Friday, 29 October 2010

Let’s put it to bed……not brush it under the carpet.


The new party line concerning the unlawful suspension of the former Police Chief Graham Power QPM is “it’s time this was put to bed”. Most of us agree with this statement, including Deputy Bob Hill, who has lodged a proposition P166/2010 in order to do this.

But there is a big difference between putting something to bed, and brushing it under the carpet. P166/2010 sets out to differentiate the two.

What the Deputy of St Martin appears to be trying to achieve with this proposition, is accountability, openness and to give our States Members the opportunity to show the public that they are not willing just to brush this stuff under the carpet anymore. If people in high places have acted less than honorably then they should be held to account.

The proposition gives our elected "representatives" to prove to their electors, and the island as a whole, the chance to restore some much needed faith and confidence in them. Will they take this opportunity, or will they carry on the good old "Jersey way? If they choose the latter, then Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur and Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand had better brace themselves for plenty more "ground hog days". There are far too many unanswered questions which leads to immense distrust of those involved. Put it to bed? YES. Sweep it under the carpet? There's no room left under there it can't be an opition.

It's time for Terry Le Sueur to show some real "leadership" and it's time for our elected "representatives" to compel him to do it!

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion -
(a) to request the Chief Minister to inform States members in a Report
presented to the Assembly, or in a Statement to the Assembly, of the
action he has already taken and the action he intends to take in respect
of the report dated 10th September 2010 into the suspension of the
former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police prepared for the
Chief Minister by Mr. Brian Napier QC (‘the Napier Report’) and, in
particular to provide information in respect of the following matters –

(i) what action, if any, the Chief Minister has taken in respect of
the destruction by the Chief Executive to the Council of
Ministers of the original notes he took during the suspension
meeting and what guidelines, if any, the Chief Minister has
issued regarding the records of suspension meetings in the
future;

(ii) whether he accepts the conclusion set out in paragraphs 45,
67, 72 and 107 of the Napier Report that action was taken on
a basis which was contrary to the advice of the Law Officers
and what action, if any, he has taken or proposes to take in
respect of that matter;

(iii) whether he accepts the conclusion set out in paragraphs 49–53, 55, 58–66, 107 and 108 of the Napier Report that the suspension process did not meet the requirements of the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer, issued under Article 9(1) of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 as part of the Chief Officer’s terms and conditions, and what action, if any, he has taken regarding the apparent breach of the process specified in the Code;

(iv) why there has been no formal presentation of the report to members and no opportunity to discuss the findings with the author?

(v) what training, procedural and other corrective measures, if any, he has taken in order to ensure that personnel issues, and in particular disciplinary issues, are managed appropriately in the future;

(vi) whether any disciplinary proceedings have been taken as a result of the findings of the Napier Report and, if so, to update members on the outcome of those proceedings;

(b) to request the Chief Minister to issue a formal apology to the retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police in relation to the failure of those involved, as identified in the Napier Report, to deal with the Chief Officer’s suspension in accordance with the procedures set out in the Disciplinary Code;

(c) to request the Chief Minister to present the Napier Report to the States in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 37.

DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN


REPORT

This report and proposition is not seeking a vote of no-confidence. Neither is it intended to invite Members to do anything exceptional or beyond the customary political process. It is intended to invite Members to formally require the Chief Minister to do what may be seen as an inherent part of his role. Namely, to account to Members for his actions as Jersey’s Chief Minister. Members are not being invited to condemn his actions. Members are simply being invited to compel him to do what is required of him within our political system. This request is brought as a formal proposition because, in spite of repeated requests, the Chief Minister has declined to discharge this responsibility on a less formal basis. It is hoped that the proposition may gain support from all sections of the House. Whatever divisions may exist from a political perspective, it is hoped that all members will see value in demonstrating their willingness to exercise this basic democratic function.

What is being requested is straightforward and simple. The Chief Minister is being asked to tell Members, and thereby the people of the Island, what action he has so far taken in response to the Napier report and what action he proposes to take in the future. In particular, the Chief Minister should state, in an unequivocal manner, what action he has taken, or now proposes to take, in respect of the actions of the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers. The Chief Executive’s role is not comparable to other positions in the public sector. Members may, for example, be told that it is normal for disciplinary issues to be covered by confidentiality. That may be appropriate in respect of most public sector employees. Members may, however, be prepared to agree that the position of Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers cannot be regarded in the same way as other public employees. His position as the most senior public servant in the Island is pivotal to the good governance of Jersey. It is not sufficient for the post-holder to have the confidence of the Chief Minister and his senior colleagues. That confidence must be shared by the wider political community and to some extent the public at large. And yet the Chief Executive cannot be accountable to States Members or the whole community. He is accountable to the Council of Ministers, led by the Chief Minister, and the Chief Minister is himself accountable to the States for his oversight of the Chief Executive’s role. That is how our political system works. Normally this arrangement operates with co-operation and goodwill. On this occasion, neither has been demonstrated by the Chief Minister and it is therefore up to Members to determine whether it will use its powers to compel the Chief Minister to operate within the customary process. If we are not so willing, then so be it. But should that be the case, then it would appear that our system of political accountability has broken down.

Members will be familiar with the report by Brian Napier QC relating to the suspension from duty of the former Chief Officer of the States Police, and some of the significant criticisms made in that report in respect of the fairness of the process, the evidence relied upon, and the extent to which the key participants appear to have acted contrary to the advice of the Law Officers’ Department. Unusually for a report commissioned on behalf of the States, Mr. Napier was not asked to set out specific recommendations for the future. Nor, we are told, will he be attending the Island to present his report and answer questions. From enquiries I have made, I understand it to be the clear position of both the Chief Minister and Mr. Napier that no such attendance will take place and no questions addressed to Mr. Napier in relation to his report will be answered. It is therefore for the States to determine the obvious issue of what we do in the light of the report. If failings are identified, what is to be done to address these failings and who is responsible to the States for ensuring that the appropriate corrective action is taken?

In normal circumstances this task would be addressed by a simple act of good management and leadership. The sponsor of the Report would be tasked with producing an action plan, setting out responsibilities and timescales, and Members could from time to time enquire as to progress. There is nothing remarkable about such a procedure. It is normal competent management of the public sector. What is, however, distinctly abnormal about the present situation is the apparent refusal of the Chief Minister to undertake any such process. When challenged on the actions he intends to take in consequence of the report commissioned by the States, the Chief Minister has commonly expressed a wish to “move on”. Members may agree that it is difficult to see how “moving on” can be achieved when so many issues are left hanging in the air. In order to achieve closure, issues must be addressed and resolved. “Moving on” and “hoping for it to go away” are different things. The former may be achieved with leadership and skill. The latter will not achieve closure, and will serve only to bring further discredit upon the Island and the conduct of its affairs. It is for this, and related reasons, that the proposition is brought. This saga has now been running for over 2 years at considerable financial and political cost. It has also caused untold disruption and suffering to the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, and there is anecdotal evidence that it has undermined the confidence of the victims and survivors of abuse in the operational independence of the criminal justice process.

All sides hope to bring this long-running issue to an end. In this respect I have a plan set out in this proposition. The Chief Minister prefers to hope for it to go away. It should be recalled that this is the same Chief Minister who denied the former Police Chief details of when the suspension letters were drafted, until, after almost a year, he was compelled to reveal the truth following a Board of Administration Appeal Hearing. However, it is for the House to decide which approach they most prefer to be associated.

It is not necessary for Members to go through the Napier Report page by page and list the matters to be addressed, although they are many. That is an administrative task. What, however, Members need to decide, is whether such a task should be undertaken and the results brought forward for consideration by this House.

