Monday, June 27, 2011




Senator / Home Affairs Minister- Ian Le Marquand is wanting Deputy T Pitman to step down as Chairman of the Home Affairs Scrutiny panel investigating the BDO Alto Report.  What is unfolding here can be read on the Deputy's blog.  I find this just staggering. The Senator will be taken out of his comfort zone when questioned by Scrutiny, as a former Magistrate he isn't used to this. If there's nothing to hide then why the big shakes about who's on the panel? 

The Above Blog by Deputy T  Pitman  is a must  read 


Today Lenny Harper appeared on BBC Radio Jersey. What was apparent from the outset was that the host Roger Barra who conducted the interview had the Monday morning blues.  Im not sure how researched he was on the matter but as soon as he heard the words Abuse Survivors he got all aggressive and cut the interview dead. Now, the trick with BBC Jersey, and one that Lenny Harper should have used is this; Mr Harper should have said that BDO Alto bombed Jersey during the Second World, not only would this had hit all the right notes, he would still be on there  talking. BBC Jersey love WW2, as do I.

When I first looked at BDO Alto I had no idea where it was going to lead  us . It has just ballooned in a way I didn't expect. I feel like we sneaked in the back door. Evidence, research and facts is all we are interested in. Do people in Jersey really appreciate just how corrupt the place is? Morally, Socially, in fact on every level.  I will be blogging tomorrow on the latest concerning the Committee of Enquiry. All we can do is keep you, the readers, as up to date as we can.  I have posted some Interviews below which should be viewed. I would like to thank Ian Evans for helping me out, he is always on hand and much appreciated.

What I have discovered concerning Mick Gradwell  is that in all his Interviews and news paper pieces he never explains what he brought to the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation. Every interview I come across is Gradwell trashing what went before him. What did he bring to the Investigation? Just watch and listen the clips shown below.

I also suggest you watch the ILM ON Channel TV. 

Below I reproduce Lenny Harpers Scrutiny Submission. It can be found on their website.  Also, Mr Harper will be taking part in the Scrutiny Hearing on the 4th July. This will be done via video link up or failing that a conference call.  The Scrutiny hearings are open to the public. The panel have asked me to attend on the 15th I have agreed to this.

Rico Sorda

Truth, Honesty & Integrity

Team Voice

                                                     LEONARD HARPER


  I have been asked to submit a written response in respect of the BDO report into the use of financial resources during the Historical Abuse Investigation.  This is to be a pre-cursor to my evidence to the Sub Committee at a later stage.
In its letter to me of 23rd June 2011, the Sub Committee lays out the three concerns which have instigated the Scrutiny Review.  These are,

“The fact that as Senior Investigating Officer you were not interviewed by BDO Alto nor given the opportunity to respond to the findings in the report despite the fact that you were subject of significant criticism in the report;

The BDO Alto report refers to confidential statements made by yourself to the Wiltshire enquiry;

Critical sections of a ‘leaked report by financial auditors’ were quoted by a report of the Mail on Sunday (4th October 2009) only a few days after  the BDO Alto report states that they were engaged to undertake the review (reference to their engagement letter dated 29 September 2009). It appears that a Senior Police Officer was responsible for this leak.”

The Sub Committee quite understandably comments that it is not the intention to “stray into broader issues relating to the Haut de la Garenne enquiry nor to the substance of the findings in the BDO report.”  However, it does state that it intends to “undertake a review of the issues arising from these (above) concerns.”  In order for me to illustrate the issues that I see as arising from the concerns outlined at paragraph 2, it will be necessary for me show the effect on the report of BDO failing to even contact me.  I will do this by addressing each of the three concerns of the Sub Committee in the order they appear at paragraph 2.  Consequently it will be necessary to show the effect on the report and its accuracy of the failure to seek the knowledge of the person responsible for most of the decision making in respect of the use of financial resources.

There are a number of issues which arise from the failure of BDO to even attempt to interview me as part of their review, nor to give me the opportunity to respond to criticisms contained within the report.  Firstly, it is a well established point of lawful procedure that in certain types of investigations and inquiries certain points of procedure must be followed to ensure fairness and accuracy.  These points were further emphasised in the case of Maxwell v. DTI 1974 and the following excerpts from an article in ‘Practical Law Company’ in December 2008 explain these procedures.

