Sunday, May 29, 2011


The infamous double act that allegedly  netted Bill Ogley £500.000

Not bad seeing as the going rate for Hospital Manslaughter is allegedly £300,000 - Mike Pollard resigning before the Verita Report

Do you think suspending a Chief of Police & Covering up Child Abuse costs peanuts? 

The Wiltshire Report & The BDO Alto Report

Complete and Utter Tosh

Used to Cover-UP  State Run Child Abuse in Jersey

The Evidence is overwhelming 


A  fortune spent on Wiltshire - This report was never intended for disciplinary action and it never was - This catastrophic Shambles should have cost the Home Affairs Minister his position. But, alas this is Jersey, so he got a good round of applause from the Lunatics in the States Chamber who lets be honest would not be out of place in that beacon of Democracy  called North Korea.

There is no outcry or scathing Editorials concerning the Idiotic use of the Wiltshire Report

There is no outcry or scathing Editorials concerning the Wiltshire Expenses

There is no outcry or scathing Editorials concerning the crazy actions of our Home Affairs Minister

There is no outcry or scathing Editorials concerning the findings of the Napier Report or a nameless Civil Servant  being disciplined 

And there is no outcry at the continued stalling of the "COMMITTEE OF NO ENQUIRY"

We have the JEP telling everyone about the outcry that is the Chief Excecutive of Jersey receiving £500,000 pound handshake. Yet,  if this paper had done its job it would have been telling us how it exposed the Child Abuse Cover-up and 


Remember this article


Former States police chief Graham Power

Report criticises suspension

Former States police chief Graham Power

FORMER Police Chief Graham Power was suspended without proper evidence of incompetence in handling the historical child abuse inquiry, a report has revealed.

The independent report by employment law specialist Brian Napier QC released today says that there were procedural failings in the handling of the suspension of Mr Power in November 2008 which was carried out by the then Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis, in the presence of States chief executive Bill Ogley.

Mr Power was suspended on the same day that it was revealed by acting police chief David Warcup and Det Supt Mick Gradwell that there had been no child murders or bodies buried at Haut de la Garenne.

• See Friday’s Jersey Evening Post for the full report

Article posted on 8th October, 2010 - 3.00pm

Read more:

So our Ruling Elite pay TEFLON BILL £500,000

If we wanted to we could pick the BDO Alto report to bits. Like everything at the moment its a £64,000 pounds Shambles.  Just like the Wiltshire report and its Million plus price tag.

And what of Lenny Harpers confidential Wiltshire Statement?

 Looking at what has gone on you can see that  there is a clear overlap between the work of Wiltshire and BDO and a case could be made out for sharing information.   But I have also been informed that it would have to be made out, agreed and signed off.   Also, people providing information to either enquiry ought to be told that it was to be shared.    Someone ought to be able to produce the written agreement or Memorandom Of Understanding between Wiltshire and BDO which specifies the basis on which information is being shared.  There is also a breach of natural justice in publishing a report critical of individuals without offering an opportunity for them to contribute or comment on a draft.  Remember when Brian Napier was doing his report he sent out "Scott Letters" to the people being criticised so they had a chance to respond before the final draft of the report was to made public.

What is getting interesting as the correspondence unfolds is that nobody seems to be owning up to allowing the sharing of information between the two enquiries.   If im getting this right then ILM is denying it was him and Wiltshire have not responded.   The position we could take  is to take ILM at face value for the time being and then to press Wiltshire on the basis that if its not ILM then it must be Brian Moore. He has to reply and he has to answer because of the seriousness of the issues.   Depending on what he says there might be a basis for a Data Protection complaint in the UK or possibly a complaint to the Wiltshire Police Authority that an undertaking of confidentiality has been broken by their Chief Constable .  

The BDO Alto report states on page 10

NPIA Review Team remarked that, ' A clear strategy from the outset could have considerably reduced the amount of work required whilst achieving the same results' 

It does not say where the above quote comes from. Did they just make it up?

This is very strange.  

