Thursday, 21 April 2016

Adrian Lynch. (The "Official Line" Questioned)

On the night of the 4/5th of December 2015 twenty year old Adrian Lynch disappeared in the Carrefour Selous area of St Lawrence Jersey. Adrian had attended a works Christmas party at the Merton Hotel. He is STILL missing. What Team Voice will be looking at in these Blog Postings is the efforts of the States of Jersey police to find him. Have they done enough? Are they doing enough? Does their official line make sense?

There was an initial large scale search of the surrounding areas but this, according to reports, didn't turn up anything. One of the questions that must be asked is why there hasn't been an Island wide search? We must also remember that the dogs apparently didn't pick up any trace/scent of Adrian.

Here is a list of Adrian's movements on the night in question, the search area, and the last sighting as published in State Media.

Last Known sighting was at 2.17am on the 5th December 2015

Jersey Police have released more details of his last known movements, saying he could have been calling at houses on Rue Du Douet de la Rue.
His last known sighting has also changed; a homeowner saw him on Clos de Devant around 2am, after previous sightings of him at Bon Air Stables.
Below are details of all the known sightings of him from midnight on Friday evening.

0:00 - Adrian is dropped off by a taxi at the junction of La Rue and Ruette D'Avranches.
0:00 - Adrian spoken to by a driver just South of Carrefour Selous.
0:00-0:30 - Two further potential sightings in the same area of Carrefour Selous.
1:00 - Seen by a member of the public in Rue de la Golarde.
1:10 - Seen by a homeowner on Rue de la Gorlarde.
1:30 - Possibly knocking on doors on La Rue du Douet de la Rue.
1:30-2 - Sightings in the area of Bon Air Riding Stables by two witnesses
2:00 - Seen at Clos de Devant, seen by homeowner

Are we saying that in Jersey a person can go missing, there is a week long search, and then that's it? All the reported evidence could point to possible foul play. He hasn't been found lying in a hedge, field or in a barn seeking shelter (shelter from what exactly?) from a mild winters night when he could have just gone home. Where is the public concern? Why haven't the Jersey Media asked the police for answers to the real questions?

Team Voice member Rico Sorda has published 5 Blog Postings on the disappearance of Adrian Lynch. The links to these can be found below. He (Rico) was brave/bold enough to suggest foul play back in December 2015. You can find quotes from the States of Jersey police on these postings.

Adrian Lynch still missing DAY FIVE

Adrian Lynch still missing DAY 7/8.

Adrian Lynch still missing DAY 13/14

Adrian Lynch still missing DAY/31/32

Adrian Lynch still missing DAY 35/36

What concerns Team Voice is that the States of Jersey Police (and State Media) are still peddling the misadventure/hypothermia line. If that is the case why haven't they found him? How could a 20 year old fit boy die of hypothermia in such mild conditions and conceal himself so well that he can't be found?

On the 12th April 2016 Detective Chief Inspector Lee Turner released the below statement that appeared on State Media.

"Jersey Police are appealing to islanders to allow them to help search their outbuildings for missing Jersey man, Adrian Lynch.
Detective Chief Inspector Lee Turner, who is leading the investigation into Adrian’s disappearance, has issued an offer of police help for anyone living within a 2 km radius of Carrefour Selous.
It's now been four months since the 20-year-old went missing on his way home from a work party."

"It’s very possible that Adrian sought shelter that night, perhaps with the intention of lying down to rest and concealing himself for warmth. A large number of outbuildings (sheds, greenhouses, garages etc.) have been searched by police and partner agencies within the designated zones during the extensive searches, in the weeks after Adrian’s disappearance. Many people have already checked their properties themselves, however, due to whatever reason, such as physical impairment for example, some property owners may not have been able to satisfy themselves completely that they have looked as thoroughly as they would have liked.
This offer also applies to any neighbours of unoccupied or derelict sites which they believe may not have been checked."(END)

Surely the police must know what has been searched and what hasn't been searched? They must surely have a list of anyone who has been away for the winter months? These properties normally have a neighbour who would keep an eye out on everything.

