Former Chief of Police Graham Power
OPERATION END GAME 9 - I NOW GIVE YOU ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THEY BUSTED OPEN THE FORMER CHIEF OF CHIEF OF POLICE'S SAFE
AND I HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED ON 'OPERATION BLAST' YET
During my research I contacted the former Chief of Police Graham Power and asked him what they could have possibly been looking for.
On the 21st January 2009 the States held an in camera debate about wether to adopt a proposition brought forward by St Helier Constable Simon Crowcroft to force a full independent inquiry into the handling of the original suspension of Graham Power. This was rejected 29-21. Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand a former - Magistrate and Lawyer - said that he would conduct his own review having taken over the responsibility for the Police since the suspension was made.
These Reviews happened on the 13th February and 5th March 2009
On the 22nd January 2009 - David Warcup - with the help of a locksmith- forced open Graham Powers secure cabinet. Still hard to believe but it did happen.
This is what he told Wiltshire under oath;
"In view of the fact that I did not have access to the safe combination contact was made with Mr Power to obtain the combination. Following an exchange of messages between Mr Power's appointed contact and the force, I established that Mr Power refused to disclose the combination of the safe as a result of which I arranged for a locksmith to attend."
"At 14"30 hrs onn 22nd January 2009 I was present along with Detective Superintendent Bonnie (Wiltshire..rs) and Inspector Burmingham when the safe was opened. A check was made of the contents and a schedule prepared of the items contained therein"
"The following documents were removed from the safe were later copied and forwarded to Detective Superintendent Bonnie."
"In the safe I also found a sealed white envelope marked as follows 'S Syvret' which was date stamped 10th April 2007. When opened the envelope was found to contain an audio tape. A transcript of the audio tape was subsequently made and is contained on 41 pages. A copy of the transcript has been forwarded to Superintendent Bonnie" End
As we go down the timeline we will now look at the evidence that led to this disgraceful act. Does his evidence to Wiltshire stack up?
Apart from David Warcup and gang being on a fishing trip former Chief of Police Graham Power offers us this - and he states
"When first appointed I was issued with a "Contract of Enployment." from time to time these were revised to catch up with changes such as the employment law. When mine came up for revision there was legal advice which drew attention to the fact that I was not an "employee" under the law but an office holder, so I could not enter into a "contract" but could agree to a "statement of terms and conditions" which basically would be the same document but not called a "contract." I then entered into negotiations regarding any changes which would be required. Part 8 of the document deals with "Professional Indemnity." This said that, if I got sued as part of my work, the States of Jersey would meet the cost. I drafted an amendment to this which added that if I was the subject of any complaint or allegation which required legal advice or representation then that cost would also be met. The amendment was agreed and I agreed to stay on after my retirement on the strength of the new terms and conditions. I also cancelled my legal insurance with my Staff Association. I recall that the new terms and conditions were signed by a representative of the Chief Ministers department and myself. I kept my copy in the safe. After I was suspended I asked the Chief Minister's Department for a copy of my contract. They could only produce an earlier draft but not a signed version. I asked for the copy from my safe and they said that it was not there. Warcup's statement, although precise in some respects, is uncharacteristically vague on this point. He talks of finding "assorted documents and emails regarding continuity."
"I have on file extensive correspondence between Tim Brain, the Minister and others regarding the fact that no signed contract has been produced. We were apparently being asked to beleive that it had either been lost (both copies) or that I have my contract extended without any signed agreement on terms and conditions. I was not provided with legal representation."
Let us now go through the timeline with the relevant pieces of evidence.
December 2008 - In late 2008 Graham Power is contacted by the Chief Ministers Department about gaining access to his secure cabinet which is held in the Chief of Police's office. Graham Power agreed a process whereby a Jersey Advocate representing Graham Power would be given the code in a sealed envelope and would take this to police and be present when the cabinet was opened.