I now turn briefly to the specific role of the Chief Executive and how the report impacts upon his position. Before I do so, it might be appropriate for me to remind Members of my particular role in relation to the Napier Inquiry. Members may recall that in January this year, in view of public concerns, I asked the Chief Minister toconduct a review of the suspension process. He responded by claiming that the review


was unnecessary as it was being undertaken by the Wiltshire Constabulary. This was never the case; and in the absence of any positive action, on 2nd February I lodged a Report and Proposition – P.9/2010 – in which I requested support for a formal Committee of Inquiry into the conduct of the original suspension. I anticipated that the Inquiry would be completed within 3 months and would cost in the region of £15,000. When it became clear that my proposition may gain support, the Chief Minister offered an alternative in the form of a review by a Commissioner. This would, according to the Chief Minister, be a quicker and simpler process. Members will recall that, by 26 votes to 21, my proposal was rejected in favour of the Chief Minister’s proposal. Members may also recall that, at the suggestion of the Chief Minister, I was invited to be party to the selection process in respect of the appointment of a Commissioner; and the Chief Minister also agreed that in addition to having oversight of the selection process, in which Mr. Brian Napier QC was subsequently selected, I would also be involved with the Chief Minister in reviewing the ongoing work of the Commissioner, the reporting mechanism and the reports themselves, including the Final Report to be presented to the States in relation to the Commissioner’s work. This was intended to give me access and an insight into the Commissioner’s progress and methodology which was not commonly available. It also placed upon me, in my assessment, a duty to Members to eventually offer a view as to the manner in which the Chief Minister’s Department has managed both the review and its consequences. I had, of course, hoped that I would be able to give an assurance that I was satisfied with all of the action taken. I regret, however, that I am unable to do so because I was not consulted in the watering-down of the Terms of Reference, and I have been denied access to any of the preliminary documentation and progress reports. It was only on 17th September that I was given the Final Report in confidence. It is right, therefore, that my reservations should be shared with Members.

In relation to the specific role of the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers, I do not believe that a detailed exploration of the relevant issues is necessary at this time. The following key points may, however, be of assistance to Members in coming to a view on how matters should now be addressed –

· The Affidavit of the former Chief Officer of Police is in the public domain and for Members’ convenience it is attached as Appendix 3. In part (d) the Terms of Reference as published in the Council of Ministers’ Comments (3) to my P.9/2010 it was intended that the Commissioner “would review all information relating to the original suspension procedure, including relevant sections of the published Affidavit from the suspended Chief Officer of Police.” However, part (d) was later withdrawn without any consultation with me or States Members. Members will note that in the sworn Affidavit the former Chief Officer describes a series of incidents which left him with a perception that the Chief Executive was seeking to politicise the role of the Chief Officer of Police. For the purposes of today it is of no consequence whether members accept that interpretation or otherwise. The point is that such a perception existed, that it was a source of tension, and that it may have carried into the consideration of the suspension process.

· It is now a matter of public record that the original record of the suspension meeting, at which the Chief Executive played a leading role, was destroyed by the Chief Executive. The former Chief Officer of Police has stated publicly that the audit-trail of correspondence appears to indicate that this destruction occurred after written notice had been given that an application was to be made to the Royal Court.

· Paragraph 45 of the Napier Report gives details of the advice of the Law Officers relating to the standard of evidence which would be required for a suspension, and in particular the warning given against the use of a report which was qualified in its conclusions. Paragraphs 69 onwards describe how this advice was not followed. In normal circumstances, an action by a senior public servant which is contrary to the advice of the Law Officers is regarded as a serious matter. Members may wish to consider whether there are reasons for taking a different view in this case.

· Paragraphs 55, 79, and elsewhere, give details of preparations for the suspension which involved the Chief Executive, and which were taking place around 2 months in advance of the suspension meeting. Mr. Napier says that there was “little objective basis” for such preparations (paragraph 80). He points out that the Disciplinary Code requires that concerns should be raised with the Chief Officer at an early stage and in the absence of any explanation from the relevant parties, Mr. Napier says “I do not know” why this was not done (paragraph 55.)

· Paragraph 70 describes how the Interim Report provided by the Metropolitan Police, which provided the justification for the suspension, was selectively used, and that key qualifications and reservations were omitted. Paragraph 93 describes how the key document, the letter from the then Deputy Chief Officer of Police was altered, apparently to strengthen its effect, and how nobody admits to making that alteration.

· Paragraph 107 describes how the Chief Executive failed to obtain a copy of the Metropolitan Police Report and how, in the view of Mr. Napier, he should have done so in order that the Minister could be properly advised.

· Overall, Mr. Napier concludes that the process was flawed, the requirements of the Disciplinary Code were not met, and that the principles of fairness were not observed. Mr. Napier is clear in his view that alternatives to suspension could and should have been considered (paragraph 108 and elsewhere). It is a matter of record that the flawed process set in chain a series of events which have resulted in substantial cost to the taxpayer. It is one of a series of highprofile, costly and seriously mismanaged disciplinary issues which have occupied the attention of Members over recent years. Members may wish to view the responsibilities of the Chief Executive in this context.

Against this background, members may consider it reasonable that the Chief Minister considers whether disciplinary action against the Chief Executive is appropriate. However, prior to this proposition, few Members will have been aware that such a measure has in fact already been considered. I became aware of this on a confidential basis on 27th September as part of my particular role, described earlier, relating to the Napier Inquiry. I agreed to maintain that confidentiality, and have continued to do so, in order that there was no undue prejudice to whatever may be determined.

Prior to the release of the Napier Report on 8th October, I had accepted that its release may be delayed due to the consideration of disciplinary issues. However, the delay caused understandable speculation, which led to a question on the matter being asked by Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier at the States Sitting on 12th October (referred to below in Appendix 1). As can be seen, the Chief Minister gave a very guarded answer. Since the Report’s release, I have been concerned at the lack of information regarding the progress of the confidential disciplinary matter referred to above, and I therefore engaged in an exchange of e-mails with the Chief Minister, some of which are also attached at Appendix 1. It will also be noted that I have, on a number of occasions, sought to obtain assurances from the Chief Minister that the matter is progressing, but he has declined to provide information. On 9th October 2010, I asked that he make a statement in relation to the report and produce an action plan (e-mail attached at Appendix 2) but he has failed to respond. I am therefore left in a dilemma. Do I allow myself simply to be “fobbed off” in relation to this matter or do I bring the issue to the attention of Members? I have decided on the latter course of action.

Members are invited to take the view that matters of such gravity at such a senior level must be dealt with in a way which can be seen to be transparent and accountable. To do otherwise would invite speculation which would do little credit to our political processes. It may also further damage the confidence of victims, survivors and witnesses. In the absence of a clear statement, and plan of action, from the Chief Minister, there will inevitably be speculation, much of which will be unjustified. For example, a belief could develop that the Minister reached a proper decision in relation to disciplinary action but was then somehow persuaded to change his mind. The occasional speculation that there is a “Government within a Government” overriding the democratic process will be encouraged. Such adverse consequences can be prevented by clear leadership, decisive action and transparency. I regret that our Chief Minister has declined to act on a voluntary basis. I now ask that Members require him to do so.

Financial and manpower implications

I do not believe there will be any financial or manpower implications for the States
arising from this Proposition.

APPENDIX 1

From: Bob Hill



Sent: 19 October 2010 21:03


To: Terry Le Sueur


Subject: RE: Napier Discipline action


Dear Terry,

Thank you for reply. I can take it that you have investigated the matter and have decided to take no further action. If that is the case why can't you inform Members?

Regards

Deputy F. J. (Bob) Hill, BEM.
 
 
From: Terry Le Sueur


Sent: 19 October 2010 20:58

To: Bob Hill

Subject: RE: Napier Discipline action

Dear Bob,

I made my position clear last week regarding disciplinary action. Herewith a copy of the answer I gave to Deputy Pitman in response to his question:

As far as disciplinary action is concerned, it is a matter that I will be dealing with through normal procedures.
Any individuals must be treated fairly and with respect
and I will apply the same level of respect as would be
given any other States employee. This being the case, I do not intend making any further statement on the outcome of any such procedures.

I have investigated the disciplinary issues and I have nothing further to add.

Terry.
 
