Deputy Chief Executive John Richardson
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
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
" 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
31stth March 2010.
Mr John Richardson,
Chief Ministers Department,
Cyril Le Marquand House,
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.
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