Thursday, August 25, 2011

The Anonymous Senator Le Main


A year ago I predicted exactly what would happen in these up coming elections with a little help from the Anonymous Terry 'tel boy' Le Main

Was I right or was I right??

Look out for the old Battle Bus heading down into district number 2

The posting Below originally appeared in August 2010


This is the posting I made in August 2010 - I believe I was bang on when saying T. Le Main would stand in number 2 district

Having just read the latest posting HdelaG Farce Blog it made me realise just how crazy everything is in Jersey at the moment.

As with everything else on the blog you are never sure who is writing what but one thing I did realise a while back was that Senator Le Main was leaving Anonymous comments, well anonymous in his eyes but not to anyone who has read an email by him in his unique morse code style of writing .... ..... .... ( not as bad as mine thou ).

Im not sure who wrote the latest post but I must say I agree with some points raised in it, still leaves a million questions but a good interesting read. Now what I find very strange and ironic is that this follows a posting and comments Attacking Deputy Labey and her children, and all in the name of Attacking Stuart Syvret with some comments coming from a sitting states member more of that later.

So who holds the Moral High Ground.

That is for the Police and Data Protection to sort out.

How interesting that a blog site that has blasted Syvret to bits for his actions could now find itself in the same position.

I have one question for Senator Perchard, Senator Le Main and Deputy Sean Power

Have you ever met Gary Cummins the owner of the Farce Blog or is it just email communication? I believe it is an alias and the person does not in fact exist, if that is the case then you have been very careless and have been duped.

Look forward to your reply

And again for the record agree with some of points raised on his latest posting.


Senator Terry Le Main

Now before I start on my posts ' Foot stamping Lackeys of the Mother Land ' I thought I would take a look at Terry.

The good Senator loves being and playing the great loyal servant of Jersey.

The Senator is up for election next year. This Patriotic Jersey man has a big decision to make does he retire? not a chance he loves it. So what will he do? run for Senator and take his chance that the voting Island are still totally clueless? not a chance he knows thats a no no. So what will the good Senator do when it comes round to the next election, well stone me I think he might have already told us.

Now first I will point out why I believe he has told us. Check out his unique writing style. This is from 2008

From: Terry Le Main
Sent: 14 October 2008 10:55
To: Philip Ozouf; Paul Routier; Alan J. Maclean
Cc: Frank Walker; Terry Le Sueur
Subject: Last night
Good morning Friends and Colleagues
As we well knew, a part of the audience last evening were solely there to jeer and mock existing Ministers etc….this was set up by supporters of the JDA, Mrs Macon who detests current Ministers etc… ( using her son as the dummy to do her dirty work ) and of course Le Cornu / Tadier etc…there were people in the audience like that **** woman who are there to destruct etc etc….I recognised several people who are just quite mad…**** and his **** and ilk etc…remember that the majority of the people last nite were related or supporters of candidates…the good sensible electors ie those we rely on were not there…there were good people around me last nite who will be supporting you good people, t they trust you..… and these people were surprised and quite upset at the agression of some of the candidates etc…
On last nites performance everyone around me thought the three of you held your own well and came out with statesmanship and dignity etc….well done chaps…even people like Breckon were aggressive and rude by calling people by their surnames… bloody rude…in all it was expected that some of these candidates just fell on their “swords ” brought on by aggression and threatening behaviour..they will end up bottom of the pile…
As you can see this is very distinctive ...... the morse code dots are just so bang on and unique to the Senator.

So lets see where The Senator will be standing in next Years Election. This has been taken from the Farce Blog posting Attacking Deputy Labey .


Anonymous said...
Anonymous says...I hope Terry Le Main stands in St.Helier No 2 next year....

Terry is still very popular in St.Helier No 2....he is known to be still working hard for people in that district..he freely loans his minibus to local charities and only recently Convent Court Residents used his Minibus for a days outing ..thorougly enjoyed by many people who visited parts of Jersey they had never seen....if only we could persuade Terry to stand in St.Helier No 2 next year....
August 22, 2010

So could Terry be saying Anonymously, that he hopes he stands in St. Helier No 2. LOL check this out ' Terry is still very popular in No2' . So all other candidates you had better and sitting members of No 2 you had better dust yourself down because that Minibus is already on the campaign trail. If ' only we could persuade Terry to stand in some No 2s ' all our troubles would be over.