 
From: Bob Hill


Sent: 19 October 2010 19:44

To: Terry Le Sueur

Subject: FW: Napier Discipline action

Good Evening Terry,

With reference to your email below. Three weeks have now elapsed and I am no wiser as to your position re disciplinary action. I have as ever respected your wishes for confidentiality and to hope to be able to continue do so. However this is dependent on an arrangement of mutual trust between us. Therefore I would be grateful for an update as to the position in relation to disciplinary action.

Regards

Deputy F. J. (Bob) Hill, BEM.,

Deputy of St Martin.
 
APPENDIX 2
 
From: Bob Hill


Sent: 09 October 2010 14:31

To: Terry Le Sueur

Cc: All States Members (including ex officio members); 103 (103); 'Channel TV'; JEP

Editorial; News (News); Radio Jersey (Radio Jersey); Spotlight (Spotlight)

Subject: Napier-- Next Stage

Good Afternoon Terry,

Thank you for releasing the Napier Report. Unfortunately due to the timing we did not hold a joint press release or allow for anyone to question Mr Napier on his findings. Perhaps that can be arranged. I also believe you should make a statement in the States on Tuesday. You commissioned the Report, its findings clearly show that Mr Power was unfairly suspended and is therefore entitled to a public apology. I believe your statement should include the plan of action that you will be taking against those responsible for breaching the requirements of the Police Force (States) ( Jersey) Law 1974 and the Disciplinary Code made under that law. Perhaps you will also wish to consider whether the States were at any time misled in relation to the sequence of events and decision making process which was applied in this case.

Regards

Deputy F. J. (Bob) Hill, BEM.,

Deputy of St Martin.
 
APPENDIX 3
 
Appendix 3 is the sworn Affidavitt of the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM which we (Team Voice) published HERE

Monday, 25 October 2010

Leaks, trust and Credibility.

After today’s announcement that Mike Bowron is the preferred choice of our Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian (P9-26) Le Marquand, to be our next Chief Police Officer very serious and very probing questions need to be asked of our “accredited” media.

These questions should go right to the very top echelons of the BBC, ITV and the “Independent” Press Complaints Commission, or whoever it is that are tasked with the job of watching over the JEP .

The Home Affairs Minister’s announcement raises many, many questions to the credibility and trustworthiness of our “accredited” media. Regular Readers/viewers of this site will be aware that we were provided with information, not only to the identity of the new (subject to States approval) Chief Police Officer, but the alleged “cover story” that enabled David Warcup to secure his pension, that the selection process was just a PR exercise, Mr. Bowron was “the chosen one” before the selection process had even commenced and  It enabled him (David Warcup) to resign before the Napier report became public and thereby claim that he was leaving because of political and Blog criticism.

After doing everything we could to substantiate the information we were given, we decided to publish it HERE.

NINE DAYS LATER the “accredited” media announce that Mike Bowron is “the chosen one”. It is a known fact that the “accredited” media read this Blog, and have in the past, used it as a source for their own news, but why not this story? So a few of the questions that need to be asked are “how long have they been in possession of this information?” How is it that they report it as “news” NINE DAYS after it appeared on here? Why wasn’t this information provided directly to them? And many more questions besides.

For now we’ll just concentrate on the “trustworthiness” of the “accredited” media, their credibility and that of Team Voice. If this information wasn’t given to the accredited media, then why not? Could it be that they could not be trusted with it? And Team Voice could? Let us just suppose they were provided with this information then we must ask, why didn’t they report it? Are they as “independent” as they claim to be? Were they “encouraged” by our powers that be to keep it under wraps? If so then how can they claim to be an independent media? Either scenario suggests that they cannot be trusted.


As for the credibility, we at Team Voice, believe ours has never been in question. That is because, to the best of our (somewhat limited in comparison to the “accredited” media) ability, we research the facts and rely on documentation to substantiate these facts. We do as best we can to only publish evidenced facts. By doing this and reporting “in-depth” on the more embarrassing (to our government) stories we have gained the trust of some very courageous, knowledgeable, trustworthy, and conscientious people from inside the very heart of our government/Civil Service. These contacts can not be thanked enough, they are taking a huge risk to their livelihoods, their pensions, mortgages and so forth in order to have the truth told. They are, along with the Abuse Survivors, the unsung heroes in this very dark period in Jersey’s History……But why are they not giving, or leaking, this information to the “accredited” and “independent” media?

Our source was right about the name of the successful candidate and it is reasonable to assume that they were also right about the other things in the same story. Or are we to assume that getting the name right was a lucky guess and the rest should be ignored? This is further evidence of how Ministers could be systematically lying to the public about these issues and how the "accredited” media are falling for it hook line and sinker, or are complicit in their party line and deliberately keeping the public ignorant. If Ministers are willing to lie and cover up about these things what else are they willing to lie/cover up about??   Can anything they say be trusted and can we believe anything the Jersey media repeats on their behalf?


It must be said that we (Team Voice) know little about Mr Bowron himself apart from what is available on the internet. From what we do know he appears to be a respected and capable officer and wish him well in his new position. However, his apparent (alleged) association with David Warcup and the "cover story" for Warcup’s departure is not a good start and we hope that Mr Bowron will take an early opportunity to assert his independence from the “untrustworthy?” political leadership of this island. We hope that he will strive to create a politically independent Police Force. We hope that he will also strive to rigorously pursue the perpetrators of Child Abuse and bring them to justice without fear or favour.


What (or who) must also be in serious question is the Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand. Regular readers/viewers will be aware that he gave the Wiltshire Report to the “accredited” media before he gave it to his fellow States Members as we reported, with geat thanks to Deputy Trevor Pitman, HERE, with a follow up
HERE

Despite all the promises made about keeping Members informed, he (ILM) has again failed to show respect to his colleagues. We have just checked the States website and there is no proposition lodged to appoint the next Chief Police Officer. Given the concerns about the Police Chiefs one would have hoped that ILM would have ensured that proper etiquette was followed and his fellow States Members wouldn’t have to learn about it through the “accredited” media…………..or on here!

The credibility, trust and independence of our “accredited” media are seriously in question. If any of it was in any doubt concerning Team Voice then this should now have been dispelled……………You heard it HERE  first.

Submitted by Team Voice..........A media you can trust.

Sunday, 24 October 2010

Balance



Although Team Voice (or any Blogger) are under no obligation to provide our readers with a “balance” to our publications, It is something that we actively encourage. We allow comments through that disagree with our opinion within reason. We don’t, however, allow comments through that threaten us and our children with death and physical harm.


We are very eager to stimulate debate on facts, evidence and documentation, and strive to have both sides of a story told. Unfortunately these (facts, evidence and documentation) are in very short supply when it comes to disproving our theories or opinions. So a small number of commenters resort to name calling and threats which we, for obvious reasons, won’t publish. We do however take on-board as much of the feedback we receive as possible, which is the subject of the e-mail (below) to Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian (P9-26) Le Marquand. We hope it goes some way to assure our readers that not only do we listen to their feedback, we act on it.

Alas the balance to our published items is very hard to obtain, and in particular, from Senator Le Marquand. For months we have been asking him to show us some “evidence” or “proof” that will explain how a piece of child’s skull containing 1.6 per cent collagen (only found in Mammals) can turn into a piece of Coconut. He has consistently failed to give us this proof or evidence, but more about that in an up-coming Blog.

The e-mail below is a result of a comment left on Rico Sorda’s Blog, as is explained in the e-mail itself. It was sent FIVE DAYS AGO and we have not even had an acknowledgement of it let alone any kind of a reply, but this is typical of our Home Affairs Minister and demonstrates the difficulties we endure in bringing our readers a balanced item.


from voiceforchildren voiceforchildren


to i.lemarquand@gov.je

date Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:58 PM

subject Balance.

mailed-by googlemail.com

hide details Oct 19 (5 days ago)

Senator.

After a comment being left on Rico Sorda's Blog asking "have you bothered interviewing any other copper" concerning Operation Rectangle/Haven etc. I had to concede that no we haven't bothered.

