Thursday, January 28, 2016










During the "in camera debate" Andrew Lewis continually referred to the "Met Interim Report" as his reason for suspending Graham Power.  This makes perfect sense. How could Andrew Lewis come to the States of Jersey on the 2nd of December 2008 and tell his fellow politicians that he was suspending the Chief of Police, Graham Power on a letter from his Deputy Chief Officer, David Warcup. There is absolutely no way he could have said that. The line of questing would have been totally different. He would have been asked if he had sat down with both the Chief or his Deputy or individually to sort matters out.To hear both sides. To prevent the nuclear option. The letter sent by David Warcup to Bill Ogley on the 10th November 2008 had left Warcup terribly exposed had Graham Power remained in office. 

Deputy Lewis has since come out and said that he was not in fact referring to the "Met Interim Report" but the Warcup Letter and that references to a preliminary report had been a mistake.

Frank Walker and Andrew Lewis have been caught out. 

They know it. We know it. Anybody with half a brain will know it. 

I ask readers to go back and look at when Andrew Lewis came to the States of Jersey to make a statement and take questions "in camera" regarding the Graham Power suspension. 

It was the 2nd December 2008

Andrew Lewis suspended Graham Power on the 12th November 2008

20 days to get ready for his statement and questions and he doesn't even know what he used to make the biggest decision of his political career. Are you having a laugh here. He categorically states that he used the "Met Interim Report" and  when that becomes a no go area  he now changes his story and states that it was the Warcup Letter. 

I would love to know if and when he has made a statement to the Jersey Care Enquiry. I will be checking to see when he has signed it off. Has he waited to see what the others have said before submitting his own. This has become a glaring problem for the care enquiry. 

You see in Jersey no one asks any questions. Certainly not back then and certainly not by the Jersey Media. They thought they were in the clear. But for once people did start asking questions. Decent politicians and bloggers started investigating. This caught them out. Graham Power decided to fight back. The wheels have been falling off this shambolic - politically motivated suspension - for years. Andrew Lewis now states that reference to a "preliminary report" was a mistake made while under the pressure of answering questions by states members. 

Ok, so did Andrew Lewis then make a statement rectifying that mistake to members? Why didn't Frank Walker, who was sitting in the chamber,not tell his Minister that he was making a mistake? Only when they get caught out do they say a mistake has been made. 

The Warcup Letter will be a future blog posting. 

What happened to due process and fairness to Graham Power? He has never received any with Andrew Lewis or Wiltshire.

Andrew Lewis states  "My actions in 2008 were based entirely upon evidence placed before me. I acted with integrity and impartiality, remaining with the remit of the disciplinary code and the rule of law" (Jersey evening post)

You didn't even inform the Chief of Police as to why he was being summoned to Cyril Le Marquand House. Let us cut straight to the chase here. This suspension was politically motivated and you were the patsy that they needed to carry it out. What other reason can there be. 

This is part of Graham Powers transcript from when he gave evidence to the Jersey Care Enquiry. In this part Graham Power explains how Andrew Lewis and Bill Ogley offered Graham Power to consider his position. 

 What I find finny about this is that during the "in camera debate" Andrew Lewis say's exactly that and then realises what he said and quickly try's to rectify it. Absolutely hilarious. 

you have provided the Inquiry with a great deal of detail as to what happened. So lastly I would just like to ask you to look at one final document. Could we have please {WD007216}. This is a note of the meeting at which you were suspended and the note has been signed by the Home Affairs Minister and the Chief Executive and they sign it as being accurate to the best of their recollection and what I would like to do is go briefly through it and ask you whether it is to your recollection accurate.
It starts with Mr Lewis informing you that he had attended a briefing, and you discuss that in your witness statement, the previous day. Mr Lewis informed you that he had received a letter from Bill Ogley which enclosed a copy of the report that Bill Ogley had received from DCO Warcup:

A. Yes.

"[Mr Lewis]' conclusion was that he had significant concerns about the command and control structures in place as regards the inquiry and [Mr Power]'s role within that. [Mr Lewis] would therefore invoke the Disciplinary Code relating to the Chief Police Officer. He then invited [Mr Ogley] to explain the process.
"[Mr Ogley] informed [Mr Power] that if he wanted up to an hour to consider matters he could take that time and if so he could have drafts of the letters it was intended to give him to activate the process."
Stopping there, do those two paragraphs reflect in summary what you were told?

Graham Power:
I think that some of the first paragraph is true, he certainly went through some sort of script as described in the first paragraph. The second one isn't and it has the crucial omission, doesn't it, "wanted up to an hour to consider matters"; oh, no he didn't say that. He said "We will give you an hour to consider your position." I'm saying that on oath. Anyone who thinks I'm not telling the truth about that do your worst. He said "We will give you one hour to consider your position." That isn't true.

You have explained in your statement that you took that to mean consider whether you want to resign?

Graham Power
We all knew what he meant. There was not the slightest doubt what he meant.

Tell us what he did mean?

Graham Power
He meant that if I wanted to go quietly and resign I could do so, that's what he meant, because here he was sitting with a lot of legal looking papers and I was going to be in for a lot of stress and a lot of trouble, but if I wanted to go quietly into the next room and sign a piece of paper, I could. That was absolutely -- there is not a shred of doubt that that was what he meant. And my part, and on his as well, because he wouldn't have changed it in there unless he realised that that phrase was a problem.

