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


thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Just put up Audio of the John Humphries interviewing His Boss George Entwistle & you can comepair that interview with the one our Matthew Price did with his Boss Jon Gripton.

You & your readers can Listen HERE


Anonymous said...

Has anyone contacted Mr Gradwell?

Anonymous said...


Bravo! If we get to the truth about David Rose we just might know the real story of organized protection of child abusers at the highest level.

My question is why there is no mainstream media interest in exposing the real David Rose. We know he is notorious, shadowy, and sometimes confused with others by the same name who work in the media.

We know he has publicly admitted to lying about WMD in Iraq at the request of the government. He even apologized for that one, saying he had a family to support. Think of the lives effected, lives lost. Is that to be his family's happy legacy?

We know that media fact checkers have torn apart his false climate change denial articles in which he has disseminated inaccuracies on behalf of big oil interests.

What we don't know is who is behind the campaign by David Rose to discredit child rapists and ruin the lives of their victims and demonize those heroes who fight child abuse, but he is a travesty. His effect on the world is unspeakably evil. To those who agree the real story should be how children were abused in care, David Rose needs to become a subject of intense journalistic scrutiny, never again a published journalist.

Thanks once again, Rico, for doing what a hundred others should have done and are presumably being paid salaries to do as reporters. It is no wonder the media is in a state of crisis; you are among the few even asking the important questions!


Anonymous said...

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].

Someone needs to track down this Gradwell and ask him straight out what he was playing at. Judging from one of the links they met in person. Surely he would have told David Rose to get lost as he was discrediting a child abuse investigation..

Anonymous said...

Given the observable interest American college journalism students take in this man, it's surprisingly hard to find much published on him in the mainstream. The media will once again have to answer questions on their failure to cover this, but you bloggers are doing a remarkable job.


Anonymous said...

You mention Frank Beck, but isn't a great deal of evidence that suggests that Beck was an innocent fall guy and the real culprit was a highly placed politician (Labour this time)?

rico sorda said...

I have emailed the Chief Minister of Jersey and asked him for clarification regarding the Committee of Enquiry into decades long child abuse and what part of the terms of reference covers the illegal suspension of the Chief of Police Graham Power.

This suspension goes to the heart of the culture of concealment.

From: rico sorda
To: ""
Sent: Saturday, 10 November 2012, 10:46
Subject: Committee of Enquiry

Dear Chief Minister,

Could you please clarify the part of the TOR'S that include the suspension of the former Chief of police Graham Power. I will be taking my evidence forward to the enquiry but just need this clarification.

Kind Regards

Rico Sorda

voiceforchildren said...


Speaking of the suspension of the Former Police Chief. Don't hold your breath on getting a reply from Ian Gorst.

UnHappyAnniversary FOUR

Zoompad said...

The Daily Mail have not published my comments about David Rose, I included a link to the Hansard 2002 Select Committee, along with David Cameron.

Anonymous said...

Didn't they ask this question last week and replied that Graham Power is not included in this inquiry?

Anonymous said...

Rico, I hope Rob Kent doesn't mind me repeating his comment from Planet Jersey.

My reading of this is that the BBC went into a headless-chicken panic after the Savile affair and made several knee-jerk reactions, one of which was the terrible Newsnight report.

But before the Newsnight report, they were dealing with/sitting on a number of complaints about bias at BBC Jersey. I had at least one outstanding to which they kept sending me stalling emails to the effect that they were looking into it. Next thing, to my astonishment, they invite all of the establishment critics and bloggers to appear on one prime-time radio programme. The timing of that decision is not accidental I think and it could have easily blown up in their face like the Newsnight one did.

But the fact that they now allow those voices to be heard after three years of publishing the establishment defamations against Graham Power and Lenny Harper does not compensate for the fact that they were not objective and impartial during that period.

Jon Gripton was unconvincing when Neil put it to him that he had published the prosecution case against Graham Power but not the defence one. Also, they did not answer the accusation that the Wilshire Report was an internal, confidential, pre-disciplinary report that was only to be seen by the parties involved. Why did Le Marquand publicly reveal it? Why did all Jersey media publish its details? And why wasn't the defence case published with equal prominence?

Also, Gripton's defence that the critics voices have been heard does not stack up. There is a major difference between a banner headline accusing Lenny Harper of incompetence and graft (paying NOTW reporters) and then allowing someone on a phone-in to say that is not true. One is the main item on the evening news, listened to and believed by a large portion of the population; the other is characterized as the small voice of a conspiracy theorist.