This is partly because I am as sure as I can be, had I attempted to request this, either the e-mail itself would have been ignored or the request. As it is I would very much like to interview the retiring Acting Chief Police Officer David Warcup. I'm led to believe that "coincidentally" he is off island despite the release of the Napier Report.

Mr. Warcup has come in for some criticism on the Team Voice Blogs, he obviously believes our Blogs are influential as he cites them as part of the reasons he doesn't want the job anymore. With the "influential sketch" in mind along with the "criticisms" that have been levelled at him on our Blogs, I/we (Team Voice) would like (very much) to offer Mr. Warcup an interview in order that he can put across "his side of the story".

This would serve a couple of purposes. Firstly it will offer our readers/viewers a more balanced picture, it will demonstrate that Bloggers do indeed offer a right of reply and are keen to have our readers/viewers as well informed as possible. It will also serve the purpose of Mr. Warcup, possibly silencing his critics, putting the record straight and defending his position.

I am happy to assure Mr. Warcup and yourself that the video will be published un-edited if you have the mis-placed reservation that it might be edited to suit our agenda.

VFC. (End e-mail)

Of course it goes without saying, that should Mr. Warcup agree to an interview we shall publish it as soon as. On the other hand, if he declines the invitation, then this will say more about Acting Chief Officer Mr. Warcup than it will Team Voice...............We're not holding our breath.

Submitted by Team Voice.

Thursday, 21 October 2010

Q and A “UN-REDACTED.”


For those of you who do still by a copy of the JEP you might have read the article(s) submitted by Diane (Shackles) Simon over recent days concerning the “Napier Report”.

Although it must be said that the recent articles did actually (uncharacteristically for the JEP) resemble fair, objective, accurate and impartial journalism, for that they must be commended.

However on page 4 of Tuesday the 19th Oct 2010 (two days ago) Ms Shackles Simon told us what former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM had to say about the Napier Report. This was as a result of 5 questions she had put to him. Some might think the questions were somewhat lame, non investigatory, perhaps even just a token gesture so the JEP could appear “balanced.” Or maybe I am just too skeptical.

Regular readers/viewers of Team Voice sites will be aware that Graham Power QPM has released a series of “briefing notes” to all accredited media which have been his responses and suggestions concerning the - paper thin - Wiltshire Report and the Napier Report. Quite why Mr. Power bothers giving these briefing notes to the “accredited” media is still somewhat of a mystery as they (the “accredited” media) appear to pay little or no attention to them. By comparison “un-accredited” (Team Voice) media have published every single word of every single briefing note.

In briefing note number 1 the former police chief said/suggested this “It is also sometimes necessary to read together paragraphs which appear in separate parts of the report. Paragraph 45 appears to say that the Law Officers advised that if a report from the Metropolitan Police was to be relied on for the suspension then there must be “no caveats or provisos” in the report. Paragraph 69 makes it clear that the report when received was in fact heavily qualified. Subsequent paragraphs show that the relevant parties pressed ahead regardless. The implication of these paragraphs, taken together, is that actions were taken contrary to legal advice”. Something, or yet another thing the “accredited” media appeared to take little notice of. So much so that in the first answer to Diane Shackles Simon’s first question, of five (re-produced below) the former CPO had to repeat it.

For clarity we re-produce paragraphs 45 and 69 of the Napier Report (which can be downloaded from HERE) as suggested by Mr. Power QPM…………even if the “accredited” media won’t.

We fully understand that the “accredited” media have to “paraphrase”, edit or redact publications and reports due to space or time restrictions. We are not in this instance saying that the JEP are not “entirely accurate” in their reporting, we are demonstrating that the “un-accredited” media are able and WILLING to give our readers/viewers an in-depth look into what is being reported so they are that much better informed when forming an opinion on the subject matter.

Napier Report – paragraphs 45 and 69.




45. Further advice from the Solicitor General to Mr Crich on 11 November emphasised the need for there to be objective evidence to support any act of suspension in advance of receipt of the full report from the Metropolitan Police. A file note made in the Solicitor General’s office records Mr Crich as saying, in the course of a telephone call that day, that Mr Ogley had said there would be a précis of the headlines of the [Metropolitan Police] report available on Tuesday and that Mr Warcup had also prepared his own review which would inform the decision making process. The note taker records a conversation in the following terms: “I said [to IC] that there must not be any provisos or caveats to the Metropolitan Police’s conclusions otherwise it would be potentially inappropriate to act [ask]” and that “I had advised that there must be strong and cogent reasons to justify action at this stage against the Chief Police Officer.”




69. It is a matter of record that the contents of the Interim Report from the Metropolitan Police were pivotal to the taking of the decision to suspend by Mr Lewis. The letter informing Mr Power that he was being suspended with immediate effect, handed to him in the meeting he had with Mr Lewis and Mr Ogley on 12 November 2008, makes reference to the Interim Report and contains excerpts from its contents. Mr Ogley, in interview, said that it would have been much harder for him to recommend (as he did) suspension in the
absence of the Interim Report. Yet that report was in heavily qualified terms. The report, in para. 1.1, draws the attention of the reader to the interim nature of the report, to the fact that it is concerned “to highlight initial findings and areas of concern” and that key individuals have yet to be interviewed. It expressly states that “any observations in this report may be subject to amendment.” It also makes it clear that “the cut-off date” for the review was 8 September 2008, thus excluding any conduct on the part of Mr Power after that date, and specifically anything concerned with the making of preparations for the press conference that took place on 12 November.

“Un-Redacted” JEP questions and answers to, and from, former CPO Graham Power QPM.

1. Do you think the report is fair and covers the main issues?

I think that the report is generally fair within the terms of its remit. It does however have to be read carefully for the full impact to be appreciated. Some very significant information is contained in the body of the text and it is sometimes necessary to read different parts of the report together to appreciate fully what is being said. For example, only by reading together paragraph 45 in conjunction with paragraphs 69 onwards is it possible to appreciate the extent to which the suspension was carried out contrary to the specific advice of the Law Officers.

1. How do you think the States should respond to Mr Napier’s findings?

I am reluctant to advise elected representatives as to how they should behave. However, the evidence from Napier is clear. A number of named individuals appear to have acted with deliberate unfairness, in breach of the relevant Disciplinary Code and contrary to legal advice. In consequence of these actions, well over £1m of public money has been effectively wasted.

It also appears that the States and the Public may have been misled as to the sequence of events leading to the suspension. These are serious matters. I imagine that States Members will initially want to know how Ministers intend to act in light of the report’s findings. It is for members to hold Ministers to account. If the issues raised in the report are not addressed effectively people will draw their own conclusions regarding the integrity of the Islands Government.

2. Do you expect some sort of apology and/or some other outcome?

The report is clear enough. The rules were breached and I was not treated fairly. In spite of a disciplinary investigation costing well over one million pounds and lasting nearly two years, no disciplinary charges were ever brought and no hearing was called. I have not been found guilty of any misconduct or mismanagement whatsoever in relation to the Historic Abuse Enquiry. I have been totally exonerated. Others now stand condemned. In these circumstances a full formal and public apology by Jersey’s Government would be entirely appropriate. Ministers should also issue a formal apology to taxpayers who have seen well over a million pounds of their money wasted on an unnecessary suspension and a failed disciplinary enquiry.

3. Would you have accepted taking an immediate leave of absence while a preliminary inquiry into the claims made against you was carried out?

And

4. If the Minister Andrew Lewis had spoken to you about his concerns sooner would you have given them very careful consideration and cooperated fully with the press conference to dispel some of the earlier claims made about the Haute de la Garenne excavation?

I think that these two questions overlap and I prefer to deal with them together. I cooperated fully with the media at every stage of the enquiry and intended to continue with that cooperation. I am not sure what is meant by “earlier claims” regarding the investigation. We all know that there were some lurid and exaggerated media claims which the Force did much to dispel, and certainly there was more work to be done in that regard.