In paragraph 3 it says that you refused the offer of time.

Graham Power

The 2nd December 2008 "in Camera Debate".

 And I quote: 

The Connetable of St Helier: (Simon Crowcroft)

Sorry, it is quite clear from the Minister's comments that he has now jumped into part 2 of the disciplinary procedure and that he did not attempt, on a personal basis which means in discussion with the officer concerned, attempt to elucidate the problem.

The Deputy of St John:

I would dispute that. The Chief Officer of Police was requested to come to a meeting with myself and we attempted to discuss the matter with him and he refused to discuss it. He wished to leave very soon after we had the discussion. I gave him an opportunity to retire and to….. to retire to another room rather….. I would add he was never given the option to retire, he was never given the option to resign either, that is complete fabrication on his part. I do not know where that came from. But he was given the opportunity to consider the suspension and that is what he was offered

. He chose not to take that opportunity so the suspension was immediate.

Andrew Lewis states that Graham Power was given the opportunity to consider the suspension and that was what he was offered. I don't really understand  what Andrew Lewis means by that. What else apart from retiring or resigning was on the table? Andrew Lewis didn't even inform Graham Power why he was being summoned to Cyril Le Marquand House. 

During Graham Powers evidence to the Jersey Care Enquiry Council also asked Graham Power what happened when he decided to defend himself. Andrew Lewis and Bill Ogley were not prepared for this turn of events. 

They then turned to the Media Statement that Andrew Lewis was going to give that afternoon to avoid speculation.

Here Graham Power explains to the care enquiry what happened next:
They were both stressed. They hadn't expected things to turn the way they did and they hadn't expected me to stand up to them and Lewis was showing it most and Ogley said "Well, we'll have to think about what we're going to say in a media statement", and at this point Lewis jumped in and said "Oh, we don't have to think about it, Bill, because we met and discussed this yesterday and we agreed what we're going to say this afternoon". People are going to say that's not true but he did, he really really said it. And Ogley's trying to get him -- and he starts to run off, he can't stop his tongue, and Ogley is trying to get him to shut up: "Yes all right Andrew, all right Andrew", but it's not working, so there's
a lot of talk off-script that went on around that. 

Rico Sorda 

Part Time Investigative Journalist

Monday, January 18, 2016






"That following a letter from the then deputy chief officer, David Warcup, outlining why he felt Mr Power had failed during Operation Rectangle, Deputy Lewis was left with little alternative but to suspend the police chief" (end)

Wrong Mr Walker. As we will see below. You know it, I know it and anybody else that has researched this knows it. Why have you changed your story? And you were in the States during the "In Camera Debate". Unbelievable.



Brian Napier QC:

"As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it. The reason given was the nature of the information that was contained therein. It was, said Mr Ogley, a police document and it was inappropriate that he (or anyone else) should have
access to it. Mr Ogley says that he was told both by the Attorney General and Mr Warcup that he should not look at the interim report and neither he nor Mr Lewis did so.”

Senator B.I. Le Marquand: Graham Power Suspension Hearing:

There is no issue with those, but we must make sure you get those. This is the sensitive area. The sensitive area is that in his letter which you have not seen Mr. Warcup makes reference partly to the Metropolitan Police report of which you are both aware. I have not seen that report, and indeed the previous Minister did not see that report, and the reason for that is because that report contains highly sensitive information regarding individual cases, naming potential offenders, victims, et cetera et cetera. Now my advisors do not want me to see that report because of that sort of sensitive information but I am aware that because reference has been made to it in Mr. Warcups's letter that it not unreasonable that Mr. Power or yourself or some representatives, which in this case might not include lawyers because of the very sensitive area, be able to see the report and to check that in fact that which has been quoted from it has been accurately quoted. This is sensitive because even my own advisors do not want me to see it, I believe for good reasons, because I am not an operational police officer and I am the Home Affairs Minister. What we have been looking at, and this has again been a reason which has slightly delayed the responses in other matters, is mechanisms for dealing with the difficulty of it containing information which frankly is not relevant directly because only the information which
is referred to by Mr. Warcup in his letter is really relevant. So what we have been looking at is different possibilities which are canvassed for you now to try and get around the difficulty. One of the difficulties is to try and persuade the Metropolitan Police to produce a redacted, reduced version of the report which would only effectively make reference to the matters which related to management structures and so on, and not to individual cases. But I am not sure whether they are going to agree to do that because there is a second difficulty which I will be absolutely open with you about, which is this, and it is a relationship issue in relation to the States of Jersey
Police and the Metropolitan Police who are not entirely happy that a report was produced for a particular purpose and is now going to be involved for a different purpose. But let me see if I can ... if it was not referred to in the letters it would not be in play at all. (END)

So far we have heard from the former Police Chief, Graham Power and the former Chief Minister, Frank Walker at the Jersey Care Enquiry. There seems to be some confusion in the mind of former Chief Minister as to why Graham Power was suspended on the 12th November 2008.  Every man, woman, cat and dog that has had any interest in this subject knows that Andrew Lewis suspended  Graham Power because of an interim report that was sent to then Deputy Chief Officer David Warcup on the 10th November 2008.  This report has infamously become known as the "Metropolitan Police Interim Report". It was a review of Operation Rectangle (Jersey Child Abuse Investigation). Reviews are carried out by outside police forces to help advice, check and move forward police investigations. Every major investigation will have faults. The reason Graham Power called the Met in to review Operation Rectangle was to do just that. But the Jersey authorities did something that has never been done before. They used this review to suspend the Chief of Police who had decided to look into decades long child abuse in Jersey.  The Met Police couldn't believe what they had done and have made their anger known to the Jersey authorities. 

