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 


rico sorda said...

When former Chief Executive Officer to the States of Jersey Bill Ogley was interviewed by Brian Napier QC about the Graham Power suspension this is what Brian Napier had to say:

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.”

You can see why they wanted the "In Camera Debate kept locked away and secret. This is what Andrew Lewis said, in the States, to his fellow members.

"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)"


rico sorda said...

"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.”

So what exactly did Andrew Lewis use to suspend the Chief of Police if not the interim report?

You actually can't make this stuff up.

Andrew Lewis has some serious questions to answer. If he was pressurised into he should just come out and say.

Anonymous said...

This is what real investigative journalism is all about Mr Sorda and I have read the entire post from top to bottom. I have been following the blogs since 2008 and consider mysel to be fairly well informed regarding the outrageous suspension of Mr Power. The question might have already been answered but I haven't seen it so need to ask.

The Attorney General William Bailhache sent an email to the Chief Minister saying the Chief police officer could not be suspended without the completed Met Report? Was this email supplied to the Napier investigation and if not why not it is a pivotal piece of evidence? Why did Andrew Lewis ignore this legal advice?

Póló said...


You have left out the most important line in the debate:

"The Deputy of St. John


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.

The Bailiff:

Minister, do not go down this road please.

The Deputy of St John

the actions that I took are justified and we will wait the outcome of the investigation as to whether it was."

Lewis is clearly a patsy who is not at all up to speed on what is going on and his blabbering is giving the whole game away. So much so that the Bailiff is trying to shut him up.

For me the Bailiff's few words are not only pure entertainment but they sum up perfectly what is going on.

You couldn't make it up.

rico sorda said...

It gets worse. A lot worse.

I have just found out, and waiting for further confirmation that the Attorney General, William Bailhache replied to an email from Frank walker advising him not to suspend the Chief of Police until in full possession of the Metropolitan Police Report on the 11th November 2008. The day before they suspended Graham Power. This came out at the COI.

This is simply incredible.

Andrew Lewis said he was getting legal advice from the SG and the Law Office.

What the hell went on here? Now I can see why Frank has changed his story.

I would like to say a big thank you to Michael Morris of the JEP. He is doing a very good job.

rico sorda said...

The email from the Attorney General on the 11th November 2008 advising against suspending the Chief of Police to Frank Walker is a key piece of evidence.

It looks like the law office are hanging out the former Chief Minister Frank Walker to dry.

The COI haven't done their homework. One of the TOR's is political interference. They haven't done their homework. What we are now seeing is the unraveling of the most infamous suspensions in Jersey's history.

Graham Powers Judicial Review can be read here. It is a must read.

What is blindingly obvious now is that Andrew Lewis was sucked in by Frank Walker, David Warcup and Mick Gradwell.

David Warcup and Mick Gradwell held a briefing to all Ministers during the evening of the 11th November 2008. The Attorney General had advised the Frank Walker on the 11th November against suspending but the train was in motion. The trap had been set and the weak, patsy Home Affairs Minister was in place.

This is what happened.

In October 2008 DCO David Warcup called in outside media consultant Matt Tapp to do some work regarding some media releases to do with Operation Rectangle. Graham Power didn't think his services were required and sent him on his way. Within 30 minutes of leaving Graham Powers office he found himself in a meeting with Frank Walker and Bill Ogley. They secured his services and thus secured Graham Powers fate.

Matt Tapp then wrote his Media release. I have seen it. It is identical to the one used by Warcup and Gradwell on the 12th November 2008 at their media briefing . This report was also used at the briefing to Ministers on the 11th November 2008. It was used to butter up Andrew Lewis who simply didn't have a clue as to what was going on. He had one job to do.Suspend Graham Power. The problem they had was that they couldn't say that they were suspending Graham Power on the back of a Media Consultant and David Warcup. That would have been laughed out of town. No, they had to drag the Metropolitan Police into it to give it some weight.

This is why Andrew Lewis is in a right mess. God only knows what he is going to say to the COI?

This is why he told the Staes that he had seen the Met Report and then told Wiltshire and Napier that he hadn't.

This is why the Attorney General is now distancing himself from these clowns. His email to Frank Walker was only released to the COI in mid January 2016.

Frank Walker and Bill Ogley commissioned the services of Matt Tapp - if that's not political interference then I don't know what is.


rico sorda said...

Former DCO David Warcup is a disgrace to the uniform he served. He has no excuse. Not one. Nothing. Even if he didn't know that Graham Power was going to be suspended his actions from the 12th November 2008 are disgraceful. He remained quiet. The Attorney General remained quiet.



Anonymous said...

Rico may I ask a question as usual your reporting gets us all thinking !

If the Bailiff emailed Frank Walker advising him not to suspend the Police Chief does this not open up several possibilities ?

A) Lewis was lying about reading the interim report.

B) Lewis thought he was doing the right thing but it was illegal

C) In answering Lewis said that the solicitor general gave advice that he was personally acting legally as a minister, Constable Crowcroft and others quoted the rules to suspend and Lewis mentioned several times the advice he had been given by the SG and human resources.

Did the Bailiff and AG not speak out because one of their own the SG messed up ?

As a lawman and Head Judge if the Bailff when in the chamber hears a blatent lie, is he not supposed to intervene.

To not intervene allows corruption of the truth ?

As the three gentleman are fully responsible and under oath to uphold Justice in Jersey, answers are clearly needed to this disgraceful episode ?


Anonymous said...

Hi Rico
Did the Attorney General advise against Suspending Graham Power or was it simply to hold back a bit.

It's an impossible task for the AG to distance himself.

Póló said...

There's a good novel shaping up here. And then there'll be the film rights. Jersey will really be shafted.

While we're waiting to see the email, perhaps people could start casting the film.