Does everyone remember when Perchard was in the BBC studio and Neil called in and Perchard referred to him as a 'benefit scrounger'? This is what we are talking about here. It's not good enough for Le Marquand and Gripton to say, 'You do get heard - you have your blogs, your phone-ins'. Well the truth is, that if the Jersey establishment had their way, they would silence all those blogs with all their uncomfortable truths and their stupid evidence. Wasn't Stuart Syvret sent to jail for what he had on his blog? Isn't there currently a 'super-injunction' against him to stop him writing about several individuals? And isn't he threatened with a return to jail unless he redacts all of their names from his site?

The bloggers have fought to get the opposing views across in the face of ridicule, threats, legal threats, and a mass of spin and propaganda from the likes of the JEP. BBC Jersey has been asleep on the job and Jon Gripton's feted investigative journalists failed to investigate Graham Power's 63,000 word defence against Wilshire or Lenny Harper's High Court affidavit. They apparently thought that Ian Le Marquand's tendentious and selective quotation from a confidential disciplinary report was good enough for them.

Anybody who has read the transcripts of the initial hearings between Ian Le Marquand and Dr. T. Brain (Chairman of the Chief Police Officers Staff Association) can see that Dr T Brain destroyed everything to do with Power's suspension in a couple of withering attacks. The fact that they didn't follow procedure, the fact that Ian le Marquand was conflicted, the fact that there was no substantive complaint, just a fishing expedition - he exposed it for what it was: an act of political expediency.

The evidence is out there, but all the Jersey media have chosen to ignore it for the last three years and have carried on repeating the initial smears and lies against Harper and Power. So, I am sorry, but they are party to the cover up of child abuse on Jersey.

I will be interested to receive the response to my complaint to the BBC.

Anonymous said...

One of the best investigative blogs on child abuse cover ups in the british isles. Part time my backside. Who is the real rico sorda?

rico sorda said...

Hi Anon

I can assure anyone reading my blog that im not a trained journalist (that should be obvious. I simply went out and purchased a computer so I could get going. I have always followed my instincts and never been afraid to ask the questions.

Some idiots thought they could scare me off but not a chance.

I've had some nugget saying that he has emailed the Daily Mail and asked if David Rose could sue me please for all the bad things im saying.


Those comments give me such a laugh.

what im publishing is deadly serious.

Thanks for supporting the Jersey blogs

rico sorda said...

"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."

I have caught a SIO of the Jersey Abuse Investigation leaking selective material to journalist David Rose. This was confirmed by Mike Kellett during the BDO Review.

Where is Mick Gradwell? I gave him the oppurtunity at the Home Affairs Sub Panel Review to give evidence and back up what his big mouth was saying... He ran. I had caught him. He knew he was a busted flush.

Our Media say nothing


Zoompad said...

They are getting desperate now, that's why they are trying scare tactics, threatening to sue bloggers.

David Rose would have to be off his rocker if he tried to sue any of the whistleblowers and Pindown victims, and so would Lord McAlpine.

The Lord promised all things would be revealed, and just look what is happening!

Anonymous said...

Rico says:

Le Marquand must explain, (and will have the perfect opportunity to do so on BBC Radio Jersey on Friday)

Is Le Marquand on the radio again this week Rico?

rico sorda said...

No, it's an old posting. I don't hunk he will be in the studio on these issues again for sometime. I would rather see him at a committee of enquiry explaining his actions.


rico sorda said...

This question asked in the States of Jersey has to do with the alleged super-injunction taken against former Senator Stuart Syvret.



a) Would the Attorney General explain the circumstances in which a States Department or States appointed body could seek a so-called super-injunction on behalf of named individual private citizens?

b) In the event of a so-called super-injunction being sought by any States Department or States appointed body would the Attorney General explain how the States Assembly can effectively hold those bringing such actions to account either to prevent an abuse of power or for the expenditure of public money when it currently has no means of effectively knowing about such actions?


(a) There is no States Department or States Appointed Body that can obtain a super- injunction on behalf of any private individual. That right vests in and remains with the private individual.

(b) The Royal Court determines whether or not any injunction should be ordered on the application of a private citizen. If the application is justified, then the States Assembly will not be told about it because the Royal Court has determined that it is in the interests of justice that the proceedings remain private. In circumstances in which the order is justified, the need to “hold someone to account” cannot arise and in any event, States Members will not wish to subvert a Court Order. A party to the litigation who is unhappy with the Court’s decision has a right of appeal. If the application for an injunction is not justified, then the Royal Court will order that the court proceedings should be heard in public and then the States Assembly will become aware of the matter.