Tucked away on page  44 of the BDO Report it says there were two representatives  of the NPIA at the meeting in Oxfordshire. What these reports don't give you is how things were moving at the time. This was and continues to be a Child Abuse Investigation,  it's so easy to be wise after the event.  I believe it's important to look at these reports and show how they have been used by our ruling elite, media and idiotic states members  to discredit the two officers who broke the wall of silence and worse still to discredit the very Abuse Survivors themselves .  I have no doubt that mistakes were made during Operation Rectangle mistakes are always made in major investigations it's one of the reasons the Police call in reviews ( The Met Report ).  Should we be surprised at what has happened? We know its all about Jerseys reputation. The Child Abuse investigation laid bare everything that is rotten in the Jersey Government.

Below I reproduce  the document 

Opperation Rectangle   Haut De La Garenne Strategic Search Advice

This was done by Mark Harrison MBE - NPIA

Remember the above quote;

NPIA Review Team remarked that, ' A clear strategy from the outset could have considerably reduced the amount of work required whilst achieving the same 


Mark Harrison MBE

National Search Adviser 

Homicide, Missing Persons, Mass Fatality Disasters

Email:  HYPERLINK ""

Direct dial: 07979488414



Terms of Reference

Provide strategic advice to the SIO and CSC in relation to searches for Human remains within the grounds and Building at “Haut de la Garenne” a former children’s home, Jersey.

Advise the SIO and CSC on appropriate search assets.

On 5/2/08 a briefing was held at LGC oxford by SIO Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper, States of Jersey Police. In addition to the briefing a document was distributed which had been prepared by Karl Harrison, lead scientist LGC. This document was a desk based study of the “Haut de la Garanne” site.

On 19/2/08 the “Haut de la Garanne” site was visited by a reconnaissance party including States of Jersey Police SIO and CSC, LGC staff representing Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Cranfield representing Geophysics, FSC representing specialist search canines and myself.

On 20/2/08 I was briefed by Paul Tucker on recent renovations and previous relevant finds at the “Haut de la Garanne”.

As a result of the on ground reconnaissance I recommend consideration of the following search strategic advice.

Scenario Based Searching

Prior to any searches being undertaken the scenario the search is based upon should be documented and clearly communicated to all search personnel a draft suggestion could be; “to search for the non dismembered skeletal remains of children between the ages of ? that have been buried to the sub metre level using hand tools within the building and grounds of Haut de la Garenne”. 

Search Phases

The search process should be conducted in five phases, they are;

Phase one

Desk based study – this has already been completed by LGC

Phase two 

On the ground reconnaissance and control measures survey.

identify relevant features on the ground that provide optimal areas for burial

Ground characterisation – dig test pits on the site to establish the ground geology and the sub surface hydro domains. 

Digability and excavatability survey – establish the viability and ease to dig a burial using hand tools on the site.

Analyse the soil to determine type and the probable effects on decomposition.

Geophysics study to determine the optimum equipment type for the site and the maximum resolution and depth penetration available.

Geomatics – create a plan drawing of the site to record any significant finds or search activity.

Conduct a walk through with a knowledgeable person who can provide information regarding the changes and renovations to the building and grounds.

Phase Three

Search of the site in a prioritised order, all assets should be used moving from the non invasive to the invasive.

Where geophysical surveys identify anomalies these should be compared against any known sub surface utilities prior to invasive excavation.

Where any VRD (Victim Recovery Dog) indications are given consideration should be made to any sub surface scent pathways gravity fed either via pathways through the soil, bedrock or hydro geological action.

Where there are physical excavations on any priority area or identified anomaly they should be supervised by an Archaeologist and Anthropologist.

Grounds of Haut de la Garenne

The grounds are an open area approximately 220m x 130m with hedgerows bounding the perimeter and the four irregular sections within it. The search here utilises field craft, geophysical survey and VRD search followed by controlled excavation where required.

