Wednesday, June 23, 2010

ILM & HIS KANGAROO COURT

STATES OF JERSEY

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

 

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

  

STATES GREFFE


PROPOSITION

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

CONNÉTABLE OF ST. HELIER


REPORT

 

Introductory note

 

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

 

Purpose of the proposition

 

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

 

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

 

Financial and manpower implications

 

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


APPENDIX 1

 

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

 

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

 

The Bailiff:

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

 

[Questioning proceeded in camera]


APPENDIX 2

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


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


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


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


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


So let us look at that statement.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Because believe me they are working on it all ready


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


Abuse inquiry: Power ‘at fault’

By Diane Simon


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

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

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

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

Article posted on 1st April, 2010 - 3.00pm


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


Be prepared its coming


My Headline is this


GRAHAM POWER IS 'GUILTY' 

   of something 


rs




Monday, June 21, 2010

BUNGLING MINISTER 5 - 'How do we get out of this one'






So its now time to have a look at the allegations contained in the Warcup Letter sent to the Chief Executive on the 10th November 2008


Now as we would expect the Warcup Letter contains the same allegations as the Met Interim Report but they also contain these points.


“There is no evidence of a proper command structure having been put in place in relation to the HDLG investigation, with a designated Gold Commander responsible and accountable for the incident.


There is no recorded evidence of any strategic oversight and approval of tactical plans and enquiry parameters on the HDLG investigation.


Financial controls appear to have been weak with a lack of overall strategy and a lack of day to day control.”


Now the allegations i have been looking at here are the one's concerning management issues, they are also the allegations Wiltshire have been investigating for the past 18 months. Seeing as there was nothing to report ILM has been unable to bring any disciplinary charges against Graham Power but for some strange reason has had to keep this crazy farce going. 


Could ILM'S loyalty to David Warcup be a problem here


The reason i say this is ILM is trying to bring David Warcup in as the new Chief of Police and says 'he has my full backing' quite strange when he must remain NEUTRAL in fact VERY STRANGE.


OK lets look at the first allegation contained in the Warcup letter 



1.“There is no evidence of a proper command structure having been put in place in relation to the HDLG investigation, with a designated Gold Commander responsible and accountable for the incident.


This is Constable Brains response


"Until this week Graham has been given no opportunity to answer the accusations that have been made therein. None amount to a question of gross misconduct. There is no question of a breach of personal integrity, therefore the very least that should have been done in November was to have provided Graham with a reasonable opportunity to consider the accusations and make a response"


"All of the points raised in the Warcup letter are capable of dispute and I repeat, had Graham been given more time in November he may well have been able to give a reasonable explanation. It is worth, I think, at this point, observing and emphasising that the investigation at Haut de la Garenne has never been a formal murder investigation"


"However, seeing as such importance has been attached to the Warcup letter it is important to address some of the key points."


"The first one was that a Gold - Silver - Bronze command and control structure was not put in place. That is an important point raised by David Warcup. In fact, it is his first point and a cardinal point for much of what follows. I have to tell you that the institution of a Gold - Silver - Bronze command and control structure in the context of murder and major investigations is entirely a matter of judgment. It would not seem to me to be necessary in the circumstances of the Island of Jersey. It certainly does not represent a breach of discipline, or amount to gross misconduct"


"What the A.C.P.O. murder investigation manual does require is that a senior investigating officer is appointed and this Graham did; first in the form of a detective inspector, who ran the investigation for the first 18 months and then as the matter gathered seriousness, he properly reflected the seriousness and status of the forthcoming investigation by putting his own deputy in as S.I.O. (Senior Investigating Officer). I think this clearly emphasises the seriousness with which Graham approached the whole question of the historic child abuse inquiries and the Haut de la Garenne investigations in particular. Now, National Police Improvement Agency professional practice, and I emphasise professional practice, advice is that for the management of critical incidents the guidelines, the professional practice guidelines, provide assistance for policing, and I emphasise these words “in the United Kingdom.” It is contained on the inside page of the practice advice. This practice advice contains information to assist policing in the United Kingdom. So, there is no automatic transference from the practice advice of the N.P.I.A. in the United Kingdom to the States of Jersey. The introduction to that practice advice also states that it should be used by chief officers to shape police officers to ensure that the general public experience consistent levels of service. It goes on: “The implementation of all practice advice will require operational choices to be made at a local level in order to achieve the appropriate police response.” It will therefore be noted that the practice advice on critical incident management applies strictly to the U.K. However, even if it were to apply strictly to the States of Jersey it still requires adjustment and choices to be made at a local level. It does not remove the judgment of a chief officer or any other senior rank involved in the incident. Now, the N.P.I.A. practice advice was created in order to ensure that incidents which might become critical received an appropriately high level of response at their instigation. It can in no way be suggested or inferred that the States of Jersey Police underestimated, or understated, their initial or subsequent response to the emerging historic child abuse inquiry and the specific investigation at Haut de la Garenne. A critical incident is defined by A.C.P.O. as, and I quote: “Any incident where the effectiveness of the police response is likely to have a significant impact on the confidence of the victim, their family, and/or the community. It will be noted that the order of priority is the victim, the family, and the community.” Both the historic child abuse inquiry and the Haut de la Garenne investigation conspicuously put the needs of the victims and their families first, but they still had regard to the impact on the wider community, given the need to ensure that the chain of alleged abuse was finally halted and that the victims and their families were protected from threat and intimidation"



2."There is no recorded evidence of any strategic oversight and approval of tactical plans and enquiry parameters on the HDLG investigation."


This is Lennys response 


How much oversight do they want?  There is the original plans for going into HDLG and the carefully laid out steps as produced in the Rectangle summary (the public document which was on the SOJP website) and there was also the search strategy drawn up and approved by the National Policing Improvement Agency.  Strange, isn’t it, how these documents are never mentioned by Gradwell or Warcup.  In addition there are all the policy books. Note also, that ACPO said there was NO alternative to what we did.


