Tuesday, November 20, 2012






In the real world Senator Philip Ozouf would not be giving the proposition by  Chief Minister Gorst a second glance. Now that planning permission has been granted this is even more apparent.  Just what is going on with Senator Ozouf? My guess, for what its worth, is that Senator Philip Bailhache is the puppet master. 

Again, I must remind readers of the speech by Senator Ozouf in 2010 when voting against the purchase of the Plémont headland.

7.1.8 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I have been involved, I should say, in a number of the previous planning decisions in respect of this site back in the days of the Environment and Public Services Committee and I recognise, for that reason alone, the difficulty that the Planning Department and the Minister for Planning and Environment has with this whole site and this whole proposition.  I did say to him earlier - before the Connétable used his opening remarks to criticise the Treasury - that I thought it was important… and we are still good friends, I am sure.  It was important to have this debate.  I think it is important for us to have this debate and for us to be realistic.  To be realistic and honest with people about expectations, because I do not think we have been entirely realistic with expectations in the past.  As I said, the Connétable did criticise me, he criticised the Council of Ministers and I will say to him that it is very easy to criticise on this issue when you do not have to do the difficult thing of priorities.  It is very easy to stand up and to promise and to say that there will be a solution to this issue and that somehow we can wash away the existing buildings, we can find a planning solution, we can find alternatives.  It is easy to say those things, it is much more difficult to come up with them.  In fact, both the Chief Minister and myself are in an almost impossible position.  We of course - and I, of course, do, I will not speak for the Chief Minister - but I of course do have a reasonable understanding of the planning process and I have a reasonable understanding of what the site is worth.  I understand what the likely probable outcome of a reasonable planning decision, whether it be contested in court, or otherwise, will be.  At the same time, I have to be extremely guarded and careful in what I say in relation to value and relation to the planning process, because anything that we say - anything that I say - could influence, potentially, the outcome of discussions - potentially.  The only realistic thing, I think, that we can say on the issue of value is that we are talking probably in excess of £5 million of taxpayers’ money and probably a lot more.  I do not really want to go into the detail of what we think but we are talking and for the purposes of my remarks I would ask Members to consider the issue as it was an issue of £5 million or more.  It is about priorities and I will not bore Members again, as I am going to have to a lot in the next few months, about the difficulties of public finances, the difficulties that we face in terms of balancing the books.  But we have to be realistic about would we allocate that £5 million or more to this project, set against other priorities that we have?  Whether it be town improvements, whether it be hospital… it is easy to trot out all of the options.  Would we do that?  I do not believe that, on my conscience, that that is a realistic allocation of £5 million or more of taxpayers’ money.  I think that there are going to be other priorities and other more important issues for us to deal with.  I do think that the latest plans represent an improvement on previous ones.  I will not go any further than that.  They do give back, some sites, they do allow public access.  This is not a site which is on the escarpment, that is, I think, the other coastal developments which people have spoken about.  I think that a reasonable solution can be made and a compromise in terms of some sort of development without pulling on public funds to the extent that which inevitably will be.  We cannot even ... if some Members do hold out the hope of purchasing the site, I think the worst of all situations would be to embark upon the unknown process of compulsory purchase.  That would be a massive risk, it would be at a massive uncertainty for all parties concerned, for a very significant period of time.  With regret, it would be lovely to be able to do these things, it would be lovely to be able to find a compromise or solution or a trade-off.  It would be nice to find £5 million or more.  But we have to be realistic, we have to be managing expectations realistically.  I think now is the time to make that reasonable decision and to allow the planning process and the process for this site to conclude and to be honest with the public and say that we do have other things to spend - urgent issues to spend money on - but to deal with this site.  I urge Members to close this issue now, as difficult as it is, manage public expectations, and to reject the proposition.......

Senator Ozouf is not happy about spending 5 million -  or compulsory purchase.

So, how does the Treasury Minister go about doing a massive U-Turn to accommodate the wishes of Senator Bailhace?

Let us look at what the Treasury Minister said in the States on the 6th November 2012 during questions without notice. Let us see if what the Treasury Minister says stacks up. Or, is the Bailhache folly making Senator Ozouf look simply stupid.

3.4 Deputy J.H. Young:
In a few weeks’ time, the Assembly will be debating the Council of Ministers’ proposition to acquire Plémont using compulsory purchase powers.  Can the Minister advise the Assembly whether he has arranged for expert chartered surveyors’ assessments of value and will he be making sure that the Assembly receives before the debate his assessment or their advice on the range of values and the basis for those valuations, and finally will he also publish his suggestions for land swap as alternatives to the cash settlement? 

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I think I can answer the first part of those questions by saying yes, I think there is already work being done and my Assistant Minister, working with the Chief Minister and the Assistant Chief Minister, has done a lot in terms of valuation.  Of course, we will be further instructed about that when the Minister for Planning and Environment announces his own conclusion in relation to the application when clearly, as the Deputy will know - I almost called him the Chief Officer there because he and I of course worked with this at that stage a number of years ago - of course he will know what the value is at the crystallisation of the planning application.  In terms of the land swap, this of course is a difficult issue.  My own view is that we should purchase Plémont but I have made my position perfectly clear, subject to an appropriate valuation, that we should effectively be earmarking a sale of other States property but potentially a sale by S.o.J.D.C. (States of Jersey Development Company) or dividend receivable in order to fund it.  It should be paid for and then repaid. 

3.4.1 Deputy J.H. Young:

Sometimes it feels as if the clocks have gone back 10 years and obviously the Minister remembers those days very fondly.  [Laughter]  The comments from the Council of Ministers thus far have put the figure of £8 million into the arena, which has been taken to be the price we have to pay.  Is the Minister for Treasury and Resources able to give us any guidance?  Is this the upper range of value that he currently puts on that or what is it?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I am pleased the Deputy enjoyed our time working together.  I did too but in relation to the value, I have to say that there is nothing further that I think I can add at this stage.  When we know what effectively the Minister for Planning and Environment’s conclusion is, we will be able to confirm on that value, and I share the Deputy’s view that we do not want to effectively write an open-ended cheque, we want to know what that value is.  But my position is I think that there is now a strongly publicly supported case for purchasing Plémont, and that we should pay for it by effectively a de facto land swap and pay off it by selling off other States land.  