The Met Interim Report  contains nothing damaging. How do we know this? Well I published it on my blog.  I reproduce it below. 

Frank Walker told the Committee of Enquiry that Graham Power was in fact suspended because he had allowed Operation Rectangle to get out of control and nothing in fact to do with the Met Interim Report. That's not the case. How do we know this? Well, I published the States of Jersey "In Camera" debate from December 2008. This in camera debate happened because the then Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis had to come to the States by law and explain why he had suspended the Chief of Police.  The transcript of that debate was leaked to me and I published it. It's fascinating. It's captures Andrew Lewis in real time having to explain his actions. He had to have a bloody good reason for suspending a Chief of Police. 

Andrew Lewis was and has been hung out to dry. My guess is that Andrew Lewis didn't even want to do this.  By law the Home Affairs Minister is the only one who can suspended the Chief of Police. He must have been pressurised and coerced into doing so. He said he got advice. Well didn't anyone tell him that you can't use a Review for disciplinary actions as that's not what they are for. You would have thought that a high ranking police officer like David Warcup would have known this before stabbing his Police Chief in the back. 

I asked the former Police Chief, Graham Power to explain these reviews. 

I have asked the former Chief of Police Graham Power QPM to explain the workings of these Police Reviews.

I have been asked to provide some information regarding the practice of major crime enquiries being subjected to a “Review” by the Metropolitan Police. I understand that this question has arisen as a result of the current interest in the review of the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry which was used as a pretext for my suspension in November 2008.

Perhaps the first point that I should make is that this review just happened to be conducted by the Metropolitan Police. An enquiry can be reviewed by any police force other than the one conducting the enquiry, although this nearly always happens within the same legal jurisdiction. For example, in the UK, English forces would review enquiries by other English or perhaps Welsh forces. They would not review enquiries in Scotland where different laws and procedures apply. When an English force operates in Jersey it is operating in a different legal system. Most English officers have never done this. Some manage to adjust to the change and some find it difficult. The main point to be made here is that “Operation Rectangle” could have been reviewed by West Yorkshire or Greater Manchester Police. It just happened that the “Met” were the force chosen. Whichever force is chosen to undertake a review the purpose is the same. An independent team of investigators look over the case with fresh pairs of eyes and attempt to assist the host force by making recommendations for improvement of the enquiry. It is intended to be a positive relationship based on transparency and trust.

The reason that the Met were chosen is that they were the force recommended by the independent experts who had been appointed by the Association of Chief Police Officers for England Wales and Northern Ireland (ACPO), who I had invited to Jersey to quality assure the investigation and to advise and guide Lenny Harper and myself in relation to what we needed to do. These advisors were internationally recognised experts who gave their advice in writing and who reported our responses in writing. Their reports are already in the public domain. In his statement to Wiltshire Police the once Minister of Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis, said that the ACPO experts told him that our conduct of the enquiry was a “shining example” of how such enquiries should be carried out.

The ACPO experts said that it was good practice for major enquiries to be reviewed by an independent force and they recommended that the Met be asked to undertake the task. They advised that the best timing for a review would be one which provided an agenda for the new management team which was taking over when Lenny Harper retired in the summer of 2008. We accepted this recommendation. The Met review team were on the ground during the second half of 2008. As they went about their review they communicated their views verbally. Everything of significance was acted upon and was in place before their report was written.
I have been asked about the relationship between such reviews and disciplinary matters. So far as I know there has never been any such relationship. If there was it would conflict with the nature of a review. The reviewing officers have access to all parts of the enquiry and the people they speak to are encouraged to talk to them in a frank and open manner in which candid comment and self criticism can be safely made. The reviewing officers act as “Critical Friends” who are encouraged to make challenging comments and suggestions in order to assist in improving the standard of the investigation and in moving the agenda forward. The presence of the Met review team was welcomed in the force and their contribution was seen as positive. Their unfamiliarity with Jersey Law and procedures did cause them some problems. For example their subsequent reports and statements speak of the need to work with the “Police Authority” and the “Crown Prosecution Service” but these things aside they had a relevant contribution to make.
It appears that on 10th November 2008 a Mr Peter Britton, a civilian working with the Met team, was persuaded to submit a memorandum to the then Deputy Chief Officer, David Warcup. It is not known for certain what Mr Britton was told about the purpose of the memorandum but given subsequent events it is improbable that he was told that it would be used for suspension purposes. As we now know, Warcup edited the Britton memo and included in a letter to the Chief Executive extracts from the memo which, when taken out of context, could be read as critical. Warcup excluded items which were either positive or which indicated that the views given were provisional and might be changed. Nevertheless the letter from Warcup was used as “evidence” to justify the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.

