Thursday, February 2, 2012

MATT TAPP FILES - 10 - CONFLICT OF INTEREST




MATT TAPP-10





'THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST'





Former Health Minister Stuart Syvret responds









*********************************************************************************





FORMER CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE STATES OF JERSEY - BILL OGLEY






FORMER CHIEF MINISTER - FRANK WALKER





The actions of these two men have to be seriously looked at. What has come out since looking at the role of Media Consultant Matt Tapp is shocking.





OPERATION RECTANGLE WAS AN INVESTIGATION INTO CHILD ABUSE - THIS CHILD ABUSE HAPPENED TO CHILDREN WHISLT IN THE CARE OF THE STATES OF JERSEY.




THE WHOLE OF THE JERSEY CHILD PROTECTION APPARATUS WAS IN THE SPOTLIGHT - THIS WAS ALSO HIGHLIGHTED IN 2007 WHEN THE THE THEN FORMER SENATOR/HEALTH MINISTER STUART SYVRET SAID WE HAD FAILURES IN CHILD PROTECTION.




We all know what happened - Frank Walker had the Health Minister removed - The 'CEO' Bill Ogley was also involved - as highlighted by Graham Power in his Sworn Affidavit.




And they weren't finished there



I believe it is a must for any researcher on these issues to read the Brian Napier QC Report into the procedures and events leading up to the suspension of the former Chief of Police Graham Power. One of the big shames concerning the Napier Report is that we only received it after its 3rd draft. The first couple having been nailed by the Law Office




What is the 'CEO' & Chief Minister doing getting involved in Policing Matters regarding OPERATION RECTANGLE?




SURELY THAT IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONFLICTS OF INTEREST YOU CAN GET




When they went behind the back of Chief Police Graham Power on October 8th 2008 they crossed straight into policing matters.



Matt Tapp wrote a Report for the SOJ. In producing his report Matt Tapp had full access to witness statements - I REPEAT - he had full access to witness statements.




The 'SOJ' were now commissioning reports to discredit an investigation into the 'SOJ'




Has this ever happened before? Could this ever happen in the UK?




This is what the Home Affairs Minister said in the States on Tuesday. To be honest Im not sure if Brian Napier really appreciated what was going on here. One of his TOR's got changed without anyone being told;


0:01 ILM: Sir, I will assume that the question relates to Mr Tapp, that ties in with the question of Deputy Higgins, who was a specialist media consultant, who was appointed by Mr Warcup, in order to advise the States of Jersey Police on knee jerk related issues Following a disagreement with Mr Power as to the correct way forward, he resigned. He was then asked by the chief executive Mr Ogley , with the consent of the chief minister at the time, knowledge and consent of the chief minister at the time, Mr Walker, to produce a report, which he did. That report was not available until after the original suspension. The involvement of Mr Ogley in this and Mr Walker and Mr Tapps involvement is all covered at some length in the Napier Report , and Mr Napier does not express any concerns in relation to the part which Mr Tapp played or indeed Mr Ogley in this way, and I’m frankly puzzled as to why there is now excitement about Mr Tapp’s role when this has been in the public domain for quite a long time



I would like to thank Stuart Syvret for this response. Now is the time to look at the legal issues concerning the suspension of Graham Power and the Cover-up of Operation Rectangle.


Rico Sorda


Team Voice






I have been asked by Mr. Sorda for my views on certain aspects of the scandal concerning the unlawful suspension of the Police Chief Graham Power, Queens Police Medal.



Of the questions that have arisen, it seems to me there are two particularly pressing matters:




1: The then Chief Minister Frank Walker and Chief Executive Bill Ogley had been actively working for a period of some months on contriving a set of circumstances by which they could suspend the Police Chief, and behind which they could hide their real motivations. Was it lawful at all – was it even legal in the criminal sense – for either man to have been involved – in any way – in any kind of actions designed to obstruct, handicap, damage or remove the Police Chief?


2: Although he himself has issued directly contradictory statements, and thus has zero credibility as a witness, the then Hone Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis has claimed to have had no concerns about the performance of Police Chief Power and oversight of Operation Rectangle, until he received the letter from Deputy Chief David Warcup which, supposedly, contained such damning criticisms that Lewis “had no choice”, he claims, “other than to suspend the Police Chief immediately”. Thus the question arises, in general terms, as a Minister, what would have been the correct and lawful response upon receiving a letter of the alleged seriousness of the Warcup communication? Both of those questions are, in essence, legal questions. And that is an advantage to those trying to understand the matter because – strange though it may seem – “legal” questions are capable of a more robust analyses and answering than mere “political” assertions. Political opinions and claims can be – and frequently are – whatever people wish to claim for them. Legal questions - on the other hand – are often capable of objective answer, albeit those answers must be plucked from amongst a nest of vipers. So to get to the heart of the matter and try and understand the two questions above, we can first set aside all political considerations. Simply forget the political opinions of Walker & Lewis – forget whether they were good or bad politicians – forget whether Ogley was an incompetent civil servant. The questions we are addressing here are far simpler:


Were the actions of those three individuals lawful? Were they legal?