I assume that nobody now believes the false claim that the Police said that there were “mass murders” or numbers of “buried bodies” at the site. If anyone seriously maintains that anything of that sort was ever said on behalf of the Force then it is down to them to either produce the relevant recording or transcript, or to withdraw the claim. It is however true that once the international media had withdrawn from the Island we were progressively putting forward a balanced and updated view of the situation. This was quite appropriate as more detailed forensic results became available which inevitably added to, or changed, the earlier forensic findings. Where differences between myself and others emerged were around the appropriateness of managing this evolving picture through the local media. I believed that local media organisations could professionally present the changing message and that it was not necessary and even ill-advised, to invite International News Organisations back to the Island, and present the changing forensic picture as sensational revelations. Others thought differently. The rest is history.

In relation to other areas of the questions, my position has been consistent from the very beginning. At the relevant time I was well past my retirement age and had been asked to stay on to support a handover to new management. Napier describes how the Disciplinary Code requires that the Minister for Home Affairs should raise any concerns at an early stage and how he breached that part of the Code. The report also makes it clear that under the Code there should be a preliminary consideration of the issues involving all parties before suspension is considered, and sets out in paragraphs 65, 107 and elsewhere how that part of the Code was breached.

Had the Code been complied with, I would have taken the opportunity to put my side of the case to the Minister and his advisors. In doing this, it is probable that I would have been assisted by my Professional Association and other experts. After detailed consideration of all options I would have acted in accordance with Professional and Legal advice in the best interests of the Force, the Island, and most importantly the survivors and victims of the Abuse. That entitlement was never provided so we do not know what advice I would have been given, and it is now too late to speculate how things would have turned out had the Minister and others acted properly.

The message from Napier is clear. The Minister and his advisors did not want conciliation, they did not want discussion, they did not want an agreed outcome and above all they did not want to observe the requirements of fair play and the rules of the Disciplinary Code. They wanted quick and ruthless action. The consequence has been that Jersey has experienced one of its most contentious, expensive and divisive disciplinary cases in modern memory, the consequences of which may continue for some time. The Napier report has exposed serious issues of competence and conduct at the highest levels of the Island’s Government. A disturbing precedent has been set. It is now down to those with the relevant responsibility to demonstrate that they can rise to the challenge which the Napier report poses for Jersey and its Institutions of Government.

Submitted by VFC.

Saturday, 16 October 2010

“The chosen one”

We at “The Voice" do not have the resources of the “accredited” Media. We cannot check stories out in the way that they can. However we do get supplied with a fair bit of information from people who admire what we are doing on behalf of the ordinary people of this Island.

Most of the information we receive is true, some isn’t. We just have to try and deal with the information as honestly as we can with the very limited resources we have. Below is a story about some information which we have received. From our research it would appear to be accurate, it came from a source, shall we say, close to the Chief Minister's Department. The same person, (whose correct identity we don’t even know), contacts us under a codename (very cloak and dagger stuff). They have always been right in the past. We do not know if their information is always accurate, but we do carry out research before publishing, or “go to press” as the “accredited” media would say!

Before we go further it is only right that we should acknowledge that not everyone who works for the government is a pawn in their game. Many are appalled by what is going on and some are brave enough to risk their jobs, pensions and mortgages to expose the truth. They are the unsung heroes of the public sector. Remember them next time you are tempted to condemn everyone who works for the States, there are some very “good apples” and we at Team Voice appreciate their work and courage.

Here is the information we have been given. We reproduce it as it was handed to us. Time might tell whether it is correct or whether we are being fed a false line.

Whether true or false the very existence of the story among the inner circles of government is an insight into how things work in this island.


Long before the final version of the Napier report was presented, key players were given an indication of its contents. The "powers that be" quickly concluded that David Warcup’s position as Acting Chief Officer and the next Chief Officer of the Force was untenable. So plans were made to secure his release under a "cover story" that he was leaving due to the activities of "nasty bloggers" and “hostile Politicians”.


So Napier was delayed until after August 2010, but why that date?? Because that was the date by which WARCUP would have achieved two years service in the Force and thereby qualified for a public sector pension based on his final salary (that of course being the Chief Officers Salary due to his Acting role.) But before resigning he had already lined up his chosen successor in collusion with the Minister for Home Affairs. That person was Mike Bowron, Commissioner of the City of London Police.

On the face of it that seems an implausible choice. The Commissioners post in the City is high status and high profile. It is also very well paid. Alas for the incumbents it is also of a fixed term which means that if another job has not been found before the end of the contract then the post holder has to retire. Unless of course they can have it both ways!!

Because Jersey is outside of the UK policing system it is possible for UK candidates to retire on pension in the UK and take up a Chief Officers Post in Jersey.

Whether he/she is right or wrong our insider gave the name of BOWRON as the next Chief before the selection process even started!!

Of course, in order to appear to be playing fair, the position was advertised and a number of people applied. Although our source tells us that once they had got wind of the real agenda a number of applicants pulled out in disgust. In any event, a "selection process" took place and we’re told that, to nobody’s surprise, BOWRON was "The Chosen One."

All of the above might or might not be true. But what we know to be absolutely true is that the "in crowd" are awash with the story. Will our source be right or will there be a surprise?? We will know soon enough.

It might be true or it might be false. But if it is true, then how come we knew about it before the “accredited” media did? Why do the Bloggers get these leaks, and not them? Are Bloggers, or Team Voice “trusted” more than the local “accredited” media? And if so why?

But then again if this information turns out to be wrong it can only be a "Procedural error"……………eh Terry?

Submitted by Team Voice and…………………….

Friday, 15 October 2010

"Entirely Accurate"



Readers/viewers will have to make up their own mind as to what, or who, is “entirely accurate” with their reporting. To do this we share some e-mail correspondence between Channel Television and Team Voice.


There is an argument to be had that the official – party - line (helped by the “accredited” media) is that Brian Napier QC, “concluded” in his report that there was no plot to oust the former Chief of Police Graham Power, therefore the public will swallow that stuff if it is repeated enough times, which it has been!

But the “facts” are quite different, but when have the “accredited” media allowed “facts” to get in the way of the party line?

We have redacted, or changed the authors’ names in the e-mails. On the part of the Team Voice representative, this is because of the death threats he has received, along with the threats of physical violence against him and the threats to harm his children because of his speaking out against Child Abuse.

In the case of the CTV representative, we have redacted the name, as we would like the issue to remain on a professional rather than personal level and would be reluctant to publish any personal attacks.

As you will note by the e-mails below, we at Team Voice believe that CTV have misled their readers/viewers by their less than factual/accurate reporting. On the other hand CTV believe that their report is “entirely accurate”………………………………what do you think?



to broadcast@channeltv.co.uk
date Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 2:42 PM
subject Misleading.
mailed-by googlemail.com
hide details Oct 9 (6 days ago)

Dear CTV.

We are contacting you in the hope that you will right a wrong.

On Channel Report last night Jess Dunsden said that “the Napier Report has concluded there was no plot to oust him” (Graham Power QPM). When the “fact” is Mr. Brian Napier QC, in his Report said “I have found no evidence of a “conspiracy” to oust Mr. Power for some improper reason".

The key word being “evidence”. There is, we are sure you would agree, a big difference between what was said By Miss Dunsden and the facts.

Furthermore we have noticed on your website you have published this “But the report has concluded there was no plot to oust the police chief” Again this is factually incorrect as explained above.

Either intentionally or otherwise your readers and viewers have been misled. This is evident in some of their comments that you have published, for example one commenter says this “I think the main point here is that there was no conspiracy to have him removed. This has been echoed throughout the Net for nearly two years now and its ended up being proven as a 'porky pie'.

To put this into perspective, if on the PDF Napier Report one types in the search of your reported words “there was no plot to oust” then there are no “hits”, that is to say that it doesn’t exist in that document. On the other hand if one types in the words “have found no evidence of a “conspiracy” to oust” then you are taken directly to paragraph 111 on the final page.

We very much hope that you will right this wrong, possibly by way of an apology, for misleading your viewers (intentionally or otherwise) on Channel Report and indeed as is evident on your website.