For starters, maybe Andrew Lewis could play himself. He doesn't seem to be much good at anything else.

OK. I know this is very serious stuff, but there hasn't been a single laugh in it since Andrew Lewis's last performance in the States (see transcript).

Póló said...

Another, serious, question.

Is this email only now being released as the powers that be see the drift of the Inquiry? If that is the case, how much more evidence is still being withheld? And what does this say about those officers who are supposed to be assembling/filtering the evidence from the administration on behalf of the Inquiry.

Is Lewis being finally cut adrift as the régime fears a States vote later today to release the in camera transcript into the official ether?

The handling of the email both by the administration and the Inquiry speaks volumes.

rico sorda said...


My feeling is that Andrew Lewis was just used to do the job of suspending. He was the weak man they needed. If Frank say's jump Lewis asks how high.

voiceforchildren said...


The commenter @ January 18, 2016 at 9:02 PM asks a good question and I believe the answer is in the negative.

As far as I understand it the e-mail sent by the AG to the Chief Minister was NOT supplied to Brian Napier QC. This begs the question why not? Did the then AG, and now Bailiff, WILLIAM BAILHACHE wilfully withhold evidence from the Napier Review and for what reason?

Hopefully the COI will see fit to get answers to those questions?

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Rico, in your comment at 12:20 you say this: -

"In October 2008 DCO David Warcup called in outside media consultant Matt Tapp to do some work regarding some media releases to do with Operation Rectangle. Graham Power didn't think his services were required and sent him on his way. Within 30 minutes of leaving Graham Powers office he found himself in a meeting with Frank Walker and Bill Ogley. They secured his services and thus secured Graham Powers fate."

I watched all of Frank Walker's live evidence and listened very closely. Of course, as ever the standard difficulty with Walker is that so many falsehoods are intermingled with the facts, one can't tell where the one ends and other starts.

With that caveat in mind, Walker said a number of remarkable things. One of which, which struck me as being of particular significance was his insistence - repeated several times when questioned on the point (albeit the questioning was predictably lame, and failed to recognised the significance of the point) - that the employment by the public of Matt Tapp ended with Graham Power telling Tapp his services were not required. According to Walker, Matt Tapp simply came to see Bill Ogley to tell Ogley he was going (why Tapp would have done this is a mystery in itself) and Walker "just happened to be in the next room", so Walker joined Ogley & Tapp to discuss the situation.

Crucially - what Walker said places a different - and in some ways more profound - meaning on the chain of events than you report above when you say, "Frank Walker and Bill Ogley.....secured his (Tapp's) services and thus secured Graham Powers fate."

According to Frank Walker - only the meeting occurred. And that was that. The end of the involvement of Matt Tapp. According to Walker, Tapp's employment ended then. When asked by the COI what he thought Tapp had done & where he had gone afterwards, Walker appeared confused by the question, apparently not understanding what the point of it was, and insisted that as far as he knew, Matt Tapp had left Jersey immediately after that meeting, and had gone back to the UK and his involvement had ended.

If Walker's answers re Matt Tapp are true - then it shows Frank Walker - the then Chief Minister - to have not been aware of the on-going employment of Matt Tapp by the public of Jersey - and to have not authorised the on-going employment of Matt Tapp.

In which case - who did?

And what authority did they imagine they were relying upon to contract Matt Tapp to write a report riddled with falsehoods, the plain purpose of which was to act as a kind of fake "validation" of the spin-doctoring of the illegal suspension of the Police Chief - and the associated trashing of the child-abuse investigations?

Big Question, guys - Big Question.

Stuart Syvret

voiceforchildren said...


Stuart asked in the in-camera debate:

"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.?"(END)

With this new evidence coming to light that the AG sent an e-mail to the CM advising NOT to suspend Mr. Power until they were able to abuse the FULL MET Report, did Andrew Lewis duck Stuart's question when giving his "answer?"

Andrew Lewis:

"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."

Did Lewis know of the e-mail/advice sent NOT to suspend Mr. Power?

Anonymous said...

In complete contrast to the Jersey Evening Post ———— both your and VFC sites have appeared in links published by the Guernsey press after an argument has broken out between " Tim " from Jersey and a Guernsey politician Dave Jones over the honesty of Lenny Harper. It is in the comments section of an article about Harper.

Your hard work Rico and Voice are being used for reference. Jersey's establishment will not be happy bunnies.

Would the Jersey Evening Post, ever be honest to link quality and researched third party unaccredited unpaid blogger sites ?

rico sorda said...

He must have known. how could Tapp just go home when they used his report to suspend Graham Power and ended up in a court of law. Has Frank lied through his back teeth at this enquiry?

Rico said...


1. Will the Chief Minister set out for members the entire cost of the suspension of the former Chief
Officer of the States of Jersey Police from October/November 2008 to the present time breaking
this sum down into -

(a) the costs of his salary during his suspension and the salary of the Deputy Chief Officer of
Police who acted up for him;

(b) the cost of the Napier Report;

(c) the cost of the Wiltshire Report;

(d) the cost of the Judicial Review into his initial suspension;

(e) the cost of time spent by the Law Officers dealing with this matter before and after his

(f) the costs of the UK PR consultant who was employed by the States immediately before the

2. Is the Chief Minister satisfied that this money was well spent?

(a) As outlined in the response to Q5459 on 22 June 2010, the cost of salaries and subsistence to
cover the absence of Mr Power up to the 20th July 2010 was £234,854.

(b) The cost of the Napier Report was £54,518.
It is available online:

(c) As outlined in the response to Q5459 on 22 June 2010, the total cost of the first Wiltshire
Investigation to 31 May 2010 was £572,532.
Q5459 is available online:

(d) The application for judicial review was dealt with by the Law Officers’ Department within
existing resources.

