Sunday, September 18, 2011

HOLLYWOOD HARPER??? BDO Alto .24




Today we are looking at the evidence given to the Home Affairs Sub Panel into the BDO Alto Review by the former Chief of Police Graham Power and Former Acting Police Chief David Warcup.



We should soon be having the report & conclusions from the Sub Panel and I for one look forward to reading it.



When I first looked at the BDO Alto Review I seriously had no idea where it would lead or the very serious concerns relating to the conduct of the former Senior Investigating Officer Mick Gradwell.



Why is it ok to lambast the work of Power & Harper the two men who smashed down the vail of secrecy of decades long abuse yet no one and I mean no one dare look at the role played by Warcup & Gradwell



How do you think Abuse Survivors must feel? Not only do they have to put up with the most diabolical of letters appearing in the JEP they now find out that the Senior Investigating Officer was leaking "CONFIDENTIAL"Police Information to Journalist David Rose -the very same Journalist that was trashing the Child Abuse Investigation long before he had even turned up. Yes, David Rose was already in place. He had started writing articles in the middle of 2008 beginning with the alleged leaking of a private e-mail between Graham Power and former assistant Health Minister Senator Jim Perchard, so who put Mick Gradwell onto David Rose?



The Actions of Senator Shenton & Perchard must be seriously looked into.  Im not sure if we will ever really find out the reasons for their actions concerning the Historic Child Abuse Investigation but it must be looked at.  It could be a matter of many things, my guess is that the Shenton problem stems back to before the Historic Child Abuse Investigation and the fact that the SOJP was getting cleaned  up by two decent honest cops - yes no one is perfect - Power & Harper would be the first to admit that they made mistakes along the way but by cleaning up a corrupt SOJP they were making enemies who were waiting for the day to get their own back - that time arrived in 2008.




My intention is to stay away from the election stuff as there are other Blog Sites concentrating on that but one or two will no doubt  slip in.




Here are the transcripts of Graham Power & David Warcup



When everything is finished with this review there can be no doubt as to where one of the biggest spotlights must be shone;


 The Jersey Main Stream Media



The abhorrent, shockingly biased and totally inept Jersey Main Stream Media



The facts speak for themselves 



You can see my attempts at getting answers from CTV on Voiceforprotest



Things are very bad at the moment in Jersey because the toxic decadence has been allowed to go unchecked for year after year without anyone speaking out. Times are changing. I find it very interesting looking at the treatment being thrown at the Pitmans. This is being done because they are feared there is no other reason.  We must not have people with a moral & social beliefs, this is Jersey 2011, we must only have people who will follow the 'Jersey hard nosed conservative right into the Abyss 


My message to the Pitmans would be get elected. Nothing else matters. Especially the rubbish written by Elton Jon. Its all about Intimidation & Fear. Rise above it and most of all don't read it




Rico Sorda








STATES OF JERSEY

 

Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

Review of Issues Surrounding the Review of the Final Financial Management of Operation Rectangle

 

WEDNESDAY, 17th AUGUST 2011

 

Panel:

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier (Chairman)

Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour

 

Witness:

Mr. G. Power (via conference call), retired Chief Officer for the States of Jersey Police

 

Also Present:

Scrutiny Officer

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Well, it is a bit of a strange situation again.  You cannot see us, we cannot see you.  For the record I will get us all to introduce ourselves in a minute.  Welcome, though, audience.  There is no mainstream media filming but I must point out we have had a request not to film the audience so if they do come in I will stop proceedings.  You have not had the oath so can I just run through the oath so that you are familiar with what we are working to?

 

Mr. G. Power:

Yes, sure.  Sure.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay, so it is: “The proceedings of the panel are covered by parliamentary privilege through Article 34 of the States of Jersey Law 2005 and the States of Jersey (Powers, Privileges and Immunities) (Scrutiny Panels, P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee) and P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) (Jersey) Regulations 2006 and witnesses are protected from being sued or prosecuted for anything said during the hearing unless they say something which they know to be untrue.  This protection is given to witnesses to ensure that they can speak freely and openly to the panel when giving evidence without fear of legal action although the immunity should obviously not be abused by making unsubstantiated statements about third parties who have no right of reply.  The panel would like you to bear this in mind when answering questions.”  Is that okay?

 

Mr. G. Power:

Yes, okay.  Yes, I will carry on.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

We have got quite a lot to get through so we will do our best to press on.  You are aware of the terms of reference obviously?

 

Mr. G. Power:

Yes, yes, I am.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay.  Could I first ask you, Mr. Harper states in his submission, without reading the whole thing out, that the report in question, BDO, totally misunderstands and represents a situation of the Jersey Police as it was at the time of the investigation in relation to the management of its budget.  Would you agree with that assessment from Mr. Harper?  Perhaps you could enlarge on that if you do not.

 

Mr. G. Power:

Yes, I suppose what you are doing is asking me to make an assessment of the value of that specific report.  My understanding is that we were not going to get into a detailed discussion of it and so I do not claim to have studied it in more depth.  I think ... the comment I would make is this is perfectly proper that politicians would wish a report that looks in a challenging way at lessons that can be learned from major inquiry, there is nothing wrong with that in principle.  But it is equally right that it should be even-handed.  Mr. Harper knows a great deal more about the detail of the investigation than I do but I think that opportunity is the victim of the report that it does not ... it is insufficiently strategic and it is frustrated, particularly with the almost impossible situation that we found ourselves in in operating the system of financial management that was imposed upon us contrary to best practice advice, and how that arose and how responsibility for that ought to be shared.  I think there was an inordinate emphasis on the detail of expenditure in restaurant bills and matters of that nature rather than how did you get into a situation where there was so many fingers in the pie of financial management and no clear line of accountability.  I mean that is the bigger question.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

When you say “so many fingers in the pie” can you just enlarge on that?

 

Mr. G. Power:

Yes, I mean there is one thing I think everybody agrees on and I could be wrong about that but this system had the Chief Officer of whatever department, namely the Chief Officer of Home Affairs having responsibility for financial management in the police service and the Chief Officer of the police force not having any financial staff under his management, which is quite a bizarre arrangement.  All good practice in relation to policing would tell you, or all best practice advice, that there ought to be a qualified accountant as part of the senior management team for the police force.  That was the arrangement in Jersey when I started and that was a time when everything was to budget and there was no queries regarding the financial management of the force at all.  Then along came the Finance Law, I think it would be the Finance Law 2005, which created the position of accounting officer.  Proposals were then put forward to make the Chief Officer of Home Affairs accounting officer for the force and also guidelines were produced which had the accounting officer responsible for setting objectives for line managers for monitoring performance and so on.  It left the Chief Officer of Police with nothing to do apart from day to day administration.  That was subject of some heated exchanges.  Had those proposals not got amended I think I would have had to have gone outside the Island for support.  As it was, the management proposals, the proposals to make the accounting officer, the Chief Officer of Home Affairs, responsible for setting objectives for the police line managers themselves were withdrawn with the outcome that the management of the force remained with the Chief Officer of the force but financial management would then come under the control of the Chief Officer for Home Affairs.  I opposed that strongly but I was not supported.  The Chief Officer for Home Affairs was keen to go along with that arrangement in spite of me producing copies of the best practice advice from other jurisdictions which say you should not do that.  You should not split financial control away from the operational management.  The Minister for Treasury at the time and the Chief Minister were very determined to impose that arrangement.  So I think all of the financial staff were taken away from police headquarters so we were operating around the £20 million a year budget and we did not have a qualified financial person within line management within the police service.  So I think a good strategic report which looked at this would identify that is where the problem began because I do not think anybody is disputing that there were problems.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Could I just come in there and say when you say you were not supported, who was that specifically by; the Chief Minister at the time or ...?  Because you said you made your case very strongly.

 

Mr. G. Power:

No, the Chief Officer for Home Affairs was not persuaded by my arguments.  I went into it in some detail in the statement that I made to Wiltshire.  It is just frustrating to be going through this in detail over the phone to some extent when there already is a substantial written submission on the issues relating to the financial management of the historic abuse inquiry which has been sitting on the Minister’s desk since July 2009.  If the Committee could read that it would ...

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Believe me, Mr. Power, we share your frustration.  I will let my colleagues come in.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Just staying with this history in a way around 2005 you say that the Home Affairs Chief Officer assisted you but at that level of decision making it is going to go to Ministers, is it not?  So what was the ministerial attitude around this issue?

 

Mr. G. Power:

I had a quite heated meeting with the then Chief Executive, the then Treasurer of the States, the Chief Officer of Home Affairs and myself and we discussed our ideas, I will not say evidence, with this proposal to effectively give the Chief Officer of Home Affairs control of the force.  That would have significant constitutional implications and to give credit people could see the trap in that arrangement.  But to date the Chief Officer of Home Affairs as the accounting officer for the force did seem to me ... I did say in my statement that I speculated at the time were we being set up to fail with the Chief Officer of Home Affairs in the police force but it was nevertheless an arrangement which every expert on the proper governance of a police force would tell you it is one that would not work most days and certainly would not work under pressure as proved to be the case.  Again, I do go into some detail about processes I put in place to try and make a bad system work and us police officers often think ourselves quite good at making bad systems work.  What I did was institute ... make sure that the senior management meetings that we had, which occurred on average every couple of weeks, were attended always by a member of the Home Affairs Department finance section.  So we also had a qualified accountant sitting at the table of the management meetings representing Home Affairs and we always had a financial report as a standard item.  They were minuted meetings with an agenda so there was always the opportunity for the financial person to raise any concerns and if there were any they would be recorded in the minutes.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Thank you, Mr. Power, can I follow up on that because we are now in the curious situation of if we read the Home Affairs evidence from the Chief Officer what he was saying was, for example in terms of invoices: “We had to accept them we could not question them.”  So that could be read by some people as being an abdication of responsibility but yet you attended meetings where this system was argued to be a workable system.  At what point in your view, Mr. Power, did the system start manifestly breaking down and it was obvious that despite assurances you had had at the earlier set up meetings the system was not working?

 

Mr. G. Power:

Yes, okay.  At the earlier stage of the inquiry I was receiving regular assurances.  These were verbal, they were minuted in meetings and there exists, for example, an email chain from 2008 which refers to meetings between the Chief Officer of Home Affairs, the senior accountants and Lenny Harper which discussed issues such as the Financial Policy Group and travel costs and indicated that there were no concerns.  These reassurances were coming on a fairly frequent basis but I was getting an uneasy feeling that perhaps there was not sufficient rigour in the Home Affairs approach.  If I was asked to say what was the sort of turning point in a sense, it was on 22nd May 2008 with the Treasurer of the States at the time.  He had got in touch with the Chief Officer at Home Affairs and reminded him of the responsibility of the accounting officer and the assurances he was expected to give.  The Treasurer said to him ... the accounting officer reminded him the accounting officer is personally responsible for prudence and economic administration and that the resources are being used efficiently and effectively.  Now this led to contact between myself and the Chief Officer of Home Affairs on 27th May and the Chief Officer of Home Affairs asked me to sign a letter saying that I had a finger on everything and everything was fine and providing such assurance.  I really was not comfortable with that because I kept repeatedly having to point out: “Look, if I want to know what is going on the in police budget ...” I will not mention it again but the accounting officer obviously was not (inaudible 11:16:08) but if I want to know what is going on in relation to the police budget then really I have to ask the person who is sitting a few feet from where you are sitting now in your office who has all the information because I do not.  I then made a suggestion.  I discussed it with him and I firmed it up in an email and that was on 9th June 2008, and I said: “Look, we need to have more effective officers, we need a more robust arrangement” and I recommended the establishment of what I called the Financial Oversight Board.  I suggested the membership would be himself, a senior accountant from his department, the Senior Investigating Officer who was Lenny Harper and myself.  A proper structured body with minutes and an agenda to scrutinise the expenditure.  Now, that eventually was accepted that proposal but I felt that it was not acted on with sufficient speed and for whatever reason was not able to call the first meeting until 23rd July 2008.  At that meeting I was able to make some proper recommendations, the concept of constructive challenge, the idea that we should bring in some independent auditing procedures.  Of course the Senior Investigating Officer was present and was able to answer some of the issues that were raised there and were recorded in the minutes.  I do not have a copy of the minutes of that meeting, I obviously cannot remember exactly what was said.  There is very clearly a body of which anybody with financial knowledge who had any concerns about any of the procedures could have raised a query, was expected to raise a query.  That is what the group was for so if anyone had financial issues they could put it on the agenda, discuss it at the meeting, have it recorded in the minutes and something would have been done about it.  Nobody ... if a matter had been raised at that meeting which required me to do something I would have been rushing out and doing it at full speed.  That was the way things happened.  The minutes will show that nobody raised any concerns and so whatever I might have felt intuitively the fact is that the people who had the knowledge of financial procedures, who had daily access to all of the accounts was unanimous in telling me that there was nothing I needed to do and nothing I needed to worry about.  You know whatever people are saying in hindsight what they said at minuted meetings is simply a matter of record and what is a matter of record is that nobody had any concerns.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Thank you, Mr. Power.  Obviously that seems very much at odds certainly with the understanding that was put in the public domain that there was allegedly a high degree of irresponsible and misdirected spending going on, for example.

 

Mr. G. Power:

I am not sure that the 2 are necessarily incompatible.  I do not know because any alleged revelations regarding irresponsible spending that came to light came to light after I was no longer in post.  I would say there that I cannot really comment.  But I am not saying that there was not irresponsible spending taking place.  I do not necessarily think there was but they are not in a position to give evidence of that, that is not the substance of the evidence I have just given.  What the substance of that evidence is, what I am saying is that at minuted meetings with the accounting officer and his financial team I was told that there were no concerns.  I am not saying that is true or false I am saying what is true is that that is what I was told and that is according to the minutes of those meetings.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Can we just ...

 

Mr. G. Power:

It was when I was no longer in post when people started telling a very different story, okay, but I would be astounded if any member of the Home Affairs Department or the Minister or anybody has produced minutes or have documented any meeting at which I was present in which any concerns were raised to me.  Ask them to show you.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay, that is a very interesting point.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Thank you for that, Mr. Power.  Just to confirm, when you were at these meetings did the representatives from Home Affairs give you an analysis, for example, of the invoices that had come in?  Did they say: “Oh, there appears to be exceptional expenditure here which we really cannot explain, could you explain it further?”  Did these kinds of discussions take place with that group?

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Can you clarify which group?

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

The financial oversight.

 

Mr. G. Power:

It is hard to remember the detail of discussions that took place years ago but in essence it was a strategic meeting, I think it is right to say that.  It would be very unusual in a meeting which was attended by people at executive level that was addressing strategic expenditure issues got into the detail as to whether you were paying too much for the hotel or whether anybody ordered a meal that they were not entitled to.  I think that would be unusual.  But my question was are you getting access to the financial account information for Operation Rectangle?  Yes, I am.  Is that to your satisfaction?  Yes, it is.  Have you any concerns you want to raise with me?  No, I have no concerns I want to raise with you, it all seems in order, it all seems to be well documented.  Now this is as far as this discussion went.  I never at any stage sort of said: “Well, can you tell me what sort of invoices you are getting for hotels or for meal orders and so on?”  You expect those things to be gone through on a standard rate of charges and if any of it is looking odd then somebody has to bring it up at that meeting and say: “Well, Chief, now you ask, I have got a bit of a concern about the entertainment” or whatever it is.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay, Mr. Power.  I just want to point out that you referred to the document which obviously we have never seen, only the Minister has.  We have requested paragraphs from 265 to 284 so hopefully we will have the benefit of seeing those.  Deputy Wimberley.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Just following on from that point, first of all before I go back to the Financial Oversight Board, would you agree to make public the paragraphs in your statement referring to financial management, because there is a slight doubt in your submission?  I just want it on the record that you are happy for those paragraphs to come to this panel.

