Sunday, February 3, 2013

THE JERSEY LAW OFFICE - THE CURTIS WARREN CAR BUGGING SAGA - BETWEEN THE LINES











HAVING TO GO WHERE THE LOCAL MEDIA DARE NOT TREAD - THE SNAKES HEAD






"THE CULTURE OF CONCEALMENT"



"THE JERSEY LAW OFFICE"



"AN  ENTITY THAT DOES'NT  WANT ANYBODY LOOKING AT IT"


IN THIS POSTING WE LOOK AT THE LAYMAN'S BREAKDOWN OF THE RELEVANT PARTS OF THE WRITTEN JUDGEMENT BY CHIEF CONSTABLE MIKE BARTON OF DURHAM CONSTABULARY CONCERNING THE ACTIONS OF 3 POLICE OFFICERS BUGGING THE HIRE CAR INVOLVED IN  CURTIS WARREN'S CONSPIRACY TO IMPORT CANNABIS INTO JERSEY.




This posting has to be read in conjunction with the posting by fellow Team Voice member Voiceforchildren.




First you will get part of the Judgement and then directly below a Laymen's explanation of that part.This Layman's explanation has been leaked to the Jersey Bloggers so readers will have a better understanding of the conclusions of Constable Barton. 




We believe that it is of a public interest disclosure seeing as a precedent was set by current Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand. The Home Affairs Minister published the prosecution case against former Chief of Police, Graham Power QPM, as explained further in the posting by VFC. Link above..

In the absence of any Investigative Journalism in Jersey and the mistrust that many feel towards the local Jersey Mainstream Media it has again come to the bloggers to publish the evidence. 

For a further breakdown on the Curtis Warren car bugging saga readers are encourage to visit the excellent Blog site of former Deputy and 30 year  MET Police Veteran Bob Hill B.E.M.


You can also listen to the Attorney General, Tim Le Cocq, and Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand, avoiding answering straight questions in the States of Jersey on this subject below. It is a must listen piece of Audio. I thank TheJerseyWay for providing this excellent avenue.




   “BETWEEN THE LINES."

This document contains some observations and comments on the written findings of the Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary sitting as Presiding Officer in the Police Disciplinary Tribunal in the case of officers Minty, Beghin and Courtness of the States of Jersey Police.   It has been prepared to assist readers who may be less familiar with the Police Disciplinary Process and the written findings of a Tribunal convened under the Police Discipline Code.


The majority of the document setting out the findings of the Presiding Officer of the above Disciplinary Tribunal speaks for itself.   However, some readers of that document may think that it raises a number of questions and that there are some interesting messages “between the lines.” What follows are our informal comments on some aspects of the published findings which readers who are less familiar with documents of this nature may have found difficult.   We hope that our comments, based on no special inside knowledge, but relying on information which is already in the public domain, local enquiries we have been able to make, and our experience of such cases, might shed some light on the more opaque areas of the Tribunal’s decision and assist any discussions which may take place in consequence of what the document has to say. We will only comment where we think that there is something which we can usefully add, and will do so using the paragraph numbers in the original document prepared by the Presiding Officer.   Before we begin our comments it might be appropriate to point out that, from what we have been told, the Disciplinary Tribunal was in fact the second and lesser stage of a much longer process.   The first stage was a full criminal investigation intended to establish whether there was a basis for any of the three officers, and a number of other individuals, to be charged with Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice, and/or Perjury.   We have been told that most of those under suspicion were interviewed as criminal suspects.   That enquiry came to an end after independent senior lawyers in England ruled that there was no basis for any criminal charges.   The Disciplinary Case was therefore in some respects a “second bite at the cherry.”   Readers may wish to know that the standard of proof in a criminal case is “beyond all reasonable doubt” whereas the standard in a disciplinary case is “the balance of probabilities” which is a less demanding test.   This difference sometimes enables senior officers to pursue allegations against police officers even when very similar allegations have failed the test for a criminal prosecution.   Organisations which represent police officers sometimes allege that what are effectively criminal allegations are “dressed up” as disciplinary issues in the knowledge that they would never stand up in Court but might slip under the bar at a disciplinary hearing.   The hearing chaired by the Chief Constable of Durham was therefore a disciplinary hearing which came after a criminal investigation in which all of the accused officers had been formally exonerated of any criminal act.
All that said we offer the following comments on the paragraphs of the findings of the hearing which we have numbered below.