Courtyard within Haut de la Garenne

This courtyard has a smooth tarmac covering. The courtyard has been subject to extensive renovation over the last 40 years. Within the courtyard are two large drainage tanks and a well. It is recommended a GPR (Ground Penetrating Radar) survey is conducted to establish the sub surface utilities, the boundaries of the tanks and well and establish the number of unaccounted for anomalies. Depending on the number of anomalies it maybe necessary to bore holes to facilitate the egress of “scent” (volatile organic compounds) emitting any grave or to facilitate more detailed imaging. If the anomaly is considered a possible grave then the GPR can be used to image the area prior to excavation. The well depending on it size and condition may require exploration to determine the presence of any remains. Clearly this method is invasive and reparation work will be required once the search is complete.

Inside the building of Haut de la Grarenne.

Information exists of the previous finding of buried bones co mingled with a pair of children’s shoes and fragments of cloth. The location of these finds within the building is known. It is therefore recommended that a VRD and then a GPR survey is conducted over this known location in order to determine any anomalies or positive indications. These anomalies could then be invasively explored in order to identify their source. The remainder of this large building could be subject to a VRD sweep of all rooms and open areas. This would be a proportionate response as there is no intelligence relating to other areas of the building at this time. Inhibiting factors are the large size of the building and its comprehensive renovation and extension in recent years. 

Phase Four

This would be enacted if an evidential find is made and the forensic body recovery strategy is implemented.

Phase Five

This is the exit strategy. On completion of the search a full geomatic survey will have been conducted recording in document and mapping form all search activity undertaken on the site. Where possible geophysical surveys should have data logging and GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) positional recording to enable proof of coverage. Searches involving the VRD should also be recorded using a mobile GPS data logger. All anomalies, indications and test pits should be recorded in a GIS (Geographic Information System) model.


 The above link shows exactly what went on with the excavation of Haut de La Garenne and should be read

To Cover-up the Child Abuse and protect High Profile Suspects they had to discredit the Investigation. The sad thing is that to discredit the investigation they needed the "LOCAL MAIN STREAM MEDIA" this they got.

When something that resembles a "COMMITTEE OF NO  ENQUIRY" turns up with very flexible and disappearing Terms of Reference the local media should be investigated.

We await now the Reply from Wiltshire and BDO  Alto 

Rico Sorda

Wednesday, May 25, 2011


Lenny Harper

BDO Alto 5

Lenny Harper replies 

Im asking the readers of my Blog a simple question are our Ruling Elite 

A. Corrupt

B. Incompetent 

C. Both 

Researching these Blogs sometimes leaves me feeling very depressed. I can fully understand where Stuart Syvret is coming from. 

I emailed the Chair and Deputy Chair of PAC  asking about their Scrutiny of the BDO Report im still  awaiting acknowledgment of the email let alone an answer.

We now know that the independent review  undertaken by BDO is a total sham. We also know that there is now a bit of panic going on between Wiltshire, BDO and the Home Affairs dept. ILM & SAV have dived for cover and are currently unavailable, BDO responded with something that was worse than their report, Wiltshire are flapping and trying to find answers as they seem to get the seriousness of the situation. Someone gave Lenny Harpers confidential Wiltshire Statement to BDO.

A. Wiltshire

B. Home Affairs

When I started these BDO blogs it was meant to  be about the shock of a £64,000 report that hadn't involved the two main players Lenny Harper & Graham Power. When I started reading the report I soon realized that they were quoting Lenny's Wiltshire  statement  things then snowballed. I will be publishing LH's reply. Why BDO or the MSM couldn't have done the same only ILM knows.

 Yet look at what has happened to Deputy Hills complaint. This can be read here


Its just the same garbage from this out of control ruling elite

Or Deputy T Pitman trying to get a report into 1.1ks 


This just cant carry on. 

This Corruption does not just lay at the Door Of Child Abuse it runs through everything.

Why doesn't a politician ask the following questions

 A. What is the Criminal Confiscation Fund

B. How much money is currently held in it

C. Who controls the CCF

D. Can we have a Financial Audit of the las 5 years

E. And can it please be used for the " Committee of No ENQUIRY"


This is just a short posting. I will keep you posted with any updates I get. 