 

Mr. G. Power:

Well, let me respond to that.  It is 2-fold.  I do not mind it being public but would I object to supplying them a scrutiny panel, no I would not.  If the proper request is there then I am happy to oblige the scrutiny panel.  I think making it public in principle is fine but there are matters ... we do mention people’s names for example and so I think there would need to be some modest redacting required before they put it in the public domain.  But it would be a pity if the fact that individual’s names are mentioned stopped quite a detailed narrative of these issues being available to people who have an interest.  So subject to appropriate redaction I think, yes, that is fine.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

All right, thank you.  Now, going back to the Financial Oversight Board, first you said that - there is a few points here - on 9th June you first raised the issue that there should be such a board and you said it was eventually accepted and the first meeting was over a month later.  Can you give any account of why you think that delay might have happened because it is an obvious thing that should have been put in place?

 

Mr. G. Power:

Well, I do not know why there was a delay.  There were other things happening in the background because I did not see the Financial Oversight Board as a permanent feature because clearly that was going to be absorbed into the Gold Group, and parallel with that I had been having discussions with David Warcup about making the establishment of a Gold Group one of his first priorities and would have absorbed the work of the Financial Oversight Board.  I just felt that ... in terms of financial management I just got the feeling that we needed to get hold of that and we could not wait for the Gold Group to be established.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Okay, fine.

 

Mr. G. Power:

I do not know why the delay occurred.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

The next question is when did the Financial Oversight Board meet?  You said it met on 21st July, have you any recollection of whether it was quarterly, was it monthly, because my recollection is that it did not meet very often.

 

Mr. G. Power:

I think the intention was to meet once a month.  Now I note ... I am sure we intended to meet about once a month.  I am fairly sure it had at least 2 meetings but then at some stage we became satisfied that the Gold Group was in a position to take on the work of that board and it did not meet any more but the work was transferred to the Gold Group.  I am sorry I cannot be more precise about that but I do have a recollection, I think it was monthly; that is the best I can do.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

All right, that is fair enough.  My next question you have answered already about how it met and what sort of things went on at it so that is all right.  Another thing you said was that no concerns were brought to you as a result of minutes of other meetings, the meetings before the Financial Oversight Board and I am very interested in those meetings.  You talked about that an accountant was part of the senior management team of the police force, was that ... can you describe how that arrangement worked?

 

Mr. G. Power:

It was not part of the senior management team but it had been prior to the Finance Law so what I tried to do is to compensate for that by making sure that whenever the senior management team were to meet ... the senior management team always had regular scheduled minuted meetings.  Obviously we talked to each informally every morning but there is a standard process that every now and again we would sit down, we would have a proper minuted meeting of people doing ... it was mostly operational matters, you know we are going to bring in a new system for speed enforcement, these are the crime statistics, these are the problems, this is what we are doing about the problem areas, it was largely operational.  But I always made sure that a member of Home Affairs, an accountant from Home Affairs, attended those meetings and there was always a standing item on financial reporting.  That was when the person from Home Affairs would present a briefing saying: “Here is a paper on the police budget, this is expenditure, this is where we are in relation to the budget.  Here are the issues that I think this meeting needs to consider.”  You know: “You have spent too much money on D.N.A. (Deoxyribonucleic acid) testing, you have money left in the fuel budget but you ...”

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Okay, fine, I get the picture there, if I may cut you off there.  But what I am interested in is did those meetings of the S.M.T. (Senior Management Team) cover the abuse inquiry and the financial aspects?

 

Mr. G. Power:

The abuse inquiry was referred to in the financial report in the sense that the person was saying: “As far as the force budget is concerned this is the position.  As far as the abuse inquiry is concerned the Treasury has a fixed amount of money, it is based on this and that, I am meeting regularly with the Senior Investigating Officer and we are dealing with the issues about whatever it was.  Is there anything else you need to bring to the attention of this meeting that is causing you concern?”  “No, there is not.”  That was basically how that was done.  Again, I felt that that was ... I was torn between 2 things, one was the feeling that such an arrangement was not sufficiently robust and I recognised that really I was treading on somebody else’s toes because it was the accounting officer who had a handle on this and had the legal responsibility and I should have been, in truth, telling him: “Look, I think you have got this all wrong.”  As I did describe, it got to a stage where I thought: “Well, I need to make some positive suggestions about this” and that is why I suggested we beef up the process by having an additional financial oversight board.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Okay.  So the abuse inquiry financials are buried in the report that went to the S.M.T. when it met the financial person from Home Affairs.  But behind that there is meetings between the Home Affairs financial people and the S.I.O., Lenny Harper?

 

Mr. G. Power:

Yes.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Could you tell us how those meetings went?  What I am looking for is challenge; what I am looking for is at what point was there supervision of the expenditure?

 

Mr. G. Power:

I think that is a fair question.  The briefings from all sides was that regular meetings were taking place between the Senior Investigating Officer, members of the Home Affairs Department and none of the parties involved in those exchanges raised any concerns.  I think the first line of challenge would have to be the accounting officer who had the responsibility of saying: “I am not happy about this or that aspect or the story that is coming back to me through my accounting team.”  With hindsight, perhaps I was a little bit too intimidated about the fact that ... the law was very clear on the subject.  The law was very clear that the responsibility for financial oversight was not mine it was the Chief Officer for Home Affairs and although I was getting assurances from his department, as I think I discussed already, I thought: “No, this really is not good enough, I have got to get some rigour around this” which is why ...

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Okay, I do have a clear picture now.  

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Can I take from that, Mr. Power, and ask you, in light of all you have said and your thoughts on the Jersey Finance Law - interesting to say the least - why do you feel that there has been all this focus on the police side of the matters, which I think is understandable that is to be looked at, but there has been very little focus on the other side of what was clearly a system that was not working and was recognised that it was not working.  Have you got any explanation for why the Home Affairs side has not really been given the same scrutiny?

 

Mr. G. Power:

Well it depends what mandate people were given and it seems to me very clear that substantial amounts of investigative effort has been ploughed into making critical comments regarding the police service.  It was a very difficult and long-running suspension because we had a judicial review pending in the Royal Court which they anticipated, correctly, would at the very least make some strong critical comments of the way the matter was being handled.  They were facing critical comments in the States about the expenditure on the investigation and I suppose this - in my reading of it - caused a lot of energy to be directed towards finding critical things to say about policing which perhaps justified, the long-running suspension, the anticipated inquiry, the £2 million of expenditure, there is a whole saga (inaudible 11:32:57) in relation to this issue.  I think the opportunity was lost when you look at how we managed to get into a situation where effective financial management was ...

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

So what you are really saying is you feel there was an ulterior motive for the direction that this all took.

 

Mr. G. Power:

Yes, I think there is an ulterior motive (inaudible 11:33:23) but I feel ... the actions of the police in this have been subjected to very intense scrutiny against best practice guidelines in other jurisdictions.  There was, for example, best practice guidelines as to how these cases should be prosecuted.  I am not aware that anybody has been appointed to audit the prosecutions against these best practice guidelines or anybody has been appointed to look critically at the actions of Ministers or senior civil servants in establishing arrangements which prove to be if not unworkable at least very difficult.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Okay, could I take you on to a slightly different point?  You said in your submission that it appears that some person had made payments to the Deputy Chief Officer in breach of the rules governing such payments.  Could you enlarge on that?

 

Mr. G. Power:

Yes, it is a simple point ...

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

It is a simple point but an important one.

 

Mr. G. Power:

Yes, it ... I have been frustrated as a lot of people have that whenever the debate seems to shift towards where it probably belongs in my view, which is towards to the victims and to asking the hard questions about how was that the abuse was not challenged for so many years and why it took some rather exceptional police interventions to bring it within the criminal justice system, the conversation seems to be turned away to restaurant bills in London and who has had a second helping or whether there is ... I mean, this whole business about personal expenses has, I think, been used in particular to trivialise what ought to be a rather more serious debate.  But to return to your point, in my early stages as Chief Officer we had the States auditors as they were then look through the whole issue of expenses and do some spot ... I wanted the reassurance of some spot checks on everybody’s expenditure, everybody’s credit card bills, including mine, and the auditors produced the report which largely supported that there needed to be a few more checks and balances, which was that the Deputy’s expenditure needed to be signed off by the Chief, it needed that oversight and that scrutiny, and credit bills incurred by the Deputy.  That was accepted as a recommendation by the Home Affairs Committee, I think it was then, and that became the rule that the Deputy could not incur any expenses unless I had signed them off.  The frustration I have with listening to this debate is they are referring to expenses that I never signed off.  I am not saying that the expenses were unjustified, or justified, I have no information which entitles me to come to a firm conclusion but somebody decided in a sense to go behind my back and to sign off expenditure on behalf of the Deputy which they had no authority to sign off.  They should not have paid tuppence without my signature on the bottom of the page.  I just wonder at the gall of people who breached the rules for financial expenditure and then seem to feel free to pontificate about expenditure in the police service.  The rules were bypassed and it could only be bypassed by the staff in the Home Affairs Department ...

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Okay.

 

Mr. G. Power:

... spend money without my signature on the page as it should have been.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Thank you, Mr. Power, I wonder if we can follow that up.  You said someone, could you identify who this someone was by name or office held and, second, could you tell us when you were aware that you were being bypassed and what you did about it?

 

Mr. G. Power:

Yes, I been aware since I was suspended ... I learned about these issues about meals and hotel bills in the same way largely as anybody else did.  I picked up it from the Jersey media and I thought: “What is all that about?”  Then I thought: “I do not remember signing off any of that” and I looked through the disclosure papers that Wiltshire had given me and there is no allegation at any stage that I had signed off any of this expenditure that some people think was inappropriate expenditure and so I concluded that somebody other than me has signed that off.  I could not really believe ...

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Who was that someone then, Mr. Power?

 

Mr. G. Power:

Well it has to be somebody in the Home Affairs Departments who is authorised to make payments out of public funds to an individual or member of staff for expenditure.  Now, I could not say who that will be but it would be one of a handful of people for sure.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Okay, thank you.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

I suppose following on from that, Mr. Harper says in his evidence: “The nearest we got to financial control was sitting down and talking with the Chief Officer of Home Affairs and Head of Finance and going through the expenditure and both of those always at every stage expressed satisfaction, and I have to say some frustration as well with the fact that they were aware that we were trying to keep cost down to a budget that we did not have.”  Can you confirm that that is your understanding of what happened and that that was the first stage before it came to the S.M.T.?

 

Mr. G. Power:

I did not catch the last part of your question but I think that what Mr. Harper is describing there will be possibly his recollection of meetings of the Financial Oversight Board.  He comments regarding a budget that we did not have I think does touch a relevant nerve because perhaps he is describing his attempts to bring it about.  I know it is mentioned in the accountant’s report but the political background was very difficult because in one sense we were trying to produce financial rigour and on the other hand the Chief Minister at the time, no doubt for reasons of reassurance or whatever but possibly with different motives was making public statements to the effect that money was no issue.  With Jersey being what it is the people we were dealing with were acting on this so I find myself intercepting the expenditure which was being made on the strength of Chief Minister’s promise that we were not going to worry about money and Home Affairs said: “No, you cannot do this because there is not a budget approved by the States.”  To a degree I am sure some just slipped through the net but the lack of rigour, I think, began, I have to say, with the Chief minister’s statement and what we should have had is a full allocated budget, proper lines of financial reporting, clarity about who it was supposed to be and who it was that was expected to go around in the inquiry ...

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Yes, exactly, now what ...

 

Mr. G. Power:

... to put some rigour around it.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

You are quite right, there should have been someone with a big stick and what surprises me or what the question to you is BDO Alto are very strong saying there should have been a financial manager within the inquiry to track the expenditure and do the ordering and the commissioning and so on or to have a handle on that.  It did not happen.  Where does the responsibility for that lie?  BDO simply make a recommendation that it should have happened but ...

 

Mr. G. Power:

I am not sure that it did not happen.  Let me just go back to what I say about that.  I think at the early stage the person who was appointed - and I do give a name in my statement at paragraph 271, 270 - when it became clear that Rectangle was likely to have significant financial implications I asked the Chief Officer for Home Affairs what arrangements he wanted in respect of financial management.  I was conscious that it was his decision to take.  He was the accounting officer and he had a legal responsibility for the budget.  He said that he would appoint the senior finance officer, who I know, to work directly with the Rectangle team.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

There you go, there is the man with the big stick.

 

Mr. G. Power:

Yes.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

It never happened.

 

Mr. G. Power:

I think that person was appointed to work with the Rectangle team.  I know it became a concern as to how effective that arrangement was.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

If that man was there with his big stick inside the Rectangle team, what is the BDO Alto report about and why does that person not figure in the report?

 

Mr. G. Power:

You have me there.  I really do not know.  The appointment of the person whose name appears in my statement as the person who would be, if you like, the eyes and ears of the accounting officer inside the Rectangle team, that person that I have identified I am sure did an audit trail at a very early stage because there was no argument when the person was appointed.  I think with experience we learned that that relationship was not working well and as I have described to you the various stages that we took to put rigour around it.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I am sure you will be reassured to know that our scrutiny officer has asked for those paragraphs of the statement but the reason I ask that other question about whether you were happy with that was just to have that on the record.  Can I move on from there, Mr. Power, and take you back to Mr. Harper’s statements in evidence to the panel that when he mentioned the cost of the inquiry in a public interview with the media, in his words, he was immediately slapped down by Mr. Ogley in an email: “Who told me in no uncertain terms ‘that I was letting the side down by even suggesting that cost was an issue’ and by telling me ‘cost is irrelevant’.”  What are your observations on that?

 

Mr. G. Power:

Well I go back to the statement made by the Chief Minister ... you know, the Chief Minister was handling it under pressure, he assured us he knew what he was doing in his public statement that cost was no option with the best of motives but he effectively undermined those of us who were working to try and bring some control.  In the email exchange dated 1st May 2008, which I put forward as one example, with a senior member of the operation team saying: “Look, I know that the Chief Minister has said this publicly, this means I can now go ahead and appoint these additional officers to the position” or whatever it is. They said: “You will see it from the email if you can get your hands on it.”  I said: “No, look, it might even be the Chief Minister is actually ultra vires in making that statement but this really has to go before the States and you cannot just go ahead and spend because he said something on the radio.”  In the political mood of the time there was a desire for Jersey Limited to position themselves in a way which they were saying to the world: “Money will be no object, this inquiry will go wherever it needs to go, we will not put restraints on what the police can purchase”, and so on.  That is well documented.  There are 2 opinions, I think.  There is a more conventional approach which ...

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay.  Did you want to come in there?

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

On that point, Mr. Power, when that statement was made, and presumably the Chief Officer of Home Affairs was somehow in the loop, was there any meeting between you, he and the senior investigating officer about the implications of that statement?

 

Mr. G. Power:

I think that my email of 1st May 2008 was shared with the accounting officer.  I am fairly confident of that, and I think that at one of the early meetings with Mr. Harper they have gone over that ground.  There was not, I think ... yes, there was a discussion.  It was discussed at the Corporate Management Board because I recall that there was one meeting of the Corporate Management Board, whether it is in the minutes I do not know, with myself and the Chief Officer for Home Affairs along with the Treasurer.  He seemed quite taken aback by the [Chief Minister’s] statement and we said: “Look, the Chief Minister just cannot do this.”  I hope nobody takes offence but people will say that it is typical that a political commitment was given to expenditure when there is not any budget for this expenditure.  We may have got away with that before the Finance Law where somebody would have found a pot of money in a quiet corner but under the Finance Law you can only spend what is in the budget.  That is the way the law is now and the Chief Minister had not got his head around that and what was then necessary was for the Treasurer to produce a paper for the States asking the States to vote for the official budget.  I understood all that.  When I went back to the office you find this email from a senior police officer saying: “Good to hear about the Chief Minister’s statement.  Can we now spend X thousand pounds?  No, you cannot.”  So that was the sort of process that was going on.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Okay, and did you get supported in your stand by the accounting officer?