Investigations and inquiries in context

Investigations and inquiries are an increasing feature of public life. They come in a variety of forms. Some have formal powers while others are carried out on an ad hoc, informal basis. Some are triggered by government policy while others are commissioned at the discretion of the government and/or public bodies.

Certain procedural and legal issues arise in all investigations and inquiries. It is important to get these right so that the investigative process runs smoothly, individuals are treated fairly& lawfully and the budget/timetable is maintained.

This note sets out what these issues are. Organisations intending to commission an investigation or inquiry should seek professional advice and assistance at the outset.

An aspect of principle 2 above was that following the Salmon Report, letters were commonly issued to those who were participants in an inquiry where there was potential criticism that might be made of their conduct. These letters came to be known as “Salmon letters”.
In his subsequent report in to matters arising from the Matrix-Churchill affair, Lord Scott criticised aspects of the Salmon Principles as being more relevant to adversarial processes than an inquisitorial procedure. However, he took the process of warning those concerned of possible criticism (so they would have an opportunity to comment) further than the Salmon letter; rather, he copied adverse passages from his draft report to those concerned, so they had an opportunity to respond and seek to change his mind. This process is known as “Maxwellisation” and derives from practice in investigations under the Companies Act.
Both processes represent aspects of fairness and may be necessary, depending on the circumstances, for an inquiry conducted today.
For inquiries conducted under the Inquiries Act 2005, the Salmon letter procedure has been codified in to a process of “warning letters” (see section 13 of the Act). This provides that the chairman may not include any explicit or significant criticism of a person in a report unless he has sent a warning letter to a person who:
(a) He considers may be, or who has been, subject to criticism in the inquiry proceedings; or
(b) About whom criticism may be inferred from evidence that has been given during the inquiry proceedings; or
(c) Who may be subject to criticism in any report or interim report.
Section 14 of the Act creates a statutory duty of confidence between the recipient of such a letter, the inquiry team and the recipient’s legal representative. The duty persists until such time as the inquiry’s report is published or the chairman waives the duty.
The contents of warning letters under the Act are set out in section 15. They must:
(a) state what the criticism or proposed criticism is
(b) contain a statement of the facts that the chairman considers substantiate the criticism or proposed criticism
(c) refer to any evidence which supports those facts.
It has yet to be seen whether the statutory process of warning letters will help speed up inquiries that would previously have followed a Maxwellisation process by dispensing with it, or whether a chairman will consider that fairness requires a “Maxwell” process as well as warning letters under section 13 of the Act
Maxwell v DTI [1974] QB 523
This is what I see as the first issue arising from the concerns and in particular the first concern.  The completion of a review of my decisions relating to the use of financial resources without even seeking an explanation from me as to why I made those decisions, makes it inevitable that the review will be unfair, slanted, un-objective, and lacking in credibility.  Such a review is unlikely to provide a true picture of the situation, and indeed, I would argue that there are so many factual inaccuracies and wrongful assumptions included in the report, that this is exactly what happened.  If I had been spoken to it is unlikely that the report would have come to the same conclusions as it did.  Whilst I fully appreciate the reluctance of the Sub Committee to re-examine the conclusions of the report, it is necessary for me to show how those conclusions would have been affected by the simple process of asking me why I took the decisions I did.  What I will submit is that there are so many of these conclusions which I can contradict with solid evidence, that I cannot possibly include them all.  Accordingly I will simply illustrate my point with a selected few of them, but I would emphasise there are many, many, more.

Firstly, I would have pointed to the close links between Mr Kellett and Mr Gradwell, which BDO seem to have conveniently overlooked.  Both officers worked in the same region of the North West of England and know each other well.  This can hardly be said to be an independent appointment.

One fundamental effect of the failure to even interview me appears at the very outset of the report and is crucial in the BDO conclusion that much of the spending was unnecessary.  This is in relation to the search operation at HDLG.  BDO quote a Met interim report as saying that the entry into HDLG was “unjustified” and the report makes light of the process which led to the search of HDLG.  However, BDO make no mention of the fact that a later report by Wiltshire Police endorsed the entry into HDLG and the important fact that it was the National Policing Improvement Agency who actually recommended the operation and who formulated the Search Strategy. (A copy of their Strategy is attached.)  BDO have completely missed this but would not have been allowed to if they had spoken to me.