3.Financial controls appear to have been weak with a lack of overall strategy and a lack of day to day control.”


This is Lennys response 


And oh yes.  Finance.  How many times have we blown that jibe out of the water?  We tried to work finance the best we could but we were refused a budget, not told how much we could work to,  and when we did try to consider cost implications, were told by the Chief Ministers office that “cost was irrelevant” and that we should consider justice only.  I was roasted by Bill Ogley for considering the financial implications. (Actually, it was more like a lukewarm radiator.)


So this has been a little look at the allegations put against Graham Power & Lenny Harper


There are many more that i will leave Constable Brain deal with.


Why did they suspend? what was the real reason behind this 


I will leave you now with Constable Brain. This is a long read but must be done


All i ask is that our local MEDIA start investigating.



 did mention a moment ago that the Morris Inquiry established that in cases of suspension it is necessary that any suspension is proportionate to both the risk of the individual remaining at work and the seriousness of the allegation. The David Warcup letter represents a point of view. Until this week Graham has been given no opportunity to answer the accusations that have been made therein. None amount to a question of gross misconduct. There is no question of a breach of personal integrity, therefore the very least that should have been done in November was to have provided Graham with a reasonable opportunity to consider the accusations and make a response. He could, for example, in that time reasonably have sought the advice of his Staff Association and a detailed response could have been constructed and, to the benefit of all, prepared. No one denies the seriousness of the investigations into the historic abuse allegations that have taken place on the Island of Jersey, but the accusations in the Warcup letter do not amount to a correspondingly serious breach of discipline, even if proved. All of the points raised in the Warcup letter are capable of dispute and I repeat, had Graham been given more time in November he may well have been able to give a reasonable explanation. It is worth, I think, at this point, observing and emphasising that the investigation at Haut de la Garenne has never been a formal murder investigation. It is worth emphasising that because of the context which will follow. It is worth re-emphasising what the then Deputy Chief Officer, Lenny Harper, said on 31st July, and I quote: “For the moment it is unlikely that a murder inquiry will be opened.” I come back to other statements that Mr. Harper made on 31st July later. To re-emphasise, it is not the purpose of today’s proceedings, or my submission, to conduct a pre-trial review of a case that has not even been fully investigated and does not look like being fully investigated for several more months. However, seeing as such importance has been attached to the Warcup letter it is important to address some of the key points. I think it is fair to give you warning, Minister, that some of these matters may well be dealt with in more detail in the forthcoming judicial review. I will try and simplify some of the issues raised by David Warcup. The first one was that a Gold - Silver - Bronze command and control structure was not put in place. That is an important point raised by David Warcup. In fact, it is his first point and a cardinal point for much of what follows. I have to tell you that the institution of a Gold - Silver - Bronze command and control structure in the context of murder and major investigations is entirely a matter of judgment. It would not seem to me to be necessary in the circumstances of the Island of Jersey. It certainly does not represent a breach of discipline, or amount to gross misconduct. The inference is that a Gold - Silver - Bronze command and control structure would have been put in place in England and Wales under A.C.P.O. and N.P.I.A. (National Police Improvement Agency) major murder and associated crime investigation guidelines. In fact, the A.C.P.O. murder investigation manual 2006 only requires that a Gold group be created, not a Gold - Silver - Bronze command structure, if an investigation is also declared a critical incident. What the A.C.P.O. murder investigation manual does require is that a senior investigating officer is appointed and this Graham did; first in the form of a detective inspector, who ran the investigation for the first 18 months and then as the matter gathered seriousness, he properly reflected the seriousness and status of the forthcoming investigation by putting his own deputy in as S.I.O. (Senior Investigating Officer). I think this clearly emphasises the seriousness with which Graham approached the whole question of the historic child abuse inquiries and the Haut de la Garenne investigations in particular. Now, National Police Improvement Agency professional practice, and I emphasise professional practice, advice is that for the management of critical incidents the guidelines, the professional practice guidelines, provide assistance for policing, and I emphasise these words “in the United Kingdom.” It is contained on the inside page of the practice advice. This practice advice contains information to assist policing in the United Kingdom. So, there is no automatic transference from the practice advice of the N.P.I.A. in the United Kingdom to the States of Jersey. The introduction to that practice advice also states that it should be used by chief officers to shape police officers to ensure that the general public experience consistent levels of service. It goes on: “The implementation of all practice advice will require operational choices to be made at a local level in order to achieve the appropriate police response.” It will therefore be noted that the practice advice on critical incident management applies strictly to the U.K. However, even if it were to apply strictly to the States of Jersey it still requires adjustment and choices to be made at a local level. It does not remove the judgment of a chief officer or any other senior rank involved in the incident. Now, the N.P.I.A. practice advice was created in order to ensure that incidents which might become critical received an appropriately high level of response at their instigation. It can in no way be suggested or inferred that the States of Jersey Police underestimated, or understated, their initial or subsequent response to the emerging historic child abuse inquiry and the specific investigation at Haut de la Garenne. A critical incident is defined by A.C.P.O. as, and I quote: “Any incident where the effectiveness of the police response is likely to have a significant impact on the confidence of the victim, their family, and/or the community. It will be noted that the order of priority is the victim, the family, and the community.” Both the historic child abuse inquiry and the Haut de la Garenne investigation conspicuously put the needs of the victims and their families first, but they still had regard to the impact on the wider community, given the need to ensure that the chain of alleged abuse was finally halted and that the victims and their families were protected from threat and intimidation. The N.P.I.A. guidance goes on specifically to say that each incident must be assessed on its own merits. Those are the words used: “Each incident must be assessed on its own merits.” It adds, and I quote: “There is an obligation on chief officers to ensure that critical incidents are not only declared, when it is necessary and appropriate to do so, but also that the response is proportionate to the scale of the incident.” The response is proportionate to the scale of the incident. Respecting the command structure, the practice advice simply states that there should be: “Unambiguous command and control.” The N.P.I.A. advice does indeed allow for a tiered response at 3 levels; local, cross-border, and force. Crucially these are only suggested. That is the word used “suggested.” So, the tiered response is not a mandate, even within a manual that amounts only to practice advice and in which flexibility of decision-making is not merely permitted but encouraged and which explicitly applies only to the United Kingdom. The practice advice furthermore relates to the structures and circumstances of forces in England and Wales and would be manifestly inappropriate in circumstances which are as compact as those on the Island of Jersey. It should be noted that in the last H.M.I.C (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary Inspection) for the Island the matter of the arrangements for major investigations or critical incidents was not raised. Explicitly, it did not recommend the adoption or even the adaptation of any A.C.P.O. N.P.I.A. guidance or practice advice on major investigations or critical incident management. Therefore, the institution of Gold - Silver - Bronze and the command structure, in the circumstances of the historic child abuse inquiry and the Haut de la Garenne investigation is at most a matter of professional judgment, even argument, and certainly not a matter per se of gross misconduct which merits the imposition of an initial suspension or its continuance now. The second issue raised in the David Warcup letter is that key partners were not included at a strategic or operational level. There were sound operational reasons for not including key partners in the investigation, as suspicion had fallen on a number of senior individuals in both the departments of education and social services. The involvement of the N.S.P.C.C. (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) which Graham instigated, was a perfectly valid alternative.