 

Mr. G. Power:

Yes.  I did, yes.  I think he was very clear.  I am fairly sure that people who had ownership of the problem had sight of what I had done.  I think I asked for assurance.  I might have asked the accounting officer for assurance, saying: “Have I taken the right line here?  Oh yes, that is what you got to do.  You have got to hold the line until there is a proper budget approved by the States.”

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

My understanding was that the Minister for Treasury and the accounting officer of Home Affairs were talking with each other quite seriously about this because obviously there was unbudgeted expenditure.  But you were out of the loop because you are not the accounting officer so all you can do is kind of make sure that the arrangement that ends up makes any sense.

 

Mr. G. Power:

I would make sure that relevant emails were always copied to the accounting officer but, yes, I have described trying to make a very difficult arrangement work.  This episode I described was one of the things that had me going: “Oh no, I think we have got to do a little bit more here”, which is why ... and I think already we had an issue about the financial oversight board, how we evolved that into the (inaudible 11:49:31) group and so on, because I think everyone agrees that long before I left office in November 2008 that there were very robust arrangements in place.  Nobody is accusing anybody of not having a sound arrangement in place, say, in July, August, September, October or November 2008.  That is where we had got to.  I fully agree with hindsight we did not get there quickly enough but it was all rather moving very fast and unfamiliar territory for everybody, including some of the senior politicians.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I will cut in there, Mr. Power.  We do need to get a lot more in yet.  Can I just ask you an issue?  It is a wider issue but it is troubling me.  Consistency in financial management.  I have raised questions on this myself.  Subsequently since your departure we have seen quite considerable expenditure on putting police up, say, in the Radisson for the Wiltshire inquiry, acknowledged as being out of the norm yet really waved away by the Minister as not important.  Have you got an explanation for this inconsistency that there appears in how what is proper and what is not is looked upon, perhaps from the Home Affairs Department?  Is there any explanation for that?

 

Mr. G. Power:

I can offer some professional views on that and some ...

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Please do.

 

Mr. G. Power:

There has been a lot of work done on the area.  For example, there was an operation called Operation Lancet which ran in Cleveland, I think about 12, 15 years ago, which involved somebody who is now Mayor of Middlesbrough, a long running disciplinary inquiry, and that is one of a series which triggered some very high level reviews of police discipline investigations.  It identified a number of cases.  One report was by Bill Taylor who was Chief H.M.I. (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary) at one time.  It identified a number of cases where inquiries had taken on a life of their own, had gone on fishing expeditions and had perpetuated themselves to a point where the original purpose had become lost.  They spent years producing nothing apart from a van full of paper.  Best practice guidance was produced and the guidance was about things such as ring fencing, about tight budgets, about keeping to original, tightly defined objectives and not wandering off on fishing expenditures, interviewing people from 20 years ago, or developing tangents in terms of lines of inquiry.  I think a lot of people look at the Wiltshire inquiry and say: “There are some of the classic elements.”  Poorly defined terms of reference, ambiguity as to what they are entitled to achieve and an inquiry that just went on and on and on and kept going on long after it become clear it was never going to finish within the prescribed time.  Even after I had finished work, even after my last working day when I was effectively a pensioner ... what I mean by my last working day, clearly there is a day on which you are officially retired but there is your last working day which takes account of any outstanding entitlements that you have, and that is usually a couple of weeks before your official retirement day.  But even after my last working day I was receiving correspondence inviting me to a disciplinary meeting to discuss the Wiltshire Report and I think the Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association had to write to the Minister and say: “I think we ought to draw your attention to the fact that the police discipline law does not actually apply to civilians and what are you doing this for?”

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

No, I think we know where you are coming from there.  Deputy Le Hérissier.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

On that issue, Mr. Power, following that up, we had BDO Alto but we had reference to the fact that Wiltshire had looked at finance even though, obviously in terms of your submission and other things, we have not by any means seen the full picture.  In terms of your professional judgment, do you feel that the BDO report was really needed or do you feel that there was utter disorganisation, given the whole number of reports that appeared to be running at the same time, overlapping with each other, and some of which were not known?

 

Mr. G. Power:

I think Wiltshire did produce a report on financial management but I am really confused about the financial management aspect.  No doubt they are going to come round to it but, of course, it was in 2009 that the Minister told me that he had already commissioned a report from a firm of accountants so I knew that something was entering the process.  I knew that Wiltshire were producing a financial report.  I think the answer to your question, I am sorry to keep taking the thing back to sort of strategic principles but you have got to say: “What are you trying to achieve in this?  Are you trying to produce evidence which justifies somebody being suspended or disciplined or are you trying to learn lessons which enable you to improve quality and service delivery and consequences in the future?”  I think what has been going on over the past few years it has continually got stuck between those 2 objectives and we have got some strange hybrids which certainly have not delivered in the discipline sense, that have been inhibited from learning the lessons in the sort of lesson learning sense.  I will just give you an example of this.  In the very early days of 2009 my professional association wrote to the Minister, and wrote to the Wiltshire Police, and said: “Would somebody tell us what is going on here?  Are we having a management review of the historic abuse inquiry, because we are happy to help?  If you want to sit down and learn lessons, have a candid discussion as to where things went right, where they went wrong, mistakes that were made, lessons for the future, we will have that discussion.  We will eagerly engage in that process.”  It seems after weeks of deliberation they eventually got a letter back saying: “No, this is a disciplinary inquiry and we will remind you that you should not be saying anything and anything you say might be used in evidence against you.”  So that was the end of any co-operation that we might have given to that.  So that choice early on was to say: “No, we are not going to turn it into a learning exercise.  We are going to turn it, if you like, into a disciplinary hunt of one individual, who incidentally should have retired 2 years ago” meant that a lot of the lesson learning opportunities were lost because quite clearly obviously when Wiltshire were asking some questions I would say: “Well, I want to reserve my position on.  I could offer you some very helpful information but (several inaudible words 11:56:53).”  That is where I think we have got stranded between the lessons learned and the disciplinary.  The Minister was desperate to defend the actions taken: “We were right to suspend, we were right to have a disciplinary inquiry, we were right to spend all this money on Wiltshire”, but at the same time they want to learn lessons for the future.  The 2 are not always compatible.  If I can give an example of one investigation that I did in another force in Scotland where a murder investigation had gone horribly wrong and I said at a very early stage: “Look, I need to know if you want any scalps out of this because if you do I am going to go around all the key people and tell them they do not have to tell me anything because that is the rules.  If, on the other hand, you are willing to sign up a chit of a paper that says there will no disciplinary outcome then I am going to go around everyone to say you have got to talk to me because we want to learn and there is no disciplinary outcome.”  Now, I got the response to say: “Yes, we are willing to sign up to say nobody is going to face any disciplinary proceedings because we want to learn all the lessons.”

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Thank you, Mr. Power.  That is very well explained.  Can you tell us, just for the record, who did you put this view to that these reports were seemingly running off in the wrong directions or they were taking on lives of their own and if you really wanted to learn, as opposed to sort of be involved in focusing on one or 2 individuals you were not going to get a good open sort of culture where you would learn?  Who did you put these views to and what was the response when you put them?

 

Mr. G. Power:

Bear in mind that I was under caution, I was told that anything I said might be used in evidence against me, so I took advice and I was very restricted on what I said.  But my professional association wrote to Wiltshire and I believe in a meeting repeatedly spoke to the Minister, a very substantial meeting, the transcript of that I think is publicly available, saying: “Look, what are you after here?  Do you want to learn lessons or is it a disciplinary inquiry?”  I think at the first suspension meeting the Minister made it very clear it is a disciplinary inquiry, in which case the advice I was getting is: “Do not say anything.  Do not say anything until you have had disclosure and then we will decide what it is you have got to say and what the other side are saying.”

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Was that the July meeting, Mr. Power?  What date was that?

 

Mr. G. Power:

I do not think it was the July meeting.  I think that was the very first meeting which would be February (several inaudible words 11:59:28) trying to obtain some further clarification as just what is intended by this whole process.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

So there was never any chance for you then to have what I might call a heart to heart with the Minster and say: “Look, this is the situation.  We have got to learn.  This is what I suggest”?  That never occurred, essentially?

 

Mr. G. Power:

Every time I stuck my head above the parapet I was warned that I was not supposed to say anything and so that was the end of that. 

 

I did eventually decide that I should record it in a written statement for posterity, which is what I have done, and I am sure it will emerge in time that there are lessons but I think the lessons would have been learned earlier if they had been allowed earlier, if people had realised that the disciplinary inquiry was not going to come to any conclusion and it was far better to have an inclusive, candid review of the lessons learned to which I would have contributed willingly.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

On that point, Mr. Power, for the record you would have contributed to the BDO review and you obviously think that your contribution would have been very relevant?

 

Mr. G. Power:

Yes.  I did not know anything about the BDO review when it was happening but if they had asked me to contribute I would have referred them to the relevant parts of the statement that I had already submitted in relation to financial management and, yes, I would have contributed because I still think there are some important lessons.  It is just not good enough to say that: “The senior investigating officer at the time did not control expenditure properly and so let us criticise him and we can all go home.”  I think that that are some serious issues about how Jersey runs and funds policing and lines of accountability, both professionally and politically, which need to be taken on board and I think that opportunity perhaps has been missed.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

You have just said that if BDO had let you know that the review was happening and if they had asked you to contribute you would have agreed, but would that not have come under the sort of Wiltshire embargo?  Would there have been problems there?

 

Mr. G. Power:

Well, no, because by then I had left the service and none of the inhibitions of the disciplinary code would continue to apply.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

In 2009?

 

Mr. G. Power:

By then I had left the service so none of the restrictions of the disciplinary code would have applied.  It was always when I was still a serving officer, and I was a serving officer until July 2010, that I was bound by the rules of confidentiality.  After that time I was free to speak.  So I am not absolutely certain about the timing of BDO’s work.  I suppose if they were doing work prior to ... yes, good point.  I assumed that they were doing the work after I had retired.  If they were doing the work before I retired then I would have been subject to the rules of confidentiality and could not have spoken to them.  That is true.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

That is the problem, is it not?  Do you accept the view of Mr. Warcup that they could not approach Lenny Harper?  He blocked them approaching Lenny Harper.  Do you have any comment on that?

 

Mr. G. Power:

I cannot see why they could not approach any private citizen who they felt was relevant to their investigation.  It is not for police officers to tell investigating bodies which members of the public it can and cannot speak to, I would not have thought.  Who Lenny Harper speaks to is nothing to do with David Warcup, nothing to do with the States of Jersey Police and nothing to do with anybody else that I can think of.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

But he cited the Wiltshire inquiry.  He said that the reason that Lenny Harper could not or should not talk to BDO or [the Police Consultant] was that the Wiltshire inquiry had primacy and that in some way Lenny Harper speaking to BDO might undermine something or other, the disciplinary process I suppose, and it is very important for us to get your comments on that.

 

Mr. G. Power:

I can see there may be an argument for that but by then, if we are talking about some period in the middle of 2010, everybody knew that the Wiltshire inquiry was going nowhere.  Everyone knew it was going to run out of time but it kept running and we can speculate as to why.  You can speculate as to why the Wiltshire inquiry was kept going when it was clear it was never going to reach a finish in time before I retired but one of the effects was it shut a lot of people up because it was saying: “Sorry, you cannot talk about that because there is still the Wiltshire inquiry.”

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

It was in 2009 that BDO were working, you see, so the Lenny Harper thing and the relationship to Wiltshire comes under the 2009 timescale.

 

Mr. G. Power:

I can see why that argument might have been put.  I do not think it is a very strong argument but I can see why it might have been put, yes.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Interesting what you say there, Mr. Power, because it comes back to my earlier point about an ulterior motive and when you say about by keeping the Wiltshire going it shut a lot of people up.  Is there anything else you can share with us on that?

 

Mr. G. Power:

I do not have enough evidence to be sure.  It is, I think, highly curious that a disciplinary investigation is kept running long after it became manifestly clear that it was not going to reach a conclusion before the person subject to the investigation had retired, I know of no precedent for doing that.  I can think of no justification for doing that, particularly because it is costing money.  I just do not know how you defend spending money on an investigation where you know that the bird has already flown.  I just think it is remarkable.  There might be a good reason for it but I cannot think what the good reason might be.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

You have mentioned several times going back to strategic principles and something that puzzles me is this ... and another thing you said was everything was moving very fast and that might have been part of the reason for the financial problems.  BDO refer at length to the golden hour principle and point out that it could not really be said to apply in this case, that it was not a live murder investigation, as we are seeing now in Jersey, for instance.  So the hurry was not necessary and therefore a lot or some of the expenditure might have been avoided because it would have been taken in a more leisurely fashion, a more reflective fashion.  Would you like to comment on that passage in BDO where they spend half a page talking about the golden hour?

 

Mr. G. Power:

I am not an expert on criminal investigations.  My qualifications in this area are redundant, which is why it is a matter of record that I relied on my U.K. (United Kingdom) experts throughout and I was heavily bound by that advice.  I do not think I know the argument, the level of momentum.  You are talking here about victims who are substantial in number, victims and witnesses who have either remained silent for decades or, by the account of many of them, tried to bring their reports to the attention of the authorities over decades and have been rebuffed or not responded to.  There was, I think, in the early stages a momentum which was bringing a cascade of fresh reports, almost on a daily basis.  I think that that initial rush was greater than any of us anticipated, that it was quite overwhelming for the organisation and we had to rush about very quickly trying to put structures in place to manage the deluge that was pouring upon a small police force in response to that.  Let us not forget at the same time responsibilities were partitioned, rightly or wrongly: Mr. Harper was leading on the abuse inquiry and I was still trying to run a police force with whatever resources we were left with.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Thank you for that explanation.  That is really helpful and it shows to me that when BDO write a full half page on the golden hour and there is nothing on the other side, if you like, would you like to comment on that?  They did not come to you, for instance.

 

Mr. G. Power:

Yes.  I think I could say I was fairly sure this pressure is going to come off at some stage, it was not going to go on with being flooded with reports in the way that we were, but we were for much longer than I thought, but at some stage it was always clear that we were going to stop, catch our breath and put some more conventional management structures around it.  I mean, let us not forget that I was talking about this with David Warcup, the need to apply a more structured management, according to my statement, on Wednesday, 20th February 2008.  This is months before he was appointed, when he was only showing an interest in the post.  So I was having these discussions then of the need to bring his particular expertise to bear on the inquiry.  I think there is a long audit trail showing that at some stage we were going to have to catch our breath and we were going to get some structure around it in a more conventional way, and the evidence is that we did.  I think by the summer of 2009 we had quite a solid corporate governance around the inquiry.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Can I come in there, Mr. Power?  It is Deputy Pitman again.  In your submission you said: “At some stage prominence was given to aspects of the financial management of the abuse inquiry and the attention shifted away from the systematic abuse of vulnerable children in States establishments and towards detailed examination of bills in a London restaurant.”  What is your view on that as far ... is it the media who are chiefly responsible for misrepresenting the findings of the BDO Alto report and highlighting what are comparatively peripheral aspects of the inquiry?

 

Mr. G. Power:

I think the media are following the debate of what I think, if you really want to know, is what you are doing is in the wrong place and most of us are talking about the wrong things.  We are talking about the abuse inquiry when we ought to be talking about the abuse and we are talking about spats between senior well paid public servants when we ought to be talking about the people who have had their lives damaged and the victims and all of the horrible things that went on and asking some really hard questions about what is there about Jersey that makes it possible for this sort of thing to go on for decades, undiscovered, covered up.  Clearly, senior responsible people knew that things were not right and did not do enough about it and why when somebody did bring it all to light, albeit in an unconventional sort of way, so much almost hatred and energy and critical comment was directed to the abuse inquiry and we seemed, in my perception, to have stopped talking about the abuse.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Sorry, Mr. Power, let me put you on the spot.  What do you think it is about Jersey that led to that situation?

