Sunday, October 31, 2010

Chief Minister & Home Affairs Minister 3













Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand




What the Hell has happened?


A brief History


"I have just retired as the Island’s Magistrate after 31 years of experience as a lawyer and 18 years of experience in public service as a Chief Officer, a manager, a rules draftsman and a judge.

My legal career has taken me into public service in three distinct phases as follows:-

  1. I worked in private practice with Advocate Mike Backhurst as Le Marquand & Backhurst from 1977 to 1988, which led me into occasional work as a Relief Magistrate from 1987 to 1990.
  2. I was the Island’s Judicial Greffier from 1990 to 1997 - here I was the Chief Officer of a States Department, the chief clerk to all the courts and a judge of procedural matters in the Royal Court.
  3. I was the Island’s senior Magistrate, with oversight of the Magistrate’s, Youth and Petty Debts Courts, from 1999 to 2008.

My previous work has involved me leading teams of people, managing projects, making difficult decisions, drafting rules of court and overseeing changes to laws and court procedures. Examples of these include the new Probate and Stamp Duty Laws, numerous improvements to the Royal Court and Petty Debts Court rules and procedures, Stage 1 of the computerisation of the Public Registry and involvement with the building of the new Magistrate’s Court complex.

I believe that I have a reputation for fairness, honesty and directness. I am passionate about my Island home and community and its historic culture and traditions but I have always been a reformer, seeking to take what we have and improve it gradually."

That was from his Election Manifesto


Now i must state that these are not personal attacks on defenseless members of the public . 

The Chief Minister and Home Affairs Minister have an awful lot to answer too. I find it unbelievable that no local journalist has dragged these two over the coals for what they have been saying and doing. On 'Talkback'  this morning Christie Tucker the host had no idea that the Wiltshire Report was a Disciplinary report or what that entails,now that is coming from BBC Jersey's political reporter.

I had hopes that Senator ILM would be a breath of fresh air back in 2008. I had no idea who he was or what he did it was only through the hustings that I got to hear him speak. He won the election and became the poll topping Senator what happened from that moment onwards will surly be recorded in Jerseys History as a very dark period.

Over the coming blogs I will be looking at what this Senator has done and it will be based as always on fact. I will be looking at when he first realized he had been caught out, it was an email I sent him explaining the suspension reviews were online . That was the moment Senator ILM felt exposed, that was the moment he realized the difference between being a Magistrate and a Politician, he was now answerable to the public and was being asked questions from the public. One of the main traits of Senator ILM is that there is no telling him he is wrong , does that come from being a Magistrate? there is an arrogance about the man that continually shows its head.

I applaud the honest hard working Deputies like T Pitman who stuck to his guns and was proved right, yet the arrogant one calls him malicious, says he spreads lies and so on. Like I say these next couple of blogs will be looking at TLS and ILM two people who should be removed from the states and that is based on FACT.

This is a question from Deputy of St Martin  


2.15 The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding disciplinary action against the Acting Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police:

In light of the criticism in the Napier Report of the Acting Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, will the Minister be undertaking disciplinary action against this officer in order to demonstrate consistency, and does the Minister still have confidence in the said officer’s integrity and suitability to continue in office despite his imminent retirement?

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

The Napier Report confirms that the Acting Chief Officer of Police acted at all times honourably in an extraordinarily difficult situation.  Neither his motivation nor his integrity is questioned.  Both of those statements I deduce from paragraph 110 of the report.  Indeed, the subsequent reports of the Wiltshire Police have shown that all the areas of concern which he raised in relation to the performance of the Chief Officer of Police were fully justified.  There were very serious failures by a former Chief Officer and the consequences were very serious.  Furthermore, the Napier Report confirms that the Acting Chief Officer waited for independent written confirmation of his concerns from the Metropolitan Police.  In the light of those major considerations where the Acting Chief Officer is fully vindicated, the criticism of Mr. Napier is very minor, and so my answers directly to the questions are firstly, no, of course not; there is not a disciplinary issue here.

[11:15]

Secondly, that consistency is best served by proportionate responses to all issues.  The issues raised by Mr. Napier are very minor, whereas the matters relating to the Chief Officer of Police were very serious.  I have full confidence in the integrity of the Acting Chief Officer and so does Mr. Napier.  The Acting Chief Officer is an excellent officer, and if he had not been driven to withdraw his application by the hostility and persistent inaccurate accusations of certain States Members, then I would have had great pleasure in proposing him to this Assembly as an excellent future Chief Officer.  [Approbation]


2.15.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

It is surprising how people who read a report come to a different conclusion.  No doubt if all those footstampers read the report they may well have seen something different.  I would particularly refer the Minister to paragraphs 99 and 100, where the actions of the Acting Chief Officer certainly to my mind make the man totally unfit for the job.


The Deputy Bailiff:

Your question please.


The Deputy of St. Martin:

I think it is totally unfair - totally unfair - for Members to level allegations at people like myself and other bloggers who ...


The Deputy Bailiff:

Deputy of St. Martin, please sit down.  Please sit down.  Deputy, the purpose of question time is to ensure that questions are put and speeches are not made.  Will you please put a question to the Minister for Home Affairs if you wish to do so.


The Deputy of St. Martin:

Allegations have been made against myself and other Members of this House that we have made allegations against or questioned the integrity of the Acting Chief Police Officer and I think I am entitled to an opinion, just indeed as the Minister has, and I disagree with his opinion, and that is what I am saying.  I do not believe for one moment, in light of the evidence that we have now received in the Napier Report, that ... I am entitled to my opinion based on what we have now read in the Napier Report.


The Deputy Bailiff:

If you do not have a question you have to sit down.


The Deputy of St. Martin:

I have a question, sir.


The Deputy Bailiff:

Well then will you please put it?


The Deputy of St. Martin:

I will put it, I was in the process of putting it, Sir.  But I think, again, I was entitled to respond to allegations made against myself and other Members of this House.  In light of the paragraphs 99 and 100 of the Napier Report, will the Minister agree that there are serious criticisms here about the way in which the Acting Chief Officer produced the interim report without any reservations or any qualifications to the Chief Executive Officer and the Minister for Home Affairs?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Yes, I am very happy to analyse the nature of the criticism.  I would have done earlier except I would have been told off by the Chair.  The nature of the allegations or the criticisms, were that the Acting Chief Officer did not sufficiently explain that the findings of the interim report were heavily qualified.( WELL THAT OK THEN LOL What he wrote in his letter of 10th November 2008 was: “On 10th November 2008 I received an interim report detailing the initial findings.”  Therefore, made it clear that the report was both interim and initial( AND SHOULD NOT BE USE IN ANY SUSPENSION PROCEDURE AS IT IS A REVIEW... OH DAVE).  Now, I am not quite sure why Mr. Napier criticised that because I am not sure what he means by “heavily qualified” ( WHAT ).  The findings of the Metropolitan Police report, the interim report, were understood to be interim and initial because they had not yet spoken to the former Deputy Chief Officer who had been the senior investigating officer( THERES YOUR ANSWER AND ANDRE BAKER OF ACPO)  But once they had done there was no material change in the full report which was received in December 2008.  That is why I categorise these criticisms as mine, I am not even sure they are right at this point in time.  But even if they are right they are most certainly very minor.  


2.15.2 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I am surprised at the statement made by the Minister that the failures relating to the suspension are minor.  Mr. Power was denied natural justice in the way that he was initially suspended.  Can the Minister justify, on the basis of the information available at the time of the initial suspension, that it was justified and the process was correct?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Deputy Higgins may have misunderstood my answer in relation to the criticism being very minor.  That was an answer which related to criticism of the Acting Chief Officer, which of course is the subject matter of the initial question.  The fact is now that Mr. Napier has criticised the initial suspension and the basis of that criticism is different from the basis of the criticisms which I had made earlier, and I believe which the Royal Court have made earlier.  What is apparent is that there was extra information available which could have been made available to the then Minister for Home Affairs, which provided overwhelming grounds for suspension (DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT THIS COULD BE?).  It is unfortunate that he was only provided with partial information and the criticism of Mr. Napier in that regard relates to the decision based upon partial information (WHAT LIKE A HEAVILY REDACTED WILTSHIRE).  But there was lots of other information of which I am aware which was not provided to him at the time.


2.15.3 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I am not sure if the Minister is aware that the Acting Deputy Chief described the criticism as being par for the course.  But is he aware that it was under the watch of the same current Acting Chief of Police that emails given to the police in relation to a complaint by a States Member allegedly somehow ended up in the hands of the former Bailiff, and is he happy that this should happen?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am afraid I do not know what the Deputy is talking about.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

It was mentioned in a court case only the other week that somehow emails handed to the police by a Member of this House were passed on to the former Bailiff.  How could that happen?  Is that standard police procedure and is he happy with the Acting Chief’s handling of that matter?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am simply not aware of the circumstances.  I would need to have a specific question so that I could find out the appropriate information.  I do not think, with respect, that is a follow up from the question asked originally.


The Deputy Bailiff:

It is broadly related to confidence in the Acting Chief.  


2.15.4 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Will the Minister confirm that as all the allegations in the Wiltshire Report have been withdrawn, therefore, there is no substance at all to them because obviously they have been withdrawn?  Will the Minister therefore agree that the Chief or the former Chief Officer’s character is unblemished?


The Deputy Bailiff:

That is not related to this question.


Now, im not totally sure if Senator ILM has read the Napier Report going from some of his answers, it is these points I will be looking at over the coming Months. Also one must not forget Wiltshire and very alarming expenses all signed off by Steve Austin Vautier under that very special Gold command group.

I thought I would also share with you readers Brian Napiers reply to Lenny Harper 

 

From: Lenny Harper
Sent: 08 October 2010 12:57
To: bwnapier
Subject: Criticism in Your Report

 

Dear Mr Napier;

 

Please excuse me taking the liberty of writing to you - you do not know me, but I am Lenny Harper, the former Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.

 

I was disappointed to learn that in your just released report to the Jersey government, that you accepted and re-stated the criticisms of myself that were used as one of the reasons for the attack on Graham Power.  I particularly regret that, unlike those that are also criticised in the report, that I did not receive a letter from you giving me the opportunity to rebuff, as I have on many occasions, criticisms which have been proved over and over to have no substance.  Whilst I have no doubt that it was not your intention, I seem to have been given less of an opportunity to clear my name than those who seem to have supplied mis-information about Grahams suspension.

 

I am aware that Bob Hill asked you to interview me but you declined as you did not wish to get bogged down.  Whilst I understand that, given the criticisms of me that you repeat in your report, it would have been only fair to have given me the opportunity.  I would have answered those criticisms.  I would have supplied you with the two documents I have attached to this e mail, one, an affidavit I made for the High Court in London, and secondly, a rationale for the operation at HDLG.  I will not bore you with the details in this e mail but would ask you to read the documents even though I know you must be very busy.  As an example, in relation to criticism of my Media policy, criticism you make mention of on several occasions, one of the main criticisms was that I whipped up a media frenzy over the "shackles" found at HDLG.  As I explain in my Affidavit, this is untrue.  Builders who had found these items five years before and left them went to the media and told the media that "the police are going to find shackles."  I refused to confirm this and refused to say that I had found shackles.  The main source of the criticism against me in this respect was a Jersey Evening Post Journalist by the name of Diane Simon.  Yet, she originally ran a story in which she clearly stated that she had been told by outside sources that the police would find shackles.  Her story clearly has me refusing to comment on the fact that we had found shackles.  Yet, months later, the same journalist was writing a story blaming me for introducing shackles.  Both stories were run together on one of the many blogs supported by the victims.  I would have pointed all this and more out to you.

 

Similarly, another criticism was that I entered HDLG and dug it up on a whim.  Read the Op. Rectangle Summary and decide yourself if that is so.

 

Another thing I would have told you is that I formally complained to the Met about the Interim and further report they had allegedly carried out.  I would have told you that the author of the report has now been served with Misconduct papers as a result of my complaint that submitted the first report without even interviewing me, and that he then ignored completely, evidence I gave him which showed criticism to be unfounded and that he failed to interview witnesses, including Anthropologists and Archaeologists who would have corroborated my evidence.