And I ask those two questions because there is a difference – an important difference – between some actions being “unlawful” – and an action being “illegal” in the sense of it being a criminal act.


It is possible for an action to be unlawful – to be ‘ultra vires’ or outside the law – in the civil sense, without it necessarily being criminal. For example, a public authority might cause some injury to a person through negligence. Causing that harm through negligence is an unlawful act in the civil legal sense and the authority becomes liable for the harm done via a civil legal claim. If, though, some authority or person acts in ways calculated to cause harm – or acts in ways, say, calculated to conceal crimes, or to thwart criminal investigations, or conspire to pervert the processes of justice – then those are – unambiguously – criminal acts. Those committing such criminal acts should be charged and prosecuted.


The questions we must address are, therefore, fourfold;


1: Did the Chief Minister, Chief Executive and Home Affairs Minster act unlawfully in respect of their involvement and actions, concerning the suspension of the Police Chief?


2: If they did act unlawfully, were their actions only ultra vires in the civil sense?



3: If they acted unlawfully, did those actions transcend the merely civil ultra vires – and instead enter the realm of the plainly criminal?


4: If unlawful acts occurred – either civil – or criminal – where does responsibility lie?



All three individuals – Walker, Ogley and Lewis – had, at all relevant times, the legal status of ‘public authorities’. It is important to understand that; it is important to de-personalise, when appropriate, the analyses. Just think of them as public authorities ‘A’, ’B’ and ‘C’


Public authorities – just like private individuals or companies – are bound by the law. Public authorities – in addition to the standard laws - are bound by a specific area of law, known as ‘administrative law’. There is a huge body of UK case-law – much of it established via judicial review – that has defined the standards and parameters of what is – or is not – ‘lawful conduct’ by public authorities. So the legal tests we need to apply to the Jersey situation are not hypothetical. We can look to solidly established principles, and ask, ‘does the conduct of Jersey’s public authorities fall within, or without, the definition of ‘lawful conduct’ as established in the case-law?’ Here are just a few established grounds upon which the actions of a public authority become unlawful under ‘administrative law’:    


“Misuse of powers granted in law”, for other purposes – purposes not conferred by the ‘legislative purpose’ of the law.


“Insufficient inquiry”, a public authority making decisions and taking action without having first investigated and considered the relevant facts.


“inconsistency” – applying different standards and parameters to different decisions.


“Structural unfairness” – a public authority using a decision-making methodology that is substantially unfair.


“Relevancy / irrelevancy” – a public authority taking into account ‘irrelevant’ information – or failing to take into account ‘relevant’ information – when making a decision.


“Human rights compliance” – all decisions must comply with human rights legislation.


“Bad faith / improper motives” – a public authority must not exercise powers for improper purposes.


“Bias” – any exercise of the official powers and functions of a public authority must be objective – and free from any contaminating factor.



If any of the above factors are evident in respect of particular decisions and actions taken by a public authority – such as a Minister or a Chief Executive – then those decisions and actions are unlawful.


They are unlawful in terms of being not compatible with the standards of “administrative law”.


Further – if such unlawful actions have caused actual prejudicial impacts upon people – then in addition to administrative unlawfulness of the kind that may be established through judicial review – the legal avenue of ‘tort’ opens up; that is, those harmed by decisions and actions that have been, in some way, unlawful, have the possibility to bring a claim for damages. So, having established how the question of civil ultra vires might apply to the conduct of public authorities – let us return to the two primary questions – namely, was it lawful for Walker & Ogley – as public authorities – to be involved at all – in any way – with the actions against Graham Power – and did Lewis act lawfully when deciding to suspend the Police Chief?


The answer to those two questions is “no”.


It isn’t even ambiguous.


Consider one of the established grounds upon which a public authority will be found to have acted unlawfully: “bias”. Here is what the Judicial Review Handbook says:


“A body must not have a direct interest in the outcome of a decision, or show actual bias or a real possibility of bias.”


What that means is that a public authority – a Minister for example, or a Chief Executive – must not be biased – by having a direct interest in the outcome of its decisions – nor can it be contaminated by even the risk of bias.  So – the Police Chief was Graham Power – and under his leadership, the States of Jersey Police Force was investigating a wide range of serious criminal complaints - including complaints against the States of Jersey. Indeed – The Jersey Police Force under the leadership of Police Chief Graham Power was investigating a number of serious criminal complaints - including, specifically against the Council of Ministers – and against various senior civil servants. For example, complaints of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and of obstructing the lawful discharge of the Children (Jersey) Law.