 

Mr. G. Power:

I think there are issues around checks and balances and the ability of people to speak out.  Jersey does not have to beat itself up about this in the sense that we are unique.  I am widely experienced in policing.  I have worked in inner cities in England, I took responsibility for towns in the Scottish borders, and there are plenty of communities that have their own unique culture, are somehow a little bit inward looking.  It is a problem that needs to be addressed.  There are parts of some very large police forces that would always make sure that they rotated staff regularly and you did not necessarily employ people to police the people they went to school with, and that probably was present in Jersey historically.  I say it is historically because some people have done some very good work in recent years.  There just has not been enough openness, enough transparency, and the freedom and willingness of people to speak out.  These are things that are capable of being addressed and are capable of being confronted but it does frustrate me.  I was listening to a States debate, it might have been on Radio Jersey, some months back and somebody, it might have been somebody present on your panel, was trying to focus the debate on the abuse: “The abuse, how did this happen and what are we going to say about it?”  I went to make a cup of tea or something and I came back and the next thing there is a spat going about bills in a London restaurant.  It just seems to me there are some people who would rather talk about whether somebody had a second helping of pudding when they were on a trip to London than talk about systematic abuse and why it happened.  I just think we have got to be cautious about it and I would rather see the interests of the victims given a higher priority and a little bit more serious discussion about are we sure this could not happen again, have we put the corrective measures, the checks and balances, in place and are we sure that anybody who was responsible for a cover up is not still in a position of authority.  So those are the questions I think where the energy ought to be put.  It is left almost that you are having this conversation around expenses and who signed them off when there are so many big issues out there that really you wonder if they are being taken hold of.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Thank you.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I think that was me who was asking those questions, but I understand your frustration.  What I wanted to ask you, and it is very difficult, we are trying to stick to our terms of reference but there is always the feeling behind that there is a bigger picture.  When you look at the way this has unfolded and the shift, and no one, I am sure not you, is disputing that finances have to be looked at, they have to be controlled, but this shift which you have stressed from the systematic abuse and unravelling that to finances, does it still deeply trouble you that there is still sitting there at the very top in Jersey a situation where people really do not want to go down this avenue, that really it would be rather swept under the carpet?  Are you left with that feeling?

 

Mr. G. Power:

I think there is a cultural resistance in some quarters to the lifting of stones and why the stones were not lifted.  If the stones get lifted then what is found under the stones will be dealt with but they would rather the stones were not lifted in the first place.  I do, in my statement, go through a rather candid discussion I had with senior politicians at the time who were debating the appointment of Lenny Harper initially to the force, looking at his professional background and I did say then: “This is a person who is going to lift stones because all his professional history shows that he is fearless at lifting stones and dealing with what is underneath them.  Unless you are willing to have stones lifted and deal with what comes out, think about appointing someone else.” We know the history that Lenny was appointed and stones got lifted.  I am reluctant to go down the conspiracy theory route.  It is not as simple as saying that there were certain senior people who would periodically meet in secret rooms and put together a conspiracy.  I think there are a number of people in senior positions who are like minded.  If it is a conspiracy it is sometimes an unconscious one, that people simply think and behave in the same way and think that it is the natural thing to do, and not wanting to lift stones is a characteristic, I think, of part of the culture.  I would say that.  Again, it is not just Jersey; it happens in some other places.  Perhaps in real life there are some stones that are best not lifted but once the genie was out of the bottle in the early part of 2008 I was very clear in conversation with senior people, some of whom were quite uncomfortable with what was taking place, I said: “Whatever happens, there is only one way out of this now and that is for Jersey to be able to say that everything was thoroughly investigated, we took it as far as it was and if there are many prosecutions or there are no prosecutions we have just got to be able to say nothing more can be done.  We have beaten this issue to death.”  I think that the way events turned left in the minds of a lot of people that there was something desperately being covered up and that is unfortunate.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I have got to ask you a question.  It may be unfair but it is the way this review impacts on the bigger picture.  I have got to ask it and then I will let my colleagues come in.  When you look at the way the focus has gone with the BDO review and how it has been reported, or how it has been used by the Minister, are you left with the feeling that there is a connection?  Your suspension; the bigger picture, I believe, that there were incidents where emails sent to you by a States Member ended up in the hands of the former Bailiff; then we have got the issue of the raid on a former States Member’s home.  Do you see there being a link there?  I know you may not be able to prove it but what is your feeling?  That seems to be what you are saying: we need to get to a position to move forward and we cannot if we do not tackle these issues.

 

Mr. G. Power:

I really find this a very difficult subject because I have been asked many times about conspiracies and the fact is I simply do not have enough evidence to be sure.  I was asked did I think that senior people in senior government positions in Jersey, legal positions, were involved in some sort of collective conspiracy and in an attempt to be light hearted about it I would say: “Well, I think if you believe that you might be paying them a compliment they do not deserve.”  I have seen conspiracies and they do take rather a lot of planning, a lot of organising and a lot of skill and that is not always present.  But I go back to what I think is nearer the mark, which is sometimes a collective state of mind, we would rather ... we just want things to be normal and pleasant and we regard any disruption of that as being unfortunate, and also a failure to think through the consequences of actions and to be taken continually by surprise by what are common reactions to events.  What on earth did they think would happen when I got suspended?  Did they really think that I was going to go quietly away and everybody in Jersey would shrug their shoulders and say: “That is life”, or did they think that they were igniting something that would still be burning years later, whereas I just think sensible people would have realised that there they were unleashing some fairly significant events in November 2008.  Likewise with the police, I have submitted an affidavit in relation to Stuart Syvret’s situation and the raid on his house.  I really cannot comment on it from a professional evidential point of view because I do not know enough about it but what I can say with absolute certainty is that anybody should have seen that that was going to ignite significant public reaction and conspiracy theories, and that needed to be managed and handled and I am not sure that I saw a great deal of that in the aftermath.  I am sorry if that does not go to the heart of your question but I just think to say there is half a dozen people involved in some secret society and they meet in funny clothes and run the Island is rather overdoing it, but I do think there are a number of people who have a very similar point of view about the world in an environment where there are insufficient checks and balances on what individuals can sometimes do.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Following on that theme, Mr. Power, and sorry we are slightly away from BDO but, as Deputy Pitman keeps telling us, it is very hard to separate out the bigger from the micro picture.  When you felt that this was happening, were you totally isolated or did you find any resonance with anybody in an influential position who was prepared to listen to you and say; “Well, that is a point of view which we really have to consider”?  Or did you find yourself totally isolated in this situation?

 

Mr. G. Power:

When I was serving you have got to work within the system you are in and I was accountable to a single person, who was the Minister for Home Affairs at the time who was, I think we can say with absolute certainty, not one of the inner circle of powerful individuals and was seen as something of an outsider and something of a radical, but people will have views about her political effectiveness as you always do when you are in politics.  But the line of accountability was to a person who I think was largely on the same wavelength on many issues.  So far as the whole lack of checks and balances, well, I am now on record and was on record as beating the drum pretty hard for a properly constituted police authority in Jersey, independent of politics, with proper lines of accountability.  It was what I was promised on the day I joined.  If I knew that promise was not going to be kept I would probably never have come to the place in the first place.  The whole issue about the constitutional position of the police, lines of accountability, who can tell the police what to do and who cannot, is just a big running sore and unresolved issue.  I put substantial energy into that during my time and I am sorry that I was not able to get all the political support I needed to solve that particular problem.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Thank you.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

I just wanted to go back to the missing man with the big stick, this financial person who you asked very early on should be working within the Rectangle team.  You mentioned that there are paragraphs in your statement to Wiltshire which cover this aspect.  Do you include in your paragraphs in Wiltshire the actual emails that you sent on this matter or is that something else that we have to ask for?

 

Mr. G. Power:

I do not include the actual emails in my statement.  I do refer to emails and the dates on which they were sent and who to, so it should be very traceable.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Thank you very much.  That is useful.  I think we shall ask for those.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

A completely different issue that I think we need to touch on, Mr. Power, is the quite topical issue of leaks.  We have heard from the Minister for Home Affairs that leaks, he believed, seemed to be accredited to Mr. Gradwell[retiredD/superintendent].  I believe you have some evidence on a leak that took place while you were there to the media.  I think a conversation was recorded.  Is that correct or have I got that wrong?

 

Mr. G. Power:

Yes, I think so. 

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

What effect did that have on the ...

 

Mr. G. Power:

I had an email exchange with a Senator who asked me, because he had heard some rumour relating to the first find, the one that was originally described as a piece of skull and which I think is now disputed, but let us not go there because it is a long journey.  He had an interest, he had heard something about that.  So I forwarded his email to Lenny Harper and said: “Lenny, can you comment on this?  Where are we with this?”  Lenny replied with some assurances and I responded to the Senator.  I think that is the exchange that this is about.  I then received a telephone call from a journalist very quickly afterwards who was in possession of the email that I had sent to the Senator.  He was able to read from it.  I believe, my recollection is, that he told me that in fact he had got it from the Senator.  I do give a narrative of this in my statement.  I cannot turn to the page at the moment and just find it, but what then happened is that I think the call was recorded.  I would be surprised if the recording still exists.  Recordings of calls are kept for a period of time and then the system is wiped or whatever.  That was about the time that another scientist had cast doubts on the findings of the first scientist, because we had one forensic scientist was saying: “This is definitely a piece of child’s skull” and then it emerged that another scientist was saying: “Look, I am not so sure about that.”  So we asked Lenny Harper to submit a report explaining where he was in relation and I packaged that together with the information relating to the Senator and the conversation I had.  I said: “It looks as if there has been a breach here of the Data Protection Law.”  People were saying should Lenny Harper be investigating in relation to what were perceived to be misleading statements he might have made in relation to the first find.  This went to the Chief Minister’s office.  I said: “You can have an investigation if you want but part of the investigation ought to be whether the Data Protection Law has been broken in relation to this communication from the Senator.  I can think of no other way that that email would find its way into this journalist’s possession.”  Now, I did not get a response to that and I thought about whether I should stir the pot further by involving the Data Protection Commissioner but by then we were pretty well up to our necks in events and it did not happen.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

You are being very tactful.  I can say it: was that Senator Perchard?

 

Mr. G. Power:

Yes, it was.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

It has been very topical recently with leaks and we have seen the News of World, and again interestingly enough as we have begun this review suddenly there has been tried to throw attention away to the News of the World.  We asked you about politicisation of policing matters.  Does that seem to be an ongoing concern throughout your time there?  Mr. Harper and yourself have probably been criticised heavily for relationships with the media but yet there seems to be an ongoing problem which is still there and you 2 have both gone.  Have you got any thoughts on that?

 

Mr. G. Power:

Yes, I think in a small force you are always going to get leaks.  Lenny Harper was pretty ruthless in pursuing people who were leaking confidential information and got caught doing it.  He would have to speak for himself about his dealings with the media.  My experience of his dealings with the media, where I was brought into them was when Wiltshire said: “Did you challenge any of the media statements made by Lenny Harper?”  I said: “Well, will you show me the transcripts of what I was supposed to have challenged?” and the only transcripts they could produce were statements which were quite impeccable.  I think we did have a big problem over disparities between what the police were saying to the media and what the media were saying, and I had that experience myself.  I did one interview where I was asked were we digging for 6 bodies. I said: “No, no, we have got 6 locations which have been identified as ones which ought to be explored because there was some finding on the ground radar or forensics or whatever which could mean a number of things but it means that we have got a duty as investigators to dig a hole and see what if anything is in there.”  But the headline the next day said: “Police searching for 6 bodies” and so that was a waste of effort.  I always dealt with the media above board, on the record and that was the way in the latter years of my service that it always happened.  I cannot swear that I always did that.  Before I came to Jersey I was occasionally prone to off the record briefings and lunches with journalists.  I got my fingers burnt rather badly in one experience and I thought: “Well, I am never doing that again” and so it was always above board, it is all on tape, it is all on record.  Whatever I said I said it is there in somebody’s archives.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Just one question I wanted to ask, because this is what I was leading up to.  On 14th July last year on the publication of the redacted Wiltshire report and the BDO Alto report the Minister for Home Affairs was quoted by BBC Jersey as saying: “We have got a serious issue in Jersey, which actually Mr. Power highlights in one of his statements and I agree, of politicisation of policing matters.”  Do you feel that has almost fed into where we are now?  For instance, I will give you an example, the [the Managing Director] from BDO, said to us, I am paraphrasing his words: “We have got no control over how our report was presented.  Actually, we praised Mr. Harper, for example, on 9 occasions”, I think he said, yet none of us could remember reading that.  Is there a feeling from you that that is part of that politicisation which the Minister for Home Affairs is referring to?

 

Mr. G. Power:

I think there is still an attempt to justify the action that was taken against me and whether the action that was taken against me was really because of an issue with me or because I was, if you like, a proxy target for Lenny Harper, although I think it is right to say that some politicians hate him with an intensity that is quite tangible.  To be honest, people are still fighting that battle and it is distorting judgment and I think taking the eye away from the ball of the bigger picture.  The politicisation of policing in a small community is always going to be a problem.  In my judicial review I give some excellent examples, I think, of where it was addressed elsewhere, in Guernsey, the creation of an independent law enforcement commission, the work that I had done in drafting a law for a police authority in Jersey, all capable of being addressed.  But it is completely, to my mind, unacceptable that a chief officer of police should be accountable to one single political individual.  That was always going to end in tears and it certainly did.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Just on that line, Mr. Power, just to complete a very interesting topic, slightly off topic for us, do you feel that another aspect of politicisation is the tendency of politicians in a locality like this to always wish to micro manage or to always be driven by various agenda which for various reasons they have to make public?  Do you think that is an issue in a small community?

 

Mr. G. Power:

It is an issue but it is one which a competent leadership ought to be able to manage.  I would rather that people show a mistaken interest than no interest.  I think that every States Member knows that I was always getting emails from States Members: “What is happening about this?  What is happening about this?” and everyone knows I always replied within 24 hours and sometimes it was just saying: “Sorry, cannot tell you anything about that” but quite often you could do.  There are some real positives about policing in Jersey and one is that we are part of the same community, everybody cares about each other.  I have worked in forces where the police officers arrived in expensive cars in the morning and drove home to a leafy suburb of a night and could not give a damn if the place they were working burned down tomorrow.  They would just go and work somewhere else.  This is not the situation in Jersey where I think there is a common ownership.  I do feel that in the one hand I welcome the interest but there needs to be a clear line of accountability so you can say to a Deputy in St. Helier: “I am very happy to meet with you to talk about a case you are concerned with, to tell you as much as I can but you must understand at the end of the day I am only accountable to the police authority and I really cannot change what I am doing because you are asking me to do it, but I am quite willing to justify what I am doing.”  I think I can explain this a little bit better.  I think what is not often well understood is the difference between control and accountability.  If you are controlling somebody you are telling them what to do; if you are accountable then you are really justifying what you have done.  I think accountability is great, political accountability is great, the police, all jobs being politically accountable, the politicians ought to set the main objectives, that they ought to hold chief officers to account and so on; I am all for that but political control is quite another matter.  Sometimes people talk about it, and I think the present Minister for Home Affairs talks about political control of things when perhaps he meant to say accountability but nevertheless he said what he said.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Okay.  Thank you.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

I suppose one question would be when you arrived in Jersey you very quickly got on to the matter of having a police authority, because that is the best way to go.  Just remind us when that was, when you arrived in Jersey.