3.7 Deputy S. Power:

Could the Minister give his own view on the proposed Plémont acquisition and perhaps whether he might be minded to support the proposition?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I have indicated that I am supportive but the condition of that (and of course it is not me that has put a condition but it is what I will represent to the Assembly) is the fact that we need to be long term.  I think the public has made a very clear indication about protecting the important coastal areas of Jersey.  My view is that development should happen in the brown and white field areas of Jersey where there is development potential and there is huge value in States-owned land that can be taken for that.  Overall we are in a better position to protect Plémont but focus development in the areas of Jersey where it should happen: in St. Helier in our commercial land, and particularly if a dividend from S.o.J.D.C. could be made in order to repay that, then I think that is a win-win situation and better overall for the Island.


"In terms of the land swap, this of course is a difficult issue.  My own view is that we should purchase Plémont but I have made my position perfectly clear, subject to an appropriate valuation, that we should effectively be earmarking a sale of other States property but potentially a sale by S.o.J.D.C. (States of Jersey Development Company) or dividend receivable in order to fund it.  It should be paid for and then repaid."

Now we can see that the Senator is saying that "we should purchase Plémont" And that we should be earmarking a sale of other States property. Is the Senator saying that Plémont  should be purchased and then paid for later by selling of some States property? He is doing so many U-Turns.

What has changed  since 2010?

This is what Senator Ozouf says:

"But my position is I think that there is now a strongly publicly supported case for purchasing Plémont, and that we should pay for it by effectively a de facto land swap and pay it off by selling off other States land."

Does the above statement really stack up? How do we know what the public want? I hear you all screaming at me  about 7,000 people joining the "Line  in the Sand" Well, does that stack up?. 

Its a very good argument - or is it?

The Line in the Sand was on the 4th October 2009. You see, 7,000 people came out in 2009, and yet, it wasn't enough to get the Treasury Ministers support for purchasing Plémont in 2010. 

What I'm showing you here, is the debacle that is the States of Jersey, and the ones who really hold the power. Senator Ozouf doesn't want to purchase Plemont, he made that quite clear in 2010. He is now wilting because of the pressure asserted by Senator Bailhache. Senator Bailhache knows the proposition is dead in the water without the backing of the Treasury Minister. 

Nothing the Treasury Minister says stacks up. I can't wait for the debate. It going to show up the debacle that is the States of Jersey. This sits alongside  "Lime Grove & Green Street" mess. 

Your views please on this simple issue concerning the almighty U-Turn of the Treasury Minister.

He will not be alone.

We will look at them closer to the debate. Our Media should be nailing him on this. Are we in financial bliss in 2012? 

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist

Tuesday, November 13, 2012



Before we take a very good look at David Rose and Mick Gradwell lets not forget David Warcup and Operation Rose..