Here is the letter from the States of Jersey HR - Mr Ian Critch
Chief Ministers Department
States Human Resources
Cyril Le Marquand House
22nd December 2008
Dear Mr Power
I refer to your letters of the 5th(received on the 9th), 11th and 17th December 2008.
With regard to access to the secure cabinet,I understand that arrangements were being put in place for this to be done as soon as possible (I am aware that Advocate Lakeman's office have contacted Phil Wells and he has contacted Mr Warcup). Mr Warcup has though spoken with me and he has concerns about the process for access previously discussed with you. His concerns principally relate to matters of disclosure relating to the current criminal case and legal advice he has received. I must advise therefore that he is taking further advice on this matter and he will revert to me as soon as possible. In the meantime, should you wish to simply supply the code then we would be grateful.
In your letter of the 5th of December you informed me for the first time that you recall that changes to your benefit were made to the 2005 Terms and Conditions documented previously sent to you. As stated previously, the only version of this document on file is the unsigned copy sent to you by Steve Austin Vautier. I attach, for the sake of completeness, the following documents, which are the only copies which I have on file.
- Original Contract of employment date 3rd August 2000, signed by you
- Re-issued contract of employment dated 25th July 2005 signed by me on 28th July 2005(this was rejected by you as you pointed out at the time that you were not an "employee" as such an "office holder")
- Re-issued statement of terms and conditions dated 25th August 2005, unsigned by either of us.
To repeat, these are the only copies on your personal file. If, as you believe, there is another version of any of these letters in your secure cabinet then once this has been extracted I have asked for a copy of this to be taken for our records.
In relation to other issues you raise in your letters , ther terms of reference for the disciplinary investigation are as provided to you by letter from Bill Ogley dated 2nd December. The comment made by letter to you of the 4th December refers to the opportunity under the Disciplinary code for you to raise such issues at any hearing before the Minister.
In relation to your request for details of when the 3 letters dated the 12th November were created. I have previously written to you on 28th November informing you that in my view you are not entitled to this information. I have not received from you any explanation of the basis upon which you claim to be entitled to this information. Please provide such an explanation if you wish me to consider your request.
You Indicate that Dr Brain will be writting to the Minister but as yet we have not yet heard from him. I am still considering the other issues you raise in your correspondence
Director of Human Resources
This is what jumps out at me straight away:
"His concerns principally relate to matters of disclosure relating to the current criminal case and legal advice he has received. I must advice therefore that he is taking further advice on this matter and he will revert to me as soon as possible. In the meantime, should you wish to simply supply the code then we would be grateful."
So, did the advice from the Law Office say don't worry about what Graham Power says Dave just bust open that safe? We might have to give Graham Power legal representation if you don't? David Warcup didn't seem to think that disclosing transcripts from an audio tape kept in Graham Powers secure safe to the Home Affairs Minister was a problem. You just cant make this up.
24th December 2008 - Graham Power writes a reply to Ian Critch head of HR at the Chief Ministers Department:
Mr Ian Crich,
Chief Ministers Department,
Dear Mr Crich,
ACCESS TO THE CHIEF OFFICERS SECURE CABINET.
Thank you for your letter dated 22nd December 2008 and enclosures. You refer to my letters of 5th, 11th and 17th December 2008. For the avoidance of doubt my letters of 5th and 11th were addressed to the Minister and replies are awaited. In this context I am puzzled by the penultimate paragraph of the first page of your letter and wonder if there has been some misunderstanding. During all correspondence I have attempted to avoid exchanges which relate to any discipline enquiry or possible hearing, preferring to reserve my position on those matters. I have however been actively engaged in preparing a judicial review application in relation to my suspension, and as I think I have made clear, my requests for information have been in connection with that process and not with any investigation or any hearing. I do however accept that it is hard in practice to separate the two but nevertheless it is a distinction I am seeking to preserve.