 

Mr. G. Power:

It was the latter part of 2000.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Okay, the latter part of 2000 and we are still waiting.

 

Mr. G. Power:

Yes, we are still waiting in spite of persistent efforts by myself.  I really think that is regrettable and it reflects badly on the government of the Island that that has not been achieved.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Yes, but hopefully by the end of this year.  One final question I have got for you, Mr. Power, when we look at the BDO review, and we have still got to form our conclusions on this, do you see an irony there that the way that yourself and Mr. Harper perhaps have been portrayed where obviously you are not part of this information gathering, yet yesterday we heard from Mr. Warcup and we were quite surprised, I think, to hear that really for 4 months [Police Consultant] was brought in and nobody really seemed to take any interest in what he was doing.  Four months of taxpayers’ money being spent and no one seemed to even question what he was doing.  In fact he did not apparently even know he was working to the terms of reference to which he had been signed up.  Do you see an irony there that there is heavy criticism for yourself and Mr. Harper, yet nothing really being said by Home Affairs on this issue?

 

Mr. G. Power:

From the very beginning, from the Wiltshire inquiry and subsequently I have seen quite an irony.  When people have accused me of presiding over a long-running inquiry that went on too long, spent too much money and did not achieve everything that it hoped to achieve, I look at the behaviour of the people who are making that criticism and what do I see.  I see long-running inquiries, lack of any effective control, running over budget and a product that did not really address the core issue.  If there is anything wrong with the way we did things then it appears to have been contagious because everyone else has caught it.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

We have overrun and I thank you for your time.  Is there anything that you would like to say to us that you think we have missed or that you feel you have missed and would like to get in?

 

Mr. G. Power:

It might be that you have picked this up but I did write to you subsequently to my initial position, and just stop me if you have got this and you are on the case of it.  But I did say: “Look, I have thought again and I know there is some dispute about when this accountant’s review had kicked off.”  Well, there is a transcript of a meeting I had with the Minister for Home Affairs in July 2009 in which he had said that he had commissioned an accountant’s review early in 2009 and he was expecting the report by July 2009.  I cannot equate that with BDO’s statement saying they were commissioned, I think, in early 2010 or something like that.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

No, BDO were appointed in March.  They confirmed that in an official letter of whatever it is called, engagement, at the end of September.  There was then the leak to the Daily Mail and then they actually reported in the middle of 2010.

 

Mr. G. Power:

Okay.  If that fits all right with you that is fine.  I just thought that might have been a missing piece of the jigsaw.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Yes, that is clear to us.  Thank you.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Can I thank you then, Mr. Power, for your time and for the honesty of your answers and the depth of your answers and I will end the meeting there.  Thank you.

 

Mr. G. Power:

Thank you.

 

[12:40]

 






STATES OF JERSEY

 

Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

Review of Issues Surrounding the Review of the Final Financial Management of Operation Rectangle

 

TUESDAY, 16th AUGUST 2011

 

Panel:

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier (Chairman)

Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour

 

Witness:

Mr. D. Warcup (via conference call) former Acting Chief Officer with the States of Jersey Police

 

Also Present:

Scrutiny Officer

 

NOTE: The text has not been corrected by the witness

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay.  I will introduce everyone for the purpose of the transcript and the fact you cannot see us and we cannot see you and I do need to read the proceedings details, the oath so that you ... I am sure that you are fully aware of that but I believe it has not been sent to you so if I can just read that to you to make sure you are happy with that, is that okay?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I understand, yes.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay, so it is: “The proceedings of the panel are covered by parliamentary privilege through Article 34 of the States of Jersey Law 2005 and the States of Jersey (Powers, Privileges and Immunities) (Scrutiny Panels, P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee) and P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) (Jersey) Regulations 2006 and witnesses are protected from being sued or prosecuted for anything said during the hearing unless they say something which they know to be untrue.  This protection is given to witnesses to ensure that they can speak freely and openly to the panel when giving evidence without fear of legal action although the immunity should obviously not be abused by making unsubstantiated statements about third parties who have no right of reply.  The panel would like you to bear this in mind when answering questions.”  Is that okay?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Yes, I understand that.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay.  As I say, thank you very much for agreeing to speak to us and for your written submission.  We have got a lot of material and we have got an hour to get through it so we will jump straight in.  Could you tell us first about the concerns that you felt regarding a range of matters concerning the conduct of the Operation Rectangle inquiry when you first go involved in all of this.  What were those concerns, if you could briefly outline them?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Yes.  This afternoon I am more than willing to assist the panel in relation to this review but I would like to say that just from some of the evidence I have seen previously you will excuse me, if I may comment, if you start looking at issues which I believe are outwith the terms of reference I will direct that back to you.  So I am more than willing and I hope that I can help the panel this afternoon in relation to these specific issues.  To go directly to your question the issues which were concerns related to the conduct of the inquiry which was known as Operation Rectangle.  I was concerned that some of the management arrangements and some of the investigative issues were concerns as has been documented and of course were continuously raised with the former Chief Office, Mr. Power, and subsequently for very detailed legal reasons - reasons which again have been well documented - I brought my concerns to the attention of the Chief Executive.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Could you enlarge for us, what specific steps did you take to rectify the position that you had found and were so concerned about?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

In which respect?  With Mr. Power or ...?

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Well that is a good place to start, yes.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I mean for some time prior to raising this with [former States Chief Executive] it again was a documented fact that I raised all my concerns and all of the concerns which have been subsequently highlighted in the Wiltshire report were previously raised with Mr. Power.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

When were they raised with Mr. Power?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

On a number of occasions.  I think what we could do here is we could spend a lot of time examining the issues prior to the media release which was made in November 2008.  Those have been documented, reported in the Wiltshire report, and they have examined them in detail.  It would take longer than the hour we have this afternoon to do that and I am [not] sure that it is part of today’s terms of reference.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

I sort of agree with that but I was concerned when I heard you say that there were concerns about the conduct of the inquiry which eventually the suspension had been raised with Mr. Power.  But I think you are right, we have to stick to what we are talking about today.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Sorry, Mr. Wimberley?

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

I think you are right, we have to stick more narrowly to the terms of reference.  I think if we go back prior to the suspension ...

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I am not trying to be obstructive in any way in relation to this but my concerns which were set out, and unfortunately I believe that the panel will not have access to those full written issues, which were submissions as part of the Wiltshire inquiry but they do explain in detail exactly what happened, the engagement with Mr. Power prior to myself raising those issues with [former States Chief Executive].

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

For the record, Mr. Warcup, do you feel that that would strongly help the panel if we could have access to the material that you are referring to?  Do you think that is a big gap in what we have got to look at?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Yes, it is because I mean it is something that we will probably touch on later on.  Many of the documents and many of the reports and things that I had to deal with through my time contained confidential information.  But there is also some information which would be of assistance to the likes of yourselves.  Perhaps I could give an example.  I was going to say that when I was coming back to Mr. Wimberley there it was that I could not hear him very well, that was all.  Yes, there are clearly many issues which are within some of the documents in my submission to the Wiltshire inquiry which I believe would be of help.  The issue would then be redacting those for matters which were legally privileged or sensitive, but I think it would help explain some of the issues.  By way of example, if I can clarify, the Deputy of St. Mary has previously -- the previous witness has raised an issue in respect of that, that the Metropolitan Police during their review did not speak to Mr. Power or Mr. Harper.  That is not correct.  They did speak to both of them as part of the review and it is the issues like that that would be clarified.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Did they speak to both of them before the interim review reached your desk on 10th of ...

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

The only reason it was an interim review was because they had not had a chance to speak to Mr. Harper because of his availability.  They therefore submitted an interim report.  Once they had had the opportunity to interview Mr. Harper they then submitted their final report.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Had they spoken to Mr. Power before the interim review came to your desk on 10th November 2008?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Yes, they had.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

They had spoken to him?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Absolutely clearly they had.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Can I just ask you this to get this clear in my head, Mr. Warcup, are you saying that, in your opinion - and it would be your opinion - there is no need for these documents to be redacted, that they could help the panel and probably should be available to us?  Is that what you are saying?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

No, I am saying there are possibly parts of those documents ... if you take the documents as a whole some of it needs to be redacted because it does contain confidential information and sensitive information that was given in confidence and so on.  But there are parts of that which would explain ... going back to your very first question, for example, I have detailed fully to Wiltshire in early 2009 my full involvement and discussions with Mr. Power.  They were all documented, they were all written records and subject to appropriate legal advice, which I am sure the panel could take, I do not see why the panel should not have the opportunity to see those.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Okay, thank you, Mr. Warcup.  I wonder if we can jump to the fact that in your submission you mentioned 5 different reviews and obviously people have, in a sense, become a bit confused about this.  But as you know we are looking very much at the BDO report.  Could you tell us, as you allude to in your written submission, what the overlap was, if any, between the Wiltshire review and the BDO external review when both, it appears, were looking at aspects of financial management?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Yes, I think you have highlighted the difficulty.  The fact is that they were not the same reviews, the BDO review was specifically an audit to look into the aspects of financial management.  The other review, which was referred to and approved by the Gold Group on 8th December 2008 was it was a review of matters which were a broad range of issues.  We had had a number of public complaints, we had had a number of issues of concerns raised by members of the public, by States Members, and through that process we felt that it was necessary to research those, document those, and to have that information available should it be required either to respond to the Minister, to States Members’ questions or indeed to any future committee of inquiry.  That was the purpose.  It would have been wrong not to have collated that information at the time.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Thank you, Mr. Warcup.  I will just continue.  Of course obviously there is the Wiltshire review which seems to be understood by the politicians and the public, there is then the States of Jersey Police internal review and then there is the BDO external review.  Can you distinguish between the States of Jersey Police internal review and the BDO review?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Yes, absolutely.  The BDO review was a review which was commissioned by the Minister, the terms of reference agreed by the Minister, and the involvement as far as I was concerned, when that was commissioned in December 2008, was to provide some resource to assist people from the auditors.  I say the auditors at the time because BDO had not been appointed at that stage.  It was to appoint somebody to assist the auditors to understand their way through the practice, procedures and policies of policing.

 

[15:15]

 

Not to carry out a review on their behalf, not to carry out an investigation and that was my clear understanding and instruction at that time.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

So the BDO terms of reference, how were they arrived at, because we need to be clear about these different reviews.  So if we take BDO first.  You said the terms of reference were agreed by the Minister and I am sure that is right that he would have signed them off but how were those terms of reference arrived at?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Those terms of reference, to my understanding, were prepared and completed within the Home Affairs Department.  Procedurally I would imagine that the Chief Officer at Home Affairs had a key role in doing that.  However, as you are aware, we had established an oversight board called the Gold Group for Operation Rectangle and on 8th December ... if you bear with me while I just refer to the relevant document.  On 8th December that panel met and was advised by the Chief Officer of Home Affairs that they were to conduct this review which became known as the BDO Alto review.  At that meeting papers were presented at which the details of the internal review as set out in my written submissions were presented to that group and agreed.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

So at the same time as the setting up of the BDO investigation was reported to Gold Group you also ... what I am not clear about is I can see the BDO you are now saying was internal to Home Affairs, they developed the terms of reference and that was then presented to the Gold Group and you did not have an input into that process?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

It was not my role to have an input into that.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

No, okay, fair enough.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I can possibly clarify as well from the minutes of the meeting, which I have had a chance to go through.  I chaired that meeting and in the minutes of the meeting it is recorded that auditors had been engaged at the direction of the Accounting Officer.  “The chair (myself) had proposed that a formal review should be carried out using resources available within the inquiry and a separate and ‘firewall’ strand of the inquiry to report on those matters relevant to the conduct of the inquiry providing necessary details to facilitate reports to Ministers and to States Members.  Also to pull together information that will ensure that full and accurate disclosures were made to any future public inquiries.”

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Okay, now this is the bit that I am less than clear about, did you propose that additional review to the Gold Group?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I did, yes.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Okay, and you say it would have been within ... you were proposing that it be within the formal review?  Within which formal review is that?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Are they separate reviews?  I was proposing something completely separate to the audit proposed by the Accounting Officer, what is now known as the BDO Alto review.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Okay, so that is fine.  Completely separate review to look at these other details so that Ministers and States Members and the public could be informed of the other matters.  So how did that evolve then?  What was the process of taking that forward?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

It is from previous experience you have a slight difficulty whenever you try and run 2 reviews, inquiries or investigations in parallel.  What you must determine is you must determine which has primacy and sometimes those that do not have primacy have to take a back seat until certain stages are reached within various inquiries.  That is required for evidential purposes.  In this particular case what we were doing was we were saying that we had had a number of issues which had been raised by ... concerns which had been raised, public complaints which had been raised under the Police Complaints (Jersey) Law that are required to be reported to the Jersey Police Complaints Authority.  We had a number of internal issues which we needed to review including learning lessons of how we should do things in the future and the purpose of the review that I commissioned, and I believe I wrote the terms of reference myself for that, was to capture all of that learning and all of that information.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Did that go back to the Gold Group for their ratification?  Did you report back saying: “Here are the terms of reference, I am going ahead with carrying out what I said on 8th December and ...”

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

That is right, yes.  It was presented; the papers were presented and agreed by the group on 8th December.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

No, wait a minute, sorry, sorry, no that was when I understood that it was first mentioned by you that there would be a second review in parallel to the auditor’s review, which that meeting was informed of for the first time and you said you were going to have a ...

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I was not formally informed, I was made aware by the Accounting Officer, the Chief Officer of Home Affairs, that this process was embarked on and that is why I put together the separate review.  I would have done it anyway, had the first one been commissioned or not I still would have put this review together.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Okay, and so you are saying now that both the reviews came to 8th December meeting more or less as finished articles with terms of reference and so on?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Yes.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Yes, okay.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Mr. Warcup, you mentioned you wanted to bring together all sorts of issues that have been the subject of complaints to yourself, to the Complaints Authority, et cetera.  Could you give us a summary of what those issues were that you wanted to be the subject of the internal review?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

No, some of them related to complaints against serving informant(?) police officers, some them related to concerns which had been expressed about the conduct of the inquiry and some of them were concerns over matters which were appearing in the media or appearing on the internet.  For example, documents that were appearing on the internet and other such things.  So there was a very wide range of issues which were ... it was necessary for us to look at.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

So how did that then turn into ... you have got terms of reference now, you have got the agreement of Gold Group, how does that turn into a review?  Where did the person come from who was ... how did you see the appointment of someone to do this?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

It was agreed within these terms that the committee would be appointed to do this; in fact I believe originally it was felt that there should be ... there would be sufficient work for 2 people.  My understanding was that having attempted to recruit the right people with the necessary skills and background we were only able to recruit one person.  Part of the terms of the review were that this aspect of the review would be taken under the wing of the Senior Investigating Officer, [retired D/Superintendent], and he was left with responsibility to this review.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Did you give [retired D/Superintendent] complete discretion?  What kind of reporting relationship was there to you as he was going about this report?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I think when you say “complete discretion” the complete discretion was to carry it out within the instructions which I issued which were those formal terms of reference agreed on the 8th.  That was my expectation and that was my understanding.  Indeed I met with [retired D/Superintendent] almost on a daily basis and while the focus of our meetings was primarily aspects of the historical abuse investigation and the progress on that I was assured that matters were progressing, I became aware that the auditors had been appointed and subsequently became aware that assistance was being given.  I think if we get right to the heart of the matter you would have noticed now that it was not for some considerable time that I realised that, or became aware, work had been indeed commissioned and was taking a different route other than that which I had previously prescribed should be done.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Could I just come in at that point?  [police consultant] obviously was appointed to carry out this review in March 2009, however, as you have just alluded to, he claims that he was never given the terms of reference for the review and only discovered in July 2009, 4 months after starting work, that there was another review that he was expected to be working on.  Can you try and clarify that because it is something the panel are really struggling to get their heads around, I must be quite honest?  How could that situation come about?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I wish I could provide some clarity because I think in many respects probably [police consultant] and myself were in a similar position.  We were both probably ... I am sure we were both working under the illusion that everybody was working to agreed terms of reference.  However, subsequently to this conversation when I found that he was not - and I attach no criticism to him for that, as I said to him before - I spoke with [retired D/Superintendent] and found [retired D/Superintendent] had indeed given him some different direction in relation to the work that he should carry out.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