"Lying down and concealing himself for warmth"

Really. I mean really???? He has been walking around the Carrefour Selous area for 2hrs 20mins. When Team Voice walked it on a cold winters day we found that you warm up quite nicely. How about the recent reports of two fisherman who were elderly and in the water for 4hrs holding onto their boat? They didn't die of hypothermia. Two pensioners have got the fitness and strength to hold onto an upturned boat for four hours and don't die of hyperthermia yet, according to the police, a 20 year old possibly died of hypothermia walking in country lanes for a couple of hours?

Readers might recall, in November 2013, six fisherman, were rescued from the northern isle "The Ecrehous?" One of the fisherman, Jason Bonhomme, was in the water for five and a half hours, wearing no survival clothing. The sea conditions were horrendous that night, with gusts of up to 64 knots coming from the South. Jason, in 2013, was forty years old (twice the age of Adrian Lynch). Jason told us, when he was eventually rescued, that his core body temperature had plummeted to 27/28 degrees. He explained that the normal core body temperature is 37 degrees, if/when your temperature hits 30 degrees (if not before) you will die of hyperthermia. His core temperature was 2-3 degrees below that and he, it must be said, "remarkably" survived and in such treacherous conditions. Yet the police are telling us somebody half his age could have died of hypothermia, fully clothed, walking the lanes of a country parish on a mild winters night? It doesn't make sense!

The police are also telling us that Adrian could have sought shelter, under a bush, or in an out-building/shed. What could he possibly have had to shelter from? It was a mild night.

From the State Media reports we have seen, the police seem to be ruling out any third party involvement/abduction/murder. How can that be ruled out? To a lay person it makes more sense than the hypothermia/shelter line.

On 13 April 2016 ITV/CTV broadcast, what many see as an insensitive, and distasteful, "news" item concerning the abilities of Jersey police sniffer dogs. In a four minute article, they demonstrated how effective the dogs are by getting one of its "journalists" to hide behind a bush and the dog finding her. Not once during the broadcast was the name Adrian Lynch mentioned. Not once was the question asked; "if the dogs are that good how come they haven't found Adrian?" The (distasteful) "news" item can be seen HERE.

Once more the "official line" of events just don't stack up and some serious questions need to be asked of our police (who, as a force, haven't reportedly been externally reviewed since 2008)

There is a 20 year old boy/son/brother still missing in Jersey and his family deserve answers, they deserve some kind of closure. The public deserve answers.

The media needs to start challenging the official line instead of promoting it. The official line, as mentioned above, doesn't make sense. Adrian's family and the general public deserve better than this from our police and media. Questions need to be asked/answered.

Sunday, 3 April 2016

Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry Transcripts. (Andrew Lewis Part Three)

former Chief Police Officer
Graham Power QPM.

In November 2008 the then Home Affairs Minister, and current Chairman of Public Accounts Committee, Deputy Andrew Lewis, controversially (possibly illegally) suspended the Chief of Police while his force was investigating  (Operation Rectangle) decades of concealed Child Abuse in State run institutions and elsewhere in Jersey.

As part of our "transcript Blogs" we are currently looking at the transcripts of Deputy Andrew Lewis. These are the transcripts of those who have given evidence to the on-going Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry (COI).

In this, part three, publication we continue attempting to determine how credible Deputy Lewis' testimony to the Inquiry is......or isn't.

For those who have been following this story you will be aware that the law required Deputy Lewis bring a statement to the parliament after suspending the Chief Police Officer. He suspended the Chief Officer on the 12th November 2008. He brought the statement to the parliament on the 2nd December 2008 so plenty of time to get his story straight one would expect?
Clearly this wasn't the case and has been well documented since so no need to repeat it in this posting.

Today we look at why Deputy Andrew Lewis believes (or tried to convince the COI) thirty of our politicians voted against releasing the Hansard of the in-camera (secret) States Debate when delivering his statement regarding his suspension of Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. 

Deputy Mike Higgins.