I will be joining the dots  

Transcript from todays sitting of the UK Commons debate 

John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD):
I echo what has been said about listening to victims; whoever they are criticising, they must be listened to.
It is unfortunate that the statue of a naked 13-year-old boy on the front of Broadcasting House was carved by someone who abused children. However, this is not about the BBC; it is the children who matter the most. The BBC does not matter, dead celebrities do not matter, mistaken identities do not matter in the same way; what really matters is that children should be expected to be safe in the control of the state. These children are the most vulnerable because they do not have the protection of their parents and depend entirely on the state.
Only 20% to 30% of the children subject to child sexual exploitation on the narrow definition of the term are in care. Obviously, that means that 70% to 80% of those children are living in the family home. The cost of supporting a family can be as little as £3,000 per annum, whereas secure care can cost as much as £200,000 or even £500,000 per year. I accept that we need a child protection system and that not all parents are “good enough”, but I make no apology for concentrating on the failings of the state. Penny Mellor, who has campaigned against state-tolerated abuse for many years, was imprisoned because of her campaign, and was present for the north Wales inquiry, has said:
“The state as a parent is abominable, proven in Rochdale and proven in North Wales. If we are going to remove children into the care of the state then it is about time we ensured that the state is a better parent than the one we removed them from. The who is not relevant, sexual abuse perpetrated by anyone is devastating.”
It is important to recognise that the state system is still harming children. Rochdale, Rotherham and Oxford are not the whole story. One problem is the lack of accountability. Individual practitioners are basically allowed to get on with things as they wish. There are good practitioners but also bad practitioners, and their bad practice is not picked up by the system. A good example of this is from New Zealand, where social workers encouraged a 14-year-old girl to have group sex with a number of St John Ambulance workers and “divorce” her parents, who wished to discourage this. St John Ambulance has still not finally dealt with this issue and some of the workers are scheduled to receive a Queen’s Award. Another example is from Birmingham, where a child was first sexually harassed in a foster placement and then got pregnant at the age of 15, while in the control of the state. Practitioners in Birmingham have argued in the past that children should be permitted to prostitute themselves while not being allowed to make toast for each other, for health and safety reasons.
As at 31 March 2011, 160 girls in care had had their first child before the age of 16 and 120 had had their first child at the age of 16. So what happens? We know that the girls at Duncroft school were punished for complaining about Jimmy Savile. If a child in the power of the local authority wishes to complain about their treatment, they have to complain to an employee of the local authority or someone funded by the local authority. Where is the independence in that? The lack of independence in the complaints system is why many cases of abuse are not picked up until the children subject to the abuse become adults—not necessarily at age 18 but when they get the required confidence aged 25, 30 or later. Very rarely, a Gillick-competent child in his or her mid-teens may make contact with one of the very rare solicitors who are willing to take on the local authority, but usually nothing happens at least until the children are adults.
One of the worst examples of a cover up comes from Jersey. Children in Jersey had the chief of police, Graham Power, and the health Minister, Stuart Syvret, to protect their interests. However, in 2008, as soon as action was taken to investigate historical abuse, the health Minister was sacked and the chief of police suspended. What hope did those children have? It is now roughly the fourth anniversary of the sacking of Jersey’s chief of police, Graham Power, and he has put out a statement to coincide with it. I will not read it all because time is limited, but this is part of what he says:
“I would however simply for the record, remind readers what has been established from a number of credible and independent sources and disclosures. Namely, that my suspension was based on falsified documents, fabricated evidence, misleading information provided to States Members and the public by Jersey Ministers, and the testimony of a number of senior individuals who have since been publicly discredited.
The events relating to Jimmy Saville and other revelations have heightened the general awareness of the issue of Historic Child Abuse, and the substantial difficulties which stand in the way of those who attempt to bring abusers to justice.”
This cover-up has been continued by the UK Border Agency, which assisted Jersey in avoiding scrutiny by banning a US journalist, Leah McGrath Goodman, from Jersey. She is now applying again for a visa, and I hope that the Minister will expedite it.
Teresa Cooper, who says that she was held down by six members of staff and injected with drugs while at Kendall House at the age of 14 and that she was also sexually assaulted in a drugged state, is continuing at the age of 45 to battle to get the evidence to find out why the Government did not act to stop that. We have a duty to provide her and other survivors with the records they ask for.
There have also been numerous police operations, including Operation Rose in Northumbria, Operation Care in Liverpool, Operation Aldgate and Operation Gullane in Yorkshire, Operation Goldfinch and Operation Flight in south Wales, and Operation Camassia in Birmingham. Frequently, such operations do not get to the bottom of the issues. A few, such as that in Kincora, managed to make the link between the abuse and people external to the institution. We need to empower the survivors by providing them with the information to argue their cases. Perhaps we can then also consider the question of who turned a blind eye.
It is often easier to see that there is a cover-up than to get to the truth. For example, if people listen to last Friday’s interview with Stuart Syvret on BBC Radio Jersey—it will be available on iPlayer for a few days—they will hear how the BBC is acting as a tool of the establishment by trying to prevent him from arguing his case. Mike Stein, in his excellent article in Child and Family Social Work in February 2006, explains how widespread this problem was, with a possible one in seven of children in care being subject to abuse. Australia has implemented an all-embracing inquiry, which is a good idea, although the details are complex. I believe, however, that the priority should be to empower the survivors.
We also need to act urgently to find out what is happening to children in the care system today. In the year to 31 March 2011—I do not have the later figures—according to the SSDA903 return, 430 children aged one to four, 350 children aged five to nine and 630 children aged 10 to 15 left care for “other reasons”. These are the children who have left care and we do not know what has happened to them. Have they been trafficked, have they been abducted or have they run away to live on the streets because they were unhappy in the control of the state?
The statistical system used in the USA is called AFCARS—the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System— and records when children run away, but our Government do not bother. Clearly, they do not care sufficiently to ask local authorities to tell them. When I asked the erstwhile Minister, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), to record such instances and change the statistical basis, his response was that to find out nationally how many children are trafficked from care, abducted or run away would lead to
“an unnecessary increase in reporting requirements.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 642W.]
We need to go further. We clearly cannot trust all local authorities to tell the whole truth about everything. We already have a system for auditing what happens to the money. We really ought to have a system for checking whether we are told the truth about what happens to the children, or do the Government only care about the money and not about the children?
The secrecy, lack of transparency and consequent failures in accountability clearly failed children in the past, but they are also failing children today. We need to protect the rights of children and adults to complain and bring in greater scrutiny of family court proceedings. It is the secrecy that arises from the family courts that allows the system to avoid scrutiny and local authorities to simply say, “We are acting in the best interests of the child,” when clearly they are not.
Finally, Parliament needs to be more willing to look at individual issues before they hit the top of the news agenda. There needs to be a threshold at which collective action occurs.
There is disagreement between two particular positions that have been debated today. I have a little time, so it is worth going into this in detail. There is an argument that all we need is a bit more information sharing, but the evidence from Rochdale is that that does not work and that people are not acting. We need to ensure that people are motivated. That is the problem with the independent reviewing officer—they are not independent. The independent reviewing officer is employed by the local authority. I want to address the Lancashire county council case.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab):
I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying and do not want to take issue with it, but I would caution against suggesting that the evidence from Rochdale shows that information sharing does not work. The evidence from Rochdale so far shows that people failed to fulfil their responsibilities and that, had they done so and connected the threads of information and believed the victims, there would have been a much earlier and different outcome.
John Hemming:
That is the point. If an employee of the local authority is presented with a challenge—namely that the care system is not working and is not looking after children—they are more inclined to ignore it. If someone is not employed by the local authority, is independent of it and can take the system through the courts if needs be, without the children having to be Gillick-competent, people will act. The problem has not been a lack of information, but a lack of action.
Parliament has to stand on the side of the powerless. Whitehall mandarins, judges, BBC managers, council bureaucrats and professionals all have their own interests and a desire to hide mistakes. Parliament needs to balance the scales on the side of the weak—those without wealth who are crying out and not being heard.
4.50 pm

Sunday, November 11, 2012













The news yesterday that the Children’s Commissioner for Wales had called for a fresh investigation into the allegations that powerful people had routinely abused children in the care of the authorities in North Wales in the 1970s must have left Ian Le Marquand feeling a little queasy over his corn flakes as he read the detail.

Keith Towler said that concerns about a cover up in respect of powerful people abusing children were “understandable” and that a full investigation was the only way to resolve the issues.  So why will Ian Le Marquand be feeling just a little off colour in reading this?  The answer lies in the connection between ILM, Mick Warcup, and the journalist David Rose.

Allegations of abuse of children in North Wales originally centred on the Bryn Estyn Children’s home near Wrexham, but eventually involved around forty care homes.  Under severe pressure, especially from journalist Eileen Fairweather, (who has also worked tirelessly in exposing the cover up by the Jersey government) an independent inquiry was set up headed by Sir Ronald Waterhouse.  The authorities tried their hardest to prevent the evidence reaching the public and the inquiry might never have happened if Eileen Fairweather had not cleverly covered the tracks of her source when leaking the evidence to the media.  However, the Terms of Reference for the Inquiry were so tightly drawn up that Waterhouse was prevented from hearing evidence of abuse that took place away from the Care System, so allegations that children were abused elsewhere had to be discounted.  This meant that evidence from children who had been “loaned out” to prominent people and subjected to vile and savage sexual abuse in hotels and other places had to be ignored.

Despite the restrictions, Waterhouse still heard from 650 people from 40 homes and concluded that the abuse was real and widespread.  Dozens of Care Workers were convicted and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment.  Notwithstanding this, David Rose together with Richard Webster, campaigned on behalf of many of the convicted paedophiles in the same manner in which he had for Frank Beck, the Leicestershire Care Home Rapist, and of course, his interventions in Jersey.  Webster of course was infamous for his book “The Great Children’s Care Home Panic.”

Rose accused the police of trawling for victims, of encouraging false allegations by putting words in the mouths of victims, and labelled the police investigation a “witch hunt.”  He made a programme for BBC Panorama which included the following observation. 
“I think many of the complainants who are now making complaints against former care staff are very aware, if they do make complaints, that they'll be entitled to financial compensation”

In further attempts to discredit the investigating officers and the victims Rose and his fellow apologists for the convicted paedophiles made further claims.

