Monday, April 25, 2011

The Napier Debacle



Ian Le Marquand               Philip Ozouf              Terry Le Sueur 


"I remain shoulder to shoulder with the Minister for Home Affairs and the Chief Minister in relation to all the other issues, which have been debated in this Assembly. "  Philip Ozouf 


Napier


The Deputy Chief Minister now enters the fight



Why has this turned into a complete and utter Farce? 



What guarantee that the TOR  for a Committee of Enquiry will be set in Stone?



We now have 4 different TOR for the Napier Report



This is getting so shockingly bad



This lot just do as they please. Put it along side the Wiltshire debacle and you'll see what I mean



The States of Jersey pass the Terms of Reference for a review into the suspension of Graham Power and the rest should be history


 WRONG



As with everything this elite club of Government touches we get  Incompetence or is it corruption? Could it be a mixture of both?



Apart from the actual changes to the TOR and who did what other things are significant. One is the lack of a basic audit trail of the decision making process.   Who decided what and when and on what basis? Where are the notes and records of these decisions?

 

Another is the issue of confidence and perception. On matters like this it's not just important to do the right things but to be seen  doing them in a way which is transparent and accountable and does not lend itself to alternative explanations.    It's important that States Members and the public at large  have confidence in the integrity of an enquiry of this nature.   At the very best the Chief Ministers Department has bungled this so badly that they have destroyed confidence in the Napier enquiry.   At the worst, they have fiddled the TOR to minimise the damage to BO.

 


I will be looking at the DCM's reply's. I will publish the Hansard as a comment as it would make the posting to long 



I must give Senator Ozouf credit for not ducking the question. He could  so easily have let  it pass. To his credit he got to his feet,  then it all went Pete Tong.



But let us look at some quotes from Senator Ozouf;  


Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I accept that there were wording changes between the terms of reference that was in this Assembly and those that Mr. Napier put in his report.  I accept that and it is Mr. Napier who asked for indeed (c)(iii) to be put in and he omitted it, but he has covered it in his report.  So, I think that there almost needs to be acknowledgement on both sides that yes there were some changes in the terms of reference but the most important thing is; has that mattered in the end product of the report?


So are we now saying that TOR's can be changed after they have been passed in the states?


Are we saying that Brian Napier can alter his TOR's? Is this Legal or good practice? 


I have emailed and asked Brian Napier for a responce


Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

he issue concerning part (d) has been the subject of many questions already in the Assembly and the Chief Minister has provided detailed answers on each occasion.  I will repeat what he has said, that following the former Police Chief’s agreement to participate fully in the review, part (d) was no longer relevant and for that reason Mr. Napier did not reproduce it in his report.  Therefore the Chief Minister has stated that it would not be necessary for the changes referred to, to be referred to him or the Deputy of St. Martin.


WRONG


What kind of research was the DCM doing. Has he not remembered Graham Powers letter of the 31st March 2010. He should have started with this posting


MARCH 31ST LETTER




Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I perhaps have had the benefit of looking at this issue afresh having been advised that the Chief Minister was not going to be here.  I have had to research these answers and come up with the explanation to the Assembly.  I have to say that I am astonished having looked at this issue afresh with almost no baggage in relation to it.  There is no confusion.  The terms of reference as originally set out have been included in the report.  There were some changes made.  They are minor, they are insignificant, they are Mr. Napier’s but more importantly, the issues that the Deputy continues to suggest were not covered in the terms of reference have been covered in the report. 


They are Minor, they are insignificant - Oh really but to whom?



Let me again show you how the TOR's for Napier have taken on a life of their own since leaving the floor of the house. Keep your eye on part  D and E


The Original - is in Black



The second is - R39/2010 lodged by the COM with D+E removed - this is in Blue



The third is - The TOR used by Brian Napier - this is in green



The Fourth - R39./2010 (re-issue) in Red



2. Terms of Reference 

 

The purpose of the Review is to –

  

(a) Examine the procedure employed by the Chief Minister’s Department  and the Minister for Home Affairs in the period leading up to the  suspension of the Chief Officer of Police on 12th November 2008.