Deputy Mike Higgins, on 23rd May 2012, lodged a proposition asking the parliament to make public the Hansard of the 2nd of December 2008. The proposition was debated on 26th June 2012 and can be read HERE. Both the December 2nd 2008 debate and Deputy Higgins' proposition were held in-camera (secret)

Deputy Andrew Lewis looks to be attempting to convince the COI, and public, that the reason thirty politicians voted against Deputy Higgins' proposition to have the December 2008 Hansard released was because those thirty politicians weren't confused over what he meant when discussing a preliminary/interim report. Deputy Lewis, in the transcript below, seems to be of the impression that those thirty politicians knew he was talking about "The Warcup Letter" (that he never mentioned during the December 2nd 2008 debate) and not the Metropolitan Police preliminary/Interim report. (which he did mention on a number of occasions)

We produce this part of the transcript here.

Counsel to Inquiry Cathryn McGahey QC questioning Deputy Andrew Lewis:

Can I stop you there. Where in this States debate (2nd Dec 2008) had you already said that this was information from Mr Warcup?

That's the issue, ma'am, and you're correct, I have not mentioned Mr Warcup, but then why have members later on said "It is very clear that Mr Lewis is talking about Mr Warcup's letter"? Why are they saying that? That's a matter of record in Hansard.

How do you think that they deduced that you were talking about Mr Warcup, bearing in mind you did not refer to him once?

Well, you have to ask them, ma'am. 30 of them felt that. That was the vote after that debate (26 June 2012), so you would have to ask all of them..............

The full transcript of that Public Hearing can be read HERE. The excerpts published by VFC can be read HERE.

So Deputy Lewis has (under oath) told the Public Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry:

"but then why have members later on  said "It is very clear that Mr Lewis is talking about Mr Warcup's letter"? Why are they saying that? That's a matter of record in Hansard."

We searched the Hansard of 26th June 2012 debate using the quote used by Deputy Lewis; "It is very clear that Mr Lewis is talking about Mr Warcup's letter" That term DOES NOT exist in the Hansard search we did.

What we did do, also, is to read the Hansard of those who voted against Deputy Higgins' proposition to discover if (as Deputy Andrew Lewis seems to think) those who chose NOT to release the December 2008 Hansard voted against the proposition because there was no confusion and that those thirty politicians knew he (Deputy Andrew Lewis) was referring to "The Warcup Letter" that was NEVER mentioned in the November 2008 debate...........Yeah, I know!

Out of the thirty who voted to keep the December 2008 Hansard a secret, we counted only ten of them spoke.

We reproduce extracts of that Hansard below in order to demonstrate our point that if any of the thirty politicians thought "It is very clear that Mr Lewis is talking about Mr Warcup's letter" They did not say those words, and even if there were those that believed (despite Deputy Andrew Lewis never mentioning any "Warcup letter" in the December 2nd 2008 debate) the Deputy was referring to it then this was NOT the sole reason as to why they voted to keep that Hansard a secret.

Selected excerpts from Hansard from June 26th 2012 debate:

Bold emphasis added by VFC.

(Then)Deputy James Reed said:

“……….I do not know, necessarily, what the former Minister for Home Affairs at the time exactly what he was referring to but it is quite likely that the report that he was referring to was, indeed, the summary that Mr. Brian Napier acknowledges was contained in a letter sent by Mr. Warcup to Mr. Ogley on 10th November. So if that is the case, we are going to have extreme difficulty in determining whether the report that is referred to which, indeed, was a summary, presumably reflected the main points of the interim report and it was that which was relied upon, rightly or wrongly, by those at the time to determine the actions that they took.”

Didn't know what he (Andrew Lewis) was referring to. VFC.

Deputy Steve Luce said:

“I do not feel that I am going to be able to support this proposition. The proposer has given us a reasonable sized document to read and to new Members here who have not had the benefit of sitting in the last House, this is all new. We are trying to listen to the debate, read the document at the same time and then pass judgment that has been well made. I do not think I can do this justice in the period of time we are going to be here.”

Didn't have enough time to make a decision. VFC.

(then) connetable Phil Rondel said:

“No matter what is being said here by my colleagues today, I am having difficulty in saying that I could support this because I have not had all the evidence.”