If I can just come in before my colleague, Deputy Wimberley, it does seem very hard to grasp here.  We have got people diligently working away apparently doing the job that they have been requested.  You have said in answer to Deputy Le Hérissier that [retired D/Superintendent] was really the man who Kellett would have been reporting to.  I think that is what I understood.  What kind of liaison was there in those 4 months?  What was happening in those 4 months before you sort of discovered this within conversation?  Can you just try and make that clearer for us?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Yes, I think it is important to make clear the context in which the BDO Alto review was operating as well.  This was an audit which was being carried out.  It had not been commissioned by me, I had no oversight responsibility.  To go back to your very first question today in relation to what where the concerns that I had, clearly I had raised concerns in relation to the management of the inquiry.  It was therefore not appropriate for me to be in any way trying to influence or guide any reviews, whether that was the BDO Alto review, whether it was the Wiltshire review or anything else, my role at that time was the responsibility for the States of Jersey Police and to ensure that the historical abuse inquiry was carried out in a thorough, detailed and professional manner.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I am sorry to labour this point but a 4 month period, how was this being reported back?  Surely you had to be kept in the loop given your seniority in the role?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Yes, during that time there were various things reported back.  I do not have the details here but there were many matters which were reported back, all of which would have fallen under the terms of reference that I had agreed.  However, when it came to ... it was probably ... you said it was 4 months and you have assistance in that but when I first saw some written paperwork in relation to that, that is what is immediately drew my attention to the fact that obviously was not as had previously been agreed.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

A final point, [retired D/Superintendent] has unfortunately refused to give us any evidence, which does limit us slightly.  So really am I right in understanding what [police consultant] would have been reporting back would have gone to [retired D/Superintendent] and then, through no fault of your own, you would have been none the wiser?  Is that how this was working or not working?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

You are correct to say that I unfortunately was not aware and although I was receiving regular updates and regular briefings on many of the matters that I had asked to be done I was not aware that it was taking a slightly different direction, and that slightly different direction was clearly the fact that it had become what one might call a joint inquiry with BDO Alto with a single report.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Can I go back to the 8th December meeting of the Gold Group because when you were talking about that you said that there was ... first of all the terms of reference were presented by the Home Affairs people at that meeting and there was an offer, now I am just saying and you can confirm whether I am right or not, from your side that someone would be provided to assist the auditors because they would not know their way around a major police investigation, is that what happened at the Gold Group?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Yes, that is right.  It happened at the Gold Group and in discussions with the Chief Officer at Home Affairs.  Having been involved previously in external audits into financial matters, into policing, it is not unusual to have somebody who is familiar with these procedures, police regulations and to its practice as well particularly to perhaps advise the external auditors as to a more efficient way of doing it as well.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Right, and how was that discussed at the Gold Group?  How was that envisaged, that helping the auditors?

 

[15:30]

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I am not sure what you mean exactly in terms of the detail.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Well, would it have been provided from States of Jersey Police existing resources or did you see that as someone who would need to be appointed to do that, or how did you see that fitting in?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Yes, absolutely.  It was agreed ... I am just looking at the terms of reference, sorry the detail.  It was agreed that the States of Jersey Police would provide those resources from the resources that were available.  I am trying to find it but I cannot lay my hands on it at the moment, whether it would be paid for by as part of Operation Rectangle or part of the base budget.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Yes, okay.  So did the States of Jersey Police agreed to provide a resource that would provide someone who was au fait with police procedures to help BDO?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Yes.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Now where did that agreement go to operationally?  How did that pan out?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

When we agreed at the Gold Group that the resources would be made available ... what happens with great regularly is the forecast in relation to expenditure are updated at each of the Gold Groups and the Accounting Officer is then fully apprised of the planned expenditure as part of the inquiry.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Yes, sorry, but what I am saying is how did that decision or that offer to provide someone from within S.O.J.P. (States of Jersey Police) to help with the au fait ... the police side, to help the auditors, how was that decision carried through?  Who was appointed, how did that happen, was it yourself who found somebody?  This is where I am not clear.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Sorry, yes, absolutely.  As I said before [retired D/Superintendent] was given direct responsibility for that.  He was given full oversight of that and, in liaison with his colleagues, was finding the right person with the appropriate experience to be able to come in and assist.  I did not have a role in that.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Who drafted the terms of reference for that person?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

The terms of reference were the terms of reference that were agreed at the group.  It has now transpired that the terms of reference to which [police consultant] was working to were a different set of terms of reference.  However, again in contrast it must be understood that - and I am sure you will appreciate - if the Gold Group, which is the strategic level group, determines what would happen in the direction of the review then that was really what was engaged with under the inquiry that was carried out.  That is laying down the foundations and the expectations for what is happening.  If there were any disagreements with that or changes which were necessary, those would be brought back to the Gold Group and the Gold Group would agree any changes.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Thank you, Mr. Warcup.  Moving slightly on, we have got your written submission and in your submission of course you say that you became concerned that the BDO Alto report might indeed seriously undermine the Wiltshire review.  Can you explain to us why you were struck by this thought and when it occurred to you?  How did you know that there was this danger and (b) what did you do about it once you had become aware of it?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Right from the very outset, when we go back to December and the terms of reference that we have been talking about, one of the things that somebody in my position must be alive to is that different inquiries do not conflict with each other and that any conflict does not tarnish or inhibit the investigation in any way.  So my concern would be that - and was - having reached a stage where we fundamentally, through the powers(?) of [retired D/Superintendent], had begun the process of investigating the financial arrangements, the decisions which were made by Mr. Power and Mr. Harper.  That was not the expectation that I had.  That was already agreed as part of the terms of reference for Wiltshire and the Wiltshire inquiry had primacy in every respect.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

You said that was not the expectation you had.  What was the expectation you had?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

The expectation that I had ... sorry, could I just add another point in relation to that last matter.  This is something that may appear to you as something that  ... you know, I am perhaps going on experience or it is something that I have determined is the correct way forward.  It goes a lot further than that.  It is also the conclusion of meetings which were held between Mr. Moore, the investigating officer from Wiltshire, and the Attorney General at the outset of the investigation.  A meeting was held with the Attorney General to determine the primacy and the structure of all aspects of investigation.  So Mr. Moore was aware, as the acting head of the force I was aware and as the responsible law officer the Attorney General was aware of what the primacy was in relation to any review, investigation or misconduct complaints issue that was being carried out.  That was clearly established right from the very outset.  It went through a formal process as well.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Okay, thank you.  That point then, so presumably you received the draft of some sections of BDO Alto and said this is seriously in conflict with or may be seriously in conflict with what Wiltshire were after.  Indeed it might impugn the integrity of people.  I put words there but I think that is what you said in your submission.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

If I can explain and clarify.  The paper that I reviewed were not part of the BDO Alto report, they were papers of which my understanding was that [police consultant] had prepared for [retired D/Superintendent] - [retired D/Superintendent] showed me them - and they were to be submitted then to BDO Alto.  Whether they would have been repeated verbatim, I do not know, but they were not ... it was not the BDO Alto report, this was an early draft of some written work which was going to be submitted to BDO Alto and that is the point at which I said, you know, that is not going to happen, my instructions are that these are 2 separate issues, they should not be conflated and that is where I refer in my submission as well to objectivity because [retired D/Superintendent] had made his position clear, even prior to September 2009.  He had made his position clear in relation to some of his concerns and I was concerned that the objectivity of somebody who had been, shall we say, critical in overseeing permissions of that nature back to BDO Alto, and I was concerned that it would be less than objective.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

You said there were 2 separate issues.  Could you clarify what those are?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Yes, the second issue was that I had become aware that the work being done for BDO Alto had gone further than my expectation - far, far exceeded that.  I also, and being aware of the primacy issue, went and spoke to the Senior Investigating Officer from Wiltshire, Mr. Moore, and I sought his advice.  But I also wanted to make sure that all of the work which had been carried was submitted to them so they could consider that as part of their financial review.  First of all there was duplication but most importantly there were the issues of potential for possible misconduct to consider.  We already had the Wiltshire inquiry going.  It had already been established and in determination with the Attorney General that that had primacy, and on the advice that I received, the legal advice and the advice from Mr. Moore, that is why I instructed for them to take no further action at that time in relation to interviewing Mr. Harper.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Can I just come in there?  Can I get this clear for the record, when you are talking about objectivity are you saying that there were concerns at the way this review, investigation, was being undertaken?  Was in danger of being personalised where perhaps it focused on the individual, as it happens Mr. Harper, who was at the centre of much of the decision making, was that the primacy of your concern?  Was it being personalised?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

That was not the primacy of my concern but that was a concern, yes, and that was part of my concern in relation to the objectivity aspect.  The aspect of my decision not to let [police consultant] to interview Mr. Harper as part of the States of Jersey Police was not in relation to that.  That was purely in relation to the advice that I had received and the primacy of the investigation.  If you could envisage a situation where evidence was to be taken at a future hearing, how that may be interpreted in relation to what had gone on because Wiltshire had primacy in that investigation.  It is perhaps just worth reflecting as well on the way that Wiltshire were conducting their inquiries, and that was by the use of expert witnesses.  One of those expert witnesses in their discussions and what have you with Mr. Moore was a finance director with police experience.  I was fully cognisant of the fact that they were looking into these issues and therefore I was not concerned that they were not going to be looked at.  So the issue of objectivity and the aspect of [police consultant] interviewing Mr. Harper had not ... they are 2 separate issues anyway.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

But how does this go back to the concern [police consultant] was appointed by [retired D/Superintendent] it seems and that relationship which has been criticised between [police consultant] and [retired D/Superintendent], was that a part of your concerns about the objectivity?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

When that was brought to my attention later on, yes.  I was aware that they knew each other as officers but that is not uncommon, particularly due to the fact that both of them were ... because they would work across ...  Their work would transcend their normal areas of work and they would come into professional contact.  Yes, later on it was a concern but I had no reason to impugn the professional integrity of either officer at that stage.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

How did you deal with those concerns when you began to feel them?  What options were open to you and what did you do?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I think [police consultant] - and I read his submission to the panel - described to you the fact that I was very relaxed about this.  I think that is a fair comment because it was plainly clear that [police consultant] was working under the instructions that he had been given.  It was not his fault that he was working under different instructions.  I did not therefore need to challenge him, the challenge came when I spoke to [retired D/Superintendent], and I challenged [retired D/Superintendent] on that and issued further directions in relation to what I expected, which was to return to the original review and have that work done.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Is it fair to say, and I do not want to put the words into your mouth, that you would not have put 2 people who had that relationship into such a situation with foresight.  If you had known you would not have seen that as an ideal situation?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I would have been and would still be comfortable with ... had they carried out the work which I had initially set to them, I would have been comfortable with that.  I was not comfortable in relation to the focus which ... there had become a focus on ... I make no comment about the rights and wrongs, there was a predominant purpose to look at the activities of Mr. Harper at that particular point.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Can I just come in, you mentioned the phrase “the work set to them” and that is [police consultant] really.  I just want to put to you 2 things, one is from your submission to the panel where you say on page 4: “Subsequently Mr. Mike Kellett was appointed to fulfil this role” and that is the role of the internal review, the one that wraps up the complaints and questions from States Members and so on.  In [police consultant]’s submission to us he says: “In March 2009 I was engaged by the Acting Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police [that is yourself] to carry out a review of certain aspects of Operation Rectangle, the full terms of reference read as follows” and then it is the support role that we talked about earlier.  Helping BDO Alto to come to terms with how the police work and lots of very specific questions which he has been asked to answer.  How can you square those 2?  He seems to be being asked to do 2 things, one by yourself in relation to the BDO and one by someone unknown, it is not stated, about the ... within yours it was appointed, he was appointed to fulfil a completely different role, the internal review role?

 

[15:45]

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Yes, my interpretation of that, I am not sure I can be of use but my interpretation is that he is talking about in a general sense of being appointed by me because I did not personally appoint him.  That was a delegated function to [retired D/Superintendent] and [retired D/Superintendent] carried that out, he appointed him, he did not have to refer back to me in relation to the appointment.  It had been agreed previously.  Does that help?

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

That helps a lot.  So that is the helping BDO part of it.  [retired D/Superintendent] appointed [police consultant] to do that role and what about the other, the internal review.  “Subsequently [police consultant] was appointed to fulfil this role under the supervision of Detective Superintendent Gradwell.”  Was that also delegated to [retired D/Superintendent]?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Yes, that was delegated to [retired D/Superintendent] and [retired D/Superintendent] had the terms of reference which I had proposed on 8th December.  That was what they should have been working to.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Just carrying on with the issue of the Wiltshire report, [police consultant] disputes your statement in your submission that there was unhappiness with the contents of the draft sections of his report, unhappiness from Wiltshire when they saw his report.  He says it simply boiled down to an issue to do with a member of the States of Jersey Police and a national tabloid newspaper and that it was easily resolved by him simply deleting this reference.  Do you agree with his characterisation of this issue or do you think it was indeed a serious issue that they raised that they were really quite concerned about the content of the drafts?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I am certainly not aware who he is referring having spoken to within the Wiltshire team but I can be absolutely clear that I spoke to the Chief Constable Mr. Moore about this and was advised that those and other matters had been subject to legal advice and they were inappropriate to be included in the report.  It did not take legal advice to believe that it was inappropriate that they should be included.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Was this because, I do not know and I suppose I am speculating and I need confirmation from you, there were some allegations being made about individuals or an individual and that the appropriate evidence was not there to back up these allegations?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Yes, and I think that that was my feeling and I mentioned that some of the witnesses have not been disposed in writing so if we are making issues which are going to be substantially challenged then it would only be right to do so if you had the written evidence backing that up.  Of course that written evidence may have been available to Wiltshire but it certainly was not available to anyone in Jersey, including [police consultant], because the aspects of the Wiltshire inquiry were entirely confidential.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Mr. Warcup, just taking you back a stage, you told us in your submission how it became overly focused on Mr. Harper and, as we said, lacked objectivity, but I am interested in where you said it had the potential to be unfair to Mr. Power.  Could you just enlarge on that, what was your concern, how would that evolve and did it evolve?  What was this unfairness?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I raised those concerns with Mr. Moore and what I mean by that is these 2 issues are directly connected.  At the time, although I was speaking to Mr. Moore about matters which affected the States of Jersey Police we could not discuss matters of evidence in the same way as I could not discuss matters with the Minister in relation to that.  So what we had to do is we had to make sure that there was no conflict between what Wiltshire were doing and what the States of Jersey Police were doing.  I was very clear in that regard that if comments were made which were critical of Mr. Harper they could, by implication, have therefore been critical of Mr. Power because we did not know at that time where the Wiltshire inquiry was at, whether the Wiltshire inquiry would draw conclusions that Mr. Power was ultimately responsible or whether indeed individually they would be responsible for their own options.  The focus on Mr. Harper may have been detrimental in that regard.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Did it cross your mind that - and this may be impossible to answer - there was an ulterior motive from anywhere that this was a deliberate focus on Mr. Harper?  I ask that because when we had BDO in [the Managing Director] said: “Look, we praised Mr. Harper in 9 specific areas here.”  If you look back at the reporting that does not really come out, it all seems to be focused in one angle, the negativity as opposed to possibly thing that went well.  Were there any concerns ...