We know from the transcripts of the suspension review meetings conducted in 2009 by the current Minister, Senator Ian le Marquand, that the use of information from the Met review to justify a suspension, caused a serious rift between Jersey and the Met who, when they found out what had happened, refused to allow their work to be used any further for disciplinary purposes.

I have been asked to try to explain why the use of information from the review produced such a strong reaction from the Metropolitan Police. The main reason is because such reviews are seen as vital in supporting major enquiries. To be fully effective they have to be conducted in a “safe” environment in which officers feel confident that they can share their candid thoughts without fear of any adverse consequences. The use of review information for a disciplinary purpose undermines this principle. If what happened in Jersey became a precedent then it would change the whole nature of reviews. Officers in any force who were dealing with a challenging enquiry, where difficult decisions had been taken under pressure, might hesitate to commission a review which looked at their actions with the benefit of hindsight and which posed a disciplinary risk. If that became the case then reviews would become less frequent and less challenging, and the quality of future investigations and the public interest would suffer.

There is another reason why review material should never be used for disciplinary purposes. This involves the important principle of justice, respected in Western Civilisations, that nobody should be compelled to incriminate themselves. In a review, staff are encouraged and often required to “tell all” to the reviewing team. The use of evidence gained under such circumstances for disciplinary purposes would be a breach of this important principle of justice.
For decades in all parts of the UK the review process has been carried out in a frank and safe manner for the benefit of victims of crime and criminal justice. The important principle that the evidence from a review should not be used as a means of “self incrimination” has been respected and observed by public authorities everywhere. Review teams have operated in the confident expectation that this important principle of justice would be respected by the governing authorities in the location in which a review was conducted. That is after all the expectation of how public authorities would behave in a Western Democracy. Until that is, information from a review fell into the hands of the governing authorities in Jersey. Then the rules changed.

I hope that readers find this information helpful in forming their own views of the circumstances surrounding the “Met Review.”

Andrew Lewis is yet to give evidence at the Care Enquiry. As far as I know he hasn't even got a statement up online yet. The obvious reason must be because he hasn't got a clue as to what line to take. Maybe he is waiting to see what the others say but the buck stops with him. He told the States of Jersey that he has seen the Met Interim Report, and that it was so damning that he had to suspend. Then, when he realising that he had been done up like a kipper he told Wiltshire and Brian Napier that he hadn't seen it.  It's laughable but very serious. He has lied. Why? My advice to Andrew Lewis is simple. If and when you give evidence to the COI just come and tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Take your head from Frank Walkers backside and do the right thing for once. This is your last chance. Tell us why you really suspended the Chief of Police. 

Here is the Metropolitan Police Report.  When this Report was sent they had yet to interview DCO Lenny Harper.  

Officer's Report


DATE 10/11/2008


1.1 This is an ineterim report in respect of Operation Rectangle , a child abuse investigation conducted by the States of Jersey Police (SOJP). It has been prepared at the request of the SOJP Deputy Chief Officer David Warcup, the commissioning officer of the review. It is designed to highlight initial findings and areas of concern. However, it should be borne in mind that review enquiries are still on-going and certain Key individuals , particularly the retired Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) , ex-DCO LENNY HARPER, have yet to be interviewed. Hence any observations in this report may be subject to amendment . Ex-DCO Harper retired 31st August 2008, which is the cut-off date for the review.

1.2 It is important to note that during the course of the investigation ex-DCO HARPER was mentored by an Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Homicide Working Group Advice Team. Between 29th February and 30th June 2008 they completed four reports , which incorporated sixty-nine recommendations , the majority of which are shown as complete.


3.1 The Review Team were advised that DI FOSSEY led the initial abuse enquiry with ex-DCO HARPER providing oversight. However, as previously stated he is shown on all policy Books as the SIO from the 10th September 2007. Instead of running a Policy Book which lists all decision ( except sensitive ones) chronologically , ex-DCO HARPER used five books to deal with the following;

. Search

.Suspects/ Persons of Interest

.Main Lines of Enquiry



There is no Policy book dealing with Forensic Strategy which is a critical area in this investigation.

3.2 There are no specific Terms of Reference (TOR) for Operation Rectangle. The initial decision dated 1st October 2007 stats;

"Operation Rectangle is a single led investigation into historical sexual abuse involving a number of institutions in Jersey. This will include, but not be restricted to Haute de la Garenne Children's Home and the Jersey Sea Cadets organisation. The case for investigating in respect of these (two institutions) organisations has already been subject of a report approved by the Deputy Chief Officer and has taken into account issues of probability and necessity to conduct the investigation."

The policy was apparently written by DI FOSSEY and countersigned by ex-DCO HARPER.

3.3 Given the potential size , complexity and sensitivity of the enquiry one would have expected a more precise ToR. For example:-

. There are no recorded date parameters for the enquiry, which are critical for such an investigation.

. The term 'sexual abuse' is used in the first Decision whereas the next one refers to 'serious indictable offences' . Given the historic nature of the enquiry guidance on offences to be investigated must be very clear.

