RICO SORDA

THE GOLDENHANDSHAKE -CAPTAIN FRANK SCHETTINO OF HMS JERSEY

2012-03-04T18:41:00.002Z

Former Chief Minister Frank Walker

Former Chief Executive Bill Ogley

What do I get for the 1/2 million I have just given you Bill? Well Frank, how about the removal of a Health Minister and the removal of a Chief of Police for starters and protecting some fellow civil servants?

Jerseys very own Captain Schettino's

What has been unfolding this past week is extraordinary even by Jerseys standards.

One only has to look at the actions of former Chief Minister Frank Walker and his Chief Executive Bill Ogley during the Investigation into decades long Child Abuse (Operation rectangle) to understand how serious this all is.

Should we be surprised that Bill Ogley received £546,337,50p pay off?

And how much for Pollard and manslaughter at the General Hospital?

Should we be surprised by the utterly pathetic excuses issued by Frank Walker?

The actions of Frank Walker and Bill Ogley must be looked at and become part of the TOR's for the forthcoming Committee of Enquiry (CoE)

The reason for this is very simple. They committed the ultimate sin during the live investigation. They acted in the very way that Abuse Survivors had described to the relevant agencies decades previously. This time their actions were completely outrageous. These two illegally suspended a Chief of Police. Just think about this. Just think about how completely out of control these people had become. Yes, they were only following orders but that doesn't mean that this act should be over looked. It was part of the bigger picture. Remember the Attorney General didn't start dropping cases until 2009. He could only do that once the Child Abuse Investigation had been discredited and the Police Chief suspended. Who would question his actions against that backdrop? In South America the army hold the power - in Jersey it's the Law Office. They do this with the implicit help of the local media. We are no different to many countries in South America. The populace are kept ignorant by drip fed garbage in the media. The media must be examined in the forthcoming CoE. The relationship between media and government is to close. The JEP is dictating everything in jersey. The JEP has played a huge role in allowing the culture of Abuse to go on with out challenging and addressing it. I have been told on numerous occasions about people approaching the JEP with stories of abuse yet nothing ever happened.

We have an ineffectual Parliament. That is not the fault of the few decent politicians but more to do with the Jersey mindset. They cannot separate their own personal opinions with straight hard evidence. Its all personality politics. This is even the case with the Child Abuse Investigation. They could not separate any personal problems they might have had with Power and Harper with the hard fact that decades of abuse went unchecked in Jersey. The groupthink set in. This is very dangerous situation to be in. Its the reason why you are not hearing about any of this in the local media.

The likes of Jimmy Perchard appearing in the JEP as some kind of whistleblower is comical. This is the man who it is alleged leaked information to David Rose and helped undermine the Child Abuse Investigation.

Chief Minister Gorst must come to the house with a fully robust terms of reference for the Committee of Enquiry. If not then amendments must be added. There is no doubt that Senator Bailhache and Senator Le Marquand will be trying to dilute the CoE into nothing. These two shouldn't have anything to do with the CoE as they are both heavily conflicted.

But what of Frank Walker. This man has an ego the size of the universe. He never ever got over the Paxman interview or the St Martin Parish Hall debacle.

Frank Walker says; In 2005 unpleasantness in the states was growing noticeably and there was also uncertainty about who would be the next Chief Minister. Mr O gley was the approached by one of the biggest county councils in the Uk and offered a considerably higher salary than he was getting in Jersey. Mr Walker said he was saddened to find out that circumstances had changed so much by 2008 that Mr Ogley, for whatever reason, left. He added that he did not know what had led to the departure, as he was no longer in the states.

Now, it could be this, and this is just my opinion. Bill Ogley, having spent a couple of years working in Jersey, had seen how things were done and was feeling uneasy about his position. He was worried about his position if Frank Walker moved on. Remember Frank Walker only just sneaked in during the 2005 Senatorial Election before becoming our first Captain Schettino (Chief Minister) in 2005. The Golden handshake was just to calm BO's worries.

It would be interesting to see the recorded minutes of the meeting when the amended contract was signed.

I have been informed that after the formation of ministerial government ogley let it slip that a handshake clause had been written into his contract. He stated that he would receive 21/2 years salary plus pension.

TLS is confirming that there was a contractual obligation to honour the contract if they were to let him go without formal dismissal. We also know that at the time that he was considering this he made several visits to a firm of lawyers who advise Ministers on HR issues. We can read between the lines of TLS's replies (shown below from hansard) there appears to be some admission that they feared that now honouring the package could lead to litigation and that some form of negotiation took place. Their dilemma might have been that they did not have enough evidence to dismiss him or if they did he might be able to make a legal appeal and they could be in danger of breaching their contract if they let him go and tried to withhold the package.

This all comes back to Frank Walker and Bill Ogley. A double team where one needed the other. This package goes along way to explaining why BO was so out of control regarding the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation and the suspension of the Chief of Police Graham Power. Why just have a CoE looking at what happened in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's et etc when we have seen it repeated in 2008. They acted out all the worries and concerns of the Abuse Survivors in 2008. You just can't make the madness up. This is how so out of control the situation had become. The undermining of Graham Power with Matt Tapp, the shambolic suspension of Graham Power, the removal of a Health Minister, the protecting of a fellow Civil Servant this was all going on during a live investigation repeating all the actions that went a long way to causing the situation in the first place. This is disgusting which ever way you look at it .

And what of our media? Their actions are just as bad if not worse. They could have put a stop to it by undertaking some investigative work but this didn't happen the question is WHY? They are happy that Ogley and gang trashed the Child Abuse Investigation but upset he got over £500,000 pay off. You just can't make it up can you.

Children will not be safe until all these issues have been investigated by independent people from outside of the Island who can't have their TOR's altered.

Here are the answers given by TLS in the States in 2011.

Rico Sorda

Team Voice

Tuesday 7th june 2011

2.4 Senator J.L. Perchard of the Chief Minister regarding severance packages for employees of the States of Jersey:

As Chairman of the States Employment Board what action, if any, will the Chief Minister be taking to limit the level of payment granted in a severance package to any employee of the States of Jersey who, for whatever reason, is leaving their position?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

Earlier this year the States Employment Board consulted upon and implemented revised polices for voluntary severance and compulsory redundancy that are significantly less generous than those that existed in the past. These policies strike the right balance between good employment practice and value for money. In addition, the States Employment Board has responded to the proposition P.59/2011 brought by Deputy Le Hérissier in which the States Employment Board will be approving the appointments of all senior posts with a salary in excess of £100,000. At that point, the States Employment Board will be in a position to stipulate any particular contractual conditions.

[10:00]

2.4.1 Senator J.L. Perchard:

That is encouraging to hear indeed and I know many members of the public will be encouraged by that. Therefore, the Chief Minister should have no problem in releasing but will he release to Members draft copies of the contract of employment that he is proposing to offer to the yet unappointed new Chief Executive Officer of the States of Jersey?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I would have no difficulty in releasing the terms of reference of the appointment and, in terms of some of the contractual arrangements, those can be disclosed. Other matters of employment relations are traditionally and typically confidential and so it would not be necessarily a blanket release. I think it more appropriate that if people have concerns about those contracts, firstly, we need to ensure that there are robust procedures within the States Employment Board for those contracts and, secondly, the right for them to be reviewed in confidence by an appropriate body such as, perhaps, one of the scrutiny panels. But I do not think it would appropriate as a general principle for everyone’s contract of employment to be publicly available.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Yes. I fully appreciate that and I am sure Members will agree that it would not be appropriate for everyone’s or anyone’s contract of employment to be publicly available. The point about my question was there is not at the moment an employee filling this position. I will ask again: will the Chief Minister release to Members and the wider public draft copies of the proposed contract of employment that he is going to offer to the yet-unappointed Chief Executive Officer of the States of Jersey?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I can certainly provide Members with a draft copy of the proposed contract; but the nature of contractual arrangements is that those may well change between the draft and the final situation, depending on negotiations entered into with the prospective employee.

2.4.2 Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:

I have tried to stray from my own question 18. The Minister for Treasury and Resources said in the media that details such as Senator Perchard is referring to would only be released in exceptional circumstances. Can the Chief Minister clarify that all recent sums are not in any way directly attributable to pension entitlements and, if not, will he take some firm action to confront growing public perception that these huge payments can only be what many call “hush money”?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I can confirm, firstly, that this is not any question of hush money. This is a negotiated settlement and, in one case certainly, is in full accordance with the contractual obligations which the States entered into. As far as other matters raised by the Deputy are concerned, it does not relate to pension matters. This is purely in respect of a normal payment at the end of contractual arrangements. As far as the concerns of the Deputy and other Members, and indeed the general public, I fully appreciate there is concern and I have had the concerns myself, as did members of the States Employment Board. I would be happy for these particular instances to be looked at in confidence by an independent body such as the Comptroller and Auditor General or some other persons, but I do not believe it is a matter which should be aired in public and, in particular in these cases, there are clauses of confidentiality in the contracts which would give rise to a further claim against the States should those details be publicised unnecessarily.

2.4.3 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

Does the Chief Minister agree that all contracts for public employees should be public as, after all, they are employed by the public?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Basically, no.

2.4.4 The Deputy of St. John:

Will the Minister, when he puts in place his new arrangements for our new C.E.O. (Chief Executive Officer) when he comes along, make it known that any settlement that might be put in place for early retirement or early moving on and a golden handshake that ... as we have seen recently published in the Evening Post the golden handshake of 2 senior officers, but we were not given details that have now come out in our latest book which is on our desks this morning on page 44. There was also a pension entitlement for 6 years’ work of £414,000 for one of the officers who has retired. Will he make sure that all that is known to Members, what is in that package when it comes to the House, or is he is going to send us this information, please, prior to employing anybody?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I have already said in my original answer that there are now revised policies and that any contract over £100,000, assuming that the States accept the P.59 response, will be reviewed and the details will be published in accordance with the amendment lodged by Deputy Le Hérissier.

2.4.5 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Will the terms and conditions review that the Chief Minister referred to also be affecting the existing contracts of employment of existing chief officers?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Potentially, yes.

2.4.6 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:

Would the Chief Minister not acknowledge that - in line with business practice and, for example, with some of the States-owned utilities - it is the practice to publish full details of salaries of senior staff? Would he not wish to be in the vanguard and follow that solid business practice?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Yes. Indeed, in the States Annual Accounts we publish every year salary details of all staff of that nature. What I was asked earlier was full contractual details, which is considerably different from the base salary.

2.4.7 Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:

This follows on from Senator Ferguson’s question. We have had 2 alleged big golden handshakes for contracts that were drawn up at least over 5 years ago. Can the Minister please let us know - we do not need the names; we need the people who are waiting in the wings with these same similar or contracts; we could even say: “Let us start at £100,000” - if they walk away tomorrow, how many people would have a £100,000 golden handshake and will the Minister please supply the details? I do not want the names, just the amount. Also, will he endeavour to make sure that whoever drew up these contracts, if they are still around, is severely dealt with?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Firstly, I should point out to Members and the public that these are alleged golden handshakes and I am not commenting on the accuracy of that statement. In terms of any other payments of a similar nature, I did make inquiries following these 2 incidents to see whether there were any other situations where similar payments or any such payments might be made in the future. I am advised that there are no other cases where any person is likely or liable to receive any contractual or other payments such as might be implied by the Deputy’s question.

2.4.8 Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:

The Chief Minister used the phrase: “negotiated settlement.” I would like to know when that negotiation took place. Was it early or was it right at the end of the time of work? Secondly, what was that negotiation based on? Was it based on the original contract?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I am straying into delicate territory here because a negotiated settlement is, by nature, confidential and, in disclosing any such details to the Deputy, I am in danger of breaching that confidentiality and exposing the States to liability. On that basis, I would prefer not to answer that question in public but I would be, as I said earlier, happy for this to be investigated confidentially.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Sir, a point of order. Could I ask for the States to go in camera so that the Chief Minister can tell us all in confidence and answer the question of the Deputy of St. Mary, please?

The Deputy Bailiff:

If I may suggest, Deputy, we will come to that at a later stage when we come to question 18, or thereabouts, will we not? I think that is a more convenient time to do it. Is there a final supplementary?

2.4.9 Senator J.L. Perchard:

Does the Chief Minister agree that the promise of high levels of severance package has created a perverse incentive for tired senior executives to willingly preside over failing departments, safe in the knowledge that their departure will be the subject of a purchase by the States of Jersey for hundreds of thousands of pounds?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Simple answer: no.

2.17 Deputy T.M. Pitman of The Chief Minister regarding ‘golden handshakes’ paid to two civil servants:

How ironic that this follows on talk of controlling public expenditure. Will the Chief Minister clarify the exact sums paid as golden handshakes to 2 civil servants; clarify who was paid which sum and explain why such large payments were considered justified?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

As I have already stated in my written answer, I am not in a position to comment publicly on the nature of the terms of any individual settlements. Any settlements which have been entered into have taken proper account of each individual’s terms and conditions of employment. I will not comment publicly on the specific amounts other than to advise the Deputy and other Members that one of the figures quoted in the media is totally incorrect and the level of payment made to that individual was significantly less than that reported. I would be happy for these matters to be looked at in confidence by an independent body or a person such as the Comptroller and Auditor General, as I have already stated.

Deputy M. Tadier:

May I raise a point of order? The Minister has stated that he would not give the information publicly. I did ask before whether it would be possible to go into camera, even though I do not generally like to do that; but it is better to have information rather than not have it and if it needs to be done confidentially within the confines of the States I think that would preferable.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Do you wish to make the proposition that we go into camera?

Deputy M. Tadier:

I do, and if we could have the vote.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Before we come to that, Chief Minister, if we do go into camera will you be in a position to answer the questions in any more detail or not?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

If we go into camera I will be prepared to disclose the amounts of money paid to the 2 persons concerned. I do stress concern that past experience has shown that matters disclosed in camera do not always, regrettably, remain in camera and I do give Members warning that if disclosure is made out of an in camera position, it could give rise to a claim for damages which may or may not be successful.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Deputy Tadier, do you wish to maintain your proposition?

Deputy M. Tadier:

I maintain it and I am sure that all States Members are honourable and they would never ever consider disclosing such information.

The Deputy Bailiff:

The purpose of going into camera under Standing Order 81: “A Member of the States may propose, without notice, that the States conduct any part of the debate on a proposition or any other part of its business in camera for a specified purpose.” This is clearly not debate on any part of a proposition but it would have to fall under any other part of its business for a specified purpose and the purpose, it appears to me, will only be to receive the information which the Chief Minister has said he would be prepared to give. Thereafter we would then go out of camera and back into public session. So that is the proposition. Is it seconded? [Seconded] Chief Minister, you have already said what you have to say I think?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I have said what I wanted to say, other than maybe to advise Members that I believe a preferable route might be to have an inquiry which could be done in total confidence without running the risk of exposure, but it is up to Members to choose which way they believe in to go forward.

The Deputy Bailiff:

This is a very straightforward matter, I am sure we are not going to need a debate on it.

Deputy M. Tadier:

If no one wants to speak I would be asking for the appel; that is all.

Deputy T.M Pitman:

I want to object to going into camera because I think it is an absolute insult to the public of Jersey. This is public money and it is absolutely right that they should know what is going on when everyone else has got to tighten their belts. I think it is disgraceful.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Just to confirm that I believe it is totally wrong. It will obviously leak; let us have no doubt about that. But on principle, it is a public issue; it should be discussed publicly.

The Deputy Bailiff:

It is a matter for Members, Members can vote on it. The appel has been called for.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Can I just add to that? Clearly I do not want to go in camera either. If the Chief Minister is willing to give that information publicly then that is the preferable course.

The Deputy Bailiff:

The Chief Minister has already explained why he is not prepared to do that. The proposition is made. I would invite Members to return to their seats, the vote is on whether to go into camera for the specified purpose of receiving information from the Chief Minister as to the 2 payments which are alleged to have been made. I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

2.17.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Bearing in mind all we have just heard, does the Chief Minister genuinely believe that figures - derived from taxpayers’ money, let us not forget - that equate to what someone on minimum wage will likely earn in a lifetime of work, can justifiably be swept under the carpet with the excuse of confidentiality? Does he really consider that is acceptable?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Sadly I do, because the alternative of unnecessary public disclosure would lead to the payment of an even greater sum which would be even more detrimental to the taxpayers of the Island. I have weighed-up very carefully and, in the interest of taxpayers, I believe that this is the preferable route to adopt.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I just have to find that statement absolutely mind-numbingly unbelievable and I would ask that the Minister really lay his cards on the table and at least tell us what was the justification for these sums. That much he can certainly tell us.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Firstly, I should say that these were 2 very different situations, although they are both significant amounts of money. In the one case it was a negotiated settlement and in the other case it was a contractual obligation. The terms of the contract had been in existence for a number of years and the States Employment Board merely honoured the terms of the contract.

2.17.2 Deputy M. Tadier:

Will the Minister comment on how the unwillingness or inability to release very important information which is in the public interest marries with statements in the Strategic Plan which says that we will work openly and inclusively with all sections of the community to embrace a progressive culture of openness, transparency and accountability to the public, and that we will try to establish as system of greater transparency, public participation and collaboration? How does that ideal and the lack of information we are getting, even as States Members, marry to that very laudable aspiration?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Simply because we have a legal and contractual obligation in the arrangements which were entered into with the parties concerned. There was a clause of confidentiality and the potential for a penalty for damages should that confidentiality not be maintained. That confidentiality enables a satisfactory settlement to be achieved at a potentially better figure than might otherwise have happened. So I am quite confident that, in achieving that and accepting the position of confidentiality, we were working in the public interest.

2.17.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

The Minister has revealed that one of the figures suggested is incorrect. Will he state now whether that is the higher or the lower figure and will he state which of the higher or the lower figures was contractual and which negotiated?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I am surprised that the Deputy is not capable of solving problems for himself.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

Will the Minister answer the question please?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Frankly, if it needs answering, I think it should be obvious that the higher figure related to the contractual arrangement.

[11:30]

2.17.4 Deputy S. Pitman:

Yesterday it was reported in the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) that the Minister for Treasury and Resources said that there would have to be exceptional circumstances if detailed information was to be released on contractual agreements. Could the Chief Minister tell the Assembly what constitutes exceptional circumstances?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

No, only to state that in my view the circumstances here are not exceptional. They are circumstances which are unusual, but not such as would be likely to be a satisfactory defence should the litigation arise.

2.17.5 The Deputy of St. John:

Will the Minister confirm that, given the higher figure that has been spoken about already and the £414,000 pension agreements that the person concerned can walk away with, it is close to £1 million of States’ money, one way or another, that is going to one particular former employee?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The pension obligations under the Public Employees Retirement Scheme are such that would apply to any employee. It is not a pot of money that the person can walk away with. It is a pot of money which is available to pay a contractually entered into pension at the appropriate time and is partly funded by the States and partly funded by the employee.

2.17.6 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I am going to ask a question I hope the Minister can tell me, because I am not asking about specific sums. I would like to know who was involved in the negotiation of these contracts. So, in other words, the contractual one; did the Ministers know who employed these individuals in their jobs, what their salaries were? Were they involved in the negotiations? You mentioned the States Employment Board. Was it the entire States Employment Board or was it particular Ministers? Please tell us who knew what, when and who was involved in the decision-making.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The written answer makes it quite clear that for the Chief Executive the position was taken by the States Employment Board. It was taken by the whole States Employment Board as a duly constituted meeting of the States Employment Board. As the written answer also says, the decision in respect of the other employee was taken under delegated powers by the former Chief Executive of the States.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can I follow up on that? Just to confirm, it was a civil servant determined the salary of another civil servant?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Chief Minister, I understood the question to relate to the position when the contract was offered and not when it was terminated.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Well, the contract terms in respect of the previous Chief Officer of Health would have been done under the delegated powers by the Chief Executive of the States at that time. The contract of the Chief Executive was entered into by the former subcommittee of the Policy and Resources Committee prior to the introduction of Ministerial Government.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can I just clarify on that, did Ministers know ...