So after being a states member for many years being Housing Minister for a load more is The Senator looking for a little retirement number come next election. On this I believe Senator Le Mains political work is done. I believe he will be 72 this year and now is the time for these old boys to make way for some younger talent that can lead us from the coming Abyss. He has had a very good run

So let us now look at what could be the Good Senators View on the Deputy of Grouville. Remember the writing styles my dears

Anonymous said...
I agree that the Deputy of Grouville is finished and all washed up after her finishing with her " lover boy " the new boyfriend is no better...ever heard him on the lunch time BBC moan in...yes Kenny from Glasgow...hmm..hmm
not some years ago it was the greatest honour to be elected by parishioners but when you now see the kind of representation some people have to endure..
August 20, 2010

How about this one too

Anonymous said...
There is now a real opportunity for the people of Jersey who dislike these awful carry on's...the personal attacks, mouth pieces for the Unions ( who are led by an ex TTS gardener etc )tax and tax the business community, ie the wealth and job creators, give more to those who do not want to work etc...the likes of several States members who would not even get a job sweeping the roads in St.Helier... to really vote in people who care for Jersey and not to get a job at £45K...

Anonymous said...
There is now a real opportunity for the people of Jersey who dislike these awful carry on's...the personal attacks, mouth pieces for the Unions ( who are led by an ex TTS gardener etc )tax and tax the business community, ie the wealth and job creators, give more to those who do not want to work etc...the likes of several States members who would not even get a job sweeping the roads in St.Helier... to really vote in people who care for Jersey and not to get a job at £45K...we seem to have more no hopers than ever wanting these " lucrative States Members Jobs " the general elections next year will we hope bring forward decent , caring candidates...come on parishioners of St.Mary, St. Martin, St.Helier, St. Brelade 2 ( Tadier )St. Saviour ( Macon and Vallois )and Grouville....just look at Grouville and its carry ons with Syvret and CL...Grouville has one of the best Connetables in Jersey but forever being undermined by the Deputy, she voted always with Syvret, Southern and these idiots who will if allowed to bring Jersey to its come on Grouville find a decent ,hardworking and caring candidate for next will reap the benefits....the failure of many people who do not bother to vote yet complain should realise that by voting you can make changes and you must vote next year...its your right and if you value your job, work and living here then its so important to vote for those who will lead by example..

So has our Jersey Hero really laid it on the line here just look at what is being said ( oh, on the new posting there is a comment that Terry puts his name too check the writing styles)

Grouville has one of the best Connetables in Jersey ( Really)

Its funny I see The good Senator as the old guard that should be removed from the states but in his eyes he is the Saviour. Just look at where he wants new decent states members. This is what im on about when I say things are crazy over here. I have sat in the States and watched the good Senators reaction to any question concerning Child Abuse in the care of the States of Jersey, he disgusts me with this attitude and one i have witnessed on many occasions. There is also one more reason but Im unable to mention it on here. Take a good read of the above comment.

So just one more from the Good Senator. Maybe he could elaborate on Mr Blackwood. How terrible if someone left an
Anonymous comment relating to a man professional reputation.

Dear Madam
I always do my homework ! well what about that very successful previous postholder to Dr Harrison ie Gill Blackwood , psychiatrist extraordinaire who was a great friend of Syvret and a regular blogger on his vile site and god help us who once stood in St.Helier No 3 as Deputy...are you telling me madam that this person was a successful psychiatrist because had I had the unfortunate misfortune to have this terrible illness Blackwood would have been the last person I would have seen....thats why Health dispensed with his services, and there have been others like him..I was not maligning Dr.Harrison who I do not know but hope he is more successful than previous incumbents of his post....

So in my post ' Foot Stamping Lackeys of the Motherland' I thought I would start with their glorious leader The Good Senator. One good thing that has come out of this is he now seems to be able to navigate the comments section on the Blog.

In my opinion Senator Le Main is done as a states member, he has had a good run and a nice little seat in No2 is no good to anyone. He has been dumped as Housing Minister we still don't know the full story. He is now pumped up and spitting it out on the Farce Blog slagging the politicians who have enough self esteem that they don't see the necessity to pine, crawl and grovel, do anything so they can sit at the Top Table.

No these politicians are fighting an inner core of Government who want secrecy and total power.

Please go now Senator.

The people vote Stuart out and so be it if there is a God you will be next

So in my Battle of Britain tributes there is no way none of my heros are going on this Blog Posting so I thought i would give the Establishment one of their own boys.

On 24 July, Galland led III./JG 26 over the north coast of the Thames Estuary. Here they engaged Spitfires and Galland was able to shoot one down to the north of Margate. He had shot down the British ace P/O “Johnny” Allen (7.333 confirmed and 5 unconfirmed destroyed victories) of 56 Sqn, RAF, who was killed in the crash-landing that followed this combat. On 28 July, RAF fighters were scrambled to intercept a large German bomber formation headed for Dover. When confronted by the RAF fighters, the German bomber formation promptly headed for home. The RAF fighters were thus left to combat the escorting German fighters of I. and II./JG 51 and III./JG 26. Galland claimed a Spitfire shot down near Dover for his 17th victory. He had shot down another British ace, Sub-Lt Francis Dawson-Paul (7.25 confirmed and 1 unconfirmed destroyed and 1 damaged victories), a Royal Navy pilot on loan to the RAF. Dawson-Paul was shot down into the Channel where he was picked up by a German E-boat, but he died from the wounds received in this combat on 30 July. Galland was awarded the Ritterkreuz on 1 August for 17 victories. It is thought he again shot down a notable RAF pilot on 15 August, when he brought down the New Zealand ace F/Lt “Al” Deere

Saturday, August 20, 2011


Mike Kellett - Police Consultant

BDO - 22

The written submissions of outside consultant Mike Kellett

The Local Medias refusal to publish anything about the leaks by Mick Gradwell to David Rose

What we have here is utter confusion as to the role being played by Mike Kellett. 