  

(b) Review the manner in which senior officers collated the information  and presented it to the Minister for Home Affairs that ultimately led to  the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police.  


(c) Investigate whether the procedure for dealing with the original  suspension was correctly followed at all times, including –

  

(i) the reason for the immediate suspension of the Chief Officer  of Police; 

 

(ii) whether there were any procedural errors in managing the  suspension process. 

 

(d) Review all information relating to the original suspension procedure,  including relevant sections of the published Affidavit from the  suspended Chief Officer of Police.

  

(e) The Report should highlight any areas where, in the opinion of the  Commissioner, sufficient evidence exists that would support in the  interests of open government a full Committee of Inquiry into the  manner in which the Chief Officer of Police was suspended on  12th November 2008. 



Now, We have R39/2010 a report lodged by the COM ref Napier Report on the 14th April 2010



The purpose of the Review is to – ( Not drop part D & E)


.    (a) Examine the procedure employed by the Chief Minister’s Department  and the Minister for Home Affairs in the period leading up to the  suspension of the Chief Officer of Police on 12th November 2008.   


  (b) Review the manner in which senior officers collated the information  and presented it to the Minister for Home Affairs that ultimately led to  the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police.   


  (c) Investigate whether the procedure for dealing with the original  suspension was correctly followed at all times, including – 


     (i) The reason for the immediate suspension of the Chief Officer  of Police.      


(ii) Whether there were any procedural errors in managing the  suspension process.   


   (iii) The recording of material relating to the primary events of the  suspension process. 



So, the Chief Minister is blaming this on a clerical error. Ok, so we give him the benefit of the doubt, they notice the mistake inform all parties and the TOR is back to the original... No Baby (This is Jersey). Part D is the killer. BO knows it, everyone with an ounce of (Common Sense) knows it. But where has C (iii) come from? It's not in the original



Let us look at Napiers TOR for the Final Report; They have used part E from the original TOR and are now using it as Part D. What a little magic trick. Highlighted in Red


Terms of Reference  The purpose of the Review is to:- 


a) Examine the procedure employed by the Chief Minister’s Department and theHome Affairs Minister in the period leading up to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police on 12 November 2008. 


  b) Review the manner in which senior officers managed the assembly of key information used in the decision making process that ultimately led to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police.  


c) Investigate whether the procedure for dealing with the suspension was correctly followed at all times including:-


 i. The reason for the immediate suspension of the Chief Officer of  Police 


ii. Whether there were any procedural errors in managing the  suspension process. 


d) The Report should highlight any areas where in the opinion of  the Commissioner sufficient evidence exists that would support, in the  interests of open government a full Committee of Inquiry into the  manner in which the Chief Officer of Police was suspended on 12  November 2008.


Now that is a complete change. The terms of reference have been altered. This has now narrowed down Brian Napiers Remit.  Can it be right that TOR;s are altered after being passed in the States.? Surely any change must be brought back to the house.


The original D has disappeared and been replaced with the original E


But that's not the last of it because we now have the R.39/2010 (re-issue) and guess what! We have a new part inserted. How has a set of TOR been so tampered with? Why have we ended up with this?


Look out now for the magical C (iii)


Do you see how very stupid this is getting. Im led to believe there is an independent person investigating this shambles. Any news I get on that will be shared with my readers. 


We are a Shambles 


Thank the Lord the we have Deputy Bob Hill, Deputy Pitman and Deputy Wimberly.  They have tried their best to get some kind of answers from our ruling elite. I cant thank them enough thats for sure


Now we roll onto the last set R39./2010 (RE-ISSUE)


Why did it go so badly wrong when the TOR's were passed in the States? 