From the Judgement:

3.  It is alleged that these three officers not only misled foreign law enforcement officials but also senior officers within the States of Jersey Police Force and members of the  Law Officers' Department in relation to the audio surveillance of the vehicle as it travelled through the foreign jurisdictions.


Between the lines Paragraph 3.  
Note that the three officers were apparently accused of not only misleading foreign law-enforcement officers but also Senior Officers (unspecified in the document) in the States of Jersey Police Force and members of the Law Officers Department.   Given that Minty is a Chief Inspector and may have been acting in the rank of Superintendent at the relevant time, the Senior Officers who were allegedly deceived were likely to be the then Acting Deputy Chief Officer, Shaun DuVal, and the then Chief Officer, Graham Power.   Yet we understand that neither person was called to give evidence.   Moreover, the Attorney General appeared to indicate recently that neither he nor his department were involved in the disciplinary hearing.   We are therefore inclined to ask just what evidence was brought to the hearing to support the allegation that these people were deceived.   If no evidence was called then these allegations could not reasonably be expected to succeed.   It is no surprise therefore that those particular charges were dismissed.


From the Judgement:

7. I should point out at this stage that not all advocacy in this case has been as good.The officers can, quite rightly, feel aggrieved that Advocate Gollop did not recognize an immediate conflict of interest.   I also deprecate the manner in which Advocate Whittacker left the officers unrepresented.  I remain perplexed where the money set aside for the potential expert McKay has gone. I also stated when I gave my verbal
decision on Thursday 10 January 2013 that I did not expect to see my comments in the media and whilst I was not gagging others, I did make it clear that I did not authorise the use of my comments other than for this hearing and I do not authorise the publication of this written judgment other than for the purposes of this hearing.


Between the lines Paragraph 7.   
Senior figures in the Jersey Legal Establishment are not used to criticism and so Advocate Julian Gollop may not enjoy reading the observation that he, who we understand was the Advocate initially appointed for the officer’s defence by the Police Association Insurers, was slow to identify a conflict of interest.   We have enquired as to the nature of the alleged conflict and understand that it related to Advocate Gollop’s role as prosecutor on behalf of the Attorney General in relation to the original Warren case.   Observers of the Jersey legal scene will be aware that Advocate Gollop is a frequent recipient of briefs of this nature on behalf of the Crown.   There is nothing wrong with that in itself, but it created a conflict of interest which the Tribunal felt Advocate Gollop was slow to identify.   It was Advocate Gollop who, during the Warren trial, promoted the line on behalf of the Crown that the complications regarding the bugging of the car in France arose because the police had acted illegally.   This did not sit well with what we have been told was the position of the accused officers which was that the Law Officers Department had misunderstood the law, over-stated the alleged illegality, or at least had supported and encouraged the actions taken by the police.   These are two conflicting views and it is difficult to see how it was ever thought that the same Advocate could advance both, albeit at different hearings.   There is also in this paragraph, a reference to a second Advocate apparently departing from the case at short notice.   If true then it is certainly bad form at the least.   However in this case the outcome was positive in that the able Advocate Sinel stepped in at short notice and by all accounts did an impressive job.   Whatever the feelings of other Advocates in relation to the case, the prospect of criticising the conduct of the Jersey law Officers Department and thereby blotting his copybook for the future, was clearly not at the top of Advocate Sinels worry-list.   Also in this paragraph there is an intriguing reference to an expert witness by the name of McKay for whom money had been set aside which had then apparently gone missing.   Regular observers of the Jersey scene will be aware that missing money is not exactly an unknown phenomenon in the Island, but a reference to such an event in the findings of a disciplinary case is somewhat unusual.   We have made enquiries in an attempt to find out more about this matter and confess that we have been unable to establish the full picture.   However, from what we have been told it appears that the witness McKay was an expert lawyer from the UK who specialised in the legalities of surveillance cases.   We have been told that he produced a legal opinion which stated that the Jersey Law Officers had not fully understood the law relating to the bugging of the car in France and may not have presented the full legal picture to the Privy Council before it made its criticism of the Police.   Mr McKay is said to have concluded that the officers in the case did nothing illegal.   Defence funds were set aside in order to secure his evidence for the disciplinary hearing, yet according the record of the hearing, those funds disappeared.   We do not know whether Mr McKay’s evidence, or indeed Mr McKay himself, disappeared at the same time, but like others we would like to know more about this episode.