“The vital principle which trawl inquiries must follow is to avoid 'leading' potential witnesses by planting ideas in their minds. The police, do not simply record what interviewees say: they write up their statements from lengthy question and answer sessions, and it is impossible to tell the spontaneous account from one which has been suggested. 

By telling interviewees they were investigating sexual abuse and reminding them of the names of care staff, detectives could sow the seeds of a wrongful conviction. 

When talks with police generate untrue statements, the witness will almost invariably 'adopt' the misleading account as his own. In the present climate, a wrongly accused care worker is the deadly foe.”

Rose then appeared before the Parliamentary Committee on Home Affairs and with Richard Webster gave evidence in support of many of those convicted of abuse in North Wales.  Below is an exact transcript of part of his evidence to the Committee on 14th May 2002.

“I think we now have a situation where many more lives are being irreparably damaged, often people who are at the end of their careers or in retirement who have in fact led blameless lives, working selflessly for poor salaries with very difficult youngsters, who suddenly find a knock on the door and at the end of a gruelling and humiliating process a fifteen year prison sentence. I would like to make the point that for somebody of, say, 67, a 15 year prison sentence is probably a death sentence.
In trying to answer that question, and also the question you were aiming at earlier, to give perhaps some kind of idea of the proportion of people who may be as criminologists say factually guilty, it might be worth looking at a single home where I have looked at a number of cases, namely Greystone Heath which was formerly near Warrington in Cheshire. Roy Shuttleworth was one of the people convicted there. His case is before the CCRC. He was the main subject of the Panorama programme I made. I looked into the evidence given by each and every one of the seven complainants in that case and I have simply no doubt in my mind that each and every one of them was lying. “
Webster and Rose were to collaborate on a number of articles and books.  All of them had the same central theme – that most allegations of historical abuse were untrue.  They were either fabricated, for compensation or as a result of police manipulation, or they were the result of ‘False Memory’ syndrome.  The two of them were also active in an organisation supporting people convicted of such crimes. It was no surprise then when Rose crawled out of the undergrowth during the Jersey investigation.  What was, and is surprising is that he was embraced by people like Senator James Perchard (who leaked him at least one e mail), Mick Gradwell (supposedly working on behalf of the victims) and Ian Le Marquand who was supposed to be the Home Affairs Minister.  Their involvement with Rose raises serious and disturbing questions for each of them.
For Mick Gradwell, he must surely one day have to explain why, when he was the Senior Investigating Officer supposedly seeking justice for the abuse victims, he deliberately leaked confidential police information to David Rose, a journalist whom he knew did not believe in the majority of historical abuse allegations and who had a history of supporting convicted paedophiles and of rubbishing police investigations into that abuse.  Le Marquand must explain, (and will have the perfect opportunity to do so on BBC Radio Jersey on Friday) why he did or said nothing when he knew for some time what Gradwell was up to with Rose.  This is particularly so given Le Marquand’s criticism of my media dealings based on false information which he helped to spread.  As for Perchard, he must explain what he hoped to gain on behalf of paedophiles by leaking information to Rose.
The Commissioner for Children in Wales is demanding a new investigation into the abuse at the Care Homes.  It is now apparent that the limited Terms of Reference prevented the original inquiry from getting to the whole truth about the involvement of prominent and powerful people.  Eileen Fairweather is convinced that abusers were sheltered by corrupt senior police officers and other officials.  The similarities with Jersey are uncanny, where corrupt senior police, legal figures, and politicians were all instrumental in suppressing the truth and further abusing victims.  Even now the Jersey government seem intent on repeating the mistakes (attempted cover up?) of North Wales with their rejection of perfectly good Terms of Reference.  
It is necessary for all persons of integrity to do everything in their power to stop them and to ensure that the Committee of Inquiry promised but long delayed is delivered in a form which will reveal the whole truth.
Lenny Harper

DAVID Rose was the Journalist the Jersey Authorities turned to in May of 2008 to help discredit Lenny Harper and "Operation Rectangle" The investigation into decades long abuse in the Jersey Care Homes and Sea Cadets.

Here I re-post my work trailing David Rose and his involvement with Dept/Supt Mick Gradwell who was leading Operation Rectangle after Lenny Harper retired in late July 2008.

He is a hired Gun. 

BDO Alto - 11

Exposing the shocking Jersey Child Abuse Cover -up

Keeping our readers informed as we go along

Home Affairs Minister Senator Le Marquand replies to my email 

An utterly Shocking and Horrific Disclosure

What he  said has left me feeling angry, shocked and disgusted. We are now starting to pull apart the wretched toxic cancer that lurks in all aspects of Government, Judiciary and SOJP.  Below is a quote from the email I received from the Home Affairs Minister. I want the readers of this blog to think very carefully about what he is stating, the implications of what he is stating and the seriousness of the allegation. I asked the Home Affairs Minister a simple question, "who leaked the draft report to Child Abuse Denier David Rose". The answer that came back is quite Staggering &  Shocking.

Senator Le Marquand

"It appears that the leak took place within the States of Jersey Police. There was a brief investigation at the time and I have recently asked the new Chief Officer of Police to look at this again."   I take any such leak of confidential information seriously. Yours sincerely, Ian Le Marquand.         

Now just think about that again.

  A serving member of the States of Jersey Police has leaked a confidential draft report to a Journalist who is a known Child Abuse Denier. This has happened whilst "Operation Rectangle" is still a live Police Investigation. A report that is 100% biased against the former SIO Lenny Harper. It was used to trash a Child Abuse Investigation and  the local media were picking up awards for nothing.

Who did BDO Alto send that report too? was it Acting Chief Officer David Warcup? How many officers had access to this Draft Report? Has a third party been used?

The New Police Chief Mike Bowron must find  answers to this most shocking of leaks. You can see why the Abuse Victims never trusted the Police before Power & Harper took over.  CPO Bowron must  let us know what happened with the original investigation, who investigated it, and what conclusions were reached. 

When I received that bombshell from Senator Le Marquand I started researching the years before 2008 and the SOJP. Another reason for doing so was an email exchange that I have been having with a States Member who will remain nameless for now. What I found was total animosity towards Lenny Harper. This was going back to early 2005, the new leadership were routing out bullying and corruption in the force, that was not the 'Jersey Way'. When 2008 came around it was payback time. I will be dealing with this in later posts. 