My guess is Bill Ogly - If all was ok we wouldn't have had this mess 




The purpose of the Review is to – 

 

 (a) Examine the procedure employed by the Chief Minister’s Department 

and the Minister for Home Affairs in the period leading up to the 

suspension of the Chief Officer of Police on 12th November 2008. 

 

 (b) Review the manner in which senior officers collated the information 

and presented it to the Minister for Home Affairs that ultimately led to 

the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police. 

 

 (c) Investigate whether the procedure for dealing with the original 

suspension was correctly followed at all times, including – 

 

  (i) The reason for the immediate suspension of the Chief Officer 

of Police. 

 

  (ii) Whether there were any procedural errors in managing the 

suspension process. 

 

  (iii) The recording of material relating to the primary events of the 

suspension process. 

 

 (d) Review all information relating to the original suspension procedure 

including relevant sections of the published Affidavit from the 

suspended Chief Officer of Police. 

 

 (e) The Report should highlight any areas where in the opinion of the 

Commissioner sufficient evidence exists that would support in the 

interests of open government a full Committee of Inquiry into the 

manner in which the Chief Officer of Police was suspended on 

12th November 2008. 

 




Sunday, April 17, 2011

Haut de la Activity Centre



Senator Ozouf






Constable Refault



Haut de la Garenne



Open for Business 



New Name New Make-over 



I've been left totally speechless again by sheer lack of compassion and insensitivity of my Government. 


Is there anybody out there who can defend the Governments Shameful treatment of the Jersey Abuse Survivors. 


Hardly surprising we had Decades upon Decades of Child Abuse. 


No one cared about them then; Our Government doesn't care about them now.


The JCLA are being treated with utter contempt by 


SENATOR PHILIP OZOUF: Assistant Chief Minister; Treasury Minister


CONSTABLE JOHN REFAULT:  (Assistant Treasury Minister) Now in charge of Property Holdings.


Let us start first with Senator Philip Ozouf


On tuesday the 12th May 2009 the Senator informed the JEP after a Council of Ministers Meeting that there were 'considerable sensitivities' about the site. He said that the views of the JCLA would be taken into account while a decision was being made about the sites future. He is quoted as saying " A number of people have shown an interest in it but it is at a very early exploratory stage".  He also states; " There is a great deal of work that needs to be done and obvious sensitivities and there will be discussions with the JCLA and other people who have a legitimate interest in the building"


NO CONSULTATION 


Let us remind ourselves 


We are talking about Haut de la Garenne


The Most Infamous build on Jersey  (states building being not far behind)


Apart from the  happy memories of past residents we cannot and must not forget the many Innocent Childhoods that were destroyed in that place.  Let us remember some of the tragic figures surrounding HdelaG



Of the total of 533 offences, 274 were alleged sexual offences; 238 were offences of assault, ill-treatment or neglect, 17 were offences of Grave and Criminal Assault and there were four other offences. 


315 offences were reported as being committed at Haut de la Garenne; 66 at other homes or institutions and 152 at places where children were fostered or in private addresses. 


43% of all offences allegedly committed at Haut de la Garenne were sexual offences



Really quite staggering is it not that our leaders think that a name change plus a lick of paint makes everything ok. 



Just think about it for a moment. 


Now it's being called; 


"The Jersey Accommodation and Activity Centre"


Do the people who are making the bookings in the UK have any idea where it is they are staying? 


This is what the JCLA said about the announcement 


"There has been no communication from the states of jersey, no discussion, no notification of the impending opening and no opportunity for care leavers to have their say as promised" 


"Whilst we appreciate that HdelaG cannot lie empty in-definately, there were some other extremely good and maybe more apt ideas put forward"


So, what happened? We must now bring in the insensitive Constable of St Peter John Refault. He is now in charge of Property Holdings.


Assistant Treasury Minister Refault is quoted in the JEP on Saturday the 16th of April as saying


"The JCLA had not been spoken to about the decision to re-open HdealG because it was only being used on a temporary basis"


WHAT!!!!!!!