(e) This information is not held by the Law Officers’ Department. The work on this case was done on a previous case management system which is no longer in use.

(f) The cost of the UK PR consultant was £2,937.50 (MATT TAPP)

Rico said...


"According to Frank Walker - only the meeting occurred. And that was that. The end of the involvement of Matt Tapp. According to Walker, Tapp's employment ended then. When asked by the COI what he thought Tapp had done & where he had gone afterwards, Walker appeared confused by the question, apparently not understanding what the point of it was, and insisted that as far as he knew, Matt Tapp had left Jersey immediately after that meeting, and had gone back to the UK and his involvement had ended"

Didn't they ask Frank Walker how was it that Matt Tapp wrote a report and was paid £2,937.50. The report exists. I have seen it. It was used in court. What department paid for Matt Tappand his services? No way Ogley would have done it without telling Frank.

Rico said...

Stuart you said;

"According to Walker, Matt Tapp simply came to see Bill Ogley to tell Ogley he was going (why Tapp would have done this is a mystery in itself) and Walker "just happened to be in the next room", so Walker joined Ogley & Tapp to discuss the situation"

Tapp left the meeting with Power and told Warcup that his services were not required. He phoned Warcup. Warcup phoned Ogley and within 30mins Tapp was in the office with both Walker and Ogley.

Tapp does a report and gets paid.

Frank Walker can't remember a thing lol.

rico said...

So far, Frank Walker can't remember why Andrew Lewis suspended Graham Power and has changed his story.

And then plays dumb with the Enquiry about Matt Tapp.


No cover-up though lol

Anonymous said...

Yeah over 40 States members voting in favour of in-camera minutes being released is evidence of a cover up.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

William Bailhache & his Involvement in the Illegal Suspension of The Police Chief.

….Part one: -

In respect of the alleged e-mail which was allegedly sent by the Attorney General to Walker, suggesting that the interim report should not be used to suspend the Police Chief - we know that this is a "system" - and these are sociopathic oligarchs - with a proven, certain record of falsifying evidence - and of out-and-out lying. Just for example, it's a matter of public record that the then Attorney General William Bailhache lied when first stating publicly that he had no knowledge of the illegal police-actions - the raid and arrest - carried out against me. He then later changed that story 180 degrees when admitting in the States he did in fact have prior knowledge of the police-state action against me.

The point being, in the person of William Bailhache - and in the Office of Jersey Attorney General - we are dealing with liars - with provably "unreliable witnesses".

My assessment of the purported existence of the alleged e-mail is two-fold:

Firstly - my initial suspicion is that no such real e-mail exists; that that which has been produced and supplied to this purported "public-inquiry" is in part or in whole an utter forgery. The purpose and motive behind such a forgery would be the - from their perspective correct - damage-limitation dilemma of deciding which part of the Jersey oligarchy would it be "less-bad" to sacrifice - the Office Chief Minister - or the Office of Attorney General?

Of course - all and every part of the Jersey establishment is irredeemably dammed by this whole disgusting saga - and there is simply No Way Back for the present arrangement of the Jersey polity, even if they can spin and manipulate certain elements in the situation.

But you can see their thinking; a politician - all the more a former politician such as Walker - and the mere elected Office of Chief Minister - is a far less costly "hit" for the Jersey Cosa Nostra to take - than their all-powerful instrument of control and oppression, the Office of Attorney General - and the fatally conflicted then Office-holder William Bailhache - and the terminal contamination he brings to his present Office - that of Bailiff.

They'll very happily hang Frank Walker out to dry, and have him stripped of his OBE - and possibly questioned in the criminal sense (which would seem unavoidable if he went against legal advice - given other - err - "factors" involved which could be seen to conflict him) - than let any such consequence come down upon the Crown Officers and the "government-within-a-government" they form, to use Graham Power's memorable phrase.

But what if the e-mail from Bailhache to Walker is not forged in part or in whole? What if it's genuine?


Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

William Bailhache & his Involvement in the Illegal Suspension of The Police Chief.

….Part two: -

Given so many other factors which are clear from the history of events - factors involving William Bailhache - it is indisputably plain that he was extensively involved in events - in many different ways - and that not only was he (and his brother Philip Bailhache) dramatically and fatally personally conflicted in these issues(their multiple and extensive repeated history of involvement in the unlawful concealment of the crimes of the Maguires as one example) - but that William Bailhache had sought to smear me to the Police Chief, and when that failed, he tried to illegally coerce the Police Chief into dropping the investigation into widespread planning corruption at the heart of government. And when that failed, William Bailhache said to the Police Chief, "So be it!"

Days later, Graham Power was illegally suspended.

That attempted coercion and threat against the Police Chief came before the date of the alleged e-mail from William Bailhache to Frank Walker. Bailhache will have known he was already so massively compromised into all of the child-abuse and corruption cover-ups - that he had been so hugely involved - in many public ways, let alone his vast involvement behind the scenes - and having actually tried to threaten and coerce the Police Chief - he needed an "insurance-policy".

William Bailhache needed what he thought would be a "get-out-of-jail-free-card" - just in case the long-planned illegal suspension of the Police Chief "went wrong". He knew he needed some kind of "written record" which - should it become necessary - he could point at and say, "Wot? - improper suspension of the Police Chief? Not me, guv. Look, I even asked them not to do it." *innocent-face*.

Of course, these people are not very bright, and the other multiple entanglements and misfeasant and malfeasant conducts of William Bailhache and the Office of Attorney General are there to be seen, on the evidence, so even if the e-mail isn't forged in whole or in part, its intended "usefulness" to the Jersey mafia as an "insurance policy" is wholly redundant.