There are those of us that believe the reason Mr. Brian Napier QC. Was unable to find any “evidence” of a conspiracy to oust Mr. Power QPM for some improper reason, was because it looks like a part of his original Terms of Reference have disappeared, that being

(d) Review all information relating to the original suspension procedure, including relevant sections of the published Affidavit from the suspended Chief Officer of Police.


Moreover we believe there is a story to be had there, which we will be pursuing ourselves.

In conclusion there is evidence that your viewers/readers have been misled by yourselves mis-reporting the “facts” and we hope that you will apologise for this both on your website and on Channel Report.

Kind Regards.

Team Voice.

from Name Redacted.
to voiceforchildren@googlemail.com

date Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:25 PM

subject Re: Fwd: Misleading.
 
Dear VFC (name changed)

Thank you for your email. Our journalists paraphrase reports and information as part of their job. It is obviously important that this is done in a way that is clear and accurate. I have viewed the report to which you refer both in Channel Report and online and I am satisfied that the information in both stories was entirely accurate.

Should you wish to take your complaint further, you may contact the regulator, Ofcom, at

Ofcom

Riverside House

2a Southwark Bridge Road

London

SE1 9HA

Tel: 0300 123 3333 or 020 7981 3040

Or they may be contacted online through www.ofcom.org.uk

Yours sincerely, (name redacted)

from voiceforchildren


to CTV
date Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:43 PM

subject Re: Fwd: Misleading.

mailed-by googlemail.com

hide details Oct 11 (4 days ago)

Dear CTV (name changed).

Thank you for your response. We thought we had demonstrated adequately that at least one of your readers had been misled by your report on channelonline.

We maintain that "the Napier Report has concluded there was no plot to oust him"
is wholly inaccurate, as Napier "concluded" no such thing. With fear of sounding repetitious the words he (Napier) used were I have found no evidence of a "conspiracy" . therefore he hasn't "concluded" there was no conspiracy, he has "not seen evidence".

It is unfortunate that you are unwilling to have your viewers/readers (for the sake of a couple of words) that much better informed, and appear content with them to be somewhat misled.

Thank you for pointing us towards OFCOM but we have been down that route previously and have come to learn that it is a waste of time.

You might want to ask yourself, are the amount of Jersey Blogs/Bloggers any kind of reflection on the quality of local "accredited" media?

We have come to learn that rather than writing to OFCOM, our complaints/observations are better aired on our Blogs. With that in mind, we shall be sharing this correspondence with our readers/viewers.

Team Voice.

Wednesday, 13 October 2010

"Procedural Errors"

Secret meetings taking place as early as September 08 discussing the removal of the Chief Police Officer.


Contradictory statements by the then Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis. Letters being “redacted” (doctored?) to suit the agenda of getting rid of the Chief Police Officer. Hand written notes being destroyed. Pressure being put on politicians (by who?) to get rid of the Chief Police Officer, and many more anomalies.

Terry Le Sueur labels this/these as “procedural errors”. Brian Napier QC has seen no evidence of a conspiracy to oust the Chief Police Officer, but, according to Terry Le Sueur Mr. Napier QC doesn’t want to come over and present his Report. Perhaps the above, and below, will go some way to explain why Mr. Napier QC doesn’t want to come over to present his Report and answer any questions?

Is there any wonder that Terry Le Sueur wants to put this to bed?.........Is there any wonder that former CPO Graham Power QPM has no intention of this being put to bed?????????


The Napier report.


Briefing note 2.

This briefing note has been issued by Graham Power QPM, retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. It is intended to assist editors and others in addressing issues arising from the publication of the “Napier Report.”

“Procedural Errors.”


1. Following the publication of the Napier report the Chief Minister has said that the report had revealed a number of “procedural errors” in the handling of the suspension. This term was later repeated in the editorial of a newspaper. The Chief Minister used the phrase several times in the States on 12th October 2010 when answering questions. The tone and context in which the term was used have been seen as “playing down” the significance of the revelations in the report. It may therefore be of value to explore the nature of some of the matters which, in the judgement of the relevant Jersey authorities, can be described as “procedural errors.”

2. Before looking at specific issues it might be useful to make the point that the disciplinary process for the Chief Officer of Police is not a normal personnel process. It is set out in a Code made under the Police Law and is subject to review by the Royal Court. It is a legal process rather than a HR procedure. It is therefore appropriate to assess whether the actions of individuals meet the standard which a statutory process would normally involve.


3. In this context it may be appropriate to begin with the signed statement made to Wiltshire Police by Andrew Lewis, who was the Minister of Home Affairs who initiated the suspension. At the head of the statement the witness is asked to sign a declaration which says “This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything in it which I know to be false and do not believe to be true.”


4. In paragraph three of a statement dated 7th May 2009 Mr Lewis says “Up until I received the letter from David WARCUP, I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” In case there is any doubt on this point, in paragraph eight Mr Lewis describes his earlier meeting with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Homicide Working Group who were advising the investigation. He states that he was told by the group that the investigation “was a ‘shining example’ of how an investigation of this type should be run.” Napier confirms that the letter from David Warcup was received on 11th November 2008, but that planning for the suspension in the form of meetings and exchanges involving Andrew Lewis and others, was taking place in the previous September.

5. The Lewis statement sets out what is effectively the official version of events, namely that there were no concerns until 11th November 2008 when the letter was received from David Warcup. All previous suggestions that secret plans were in place months beforehand were dismissed as “conspiracy theories.” We now know from the information revealed in Napier that the “official version” of events was simply untrue. It is understood that nobody now claims that paragraph three of the written statement made to police by Andrew Lewis is an accurate reflection of the truth. Jerseys Chief Minister is quoted as regarding this as a “procedural error.”

6. There is also the question of the statement made in the States by Andrew Lewis on 2nd December 2008. This again, was a requirement of the Police Law and therefore had a legal status. The statement and the subsequent questions were in camera. I am aware that attempts are currently being made to obtain the release of a transcript of what occurred. For the time being we can only rely on the recollections of those present to provide an account of what was said. However, it is commonly recalled that Mr Lewis said something along the lines of “if you had seen the evidence I have seen then you would have acted in the same way.” We know from Napier that in fact he had seen very little evidence, and in conflict with the advice from the Law Officers, he had not viewed the interim document prepared by an employee of the Metropolitan Police. It is also commonly recalled that he gave the impression that he had formed his concerns on the basis of evidence received on 11th November 2008, when we now know that he had been engaged in discussions for a number of weeks but, in contravention of the requirements of the Disciplinary Code, he had not raised any issues with the Chief Officer. On this matter Napier says that he “does not know” why the Minister did not take an earlier opportunity to resolve issues (paragraph 55.) Until we have more information we cannot be sure whether, and to what extent, the States may have been misled, or indeed, whether other persons present on the day had information contrary to what was being said by the Minister and chose to say nothing. It appears that Jerseys Chief Minister regards such potential issues as “procedural errors.”


7. Other issues relating to the integrity of the process have been raised, either by Napier, or in earlier exchanges. For example the admitted destruction of the original record of the suspension meeting has been a matter which has been in the public domain for some time. The document trail indicates that this destruction happened after written notification had been given that the matter was to be the subject of an application to the Royal Court. In some jurisdictions the destruction of evidence prior to a Court hearing may be regarded as a criminal issue. In Jersey it is a “procedural error.”

8. Unusually, Napier gives details of the legal advice which was given prior to suspension. Paragraph 45 provides details of the advice, and paragraph 69 provides information relating to how that advice was acted upon. The implication of these paragraphs taken together is that action was taken contrary to legal advice. From subsequent public statements it appears that this interpretation is now widely accepted. It should be remembered that the actions of the then Minister, contrary to legal advice, resulted in public expenditure well in excess of a million pounds. In most jurisdictions this would be regarded as a grave matter with possible legal consequences for those involved. In Jersey it is a “procedural error.”