 (3) The use of an independent advisory group was not effectively managed. It is a matter of record that the Attorney General viewed the involvement of an independent advisory group as dialogue with potential jurors and that he wanted the group disbanded on the basis that it was a U.K. structure with no proper place in a small jurisdiction and that its activities could be seen as prejudicial to a fair trial. I in no way invite a critique of the Attorney General’s decision, but I do ask you to observe that it can hardly be levelled as a reason for suspending or investigating Graham. 


(4) Although a media strategy was developed, it is clear that its application led to an unprecedented level of media interest and public concern. Having dealt with the Gloucester floods of July and August 2007, Minister, I can assure you that Chief Officers of Police are not in control of unprecedented levels of media interest or public concern. So, it is not really clear how this amounts to criticism of the Chief Officer. It certainly was his job to ensure that there was a media strategy in place and this he did. He can in no way be held responsible for the media circus that followed. 


(5) That there had been improper disclosures to the media and breaches of data protection. There is no suggestion that any of this is attributable to the Chief Officer, even if they have occurred, and it is the position of Graham that he knows nothing of any improper disclosures. He certainly did not sanction any. 


(6) Where inaccurate and misleading reporting did occur there was no evidence of any attempt to issue corrections. That is not the case and examples of correction can be given, although I would suggest that that is probably more appropriate for the investigation and any possible tribunal. 


(7) The adversarial and combative stance adopted by the S.I.O. was allowed to continue unchecked. This is entirely a matter of opinion and it certainly is not a disciplinary matter for the Chief Officer. It certainly does not merit something that would amount to suspension, but in that context I would invite you to consider some of the statements that were made by Mr. Harper on 31st July in this statement that was recorded by the BBC then. He said: “For the moment it is unlikely that a murder inquiry will be opened. It has so far been impossible to date the remains precisely. We are pinning our hopes very much on the process of carbon dating. The latest information we are getting is that for the period we are looking at it is not going to be possible to give us an exact time of death. The small number of bones that we have carbon dated up to now have given us different readings. On one bone we were told there was a probability that they died in 1650, but also a smaller probability that they had died in 1960. So, while that possibility does exist then you have to ask your question …” I could go on. This hardly sounds to me like a combative media statement. 


(8) Allegations in the media of corruption within the States of Jersey Police by the former S.I.O. have not been evidenced. The Chief Officer will plainly state that there is an abundance of evidence of serious corruption and malpractice in previous years. The reports of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary prior to his appointment described a failing force with significant problems of standards and performance. There is now a well-documented record of robust actions taken by the Chief Officer since his appointment to address and turn around this culture. 


(9) An absence of financial controls. This simply is not the case. The Chief Officer will assert that he was not the accounting officer in the States of Jersey Police. This is a matter of legal status, and that he did formally table financial issues to the appropriate accounting officers at fortnightly meetings. 


(10) Media reports have suggested that children have been murdered and buried at Haut de la Garenne. An assessment of the evidence casts significant doubt on this hypothesis. The evidence on which the searches were commenced was not strong and does not appear that there were grounds to commence a search of the home at Haut de la Garenne. I will refer you once again to that media statement of 31st July. But it is simply inconceivable that once information was received that a thorough search and excavation of the home at Haut de la Garenne was not carried out. To do otherwise would have risked justifiable accusations of a cover-up. 


(11) I paraphrase here. The scull that was supposed to be found was not a scull. The shackles were not shackles and the cellars were in fact voids under the floor. Some facts. It was a scientist that originally investigated the trench and it was that scientist who identified an item of remains as a scull. Initially, the Oxford laboratory that inspected that remain stated that it had extracted collagen which can only come from bone. Only later did they express doubts. The Chief Officer can in no way be held responsible for this chain of events and the eventual outcome. As regards shackles, it was builders interviewed by the media who stated there were shackles. As for the teeth that were found, a local orthodontist specified that the teeth were from children and that they could not have come from children that were alive. It was only later that U.K. experts offered an opposing view and indeed that opinion remains divided. I will go back to the Lenny Harper statement of 31st July. This is the BBC here: “Police have been investigating allegations of abuse at the home from the late 1940s onwards. Many witnesses have given evidence of sexual and physical abuse in the 1960s and 1970s but Haut de la Garenne was built as an industrial school in the late 19th century and Lenny Harper said it was possible the remains could date from that time, though the police have other evidence indicating that the remains were burned and efforts made to conceal them in the late 1960s or early 1970s.” This is a quote from Lenny: “So, while that possibility does exist then you have to ask, why should people go to all the trouble of moving the bones, of burning them at some stage, and of hiding them in a different place and then covering them up? We do not have answers to that and that is part of the problem” he said. 