The Deputy Bailiff:

Not under the new rules, Deputy.

2.17.7 The Deputy of St. Mary:

The negotiated settlement, we are told by the Chief Minister, comes under confidentiality and that made the settlement cheaper. I would like the Chief Minister to explain why and I would also like to know about the negotiated settlement, what it was based on. I am still in the dark.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

A negotiated settlement requires negotiation and agreement on both sides and part of the terms and the ability to reduce any sum in a negotiated settlement is the desire by one party or both parties to maintain confidentiality. So it is, by its very nature, a negotiation. As to the other part of the question, I have forgotten what the ...

The Deputy of St. Mary:

What the settlement was based on, what are we negotiating about? I also wish to find out why confidentiality makes it cheaper; what is being hidden?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I have tried to explain that it can lead to a cheaper outcome if there is an agreement not to disclose, which may be of benefit, for example, should the employee wish to pursue further employment opportunities and not wish details of a private transaction to be publicly disclosed.

2.17.8 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Chief Minister not acknowledge that the culture of secrecy has led us into this situation and that he is utterly dissatisfied with what happened in the Government’s name a few years ago and will ensure it never happens in this way again?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

One has to distinguish between a culture of secrecy and an obligation of confidentiality. In respect of what happened a few years ago; yes, I am anxious to ensure that does not recur and that is why the States Employment Board has changed its policies recently and is also discussing and implementing the proposals raised in respect of employees over £100,000.

2.17.9 Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:

Is the Chief Minister able to tell Members whether the terms of either of the contracts changed while the employee was in post which resulted in these massive pay-outs and if so, who made the decision to amend the contract?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

To the best of my knowledge, there was a significant change in all contracts when the employee became the States Employment Board back in 2005 and that would have applied to all employees of the States, including people at that time. There was an additional change to the contract of employment of the former chief executive at that time in 2005.

2.17.10 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville:

If there are contracts are in existence - which I gather there probably still are an awful lot of them - that run contrary to the ideals of the Strategic Plan for an open and transparent Government, how is the Chief Minister going to marry these up or should there not be some renegotiation so that contracts now conform with the Strategic Plan?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I do not believe that any contracts of employment are in opposition to the Strategic Plan. As I said earlier in answer to another question, I do not believe there are any other situations which would give rise to similar payments. Other than that, the contractual arrangements with employees are standard contractual arrangements that have been in place for many years, irrespective of Strategic Plans. They do not change when Strategic Plans change.

2.17.11 Senator J.L. Perchard:

What message would the Chief Minister like to give Members, and thereby the general public, to assure them that this golden parachute leading to huge severance packages no longer features in any of today’s contracts of employment? Would the Chief Minister outline briefly the new policies he referred to in the contracts of employment in this respect that can assure us that these golden parachutes no longer are included?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The message I would like to give to other Members and to the public is my appreciation of the concerns over the level of these payments and the reassurance that, so long as I am Chief Minister and the current States Employment Board is in post, such contractual arrangements would not occur with any current employee or future employee. I cannot bind future States Employment Boards, but I would hope that would happen. In respect of the arrangements to be made, I have already indicated in response to a previous question arrangements in respect of voluntary termination and severance pay and the arrangements whereby any contract over £100,000 would come to the States Employment Board were there any peculiar terms and conditions in the contract such as would give rise to what the Senator refers to as a golden parachute. So I am satisfied that situation will not recur in the past and is not contained in any existing contracts and I hope that Members and the public can appreciate that these are isolated incidents which I am sure we all regret having to pay; but we believe and I believe that the payments made, nonetheless, were the least that were capable of being paid in those particular situations.

2.17.12 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Deputy Hilton did ask my excellent follow up. Nevertheless, isolated incidents viewed against the £255,000 shared out between 6 other employees: does the Chief Minister think that it is any way appropriate to the people who leave very much under a cloud merit such payments, rather than being faced down and sacked. What does the Chief Minister say to this and does he think his position following his comments is in any way tenable?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

People who are deserving of being dismissed will be dismissed. It is very often quite difficult to determine satisfactorily the difference between actions warranting dismissal and actions warranting disciplinary measures or other measures short of dismissal. Employment relations will be a matter for each individual employee at that particular time. Termination in respect of severance or dismissal follow guidelines and set sums laid down by the States Employment Board and are not exceeded. Therefore, employees are well aware of those contractual arrangements which are no greater, or in fact in many cases less, than would apply in the public sector and are clearly published and understood by all concerned. I believe that the actions taken by the States Employment Board in recent months have been realistic, responsible and timely and I have every confidence that they will lead to far better procedures. I have no doubt that we are doing the right thing by doing that and I have no feelings of remorse or regret whatsoever.

The Deputy Bailiff:

We come to question 19, which Deputy Tadier will ask of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Before I do that can I inquire, I conveyed a message asking whether it would be within Standing Orders to ask the Solicitor General in relation to something that the Chief Minister said. Is that an order

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister

The Deputy Bailiff:

That brings question time for the Minister for Planning and Environment to a close. We come to questions without notice to the Chief Minister.

4.1 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

In answer to question 18 today, the Chief Minister said that there was a change in the contract of the former Chief Executive Officer in 2005. Could he tell us who negotiated this change and whether the change affected the final pay-out?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

The change in contract was negotiated with the former Chief Executive and was approved by a meeting of the Human Resources Sub-Committee of the Policy and Resources Committee at some date in 2005. I do not have the date to hand. The contract variation did have the effect of increasing the amount of money which would be paid in the event of termination

4.13 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Chief Minister not acknowledge, in relation to the infamous golden parachutes, that it was wrong for the Chief Executive to set the terms for another of the senior executives of the States and that, by so doing, it is like spreading a virus throughout the system?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The powers delegated to the Chief Executive by the States Employment Board are within certain parameters so that that Chief Executive does not have carte blanche to do exactly what is required. It has to be within certain standards and contracts of employment have been and are within those set standards.

4.14 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

In answer to an earlier question the Chief Minister said that the amended contract for the former Chief Executive Officer was negotiated by a Human Resources Sub-Committee. Could the Minister tell us if any politicians sat on this committee and who signed the final amended contract?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The Human Resources Sub-Committee was a committee of Members of the States. They were all States Members on that sub-committee. The contract, I believe, was signed by the Chairman of the Human Resources Sub-Committee, which I think was Senator Walker but I cannot be certain at this stage. That may not be the case

OPERATION END-GAME - 5- SENATOR LE MARQUAND & THE CORPORATE SOLE

2012-02-29T18:51:00.002Z

OPERATION END GAME -5

Senator Ian Le Marquand

Questions must be answered

A straight forward Blog Posting

I intend on keeping my readers up to date with what im doing.

Here are the emails that I sent firstly to the Law Office and then all States Members. I believe they are easy to follow. I will not give up asking the questions. This is a very important question and its all about the 'CORPORATE SOLE' and what Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand said in his first suspension review with Graham Power. All States members should know the legality of the Corporate Sole so I decided to ask the and the Law Office. I received 2 replies from States memebers - Deputy T Pitman and Deputy T Vallois - A submission from former Senator Stuart Syvret but as of going to press I haven't yet received a reply from the Law Office.

This is why I sent the emails and its taken from suspension review 1.It is a pivotal moment in the whole debacle.

Rico Sorda

Team Voice

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

"There is no problem with you making submissions in relation to the effect of the various different parts of the disciplinary code; I anticipated and expected that you would do that. But in the context of how I should now be dealing with the matter what I am not prepared to do, and have not at any point indicated I would do - and indeed made it clear, I believe, in proceedings in the States that I would not do - is to seek to conduct a review of the decision of the Home Affairs Minister when originally suspending. To do that, because the Home Affairs Minister is a corporation sole, effectively I would be reviewing my own decision and that I cannot do. "

From: rico sorda

Subject: RE: Attorney General (Operation blast)

To: "Tim Allen"

Date: Wednesday, 22 February, 2012, 13:51

Dear Mr Allen,

As i'm still awaiting the reply from the Attorney General I have one further point I would like to raise with him. As Attorney General he gives legal advice to the council of ministers. During the suspension review of Graham Power, the Minister for Home Affairs states and I quote; Could the Attorney General confirm that what the minister states is legally correct.

Also, Is it correct, that one Minister cant review a decision of the previous Minister

I look forward to a prompt reply to these simple issues

Kind Regards

Rico Sorda

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Dr. T. Brain:

Thank you, Minister. I must formally state for the record that we are most concerned that before we have been given the opportunity to state our case considerable amounts of that case seems to be something that you will not consider. We have to make it quite clear that there have been material breaches of points 1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.3.1 of the code. These are not technical breaches, these are material breaches and render null and void the original suspension. I do hope that we can consider these matters today as we are keen to support the administrative process that you have entered into in good faith. We would rather that we are addressing these matters as part of an administrative review before we have to consider these matters in a judicial review. So I would ask you to reconsider your opinion that you have just offered there in order that we may fully state the grounds for the reinstatement of Mr. Power. I would make it quite clear that the material breaches are only part of the submission but they are nevertheless an integral part of the submission.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

There is no problem with you making submissions in relation to the effect of the various different parts of the disciplinary code; I anticipated and expected that you would do that. But in the context of how I should now be dealing with the matter what I am not prepared to do, and have not at any point indicated I would do - and indeed made it clear, I believe, in proceedings in the States that I would not do - is to seek to conduct a review of the decision of the Home Affairs Minister when originally suspending. To do that, because the Home Affairs Minister is a corporation sole, effectively I would be reviewing my own decision and that I cannot do. Mr. Power has sought redress in relation to that matter, as you know, through judicial review but I am not going to open an investigation into whether or not the procedure was correct initially. What I want to do today is to start looking at what is the correct procedure that ought now to apply in relation to the matter, not as to whether or not it was correctly applied originally. Does that clarify my position

from: rico sorda

Subject: Re: The Illegal and Continued suspension of Graham Power QPM

To: i.lemarquand@gov.je

Cc: A.Breckon@gov.je, "gerrard baudains" , "Sir Philip Bailhache (Senator)" , j.baker@gov.je, "Deirdry" , dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com, "jep" , "Francis" , i.gorst@gov.je, j.hilton@gov.je, j.lef@gov.je, j.lesueurgallichan@gov.je, j.macon@gov.je, j.reed@gov.je, k.lewis@gov.je, l.norman@gov.je, "judy martin" , "m paddock" , m.tadier@gov.je, mr.higgins@gov.je, news@channeltv.co.uk, "p ryan" , p.leclaire@gov.je, p.ozouf@gov.je, "p.rondel" , "Paul Routier" , "ben queree" , r.duhamel@gov.je, "richard rondel" , "sadie rennard" , t.pitman@gov.je, t.vallois@gov.je, r.bryans@gov.je, m.letroquer@gov.je, s.luce@gov.je, k.moore2@gov.je, s.pinel@gov.je, e.noel@gov.je, s.pitman@gov.je, s.crowcroft@gov.je, sp.power@gov.je, j.refault@gov.je, a.pryke@gov.je, "jon gripton"

Date: Thursday, 23 February, 2012, 21:39

Dear States Members,

I have a problem. I hope as a collective you will be able to help me out. When Graham Power was suspended on the 12th November 2008 he underwent a suspension review in February & March 2009. These reviews were conducted by the new Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand. The first meeting occurred on Friday 13th February ( yes, you couldn't make it up)

During this meeting Senator Le Marquand states that he couldn't conduct a review of the original suspension because the Home Affairs Minister is a 'CORPORATION SOLE'. So are we saying that no minister can conduct a review of the previous incumbents decisions? With 51 states members I'm hoping someone will be able to confirm if that is true or not. Now I fully understand why Senator Le Marquand didn't want to go anywhere near the original suspension which has been pointed out in previous emails - but its the reason given that intrigues me.

I believe it would better to clear these issues up here. Im sure the minister himself will explain how the 'Corporation Sole' works.

Is it legally binding that the HA Minister cannot review a decision by the previous incumbent

This was a pivotal moment at the beginning of Graham Powers suspension Review as read here http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/ the second review can be read on my blog and should be.

Look forward to you're help on this serious issue

Kind Regards

Rico Sorda

This is from Graham Powers Suspension Review 1 - February 13 2009

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/

Citizen Investigator

From: rico sorda

Subject: Re: The Illegal and Continued suspension of Graham Power QPM

To: i.lemarquand@gov.je

Date: Saturday, 25 February, 2012, 10:40

Dear State Members,

I haven't received one single reply. The question I'm asking is very straight forward. I have previously approached the Attorney General with the very same question, yet he seems reluctant to give me an answer. So, do I now lobby one of my representatives to get a question lodged in the States? I know some members are fed up with questions but if you don't get answers what can you do. The question I have raised goes to the constitutional heart of Ministerial Government. I would expect my States Members to be informed on the legality and procedures of the "CORPORATION SOLE"

The more replies I get the better. Some might have differing opinions.

Let us be under no illusion that the issues I'm raising are deadly serious.

Kind Regards

Rico Sorda

http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/

Citizen Investigator

From: rico sorda

Subject: Re: The Illegal and Continued suspension of Graham Power QPM

To: i.lemarquand@gov.je, T.Allen@gov.je

Date: Tuesday, 28 February, 2012, 13:37

Dear all States Member & Media

I have now received two replies concerning the "Corporate Sole."

The first reply is from Deputy Vallois. I would like to thank her for taking the time to respond to my question. As I have stated before, its important that all members know the workings of the corporate sole. This stems from my concerns regarding the actions of the current Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand and his continued suspension of former Chief of police Graham Power.

This is my first concern regarding the actions of Senator Le Marquand

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

This is the reply From Deputy Vallois. It is very helpful and starts the ball rolling

Rico

Corporate Sole is defined under the States of Jersey Law 2005 under Article 26 subject to Article 29 (2).

The Corporate Sole is a single incorporated office which is a legal entity. This is obviously occupied by a different Member of the States of Jersey every three years (depending on the election process for ministers of course).

This would enable the office of the Home Affairs department to have legal continuity under the name of the Minister for Home Affairs (the legal entity).

I think a proper definition would have to be confirmed by a lawyer however, I would imagine the reason for Senator Le Marquand being unable to review the original suspension himself is because if the office of Home Affairs were to be taken to court for anything pertaining to the original suspension then it is Senator Le Marquand that would have to uphold the decisions on behalf of the office in which he holds.

I hope this goes some way to helping and apologies for not responding sooner.

Kind regards

Tracey

I have now received a reply from a former States Member. This goes into the issues a little more. I did ask the Attorney General for a advice on this but as of writing I haven't received a reply.

This is the reply I received from a former States Member

Rico

The first half of what Deputy Vallois says is true - in respect of the ‘corporate sole’ - meaning that it is the legal entity of Home Affairs Minister that carries perpetual legal responsibility - rather than merely a current incumbent.

However, the Deputy’s explanation goes off-the-rails when she attempts to explain why Home Affairs Minister, Senator Le Marquand "could not" re-examine the original suspension.

Implicit in the Deputy’s answer to you is the notion that Senator Le Marquand - upon re-considering the original suspension - will have wanted to maintain it in any event - no matter what he found. That then would have placed him in a very difficult position when he then wished to carry on defending the original suspension in court. (I can only assume that's what the Deputy is trying to say.)

But the explanation the Deputy offers is irrelevant; even if it is a correct interpretation of Senator Le Marquand’s thinking or more realistically, the thinking of those whose orders he was obeying his actions are still illegitimate and ultra vires.

Judicial review case-law is very, very clear about the legal standards of decision-making by public authorities. Any such authority the Home Affairs Minister in this case has to make a legally right decision even if the only legally right decision they can make is a decision they don’t want to make.

This is the very core of administrative law. Public authorities cannot just do whatever they feel like. Certainly, they have a degree of latitude in making what are termed discretionary decisions that is, decisions in which an element of judgment-call is at play, rather than it being a clear cut right or wrong decision. But that degree of latitude does not apply in respect of the decisions of the authority having to be lawful. Their decisions must comply with the law.

Therefore, if an authority like the Home Affairs Minister makes a decision using an unlawful procedure for example, by failing to make sufficient inquiry or taking into account irrelevant material or using a procedure that is structurally unfair then the decision in question is unlawful. End of.

The decisions of the Home Affairs Minister in this case are plainly unlawful. They don’t even get onto the radar-screen of being lawful decisions; for so many different reasons.

We then consider what administrative law judicial review case-law says in respect of public authorities that may have made unlawful decisions?

The case-law is plain and unambiguous.

If a public authority has made a decision and there then arises questions as to the lawfulness of that decision the public authority is obliged by law to re-consider its decision in ways that are lawful. If it is pointed out to an authority that they have made some procedural error or they have failed to take into account relevant evidence or have mistakenly taken into account un-relevant evidence or they have acted in ways not compatible with human rights then the legal expectation and burden upon that authority is that they must re-consider the decisions in question - and do so in ways that are lawful this time.

In England at least the courts take a very dim view of public authorities that resist reviewing what are plainly wrong, unlawful decisions. It is regarded as a waste of people's time and resources for the courts to be asked to review an action by an authority, when the case-law and the evidence relevant to the disputed decision are already clear, and show the decision to be ultra vires.

Far from it not being possible or not desirable for Senator Le Marquand to have re-considered the original suspension decisions he was, actually, legally obliged to do just that reconsider them in light of every obvious and evidenced grounds for the original decisions being unlawfully wrong.

When we read the assertions by him - and when we consider the conduct of what passes for a judiciary in Jersey we are simply viewing an asylum taken over by the lunatics.

Not only would Graham Power’s judicial review application have won hands-down - in England, events would never have got so far as to reach such a stage.

In summary, it is law that all public authorities including Home Affairs Ministers - review the decisions made in the name of the corporate sole, if grounds emerge for considering that the original decisions may be unlawful.

It is as simple as that.

Stuart Syvret

Now you see why im asking the questions, I want the answers, its as simple as that. This is just a small aspect of the huge concerns I have about the removal of the Chief of Police on the12th November 2008 and the consquent actions of the current Home Affairs Minister.

What im also working on is the amazing statement by Senator Le Marquand at the last sitting that he used not just the Warcup letter but also the press briefing notes of the 12th November (written by warcup & Matt Tapp) and public opinion in keeping the Chief of Police Suspended.

Just where did the Home Affairs Minister go to judge public opinion? The Jep? The Jep Editorial? The South Pier Tea Rooms?

The Home Affairs Minister used public opinion and not the 4 ACPO Reports produced during Operation Rectangle

This is astonishing - more on this to follow

Now you see why the Coroprate Sole is important

Something is seriously not right. I

And I want answers seeing as my Media has been neuted since 1948

Kind Regards

Rico Sorda

http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/

Citizen Investigator

From: Trevor Pitman

Subject: RE: The Illegal and Continued suspension of Graham Power QPM

To: "rico sorda", "Ian Le Marquand" , "Tim Allen"

Cc: "Alan Breckon" , "Gerard Baudains" , "Sir Philip Bailhache (Senator)" , "James Baker" , "Deidre Mezbourian" , "dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com" , "JEP Editorial" , "Francis Le Gresley" , "Ian Gorst" , "Jacqueline Hilton" , "John Le Fondre" , "John Le Sueur Gallichan" , "Jeremy Macon" , "James Reed" , "Kevin Lewis" , "Len Norman" , "Judith Martin" , "Michael J. Paddock" , "Montfort Tadier" , "Mike R. Higgins" , "news@channeltv.co.uk" , "Patrick Ryan" , "p.leclaire@gov.je" , "Philip Ozouf" , "Philip Rondel" , "Paul Routier" , "ben queree" , "Robert Duhamel" , "Richard Rondel" , "Sadie Rennard" , "Tracey Vallois" , "Rod Bryans" , "Michel Le Troquer (Connetable POSMN)" , "Steve Luce" , "Kristina Moore" , "Susie Pinel" , "Edward Noel" , "Shona Pitman" , "Simon Crowcroft" , "Sean Power" , "John Refault" , "Anne Pryke" , "jon gripton"

Date: Wednesday, 29 February, 2012, 13:46

Mr.. Sorda

As one of those who kept asking questions about this (not that you would know it from the JEP coverage) yet kept being told the CM couldn't comment etc I can assure you that there are those of us who won't be letting this slip away. Slip away to be filed under that good old Establishment Party fob-off 'the important thing now is to move forward and learn from what happened - not hold people to account'. How many times have we heard this pathetic excuse for cover-ups wheeled out?