Rico Sorda

Lenny Harper

Just two days ago, on the 9th May 2011 I became aware for the very first time of the existence of a group called BDO Alto Ltd.  I also learnt that they had carried out a review of the manner in which I had utilised resources in the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry.  This all came as something of a surprise as despite being the Senior Investigating Officer of the enquiry, BDO had never made any attempt to ask me anything at all about the enquiry and the decisions I had made in respect of the use of resources.  It did not take me any longer than the first page to realise that their report was full of factual errors and assumptions which they had wrongly arrived at, either intentionally or otherwise, because of their failure to speak to me, and I believe, the former Chief Officer of the force, Graham Power QPM.  Below, I draw attention to some of the most obvious flaws in the report which I believe cost the States in excess of £60,000.  I should emphasise that there are so many wrong assumptions and factual inaccuracies that I have restricted myself to pointing out a representative sample of them.

The report is flawed from the outset when it makes light of the process which led to the search of HDLG.  It rightly states that there was no initial intention to excavate the building, but then states "for some reason this changed."  The reasons have been well documented. The BDO report states that where the dog barked, we dug.  It deliberately ignores the evidence of the Operation Rectangle Summary Report, (available on the SOJP website before Mr Warcup removed it) which describes all the technical and scientific aids and methods which were used to corroborate the reactions of the dogs.  The report also ignores the evidence available to us from builders who found bones they believed to be human and who were told to "let bygones be bygones."  It follows also, that BDO make no mention of the inconsistencies in the handling of the bones by the local Pathologist.  All in all, BDO seem to deliberately play down the evidence for the operation.


The report quotes the now discredited Met  review as saying that "the search was not justified."  There seems to be shades of the now widely criticised Warcup and Gradwell press conference here.  However, Wiltshire in their report endorsed the entry and search.  The BDO conclusion that considerable elements of the investigation costs were therefore questionable seems highly debatable to say the least, relying as they do on the Met report.


In talking about JAR/6 BDO state that the item had not been lab tested or subjected to peer review.  This ignores the fact that the identification was made by a renowned and respected anthropologist.  It goes on to peddle the myth that a scientist from the Carbon Dating Lab in Oxford identified the item as wood or coconut.  This, as we know, is rubbish.  Firstly nobody at that lab was qualified to say what it was - their expertise is in dating, and they made a hash of that, and secondly, no one ever said what it was.  I have e mail evidence which shows them saying clearly that to be sure as to what it was, it would need to be examined by experts.  How come BDO never picked that up?  Could it be because they never spoke to me?  There is no mention either of the collagen found which directly contradicts the coconut and wood theory. One has to ask, why did BDO not pick up the e mails which show the lab as struggling to explain the collagen.  If they had spoken to me I would have given them copies.


On page 10 the report states that an NPIA(National Policing Improvement Agency) review criticised my strategy.  This is very odd because it was the NPIA who developed the strategy (and I have a copy of the letter they sent me outlining it).  Furthermore, they were present at the meeting in Oxford where the operation was first discussed and advice sought from them.  They were also present throughout the excavation at HDLG, and described the operation as an example of good practice.  Strangely though, in mentioning those present at the Oxford meeting, this BDOI report does not mention the NPIA as being present.  It is nonsense to suggest they would criticise their own strategy.  One has to ask why the report has ignored the NPIA presence at the Oxford meeting where the decision to enter HDLG was taken and why there is no mention that the NPIA devised the strategy.  It is puzzling in the least as to why BDO should claim that the NPIA reviewed and criticised their own strategy.  Did they deliberately try and muddy the water or  did they mistakenly enter NPIA when they were really talking about the mysterious Met report which the Napier report concluded had been used in a misleading fashion by David Warcup. Either way, it is a damning indictment of their ability and credibility.