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Yes, I think in every situation you flag those things that were positive as well as if you are going to challenge and flag things that are negative.  You have to balance it and be fair.  I think that is a fair comment.  I cannot comment, however, not having studied in detail the findings which were the ultimate outcomes.  I could not comment on that.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Can I ask a few questions again to the point of why Mr. Harper was not interviewed by the whole BDO process?  First of all, do you agree that in retrospect it would have been a better base for the report if he had been interviewed?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Yes, it would have been a better base but I have some concern that maybe it is felt or conclusions were drawn that I in some way inhibited or prevented that.  What I did was to advise on what we as the States of Jersey Police would do in our role as part of that.  It was not for me to advise in relation to how the BDO Alto would conduct their audit and their review.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Could BDO have approached Mr. Harper, from your point of view?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

There is no ... there is a saying in law that there is no propriety in a witness.  You do not own a witness.  Nobody owns a witness so there is every freedom to approach people and speak to them.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

I am positive about this, on page 5 of your submission to us you say you had not approved a joint report by [police consultant] and BDO, you had to approve that there should be a joint report produced, nor was it in accordance with the agreed terms of reference but it is implicit completely in the terms of reference which went to [police consultant] and which he accepted when he took on the job or jobs.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

That is right and I did not approve those.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

But they came from Gold Group.  I am just putting that to you and asking for a clarification.  The terms of reference that are on [police consultant]’s page 2, where he says he was engaged by yourself but you are saying that that was delegated to [retired D/Superintendent]: “To carry out a review of certain aspects of Operation Rectangle, the full terms of reference of which I was handed read as follows.  Employment of Mr. Mike Kellett” and it goes through a page including all the details of all the different aspects of Operation Rectangle.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I am sorry, I do not have that document in front of me.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

[police consultant]’s first submission to us.  What he said ...

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

In his written submissions?

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Yes, but if I can just read the first 2 paragraphs: “The Home Affairs Accounting Officer has employed accountants to conduct the above review.  The accountants have no knowledge relating to the management or police operations, the review will benefit from the involvement of an experienced police manager” then [police consultant] is ideally placed, and then it says all the things he is going to look at on behalf of BDO.  [police consultant] says: “While 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” and certainly that is the impression they gave in the hearings with us.  They were working together from the beginning and that was their understanding.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

All right, well that is different to the terms of reference which I am referring to and I referred to in my written submissions which were: “The purpose of the review is to carry out a formal internal review into matters which currently do not fall within the parameters of the current historic child abuse inquiry or other related investigations or reviews.”

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

This is the funny thing that [police consultant] - as my colleague Deputy Pitman pointed out - worked for 4 months on one terms of reference and you said he was working for another terms of reference.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

That is right, that was the position.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Can I just carry on, because you then say on page 6, because this is relating now to why Lenny Harper could not be interviewed, and this really perhaps in the nub: “In summary, my intervention that they could not interview Mr. Harper related to the States of Jersey Police internal review and not the BDO Alto report.”

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Yes, that is right.  There were several things.  One, I said that we were not going to be joint authors because I had issued terms of reference about what I required and the report was a sole report from BDO Alto and as part of that [police consultant]’s role had been, albeit he was working to different instructions, he was there to assist them in the compilation and to understand the policy, practice and procedure.  It had gone beyond that and I was then reverting back to the original terms of reference which had been agreed.  Under those terms of reference and following the advice I was given by Mr. Moore and based on legal advice that I received, that we the States of Jersey Police would not carry out an interview with Mr. Harper.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Could you expand on what the issues and complaints were that led to your terms of reference, if I can call them yours?  You know, the second of terms of reference that came out of the Gold Group, the issues and complaints raised.  Are you able to give any details about what the ... because you have not said specifically what those issues and complaints were.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

No, those issues are obviously confidential; they are reported through the process and overseen by the Police Complaints Authority in Jersey.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

You mentioned States Members complaining, you cannot give any details about those?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

No, no, unfortunately.  I am sure you will understand why I cannot.  Not only States Members but other complaints which had been received as well and were being actioned.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Can I just ask, those complaints - and we probably accept that you cannot go into details - were they specific things and specific incidents or was it just that perhaps politicians were very unhappy at how things were being reported in the media because there was a huge global interest.  Can you give us some indication of ...

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I cannot.  I do recall what they were and I recall the sources of those complaints that I am referring to, not all of them but I do recall.  I need to be clear as well that it was not totally States Members who were raising issues and making complaints.  There were complaints from members of the public as well.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Did any actual report arise out of this review or did it simply not happen, although [police consultant] was supposed to be working on it?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

That is the position that when [police consultant] left what we did was we did conclude each different aspect in a different way so all the complaints were subject to investigation and recorded for the Police Complaints Authority and they were finalised in accordance with the Police Complaints (Jersey) Law, the learning of lessons in relation to what we need to do and how we need to approach it were all developed and in many cases the practices and changes were implemented where they could be.  For example, training of officers to ensure that they have got the right training in the right areas to be able to deal with serious investigations and the investigation of serious crimes.  They were implemented as well.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

So it was all done on a kind of ad hoc basis?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Not ad hoc, no.  It would be wrong to say it was ad hoc, some of them were subsequently reported on in the Wiltshire report that I think we had already identified.  For example, training was an issue and we had put in place the arrangements to make sure that relevant people were trained, including investigating officers, and that they were able to comply with best practice and the procedures which were adopted following the investigation of serious crime.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

We are getting towards the end.  It strikes me, listening to your evidence, that you obviously felt that when it came rightly to people like Mr. Power and Mr. Harper there had to be a high evidential bar.  But there appeared to be these other investigations going on and there was evidence brought forward which did not meet that bar, so to speak.  Do you think in retrospect or just as a general principle it was wrong to have these reviews going in parallel with each other, particularly when you have the primacy of Wiltshire.

 

[16:00]

 

Because what was happening was people were making allegations based not on verifiable evidence necessarily.  Do you think that led to very unfortunate outcomes and that were you to do this again you would never go into a situation where reviews were running essentially parallel to each other and where they appeared to have on level of evidence and another review appeared to have another level of evidence acceptability?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I would agree with you.  Can I just go back a step further in relation to what ... you said what you would do.  I did not do it, of course, because it is fair to say I would not have initiated the BDO Alto review in the way it was done but it is appropriate to look certain things, to learn the lessons even while there are inquiries ongoing.  What must be established, however, is what the parameters of those are and where you draw the line in relation to the extent of those inquiries.  One the fact of it, if I was to go back and say: “Well, how should it have been done?” then I would say that it would have been perhaps better to deal with the issues of alleged misconduct and deal with those first and to completely separate out the other issues.  If there are other issues that need dealing with that are likely to overlap, they should be included within the terms of reference for the primary review.  It is not uncommon in a police discipline inquiry for the investigating officers to be asked not only to see whether there are any misconduct issues which flow from the circumstances, but also whether there are any organisational issues from which the organisation can learn and benefit in the future.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

A question that was further down our list, although we are getting towards the end, talking about primacy.  You stressed that quite a lot and I think I understand why, however could you clarify for the record how it could be then that BDO or [police consultant] got to see apparently Mr. Harper’s statement from Wiltshire?  How did that ... surely that would have affected primacy and possibly conflict in some way?  Can you enlarge on that because we are having difficulty getting to the bottom of this and it is, I am sure you will accept, a key issue.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I would accept that until I saw the papers I was not really aware that they had seen that.  My understanding was that the States of Jersey Police and those working for the States of Jersey Police would not see any of the evidence in relation to the Wiltshire inquiry, and I do think that ... I cannot say whether he did or he did not see that.  I do not know, has [police consultant] said that he has seen that?

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

As I say, we are getting a really confused picture.  My question to you, and obviously you cannot answer what another person has seen, is how could that come about where a person could see something which was meant to be confidential to another review which you said had primacy?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I would say there is not a matter of confidentiality in relation to that, what there is is a matter that goes back to that issue of primacy that you raised and it would raise an issue should there any misconduct procedure I would have thought it would have been a matter which would be subject to challenge within the misconduct process to say why did that happen and was it appropriate and what was the purpose.  Such things always raise doubt in any such proceedings.  That is why decisions are often made to engage outside bodies to carry out inquiries and it is a very unusual circumstance, yes.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

But if something can be almost quoted from surely there is no smoke without fire.  Had did that come about, that is what we need to find out.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

You mean [police consultant] seeing the statement?

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Yes.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I have no idea because to put it another way, if [police consultant] or [retired D/Superintendent] had come to me and said: “Can we approach Wiltshire to see Mr. Harper’s statement?” I would have said no.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

In a related issue, Mr. Warcup, the issue of how it appears a very similar replication ... sorry, a very similar version or replication of parts of Operation Rectangle can be published in a newspaper, a national newspaper, in October 2009.  Were you able to get to the bottom of this?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

No, unfortunately there were many issues right through from 2008 until 2010 where we did look to try and establish how information had been released to the media.  It is a matter of some regret in many respects that it happened and I do not condone it at all but I am afraid I cannot shed any light on the source or how it happened.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Did the police institute any investigations into whether there was a leak occurring from Police H.Q. (headquarters)?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I am sorry; I did not catch the first part of that.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Sorry, did the police institute any investigations into how this information was indeed leaking, so to speak?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

It would be wrong to say an investigation.  On each occasion when information is put into the media we will look and see whether there is a source and whether there is a prima facie reason for information going into the media.  Sometimes of course it is neither illegal nor is it a disciplinary matter that information is put into it, it maybe just be a question of judgment or professionalism.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Just to take on from that point, you said from 2008 right through to 2010, and of course that is well after the Mr. Harper/Mr. Power period, did it ever concern you that possibly those leaks were politically based?  They were coming from politicians and probably they were not even internal from the States of Jersey Police.  Was that a concern to you?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

No, I would not focus my attention on that.  If I was to say ... my concern was from a very early stage the media was being given a considerable amount of information and documents and they were being given this information either directly by people or indeed - people I do not know and I do not wish to get into a guessing game ... they were getting information and also information was appearing on the internet.  I have to say that I think that the release of information in such circumstances is detrimental to the good conduct of the inquiry.  In fact it is a fact that the release of some information in the earlier stages which appeared on the internet and in the media and was clearly information which had been given in court, could have had a detrimental impact on those cases which appeared before the Royal Court in Jersey and could have undermined those cases, and indeed there was a hearing in the Royal Court in which it was challenged by the defence solicitors that there could have been an abuse of process.  I think that that matter needs to be seriously considered for the future and the release of information, however well intentioned, has to be carried out under proper regulated and approved systems and not to fulfil whatever agendas people are trying to pull through.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

So just the last question I will ask you on this point.  The leaking, however it came about, to the media, you would expect to see consistency in this because obviously there has been huge and very negative focus on leaks which allegedly came from during Mr. Harper/Mr. Power’s time yet the Minister, for example, seems very unconcerned about leaks that have come subsequently.  Is that not a concern that should be ongoing all the time?  Should there be consistent policy?  That seems to be what you are saying.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I cannot speak for what the Minister would say but I can speak from my conversations with the Minister during my time with the States of Jersey Police and my impression at that time of the Minister’s point of view was he, like I, thought it was totally wrong, irresponsible and unprofessional.  But I would agree entirely that there needs to be a consistent approach.  Leaking of information to the media is something which can, as I say, seriously undermine criminal inquiries and the consequences could be quite serious.  That is not serious to you or I or others, it is to the victims of crime who will not get justice through the courts.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

One final point on that.  We have heard within our review here allegations that a former Assistant Minister for Health leaked information to a U.K. (United Kingdom) journalist.  To what extent were you aware of that?  How did it come about that you were learnt of that?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I am not sure I am aware of that particular ...

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

A leak to Mr. Rose who is a quite well-known U.K. journalist.  You are not aware of that?  So there is no inquiry?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Was it a former Minister for Health?

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Assistant Minister for Health.  You are not aware of that at all?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

No, I am sorry I am not clear about the particular case that you are talking about.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Just a wrap up question, Mr. Warcup, it is maybe a bit too broad but in the light of what happened, in the light of all these reports, in the light of the different evidential standards that appeared and in the light of the concerns you expressed once you became aware of the way things were panning out, how would you have done things differently?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

How I would have done things differently?

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Yes.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

There are many things which one learns in relation to things which happen but I have no regrets that what I did I did in the best interests for the States of Jersey Police and hopefully the people of Jersey and also the victims.  Had I not made the disclosures in relation to that there was every possibility that the cases before the Royal Court would have been undermined and there would have been no prosecutions that would have followed.  There are perhaps many other things that I would have tried to do differently in the weeks and months which followed but I am not sure, given some of the circumstances which prevailed, how much I would have been able to influence though.

 

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Can you give us one or 2 examples?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I think just the one.  I think the issues of the control of information which was being put not into the media but into the public domain, whether it was through the States Chamber or whether it was through the media, however you refer to it, that uncontrolled information which was being put through there, perhaps with the best intentions, was quite often inaccurate and ill-informed.  That unfortunately had a big influence on the way that the States of Jersey Police were able to operate, the way they were able to conduct their inquiries and also on my role and position as head of the force.  As I say, I am not sure that I could have been in a position to change that.  What I could do is to try and act with the utmost professionalism to try and do things properly and also to try and make sure that everything that is done in respect of the former Chief Officer, Mr. Power, was done fairly and appropriately.  As a good example of that, at no time will you find me on record as getting into speculation and comment on the rights and wrongs of some of the things that have been speculated about.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

I would like to ask a final question, I would probably kick myself afterwards if I did not ask you and what you have been saying leads on to it about information should not be put into the public domain in an uncontrolled way, in an often inaccurate and ill-informed way and so on and trying to do things properly.  I think that is nub of it, is it not, trying to do things properly.  So if I just quote you from the Wiltshire report in a paragraph where they are writing about the Met review, which of course you referred to in your letter which led to the suspension or immediately led to the suspension.

 

[16:15]

 

“The purpose of the review [that is the Met review] and the report which followed was to provide advice, guidance and learning for the S.I.O. (Senior Investigating Officer) and the Operation Rectangle team.  The review will typically highlight well run aspects of an investigation and comment on areas that require attention.  In order to be effective and to encourage staff to speak openly the content of the final report of the review is intended to be provided and received in the spirit of learning, public disclosure of the report is resisted and it usually attracts public interest immunity, in other words the whole thing is private to allow people to speak openly.  Accordingly it would not be disclosable for the purposes of a discipline hearing as to do so could undermine the public interest by inhibiting candour between interviewers and interviewees in the review process.”  As you know, you based your letter which led immediately to the suspension of the former Chief Officer, Graham Power, on that review even though the review specifically has to be open book, people encouraged to speak openly and not used for disciplinary purposes.  Would you like to comment on that?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

In those last couple of sentences where I would agree to depart from what was being said and the reason for that is that I did not base my letter solely on that review.  The construct of my letter, which I believe you will have seen, was that I raised issues which were concerns and I also - which I was subsequently criticised for, which is rather strange - abided by that in terms of saying that the review remained confidential.  It remains confidential for other reasons of course as well.  But if we go back to earlier questions, I had raised concerns and they were documented concerns with a number of people, including the then Minister for Home Affairs, the Chief Office of Police, the Attorney General and others, including [former States Chief Executive], about certain aspects.  That was in September, 2 months before the review ... in fact the Met did not even start the review until September and I had already raised, before they gave the written review, some concerns.  Those concerns were documented and documented in September.  Therefore I stand by the fact that the issues that I raised with [former States Chief Executive] were issues that I had been raising for about 2 months and were not as a consequence of the Met review.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

So you do not think that in that letter, which had been requested by [former States Chief Executive] and 2 days later Graham Power was suspended, you should have mentioned the fact that it was not a disciplinary investigation and could not be used as such, or in any way connected with the disciplinary process?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Sorry?