Acting Chief Officer David Warcup seems at a loss in explaining exactly what role Mike Kellett was supposed to be playing - what terms of reference he was supposed to be working to - what review he should have been working on. 

How and why did a simple review by BDO Alto get so savagely twisted by Jerseys Media.

The Jersey Evening post used it to further their agenda of a straight forward Character Assassination  of 'SIO'  Lenny  Harper.  This was done to discredit the Historic Child Abuse Investigation and hood wink the population of Jersey into thinking nothing bad really happened and it was all the doing of an out of control Cop..

Then we have Channel Television winning an award for what can best be described  as complete Turd.  They investigated nothing they just repeated what the former SIO who took over from Lenny Harper - Mick Gradwell - told them. He spent two shows telling everyone what a bad job Lenny Harper had done. Not once did he praise the Investigation and congratulate everyone for all the work they had put in during such difficult times or for that matter explain all the work he had done. There is a bigger issue concerning Mick Gradwell that must be looked out  his leaking to Journalist David Rose being one.

Then we had CTV doing the same the other evening when they had Deputy Pitman in explaining what the BDO Review was about. The poor chap on the couch didn't have a clue what was going on he even had to ask the panel at the end of Graham Powers evidence who Mike Kellett was. CTV along with the JEP have repeatedly attacked the 'HCAE' what have they done that has been positive towards the Abuse Survivors or the Investigation?? 

 BBC Jersey also falls into this bracket  and the time is fast approaching when all of the local MSM needs a root and branch review 

This is taken from an email sent from Mike Kellett to David Warcup on the 2nd September 2009 reagarding the interviewing of Lenny Harper regarding the BDO Review


"I have previously expressed my concern to you, both verbally and in writing, that not interviewing Mr Harper will seriously undermine the credibility of the review. As the former Senior Investigating Officer of Operation Rectangle he should be given an opportunity to influence the outcome of the process and, given the seriousness of what has been found, natural justice dictates that he be allowed to do so."

 We now come to the leak by D/Supt  Mick Gradwell to the known Child Abuse Denier Journalist David Rose. This is a leak coming from the man who was the Senior Investigating officer of Operation Rectangle from August 2008 to August 2009. This was first mentioned in the States by the Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand to a question from Deputy Pitman. I don't think you need to be an expert in any of this to realise the seriousness of Mick Gradwells actions - what is staggering is that none of the local MSM have run with this. No, they are more interested in trying to pin something on Harper and the News of the World yet here we have a leak of the most serious kind and they say nothing.. 

The question from Deputy Pitman can heard here. This received no media attention

Yet when Senator Shenton opens his mouth we get this;

This is what  Mike Kellett says in his submission;

24.                For the reasons set out in the written submission of BDO Alto, it is clear that it was not an ‘interim report’ or the consolidated report that was leaked to the newspaper but rather content of the drafts of sections of my contribution to the report.

25.                My practice during the review was to forward the first drafts of sections of my report to the Acting Chief Officer, to Mr Gradwell, to the Wiltshire team and to BDO Alto. Only BDO Alto were sent updated drafts, as and when amendments were subsequently made to the originals.

26.                Some days after the article had appeared, I received a telephone call from Mr Gradwell in which he admitted that he had been responsible for the leak.

27.                I received two further telephone calls from Mr Gradwell on 26th June 2011 and 1st July 2011, concerning the establishment of this Sub Panel and he again acknowledged that he had been responsible.

This is taken from the evidence given by Police consultant Mike Kellett & BDO on Friday, 15th July 2011

Police Consultant:

The circumstances of the source are as set down in my written submission.  The source was [retired D/Superintendent].  He has admitted that to me in telephone conversations.  He first telephoned me about a week or so after the article appeared.  I had already worked out that it was probably him.

Deputy R.G Le Hérrisier:


Police Consultant:

I deplore what he did.  I have told him I deplore what he did.  In terms of why he did it, you would have to ask him.  He says - so what he told me - and he has repeated that in recent telephone conversations that he has made to me arising out of the establishment of this Panel that he did not give copies of my written work, but he disclosed the contents of some of them to a reporter.  It was not BDO at all.  It is not me.  It was not Wiltshire or [then Acting Police Chief].  It was [retired D/Superintendent].