So far as my letter of 17th is concerned it remains my position that a true copy of my terms and conditions of service signed and agreed by me should be provided to me by the States and I note that this has not happened. It may be that a copy has been retained by me in my secure cabinet and I would wish to recover this. I have asked that this be done under circumstances which allow for no doubt as to the integrity of this process, and I have suggested how this might be achieved.
You suggest in your letter that there have been further developments and that these might affect how this matter is addressed. I do not have sufficient information to make any substantial comment on this. All that said you can take it as given that I would not wish to prevent the proper process of justice or the discharge of police duties in any way whatsoever.
I suggest that when you have any further information which would enable this matter to be taken forward in a fair and proportionate way you contact me again and I will do all that I can to assist.
Meanwhile I look forward to hearing from you.
9th January 2009 - The States of Jersey HR department write to Graham Power on the 9th January 2008. This relates to the issues about David Warcup not being happy about Graham Power having a representative at the grand opening of his secure safe. This is because the safe contains “very confidential information” which it would be inappropriate for Advocate Lakeman “or anyone else outside of the service” to have sight of. "
David Warcup didn't seem to think that disclosing transcripts from an audio tape kept in Graham Powers secure safe to the Home Affairs Minister was a problem. You just cant make this up. Just what is going on here. Advocate Lakeman wasn't there to read every document in the safe he was there to log the contents. This is now going beyond the ridiculous.
January 12th 2009 - Graham Power writes to Ian Critch at the Chief Ministers Department and delivers it by hand.
This is his letter:
QPM MA (Oxon)
Urgent by hand.
Mr Ian Crich,
Chief Ministers Department.
Dear Mr Crich,
YOUR LETTER DATED 9TH JANUARY 2009 RELATING TO THE CHIEF OFFICERS SECURE CABINET AND OTHER ISSUES.
I have received your letter of the above date, and note that it has been copied to Dr Brain. In view of what I consider to be an unreasonably tight deadline I am sending this interim reply pending any further advice he may offer.
The searching of the locked cabinet in my office in order to establish whether it contains a copy of my terms and conditions is a ten minute task which has now been subject of correspondence for over a month. Throughout all of this time I have asked only that a person representing my interests be present when this was done. This was to ensure fairness, vouch for the authenticity of anything which was found, or confirm that nothing was found, and to recover on my behalf a document to which I was entitled. We appeared to agree that this person would be Advocate Lakeman, and he was therefore provided with a sealed envelope containing the information necessary for this agreement to move forward. Since that apparently fair and acceptable arrangement was agreed, objections have been made through you, the latest being in your letter dated 9th January 2009 in which you state that it is not possible for him to be present because the cabinet contains “very confidential information” which it would be inappropriate for Advocate Lakeman “or anyone else outside of the service” to have sight of. As you are aware, it was never the intention that my representative would take an interest in any matters other than the task for which they were appointed, namely attempting to recover a true copy of my terms and conditions on my behalf. Given that the copy which should be held in your department is inexplicably missing, my concerns on this issue are natural and understandable. You state that you offer your personal assurance that any personal items contained in the cabinet will be delivered to me, but do not say how this will be achieved, given that you also appear to be in the category of persons who will not be allowed to be present or view the contents.
Whatever occurs, it is my expectation that a full inventory of anything removed from the cabinet, along with the justification for its removal, be kept by those involved and preserved for my inspection on my return to duty.
All that said, I await the advice of Dr Brain who may be able to suggest a solution which is acceptable to all sides.
I now turn to other matters in your letter. I note that at item 3 you reply to my observations regarding the disciplinary code and that your response appears to have been composed with the benefit of legal advice. I am of course required to reply without legal advice. Nevertheless, I consider that your reply avoids some of the key issues, and can confirm that your interpretation of the position does not accord with mine. However, unless you see the need to do so, I do not intend to continue correspondence on the subject at this time. I raised the issue with the Minister only because it is my intention that it should at a future stage, be considered by a court of law, and it was appropriate that I gave due notice of my position and offered a chance to respond. Now that has been done the matter can rest for the time being.