The Abuse Victims have never been a priority to the ruling elite, the majority of government or the local media - that is a fact

Here is the Email exchange in full

From: rico sorda
Subject: RE: BDO Alto
To: "Ian Le Marquand"
Cc: "roy herissier"
Date: Wednesday, 8 June, 2011, 17:39

Dear Senator

The BDO Alto report was used in trashing the Historical Abuse Investigation. Now, if they cant get the date of when they started right then what of their report? Let me also inform you that BDO Alto never contacted the former Chief of Police nor his SIO to give the report a counter balance.  Senator,  go to page 1 of the BDO report and read the forwarding letter, it sounds pretty straight forward to me. 

I have no doubt discussions went on previous but according to BDO they started on the 29th September 2009 surly they are not that incompetent Senator? 

it should be obvious to you that the report could not come into existence in such a short period "

Thats right Senator I wonder what could have happened? How did the Child Abuse Denier David Rose quote the so called report? So accurate is his piece, he was leaked either from the SOJP or Home Affairs even before a report existed. Who was privy to such information?

This Report was used to trash a Child Abuse Investigation and your telling me they cant get  a date on page 1 right?

Nothing stacks up with this. Any information you have will be investigated and researched

Kind Regards 

Rico Sorda

From: Ian Le Marquand
Subject: RE: BDO Alto
To: "'rico sorda'" 
Cc: "Roy Le Herissier"
Date: Friday, 17 June, 2011, 12:06

Dear Mr. Sorda, I am now able to explain the late date for the confirmation of the terms on which BDO Alto were retained as I have now received information as to the timeline in relation to the commissioning of the BDO Alto report. I have already given you the date of the Ministerial Act in February 2009. Meetings between BDO Alto and my officers took place soon after but the full terms of their engagement were not confirmed until the date in September 2009. There were some technical issues in relation to this. However, BDO Alto had clearly started work on this report well before then. A leak of sections of a draft report took place in late September or early October 2009. BDO Alto have confirmed that they were not the source of the leak and that at that stage they had not sent any documents to this department and so the leak did not occur in the Home Affairs Department. My staff picked up on the Mail on Sunday article and made enquiries of BDO Alto and of the States Police. It appears that the leak took place within the States of Jersey Police. There was a brief investigation at the time and I have recently asked the new Chief Officer of Police to look at this again. I take any such leak of confidential information seriously. Yours sincerely, Ian Le Marquand

My Reply

Dear Senator

Thank you for your reply and information

As you can imagine this has left me horrified. The SOJP leaking a caveated report ( Not interviewing the main person Lenny Harper) to a Child Abuse denier David Rose. WHY?

I will take a little time going over what you have just said. This has left me feeling very upset. Just when I think things cant get any worse over here. If you take leaking of information so seriously why wasn't there any mention of this until I started Investigating.

Kind regards

Rico Sorda 

There are other issues I need to look at concerning the Home Affairs Ministers Reply but for now I just want to concentrate on the Shocking Revalation that a member of the States of Jersey Police Force leaked a one sided report to a CHILD ABUSE DEINER JOURNALIST DURING A LIVE POLICE INVESTIGATION

Just how bad is it over here? They were using David Rose to Trash a Child Abuse Investigation. He was being engaged for sometime. 

We are swimming in the highest levels of corruption and incompetence 

How can Children ever be safe over here?

Here I talk about the Jersey Media Cover-up and David Rose







Then I read the transcripts from Home Affairs Minister Senator Le Marquand dated Friday 15th July 2011 that in October 2009 he was fully aware that Mick Gradwell had been leaking information - due to some excellent detective work from his staff.



THIS IS GOING WAY BEYOND A JOKE; More on this in a later posting.

The Minister for Home Affairs:
No.  The first I was aware of an issue in relation to D/Supt Mick Gradwell was when he went public just before he left the Island and that was the first time.  I viewed this as merely a continuation of that, he had already gone public with his views to the local press, radio.  It is my understanding from David Warcup that Mick Gradwell, although he was asked very strongly not to do anything before he went, and not just by David Warcup, but I understand even by the Attorney General of the day, again this is hearsay, this is obviously what I have been told, that he had already pre-recorded interviews before he had left.  So that is the first that I was aware of an issue, and then of course my staff picked up the Mail article and they did some excellent detective work, emailing, and then sent to me the consequences of that, which clearly pointed to Mick Gradwell.  I have to say, when the issue came up again, I had completely forgotten about this, I had just totally forgotten about it.  I had to look back and find the emails and then say: “Oh yes, now I do recall it”, because it was not that significant to me once I knew it was Mick Gradwell.

What I produce in this post  is based on evidence 

David Rose wrote 3 articles for the Daily Mail which were trashing the "HCAE"

18th May 2008

15th November 2008

4th October 2009

The introduction of David Rose was in my opinion very calculated. The Jersey Establishment needed someone to start trashing the Historic Child Abuse Investigation in the national press.

The reason for looking is very simple. There is a connection between Rose, Gradwell and The Jersey State Media. The agenda from the offset was to opinion manage peoples perception of the "HCAE".

This for me dates back to May 9th 2008 with the then Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhace's Liberation day speech. 

I talk a little about the  culture of fear that exists in Jersey. The below link and interview is well worth a watch.


But let us look at former SIO Mick Gradwell. 

 It is this Policeman's  actions that are at the heart of everything.  Why did Mick Gradwell get involved with David Rose? David Rose had already set out his agenda in  May 2008.  This was 4 months before  Mick Gradwell had started his secondment to the SOJP.  Looking back through the archives Mick Gradwell trashes the investigation under Lenny Harper and his team at any given opportunity. He was there with Deputy Chief Officer David Warcup when they gave there infamous briefing to ministers on the day before the  suspension of the then Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

What I will be doing now is looking at the evidence that was supplied to the Scrutiny Sub Panel. This review is so important. It will come into play during the forthcoming 'COI'. One of the questions that needs answering is the actions of Mick Gradwell.

During my lnvestigations I came across an article written by David Rose on the 4th October 2009 in which the said journalist was quoting extracts from Police Consultant Mike Kelletts draft notes - confidential notes that had been given to a select few. The final BDO report didn't come out until May 2010.  I started asking questions and what unfolded left me shocked. The article can be read on the link above.

I ask the readers to really look at what BDO & Police Consultant Mike Kellett say about the leaking of their information. This is of the most serious nature. This information was given under oath.  BDO  even question the leaking of information to David Rose back in November 2008. They even asked what  what was done about that leak.

This is what BDO Alto said concerning the leaking by Mick Gradwell


33. The Sub Panel has raised a concern that, “[BDO’s] letter of engagement was dated 29th September 2011 [sic]; however, just a few days later an ‘interim report by financial auditors’ was leaked to the Mail on Sunday (4th October 2009). It appears that a Senior Police Officer was responsible for this leak.” 