From the Judgement:

8. I should also point out that when I gave my verbal decision in this matter, I referred specifically to a letter written by Assistant Chief Constable Pryde of the Hampshire Constabulary to the Attorney General dated 28 July 2011 did not receive an acknowledgement let alone a response. This was the evidence given by Detective Chief Superintendent Cessford who was a representative of the Hampshire Police. I am, however, informed that this letter although shown to me and confirmed by Mr Cessford as having been sent, was not actually sent to the Attorney General in Jersey and therefore my comments about finding it odd that there had been no response to this letter were, at the time that I made them, inaccurate.   Be that as it may, and having now been informed that the letter was never sent, the position in relation to the co-operation by the Attorney General and the States Police in Jersey remains the same. I do find it odd that having asked the Hampshire Police to investigate the matters  surrounding   the   Curtis  Warren   police   operation,   the authorities in Jersey did not co-operate fully in the way that I would have expected given that it was they that asked for the enquiry to be carried out. Mr. Cessford made this very clear and I have no reason to doubt it and that caused me some considerable surprise. I maintain that this lack of co-operation or, perhaps more  accurately,  lack  of  complete   co-operation,   can   only   have  compromised  the Hampshire enquiry and limited the full facts available to me to make a decision in this case.   I stress again that this is just one of the unsatisfactory elements of this case
 
which have either been decided upon or effected the Crown about which more later.


Between the lines Paragraph 8.   
This paragraph deals with the letter that was never sent.   The letter was from Assistant Chief Constable Pryde of Hampshire Police to HM Attorney General for Jersey.   At the disciplinary hearing the letter was referred to by Chief Superintendent Cessford of Hampshire Police who said that it had been sent but no acknowledgement or reply had been received.   It later emerged that the letter had been prepared but had never been posted.   We are given no more direct information on this matter but, given what is said later in this paragraph, we may be able to “join the dots” and make a fair guess as to what happened.   The report of the decision of the hearing goes on to state that the “authorities in Jersey” and in particular the States of Jersey Police, did not cooperate fully with the Disciplinary Enquiry.   The context of these comments implies that the Law Officers Department are one of the “authorities” to which this comment refers.   This is in our experience remarkable and unprecedented.   So what are we to make of it?   To begin with we understand that a proper police disciplinary enquiry would seek to obtain all of the relevant evidence whether it was for or against the accused officers.   We do not know what the difficulty was, but we feel confident that a proper enquiry would ask for things such as notes of legal advice, records of meetings, transcripts and documents showing what was actually said and done at the time and by who, rather than what people would attempt to claim later with the benefit of hindsight.  It sometimes happens that the Investigating Officers would wish to speak to witness other than those put forward to them by the police force commissioning the investigation. If they are good investigators then they will “follow the evidence” rather than an agenda prescribed by others.   Is it possible that Hampshire Police made requests of this nature, and that they were refused?   And if so why?   Could it be that there existed evidence which would support the version of events given by the accused officers and discredit the version given by others, and that there were individuals in positions of authority that were resolved that this evidence would never emerge?   In our minds, that is what it appears is being implied in the Tribunal findings.   Without more information we cannot be sure.   But the above background may cast some light on the unsent letter which is referred to in the early part of the paragraph.   Is it possible that this was a letter to the Attorney General drafted by Cessford for his boss, Pryde, to sign?   Could it be that the letter contained details of alleged non-cooperation by the Law Officers Department, which Cessford wanted his boss to put on record?   Perhaps Pryde thought better of it, perhaps he decided not to send the letter but then failed to tell Cessford, which then left Cessford in the position of referring to the letter during the hearing only to discover later that it had not been sent?   Without more information we can only speculate on this matter.   Nevertheless, the findings of the Tribunal paint a picture of the States of Jersey Police, in apparent consultation with the Law Officers and others, commissioning an independent investigation of their own officers, and then failing to cooperate with that investigation.    It would be understandable if readers viewed this behaviour as unusual and bordering on the surreal, and it would be understandable if there was speculation as to what if anything the Force and others felt they had to hide from investigators which they themselves had appointed.