So, in their eyes, its not Extremely Insensitive if its open only on a temporary basis. What kind of logic is being used here


let me explain to you Senator Ozouf and Constable Refault


IT IS EXTREMELY INSENSITIVE IF YOU OPEN THE BUILDING UP FOR A SINGLE DAY WITHOUT CONSULTING WITH THE JCLA.


The Constable says: " These companies are doing a trial year while we decide the long-term outcome"


A YEAR!!!!!!


Not a care in the world about the feeling of the people who lost their Childhood in that place...


Now this last bit is the best. This is the part that sums it all up for me and I will quote the good constable again; "There's no reason why the JCLA cant be involved with deciding the long term future and if they want to contact us, they can. Our door is always open"


WHAT!!!!!!!!!



Victims of Child Abuse have got to go knock on his door and chat about the buildings future? 



Are these politicians in some kind of denial?????



43% of all offences allegedly committed at HdelaG were sexual offences



Nothing but utter Contempt for the victims of Child Abuse in Jersey 



Mr Refault also added; "That the building will still be known as Haut de la Garenne and that there were no plans to change the name".  Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm is that so.  Where does "The Jersey Accommodation and Activity Centre" name come from then or is it that the company didn't want to advertise using the name HAUT DE LA GARENNE? and why wouldn't they want to use that name do you think?



Its linked with Child Abuse.


 You see, it does matter. Now start talking to the people that really count and listen very carefully to what they tell you 


But should we be really surprised by the actions of Senator Ozouf and Constable Refault?



They both Voted against a COMMITTEE OF ENQUIRY



Rico Sorda





Friday, April 15, 2011

SOJP & SUCCESSION PLANNING



STATES OF JERSEY POLICE







Senator Le Marquand





Barry Taylor





GRAHAM POWER









THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE


"SOJP"


SUCCESSION PLANNING



REWRITING HISTORY?




Senator Le Marquand, Deputy Chief Barry Taylor: These two were seriously imbedded in the David Warcup camp. I believe that the history of the SOJP under Graham Power & Lenny Harper is trying to be rewritten . 


I believe this goes with discrediting the Child Abuse Investigation


During  October 2010 the Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub-panel met and one of the the issues that was discussed was Police Training.




Now as the JEP article from the 18th October 2010 says below: 



Police training ‘stagnated’ on promotions

By Diane Simon



Acting police chief Barry Taylor

POLICE officers were denied the right training for seven years to allow them to rise through the ranks to senior positions, a senior police office has said.

Acting deputy police chief Barry Taylor said that there was no managerial training or leadership preparation, which resulted in officers ‘stagnating’ in their rank.

Mr Taylor, who took on the temporary post 18 months ago, told the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny sub-panel on Friday that when he arrived in the Island he found that ‘things had been allowed to stagnate for a while’ in the way of supporting officers through the ranks to more senior positions.

• Read the full report in today’s JEP


Look how the 7yrs is brought up. 


So, what is basically being said is the the SOJP which was a shambles before Graham Power & Lenny Harper turned up (check the HMIC reports) didn't offer the right training to officers, hence we have got to look to the UK.


Does the evidence stack up?


Then who can forget this


Senator ILM comes in with the bullying sketch. I have fully challenged the Senator on this issue with evidenced based facts: HE RAN AWAY FROM ME WHEN CHALLENGED FACE TO FACE


Can you see how the picture is beginning to build


They know they have to employ officers from the UK and this could all stem from the Curtis Warren debacle


So damning was the privy council on the Officers who could have been promoted that there was zero chance of it happening. Now, everyone new it would be the SOJP and not the Law Office that would get the flak. We now hear of early retirements, what better way of diverting the incoming bullets than blaming it on Succession Planning. 


• Read the full report in today’s JEP


Police ‘bullying’ is a thing of the past, says minister

By Diane Simon



Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand

SIGNIFICANT progress has been made during the past two years in changing the culture of bullying and arrogance which affected the States police, says Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand.