35. We have raised our concerns with both the Panel and the Chairmen’s Committee regarding the fact that this Scrutiny Review’s terms of reference appears to be based on, or was at least heavily influenced by, the content of one particular blog site, which contains much speculation and is not in possession of full facts. 

Background to the Mail on Sunday press coverage 

41. The “leak” referred to by the Sub Panel relates to an article published in The Mail On Sunday and on the Mail Online website on 4 October 2009, authored by a journalist called Mr David Rose. The title of the article was “Bungled Jersey child abuse probe branded a ‘£20 million shambles’”19

42. The article includes reference to “a leaked report by financial auditors into the investigation”. However, far from simply being an article written about financial aspects of the investigation, the article reveals the findings of a three-month investigation carried out by The Mail on Sunday. This article quotes from Mr Mick Gradwell, the Senior Investigating Officer who replaced Mr Harper following his retirement, Acting Chief Officer David Warcup, Mr Martin Grime, the NPIA’s Chief Executive, a former Metropolitan Police Commander (through a spokeswoman) 
as well as an unnamed “Jersey government spokeswoman”20.  

43. In fact, Mr Rose had been covering the investigation for some time and his use of “leaked” documents in the 4 October 2009 article was not the first time.
44. An earlier article dated 15 November 2008 was titled “How police chief Lenny Harper lost the plot over the Jersey children’s home ‘murders’”21. In that article, Mr Rose notes “… The Mail on Sunday has obtained confidential documents, including a crucial email written by Mr Harper and the official log book kept by his own forensic science team. They show he repeatedly misled both the media and the island’s government, and made a series of statements that proved to be 
inaccurate.” [our emphasis]  

45. This November 2008 article also quoted from numerous individuals involved in the investigation including Mr Harper, SIO Gradwell, Mr Frank Walker, a named professor from the Sheffield University Centre for Human Identification and an LGC spokeswoman. We are not aware as to whether the “leak” of material referred to in Mr Rose’s article of November 2008 has been investigated. Even in that article details of financial expenditure were being discussed; the article refers to “… the police are also said to be concerned at the inquiry’s profligate 
expenditure – such as a decision to send two officers First Class to Australia, and 
a £100,000 bill for the use of Eddie the sniffer dog.” 

46. And in fact, as early as 24 May 2008, Mr Rose was discussing the costs of the investigation at Haut De La Garenne. In his article titled “Jersey police failed to reveal that tested ‘skull’ was coconut”22 he reported, “Last night it was revealed his [Mr Harper’s] investigation at Haut de la Garenne is set to cost £6.5 million this year – about £20,000 per day since the inquiry began on February 23.”  

47. This is important context because the terms of reference for this Scrutiny Review might otherwise imply that there was no financial or other confidential information in the public domain, whether “leaked” or released, and therefore that the article in The Mail on Sunday on 4 October 2009 came ‘out of the blue’. That is clearly not the case and much had already been reported. 

Material “leaked” to the Mail on Sunday journalist 

48. BDO and Mr Kellett discussed the David Rose article of 4 October 2009 the very next day, on Monday 5 October. Both BDO and Mr Kellett were concerned and upset that confidentiality had been compromised. 

49. The nature of the leaked material was immediately clear. It was not and could not have been an ‘interim report by financial auditors’ that had been leaked to The Mail on Sunday because no draft report was in open circulation by that date. 

50. The email trails that follow provide a full contemporaneous record of discussions and correspondence that took place on 5, 6 and 7 October 2009. 

51. The Home Affairs Department wrote to BDO as follows23

“I was concerned to read an article about the HCAE in the Mail on Sunday yesterday that stated that the newspaper has had sight of 'a leaked report by financial auditors', the report is later referred to as 'the team's interim report'. The article does not mention BDO but quotes David Warcup as telling the Mail on Sunday that 'he had appointed an independent team of auditors to examine Harper's spending.' 

If the report referred to is indeed your report I would be grateful for an explanation of how the draft was allegedly made available to the Mail on Sunday reporter when neither the Minister for Home Affairs, the Accounting Officer or myself have yet seen a copy of your draft report.” 

52. BDO responded by email on the same day, extracts from that email24

“To confirm, the draft report has not been provided to anyone by BDO Alto, and in fact no copies have been provided to any party including Home Affairs … there 
are no copies in circulation as far as we are aware. I understand that drafts of Mike Kellett's work were circulated to Mr Gradwell, amongst others including the Wiltshire team, during drafting stage - this included sections on Mr Grime, the deployment of [named officer] and meals in London. I  have not yet been able to speak to Mike today, however I know that he circulated 
copies of his work on a confidential basis and was also minded that confidentiality was to be maintained at all times, and that the Report output needed to be on a 'privileged' basis. It does seem more likely to be the case that it is initial drafts of Mike's work that have been seen by the newspaper rather than our Report - although I have no evidence of that, and nor can we speculate as to the source …  

The wording included in the newspaper appears to be taken from Mike's original drafting, as discussed above. I would again stress that the Report has not been made available to anyone by BDO, and that confidentiality is of paramount importance to us. Neither has any comment been made by us to any media, and the only discussions relating to his Report are as between ourselves, Mike Kellett and yourselves.” 

53. Mr Kellett sent an email to BDO on 6 October 2009 and a copy of that email was forwarded by BDO to Home Affairs the next day25. Extracts from that email: 

“I am shocked that drafts of sections of our report (and not the 'interim' report, as inaccurately stated in the article) have been leaked to the press and published in this fashion, which is unhelpful to say the least and does nothing to serve the public interest. I agree with you that the quotes cited in the Mail on Sunday appear to be from the very first drafts of my work, as at least one of them appeared only in initial draft and was excised from the document drafted to 
consolidate my work and that carried out by you and [BDO employee]. Given that fact, the probable source of the leak is clear to me.  

Apart from you, the initial drafts were also sent to David Warcup, to the Wiltshire team and to Mick Gradwell, for information and for feedback on accuracy of content and on style. None of these recipients received any of the updated drafts, neither those done by me to my initial work nor the consolidated drafts prepared by you … 

Let us now look at what Police Consultant Mike Kellett said:

Deputy R.G Le Hérrisier:
Okay, I wondered if we could move to possibly our final topic, the leak.  I wondered, Managing Director, as you know, your report appeared in the ... either the report or words that were remarkably similar to your report appeared in a national newspaper.  What is your explanation of this if, indeed, you do have one?

Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:
Yes, just to clarify, and it is in our written submission, the material that was leaked to the newspaper was not a BDO work product.  I cannot comment on what was leaked to the media.  As again we say in our written submission, we provide you with copies of the correspondence with Home Affairs on 5th October 2009.  This matter was clearly brought to our attention.  We were concerned that anything that was related to our review was finding its way into the national media.  As I say, it was not a BDO report.  There was not an interim report at that point in time.  What appears to have been leaked were, again, some of the early drafts of some of [Police Consultant]’s work.  He might want to say something about that.

Deputy R.G Le Hérrisier:
As a result of your subsequent inquiries and your contact with Home Affairs, did you come to a considered judgment as to how it had occurred and who had done it?

Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:
I think, when we had an opportunity to have a look at the article that had been published on the Mail on Sunday, it became clear to us what material was being quoted from.  Therefore, from our perspective, we were able to narrow down where that material had gone, but as I say it was not a BDO interim report.  It was not an interim report at all, in fact.

Deputy R.G Le Hérrisier:
But it was material that came from your office, so to speak.

Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:
No, it did not come from our office.

Deputy R.G Le Hérrisier:
You do not think so.

Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

Police Consultant:
The circumstances of the source are as set down in my written submission.  The source was [retired D/Superintendent].  He has admitted that to me in telephone conversations.  He first telephoned me about a week or so after the article appeared.  I had already worked out that it was probably him.

Deputy R.G Le Hérrisier:

Police Consultant:
I deplore what he did.  I have told him I deplore what he did.  In terms of why he did it, you would have to ask him.  He says - so what he told me - and he has repeated that in recent telephone conversations that he has made to me arising out of the establishment of this Panel that he did not give copies of my written work, but he disclosed the contents of some of them to a reporter.  It was not BDO at all.  It is not me.  It was not Wiltshire or [then Acting Police Chief].  It was [retired D/Superintendent].

Deputy T.M. Pitman:
Out of interest, did he seek to justify what he had done to you?

Police Consultant:
He gave a reason, but I think ...

Deputy T.M. Pitman:
Well, we do hope to speak to him. We do not know whether he will.

Police Consultant:
I do not think it is appropriate for me to ...

Deputy T.M. Pitman:
Just for the record, you are saying he said he did not actually show documents to a journalist.  He verbally, because you said he had not shown.  That is what you have just said.

Police Consultant:
I cannot remember at this distance to say his exact words.  What he says is content.  Whether he handed documents or whether he had no idea, I am not sure.

The Deputy of St Mary:
If we cannot talk to [retired D/Superintendent], we will be able to fire you off a letter to ask for a bit more detail on the contents of that particular conversation.

This is from Mike Kelletts submission


23.                The first I knew of the article published in the Mail on Sunday on 4th October 2009 was the following day, when I received a telephone call from the Managing Director of BDO Alto to inform me of the fact. During my time in Jersey and since, I have had absolutely no contact, formal or informal, with any journalist.
24.                For the reasons set out in the written submission of BDO Alto, it is clear that it was not an ‘interim report’ or the consolidated report that was leaked to the newspaper but rather content of the drafts of sections of my contribution to the report.
25.                My practice during the review was to forward the first drafts of sections of my report to the Acting Chief Officer, to Mr Gradwell, to the Wiltshire team and to BDO Alto. Only BDO Alto were sent updated drafts, as and when amendments were subsequently made to the originals.
26.                Some days after the article had appeared, I received a telephone call from Mr Gradwell in which he admitted that he had been responsible for the leak.
27.                I received two further telephone calls from Mr Gradwell on 26th June 2011 and 1st July 2011, concerning the establishment of this Sub Panel and he again acknowledged that he had been responsible.

Here are the Sub Panels Findings on this issue

 5. To investigate how details of the review into the financial management of Operation Rectangle came to be published in a national newspaper in October 2009