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Should you not have mentioned in that letter, and I would have to say that the perception - and I am pretty sure I could find it in Napier if I had time - that one can show that your letter was largely - not exclusively - based on your reliance on the Met interim review.  In fact people around were saying if we had not ... [former States Chief Executive] is on record as saying in the Napier review that if the letter had not been received about the Met interim report then it would have been much harder to suspend Graham Power.  So it was a very important letter and it relied on the interim review but it did not mention that the Met interim review was not a disciplinary investigation and could not be used in any disciplinary process.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

They were probably ... given the scale and complexity of things, there were probably a lot of other things that could have been put but I was not unfortunately aware of that at that exact time and I put in what I considered to be relevant information but I absolutely stand by the fact that the issues and concerns that I had raised had been raised for some 2 months prior to the Met review being produced.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

None of the other concerns were mentioned in the actual suspension documents.  This is the problem, is it not?  This is the problem with the whole basis of why we are here, why we are talking about BDO and so on is this kind of atmosphere around this whole process.  But can I just ask you, you mentioned the letter which you will have seen.  We would love to see the letter.  Is it possible for you to let us have that letter?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Again, I would ask the panel if you can take legal advice as to whether it is appropriate for you to see that.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Yes, we will do that.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I think that, for example, there was comment which was attributed to the fact that no reference was made to the fact that it was an interim report.  If you saw the letter you will see that one of the paragraphs is headed at the very end, in a very brief reference, refers to the Met review interim report.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

So it would be useful to us to see the letter, in fact it would clarify issues for a lot of people.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I think it would, not least for myself.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I am greedy so I have got 2 questions, both very different ones.  Obviously we know it was down to you appointing the finance manager; however when you look back if there is one thing that has been learnt it is that Jersey’s set up was less than perfect.  But with reflection do you think it is unfair the way the focus has been on the police side of this and the finances, and that is why we are here, and very little has been said about the Home Affairs side and their control or lack of with the finance; what would your thoughts be on that, trying to move forward for the future?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Looking forward to the future I think there is now a general agreement, and I proposed this very early, that the Chief of Police should be the Accounting Officer and the budgets should be set but I also feel that there should be more formal oversight of the police in its entirety with some form of police committee or police authority.  I am well aware that the U.K. are moving away from that but I think you will struggle to find a Chief Officer in the U.K. that will support that change because the current arrangements with oversight provide for clear lines of accountability and responsibility and a lot of these issues which are being discussed and where it was discussed in the public arena and in the States it could have been properly, professionally and formally discussed through an authority and a lot of the questions could have been answered and then reported back formally to the States.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Obviously we are in the process now we are going to have a police authority.  Was it ever a concern to you at the time that it has been driven to focus too much on the police side and the police failings, which obviously failings need to be identified, but did you ever feel real concern at the Home Affairs side were almost perhaps shifting the blame not wanting to say: “Yes, there is fault on our side too.”  Is it easy to just have a scapegoat?  I am not saying that is what you have done but you appreciate the question.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

No, no, it is not concern I had.  I did not feel necessarily the blame was shifted because I think the blame was systemic.  It was organisational in as much as the procedures for managing finance and the arrangements were not in place.  If they are put in place, if budgets are established and accountability procedures are put in place then I think that Jersey will be in a good position for managing finances for difficult context issues in the future.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I suppose it seems an obvious question but it must be hard to know if you are going over budget if you have not got a budget.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Regardless of whether you have a budget or not you have a responsibility to act responsibly and to ensure that monies which are spent in the public purse are spent responsibly.  I was acting chief of the force for over 2 years and I would like to think that I applied the same rigour that I would have applied wherever I have been Accounting Officer.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

One final question, and it takes us back to your big issue of objectivity.  Would you agree that when you look back on this now the big tragedy of all this is perhaps the focus on things, the Bombay Brasserie, et cetera, have moved the focus away from what is really important and the victims in this horrible situation.  That is not your fault but the way this report and various other reports that have been spun out, has that been the real tragedy of ... this would deter people perhaps from coming forward in the future, the way the focus has gone on to the money when people are more important than money, victims are even more important.  That is what I am getting at.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Without a doubt the victims are the most important aspect of any of these inquiries.  Sometimes that is very easy to say but it is sometimes very hard to deliver when we become distracted with other things.  I think that is why if the arrangements are put in place that holds people properly accountable for what they do then I think the victims will get the better service from the police in the future.  I know that colleagues within the States of Jersey police would be very comfortable working, certainly when I was there, within those arrangements and they are not afraid of being accountable.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Do you think perhaps politicians were afraid of being accountable?  Did you ever get that sense?  It is perhaps not a fair question but I will ask it anyway.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I do not think I ever quite got under the skin of that.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Did you not ever the pressure in the job that more important is Jersey’s image because I think that is what a lot of the public felt?  Did you ever feel a pressure on you in your work as it relates to this review?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

No, I think there certainly were pressures as you will know and your colleagues on the panel will know, but those pressures came from many different directions.  One of the major difficulties which took up a substantial amount of time and was a huge disruption from the investigation and from the successful day to day running of the force was the wild speculations and inaccurate information that quite often then substantial amounts of work had to be done to attempt to correct that.  I have to say that that does seem to be a facet of policing in Jersey that you are fire-fighting issues and concerns that are raised which quite often turn out not to be correct.

 

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Would you say that greater openness and transparency would help in that because then, for instance, if people had had much, much earlier your letter which eventually led to the suspension, if we had that then we would know what was in it whereas without it all people can do is speculate.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

If you compared it to a police authority situation, those people on the police who have responsibility for discipline matters concerning chief officers of police would all have had access to that sort of level of information and it is very unfortunate that that responsibility eventually was vested in the Minister and the decisions that he made when it is clearly a serious decision and that is why changes will undoubtedly benefit future decisions because it will provide a greater breadth of transparency.  I am sure you will understand if I say that I would have welcomed that personally because I would like to think that would have led to an understanding of the position I found myself in, the action that I had to take, and the reasons why I did it.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

To end, Mr. Warcup, is there anything that you would like to say to us that we have missed or that you feel needs to be said?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

No, it is fine.  I think in your final questions you have covered many of the issues which I am quite glad that I have had an opportunity to express a view on.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Good.  Okay.  I will end the panel hearing now.  Thank you for that.  I am aware that you were in Jersey in quite a difficult time.  Would you say though, in closing, that is almost part of the job for a senior role as you were in?  It was not a problem to you as such, you dealt with it.  It is a small community, some of these issues were just par for the course, were they not?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

You may say that and look it like that but I think it is a much broader issue and much more strategic issue.  Having been in the position that I was, the power and position unfortunately as the head of service, you were not only challenged as an individual you were also challenged as being part of an organisation.  People are not only forming impressions of you as an individual they are forming impressions of an organisation.  If there is a determined effort to try and undermine people in that position then it can have a very negative effect on the organisation itself, and that is a position which is not really sustainable and healthy for an organisation such as the States of Jersey Police.  There is a much wider issue.

 

[16:30]

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

All right, but hopefully a police authority will curtail some of those problems.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

I really hope that it will and I hope that Members have some part in implementing such a commitment.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

One question I promised I would ask, if any of the media wish to get in touch with you, or citizens media, is there an address that they can do so or not?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

No, they can go through the press office of the States of Jersey Police.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Right, but you will field any questions that people put to you if you receive them?

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

If they go through the States of Jersey Police media office I will consider things but I will also say that I will be unlikely to give interviews for further speculation and debate.  I hope that I have been able to give the panel today some clear answers in relation to issues and what I do not want to do is to step outside of the scrutiny panel and start another round of speculation, debates and challenges.  That would only serve to undermine things further.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay.  Thank you again, and I will end it there.  Thank you.

 

Mr. D. Warcup:

Okay.  Thank you very much.

 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Thank you, members of the public and media.                         [16:31]




30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Rico.

It stands to reason that the report and the conclusions of the Scrutiny Panel will be dambing.

But dambing enough to start a new Historic Child Abuse Investigation from scratch?

Anonymous said...

WOW. What a telling statement by Graham Power when he answers that," The frustration I have with listening to this debate is they are referring to expenses that I never signed off. I am not saying that the expenses were unjustified, or justified, I have no information which entitles me to come to a firm conclusion but somebody decided in a sense to go behind my back and to sign off expenditure on behalf of the Deputy which they had no authority to sign off. They should not have paid tuppence without my signature on the bottom of the page.

Here is the best part of his quote, "I just wonder at the gall of people who breached the rules for financial expenditure and then seem to feel free to pontificate about expenditure in the police service. The rules were bypassed and it could only be bypassed by the staff in the Home Affairs Department ..."

False allegations against Graham Power seem to have been set up in advance by Home Affairs, and those within the establishment who were pulling their strings from higher up.

Well, well, Rico. This child abuse cover-up just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser doesn't it? Very well done, Sir!

Elle

Rob Kent said...

Two things stand out for me in Power's submission:

"The Deputy of St. Mary:

If that man was there with his big stick inside the Rectangle team, what is the BDO Alto report about and why does that person not figure in the report?

Mr. G. Power:

You have me there. I really do not know. The appointment of the person whose name appears in my statement as the person who would be, if you like, the eyes and ears of the accounting officer inside the Rectangle team, that person that I have identified I am sure did an audit trail at a very early stage because there was no argument when the person was appointed."

"...I just think to say there is half a dozen people involved in some secret society and they meet in funny clothes and run the Island is rather overdoing it, but I do think there are a number of people who have a very similar point of view about the world in an environment where there are insufficient checks and balances on what individuals can sometimes do."

Hhhhmmm. Where have we heard that before?

We were never told by the JEP et al that Power had opposed the accounting structures put in place by the States and the Chief Officer, nor that there was another unnamed individual directly responsible for Operation Rectangle expenditure.

Funny that BDO Alto didn't see fit to mention those facts.

Rob Kent said...

Oh, and could they get the person doing the transcripts to check whether it is really the "Bondi Brassiere"?

They systematically write that but I am sure it should be 'brasserie', unless they were also visiting other establishments.

Anonymous said...

"so who put Mick Gradwell onto David Rose?"

Conservative Monday Club - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Monday_Club - CachedSimilar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
The club's Chairman, David Storey, described it in June 1981 as "an anchor to a ship", ..... 1991; ^ The Observer, 24 February 1991, major article by David Rose. ^ Searchlight (magazine), London, March & June 1991 editions; ^ Club Minutes ...
Searchlight for Beginners: Dirty Tricks Against the Left
www.searchlight.org.uk/o-hara/tricks.html - CachedYou +1'd this publicly. Undo
In 1985 close Searchlight associate journalist David Rose printed lies about ... to say: "Despite the leading role of Searchlight magazine in the affair, ...

Anonymous said...

In 1985 close Searchlight associate journalist David Rose printed lies about the militant anarchist group 'Class War' implying they were "run by former leading figures in the National Front," [17] lies he later admitted came from Searchlight. [18] A couple of weeks later, Rose (who is always very well informed as to the opinions of Special Branch) retracted this specific charge in the course of making more general insinuations about Class War.

rico sorda said...

I have been at this for a very long time and along with VFC & ss Blog we have produced hard evidence that proves the HCAE was covered up.

Every journalist worth his salt should be so p***ed off that the plebs have done a first class job in exposing this.

I have been so busy that I have not had the time to post or investigate as much as I would like, this will change starting from next week.

I will be back with a vengance

There is even more aspects of this shocking cover-up that will be comingh out

rs

Anonymous said...

Ref: The infamous Rico, another bully, but not quite in the T Pitbull class...

We're just starting to gather a load of information on Rico Sorda. Feel free to forward anything else you have and we'll run it after our next posting which is likely to be on Wednesday once Walter Mitty the Syvret performs his first fairy tale hustings.

rico sorda said...

Not sure what the above comment is about?

rs

Anonymous said...

Not sure what he (or she) means either...'we're just starting to gather a load of information'? Does he (or she) mean that he (or she) has just started to gather some information and it's already a load or is he (or she) just starting (to gather...) and won't stop until it's a load? Surely if he (or she) has already gathered a load then he (or she) is probably just finishing (and not starting) the gathering process. Whoever the admin is, I think he (or she) is probably a 'few bricks short of a full load of information' his (or her)self. Furthermore, all one can really conclude is that he (or she) is in the process of starting to gather information that may or may not, at the present time, constitute a load. I wonder if this 'dossier of information' (formerly a 'load') will pass the evidential test? Probably he (or she) has a few Centeniers on standby just in case he (or she) wishes to press charges. The Royal Court's probably already sitting and waiting so you can be (ahem) farce-tracked by the Jersey's fine criminal justice system.

Anonymous said...

The 'infamous' Rico may well reply 'Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!'.

Anonymous said...

Its only the corrupt politicians and their pals trying to frighten you Rico. The devil is like a roaring lion remember, thats what the Bible says - the key word are roaring -and like - the Bloggers of Doom are nothing like lions, they are mangy mongrels, and they will be whimpering soon enough when they are all arrested and put into prison cells nwhere they belong, they thought they were untouchable, but they will find out that they were far too cocksure and arrogant. They hate God and despise their fellow men, they hate you because you are exposing them. Heh heh, they are so busy wasting their time hating you that they cannot see what is coming over the horizen, the police are coming for them, hence the spate of arrests in the Isle of Wight!

Zoopmpad

rico sorda said...

Ok, I have been informed that it's the paedo supporter. What a room full of idiot.

lol

It's the paedo lovers like that lot that keep me going and fired up

priceless

Onwards we go Show no Fear

rs

Anonymous said...

Anonymous

1) Who are you?
2) This he/she business - are you going to spit it out who you are referring to, or are you just going to try to play one of the paedoscums favourite little mind games, which I call MUDDYING THE WATER?

Sorry to spoil the fun, but we have all had enought of mind games, especially us child abuse survcivors that had the paedoscum playing them on us as children to stop us telling about the crimes committed against us. We're not kids anymore though!

Zoompad (still not able to post using my Google profile since the Great Hack a few months ago)

Anonymous said...

Zoompad, I think you misunderstand me. And I'm really sorry if I upset you...The he/she is the Admin of the Farce blog who is trying to bully Rico...(I've simply no idea if they are male or female). That's the origin of the quote threatening Rico that is referred to. My point was that you can't post defamatory comments about others without evidence. They seem to be intent on publishing smears and innuendo in an attempt, I presume, to bully Rico into silence. Quite hypocritical given their current stance on such things...

Anonymous said...

The Twitter hash tags for the Senatorial hustings are #jerseyelections and #jsyhust

Cookies said...

Thank you for very good blog about Forensic Accountants. It's very nice.

Anonymous said...

Amelia Hill wrote about HDLG in 2008, she is at the hub of the Milly Dowler phone hacking cover up, so who is being protected, and why?

http://zoompad.blogspot.com/2011/09/milly-dowler-phone-hacking-cover-up.html

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Your readers might want to view the speeches of Senator Freddie Cohen and David Richardson HERE

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Francis Le Gresley and Stuart Syvret

Anonymous said...

Hi Rico.

Put up last night Ozouf asking for the vote for Chief Minister to be Transparent. "Only Joking"

You can Lisen HERE

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

What Ian Le Marquand and the "accredited" media SHOULD have said about the Wiltshire REPORT

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Senator Sarah Ferguson talks to Citizens Media about, (among other things), INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM

rico sorda said...

I will have a new posting up on Sunday.

Time to get back on it

rs

Anonymous said...

Just to see if I can post on your site Rico

Ian Evans said...

TRUTH & JUSTICE?

Anonymous said...

iz this boring blog still goin. looser

Anonymous said...

Somebody is missing you Rico!

Ian Evans said...

People too weak to follow their own dreams, will always find a way to discourage yours!

Ian Evans said...

5 MONTHS FOR KNIVES & WINE