From the Judgement:

16. To a large extent this is a factually accurate summary of events, however, the French and Dutch authorities did give consent to track Welsh's Jersey vehicle through France and Holland as did the Belgium authorities and, Commissions Rogatoires were in place in relation to that particular vehicle. There was however, no permission  granted by the French or the Dutch authorities at any time to install and monitor audio tracking devices in their jurisdictions. Both DS Beghin and Dl (name redacted) (as they then were) did speak on 11 July 2007, to Advocate Jowitt, the Crown Advocate with conduct of the criminal prosecution against Warren and others, about the likelihood of receiving  the  necessary  permissions for this  technical  tracking  and  audio monitoring in other jurisdictions.  In essence, Crown Advocate Jowitt stated that this was essentially an operational decision for the police but he also stated that any audio evidence obtained was unlikely to be excluded by a Jersey Court regardless of whether consent had been obtained or not.  He went on to say, "if it was me I would go ahead and do it but don't quote me on that".   The Presenting Officer makes it clear that in his view, this was not 'legal advice' and should not have been relied upon. Whilst I accept that this was not legal advice as such, I nevertheless think that
it was a comment made by a senior Crown Advocate having conduct of the prosecution of the case which could only serve to encourage the officers in deploying the audio monitoring device in the vehicle and obtaining the product to see later whether it would be admissible in Court or not. It is right that this was an operational decision but, nevertheless, it cannot be the case that the officers are not entitled to at least take some comfort from what they are told by the Crown Advocate prosecuting  the case.   Ultimately, it became clear that Welsh would not be travelling in his own vehicle but would be travelling as a foot passenger to France where upon he would collect a hire car.  Ultimately the officers decided to ascertain the identity of the hire car and obtained the permission of the hirer namely, (name redacted), to install devices into the hire vehicle. As far as fitting the tracking devices on the hire car were concerned, a police to police request was made of the French police to allow the installation of a"tracking device on the rental car".   No mention was made of an audio device and ultimately the French police apparently gave consent for a tracking device to being installed.


Between the lines Paragraph 16.  
 It could be said that this is a key paragraph.   It sets out the extent, or at least the extent to which it is known and admitted, that the Jersey law Officers encouraged and supported the actions of the three officers.


From the Judgement:

20 - 21.As far as DC Courtness (as he was then) is concerned, then he is accused of being party to a lie to the French police because he was called on duty to travel to France  in order to fit the tracking and audio devices and prior to leaving the Jersey police headquarters to catch the boat to go to France he asked DS Beghin (as he then was) what he should say to the French if they asked what he was doing fitting the audio device and DS Beghin told him to say that this was a back-up tracking device which  was clearly not the case.  In the event, DC (name redacted) who accompanied DC Courtness to France was there as an interpreter and it was she who told the French police that the audio device was a back-up tracking device and that is essentially the allegation against DC Courtness.
Evidence
21 I found all of the officers to be open and honest. They were working 20 hours a day for a month at a stretch.   Any errors, omissions or partial briefings in e-mails or similar are understandable. This case spanned far more than whether the Dutch had agreed to the listening of an audio device in the hire car.   For example, there were Commission Rogatoires in place - indeed the three countries, Holland, Belgium and France, fully co-operated with surveillance assets, interestingly for the red Citroen hire car, not the VW Golf that Rebecca Boxall had stipulated in her requests for cooperation.  I found DS Courtness' evidence to be utterly convincing.  He was placed in an unenviable position and has approached his role professionally. He was asked to do a particular job on a particular day and was not directly involved in communicating anything at all to French police officers. Indeed, he could not speak French and they could not speak English so I fail to see how he could have misled them in any way. He asked, understandably in a covert policing operation, what he was to say to French police in the event that they asked questions about the audio device and his superior officer told him what to say. In the event he didn't say anything at all to the French Police and, therefore, I find it difficult to see why he is in this position defending disciplinary charges.





Between the lines Paragraphs 20 and 21.   
These paragraphs are evidential and factual, but entertaining nevertheless.   They deal with the allegation that Sergeant Courtness lied to the French authorities during the installation of a device in the hire car in France.   The Presiding Officer points out, rather dryly, that Courtness did not speak French, the French Officers did not speak English and in any event during the relevant activity, Courtness did not speak at all.   Not much of a case against Courtness you might think?   Well apparently it was thought good enough to merit the trouble and expenditure of disciplinary action.   Exactly who authorised and pursued this charge has not emerged with any certainty at the time of writing.


From the Judgement:
23. I find some of Detective Inspector Beghin's evidence to have been eroded by time. His fortitude in giving evidence against a doctor's advice has gone in his favour.  He  was working incredible hours and he is a witness of truth.  I can see why he feels he was thrown to the wolves. I also understand that since the time of my verbal decision  in this matter and this written Judgment, Dl Beghin has fallen ill and was admitted to intensive care. I wish him a speedy recovery and I hope that he is able to move on with his life once he does recover.


Between the lines Paragraph 23.  
In paragraph 23 we are given a reminder that this whole business has not been a mere academic exercise.   The time, the pressure and the strain of this disciplinary action has taken a human toll.   Such things often do.  Those initiating matters of this nature need to bear this aspect in mind.




From the Judgement:

29As far as the Privy Council case is concerned then this is a different hearing.   In relation to this disciplinary hearing I have heard different evidence, evidence that the Privy Council did not hear and that is why I have come to a verdict which some may say is contrary to the comments made by the Privy Council but I disagree that it is contradictory because as I have said I have heard different evidence. I have tried my best to be fair to all parties throughout these proceedings. I have let matters run within a reasonable time and I have read all the evidence offered in documentary form, even the unsatisfactory elements such as statements that have been submitted to me unsigned and transposed onto Hampshire Police paper without the signed versions being put to the witnesses.  It may well be that these statements are identical to the signed versions but when a witness calls the statements into question I am in some difficulty when the signed versions are not put before me. Moreover, it
was made clear to me that the Presenting Officer had put forward all of the evidence that was necessary in this case and that did not include signed versions of the statements. I have, however, listened carefully to all of the witnesses and I have balanced all of the evidence to come to my conclusion. In my conclusion I have no doubt that the officers have done nothing reprehensible. They have not broken the disciplinary code. Indeed, the evidence has shown me that they were part of a professional and effective investigation team.


Between the lines Paragraph 29.   
This paragraph raises an interesting issue regarding the apparent unavailability of signed witness statements taken during the disciplinary enquiry.   From what we are told in the document setting out the findings of the Tribunal, it appears that typed but unsigned witness statements were put before the hearing.   It then appears that in giving evidence one or more witnesses disputed the contents of the statements.   In order to resolve this issue the original signed versions were asked for and were not available.   This paragraph in the Tribunals findings is carefully composed, but there is a subtle implication that the content of statements may have been tampered with between the original signing of the statement and the typed version being put to the hearing.   Only a further investigation could resolve this matter.