The one thing that we must ensure happens is that Chief Minister Bailhache does not manage to scupper 'Chief Minister' Gorst's commitment to the Committee of Enquiry in to the 'Historic' Abuse saga. So long as this goes ahead without being hamstrung by the deliberate removal of some Terms of Reference the truth will finally out.

On the plus side, let's be fair to Senator Gorst for finally keeping his promise on revealing these figures as he had assured me that he would.. Now if he only makes good the other two promises that earned him my vote for Chief Minister i.e. genuine inclusive government and support for a fully independent Electoral Commission rather than a hijacked by personal interests one things could be looking up!

Regards

Deputy Trevor Pitman

OPERATION END-GAME - 4- SENATOR LE MARQUAND & ACPO

2012-02-26T19:12:00.004Z

HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER SENATOR IAN LE MARQUAND

OPERATION END-GAME 4

THE ROLE OF HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER SENATOR IAN LE MARQUAND

WHY DID THE 4 ACPO REPORTS HAVE TO BE DISCREDITED?

FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE GRAHAM POWER QPM GIVES THE READERS HIS OPINION

I must thank the http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/ for supplying the audio for this Blog Posting.

During the previous blog postings we have been looking at the complete breakdown of the rule of law in Jersey. The actions of the former Chief Executive Bill Ogley, former Chief Minister Frank Walker, former DCO David Warcup and then Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis have been well documented. The politicised removal of former Chief of Police Graham Power is now a documented fact.

Now is the time to turn our attention to the present Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand (ILM). For all the faults we can lay at the door of Andrew Lewis, and let's be under no illusion, there are many, the actions of ILM far surpass his predecessor. When you put the actions of ILM under the spotlight and scrutinise his handling of the Graham Power suspension and related issues it leaves one feeling shocked and amazed at his total incompetence, arrogance, lack of natural justice, kangaroo courts and his failure to up hold the law and good governance in public office.

Today I want to focus on the issue of the 4 reports by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and reasons given by ILM for not using them. During the suspension reviews conducted by ILM on 13 February and 5 March 2009 we discover that he has done exactly what Andrew Lewis did previously.

2008 - Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis suspends GP on;

A letter from David Warcup, a briefing given by David Warcup on the evening of the 11 November 2008 with reference to a Metropolitan Police "Interim" report.

2009 5 March - Home Affairs Minister ILM after two suspension review meetings keeps Graham Power suspended on the Warcup letter, briefing notes from the Warcup and public opinion.

Now, I really want you to think about this. What's missing from the above? What never ever seems to get a look in? What is missing from the original suspension and the continued suspension of Graham Power? What's missing that could have added some balance? I will tell you what.

4 -ACPO REPORTS -

ACPO 1

ACPO 2

ACPO 3 & 4

The ACPO Reports caused the establishment a big problem. How could they keep their story going. The ACPO Reports had to be discredited.

This is where the Audio by "THEJERSEYWAY" comes into play.

On 21 March 2010 there was a Sunday Talkack programe featuring Deputy Roy Le Herissier and ILM. The part im interested in concerns the ACPO Reports, what ILM says about them and how he discredits them.

You must remember that ILM is prepared to form a judgement on public opinion and not the 4 Reports produced by Andy Baker (SOCA), Anne Harrison and John Mooney (NPIA). This is what we are dealing with here. You just can't make this up. Even when Graham Power sought Judicial Review the ACPO Reports were not permitted as evidence. Why could this be? Why had the ACPO Reports turned into the establishment's very own Kryptonite? The answer I believe is a very simple one. I will allow you to form your own opinions on this as mine are obvious.

PLEASE LISTEN TO THE AUDIO BEFORE CARRYING ON WITH THIS POSTING.

THE AUDIO IS A MUST LISTEN - The whole programe can be listened to here:

http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2011/03/talkback-on-210310.html

The Audio takes some seconds to load up.

21/3/2010

I have published the urgent Oral Question that was lodged by then Deputy Bob HIll after listening to this talkback programe. It is reproduced below.

4. Urgent Oral Question

The Bailiff:

We then come to an urgent oral question which was due to be asked at the last sitting but was unable to proceed because the Minister was unable to be present and so it was agreed it be held over to today’s sitting.

[9:45]

4.1 Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding comments made during the BBC Talkback programme about a senior ACPO officer:

Will the Minister inform Members whether he broke a confidentiality clause by claiming on the B.B.C. (British Broadcasting Corporation) Talkback programme that the Wiltshire Police had identified what the Minister claimed to be a “scandal” involving a senior A.C.P.O. (Association of Chief Police Officers) officer, and if so, why? Would he further state what the conflict of interest was and with whom the person involved agreed to intentionally omit certain matters in A.C.P.O. reports? Has the Minister made an official complaint to A.C.P.O.?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):

I want to first of all explain to Members why I was not here on the last occasion. Both myself and my wife were struck down on the evening of the Monday at about 9.30 p.m. with a Norwalk-type virus which was not very pleasant and it would not have been very pleasant either for me or for other Members if I had attended on the next day. In answer to the question, there are 2 assertions contained in the question which I do not think are factually correct. In addition to that I will try and answer as briefly as I can but, as is the habit of the Deputy of St. Martin, it is a multi-part question. Firstly, I do not believe that I have broken a confidentiality clause and that is for the reason set out in some detail in my written answer to 5302 to which I would refer Members. Secondly, I do not think that I mentioned the Wiltshire Police in this context. I am not sure of that, and I have not had a chance to check any transcript, but I do not think that I did. My intention on the Talkback programme was to attempt to achieve a better and fairer factual balance in relation to the situation. In particular, my intention was to deal with issues which had been put into the public domain, some by the Deputy of St. Martin himself, presumably on behalf of the Chief Officer of Police, and also by others. Those issues included an assertion that the first and second reports of the A.C.P.O. Homicide Working Group provided a complete defence to the Chief Officer of Police. Now, I have not made any factual decisions on these matters and cannot do so because of the fact that I am involved in a disciplinary matter but when matters were asserted in this way which were not, in my view, in any way balanced, I believe it to be a public duty of mine, as the Minister involved, to correct and to seek to balance the situation where there are clear imbalances in what has been put to the public. There are a number of issues in relation to the A.C.P.O. reports. There are various issues and, of course, it all depends upon what their status was. Were they just a friendly policeman coming alongside to give friendly advice or were they in some sense intended to be independent advice? If they were intended to be the latter and it was my understanding at that time that that was the intention, then there are a number of issues that arise. In particular ...

The Bailiff:

Minister, I appreciate this is quite a lengthy question but this is turning into an extremely lengthy answer.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I cannot avoid that. [Laughter]

The Bailiff:

How much longer do you have?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

About a third of a page, Sir. It was, after all, given the status of being an urgent oral question. I think it is not improper for me to respond in some detail to a matter which has been deemed to be urgent [Laughter] if I may put it that way. I shall try and be as brief as I can. The issue to which I alluded was an issue as to whether there was a conflict of interest on the part of the senior officer involved. That conflict of interest would be in the area of the fact that that officer was about to apply in Jersey for a senior post in the Jersey police force. Now in my view there was an obvious potential conflict of interest in that sort of situation and the conflict is between the person’s desire to be objective, if it was going to be an objective report, and the temptation to say and to do things to please the senior officers already in the force. That is the issue. I do not believe that I have at any time said that this officer agreed to intentionally omit certain matters in reports. I have, however, said I believe that certain recommendations which were made by the officers were not contained in reports. Finally, I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to make an official complaint at this stage.

4.1.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I know my question was lengthy but I have difficulty finding out where the answers were. I think most people were looking really at the “scandal” and I really feel it hardly could be said it was a scandal. Could I ask the Minister whether in actual fact he has seen any of the 4 A.C.P.O. reports and, if so, will he agree then that the senior applicant from A.C.P.O. who was applying for the job had? Two of the reports were published before the actual interview and 2 were published after the interview; would he agree with that also?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The 2 reports which are particularly being relied upon were before the interview. I am not sure of the timing of the other 2; they may well have been after.

The Deputy of St. Martin:

Could I ask the Minister again, has he seen any of the 4 reports?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Yes, I have indeed.

The Deputy of St. Martin:

I did ask, would the Minister then agree that the 4 reports were consistent in the way in which they reported favourably about the way in which the States of Jersey Police were conducting the investigation? Therefore, if there was any scandal surely it would be the fact that there was no scandal because the reports were consistent in the way they reported favourably from before the interviews for the job and then after the interviews for the job.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I do not want to go into detail and expressing a view in relation to the contents of the reports because this is part of the disciplinary process that I am part of. It was the first and second reports which were particularly relied upon and put into the public domain and it is in relation to those that I was seeking to achieve a greater balance.

4.1.2 Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:

Given that the Minister is, as he says, so essential to the eventual decision on the Chief Police Officer’s suspension, in terms of talking about providing a fairer picture does the Minister not believe that using terms like “scandal” and “scoop” for theJ.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) as he used to the Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel can only paint the exact opposite picture, intentional or otherwise?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The term “scandal” as I understand it from having looked it up in a dictionary is wide enough to cover improper conduct. If a senior officer puts himself into a position where there is a conflict of interest, or potential conflicts of interest, that is, in my view, improper. The term “scoop” was used by me rather light-heartedly in a particular context and that particular context which I checked from the transcript of the hearing was the context that I had given an interview with the J.E.P.specifically in relation to the timescales in relation to the different reports. I do not want to start talking to the Scrutiny Panel about that detail. I do not find that was being reported before the main Article. That was the meaning of the word “scoop” in that context.

4.1.3 Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:

I just want to ask the Minister about the review hearing into the suspension. He has talked in his answer at length about balance and I just would like him to comment on the impression given by the transcript which is that the letter from the acting Chief Officer of Police, which is then rebutted by Dr. Brain, seems to be the only evidence that he took serious cognisance of. He said that he could not look at other things like A.C.P.O. reports and so on which gave the other side of the picture and found reasons for not doing so, and I just would like his comments on that.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The factual matters that I had before me in relation to the suspension hearings which I conducted in February and March 2008 were indeed the letter from the now acting Chief Officer setting out concerns in relation to various issues and an extract - I think it was the outline - of the press conference, for want of a better word, which took place in November 2008 which stated certain specific matters. I excluded certain other matters from what I was considering. The decision I had to make was as to whether I should start looking at any of the evidence in relation to the matter. The problem with this, if you start looking at partial evidence, where do you end: you end up in a sort of mini-trial. I am very experienced in the parallel situation which is bail applications where exactly the same situation arises. You make a decision based upon the allegations and the broad sweep of things. You do not allow yourself to be drawn into looking into detailed evidence. The specific issue which is raised by the Deputy of St. Mary was challenged, of course, as part of judicial review proceedings before the Royal Court and the Royal Court upheld the approach which I had taken.

4.1.4 The Deputy of St. Mary:

Can I ask a supplementary on that? The Minister said that in the review hearing he excluded certain other matters and that is the point, I put it to him, why people are uneasy about this process.

The Bailiff:

Sorry, Deputy, how does this arise out of this question? This question is related to the A.C.P.O. report.

[10:00]

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Well that is exactly it, that those reports do not seem to have been taken into account in the review hearing, so only one side of the story, if you like, and then that is treated and assessed but not the other side and excluded certain other matters and I do not understand why.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Well that is exactly what I have just explained, that the A.C.P.O. reports would have been part of the evidence in relation to the matter. Even if I had looked at the A.C.P.O. reports, and I have subsequently, it would have made no difference to my decision because I do not know the circumstances in which they were obtained. I do not know whether they were followed out properly; I do not know whether they even make sense. Now all these are issues which have to be looked at in a wider context.

4.1.5 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

I was obviously there during the scrutiny review. I would like to ask the Minister if he thinks that using terms like “scoop”, which may be appropriate for an ice cream salesman but not necessarily for a statesman, and sensationalising issues by talking of “scandal” on the radio and then not giving evidence on the radio, is partaking in the exact kind of behaviour for which the Deputy Chief of Police ...

The Bailiff:

Deputy, that is an exact repetition of the question that Deputy Trevor Pitman just asked.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Well, in that case I will leave it.

4.1.6 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I will just ask the Minister would he not really agree that the real scandal is the Chief Executive Officer’s role? He was the person who appointed the Deputy Police Chief. He was then involved directly again with the suspension of the Police Chief with the Deputy Chief Police Officer and now has come forward with recommending that the Deputy Chief Officer should have the suspended police officer’s job. Would he not really think that is the real scandal of what is going on at the moment?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

No.

This suspension of the former Chief of Police has been a sham from start to finish.

The Home Affairs Minister must be made to explain his actions. They are not befitting of someone who holds public office. When you look at his actions and the evidence it leaves you baffled as to why a former Magistrate acted in the way he did. Could it be, this is only my opinion, that he gave up his very well paid magistrate job to do exactly this. The establishment needed someone with some form of legal background. They needed someone to help put it to bed. It didn't happen. Some decent politicians along with Bloggers started investigating and have now unravelled a cover-up and suspension that goes to the very heart of the Government and Law Office.

Rico Sorda

Team Voice

We now come to the reply from Former Chief Of Police Graham Power regarding these issues;

I have been asked by the blog authors to comment on the “ACPO Reports” in relation to the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry (Operation Rectangle.). My attention has been drawn to a radio interview and other comments made over the past two years by the current Minister for Home Affairs Senator Ian le Marquand. When commenting on the ACPO reports the Minister has made references to a “scandal” and a serious conflict of interest. He said that the reputation of ACPO would be damaged by the nature of their involvement in the Enquiry.

It might be helpful for readers not familiar with the role of ACPO for me to attempt to summarise the nature of the organisation and its role in relation to Operation Rectangle. The term “ACPO” is an abbreviation for the Association of Chief Police Officers for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Police officers and civilian staff who operate at or above the level of Assistant Chief Constable in police forces in those three countries are members of ACPO. Senior Police Officers in Scotland have a separate professional association. The role of ACPO is not to be confused with that of a Staff Association or similar representative body. The professional and employment interests of Chief Officers are represented by a separate organisation which is the Chief Police Officers Staff Association (CPOSA.) ACPO is concerned entirely with professional matters. Its role includes the development of best practice in policing and the provision of guidance and support to forces facing an exceptional challenge.

ACPO is divided into Business Areas each of which is led by a senior figure, normally a Chief Constable who, in addition to his or her leadership of their own force, will have a wider responsibility for a particular area of policing and will provide guidance and leadership at National Level. The Business Area for the purposes of Operation Rectangle was the one concerned with Crime. At the time of the abuse enquiry it was led by the Chief Constable of an English force.

Once it became clear that “Rectangle” was to become a major enquiry I arranged for the part of ACPO responsible for Crime to be contacted and asked to provide advice and support. Shortly afterwards members of the ACPO Homicide Working Group (HWG) arrived in the Island. They were led by an internationally recognised expert in the investigation of major crime. At that time the person concerned held a senior executive position in the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA.) It might be worth making the point that the experience, qualifications, seniority and credibility of the ACPO team which advised officers engaged in the abuse enquiry exceeded by a huge distance that of any other body which has expressed an opinion on the matter since that time. This includes Wiltshire Police and it certainly includes David Warcup and Mick Gradwell.

It is understood that the terms of reference for the Homicide Working Group are in the public domain as are their reports in relation to the enquiry. I think that it would be fair to summarise the role of the HWG as providing expert advice and support for the investigation and to give a measure of quality assurance.

Readers of the HWG reports will see that they are thorough and professional and go into some of the fine detail of the enquiry. They identify positive aspects of the investigation and they also make recommendations for improvement. Their reports also contain a running commentary on how their recommendations were acted upon. In my view it is fair to summarise that aspect of their work as positive and sometimes complimentary both in relation to the enquiry, and the speed with which the recommendations were implemented. Readers of the HWG reports are entitled to come to their own view on these matters and are encouraged to do so.

In addition to their written reports the working party also provided face to face briefings. I was briefed on a regular basis and attended meetings at which members of the working group communicated their thoughts in detail. I also arranged a series of briefings to key political and government figures. These included the then Minister for Home Affairs Wendy Kinnard, the then Deputy Minister Andrew Lewis, the Chief Minister Frank Walker, and the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers Bill Ogley. I also established a rule that neither me nor any other member of the force should be present during these briefings. This was arranged so that the discussions could be as open as possible and that there could be no suggestion that the free exchange of information and views had been inhibited by the presence of me or another senior officer. The verbal feedback from Ministers was that this arrangement was useful and in his statement to the Wiltshire enquiry Andrew Lewis says that he and others were told at these briefings that the force was offering a “shining example” of how such an enquiry should be conducted.

Subsequent to my suspension the use of the ACPO reports became controversial in a number of areas, the primary two of which were their non-use in considering whether to impose or maintain the suspension and the derogatory comments, referred to earlier, made by the current Minister.

The issue regarding the non-use of the reports has been explored in detail in other forums and I will attempt to summarise it briefly here. Neither Andrew Lewis in imposing the suspension, or Ian le Marquand in maintaining the suspension, would allow themselves to read the ACPO reports, or to be strictly correct, would not allow themselves to consider them “on the record” when the suspension was being officially considered. What they did or what they read when nothing was being recorded may remain a mystery. What we know for sure is that Lewis enacted the suspension on the basis of a letter from David Warcup which included some very selective quotes from a memorandum by a member of the Metropolitan Police who were separately reviewing the enquiry as a result of a recommendation by the Homicide Working Group. By the time Ian le Marquand reviewed the suspension the Met had insisted on the withdrawal of its material from the process which left le Marquand with even less evidence than his predecessor. This led to a situation whereby the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police was being kept suspended entirely on the basis of comments made in a letter by the Deputy Chief Officer (made Acting Chief Officer with a salary increase subsequent to the letter,) David Warcup, but the detailed and documented views of the ACPO Homicide Working Group were ruled out of play. As indicated earlier, the ACPO working group was staffed by recognised experts whose advice was widely sought at international level. There is no record of anybody of note seeking the opinions of David Warcup on matters of major crime. Readers can come to their own view as to what this situation indicates regarding the desire of the Jersey authorities to come to a well informed and fair decision regarding the suspension of the Chief Officer of their Police Service. In considering this matter it might be helpful for the reader to consider whether, had the ACPO reports contained something damming and highly critical, Ministers would have been equally determined to rule them out of play. Readers may also wish to consider the plainly conflicted position of David Warcup in the context of the Ministers subsequent comments, which I will now attempt to summarise, as to what in his view constituted a conflict of interest.

The second issue of note relating to the reports are the critical comments of the current Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian le Marquand, in which he refers to “scandalous” matters relating to a conflict of interest concerning the role of ACPO. This aspect was “trailed” by the Minister in a series of comments which built up interest and exposure until he eventually revealed what was on his mind. We were told by the Minister that the senior member of the Homicide Working Group had applied unsuccessfully for the position of Deputy Chief Officer of the Force. That was it. That was the “scandal.”

But the implications of the repeated comments of the Minister were plain enough. The suggestion was that the status of the person concerned as a candidate for an appointment in the force had led to some toning down or perhaps outright misrepresentation of what ACPO had to say. It might be worth thinking this through.