(12) S.I.O. Harper was not effectively supervised. This is simply wrong. There is no issue that S.I.O. Harper was properly supervised by Graham Power and that he did so to the best of his ability, under the guidance of an A.C.P.O. advisory group which formed the function of a Gold support group in a critical incident in the United Kingdom. His evidence of supervision is recorded in notebooks, to which regrettably he does not now have access. Now, much has been made of the review of the 2 Metropolitan officers and that was the report, Minister, which you kindly offered to make available in a redacted form but for reasons that we have discussed is not now available to us. What I will say in respect of that though is that unless there are specific allegations of misconduct, indeed gross misconduct, contained in that report there is no reason why Graham should not have been shown a copy prior to his suspension on 12th November. Furthermore, the Metropolitan Police report is only one point of view. You are fully aware now that there are other reports by a very senior and experienced U.K. investigating officer which offers a different perspective. I repeat that these should have been considered before any action was taken to suspend Graham in November. That that opinion exists should certainly be taken into account now, for to do otherwise is simply to decide the case without the full consideration of all the evidence that is available to us even now and that cannot be right in terms of Graham’s human rights or the principles of natural justice. Now, the A.C.A.S., C.I.P.D. advice recognises that suspension should only be implemented as a last resort and after redeployment has been considered. That Graham is the Chief Officer is not a reason for not considering redeployment per se, or for not retaining him in an active post under restricted circumstances. It is not necessary to redeploy Graham to restricted duties as there is no reason to suppose that an officer of his high integrity and standards would interfere with an investigation which is already 4 months old. It should certainly have been considered back in November and should be considered now. I do not recommend it, as it is my view that Graham should be reinstated immediately to full operational duties, but it certainly is preferable to him remaining unnecessarily and disproportionately, and I would suggest now, unjustifiably, on suspension. I repeat Graham is an officer of high personal integrity and to suggest that he would interfere with the inquiry is not supported by any of the available information. The A.C.A.S. C.I.P.D. guidelines recognises that suspension brings with it an automatic stigma and to many an assumption of guilt. This effect is amplified in the case of a Chief Officer. Furthermore, the suspension must be taken in the overall context of the force and Graham’s strategic management of it. We do have to consider therefore what the most recent H.M.I.C. inspection of the Island said about leadership of the force and I will say that that inspection is overall a very, very favourable report. Believe you me, I have read lots of them. What it says about leadership is: “The Chief Officer group is forward thinking, proactive in terms of development of the force, and accessible to staff. They seek and utilise good practice from U.K. Forces in ways that are applicable to the operational context of Jersey and through effective dialogue and negotiation with local politicians, obtain finance and resources to maintain acceptable levels of service.” I would say that that report also had ample opportunity to consider the investigative methods and structure 


rs


Saturday, June 19, 2010

BUNGLING MINISTER 4 - 'How do we get out of this one'























We are now going to look at why Graham Power was suspended on the 12th November 2008 



But first we must remember who was in charge at that time. They are


Chief Minister Frank Walker


Chief Executive Bill Ogley


Home Affairs Minister Deputy Andrew Lewis


Deputy Police Chief Dave Warcup


The two most important documents in the original suspension and still the most important documents are 


 The Metropolitan 'Interim' Police Report


The Letter written by David Warcup on the 10th November 2008


So just  how serious are these allegations


These are the allegations contained in the Metropolitan Interim Police Report as taken from GP'S Judicial Review  So there


This Blog will concentrate on the Interim report 


““There are no specific terms of reference for Operation Rectangle – given the potential size, complexity and sensitivity of the enquiry, one would have expected a more precise terms of reference.


From a command control perspective, if ex DCO Harper was SIO then it raises the question of who supervised him at a strategic level.


There is no policy book dealing with forensic strategy which is a critical area in this investigation.


A major factor affecting the planning of Operation Rectangle was the decision to limit it to a single agency led investigation, e.g., Police only.


These are the allegations contained in the David Warcup letter


“There is no evidence of a proper command structure having been put in place in relation to the HDLG investigation, with a designated Gold Commander responsible and accountable for the incident.


There is no recorded evidence of any strategic oversight and approval of tactical plans and enquiry parameters on the HDLG investigation.


Financial controls appear to have been weak with a lack of overall strategy and a lack of day to day control.”


““There are no specific terms of reference for Operation Rectangle – given the potential size, complexity and sensitivity of the enquiry, one would have expected a more precise terms of reference.


From a command control perspective, if ex DCO Harper was SIO then it raises the question of who supervised him at a strategic level.


There is no policy book dealing with forensic strategy which is a critical area in this investigation.


So there we have it. Are these allegations so serious that the Chief of Police should have been suspended under 2.3.3 of the disciplinary code.


Now the do look impressive when they are written down and fed to the masses, but what i find more interesting is when you look behind the wording as Constable Brain & Lenny Harper will explain.


First up i will let you know the CV of Constable T.Brain who is representing Graham Power this


Dr Brain has received a number of accolades, including the Queen's Police Medal (QPM) in the 2002 Birthday Honours. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (FRSA) in 2004. He was elected a Companion of the Chartered Management Institute (CCMI) in 2007. And in the Birthday Honours of June 2008, Dr Brain became an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) for his services to the police and community. He also played a major role in shaping police strategy through the 90s and 2000s - a time which saw a watershed in the police service with the introduction of PACE - the police and criminal evidence act - and the creation of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). More recently, Dr Brain received an Honorary Doctorate of Laws at Gloucester Cathedral in recognition of his service in Law Enforcement, and in particular to the county of Gloucestershire



This is no mug as Senator ILM found out in the Suspension Reviews.