 

As I stated earlier, forgive me taking the liberty of contacting you, but I feel that you would have been at more of an advantage if you had been given the full facts.  Please read these documents.  Not only do they counter the criticism made, but the Affidavit gives a flavour of the corruption and obstructions that Graham Power and myself had to work with.

 

From: Brian Napier 

To: Lenny Harper 

Sent: Friday, 8 October, 2010 17:46:04

Subject: RE: Criticism in Your Report


Dear Mr Harper

 

Thank you for your email.

 

I hope you will appreciate that I cannot at this stage enter into any discussions about the content of my report, but I assure you I will read the material you have sent to me.

 

Perhaps I can just quote from para. 9 of the report where I said “Where I have ascribed views or opinions to others, I have done so only on the basis of information that was provided to me in interview or in documentation I have read.”  I have not sought to go beyond the terms under which I carried out my investigations, and it certainly was no part of my brief to make any judgment on your conduct.  It would, as you rightly point out, be unfair for me to do so when I had not spoken to you.  I had to  take account of criticisms that were made of you because these criticisms formed part of the background to Mr Power’s suspension, but that is the only concern I had with your part in the whole affair.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Brian Napier QC

 

                 

Rico Sorda 



Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Chief Minister & Home Affairs Minister 2













Terrance Augustine Le Sueur


So in our second part we will carry on looking at what has happened to our Chief Minister concerning the suspension of Graham Power , why he is playing the role of Teflon Bills lapdog, and our very short ,sharp, swift email exchange.


What I thought I would start with is part of his speech when he stepped up to be our new Chief Minister. It says all the right things, but as you can see, it doesn't  me Jack at the end of the day.  




1.       Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I would like to start by echoing your welcome to all the new Members to this first sitting.  I remember how immensely proud I felt on my first day, honoured to have the opportunity to represent the Island.  The responsibility that the public have entrusted upon us is enormous, and although Members may have differing views, the one thing that unites us is our passion for Jersey; and more than that, a determination to make Jersey an even better place, with a greater emphasis on social integration and family values.  While the next 3 years are likely to be challenging, I am confident that this House can and will reach a new consensus on how we can achieve that.  One of the things that I am most proud to have achieved in my political life is long-term planning.  At Social Security, I planned to safeguard the future by a gradual increase in contributions before it was strictly necessary.  That secured our pension scheme for years ahead, and today we have one of the best social security schemes in the world.  As Minister for Treasury and Resources at a time when we had strong economic growth, I promoted the setting up of the Stabilisation Fund to cope with a possible future down-turn.  Well, that down-turn may be on our doorstep, but with a healthy economy, one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, balanced budgets and money safely tucked away in reserves, we are in a better position to deal with any challenges ahead, and that has not happened by accident.  So, just as I have left a lasting legacy at Social Security and Treasury and Resources, I should like to make my mark as Chief Minister.  The period ahead calls for experienced leadership.  I believe that is what I offer Members in their important choice of Chief Minister.  Calmness and long-term vision are not by themselves enough.  The Chief Minister also needs to engage, listen, respond and lead, and although I am clear where my priorities lie, as Chief Minister I would continue to work with all Members in a consensual way for the good of the Island community



So thats a little intro into the fantastic 3yrs we had before us. You can make your own conclusions on how its gone. 


There have been some really good comments on this subject and I thank you all for taking the time. On my last posting i asked for comments that had views different to mine but backed up with some evidence based facts,  so far none have been forthcoming.


The next item up is a very brief email exchange with the Chief Minister ,in fact very brief.


In the one excuse he gave me for his actions, he managed to get that wrong. He is under the impression that the ruling on Graham Powers Judicial Review in some justifies the suspension. The ruling was that the current minister carried out the correct procedures.




Here is the email i sent him after he had that exchange with Constable Crowcroft & Deputy Pitman on 13th October. 


From: rico sorda [mailto:ricosorrda123@yahoo.co.uk] 

Sent: 13 October 2010 21:36

To: Philip Ozouf

Cc: Terry Le Sueur

Subject: I want answers




Hi Senator & Chief Minister


Chief Minister 


As a voting member of the Jersey Public and an avid listener of the States of Jersey could you please explain to me how you came up with your answers concerning the Brian Napier Report. Are you now telling me that, in Jersey in the year 2010,  it is now ok to suspend a member of staff, let alone a Chief of Police, as long as you find something later. Are you now taking the Jersey public for complete and utter fools. I have read the Napier Report many times and it gets worse after every read. I have never ever herd of Conspiracy headed note paper but I know exactly what i,m reading in the Napier Report.


The Chief of Police was suspended on the 12th November 2008 ( This suspension is now seriously flawed )


The Chief of Police was offered no chance of reply to the accusations 


Wiltshire Constabulary were called in and worked under Terms of Reference not Applicable in Jersey


They Missed ever Deadline and Cost the Tax Payer over a Million Pounds


The Home Affairs Minister then spurts out in the States that all Disciplinary Charges have been dropped 


He then fails to inform the then suspended the Chief of Police 


He then releases a Heavily Redacted version of the Wiltshire Report with the full force of the local Partisan Media. This is  a Disciplinary Report and is open to challenge, hence a Disciplinary Report.


Can the Chief Minister or the Treasury Minister please explain to me where the former Chief of Police has had any chance of a fair hearing. I want a proper serious answer.


 Look at the points laid out below


Stop Treating the Jersey Public as Complete and Utter Fools


Thank You


Rico Sorda



RE: I want answers

From:

Terry Le Sueur

View Contact

To:

rico sorda ; Philip Ozouf



**********************************************************************

If this e-mail has been sent in error, please notify us immediately and delete this document. Please note the legal disclaimer which appears at the end of this message.

**********************************************************************



Dear Mr. Sorda,

 

This matter is not the responsibility of the Treasury Minister, so there is no need to write to him.     I note your views, but do not share them.    The Royal Court reviewed the suspension in 2009 and found it to be valid.     I do not propose to respond further.

 

Terry Le Sueur



Now the reasons i included the Treasury Minister was because i was under the impression that he was the Deputy Chief Minister/ Chief Minister and he could well be the Chief Minister in December 2011,this will will still be going.


And the Treasury Minister is excellent in replying to my emails and put some back benchers to shame Jeune/Dupre come too mind.


Now back to the Chief Ministers answer. The royal court said the original suspension was seriously flawed, no surprise there, but ILM'S was carried out correctly. The original was seriously flawed. They must have remembered their own advise on the heavily qualified "Interim Met Rpeort"





And who could forget this Video






So we move onto the next exchange with our Chief Minister



4.13   Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chief Minister regarding disciplinary action arising from the Napier Report:

Given that I and several other Members have continuously maintained that there was evidence of malpractice within the process underlying the suspension of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police and in light of his recent email correspondence to all Members regarding the delayed Napier Report, will the Chief Minister advise whether an employee is now facing disciplinary action and, if so, outline the reasons for this?

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

Members have now received the report from Mr. Brian Napier Q.C. (Queen’s Counsel), which provides a detailed analysis of the suspension process and in the conclusions Mr. Napier does level some criticism of a procedural nature.  I believe it is only right that I act on that criticism even though I am satisfied, and subsequent events have shown, that the suspension was justified.  In my email to Members on 6th October I stated that I was taking advice on whether it was appropriate to release the report when there were grounds for considering disciplinary action.  It was on receipt of this advice that I decided to release the report as I felt it was in the public interest to do so.  As far as disciplinary action is concerned, it is a matter that will be dealt with through normal procedures.  Any individuals must be treated fairly and with respect and I will apply the same level of respect and confidentiality as would be given to any other States employee.  This being the case, I do not intend making any further statement of the outcome of any such procedures.

[11:30]

4.13.1         Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Contrary to the impression the Chief Minister seems to have, the finding that the original suspension was not correct is quite clear in the Napier Report.  Thus I have to push the Minister and ask: why is the States C.E.O. (Chief Executive Officer) not already suspended if we are at all committed to consistency, never mind justice?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I think because the Deputy and I have different points of view.

4.13.2         Senator T.J. Le Main:

Will the Chief Minister confirm that I was also a member of the C.O.M. (Council of Ministers) together with the Minister for Home Affairs of the time, who confirmed at all times that he took professional advice from the Crown Officers, H.R. (human resources) professionals, the Chief Executive and Council Ministers?  Is it also correct that Deputy Lewis then, as the Minister for Home Affairs, often challenged the advice given to him and it is unfair and incorrect that procedures were not carried out correctly by him as the Minister for Home Affairs?  Will the Chief Minister confirm that is the true fact of what happened?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I confirm that the Senator was indeed a member of the Council of Ministers at the time in question and that the former Deputy Lewis was the Minister for Home Affairs.  In view of the fact that I am continuing with my consideration, I do not intend to make any public comment.

4.13.3         The Deputy of St. Martin:

Will the Chief Minister confirm to Members that the terms of reference were not to inquire whether the suspension was justified; it is whether it was carried out in a professional manner?  So I would ask the Chief Minister to withdraw his comments saying that Mr. Napier’s report says that the suspension was justified because that is a fact it does not say the suspension was justified.  What the report says was the suspension was carried out unfairly.  In actual fact it could be said also unlawfully because the particular Discipline Code comes under the States of Jersey Police Law; so, therefore, also unlawful apart from being procedurally incorrect.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I hope I did not give the impression that Mr. Napier had said that the suspension was justified.  I said that subsequent events had shown beyond doubt that the suspension was justified.  Mr. Napier was commissioned to examine the suspension process and, in his view, there were certain procedural errors in the suspension process.  He did not comment on whether the suspension was correct or not.  I simply said that the suspension has subsequently been shown to be fully justified.  While I am on my feet, I omitted, in responding to Senator Le Main, to point out that the investigations that I am continuing to look at have no bearing on the actions of the former Minister for Home Affairs.

4.13.4         The Deputy of St. Mary:

Will the Chief Minister be making a statement, when he has finished his digesting, as to what lessons have been learned so that we can hear what is going to happen and, as I say, what lessons have been learned?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

At this stage I cannot say.

4.13.5         The Deputy of St. Martin:

The Chief Minister mentioned earlier that the cost of Napier was somewhere between £45,000 and £50,000, which is 3 times as much as my open public committee of inquiry.  Will the Chief Minister inform Members, is he satisfied that his quick, simple, inexpensive review has now turned out to be an absolute farce and has cost the taxpayer 3 times as much to have an inquiry that was closed and in camera?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

All I would say is that the cost of £45,000 is 3 times what the Deputy suggested that his committee of inquiry might have cost.  The original estimate for the Napier Report was in the region of £5,000 or £10,000.  Events have proved that wrong.  I suspect that had the committee of inquiry been set up, the Deputy’s estimate of £15,000 would also have been wrong because the similar sort of requirements would have come through and the same level of costs or even greater costs would have been likely to have been incurred.

4.13.6         Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Does the Chief Minister agree that, like his Minister for Home Affairs, perhaps sometimes it is better to just eat your humble pie and admit you were wrong?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

That may be the case sometimes.  This is not one of them.

The Deputy Bailiff:


Rico sorda


 

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Chief Minister & Home Affairs Minister 1

This is just a recap over the Madness of the Chief Minister and Home Affairs Minister

With all that is going on and the performance of these two during the Committee of Enquiry debate its good reading back 

Rico Sorda
























TERENCE AUGUSTINE LE SUER



2nd Chief Minister of Jersey


Took up office in December 2008


One simple question


"WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON"


This is the man that represents Jersey on the World Stage, our glorious leader, but a question that keeps raising its ugly head is why he is prepared to stand up in the States and make a complete and utter fool of himself in his protection of Chief Executive (Teflon) BIll  Ogley.


Now this is just my opinion and I am open to others.  I believe he is hopelessly conflicted; so conflicted in fact that I am amazed he can even comment on the Napier Report. 


This is the man that stopped Graham Power from obtaining the dates of when the original suspension letters were drafted for 9 months. Why did he do that if there was nothing to hide?


This is the man that was former Chief Minister, (Shaft International) Frank Walker's, number 2.  Who could ever forget that memorable press conference held at St Martin Parish Hall when the then Senator Stuart Syvret  turned up. What is interesting about this video is the main players in shot: Frank, Terence and, standing just behind trying to conduct the show, CE Bill Ogley.  You see Chief Minister Le Sueur has always been involved in "Operation Damage Limitation": Save Jerseys reputation at all costs.