To help with this process it might be useful for the reader to consider just whose thoughts were supposed to be influenced by such a deception. Certainly not mine. The selection and appointment of the new Deputy Chief Officer was made by a panel consisting of Wendy Kinnard, Andrew Lewis, Bill Ogley and an advisor from HM Inspectorate of Constabulary. It was done in a Jersey hotel several miles from Police Headquarters. I took no part in the process and did not enter or go within miles the hotel building until the selection had been made and I was to be informed of the result. It therefore could not have been me who was supposed to be influenced by positive comments in relation to the enquiry. If it was anyone it was Ministers and the Chief Executive. But readers may have spotted that there is something not quite right with this aspect of the Minister’s argument. The Minister for Home Affairs is suggesting that a candidate sought to gain improper influence with the Jersey establishment by saying positive things about the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry. If indeed he was, then he had got it the wrong way round. The Minister for Home Affairs appears to be saying that ACPO reports in relation to the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry were corruptly influenced in a positive direction in order to gain favour with Jersey Ministers. Given the undisguised hostility to the enquiry demonstrated by the Islands government at that time this does not seem probable. So far as I know the Minister has never tried to explain how this would make sense from the perspective of a candidate and I cannot work it out either.

The remaining aspect of this curious set of allegations which readers may wish to consider is the sheer gravity and magnitude of what the Minister is alleging, and his lack of follow-through with the serious allegations he has made. There is no record of the Jersey Minister for Home Affairs writing to the Serious and Organised Crime agency and formally putting to them his allegation that one of their senior executives is corrupt. There is no record of any complaint made to ACPO. There is no record of any request for an independent investigation of the serious allegations made by the Minister. There is just a record of words thrown into the air on Radio Jersey and in the sanctuary of the States. There does not appear to have been any attempt to back those words with evidence or an investigation. Readers can come to their own conclusions with regard to the sincerity, consistency, integrity and truthfulness of those involved. They might also come to their own conclusions regarding whose word can or cannot be trusted in these matters.

And finally, some readers may be concerned that, notwithstanding the overwhelming weight of evidence, the Jersey Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian le Marquand, may have been accurate in predicting that his comments would be damaging to the reputation of ACPO. Given the high standing in which that organisation is held throughout the world, that would be a matter of concern. I have therefore taken the trouble to contact former ACPO colleagues, who are still in senior positions in that organisation, and checked with them as to whether there are grounds for concern. So far I have not found a senior member of ACPO who has heard of Senator Ian le Marquand. Or his comments. So perhaps there is no longer any need to worry over that issue. Some readers may be relieved to hear this news.

OPERATION END-GAME - 3

2012-02-23T21:45:00.000Z

OPERATION END GAME - 3

Senator Le Marquand from yesterdays States Sitting 21st February 2012.

Oral Question from Deputy Tadier

Deputy Tadier.

Thank you Sir. Will the minister advise the assembly whether he kept the former chief of police suspended, on the strength of the letter from the Deputy Chief Officer who became acting chief officer alone.

Minister home affairs.

So I want to give a brief answer, initially, in relation to the ?colonial question I will advise the assembly, in relation to the substantive question the answer is no.

Deputy Tadier.

Did the minister say no.

Minister home affairs.

In relation to the substantive question I said no. Yes.

Deputy Tadier.

That is to say he didn't keep the former Chief of police suspended on the what is know as the Warcup letter alone, is that correct.

Minister home affairs.

That is correct, yes ah its fairly well with transcripts of the full hearings that I conducted, if the ah Deputy Tadier wishes to check what I'm saying, he only has to look at those transcripts, there also of course was a Royal Court case on judicial review where the Royal Court upheld my decision. And he can also look and see what that says about it

Deputy Tadier.

Sir, thank you for that response. It's my understanding that in March 2009, when the suspension reviews were going on, that the minister, did actually say, that he kept, the chief of police chief suspended, on what's known as the Warcup letter, so, if the ministers saying thats not the case, would he say, on what other evidence or legal advise he kept the chief officer suspended initially that is.

Minister home affairs.

Ah yes I will do that so this will take a bit longer, than my initial answer, I reconsidered the suspension of the former chief officer I think for points of doubt we're talking about Mr Power, in Feb & March 2009, and decided to maintain the suspension, I considered two, documents firstly, the letter of Mr Warcup which as members know, I deleted some parts, from, because there were references, in it to the interim report of the Metropolitan police, secondly, I considered the text, of the press release, for the press conference, conducted jointly, by Mr Warcup and the then, senior investigating officer superintendent Gradwell, which had taken place on the day before the original suspension, I also considered issues such as the loss of public confidence, in the police chief. Mr Power brought an application for judicial review, to the Royal Court, and in August 2009 that application was dismissed, but by May 2009 I was aware of the existence of operation Blast, which was secret unauthorised files, kept by the police, on every States member including a criminal record, check on every states member. In July 2009, I held a seperate suspension hearing, for Mr Power and decided to suspend him, upon that basis alone, as a seperate suspension to the original suspension. In October 2009 of course I received the interim report of the Wiltshire police, in relation to the Haut De La Garenne non finance matters. I reviewed, the suspension monthly, and notified Mr Power monthly of the reviews which I had conducted End

We have read the evidence regarding the shameful alleged corrupt actions of the former Chief Executive Bill Ogley, former Chief Minister Frank Walker and DCO Dave Warcup but what about the two Home Affairs Ministers, Andrew Lewis and present incumbent Senator Ian Le Marquand. How have these two individuals been allowed to drag natural justice into the gutter without any checks or balance from their political colleagues is beyond me. Senator Le Marquand should be removed as Home Affairs Minister as he comes out of this mess even worse than Andrew Lewis and that's saying something.

The actions of these two are so shameful that you really couldn't make it up.

What Im producing here is Suspension Review 2

It's a must read. It will take some time but please take the time to read it.

Voiceforchildren will be producing Suspension Review 1 in the morning.

First, I must give you a timeline on the key events so you don't get confused

November 12th 2008 - Graham Power Suspended

February 13th 2009 - Graham Power has his first Suspension Review Meeting with Home Affairs Minister Ian le Marquand

February 18th 2009 - Graham Power attends Royal Court and seeks judicial Review into his suspension. Solicitor General advices an adjournment because the Minister for Home Affairs is conducting a Suspension Review

March 5th 2009 - Graham Power has second suspension meeting with Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand - The Minister decides to keep Graham Power suspended

April 14th 2009 - Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand delays bringing the appointment of David Warcup to the position of Chief of Police for 5 weeks

April 30th 2009 - Solicitor General writes to the Home Affairs Minister and informs him of general details of Operation Blast

May 11th 2009 - Graham Power makes a revised application for Judicial Review due to his continued suspension on the 5th

Sometime in May 2009 - David Warcup writes a formal written report to Senator Le Marquand and confirms the deatails of Operation Blast

June 16th 2009 - Home Affairs Minister brings Operation Blast to the States of Jersey with plenty of fanfare and little else

July 31st - 2009 - Graham Power is suspended again for Operation Blast . The Former Chief of Police has 2 suspensions - the new one being just days before his Judicial Review Hearing

September 8th 2009 - Graham Powers Judicial Review bid into his suspension gets rejected

Readers can make up their own minds as to what has been going on. Almost at the beginning ILM has to admit that the "Met Report" upon which the whole edifice was founded is now out of play because the met refuse to allow it to be used for disciplinary purposes. So now he has the opinions of DW and nothing else. But ILM refuses to allow the opinions of the ACPO Homicide Working Group to be considered.

It is pointed out to ILM that the precedents are that if the suspension continues then we will be in a situation where it is impossible for Graham Power to return to work and that what he is effectivbely undertaking is a dismissal. Yet he appears happy to do this on the sole word of the man he has earmarked to take over Graham Powers Job.

Dr Brain points out that there is a lack of clarity about what the Wiltshire Enquiry is supposed to be doing there will be more to say about this in a later posting So far as can be made out it is an investigation into management and performance it is not an investigation into misconduct (ie hand in the till fabricating evidence that sort of thing) and if that is the case there are even fewer grounds for suspension. You will however note that Dr Brain brings in that after three months Wiltshire are unable to tell him what sort of enquiry they are conducting. In laymans terms are they reviewing the management of the investigation in order to learn lessons for the future of are they out to "get" one individual through the disciplinary process. After 3 months of work wiltshire could not answer that question and ILM does not seem to be able add light to it either but more of that another day.

The readers might also want to think about whether they want to cross reference with the earlier stuff on the "Version 3" story told to Napier, namely that evidence had been emerging for months before the suspension from meetings of the gold group. So why did ILM go through a series of suspension reviews and a Royal Court hearing without mentioning this onece? did he not have a duty to tell the Royal Court that there was this additional evidence? why keep it a secret?could the answer be that it did not exist and that they just made it up so that they would have something to tell Napier when he asked them how come the suspension was planned for months in advance of the "evidence" being seen?If they had evidcned months before the suspension then why not mention it at a suspension review and why not tell the Court how come they suddenly "remember" this when asked hard questions by Napier?

I will now leave you to read Suspension Review 2. Graham Powers representative is Constable Dr T Brain. This mans ability goes without saying and could be one of the reasons for the second backup suspension. Constable T Brain was wiping the floor with the Home Affairs Minister and it makes for very uncomfortable reading.

I would like to say a special thank you to the person who took the time to transcribe Deputy Tadier Oral Question

Rico Sorda

Team Voice

STATES OF JERSEY

SUSPENSION REVIEW MEETING

THURSDAY, 5th March 2009

Present:

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs)

Mr. G. Power (Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police)

Dr. T Brain (Chief Constable, Gloucestershire)

Mr. M. Pinel (Head of Employee Relations, States of Jersey)

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):

If we can start just by each talking into the microphone so we can check it is coming through. I am Ian Le Marquand the Home Affairs Minister and Mr. Mick Pinel is here assisting me. Perhaps you could speak into the microphone.

Mr. M. Pinel (Head of Employee Relations, States of Jersey):

Good morning.

Dr. T. Brain (Chief Constable, Gloucestershire):

Good morning, Dr. Timothy, representing Mr. Graham Power.

Mr. G. Power (Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police):

Good morning, Graham Power, Chief Officer States of Jersey Police.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Okay, thank you very much, gentlemen, it also helps is a transcript is ever produced of this, it helps the transcriber to recognise the voices. Can I begin by just recapping and then saying where I think we are in terms of issues and you may have other issues that you wish raise. Firstly, of course we first met on 13th February and I received submissions in relation to the way in which I should construe the statutory provisions and also the terms of the disciplinary code. I also received other submissions which went on into some of the areas we are going to look at again today, but I just confine myself to those. At the end of those submissions I made a finding that paragraph 2.3.3. of the disciplinary code was capable of standing on its own if the allegations/circumstances are sufficiently serious and other factors are present which would warrant this paragraph being invoked. I think that was as far as we got in terms of decisions. We then had a discussion in relation to what materials I should have before me and I believe it was agreed that the primary document that I should have was the letter Mr. Warcup to Mr. Ogley(?) dated 10th November 2008, which you had not then seen but I believe you have been provided copies. Also the slides for the presentation and media briefing which took place in November 2008 which I have only just looked up myself this morning, and the briefing notes which I have also only looked up this morning. I think you both had those.

Mr. G. Power:

I thought you got them as well.

Dr. T Brain:

No.

Senator B.I Le Marquand:

We then had a discussion to other possible matters that could be looked at in the context of the present review at this stage and there was obviously the issue of the Metropolitan Police Report and we had discussions about the possibility of a redacted version of that which would openly deal with call matters. Developments of this being, of course, is that it was mentioned and indeed there was a section in the letter of Mr. Warcup headed Metropolitan Police Review Interim Report. Now, you, I hope, will be aware that there have been continued difficulties in relation to this. The Metropolitan Police are absolutely against this being used in any way in the context of this hearing or my having access to it in any form whatsoever, and you will also see the letter which I passed up to you just now of Mr. Bonnie(?) who takes a similar view in relation to this. Can I perhaps suggest a way forward on this which may or may not be acceptable? It seems to me the fairest thing for me to do here is, in the absence of my being able to see the report or yourselves being able to see the report, simply to ignore the whole section of the letter of Mr. Warcup which relates to the Metropolitan Police Review Interim Report. I think the other section that will need to be ignored then would be the second paragraph on the penultimate page in which he says: “Interim findings in the review by the Metropolitan Police fully support my previous comments and opinions which I have expressed herein.” So if we treat that as not being in play, as it were. You may need a bit of time to consider that.

Dr. T. Brain:

If we could just perhaps have a discussion about that rather than… if you like, submit views. I think it depends on how you mentally treat the decision because if effectively what we are saying is that the reason why Graham was suspended and remains suspended is because of the seriousness of the management issues that were raised through the report and through presentations, if that is what we are saying, then if you continue to take that as read then I am not sure on what basis we have a discussion because …

Senator B.I Le Marquand:

What I am suggesting, as a way forward, just to clarify that, is that I simply go upon the basis of the earlier paragraphs of the letter which are those in which Mr. Warcup expressed a view. You see what effectively happens is Mr. Warcup expresses concerns and then he calls in aid the Metropolitan Review Interim Report as support for his already expressed concerns. That is my understanding of the situation.

Dr. T. Brain:

I do not think that is our understanding of it.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Do we need to have an adjournment so that you can read the documents again and I can read them again to make sure that is a fact.

Dr. T. Brain:

Sorry, I think it might just be useful foe Graham to offer … we might well do that but I think just to move … if I take it at this moment, Minister, we are just simply in discussion mode here.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

That is all right I am just raising a possible way forward.

Dr. T. Brain:

I am very happy to do that. I think the simple thing is if we just carry on our discussion for …

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The second issue which is outstanding is what has been described to me in some documents as the Andre Baker Report. Andre Baker means nothing to me but I think we are talking about A.C.P.O. (Association of Chief Police Officers) Homicide Group advice which was an issue that was raised by yourselves as to whether I should consider this. I am open to receiving further submissions but in a spirit of trying to be helpful I gave an interim view as to what my view was likely to be in relation to that. Simply, putting my concerns very simply, if I start to open up an aspect of the matter then I am effectively being drawn into a consideration of the underlying evidence which is not, in my view, an appropriate thing to do at this stage. I think that probably prematurely one of the legal advisers conveyed that to you.

Dr. T. Brain:

May I propose we hold on to that second point for a moment and let us just consider the first proposition about our understanding of the status of the Metropolitan Police Report and its impact on first of all Warcup and, secondly, how David Warcup then conveyed that to the Minister. So if we just hold to that. As I say, we are in discussion mode here so, Graham, you have got a view on that. I think it is easier for you to express it yourself.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

We are still being tape recorded.

Dr. T. Brain:

That is fine. I am not making a submission, we are just discussing these points.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

That is fine.

Mr. G. Power:

I am at a disadvantage and I have to go completely from recollection. I do not have access to the files and records, but this is my recollection about the Met Review. That it is accepted practice that you have another force to review an inquiry. My recollection is that this was discussed with Andy Baker, that we agreed that the timing of that would be to commission that report to provide an agenda for the new management team that were coming in. So I do not see that as something that Warcup initiated in order … I do not think that was something that was within his control to initiate. I think that was happening anyway. That is my recollection of that. Now, if a subsequent audit trail shows that that recollection is not perfect then that is the way the world is but I am very clear in my own mind that discussions about the review took place, and the timing of it to present an agenda for the new team was what I agreed and at some stage I approved somebody commissioning that report.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Okay. The issue I think is whether Mr. Warcup’s concerns, as set out in here, stand on their own independently of the Metropolitan Police Review Interim Report. I think I now need to reread the letter, you probably need to do the same, to see whether that is so because if that is not so then obviously the direction that I was suggesting of as simply excluding the references in support of that …

Dr. T. Brain:

If you could just go through the references that you proposed to exclude again.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

What i am suggesting is simply that i exclude the part of the letter which starts with the heading Metropolitan Police Review Interim Report. Okay, so that is ... the pages are not numbered, i am afraid.

Dr. T. Brain:

Yes.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

It is 3 paragraphs on one page, 6 paragraphs on the second page. In the conclusion section, if I exclude the second paragraph on the second page of that: “The interim findings of the review by the Metropolitan Police fully support my previous comments and the opinions which I have expressed herein. So, in other words, that then takes out the report in terms of supporting; that just leaves questions as why.

Dr. T. Brain:

Yes, I think we can proceed on that basis. I think save to note that there is, let us call it a dispute about the sentence that begins “I commissioned …” The recollection is from Graham that that was part of the normal review process. It is not significant today but it is worth registering that.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Where is that? I see.

Dr. T. Brain:

That is the first sentence under …

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Well, it has come out for the purpose anyway.

Dr. T. Brain:

I understand exactly what you mean and we can proceed on that basis.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Okay. Can I just catch up on my notes now because I have not been writing notes?

Dr. T. Brain:

Certainly. Yes certainly.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

So, if I note that Mr. Power challenges – I do not know if that is the right word – as to whether Mr. Warcup commissioned the Met report, Mr. Power believing that it was commissioned as part of a general review, I suppose. Would that be fair? It is not going to be relevant for today’s hearing but if you want …

Dr. T. Brain:

If I can just assist from a police procedural point of view from the United Kingdom, or certainly from England and Wales, it is for 6, 7, 8 or slightly more years now quite routine for ant major investigation to be reviewed by an outside force or an outside body.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

So if I said a general and normal review?

Dr. T. Brain:

It is quite a normal practice. It is, in itself … and I think this is of considerable relevance, it is of no intrinsic significance for there to be a review. It is not a plus or a minus factor.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I have to say, obviously I have had conversations with different people on different occasions, but I have to say that the understanding I have picked up from other conversations accord with what Mr. Power is saying.

Dr. T. Brain:

Thank you.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

So I think it is right. Well, my understanding is it was part of the normal process and review, whoever actually wrote the letter asking for it. Si I think that is right. I had excluded that section for today as probably irrelevant. Right, Okay, that then takes us back … I have written some notes in advance to help me, that takes us back to the question of the A.C.P.O. Homicide Group Advice Report which me be the Andre Baker Report because that is certainly what it has been referred to in some correspondence to me. Did you want to make any submissions on that because I do not want to, in any way, be seen to have made a final decision on that. Because it was an ongoing issue I think we wanted you to have notice that there could be difficulties with that.

Dr. T. Brain:

I think if I can explain why we are concerned that it is considered. I do think that this prevents us from dealing with many of the issues but it is relevant to the position that occurred on 12th November and the position that pertains today, i.e. Graham suspended and remaining suspended. The point is that the suspension was initiated on the basis of a partial consideration of the available material. Now, I do not think it is necessary for you, Minister, to have seen or read the reports to consider the importance of the reports. What we have here is … Let us start the process with the Metropolitan Police Report which we have heard will not be made available today. I will make some observations about that particular conclusion in just a moment. That is certainly one of the main springs for the action that followed on 12th November and it continues to pertain to this day. If we accept – I do not think it is worth our trouble to second guess what was meant by the David Warcup letter of 10th November – that as another set of considerations that were taken into account in the decision that was made on 12th November, we have, it would seem – and we are not able to comment on the detail or significance of findings of the Metropolitan Police Report because we have not seen it – we have 2 sets of reports, a letter and report, that determine the decision makers or makers of 12th November to decide to suspend Graham and initiate an inquiry. The significance of the Homicide Group, the Andre Baker reports, is that we believe, and we have not got access to them at the moment but we have every reason to believe for a variety of reasons that they present a different and more balanced view. So what happened on 12th November is that the Minister, the then Minister, made a decision of enormous significance for Graham as an individual and the States of Jersey Police as an organisation, without considering all of the available information. That is the significance of the Homicide Group and the Andre Baker Reports. So I think it is important for you, Minister, today to be aware of the existence of the Andre Baker Report and to be aware of the significance of those reports. So I would not want you to be making a decision based simply on a set of conclusions or allegations, one of which we have not been able to see and examine in detail, without being aware that we have every reason to believe there is an equally valid series of reports that come from a different balanced conclusion. It is self-evident that in a complex inquiry, and I speak from experience from the United Kingdom, it is possible to critique even the most successful of inquiries. We should not be surprised that mistakes are made, criticisms leveled, critique learning available for the future. That should come as no surprise to us. It is whether this has amounted to such a series degree as to merit the suspension of the Chief Officer without further consideration of all of the available information. That information would have been available had it been asked for. I make the point that had Graham been given more time to consider that back on 12th November the Minister might well have been able to come to a different conclusion. So that is the significance of the reports, it is not necessary , I believe, for you certainly to delay further consideration today but is an important set of material and we would understand if you wanted to do that. Obviously I am keen to get Graham’s position considered and from my perspective him reinstated. I would not want anything to be done that would delay that. But these are important balancing reports and just because – I will come to Mr. Bond’s observations in just a moment – it creates difficulty for the investigation should not be a consideration in what is a management review suspension, particularly if one set of reports is viewed as being of greater significance than the other. I hope that is helpful, Minister.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Yes, thank you very much. I want to reiterate, as I think you know, that it was my desire have the relevant parts of the Metropolitan Police Report in some sort of truncated form available. I think I indicated that on the previous occasion and my advisers well know that. In relation to the A.C.PO. Homicide Group, my view is that if I start to look at individual particular detailed materials then I am getting drawn into considering the evidence as a whole which I cannot do at this stage.

