focused on what's happening between the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Executive the reason being that misleading the house is a very serious issue.

As shown in this blog posting the Chief Minister is

Lying, misleading the house, dismissing truth honesty and integrity, taking his fellow politicians for fools, bringing the island of jersey into disrepute,I will leave it there for now.

For me this is the key issue at the moment. This Government is feeding us one big lie. Who are holding these despots to account? the media should be for a start.

If the Chief Minister can just stand up and lie in the states concerning the issues surrounding the Child Abuse Investigation and Graham Power what else is he lying about.

Child Abuse has exposed this Government for what it really is

Morally and Socially Corrupt

Chief Minister Le Suer had better come up with some serious answers on Monday

rs

rico sorda said...

3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Will the Chief Minister apologise unreservedly to the victims of historical abuse committed while in the States care?”

Now that should be Interesting seeing as he can't apologise for anything else.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

You said "Child Abuse has exposed this Government for what it really is". It has also exposed our "accredited" media for what it really is. It has all been when big and very nasty learning curb.

rico sorda said...

"I have had a comment why I keep insulting the Chief Minister. Now if Anonymous would like to submit a comment fighting the Chief Ministers corner then I will publish it. So over to you Anonymous, Look forward to reading the defence"

Still nothing back from Anonymous. Probably a bit busy on his blog seeing as there aren't any more politicians doing guest postings.

rs