From the Judgement:

30I have heard the reported remarks attributed to Messrs. Warcup and Power about commendations for these officers and I agree with those sentiments.   These and other officers protected the Island of Jersey from one of the UK's worst criminals, for that they should continue to take professional and personal satisfaction.


Between the lines Paragraph 30.   
It is not often that a disciplinary hearing ends with a recommendation that the accused officers be commended for their actions.   This is another rare and interesting aspect of this case.


From the Judgement:

31. In all the circumstances, I find that none of the charges against these officers are proved and I dismiss all charges accordingly.



Between the lines Paragraph 31.   
This is a seemingly routine paragraph but nevertheless one with an important message.   It tells us that the allegations have not been proved.   And it is a reminder for anyone thinking of embarking on disciplinary action of this nature.   The making of accusations is easy, saying that “something should be done” is easy, assembling evidence to prove matters before a hearing and in the face of a robust defence is a harder task.   Minty, Beghin and Courtness did not have to prove their innocence.   Their accusers had to prove their guilt, and failed to do so at great public expense.End



Between the Lines.The hearing is over but the arguments may continue for a while yet.  Not recorded in the written findings, but now openly discussed in the public domain, is the question of who exactly started this disciplinary enquiry.   It is being claimed that at the hearing the Deputy Chief Officer Barry Taylor said in his evidence that the matter was initiated by the Attorney General.   The Attorney General has since said in the States that this is not true.   At the time of writing it appears that following the expensive failure of the disciplinary case, nobody is taking responsibility for the decision to start proceedings, and that the parties involved are blaming each other.  People should not be surprised at this development.


We hope that these hurried notes are of help to those reading the written account of the findings in the above case. End

Again it has come to the Jersey Bloggers to bring you the evidence. The question that must be asked is why isn't this being leaked to the Jersey Mainstream Media?


Rico Sorda Part Time Investigative Journalist


TRUTH - HONESTY AND INTEGRITY


40 comments:

Anonymous said...

An incredible scoop from the Voice Team. Just a thought for now. It is interesting that both the States Police and the Attorney General witheld their cooperation from the Hampshire Police Disciplinary Enquiry. I always thought that "Obstructing the Police" was a criminal offence. Has anyone been arrested yet?

rico sorda said...

Hi Anon,

This could help explain why the crime figures are down.

You raise a very important question.

rs

Charles Frith said...

If there are any questions you wish me to address to Hampshire police on Twitter just email them to me and I'll be happy to annoy them charles.frith at gmail dot com

Keep up the excellent work

Ian Evans said...

World class Rico :)

Anonymous said...

Cessford and Taylor lied to the hearing under the watch of Bowron (now identified as the complainant by le Marquand ) and all happily funded by the minister. What on earth can happen now??

Anonymous said...

We pay these people to care for our safety and rid us of corruption with them behaveing like this GOD HELP US.

Ian Evans said...

Only one way to deal with government corruption...."ACTA NON VERBA".

Anonymous said...

Rico,

Great piece, bar one little thing - your comment on para 31. Remember, this is a disciplinary hearing, and the standard of proof required is only balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

That the case failed tells us that the Chief Constable of Durham basically regards the allegations brought as, not to put too fine a point on it, cobblers. It gives reasonable cause to ask whether the Law Officers are actually fit to hold the offices they do.

rico sorda said...

I should point out that their not my comments as I explained in the text.

Its very interesting as to what exactly is going on here and cobblers is a good place to start. A lot of reading to get through. Who has oversight of the Law office?

rs

Anonymous said...

Jewett really should have expected to be "quoted on that." It's probably the line everyone will remember.

Do Crown Advocates routinely expect to be exempt? Why would he say it, then?

Larry Rivers said...