Dr. T. Brain:

I understand that and I understand your desire not to do that. In a sense, I have no wish today to try and conduct what might be determined as a pre-trial review almost. It is not my desire. What I am saying and I think this is the point, is that a conclusion was reached on the basis of partial information and partial opinion that supported one view of the investigation, apparently supported one view of the investigation, because we have not seen the report and we are not able to come to our own conclusions. There is another series of reports, because there is more than one Andre Baker/Homicide Group Report, that would, we believe, lead you to come to a more balanced conclusion. The Minister in November had one side of an argument; and not even all of that. Consequently I think that creates a difficulty in saying that the suspension was properly decided on 12th November, and I do not wish to go over the ground about whether … but to make a point that creates a difficulty in the continuance of that suspension.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I understand. Okay, that is fine. Thank you very much. Now, I think that where that takes us to now is … I have got so many letters and pieces of paper, what I am looking for is my letter of 30th January where I sought to set out the agenda for the meetings. I will read both paragraphs through just to remind you: “in the first part I will afford you the opportunity to make representations in writing or in person as you prefer about the relationship of your disciplinary code and the Police Force (Jersey) Law to my review and it procedure.” That is effectively what I did on the previous occasion. “I also give you the opportunity at this point to make representations about which documents or other information I should have before me in making my decision.” That I think we have now just completed.

Dr. T. Brain:

If I may pause there. I would like to make some observations, please continue with what you are doing now but I would like to make some observations about the outcome of the availability of the Metropolitan Police Report not the Andre Baker Report. I just want to make a brief statement in respect to that in a moment.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

All right, yes, if you want to say more on that, please do then.

Dr. T. Brain:

Thank you. First of all, can we reiterate our appreciation of the offer that you made last time. It was not one we sought but we were very mindful that it was, I believe, a genuine gesture to assist the proper consideration of proceedings today. We knew that you would probably receive advice that contradicted your offer but we were nevertheless very grateful that you made that offer. I think it would have been helpful today but in one respect anyway it is a negative consideration because neither of us have got access to it. But I do think that there is some rather interesting inferences that can be drawn from the Wayne Bond email of the 4th March. I would draw your attention to this which says – it is about middle of the way down – “i.e. at a reasonable time before the hearing takes place and broadly in line, I would suggest, with 2004 Misconduct Regulations which currently apply to this type of inquiry in the U.K. (United Kingdom).” I am intrigued that Mr. Bond wishes to take advantage of that aspect of the 2004 Misconduct Regulations and not other aspects of the 2004 Misconduct Regulations. I am concerned, however, that he is referring to the 2004 Misconduct Regulations when these, in fact, have been updated. Secondly, he refers to documents which could be taken out of context or lead to requests for yet further documents. Precisely, Minister. That is exactly the point I am making. We have had 2 documents which are before you, one of which you have not seen but is referred to in the Warcup letter and the Warcup letter. It is exactly my point. Those documents are in play and they are out of context. The context being the wider consideration of the management of the force, the wider consideration of the investigation, and the more balancing reports of the A.C.P.O. Homicide Group. Finally, and I will come back to this in the submission that I will make, but I do want you just to be aware of it at this stage, he refers in this last sentence to say that:”Operation Haven has gathered many hundreds of documents to date which illustrates in itself the danger of making decisions based on one or 2.” I could not agree more.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Okay, thank you. So if we move on to the next paragraph of my letter of 30th January, which I think is where we now arrive. “In the second part of the review, which may, depending on the outcome of the first part, take place on a subsequent occasion or meeting after the first part [of course it is taking on a subsequent] I will afford you the opportunity to make representations, to be either in person or in writing as you wish, as to the criteria which should govern my decision and of course as to whether your current suspension should be continued or lifted.” So I see 2 stages. There is the question of criteria and you had started to make some submissions on the last occasion on that and then, of course, I then have to apply the criteria to whatever materials I have before me in making a decision whether or not to continue the suspension or to lift the suspension. In relation to criteria, I note that you want to make reference to section F of the bundle, the protocols of implementation in England and Wales of section 30-33 of the Police Reform act 2002, but I assume particularly to section 21 to 27, is that right? It might be appropriate to do that now. I am obviously having to receive certain advice in relation to possible criteria that I should follow and what I would propose to do, depending on how you address me, would be to bring you attention to that advice so you could comment on it. I think that is the right way to do that.

Dr. T. Brain:

If you bear with me for a moment, Minister.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

But you did start making submissions before.

Dr. T. Brain:

Yes.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

But it would be helpful if you could make …

Dr. T. Brain:

I will come back to them but there are other things I would like to … Yes, that is part of it, Minister. There is something else we need to take into account which was in 2004 there was the Morris Inquiry into various forms of discipline, misconduct investigation involving both police staff and police officers in the Metropolitan Police. What initiated the inquiry process was the concerns raised by minority ethnic staff over what appeared to be the institutional racism of the Metropolitan Police. That initiated the Morris Inquiry. The Morris Inquiry, in essence – and I do simplify greatly – concluded that an over regulatory and judicial approach was being taken to what should be management issues. I think that is a fair summary of what is a very long document with many recommendations. In respect to suspension, the Morris Inquiry established the principle, and it has been recognised in the U.K. that it is necessary to be proportionate in exercising suspension. The proportionate approach requires the risk to be established of the individual remaining at work in relationship to the seriousness of the allegation. Both have to be taken into account, not simply one or the other. So when we consider suspension and whether it is appropriate then I think that has to be … anything we say, no matter what regulations, whether it is something we are looking at here from Jersey’s perspective or something from the U.K.’s perspective, it is important to take into account the Morris principles of the seriousness of the allegation and the risk that is posed by the individual remaining at work. To put it simply, if the seriousness of the allegation is not very great then that would tend to balance out the risk of the individual remaining at work. Furthermore, it is always open to an organisation, and indeed, again according to the Morris principles and also principles that are set out by the advisory and conciliation service, A.C.A.S. (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service) and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, that consideration should always be given to alternatives to suspension before a suspension is initiated. The fact, I submit, that we are dealing here with a Chief Officer makes no difference. That always should be considered. I will re- emphasise later that it is my belief , on the basis of what we will talk about today that Graham should be reinstated . But certainly there should be a consideration of alternative deployment, and the fact he is the Chief Officer of Police makes no difference to that consideration. So before we go on to look in any more detail about what is the issue, then I would, in respect of the U.K. regulations, ask you to set them in context of the Morris principles and the A.C.A.S. and Chartered Institute of Personnel Development criteria.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Okay. We always have a difficulty in Jersey as to whether or not we apply principles applied elsewhere and to what extent. Partly because sometimes the principles of the U.K. are derived from statutes and therefore are not strictly applicable but courts talk about – I know I am not in court on this occasion – sometimes U.K. principles or U.K. decisions being highly persuasive obviously they are not principles that as yet have been approved in Jersey.

Dr. T. Brain:

I have every confidence, Minister that you will make the appropriate judgement about the importance of these criteria. I am not talking about law, I am talking about a series of principles that have been set down as a result of an extensive inquiry in the series in the U.K. of which people in the U.K. hold in high regard. I would not even presume to try and contextualise these in the circumstances of Jersey law. I am quite confident that you or the courts, if it happens to go beyond that, will apply that correctly. But I do think it is relevant for you to have those criteria in mind.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I suppose you put it before me on the basis of it being fair.

Dr. T. Brain:

Exactly. But I would make a general observation at this time, it is going to be interesting, I think as we go beyond the hearing today into more details of an investigation and a possible misconduct hearing at the end of it, and I emphasise possible, to consider this constant interaction between Jersey law and practice and U.K. law and practice. I think it is necessary to be consistent and I will make that not just simply in the observation of what we are doing today, but what might happen in the future because if, and I hypothesise, the investigators and what we might inappropriately but conveniently term the prosecution decide to make a big deal of what happens in England and Wales or in the United Kingdom because it suits one aspect of their case then I would ask that other matters that pertain in the United Kingdom that may not suit other aspects of their case are given equal weight. I will return to that in just a moment.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Yes, I understand. I understand.

Dr. T. Brain:

What it says is that the suspension from duty of a senior officer is a very serious matter and must be considered only in the context of the maintenance of public confidence. In the context of England and Wales, specifically England and Wales, it is this issue of public confidence that requires suspension. If we look at what has happened here in Jersey I would offer the view that it was not necessary to suspend Graham on an issue of public confidence. Indeed I would go further and submit that public confidence in the investigation and the protection in particular of victims and their families would have been maintained, if not enhanced, by his retention in office. So, if we look at the issue of public confidence I would suggest that first of all it was not properly considered on 12th November, it should be considered now and that the maintenance of public confidence will be better served by its Chief Officer returning to post. I again will make a submission later that there is no suggestion that a man of Graham’s integrity will in any way interfere with the conduct of an investigation which would be just about the only reason, in my view, for retaining his suspension in respect of what is already a lengthy, arguably overlong, investigation into the circumstances of his management of the various inquiries associated with historical child abuse and the Haut de la Garenne investigation.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I have got annex C in front of me, can I just check what annex C is. It is called “Protocol for the implementation in England and Wales for section 30-33 of Police Reform Act 2002.” That is dated March 2004 so it does not predate the Morris Inquiry?

Dr. T. Brain:

I am afraid they will all have to be taken in account in making your decision.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Yes, okay. But it is a protocol so it is guidance notes; would that be right?

Dr. T. Brain:

I think it might be helpful if I can say why I believe the protocol exists. Yes, the protocol does not have the force of regulation, it is neither secondary legislation nor primary legislation. It was deemed necessary and I think it is fair to say you will have to ask the Home Office officials back in 2003 and 2004 who were writing this, why they thought it was necessary. It was deemed necessary to implement the sections regarding home Secretary’s powers to suspend Chief Officers that arose from the police Reform Act 2002. Hitherto the Police Act 1996 and the Police Act 1964 that preceded it, only gave a power of suspension ... or retirement, there was no power to suspend, a power to retire a chief officer, a chief constable specifically, to the local police authority. What happened with the Police Reform Act is it introduced powers for the Secretary of State to initiate a dismissal in the interests of effectiveness and efficiency and prior to their use the then Secretary of State, Mr. Blunkett, felt that he needed this protocol.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

So if I have understood you correctly in the U.K. there exists 2 sets of procedures. This is dealing with the power of the Home Secretary to initiate a suspension and effectively a dismissal or, as I referred at the time, a strict resignation. But there is in parallel with this a set of powers for the police authority to do that, is that right?

Dr. T. Brain:

The police authority can arrive at the same position, the difference is the role of the Secretary of State. In the case of the police authority ultimately their decision must be ratified by the Secretary of State. He is not exactly an appellant body but his role is built into the process. There was no power for the Secretary of State to intervene and dismiss a chief constable in his own right. It caused a difficulty with the then Home Secretary, Mr. Blunkett, in respect of the Chief Constable of Sussex and he had to, I think – and he may disagree with what I am saying here so this is, I hasten to add, my opinion – publicly call on the Sussex Police Authority to initiate the section 11 process which is the power of the police authority. He obviously felt that that was not enough, he wanted his own powers and when it came to framing the 2002 Reform Act he put those powers in place. So they were not exactly parallel processes; they are starting from the same point but going down different tracks.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I think you can understand where my line of questioning is coming from because obviously the difficulty that I have is that there is no police authority with parallel powers and I can see that a different criteria might apply to the criteria that might be applied by the local police authority to the criteria which might be applied by the Home Secretary. Now, I happen to be the Home Affairs Minister but of course, in a sense, in the absence of another body with disciplinary powers, the question is which set I should be looking at, because I do not have another set in front of me.

Dr. T. Brain:

I would suggest, and only suggest, that we do not become, today, too high bound in the detail of this. I have been trying to find some precedents and some criteria by which I believe it is helpful for you to make an assessment of whether the suspension should continue.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I suppose we can put it this way, that you are trying to put before me generally fair principles, I think.

Dr. T. Brain:

Yes.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The technical aspects fall away.

Dr. T. Brain:

I think that is right. If I could just explore that a little bit further with you. None of us were present at the meeting when the decision was made to suspend Graham so we are not able to enter into the mindset of what were the criteria by which a suspension was initiated. But no matter how informally conceived and applied some facts must have been assessed as important and some judgement made about what the consequence should be about those facts. Now, what I am trying to suggest here today is that we have the benefit of almost 4 months’ worth of hindsight and consideration and we are able now to perhaps exercise judgement with a greater degree of detachment about whether the suspension should be continued. I have an argument that I am more than happy to play out yet again about whether it was correct to implement a suspension back in November. Obviously I do not believe it was. But I do not think that is going to be an ultimately fruitful discussion today. I think the question comes over as what we should be considering around whether it is right for Graham’s suspension to stay in place. The kind of factors I am inviting you to take into account are around the issue of public confidence, are around the issue of the alleged seriousness of the matters that are under investigation and the alleged seriousness of the accusation and the general management of the force issues that spin off from all of that. That is why I suggested you need to take into account, I think there 3 areas here, the issue of public confidence, the issue of proportionality and the seriousness of the allegation against the risk of the individual, in this case Graham, staying in post. There are factors that should be considered in the United Kingdom. In the event of them not being (a) considered and (b) properly applied I think 2 consequences would result. If it was a judicial review I would suggest that the finding would be to tell the suspending body to go away and do its job properly and if it was an employment tribunal and this is certainly well evidenced in the material that I have here from a C.I.P.D. (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development) workshop, an A.C.A.S. workshop, that if those considerations were improperly applied the suspension might amount to a constructive dismissal and a finding against the employer in an employment tribunal. That is the reason why they are important to the organisation. They reason why the remain important to Graham, and again I will allude to this in my final submission, is that no matter what the suspending body may feel, and no matter how investigating officers approach a matter, a suspension always with it a stigma, it brings with it a tendency for people not aware of the circumstances to assume that the guilt or innocence of the individual suspended has been determined. It is tantamount in the case of a chief officer to a dismissal because the precedents, regrettably, are that the longer the suspension is in place the more difficult it is for the individual to return to work effectively, even if no proceedings are taken. I have to say no proceedings are taken because my recollection is no chief constable has stood before a disciplinary tribunal in anything other than the most distant history. I can give examples if you wish but I do not think they are necessary.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Sorry, I just lost concentration just for a few seconds because I was writing notes and I lost your last words. You talked about no chief constable had appeared before a tribunal and I just lost your words there.

Dr. T. Brain:

Yes, so I can give examples if you want but none has appeared before a tribunal – there has been no discipline, misconduct, unsatisfactory performance, confidence tribunal, that has not happened. Equally when a chief officer has been suspended it has either been very difficult or impossible for them to return to work and they have not stayed in post very long. So the longer this suspension goes on the more this becomes tantamount to a dismissal, whether anybody wants it or not.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

No, I understand that. Okay, thank you. Now, would it be helpful if I put to you the advice that I have received in terms of criteria, because I think much of it agrees with what you are saying but may be expressed in a different form to see whether you disagree with that or not and if so, to clarify the areas of disagreement. What i have been advised, and I hasten to say I have been advised through the Law Officers’ Department because that is the route I have chosen for advice, is that firstly I would have to decide whether circumstances were sufficiently serious in order to bring into play section 2.3.3. That, of course, is in accordance with the decision I made previously where I said it was capable of standing on its own if the allegations/circumstances are sufficiently serious. So think there has to be a preliminary test of sufficient seriousness, even within the disciplinary code. I think you probably would agree with that, but just for the sake of completeness I mention it. Then I have been advised, and you may well agree with this, that I have to apply a test as to whether it is necessary and proportionate to suspend Mr. Power. I suspect you will probably agree with that because you did talk about proportionate but you did not use the words “necessary and proportionate”. So I suspect there is agreement on that. Thirdly, I have been advised that I should apply a test, and this has been expressed to me in slightly different ways at different times but in general the test is is there material before me disclosing matters of sufficient seriousness to merit a disciplinary investigation? Now, I would perhaps want to add a word to is there material before me to either is there credible material or is there prima facie material before me disclosing matters of sufficient seriousness to merit a disciplinary investigation. I suspect again that you probably would agree with that as being one of the criteria that I should apply. Again, I offer it in case you have got any comments on that. Then I have also been advised that a possible test or part of a test, because I could envisage that there might be a number of different criteria to be applied to a particular case, but one of the possible criteria that has been put before me is as to whether the investigation, because of its nature and seriousness, can be properly carried out with Mr. Power actively opposed. I think you use a different wording on that although you did touch on that sort of concept. You may disagree with that form of wording of course but there is this issue as to whether or not a full investigation of the nature, which of course we are talking about the Wiltshire investigation now, can be properly carried out if Mr. Power were sitting in his office. Now, you mentioned this partly in the context of consideration of alternatives to suspension, I think, but I do not know whether you disagree with that as a criteria. You may say no that is not a criteria at all because I should solely apply the U.K. test in relation to the Home Secretary suspending of whether this is required for the maintenance of public confidence. So if you want to comment perhaps ...I think we are probably in agreement on the sufficiently serious, probably in agreement on necessary proportion, probably in agreement on the credible material, prima facie material but there is an issue, I think, of can the investigation because of the nature and seriousness be properly carried out with Mr. Power, as to whether or not that is a proper ...

Dr. T. Brain:

I will happily explore all of those with you in just a moment. But I must make one blindingly obvious statement verging into a question. The statement is it depends on the nature of the Wiltshire investigation, and the question is what is the nature of the Wiltshire investigation? Again, when I make my submission I will come back to this but we explored last time, in some depth, whether there had been a preliminary investigation before there was a suspension, setting aside whether it needed it or not, we had a long discussion about whether there had been. Please forgive me, I am dealing with my recollection and both are labouring under the same problem of trying to make notes and keep things in play at the same time so I may have misunderstood you and I am happy to be corrected. But certainly one of the matters that came up last time was whether the Wiltshire investigation had the status of or could be in some way inferred to be a preliminary investigation. So let us just hold on to that. Is the Wiltshire investigation a preliminary investigation?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Do you want me to reply on that?