In any event - given that we know the Attorney General was involved in planning and exploring the illegal suspension of the Police Chief for many weeks beforehand - was fully aware of the proposal - how could any moderately intelligent person regard William Bailhache's 59 minute of the 11th hour alleged e-mail raising questions about the legality of the move, to be anything other than what it is - an incompetent & clumsily obvious attempt to "cover" oneself & "distance" oneself from the very event you've been "engineering" and instrumental in causing?

At junctures like this we need to remind ourselves of a fact: "never underestimate the stupidity of the Jersey oligarchy."

Stuart Syvret

rico sorda said...

We also need the email that William Bailhache replied to. Remember, he was answering a question.


Anonymous said...

This has to be one of the most interesting of many interesting posts on these blogs. Seems we are getting closer to the beating heart of the conspiracy. I hope enough evidence leaks out that Graham Power can commence legal action against the States for damaged reputation.

Anonymous said...

At the time Andrew Lewis told a different story at the in camera debate it was known what had already been said that is why the debate was in camera. How can anyone excuse themselves as not being aware of the situation?

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"I hope enough evidence leaks out that Graham Power can commence legal action against the States for damaged reputation."

I do not know if Graham Power intends any such course of action, but if he did, he faces exactly the same - a priory - difficulty as me, namely that there are no courts - and there is no judiciary - in Jersey.

How does one bring a legal challenge - when there is no court, and no judiciary before which to bring that action?

Jersey is an unreconstructed feudatory which possesses no court or judiciary which meet the basic tests & definitions by which courts and judiciaries are described and understood in lawful societies.

Stuart Syvret

Burke and Hare said...


In Frank Walker's evidence he let slip that due to Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis being 'inexperiened' he had had another Minister assigned to him to advise and guide him.

Have you heard the rumours that this 'guiding' Minister on the thorny issue of whether Graham Power was to be suspended or not was none other than Terry Le Main?

Can this be confirmed? And if true - as I have no doubt it is - do you agree there might be a teensy weensy bit of a conflict of interest in such a mentoring?

Chuff Chuff

rico sorda said...

Andrew Lewis was being mentored? Are you having a laugh? Did Frank really say that?

I wish we had the transcripts


Anonymous said...

If Terry le Main really did have an influence on the suspension of the police chief at the same time as the same police chief was attempting to start a criminal investigation into allegations of corruption against le Main then that goes beyond a conflict of interest. It is attempting to pervert the course of justice. Possibly with the assistance of the Law Officers Department.

Anonymous said...

Hansard part 1.

2.12 Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Chief Minister regarding the publication of the details of the contract with Matt Tapp Associates:

Will the Chief Minister publish full details of the contract, if any, with Matt Tapp Associates and fully explain the company’s role in the suspension of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police and various news releases relating to Haut de la Garenne and, if not, why not?

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):
Matt Tapp Associates were commissioned by the former Chief Executive of the States of Jersey with the knowledge of the former Chief Minister on 8th October 2008 to produce a report with the following single term of reference: “To make an assessment of the external communications activity pertaining to the Haut de la Garenne investigation (February 2008 to October 2008).” This work was agreed by correspondence between the former Chief Executive and Matt Tapp Associates. There was no formal contract but Matt Tapp Associates were paid through the usual order invoice process. The Matt Tapp report was received on 23rd November 2008, which was after the date of the initial suspension of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.

2.12.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
Can the Chief Minister confirm, though, that the information that Mr. Tapp gave them on 8th November was part of the justification used as part of the suspension process of the Chief Officer of Police?

Senator I.J. Gorst:
I find myself in the same difficulty as the Minister for Home Affairs, I am being asked the justification for the decision made by the previous Minister for Home Affairs and whether the information ... what information was used in order to make that decision and assessment. As I have said, the actual report was not received by the Chief Executive until 23rd November and therefore it seems to me ... I do not see how that report could have been used in that initial decision making process.

2.12.2 Deputy M. Tadier:
Can the Chief Minister either confirm or look into the very serious allegation that the document used on 12th November was in fact part of the Tapp report and it was presented to the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis, as the Met. report and Deputy Andrew Lewis was misled, and that this is a very serious allegation if it is true. It is an allegation that might result in a chief executive officer having to resign or even a deputy police officer having to resign. So can the Minister either confirm whether this is true or, if not, look into those allegations?

Senator I.J. Gorst:
I am not sure, I am being asked to comment on an allegation coming from where with relation to a report which was only received by the Chief Executive on 23rd November, which was a good number of days after the decision to suspend was made. If the allegation had substance I should have thought that Mr. Napier, when he reviewed the initial suspension, would have considered it and therefore it potentially would have been in his report. I do not recall any comment in that regard in that report.

Anonymous said...

Hansard part 2.

2.12.3 Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:
Would the Chief Minister tell Members who paid the media consultant Mr. Tapp? Did it come out of the police budget, Home Affairs or the Chief Minister’s Department?

Senator I.J. Gorst:
A very good question. The invoice which I have in front of me was addressed to the Chief Executive, approved for payment by the Chief Executive, he being the accounting officer of the Chief Minister’s Department. I can therefore simply make the assumption from those 2 facts that it was paid from the Chief Minister’s budget.

2.12.4 Deputy S. Pitman:
Does the Chief Minister know how much the report cost and, if not, would he endeavour to provide this information to Members?

Senator I.J. Gorst:
As I said in answer to the Deputy’s earlier question, I have the invoice in front of me and therefore, yes, I do know how much it costs. I am assuming the Deputy would like me to tell her? Yes, okay. The cost of the report was £2,500 before V.A.T. (Value Added Tax), including V.A.T. obviously that comes to £2,937.50.