At item 2 you refer to my letter of 11th December 2008, which contained eleven separate requests for information. I note your decision to act contrary to the Code of Practice in responding to these requests. In these circumstances, I have commenced the procedure under part IV of the code and have, as an initial step, written to the Chief Minister prior to registering a formal complaint under the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982 as amended.
I do not think that there are other matters which I need to address with you at this time.
Cc Dr T Brain.
January 13th 2009 - Graham Powers representative Constable T. Brain wrote to Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand stating that Connetable Simon Crowcroft had agreed to be present when the cabinet was opened as an observer and subject to all appropriate requirements of confidentiality. The letter also pointed out that as part of his office Simon Crowcroft was a police officer and subject to disciplinary procedures. Graham Power and his representatives hit nothing but brick walls.
January 22nd 2009 - Acting Chief of Police David Warcup opens Graham Powers secure cabinet. Also present is Superintendent Wayne Bonne of Wiltshire Police and David Warcups Staff officer Dave Burmingham. Staff Officer Burminghams role was to compile a list of contents in Graham Powers secure safe and office. This act was done without the consent of Graham Power. Graham Power did not hand over the code to the secure cabinet. What was Superintendent Wayne Bonne doing at the "blowing of the doors" of Graham Powers secure cabinet? Looking for evidence?
An audio tape was recovered from Graham Powers secure cabinet. This audio tape was discovered in a sealed envelope. This tape contained conversations between Graham Power, the media, representatives of partner agencies, and a States Member Stuart Syvret. " End
When we look back at the actions of the former Chief Minister Frank Walker, Chief Executive Bill Ogley, former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis the whole Matt Tapp issue - Met Interim Report - All the suspensions of Graham Power - the 1.5 million ponds on Wiltshire - Mick Gradwell leaking to David Rose etc etc one just cant but wonder at just how totally out of control this lot really were and in the case of present Home Affairs Minister Ian Le marquand ARE.
I Haven't even got on to 'OPERATION BLAST' yet, I can assure you it gets even worse. Some will say surely not but alas it's true.
I have asked the former Senator Stuart Syvret for a response on finding a tape conversation he had with Graham Power had been obtained from Mr Powers secure Safe. This tape conversation along with others were transcribed and handed to Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand.
Remember in 2007 Stuart Syvret as then Health Minister was removed from office when telling the States of Jersey we had serious Child Protection issues.
Jersey Bloggers doing the Investigative work. Work they never thought would happen. The Internet gave us the power to fight back.
I would just like to thank everyone for their kind words. It really does keep me going as you will understand it's not easy doing this type of work in Jersey.
Statement by Stuart Syvret Concerning the Conduct of the Office of Attorney General in Jersey.
It has come to my attention that the recordings of conversations I had with the then Police Chief, Graham Power, Queens Police Medal, were unlawfully seized, transcribed, and passed on to other politicians under the orders of the Attorney General.
This was an illegal act.
The circumstances of the way in which the cassette was obtained from within a locked safe, and how its content was passed to third-parties such as other politicians, was theft.
This was a Watergate-type criminal assault against functioning democracy - and a criminal assault against the impartiality of the police.
It is necessary that members of the public understand the profound gravity of these events, and the implications for democracy and the rule of law in Jersey.
There are now so many shocking facts in the public domain – and so many stark observations that could be made – that it seems necessary to offer decent people a simple method – a yardstick – by which they can get the measure of, and understand, the true nature of what has taken place.
Consider the matter of the prosecution conducted against me.
After the illegal suspension of Mr. Power, there was an illegal massed police raid, arrest and search without a search-warrant, carried out against me in April 2009. During that raid my computer and various paper documents were seized; information and data concerning the private affairs of thousands of my constituents was, essentially, stolen. In order to then confer some “justification” upon this act of political repression, I was later charged with supposedly breaking the Data Protection Law. Throughout the entire proceedings against me, it was repeatedly asserted by the Attorney General and his prosecuting lawyer, that there had been no form of earlier, broader investigation against me – no form of covert surveillance – and, specifically, that there had been no involvement in the police activity by the Attorney General or any politicians.
