STATES OF JERSEY POLICE
Matt Tapp 4
In Matt Tapp 3 we have seen how Judge Pitchers used Tapps Report in the pre-trial of Donelly - Wateridge and Aubin.
We also know that it was DCO David Warcup who brought Matt Tapp to the Island in September 2008
Tapps report was disclosed to the Defence council
Just how credible is Matt Tapps report?
After what came out in the Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panels BDO review I have some serious doubts.
What I will be showing in my next postings is how the Jersey Evening Post jumped all over the comments made by Pitchers. These are the same lurid headlines they used when talking about Lenny Harpers expenses. You will be shocked at what happened. Just like the BDO Review it went under the radar.
Is anything done under Warcup & Gradwell credible.
Now back to Matt Tapp.
I refer to a question as by the former Deputy of St Mary:
.35 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE AUTHOR OF A REPORT ADVISING THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE ON MEDIA-RELATED MATTERS:
In his reply to a written question from the Deputy of St. Martin on 23rd March 2010, the Minister referred to the lengthy quotation which forms part of the judgement in the matter of the Attorney General v. Aubin and others  J.R.C. 035A. in the following terms “The quotation above which is attributed to an outside expert is a quotation from the report of an independent media expert who was called in to advise the States of Jersey Police on media related matters.” Would the Minister inform members who called for this report, when and why, who conducted it, how were those who undertook the review were selected and what their qualifications were? Will the Minister release the report to members as it has already been used in a public court judgement?
In September 2008 an external media consultant, experienced in working at ACPO level in the UK, was formally engaged by the then Deputy Chief of Police with the knowledge of the Chief Officer of Police to develop an appropriate external communication strategy regarding Operation Rectangle. This was primarily to ensure:
- That trials and ongoing investigations were not compromised or challenged on the grounds of an abuse of process, based on the information supplied to the media by the States of Jersey Police.
- That the public were presented with accurate facts.
The external media consultant gave advice on these matters and subsequently resigned from his role. He then produced a written report in relation to his advice. Other issues relating to the report fall both within the ambit of the enquiry being conducted by the Commissioner (Brian Napier.) and the terms of the first Wiltshire Police Report and it is not appropriate for me to express an opinion thereon at this stage.
I will need to take advice as to whether I can properly release this report to Members at this time or at a time in the future and in what form. My position remains that I am keen to release as much information as possible to Members of the States and as soon as possible.
Why did Matt Tapp resign from his role?
Who was overseeing the work of Matt Tapp?
When did Matt Tapp Resign?
When did Matt Tapp submit his report?
Who did he submit it to?
How much was Matt Tapp paid?
Why wasn't it released alongside Wiltshire & the BDO ALTO report
How did this Report end up with the Defence council and then quoted as Gospel by Judge Pitchers?
How credible was it and who has seen it.
We must never stop asking the questions. Im following my instinct on this one for the simple reason it doesn't look right. Something stinks. Was it the same procedure they repeated in 2009 with the BDO Review when outside police consultant Mike Kellett was under the wing of D/Supt Mick Gradwell.
This will develop but I can only do it in stages.
This is what Judge Pitchers quoted during the pre-trial;
The legitimate criticisms of him and the potential damage that he did to any inquiry or Court proceedings are best expressed not by me setting out my opinion but by the professional judgment of an outside expert who reviewed this aspect of the case in November 2008. That report has been disclosed to the defence in the course of these proceedings and I quote from its conclusion:-
“From the outset statements released to the media suggested with the language of certainty that crimes had been committed and that there were many victims. For legal reasons, and in order to manage media coverage and public expectation, more temperate and non-judgmental language would have been more appropriate. Statements made in relation to the item recovered on February 23rd [JAR6] were not accurate and incited an enormous media coverage which at times was hysterical and sensational and was in turn equally inaccurate and misleading. The description of cellars, the voids under the flooring, was inaccurate and allowed the media to create a false impression in the public mindset. The description of an item recovered from Haut de la Garenne as “shackles” was not accurate. The language used to describe the bath could have been more accurate. The decision to display to the media a tooth recovered from Haut de la Garenne was highly unusual. The approach taken by the States of Jersey Police to releasing information about the teeth found was unusual, not consistent with normal working practice in the UK and encouraged further media reporting and speculation. Given the lack of evidence collated to prove that a child’s remains had been found at Haut de la Garenne, the statements made by States of Jersey Police could have been more accurately phrased and could have generated more measured and less prominent media coverage. The statement made by the States of Jersey Police regarding the two pits excavated at Haut de la Garenne was inappropriate. The nature and quantity of much of the media coverage was generated and sustained by the Police’s deliberate decision to provide a regular diet of information to the media. Some, but by no means all, the inaccurate media coverage published was challenged by the Force on a number of occasions the Deputy Chief Officer placed information and allegations into the public domain or responded to issues and allegations in the media which distracted attention from the child abuse investigation and this may have tarnished the reputation of the Force and weakened public confidence in the investigation and its professionalism.”