And the positive changes have come under the leadership of former acting police chief David Warcup and his deputy, Barry Taylor, said the Senator.

Commenting at the end of the historical child abuse inquiry, Senator Le Marquand said that there had been cultural issues in the force which were exacerbated under the leadership of police chief Graham Power and his deputy, Lenny Harper.

‘I noticed a culture of bullying in certain areas and a culture of arrogance,’ said Senator Le Marquand. ‘The message coming from senior management tended to be “We are the expert professionals and we know better than you”, and that attitude was being passed down the force.’

Article posted on 31st December, 2010 - 2.57pm



You can read the Blog Posting here 


SENATOR LE MARQUAND


What people don't realize is that Graham Power has written a submission to the Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel 


It contains over 10,000 words and challenges what has been put forward from Senator Ian Le Marquand and Barry Taylor


Here are the links: Graham Powers first as his is a submission & then the others as they are transcripts


CLICK ON GRAHAM POWER


REWRITING HISTORY


And now we have this: 



Police announce three senior appointments




THREE new appointments have been announced by States Police with two officers heading to the Island from the UK.

Barry Taylor, who joined the force as Acting Deputy Chief Officer in 2009, has been confirmed in the post of Deputy Chief. Stewart Gull is to become the Superintendent Head of Crime and Bernard Gravett will be Superintendent Head of Operations.

Mr Gull has been an Acting Assistant Chief Constable and was awarded the Queen’s Police Medal in 2009 and is currently a Chief Superintendent with Suffolk Constabulary.

Mr Gravett is a Superintendent in the Metropolitan Police and was the Divisional Commander of Westminster Central with a



There is something not quite right down at the old SOJP at this present time. Sure, there has been  great press about the PR aspect of policing; Police on the beat; Catching the speeders etc etc but what about the real crime? What about say land re-zonning? Fraud? can the Police act? are they allowed to act?


The Jersey police cant charge - The Centenier does that


The Jersey Police rely on the Attorney General for prosecution 


Thats how the Jersey Police get politicized 


Thats how Abuse Cases were dropped


Thats how Stuart Syvret was Raided for Data Protection 


Thats how the JDA2 ended up in the Royal Court with Mega Fines


Thats how Terry Le Main & Sean Power get to Tango with Emma Martins across the Royal Square for Data protection issues


Its all politicized 


What are the Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub- Panel going to be doing about the discrepancies? Is there time before the election?


Please read the Scrutiny Report






Before I sign off My next blog is about this shocker






HAUT de la Garenne is reopening under a different name as an outdoor activity centre and hostel.

The former children’s home has been rebranded as the Jersey Accommodation and Activity Centre and will be run by Jersey Adventures and Jersey Odyssey – two local companies offering land- and sea-based activities from kayaking and coasteering to walking, rock climbing and skydiving.

It is due to receive its first guests on Tuesday 26 April and will offer bed-and-breakfast accommodation to families and groups throughout the year, with optional half-board.



I have no problem with the people from JAAC and believe the place must be used at some time but how insensitive is this, we haven't even had a committee of enquiry yet. No one from the JCLA have been informed about this.


This Government never ceases to amaze when it comes to the feelings of Abuse survivors


Rico Sorda


 


Sunday, April 10, 2011

Showtime with Terry and Ian



YUP   IT'S   "SHOWTIME" AGAIN

THE TERRY & IAN  DEBACLE

PRICELESS - SAY'S DORRIS FROM ST OUEN

SHAMBOLIC - SAY'S BORED HOUSEWIFE IN TRINITY

Can I just remind readers what Deputy Andrew Lewis said when he was the former Home Affairs Minister and the person who suspended Graham Power

ON TUESDAY 2nd DECEMBER 2008

 


I am sure that members will entirely understand that it would be most inappropriate to discuss any of the substantive matters that caused me to suspend the Chief Officer and to initiate the procedure under the Disciplinary Code. I cannot comment on them and I would ask the Assembly not to seek to explore them at this time. At some stage at the end of the process my successor, whoever it will be, will need to make a decision about these substantive matters, and he or she should not be influenced in any way by any views expressed by members of the Assembly. In addition, of course, the Chief Officer cannot comment and has not yet had the full opportunity that the process allows to answer to these matters and to defend himself.  Any debate would thus be unfair to him as the full facts are not yet known.