9. The Napier Report makes further revelations regarding the interim document prepared by an employee of the Metropolitan Police and its use in the suspension process. In paragraph 69 Napier makes it clear that the document did not meet the criteria set by the Law Officers for use to support a suspension. Paragraph 70 describes how parts of the document which suited the argument for suspension were selected for inclusion in a letter, and those parts which did not suit the argument, and which specifically ruled out its use on the basis of legal advice, were excluded. Taken together these actions amounted to a significant misrepresentation of the central piece of evidence used in the suspension process. A process which, for reasons given earlier, had the force of law. Furthermore, in paragraph 93, Napier describes how the letter was subsequently changed, by implication, to strengthen its effect. Nobody admits to having made such changes. These are matters which the Chief Minister regards as “procedural errors.”

10. In other sections of Napier he makes it clear that the Disciplinary Code was wrongly applied (paragraph 107.) That the decisions were unfair to the Chief Officer (paragraph 109,) and that alternatives to suspension could and should have been considered (paragraph 108.) Some of these latter actions might just, in fairness, be just capable of being described as “procedural errors.” However, readers of this document may be able to think of other expressions which may more accurately describe some of the actions set out above. In most cases “procedural errors” is not the first phrase which comes to mind.

12th October 2010.

Sunday, 10 October 2010

Napier Press Conference and long overdue apology?


Deputy Bob Hill has sent an e-mail to Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur and all States Members requesting a Press Conference be held so Brian Napier QC can present his Report and hopefully answer some of the many questions that arise from it.



We remember only too well the Press Conference and massive media coverage that followed the release of the Wiltshire Report. Where Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian (P9-26) Le Marquand dropped all disciplinary action against Mr. Graham Power QPM (without informing him…………or Wiltshire!). He (ILM) proceeded to give, the media (before States Members) the prosecution case against Graham Power QPM without publishing a single word of Mr. Power’s 75,000 word defence……………And still hasn’t!


Mr. Graham Power QPM and his advisors believe, that if Ian Le Marquand had have given them the opportunity, then they would have “torn apart” the prosecution case. Maybe that’s what ILM believed also, and that’s why it never got to the disciplinary stage? We may never know……..or will we??????????


So we await Chief Minister Le Sueur’s response to the Press Conference, and now we move onto the (long overdue) public apology to Mr. Graham Power QPM.

There is little doubt that he has been treated worse than a criminal. He has, by the Chief Minister, and others, been denied access to evidence that would have strengthened his case. He’s been denied the right to a fair hearing and has been subject to a Kangaroo trial by media. His reputation and his totally unblemished (up until Jersey) career trashed.

So come on Chief Minister, it’s your move, are you finally going to do the right thing, Give us the chance to question Napier, apologise to the former Chief of Police and hold those to account for their mis-handling of his wrongful suspension? (Dismissal by stealth).

E-mail from Deputy Bob Hill to Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur.

Good Afternoon Terry,


Thank you for releasing the Napier Report. Unfortunately due to the timing we did not hold a joint press release or allow for anyone to question Mr Napier on his findings. Perhaps that can be arranged.

I also believe you should make a statement in the States on Tuesday. You commissioned the Report, its findings clearly show that Mr Power was unfairly suspended and is therefore entitled to a public apology. I believe your statement should include the plan of action that you will be taking against those responsible for breaching the requirements of the Police Force (States) ( Jersey) Law 1974 and the Disciplinary Code made under that law. Perhaps you will also wish to consider whether the States were at any time misled in relation to the sequence of events and decision making process which was applied in this case.

Regards

Deputy F. J. (Bob) Hill, BEM.,

Deputy of St Martin.

Friday, 8 October 2010

Napier - Initial observations from Graham Power QPM.


The long awaited Napier Report has finally been published. Without having read it all I will not offer my conclusions or thoughts on it just yet. But Team Voice, in the coming weeks, will be examining its contents and trying to discover, among other things, how the Terms Of Reference in the final Report managed to change from those it was supposed to begin with and who in the Chief Minister's office, or elsewhere, might have/could have "doctored" them?

As was the case with the Wiltshire Report, unlawfully and unfairly, suspended former CPO Graham Power QPM has not been kept informed, by the Jersey authorities, of the development(s) concerning the Brian Napier QC Report. However he has now been able to obtain a copy, and after an initial reading of it, has sent out, to the "accredited" and "unaccredited" media, his immediate thoughts and observations in a "briefing note".

As former CPO Mr. Power QPM has published this as "Briefing note 1" we must assume there will be more to follow!!!

Although there are many sentences or paragraphs I could highlight from this briefing note here are just two that stand out.

"The case against me was based on the evidence of a number of key witnesses whose credibility is, to say the least, seriously damaged by the revelations in the Napier report."

And to show that he has not lost sight of who the most important people are in all of this, and credit for him for doing so, he says this.

"Finally, I should at least record my hope that the inevitable controversy in high places which will follow the publication of the Napier report does not divert attention from the people who are the most important in the whole affair, namely the survivors and victims of the sexual abuse which took place in institutions managed by the States of Jersey, and who were denied the chance of justice for decades before the commencement of “Operation Rectangle.”


The “Napier Report”


Briefing note 1.

This briefing note has been prepared by Graham Power QPM, retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. It is intended to assist editors in reporting on the “Napier Report” which I understand has just been made available to the public. The observations below are based on an initial quick read of the report. I have not been provided with a copy, or indeed any relevant information, by the Jersey Authorities. In no particular order my first observations are as follows:

1. Para 45. It is unusual for there to be a public release of advice given by the Law Officers, but editors may find the information in this paragraph particularly revealing. Its presentation is also consistent with the style of the report which sometimes does not “flag up” key pieces of information but rather leaves them for the carful reader to discover in the text. It is also sometimes necessary to read together paragraphs which appear in separate parts of the report. Paragraph 45 appears to say that the Law Officers advised that if a report from the Metropolitan Police was to be relied on for the suspension then there must be “no caveats or provisos” in the report. Paragraph 69 makes it clear that the report when received was in fact heavily qualified. Subsequent paragraphs show that the relevant parties pressed ahead regardless. The implication of these paragraphs, taken together, is that actions were taken contrary to legal advice.

2. Paragraphs 55 (particularly the second half) and paragraph 79. These appear to state that a resolve had formed “at the highest level of the administration” to pursue the suspension of the Chief Officer and that this resolve had been formed as early as September 2008, perhaps two months before the “decision” was allegedly taken. Editors may feel that this contradicts what has been for almost two years the “official version” of events, namely that the decision was taken following the receipt of a report on 11th November 2008.

3. Paragraph 80. Following the above the author refers to preparations for suspension which were taking place in October 2008. In Mr Napier’s view there was “little objective basis” for such preparations.



4. Paragraph 73. This paragraph records the denial of Andrew Lewis that he was coerced in taking his decision to suspend by the then Chief Minister, Frank Walker. However, editors may find it helpful to read this paragraph in conjunction with paragraph 22 which records the observation by Lewis that he was “coming under a lot of pressure from his fellow politicians.” Also relevant is paragraph 44 which refers to a meeting on 3rd November 2008 which was to discuss the possibility of suspension. The persons present were Bill Ogley, Ian Crich and Frank Walker. Andrew Lewis, the only person with the power to suspend, was not present. This appears to run contrary to the claims made in paragraph 73.



5. Paragraphs 66 to 68. These paragraphs cover some of the ground which was debated during the Judicial Review hearings and give support to the view that once he had been suspended from duty it was highly improbable that the Chief Officer would return to work. Or to put it plainly, what was being considered was effectively dismissal. It may be useful to read these comments in conjunction with paragraph 82 which records that once Mr Warcup had submitted his letter in support of the suspension process, his position would be untenable should I ever return. Mr Napier does not explore whether the letter was written against a background of any assurances on that issue. It would however seem unlikely that the matter was not discussed or at least considered.

6. Paragraph 97 refers to, but does not entirely resolve, the reference in the suspension documents to a meeting “earlier today” when it is now agreed by all sides that no such meeting happened.