The report 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, although again, BDO have ignored them.  I would have pointed them towards the reasons.  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.  Again, I would have insisted they read this document. 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 or ignore the evidence for the operation, something which I would have rectified if I had been spoken to.    Whilst not inviting the Sub Committee to rule on the merits of my arguments, the BDO conclusion that considerable elements of the investigation costs were therefore questionable seems highly debatable to say the least, and would have had to be at least re-assessed if they had been forced to rely on evidence other than a Met interim report which at best was one page of e mail and contained false dates.

In talking about the initial fragment, 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.  I also have e mail evidence which shows that collagen was found by them in the fragment.  We all know that this substance is found only in mammals and not in wood or coconut.  It is likely then, that if I had been given the opportunity to present such evidence to BDO, that their conclusions could not have been the same.  One has to ask how BDO missed such important evidence.  Could it be because they never spoke to me and no one else was interested in giving them the information?  Again, the Sub Committee does not have to reach a conclusion on which version is the truth.  It is surely obvious that the report could not have been fair, objective, or independent without the availability of the alternative explanations.

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.  Far from being reckless with finance as BDO have reported, I was rebuked by Bill Ogley for even considering the need to be careful with money.  I have a copy of his e mail which I will happily supply to the Sub Committee which shows him admonishing me and telling me that “cost is irrelevant.”

The report criticises the use of Mr Grimes and his dogs.  It claims that there were other dog handlers who could have carried out the work.  This is not so.  At that time these were the only dogs trained in this particular line of work available to us, and they were recommended to us by the National Policing Improvement Agency.  It is interesting to note, that whilst employed with us, Mr Grimes was also given time to go and assist two other UK forces.  I should also point out that he is now employed full time by the FBI and that previous to coming to Jersey he had been used frequently by them.  BDO claim they were unable to discover who had recommended Mr Grime.  If they had tried hard enough they would have found that the NPIA brought him to that first meeting in Oxford where the strategy was discussed and approved by all there.

BDO are also critical of the fact that the L’Horizon hotel was used for Mr Grimes and the archaeologists and anthropologists whilst they were in Jersey.  What BDO do not mention was that the cost of the rooms was the equivalent of a B&B establishment because of the favourable rates.  These were professional people who were being asked to work long hours away from home.  My PA who did most of the hunting for accommodation did a superb job in obtaining these rooms at the rate she did.  Staff could not have been accommodated any less expensively. Indeed, although I can find no mention of it in any comment by politicians, Gradwell, Warcup, or SAV, the report does say that the use of all other hotels and accommodation was appropriate.  What is seems to miss is the fact that L’Horizon cost no more than the other hotels mentioned.

The BDO report criticises visits to London by me and staff, and the use of hospitality whilst on these visits.  It states it can find no good reason for the visits, and goes on to criticise the restaurants which were used, and the way bills were split between officers which it claims, were an attempt to hide the cost.  Here again, BDO would have benefited from even a conversation with me over the telephone.  Instead it saw fit to criticise my actions without even the first idea of why we did what we did.  In the following paragraphs I lay out the details which I would have given them if they had bothered to ask.  As before, it is not necessary for the Sub Committee to comment on the veracity of the evidence, although I emphasise it is all verifiable, but merely to note that alternative evidence was available but not even sought by BDO.

Firstly, not only myself, but ACPO were worried about the security of our offices at the Police HQ.  ACPO were also concerned about the security of our electronic systems.  It was decided that we would seek the advice of the team dealing with such matters at New Scotland Yard.  We made our first visit there and discussed the arrangements which we had in place and which we should be thinking of enhancing.  Much useful information was obtained, and indeed, several members of that unit visited Jersey and carried out an inspection of our offices and made useful recommendations.  There are a number of other points to be made which BDO failed to recognise but which I would have enlightened them on if they had bothered to contact me.  It is true, as they claim, that these meetings rarely lasted longer than an hour or ninety minutes.  However, I was not usually in London for these meetings alone.  I combined them with other meetings and tasks to be carried out, some of them directly connected to Rectangle and some either indirectly or not connected.  Furthermore, even in the short duration of the meetings valuable information was gleaned and later acted on.  From this meeting also arose the possibility of us borrowing a brand new sifting machine for use at HDLG which considerably speeded up and made more effective the process of searching for evidence in the debris from the home.  We had this machine for several months and paid nothing for it but the cost of transporting it.  Using it saved many thousands of pounds.  BDO do get it correct when they say that my preference would have been to alternate the meetings between London and Jersey but as the Met would have had to charge for their services if they went to Jersey, it was decided to hold the meetings in London top reduce our costs.