Advocate Gollop (of Baker & Partners) was leading the prosecution of Curtis Warren on behalf of the Crown and his boss Advocate Stephen Baker (of Baker & Partners) was heading up the defence team.

Setting aside the obvious potential conflicts here this is just one big Kerrching moment for the firm right?

Anonymous said...

What happened to Mckay and the money let alone his evidence.

Anonymous said...

Apparently Taylor and Bowron - and their hot shot lawyer macrae of Carey Olsen all ignored the contents of the expert opinion and objected to him being called to give evidence...

Póló said...

Excellent and courageous work.

Makes a clear case for more independent mainland scrutiny of the Mad Hatters Tea Party.

(ditto VFC)

Anonymous said...

First Simon Thomas Independant Lawyer Joins Baker and Partners and now we have

Advocate Julian Gollop appointed as Partner

Baker & Partners, who are the highest ranked bespoke litigation practice in the 2012 Chambers & Partners and Legal500 directories for dispute resolution in the Island, have bolstered their expertise with the appointment of a new Partner.

Advocate Julian Gollop joins the firm from Walkers, where he previously held the position of Head of the Criminal Litigation Department. Julian has experience of a wide range of litigious matters including criminal work for both the defence and prosecution and also personal injuries claims for both plaintiffs and defendants. He is an experienced and respected courtroom advocate who regularly appears before the Royal Court of Jersey and Court of Appeal.

Commenting on his appointment, Advocate Gollop said “I look forward to working closely with Advocates Stephen Baker and David Wilson and the team at Baker & Partners. The firm has an excellent reputation for its litigation work and this is demonstrated in both courtroom successes and the legal directory rankings. I look forward to helping build on these accomplishments during my time with the firm.”

Senior Partner, Advocate Stephen Baker, commented “I am delighted that Julian has chosen to join our firm at this exciting stage in its development. His appointment is invaluable to the continued growth of our practise and I am confident that our clients will benefit from his broad range of experience and expertise.”

Ian Evans said...

Fruitcake Le Marquand & Co....BOTTLE IT

Anonymous said...

Are people going to be suspended or a cover up ???

Ian Evans said...

Conflict of interest in police complaint? SURELY NOT!

Anonymous said...

"Larry Rivers said...

Advocate Gollop (of Baker & Partners) was leading the prosecution of Curtis Warren on behalf of the Crown and his boss Advocate Stephen Baker (of Baker & Partners) was heading up the defence team.

Setting aside the obvious potential conflicts here this is just one big Kerrching moment for the firm right?"

Well there's grounds for appeal then.

The Beano is not the Rag

Anonymous said...

what did bowron get for leaking the document

Anonymous said...

Gollop has only recently moved to Baker and Partners. Previously he was at Walkers. Nothing to see here folks.

Stick to the facts, follow the evidence.

Anonymous said...

"Advocate Julian Gollop joins the firm from Walkers, where he previously held the position of Head of the Criminal Litigation Department. Julian has experience of a wide range of litigious matters including criminal work for both the defence and prosecution and also personal injuries claims for both plaintiffs and defendants. He is an experienced and respected courtroom advocate who regularly appears before the Royal Court of Jersey and Court of Appeal."

Dear Julian bless, he didn't do so well against a jobbing builder in december.

cyri

Anonymous said...

My god how can we trust a corrupt and bent police force i will never help them ever in case they say i did it,what was that saying if you want to know somthing ask a policeman, for get it.

rico sorda said...

By no means are all policeman bent. There are some very fine police officers in Jersey and should not be all tarred with the same brush. This applies to all the agencies. Beyond doubt there are problems down the SOJP but lets not tar everyone with the current goings on.

Anonymous said...

"Stick to the facts, follow the evidence."

You could add follow the money but the point of Jersey economy is to make that impossible.

Anonymous said...

Thanks anon @ February 4, 2013 at 8:37 PM

The Beano is not the Rag

Anonymous said...

Is this the Simon McKay?