7. Paragraph 98 raises but is not able to resolve the conflict between the different versions of the “interim report.” During the disciplinary enquiry I was provided with a document which was said to be the document provided to Mr Warcup. It is a memorandum written by a civilian employee of the Metropolitan Police which expresses heavily qualified personal views some of which are positive and some of which are critical. It makes no claim to be a corporate document written on behalf of the Metropolitan Police as an organisation. The document shown by others to Mr Napier, although containing the same words, is apparently packaged and presented as an official Metropolitan Police report. At this time I choose not to speculate further on this matter.



8. Paragraph 101. This might usefully be read in conjunction with the above. In it Mr Napier tactfully, but nevertheless plainly enough, challenges the confidentiality of the “interim report.” This is important because it was apparently on grounds of operational confidentiality that both Andrew Lewis and Bill Ogley were denied sight of the report, in apparent conflict with the advice of the Law Officers Department. Editors may also recall that over one year after the suspension the current Minister for Home Affairs also stated that he had not seen the report on similar grounds. I have a copy of the report. There are no operational issues in the report which cannot be managed by simple redaction, and in any event, operational matters were not the issue in question. The relevant part of the report deals with management issues which have no particular sensitivity. Mr Napier appears to be unable to find any serious justification for the full report being withheld from the Minister and nor can I. This difficulty may of course be capable of being explained away. However, in the absence of a credible explanation there will inevitably be speculation. It is probable that this speculation will involve discussion of whether the full report “lives up to” the claims made in the selected summary on the basis of which Andrew Lewis claims to have acted. The implication in the Napier report is that it does not.

9. Other issues in the report are self evident and I will not comment in detail at this time. The report plainly states that a resolve to suspend was formed during a number of secret meetings and exchanges over a period weeks, or even months before the “official” decision was taken. It states that the Disciplinary Code was wrongly applied, it states that there was insufficient evidence to justify suspension and that other solutions could and should have been attempted. It is clear in stating that I was treated unfairly. The report is right to state that I was subject to a number of allegations, but in the event none of these allegations came to anything. There were no disciplinary charges and there was no disciplinary hearing. All disciplinary action was abandoned after a period of over a year and a half and well over one million pounds of expenditure. I have always denied any misconduct or mismanagement whatsoever in relation the Historic Abuse Enquiry and I still do. If I had been given a chance to put my case to a proper independent hearing then I expected to be exonerated. The case against me was based on the evidence of a number of key witnesses whose credibility is, to say the least, seriously damaged by the revelations in the Napier report. I commenced duty as Chief Officer of the Force with an unblemished record. I retired with that record intact.

10. Finally, I should at least record my hope that the inevitable controversy in high places which will follow the publication of the Napier report does not divert attention from the people who are the most important in the whole affair, namely the survivors and victims of the sexual abuse which took place in institutions managed by the States of Jersey, and who were denied the chance of justice for decades before the commencement of “Operation Rectangle.”



Friday 8th October 2010.

Submitted by VFC.

Thursday, 7 October 2010

Napier Report Immenent (5) Double Standards?

With all the rush to criticize Lenny Harper and Graham Power QPM, It would appear that those criticized in the Napier Report will not be subjected to the same rush, treatment,  standards or media attention.


The e-mails below are once more self explanatory and are the next in the chain recently published by Rico SordaTeam Voice will endeavour to keep readers up to date with any developments as they happen, or not, as the case may be.


From: Terry Le Sueur

Sent: 07 October 2010 08:35
To: Bob Hill
Cc: All States Members (including ex officio members)
Subject: RE: Napier Report Response

Dear Bob,


I acknowledge that this process is taking longer than any of us would have liked. However I am determined not fail at the last hurdle by being pushed into a course of action which might prejudice the whole outcome. That is why I do not wish to publish the Report before the resolution of any disciplinary issues, and neither, I am sure, would you.

I will alert you as soon as I am in a position to publish the report.

Terry.


from Bob Hill


to Terry Le Sueur

cc "All States Members (including ex officio members)" ,

Channel 103 ,

Channel TV ,

JEP Editorial ,

JEP Newsdesk ,

BBC Radio Jersey & Spotlight TV ,

"Spotlight (Spotlight)"

date Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM

subject RE: Napier Report Response

mailed-by gov.je

Dear Terry,


Publication of the Napier report and any related disciplinary action.

Thank you for your email below and for addressing the matter so promptly. I think that it is clear that we are now both agreed on the need to publish the report and also to address any disciplinary issues which arise from its contents. Where we appear to differ is on matters of timing and the sequence in which the necessary actions need to be taken.

It might be useful to remind all parties that the report refers to actions which took place in November 2008 and which have already been subject to significant examination and comment, both in the Royal Court, the States, and the Media. I think it improbable that, as Chief Minister, you will find much information in the Napier report that is new. I take it as given that over the previous two years you will have made yourself familiar with the sequence of events which the report now addresses. What is now new is that these events are described in a form which is reader-friendly and which sets out a number of observations and conclusions, none of which will come as a great surprise to those who have been following the case. I am also aware that the final signed-off version of the report has been in your possession since 13th September 2010.

I have of course been in possession of the final version of the report since 17th September on a confidential basis as part of the arrangement which was established prior to Napier being commissioned.

In our recent exchanges you have repeatedly urged me to desist from publishing the report on the basis that you are considering disciplinary action in light of what it reveals and that you do not wish any disciplinary measures to be prejudiced. In this morning’s exchange you ask for further delay on this basis. Our most recent exchanges have been copied to other States Members and there is now significant media interest in the report and your anticipated response. Unsurprisingly, I have been urged by some to publish the report immediately regardless of the consequences. Equally, it has been suggested to me that I am in some way being manoeuvred into a position in which my decision to publish will be used as an excuse to abandon disciplinary action for which you and fellow Ministers have no genuine appetite or inclination. I have had to give some considerable thought to these conflicting pressures and have tried to decide what it best in the public interest.

In considering these matters I have researched my files on the relevant events and it is clear that there are precedents which indicate to me that the prejudicial risk may not be as significant as you suggest.


For example, you will be aware that in August and September 2009 the local media featured a series of interviews with the retiring Senior Investigating Officer, Mick Gradwell, in which he criticised the management of the enquiry prior to his appointment. The interviews received extensive coverage and were widely interpreted as an attack on the conduct of Mr Harper and Mr Power. Lawyers representing Mr Power’s Professional Association wrote to the then Solicitor General (now the Attorney General) protesting at the apparent prejudicial nature of what had been disclosed. The Solicitor General replied in a letter dated 7th September 2009 said “it is not accepted that the statements of Mr Gradwell would be prejudicial to the fairness of any hearing concerning Mr Power.”


You will also recall that on 21st March 2010 the current Minister for Home Affairs spoke on the local BBC “Talkback” programme. During that programme he made extensive reference to the report by Wiltshire Police spoke of alleged criticisms said to have been expressed in that report. About the same time the Minister gave a detailed interview to the JEP relating to the Wiltshire enquiry and the disciplinary proceedings against Mr Power, which were still live at that time. In a leading article the newspapers showed a picture of the cover of the Wiltshire report and commented on its anticipated contents. In subsequent exchanges both yourself and the Minister for Home Affairs denied that any prejudice had occurred.

If the above precedents are followed it would appear that the dangers of prejudice arising from a publication of the Napier report may have been over-stated.

In light of all of the above I have had to decide which course of action on my part would best serve the public interest at this time.

After some thought I have decided to provide you with a further opportunity to complete your consideration of any disciplinary issues and would hope that you can do this before the end of this week. I am however alert to the fact that the States are sitting next Tuesday (12th October 2010) and that questions on the matter are inevitable. I think that it is realistic to say that, whatever the complications; the next States sitting is effectively a deadline for us both.

I hope that this letter is useful in setting out a timetable for events and that any outstanding considerations can be completed within the next few days.

Regards

Deputy F. J. (Bob) Hill, BEM.,

Submitted by Team Voice.