 So lets look at the first allegation but i must point out that C.T.Brain & GP had not been given access to the Interim report at that time but does make a comment Just


““There are no specific terms of reference for Operation Rectangle – given the potential size, complexity and sensitivity of the enquiry, one would have expected a more precise terms of reference.


Here is what Lenny Harper says on this point. 


 "Criminal investigations are regulated by many different laws and procedural rules.  Formal terms of reference would only be put together where there were doubts or ambiguities that needed to be clarified, such as if there were other circumstances – like another force coming in to investigate aspects of a situation, and there was a need to define their ‘rules of engagement.’  Hence the TOR for the ACPO team and Wiltshire.  However, having said all of that, the exact aims and objectives of Op. Rectangle were set out in detail in the first few pages of the main policy book and clearly stated the aims of the enquiry and its parameters, eg it was not going to investigate the allegations of cover ups by the establishment when the victims first complained.  Gradwell and Warcup could not have missed this as it was in the policy books they said were not kept properly."


Here is what C.T.Brain said concerning the Interim report


"What I will say in respect of that though is that unless there are specific allegations of misconduct, indeed gross misconduct, contained in that report there is no reason why Graham should not have been shown a copy prior to his suspension on 12th November. Furthermore, the Metropolitan Police report is only one point of view. You are fully aware now that there are other reports by a very senior and experienced U.K. investigating officer which offers a different perspective. I repeat that these should have been considered before any action was taken to suspend Graham in November. That  opinion exists should certainly be taken into account now, for to do otherwise is simply to decide the case without the full consideration of all the evidence that is available to us even now and that cannot be right in terms of Graham’s human rights or the principles of natural justice."


Just think about what is being said in the above comments " ALL THE EVIDENCE" remember how ILM wants to cherry pick what he brings to the house. REPORTS WITH DIFFERING VIEWS


Allegation no2


'From a command control perspective, if ex DCO Harper was SIO then it raises the question of who supervised him at a strategic level.'


Here is what Lenny Harper said tTHERE


This is all very well in the UK where there are sometimes more chiefs than Indians, and yet again, shows the ignorance of these people (or maybe just maliciousness) of the difference in the situation in policing Jersey. In the UK there would Assistant Chief Constables by the barrow-load to take charge of the investigation.  Above them would be the Deputy and the Chief.  Not so in Jersey.  That is one of the reasons the ACPO Homicide review team were appointed and why they took such an active role.  You will note in a number of their reports that they give advice on strategic matters.



This is what C.T.BRAIN SAYS


S.I.O. Harper was not effectively supervised. This is simply wrong. There is no issue that S.I.O. Harper was properly supervised by Graham Power and that he did so to the best of his ability, under the guidance of an A.C.P.O. advisory group which formed the function of a Gold support group in a critical incident in the United Kingdom. His evidence of supervision is recorded in notebooks, to which regrettably he does not now have access


 Now it starts to make sense why ACPO had to be discredited and simply not used in the Suspension Reviews and the Judicial Review if they had then there suspension would start falling apart


Remember also Lenny Harper nor Andre Baker head of the ACPO team had been interviewed before they sent it 



Allegation 3


'There is no policy book dealing with forensic strategy which is a critical area in this investigation.'


Here is what Lenny Harper said 


There was indeed a forensic policy book – indeed, I think it was completed and we had to go into a second one whilst I was there.  Simply untrue.  The strategy was laid out in the policy book which ACPO said were kept well.  On their visit on 28 June (which was to discuss the existing forensic strategy) ACPO expressed a preference for doing the document in the UK style, separate from the Police book document, at any further scenes.  This was noted and consideration would have been given to it.  There was no criticism however of the manner in which the forensic strategy had been laid out in the document shown to ACPO.  On the contrary.


This part was not brought up in the Suspension review so i don't have C.T.BRAIN's view on it. Im sure Lenny Harper can add more if he feels the need 


Allegation 4


'A major factor affecting the planning of Operation Rectangle was the decision to limit it to a single agency led investigation, e.g., Police only.'


Here is what Lenny Harper said


Yes – those suspects who had been named by victims would have been delighted to have been invited to participate in the enquiry. Again this shows the grasp of reality lacking in the Warcup and Gradwell argument.  The only reason why we had so many victims come forward was that we did not share info with the Jersey “caring services.” Another fact totally ignored here is that it was not “the police only.”  Not only did we work closely with the NSPCC from London but we actually had one of their staff based in the incident room working side by side with our detectives.  Interestingly, the NSPCC told us that they had frequently tried to get a foothold in Jersey but had repeatedly been rebuffed by the Children’s Service.



This is what C.T.BRAIN SAYS


 There were sound operational reasons for not including key partners in the investigation, as suspicion had fallen on a number of senior individuals in both the departments of education and social services. The involvement of the N.S.P.C.C. (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) which Graham instigated, was a perfectly valid alternative. (3) The use of an independent advisory group was not effectively managed. It is a matter of record that the Attorney General viewed the involvement of an independent advisory group as dialogue with potential jurors and that he wanted the group disbanded on the basis that it was a U.K. structure with no proper place in a small jurisdiction and that its activities could be seen as prejudicial to a fair trial. I in no way invite a critique of the Attorney General’s decision, but I do ask you to observe that it can hardly be levelled as a reason for suspending or investigating Graham


There is so much more information for me to put up but i believe that is enough for the moment,  i will be blogging again tomorrow because this must be done


What i believe is becoming clear is the importance of ACPO in all of this.


I know there are things going on with the Met Interim Report which should become more clearer in the coming weeks as you can imagine there are some serious questions that need answering things like


How did a non disciplinary report end up being used to suspend a chief of police


How did a non disciplinary report end up being used to suspend a chief of police without first interviewing Lenny Harper who was SIO or Andre Baker head of the ACPO working team


These questions are being asked that i can assure you 


There are answers to ILM'S serious allegations and like i say who is advising him on police procedures well we find out on tuesday 


AGAIN I ASK YOU WHER IS THE 'LOCAL MEDIA'


INVESTIGATE THE ISSUES 


REMEMBER THE JEP TRASHED THE HISTORIC ABUSE INVESTIGATION 


THIS HAS GOT TO STOP AND WHY THIS PLEB AND TEAM VOICE HAS STEPPED INTO THE VOID


THANK YOU FOR READING


RS













Thursday, June 17, 2010

BUNGLING MINISTER 3 - 'How do we get out of this one'































19th July 2010




Why is this date so important?