 




Today im looking at Senator ILM's reply to T. Pitman



Between the Chief Minister & the Home Affairs Minister we have been left with a complete Shambles that is of their own making. 


April 3rd 2010 Graham Power writes to the Chief Minister and asks that his report be released at the same time as Wiltshire. The reason GP knows that ILM is going to have a Kangaroo Court is that he had told listeners on the Sunday talkback show.


"HOW SIMPLE IS THAT"


But our lot cant even get that right



One very simple Question;


In the whole sorry mess of the Suspension Graham Power in what part can we say he has been treated fairly?


But lets just take a little look 


Senator Le Marquands reply is interesting for two reasons, one of which is fairly obvious and one which is less so.   Firstly, he does not appear to acknowledge the stance he took in 2008, namely that it was not appropriate for him to enter into correspondence so as not to prejudice his role under the Disciplinary Code.   Secondly, he seems to hint that although he had determined that he should not "see" Graham Powers correspondence there is a hint that he has seen it nevertheless.   He refers to a lot of correspondence flowing around at the time.   What correspondence were they then? Could it by any chance be letters that he should not be seeing so as not to prejudice himself?  but was he taking a sly look anyway?  In other words, did he respect the rules which he had imposed on the basis that he should not be dealing with Graham Powers correspondence so as not to conflict his role under the Code?   

 

I also  notice that Ian Le Marquand  seems to suggest that the Chief Minister might have let him down over the letter dated April 3rd 2010 in that he should have been shown Graham Powers letter or been made aware of its contents.I totally  see this as a further symptom of the shambolic and uncoordinated way in which Ministers have handled Graham Powers case      

 

 When Graham Power wrote to the Chief Minister on 3rd Aprill 2010 he was entitled to assume that he and his Minister for Home Affairs were speaking to each other.   They have some of the most expensive Civil Servants in the British Isles.   They should be well capable of ensuring that information in a letter to one Minister which is of relevance to another Minister is copied appropriately.   That is basic office management.   If they messed this up then what other basic mistakes are happening which we do not get to hear about and what are the financial and other consequences of these mistakes?   

 

We have an Incompetent, Shambolic, Morally Corrupt Government


In the answers Given by ILM we have this bit;  


"However, I have recently, on 25th March of this year, written again to the former Chief Officer asking him to tell me precisely what it is that he is now asking me to do."


 After hearing about this letter from the States Sitting Graham Power decided to track it down. They had sent it to the wrong address. Yup, cant even get that right. Someone at CLM House needs to update their mailing system.


Here is the Question from Deputy Pitman;


2.10   Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the publication of the response of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police to the Wiltshire Report:

Will the Minister confirm whether he was ever advised by the Chief Minister that the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police had requested on 3rd April 2010 that his response to the Wiltshire Report should be published?

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

I have checked my own files and incoming emails, and the Chief Minister’s Department has done the same, and I am confident that I had not seen this letter before a copy was provided to me on 25th March of this year.  Furthermore, I was surprised by the contents of the letter when I saw it, and although I believed that I may have had some conversation with the Chief Minister about a representation having been made to him by the former Chief Officer at about that time, I am confident that the relevant sentence was not mentioned to me.  However, on 2nd August 2010 in the last paragraph of my letter to the former Chief Officer’s representative, the former Constable of Gloucestershire, I wrote: “My position is that the statements of witnesses will not generally be going into the public domain but if [and then I name the former Chief Officer] were to ask me to put redacted versions of his statements into the public domain, then I may well agree to this.  I would be grateful to you if you could discuss this point with him.”  I received a reply to that letter dated 15th August 2010, the relevant paragraph of which starts: “Concerning your last paragraph and your proposed position, if [and then the name of the individual former officer ] has a view, he will make it known to you.”  So I myself raised this very same issue in August but never received any response in relation to my inquiry.  However, I have recently, on 25th March of this year, written again to the former Chief Officer asking him to tell me precisely what it is that he is now asking me to do.

