Monday, November 30, 2015






A couple of months ago, or around the time when Philip Bailhache was scare-mongering about the cost of Jersey's ongoing Child Abuse Inquiry. Where he was telling anybody who would listen that the Inquiry could cost up to £50m. He offered absolutely no evidence as to how he came to that figure and just as importantly wasn't asked for any before the Jersey Media began peddling it.

I was speaking with members of the Abuse Inquiry team and predicted that as it starts getting closer to Lenny Harper giving his evidence, a smear campaign would start up against him once more. Indeed, at the same time, I shared this prediction with Mr. Harper himself. It gives me no pleasure whatsoever in saying; "I told you so."

The latest (in many more to come no doubt) attempt at smearing the name of Lenny Harper (who was the Senior Investigating Officer in the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation operation Rectangle) and blew the lid off of Jersey's decades long dirty little secret in that children were being abused for decades by people with complete impunity) comes in the form of a proposition (P.58/2015) lodged by Deputy Terry McDonald.

The proposition is asking for an Ex Gratia payment to the tune of £360,000 to a local business man, Roy Boschat, for apparent loss of business after the then Deputy Chief Police Officer, Lenny Harper, had him investigated for alleged bribery and corruption among other alleged untoward antics as reported in the JEP HERE.

It will be interesting to see how the States vote on this one. I believe it will be easily rejected. I feel a little sorry for Deputy Mc Donald who has been used as the patsy for this proposition. As far as I know, this is his first. In fact, you would be very lucky indeed if you ever heard him speak during a States debate.  I will also be looking out for any member who voted in favour of the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) and the hardship that has come with it whilst  being prepared to pay out a £360,000 christmas bonus to a local business man. 

Here is a report by Lenny Harper outlining why an operation against Roy Boschat was set up. 


This is a police corruption enquiry into allegations that a corrupt relationship exists between a number of police officers and a local Towing/ Vehicle Recovery  Contractor by the name of Roy Boschat.

The first intelligence in respect of this came from a member of the Fire Brigade Staff who told police that two police officers were in a corrupt relationship with Roy Boschat.

On 30th March 2005, Edward Pippon of No 1 Recovery  Company told Professional Standards that two police officers were getting petrol free of charge or cheaply from Boschat.  He identified one of them as “Osmand” (Constable Sean Osmand), and from his description and details, the other as Constable xxxxxxxxxx.  He alleged that this was in return for corrupt manipulation of the breakdown call out rota system.

 The enquiry was stepped up a day later --on 31 March 2005 when information was received from two local members of the public, one of them a member of the legal profession, and another who worked for one of the other Vehicle Recovery Companies.  The former alleged to Professional  Standards that she had seen Constable Sean Osmand drawing diesel for his vehicle from the petrol pumps at Roy Boschat’s place of  business.  She was aware that Boschat was one of the Towing contractors who provided a service to the police, and that he was not licensed to sell diesel.  The witness was suspicious of the fact that a police officer was obtaining fuel for his private vehicle from Boschat’s pumps.

The second witness supplied information to the effect that calls from the police which should have gone to the other recovery firms were in fact going to Boschat.

On 31 March, police spoke to another witness called LE Claire, who had been at an accident where a driver wanted to call another breakdown firm, but the police officers
had tried to insist on Boschat being called.  He told police that he knew of other people who had been told by police officers that they used Roy Boschat even when they didn’t have to.

A check was made of the record of call outs and it was found that whereas there were three main operators looking for police business, Boschat was getting nearly 90% of that business.  An instruction was made that the rota should be adhered to and each of the three contractors called out in turn.

In October 2005, allegations were received from the two other main contractors on the island that they were being unfairly disadvantaged by virtue of the fact that they were getting little business from the States of Jersey Police.  They again alleged that this was due to a corrupt relationship between two police officers and Mr Boschat.  They again named the two police officers as Constables Sean Osmand and xxxxxxxxxx.  They alleged that the officers received cheap or free diesel for their private vehicles, were given the use of four digit number plates, and that both officers had been to Boschat’s villa in Spain free of charge.

The investigation was recommenced, and the records of who police called out in respect of breakdowns were checked once more.  It was found that despite the previous warning,  Boschat still received received over 90% of the call outs.  An instruction was issued ordering officers to adhere to the strict rotation policy which was in place.  A covert investigation was launched but was curtailed shortly afterwards when the member of the public referred to in para. 2, fell out with her employer and went to work for Roy Boschat.  Shortly after that, police were told by her ex-employer, Edward Pippon of No. 1 Recovery, that she had warned Boschat the police were looking at him and his police friends.

In November 2005, a further complaint was received from the two contractors stating that they were being driven out of business by virtue of the fact that Boschat was still getting almost all of the calls.  Police records confirmed this, and investigations revealed that the system was being manipulated by some officers going to accidents and breakdowns and calling Boschat on their private mobile phones.  They were then falsely entering on official records that the member of the public had called Boschat themselves.  The most regular offender was Constable Sean Osmand.