Dr. T. Brain:

No, if I might just explain my arguments this time please. Thank you. Secondly, if it is not a preliminary investigation and has gone on to be a substantive investigation, what is its status? Is it a status into the management of the force, good practice, bad practice, critiquing them, strategic management, it is a management investigation, and when we deal with the suspension protocols that we have been talking about a moment ago in the context of England and Wales, we are talking about issues of effectiveness and efficiency. In other words, the management of the force. We are not talking about misconduct or discipline. So if the Wiltshire Inquiry is in the final category a discipline enquiry, a misconduct – if you prefer – inquiry, the I think certain things are required of that inquiry, which have not yet been demonstrated to us but certainly if we look at the criteria that you have set out on one, 2, 3 and 4, they apply differently depending on the status of the inquiry. It is my view that the Wiltshire Inquiry is of dramatically unclear status. If it is verging on anything it is verging on a discipline enquiry. I cannot work out why but that seems to be the way it is going. Now, if that is the case I think we will have to ask if we look at a possible test as could the investigation be carried out if Graham was in post, if it is a management inquiry or a preliminary inquiry the answer is emphatically yes. If it is a discipline inquiry I have to ask what is the discipline that is being alleged and what would be inhibition to the conduct of that inquiry being conducted or completed if Graham was in post especially after 4 months? I must emphasis that again. Especially after 4 months? There has been completely adequate time to find out all of the essentials of the investigation in that time and therefore a return to work could not in any way inhibit the conclusion of our investigation. So I think it is not in any way to disagree with the 4 criteria that you set out, and indeed, as you have already alluded, in many respects the different expressions of the criteria that I have been suggesting from over here. I dare say maybe High Court lawyers would critique the exact meaning of some of these words to a very great degree. I do not think that it is necessary for us today. Certainly if we go for the first one you suggested there, circumstances are sufficiently serious to bring in section 2, I think that is certainly a criteria. Is it necessary and is it proportionate to suspend? I would suggest that is absolutely an axiomatic criteria or 2 criteria if you like. Three, is there material before you that will merit a discipline investigation whether of significant material nature or prima facie. I think that is the one where we have spent some time because I would suggest that that criteria in particular, along with the fourth criteria about worthy investigation to be carried out with Graham in post, does depend on proportionality. It is certainly not enough for there to be merely a prima facie allegation of discipline for it to result in what was tantamount back in November to an automatic suspension. Certainly there was, had a different process been undertaken in November, time for Graham to answer most if not all the points raised in David Warcup letter. He was given no chance to do so. Now, possibly in a discipline investigation, where gross misconduct is at issue, a suspension could have been justified. I am struggling to find anything in the material that has been presented to us at the current time that constitutes gross misconduct, and it would have been gross misconduct to merit a suspension in this case. So I do not disagree with these criteria, it is the weight which these criteria hold in your mind that is important. Certainly it is just not enough for it to be a discipline allegation, accusation, if you prefer. That is not enough, it has to be the seriousness of the allegation balanced against the risk to the organisation. If you like, that is where 3 and 4 come in. That is another way of stating the Morris principles. I think I have address both those issues but I do not disagree with the outline you have given there of those criteria, it is the weight to which you will put against each of those criteria that I think is significant. I cannot disagree with the weight you are putting because we have not got to that stage of proceedings yet. But I do make that point about it is not simply enough for there to be circumstances that merit a discipline investigation, it must be the seriousness of that investigation and you must take into account the likely outcome, because even if proved, even if the allegations made were proved, would that follow that you would dismiss at a tribunal? That is a crucial point to take into account because if all you are going to end up doing ... forgive me when I say “you,” I do not mean necessarily you personally. I mean the organisational aspects of the States of Jersey Government. If the outcome is going to be: “Words of advice, I would not have done that, do not do it again.”

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

No. I have tried to formulate that into a full wording.

Dr. T. Brain:

I will give you a few moments to do that.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

It came out something like: “Is dismissal a serious possibility?” Or you may wish to submit it should come out stronger than that, but it is going to be something like that, is it not?

Dr. T. Brain:

We are dealing with recollection here. I think “serious possibility” is not too far off the mark, “likely” a lot better than merely 50/50, I think is how I would … it is more than a prima facie case.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

You would prefer “likely.”

Dr. T. Brain:

Well, I think they are all good words in this context. “Likely” is certainly one of them. “Serious possibility” I would not disagree with the either.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

“Likely” is stronger than “a serious possibility.”

Dr. T. Brain:

I think that is the correct criteria “likely.” Can I just suggest we perhaps look at it from the other end of the telescope. If it is unlikely, but if proved it would result in a dismissal, then you should not suspend.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Yes. Again, I draw on my own experience with criminal bail applications which may or may not be relevant but of course one of the considerations is what a lighter sentence might be.

Dr. T Brain:

Indeed.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

So, there may be a parallel.

Dr. T. Brain:

Well I think there is. If we look at what used to be the Attorney General guidelines for the criteria for initiating a prosecution when such humble beings as Charge Sergeants had to initiate proceedings in England and Wales and what have transmogrified into the Crown Prosecution criteria for prosecution. Certainly if you are looking at a conditional or absolute discharge from the start … you might end up with a conditional or absolute discharge, but if that is the likely outcome you should not even be initiating a prosecution at all.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I accept that is a relevant criterion.

Dr. T. Brain:

If we could just forward some months, if what we are going to say at the end of all this, even if – and it is a big even if – the discipline, and again we have to try and separate these 3 states of inquiry out, even if the outcome of a discipline investigation was, and I use inappropriately the words “finding of guilt,” unless it is likely to result in a dismissal, a suspension is inappropriate.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I hesitate to say the criteria you are suggesting is dismissal likely, whatever I may find, is a part of the necessary and proportionate test.

Dr. T. Brain:

It is. Yes, indeed.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

It just focuses my mind on a particular aspect.

Dr. T. Brain:

Thank you. That is why I have been exploring with you those criteria. I do not disagree with them. I ask you to take into account the observations I have made around practice in England and Wales. I think it is relevant around the status again of the inquiries. The suspension protocol for efficiency and effectiveness is what we were talking about a moment ago. If we are talking about a discipline inquiry then there are a set of different criteria that come into play, not much different, but different. Public confidence is not the primary issue but it certainly not enough to allege a discipline allegation against a chief officer to initiate even an inquiry, much less a suspension. If it did there would be many chief constables who would barely come to work because we endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune on almost a daily basis.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Have you completed your submissions in relation to the – going back to the letter of 30th January – criteria?

Dr. T. Brain:

I think it has been most helpful. Thank you.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

If I can just make one comment because you raised again the issue as to preliminary investigation or substantive investigation. My recollection from the last occasion was that I did not agree that there were 2 stages in relation to that and that I was clear that what Wiltshire were now doing was the investigation, which is referred to as the preliminary investigation, in the disciplinary code. I think that is what I said on the last occasion.

Dr. T. Brain:

I think it probably was. However, I will have observations to make about the status of the Wiltshire investigation.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

That is fine. But you made submissions that they were a 2-stage and I say “No, no, there is only one stage envisaged.” I recollect that was part of what was decided. Okay. That is fine. I think we can go straight on now to the final stage which is your submissions as to whether the current suspension should be continued or lifted I do not propose to make a preliminary finding of principle in the way I did before because I do not think that is particularly helpful. I think it is more helpful if I make my decision and then set out what criteria I am following and how I apply those.

Dr. T. Brain:

I have no observations to make on that.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I did not envisage a second break, as it were, for preliminary decisions, as I clearly did in relation to the first part. So, if you would like to move on.

Dr. T. Brain:

Thank you very much, Minister. I would like to start this point of the proceedings by expressing our gratitude that you have reconvened this hearing in a reasonable amount of time, given all of the pressures on everybody’s diary. So, I am grateful for that.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I hope you know that I came back from holiday to do this. Not holiday off the island …

Dr. T Brain:

No, I did not know that, but that merely re-emphasises my gratitude. Thank you very much. It has been done as swiftly as possible and the only observations to make are that I am grateful that you have done it within a reasonable amount of time. The point that I am going to make now though is in relation to the fact that we have this 2-stage… just over a fortnight between each stage. It is just the general fact that it must be obvious to you that it 4 months since Graham was suspended, all but a week. That is a very long period of time and I just must register my concerns about the length of time that the inquiry is taking because with every day that passes it will be more difficult for Graham to resume his position as Chief Officer through no fault of his own.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Can I just ask Mr. Pinel if he has any update on timescales? Because the last information I had was that the report was unlikely to be available until May.

Mr. M. Pinel:

Yes, the last information I have, Minister, which is very recent, is that Wiltshire are expecting to conclude their investigation by the end of June.

Dr. T. Brain:

I am very grateful for Mr. Pinel’s comment. I must say, Minister, that is staggering.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

That is news to me, I have to say.

Dr. T. Brain:

It will become obvious in a moment why I find that staggering. That, I think, re-emphasises the point that I have just made. That with every day that passes it will be more difficult, if not impossible, for Graham to resume his position as Chief Officer through absolutely no fault of his own; certainly not the length of time this inquiry is taking. While the longer the delay the greater the disruption to the command of the force, the uncertainties of the staff, and if there is an issue of public confidence that has been created it has been generated entirely by the suspension process. I re-emphasise I am talking about the suspension process here. I am not talking about the facts of the case that may or may not come to a tribunal at some point. If Wiltshire do not anticipate finishing this before June I suspect we will not be hearing it before perhaps Christmas next year, by which tie Graham would have been suspended for over a year. I cannot believe that the States of Jersey wish this to be an outcome of this process. I appreciate from the very helpful disposition that you gave last time and further information I received from Mr. Pinel that you are a corporation sole and that gives you a clear range of obligations and authorities but I do not think it requires you to be bound by a manifestly bad decision made by any predecessor in your office, so I think you have a clear run at being able to make a good decision on the basis of the information that you have before you now.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I accept that or I would not have initiated this review on the basis I have done if I thought I was unable to conduct it properly.

Dr. T Brain:

Therefore, I think it is reasonable to ask you to consider, not formally but informally, as you go through your decision-making some of the conclusions that you came to around the nature of the Moore inquiry and things that fell off it but I will not go into that in greater detail now. I have some observations to make about the nature of the Wiltshire Inquiry. I wrote to Mr. Moore on 20th February and I asked him on that occasion that I wished to understand from him what the nature of his investigation was and my critical sentence is: “Is it a management inquiry, a full discipline investigation, or a preliminary investigation?” After 3 months I did not think that was a staggeringly difficult question to ask or required much in the way of deliberation before I received an answer. The answer I got was: “I acknowledge receipt of it [that is my letter] and will respond substantively as soon as I have clarified one or 2 points of detail.” That email is dated 25th February. Firstly, if there was any certainty about the nature of this investigation it could have been given to me by return of post. The fact that we are 4 months into this process and there is no certainly as to the status of the investigation is a matter of some concern. If, however, there is clarity about the status of the investigation I do not understand why I did not receive a response. If the status of the investigation is that of a discipline inquiry then I have to I have grave doubts about the rights of Graham being protected. We are 4 months into the process and he has not received any clarification as to his status which he should have done, in terms of natural justice, human rights, and the disciplinary code itself. Now, unfortunately, I think we do have to enter into consideration of some of the facts that might have emerged from the investigation because it seems to me that a great deal of significance was played on the David Warcup letter of 10th November. That certainly does not have the status of a preliminary investigation. It amounts to a list of allegations. Now, it is clear from the David Warcup letter of 10th November that he had spoken to the Chief Executive in September about his concerns. If I understand the situation correctly he had not been in post for many weeks at that point. It seems also from the David Warcup letter that there was a further conversation with the Attorney General, and I quote: “Confidential matters as well as my concerns [that is the concerns of David Warcup] regarding the conduct of the inquiry.” It is not known what those confidential matters referred to are about, but the point is clearly there was an opportunity some 2 months in advance of the 10th November letter and the 12 November meeting with Graham to address any strategic management issues and if necessary address them. What was the Minister doing in those 2 months? Certainly, if they had been raised in the way of the Warcup letter of 10th November there would have been ample time for Graham to mount what I think we can simplify as a managerial defence. At the very least it would have offered some clarification and there would have been ample time for the Minister to take those clarifications properly into account before coming to any conclusion to suspend. The fact that nothing happened between September and November is a material failing of process. It would have been perfectly all right to have done that. It is permitted within the disciplinary code. For reasons which are now entirely obscure that opportunity was not taken with the result that Graham has been unnecessarily and disproportionately suspended; criteria that you advisers have advised you to take into account.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Indeed, yes.

Dr. T. Brain:

I did mention a moment ago that the Morris Inquiry established that in cases of suspension it is necessary that any suspension is proportionate to both the risk of the individual remaining at work and the seriousness of the allegation. The David Warcup letter represents a point of view. Until this week Graham has been given no opportunity to answer the accusations that have been made therein. None amount to a question of gross misconduct. There is no question of a breach of personal integrity, therefore the very least that should have been done in November was to have provided Graham with a reasonable opportunity to consider the accusations and make a response. He could, for example, in that time reasonably have sought the advice of his Staff Association and a detailed response could have been constructed and, to the benefit of all, prepared. No one denies the seriousness of the investigations into the historic abuse allegations that have taken place on the Island of Jersey, but the accusations in the Warcup letter do not amount to a correspondingly serious breach of discipline, even if proved. All of the points raised in the Warcup letter are capable of dispute and I repeat, had Graham been given more time in November he may well have been able to give a reasonable explanation. It is worth, I think, at this point, observing and emphasising that the investigation at Haut de la Garenne has never been a formal murder investigation. It is worth emphasising that because of the context which will follow. It is worth re-emphasising what the then Deputy Chief Officer, Lenny Harper, said on 31st July, and I quote: “For the moment it is unlikely that a murder inquiry will be opened.” I come back to other statements that Mr. Harper made on 31st July later. To re-emphasise, it is not the purpose of today’s proceedings, or my submission, to conduct a pre-trial review of a case that has not even been fully investigated and does not look like being fully investigated for several more months. However, seeing as such importance has been attached to the Warcup letter it is important to address some of the key points. I think it is fair to give you warning, Minister, that some of these matters may well be dealt with in more detail in the forthcoming judicial review. I will try and simplify some of the issues raised by David Warcup. The first one was that a Gold - Silver - Bronze command and control structure was not put in place. That is an important point raised by David Warcup. In fact, it is his first point and a cardinal point for much of what follows. I have to tell you that the institution of a Gold - Silver - Bronze command and control structure in the context of murder and major investigations is entirely a matter of judgment. It would not seem to me to be necessary in the circumstances of the Island of Jersey. It certainly does not represent a breach of discipline, or amount to gross misconduct. The inference is that a Gold - Silver - Bronze command and control structure would have been put in place in England and Wales under A.C.P.O. and N.P.I.A. (National Police Improvement Agency) major murder and associated crime investigation guidelines. In fact, the A.C.P.O. murder investigation manual 2006 only requires that a Gold group be created, not a Gold - Silver - Bronze command structure, if an investigation is also declared a critical incident. What the A.C.P.O. murder investigation manual does require is that a senior investigating officer is appointed and this Graham did; first in the form of a detective inspector, who ran the investigation for the first 18 months and then as the matter gathered seriousness, he properly reflected the seriousness and status of the forthcoming investigation by putting his own deputy in as S.I.O. (Senior Investigating Officer). I think this clearly emphasises the seriousness with which Graham approached the whole question of the historic child abuse inquiries and the Haut de la Garenne investigations in particular. Now, National Police Improvement Agency professional practice, and I emphasise professional practice, advice is that for the management of critical incidents the guidelines, the professional practice guidelines, provide assistance for policing, and I emphasise these words “in the United Kingdom.” It is contained on the inside page of the practice advice. This practice advice contains information to assist policing in the United Kingdom. So, there is no automatic transference from the practice advice of the N.P.I.A. in the United Kingdom to the States of Jersey. The introduction to that practice advice also states that it should be used by chief officers to shape police officers to ensure that the general public experience consistent levels of service. It goes on: “The implementation of all practice advice will require operational choices to be made at a local level in order to achieve the appropriate police response.” It will therefore be noted that the practice advice on critical incident management applies strictly to the U.K. However, even if it were to apply strictly to the States of Jersey it still requires adjustment and choices to be made at a local level. It does not remove the judgment of a chief officer or any other senior rank involved in the incident. Now, the N.P.I.A. practice advice was created in order to ensure that incidents which might become critical received an appropriately high level of response at their instigation. It can in no way be suggested or inferred that the States of Jersey Police underestimated, or understated, their initial or subsequent response to the emerging historic child abuse inquiry and the specific investigation at Haut de la Garenne. A critical incident is defined by A.C.P.O. as, and I quote: “Any incident where the effectiveness of the police response is likely to have a significant impact on the confidence of the victim, their family, and/or the community. It will be noted that the order of priority is the victim, the family, and the community.” Both the historic child abuse inquiry and the Haut de la Garenne investigation conspicuously put the needs of the victims and their families first, but they still had regard to the impact on the wider community, given the need to ensure that the chain of alleged abuse was finally halted and that the victims and their families were protected from threat and intimidation. The N.P.I.A. guidance goes on specifically to say that each incident must be assessed on its own merits. Those are the words used: “Each incident must be assessed on its own merits.” It adds, and I quote: “There is an obligation on chief officers to ensure that critical incidents are not only declared, when it is necessary and appropriate to do so, but also that the response is proportionate to the scale of the incident.” The response is proportionate to the scale of the incident. Respecting the command structure, the practice advice simply states that there should be: “Unambiguous command and control.” The N.P.I.A. advice does indeed allow for a tiered response at 3 levels; local, cross-border, and force. Crucially these are only suggested. That is the word used “suggested.” So, the tiered response is not a mandate, even within a manual that amounts only to practice advice and in which flexibility of decision-making is not merely permitted but encouraged and which explicitly applies only to the United Kingdom. The practice advice furthermore relates to the structures and circumstances of forces in England and Wales and would be manifestly inappropriate in circumstances which are as compact as those on the Island of Jersey. It should be noted that in the last H.M.I.C (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary Inspection) for the Island the matter of the arrangements for major investigations or critical incidents was not raised. Explicitly, it did not recommend the adoption or even the adaptation of any A.C.P.O. N.P.I.A. guidance or practice advice on major investigations or critical incident management. Therefore, the institution of Gold - Silver - Bronze and the command structure, in the circumstances of the historic child abuse inquiry and the Haut de la Garenne investigation is at most a matter of professional judgment, even argument, and certainly not a matter per se of gross misconduct which merits the imposition of an initial suspension or its continuance now. The second issue raised in the David Warcup letter is that key partners were not included at a strategic or operational level. There were sound operational reasons for not including key partners in the investigation, as suspicion had fallen on a number of senior individuals in both the departments of education and social services. The involvement of the N.S.P.C.C. (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) which Graham instigated, was a perfectly valid alternative. (3) The use of an independent advisory group was not effectively managed. It is a matter of record that the Attorney General viewed the involvement of an independent advisory group as dialogue with potential jurors and that he wanted the group disbanded on the basis that it was a U.K. structure with no proper place in a small jurisdiction and that its activities could be seen as prejudicial to a fair trial. I in no way invite a critique of the Attorney General’s decision, but I do ask you to observe that it can hardly be levelled as a reason for suspending or investigating Graham. (4) Although a media strategy was developed, it is clear that its application led to an unprecedented level of media interest and public concern. Having dealt with the Gloucester floods of July and August 2007, Minister, I can assure you that Chief Officers of Police are not in control of unprecedented levels of media interest or public concern. So, it is not really clear how this amounts to criticism of the Chief Officer. It certainly was his job to ensure that there was a media strategy in place and this he did. He can in no way be held responsible for the media circus that followed. (5) That there had been improper disclosures to the media and breaches of data protection. There is no suggestion that any of this is attributable to the Chief Officer, even if they have occurred, and it is the position of Graham that he knows nothing of any improper disclosures. He certainly did not sanction any. (6) Where inaccurate and misleading reporting did occur there was no evidence of any attempt to issue corrections. That is not the case and examples of correction can be given, although I would suggest that that is probably more appropriate for the investigation and any possible tribunal. (7) The adversarial and combative stance adopted by the S.I.O. was allowed to continue unchecked. This is entirely a matter of opinion and it certainly is not a disciplinary matter for the Chief Officer. It certainly does not merit something that would amount to suspension, but in that context I would invite you to consider some of the statements that were made by Mr. Harper on 31st July in this statement that was recorded by the BBC then. He said: “For the moment it is unlikely that a murder inquiry will be opened. It has so far been impossible to date the remains precisely. We are pinning our hopes very much on the process of carbon dating. The latest information we are getting is that for the period we are looking at it is not going to be possible to give us an exact time of death. The small number of bones that we have carbon dated up to now have given us different readings. On one bone we were told there was a probability that they died in 1650, but also a smaller probability that they had died in 1960. So, while that possibility does exist then you have to ask your question …” I could go on. This hardly sounds to me like a combative media statement. (8) Allegations in the media of corruption within the States of Jersey Police by the former S.I.O. have not been evidenced. The Chief Officer will plainly state that there is an abundance of evidence of serious corruption and malpractice in previous years. The reports of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary prior to his appointment described a failing force with significant problems of standards and performance. There is now a well-documented record of robust actions taken by the Chief Officer since his appointment to address and turn around this culture. (9) An absence of financial controls. This simply is not the case. The Chief Officer will assert that he was not the accounting officer in the States of Jersey Police. This is a matter of legal status, and that he did formally table financial issues to the appropriate accounting officers at fortnightly meetings. (10) Media reports have suggested that children have been murdered and buried at Haut de la Garenne. An assessment of the evidence casts significant doubt on this hypothesis. The evidence on which the searches were commenced was not strong and does not appear that there were grounds to commence a search of the home at Haut de la Garenne. I will refer you once again to that media statement of 31st July. But it is simply inconceivable that once information was received that a thorough search and excavation of the home at Haut de la Garenne was not carried out. To do otherwise would have risked justifiable accusations of a cover-up. (11) I paraphrase here. The scull that was supposed to be found was not a scull. The shackles were not shackles and the cellars were in fact voids under the floor. Some facts. It was a scientist that originally investigated the trench and it was that scientist who identified an item of remains as a scull. Initially, the Oxford laboratory that inspected that remain stated that it had extracted collagen which can only come from bone. Only later did they express doubts. The Chief Officer can in no way be held responsible for this chain of events and the eventual outcome. As regards shackles, it was builders interviewed by the media who stated there were shackles. As for the teeth that were found, a local orthodontist specified that the teeth were from children and that they could not have come from children that were alive. It was only later that U.K. experts offered an opposing view and indeed that opinion remains divided. I will go back to the Lenny Harper statement of 31st July. This is the BBC here: “Police have been investigating allegations of abuse at the home from the late 1940s onwards. Many witnesses have given evidence of sexual and physical abuse in the 1960s and 1970s but Haut de la Garenne was built as an industrial school in the late 19th century and Lenny Harper said it was possible the remains could date from that time, though the police have other evidence indicating that the remains were burned and efforts made to conceal them in the late 1960s or early 1970s.” This is a quote from Lenny: “So, while that possibility does exist then you have to ask, why should people go to all the trouble of moving the bones, of burning them at some stage, and of hiding them in a different place and then covering them up? We do not have answers to that and that is part of the problem” he said. (12) S.I.O. Harper was not effectively supervised. This is simply wrong. There is no issue that S.I.O. Harper was properly supervised by Graham Power and that he did so to the best of his ability, under the guidance of an A.C.P.O. advisory group which formed the function of a Gold support group in a critical incident in the United Kingdom. His evidence of supervision is recorded in notebooks, to which regrettably he does not now have access. Now, much has been made of the review of the 2 Metropolitan officers and that was the report, Minister, which you kindly offered to make available in a redacted form but for reasons that we have discussed is not now available to us. What I will say in respect of that though is that unless there are specific allegations of misconduct, indeed gross misconduct, contained in that report there is no reason why Graham should not have been shown a copy prior to his suspension on 12th November. Furthermore, the Metropolitan Police report is only one point of view. You are fully aware now that there are other reports by a very senior and experienced U.K. investigating officer which offers a different perspective. I repeat that these should have been considered before any action was taken to suspend Graham in November. That that opinion exists should certainly be taken into account now, for to do otherwise is simply to decide the case without the full consideration of all the evidence that is available to us even now and that cannot be right in terms of Graham’s human rights or the principles of natural justice. Now, the A.C.A.S., C.I.P.D. advice recognises that suspension should only be implemented as a last resort and after redeployment has been considered. That Graham is the Chief Officer is not a reason for not considering redeployment per se, or for not retaining him in an active post under restricted circumstances. It is not necessary to redeploy Graham to restricted duties as there is no reason to suppose that an officer of his high integrity and standards would interfere with an investigation which is already 4 months old. It should certainly have been considered back in November and should be considered now. I do not recommend it, as it is my view that Graham should be reinstated immediately to full operational duties, but it certainly is preferable to him remaining unnecessarily and disproportionately, and I would suggest now, unjustifiably, on suspension. I repeat Graham is an officer of high personal integrity and to suggest that he would interfere with the inquiry is not supported by any of the available information. The A.C.A.S. C.I.P.D. guidelines recognises that suspension brings with it an automatic stigma and to many an assumption of guilt. This effect is amplified in the case of a Chief Officer. Furthermore, the suspension must be taken in the overall context of the force and Graham’s strategic management of it. We do have to consider therefore what the most recent H.M.I.C. inspection of the Island said about leadership of the force and I will say that that inspection is overall a very, very favourable report. Believe you me, I have read lots of them. What it says about leadership is: “The Chief Officer group is forward thinking, proactive in terms of development of the force, and accessible to staff. They seek and utilise good practice from U.K. Forces in ways that are applicable to the operational context of Jersey and through effective dialogue and negotiation with local politicians, obtain finance and resources to maintain acceptable levels of service.” I would say that that report also had ample opportunity to consider the investigative methods and structure of both the historic child abuse inquiry and the Haut de la Garenne investigation, for indeed it took place only in the spring and summer of last year.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