The BDO report totally misunderstands and misrepresents the situation of the SOJP as it was then in relation to the management of its budget.  The report compares the management of the police budget unfavourably with UK forces and rather misleadingly equates (supposed) operational independence with the financial decision making ability of UK forces.  In reality, unlike UK forces, we did not have the ability to track our budgets as they do in the UK.  Where the UK forces had in house finance departments which reported to the Chief Officer, we had an ever diminishing number of Treasury personnel who nominally worked with us but reported to the Treasury.  We had to rely on them for monthly bulletins as to how we were doing.  These bulletins became a joke so inaccurate were they and we came to realise eventually that the inaccuracies were deliberate.  We monitored our own expenditure and towards the end of one year we knew we were well under-spent, with a surplus that we had been promised we could carry over to the next year.  However, the Treasury insisted we were slightly overspent.  We later found that we had been correct but our surplus had been passed on to other States departments which were heavily over-spent.  Wiser the following years we ignored the Centre’s protestations that we were over spent and indeed they were wrong and we came within budget.  This was the context that we found ourselves in at the beginning of the Abuse enquiry.  Graham Power continually pleaded for us to be given a budget to work to but was refused.  The instruction by Frank Walker to use whatever resources we needed was not misunderstood.  It was a clear direction.  BDO seem to infer that it was not really an instruction to use whatever we needed.  However, they have ignored the fact that when I did speak publicly about the need to be mindful of the costs of the enquiry, I received a stinging rebuke from Bill Ogley on behalf of Frank Walker in which he said “costs are irrelevant.  I have a copy of that e mail and if BDO had bothered to try to contact me I would have let them have it.

All of this puts the comments by Steven Austen Vaughtier in a light which does him no credit.  According to BDO SAV speaks of the lack of financial control and governance at the SOJP.  How he equates this with the fact that our savings were used to bail out other Home Affairs departments is puzzling.  It also ignores the reality that he was kept fully up to date with what was happening and totally supported what we were doing.  I had several meetings with him and Elizabeth Middleton during which I went through all our expenditure, explaining the efforts to keep costs of accommodation etc to a minimum, all of which he applauded.  I wonder if BDO made any attempt to contact hotels such as the Hotel de France and L’Horizon which gave us bargain basement rates as it was out of season and we were guaranteed regular custom?  I suspect not.

SAV claims that I was asked for detailed estimates of costs and BDO state that this is contrary to what I said in my statement to Wiltshire.  There are a number of points here.  Firstly, how could I possibly estimate cost when I had no access to figures.  All of these were in the possession of the Treasury.  If I had an accountant working alongside me and briefing me daily on the costs I would have had this information at my fingertips.  In reality, SAV had easier access to it than I had.  What I was able to do, and what I did, was to ensure that every penny spent was operationally necessary.  I went through all of these, including the Australia trip, in minute detail to SAV and Mrs Middleton.  I even had a detailed report on that trip submitted to Frank Walker through SAV and it was acknowledged that the expenditure was justified.  It was not until after I retired that the matter of the Australia trip was dishonestly resurrected.  

Furthermore, it is not true that no minutes were taken of these meetings.  Mrs Middleton made copious notes, and indeed used them to remind me of what was said at them in the following days.  The e mails should still be available.  Can we assume that these notes have also been shredded?

There is one last matter of concern.  BDO seem to be quoting from my statement to Wiltshire.  This was a statement made for a particular purpose – the investigation into Graham Power.  When I was refused a copy, I was told that no one would be given a copy and that it would be used for no purpose other than the one it was made for.  That was a condition of me then agreeing to make it.  I am surprised that it was used for another purpose particularly in the light of the Home Affairs Minister’s refusal to make it public.

BDO state that Mr Austen Vaughtier appears to have blamed his apparent failure to monitor expenditure on the fact that he was told by me that we were investigating a child homicide.  This is totally incorrect and is easily demolished by reference to any number of open media sources where I have drawn the distinction between a homicide investigation and treating a scene as one of a possible homicide.  Both the authors of the report and SAV should have been well aware of my position on this and the report is misleading and untrue in this regard.

I am disappointed that SAV should have sought to discredit the enquiry in the fashion he has.  I had a high regard for him although I was well aware of the pressure he was under from politicians trying to get at the enquiry, and I can understand why he has changed his stance given the ruthlessness and desperate manoeuvrings of those he works for.  I am in possession of an e mail from him which shows the level of co-operation I was giving him and his satisfaction with it.