Following this, an instruction was issued banning police officers from using their mobile phones for such purposes.  This has had the effect of stopping most of the abuse.  However, enquiries reveal that Constable Osmand continues to defy instructions and is using his mobile to call Boschat and then falsely enter onto official records that the members of the public have called him themselves.  Police can evidence this happening on frequent occasions from the billing on his mobile phone which shows him calling Boschat at the time when he is at an accident, and then at a later stage entering on police records that the member of the public made the call on their own phone.  The most recent occasion on which this is believed to have occurred is the week commencing 4th June 2006, when Boschat has attended an accident and has entered into the official record the fact that both parties involved in the accident called Boschat themselves.

On 13th February 2006, information was received from the husband of a serving police officer that he had been speaking to a business partner of Boschat who was building a development in Spain.  He told the witness that Sean Osmand was doing the plans for the development.

In May 2006 information was received from a serving police officer that he had been with xxxxxxxxxxx when that officer had drawn petrol for his private car from Boschat’s pumps. This had either been free or very inexpensive.  He also stated that he was aware thatxxxxxxxhad been given the free use of a car for a year by Boschat.  He thought xxxxxx had just returned the car but wasn’t sure.

At this time, enquiries by Professional Standards uncovered the fact that a number of police officers and civil staff had received free holidays at Boshat’s villa in Spain.  A number of other officers have received free towing services from him.  Enquiries continue.

On 7th June, a serving police Sergeant confirmed to Professional Standards that Boschat had told him that he had lent his villa in Spain to a number of Police Officers.  He also told the Sergeant that Constable xxxxxxxxxx had been given free use of a car for a substantial period.

Another Police officer has just admitted that his boat broke down in France and that Boschat towed it back to Jersey free of charge.

On 7th June 2006, Boschat sent a letter to the Chief Officer States of Jersey Police, in which he admits that he is receiving information from police computer systems via serving police officers.  Although he has inferred such before, and alluded to materials circulating within police systems, this is the first such overt admission.

At the end of May 2006, PSD sent out an e mail to all staff telling them that they had information that some of them had received gifts/services from people supplying a service to the force.  They were reminded of their obligations and instructed to come forward.  An undertaking was given that disciplinary matters would be overlooked, although criminal activities could not be ignored.  Around 15 to 20 officers have so far come forward and admitted improper relationships with Boshchat.  This does not include Osmand.

On 8th June 2006, information was received from a serving police officer that he had been spoken to by Boschat who advised him that he knew that we were enquiring into him and his friendships with police officers.  This officer also said that he had been approached byxxxxxxx and xxxxxxx had asked him if he had disclosed anything.

In view of all the above, the discrepancy in the frequency of call outs, the favours done for police by Boschat, and the fact that Boschat is receiving information, there is ample here I think to suspect a number of  corrupt relationships. End

Rico Sorda


Trevor Richomme said...

I thought this had already been though the States? And got thorn out?

Anonymous said...

Does Lenny Harper really need a smear campaign after what's been said under oath about him so far by multiple people? Legal opinion to date predict that Harper, Power and the Bailhaches, YES the Bailhache's will all come out discredited from this Inquiry.

But Jesus Rico, get some dignity and stop kissing ass.
Boschat's timing of this has nothing to do with Harper's evidence, that really is crap.

Anonymous said...

well it certainly appears to be a clear case of what I would call corruption, but, as there is always to sides to every story can we please hear the case for the defense as well.

ex JHB

rico sorda said...

You can read the defence in the proposition. Its a long read. How Deputy McDonald is going to present this is anybodies guess.

Anonymous said...

Wow. The letters from Roy Boschat alone, are enough to cast extreme suspicion. The tone of violence is threatening and intimidating, to say the least. Why would anyone bring forth a proposition in his favour? Is it because he has, as he claims, the dirt on many people? Or, is it because some people might now miss the gifts and bribery benefits that came from corruptly steering business to this jerk? Why would any man this crudely threatening ever have friends in high places?

Anywhere else, Borschat and his friends would not want to bring any additional attention to the question of why Borschat was investigated, regardless of the oligarchy's mission to further demonize Lenny Harper.


Anonymous said...

he must have felt that his comments in his letters were acceptable as he claims to have copied in Kinnard and Power.....and unnamed others.
ex JHB

Gillian Gracia said...

Thanks for this Rico. As an ex-police officer, I am amazed that Terry McDonald, knowing the case as he does, has brought this proposition which surely will be turned down with a massive 'contre' vote.

I agree with you 100%. The wheels of 'Operation Smear Lenny Harper' are well and truly in motion now.

Anonymous said...