You can see for yourself how serious this is yet nothing from our 'MSM' . They have said nothing but instead run with utter junk and speculation coming from the likes of Senator Shenton and gang. This cant go on. The Jersey Media needs seriously looking into because they are failing the people of Jersey on all levels. Look at what we got instead 

Hacks and Haut de la Garenne

How the News of the World portrayed the Haut de la Garenne inquiry

ALLEGATIONS of corrupt links between UK police officers and the News of the World have raised fresh concerns about national media coverage of Jersey’s historical child abuse inquiry.

Public Accounts Committee chairman Senator Ben Shenton says new questions now need to be asked about the relationship between investigators working on the case – which included both local and UK police officers – and journalists from the scandal-hit Sunday tabloid, which was closed in a shock move by the paper’s owners, the Murdoch family’s News International, yesterday afternoon.

Questions still remain about how a photographer from the paper came to be taking pictures in the grounds of the former Haut de la Garenne children’s home in the days before the States police went public about the child abuse investigation on Saturday 23 February 2008.

• See Friday’s JEP for the full report

Read more:

Harper defends links with press

Former deputy police chief Lenny Harper

JERSEY officers wined and dined the News of the World’s crime editor at a top London restaurant to stop the tabloid printing wildly inaccurate stories, says ex-deputy police chief Lenny Harper.

In a robust defence of his actions during the historical child abuse investigation, the former senior investigating officer has denied any improper relationship with journalist Lucy Panton.

He says that he worked hard to stop police leaks and insists confidential information could just as easily have come from members of the Council of Ministers.

• Read the full report in Wednesday’s JEP

Article posted on 20th July, 2011 - 2.59pm

Read more:


Call for investigation into police links with newspaper

The former Sunday tablod News of the World

THREE States Members have called for an official investigation into whether States police officers were paid by journalists for information during the Haut de la Garenne inquiry.

Senator Ben Shenton, Deputy Sean Power and Senator Jim Perchard have written a joint letter to the Attorney General and the police chief calling for action in the wake of revelations and allegations about the News of the World.

It has been alleged that reporters from the Sunday tabloid not only routinely hacked the mobile answer phone messages of celebrities, politicians and the victims of crime and terrorism, but also paid corrupt police officers for information.

The three Island politicians say that they have been concerned since 2008 about the way the investigation was handled and have raised the matter in the States on several occasions.

Full story in today’s JEP

Article posted on 26th July, 2011 - 2.57pm

Read more:

I will finish the submissions of Mike Kellet the Police Consultant

Rico Sorda

Team Voice


(a Sub-Panel Chaired by Deputy Trevor Pitman)






1.                    Michael KELLETT has prepared this written submission for a Sub-Panel of the Education & Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel (the “Sub Panel”) in respect of their Review entitled “Issues surrounding the review of financial management of Operation Rectangle”.

2.                    I understand that the Sub Panel has agreed the following terms of reference:

·         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 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.


3.                    I have read the written submission made by BDO Alto and I associate myself with it in its entirety; it also represents my views on the matters being examined. However, there are certain additional facts that are within my personal knowledge and with which I may be able to assist the Sub Panel.


4.                    In March 2009 I was engaged by the Acting Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police to carry out a review of certain aspects of Operation Rectangle. The full terms of reference, which I was handed when I began my work, read as follows:

‘Operation Rectangle – Review of the Efficient and Effective Use of Resources

Employment of Mr Michael Kellett:-

The Home Affairs Accounting Officer, [Accounting Officer], has employed accountants to conduct the above review.

The accountants have no knowledge relating to the management of police operations or police regulations. The review will benefit from the involvment of an experienced police manager.

As a former Senior Investigating Officer, who also set up the North West Regional Asset Recovery Agency, Mr Kellett is ideally experienced to work with the accountants.

Additionally, Operation Rectangle has identified certain areas of expenditure that require scrutiny. Mr Kellett is being employed to liaise with and assist where possible the accountants and to identify expenditure on specific areas.

Where able he will comment on the expenditure and potentially identify future best practice for the States of Jersey Police. This finance review is related to item 7 of the Terms of Reference for Operation Rectangle.

The initial areas of expenditure that require scrutiny are:-

1. The Forensic Spend at Haute de la Garenne. The full cost, including travel, hotel and subsistence bills. (No forensic strategy)

2. The employment of Mr Martin Grime – Specialist Dogs

3. The deployment of PC [X] – SIO Driver

4. The cost and management of the security cordon at Haute de la Garenne

5. The purchase of glassware for seconded officers

6. A trip to London by various officers commencing on Wednesday 30th April 2008. (Other visits may also require scrutiny)

7. The employment of seconded and agency staff to Jersey. Including issues such as travel and rest day rate.

8. The use of corporate credit cards for entertaining visitors and staff.

9. Anomalies identified by the review.

10. The management of overtime on Operation Rectangle.

Other areas may become relevant as the review progresses.’