Amongst the various signed statements of criminal complaint provided to the Police are statements concerning corruption, conspiracy and misconduct in a public office, provided by me, in both March and April of 2008 – in which people like Ogley and senior and immediate colleagues of him, were named. Therefore the ‘public authorities’ of Chief Minister, Chief Executive and Home Affairs Minister all had a direct “interest” in the decisions they were making – an “interest” most strongly biased towards seeing the Chief Officer of the Jersey Police Force undermined, obstructed, thwarted and removed from post – and some other individual – more compliant to those direct “interests” of theirs – put in his place.


The Public authority of Chief Minster – and the public authority of the Chief Executive had both played a direct, overt and plainly unlawful role in sabotaging the proper discharge of the Children (Jersey) law.


And let there be no illusions about just how direct – and profound – a conflict of interest we are speaking of. For in July 2007, Bill Ogley actually led a meeting of senior civil servants , at which they were conspiring to unlawfully sabotage and engineer the removal of a Social Services Minister, because that Minister was exposing the many gross failings of those senior civil servants responsible for Jersey’s child “protection” system.


We know that for a fact – because Graham Power was present at that meeting – and an attempt was made to co-opt him into the corruption, and to garner his support for it.


Shocked – he utterly rejected the idea – left the meeting, and made a formal file-note about it upon his arrival back at Police Headquarters. I published that entire file-note by Graham Power, on my blog on the 23rd December 2009. Here is an excerpt from it:

“Bill Ogley and the others were persistent and I was left with the clear impression that they were attempting to draw me, in my capacity as Chief of Police, into a civil service led attempt to remove a Minister from Office.”


To be clear – it was – and is – simply unlawful for ether the Chief Minster – or the Chief Executive - to have been involved in any way, shape or form – in any kind of obstructions, harassments, interference and suspension of Graham Power.


Any involvement at all, on the part of the public authority under criminal investigation, in any interference with the Police Chief – is a manifestly unlawful act.


And to concluded, let’s just consider that question in respect of the actions of the Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis. He claims to have received a letter from David Warcup – a letter that was so damming – so extraordinary – it merited the immediate suspension of the Police Chief. Even setting aside other factors, and just looking at that action as a stand-alone decision – was it a ‘lawful’ decision by the Minister as a public authority? Remember that a public authority, when making a decision – is legally obliged to undertake “sufficient inquiry” – to have investigated the facts properly, and to have taken into account the relevant information.


What – we must speculate – can have been in David Warcup’s letter to Lewis that was so horrifyingly damning, that it merited a decision of such far-reaching consequence and gravity, as the suspension of the Police Chief? Certainly, we can tell – from case-law – what it cannot have been, if the decision by Lewis was even vaguely lawful. The Warcup letter could not be un-evidenced assertions – it could not depict in grossly exaggerated ways, minor technical issues as though they were disastrous failings – it could not misrepresent other reports and information – it will have had to be complete in terms of including all relevant supporting material – it will not have been structured in such a way as to calculatedly mislead – and it will have had to have taken into account the unique challenges and operational issues arising from police investigations in a small, self-governing island like Jersey when large parts of the public administration was itself under suspicion and investigation.


If, in fact, it turns out that the David Warcup letter failed any of those tests – then the decision by the Home Affairs Minister – was an unlawful decision. And most certainly – any Minister receiving a letter recommending a course of action of such magnitude, must exercise the obvious standards of good administration and due process before acting upon it. It is – for example – virtually wholly unthinkable that a decision would be taken to suspend a Police Chief without having first received his response to the letter.

For example – it is entirely feasible that any competent and honest Home Affairs Minister – who properly considered all relevant facts, including the Chief Officer’s response – would have to have suspended David Warcup. It may be that that would have been the proper and lawful decision – and the correct decision for this community and the public good.



So – what of that final question – “did the actions of the relevant Jersey public authorities and the individuals involved go beyond the merely ultra vires in the civil sense – and instead enter the realm of the actively criminal?”


I think we can leave readers to come to their own conclusion in respect of that question.



Stuart Syvret.










45 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm glad I can't be legally dismissed from my job by an underling who writes an unevidenced letter containing nasty allegations, so he can take my job. I'm also glad that if such a jerk attempts such a thing, and if the international media run with it, I can force him to reveal his sources. But I'm not in Jersey.

Anonymous said...

And how many Suspension Reviews did Le Marquand Head , 2 or was it 3 ?
I read the transcripts at the time - they were toe curling, and it looked as though the UK police rep thought so too.
And that was without knowing what we know now.

Can anyone nail these jellies to the wall* ?
You guys have made a great start -*apparently putting them in a freezer works.

Anonymous said...

Why do you say Frank Walker had Syvret removed from HSS when it’s recorded for all to see that the Assembly voted 35-15 in favour of having him removed from the post in 2007 for his behaviour? Are you incapable of writing a wholly truthful post anymore?

rico sorda said...

Because of the way the States Chamber operates all Frank had to do was bring it. The groupthink feudalists did the rest.

The States Chamber is a lost cause. Everything will be passed that needs be.

rs

Zoompad said...