If you could give us the date. So, it was summer ...

Dr. T. Brain:

Plenty of time for it to be considered. It had no adverse comments to make about it whatsoever. It did, however, observe that the investigation was taking place, but there was ample opportunity for that report which is the definitive document about assessing the status of the performance of this force to comment adversely on the inquiries and investigations themselves and indeed the strategic management. Not only did it not comment, you heard the glowing recommendation of the strategic leadership of the force in the leadership and direction section of that report; section 7(a) page 29. We would also like to draw to your attention a letter that was written by one of your predecessors. This is dated 4th January 2007. It is from Wendy Kinnard and it refers to a previous H.M.I.C. report and I will read it to you: “I just wanted to thank you for the excellent 2006 H.M.I. report. This is testament to your leadership and clearly shows that huge progress is being made in developing professionalism in the force and achieving high standards, including falling crime rates. The report highlighted that the significant improvements have been made under your leadership and which clearly demonstrate the drive and determination that you have instilled in your senior management team and throughout the force. Of particular note is the lead role taken by you in the drafting of new police law and emergency planning as well as striking that delicate balance regarding awareness of legal and political issues within the Island while simultaneously maintaining contact with the wider police environment to the benefit of our local force. Your personal style embodies the vision, values and standards we have come to expect form a modern go-ahead police force, fit for purpose for the new challenges ahead. The States of Jersey Police has achieved some outstanding results and the new methods and procedures introduced under your leadership have undoubtedly enhanced the performance and reputation of the force. Many thanks once again, and very best wishes for 2007.” The suspension of Graham is not justified in terms of the scale of the allegation or the threat he poses to the organisation. On the principles of the Morris Inquiry, and indeed of all the other criteria that you are considering today, he should be reinstated immediately. The strength of the accusations against him rest solely upon the David Warcup letter. Had he been given the opportunity to respond properly to the accusations contained therein in November we might not be here now, but we are. However, even at the level we have been able to examine the accusations today it is plain that there is considerable cause for doubt about the strength of those accusations. They do not amount to sufficient grounds to maintain his suspension. Taken into consideration of the Andre Baker Reports there are more than sufficient grounds for Graham to be immediately reinstated and that action should be taken now. Minister, I am grateful for you listening with such patience to my submission.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

No. Thank you very much. Very clear submissions. I am aware that my time scales were completely wrong on the last occasion. It always takes me longer and in fact I have more things to consider. I suspect, to allow myself time for lunch and proper time for consideration, I probably should be adjourned until about 3.00 p.m. What is your ...

Dr. T. Brain:

If I can help, Minister; I do not have a plane to catch at 5.25 p.m. tonight.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Right.

Dr. T. Brain:

However, I do have to be back at the airport at 4.45 p.m. That is my timetable.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Right. Well, let us try for 3.00 p.m. but I say it with trepidation because I may take longer.

Dr. T. Brain:

Would it be helpful if I gave Mick my telephone number and we will put it on, and if it is likely that those timings have to alter, you can ring me?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Yes. Okay, that is good.

Dr. T. Brain:

I will do that now.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

That is good. Thank you very much then. I will adjourn then until 3.00 p.m. unless I take longer.

Dr. T. Brain:

Thank you.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I suspect what will be the best thing for me is to leave all my papers here and to go across and have some lunch now and then come back and work on it in situ. Thank you very much.

Mr. G. Power:

Thank you very much.

ADJOURNMENT

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Okay, thank you very much. Well, I am now going to give a decision in relation to the review of the suspension of Mr. Power. The decision which I am making today is based upon Mr. David Warcup’s letter of 10th November 2008, omitting the section headed Metropolitan Police Review Interim Report, and also the use of that interim report as supporting the comments and opinions of Mr. Warcup, the Meaker(?) Briefing Notes of 12th November 2008, and the accompanying images and the submissions made to me today by Dr. Timothy Brain on behalf of Mr. Graham Power. Those are my primary sources of information. There are some matters in relation to which I have to make my own judgment and particularly in relation to issues such as whether or not there is public concern in relation to certain matters. That is only a matter that I can formulate my own opinion on. I have excluded the section Metropolitan Police Review Interim Report out of fairness to Mr. Power due to difficulties which I have continued to experience in relation to it being used for the purposes of this review; principally because of the great reluctance of the Metropolitan Police Office themselves to have this report used for this purpose, a reluctance which I have accepted. The criteria which I am applying are as follows. Firstly, are the allegations/circumstances sufficiently serious to allow the suspension of power under Article 92 of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 as dealt with under the disciplinary code of the Chief Officer of Police and, particularly, under section 2.3.3. to come into play prior to a hearing; in other words, to allow those to stand on their own? Secondly, is there sufficient credible material before me disclosing matters of sufficient seriousness to merit a disciplinary investigation? After some discussion as to whether such material should be credible or prima facie, I have chosen and prefer the wording: “sufficient credible material.” Thirdly, is it necessary and proportionate for me to suspend Mr. Power? I could have said: “to continue to suspend,” but, of course, by the nature of the review that I have undertaken, looking again at matters, in a sense I am making a decision as to whether it is now necessary and proportionate to suspend him. Fourthly, there are many criteria more complex. The normal criteria in Jersey is can the investigation, because of its nature and seriousness, be properly carried out with the person, in this case Mr. Power, actively in post, in the case of Mr. Power as Chief Officer of Police. However, Dr. Brain has brought to my attention other criteria in use in the U.K. and asks me to make reference to these as being fair and reasonable principles. Firstly, he brought to my attention the protocol for the implementation in England and Wales of sections 30 to 33 of the Police Reform Act 2002, section 21 of which says: “A senior officer should only ever be suspended from duty under sections …” and he quotes various U.K. sections: “where this is required for the maintenance of public confidence in the force.” Now, these are protocol notes, guidance notes if you like, in relation to the Home Secretary’s power of suspension. In the U.K. this exists in parallel with the power of the local police authority. There are, no doubt, criteria for suspension in relation to the local police authority but unfortunately I do not have those before me. It could be deduced that the Home Secretary would not normally act or would not normally use his power except where the local police authority have not done so. I do not know whether that is so but I conclude that the maintenance of public confidence in the force is probably, in the U.K., not the sole ground for suspension. Such matters of practice in another jurisdiction, of course, are not binding upon me in any way but I can take cognisance of them in terms of seeking to deal with the matter fairly. Secondly, there was what Dr. Brain referred to as principles arising out of the Morris Inquiry in the U.K. These principles would require me to look at the seriousness of the matters being investigated and the risk posed by the persons, in this case Mr. Power, in remaining at work and would also require me to consider alternatives to suspension. Thirdly, the question as to whether dismissal was a likely outcome. Dr. Brain agreed that this was part of the necessary and proportionate test. I am not, in fact, happy being asked to make a serious assessment of the likely outcome because that would involve me in seeking to prejudge that based upon the limited information which I have before me. I can only make the most general and preliminary assessment in relation to such a matter. I accept that if dismissal were unlikely, then that would be a highly relevant issue. The test here which I propose to apply is less than that of: “likely that will be dismissed,” and, in fact, most closely would be summed in a form of wording such: “A serious possibility of dismissal.” Fourthly, Dr. Brain quite properly brought to my attention the problems faced by chief constables who have been suspended for any length of time of returning. Mr. Power has now been suspended for just under 4 months and I have been told today, regrettably, that the Wiltshire Report is not now likely to arrive before the end of June - I had previously been told May - which would be 7.5 months. I concede that such criteria are particularly important in relation to ensuring that matters really are of sufficient seriousness to warrant the step of suspension being taken because of the effect which this has, of necessity, in relation to the credibility of a police officer in return to his duties. Now, if I put numbers 4 to 5 together, which is the remaining criteria - that is, after the first 3 - sufficiently serious to bring 2.3.3. into play after the submission of credible material and after the general necessary and proportionate test, if I put those together ... I accept a number of factors must be looked at together, although in fact these really, all together, come under the necessary and proportionate test, and those factors are this. Firstly, the likelihood or unlikelihood of eventual dismissal; secondly, the seriousness of the matters investigated; thirdly, the risk posed to the Wiltshire investigation by virtue of Mr. Power returning as Chief Officer while the investigation would continue; fourthly, the issue of public confidence in the Jersey Police Force. As I said, those, all together, seem to me to come under the test of necessary and proportionate. I come now to the core of the matter which is this. What is this disciplinary investigation about? The suspension letter to Mr. Power makes reference to a number of things. It refers to command and control structures in relation to the historical child abuse inquiry, Operation Rectangle. Issues are raised in relation to the terms of reference, to the possible lack of supervision of Mr. Harper, in relation to the forensic strategy, in relation to the decision that had been made that it is to be a single agency matter, that is police only, in relation to the command structure, in relation to strategic oversight and tactical plans, and in relation to inquiry parameters and financial controls. I am summarising the letter. The core underlying issues are also summarised in Mr. Warcup’s letter of 10th November 2008 under various subheadings; of Command and Control, Major Strategy, Financial Issues, Investigation Issues and the matters he lumps together under the heading of Haut de la Garenne. But, put at its simplest, the issues boil down to this. Was the historical abuse inquiry mismanaged, with resulting unnecessary adverse international publicity for Jersey and its people, difficulties in the conduct of resulting prosecutions and wasted expenditure? If so, then what responsibility does Mr. Power, as the Chief Officer of Police at the relevant time, bear for this? Put that way, the matter is no longer an issue of massive technical details but is a serious investigation of the professional competence and judgment of Mr. Power. That is how I see this investigation. Now, of course, there are factual disputes in relation to this matter. Dr. Brain went through the allegations of Mr. Warcup and dealt with these, quite properly, one by one. I understand that Mr. Power believes that he will be able to rebut each and every one of these allegations but I cannot make decisions at this stage on such matters. Even once I get the Wiltshire Report I will not be in a position to make decisions, other than perhaps to form any preliminary view, because to do justice to Mr. Power I must hear, in full, his account of matters. So I cannot take anything other than the most preliminary views. I turn now to the criteria which I have set myself. (a) Are the allegations/circumstances sufficient serious to allow Section 233 to stand on its own. My answer to that is yes, they are. (b) Is there sufficient credible material for an investigation? Yes, there is. (c) Is it necessary and proportionate to suspend Mr. Power? Now, I take this in bits. Firstly, the likelihood or unlikelihood of eventual dismissal. My view, without wishing to form any firm opinion, is that this is more than a serious possibility and is not unlikely. Secondly, are the matters investigated sufficiently serious? Yes, they are very serious and not just technical. Thirdly, the issue as to whether the Wiltshire investigation can properly continue while Mr. Power remains in post. I cannot see how the Wiltshire investigation, which involves the evidence of other police officers, all of whom are alleged to be very much junior to Mr. Power, can properly continue ... and which will also involve the use of police systems. I cannot see how this can properly continue while Mr. Power remains in post. He is the Chief Officer of Police and not some junior who can be moved across to some other section. Fourthly, public confidence. This is a major issue here. The November 2008 information led to great public concern about the management of the Haut de la Garenne investigation and, consequently, to great public concern in relation to the senior leadership of the States of Jersey Police, including that provided by Mr. Power. I, therefore, conclude that it is both necessary and proportionate for Mr. Power to remain suspended. Or, in fact, as I said before, I am making a decision as to whether he should be suspended as if I was making it originally, pending the investigation of these matters. Now, gentlemen, the matters I think we now could briefly discuss are these. Firstly, I think it is clear I am going to have to make a further statement in the House. I hope you understand the reasons for that. As you know, there was a major debate in relation to the conduct of this matter some weeks ago and, frankly, I must make a further statement. That then will allow Members who have taken considerable interest, as Mr. Power has, in this matter to ask me questions; although I will be bound by the confidentiality aspects of the original agreement in relation to that. So I am just mentioning that. I hope you understand why I have to do that. The whole process puts me in the uncomfortable position of both being a disciplinary officer and also still a Minister who accounts to the House. Secondly, it is a question of whether you wish to me to conduct a further review at some later date. Obviously, if I did, it would be based upon change of circumstances. I am genuinely concerned at the length of time which we are now talking about. That is 3.5 months away and I think when I first asked I was told I was going to get the report in March. March became May and now May has become the end of June. I regret that. It is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and I deeply sympathise with you, Mr. Power. That means the period that this will be hanging over you will be longer. It is never a satisfactory situation. I do not know if I can do anything about it. I am looking at Mr. Pinel but he is not nodding back in any comforting way. Obviously we need to try and pass that on.

Mr. M. Pinel:

My understanding, very firm understanding, Minister, is that Wiltshire expects to report by the end of June. All I can do is if you are ... you have said you are very concerned about this delay.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Well, I am, for all number of reasons. Yes.

Mr. M. Pinel:

I will report that back.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Please do that. I think that then just leaves over the matter of a further date. No doubt that is something you will need to consider. I appreciate that Mr. Power may now wish to pursue judicial review proceedings in some amended form and obviously that is entirely a matter for you, Mr. Power. Unfortunately we will find ourselves as adversaries in that matter if you do but there it is. So thank you very much, Dr. Brain. I must say you presented the case particularly well today.

Dr. T. Brain:

I am grateful, Minister. I trust you do not mind if I make a statement?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Yes.

Dr. T. Brain:

Thank you. I think you should look at your responsibilities about conducting future reviews. It is not necessary for us to require you to conduct a future review for you to review this case and I commend that course of action to you. Whether we require a further review will be dependent upon whether we think there is value in bringing these matters before you again.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Yes.

Dr. T. Brain:

What I would say is that I have had some difficulty, both on the previous occasion we convened and on this occasion, in discovering exactly what has been expected of me. I have been required to state criteria against what I think you should conduct a review on. I really do not think that is my job. I have done it because I have respected your role and the process that I am part of. I think it would have been much more helpful had I been given notice of that before I attended this morning. I am sure that is a matter to which Mr. Power will refer to in future judicial circumstances. Your summary today that this becomes a seriousness matter of mismanagement and Graham Power’s responsibility in it ... I did my best to paraphrase that at the time you were making it.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

You have paraphrased that.