Sunday, May 22, 2011


Senator ILM

Lenny Harper

Billy Smart Circus


They Respond

I will be sharing the latest round of emails in this posting.

Also, I would like to point out what I see is history repeating itself and the Double Standards of the Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand and our Ruling  Elite. To people who are familiar with my Blog Postings on the Brian Napier  Report you will know how i've shown that there are 4 TOR's and a whole load of shennigans to boot. So, what has this got to do with BDO Alto  I hear you say. Well, there has just been an " INDEPENDENT REPORT" into the conduct of a very senior Civil Servant concerning the Brian Napier Report .

When I was researching through Hansard I came across another little gem

Just look at the Similarities 

BDO Alto "Independent Report"  never contacted the two main players Lenny Harper or Graham Power.  This Report was used for the "Lavish lifestyle"  Media Reporting.

Now just look at this exchange between Deputy Chief Minister Philip Ozouf  and Deputy Bob Hill concerning the conduct of a very Senior Civil Servant .  Deputy Hill finds out that this report is so "INDEPENDENT" that the person conducting it doesn't even interview the two main players, Brian  Napier QC or Graham Power QPM. Read the exchange below and remember the "BDO Alto Report" It  really is Staggering that no one is doing anything about this shambolic running of Government apart from the usual Deputies. 

4.4     The Deputy of St. Martin:
The Senator has recently overseen a serious complaint made against a senior civil servant, will the Minister inform Members whether the investigator into the complaint interviewed the former Police Chief Office and the Q.C. (Queen’s Counsel) who investigated the circumstances into the Police Chief’s suspension?  If they were not interviewed, will he explain why?
Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:
I did discharge those functions because the Chief Minister asked me to and an independent investigator was appointed.  He carried out the review.  These are not matters which should be ventilated into the public domain.  The Deputy of St. Martin made a number of allegations and they were not upheld but unfortunately he continues on this line of questioning in relation to various matters in relation to this.  I looked at this issue and as far as I am concerned that matter, which I do not think it is appropriate that we talk about in the public domain, is now closed after a satisfactory independent review.
4.4.1  The Deputy of St. Martin:
I ask the question I asked be answered: were these 2 gentlemen interviewed?
Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:
No, and I do not believe it was relevant.  The independent review was made.  But they are not relevant, the Deputy continues to makes comments and casts aspersions on people and individuals and I hope that we have drawn a line under those issues in a way that we should have closure.  We need to move on and stop attacking individuals who are discharging public office and have done so properly.  [Approbation]  This issue was basically thrown out.

There you have it ,  just priceless it really is but also very serious. Before I move on to the reply from "BDO"  I want to show you the double standards of Senator Ian Le Marquand. Now, we all know how he has gone on about the Maverick cop Lenny Harper and his lavish spending of £7,000 from January to August 08 on flights, accommodation and meals just look what he says when challenged about the Wiltshire Expenses. I will also be investigating these and im awaiting a reply from Steve Austin Vautier concerning them.  This is roughly between January and November 09. 


Hotel Accommodation ..£82,000

8th December 2009 Questions without Notice ILM

.3 The Deputy of St. Martin:
Maybe I could just follow up that before I ask my question.  If the Minister felt that he may well be conflicted because he will have 2 roles to play, would the Minister not consider it might be appropriate maybe to delegate that responsibility to an Assistant Minister?  Really to get down to the real question I want to ask also, 2 or 3 weeks ago the Minister indicated that the cost for the Wiltshire Inquiry was £530,000-odd and rising and he was going to look into the cost particularly of the hotel and travel fees which, I think, were well over £170,000.  Is the Minister able to give us an update on whether those fees or those costs were justified?
Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
As usual the Deputy has posed a number of questions together and I am afraid I cannot remember the first one because I was so focusing on the last one.  In relation to the costs of Wiltshire 1, as I like to call it, I have received detailed figures.  I was particularly interested in the issue of the costs of transportation.  What the Members of this Assembly must understand is that for many months there were 7 Wiltshire police officers working full-time in relation to this very complex matter.  They were coming over on a Monday morning where air fares are very high, normally from Southampton, sometimes from Bristol and then returning on a Friday evening.  So, there were considerable costs there.  I am satisfied, in general terms, that there has been proper monitoring of costs and expenditure by officers of my department.