"Why do you say Frank Walker had Syvret removed from HSS when it’s recorded for all to see that the Assembly voted 35-15 in favour of having him removed from the post in 2007 for his behaviour? Are you incapable of writing a wholly truthful post anymore? "

Is the anonymous coward who wrote this post the same one I have had to spend hours listening to waffling and bumbling on in order to write a transcript of Tuesdays Senate sitting?

Zoompad said...

"Has this ever happened before? Could this ever happen in the UK?"

Yes. I have only just obtained a copy of the Pindown Enquiry, and certain people have moved heaven and earth to cover all that up and stamp all over the victims, and I am living proof of that.

Why do you think I am so furiously wanting to do my bit to make sure they don't do the same to the Jersey Pindown victims as they have done to the Stafford ones?

They have smashed up my life.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico/Stuart.

Hopefully readers will learn from this posting that all the questions and answers lie in the Law Offices and in particular the man with many hats the Attorney General.

Politicians are mere window dressing, the power in this island is in the hands of the Law Offices and the State Media.

Anonymous said...

Anon writes:
'Why do you say Frank Walker had Syvret removed from HSS when it’s recorded for all to see that the Assembly voted 35-15 in favour of having him removed from the post in 2007 ...'
What Anon fails to understand is that the assembly votes had been influenced by the lobbying undertaken by the head of the civil service prior to that vote.
As Mr Syvret states: 'For in July 2007, Bill Ogley actually led a meeting of senior civil servants , at which they were conspiring to unlawfully sabotage and engineer the removal of a Social Services Minister, because that Minister was exposing the many gross failings of those senior civil servants responsible for Jersey’s child “protection” system. '
The outcome of the vote is not the issue here. It is the politicised actions of the chief executive which are of fundamental importance.

Anonymous said...

If, in fact, it turns out that the David Warcup letter failed any of those tests – then the decision by the Home Affairs Minister – was an unlawful decision.

The Warcup letter is now one of the biggest issues surrounding Mr Powers suspension. The Home Affairs Minister must now release it and shut you bloggers up.

Anonymous said...

The draft press release was in existence in October 2008 when the AG advised that it should not be shown to either Graham Power or Wendy Kinnard. It would be interesting to know who drafted it and on what date and who else was involved in its creation. Was the press release seen by Graham Power in November 2008 a spoof one specifically for his eyes while the real one (described as sexed up) was already in existence long before November?

Zoompad said...

"The Warcup letter is now one of the biggest issues surrounding Mr Powers suspension. The Home Affairs Minister must now release it and shut you bloggers up."

What, you mean by getting Warcup to write another one? None of the usual tricks are going to work any more, so Phil and his pals might as well throw the Rodger the Dodger made up law book in the bin, and prepare for just punishment. There will be an end to all this nonsense, because most people in Jersey, as everywhere else, are't child abusing criminals and spivs at all, and listening to the radio Jersey senate to do these transcripts is making me realise that Stuart Syvret was not the only honest and decent person in that place. All they have achieved in plotting and getting rid of him is to highlight and expose the criminal element of the place. They have misled the Senate time and time again, you can see what they have done now.

I bet thats what they are up to right now, trying to compose another Warcup letter.

Anonymous said...

“Matt Tapp wrote a Report for the SOJ. In producing his report Matt Tapp had full access to witness statements - I REPEAT - he had full access to witness statements”

Rico, is this true? If so, I am deeply concerned about this! Giving my statement to the police was one of the hardest things that I have ever had to do. Reliving ten years of physical and sexual abuse to complete strangers albeit they were police officers was very difficult and “glossing” over certain experiences was not enough, I had to go into explicit detail of the vilest and most disgusting memories that I have had to live with all of my life. To feel disparaged is an understatement; I would not even let my partner read my statement, it makes me feel ashamed that I allowed these things to happen to me even though I was just a child, this is not something you would want to share with other people, it is my dark secret. I gave my statement in the knowledge that it would only be used as part of a police investigation, to be read only by those that were involved in the criminal investigation whether it is the police, Lawyers or the Judiciary involved in the HCAE. To live with my memories is bad enough, but knowing other people out there have read my statement that were not connected and who had access to these statements for financial gain as an outside media consultant is deplorable. This man had no right reading my statement, I did not give him permission to read my statement and furthermore, I did not give the police my permission to allow any outside third party to read my statement. It begs the question, just who else has read these statements!!

One observation, if, as you have stated Matt Tapp had full access to witness statements, there were I believe a total of 1776 statements given in total. If he had even read and digested say just one third of these statements, than his reported fee of just under £3,000 is a complete and utter LIE. No one, not even the most intelligent of people can carry out that sort of intense work and then produce a comprehensive report for such a small fee!!

Zoompad said...

"This man had no right reading my statement, I did not give him permission to read my statement and furthermore, I did not give the police my permission to allow any outside third party to read my statement. It begs the question, just who else has read these statements!!"