Anonymous said...


Re: The Q & A you just posted on injunctions, above.

Is that the Attorney General's formal statement of reply?

rico sorda said...

It was a written question lodged by Deputy Higgins that was the AG's reply.


Anonymous said...

Hi Rico,
100% sure I read in the pravda last week, that Graham powers suspension will not form part of the TORs (not online, in the written kitty litter).


damocles said...

Surely, the evil nature of super injunctions is that the person that those legal weapons of mass dissimulation are attacked by has no recourse to telling people that they are being attacked.

The reply states that appeal is possible but the legal forces are known to be reluctant to reverse decisions of other representatives of those forces - they blatantly say so!

The reply effectively illustrates the attitude that believes that what the forces of law decide is almost certainly justified but, in these super injunction cases, nobody can be allowed to criticise them because they cannot be allowed to know anything about it - or even if it exists.

It seems like a carte blanche system for allowing biased, prejudiced or politically expedient traductions to be made that no-one can scrutinise.

Evil, Evil, Evil - hiding in plain sight!

Anonymous said...

Re the super injunction: therefore it has to be asked who approached the 'gang of four' and offered them the opportunity of having a super injunction being taken out on their behalf?

The Beano is not the Rag

Anonymous said...

Well done Rico :-) Put a link in my latest blog to this one.

Linda Corby

Póló said...

Hi Rico

Passing on the challenge:


cc VFC, Stuart.

Anonymous said...

House of Commons child sexual exploitation debate ,,, live this afternoon...
Jersey government institutions exposed in the cover-up of child abuse... including the sacking of the Health Minister and the suspension of the Chief of Police...
BBC Jersey implicated in this cover up,
The reputation of the Jersey authorities has been completely trashed in this House of Commons debate,
Shame on all those involved.

GSD Owner said...

Respect RICO , you are the John Pilger of Journalists.Thank You for what you are doing exposing evil and corruption and for championing child abuse victims in the face of intimidation.Keep up the great work you are doing.Mick Gradwell and David Rose are pure evil .Do they sleep well at night I wonder? Of the 2 Gradwell is worse as he had a 'Duty of Care' and betrayed victims.Rose sounds like he would write anything he is told to write with cash being the prime motivator.What despicable desperate people.Thank God you are revealing them for what that are.

Rob Kent said...

@GSD Owner: "Respect RICO , you are the John Pilger of Journalists."

Um, John Pilger is the John Pilger of journalists. Rico is the John Pilger of 'pipe-fitters'. Although, I don't know he's even a pipe-fitter. Could be a pipe maker or smoker, though.

Whatever it is, they don't like it up 'em, as someone recently deceased was known to say.

Best wishes to all of you.

Anonymous said...

I read David Roses article, then tried to leave a comment but it stopped at 22 very strange, I have followed this child abuse saga for months now, there are some good threads that I have been lead to, and the question I ask again is why Macalpine did not sue Scallywag, David Ike and the rest of the finger pointers all those years ago,I have formed my own opinions on all this,if and when the tip of the iceburg melts the last 7th 8ths will sink slowly to the bottom and the guilty will go with them. As a question....of all the photographs of David Rose that I have seen appears to be nearly the same, simular clothes unkempt hair never seems to age, is this an old agency photo of him or is it a makeover, he says he has been a journalist for 30 years or more never aged then

Anonymous said...

I assumed from the start that a committee of inquiry would be unable to incorporate the Power Harper scandal. It is quite specifically for looking into the history of child abuse, victims, perpetrators and the establishment that was running the care homes. I don't see how Mr Power will ever get justice unless someone is able to supply the funds to enable him to sue the States of jersey. It is such a shame that he wasn't sacked. Had that happened, then he could have had his day in court on the grounds of unlawful dismissal. Does make me wonder if 'they' deliberately dragged out his suspension awaiting his retirement.stsbcpu2476

Advocate Sinel said...

This is very,verys,good journalism informed methodical and analytical. I a was designated liaison;victims and SOJP as soon as Mr.Harper left the Island the flow of victims and document stopped. No one seemed to trust Warcup.

We have a very good idea what will happen when the Inquiry publishes it report. Watch the oligarchy go into overdrive to bury and semblance of truth.