Just look at his answer. I don't want to dwell on this  at the moment.  I only want to highlight them for future reference and show how it's farcical what is happening especially when we now look at the BDO Alto report. This ruling elite can change, manipulate, suspend, arrest , castigate with their local paid up local media anyone they like. Our Government has no control on what is going on. 

So, back to the BDO reply. Just look how no one can give an answer. This is getting very interesting as they had no idea any questions would be asked. It's important that I start with the original email from Lenny so you can get an idea of what is going on.  BDO & the Home Affairs don't really want to answer the questions. It will be really interesting to see what response Lenny Harper will receive from Brian Moore of Wiltshire as Mr Moore will fully appreciate the gravity of what's being asked and why. 

Again, I would like to thank the people who are clicking on and reading these posts. I have been overwhelmed at the numbers. All I ask is that you keep spreading the word. All we are doing is looking for Truth, Honesty and Integrity 

Rico Sorda

Team Voice

From: Lenny Harper Sent: 17 May 2011 22:56
To: Client Services
Subject: BDO Report on Operation Rectangle

Dear Sir /Madam,
I am the former Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police and I was the Senior Investigating Officer on 'Operation Rectangle.'  I made most of the decisions regarding the use of resources on that operation.  I have, in the past week, become aware that Mr Ian Le Marquand, the Home Affairs Minister, commissioned you to examine the use of resources during the operation and that you submitted a report which was critical of my decisions.  I am somewhat surprised that you felt able to do this without even contacting me to ask me a single question about the rationale for my decisions.  Accordingly you have made assumptions which are totally incorrect and factually inaccurate.  If you had contacted me I would have given you the information which would have prevented you from being so wide of the mark. 

Mr Le Marquand states that he had no say in the decision not to interview me.  He actually states that he remained independent.  I presume you were working to a terms of reference and I would be grateful if you would tell me who composed your TOR, and if these included a specific instruction not to speak to me.  It seems most strange that a reputable firm of accountants (which I presume you are) would compile a report passing judgement on the decisions on how to use resources without even speaking to the person who made those decisions.  This is not a matter of hindsight, (although the hideous inaccuracies within your report are highlighted by hindsight) but a matter of commonsense.  It would seem obvious for a report to have any integrity or credibility then the lead player should be consulted.

Another, perhaps even more serious matter, is that in several places in your report, you quote from a statement which I made to Wiltshire Police.  This statement was made on a confidential basis to Wiltshire, for one purpose only, and that was a disciplinary investigation into another senior police officer.  I was given an assurance that no one else would have access to it.  You have quoted from it and thereby raise issues of Data Protection.  Furthermore, on at least one occasion you have quoted incorrectly from it.  The whole interview was tape recorded and you havequoted me as saying something at variance with what was actually said.  Before deciding whether to take matters further with the Data Protection Commissioner I would like to know how you accessed my statement to Wiltshire and why you quoted it in a report which had nothing to do with the original purpose for which it was made.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Leonard Harper

From: Matthew Corbin 
To: lennyharperCc: 
Sent: Friday, 20 May, 2011 17:19:33
Subject: FW: BDO Report on Operation Rectangle

Dear Mr Harper,

Thank you for your email of Tuesday 17th May 2011 (timed 22:56), which I was forwarded on Wednesday 18th May.

I have forwarded your email to the Home Affairs Department of the States of Jersey for their consideration and response to you. This firm was engaged by and reported to the Home Affairs Minister. A copy of our report was subsequently put into the public domain via publication on the States of Jersey website. We state in the report that we did not have an opportunity to discuss a draft of this report with you. We also caveat that it was for the use of the addressees only. We are therefore unable to make any further direct comment.