This needs bringing up at thge next question time, as this is a much more serious data protection offence than the one which saw Stuart Syvret recently jailed for!

Anonymous said...

“Matt Tapp wrote a Report for the SOJ. In producing his report Matt Tapp had full access to witness statements - I REPEAT - he had full access to witness statements

If its true and tapp confirms it then its a terrible thought. What were the exescutive and police thinking.

Anonymous said...

What were the executive ans Police thinking?

Not thinking, doing as they were told by politians it would appear.

Anonymous said...

To be clear – it was – and is – simply unlawful for ether the Chief Minster – or the Chief Executive - to have been involved in any way, shape or form – in any kind of obstructions, harassments, interference and suspension of Graham Power.

That is why this needs to go further a field. Look how the Assistant Chief Minister is running the show he is even more conflicted than BO & FW..

Anonymous said...

When you read what Stuart says and put it with Graham powers take on it uou just have to sit back open mouthed and ask WTF is goin on here

"The Chief Officer of the Islands Police is not an employee of the States. He is in the words of the Islands Attorney General an "Officer of the Crown" who is sworn by the Royal Court to "Serve the Queen." The means by which the postholder can be suspended or removed are prescribed by law. It is not an employment process but a legal process which is subject to review by the Courts. The legal and constitutional implications of such an act are significant. If such a process was implemented or supported on the basis of evidence which was fabricated, amended, mis-represented or falsified in any way, or if any relevant evidence was wilfully destroyed, that would be a grave matter and ought to have signficant implications for those involved"

The letter Warcup sent on th 10th must be one of the most amazing letters ever sent in jersey. It managed to get a Chief of Police, his boss, suspended. It must be packed with so much hard evidence that they dare not let the chief see it on the 10th or ever in case he fainted.

Anonymous said...

By Diane Simon Friday 3rd February 2012

Bid to Publish report into handling of Media

The Chief Miniter is to take steps to try to publish a report by a UK media consultant on the police's handling of the media during the historical child abuse inquiry.

Senator Ian Gorst was asked in the States this week by Deputy Mike Higgins to explain the role of company Matt Tapp Associates in the suspension of the former Police Chief Graham Power.
A UK communicarions consultant, Mr Tapp assisted the Soham murder inquiry team during the major investigation.

Retired

He was taken on by the States of Jersey Police and the States on a short contract in October 2008, three months after deputy police chief Lenny Harper, who was the senior investigating officer on the inquiry, had retired. The Chief Minister told Deputy Higgins that Mr Tapp had been commissioned in October 2008 by the then States Chief executive, Bill Ogley, to carry out a report on the handling by the police of the media during the excavation of Haut de la Garenne between February and October 2008.
Deputy Higgins had asked whether Mr Tapp had been employed on a formal contract and the minister replied that he had not.
During the discussions involving a number of States Members, the suggestion was made that information in his report had been used partly to justify Mr Powers suspension.
However, the Chief Minister said that he could not see how that could have happened because Mr Ogley had not received Mr Tapps report until 23 November 2008, which was after the suspension had taken place on 12 November

Publish

Following further questions from Deputies Trevor Pitman, Shona Pitman, Montfort Tadier and Mike Higgins, Senator Gorst that he would contact Matt Tapp Associates to find out whether it would be possible to publish the report in redacted form.
Mr Gorst told the JEP that he would like to publish this report which was commissioned and bring it out into the open.
''There isn't anything in it that would not help or be useful for the public debate', he said

Anonymous said...

Who was it that said put up or shut up? Whoever it was, ILM ought to follow that advice, if he wants to end the constant questions which he often skilfully deals with as any good advocate would be expected to do )only his role is as Home Affairs Minister), then release the letter that was behind the suspension of GP, simple really, even redact if if other names are included.

rico sorda said...

This is the part that worried me about what Tapp said;

Four days in situ in Jersey, with access provided to all media coverage generated to date, all external communications strategies produced in relation to the investigation, and a detailed briefing of the investigation to date, including the substance of Key witness statements.

Only the SOJP can confirm if he had access to them.

Anonymous said...

Some great comments are being posted here. There are almost too many examples of wrongdoing being uncovered or pointed out to keep up with them all. This is what the internet can do for the world. It levels the information playing field, and empowers most the people with a true story to tell. In time, the most ignorant people will be those who limit themselves to being fed by State Media. Those loyal to the Feudalists are becoming more stupid by the day They know even less than the ones who read or listen to nothing at all.

Anonymous said...

All Jersey abuse survivors should be in contact with their legal advisors about Matt Tapp's (SOJ) misuse of their statements.

Chelloise

Anonymous said...

Am getting confused again.
Who amongst the political Hierarchy is allowed to suspend or sack the police chief. From what i have read,i got the impression that it is the Chief Minister.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"The letter Warcup sent on th 10th must be one of the most amazing letters ever sent in jersey. It managed to get a Chief of Police, his boss, suspended. It must be packed with so much hard evidence that they dare not let the chief see it on the 10th or ever in case he fainted."