We now have Chief Minister Le Sueur standing up in the states and saying it is OK to suspend someone even if there is not enough evidence to do so, as long as you can come up with something later that justifies it.  He even sits on the States Employment Board.  How crazy is that?  We have an Home Affairs Minister, ILM, who is saying the same thing.  What is happening to these two people?  But more about ILM later.


Chief Minister Le Sueur and Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand are using the Wiltshire Report as some kind of get out of jail card but, as we all know, the Wiltshire Repot was a disciplinary report and was meant to be used in accordance with disciplinary proceedings, but this never came to fruition.  Home Affairs Minister spat the dummy in the States, dropped all disciplinary proceedings against Graham Power, did not even have the decency to inform Graham Power and then, by using our ever obedient media, proceeded to find Graham Power guilty of all charges.  I am sorry, but for me that makes the Home Affairs Minister a complete and utter disgrace and to think he was a former magistrate; quite scary.


This is going to be the first of a few blogs concentrating on these two characters.  In the case of Terry Le Sueur, if he is prepared to stand up and make a fool of himself, then he must be prepared to take whatever criticism comes his way.  Now, if someone doesn't have the same opinion as me then I have no problem with that, but could they please point it out on comments how I have got it so wrong also backed up by facts and evidence as it is facts and evidence that have caused me to form my view.  The whole shut down of the historic child abuse investigation was to protect Jersey's image and the protection of Jersey Finance.  I have no problem against Jersey Finance and many of my friends work in that industry but, if the industry is all great and powerful and absolutely key to Jersey's future, how is it that we now find ourselves in a mess after emerging from a period of huge growth.  But is it the same little clique of leaders who just can't seem to get anything right.  Whether you're left, right, green or in the middle, we should all be very worried.


Over the years Jersey's social and moral conscience has been eroding and this cannot be a good thing.


This is the first exchange I will be looking at and like I say if i have it wrong then back it up with some evidence


4.10   The Connétable of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the delay in his publication of the Napier Report into the suspension of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police:

Will the Chief Minister explain the reasons for the delay in his publication of the Napier Report into the suspension of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police?

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

The reason there was a delay in the original publication of the report is due to the difficulty of some of the individuals who were involved in the original suspension process not being available to meet Mr. Napier when he was first in Jersey.  This also coincided with the Icelandic volcanic ash cloud that delayed travel arrangements.  As soon as this had passed arrangements were made to complete the interview process.  By that time Mr. Napier had other work commitments that further delayed him in completing his final report.  When I received the final report on 13th September, I had to carefully consider the conclusions and, given that there was some criticism, I decided that I had to take advice.  Upon receipt of the relevant advice I decided to release the report forthwith, which was done on Friday, 8th October.

4.10.1         The Connétable of St. Helier:

Could the Chief Minister advise us of the cost of the report, what he plans to do with it and what he plans to do about its findings?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The cost of the report has not been finally determined but it will be between £40,000 and £50,000.  What I am doing with it is digesting carefully the findings in it and seeing what action, if any, needs to be taken as a result.

4.10.2         Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Given that a number of we Back-Benchers have been proven 100 per cent correct in the reality of huge flaws (whether through gross incompetence or otherwise) in how the suspension process was initiated, does the Chief Minister agree, upon reflection, that justice is not meant to operate by suspending an individual and then hoping you can come up with the evidence to warrant those actions afterwards?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

No, I am quite satisfied that the suspension was the correct thing to do, then and now, and that has been fully justified by the facts.  [Approbation]

4.10.3         The Deputy of St. Martin:

Possibly I would remind those foot-stampers maybe they would read the Napier Report before stamping.  Headlines are not reports.  I would ask the Chief Minister- it is customary, indeed good practice - that when a report has been commissioned that report is then made known to States Members and the media so Members are able to ask questions.  Can the Chief Minister inform Members when there will be a press conference to enable Members not only to question the Chief Minister but also the author on the findings of that report?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I see no reason to hold a press conference for this or to involve Mr. Napier.  We have already incurred enough money on this report.  The matter, as far as I am concerned, should now be put to bed.

4.10.4         The Deputy of St. Martin:

Sir, could I just ask again of the Chief Minister, maybe he could give us a reason as to why he feels it is unnecessary to have the author present his report to enable Members to question him on it?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The report is sufficiently detailed.  It is a matter for the author if he chooses to or wants to elaborate on it.  He may wish to.  He has indicated no wish to elaborate on it.  He believes the report speaks for itself.

4.10.5         The Deputy of St. Mary:

Does the Chief Minister not see that by answering in that way he has given a very good impression of a man with something to hide?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

No, I do not.

4.10.6         Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Without provoking a facetious answer from the Chief Minister, could I ask the Chief Minister what lessons he has learned - or the human resource function in the States has learned - from the findings of the report?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

At this stage I am still digesting it to see what lessons, if any, need to be learned but it is really that you have people you believe are doing the right thing and the course of action that was followed was, in the end, shown to be entirely justified.

4.10.7         Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I would just like clarification from the Chief Minister.  When he said that he would not hold a press conference to enable the report author to give his findings, has he asked Mr. Napier whether he would like to have a press conference or is he just speaking for him?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Yes, I have asked Mr. Napier because I had originally intended, as in discussions with the Deputy of St. Martin, that Mr. Napier would be present at a conference.  He chose not to attend.

4.10.8         The Deputy of St. Martin:

I find that answer quite astonishing really.  It is the States who are paying the author and I think the States deserve to have the author present to be questioned.  I really am disappointed with that answer.  The Minister knows full well that I have been asking for some weeks why the terms of reference were altered and a very important part was taken out.  Can the Minister inform Members who was responsible for removing that part of the terms of reference and why was that part taken out?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The terms of reference were clearly given to Mr. Napier.  The report contains all the information relevant to the report, whether in the form set out in the terms of reference or in the form set out in the previous proposition.  As to the cost of the report, the money paid was to produce a report not to attend a press conference.

4.10.9         The Connétable of St. Helier:

The Minister has said on a couple of occasions this morning that he believes that the subsequent disciplinary investigation was fully justified and correct.  Could he explain how this can be, given that the initial suspension has been shown by Mr. Napier to be fundamentally ill-conceived?  [Approbation]

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

No, Mr. Napier suggests that there could have been procedural errors in the suspension process.  He says there was no conspiracy or anything there.  The courts have subsequently looked at this; the new Minister for Home Affairs has looked at it as well and found the suspension process is fully justified.  The evidence that we see from the Wiltshire Report and elsewhere further amplifies, if any further proof were needed, that that suspension was totally valid and justified.


And then the Classic


4.6     Deputy M. Tadier:

Earlier in question time the Chief Minister said he agreed with the principle of being innocent until proven guilty in Jersey and in common law, I guess, as a principle.  Will the Minister, therefore, confirm that as Mr. Power has not been found guilty of anything that he is, in fact, innocent?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

It depends on how one describes the term “innocent”, in that it is certainly the case that he has not been proved guilty.  He has not had the chance, or no one had the chance, to determine that situation.  On the basis that until one is proven guilty one remains innocent in law, then clearly Mr. Power, the former Chief Constable of Police, was, on that basis, innocent and is.

4.6.1  Deputy M. Tadier:

Given the fact that we have heard from the Chief Minister that he was and is innocent, will he be asking the Minister for Home Affairs to make an apology, or will he be making an apology, to an innocent man?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

No.



And there you have it


Rico Sorda

Sunday, October 17, 2010

The Sworn Affidavit of Mr Lenny Harper







So, having taken a  little time out, we at Team Voice are back on the Trail of Truth,Honesty & Integrity, something that seems so very laCking on this beautiful Island of Jersey.

We have witnessed a Chief Minister trying to stop the Inevitable, We have witnessed  a Chief Minister prepared to stand up in the States Chamber and come out with what can be best described as a pack of lies or serious half truths, We have witnessed a States Chamber that has allowed this to happen, Again we have witnessed the Foot Stamping Lackeys of the Mother Land being whipped into a trance like frenzy whilst frothing at the Mouth like some Rabid occult of the damned, We have the Chief Minister making Statements like  "time to put this to bed" but Chief Minister who was it that was sitting in on Graham Powers Complaint Board Hearing and trying to prevent him from obtaining his original suspension dates? YES, IT WAS YOU,We have witnessed the JEP Editorial setting the 'agenda' the night before the States Sitting in some dying hope that Nazi style propaganda  is still alive & kicking.

Am I being to harsh on my Government?

My personal view is that this is  a very Dark part of Jerseys History

The Bailhache era will be marked down in History. If people think its bad now wait till we go Independent.

I have the upmost respect for what Stuart Syvret is doing down at the Magistrate Court, how he does it I will never know. He has been fighting the corruption for 18 odd years and is still going, some say he has lost everything, that is not so, he still has Truth,Honesty & Integrity. 

The Magistrate say's " In my view there was no need to arrest him, nor to detain him for seven hours.More thought should have gone into it by the police,but i do not find they acted maliciously.However,I do find it disproportionate and unnecessary to arrest and detain him. But I found no evidence of a conspiracy .I found no evidence of a covert surveillance and found no evidence of a politically motivated link, either to search or to bringing of this prosecution. " but no Malice Meant, no evidence of Conspiracy etc etc just like a certain Chief Minister.  Stuart will be found guilty on both counts, I think we all new that would happen, the reason I believe Stuart is going through the Magistrate and Royal Court debacles is to get the Evidence herd and Sworn under Oath. What might not seem relevant at this precise moment could become a Time Bomb years down the line 

I will leave it to Stuart if he would like to comment further 

This Journey has always been about one thing and one thing only 

The People who Suffered Physical & Mental Abuse 

The People who had no voice back then and who still have no Voice ( apart from what little help we can give through the blogs)

I have been asked how i deal with the Abuse that has been thrown my way, look above, that is Abuse

As long as my Government and Media continue to Cover up Child Abuse we at Team Voice will carry on the fight, for as long as those feet keep stamping, we carry on the figh

I will leave you the links to the Sworn Affidavits of





Graham Power 










Stuart Syvret


And below I give you the Sworn Affidavit of Lenny Harper. How is it that these guys are prepared to give sworn affidavits and yet you get nothing from the over side very strange Mr Harper swore his Affidavit for  Stuart Syvrets UK court case

Im sure Mr Harper would be more that happy to answer any questions you might have concerning this Sworn Affidavit.

I would like to thank Mr Harper & Mr Powe rfor not turning their backs on Jersey or the people who still fight for Justice and most importantly the Abuse Survivors

Rico Sorda

Team Voice

 



AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT LEONARD HARPER


In May 2002 I joined the States of Jersey Police as the Head of Operations in the rank of Chief Superintendent.  Within a few weeks I realised that local politicians expected a degree of control over day to day operations which no police force in the United Kingdom would have tolerated.  My earliest experience of this was finding that the Custody Sergeants of the States Police had no right of charging suspects but had to call in a Centenier of the Parish where the crime was committed, explain the facts to him or her, and ask them to charge the suspect.  Centeniers were elected officials in their parishes and members of the Parish Honorary Police.  The head of the Honorary Police in each Parish was the Constable or ‘Connetable” who was also a member of the States by virtue of his position.  The titular head of the Island’s Honorary Police forces was the Attorney General.  Several times early on in my post I had to protest to the Legal Advisors about a refusal to charge in cases where the evidence was overwhelming.

In those early days I also had a number of differences of opinion with the then Deputy Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee who was the Connetable of one of the country parishes.  He objected to States of Jersey Police Vehicles driving through his parish on training duties and complained several times that they had answered emergency calls without asking his prior authority to go enter his parish.  This was an early foretaste of many battles to come where politicians would seek to control our day to day operational activities.

During my time as a senior officer in the United Kingdom I had become known as someone who, whilst critical of the damage that over- zealous political correctness could do, would not tolerate bullying which caused people to feel uncomfortable at work and in some cases made them ill.  I became aware that a small number of officers in the SOJP were making life difficult for others through bullying.  A number of the victims came to me personally and I took firm action against the bullies.  I will describe a few such examples in order to put into context the response our actions brought from the Jersey establishment.