McKay Law‏@McKay_Law

The case of Warren will be reviewed in our January edition of Covert Policing, Terrorism and Intelligence Law Review



Expand Reply
Retweet

Favorite

More

McKay Law‏@McKay_Law

CPPP 2 of 52: Warren v AG of Jersey [2011] UKPC 10 via http://www.bailii.org (surveillance - prosecutorial misconduct – abuse of process)



Expand Reply
Retweet

Favorite

More

Anonymous said...

Is this the Simon McKay?

McKay Law@McKay_Law

The case of Warren will be reviewed in our January edition of Covert Policing, Terrorism and Intelligence Law Review



Expand Reply
Retweet

Favorite

More

McKay Law@McKay_Law

CPPP 2 of 52: Warren v AG of Jersey [2011] UKPC 10 via http://www.bailii.org (surveillance - prosecutorial misconduct – abuse of process)



Expand Reply
Retweet

Favorite

More

Anonymous said...

Fantastic work- puts the main stream media to shame yet again.

No Great though - s@@@ travels downhill. Mc Kay probably gave evidence that didn't suit the crown officers and so the evidence was buried.

Just one factual inaccuracy... Beghin was never admitted to intensive care and repeating this fallacy may give the impression he his playing the sympathy card.e

Anonymous said...

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKPC/2011/10.html&query=warren&method=boolean


JUDGMENT

Curtis Francis Warren and others v Her Majesty's Attorney General of the Bailiwick of Jersey
From the Court of Appeal of Jersey
before
Lord Hope
Lord Rodger
Lord Brown
Lord Kerr
Lord Dyson
JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY
Lord Dyson
ON
28 March 2011
Heard on 9 and 10 February 2011




http://mckaylawblog.wordpress.com/

Anonymous said...

ILM in the States last week said words to the effect of: Even though its of Public interest I still won't be releasing the Hampshire Police Disiplinary Enquiry, because there is no one capable of making me, and because there is no one who would dare to do it....

Him, The Law Office Heads, and the Chief of Police have gone so quiet we can hear a pin drop!?

rico sorda said...

The Privy Council findings can be read here.

Was evidence withheld from the Privy Council to stitch the cops up????

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKPC/2011/10.html&query=curtis+and+warren&method=boolean

Our lot know the PC are going to nail the cops and then just carry on with the process?

rs

Anonymous said...

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2013/02/06/report-leaked-on-jersey-cops-who-illegally-bugged-car-in-operation-to-snare-liverpool-drugs-lord-curtis-warren-100252-32753459/

Anonymous said...

Team Bailhache :- Can't even organise a cover up in a small krypro-self governing Channel island.

What they need is full Independence from the UK, control of the Internet to match their control of the local press and loyal honoraries with Tasers.

Over my dead body !

Anonymous said...

Vulnerable kids in care, Principled and professional UK social workers, the (Ex.) Health Minister (Stewart Syvret) ............... and now Police Officers!
Is there ANYBODY that these spivs won't screw and sell to maintain their position and hold on power ?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

The plot continues to thicken after this latest "exclusive" from Former Jersey Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, tells us THE EVIDENCE DID NOT COME FROM ME"

Anonymous said...

Fluffy white helmet Bowron, would not be interviewed tonight, because he says its an internal matter....

Dont kid yourself CO Bowron this is huge!?

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Hear is Mr Graham Power being interviewed on BBC Jersey Radio about the Bugging of Curtis Warren's Car, you & your readers can Listen HERE

TJW.

Ian Evans said...

And speaking of Curtis Warren, inconsistent KANGAROO COURTS

Anonymous said...

Be aware that the "new" police chief and his deputy chief of police of the SOJP are both Freemasons - the sine qua non of successful employment under the Implied Terms and Conditions of employment at very senior rink in the same - ever since the men of great INTEGRITY of the likes of Lenny HARPER were dismissed for informing the GOOD people of Jersey with INTEGRITY [including yourself] - the TRUTH...