- (a) to agree, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 160(4), that the transcript of the Statement of the Minister for Home Affairs relating to the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police that was made in camera on 2nd December 2008 in accordance with the provisions of Article 9(4) of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 (including the transcript of the questions to the Minister that followed the Statement), should be made public; and
- (b) to agree , in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 160(4), that, if any of the debate on this proposition takes place in camera, the transcript of this debate should also be made public.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
DEPUTY HIGGINS & P48.2012
STATEMENT MADE ‘IN CAMERA’ ON 8TH DECEMBER 2008: RELEASE OF TRANSCRIPT
STATEMENT MADE ‘IN CAMERA’ ON 8TH DECEMBER 2008: RELEASE OF TRANSCRIPT
PROPOSITIONTHE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion −
DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER
The purpose of this proposition is to right a wrong. Although this debate took place a week before I took my place in the States Assembly on 8th December 2008, I have reviewed the transcript of the debate in the States Greffe and believe, in the light of subsequent information, that States Members were misled by the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew D. Lewis of St. John, into the reasons why the Chief Officer of Police was suspended.
Because of the nature of an in camera debate I cannot set out in the report the reasons why I believe Members were misled – but I will be requesting the States to debate this proposition in camera so that these reasons can be revealed to members.
The purpose of the proposition is not to debate whether or not the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police should have been suspended later, on the basis of information obtained at great expense to the public purse after his original suspension, but to look purely at the original suspension itself.
Whether the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police should have been suspended later and ultimately disciplined is another matter which has never been fully tested before any court or tribunal. Nor has he ever had the opportunity to formally answer the charges made against him. In such circumstances the case against him has not been proven one way or another.
Financial and manpower implications
There are no financial or manpower implications for the States arising from this proposition.
Former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis
What can you say about this former Minister. It has always been my opinion that Andrew Lewis was nothing but a pawn for the likes of Frank Walker to manipulate and coerce into making one of the biggest decisions in his short ministerial career.
Andrew Lewis suspended the former Chief of Police Graham Power QPM on the 12 November 2008. This disastrous decision, taken alongside the then Chief Executive Bill Ogley, HR consultant Ian Critch and overseen by then Chief Minister Frank Walker is corrupt on every imaginable level.
This all came about because Frank Walker was humiliated on Newsnight. This all came about so they could Cover-Up for alleged Child Abusers. Since the Child Abuse Investigation broke in 2007 look at what we have had;
The Lead Investigator Lenny Harper denigrated by our local media and certain politicians
The then Chief of Police Graham Power suspended - 3 Times
Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand spending £1.5 million pounds on nothing but a vendetta
Acting Chief Officer David Warcup writing letters that helped get his Chief Suspended - also broke into the Chief's safe - then lied to Wiltshire Police under Oath and a lot more
Dep/sup Mick Gradwell trashing the Abuse Investigation and Lenny Harper at any given oppurtunity. Leaking information to the Daily Mail Journalist David Rose who was trashing the Investigation. This was done as he was leading the investigation and it was still live. Refused to give evidence at a Scrutiny Sub Panel - the only one who refused yet gets called a Whistle Blower by our only cover -up paper the "Jersey Evening Paedophile"
The Council of Ministers under the total non leadership of Chief Minister Terry Le Suer try and bypass a Committee of Inquiry by lodging a report and saying all is ok in late 2010.
I could go on and on
The suspension of Graham Power should set a precedent
The first suspension of Graham Power was so bad and illegal that the new Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand refused to touch it.
Let us look at some of Andre Lewis quotes and replies from Graham Power. This is taken from a Statement issued by Andrew Lewis on the 19th February 2010
5. Both Mr Power and Deputy Hill claim that the decision to suspend the Chief of Police was somehow rushed, “done on a whim with little consideration and without seeking advise”. I refute this suggestion most strongly. I had been aware for sometime of concerns about the command and control of the Child Abuse enquiry and in my capacity as Minister had been regularly briefed by the Deputy Chief Officer on the progress of an independent review of the case, being carried out by The Metropolitan Police.
Graham Powers reply:
5. In his recent statement Mr Lewis says “I had been aware for some time of concerns about the command and control of the Child Abuse Enquiry.” In his formal statement to Wiltshire Police he states “Until I received the letter from David WARCUP, (on 11th November 2008 – the day before the suspension) I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” (Paragraph 3.) Is Mr Lewis now admitting that his statement to Wiltshire Police is not true? If it helps, it appears that prior to signing his statement to Wiltshire Police, Mr Lewis signed a declaration which among other things (such as page numbers and the like) states “This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything in it which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.” If the signed statement to Wiltshire Police is not true then it is a serious matter. On the face of it, his recent public statement, and the statement to Wiltshire cannot both be true. This is something which may require a more formal investigation. I will return to this issue later
9. I am deeply concerned that the subsequent enquiry into this matter conducted by Wiltshire constabulary has taken so long. I was advised that such an investigation would only take until March 2009. The longer such matters are left the more open they are to wild allegations of conspiracy. Such allegations I most strongly refute. The reasons for suspension were compelling; the process was diligent, professional and painstakingly considered in accordance with the disciplinary code. I took full legal and HR advice from highly competent professionals and followed the prescribed procedure of the day.
9. I am grateful for the comments of Andrew Lewis in this paragraph. He confirms that he and others were apparently misled as to the duration of the disciplinary enquiry, stating that he was told that it would be concluded by March 2009. It is now of course almost March 2010 and the matter is still outstanding. He does not say who misled him or speculate as to their motives. He says that he is “deeply concerned” about this issue. His concerns, if authentic, are appreciated. During this time he has of course been getting on with his life. I am the one who has been suspended until such time as there is no possibility of a return to work, and I have therefore effectively been dismissed.
10. I had on a number of occasions publicly and privately extolled my respect and admiration for Mr Power as competent manager and Chief Police Officer. Which was why I was deeply shocked by the revelations and allegations presented by other competent independent policing authorities concerning Mr Powers command and control of Jerseys biggest ever criminal investigation.
10. In this paragraph Mr Lewis praises my professional virtues. He then says that he was shocked by the revelations presented by “competent independent policing authorities.” He does not say who these authorities were. Whoever they were they could not have been the Metropolitan Police whose report he “never saw.” (Witness statement paragraph 14.)
You see the Lie was up and running. It takes a thousand lies to cover a lie. It could have all been so different.
Andrew Lewis told Wiltshire under oath that he never saw the Metropolitan "Interim" Police Report
What did he tell the States Assembly during the "In Camera" debate?
Then in Feb 2010 he says;
10. I had on a number of occasions publicly and privately extolled my respect and admiration for Mr Power as competent manager and Chief Police Officer. Which was why I was deeply shocked by the revelations and allegations presented by other competent independent policing authorities concerning Mr Powers command and control of Jerseys biggest ever criminal investigation. End
The above statement is a complete lie. The man just makes it up as he goes along. He has no other option. No one was ever meant to look at the original suspension or ask any questions.
Senator Le Marquand is no better. The fact that he is still a minister just shows the shocking mess we are in. There was no clamour from the JEP for the removal of this minister was there. The actions of Senator Le Marquand are in my opinion far worse than those of Senator Ozouf
Thank God journalists have picked up the hard work of the Jersey Bloggers