5.                    Whilst it was not explicitly stated, it was my understanding from the outset that BDO Alto and I would prepare a joint report of our findings.

6.                    Whilst carrying out the review, I was mindful of the importance of the principle of independence, as stated in Section 4 of the ACPO Murder Investigation Manual[1].  With the exception of the issue I discuss in paragraphs 12 to 18 below, the only way in which the manner or substance of my work was constrained by anyone or anything was by the parameters of my terms of reference which, as is evident from their final sentence, were quite wide and flexible.

7.                    However, in his written submission to the Sub Panel and subsequently when giving oral evidence, the former Senior Investigating Officer, Mr Leonard Harper, has alleged that, due to the nature of my relationship with his successor, (now retired) Detective Superintendent Michael Gradwell, I was not independent. He has also asserted that he finds it difficult to believe that the then Acting Chief Officer would have appointed someone who was truly independent. I absolutely reject this allegation, which is totally unfounded. This slur on my professional integrity can only serve to deflect attention from, or devalue, the conclusions contained in the report and Mr Harper should be asked to provide evidence to support it.

8.                    In relation to the then Acting Chief Officer, Mr David Warcup, prior to arriving in Jersey in March 2009 I had never met him, nor indeed, had I ever heard of him.

9.                    In relation to Mr Gradwell, we were members of the same police force in the UK, the Lancashire Constabulary and have known each other for approximately twenty-five years. For a time, about twenty years ago, we were close colleagues. However, in 2001 I commenced an overseas secondment and on my return to the UK in 2003, I headed a Home Office funded regional unit, not based in Lancashire, until I retired from the police service at the end of 2006. Throughout that period, from 2001 until March 2009, I had little or no personal or professional contact with him. Since leaving Jersey at the end of July 2009 I have spoken with him on only four or five occasions, by telephone, mainly in relation to matters pertaining to Operation Rectangle.

10.                Even if that had not been the case, it does not follow that I was not independent. Reviews have been a feature of major criminal investigations in the UK for the best part of two decades. Senior investigating officers are used to their investigations being reviewed by colleagues and to carrying out reviews of colleagues’ investigations objectively, independently and in a professional manner. It may be that Mr Harper, who I understand prior to him deciding to take command of Operation Rectangle had not been involved in major crime investigation for some time, is unfamiliar with this common best practice.

11.                Furthermore, there appears to be some inconsistency in Mr Harper’s approach to this issue. I understand that shortly after police operations commenced at Haut de la Garenne, at the suggestion of Chief Officer Graham Power, he made contact with a former senior officer in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) who was then a member of the Serious Organised Crime Agency and a member of the ACPO Homicide Working Group. He asked this officer to come to Jersey to act as his mentor during the investigation. Subsequently, on a number of occasions, he described this officer as carrying out a review and in evidence to the Sub Panel said that he was both mentor and review officer. Whether he was one or the other, both or something in between the two, at the very least the role(s) clearly demanded a sense of objectivity and independence on the part of both men. Yet I believe that Mr Harper and the officer had served together for a number of years in the MPS and had remained in contact after Mr Harper had transferred from MPS. I do not know if Mr Harper has ever met Mr Gradwell but he has certainly never met me. I therefore find it odd that he would so publicly deny Mr Gradwell and I the ability to have a professional working relationship at the same time that he so readily grants that ability to himself and his former colleague.


12.                I entirely understand Mr Harper’s anger that he was not interviewed as part of the Review and I agree that the failure to interview him was undesirable.

13.                It had always been my intention from the outset to interview him, as this would have been a natural and essential part of the process, should he have been willing to be interviewed in the first place. I had discussed this at an early stage with members of the Wiltshire investigation team[2] and we had agreed that, in order to save time and to interfere with Mr Harper’s domestic life as little as possible, it would be appropriate for us to do so at the same time. They had already interviewed him once and were due to reinterview him shortly, so I began to draw up a list of the issues I wished to discuss with him. Some days after this agreement, I mentioned it in passing during a conversation with Mr Gradwell. To my great surprise he suggested that Mr Warcup may have some views about this and that it would be a good idea if I mentioned my intention to him before acting. I did so and Mr Warcup told me that he did not think it was advisable at the moment but that it might be possible at a later stage. During the next two or three months I raised the matter with him on several occasions and part of our dialogue has been recounted in the written submission of BDO Alto.

14.                Ultimately, on 2nd September 2009, I sent him an e-mail, the relevant part of which reads as follows:-

‘I spoke with Mick Gradwell last week, before he left Jersey, and I understand from him that you have not changed your mind concerning my request to seek an interview with ex-DCO Harper [ ... ]. I think it is therefore appropriate that I set out my position.