2.12.5 Deputy T.M. Pitman:
I hope you are not going to say this is too wide of the mark, but could the Chief Minister liaise with his Minister for Home Affairs to ascertain whether there was another consultant’s report on media, during the Met. report, which rubbished a lot of what Mr. Tapp came up with?

Senator I.J. Gorst:
I can, of course, consult with the Minister of Home Affairs but the Deputy is raising issues of which I am unaware.

2.12.6 Deputy T.A. Vallois:
Could the Chief Minister explain why there was no contract agreed between the Chief Executive and Matt Tapp Associates?

Senator I.J. Gorst:
I cannot, simply to say it is a small amount and therefore one would not necessarily have a formal contract as such. However, as I said, it was agreed via email correspondence. I have not been able to locate that email correspondence but if I, in due course, am able to do so then I imagine that that will give the details of the instruction to carry out the work. Having said that, of course, as I have said in my opening answer, the terms of reference for that piece of work was the sole one which I outlined.

Anonymous said...

Hansard part 3.

2.12.7 Deputy T.A. Vallois:
Supplementary? Can I ask the Chief Minister whether, in actual fact, it is within an accounting officer’s right to fulfil a service under public administration without having a formal contract agreement, even though he is a budgeting officer. However, being able to be accountable for that going forward, or if the Public Accounts Committee wanted to pick that up then could he explain to me whether it is within policy to do so.

Senator I.J. Gorst:
The Chairman of P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee) has a very good point. As I have said, I have not been able at this point, in the short time available, to locate the emails whereby it was requested that this work were undertaken. Of course the Chief Executive Officer is accountable, P.A.C. are entitled to review all the accounts and question officers upon their duties with regard to spending, that is absolutely right and proper, and I am obviously able to say today as I have done, that this work was instructed, undertaken in the course of that work. That is part of accountability which is right and proper.

2.12.8 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
Will the Chief Minister liaise with the Minister for Home Affairs and publish both the Tapp Report that was commissioned on 8th November and 23rd November so we can do a comparison between the 2 because I believe they were one in the same.

Senator I.J. Gorst:
Two points of interest there, and I noted from the Order Paper that a previous questioner asked the Minister for Home Affairs about a report which was written on 8th October. As I said here, the Chief Executive instructed the production of a report on that date, but that report was only received by him on 23th November. Therefore, I am not sure to which report, on 8th October, the Deputy might be referring. When it comes to publication of the Matt Tapp report which was received by the Chief Executive Officer on 23rd November I shall ask for it be fully redacted. I understand there might be approval process required by Matt Tapp and Associates but I will certainly endeavour to publish that report in a redacted form.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:
Just a supplementary on that. Just a point of clarification for the Minister in particular. The Minister for Home Affairs might be able to obtain the report of this commissioned on 8th, which was the one that was supposed to be for the States of Jersey Police. So if we can get both of them we would be much further on

Anonymous said...

No laughs involved I'm afraid. I am reliably informed this has been admitted by Andrew Lewis this week.

Groucho Marx said...

But you have to laugh eh? Couldn't make this farce up if you tried. Tel Boy the hater of Power and Harper mentoring the Minister who suddenly suspended Power!

rico sorda said...

The most basic and straight forward question that the council to the COI should have asked Frank Walker was - what were you and your Chief Executive Officer even thinking about commissioning a report - that could rightly and justifiably been seen as political interference.

Did Council to the COI ask this most basic of questions?


Póló said...

Who is writing the script for these mild quiz inquisitors?

Quis custordiet ...

voiceforchildren said...


Is the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry knowingly relying on falsified DOCUMENTS?

Monty T Python said...

@Póló RE.inane questioning:

What did you expect? The Spanish inquisition ?


FW: "Oh No. Not the comfy chair".......

rico sorda said...

Why didn't Frank Walker tell Lewis that the AG had advised against suspending the day before he did.

Why didn't a high ranking police officer, David Warcup, explain to the bozos that you can't use a Met Review for suspension or my own words for obvious reasons.

Why have the former Chief Executive to the States of Jersey and former Chief Minister Frank Walker hired an outside media consultant to work on trashing operation rectangle. And nobody bats an eyelid.

Anonymous said...

All a waste of time really as they already had their secret weapon Tel Boy Le Main installed as Lewis' 'mentor'. Oh but you have to chuckle.

Póló said...

@Monty T Python

No. But it is no harm to keep pointing this out as, no doubt, people will be claiming afterwards that all this stuff has been tested in open hearings. I am aware that the Inquiry had ruled out cross examination in favour of gently helping the witness maintain some element of consistency in getting their points across.

However, VFC has now stated that Lenny Harper got a grilling. So it will be interesting to see that transcript when it appears, assuming it's left up long enough for us to read it (hint).

rico sorda said...

Shall I tell you what is really serious about the Matt Tapp Report.

The Tapp Report was commissioned by the Chief Executive of the States of Jersey Bill Ogley.

The report was disclosed to the defence who introduced it at the trial in an attempt to get wateridge and others off on the basis that his right to a fair trial had been prejudiced We must note the sequence of events here. Bill Ogley pays Matt Tapp to write a critical report the crown officers give the critical report to the defence the defence use said report to try to get prosecutions ruled out of order. Whether intentionally or otherwise the Chief Executive of the States of Jersey with the knowledge of the Chief Minister Frank Walker commissioned a report which became a focal point of attempts to prevent abusers facing trial.

That is political interference of the highest order.


rico sorda said...

Now look at this question asked by the former Deputy of St Mary Daniel Wimberly



In his reply to a written question from the Deputy of St. Martin on 23rd March 2010, the Minister referred to the lengthy quotation which forms part of the judgement in the matter of the Attorney General v. Aubin and others [2009] J.R.C. 035A. in the following terms “The quotation above which is attributed to an outside expert is a quotation from the report of an independent media expert who was called in to advise the States of Jersey Police on media related matters.” Would the Minister inform members who called for this report, when and why, who conducted it, how were those who undertook the review were selected and what their qualifications were? Will the Minister release the report to members as it has already been used in a public court judgement?