Lack of evidence. VFC

                                      Deputy Rod Bryans said:

 "I feel that I understand what Deputy Higgins has brought to this Assembly. But I am very concerned and I support what the Deputy of St. Lawrence and the Deputy of St. John has said, it seems now that there are 2 germane documents that seem to be missing and that is the summary provided by Mr. Warcup and the actual interim report itself. Because if these 2 things marry-up and look very similar and the content is germane to the whole situation, then there is not, as the Connétable of St. John says, that to me seems, as he said, in the middle of all of that situation with it in full flow you would have to make your decisions as you go along and although I totally understand where Deputy Higgins is coming from, I think those 2 documents would now have to be discovered by certainly the new Members who have not been party to all of this and so I could not support this motion.”

Missing documents. VFC.

Senator Philip Ozouf said:

"I do understand the frustration of Members but I think that we are not in a position to be able to release information that was collected and expected to remain in camera, I think as a matter of principle. The Deputy believes that the former Minister has said something incorrect. I do not know. I am in the same position. I was in the debate. I simply do not know. The difficulty is that I do not think that we can publish a transcript because it reveals also other Members’ questions which they had a legitimate expectation that would remain secret."

It, for Senator Ozouf, was a matter of principle that secret debates should stay secret and he simply "didn't know" if Deputy Andrew Lewis said something "incorrect." (misled the parliament). VFC.

Deputy Richard Rondel said:

“What I am hoping is that people that were there do speak and advise us exactly that happened because it is very difficult to look at all this information in a short space of time and make a judgment.”

Hasn't had time to look at all the information. VFC.

Connetable Juliette Gallichan said:

“But if you simply read the transcript and understand the way that the Deputy of St. John expressed himself habitually and how you knew how his mannerisms, et cetera, were, he says: “I saw a preliminary report” as if I was given some information at the beginning. It is not, necessarily, I would put it to you “the interim report” and if we are hinging the entire possibility of changing the way we look at in camera debates and the release of transcripts on the interpretation of a couple of words, I think the Assembly does itself no justice at all and I really was expecting a more cataclysmic revelation from Deputy Higgins than what he has given, and from that point of view I really am at a loss as to how we justify the trade-off between our tradition and something that Members have come to rely on as being very important even though it is to be used extremely sparingly, i.e. the in camera debate. We have no way of knowing unless we talk to the former Deputy of St. John exactly what he meant by that ……..”

No way of knowing what Deputy Lewis "meant by that" and wanted to uphold the Jersey tradition of secrecy. VFC.

One must also keep in mind that Connetable Juliette Gallichan is the former Chairman of Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) who has questions to answer herself HERE and HERE. Why she was not called as a witness to the Child Abuse Inquiry is still a mystery.

(Then) Senator Ian Le Marquand said:

"The second approach is that where there is any debate of a matter that individuals who contribute to the debate must have the right to expect that what they have said in camera will remain in camera and remain confidential and that is a very important principle that should not be overturned, and the effect of this proposition is to do that. I have found this extremely difficult because I understand both those principles. I think the first principle is right. That is a reason why the statute requires these matters to be in camera and I think the second principle is probably right as well; Members should be able to trust that what was in camera remains in camera."

Although in the full Hansard Ian Le Marquand believes Deputy Lewis, it is not the sole reason for upholding the secret Jersey Way as he explains above.............It's about secrecy as well.

Ian Le Marquand has a number of questions to answer also. Not least from HERE.

(Then) Deputy Sean Power (or what ever his real name is) said:

It is not specific in this text as to what he is referring to and he refers on the bottom of that page, which is the fourth page that we have, he refers to it again. He says: “I believe if this preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal.” So, again, he is referring to a report, which is a synopsis or some sort of briefing situation because I am quite sure………”

He goes on further to say:

“Again, we have this vagueness as to what he is actually referring to in using the words “preliminary report” and Senator Le Gresley has referred to that. Then on the bottom of page 4 he refers to the fact that: “I am purely acting on information contained this time in a report.” He does not even use the words “preliminary report” and we do not know what the source of that report is, we do not know where it came from, and we are not sure who prepared it.”