You have previously given me reasons why you do not think it proper for me to interview Mr Harper, even though this is a course of action that in any other review would be unremarkable, standard and indeed essential. However, I still feel that my understanding of your reasons is insufficient for me to be able to be entirely sure that you have arrived at the correct decision. You have said that it is because an interview could affect other matters being investigated and at our meeting on 21st July you specifically mentioned Operation Blast as being one of these. Given what I understand to be the substance of Operation Blast I cannot understand how it could be possible for any interview I were to have with Mr Harper concerning the matters I am reviewing to prejudice that investigation.


I think it is important to point out that, until recently, it had been the intention of the Wiltshire team and I to interview Mr Harper together, something they would not have agreed to if they had considered that my questions might have prejudiced their investigation. Whilst events have ovetaken this intention, having spoken to members of the team in recent weeks and since you and I met on 21st July, I have no reason to believe that their opinion has changed about the impact on their work of any interview carried out by me.

I have previously expressed my concern to you, both verbally and in writing, that not interviewing Mr Harper will seriously undermine the credibility of the review. As the former Senior Investigating Officer of Operation Rectangle he should be given an opportunity to influence the outcome of the process and, given the seriousness of what has been found, natural justice dictates that he be allowed to do so.’

15.                Mr Warcup replied to me in a letter dated 7th September 2009. In relation to the points I had made concerning the interview with Mr Harper he said:-

‘Let me be absolutely clear that in our meetings I was explicit in my reasons for pursuing the course of action which I have, which were to ensure that the enquiry being conducted by Wiltshire was not prejudiced. I also felt it appropriate to have available to me the information from your review and that of the Wiltshire enquiry before making any further decisions.’

16.                The matter was left there and so Mr Harper was, unfortunately, not interviewed by me.

17.                Having said that, I feel that it is my duty to stress that I do not believe that anything Mr Harper would have said in interview would have altered in any substantial way the findings that the personnel from BDO Alto and I arrived at. I have read Mr Harper’s written submission to this Sub Panel and the transcript of the oral evidence he gave, together with some other written contributions to internet blogs, in which he attacks our conclusions. However, nothing has persuaded me to change my position in relation to the manner in which the financial and human resources were managed during Operation Rectangle.

18.                As is pointed out in the written submission of BDO Alto, the Review was not an investigation of any individual but was designed to ascertain what had occurred and to make recommendations for the future. Indeed, that much is clear from my terms of reference. We acknowledge the dedication of many individuals in the States of Jersey Police who were working under great pressure and for lengthy periods without time off, including Mr Harper himself. The manner in which some of our conclusions were expressed was diluted precisely because we had not been able to speak to Mr Harper. Nevertheless, as he himself pointed out in his oral evidence, he made the bulk of the financial decisions and he therefore cannot absolve himself of the extremely serious and costly errors that were made.


19.                Shortly after I began work on the review, I had a meeting with members of the team from Wiltshire Constabulary who were investigating matters arising from the suspension of Chief Officer Graham Power. The initiative for the meeting came from them but in any case, it made complete sense to me. Whilst our roles and objectives were different, there were many overlaps in our work. We were interested in interviewing some of the same people and in accessing many of the same documents and IT systems. During the following months we had further meetings, on an ad hoc basis, to exchange information and on several occasions I drew their attention to evidence I had obtained that was pertinent to their investigation. This was done openly and with the knowledge of the Acting Chief Officer, of Mr Gradwell and of BDO Alto, although BDO Alto did not participate in any of these meetings[3].

20.                A central focus of both the Wiltshire investigation and of the work being carried out by BDO Alto and I were the actions of Mr Harper. I was aware that Wiltshire had already interviewed him and that a written record existed of the interview in the form of a draft statement. I therefore asked if I could see it. I was not allowed to do so immediately, as Wiltshire decided to seek legal advice as to whether this was permissible. In due course they were told that it was and I was given access to it; I was not given a copy but was able to take notes of its content.

21.                In due course I incorporated several points from Mr Harper’s statement into drafts of sections of my report which I sent to the Wiltshire team. I am aware that these drafts were passed on to the Wiltshire lawyer. Subsequently, the drafts were incorporated into the joint report of BDO Alto and I. I understand that the consolidated draft was also sent to Wiltshire, although I am not able to say if it too was examined by their lawyer, as by this time I had left Jersey.

22.                I am not aware whether Mr Harper was, as he claims, given any assurances as to how his statement would be used. At no time was I told that I was not able to include references to his statement in any documents I drafted. In fact, only three references to his statement were included in the consolidated report.


23.                The first I knew of the article published in the Mail on Sunday on 4th October 2009 was the following day, when I received a telephone call from the Managing Director of BDO Alto to inform me of the fact. During my time in Jersey and since, I have had absolutely no contact, formal or informal, with any journalist.

24.                For the reasons set out in the written submission of BDO Alto, it is clear that it was not an ‘interim report’ or the consolidated report that was leaked to the newspaper but rather content of the drafts of sections of my contribution to the report.