This is the last States Sitting before the summer recess


This is the last States Sitting before Graham Power retires on the 21st July 2010


This is the date that Senator ILM will try and convince the States Members that he has not been taken for a fool but wishes to treat you as fools


He will try and convince States Members that Graham Power is guilty of 'VERY SERIOUS' Management issues relating to Haut de la Garenne


He will try and do this just days before Graham Power retires and a 'SUMMER RECESS', not anytime in 2008, 2009 or the first half of 2010 no just days before Graham Power retires 'NO COME BACK THEN'


It will be well rehearsed and run with a front page JEP headline so it convinces the masses. Readers look out for this as it's surly coming.


This is the first of 3 blog postings where we will be looking at p30 the appointment of David Warcup as the next Chief of Police. We will also be looking at the allegations of serious management issues contained in the 'MET INTERIM' report and Dave Warcups letter that led to Graham Powers suspension.


We will also be getting the views of Lenny Harper and Constable T.Brain, Graham Powers representative on the management issues and why Senator ILM dismissed his views as clearly shown in suspension 1-2


We will also be looking at who is advising ILM on police procedures as he has said on many occasions how serious it all is but how does he know, is he a police expert? we must have both sides and then see how serious it all is. Any guesses on who is advising him?


Graham Power was suspended on the 12th November 2008 no disciplinary charges have been brought against him.


The Metropolitan Police & Wiltshire have investigated, no disciplinary charges have been brought against him


Close on 2 million pounds have been spent on suspension and investigations, no disciplinary charges have been brought against him


Senator ILM will take the public and the States of Jersey for fools with bits and pieces of cherry picked information instead of pulling in Graham Power last year and getting on with it remember he had Wiltshire in November 2009


But i will start with P30 The appointment of David Warcup as chief of Police


Remember ILM is meant to be NEUTRAL


Remember we are still waiting for Brian Napier QC


Remember Dave Warcup wrote a letter referring to the Met Interim report and both were used in the suspension of Graham Power under 2.3.3 of the code


The Metropolitan report should never have been used in the suspension,why didn't Dave Warcup know this



REPORT

I accept that the debate on P.30/2010 (“Chief Officer of the States of Jersey PoliceForce: appointment”) should not take place before the outcome of the review beingconducted by the Commissioner appointed by the Chief Minister. Indeed, it is myintention that the debate on P.30/2010 should not take place prior to my being able toprovide to the Members of the States Assembly the following –


(1) the parts of the Metropolitan Police Interim Report and Final Report which

relate to the areas of concern expressed by the Acting Chief Officer of Police

in his letter dated 10th November 2008; and

(2) as much as possible of the relevant reports of the Wiltshire Police Force in

relation to disciplinary matters concerning the Chief Officer of Police.


I have full confidence in the Acting Chief Officer of Police and I am satisfied that heacted most properly in bringing to the attention of the Chief Executive to the Councilof Ministers and the Minister for HomeAffairs his concerns in relation to the handlingof the Historical Abuse Enquiry with regard to Haut de la Garenne. Indeed, I amsatisfied that he was under a duty to bring those concerns to the attention of the

appropriate authorities.


However, it has been suggested publicly by the Deputy of St. Martin and others thatthe Acting Chief Officer of Police acted improperly in so doing. I wish to ensure thatthe Members of the States Assembly have the maximum amount of informationavailable to them in relation to this issue prior to the debate on P.30/2010.Three possible outcomes may result from the review being conducted by theCommissioner appointed by the Chief Minister and these are as follows –


(a) he may simply complete his review and make this public;

(b) he may decide that a Committee of Inquiry is desirable in relation to all the

issues which would be covered by his review; or

(c) he may decide that a Committee of Inquiry is desirable in relation to certain

aspects of the matters being covered from his review


The purpose of this Amendment relates to option (c) above. In particular, it occurs tome that the Commissioner could hypothetically come to a position in which he wasfully satisfied that the Acting Chief Officer of Police had acted properly in this matterbut felt that there were other issues (which did not relate to the role played by theActing Chief Officer of Police in relation to the original suspension of the Chief

Officer of Police). In that eventuality, there would in my view be no reason why thedebate on P.30/2010 should not go ahead as soon as possible after I was able toprovide the additional information set out in (1) and (2) above.In putting forward this Amendment, I am aware that unnecessary delay in relation to

the appointment of a new Chief Officer of Police with effect from the day after the retirement of the current Chief Officer of Police is highly undesirable for the

following reasons –


(1) The States of Jersey Police have been in a situation of uncertainty sinceNovember 2008 in relation to its future leadership. The sooner that thissituation can be ended, by the appointment of a new Chief Officer of Police,the better.


(2) The Acting Chief Officer of Police was originally selected, subject to subsequent satisfactory performance and States approval, to be the Chief Officer of Police Designate. He also has been left in a position of uncertainty or some time and it is only fair to him as an individual that his future role in

Jersey be clarified as soon as possible.


When will the Commissioner Brian Napier finish his review? There is a very good chance that this could be dragging into september and beyond


Just look at the cheek of this bit ' he has been left in a position of uncertainty for some time and it is only fair to him as an individual that his future role in Jersey be clarified as soon as possible'


What about Graham Power waiting since 2008, makes you laugh and angry


This is not about bringing relevant bits of information to the house this is about bringing all the information to Graham Power and letting him defend himself, clear his name if thats what's required but not the SNEAKY 'OH HE HAS RETIRED NOW, I THINK THE COAST IS CLEAR 'AGAIN' , LETS SHAFT HIM AGAIN FOR LUCK' approach


Graham Power has 2 suspensions


Operation Rectangle- Andrewm Lewis


Operation Blast -ILM


rs



Saturday, June 12, 2010

Met 'Interim' Report 2


DISMISSAL BY STEALTH?