. As regard suspects there is no reference as to wether it includes staff only, visitors or offences by children on children.

3.4 A major factor affecting the planning of Operation Rectangle was the decision to limit it to a single agency led investigation, e.g, police only. It has been made very clear to the review team that this was due to the internal politics and alleged corruption in the island, a lack of trust by victims of some of the authorities and the fact that at least one suspect was working as a **** **** in the Island. It is felt that this decision probably had a profound influence on the subsequent investigation.

3.5 From a command and control perspective DCO HARPER was SIO then it raises the question of who supervised him at the strategic level. The Chief Officer, Graham Power , stated that he dealt with the political aspects of the investigation, ex DCO HARPER oversaw operational matters and that they would talk 'from time to time'. This ia an area that will need to be explored with DCO HARPER

3.6 There were also concerns over Policy Decisions in terms of lack of detail and consistency,


* Initial decisions regarding the investigation of child sexual abuse and serious indictable offences were later extended to seemingly include all abuse, but with no recorded decision.

* A policy declares the investigation as Category A+ and a Critical Incident. A later decision states that the above was only 'technical' and hence seeks to excuse the need for completing a Community Impact Assessment (CIA) or forming a Gold Group.

* The policy regarding the reasons for searching Victoria Tower Bunkers has very little detail.

3.7 Policy 8 dated 8th December 2007, not to produce a CIA includes the rationale that there is 'no likelihood of community tensions leading to damage to community relations.' Given the high profile of the enquiry and the alleged public mistrust of and between the authorities , the decision appears perverse. However, following a recommendation by the ACPO Advice Team a CIA was completed and has subsequently been updated.

3.8 Policy 8 also dealt with reasons not to establish a Gold Group. I t states, "it is not appropriate because of the involvement of other agencies in the allegations and the additional possibility of a Crown Advocate being approved imminently ." It is felt that any fears in respect of other agencies could have been overcome and would have greatly benefited the enquiry. This issue has yet to be raised with ex-DCO HARPER.

3.9 Another recommendation by the ACPO Advice Team advised that the Chief Officer and SIO consider convening an Independent Advisory Group (IAG). They suggested the IAG should not include former residents at HDLG, but could include the NSPCC or community groups and assist the CIA.

3.10 The Chief Officer advised the review Team that the IAG was formed over a weekend as a result of his phone calls to 'trusted people'. The review team has seen no Terms of Reference, but correspondence suggests that the IAG exceeded their remit and became more like investigators than independent representatives of the community. The general view now appears to be that lessons have been learnt and that the IAG does have a role to play in Jersey.

This is therefore best described as a work in progress

3.11 Two extremely important decisions in this enquiry relate to the search /excavation of HDLG and the Victorian Tower Bunkers . In respect of HDLG, on the 22nd January 2008 , after the search had began, Decision 13 under main lines of enquiry states:-

"To invite Forensic Archaeology to Island to commence preliminary search of grounds of HDLG using ground-penetrating radar in initial search for Human Remains."

The rationale for the decision is:-

"Information from two witness, although not specific , raises a possibility, which should be investigated"

3.12 In a later report, some weeks after the search/excavation commenced, a more in-depth rationale is provided for the action taken namely:-

(i) Bones found at HDLG during renovation work in 2003

(ii) Advocate ********* had a 'client' who suggested that bodies were buried at HDLG

(iii) ******* ******* states they saw dead bodies at HDLG

(iv) There is general comment for looking for evidence supporting the abuse allegations and a quote that "that children had been dragged from their beds at night screaming or had disappeared."

3.13 The Review Team examined this rationale and concluded the following:-

(i) The bones found at HDLG in 2003 were examined by a pathologist together with another doctor. Both state that the bones are not human. That fact is also mentioned by Detective Sergeant Keith Bray in a report submitted on 7th January 2008. He states "In conclusion the bones are not human remains and therefore that aspect of the enquiry is no longer an issue of concern." The Pathologists view is also noted by Detective Constable Adele Moss in her statement dated 11th January 2008.

(ii) Advocate ********** client was not known to police prior to the search at HDLG hence the information was third party only. They were later identified as ******* ******* and when seen by police made a statement about general abuse at HDLG. However, they make no mention of any bodies at HDLG. Interestingly they were seen by police prior to the search although they were not aware at that time that they were Advocate ******** client . On that occasion they made no mention of any bodies at HDLG.

(iii) This section has been removed (Rico Sorda). The reason im told is that the witness could be identified.

(iv) The general comment about looking for evidence supporting the abuse allegations is considered extremely speculative given the timescale. The quote about children screaming and disappearing is clearly meant to be sinister in nature. In reality many of the children in HDLG are said to have had 'problems' and many came and went on very short notice as this home was used for short- stay reasons and not just long term care.

3.14 A final factor that should have been considered is that there are no children missing from HDLG. Whilst the records are not entirely complete as regards reason for discharge from the home, there are no obvious missing children and no reports in the MIR from parents, relatives or friends suggesting such.