In September 2008 an external media consultant, experienced in working at ACPO level in the UK, was formally engaged by the then Deputy Chief of Police with the knowledge of the Chief Officer of Police to develop an appropriate external communication strategy regarding Operation Rectangle. This was primarily to ensure:
That trials and ongoing investigations were not compromised or challenged on the grounds of an abuse of process, based on the information supplied to the media by the States of Jersey Police.
That the public were presented with accurate facts.

The external media consultant gave advice on these matters and subsequently resigned from his role. He then produced a written report in relation to his advice. Other issues relating to the report fall both within the ambit of the enquiry being conducted by the Commissioner and the terms of the first Wiltshire Police Report and it is not appropriate for me to express an opinion thereon at this stage. end

You see how they are trying to say that it was the Police that commissioned the Report and not the Chief Executive of the States of Jersey.

What was the Chief Executive and Chief Minister doing getting involved with Operation Rectangle. And then we have Andrew Lewis going on about the Met Interim Report in the states and then telling Wiltshire and Napoier that he hadn't seen it.

Just Incredible


rico sorda said...

I have sent the above to the Care Enquiry because I want to know what they asked Frank Walker and what his exact response was.


Póló said...

I wish you luck. They don't seem to be very good at answering the hard questions, only the easy ones.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...


What you refer to as the "Care Enquiry" - let Frank Walker off the hook.

Wholly unsurprisingly, they nurse-maided Walker throughout the whole session. And on those rare occasions - pretty much by accident - important lines of questioning were stumbled upon - he was assisted by the COI's lawyer quickly rushing on to a different topic; albeit on a couple of occasions she was too out of her depth to realise she had stumbled into the dark, toxic midden, so asked two or three questions before the dangerous path she was on dawned on her, and she lumbered through the bog in seek of safer ground.

An example:

Broader civil society, and the international audience for "The Jersey Situation" as evolving since July 2007, all know - God, how could we forget - that there was one, central -overarching - ground, claimed by Frank Walker, Andrew Lewis and the rest of the Jersey Establishment for the illegal suspension of the good Police Chief Graham Power. That reason, that ground was - 100% - "The Interim Met Report".

So often - as the many records show - The Jersey mafia cites - again - and again - the Interim Met Report as the reason for the immediate - "emergency" - suspension of the Police Chief and the associated abandonment of due process.

But - what's this???

Walker is eventually called to some mild, plastic account for that action before this CoI - and suddenly it's, "oh, the Interim Met Report?? Oh, THAT!, OH THAT REPORT! Oh, Well, yes, that was serious. But it was a minor point which just added to the move. There were other more important grounds which merited the suspension of the Police Chief on their own, no matter about the interim Met Report. In fact, even if we hadn't had the interim Met report at all, we would pretty certainly have suspended Graham Power any way."

So, Walker - in front of the COI - comes out with a story the opposite of what he and his factotum Lewis were peddling at the time of the suspension - which was - "ooh - look at this Interim Met Report! (which is so secret we can't show it to you) (turned out it was so secret they didn't even want to look at it themselves) "Why, we thought our Police Chief was just great. But, shockingly, we suddenly got - out of the blue - via second-sight, or kything, or precognition, or something - the Interim Met Report, which sadly - oh so regrettably - means we have to suspend him. Immediately. Without due process."

In any normal - real - lawfully objective - statutorily empowered inquisitorial tribunal, that stark and terminal dichotomy in Walker's position would be one of the gross massacres in the course of the proceedings.

The metaphorical wooden stakes and big hammers would have come out, and been brought down upon Walker in a remorseless battery.

As would be the case in a REAL tribunal - against ANY witness shown to have so starkly abandoned the position they had in the past - for a new - more "convenient" - position now.

Let's face it - when a witness fundamentally changes their story - with the sole exception of a genuine, honest 'fess-up' - it's never good; it never ends well, does it?

But the Jersey CoI let him off.

And that wasn't even the worst let-off Eversheds and the feeble lawyers gifted to Frank Walker and the rest of the Jersey oligarchy.

I'll be writing about that - and the spectacle of Walker's testimony in general - on a forthcoming blog-posting.

I doubt you'll get any meaningful response from the COI, Rico. If they deign to acknowledge you at all – in a couple of weeks - it will be a one or two paragraph brush-off, which is all that I could ever get from them. To this day I'm waiting for a meaningful detailed point-by-point response to an e-mail I wrote to the CoI in October.

October 2014, that is.

Stuart Syvret

Anonymous said...

I agree with Starts Comments regarding this alleged email by William Bailhache.

Its my view that this entire mess and corruption was overseen by the office of the Attorney General.

Lets get real here ....NOT one acting Minister now or then will take an action unless he is being directed to do so or has had the nod from either the Law Officers Department via the authority from the Bailhache brothers in any such a situation.

Stuart is undoubtedly correct that William Bailhache is on a damage limitation exercise and will conspire to do whats needed to distance the letters patent posts from any form of misconduct or negligence.

Acting Ministers come and go , but the corporate soles of these Ministers remain , so it matters not that we are all pointing fingers and trying to work out what happened here and there and who said what to who , because at the end of the day William Bailhache had Ministerial Government drafted and enacted in Law in 2005.....and his goal of this ministerial government has been achieved where no individual is ever accountable for the Ministers , as defined in the states of jersey law 2005 , to be held accountable for unlawful and illegal actions.

They all just hide behind Chief Officers and acting ministers who say that they were not involved or didn't hear that or this.