Self explanatory.VFC.

Senator Philip Bailhache.

“……and now we are asked to agree that the transcripts of an in camera debate be released so that the reputation of a former Member can be dragged in the dust. We are asked to do this on the flimsiest of evidence and without hearing what the former Member has to say about it. I agree with the Senators Le Gresley and Le Marquand and I am not at all persuaded that there was an attempt or an innocent misleading of the Assembly. Deputy Pitman says that the integrity of the Assembly is in question and he is right. Even if the former Police Chief was treated unfairly, and I simply do not know whether or not that was the case, I do not think that that is a justification for treating the former Deputy of St. John with unfairness. The short answer for me is that the former debate, or the debate held on 2nd December 2008, was held in camera in accordance with the mandates of the law and it should take a very, very strong reason, in my view, for that to be overturned. There may be reasons why such a transcript should be released but at the moment I cannot think of such reasons. Of course a Member should speak the truth, whether they are speaking in camera or in public; that goes without saying. Some Members have said that the transcripts clarify matters and therefore they should be put into the public domain. I must say that as a new Member I do not share that view at all. If you are a new Member you need a great deal more information than we have heard this afternoon in order to understand what is going on.”

Well as much as Senator Bailhache tried to pass himself off as a "new member." He neglected to mention that he actually chaired the December 2nd 2008 secret debate that is being discussed/voted on here.

Regular readers will know that when Deputy Andrew Lewis said in that debate;

"As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all."

The then Bailiff and now Senator Bailhache said:

The Bailiff: (Philip Bailhache)

"Minister, do not go down this road please." HERE. 

So Senator Bailhache seems to know a bit more than he is letting on? Clearly one of his reasons for voting against Deputy Higgins' proposition was to maintain secrecy.

Twenty of those who voted against Deputy Higgins' proposition didn’t speak so we, the Committee of Inquiry, (or Andrew Lewis) have no way of knowing what they thought. So IF Andrew Lewis is saying (under oath) they believed he wasn’t misleading the House, or that they knew he was referring to the “Warcup letter” then how does he, or we, know this?

People who are economical with the truth in one topic are usually as economical in others. People who attempt to cover up one thing are usually prepared to cover up another.

The fact is that the evidence doesn't look to back up Andrew Lewis' testimony to the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry. This should be of considerable concern to the island's government and to the general public.

Andrew Lewis is a serving politicians and Chairman of Public Accounts Committee who's honesty, and integrity, should be beyond reproach.

Part one of this series can be viewed HERE.

Part two of this series can be viewed  HERE.

Wednesday, 30 March 2016

Andrew Lewis Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry Transcripts (part 2)

Part two of "the transcripts Blogs" is a continuation of former Home Affairs Minister, and current Deputy, Andrew Lewis' evidence to the Inquiry.

Deputy Lewis is still (unsuccessfully) trying to convince the Child Abuse Panel, and the public, that he didn't mislead the parliament when he said "I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police" and similar statements.

It appears to be Deputy Lewis' position, by saying he had read a damming report from the MET Police, that Members of the parliament would know he was talking about a letter (that he had never mentioned) from David Warcup as his reason for (possibly illegally) suspending Jersey's Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

This stuff is beyond parody.

Transcript from Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry: 

I would like to turn now please to the States debate on 10 December 2008. Could you look please first at paragraph 186 of your statement {WS000709/59}, which is on the screen at the moment. You set out there your explanation for what is said in the transcript and we will come to it:

"If I had intended to mislead the States Assembly that I had seen the actual Metropolitan Police report, surely that is what I would have said throughout the debate. The quote that Graham Power picks out ..."

That is in his witness statement to this Inquiry:

" ... is from page 10 of the transcript and is clearly an accidental error I made when under a barrage of inappropriate questioning from States members. At all other times in the debate, I refer to a 'preliminary report', being the letter from David Warcup to Bill Ogley briefly summarising the findings of the Metropolitan Police review. There is no lack of precision in that." Have you had an opportunity recently to read through the whole of the transcript of 10 December 2008?