BDO seek in this report to infer some wrongdoing in respect of the hospitality afforded to UK officers.  It should be pointed out right away, that in a written communication, Steven Austen Vaughtier laid out the amount of money allocated to this investigation for hospitality.  I was not using money diverted from operational costs, this was money allocated by the States for the use in supplying hospitality.  BDO seem to infer that it was unusual.  This is not so.  Every States department has hospitality budgets and in many restaurants and bars in Jersey this facility is used regularly.  One local taxi driver commented to me that if it wasn’t for the hospitality budgets of politicians and their departments several restaurants would have long closed.   It is necessary when operating in an isolated environment like Jersey that networking and hospitality facilities are used.  I am quite happy to have my hospitality expenses measured against the services and other benefits that I brought in compared with a similar exercise for any other states department.  As a result of contacts made I was able to save the SOJP many thousands of pounds.  This included but did not stop at secondments, such as the months long secondment to the Met Homicide Teams for a senior detective, a lengthy secondment to a busy west end of London Division for a senior uniform officer during which he gained valuable experience, short notice training for a number of Tactical Firearms Officers when due to accidents we had none, from another UK force, training in Northern Ireland, free of charge, for our probationer officers, as well as validation for our own training procedures, as well as many, many more.

BDO criticise the restaurants which we used and name two of them.  One of them, the “Bombay Brassiere”, is I think, a restaurant in Kensington which was near to a hotel we used.  I think we went there once.  I am not sure what they were trying to infer.  The second restaurant they name is “Shepherds” in London.  The report goes to great lengths to mention that it was owned by Sir Michael Caine.  I think it is correct that it was at one time part owned by him.  This is obviously an attempt to give the impression of five star luxury.  However, as the Scotland Yard team pointed out, this is a restaurant used mainly by journalists, MPs, and senior police officers, (including members of HMIC) many of whom are on business dinners.  Scotland Yard provided a menu to Wiltshire Police, although it never seems to have got a mention in that report and I notice that BDO did not mention it either.  The menu shows good reasonably priced meals at the cost, when we used it, of £32 for three courses and coffee.  Hardly Hollywood style living.  Frequently when using it we would encounter other police officers from various forces and HMIC.  This is a far cry from the movie star lifestyle painted by BDO and the JEP.  When the truth was available one has to ask why they chose to go down this road, and why no attempt was made to speak to me, nor indeed, to even use the evidence that Scotland Yard had given them.

BDO also sought to infer some form of malpractice in the way in which bills were split.  Bills were split to begin with, because invariably officers who were being met with, paid for some drinks for those present themselves.  As for why the bill was sometimes split between two Jersey officers, the truth is rather less exciting and easily verifiable.  Indeed, once again, if BDO had bothered to check with me I would have enlightened them.
On a number of occasions myself and other colleagues had the embarrassment of having our Jersey Purchase cards refused because the States had been, for whatever reason, late in paying the account, leaving cards near their limit.  I remember one occasion in London having to use my own card on arrival at a hotel and then having to ring Jersey to sort the matter out.  Subsequently, when three or four of us where meeting with a number of other UK officers and having to pay the resulting bill, we split the cost to try and avoid the situation as described happening again.  BDO didn’t bother to ask for a reason.  They have simply tried to paint a black picture.  The report quotes a £4,860 bill on my purchase card for eight months of the investigation.  This works out at about £608 per month, well below what my hospitality budget actually was.  BDO compare my cost with a small force in Yorkshire.  What the basis is for comparing an island force off France having to obtain services and assistance in the middle of a huge investigation with a small force in rural England is, I have absolutely no idea.  However, according to BDO even the Deputy chief constable there spent over £3,000 and he had no Operation Rectangle and presumably did not need to leave GB or cross the Channel to meet with contacts.
There are of course, two other concerns of the Sub Committee.  The first of these is the matter of my confidential witness statement made to Wiltshire Police.  This statement was made as part of the discipline investigation into Graham Power QPM.  It was made under condition that it was used for no other purpose.  It contained sensitive details as well as names of victims and suspects.  I was assured by Wiltshire Police that no one would be given a copy of it, and indeed, that it was even exempt from Freedom of Information Laws in the UK.  It formed part of a report by Wiltshire Police that was in itself so confidential that Wiltshire issued the following warning.