Ministerial Government needs to be abolished as its not right for the island and allows corruption to even flourish on a greater scale than it did before.

Anonymous said...

Application of penal enactments to bodies corporate

In the construction of every enactment relating to a punishable offence, whether passed before or after the commencement of this Law, the expression “person” shall, unless the contrary intention appears, include a body corporate:

Provided that nothing in this Article shall render any body corporate liable, in respect of any act or omission occurring before the date of the commencement of this Law, to any criminal proceedings to which that body corporate would not have been liable before that date.

Anonymous said...

The Deputy of St John:

Was the implication a police officer was suspended due to an investigation carried out by the Metropolitan Police into the officer suspended?

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




noun: investigation

the action of investigating something or someone; formal or systematic examination or research.
"he is under investigation for receiving illicit funds"
synonyms: examination, enquiry, study, inspection, exploration, consideration, analysis, appraisal; More




noun: review; plural noun: reviews


a formal assessment of something with the intention of instituting change if necessary.
"a comprehensive review of UK defence policy"

synonyms: analysis, evaluation, assessment, appraisal, examination, investigation, scrutiny, enquiry, exploration, probe, inspection, study, audit; rareanatomization
"the Council is to undertake a review of its property portfolio"

a reconsideration of a judgement, sentence, etc. by a higher court or authority.
"a review of her sentence"

synonyms: reconsideration, re-examination, reassessment, re-evaluation, reappraisal, moderation, rethink, another look, a fresh look; More
change, alteration, modification, revision

"the rent is due for review"

•a report on or evaluation of a subject or past events.
"the Director General's end-of-year review"

synonyms: survey, report, study, account, record, description, exposition, statement, delineation, overview, rundown, breakdown, overall picture; More
compte rendu, procès-verbal;



"the authority's latest annual review of the local economy"


a critical appraisal of a book, play, film, etc. published in a newspaper or magazine.
"she released her debut solo album to rave reviews"

synonyms: criticism, critique, write-up, notice, assessment, evaluation, judgement, rating, commentary; More

Anonymous said...

Please help us to try to save our jobs at t.t.s the workers and their familys are realy feeling the pressure,thanks

Anonymous said...

This is all outlined in Trevor Pitman's witness statement as well albeit buried under redaction. Then again the whole statement has been vanished hasn't it which can't bode well.

Anonymous said...

Polo has put up Mr Pitmans' Statement and so has planet jersey. It is easy to find in the future, just look for Trevor Pitman under the heading Deputies by Parish on PJ.

Anonymous said...

I cant get the link to work on the T.T.S post January 23, 2016 at 2:10 PM

Anonymous said...

Subsequently, as I explained in my answer to a similar question on this issue asked on 31st
January 2012, the former Chief Executive commissioned Matt Tapp Associates to produce a
report with the following terms of reference:
· To make an assessment of the external communications activity pertaining to the Haut de
la Garenne investigation (February 2008 to October 2008).
This work was agreed by correspondence between the former Chief Executive and Matt Tapp
Associates. The former Chief Executive, as Accounting Officer, had the authority to procure this
work and there was no requirement for a formal written contract for this relatively low monetary
value which was in accordance with Financial Direction 5.7 Purchasing of goods and services.

Anonymous said...
Will the Minister inform members whether he is planning to publish the following
documents and, if so, provide members with the target date for publication in each case –
ii) the report by Matt Tapp Associates;

ii) No, the Chief Minister is dealing with this.

voiceforchildren said...


Part 2 (of 2) interview with former Senior Investigating Officer LENNY HARPER.

Anonymous said...

Rico, can you explain why Andrew Lewis didn't use the ACPO reports when being pushed into suspending the police chief. They seem to have fallen off the face of the earth.

Anonymous said...

There were four major A.C.P.O reports - all of which were vital to the public interest, showing as they did, the Jersey Police under the leadership of Graham Power and of Lenny Harper, to have recognised the importance of engaging with ACPO - the importance of having that 'critical-friend', that form of peer-review, advice and support, available from the earliest stage. Both Graham Power and Lenny Harper welcomed the ACPO team and its reports, and acted speedily on virtually all of the ACPO recommendations. This highly effective responsive relationship with ACPO was recognised by that body, and stated in its later reports.

The working relationship between ACPO - the National Association of Chief Police Officers - and the States of Jersey Police when the Jersey Police were under the leadership of Mr Power and Mr Harper, was positive & professional, in which each body understood its core role, and how they intermeshed with the other, each working with the other, not merely on some blinkered "tick-box" basis, but to achieve a symbiotic effect, in that both agencies working together in fact supported each-other - and consequently delivered a public service which was greater than the sum of its parts.

We had an excellent example underway of a police force at the coal-face doing what it could in a deeply complex multilevel child-abuse investigation, following best practice - calling in ACPO - taking their advice - refining the Jersey based child-abuse investigation - then reporting back to ACPO.

It was a sound and professional relationship.

However - the evidenced fact - the truth - of that ACPO work with the States of Jersey Police Force - did not suit - not one little bit - the corrupt Jersey authorities, who were used to, for decades - for generations - the "police" in Jersey being under "family" or "politician" control.

Indeed, that fact is jaw-droppingly evidenced in the conduct of Ian Le Marquand , a fatally conflicted magistrate – one of the Bailhache Brothers’ factotums – who announced he was leaving the “judiciary” and entering politics, “because the police were out of political control” – by which was meant, “investigating cases the Jersey moneyed Families really, really didn’t want investigating”

Sure enough – with all of Jersey’s establishment – and their media behind him, Ian Le Marquand got elected & became Minister for Home Affairs. Space doesn’t allow - on this occasion – to lay out the staggering incompetences, hubris, lies, and – frankly - crimes, of Ian Le Marquand. Suffice to say, I think the brute reality of him being a naïve, lower-orders spiv, obviously not terribly bright – just a “messenger-boy” really – as opposed to his widely observed self-delusion of being some kind of intellectual powerhouse blended with a Christian version of Superman with crowd-pleasing side-line on glossolalia, is one of the more pitiful sights in the Jersey establishment.