2.10.1         Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Supplementary, Sir.  I thank the Minister for his answer.  However, if we can stick with 3rd April, given that Mr. Power could not ask the Minister for Home Affairs direct due to the Minister’s stated wish to remain independent, is it not reasonable to think that any request or suggestion about publication of his defence made to the Chief Minister would have been passed on as a matter of course and, with due respect, does the Minister not concede that this really is not acceptable or fair to Mr. Power?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I do have to agree that the … well he has just been named …

The Bailiff:

The former Chief Officer is how he should be referred to.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I do not agree that the former Chief Officer could not have written to me directly about this matter.  There was quite a lot of correspondence floating around at that time in relation to other matters and I have also looked at that to make sure it was not raised in those, which it was not.  However, I would have expected the Chief Minister to have passed on to me any representations, which were being made to him, which clearly were matters which I should consider.

2.10.2         The Deputy of St. Martin:

Will the Minister not accept that it might have been wiser and fairer all round that before he initially published the redacted version way back last July that he had contacted the Chef de Police or the suspended police officer informing him of his actions so that there could have been a joint publication of the Chief Officer’s redacted version and also the Minister for Home Affairs’?  So in other words, they could have gone out in tandem rather than one side of the argument put forward without the other side having the opportunity to put their case forward.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

No, I do not agree with that.  Ironically, I was not aware until this letter was sent to me recently that the former Chief Officer was aware of my intentions as early as April 2010.  He therefore had ample opportunities to contact me directly to make requests in relation to this.  I took the view that because this was an independent report, which had given full weight to what had been said by the former Chief Officer and which at times indeed quoted what he was saying, that it was perfectly reasonable that this go out in the way that it did.  Subsequently when representations were made to me in this Assembly I wrote, as I have indicated, in August 2010 to ask the former Chief Officer what he wanted me to do and he never told me and he still has not told me to this day.

2.10.3         The Deputy of St. Martin:

Can I have a supplementary?  I think that the Minister is forgetting that the suspension was a neutral act so therefore the Minister still had a responsibility for the former Chief Officer who had retired at the end of June so, by mentioning it in August, the suspended Chief Officer was no longer a police officer.  Does he not accept that his actions were incorrect?  He should have informed the Chief Officer before the publication of the redacted form of the complaint so the Chief Officer could have put his side of the story along with the Minister’s.  By saying it was done in August, it was too late because the Chief Minister had retired.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

But we now know that he knew what I was proposing to do as early as April 2010.  I also further made my intentions clear in this Assembly at a date I believe in late June or early July as to what I was about to do.  There was no matter of surprise here as indeed the letter of April indicates most clearly.

2.10.4         Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I would and I hope this is not too wide of the mark.  I am sure you will cut me off at the knees if I have strayed too far.  But given that in a sadly related case yesterday in the court an individual who was instrumental in setting up a blog side to rubbish the former Chief Officer of Police was fined just £400 for making death threats on the grounds that they believed that it was a first offence, an out of character offence - when the Data Protection Commissioner has, I am made aware, a file the size of the telephone directory on this individual’s actions - is the Minister at all worried about public concern that within this case of the suspension, Haut de la Garenne, that justice is not operating as consistently as we would all wish?

[10:45]

The Bailiff:

I have to say Deputy that is a long way off the original question.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

It was worth a try, Sir.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am afraid that I was not going to be able to be very helpful here because I am completely unaware of the particular case to which the Deputy is referring.

The Bailiff:

Very well, we will leave that one for another time.