That is absolutely correct.

Indeed - it seems unlikely that the letter in question will ever reach the public domain. It must contain credible and evidenced allegations of such a dramatic and extreme nature that it would be very heavily 'classified' - at security services level.

To have suspended a Police Chief - without following due process - without allowing him any opportunity to defend himself - and with the suspending authority, the Minister, to have only had the allegations drawn to his attention 12 hours before the act - the letter must have been apocalyptic.

Who knows? Perhaps if it ever were to become public - we would have our illusions shattered? Perhaps there was credible evidence of something extreme - such as Mr. Power being secretly in league with an international cocaine smuggling syndicate?

That's a serious speculation. Really - for Jersey's public authorities to have acted as they did - for the extraordinary actions to be "proportionate" - the Warcup letter will have had to contain something of that nature.

Stuart

Zoompad said...

For goodness sake, don't put any more ideas into the Senate spivs heads, or else before we know it a letter will appear all freshly inked and false franked, showing Mr Power to be the head of an international cocaine ring!

Anonymous said...

No need to speculate what was in Warcups letter for the details are given in...........
here

Anonymous said...

“Misuse of powers granted in law”, for other purposes – purposes not conferred by the ‘legislative purpose’ of the law.



“Insufficient inquiry”, a public authority making decisions and taking action without having first investigated and considered the relevant facts.


“inconsistency” – applying different standards and parameters to different decisions.


“Structural unfairness” – a public authority using a decision-making methodology that is substantially unfair.


“Relevancy / irrelevancy” – a public authority taking into account ‘irrelevant’ information – or failing to take into account ‘relevant’ information – when making a decision.


“Human rights compliance” – all decisions must comply with human rights legislation.


“Bad faith / improper motives” – a public authority must not exercise powers for improper purposes.


“Bias” – any exercise of the official powers and functions of a public authority must be objective – and free from any contaminating factor

The Jersey Executive failed all the above mentioned and your government allowed it to happen.

Anonymous said...

Graham Power;


I have been asked to clarify to what extent an external media consultant would have access to confidential police reports and similar issues when conducting work on behalf of a Police Force. There may be formal guidelines on this issue but if there are I do not have access to them now. I can only answer from experience. To the best of my knowledge any external consultant undertaking such a role within a Police Force would be subjected to some degree of vetting and background checks. His or her engagement would also be subject to some form of agreement that what was learned within the Force could only be used for police purposes. It would therefore be a breach of the normal rules governing such working relationships for a consultant to gain access to confidential information while working for the Police and then to use that information while working either independently or on behalf of another client.

Your correspondent has therefore hit upon a key issue in relation to the report compiled by Mr Matt Tapp which has been hitherto described as one which was commissioned on behalf of the Force but which, after examination of the "small print" of the information available, appears to be a report commissioned by the Chief Minister and Chief Executive of the States of Jersey. On the information available (and I accept that I might not have access to all of the information) it appears that the use of information gained by Mr Tapp in his capacity as a consultant to the Force, for purposes associated with his apparent engagement by the Jersey Government is a disturbing development and is one which raises a number of issues not the least of which could be the legality of the use of confidential data for such a purpose. To those concerns I would also add one of my own which relates to the apparent blurring of identity and control between the Islands Police Force and the Islands Government at a time when the Force was investigating serious cases of Child Abuse allegedly committed in institutions run by the same Government, by representatives of the same Government, and allegedly covered-up by persons in positions of authority within that Government.

I hope that this response, admittedly based on what may be an incomplete picture of events, is helpful in replying to your correspondent

Anonymous said...

Graham Power's last comment explaining various aspects of the Tapp issue is extremely important.
The lawfulness of the whole set of circumstances surrounding GP's actual suspension, the events that led up to it and the events that followed must appear to anyone with an ounce of intelligence dubious at the very least and should be tested severely. The COI must take place and it's terms of reference must allow for this.
Put in plain terms, the situation re Tapp seems clear. He was engaged boy Warcup, with Gradwell, to advise on media strategy. GP saw this advice and, as Chief Officer, disagreed with it. As CO it was well within his power to do so. Indeed, as CO it was his duty to either agree or not agree as it would be his neck on the block. So, he disagreed. Warcup and Gradwell threw their toys out of the pram ( they clearly had their own agenda) and reported back to Ogley that things were not going as planned. Ogley, backed up by Walker, then instructed Tapp to come up with the right answer but now working for them. Job done.
Is any of this unlawful/illegal? Quite possibly.
Is any of this shady practice? Most probably.
Is any of this an example of good governance? Most definitely not.

Anonymous said...