The ACPO reports are important parts of the history of events, and are crucial reading which illustrate how well the Jersey Police under the leadership of Graham Power and Lenny Harper were drawing on best practice. It’s also noticeable that Jersey’s citizen media sought out and obtained and published those reports, thus doing a great public service, in contrast to the behaviour of Jersey’s Establishment-owned heritage media, which preferred then and still prefers now to keep the public of Jersey in a state of ignorance.

Stuart Syvret published all of the ACPO reports which can be read at the following URLs; maybe someone could do clickable links for us?



ACPO 3/4

Póló said...

Links to ACPO reports.

Link: ACPO 1

Link: ACPO 2

Link: ACPO 3/4

Anonymous said...

Why is the Tapp media spin being referred to as a report?

It was spin bought and paid for.

Anonymous said...

Excellent comment at 9:44 AM. As for Ian "speaking in bollocks" Le Marquand, the description of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy comes to mind: It is very easy to be blinded to the essential uselessness of them by the sense of achievement you get from getting them to work at all. In other words - and this is the rock solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation's Galaxy-wide success is founded - their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.

Póló said...

If I remember correctly, Le Marquand agued, during the Graham Power appeal process, that, because he was a corporate sole (ie in the office of Home Affairs Minister), he could not review/change the decision of his predecessor (Andrew Lewis) because he was, in effect, his own predecessor. However, had Lewis remained in office there would presumably have been nothing stopping him reviewing his own earlier decision and changing his mind if he wanted to.

That gave rise to my tweaking this cartoon to illustrate/comment on this ridiculous situation.


Anonymous said...

When are you giving evidence to this Inquiry seeing as you know so much more about goings on than anybody else Rico? Mind you I guess they would tear you to pieces in there thinking about it....

rico sorda said...

I already have thank you. Obviously I won't be called as a witness because journalists don't but I have spent a day with the lawyers last year. I'm pleased to say that my evidence has already been used during the hearings. Thank you for asking. Have a pleasant day.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Last night I listened to a most interesting program on BBC Radio 3 on the art of the “grift” - a program on confidence-tricks, charlatans and hucksters.

One of the repeated lessons from confidence tricks as the studies show us, time and time again, is the huge personal, emotional, existential "investment" people have unwittingly made when they get "conned". The consequent massive reluctance to face that fact on the part of the victim is remarkable. Even privately - in their deepest, most self-critical moments of doubt - people are hugely unwilling to face square-on the possible - often brutally clear with hindsight - fact they've been a "sucker". They just can't face the fact that all that emotional investment they've made - in some life-long image of themselves - and into some life-defining fulcrum of their future - is a busted-flush.

That's why so many thousands of people never even report to the police the fact they've been the victim of a fraud or some kind of internet-scam. It doesn't 'chime' with the often unrealistically inflated 'self-understanding' we have, nor the delusional sense of “destiny” which is often carried by people, just waiting to be harvested by an opportunist,

Most of us have to go through that hard part of developing as human beings sooner or later; inevitably coming to terms with our fallibility; facing the fact that, sometimes in life, we've been schmucks.

Amazing though it is - given everything which has transpired in Jersey since July 2007 - some people - just like those fools who carry on exchanging bank-account details with Nigerian grifters after they've been ripped-off - persist in having a "suckers" faith in the systems of Jersey.

The "racket" is on-going to this day. And I'll offer this hard-learned experience: such extensive and persisting "long-cons" are dependent on a continuing stream of new "suckers" - of new "marks" - regularly "roped-in" to keep the dodgy scam's life-support system going.

Looking across the room where the "public-inquiry" is being performed - from the poor side where us plebs sit, over to the rich side where lots of very expensive professionals sit - I see new "marks" there. Some of those suckers on the state side were entrapped into the racket years ago. But some of them - including some of the lawyers - are new "marks". And - and this is especially true in the case of lawyers who all think of themselves as superhuman - they'll be amongst the very last to have the self-honesty to come to terms with the fact they've been "suckers" and are on the wrong side of history. Amongst all "marks", it's least easy for lawyers to be guided by the public-good - because they're being immensely well-paid for representing only the interests of their client. Whoever that may be. A fact, often, far from clear. As in the case of Evershed and the Jersey CoI.

And even more dangerously for the public good - it's far easier for lawyers to remain as protected – simply unchallengeable - shills, because of the magical-armour-plating of "legal professional privilege".

If you're embarking on a risky "long-con" - and you happen to have the unlimited resources of the public's money to finance it - and especially if you find yourself having to maintain the racket indefinitely – with an ever-growing number of conflicted individuals with a permanent reputational interest in shielding the scam - there's no "better" type of "shills" – no better kind of interchangeable “ropers” / “suckers” - than lawyers.

Just look at the “plausible”, “respectable”, “judicial”/“political”, “professional”, “legal”/“unlawful”, “genius”/”dope” – “shill”, “roper”, “schmuck”, “unlawfully –suspending”, “mark” – and “speaking–in-tongues” - Useful-Idiot - that is Ian Le Marquand.

Stuart Syvret

Daniel said...

A commenter wrote:

"Is Lewis being finally cut adrift as the régime fears a States vote later today to release the in camera transcript into the official ether?"

Why the hell are the States discussing this as if they have the right to withhold this information from the very COI which they established to unearth the truth?

And anyway, how can the COI choose to ignore a document which is in the public domain already and whose genuineness no one has disputed?