25.                My practice during the review was to forward the first drafts of sections of my report to the Acting Chief Officer, to Mr Gradwell, to the Wiltshire team and to BDO Alto. Only BDO Alto were sent updated drafts, as and when amendments were subsequently made to the originals.

26.                Some days after the article had appeared, I received a telephone call from Mr Gradwell in which he admitted that he had been responsible for the leak.

27.                I received two further telephone calls from Mr Gradwell on 26th June 2011 and 1st July 2011, concerning the establishment of this Sub Panel and he again acknowledged that he had been responsible.





[1] Major Crime Reviews, ACPO Murder Investigation Manual, pp83-88, 2006 edition.

[2] I outline the nature of my relationship and dealings with the Wiltshire Constabulary investigation team below in paragraph 19 onwards.

[3] I should also point out that neither did the Acting Chief Officer, Mr Gradwell or indeed, anyone else.

18th July, 2011



Dear Deputy Pitman,




I am writing in connection with the hearing of the Scrutiny Sub-Panel last week, during which I gave evidence alongside [Managing Director] of BDO Alto. As you know, the day before the hearing we were supplied with a copy of the written submission prepared by the former Acting Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, Mr David Warcup. Having now had more time to consider Mr Warcup’s remarks, both [Managing Director] and I thought that it would be appropriate to provide you with a supplementary written submission in response to them, in addition to our more or less immediate reactions provided during the hearing on Friday.


On pages 3 and 4 of his submission, Mr Warcup refers to an internal review of Operation Rectangle commissioned by the States of Jersey Police as a result of a decision taken by the ‘Gold’ Group in December 2008. As far as I am concerned, this is not the review that I was commissioned to carry out. As I informed you at the hearing last week, the first time that I saw the terms of reference for that review was on Thursday last when I received a copy of Mr Warcup’s submission. On 21st July 2009 Mr Warcup did, to my great surprise, mention to me in a meeting we had together that there were other terms of reference that he had thought I was working to, in addition to those issued to me at the end of March 2009 (and which I reproduced in full in my original written submission); but despite me asking to see them he was unable to find them at the time and in the following weeks chose not to share them with me. However, this appeared to be a minor concern for him and his main worry at the meeting was not my terms of reference but whether or not BDO Alto and I would produce a joint report, a topic to which I shall return below.


I appreciate that this situation must be a matter for some embarrassment for Mr Warcup and SOJP but I am unable to explain why I was never told of the intended existence of this ‘December 2008’ review until four months after I had begun my work. I can only assume that there was a breakdown of communication or some misunderstanding within Mr Warcup’s office or between him and Mr Gradwell. However, it may be worth noting that not only was I unaware of it but neither was it mentioned to BDO Alto, despite Home Affairs Department being represented at a senior level on the Gold Group and there being numerous meetings – including a number at which I was present – and correspondence between Home Affairs and BDO Alto during the relevant period.


Furthermore, whilst he does not say so in his written submission, in the letter to me dated 7th September 2009 to which I referred in my original written submission, Mr Warcup acknowledged that something had gone wrong and said, ‘This was clearly not your responsibility and no blame is attached to you, however the original intention was to broaden the scope of your work’.


On page 5 of his submission Mr Warcup goes on to state that ‘during the course of the internal SOJP review [he] became aware that either Mr Gradwell or Mr Kellett had apparently agreed with BDO Alto Ltd. that there should be a joint report’. I reiterate that there was no ‘internal SOJP review’ taking place, at least certainly not one with the terms of reference which he set out in his submission. The only review I was carrying out was the joint review with BDO Alto that I understood I had been commissioned to do. It was not a case of me agreeing anything with BDO Alto, the fact of a joint report was absolutely implicit in my terms of reference. Indeed, it would have been almost impossible for BDO Alto to have produced a report that was of any use to either SOJP or to the Home Affairs Department without input from me, which is the very reason I was employed.


For the same reason, we are puzzled that Mr Warcup states on page 6 of his submission that his refusal to countenance me interviewing Mr Harper related only to the SOJP internal review. He appears to imply that he does not understand why BDO Alto did not themselves seek to interview Mr Harper. It was always intended that I would interview Mr Harper in respect of the joint review being undertaken with BDO Alto, this of course being the only review that we were aware of. This intention was communicated by BDO Alto to the Home Affairs Department from as early as 28 May 2009 (see page 32 of BDO Alto’s written submission). BDO Alto would not have been in a position to carry out an effective interview of Mr Harper without my presence and by forbidding me from interviewing him he in fact also prevented BDO Alto from doing so.