Graham Power also states:

"The significant revelation appears to me to be that in the text of page 5 where Mr Tapp tells us that he prepared his report following a meeting with the Chief Executive and the Chief Minister and that the report was for the the use of the Islands Government and not the Force. It is probable that Mr Tapp did not know it at the time, but it has since been revealed in the report by Brian Napier QC, that the two persons with whom he met and who commissioned his report had for some months been meeting secretly with others to devise a means by which the Chief Officer of the Force could be suspended from duty. Against that background their meeting with Mr Tapp, fresh from his disappointment with his meeting with me, and ready to be critical of the Abuse Enquiry, could have appeared as a golden opportunity to move their secret agenda forward.


In this context it is difficult to see how either Mr Tapp, or his report, could be fairly described as "independent

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

This is how conflicted Bill Ogley and Frank Walker could be in employing Matt Tapp.

Taken from the Former Police Chief's sworn AFFIDAVIT

"11. Against this background there followed a series of events and confrontations in which the leadership of the force became isolated from an inner group of politicians and civil servants loyal to the then Chief Minister and hostile to the independent line taken by the police."

Anonymous said...

I have been reading suspension Review 1 on VFC and came across this. The part about corporation Sole needs explaining;

Dr. T. Brain:

Thank you. I think it is, however, important to consider whether he was properly suspended on 12th November because, of course, if he was not properly suspended on 12th November that would negate his suspension and therefore it would be necessary to consider whether he would need to be suspended again in the event of us finding that all that is at issue is the correctness of the procedure on the 12th. If I am allowed in due course to develop the argument it is that the procedures of 12th November were improperly applied, therefore the suspension was inappropriate and improper; I will hesitate to use the word “illegal” in these circumstances. Then there is the one of proportionality as to whether the suspension should be re-imposed. So Iwould invite you to consider whether the suspension was properly imposed on 12th November. What I am, for the sake of clarity this morning, proposing is that we do not consider at the first instance the mix of issues that you have raised that are quite proper to consider and quite right to be the circumstances of the judicial review. It is simply this morning that we should look at the issues of 12th November to see whether they were properly applied because, as I say, that does have a material bearing on Mr. Power’s current status. Then we can consider whether suspension is any longer appropriate. I think it will come as no surprise to you that I will be suggesting that that is not any longer appropriate.


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Thank you for that but I am not going to look at the original circumstances. That is my decision on that.



Dr. T. Brain:

Thank you, Minister. I must formally state for the record that we are most concerned that before we have been given the opportunity to state our case considerable amounts of that case seems to be something that you will not consider. We have to make it quite clear that there have been material breaches of points 1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.3.1 of the code. These are not technical breaches, these are material breaches and render null and void the original suspension. I do hope that we can consider these matters today as we are keen to support the administrative process that you have entered into in good faith. We would rather that we are addressing these matters as part of an administrative review before we have to consider these matters in a judicial review. So I would ask you to reconsider your opinion that you have just offered there in order that we may fully state the grounds for the reinstatement of Mr. Power. I would make it quite clear that the material breaches are only part of the submission but they are nevertheless an integral part of the submission.



Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

There is no problem with you making submissions in relation to the effect of the various different parts of the disciplinary code; I anticipated and expected that you would do that. But in the context of how I should now be dealing with the matter what I am not prepared to do, and have not at any point indicated I would do - and indeed made it clear, I believe, in proceedings in the States that I would not do - is to seek to conduct a review of the decision of the Home Affairs Minister when originally suspending. To do that, because the Home Affairs Minister is a corporation sole, effectively I would be reviewing my own decision and that I cannot do. Mr. Power has sought redress in relation to that matter, as you know, through judicial review but I am not going to open an investigation into whether or not the procedure was correct initially. What I want to do today is to start looking at what is the correct procedure that ought now to apply in relation to the matter, not as to whether or not it was correctly applied originally. Does that clarify my position?

Anonymous said...

"To do that, because the Home Affairs Minister is a corporation sole, effectively I would be reviewing my own decision and that I cannot do."

That just doesn't make any sense. Could someone please explain this.

Anonymous said...

A corporation sole is a legal entity consisting of a single ("sole") incorporated office, occupied by a single ("sole") man or woman. This allows a corporation (usually a religious corporation or a Commonwealth government) to pass vertically in time from one office holder to the next successor-in-office, giving the position legal continuity with each subsequent office holder having identical powers to their predecessor

Anonymous said...

In a nutshell no accountability.

http://admin-assist.org/online-articles/corporation-sole/

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

A corporation sole is a legal entity consisting of a single ("sole") incorporated office, occupied by a single ("sole") man or woman. This allows a corporation (usually a religious corporation or a Commonwealth government) to pass vertically in time from one office holder to the next successor-in-office, giving the position legal continuity with each subsequent office holder having identical powers to their predecessor."

And in case that still isn't clear - here's a plain English example of what it means in practice.

In the transcript above, Ian Le Marquand says this:

"To do that, because the Home Affairs Minister is a corporation sole, effectively I would be reviewing my own decision and that I cannot do."

That assertion by Le Marquand is simply untrue - a manifest absurdity.