Yes, I have read through it with great interest, because it has been the source of much quite ridiculous speculation, in my view anyway.

And are you content now that you just made an accidental error on one page and absolutely everywhere else you were referring to David Warcup's letter?


Yes. I mean I can perhaps go further than that because I believe my political colleagues (inaudible) confused either and the Hansard minutes of the debate that occurred on 26 June 2012 during which --

Sorry, can I stop you there because your answer was inaudible. You say "I believe my political colleagues", is it were or were not confused?

Were not confused.

Thank you.

I'm talking about members of the States Assembly.

I would like please to go first to the debate of 10 December 2008. Could we have a look at the transcript please at AL20, page 412 {WD009179/412}.So that's the cover page of the in camera proceedings of 2 December. Could we go on please to paragraph 1.3 {WD009179/413}. You are the Deputy of St John, aren't you? 

I was then.

You were then, yes. And in answer to paragraph 1.3 you say:

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

No, I don't believe so. In fact I'll give you a quote from later on --

We're going to go right through it, so we can come to it.

Well, I've got evidence here that members stated publicly in Hansard that was not their understanding, not their belief and they were not misled and they totally accepted that I was referring to Mr Warcup's letter.

Let's have a look at this. Coming to this as a complete neutral and leaving aside entirely what was said in later years by people who supported your decision, just look at that:
" ... an investigation has been carried out by the Metropolitan Police and I was presented with
a preliminary report on the basis of that investigation."
As an ordinary reader wouldn't you assume that that was a preliminary report from the Metropolitan Police?

But ma'am, you're not an ordinary reader. I was talking to the States Assembly and on the floor of an assembly, a parliament, you don't express yourself in precise terms like perhaps a lawyer would, that's why you have parliamentary privilege.

What, so that you're exempt from the consequences of misleading the States?

No, if you carry on through those minutes and other minutes it is very clear what I was talking about and I say even when it came to the vote later on when Mr Higgins was trying to get transcripts released, the vast majority of the House also agreed and some of them weren't even there that day, so I don't see how you can possibly suggest that I was attempting to mislead the House.

If you were trying to tell the House that what you had seen was a report from the DCO in which he had quoted from the Metropolitan Police report, why not say that?

I could have said that, yes.

My question was why not?

Because I was under a barrage of questions and I didn't have a script in front of me saying "You must say David Warcup wrote the letter". I was referring from information received from Mr Warcup concerning
the Metropolitan review and that is quite clear, made that perfectly clear to others, Napier, for example, and other members, past and present, are fully of that belief having stated that publicly in Hansard minutes in subsequent debates on this issue.

Could we have a look please at paragraph 1.16 {WD009179/418}. It is your answer:

"When I took over as having ministerial oversight of the investigation in question, I began to ask a number of questions and it would seem right and proper to appoint another force to investigate such matters which the Chief of Police agreed to. The result of that is some fairly damning evidence about the command, control and supervision of that investigation."

Stopping there, it is quite clear, isn't it, that you're saying there that there has been some damning evidence that has come from the other force that's  investigated? 


"So, yes, the process was adopted and the outcome was a report that was presented to me that gave me absolutely no choice other than to suspend the Chief Officer of Police in order to investigate the allegations of gross misconduct in terms of management, supervision and control of quite considerable sums of money and quite considerable resource."
So again there's a reference to an outside force, there's a reference to evidence and there's a reference to a report and all three appear to be linked. 

And all three were in David Warcup's letter to me.

Again why not say, "I haven't seen the report, but the salient points, as I understand it, have been summarised to me by David Warcup"?

I see no reason to have done so. People have made much of this since because they seem to think it's so material in the defence of Graham Power. I'm afraid Graham Power's actions are indefensible. He has only ever criticised the process that we adopted to suspend him, he has never defended the reasons why we suspended him.

I'm asking you about your actions.

This is yet another attempt to try and rubbish the process of suspension. There is nothing to be learned from this whatsoever. I reported to the States what
I had done, why I had done it. I omitted to use the words "letter from David Warcup", that is all.