Shortly after I arrived I held a ‘forum’ for the Constables of the force.  I did this in response to complaints from officers that they had never been listened to.  Towards the end of the meeting I asked if anyone had anything else to ask.  A female officer asked how I would deal with bullying.  “Ruthlessly,” I replied.

The woman officer left it at that and I forgot about the exchange until about six weeks later when I was about to fly out from Jersey Airport to the UK.  The officer approached me and asked if I remembered her asking the question.  We spoke for some time and she relayed a horrific tale of abuse, assault and bullying by a Sergeant in the force against her, which was witnessed on a number of occasions by other senior officers who did nothing.  When she complained to one Inspector he told her he understood her situation but if he did anything the Sergeant would “turn on him.”  The female officer had eventually gone to a very senior officer who had told her to forget it or her job would be at risk.

I started enquiries and found that her story was corroborated by over a dozen officers.  One male officer told how one night shift he was sitting in the Station Office with the Sergeant when the latter produced a 9mm semi automatic pistol.  The Sergeant dismantled the firearm and cleaned it.  When finished, he assembled it, put the magazine in and cocked the weapon.  He then pointed it directly at the male officer’s head for several seconds before lowering it and saying “No, not tonight.”  That male officer is still suffering the effects of the bullying by the Sergeant.  The female officer concerned has a civil action pending against the force which I do not believe is being contested.

On another occasion, I was approached on behalf of a vulnerable member of staff who had reported a domestic assault on herself.  The investigating officer, a long serving detective, had asked her for her mobile phone number and had given her his “in case they needed to contact each other.”  A couple of evenings later she received a lengthy series of text messages spread over several hours which started with comments about her physical appearance and what she looked like bending over the photo copier to extremely explicit texts about what the sender would like to do to her.  These messages all came from the phone of the investigating officer.  After I obtained the transcripts of these messages I challenged the officer.  He at first denied it but changed his story.  I returned him to uniform but did not discipline him as the victims vulnerable state would have meant that she would have suffered even more from a prolonged drawn out saga.

In another incident, a young Detective Sergeant reported a member of staff for carrying out particularly nasty racial bullying of a Portuguese woman officer.  A short time later property belonging to him was vandalised in the CID office.  We were told the suspect’s name in confidence by several detectives but had nothing we could use in evidence and no one was forthcoming.  The Head of CID, who had also just come from the UK, and myself gathered every detective in the force together and warned them that if there was any repeat of this all of them would be returned to Uniform and we would re build the CID from scratch.  We never did have a repeat despite only using local officers in a number of high profile anti corruption investigations which started off as covert operations.

It was clear however, that many Jersey politicians did not approve of our efforts to tackle bullying.  We were openly criticised in the media by these people and on one occasion were referred to as the “politically correct KGB stalking the corridors of Police Headquarters.”  At the same time however, it was clear that we had the support of the vast majority of the force as was illustrated by what Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary found when they carried out their first inspection during my time there.  They found that Graham Power, myself, and John Pearson, had already made many changes which had transformed the force and the morale of its officers.  The fact that the leadership style was supported by the rank and file was one of the findings.  A second Inspection  a few years later was to single out the work that had been done on Professional Standards and the strong leadership which had played a part in turning the force into a professional and innovative organisation.

The first serious test of who decided our operational strategies came over the question of firearms on the island.  This was also where I began to discover that the normal rules of law enforcement did not apply in many areas of Jersey life.  During the questioning of a man in connection with the unlawful possession of firearms he told officers that the SOJ Police Firearms Clerk, **** ****, have given him information about police activities in relation to himself.    Accordingly I arrested **** and searched his home address.  At his address I recovered a huge number of firearms lying insecure in a bedroom.  These included an RPG7 Rocket Launcher which was later found to have only a minor fault.  Among the dozens of other firearms found at his address were some which had been handed into the police for destruction.  Lying around the room on the floor next to weapons such as 7.62 rifles, machine guns, and magnum revolvers, was a large quantity of ammunition for these and other weapons.  A ‘SEACAT’ Missile Launcher was also taken from his home.  **** was eventually convicted of Unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition.  Other charges were discontinued following these guilty pleas.  He was however convicted at a Discipline Hearing of offences including falsifying police records to show that weapons handed in by the public had been destroyed when in fact they had been retained and sometimes passed to others by him.

Because civilian staff working for the police in Jersey are not Police employees, but are employed by the States, it was the States Human Resources Department who heard the evidence and decided the punishment.  They did not dismiss him and we were forced to take him back although we severely curtailed his access to confidential information.  Sometime later we received further information that he was again mis-using police information systems.  When I challenged him about it he resigned.  However, he then started a campaign backed by several prominent members of the Home Affairs Committee (now replaced by Ministers under Ministerial Government) alleging that he had been unfairly dealt with.  In 2006 I learnt that he was twenty four hours away from being sworn in as an Honorary Police Officer and I disclosed all of the above to the Attorney General.  His swearing in was postponed but I believe took place at a later stage.

As a result of **** arrest I ordered a review of his office and the records kept by him.  At this stage I should explain that in Jersey the professional States of Jersey Police are not the firearms licensing authority.  This lies with the Head of the Honorary Police in each Parish – the Connetable.  The Police Firearms Clerk had the role of carrying out the necessary checks such as Criminal Records to advise the Connetables of any factors which might impact on the granting of firearms certificates.  As I will discuss and show later, the Connetable did not have to take these matters into account and in many shocking instances, did not.

It became apparent from the examination of the records that there were hundreds of people in Jersey who were in possession of powerful firearms who had not bothered to renew their firearms certificates.  Many of these people where in possession of weapons which were illegal in the United Kingdom.  These included High Velocity semi automatic rifles and semi automatic pistols.  Faced with the level of law breaking we decided that we would not arrest immediately but instead gave a widely publicised period of several months for people to license their weapons with the warning of strict action if they did not do so.

This was met with a political storm and bitter criticism of our arrogance and of acting at odds with the wishes of the politicians to whom “we were accountable”, including from some members of the Home Affairs Committee.  Strenuous attempts were made to intimidate us into not taking action with allegations that we were ‘Brits’ who did not understand the Jersey way of life.  I was accused of “trying to turn Jersey into Basingstoke.” 

After the period had passed, astonishingly, a large number of people had not bothered to renew their licenses.  We started arresting them.  Included among them were Police officers, States and Honorary, politicians, lawyers and other prominent members of the Jersey community.  Most pleaded guilty and were given small fines by the Magistrate who was to state recently that the States Police had been “out of control for several years now, acting as if they thought they were a politically independent organisation.”  He is now the Home Affairs Minister.

At the same time as we were trying to enforce the law, we were trying to discover the extent of the possession of high velocity and semi automatic weapons on the island, as well as to discover the thoroughness or otherwise of the checks and background enquiries made before a certificate was granted for someone to possess weapons such as those.  This also caused a furore with one politician in government saying to me “This is not Dunblane sonny.”  However, what we discovered made me fear, and I still do, that some day in the future Jersey will fall victim to the type of gun tragedy seen so often in the USA, the UK and elsewhere.

We discovered that over 10,000 firearms were probably held on certificate in Jersey for a population of around 80,000.  Six and a half million rounds of ammunition could be held on certificate at any one time.  This did not include the stock of firearms dealers.  From 2001 to 2006 of 1843 certificates granted, only three had been revoked and only six applications refused.  Of the ten registered dealers in Jersey, three of them operated out of private houses.

Four parishes were failing to comply with the law by holding firearms certificate documentation from the States of Jersey Police despite being requested to do so.  Disturbingly, no risk assessment process was in place for assessing the applications received for possessing firearms.  Home visits were a rarity and arrangements for storing firearms were rarely checked.  Three particular cases stand out in my mind.

One man applied for a firearm and ammunition for the purpose of ‘pest control.’  The firearm in question is classified as for the purpose of hunting large game such as elk.

Another family in an outlying parish were known to have twenty high powered and semi automatic weapons in a cellar on their property.  They also had thousands of rounds of ammunition.  When visited by SOJ Police officers they were also found to have six months supply of tinned food and bottled water.  They said they were waiting for word from God.  The Connetable refused to revoke the certificate.

One man whom we had found had built up an arsenal of weapons was first granted a certificate in 1985.  In 1992 he was convicted of Possessing a Prohibited weapon, supplying controlled drugs and other crimes.  In 1993 he tried to purchase a shotgun whilst prohibited by the law.  In 1995 intelligence was received that he was supplying controlled drugs.  In 1996 he applied for and was granted a new firearms certificate by the Connetable.  In 2006 he held the following weapons:


1 x .30 semi automatic carbine* 

2 x  7.62 semi automatic rifles*

1 x 7.62 bolt action rifle

1 x  .303 bolt action rifle

1 x  5.56 semi automatic rifle* – as used the British Army

5 x .357 Magnum handguns

2 x  9x21 self loading pistol

1 x 9x19 semi automatic carbine* - similar to that used by the Police

1 x Pump action shotgun

2 x Semi automatic shotguns*

1 x .50 revolver **; and

1 x .50 rifle **


183,000 rounds of ammunition for the above weapons


*a semi automatic function allows repeat firing, e.g. over 20 rounds every 10 seconds

** This calibre would require military support to challenge in any criminal use as it is so powerful

Throughout all of this, the States of Jersey Police and we, the senior management team in particular were being heavily criticised in the States for trying to interfere in the Jersey way of life and its culture.  Politicians and Parish officials were blocking every attempt to try and introduce some control over the possession of firearms which were illegal everywhere else in the British Isles.

The most serious difficulties with the Criminal Justice system however (before the Historic Abuse Enquiry) arose when we started to deal with the small number of corrupt police officers and staff in the force.  It proved impossible to get any prosecutions even when the evidence appeared overwhelming.  Things got so bad that I eventually charged one officer with less serious offences which did not need the Attorney General’s authority.  Even our efforts here led to constant criticism in the States of wasted money and of not understanding Jersey’s culture.  Politicians even met with and assisted corrupt police officers and their dishonest associates to mount high profile campaigns alleging that they had been wrongly treated.  There were a number of particularly high profile cases in which the Jersey establishment seemed to treat police corruption as a minor matter which should be left alone.  I can enlarge on them all but here will only illustrate with examples.

We arrested the Head of the Information Technology Department and his two most senior members of staff, including the Information Security Officer, following a tip off from within the department that they had used police funds to purchase expensive IT equipment for home use.  When we investigated we found that this was correct.  They had purchased the equipment with police funds, had it delivered to Police Headquarters, and then taken it home.  Enquiries established that they had used the illegally bought equipment to download hundreds of sexually explicit images at home as well as illegal software.   Two of them stored nude photos of their wives on the computers.  One had lent a computer purchased with police money to a family member to go to University in the UK.  Another had also purchased expensive computer audio studio equipment with police funds and had taken it home to further his music hobby.  The three were suspended on full pay.  We immediately came under attack from politicians who alleged a waste of money and that we were infringing their human rights.  No action was taken against them by the Attorney General’s department.  Two were eventually disciplined and sacked, the third resigned.  However, with the support of politicians they continued to complain that they had been unfairly treated.

A detective officer was found to be selling intelligence to a female informant in return for sex.  He admitted the offences.  No prosecution was authorised.  He resigned before discipline proceedings.

Evidence was found linking one officer with the importation of half a million pounds worth of cannabis onto the island.  Amongst other things, a map of the drop site with the location marked was found in his car.  Other evidence was found linking him and a female colleague with supplying and possession of drugs.  No proceedings were instigated.

There were two cases however which starkly illustrated the problems in dealing with corruption within Jersey, the links between corrupt police officers and politicians, and the organised manner in which efforts to counter corruption where being obstructed.  Both of these cases were to impact on the later Historic Abuse Enquiry.

The first was the case of a Special Branch Detective **** ****.


In late 2004 and early 2005 intelligence was received that ****, a Detective Constable in Special Branch, was linked to the criminal fraternity and may have passed information from police systems to criminal gangs operating in Jersey.  This was in addition to numerous informal reports that, over a period of years in Special Branch and other departments, **** had indulged in a number of sexual relationships outside of his marriage, some of them in police time and some of them with females linked to crime.  What was of particular concern about his extra marital activities was that his post in Special Branch gave him access to ‘Secret’ and ‘Top Secret’ material relating to domestic and international terrorism. He was also a member and a trainer in our covert surveillance team.  This caused some concern in respect of the company he was keeping and his vulnerability to pressure.  


Early investigations through telephone billing showed that ***** was linked to a woman with serious crime connections by the name of **** ****.   Consequently I authorised a series of evidential covert surveillance, both intrusive and non intrusive as part of the operation.   Among the measures I authorised were video surveillance in the hall just outside the SB office, and then in the office itself.  I authorised listening devices in his private vehicle, in the Special Branch vehicle, and in the SB offices at the Harbour and Airport.


It soon became apparent that **** was involved in extra marital affairs with a number of women, two of which became the subject of criminal and Discipline investigations.  These were his relationships with **** ****, and **** **** (a foreign national).  It emerged during the investigation that he had passed secret information to **** about a terrorist investigation, revealing to her that three people were in custody when no one knew about the arrests.  This could have had severe consequences for the operation and indeed, for the security of the island.  It also transpired during the investigation that he had allowed **** into a restricted Special Branch Office on more than one occasion and that during one of these visits she gave him a massage.  He and she were also seen on camera kissing and embracing before she was seen to spend some time examining confidential police files, some of which related to international terrorism. He was also recorded on another occasion divulging almost the whole of a Confidential Criminal Intelligence Report on a local criminal to his wife and brother, with the intention of having it revealed to the subject of the report.  This was obtained from the listening device in his car and was evidential.

A criminal file was submitted to the Attorney General.  Despite the evidence he refused to prosecute.  One of the reasons given was that police officers did not come within the Official Secrets Act.  This seems strange when one considers the enquiry, which I will refer to later, about the leaking of a memo from me (critical of the AG) and which witnesses have been told is an Official Secrets Act enquiry.  (A number of UK journalists and a prominent Jersey politician have approached me and told me that they have been asked to implicate me in the leaking of the document.)  The Attorney General’s decision caused consternation throughout the force as ***** activities were well known and it was recognised that this would make the job of tackling corruption even more difficult.  There was to be a further dimension later when **** actively tried to discredit the Historic Abuse Enquiry, but I will cover that in more detail later.  **** was disciplined and on 20th April 2006.  He appeared before the Chief Officer, pleading Guilty to the following eleven discipline charges.

Breach of Confidentiality – where he passed secret information on by text to **** about the detention of three terrorist suspects in Jersey.  *** was not only having a sexual relationship with ***** but was a convicted criminal and a close associate of drug dealing gangs.  This was an ongoing investigation and these suspects were in custody when he revealed details to her.  The consequences of that could have been far reaching for the investigation and the island.  

Breach of Confidentiality – caught on a recording device passing on the content of a confidential Police intelligence report to his brother and wife with the intention of it being passed to the subject of the report.

General Conduct - having an improper relationship with a woman (****) with close criminal contacts - they were both seen by officers in the same locations. She admitted the sexual relationship, and in six months there were a total of fifty calls between them on their mobile phones.  Examination of text messages between the two showed the use of pet names such as “hun” and “kisses” on some messages.

Breach of Confidentiality - allowing a member of the public (**** ****) into the Restricted Special Branch office.  They were caught on a camera which was placed outside the office.

As Number 4.  On this occasion the video was inside the office and she was seen to give him a massage, they were seen to kiss and embrace, and she was seen wandering around the office reading notices, documents on walls and notice boards and to examine documents in trays and on desks. These documents related to police and security matters, among them documents on domestic and international terrorism.  She spent over half an hour in the office.

General Conduct – this relates to them kissing and embracing in the SB office.

General Conduct – relating to him being in possession of a number of police documents, some considered “secret” at his home address.  One such document contained the full personal details of a man he had contact with who was a potential agent for the police or British Intelligence in Northern Ireland.  If this document had fallen into the wrong hands it could have had fatal consequences for the subject.

Having at home, a copy of a custody record relating to a friend of his who had been arrested.  **** was not involved in the case. He refused to give any explanation.

Mis-handling of exhibits which were found in his possession.

Performance of Duties – various unauthorised absences from work.

Using States of Jersey Police information systems for his own personal business on frequent occasions.


He was ordered to resign as an alternative to dismissal.


In June 2006 **** approached the Jersey Evening Post and told them that he had voluntarily resigned because he had been badly treated over ‘procedural mistakes.”  The paper, which has well known and established links with the Government and in particular the Chief Minister at the time, published a joint article with ****  ****, an ex officer who resigned when he was facing a catalogue of discipline offences relating to his use of drugs, the making of pornographic videos featuring him and a serving female officer (which he left for his wife to see,) his involvement in the importation by air of half a million pounds worth of cannabis (a crime which was solved by the Professional Standards Department) and falsely claiming to be sick when in fact he was drinking in a pub.  Two politicians who were to be instrumental in persuading the Attorney General to prevent us later charging a corrupt businessman (**** ****) in another police corruption enquiry were among those who gave very public support to him.  In a further display of the links between all of these matters, the businessman mentioned above and his sister were extremely active in trying to discredit the Historic Abuse Enquiry and smear the officers involved.  They became involved in another Professional Standards Investigation in respect of corrupt activities surrounding towing services.

 The first intelligence in respect of this came from a member of the Fire Brigade Staff who told police that two police officers were in a corrupt relationship with **** **** a local towing contractor.


On 30th March 2005, **** **** of No 1 Recovery Company told Professional Standards that two police officers were getting petrol free of charge or cheaply from ****.  He identified one of them as “****” (Constable **** ****).  He alleged that this was in return for corrupt manipulation of the breakdown call out rota system.

 The enquiry was stepped up a day later --on 31 March 2005 when information was received from two local members of the public, one of them a member of the legal profession, and another who worked for one of the other Vehicle Recovery Companies.  The former alleged to Professional Standards that she had seen Constable **** ***** drawing diesel for his vehicle from the petrol pumps at **** ****s place of business.  She was aware that **** was one of the Towing contractors who provided a service to the police, and that he was not licensed to sell diesel.  The witness was suspicious of the fact that a police officer was obtaining fuel for his private vehicle from **** pumps.

The second witness supplied information to the effect that calls from the police which should have gone to the other recovery firms were in fact going to ****

On 31 March, police spoke to another witness called *****, who had been at an accident where a driver wanted to call another breakdown firm, but the police officers had tried to insist on **** being called.  He told police that he knew of other people who had been told by police officers that they used *** **** even when they didn’t have to.

A check was made of the record of call outs and it was found that whereas there were three main operators looking for police business, **** was at times, getting nearly 90% of that business.  An instruction was made that the rota should be adhered to and each of the three contractors called out in turn.

In October 2005, allegations were received from the two other main contractors on the island that they were being unfairly disadvantaged by virtue of the fact that they were getting little business from the States of Jersey Police.  They again alleged that this was due to a corrupt relationship between two police officers and Mr ****.  They again named one of the two police officers as Constable **** ***.  They alleged that the officers received cheap or free diesel for their private vehicles, were given the use of four digit number plates, and that both officers had been to ***** villa in Spain free of charge.

The investigation was recommenced, and the records of who police called out in respect of breakdowns were checked once more.  It was found that despite the previous warning, **** still received over 90% of the call outs.  An instruction was issued ordering officers to adhere to the strict rotation policy which was in place.  A covert investigation was launched but was curtailed shortly afterwards when the member of the public referred to in para. 2, fell out with her employer and went to work for *** ****  Shortly after that, police were told by her ex-employer **** ****of No. 1 Recovery, that she had warned **** the police were looking at him and his police friends.


In November 2005, a further complaint was received from the two contractors stating that they were being driven out of business by virtue of the fact that **** was still getting almost all of the calls.  Police records confirmed this, and investigations revealed that the system was being manipulated by some officers going to accidents and breakdowns and calling ***** on their private mobile phones.  They were then falsely entering on official records that the member of the public had called **** themselves.  The most regular offender was Constable **** ****.

Enquiries continued, and it became clear that **** was friendly with a number of police officers.  Information was also received that many officers had received free services from him in clear breach of integrity guidelines and policies.  These services included free holidays at his villa in Spain, the towing of vehicles, and on a couple of occasions, the towing of boats back from France.   I took a decision however, that because of the different attitudes to this behaviour by previous senior officers now retired, and where officers might have had no corrupt intent, they should be given the opportunity to reveal such transgressions without fear of penalty.  Accordingly, DI Alan Aubert, Head of PSD, sent out an e mail to all personnel requesting that any person who had been in receipt of items such as free holidays, use of his Spanish Villa, or towing services should declare them.  This was sent out on 24th May 2006.  It was followed by the same declaration in force orders on 7th June, and the deadline was set for the 18th June.

All in all, sixteen or more officers came forward, including one of the officers who was a suspect along with ****.  They were all offered immunity from discipline, although not from criminal proceedings.  The officer who was an initial suspect with **** made full admissions and gave a statement of his knowledge of other officers’ dealings with ****.  There was no evidence of criminal offences in relation to him.  O did not come forward.

Officers who had worked with **** gave statements saying that **** and B had enjoyed a close relationship, with ***** giving free loan of various vehicles to****, together with the supply of various services.  They had also exchanged vehicle plates and registrations, some of which were later to be the subject of criminal proceedings as **** had checked these on the police systems.  ***** had bought vehicles off ****which had been recovered in the course of their work and joint misuse of the police systems and procedures.

In an attempt to make the breakdown call out system fairer and to reduce our vulnerability to allegations of corruption, I gave orders that in future all tow companies were to be called out in strict rotation and that it had to be through the Force Control Room.  I then found out that in order to circumvent this instruction, **** was using his mobile phone to call ****.  I ordered that this was to cease.

On a number of occasions we were able to see from billing on ****’s mobile phone that he had contravened this instruction and had called **** to the scene of incidents on his mobile.  This included instances where he did not tell the FCR that there was a need for a tow away, and even occasions where he told lies to the Control Room by stating that no tow truck was called when he had brought **** out by means of his mobile phone.  Members of the public gave evidence confirming this.  On occasions he made false entries in police documents to this effect.

On one occasion O was recorded telling B to submit “fucking silly bills.”  This was on an evidential audio source.

A file was submitted to the Attorney General seeking the prosecution of O and B for Bribery and Corruption.  However, the new corruption laws, which would have made a prosecution much easier, were not in place, and no case was brought.  I however, then decided to prosecute O for a number of less serious offences for which the Attorney General’s authority was not needed.  O was charged with offences of Misuse of Computers, and was convicted of five such charges in the Magistrates court, including one where he publicly labelled an innocent member of the public as a drink driver in order to try and escape the charge.  A police officer who gave evidence on his behalf but who was forced to retract her evidence in court as “an error” was given words of advice for poor judgement.   O is now a convicted ex police officer.

A post script to this is that a female police employee whom O was having an extra marital affair with pleaded guilty at a Discipline Hearing to carrying out unauthorised and improper checks on the police computers at the request of O.

B gave evidence on behalf of O but admitted in the witness box, under oath, that he had asked his friend O to carry out illegal checks of vehicles on the police computer systems.    A few days later he approached another police officer and made admissions of a similar nature.

Authority was sought to charge B with inciting a police officer (O) to carry out improper checks and disclose information from the police intelligence systems.  This authority was granted by Mr Laurence O’Donnell, a Legal Advisor working at Police Headquarters, although one of the Attorney General’s staff.  Arrangements were made to do so.

Thirty minutes before B was due to be charged, the Attorney General ordered that he should not be.  It emerged that he had been visited by two politicians who had connections with the case who asked him to stop the charging.  These were Deputy Sarah Ferguson and Deputy Colin Egre.  Both of these politicians were associates of B and both had served in the Honorary Police with him.  Both had met with him, ****, and other corrupt ex officers frequently and with them had conducted a high profile media campaign to stop the Professional Standards anti corruption enquiries.  Ferguson and Egre have recently publicly admitted their roles in this saga.

I challenged the Law Officers Department about this turn around and the effect it would have on our efforts to combat corruption. I was told by Laurence O’Donnell that the Attorney General merely wanted to review the evidence and would come back to me in a few days.  I questioned the need for the AG to take this unusual step when one of his most senior lawyers had already given authority to charge.  The days turned into weeks without word from the Attorney General.  

Several weeks later, at the beginning of March 2008 I e-mailed Laurence O’Donnell and asked him what the current situation was with the AG’s considerations in respect of B.  I know that Laurence immediately forwarded my e mail to the AG.  I did not even receive an acknowledgement.

On Saturday -29th March 2008 I sent another e mail to Laurence O’Donnell in which I told him that I had received a query from the Guernsey Press about B.  I told Laurence that the media were asking about the charges against B and the fact that politicians had intervened in his charging.  I said that I had confirmed that he had admitted under oath in open court that he had instigated a search of police systems by a convicted cop and that we had the transcript.  I confirmed that following advice from the Law Officers we were within a short time of charging him.  I told Laurence that I had confirmed to the media that B was not charged on the instructions of the Attorney General and that this followed a visit from two politicians who were close to Bt.  I confirmed that the AG had not been back to us.  I told Laurence that the media were preparing a story and were linking it to the allegations of interference with police operations.  I told him I felt I had no choice but to confirm what I did or I would have been misleading them.

On the morning of Monday 31st March 2008 I received instructions from Laurence O’Donnell that the AG had given us the authority to charge B.  At a meeting with the AG in the presence of my Chief Officer, I asked the AG why he had not got back to us until the media intervened.  He replied, “I forgot about it.”  From charge until August 2008, B was granted a number of adjournments at court for rather unusual and surprising reasons.  As widely predicted, a few days after I left the island on retirement all charges were dropped against him and he was awarded costs.

During this enquiry, B wrote dozens and dozens of abusive letters which he has sent either to me or to others about me.  They were sent to the media, to politicians, and included mention of my home and car being firebombed, and many letters circulated widely by him accusing me of lying and of having “a sick and twisted mind.”  Throughout this he continued to be strongly supported by a number of Jersey politicians.  I was accused of breaching his human rights.  He, ****, and three other corrupt ex officers made formal complaints which have all so far been found to be vexatious or unsubstantiated.  The one exception is the complaint by B which because of the drawn out legal action has not finished yet.

It was sometime around this period, that the Chief Officer Graham Power, so alarmed at the overt attempts to control our operational activities, took advice from HMIC, and, I believe, another Chief Constable of one of the off shore islands.

An interesting postscript to this was the overwhelming support of many involved in that commercial area in Jersey.  One example was a letter from the Managing Director of ‘Bel Royal Motors’ who thanked me for the action I had taken over the accident recovery services.  He said that the system was now much fairer and that because it was now done on customer satisfaction and quality, companies like his could benefit.

Another one of the group who complained about me and who was active in the meetings with B, ****, and the politicians above, is a former police officer and civilian member of staff by the name of **** ****.  He is a man who was forced to resign from the service for making Racist remarks to a Portuguese police officer, having already had a record of inappropriate comments to colleagues.  At the time this occurred I was Head of Operations and had no part whatsoever in the discipline proceedings which followed.  These were dealt with by my predecessor.  The only connection that I had to this case came about because the detective officer who had the courage to report him had his property vandalized in the CID office.  I, together with the then Superintendent Pearson, gathered the whole of the CID together and warned them that if there was one more incident of this nature we would send every one of them back to uniform and rebuild the CID from scratch.  Other than that I had only one further connection with this man.  This was when he went to the Jersey Evening Post at the time when B and ****, together with Deputies Ferguson and Egre were trying to drum up publicity for their malicious complaints.  ****, for some bizarre reason told the JEP that I was involved in his “unjustified sacking.”  He then handed over the whole file of his case to the newspaper, including, inadvertently I presume, the record of his previous discipline matters which contained details of his previous inappropriate behaviour.  I think that I issued a press statement of a fairly bland nature which drew attention to the fact that he himself had delivered documents describing his record of racist behaviour to the press.  Other than this, I was not involved with in any way with the case of R.  

Although I will cover the Abuse enquiry in detail below, it is worth noting that shortly after we went public with it, the sister of  B sent letters and e mails to most of the news desks of British newspapers rubbishing the investigation and trying to smear me, stating that I was “guilty of abuse.”

For some time, Legal Advisor Laurence O’Donnell and I had been concerned at the difficulty in prosecuting paedophiles in cases of historic abuse.  This had been exacerbated by difficulties over the case of **** ****, who was the commanding officer of the Jersey Sea Cadets and who was also a senior civil servant in the Chief Minister’s office.  He was arrested as part of the national “Operation Ore” where the FBI had netted thousands of suspects who had used their credit cards to pay for internet sites involving child pornography.  He was one of a number of senior Sea Cadet officers arrested for serious sexual crimes against children.  After his arrest he had not been suspended from Sea Cadet activities and because of my concerns for the safety of the children involved, I disclosed the information about his arrest to the Sea Cadet authorities.  Among the sites he had searched on his computer were a number involving “naked sea cadets” and other child pornography sites.  The Sea Cadet authorities in Jersey were not responsive, telling me that a man “is innocent until proven guilty.”  I eventually had to go to London and threaten to stand at the gates of the Sea Cadet HQ and disclose to individual parents before they took action.

The concerns led us in 2006 to start looking at cases which had been brought.  Early on I became worried about one case where a retired senior police officer (Chief Inspector ****) was implicated in passing information to paedophiles about a police investigation but did not appear to have been interviewed.  It appeared that billing had been carried out on his telephones but had revealed nothing further.  I was still uneasy and asked the investigating officer why **** had not even been interviewed.  She told me that she had been instructed not to by the then head of CID, Chief Inspector ****.  This was even more of a concern than it would have normally been as the Head of CID was also an officer in the Jersey Sea Cadets.  That concern was heightened even more when I discovered that the suspect’s phone that had been billed was actually his wife’s phone.  There was no mention of this fact anywhere in the police documentation.  The investigating officers denied knowledge of that fact.  I was told by the senior officer concerned that no phone could be found for ****.   Within twenty minutes of starting enquiries I had traced a phone to him and found that it was the phone he had when he left the force and in fact it had been given to him as a retirement present.

Word was seeping out around the force of our interest and two officers came to see me.  One of them told me of problems he had with the same senior officer (****) in an enquiry he was carrying out at Victoria College.  I received a report from him in which he stated that he was one of the investigating officers in the case against a man called Jervis Dykes who was a teacher at Victoria College.  Allegations were being made against Dykes that he abused children whilst on outings of the Combined Cadet Force (Naval Section) or on sailing trips around Jersey and to Greece.  Dykes was later convicted of a number of indecency offences.

The officer told me that he tried to make enquiries at St Helier Yacht Club as it was alleged that Dykes took the boys there.  However, he was prevented from doing so by the then CI **** who told the detective that he was not to attend the club without de la Haye going with him.  When the detective went to the club with de la Haye he was not allowed to see the club register but had dates read out to him by the Chief Inspector.

The Club Secretary however arranged for the detective to see the register without CI **** being present and the detective discovered that a group of senior officers including ****attended the club frequently when Dykes was there with students.

The officer remembers being under great pressure to drop the case involving Victoria College as it was doing harm to the reputation of the institution.  He remembers receiving threats that his career would be damaged.  He recalls also that exhibits were going missing, resulting in them having to be locked away in the Detective Inspector’s safe.

The Detective also remembered interviewing the Deputy Headmaster and being told by the Deputy Head that Dykes had assaulted the boys as “payment for the time he provided in taking the boys sailing.”  The officer also revealed that one of his supervisors was a close personal friend of the Deputy Head.  Another officer remembers that this supervisor had at least one child at the college.

Despite the fact that the investigation was escalating, the Detective was removed from the team and returned to normal duties.

A second officer came to see me and informed me that a year before he had submitted a report to the Head of CID, CI **** **** in which he had requested that a historic abuse enquiry should be launched into the former care home at Haut de la Garenne.  This was in response to the large number of allegations which had been made to him by former residents that they had been abused whilst in the home.  The report was submitted to who was the officer who had prevented **** **** from being interviewed as mentioned earlier but nothing had ever materialised and he had heard nothing.  Eventually an enquiry was carried out by South Yorkshire Police into the allegations against the Head of CID but it was still pending when I retired.

Eventually it was decided that we should go public with the enquiry and we did so in mid November 2007.  For some time before that there had been a political controversy raging on the island over the fact that the Health Minister, Senator Stuart Syvret, was trying to draw attention to abuse of children within the Jersey Care System.  He was eventually dismissed from the government as a direct result of his efforts.  Although we were aware that we had evidence which supported what he was saying, we could not disclose to him. However the day before we were due to go public we heard that a BBC television crew were on way to the island to make a documentary in which they would be speaking to Senator Syvret and some victims.  We decided to brief him on the enquiry, both to make him aware of the need not to say anything which might endanger our investigation, but also to seek his assistance.

The next morning we issued our press release, informing the public of our investigation and appealing for victims and witnesses to come forward.  I sent both Senator Syvret and the Chief Minister a copy of our Press Release in advance.  A few hours after the Press Conference I was summoned to the Chief Minister’s Office.  He attempted to admonish me for talking to Senator Syvret.  I explained my reasons.  He instructed me to remove the word ‘victims’ from my press releases as they were not victims “until someone was convicted.”  I refused to do so and was supported in this by the Home Affairs Minister who was present at the meeting.  I was then asked by either the Chief Minister or Bill Ogley, his Chief Executive, if I realised that this investigation “could bring down the government.”  I replied that his was not my problem - it was a police investigation and “it would have to remain as such.”

The response to the initial press appeal was overwhelming.  We had enlisted the aid of the NSPCC in the UK as victims had made it clear they would not co-operate with the enquiry if there was any involvement of the Jersey “caring agencies.”  The NSPCC said it was the largest response they had ever had to one of these appeals.  However, it became clear that there were people in Jersey who did not want the enquiry.  A few days following the summons to the Chief Minister’s office, I was contacted by several journalists in London, and told that they and others had received letters or e mails from a woman who turned out to be the sister of R B, the corrupt towing contractor mentioned earlier in this document.  She warned the recipients not to trust me and that I was “guilty of abuse.”   At the same time Senator Stuart Syvret, contacted me to tell me that **** ****, the former Special Branch Detective, had telephoned him with a similar message.

As regards the enquiry, we were getting some disturbing information from some of the victims.  Two said they had knowledge of human remains at the site but could not be specific.  Several said they had witnessed children being dragged from their beds and who were not seen again.  One witness described seeing a resident being chased along a top floor and then saw the girl leap out of the window.  The children were all ushered away at that point.  

A local advocate came to us and told us that he had a client who had seen a body at the home, although he did not want to be identified at that time.

All of this information gave us a dilemma.  There was not enough concrete evidence to go into Haut de la Garenne and start digging the location up.  However, there was just enough to make it impossible for us to ignore.  If we did, and something was discovered later, it is easy to imagine the criticism we would face.  Furthermore, it was just not conceivable that we should ignore what the victims were telling us.  Accordingly, I arranged to go to the United Kingdom where I met with a number of experts to discuss the way forward.  I also went to London and consulted with the Head of the National Policing Improvement who agreed to provide assistance.

On 5th February 2008, I went to the offices of LGC Forensics in Oxford.  I was accompanied by our Head of Forensic Services and our Operational Security Officer.  Also at the meeting were a Forensic Archaeologist who had once been a Scenes of Crime Officer, an Anthropologist, Homicide Search Experts and advisors from the National Policing Improvement Agency, and a canine consultancy agency.  A briefing was distributed which had been prepared by Karl Harrison, lead scientist at LGC, and was a desk based study of the HDLG site.

After discussion the meeting decided that the way forward would be for a screening of the site to be carried out.  This would establish whether or not there was any justification for further work or excavation at the location.  It was envisaged this would take three to four days.  

On 19th February this screening process started with a team attending HDLG. Present were myself, the Forensic Services Manager, NPIA Homicide Search Advisors, and LGC Forensic staff representing Forensic Anthropology and Archaeology.  

What happened next is well documented.  I have attached at the end of this affidavit, a document prepared by myself and my team which describes in great detail actions taken and the reasons and justification for them.  It is important because it puts in context what we did and shows the step by step evidence based approach we adopted.  It gives the lie to the allegations widely circulated by Jersey Government Ministers that our enquiry team simply went in and dug up HDLG at massive cost with no justification and on the word of “a few unreliable people.”  This was a phrase used by a Jersey Government Minister (another government minister described them as “disturbed people with criminal records”) and, astonishingly, by a senior Metropolitan Police Officer who was asked by the current leadership of the force to provide a report on the enquiry.  He used this phrase when he eventually came to interview me.   I will deal with this in more detail below.

At the same time as we were working at HDLG evidence was building up from victims of the volume of sexual and physical abuse which went on at the former home.   I now felt that we had sufficient evidence to charge the first suspect and I received the go ahead to do so from the Legal Advisors.  However, as in the B case, shortly before the man was due to be charged, the Attorney General instructed Laurence O’Donnell to tell me not to charge.  Unfortunately, there was a “misunderstanding” between Laurence and myself and the charge went ahead.  The man is still awaiting trial.

 The Attorney General had appointed lawyers to work on the case and advise us.  The two lawyers concerned were one who had worked for many years at the AG’s office, and another who carried out much of the Attorney General’s financial crime work.  After negotiation, I agreed that before charging any suspects I would let them have the completed file.  They undertook to get the file back to us in a matter of a few days.  It did not evolve in that way.

Some months later, the Attorney General tried to force me to have a lawyer appointed by him actually based in our incident room.  I refused, as this would have meant him having access to all our raw intelligence and information.  Whilst I was happy to work closely with lawyers I felt that in these circumstances where we were frequently receiving allegations of cover up and failure to deal properly with cases by the authorities, having one of the AG’s lawyers actually sitting in our incident room looking at all our information and intelligence before it got anywhere near a prosecution file, would seriously undermine our credibility with the victims, and gave rise to fears that they would be let down again.  We reached a compromise where I agreed that the AG would supply an “independent, specialist child abuse lawyer” from the UK who would be based in an office in Police Headquarters and who would have access to officers in cases and vice versa.  All files would go to him and he would turn them around quickly with advice on charging.  Again, the reality was different.

The lawyer appointed was a man called Simon Thomas from London.  He came from the chambers which did a lot of the Attorney General’s financial crime work.  He was not a specialist child abuse lawyer although he said one of the female lawyers who worked with him was.  On a personal basis I related well with him but the delays in even simple matters and the difficulty in reaching him was to cause great frustration to my team as he seemed to spend most of his time in the UK.  This was to come to a head later in the ‘B***’ case.

Complaints were coming to us from victims all over the world.  A number of victims who had previously reported abuse and who felt that the system had let them down by failing to prosecute also contacted us.  One such case was that of the Maguire’s.

In 1997 allegations of sexual and physical abuse were made against Alan and Jane Maguire by a number of young men and women who had been children in their care at a Jersey home in the 1980’s.    The Maguire’s were interviewed in January 1998 although no questions about the allegations of sexual abuse were put to them.  They were both charged with a number of assault charges including Grave and Criminal Assault on children.  They pleaded not guilty.

At a subsequent stage it was agreed between the Legal Advisors and the defence that documents going to the court would have all references to sexual abuse removed from them. (Consequently when we started examining the file we knew nothing of any allegations of sexual abuse.)

The committal took place in June 1998.  Evidence was given by a number of victims.  During the evidence of one of them, Alan Maguire apparently took ill.  The Magistrate decided that there was a case to answer and committed the case to the Royal Court.  At about this time a member of the Jersey Caring Agencies gave a statement to police saying she had reported her concerns about the child care practices of the Maguires in the early 1990’s.

Four months after the committal to the Royal Court by the Magistrate, the Police Legal Advisor sent a memo to the Attorney General expressing his concern over the way the Magistrate had handled the Committal and mentions that Maguire may be terminally ill.  He states in the memo that compassion might be a reason to abandon the prosecution.  The Attorney General then in November declares he is discontinuing the case because of insufficient evidence, despite the Magistrate’s committal to the Royal Court.

In February 1999, Jersey’s Mental Health Manager completed an internal enquiry into the behaviour of Mrs Maguire.  He concluded that on his own investigation and that of the police  there was sufficient evidence to show that Mrs Maguire whilst employed at the care home had inflicted and allowed severe physical punishment on children, had inflicted and allowed physical abuse, and had inflicted and allowed psychological abuse on the children in her care.  He recommended her dismissal.  In June 1999, the Maguires moved to France.

I had a pair of officers look at the Maguire file again and they started to re-interview witnesses.  During that process, we discovered the fact that allegations of sexual abuse had also been made in 1997, but had not been proceeded with as part of the investigation.  The officers also obtained new evidence of sexual abuse and eventually in April 2008, a file was submitted to Simon Taylor the lawyer acting on the Attorney General’s behalf in our investigation.

Meanwhile at the end of March 2008, Panorama broadcast a programme in which they ‘door stepped ‘Alan Maguire in France and put allegations of abuse to them.  He reacted quite aggressively and appeared in good health with no obvious signs of the terminal illness he apparently was suffering from ten years before.  It is a fact that when I left we had not managed to trace the source of the information about him being terminally ill.

On 20th May the investigating officers and their supervisor attended a meeting with Simon Thomas to discuss the evidence.  I was told by one of the original two lawyers that he was working with Simon Thomas on the case and they had about one and a half days work left before they would raise indictments to begin the extradition process.

Several days later I was told by Simon Thomas that there were problems surrounding the process of the intended extradition in respect of whether we could extradite for the old matters as well as the new.  To quicken things up I spoke to the lawyer in Jersey who had drafted the law as well as a CPS lawyer in London who was their expert on extradition. I passed the information onto Simon Thomas.

Meantime, the investigating officers were having some difficulty in getting replies to e mails they were sending Simon Thomas, on one occasion having to send three requests for information.

In the middle of June we were informed that the Attorney General had asked for a full report on the “constitutional and legal implications” of extraditing the Maguires from France.  I challenged the lawyers on the need for this as extradition from France was not new and it would cause further delay and consternation for our victims.  On 18th June I received an e mail from the Crown Advocate undertaking to furnish the Attorney General with the requested report within seven days.  I passed this e mail to the detective investigating.

On the 26th June, eight days later, the Investigating Officer asked the lawyer what the AG’s advice was.  The following day Simon Thomas telephoned to say that it had not gone to the AG yet but it would be going soon.  He also said that the investigators would not get a copy of the advice to the AG.

The Investigating Officers then came into possession of more documentation from an advocate asked by the AG to review the Maguire case following the committal to the Royal Court.  He gave a number of reasons why the case should be discontinued including the fact that Maguire was terminally ill.  I am aware that the Attorney General has stated several times that the only reason was evidential and that this was supported by the Advocate concerned.  However, I know this is not entirely accurate.  That advocate on at least three of the charges either said that there was a prima facie case or that there was evidence to discredit the defendant. Furthermore, the reason for ‘lack of evidence’ on most of the others was either that it was on eye-witness account of witnesses as opposed to victims, or the victims were uncorroborated.  The Magistrates ruling seems to have been summarily dismissed.  The Advocate, like the Attorney General’s Legal Advisor makes a firm mention of Maguire’s apparent terminal illness.  As I have said however, the AG denies that the decision was based on anything other than the evidence.

On the 29th July the Investigating detective met with Simon Thomas.  Simon stated that the AG wanted to clarify that the decision to drop the charges against the Maguires was based purely on evidential standards.  Police criticism of the fact that too much weight was placed on the purported terminal illness of Maguire was ill founded.  Documents held by the Enquiry Team giving this impression were “badly worded,” and the Attorney General wanted to confirm that the decision was not public interest based.  He also said that criticism from the police that there was no meeting between the police, Childrens’ services and the lawyers before the decision was made was incorrect.  The AG said a meeting did take place.  (However, the recollection of police officers and social workers concerned was that they were only told after the decision was made.)  There was still no update on a decision from the Attorney General.

A week or so before I retired in August, the Attorney General informed us that he wanted to take the advice of a QC in the United Kingdom, but that particular person was unavailable and would not be so for some time.  I heard nothing else after that.  As far as I am aware, no further action has occurred in respect of the Maguires.

Another case which led to problems with the lawyers was that of the B*****.  We had firm evidence from a number of victims and witnesses that they had beaten children about the head with cricket bats.  In accordance with agreed procedure we sent the file to Simon Thomas.  After a delay, he told four of my officers that we should charge the B***** with Grave and Criminal Assault– not the Jersey equivalent of Common Assault as first mooted, subject of course to any dramatic developments in interview.   The B**** were accordingly arrested early morning of the 24th June.

Nothing untoward happened during the period of custody.  The female suspect feigned illness but the doctor saw through it and declared her fit for interview.  At 5pm Simon Thomas telephoned the officers and told them he had changed his mind – they should not now be charged.  The officers were extremely frustrated.  I spoke to Simon who was sitting on a railway station platform in the North of England.  The conversation was interrupted every few minutes because of trains going past.  Simon said he had revised his opinion because of new evidence.  I asked what that was and he gave me three things.

Firstly, the woman was unwell.  I explained that this was not the case and that the doctor was happy for us to continue.

Secondly, he said that he was aware a witness by the name of ****had telephoned the Custody Sergeant and told him that we had made a mistake.  I pointed out that **** had already made a statement which Simon had seen and read.  ****** had added nothing new.

Thirdly, the B****’ children had telephoned and said that their parents were good people and that they, (the children) were flying to Jersey.  I asked Simon how that was new evidence as opposed to character evidence.  Simon replied that they might have evidence relevant to the allegation.

Simon then said that he needed to speak to his two colleagues in Jersey.  He did so and telephoned back to say they agreed with him and that they wanted to see the interviews before we charged.  I then said that it all made our arrangement pretty worthless, as he was supposed to tell us the charges.  He then said he could not do that as things might change on interview.  I pointed out that he had met my Deputy and other officers and that he had discussed the charges with them and told them to charge with Grave and Criminal Assault. He denied this.  I said that this was not their recollection.  I told him the effect that this would have on the victims and said I was not having the Enquiry team blamed for this.  He finished by saying that operationally he could not tell me whether to ask the Honorary Police to charge or not.

In the circumstances I decided to call the Centenier into Police Headquarters to charge the couple.  The Centenier came, spent over an hour reading the evidence then declared that although there was sufficient evidence to charge he could not go against the lawyer’s advice.

Accordingly I issued a Press Release in which I stated that following consultation with the lawyer appointed by the Attorney General, two people were arrested by the enquiry team in respect of three Grave and Criminal Assaults.  I went on to say that” at 5pm, the lawyer revised his advice.  Following discussion a Centenier was asked to attend and charge the suspects.  Despite stating that the evidence was present, the Centenier declined to charge.  The States of Jersey Police have no alternative but to release the suspects without charge.”

Immediately on their release, victims started to ring the NSPCC staff working with us.  A typical comment was, “it is happening all over again.  It is a cover up.”

The following day, the Attorney General ordered us to say nothing further to the media and demanded a report from me as to why I had released the press statement.  I submitted the report detailing the chain of what I saw as shortcomings in the service we had received from his office.  This report has already been served on the court but I attach a copy of it as Appendix 2.

There have been other aspects surrounding this enquiry which I have found extremely disturbing.  Shortly after the investigation went public, Senator Syvret warned me that I should beware of the activities of the Honorary Police and stated that he feared they might instigate some form of retaliation on him.  Prior to this, I had been stopped once by them in five years.  Within a month of the enquiry going public I had been stopped four times.  On no occasion did I produce my warrant card or state who I was, as the HP made it clear they wanted to check if I had been drinking and to examine my brakes and lights.  I did however become wary of the frequency with which this was occurring, and started using my wife’s car for a week or so.  I was not stopped in it.  The next time I used my own car I was again stopped.  This time, I was told by the Honorary Officer that it was “their usual checks.”  On this occasion there was no mention of drinking or lights, so I assumed it was an identity and vehicle ownership check.   Accordingly, I produced my warrant card, although the honorary Officer did not use a torch and could not have read it or seen the photo, only the badge.  He said, “Ah, right.  But I would still like to check your lights, indicators, and brake lights.”  I immediately pocketed my warrant card and told him that was no problem at all.  The checks were carried out, there was an exchange of polite pleasantries and I went on my way.  There was no indication that he recognised me and in the darkness I did not see his face.