Yours sincerely
For BDO Alto Limited

Matthew Corbin

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Lenny Harper 
To: Matthew Corbin 
Sent: Saturday, 21 May, 2011 9:38:33
Subject: Re: BDO Report on Operation Rectangle

Dear Mr Corbin,

As part of my complaint, the ICAEW state that I should give you ample opportunity to answer the substance of the complaint.  So to comply with that fully, and to ensure you realise the seriousness of the situation and that I and others will not go away, I will further elaborate my complaint and give you some more information which may be of interest to you.

Firstly, it was not the Home Affairs Department who submitted a report which purported to be an audit of how resources were used on Operation Rectangle without even contacting the person responsible for those decisions.  It was your company.  Your company carried out a sham of an enquiry and came to wrongful assumptions without even speaking to the one person who knew the answers as to why resources where used in the way they were.  A thirty minute conversation with me would have contradicted many of the lazyily and hastily reached conclusions in your report.  You spoke to one or two disaffected people who, if you had bothered to ask, you would have found had a history of inappropriate conduct detected by me.  You received payment for something you knew lacked credibility and integrity.  What I want to know, is who made the decision not to speak to me, yourselves, or was that dictated to you in the terms of reference.  Either way, it looks like a continuation of the policy to stop the abused victims having their say through the police investigation.

Then there is the matter of how you come to quote from a confidentail statement I made to Wilstshire Police for the sole purpose of a disciplinary enquiry into the Chief Officer of the States Police.  As I told you previously, this statement was highly confidential.  Here I attach the section of the Wilstshire report relating to confidentiality of the report which they say is exempt from the Freedom Of Information Act.

Highly Confidential – Personal Information
An independent disciplinary investigation by Wiltshire Police
Following the suspension of Chief Officer Graham Power of the
States of Jersey Police on 12 November 2008.
Obligation to confidentiality
1. Paragraph 1.2 of the discipline code (for Chief Officers of the States of Jersey Police) requires that all parties involved in the operation of this code will maintain confidentiality while proceedings are being progressed. The outcome of any particular case arising under the code will not, as a general rule, be publicised, but it is accepted that following the outcome of a particular case, the Home Affairs Minister and/or the States Employment Board and /or the Chief Officer, might decide that public disclosure is appropriate.
2. This Report contains personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, and Wiltshire Police would breach the first data protection principle if it were to disclose that information. Hence, the information is exempt under s.40(2) Freedom of Information Act 2000
3. This Report contains information that has been, and continues to be, held by Wiltshire Police for the purposes of an investigation which it has a duty to conduct and which ought not to be disclosed (under s.30 Freedom of Information Act 2000).
4. An obligation of confidence upon Wiltshire Police arises from the duty outlined at 1. Above, and disclosure of information would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey. Information, therefore, ought not to be disclosed (under s.27 Freedom of Information Act

Now, I am sure you will be aware of the Data Protection implications in this and I will be taking that matter up.  IPart of my complaint to the ICAEW will be that breached Data Protection in your quoting of my confidential statement, which incidentally, in at least one place you quoted incorrectly.  I want to know where and how you accessed my statement.

Below is an e mail from the Home Affairs Minister Mr Le Marquand in which he totally denies any involvement in the arrangements for the BDO report.  According to this e mail he had no involvement in any aspect, including the Terms of Reference, and he states that you must have obtained the statement from Wiltshire Police, something I have taken up with the Chief Constable of Wilstshire.  Read this e mail and think, because in a further e mail, the Minister changes his story and states he may have been involved in the setting up of the Terms of Reference.  That e mail is also reproduced below.

Now, the Minister seems very unsure how the terms of reference were arrived at.  One would have thought that he would have remembered setting Terms of Reference for such an important audit.  However, this is par for the course.  He may have a memory reinstatement.  Meantime, you passing my questions on to him seems like the panic actions of someone who has been caught out, and who is trying to evade responsibility for his actions.

I think now that I have complied with the ICAEW stipulation that I should give you an opportunity to answer.  I await your reply.

Lenny Harper