On pages 5 and 6 of his submission Mr Warcup raises several other issues that, whilst perhaps not directly relevant to the Sub-Panel’s deliberations, I feel I ought to respond to briefly:


·        Firstly, I agree with him entirely that nothing should have been done by BDO Alto or me that could have undermined the investigation being carried out by the team from Wiltshire Constabulary. That is one of the main reasons that Wiltshire and I maintained such a close liaison throughout the time I was in Jersey and indeed, afterwards when we were both finalising our reports.

·        He states that he was concerned about the methodology we had adopted, specifically ‘that key witnesses had not been deposed in writing’. That is to misunderstand the methodology of a review. We were not carrying out a criminal or disciplinary investigation where statements needed to be taken from witnesses. I made contemporaneous and comprehensive written records of conversations I had with every member of SOJP and Home Affairs Department who I interviewed and these are quoted from in our report, together with documents to which we had access. All of our conclusions are based on sound, verifiable evidence.

·        He goes on to state that the review ‘lacked objectivity, had the potential to be unfair to Mr Power and could have seriously undermined the investigation by Wiltshire Police’. I do not wish to appear over-sensitive to comments that may seem harsher to me than they do to others and which were perhaps not meant to sound harsh. However, I would point out that Wiltshire Constabulary clearly do not agree, as in paragraph 1.10 of their ‘Finance Report’ they refer specifically to having had sight of my initial drafts and of the draft joint report with BDO Alto and state that they ‘concur with many of the draft report’s findings’.

·        He also goes on to state that he had received legal advice via Wiltshire Police that raised concern at some of the content of my drafts. On 23rd September 2009 I had a telephone conversation with a member of the Wiltshire investigation team who had been instructed to contact me concerning that legal advice. The only concern their lawyers had relating to anything I had written was a reference, not to Mr Harper or to Mr Power, but rather to a remark made by a member of SOJP about a reporter from a national tabloid Sunday newspaper, present at one of the dinners hosted by Mr Harper in London and which I had quoted in the original draft discussing the circumstances of and expenditure on that meal. I was happy to delete the remark from the draft and it did not appear in the final version.

·        I would also point out that the first time he raised any of the concerns set out in his written submission was in his letter to me of 7th September. Indeed, some of his concerns I have learned of for the first time only in his submission. By the time of our meeting on 21st July 2009 he had received all but one of the drafts of sections of my contribution to the joint report. At that meeting he expressed complete satisfaction with what I had produced. Furthermore, I was subsequently informed by two people present at the meeting of the Gold Group that had taken place on 20th July 2009 that at that meeting he quoted approvingly from sections of my drafts and allowed [Chief Executive of States of Jersey] and [Home Affairs Accounting Officer], who were also present, to read extracts from them, something he is unlikely to have done if he had any serious concern about the content.

·        Mr Warcup also states that I was unhappy with his decision that I should not carry out any further work on the review and that as a result I expressed concern that some of my findings were likely to be suppressed. That statement is inaccurate; whilst at some stage he may have made such a decision, it was only after I had already effectively resigned and my expression of concern about the possibility of my findings being suppressed predated both my resignation and his decision. In my e-mail to him of 2nd September 2009 I had set out my views not only about his refusal to allow me to interview Mr Harper but also about his wish not to have a joint report with BDO Alto. The reasons he gave to me in his letter of 7th September and that he has set out in his written submission to you for his desire for two reports bear no relation to the reason he gave to me on 21st July. In my e-mail I said to him, ‘If you cannot change your position on this then I do not see how I can continue to contribute anything useful and I would have no alternative other than to terminate my involvement in the review of Operation Rectangle immediately. […] I am sorry to have to write in such terms and sorry that our dealings with each other may have to end in this fashion’.


Finally, I think that we would like to reiterate the point we made on Friday that our review was not an investigation of Mr Harper’s conduct, nor was he accused of anything. The aim of the exercise was solely to identify learning points for the future and to make recommendations for both the States of Jersey and the States of Jersey Police to consider relating to improvements in the management of finance and other resources during major enquiries. We have no doubt that Mr Harper was totally dedicated to the task of investigating serious crimes that had possibly occurred at Haut de la Garenne and that he was entirely sincere in his belief that child abuse there and elsewhere in Jersey was a major issue that needed to be dealt with. Throughout the period that Operation Rectangle was live, he and his staff displayed great dedication and did their utmost to bring suspected offenders to justice and we pointed out as much in our report. However, we were not asked to examine motivation and dedication but rather to look at how the resources available to the investigation were managed. We did so and made nineteen recommendations. Inevitably, because of the central role Mr Harper performed, his management of the resources formed a central part of our examination but to the extent that any of those recommendations constitute criticism of his actions, no criticism of, let alone attack on, the existence of the investigation or of the motivation for it is intended or implied. 


I hope that these remarks will be of some assistance to you and to your colleagues on the Sub-Panel and if I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to let me know.


Yours sincerely,






Michael Kellett




Deputy Trevor Pitman,

c/o Scrutiny Office,

States Greffe,

Morier House,

Halkett Place,

St Helier,