A public authority, such as a corporate sole, is perfectly able to re-consider its own decisions - to re-visit them - and revise them.

In-fact - if there is available evidence, or administrative, or human rights grounds, for suggesting that the original decision may have been flawed - then it is actually unlawful for the public authority NOT to review its original decision.

Indeed - many judicial review cases in the UK are lost by the defending authority, precisely because of an unlawful unreasonableness in not reconsidering an extant decision.

So when you read the bald assertion by Le Marquand that he "cannot" review the extant decision of the Home Affairs Minister - what you are reading is simply confidence trickery.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

The documented quotes in the comment at 5:12 pm above demonstrate exactly why feudalism can not survive much longer in Jersey. Jersey feudalistic thinking has long been based on the old idea that the public is stupidly trusting, unwilling to investigate difficult matters, and content to allow their more entitled "betters" to make the important decisions. If dissent is easily discredited as illogical, ignorant, impolite or anti-patriotic, things don't change.

In this new century, an argument based on similar anonymous blog comments citing intelligent well researched evidence can easily disprove the words of - and humiliate - the ruling elite in any open public forum. The internet will outlive the other state controlled informational formats. The facts can no longer be controlled by those who have lied to Jersey, and discrediting those lies can be done by just a few very concerned citizens in a permanent international format.

The sound of retaliation from the Jersey system is only the final desperate death rattle of the defeated.

Anonymous said...

But Stuart, Jersey's oligarchy is all about never taking a closer look at its mistakes!

Elle

rico sorda said...

http://admin-assist.org/category/online-articles/page/3/

Thanks for the comments and reminding us of the Suspension Reviews on the VFC site. I will sort out some links for them as they are a must read for anyone who is interested in this subject. At the end of the day it all comes down to decades of Child Abuse.

But thats ok because the SOJ can employ a Media Consultant behind the back of the former CPO and use it in a court of Law to get 3 accused off

Jersey - So shockingly off the Scale

rs

Anonymous said...

No need to speculate what was in Warcups letter for the details are given in...........

Graham Powers Judicial Review

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know when Matt Tapp first came into contact with members of the oligarchy? Could it have been before he met with Mr Power? If the oligarchy was already in a position to make use of Mr Tapp's media propaganda, could they have sent him there to meet with the police chief just in case Mr Power could be persuaded to go along, at the last minute?

Have any questions been asked of Matt Tapp, or ILM, for that matter, about the number of contacts Mr Tapp had with SOJ before the meeting we know about? Has anyone asked if that one Tapp Report was the only work Tapp has ever provided SOJ or the Jersey police?

rico sorda said...

As far as I know Matt tapp was first contacted by David Warcup in September 2008

I would like to know if he worked after November 2008 as the interviews Gradwell gave CTV in September 2009 had all the hallmarks of a media consultant

rs

Ian Evans said...

MORE LAWFUL STUFF

Anonymous said...

http://bit.ly/yNTNIl

Answer

The Attorney General has no control over or responsibility for the actions of either the Judicial Greffe or the Royal Court. In order, however, that an answer to this question can be provided to Members the Attorney General has made inquiries and has been provided with the following information:

Following consultation with the Judicial Communications Office at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, the UK's Central Office of Information (COI) was engaged by the Judicial Greffe to provide specialist media information and management services to the Jersey Courts in the matter of high-profile trials, having regard to the media frenzy which erupted in February 2008, concerning Haut de la Garenne.

The Jersey Courts are not themselves resourced to provide such specialist media information and management services and the COI was engaged to field and handle press inquiries from the local, regional and national media, including such news providers as the Press Association and the Sky satellite organization.

The press liaison officer employed by the States of Jersey Police is not available to provide services to the Courts or to the Judicial Greffe.

Attendant services have since been provided by COI to the Jersey Courts at a total cost, to date, of approximately £101,000, being referable to the following high-profile cases, inclusive of the construction and maintenance of the Jersey Courts website (www.jerseycourts.je):

Attorney General v Michael Aubin - Haut de la Garenne

Attorney General v Claude James Donnelly - historic sexual abuse

Attorney General v Gordon John Wateridge - Haut de la Garenne

Attorney General v Curtis Warren and 5 associates - conspiracy to import drugs

Full details of costs directly referable to the mentioned cases will be provided as soon as they are available. It is assumed that the “current prosecution” refers to the case of the Attorney General v Warren and others mentioned above which resulted recently in a conviction.

Zoompad said...

"As far as I know Matt tapp was first contacted by David Warcup in September 2008

I would like to know if he worked after November 2008 as the interviews Gradwell gave CTV in September 2009 had all the hallmarks of a media consultant"

The costs of this could be unearthed with a FOI request, because media consultants never work for nothing. Mick Gradwell worked for Lancashire Police, so I wonder if they were at all involved in any monitary transaction over this? I'm not sure how to word a request for this information, can someone else do this?