We now look at the reply by Senator ILM to the written question by Deputy T.Pitman



WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER

ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 8th JUNE 2010

 

Question

 

“Following his undertaking on 25th May 2010, within his response to my written question, to ‘investigate and clarify’ the situation concerning the ‘Metropolitan Police Interim Report’, will the Minister now provide written confirmation of the following information:

 

(a)  whether the document exists as a physical paper document and, if so, how many pages it       has?

(b)  does the document exist only as an electronic document and, if so, is this electronic       document simply in the form of an e-mail?

(c)  does an author’s name or names appear on it?

(d)  is the document actually simply a series of preparatory notes?

(e)  do the words 'Metropolitan Police Interim Report’ appear on the document as a title?

(f)  when was it requested, compiled and received?”

 

Answer


(a) & (b)

The document consists of a cover, an index page and 17 pages of text.  It was sent in electronic form as an attachment to an email at 15.27 on 10th November 2008, to the now Acting Chief Officer.  It was never sent in paper form but was superseded by the full report which is dated 18th December 2008.

 

(c)   Yes

 

(d)

No.  The document is in the normal police report format with an index and numbered sections and sub-sections.

 

(e)  

The words Metropolitan Police appear on the cover above the words “Operation Rectangle Interim Report”.

 

(f)  

The ACPO Homicide Working Party recommended that a full review be conducted by an outside police force of the Historical Abuse Enquiry.  Accordingly, on 6th August 2008, the now Acting Chief Officer of Police wrote to the Metropolitan Police Force requesting the production of such a report.  Subsequently, detailed terms of reference were agreed for the production of the report and work commenced.  The main purposes of the report were to advise on the management of the Historical Abuse Enquiry and to provide advice and guidance in relation to the conduct of individual investigations.  It soon became apparent that serious issues were arising as to the previous management of the Historical Abuse Enquiry.  Details of these concerns were passed on to the now Acting Chief Officer of Police who began to raise these with the Chief Officer of Police from September 2008 onwards.  The now Acting Chief Officer of Police also began to share these concerns with other senior officials and with Deputy Andrew Lewis who became the Minister for Home Affairs.  By early November 2008 the report was nearly completed.  By that stage it had become apparent that some of the issues were so serious that they could prejudice the fair trial of certain individuals.  The concern was that serious cases might be stopped by the Royal Court because of the previous actions of the former Deputy Chief Officer of Police.  For that reason the now Acting Chief Officer of Police asked the Metropolitan Police Force to produce a report on what they had found up to that point so that a press conference could be held correcting issues relating to information which had previously been given to the press.  The Metropolitan Police then produced the Interim Report which they sent on 10th November 2008, to the now Acting Chief Officer of Police as an attachment to an email. The concerns of the now Acting Chief Officer of Police were fully vindicated by the judgment of the Royal Court in the matter of The Attorney General v. Aubin and others [2009] J.R.C. 035A.


So now we have two people who have seen the now infamous Met Interim Report David Warcup & ILM 


SECTION F is the part I want to look at. Lets start at the beginning 


ACPO Homicide Working Party recommended a full review


It says "It soon became apparent that serious issues were arising as to the previous management of the Historical Abuse Enquiry." So what about the 4 ACPO reports and how did the ACPO Homicide group allow such serious failings when they were overseeing it and then recommend a full review.


Now we know Brian Sweeting from the Met sent the report on the 10th November 2008 what we also know, and i find this incredible, is they had not interviewed Andre Baker head of the ACPO team or SIO Lenny Harper before submitting this Interim Report. What were they using to get a balanced view? If the failings were so serious you would have thought they would like the full picture from both sides.


It says "The main purposes of the report were to advise on the management of the Historical Abuse Enquiry and to provide advice and guidance in relation to the conduct of individual investigations"


Well thats exactly why they ask for these reviews no investigation runs perfectly. The Met Interim report should never ever have been used in a disciplinary procedure but it was 'WHY'. If these report/reviews were used in such away no Chief Police Officer would ever commission one. How do we know that the issues are so serious, we get a hint of the allegations in Graham Powers judicial review but as Graham Powers Advisor says  in Suspension Review 2 on VFC, there is a explanation for the issues raised. Why wasn't ILM interested in what Constable Brain was saying.


Now we must ask the Question who is advising ILM on police procedure? This is a very important question because how does ILM now how a police investigation should be run. I imagine an investigation run in the UK would be different to one run in Jersey. For a start our legal system is different to the UK,the police force is so small, what is the right way? or is it that there is no wrong way, you call in ACPO & NPIA for guidance and you get reviews done.


Who is telling ILM what is proper Police Procedure 


It says "The now Acting Chief Officer of Police also began to share these concerns with other senior officials and with Deputy Andrew Lewis who became the Minister for Home Affairs.  By early November 2008 the report was nearly completed.  By that stage it had become apparent that some of the issues were so serious that they could prejudice the fair trial of certain individuals.  The concern was that serious cases might be stopped by the Royal Court because of the previous actions of the former Deputy Chief Officer of Police.  For that reason the now Acting Chief Officer of Police asked the Metropolitan Police Force to produce a report on what they had found up to that point so that a press conference could be held correcting issues relating to information which had previously been given to the press"


The Acting Chief Officer of Police began to share these concerns  with Deputy Andrew Lewis who has informed me 'he didn't see the Met Interim Report' and we have Andrew Lewis telling Wiltshire he had no worries about the handling of the Abuse Investigation and then releasing a press statement in Feb 2010 saying did oops.