If we look at paragraph 1.17 please {WD009179/418}, this is Senator Syvret speaking:

"The Minister has made reference with great store on the preliminary or interim review by the Metropolitan Police."

So clearly there Senator Syvret believes that you're talking about the preliminary or interim review by the Metropolitan Police, doesn't he?

I think that's what Mr Syvret wants to believe. That's what he continues to believe.

That's what he says.

Mr Syvret said lots of things, ma'am, none of which I believe are terribly credible.

Mr Syvret is responding to the information that you have just given to the States, isn't he?

On this occasion he is.

Yes, so his understanding there is:

"The Minister has made reference with great store on the preliminary or interim review by the Metropolitan Police."

Correct. Which was contained in a letter from David Warcup.

Why didn't you at that point take the opportunity, having heard the Senator's comment, to say "I don't want there to be any misunderstanding, I have not seen that report"?

If I thought eight years later people would still be forensically going through my words on the floor of the Assembly, I quite probably would. At the time I saw no significance in it at all. I had plenty of information from Mr Warcup, who had seen the Met report, he had reported that to me, he had given me indications as to what was in that report and that's what I was talking about: the letter from Mr Warcup, nothing else.

Could we look over the page please at your reply {WD009179/419}:

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

So the "main report" was going to be the Metropolitan Police's full report, wasn't it?

Your words. Yes, I assume so, yes. 

Well, you said it.


"Lord knows what the main report will reveal", you're referring there to the Metropolitan Police's main report, weren't you?

That's right.

You weren't expecting another report from David Warcup?


So "If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal", any listener is going to assume that the preliminary report and the main report are to come from the same source, wouldn't they?

 This was one point in the debate that I could have taken the opportunity to clarify it. I didn't. I have no particular regret about that. The members at the time I think were perfectly clear what I was talking about and many months later even a member of the Assembly that wasn't there that day said that it was very clear that I was referring to -- when mentioning the words "preliminary report" in this element here, that I was referring to Mr Warcup's letter, "so he was not intent, I do not believe, on deceiving the Assembly at all", that is a quote from Senator Le Gresley, a much respected Senator, who wasn't even there that day, so I don't see how anybody could possibly suggest or read into this that I was trying to mislead anybody. 

Well, as you said, the Senator wasn't there.

I can give you quotes, ma'am, from people that were there: the Constable of St Mary, the Deputy of St Ouen said exactly the same thing and they were there.

Senator Syvret we can see, and you have agreed, was under the impression that you were talking about a report from the Metropolitan Police, yes?

If that's what he wanted to presume, ma'am, that's a matter for Mr Syvret.

No, that's what you agreed. You looked at the transcript, you said he was responding to the information you had given and he was under the impression that you were talking about a Metropolitan Police report.

I was, ma'am, because there was information about the Metropolitan Police report in the letter from David Warcup, which was more than a letter, ma'am, it was many pages long. You have seen it.

Well, it wasn't a preliminary report, was it?

It was from Mr Warcup, yes.

Well, were you expecting him to --

He wasn't giving me a full report because it, as you know, wasn't complete at that stage.

When were you expecting him to give you his full report then?

I presume he would be giving that when it was completed, which was when the new minister took over.

So you thought that Mr Warcup's report to you, his letter to you, was a preliminary report?


I think moments ago you said you didn't think it was.

No, his preliminary report.

Could we have a look please at paragraph 1.18 {WD009179/419}. This is Senator Syvret's question:

"Will the report be published when it is completed?" And your answer is:
"No it will not, because the report of the Metropolitan Police contains Crown evidence that will be used in the prosecutions that are currently underway and potential prosecutions that may come from this investigation."

Which report of the Metropolitan Police were you talking about there?

Well, the police report that I was aware had been done.

So that's the interim one?

I think --

Or the preliminary one, which ever you prefer.

I think a lot -- the preliminary report was a report from David Warcup. The interim report my understanding was a report from the Metropolitan Police that wasn't complete at that stage, hence the word "interim", and as it states there, I could never have seen this report because of one of the reasons that's mentioned in that paragraph.