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 

There is absolutely no condition under which my statement should have been made available to a firm of accountants who are not security vetted in any fashion in relation to such documents, and who had no connection with the discipline investigation for which it was provided.  I gave no such authority for it to be used, and Wiltshire Police have denied ever providing the statement to BDO.  If BDO had bothered to interview me I would have pointed all of this out to them.
The final concern was the leaking of the BDO report shortly after it was commissioned.  There is not much I can add to what is known.  David Rose is a journalist with a public track record of supporting convicted paedophiles and trashing police investigations of historical child abuse.  He is the author and co-author of several books and documents in which it is claimed that allegations of historic abuse are either as a result of conspiracies between greedy victims fabricating stories and police willingly acquiescing, or as a result of ‘false recall syndrome.’  He has given evidence to Parliamentary Select Committees on behalf of Frank Beck, the Leicestershire Care Home Rapist, and the North Wales Care Home abusers, all of whom he claims were victims of miscarriages of justice.  This is despite a three year public inquiry in North Wales which cost millions and totally vindicated police and victims.  This was not the first time of course that Mr Rose featured in the Jersey investigation.  He was leaked material previously, and in a tape recorded conversation told Graham Power that he had been leaked confidential material by Senator James Perchard.  Rose denied the conversation despite the recording, and Perchard denied leaking to him.  It seems to me, to reflect rather badly on the so called objective and independent nature of this report that a journalist with a publicly proven record of supporting convicted child abusers should have more access to the report and through his police contacts, to be able to influence it more that the people making the decisions which were being reviewed.
In making this submission I have had to contradict a number of the findings of the report.  I do this in the full recognition that it is not the Sub Committee’s task to in any way re-assess the findings of the report.  I do it in order to show that a substantial body of alternative evidence was easily and readily available which may have given a totally different perspective on events.  This evidence was ignored and not even sought, despite the fact that much of it came from the person making the decisions which were being reviewed and subsequently criticised.  Such criticism without even an attempt to seek an alternative view cannot be seen as being fair, objective or independent.

Leonard Harper
25th June 2011

Thursday, June 23, 2011



But today, Mr Gradwell hit back.

He said: “There’s no mystery about what I’ve said.

"I thought it was a shambles with no financial management.

“I don’t regard that as a leak, though having worked there I’m not surprised at this.

“I’m on record as quoting information from the report.

"I released it when asked the questions on TV, online and in the papers.

“I didn’t leak a report. After I left I said my version of what happened including a mass overspend, a poorly-managed fiasco where the lead detective made unnecessary trips and took his notes with him.”


Unlucky for sum 

Scrutiny Sub Panel call in the BDO Alto report

Today at  8.30am the Scrutiny Sub Panel released a press release to all the Main Stream Media concerning the pulling in and Review of the BDO Alto Report. 

Are we going to be confronted with the same sham that happened on Monday the 20th when the Home Affairs Minister stated during question time that the former SIO of the Historic Child Abuse Investigation Mick Gradwell probably leaked a one sided report to the Child Abuse Denier Journalist David Rose. No one from the local Media has reported this.

Deputy Pitman: 'Will the Minister clarify what was the conclusion into the brief investigation into who within the Police Force leaked the interim BDO Alto report to a UK child abuse denier journalist and has anyone been suspended over the action?'

Senator Le Marquand: 'The person most likely was the former SIO (Senior Investigating Officer) who took on the Historic Abuse Inquiry and who left in August 2009 with very noisy publicity for his predecessors.'



When confronted some of the local hacks denied all knowledge of what Senator Le Marquand had said; This is both Frightening and Dangerous

How will children be safe when we have this level of Journalism in the Island

Who will ever be the whistleblower 10 yrs down the line when they cant even express their concerns to a trusted journalist. Nothing has changed. The Editors I would guess are the real danger to the Children of Jersey  they control their hacks. 

The JEP and BBC Jersey were present during question Time 

I believe CTV tripped over an award on the way in and missed it by a BAFTA 

Looking back from when I first posted about the BDO Report my first concern about it is still my major concern. The fact that between the Home Affairs dept and BDO never saw fit to contact or interview Lenny Harper in the making of this report is scandalous. The police at the time of operation rectangle had their say, David Warcup was helping it along, LCG & Martin Grimes had their say  everyone apart from the main person had their say; WHY?

Yes, their are countless other serious questions hanging over this report but all we want are the answers to the questions. As you can imagine Senator Le Marquand is itching for this to get under way for the simple reason I have got it all wrong.  Im very much looking forward to hearing the Senator putting all our fears to bed with proper documentation, all timed and stamped between BDO and Home Affairs and not just run off the printing machine at Claxtons.

The Scrutiny Panel must also look into the very serious leak of  Lenny Harpers Confidential Wiltshire Statement to BDO not only do we have Data Protection issues but also possible criminal action. All we want are the answers. Remember this report was used by the Home Affairs Minister to trash a Child Abuse Investigation.

I have informed the Scrutiny Sub Panel that im prepared to attend the public meeting, what entails im not sure. If they want me to speak I have no problems with that as I want answers.

I would like to thank the the Scrutiny Home Affairs Panel and their excellent Scrutiny Officer Mike Haden for their help and professionalism in putting this together

Rico Sorda

Team Voice





23 June 2011 



Education and Home Affairs Panel 


Review of the Inquiry into the financial probity of 

the Haut De La Garenne Police Investigation 


The Education and Home Affairs Panel has agreed to form a Sub Panel to be led by Deputy Trevor Pitman to investigate issues arising from the BDO Alto review which was commissioned by the Minister for Home Affairs to examine the financial management of Operation Rectangle (the Historic Child Abuse Enquiry).  


St Helier based accountancy firm BDO Alto published their report in July 2010, making strong criticisms of financial management and oversight failures during the Historical Child Abuse Enquiry, highlighting the role of Mr. L. Harper, the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO). 


Serious concerns have now been brought to the Panel’s attention about certain aspects of the way in which BDO Alto carried out their review. These concerns question whether the report is fair, accurate and independent.  


The concerns are in summary: 

• The fact that the Mr. L. Harper, who was the subject of significant criticism in the report, was not interviewed by BDO Alto nor given the opportunity to respond to the findings in the report; 

• The BDO Alto report refers to confidential statements made by Mr. Harper to the Wiltshire enquiry, while Mr. Harper himself has been refused a copy of his own statement;


• An ‘interim report by financial auditors’ was leaked to the Mail on Sunday in October 2009, eight months before the report was submitted to the Minister and was used in a highly critical report on the conduct of the Haut de la Garenne inquiry. It appears that a Senior Police Officer was responsible for this leak. 

Deputy Trevor Pitman, who is leading this review said: 

‘The Panel believes that the issues deserve our attention and need to be investigated. We are not trying to reopen the whole debate about the conduct of the Haut de la Garenne Enquiry. The Comptroller and Auditor General has already commented on the substance of the BDO Alto report and its recommendations. We will focus solely on the questions arising from the concerns about how this report was produced and leaked to a national newspaper. We will be requesting explanations in writing from the Minister, BDO Alto, the States of Jersey Police and Mr. Harper and will conduct a public hearing a suitable opportunity next month. We will then report our findings to the States. As always we would be interested to hear from anyone with relevant information to contribute to our review. They can contact the Scrutiny Office.’ 


The following terms of reference have been agreed 

To examine the instructions under which BDO Alto was engaged to review the financial management of Operation Rectangle and their methods for gathering evidence for this review; 

To clarify the connection between the BDO Alto review and the review on the same matter separately commissioned by the Acting Chief Officer of Police; 

To identify the reasons why the Senior Investigating Officer for Operation Rectangle was not interviewed by BDO Alto and was not given the opportunity to respond to the report’s findings; 

To clarify the liaison between BDO Alto and the Wiltshire Police, in particular the references in the BDO Alto report to the Senior Investigating Officer’s statements to Wiltshire Police; 

To investigate how details of the review into the financial management of Operation Rectangle came to be published in a national newspaper in October 2009; and 

To consider the implications of the Sub Panel’s findings. 


Notes to editors: 

The BDO Alto review is available on the States website 

Sub Panel Membership Deputy T Pitman (Chairman), Deputy R Le Hérissier Deputy M Tadier, and Deputy D. Wimberley 

For further information on this review, please contact: 

Mike Haden, Scrutiny Officer   Tel 441076 or email  


For Media Interviews - Deputy T Pitman - Lead member  Tel 07797 824243 or email