  • On Sunday 4th October 2009 the Mail on Sunday published an article by their reporter David Rose referring to ‘a leaked report by financial auditors’ which had been seen by the newspaper. The article then appears to quote the then Acting Chief of Police: ‘Dave Warcup told the Mail on Sunday that he had appointed an independent team of auditors to examine Harper’s spending - it includes two forensic accountants and a police expert in seizing criminals’ assets’. This statement was factually inaccurate. Later in the article the leaked material is identified as an ‘interim report’. No mention was made in the article of BDO Alto; however, it appears clear that the article is referring to their review.
  • In their submission BDO Alto give a full and contemporaneous record of discussions and correspondence between BDO Alto and Home Affairs following the publication of this article. Mr. Kellett stated in his submission:
It is clear that it was not an ‘interim report’ or the consolidated report that was leaked to the newspaper but rather content of the drafts of sections of my contribution to the report. 
  • Mr. Kellett explained that he had circulated copies of his work on a confidential basis to the Acting Chief Officer, to Mr. Gradwell, to the Wiltshire team and to BDO Alto for feedback and comments. In a telephone conversation after the article had appeared Mr. Gradwell admitted to Mr. Kellett that he had been responsible for the leak. Mr. Kellett said that he deplored this action.
  • The States of Jersey Police submission confirmed this and described the circumstances as follows:
D/Supt M Gradwell left Jersey in August 2009 and retired from the police service on 2 September 2009. Prior to leaving and unbeknown to the States of Jersey authorities, Mr. Gradwell gave a number of press briefings which were critical of the investigation led by Mr. Harper. During the course of these briefings, it is evident that Mr. Gradwell made verbal references to extracts from the BDO Alto report on financial matters. This was wholly improper and less than helpful to the ongoing enquiry. [ ] Mr. Gradwell is on public record as accepting that he quoted information from notes later incorporated in the report, but he vehemently denies ‘leaking’ a copy of the report to the media.
Details of the article
  • Some of the wording quoted in the Mail on Sunday article is very close to the phrases in the final report; in addition specific details of financial costs are disclosed. There seems to be little doubt from the number of specific details and phrases used by the newspaper that the reporter had extensive access to Mr. Kellett’s material whether or not the reporter was actually given a copy of the work.
  • The article refers three times to comments by Mr Gradwell, the retiring Senior Investigating Officer, who had described the handling of the HDLG investigation as a ‘shambles’.
  • The article refers to specific details of financial costs contained in the ‘leaked report’ including £750 per day for the first seven days’ work for the forensic dog and £650 per day for 136 days after and 49 claims on force credit cards for meals costing more than £50; more than £5,700 on Mr. Harper’s card alone.
  • The article states that, in a three month investigation the reporter had spoken to a number of individuals connected with the Operation Rectangle: including the Dog Handler, the Chief Executive and the Head of Operational support of NPIA and a former Metropolitan Police Commander.
  • The article also claims to make a number of direct quotes from the ‘leaked report’. These later appeared in the published BDO Alto report, albeit the wording in the published report had been somewhat amended in most cases, for example: 
(a)  a comment by an employee of LGC Forensics: We followed the dog. Where the dog barked was dug up.’ This says the interim report was a fundamental error’..
(b)  a comment that Mr. Harper had ‘little idea’ of how to use the HOLMES computer system. The article refers to an email where Mr. Harper asks a question about the role of an analyst.  This was not found in the published report which actually says: SOJP personnel lack depth of experience in using HOLMES - including senior personnel fulfilling key roles. 
(c) the conclusion to the auditors’ interim report regarding use of the dog: ‘It was an expensive mistake to bring in Mr. Grime. It would have been far preferable and much cheaper to have tried to obtain appropriately trained dogs and handlers from UK police forces.’ The underlined words have been amended in the published report which reads: It was an expensive decision to employ Mr. Grime and to deploy him in the ways described in this Report. It may have been wiser and cheaper to have sought to obtain appropriately trained dogs and handlers from UK police forces
(d) a comment on meal with a News of The World journalist: ‘We do not see how this occasion can possibly be regarded as a business dinner within the terms of the policy’. This sentence appears unamended in the BDO Alto report.
  • The article makes 10 further references to specific details contained in the ‘leaked report’. The article also refers to emails from Mr. Harper to his staff (Forensics Manager) obtained by the Mail on Sunday. 
  • Mr. Rose had previously written a number of other articles critical of Mr. Harper’s conduct of the investigation going back to May 2008 (18.05.08; 24.05.08, 15.11.08). In May 2008 he made a reference to the ‘leaked’ cost of the investigation (£6.5milion) but did not develop any criticism. In his article in November 2008 in which he interviewed Mr. Gradwell he stated that the police were said to be concerned at the enquiry’s profligate spending (eg decision to send two officers first class to Australia and a £100,000 bill for the use of Eddie the sniffer dog). In the course of the article he stated that he had obtained confidential documents including an email from Mr. Harper and the official log book kept by the forensic science team. 
  • Channel Television also appeared to have access to information from the review into the financial management of the HDLG enquiry.  In their two programmes in September 2009 they interviewed Mr. Gradwell on his retirement and referred to a number of specific details from the BDO Alto report such as dinners in specific London restaurants, overnight stays for one hour meetings and the failure to appoint a finance manager.

Police response to Mr. Gradwell’s action
  • Mr. Warcup stated in his submission that the disclosures made by Mr. Gradwell to the media on his departure from Jersey had not been authorised or approved by himself or any other person in the SOJ Police.
They were made without my knowledge, were inappropriate and could have jeopardised the objectivity and fairness of the Wiltshire enquiry.
  • He said that he had been concerned that a considerable amount of information and documents had been leaked to the media from an early stage in the HCAE investigation: 
Unfortunately there were many issues right through from 2008 until 2010 where we did look to try and establish how information had been released to the media.  It is a matter of some regret in many respects that it happened and I do not condone it at all….. I have to say that I think that the release of information in such circumstances is detrimental to the good conduct of the inquiry…. I think that that matter needs to be seriously considered for the future and the release of information, however well intentioned, has to be carried out under proper regulated and approved systems and not to fulfil whatever agendas people are trying to pull through.
  • The Minister told the Sub-Panel that he had discussed the matter with Mr. Warcup who had revealed to him that he (Mr. Warcup) had become aware that Mr. Gradwell intended to speak to the press on his retirement from the Police force about his views on the HCAE investigation. Mr. Warcup had sought assurances from Mr. Gradwell that he would not do anything of that nature, only to discover subsequently that Mr. Gradwell had already given his press interviews.
  • The Minister told the Sub-Panel that it was not possible to discipline Mr. Gradwell for the disclosures he had made because of the fact that he had been seconded from another Police force and had already left Jersey. This point is confirmed in the SOJ Police submission:
Having left Jersey and retired from the police service in England, it is not possible to take matters further outside of Jersey’s jurisdiction.

Sub-Panel comments
  • It is accepted that the subject of the leak to the Mail on Sunday was not an interim report prepared by BDO Alto but initial drafts which Mr. Kellett had prepared and circulated to a limited group of people within the SOJ Police (Mr. Warcup and D/Superintendent Gradwell) and to BDO Alto for information and feedback on accuracy of content and style. We also fully accept that neither BDO Alto nor Mr. Kellett were in any way responsible for this leak.
  • It is clear from the evidence we have received that Mr. Gradwell was responsible for leaking information from draft sections of the work which Mr. Kellett had prepared for the BDO Alto review. The information was published in an article in the Mail on Sunday in October 2009 but it also appears to have been made available to Channel Television for a programme in September 2009. Mr. Gradwell also gave an interview to the Jersey Evening Post in which he voiced extensive negative comments on the investigation carried out by his predecessor which he labelled ‘a poorly managed mess’.  The disclosure of information from the review of financial management was then part of a broader criticism of the investigation by Mr. Gradwell.
  • Mr. Gradwell’s views on the investigation were already well known. As Senior Investigating Officer he had been a key figure in the press conference on 12th November 2008 which had called into question the previous direction of the investigation. 
  • Our primary concern about the premature leaking of details of the review of financial management relates to issues of fairness in the way these leaks are reported in the media without an adequate opportunity for an alternative perspective to be considered. We give further consideration to this matter in the final section of our report.

Key Findings
  • The evidence we have received points to Mr. Gradwell as the person responsible for leaking information from draft sections of the work which Mr. Kellett had prepared for the BDO Alto review. 
  • Neither BDO Alto nor Mr. Kellett were responsible for the leak of information to the Mail on Sunday.
  • Mr. Gradwell’s action in releasing prematurely to the media draft sections of an uncompleted report would have been a serious disciplinary matter for the Police. However, no action could be taken against him by the SOJ Police as Mr. Gradwell had completed his secondment and left the Island. 
  • Mr. Gradwell’s reasons for taking such an unprofessional step are not clear to us as he refused to participate in the Scrutiny review. 

Show No Fear 

Do not be intimidated

Truth, Honesty & Integrity 

Rico Sorda Part Time Investigative Journalist

Team Voice