On the 27th December I received a letter from the Attorney General (the Titular Head of the HP), to say that a member of the Honorary force had written to make a complaint about my inappropriate use of my warrant card.  The AG went on to say that it was alleged that I was told that the HP wanted to check my lights.  I then produced a warrant card with my name on it.  The AG said that police rules laid out the proper use of a warrant card.  However, he went on to say that he was not treating it as a complaint against the police because the Honorary Officer was on duty.  The AG added that this had caused a sufficient stir within the lower ranks of the Honorary Police, so much so that a formal complaint was made. He added that for the purpose of securing good relations with the Honorary Force I might be willing to write to him appropriately and he would copy it to the complainant.

I did respond to him, by letter and e mail.  I outlined the facts as above, including the impossibility of him seeing my name on the warrant card.  I told him that he was being misled and that I was well aware of the rules regarding warrant card use, and that a means of identity was one of those uses.  I told him of the series of stops, and the lack of them when I used my wife’s car.  I told him this could not have been a mistake, this was a deliberate attempt to smear me.  I also questioned his statement that this had caused a stir among the lower ranks of the Honorary Police and asked why details of my stop were being bandied about.  I pointed out although the HP officer was on duty, I was not, and therefore would like to ask about making a formal complaint.  I also requested the record of the stop, the reasons for him discussing it with others, and why he should suddenly have had a problem after I left.

To this day I have not had an acknowledgement from the Attorney General.

In November 2008, three months after my retirement, the new SIO, Superintendent Michael Gradwell and my replacement as Deputy Chief, David Warcup, gave a press conference in which they totally misrepresented what I had been saying for some months.  They stated that contrary to the impression I had given to the media, there was no evidence of murder, no suspects for murder, and no murder enquiry.  They ‘apologised’ for the false impression I had given.  This was despite the fact that they were saying nothing different from what I had been saying for some months.  A number of journalists from the BBC and elsewhere telephoned me to ask what was going on, as they all remembered me saying just this.  There are many, many records of me saying that I did not have sufficient evidence to mount a homicide enquiry.  One of the most prominent is the BBC News website of 31st July which quotes me as saying that “unless the evidence changes, it is obvious that there will be no murder enquiry.”

Gradwell also said that I had misled the public about bones being identified as human and that only three bones had been identified as possibly human.  He made no mention at that time of a statement by Andrew Chamberlain, an Anthropologist in the UK, who was given sixteen pieces of bone found in the same place by our onsite Anthropologist and identified the largest of them as human juvenile, burnt shortly after death, and buried shortly afterwards.  He stated that these were no more than a few decades old.  The onsite Anthropologist logged the fact that these sixteen bones were positively human.  Gradwell made no mention of that either.

Gradwell also briefed journalists that I had not kept the Policy Books correctly.  This is despite the verdict of the ACPO Homicide Working Group Review Team, who carried out several reviews of the investigation and mentored myself and other officers.  They concluded that the books were kept properly.

There was to be a further distortion of the truth in respect of Andrew Chamberlain’s statement.  The day after I received the report from Andrew, I forwarded a confidential e mail to the Chief Minister quoting verbatim from the report.  I stated that Andrew had identified the bones as human juvenile, that he had said they were burnt shortly after death and buried shortly after burning.  He said they were no more than a few decades old.  Andrew did not identify any part of the body, and consequently neither did I in my e mail to the Chief Minister.  I went on to say that if this was confirmed, then there would have to be a homicide investigation.  However, a few months ago a Mail on Sunday journalist in Scotland told me that the Chief Minister’s office had leaked the e mail to David Rose, a Mail on Sunday journalist in London.  Rose quoted in his article an alleged comment from me, that the bones had come from a child’s skull and it was now a murder enquiry.  This was a fabrication and the e mail had obviously been mis-quoted by either the person who leaked it or the journalist.  I have made several applications under Freedom of Information to get the e mail to prove what I say, but the Chief Minister of Jersey has refused to hand it over.

I made a complaint to the Press Complaints Council about the inaccurate article carried by the Mail.  Several weeks ago, I received a letter from the Council to tell me that as part of their defence, the Mail had given them a letter from Superintendent Gradwell to the journalist concerned in which he quoted from my personal police file and CV from the file.  He also made some other disparaging and inaccurate comments.  I considered his use of my personal details from my file to be a breach of my privacy and an abuse of his position, a discipline offence in the States of Jersey Police.  I made a formal complaint.

As a complaint alleging abuse of authority and position from a member of the public, my complaint should have been passed to the Jersey Police Complaints Authority.  However, this week I received a letter from the Acting Chief Officer in which he states that he had reviewed my complaint and it did not come within the Police Complaints Law, and in any event, it was without substance.  I have now written to the Police Complaints Authority.  It is supposed to be one measure of a democracy that complaints against a law enforcement body should be properly investigated.  It is also a basic human right.  Jersey seems to be disregarding this.

At the same time as the Press Conference mentioned above, the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police was suspended.  One of the reasons given was his failure to control my spending on the enquiry.  This is despite the fact that when I told the media that financial considerations would be one of the factors I took into account on deciding my action, I received a severe admonishment from the Chief Minister’s office for mentioning finance.  “It is irrelevant”, I was told.  I was instructed that justice was the important aspect, not the cost.

Some weeks ago I read that the Home Affairs Accounting Officer had said that much of the spending on the enquiry was ‘illegal’ and could not be justified.  This was despite the fact that I had frequent meetings with him and exchanged e mails with him in which he acknowledged the operational need.  He never concluded that anything I spent was unjustified.  On the contrary, he concurred with my decisions on each occasion I explained them to him.  One such example was when I sent two officers to Australia to obtain statements from victims in a case which is now going through the courts.  The officers had to take statements from victims on the opposite ends of Australia.  During their time there they had no days off- postponing rest days until their return to save money.  They commenced work the day after they landed from each flight.  On their return they were exhausted, but I received grateful messages from the victims to say that talking to the officers had a dramatic beneficial effect on them.  Anticipating the demands on the officers, and in accordance with States of Jersey policy on long haul flights, I authorised travel by business class.  This decision was supported by the Accounting Officer, the Home Affairs Minister, and the Chief Minister, following the submission of a report by me in answer to criticism by two Ministers, who themselves had availed of the same policy but did take days off.  Despite the agreement, some weeks after my retirement, the same two ministers accused me of wasting money in a letter to the media over this incident.  Bizarrely, the Home Affairs Minister and the Chief Minister joined in the criticism.

Finally, I would relate the story about the ‘unused material.’  During my leadership of the investigation, I took regular advice from New Scotland Yard on aspects of Operational Security.  One of their pieces of advice was that I should not use a day book to record decisions and other developments in, but that I should record it all in the policy files, message pads, and other documents.  I complied with this.  Notwithstanding, the States of Jersey Police briefed the media and the court that I had taken unused material from Jersey with me on retirement.  The Attorney General wrote that unless I produced this material, they would be unable to meet their disclosure obligations and the cases may well be lost.  Despite my frequent denials, the AG instructed me (with only a few days notice) to attend court in Jersey to produce these documents.  They did not comply with the law in Scotland and after consultation with the Crown Office in Scotland I did not attend.  I again told them I had no unused material and referred them to Scotland Yard for clarification.  I challenged them that this was a ploy to blame me wrongly for failing to produce nonexistent material in order for them to blame me when the cases were dismissed, which seemed to me to be the outcome  they were seeking.  I gave the Attorney General a schedule of the documents I did have.  Superintendent Gradwell continued to brief the media that I had material even after a judge from the UK told them that they should pursue it no further. 

I went to Jersey in 2002 full of expectation of the challenge that lay ahead.  I soon learnt that it was like nowhere else in the British Isles. I was puzzled at first by the hostile reaction from politicians to our efforts to stop the few bullies in the force from making the lives of their colleagues miserable.  This turned to anger at the complete obstruction to all our efforts to regulate the possession of high velocity weapons on the island.  I began to then see the close links and the way in which the various arms of Jersey society worked in order to stop any modernisation.  I saw the law being enforced by the Honorary forces, not on the basis of right and wrong, but simply on who was known to each other, or who went to school with each other.  When we tried to tackle police corruption, we again ran into a wall of hostility.  This time it was organised, as politicians and government ministers gave open support to the corrupt cops and their associates.  Prominent politicians met openly with disgraced corrupt former officers and made excuses for them.  One government minister spoke out on behalf of **** ****, the Special Branch Detective, stating that he had been hounded because of “administrative irregularities.”  In respect of B, the businessman who was paying off almost ten percent of the force, I met with one high profile long time politician who first told me that I did not understand the culture of Jersey and that a little corruption did no one any harm.  The female Minister of Home Affairs was at another meeting with me and he told her to tone down, that everyone knew she only got the job because she was “a little girlie.”

There are no checks and balances on power and the abuse of it.  This is obvious each time one tries to make a complaint against any member of the government.  One such example arose after a Daily Mail journalist telephoned the Chief Officer of Police, Graham Power, and told him that Senator James Perchard, the Health Minister, had given him a confidential police e mail.  The conversation was taped on the publicly declared recording system at Police Headquarters.  The force made an official complaint which was totally ignored by the Chief Minister’s office.  The Minister denied the allegation, the journalist even denied making the admission, despite the recording.  A second attempt was made to complain, again it was ignored.  Yet, after a report which I compiled and forwarded to the Attorney General became public, the AG reacted furiously.  Despite the fact that the media only obtained it after it was served on the High Court in London, and indeed, various media reports mentioned that fact, a UK police force was appointed at huge expense to investigate who ‘leaked’ the matter.  I was warned by five UK journalists and Senator Stuart Syvret that they had been approached ‘cold’ by these officers and asked to implicate me in the passing of documents to them.  Senator Syvret was told it was an “Official Secrets Act” investigation despite the fact that the AG had told us in the **** case that police officers did not come within the Law.

What amazed me was the total arrogance of the corrupt – their willingness to go to the media and tell their stories and claim that they were hard done by.  This could only happen in an environment where they knew that they would be sympathetic.  During the Abuse enquiry I was totally humbled by the number of ordinary Jersey people who stopped me daily, on many occasions with my family, and thanked me for standing up to those who had abused their power and not listened to them for so long.  My family still talk about it in disbelief.  Trying to get independence in the system is nigh on impossible.  As an example, the so called “independent specialist” lawyers appointed by the Attorney General to the Abuse enquiry.  They were neither independent nor specialists in child abuse.  Two of them were lawyers who for some time have been carrying out the financial crime work of the AG.  The other worked for the AG for years and had only recently left.

There is one other incident to illustrate the situation.   A UK lawyer now in Jersey who has vast experience in Child Abuse offered their services to the AG to assist with the enquiry.  They did so on the basis that there was no one with sufficient experience to be of use.  The AG refused.  The lawyer told him that Simon Thomas, for all his capabilities and talent, was not a child abuse specialist and this was what was needed.  The AG’s response was that this person ought not to worry – there would be no prosecutions anyway.  This lawyer does not want to be named because of fears for the future.  The lawyer did however, confide this in the former Home Affairs Minister, who resigned from the government because they refused to update the Sexual Offences law – Jersey is still a society where the judge has to tell the jury about the fact that women have on occasions made stories of sexual assault up.

With such an absence of controls, such an absence of accountability, the ordinary decent people of Jersey are helpless.  Intentionally or not, the system has allowed corruption to flourish to such an extent that those seeking to combat it are the ones open to scorn.  In what other society in the British Isles and beyond, are the police criticised for trying to professionalise themselves?  No matter what efforts are made, ultimately they run into a brick wall.  This will not be rectified until some sort of independent element is inserted.


The Fight for Truth ,Honesty  & Integrity continues

For all the Abuse Survivors and the ones who sadly are no longer with us

Rico Sorda

Team Voice