Dr. T. Brain:

Again, it perhaps would have been helpful before we started this process to discover that was the essence of the test that you would have applied and indeed I would have endeavoured to construct my arguments around it. As it was, I was supplied with a limited amount of technical information that seemed to form the basis of the decision of 12th November upon which the previous Minister made his decision. It, therefore, struck me as entirely reasonable to construct a case around addressing those issues. To frankly discover that perhaps I should have been addressing something else is unhelpful at this stage and I must register my concern at that process. No doubt these are matters that now go beyond this room and they will be decided elsewhere. I am, nevertheless, grateful with the time and diligence which you have shown today and on a previous occasion and for the courtesies and kindness that you have shown us both at all occasions. But I cannot but register my concern about the conclusion to which you have come and indeed on the basis to which you have come to that conclusion. There are things that you do not appear to have mentioned today including, most significantly, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary Report which, if you are concerned about the general management or mismanagement of the force, I believe you should have taken into serious consideration. Thank you, nevertheless, for your time today.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Can I just comment ...

Dr. T. Brain:

If I may say one last thing, Minister? Of course, we shall be making a statement to the press ourselves; not, of course, concerning the confidentiality of the proceedings but their outcome.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Yes, okay. Can I just comment. I thought it was public concern that was the issue whereby ...

Dr. T. Brain:

Minister, I am sorry, you made several assumptions about the way the law is applied in the U.K. It is not for me to determine whether those were correct. They will be determined elsewhere now.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Yes, okay. That is fine. Thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen.

OPERATION END-GAME - GRAHAM POWER REPLIES -2

2012-02-19T11:27:00.002Z

Former Chief of Police Graham Power QPM

Operation End -Game 2

Former Chief of Police Graham Power replies.

What has unfolded here goes to the very heart of Government.

The closing down of a Child Abuse Investigation

The Illegal Removal of the Chief of Police

Before you read the response from the former Chief of Police, Graham Power QPM, I thought I would add a few words to what has been a stressful week.

These past three years have been nothing short of a roller-coaster ride. It is very hard to stay detached emotionally from the work I have been undertaking. What we, the Jersey Bloggers, have uncovered is corruption at the highest levels of government. There can be no doubt about this now. The evidence is out and published. What saddens me is the blatant bias of the Jersey mainstream media and yet no one is challenging it. No one is standing up and saying "enough is enough". Deputy T. Pitman is one of the very few courageous politicians that we have left. He, along with Deputy M. Higgins, could be our only chance of political representation in fighting this toxic mess. Yet we must not forget the very serious issue that this has stemmed from. We are talking about decades of child abuse going undetected in the Jersey care homes. This is why they do not want a committee of enquiry ("COE"). They are scared that they will not be able to control it and fashion outcomes that would be palatable to the general public. Let's be honest here, there has been a serious breakdown between all the agencies who have responsibility for children. This all stems from the removal of the former health minister and senator Stuart Syvret. The role played by the former Chief Executive, Bill Ogley, and the former Chief Minister, Frank Walker, must be examined to gain a picture of what was to follow. Those who live in a proper functioning democracy would be shocked to learn that this led all the way to the Chief of Police being illegally suspended and when we look at the facts and the evidence he was, indeed, illegally suspended.

So, what of the abuse survivors? Having spent decades living with their experiences of the Jersey care system, they continue to be marginalised by the States of Jersey government and its State sponsored media. On 1 March 2012, it will be one year since the COE was passed in the States of Jersey. Still we have nothing to say that this will be carried out any time soon. Chief Minister Gorst said it should be brought to the House in the first quarter of 2012. It now looks like that deadline is going to be missed. They simply do not want this COE. The fact that Sir Senator Bailhache of the feudal empire whose position is wholly conflicted is taking part in the meetings concerning the COE goes beyond the realms of any functioning democracy.

In 2008 Sir Senator Bailhache of the Feudal Empire was Bailiff and chief judge in the Island of Jersey. His brother, Not Yet But Hopes To Be Sir William Bailhache, was the Attorney General. These two brothers have more conflicts than the Middle East and are Jersey's answer to the Ewings; except we don't have a Bobby. We just have two JRs. Every big decision emanates from the Jersey Law Office. My hope is that the Jersey abuse survivors will get some form of justice and compensation for their suffering, not only whilst in care but also during the course of the scandal thats unfolding. What has been uncovered makes me sick to the pit of my stomach. The Jersey authorities, led by the Law Office, have committed the same grave and criminal acts that led to these decades of abuse in the first place. You simply cannot get rid of a Chief of Police without any due process and, lets be frank here, without due ANYTHING as the evidence shows without consent having been giving by the highest reaches of the Jersey Law Office. I simply refuse to believe that Bill Ogley could have or would have made such catastrophic decisions without the go ahead from the Attorney General or above. One only has to look at the actions of our present Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, to see what a farce this has all become. How this man has maintained his position is in fact more of a damning indictment of the States of Jersey than anything else.

The actions of the former Chief Executive, Chief Minister, Home Affairs Minister and not least the former DCO David Warcup have now been fully exposed the question that must now be asked is WHY!!!!!! WHY, did they do it?

Let us be under no illusion here, this is all about covering up the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation. Ogley and Walker did not wield that kind of power - Andrew Lewis put the kettle on and signed the required documents, he even managed to get that wrong, as will be explained by Graham Power below.

All leads Lead towards the LAW OFFICE. Having read through some answers given in the States it seems that the current Minister for Home Affairs, Ian Le Marquand, is very reluctant to say who is advising him from the Law Office.

Senator Le Marquand and the Law Office will be featuring heavily in the upcoming posts. If what went on with the gang of 4 was bad during the first suspension - then the second one is a Blast.

The actions of Senator Le Marquand are far worse than those of Andrew Lewis. Senator Le Marquand could have put an end to this madness but instead just carried on adding to it.

I would like to finish by saying that this has not been easy. I feel like I have acquired a new trade over the last three years; following my instinct and following the evidence. I would like to thank my readers the world over and fellow bloggers for their continued support in getting real justice for the Jersey abuse survivors and hopefully one day bringing true functioning democracy to Jersey. Please keep reading the post.

Rico Sorda

Team Voice

Here we have a reply fro the former Chief of Police Graham Power regarding his illegal suspension during a live investigation into decades long Child Abuse (Operation Rectangle)

I have been asked to provide more information on some of the events and issues which emerged after I was suspended from duty as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police on Wednesday 12^th November 2008. I understand that this is because both the “Warcup Letter” and the “Britton Memo” (sometimes wrongly referred to as the “Met Interim Report”) have been published and have attracted some comment and interest.

Regular readers will be aware that on 10^th November 2008 the then Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, David Warcup, wrote a letter to the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers, Bill Ogley, regarding what he claimed were the findings of an “Interim Report” by the “Metropolitan Police” in respect of the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry. It was claimed that the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis, saw the Warcup letter on 11^th

November 2008. On 12^th November 2008 I was called in from leave to see the Chief Executive and the Minister for Home Affairs and I was suspended from duty. The suspension was carried out without prior notice, without a hearing, without representation and without me being shown the letter on which the action was allegedly based. These events have been described in more detail in earlier postings.

I will now attempt to summarise some of the events which followed. For the benefit of international readers the term “Minister” refers to a person holding Ministerial Office in the Jersey Government. The Jersey Parliament is known as “The States” and members of that Parliament are referred to as “States Members.” Elected States Members can be Deputies, Senators or Connétables. The background to these events concerns “Operation Rectangle” which was an investigation into allegations concerning decades of child abuse in institutions operated by the Jersey Government. Many victims and witnesses alleged that some of the abusers and persons covering up the abuse were in positions of authority in the Island.

At the time of my suspension, and in order to comply with the law, the Minister for Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis, handed me three notices in the form of detailed letters telling me the suspension was to take immediate effect and there would be a disciplinary enquiry. During the meeting the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley, took written notes of what was being said. I said straight away that I would challenge the legality of the suspension and soon afterwards I gave written notice that I would be seeking a review by the Royal Court. I asked for a copy of the notes taken by the Chief Executive. I was told they had been destroyed. I was given what was claimed to be a typed record of the meeting which had allegedly been prepared from the handwritten notes. The typed document said things which were not true and left out things which were in my favour. I examined the three notices given to me at the meeting.

All were signed by the Minister for Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis and dated 12^th November 2008. The letter formally notifying me that I was to be suspended with immediate effect referred to matters which the Minister had allegedly discussed with me “At our meeting earlier today,” at which it was alleged that he had informed me that “I was considering whether you should be suspended from duty.” That was untrue. There had been no earlier meeting and I had been given no prior notice that suspension was being considered. I understand that nobody disputes this or has attempted to explain why the Minister falsely claimed in his letter that there had been an earlier meeting. The letter then goes on to say “I have now decided, in accordance with the terms of the Disciplinary Code and the provisions of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 to suspend you from duty.”

The most likely explanation for this discrepancy is that the Minister for Home Affair, Andrew Lewis, had been advised that the letter telling me that I was to be suspended should not be given to me straight away. He had been told to meet with me first and pretend to take account of any representations I made. He was then supposed to say that he would consider the matter, close the meeting and delay announcing his decision for a short while. That might enable him to claim he had given careful consideration to anything I had said. The next step would be for him to arrange for someone else to hand me the letter telling me that after considering the issue he had decided to suspend me. But he botched the job. He got flustered and gave me the signed letter telling me that I was suspended within moments of me entering the door, without closing the meeting and pretending to “consider” the matter. Hence I was given a letter referring to an earlier meeting which had never happened. It is also possible that he just did not allow himself enough time to pretend that he was giving the issue proper consideration. During the suspension meeting the Minister let it slip that the media conference to announce my suspension had already been planned for that afternoon and that a media statement had been drafted the previous evening. He therefore found himself attempting to keep to a planned order of events under time-pressure and he simply failed to cope. These are the best explanations I can think of for the reference in the letter to an earlier meeting which everyone agrees did not take place. Nobody, including the Jersey Government, has suggested better ones.

I also examined the presentation and content of the letters. They claimed that the Minister was acting upon information received on the previous day in the form of the Warcup letter. The implication of this was that the three letters had been prepared after the Warcup document had been received. I did not think that to be plausible. I came to this view following a consideration of the detailed and legalistic tone of the letters and my assessment of the abilities of those who would have been responsible for producing the documents within the timescale which was being claimed. In plain terms the letters were to complex, too legalistic and too “good” to have been produced in the time available by the people involved. I could not think of anyone at the heart of the Jersey Government who would have the ability to produce the three documents between the Minister seeing the Warcup letter on 11^th November 2008 and the suspension meeting on the morning of 12^th. It turned out that I was right in that assessment. But my efforts to confirm that suspicion revealed a great deal about the Jersey regime’s attitude to transparency, fair play and justice.

I served written notice on the Chief Ministers Department that I was requesting technical information from the government database regarding the times and dates on which the three letters were created. Under the States of Jersey Code on Access to Information I was not obliged to give any reason for this request but I nevertheless, at various stages, indicated that the information was needed by me to assist with my Judicial Review, my defence against disciplinary allegations and to test the integrity and reliability of those who may be witnesses against me. My application was fiercely contested by the then Chief Minister of the Jersey Government, Senator Terry Le Sueur, with the full support and representation of the Jersey Law Officers Department. The matter dragged on for almost a year and eventually went to a full hearing before a Complaints Board convened under the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982. The Chief Minister was represented by the Law Officers Department. I represented myself with the able assistance of the Connétable of St Helier, Simon Crowcroft. After a full hearing the Complaints Board found in my favour and said that the Chief Minister should release the information.

Once the Complaints Board had published its decision the information which I had requested almost a year earlier was finally disclosed on behalf of the Chief Minister. I received written details from a person responsible for information technology services for the Jersey Government informing me of when the three letters issued at the suspension meeting were first created. One of the letters, the one in which the Minister told the Chief Executive that he was considering disciplinary action, was first created at 1400 hours on 11^th November 2008. That was the day on which Andrew Lewis said that he first saw the Warcup letter, although elsewhere he had indicated that he was also influenced by a presentation he had received on the evening of 11^th, which casts some doubt on the credibility of the letter created at 1400 hours that day. If he did take a decision after seeing the Warcup letter then he did not take much time over such an important matter. However, in respect of the other two letters the position is more straightforward. The letter from the Minister telling me that he was starting the disciplinary process was first created at 0844 hours on Saturday 8^th November 2008. The actual suspension notice was first created at 0848 hours, also on Saturday 8^th November 2008. In other words the key disciplinary and suspension documents were created days before the alleged “Interim Report” had been received, days before the Warcup Letter was even typed and days before Lewis claimed that he had taken his decisions. It is also worth noting that under the Disciplinary Code the letter from the Minister to the Chief Executive is supposed to be the document which starts the process. Yet it was the last to be drafted. By the time Lewis recorded his decision on Tuesday 11^th November 2008 to ask the Chief Executive to begin the implementation of the Disciplinary Code the suspension notice had already been in existence since the previous Saturday.

“Bang to Rights” you might think. Surely the Jersey Government had been caught red handed. The most obvious interpretation of the known information was that the decision to suspend had been taken first, and the necessary documents prepared and checked by unidentified senior figures who were the real decision makers in this matter. After that task had been completed, others had been given the job of “finding some evidence” to justify a decision which had already been taken, and to produce a “cover story” to be agreed between the parties. Not so according to the then Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur. After the information regarding the times at which the letters had been created was disclosed he stated that the drawing up of the discipline and suspension notices in advance of the evidence being received was just “contingency planning.”

It is worth taking a step back and looking at the sheer implausibility of what we were being asked to believe in this explanation. We were asked to accept that on a Saturday morning in November 2008 senior staff in the Chief Ministers Department decided to come to work and prepare suspension notices for the Chief Officer of Police as a contingency for the possibility that the Minister for Home Affairs might want to take action on the basis of a report which had not been received and which neither they or the Minister would be allowed to see, and a letter which had not been written. Amazingly, some States Members appeared to believe this account. Some plainly did not. Led by Deputy Bob Hill a growing number of States Members decided that they wanted to know more, and they wanted to hear it from a more independent and trustworthy source than the Jersey Chief Ministers Department.

This led, early in 2010, to the appointment of Brian Napier QC to conduct a review and publish a report. This appointment was achieved in the face of reluctance by Ministers and some still unexplained watering-down of the terms of reference after the appointment had been agreed. By that time it was apparent that heads had been got together and it had been agreed that the “contingency planning” story could no longer stand up to examination. This was particularly the case once it became clear Napier would discover that the Chief Executive had spoken to the Solicitor General regarding powers to dismiss the Chief of Police on 24^th September 2008 and preparatory work for a suspension was underway in mid-October, (Napier report paragraphs 28 and 79.) So in making their submissions to Napier, Ministers and their allies came up with a third account of events. The “third version” claimed there had been concerns (albeit according to Napier not documented) which had been growing for some time and that these justified suspension when taken together with the Warcup letter. When asked by Napier on what basis these concerns had been formed it was said were “coming out in meetings of the Gold Group” (Napier Report paragraph 79) on which the Chief Ministers Department was represented. In exchanges in the States following the publication of the Napier report the Chief Ministers representation on the Gold Group and the (undocumented) negative messages which his representative was allegedly bringing to Ministers were used as a lifeline and were repeatedly relied upon by the Chief Minister and others.

But in taking this line other problems were created.

To begin with there were the written statements made by Andrew Lewis and others to the Wiltshire Police Disciplinary Investigation. These statements contained a legal declaration warning the person making the statement that it could be used as evidence in a Court of Law and if that happened a person who had said anything false in the statement could be prosecuted. Lewis and others signed to say they had been made aware of that possibility.

In his statement to Wiltshire, Lewis said “Up until I received the letter from David WARCUP I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” The statement made by Lewis was supported to varying degrees by the Chief Executive Bill Ogley and other members of the governing group. But according to the information revealed in the Napier report, Lewis and others, who included Ogley and the then Chief Minister Frank Walker, had been secretly meeting and communicating for months to discuss the means by which the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police could be removed from office. This is no longer denied by anyone. So the written statement made by the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis, to an investigation conducted by Wiltshire Police under the provisions of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974, gives a false and misleading account of how the Minister came to his decision. It is difficult to see how such a material inaccuracy could have been recorded other than with a clear and calculated intent to deceive readers of the statement, and to conceal from myself, my defence team, the Jersey public and States Members the true circumstances surrounding the unprecedented action taken by Lewis.

It might at this point be worth reflecting on what the reaction might have been had this revelation emerged in respect of me or Lenny Harper (my former Deputy who initiated the Historic Abuse Enquiry.) What would have been the reaction of Ministers had it become known that we had knowingly made false and misleading written statement to an enquiry of this nature? Or for that matter what might have happened had we been found to have destroyed the original notes of a meeting in an apparent attempt to prevent them being seen by the Royal Court as happened with the notes taken by Ogley at the suspension meeting? No doubt there would have been high-minded political condemnation and perhaps calls for prosecutions. The current Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian le Marquand, may have felt that it was his duty to spend one or two million pounds on an “independent report” into the matter which could then be launched in a public fanfare with no right of reply. As it was the revelations related to loyal and obedient servants of the regime so nothing happened. It was all quietly buried.

It might now be worth recapping on what is understood to be the stated position of the Jersey Government in respect of the justification for the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police during an investigation into long running child abuse in establishments managed by the same Jersey Government. As it is commonly understood, their third position, taken subsequent to the revelations in the Napier report, and after their first two accounts had been demolished by the evidence, is that the suspension was justified on two grounds. Firstly the Warcup Letter of 10^th November 2008 and secondly the evidence gained (but for some reason not recorded) in the preceding months. So it appears that there are two grounds said to justify the current Jersey Government’s position which might be summarised as follows:

The first of the two grounds is the Warcup Letter dated 10^th November 2008 which contains allegations of deficiencies in the command and control of the investigation, the pivotal allegation being “There is no evidence of a strategic coordinating group (Gold Group) which is required to set, review and update the strategy.” (Warcup letter third page.).......... AND:

Concerns which had built up over a period of months as a consequence of “information coming out of meetings of the Gold Group.” (Napier Report paragraph 79.)

Readers with a sharp eye for the customary rules of logic may have spotted that something is not quite right with this position. They are correct.

While the holding of two contradictory views at the same time is not an unknown feature of Jersey politics, readers might find this a particularly interesting example. The Jersey government position appears to be that the suspension was justified on grounds which included there not being a Gold Group, and also on the basis of negative evidence emerging from the Gold Group. Perhaps history will pass its own judgement on the ethical and intellectual qualities of those supporting this argument.

In order to remove any confusion, the true position regarding the Gold Group is as follows. The formation of a multi-agency Gold Group was considered in the early stages of the investigation. The problem at that time was that the detailed and far reaching nature of many of the allegations had not been fully assessed. There were a number of allegations which touched upon senior figures in government agencies. The establishment of a multi-agency group would have presented the risk of potential suspects or their associates having an oversight of the enquiry. The complications and risk of compromise which this would present were considerable. It was therefore decided that it would be unsafe to create a multi-agency group until the position clarified. After further assessment I gave approval for a Gold Group to be formed in the summer of 2008 and it operated from that time. This position is not accurately reflected in the Warcup letter, nor could it be if it was to serve its intended purpose. The Gold Group and other issues had to be presented in that letter as part of a crisis which required immediate and ruthless resolution. Had it been made clear that the Gold Group was an issue which had been identified, addressed and resolved some months earlier it would have been hard to argue that drastic action was justified. But that is now history.

In spite of all of the conflicting and contradictory accounts offered by the Jersey Government we can be sure of some things which have emerged from this issue. The facts of this story support a view that senior figures in the Jersey Government are willing to lie, to make false statements, to destroy evidence, to withhold the truth, to invent accounts and to cover-up for each other. And this is not a story about me. I am not a victim of child abuse. I do not have to seek justice from the very authorities whose conduct and ethics have been exposed by their actions in this case. It is no wonder that the survivors of decades of abuse in Jersey Government institutions have little faith in the Island’s political and legal system. If the regime will lie about one thing then they will lie about another thing. If they will destroy evidence in one case then they will destroy evidence in another. If they are willing to collude and cover up the truth in relation to one matter then they will do the same about other things. If the Jersey regime could do this to me and get away with it then think what they could do to others. Think what they could do to the victims of abuse. Think what they could do to you. Think about it.