During the malicious, politicised prosecution against me, I repeatedly asked for disclosure of all and any evidence of any communications between Warcup, the Attorney General, or the Home Affairs Minister.
Specifically – I repeatedly argued that what was being undertaken against me was an abuse-of-process; that the supposed “official reason” for the raid was just a “front”, a fig-leaf – and the charges just an attempt to confer some “credibility” upon what had been nothing more than an act of anti-democratic police-state political repression, in which the ruling regime wanted to seize the information of their opponents, and to intimidate them. I argued that there was evidence to disclose that would, in fact, show that the raid had merely been the latest and most brazen episode, in what had been months of covert, politicised policing directed against me, that had taken place since the illegal suspension of Graham Power.
In response, the Office of Attorney General repeatedly asserted that no such collusive actions against me had taken place – and that there was, therefore, nothing to disclose.
We now know that for at least more than two months before the massed, illegal police-raid in April, material concerning me was being seized and accumulated by Warcup under the directions of the Attorney General - and disclosed to establishment politicians.
But yet, such facts were repeatedly denied – in court – during criminal proceedings - by Jersey’s Attorney General.
The Office of Attorney General – in the name of the Crown – repeatedly claimed in court that the sole reason for the massed-raid, arrest, charging and prosecution against me – was the publication by me of a single item of data on the 19th March 2009. (An item that was, in any event, clearly disclosable by all UK public-interest disclosure precedent.) The Attorney General insisted that there had been no police activity against me – no ‘investigation’ - no political involvement - and no involvement of the Attorney General – prior to that 19th March date.
They were illegally seizing my private communications, transcribing them – and passing them to politicians - at least two months before then.
The Crown office of Attorney General in Jersey is wholly corrupted; it is a criminal enterprise.
It is now apparent that Jersey’s public authorities – and the senior individuals controlling those authorities – had a variety of motives for taking unlawful, repressive action against the Police Chief, and for taking unlawful, repressive action against me. That is – motivations beyond the immediately obvious of sabotaging the child abuse investigations and concealing the 1999 cover-up concerning the rogue nurse.
As extraordinary – evidenced – and criminal as the exposed motivations of the Jersey regime have been – there are yet further matters that will be made public in the coming weeks. Matters of the utmost gravity. But there is one conclusion that is already plain – and clear to any thinking person who has read, and thought about, the mass of evidence published by Jersey’s independent journalists. That conclusion is this: as various and as corrupt as were the motives for the illegal actions of the Jersey authorities – they had a powerful central objective.
That overarching motivation was actually to neutralise and eliminate Graham Power and me.
We were the targets. We were the targets – because of what we represented.
Honesty, integrity in our respective roles - and uncorruptible, indomitable courage.
Mr. Power as a Chief of Police – and I as a Senator – in terms of both our individual standards – and by the examples we set - represented a serious “threat” to the corrupt, self-interests of Jersey’s traditional establishment, and the ‘culture of concealment’ by which that corruption is traditional hidden. Mr. Power and I, each in our own way, represent a strong belief in the proper rule of law – a deep, innate opposition to corruption – and a belief that the law should protect the weak from the powerful – which must include, when necessary, protecting ordinary people from government departments. We both had to be “neutralised”.And we each had to be “made an example of” – lest others follow our lead. But even so – the extraordinary attacks and illegal oppressions that have been directed at Mr Power and I, have not occurred because there is something remarkable about us as individuals – but rather because there is something wholly wretched, decadent and tragically stagnant about Jersey’s entrenched establishment.
What other judgment can one bring to bear upon it, when it has brought totalitarian, police-state, illegal political repression – to the British Isles - in the 21st century?
14th March 2012.