So serious were these issues that 'THEY COULD' I repeat that 'THEY COULD' prejudice the fair trial of certain individuals. So serious that cases' MIGHT BE STOPPED' I repeat 'MIGHT BE STOPPED' by the Royal Court. So the Acting Chief of Police DW asked the MET to produce a report so a press conference could be held. Now did David Warcup tell the Met that there report was going to be used in the suspension of the Chief of Police my guess is not a chance.


It says "The concerns of the now Acting Chief Officer of Police were fully vindicated by the judgment of the Royal Court in the matter of The Attorney General v. Aubin and others [2009] J.R.C. 035A."


REALLY


I was in court for the pre-trial of Aubin and others and the Judgment by the judge is very interesting indeed. Now what the judge went off was a report/staement from a Media Expert brought in from the UK by Warcup and disclosed to the defence 'I BET IT WAS'. 


This is what the judge said "16.  It is very important to be clear why Mr Harper’s conduct has been criticised in Court and elsewhere.  He is to be commended and not criticised for taking the allegations of child sex abuse seriously, for investigating them vigorously, and for making clear that anybody coming forward to give evidence would be treated sympathetically and professionally.  No proper criticism of him could be advanced for any of that.  The legitimate criticisms of him and the potential damage that he did to any inquiry or Court proceedings are best expressed not by me setting out my opinion but by the professional judgment of an outside expert who reviewed this aspect of the case in November 2008.  That report has been disclosed to the defence in the course of these proceedings and I quote from its conclusion:-"


The Outside Expert was a media expert and this is what he said "

          “From the outset statements released to the media suggested with the language of certainty that crimes had been committed and that there were many victims.  For legal reasons, and in order to manage media coverage and public expectation, more temperate and non-judgmental language would have been more appropriate.  Statements made in relation to the item recovered on February 23rd [JAR6] were not accurate and incited an enormous media coverage which at times was hysterical and sensational and was in turn equally inaccurate and misleading.  The description of cellars, the voids under the flooring, was inaccurate and allowed the media to create a false impression in the public mindset.  The description of an item recovered from Haut de la Garenne as “shackles” was not accurate.  The language used to describe the bath could have been more accurate.  The decision to display to the media a tooth recovered from Haut de la Garenne was highly unusual.  The approach taken by the States of Jersey Police to releasing information about the teeth found was unusual, not consistent with normal working practice in the UK and encouraged further media reporting and speculation.  Given the lack of evidence collated to prove that a child’s remains had been found at Haut de la Garenne, the statements made by States of Jersey Police could have been more accurately phrased and could have generated more measured and less prominent media coverage.  The statement made by the States of Jersey Police regarding the two pits excavated at Haut de la Garenne was inappropriate.  The nature and quantity of much of the media coverage was generated and sustained by the Police’s deliberate decision to provide a regular diet of information to the media.  Some, but by no means all, the inaccurate media coverage published was challenged by the Force on a number of occasions the Deputy Chief Officer placed information and allegations into the public domain or responded to issues and allegations in the media which distracted attention from the child abuse investigation and this may have tarnished the reputation of the Force and weakened public confidence in the investigation and its professionalism.”

       And the judge said

17.  The potential damage to the Court process is illustrated by the fact that it has provided material for the powerfully advanced argument of Advocate Preston that the idea of long term, widespread torture and murder is so entrenched in the consciousness of potential jurors that it cannot be eradicated by any direction from the trial judge.  He argues that jurors will either be convinced already that anyone charged must be guilty or they will feel that after this long and expensive inquiry “someone must pay”.  This problem is heightened, he argues, because of the size of this jurisdiction.  Before setting out my reasons for ultimately not finding his argument persuasive, I should make a preliminary comment.  This is not a public inquiry into the conduct of the Police in general or Mr Harper in particular, I comment on his and their conduct only to the extent that it is relevant to the legal issues I have to determine.

Our outside media expert is called Mat Tapp his role must also be looked at seeing as he was paid with Taxpayers money in such a high profile investigation

All we are doing is looking for the Truth and i will leave you with this. In 2008 it was so very serious and in June 2010 nothing ILM is waiting for Graham Power to retire then bring some bits and pieces to the states. Now in my opinion that is a disgrace and a joke.

This is a question asked by the Deputy of St Mary regarding the UK Media Expert

3.35   THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE AUTHOR OF A REPORT ADVISING THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE ON MEDIA-RELATED MATTERS:

Question

In his reply to a written question from the Deputy of St. Martin on 23rd March 2010, the Minister referred to the lengthy quotation which forms part of the judgement in the matter of the Attorney General v. Aubin and others [2009] J.R.C. 035A. in the following terms “The quotation above which is attributed to an outside expert is a quotation from the report of an independent media expert who was called in to advise the States of Jersey Police on media related matters.” Would the Minister inform members who called for this report, when and why, who conducted it, how were those who undertook the review were selected and what their qualifications were? Will the Minister release the report to members as it has already been used in a public court judgement?

Answer

In September 2008 an external media consultant, experienced in working at ACPO level in the UK, was formally engaged by the then Deputy Chief of Police with the knowledge of the Chief Officer of Police to develop an appropriate external communication strategy regarding Operation Rectangle. This was primarily to ensure:

  • That trials and ongoing investigations were not compromised or challenged on the grounds of an abuse of process, based on the information supplied to the media by the States of Jersey Police.
  • That the public were presented with accurate facts.

 

The external media consultant gave advice on these matters and subsequently resigned from his role. He then produced a written report in relation to his advice. Other issues relating to the report fall both within the ambit of the enquiry being conducted by the Commissioner and the terms of the first Wiltshire Police Report and it is not appropriate for me to express an opinion thereon at this stage.

I will need to take advice as to whether I can properly release this report to Members at this time or at a time in the future and in what form.  My position remains that I am keen to release as much information as possible to Members of the States and as soon as possible.

 

ps

Get your party hats ready and put a candle on the cake yup ILM'S little baby is nearly a year old, June 19th 2009

OPERATION BLAST

RS