3.15 In respect of the search/excavations at the Victorian Towers. On the 5th May 2008, Decision 19 states;-

"To treat bunkers at the Victorian Tower as new scene of enquiry"

The rationale of the decision is:-

"Intelligence from anumber of witness/sources, most with HDLG connections, which describe either finding human remains/child's body and also make allegations of serious sexual abuse by HDLG staff. Further information of possible occult connection"

3.16 A report dated 12th july 2008 lists the information referred to above as;

(i) Sexual assault of HDLG residents by staff inside bunker

(ii) The finding of a dead child in the bunker many years ago

(iii) The discovery of bones outside the bunkers many years ago

(iv) Satanic imagery on the bunker walls

(v) Around Easter 2008 earth had been disturbed at two locations by unautherised persons which could be interpreted as an attempt to gain entry to the bunkers.

3.17 The Review Team examined the rationale and concluded the following:-

(i) There is witness evidence of a person being sexually assaulted in the bunker,however, ( part redacted by Rico Sorda). In any event an excavation after such a long period of time is unlikely to provide any supporting evidence.

(ii)The finding of a 'dead child' in the bunkers is information from ********* ***** (This name has been redated)

(iii) The bones found many years ago may be reference to either a 1988 find of a 19th century femur or animal bones found in a nearby farmers field.

(iv) The satanic imagery on the bunker walls is apparently a drawing of a head with horns seen on the wall of the bunker by a witness when 15yrs of age.

(v) It is stated that the earth disturbance at Easter 2008 'could be interpreted as an attempt to gain entry to the bunkers. It is also suggested to the Review Team that it could equally be drugs connected. Any other speculation would seem pointless.


4.1 The ACPO Homicide Advice Team recommended that the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) should undertake a forensic review. Subsequently this was conducted by two of their Forensic Specialist Advisors.

4.2 Much of their review deals with strategic and administrative issues and thanked all those interviewed for their help, co-operation and all round professionalism. However, it is understood that due to leave commitments and tight timescales a key member of the investigation, the Forensic Services Manager (FSM) VICKY COUPLAND, was not interviewed in person, but was spoken briefly by telephone.

FSM COUPLAND does not agree with some issues raised and has submitted a response to the NPIA

4.3 During the course of the investigation at HDLG, FSM COUPLAND has comprehensively documented her role in a series of eighteen (18) Major Incident Scene Management Logs. Entries relate to a range of areas and include:-

* Strategies for forensic recovery and examiniation

* Forensic meetings

* Staffng issues

* Media

*General administration

It is unclear what input the SIO had in formulating the strategies outlined in his logs.

4.4 The examination of HDLG and surrounding areas has been extensive and has involved many forensic disciplines. Numerous exhibits have been recovered abd include:-

* A number of bone fragments - eleven of these have been examined. Three have been identified as believed to be human bone. However, carbon dating has shown two of them to be dated 1450-1650 and the third to be 1650-1950. The other fragments are either animal bone or not bone at all.

* Sixty -Five teeth- these have been identified as child/juvenile teeth. Indications are some teeth fell out naturally whilst other were extracted . Some results in respect of the teeth are still outstanding.



The term restraints and shackles give a false impression. The restraints are in fact a piece of coiled wire whilst the shackles are a piece of metal chain and piece of metal

4.5 Great emphasis has been place on a piece of bone (JAR 6) found at HDLG on 23rd February 2008. This was initially identified by Doctor Julie Roberts ( Forensic Archaeologist) as bone, probably from the skullcap of a juvenile. This find was subject to much media interest. Some confusion then seemed to have existed as to whether this was bone or not. The issue seems to have been clarified in a report by Doctor Tom HIGHAM (Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit), dated 1st May 2008. In it he states that, "the sample was not in fact bone,but was almost certainly wood". He seemed surprised that DR Roberts could so confidentially determine the exhibit to be an infants specimen. He concludes that the sample is a) not bone b)not human. Clearly with so much emphasis being placed on this item it is felt that further efforts should be made to try and define its origin.

4.6 Much forensic work has been undertaken by LGC Forensics. In order to establish their findings and the chronology of events the Review Team intend to interview members of their staff in the near future.


5.1 Although an early decision was made to focus on HDLG, it spanned a long time frame and therefore involved a large number of potential suspects. The terms of Persons of Interest (PoI) and suspect have been used in the conduct of the investigation, but the terms have never been defined and appear to have been virtually interchangeable. Failure to separate suspects , from those who failed to reach that status , rendered prioritisation more difficult. It is suggested that the following criteria could have been applied


A person whom there are grounds to suspect of the offence and who would require a caution prior to questioning

* Persons of Interest

A person, who enquiries or M.O suggest , may possibly be in some way 'involved in' or 'connected to' the offence but falls short of the 'suspect' criteria.

5.2 The second ACPO report in late March 2008 recommended that the SIO should consider a scoring matrix to manage and prioritise the arrest of any suspects. Although at that time the SIO made a decision not to use such a matrix, the Review Team considers that this would have been beneficial. During the period of the review the new SIO made a decision to create a flexible form of matrix and the Review Team concurs with this decision. Use of the suspect and PoI criteria may have aided prioritisation process and if raised at the start of the enquiry could have assisted in determining appropriate research levels.