So why not tell Senator Syvret "I have not seen that report either, I have seen only a letter from the DCO"?

I would have hoped that Mr Syvret and others would have known enough about these types of things that if I say it contains Crown evidence then I wouldn't see the report because I'm not a crown prosecutor.

So they are supposed to guess from that that you haven't --

I don't think they need to guess. These are intelligent people. They know that you don't look at this type of information if you're a politician. You don't mix policing with prosecutions. Sorry, you don't mix politics with prosecutions.

So you think it was clear from what you were telling the States that you had not seen the Metropolitan Police interim report?

Not only do I believe it's true, most of the members believe that and that is in Hansard. I have given you that in my evidence. You have had it released to you because of the consistent efforts of Deputy Higgins who, for reasons unbeknown to me, has attempted to expose me as some kind of person that I'm certainly not. I have a large degree of integrity here. I am doing the best I can in a difficult situation to inform the Assembly of the happenings that are occurring, why we're taking this action and it's in the best interests of the public of Jersey, the abuse inquiry itself, that it maintains its integrity and continues unhindered, and also the public purse. That is my intention on that day with that statement. Why others choose to continue with their attempts to discredit me on this note can only be because they wish to support Graham Power. 

Could we look please at paragraph 1.22 {WD009179/420}. This is at the bottom of the page, the question from the Constable of St Helier:
"The Minister said that part of his action has been motivated by concern for Mr Power. Does he, therefore, think it is satisfactory that Mr Power's daughter learned of his suspension on the public radio and does this not indicate that the process that has been followed was an accelerated one? My second question, and it is in an effort to be helpful and it is a question I have already asked the Minister and the Chief Minister, is will he not go away with the Code and with his legal advisors, and with an HR
(human resources) professional ... and check that he has fully complied with the Code? If he has not, not only is he putting Mr Power and his family through unnecessary grief, but he will put the Island through an extraordinary amount of embarrassment and reputational damage. I really do think it would be more courageous to admit that we've got the process wrong. It often happens in HR; goodness knows I have done it myself. The process has to be correct or we will be in trouble and I would urge the Minister to go away and at least agree to look again at the decision-making process."

And your answer -- you deal with the media issue and then halfway down: 
"Secondly, as far as the process is concerned,
I have taken advice. I have taken advice from other HR professionals within the States of Jersey's HR Department. I am perfectly satisfied that the Code has been followed appropriately. I have taken advice from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, they feel that such action is wholly appropriate in the circumstances. I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place."

Now, you were stating clearly there, weren't you, that you had seen the Met's report? 

I have read a report from David Warcup and that is what I should have put in there and I have told you this -- I don't know how many times I need to say it again: I'm on the floor of the Assembly, I'm under a barrage of questions from members and yes, in a perfect world I could have said at that point that I'm referring to a letter from David Warcup. Far too much has been made of this, ma'am. There is very good reason for the suspension. It is contained in the letter of David Warcup. It has been completely corroborated with 19 points damning about Mr Power's performance in the Wiltshire report subsequently.(END)

By reading this transcript the reader gets the impression that Deputy Lewis had no understanding of the forum he was in. This is a Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry who is searching for the truth by using documented evidence. To make recommendations to prevent such atrocities occurring in the future. To expose weaknesses and failings in the system. It appears that Deputy Lewis thinks he is addressing the parliament, can say what he likes, despite the evidence against him, and move on. He looks to have no idea of the damage he has done (is doing) to his own, and Jersey's reputation, by continuing this absurd storyline against the mountain of evidence discrediting it. He is demonstrating that nothing has changed on this island and believes if people (he) denies something (under oath) then that is an end to it. The very traits that allowed the Child Abuse to thrive for decades.

PPC is demonstrating the same Trait(s).

As mentioned in Part one of this series; Deputy Lewis should now  seriously be considering his exit from politics and lay low before the Committee of Inquiry publishes its report. It is inconceivable to believe that the Inquiry (or anybody else) believed a word he said and this has to make part of the Inquiry's final report.

Part one of this series can be viewed HERE.

The original transcript of this day (138) can be viewed HERE.