What one does not understand is that earlier on Voice the well informed intelligent blog, Graham Power is quoted as saying that Lenny Harper was brought in to deal with corruption in the Jersey police force. Then we are told by your excellent reporting that an email was sent around warning police officers that irregularities ( favouritism ) had been proved in giving Mr Boschat 90% of all police towing business.

Was it up to the AG ( the one man crown prosecution service ) to say yes or no to go forward to court or was it up to Graham Power and the formidable Lenny Harper ?

The question being, given the awful communication that Mr Boschat sent ( sounds similar to a certain troll ) he sounds very cocky saying he knows a lot but acts as if he is protected copying in other high ranking people.

Basically why was he not prosecuted for corrupting by payment " in kind " police officers to further his business interesteds and the police officers dealt with ? It appears that Mr Harper had plenty of established proof.

Anonymous said...

Boschat got kicked into touch today by only getting eight votes. He'll probably have to sell his villa in Spain now.

Anonymous said...

This is how Gradwell got away with it.


Will the Minister advise members whether the former Minister for Home Affairs or Acting Chief Officer of Jersey Police reported a Detective Superintendent who was seconded from Lancashire Police and who leaked information regarding Operation Rectangle to a U.K. journalist whilst a serving police officer, to (a) the Lancashire Constabulary or (b) to Operation Elveden, which investigated police leaks to the media, and if not why not?

The Detective Superintendent was seconded from the Lancashire Constabulary to the States of Jersey Police between 8th September 2008 and 27th August 2009 to undertake the role as Senior Investigating Officer to lead the Operation Rectangle investigation into historic child abuse.
He returned to his home Force (Lancashire) on 27th August 2009 until his retirement from the police service on 2nd September 2009.

Prior to leaving Jersey he gave a number of interviews to local Jersey media about his role.
On 3rd October 2009, the Mail on Sunday published an article which was critical of the Operation Rectangle investigation. The article contained references to a “leaked report by financial auditors” and details of costs and expenditure incurred during the investigation.

Reference is also made in the article to having spoken with the former Detective Superintendent seconded from the Lancashire Constabulary the night before publication including several quotes from him.

Whilst giving evidence before the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry on Friday 20th November 2015, the former Detective Superintendent admitted to providing information from an interim report compiled by an accountant. The former Detective Superintendent explained that he “believe[d] strongly that it was in the public interest that the evidence of not just poor financial management, but corrupt practices in financial management were made public because the information I was being given [was that] this information wasn’t going to be made public”.

This disclosure was made by former Detective Superintendent after he retired from the police service and without the knowledge of the States of Jersey Police. Such a disclosure would not have been authorised by the States of Jersey Police.
As former Detective Superintendent had retired from the police service by this time, he was beyond the reach of any disciplinary proceedings by the Lancashire Constabulary and as he was no longer a serving officer no referral was made to the Lancashire Constabulary by the States of Jersey Police.

Operation Elveden was established by the Metropolitan Police on 20th June 2011, almost 2 years after former Detective Superintendent retired from the police service. Operation Elveden was supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The terms of reference for the enquiry was “to investigate alleged criminal offences that police officers or public officials have accepted money for supplying information to journalists”.

A referral was not made to the Metropolitan Police or the Independent Police Complaints Commission about the former Detective Superintendent’s disclosure as neither had jurisdiction in Jersey as a Crown Dependency.

Anonymous said...

These eight politicians think it is ok to give £360,000 of tax payers hard earned cash to a failed businessman who thinks nothing of threats to police officers of fire bombing their house and car. THE GOVERNMENT YOU DESERVE.

Anonymous said...

Senator Zoe Ann Cameron Pour
Connétable Michel Philip Sydney Le Troquer Pour
Connétable Christopher Hugh Taylor Pour
Deputy Judith Ann Martin Pour
Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern Pour
Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré Pour
Deputy Simon Muir Bree Pour
Deputy Terence Alexander McDonald Pour

Anonymous said...

Boschat was laughed out of the states building today. For once TPTB did the right thing and saw right through him.

Anonymous said...

I hope no states members get their houses or cars fire bombed after today's vote.

Anonymous said...

What was Geoff Southern playing at by voting in favour of the Boschat proposition I thought he was supposed to be on the side of the good guys?

Anonymous said...

Any thoughts on Ann Pryke's evidence or more to the point lack of adequate Inquiry wuestioning?

Anonymous said...

For once, the States of Jersey does the right thing.

What the hell was Terry McDonald doing bringing this proposition in the first place?

Anonymous said...

So, Mick Gradwell "believe[d] strongly that it was in the public interest that the evidence of not just poor financial management, but corrupt practices in financial management were made public", did he?

So why didn't he report this "corruption" to the...erm...police? After all, its not like we don't have an anti-corruption law, is it? It's called the Corruption (Jersey) Law 2006. Here's a copy of it:

Sometimes you just have to stand back and laugh at people like this.