6.1 At the time of the review the following people had been arrested in connection with Operation Rectangle:-

* Gordon Wateridge

*Michael Aubin

* ***** ******
* ****** *******
* ***** *******

Of these only Wateridge and AUBIN have been charged and await trial.

6.2 Contained in the Persons of Interest/Suspect Policy Book (Policy 7, dated 10/04/08) is the decision, "wherever possible to get preliminary file to Barrister THOMAS before arrest so that charges can be flagged up pre-arrest ." The rationale being , "to avoid having to release suspects from custody without charge and to identify potential evidential problems early". This decision is seen as problematic as it could restrict any interview with a suspect and at worse could make any interview inadmissable at court. The new SIO and the relevant prosecutors are aware of this decision.


7.1 At the start of the enquiry media appeals for witnesses and information attracted a large number of responses. The search at HDLG, however, caused an explosion of interest both local and international. There are concerns about the Media Strategy, the manner in which some information was imparted to the media, the quality of this information and the language employed


8.1 The Major Incident Room (MIR) was set up in September 2007 to deal with the administration of the investigation and operated primarily as a 'manual' or 'paper' major enquiry system. Jersey did however utilise a computer-based spreed sheet for dealing with some aspects of the information gathered and for Action Management.

8.2 In late November 2007 it became clear the the MIR did not have the capacity to cope with the volume of information being received and that the HOLMES system would need to be introduced. On the 3rd January 2008, a meeting took place with the Devon and Cornwall Police (who provide Major Incident IT support for Jersey) to undertake 'Back Record Conversion' (BRC) TO HOLMES. This process was started at Devon and Cornwall headquarters while new workstations were purchased and installed in Jersey. This BRC took longer than initially envisaged due to the volume of material involved, but good support was provided by Devon and Cornwall Police who also loaned an experienced officer manager (OM) to run the MIR.

8.3 An area that did cause some concern during this review and which may be subject of a future comment is the use of 'Officers Reports'. At the time of this review just over eight hundred reports have been submitted , any of these have been used instead of completing Action results or submitting a message in some cases the report could have been more appropriately dealt with as an Other Document. This issue has been discussed with the OM and has endeavoured to reduce the volume of reports.


9.1 Research prior to the Operation Rectangle outlined prior prosecutions and current allegations of physical and sexual abuse , which undoubtedly justified an investigation.

9.2 Such investigations benefit greatly from Multi-agency approach, but it was not considered viable due to the circumstances in Jersey. It is felt, however, that had such difficulties been overcome, it would have greatly benefited the enquiry.

9.3 Command and Control appears to have been an issue in areas such as:-

* Terms of Reference

* Policies

* Supervision

* Gold Group Support

* Community Impact Assessment

9.4 At the start of the investigation the media played a large role in publicising the enquiry and assisted in appeals for witnesses and information. When, however, the search/excavation at HDLG commenced it moved quickly on to a new level seemingly fed on a running commentary on the work/finds at HDLG. The interaction of the Enquiry Team with the media at this time does raise many issues.

9.5 The rationales for the searches/excavations at HDLG and the Victorian Tower bunkers does not appear to stand close scrutiny, particularly given the extent and cost of the work undertaken. EX-DCO HARPER has not yet had the opportunity to comment , but at the present time we have grave doubts about the justification for conducting the searches.

9.6 That said, the search /excavations work was undertaken and no evidence of homicide was apparent and no obvious missing persons have been identified. We are therefore of the view that Operation Rectangle should consider this aspect of their enquiry concluded.

9.7 In respect of the on-going child abuse allegations , these are currently subject to vigorous process, involving the legal authorities, which should reduce the list of suspects to single figures. These will then be prioritised and where appropriate progressed to prosecution.

Peter Britton (END)

Remember Andrew Lewis suspended the Chief of Police without any formal warning or any due process because of the above Interim Report. You can see why he had told Wiltshire and Brian Napier QC that he hadn't seen it.  You can also see why they don't want the December 2008 "in camera debate" released to the Committee of Enquiry. This will be debated in the States this coming Tuesday. 

Here are the extracts concerning the above from the "In camera debate" December 2008. I think we can safely say that Andrew Lewis is referring to the Met Interim Report when suspending Graham Power.

1.2 Deputy G.P Southern of St Helier

My question concerns the process that was undertaken during the suspension, leading to the suspension of the Chief Officer. In a statement circulated by the Chief Officer, he states:

"Paragraph 2.1 of the code requires that in the event the Minister having disciplinary concerns he will write to the Chief Executive."

It then goes on to say:

"Two days after my suspension as provided with what was said to be a copy of that letter. It is dated 12th November 2008 and in it the Chief Executive is instructed to conduct a preliminary investigation under paragraph 2 of the code. Part 2 sets out the actions which the Chief Executive is required to take. These included the obtaining of statements from available witness and from the Chief Officer."

Those statements were never sought nor made. Why then was the officer concerned suspended?

The Deputy of St John:

This is exactly what the process is about. That investigation is now under way and that is why the Chief of Police is being temporarily suspended.

1.3 Deputy F J Hill of St Martin:

Yes, could I just follow up on that answer surely that should have been carried out before the suspension. Why was it not carried out?