Anonymous said...

Last time Judy Martin ever gets my vote.

Anonymous said...

Mick Gradwell

The Cellars

These are floor voids. They are not cellars, and it is impossible for a grown person to stand up straight in the floor voids under Haut de la Garenne.


There are 65 teeth found in the floor voids and 1 elsewhere. They are milk teeth coming from at least 10 people - up to a maximum of 65 people. Around 45 of the teeth originate from children aged 9 to 12 yrs and 20 from the range 6 to 8 years.
There is wear on some of the teeth; these teeth generally have the appearance of being shed naturally.

It is possible for more tests to be done on the teeth to clarify age and other factors.

He blew it with the cellars statement.

Gillian Gracia said...

Yesterday's vote was a vote against Boschat for common sense and justice. However the disappointment and surprise of a 'pour' vote from at least four of our elected, namely Southern, Cameron, Le Fondre and Martin came as a total surprise.

When did they drink from the poison chalice?

voiceforchildren said...



"It is possible for more tests to be done on the teeth to clarify age and other factors."

Nobody besides Bloggers and anti Child Abuse campaigners has asked were these tests ever done and if not why not? They are clearly of evidential value. Unlike the child's skull that was discounted as evidence in February 2008 if memory serves correct. But Mick Gradwell DID send the skull off (un audited). Why would he send something for further testing when it has no evidential value and not send something for further testing that does, or could have, evidential value?

As for the cellars well you caught you out with that one didn't we MICK?

voiceforchildren said...


Some more information concerning the child's skull (JAR/6)

Deputy Daniel Wimberley asked Senator Le Marquand, in a written question, for an “audit trail” of JAR/6. Here’s the question he asked and the “answer” he was given.

Deputy Daniel Wimberley: (d) provide a full and proper audit trail of the emails concerning the finds JAR/6 and SLJ/1?

Senator Ian Le Marquand: (d) I do not understand what is meant by "audit trails of e-mails". However, this appears to also be referring to statements or other evidence.(End) Now that is what's classed as an "answer" in the world of Ian Le Marquand.

Why Deputy Wimberley was concerned about the audit trail of JAR/6 is explained in an extract from an e-mail from SOJP Anthroplogist Julie Roberts here "On 8 and 9 April 2008 I re-examined JAR/6. Since I initially examined the fragment it had dried out considerably and changed in colour, texture and weight." (my emphasis).

So it changed in colour, texture and weight? How could this happen? Which is a question I put the Former SIO Lenny Harper. I wanted to know if there was any chance that this piece of evidence could have been switched? And this is what he told me.

"we sent it (JAR/6) to the carbon dating lab in oxford. Not only did they cock that process up, (as per the collagen e mails) but they unlawfully and without authority sent the exhibit to at least two other people without even a proper tracking audit. This rendered the exhibit inadmissible and unusable in court as we could not prove it was the same item we found and sent to them."

Which is a clear and concice answer unlike the "answer" given to Deputy Wimberley by the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Le Marquand. Perhaps Deputy Wimberley might consider asking the question again? Because the "evidence" does point towards a "switch."

From HERE.

Anonymous said...

I absolutely agree with VFC.

It has always been my understanding that the piece of bone somehow changed into some other indeterminate material because of the outrageously poor forensic handling of the item by a number of parties in the UK, where the States of Jersey Police had sent it for examination.

We will never know whether it was switched deliberately or by accident. But the "coded" description by the Jersey Police forensic examiner, when the item came back, when she said that it had changed in colour, texture and weight is, in my opinion, polite official language for saying "this has been knobbled, someone has switched this item".

The deficiencies in the evidence handling would have been ruthlessly exploited by any defence lawyer.

This sorry state of affairs made life easy for Team Cover Up. It is outrageous that Le Marquand was allowed to get away with saying "I do not understand what is meant by "audit trails of e-mails"" and Daniel Wimberley should also be criticised for asking a poorly worded question that Le Marquand exploited to the full. What Daniel Wimberley should have asked was:

"Please provide a document detailing the full chain of custody for item JAR/6. This document should include all related email communications."

I firmly believe that what Daniel Wimberly meant was Chain of custody. Unfortunately he said "audit trail of emails". Le Marquand ruthlessly exploited the poor quality question.

Ian Evans said...

Thanks for the link to my blog Rico. Yourself, Stuart, Trevor, and VFC have made my heart attack worth while....My ill health is simply nothing more than a product of The Jersey Way, which can be beaten by pure defiance. All it takes is for the sheeple to 'STOP' being sheep!!!

Anonymous said...

Ian Evans - good to hear from you, hope you are OK? Your Jersey blog posts are missed, they were legendary. Any chance of a comeback, health permitting?