The Deputy of St John:

Members will be aware that an investigation has been carried out by the Metropolitan Police and I was presented with a preliminary report on the basis of that investigation. So as far as I'm concerned that is the preliminary investigation. I acted on the information that was contained in that and in order to pursue a disciplinary investigation it was necessary to suspend the police officer.

1.17 Senator S Syvret

The Minister has made great reference with great store on the preliminary or interim review by the Metropolitan Police. But, having taken action he has done, that review remains incomplete, it is not yet finalised. No final review document by the Metropolitan Police has been produced. Does he not recognise the fact …. the Chief Minister is no. I know because I have been in contact with Mr Sweeting of the Met and I know that he has still got a great number of people yet to interview, germaine witnesses. So does the Minister not accept that his actions have been pre-emptory and quite unacceptable, given that the Met Review itself is not complete.? The second question is this and I think the Minister needs to think very carefully about his answer to this: The Chief Constable of the States of Jersey Police Force, along with another one of his senior officers who is still employed by the force,he is - they both are - witnesses to the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice as they were present at meetings when this conspiracy was taking place, which they noted and duly recorded in evidence. Does he not accept that, given that the conspiracy did involve the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers that this action is totally unacceptable and will only do Jersey colossal damage.?

The Deputy of St John:

The Senator's conspiracy theories continue to astound me. I was not part of the Council of Ministers until but a few weeks ago. I am not conspiring in any way at all. The Senator consistently conspires in his own mind to work out conspiracies. This is nothing about that. This is a matter of great interest to me as the Minister for Home Affairs, as a resident of Jersey, as a custodian of the public purse. I am bringing a Chief Officer to account. I am giving him every opportunity to defend himself. As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all.

1.22 The Connetable of St Helier:

The Minister said that part of his action has been motivated by concern for Mr Power. Does he, therefore think it is satisfactory that Mr Power's daughter learned of his suspension on the public radio and does this not indicate that the process that has been followed was an accelerated one? My second question, and it is an effort to be helpful and it is a question I have already asked the Minister and the Chief Minister, is will he not go away with the code and with his legal advisers, and with an HR (Human Resources) professional -preferably one that has not resigned from the States, but one who is going to be here to serve the Island - and check that he has fully compiled with the code? If he ahas not, not only is he putting Mr Power and his family through unnecessary grief, but he will put the Island through an extraordinary embarrassment and repetitional damage? I really do think it would be more courageous to admit that we have got the process wrong. It often happens in HR; goodness knows I have done it myself. The process has to be correct or we will be in trouble and I would urge the Minister to go away and at least agree to look again at the decision making process.

The Deputy of St John:

I will deal with the first matter and that is a matter of the media. As we are in camera I am happy to state this. On leaving the with myself and the Chief Executive to the States, the Chief Officer went immediately to the BBC; he was there within 5 mins of leaving that office. That is why it became World News - not of my making; not of the Communications Unit's making. Secondly, as far as the process is concerned , I have taken advice. I have taken advice from other HR professionals within the States of Jersey HR department. I am perfectly satisfied that the code has been followed appropriately. I have taken advice from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, they feel that such action is wholly appropriate in the circumstance. I HAVE READ AN ALARMING REPORT FROM THE METROPOLITAN POLICE which led me to this decision in the first place. I can do no more(Approbation- Foot Stamping)

Deputy P.N Troy of St Brelade

Can the Minister confirm that the suspension is only in relation to the management of the Haut De La Garenne Inquiry and that there are no other reasons for the suspension? The Minister said that they were very serious allegations, but can he just confirm there were no other reasons? Can I ask why it is that Mr Harper, who probably did untold damage to the reputation to the island, was not suspended prior to his retirement? Why was he not put through the disciplinary process?

The Deputy of St John:

No there are not. I am purely acting on information contained in a report that was about an investigation into an operation that was code-named Rectangle and that is what the report was about and that is where my concerns were. No other concerns have I currently got, other than those of a serious nature.

There you have it. The Met Interim Report was basically two sheets of A4 paper with recommendations and look how Andrew Lewis describes it to the States of Jersey. That is what he suspended the Chief of Police on. It should never ever of happened. This is  contrary to the advice given by the then Attorney General, William Balihache to then Chief Minister Frank Walker that advised against suspending the Chief of Police before the full Metropolitan Police Review had been completed. Did Frank Walker advise Andrew Lewis that he had received this advice from the Attorney General? The suspension  was so bad that the Royal Court when Graham Power went for Judicial Review criticised it. The next Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand didn't want to touch it with a barge pole. It was a shambles and a disgrace. The former Minister Andrew Lewis has one last chance at the COI to come clean and tell the enquiry exactly what happened. Then and only then might he walk out with some credibility left intact. 

Why didn't the Jersey Authorities give the 4 ACPO Reports the same importance? Oh no, it's better to forget about that.

As Colombo was famous for saying "One last thing" Maybe, and I mean maybe, there might just be a chance that Andrew Lewis didn't see the above Met Interim Report and the above William Bailhache email. The reason for saying this is simple. The severity of his concerns raised during the In Camera States debate don't match the above Interim Report. Was he just told about it and went along with it? Then said he had seen it to the politicians to give the suspension some credibility? 

Think about it.

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist