Saturday, 30 January 2010

It's a funny old world!

The police media management of the Haut de la Garenne enquiry has received a massive vote of confidence from Ministers with the appointment of the Police Media Relations Officer Louise Journeaux, to take the lead on the media management of the expected fallout in the Health Department from the soon to be released independent report into the management of the death of Elizabeth Rourke in 2006.  

Readers may recall that initially the Department claimed to have managed the events well, including the exclusion (suspension?) of surgeon Mr John Day.   However, pressure from a number of States Members led to the appointment of “Verita” and “Solace” to conduct independent reviews.   The review reports have not yet been released but the hasty appointment of an experienced media person is a sign that the findings may not bode well for those in senior management at the time.

The former Chief Officer of the department, and close associate of Chief Executive Bill Ogley, resigned some months ago for "personal reasons" It is believed that Dr. Day may soon be returning to work.   Perhaps his suspension was just a "misunderstanding."  If it was it was a £3m+ misunderstanding and questions are bound to be asked regarding the judgement of those involved.

But the appointment of Louise Journeaux to take the lead with the media is the biggest surprise. Police Chief Graham Power has been suspended since 2008.  It is understood that among the allegations under investigation is that he did not ensure that the right media management was in place. The head of media management for the Force at that time was none other than the said Louise Journeaux. “Once the villain, now the heroine, it’s a funny old world”. 

If the police media management by her at Haut de la Garenne was so bad that it justified the suspension of the Chief Officer how come that the lead person in that episode has now been selected in an effort to save the skins of senior players in yet another crisis?  

Could it be that Louise really is a respected and competent professional who knows how to manage in a crisis and that her star performance under pressure during the abuse enquiry made her the first choice when Ministers saw their own skins on the line?   I believe that this is the real reason.  

So will Ministers now stop claiming that media management at HDLG was rubbish and remove the suspension on the Police Chief?   All that is needed for this to happen is honesty, consistency, and a realisation that in fast moving crisis things will never be perfect.

Tuesday, 26 January 2010

Heads they win Tails I lose.

As much as I try and make excuses for, and attempt to justify the actions of the British Bullsh1t Corporation I keep coming back to the same conclusion, that is, they have “gone native”

When I say make excuses for and justify, I mean I can’t bare the thought that the BBC would exercise censorship and silence government dissenters but that is the only conclusion I can reach.

As everybody is apparently treated equally by the BBC, they will no doubt have the exact same experiences as myself if they have attempted to make a contribution to one of their live phone-ins. Something I wished to discuss on yesterday’s phone-in - which was my “experiences”.

As is the norm, I’m sure for everybody, you get put through to the producer first, in this case Lisa Gautier and asked “exactly” what you are going to say on air to which I said “well I don’t know “exactly” what I’m going to say, I’m just going to talk about my experiences and trials and tribulations of getting on the phone in”, a reasonable request one would think - right?……..Wrong.

Lisa Gautier told me “sorry I can’t let you on air because you are going to COMPLAIN about BBC Radio Jersey on air and that is not what the phone-in is about” so I said “I don’t know where you got the word COMPLAIN from, I said I wanted to talk about my EXPERIENCES of the phone in” to which she said “but you said trials and tribulations which I take to mean COMPLAIN.

She would not accept that I wanted to share my EXPERIENCES and hung on to HER word “COMPLAIN” for dear life. She made it abundantly clear that it is forbidden to criticise BBC Radio Jersey on air and would not accept My word of EXPERIENCES over HER word of COMPLAIN, but told me I would be allowed to go on air if I wanted to talk about any “news” or “current affairs” to which I said “ok I would like to go on and talk about AGENDA’S” and she asked “what do you want to say about AGENDA’S” and I replied “well just that we all have one, whether it be ACCREDITED media or UNACCREDITED media, like Bloggers. She told me I’m sorry I think you will use that subject to criticise BBC Radio Jersey so won’t let you on air”. So I asked “what can I talk about on air”? She told me “most things as long as it doesn’t libel anybody or criticise BBC Radio Jersey”.

So I thought I’d go with one of Chris Stone’s “safe ones” and said “ok then I would like to talk about the second world war, or Lancaster Bombers” just to see if she had any intention of letting me on air. She came back with the old “I don’t believe you” sketch again telling me I would criticise BBC Radio Jersey if she let’s me on air.

It became blatantly clear, to me anyway, that they - or Lisa Gautier - did not want the listeners to hear of my “EXPERIENCES” or in her words “COMPLAINTS of the phone - in. What was she so scared about, everybody is treated equally by the BBC aren’t they? So my EXPERIENCES would be the same as everybody else’s!

I do have a wealth of e-mails the BBC have refused to read out and many examples of attempting to get on the phone-in from the phone which I will publish at a later date. I am still waiting for a reply from Matthew Price where I have asked him, since it is forbidden to criticise BBC Radio Jersey on-air does that also mean (in the interest of fairness and balance) that it is also forbidden to “praise” BBC Radio Jersey on-air? To which I have had no reply as yet, but am not holding my breath.

Unfortunately it is a “heads they win tails I lose” situation. I can’t go on the phone-in and share my EXPERIENCES because they will be labelled a COMPLAINT and I can’t talk about any other subject because Lisa Gautier won’t believe me that that’s what I want to talk about.

As has been explained to me in the past, there is no difference between BBC Jersey and BBC they are all the same company So if that is the case and the institution that is the British Broadcasting Corporation condone this sought of treatment by their Jersey branch then the entire reputation of the BBC must be in question.

As I’m prevented from going on the phone-in, either on the phone or e-mail, and have tried everything I can, including going through the (complete waste of time) complaints department and asked Denzil Dudley if he would allow me to interview a BBC spokesperson on this very subjected and been refused, then there is no other option other than to “doorstep” certain individuals employed at BBC Radio Jersey.

I have tried everything else and there appears no alternative other than “doorstepping”. I haven’t taken this decision lightly as I believe it could be a “step back” in the advancement of Blogging where more and more politicians etc. are willing to take part in Citizens Media and are happy to give interviews to Bloggers and there is less need to “doorstep” anybody but this is the BBC’s call.

Do you know what I can’t help thinking? As everybody is treated “equally” by the BBC how does Bridget remember “exactly” “word for word” everything she tells the producer before she goes on air and doesn’t get cut off for deviating from what she told the producer?

Wednesday, 20 January 2010

Humility to the bitter end.

Below is a press release from “the friends of Graham Power. Below that is a hand delivered letter from Chief Officer Power to the Minister for Home Affairs Ian Le Marquand.

If anybody in this world has good reason to be bitter, vengeful or angry then it is Chief Officer Power. He has been through possibly the most traumatic and stressful time of his life, when he should have been relaxing, taking things a little easy and looking forward to his well deserved retirement.

But instead he has witnessed first hand “the Jersey way”, he has been suspended from the job he has devoted his life to, without even being told why. Has been given no opportunity to contest any allegations made against him and only ever faced brick walls when he has attempted to prove the facts behind his (illegal?) suspension.

But despite this, somehow unbelievably he manages to remain humble which is evident in his letter to the Home Affairs Minister (below).

Chief Officer Power can I, as a “good” Jersey person, apologise to you for the way you have been treated by our government and reassure you that they (not all) are in no way representative of me nor anybody I know.

You can rest assured that there are a growing number of “good” Jersey people who will not stop until the truth is out and the corruption, at the highest level is exposed.

Naturally you have to put yourself and your family first and think about enjoying your retirement, which one would imagine would be as far away from these shores as is humanly possible.

The “good” people of Jersey will wish you all the best in your retirement and thank you and Lenny Harper for not bowing to “the Jersey way” and doing what policemen are supposed to do and that is to apply the law “without fear or favour”.

There is only one request, please write a book on your experiences in the Jersey Police Force, the world needs to know the truth.

This release has been issued by friends of Graham Power QPM, Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.   It is intended to assist editors in reporting matters relating to his suspension.

In accordance with the terms of his contract, Graham Power QPM has given the Minister for Home Affairs six months notice of his retirement intentions.   His contract requires that he must retire in 2010.

Mr Power joined the police service as a Constable in 1966 and was appointed Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police in 2000 on a five year contract, having previously held a number of senior positions in the Scottish Police Service.   He has twice had his contract extended.   The Home Affairs Committee extended his contract from 2005 to 2007, and in 2007 he was asked by Ministers to work for an extended period beyond his designated “Normal Retiring Age” of 60.   His extended contact is subject to six months notice and ends this year.
Since 2008 Mr Power and friends acting on his behalf have made a series of announcements stating his commitment to retire in 2010.   This is now confirmed by today’s announcement.

In his letter to the Minister for Home Affairs Mr Power expresses his frustration that the investigation by Wiltshire Police into the management of the Historic Abuse Enquiry, which started in 2008, has yet to be concluded.
His letter also praises both the Force and the Island and offers best wishes for the future.

A copy of Mr Power’s letter to the Minister for Home Affairs is attached to this release.
Under the terms of his current suspension Mr Power is not able to speak directly to the media in relation to issues which may be under investigation.   He has however offered the following comment regarding the confirmation of his retirement:
“It has been widely known for some time that I would retire during the course of 2010 and there has been understandable speculation as to the intended date.   In confirming that I will retire before August, I hope to bring the uncertainty to an end and allow all concerned to plan for the future.  How others respond to this information is of course a matter for them.   For my own part I will now be working with my family to plan for a successful retirement in the summer of this year.”
Note to Editors.
Mr Power was suspended from duty in 2008 by the former Minister for Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis, and told that he may face disciplinary action.
No disciplinary action was taken in 2008.
No disciplinary action was taken in 2009.
No disciplinary action has been taken in 2010 and no notification has been given of any intention to take disciplinary action.
Since the beginning of his suspension Mr Power has made it clear that in 2010 he would name the date on which he intended to retire.
Mr Power has always denied any wrong-doing in relation to the investigation of the Historic Abuse Enquiry.  That remains his position today.   No disciplinary charges have been brought against him and no disciplinary hearing has been arranged.

By hand
The Minister for Home Affairs,
11 Royal Square,
St Helier.
Dear Minister,
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I have now settled my retirement plans.  I therefore give the required six months notice from today’s date, that I will be retiring as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.
You will be aware that I first took up my position in 2000 on a five year “J” category contract, which I completed to the satisfaction of the Home Affairs Committee.   At the request of the Committee I subsequently agreed to a second contract which provided for an extension of a further two years.   This meant that I would be leaving the service shortly after reaching my “Normal Retiring Age” under the Jersey Public Employees Retirement Scheme.  There is no known history of a Chief Officer of the Force working for a significant period beyond the specified retirement age.

You will also be aware that in 2007 I had detailed discussions with the then Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Wendy Kinnard, and her Assistant Minister, Deputy Andrew Lewis, regarding continuity problems which had arisen in the management team, and after some reflection I agreed to sign a third contract for a further three years.   This was not an anticipated event and it took me into the unusual position of serving for a significant period beyond the date when I should have retired.   As you know I have described these discussions in more detail in my statement made under paragraph 2.1.2 of the Disciplinary Code which I provided in July 2009 (Statement of Chief Officer paragraph 56.)    In my statement I made it clear that I agreed to the three year extension with some reluctance for a number of reasons, one of which was “it did not fit well with a number of plans and commitments, one of which was (and remains) family welfare issues in the UK” (paragraph 57.)   You are also aware from my statement that although the contract ran to the end of 2010 “I made no secret of the fact that I wished to leave earlier” (paragraph 61.)

During 2008 it appeared to be right, and consistent with the spirit of the extended contract, that I supported the then Minister through her final months in office.   However, by this time I had concluded that once the new Ministerial team had been selected, it would once again be appropriate to return to the subject of my continued service beyond my retirement date.   I envisaged that these discussions would occur in early 2009 (Statement of Chief Officer paragraph 93.)

As we know, events from my perspective, took an unforeseen turn in November 2008 when I was suspended from duty by Deputy Andrew Lewis, who had taken office briefly as Minister for Home Affairs following the unexpected resignation of Senator Kinnard.   This naturally caused me to reflect on how I should respond to this development against the background of my need to resolve the issue of my retirement.   In coming to a decision, I was influenced by correspondence from your Investigating Officer, Mr Brian Moore, the Chief Constable of Wiltshire, which encouraged me to believe that a resolution in the first half of 2009 was possible.   You will recall that in a live radio interview on 20th November 2009 you personally indicated that shortly after your appointment as Minister you had been led to believe that the final report from Wiltshire would be available by March 2009.   It was with such assurances in mind that I decided to postpone any plans for retirement in 2009 and concentrate on challenging the legitimacy of my suspension and assisting the Wiltshire investigation.   You are aware that since the beginning of my suspension my position has been that I totally deny any wrong-doing whatsoever in relation to the historic abuse enquiry, and that I would vigorously contest any disciplinary allegations which were brought against me.   My position has not changed in that regard.

As 2009 progressed it became clear that anticipated timescales would not be met.   This was reflected in some of the exchanges which took place in open Court during the hearing of my Judicial Review Application in July 2009.   During the hearing I drew the attention of the Court to the likely timescales of the enquiry as they appeared at that time, and questioned whether there was a realistic prospect of a resolution before I reached retirement.   On the matter of my retirement plans, I told the Court that although my contract ran to the end of 2010, I had stated on a number of occasions that I would retire during 2010, without wishing to indicate an intended date at that time.

All of the above is of course in addition to those public statements which I have been able to make, and those made by others on my behalf, which have repeatedly placed in the public domain my commitment to retire in 2010.
I have set out this account of my approach to the question of retirement during the years 2007 to 2009 in order to counter any unfair allegation that I am now acting in a manner which is in any way different from the position which I have consistently taken over a long period of time, both in public and in private.
I now turn briefly to developments in the latter part of 2009, and how these influenced my thinking.   As last year approached its close, it became clear that even the amended assessments of likely timescales made at the time of the Judicial Review had been too optimistic.   It was apparent that the matter would continue well into 2010.   A few days before Xmas 2009, presumably as some kind of attempted gesture of activity before the year ended, I was presented with an incomplete copy of a draft report by Wiltshire Police.   The report made no reference to the evidence of a key witness, who, it was stated, had not been interviewed when the report had been written.   Additionally, areas of the terms of reference relating to the financial management of the abuse enquiry were not addressed.  I was informed that enquiries were incomplete and that a further report was to follow at a later date.   One month later no further report has been received.

I had for some time been anticipating continuing delays of this nature and, in consultation with others, had considered how I might respond in order to bring some certainty to the position.   After giving the issue some thought in the latter part of 2009, I drafted an application to the States Employment Board seeking an amendment to my current contract.   The amendment for which I was minded to apply, was one which would make it clear that the Board would provide whatever extension to my contract might be necessary, if required, to complete the full disciplinary and appeal process; which I estimate could take up to a year, and in addition, to provide for a return to work for a period of at least six months once I had been exonerated.   The latter point is of course important from my perspective.   In my present position there is limited incentive to devote a further year of my time to these matters if there is no prospect of any positive benefit following an outcome in my favour.   I recognised that any application to potentially extend the terms of my contract ran counter to my stated intention to retire during 2010, but I was resolved to explore all of the possible options before a final decision was taken.   I then examined to what extent this possible approach was feasible in the context of retirement planning and family circumstances.   Work in this direction included visits to family members in the UK during the early weeks of 2010, and a fresh assessment of the welfare and related issues which gave me concern when extending my contract in 2007.  Once I had completed this assessment it became clear that any extension of my service in Jersey beyond 2010 was not feasible.
From that point onwards consideration of the issue unavoidably focussed on the practicalities of retirement in 2010, and how this could be most effectively achieved.   One of the key considerations was the decided intention to move to the UK to establish a family home.  From previous experiences in moving home, I am aware that success is heavily dependent on seasonal factors, and that a move in the winter months presents complications to what is already a difficult task.   This is particularly so when re-locating to or from an island.   However, more significantly, it became clear in the early weeks of 2010 that the family welfare issues, which I drew to your attention in July 2009, had become acute and that an early decision was essential.

Running alongside these pressing personal issues was my continuing concern for the well being and effectiveness of the Force, and the value in bringing to an end the uncertainty which has existed since 2008.   Given that my notice period is six months it therefore became imperative that notice of retirement be given as soon as possible, thereby enabling all parties to plan for the future on the basis of my known intentions.
I hope that you will appreciate that the detailed nature of this account arises from a desire to demonstrate that I have tried, at some significant personal and family inconvenience, to assist the Wiltshire investigation and any process which may follow.  Neverthless, I have in the end been frustrated in this intention by constant slippages in timescales, and the approaching deadline by which a retirement decision needed to be taken.   It is a matter of record that I have provided abundant information to the Wilshire enquiry.   My initial statement to the Investigating Officer, submitted in July 2009, was over 62,000 words, and I have expressed a willingness to provide as much further information as the enquiry might require.   However, the passage of time has thwarted these good intentions leaving me with no alternative other than to take the course of action set out at the beginning of this letter.

It might now be appropriate for me to set out a few words summarising my experience in the Force and to offer my best wishes for the future.   Jersey is a fine place with many good people.   It can be justly proud of its police officers, whose dedication and professionalism in the defence of their community has been evident throughout my service.   I have been proud to lead the force and will miss many of the people I have come to know so well.   I am also grateful for their support in the achievements which have been recorded during the decade in which I have been their Chief Officer.   During this time crime figures have consistently fallen, and detection rates have been maintained at a level well above the average for the U.K.   Surveys have indicated levels of public confidence and support for the police which are exceptionally high, and would be a cause of envy in many other jurisdictions.   These findings have been reinforced by independent assessments by H.M. Inspectorate of Constabulary who have consistently published positive reports on the performance of the Force and the quality of its leadership.   I am conscious that none of this could have been achieved without the dedication of the entire workforce, both police officers and civilian.    In my estimation they are not only a beacon of excellence in the public service, but also a model of diversity, as candidates from all sections of the islands community have committed themselves to a career in what I consider to be Jersey’s premier public service.
Throughout my leadership of the Force I have sought to emphasise the values of practical common-sense policing which is tightly focussed on the concerns of islanders.   The most evident symbol of this approach has been the emphasis on high visibility foot patrols at times and places where the risk of crime and disorder is at its greatest.   You may be aware that I have frequently sought to lead by example in this respect by regularly undertaking foot patrols in uniform, and how I have encouraged other senior officers to do the same, irrespective of rank or age.

I am aware that none of these things could have been achieved by the Force working in isolation, and I take this opportunity to place on record my recognition of our many supporters and partners who have worked to maintain the common goal of “making Jersey safer.”   In particular I am grateful to the men and women of the Honorary Police whose support and partnership I have always valued.   I am proud to be one of the joint signatories of the first ever Memorandum of Understanding between the forces, and have been grateful for their support and good humour at major incidents and public events.
At a more strategic level the achievements of the Force have been equally evident.   Independent assessments by the Inspectorate of the International Monetary Fund have reported positively on the vital but often unseen work of the Financial Crime Unit, and their contribution to maintaining the integrity of what is undoubtedly the cornerstone of the Island’s economy.   There has also been sometimes visible, but more often less visible, success in defending the island against incursions by major criminal organisations.

The role of the Chief Officer of the Force requires a wide range of qualities.   In addition to the relevant operational experience and background, the Chief Officer must be able to maintain the confidence and respect of both the Force and all sections of the community.   The position is one which is highly visible. This often requires high levels self assurance, fluency and skill in communicating both with the media and the wider public.   While the role may seem daunting, it is one which offers significant professional and personal satisfaction.   In carrying out my duty of representing the interests of the Island in meetings with the wider policing community in the British Isles, I have met many officers who display evidence of the required qualities, and I wish you success in your search for a new Chief Officer who can rise to this exceptional challenge.
Finally, let me take this opportunity to wish you success in the future in the demanding role of Minister for Home Affairs.

                                          Yours sincerely

                                          Graham Power.
Cc.   Dr T Brain.   Chief Police Officers Staff Association

Monday, 18 January 2010

Interference or Scrutiny and political representation?

In Jersey, we already have 12 Parish Constables who are heads of the police in their respective Parishes. Of course, that ancient form of political control is seen as officially ok.

But when Joe Public aka Team Voice asks why there cannot be a Scrutiny Panel examination of States Police activities? Deputy Roy Le Herissier answers here (video below) that “it is not our job” and the same message is being played by the Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur, “Chairman” of PPC “CONSTABLE” Juliette Gallichan and others in authority.


It’s apparently ok for ANY UK Police to investigate and probe or for the courts to consider or even for a Complaints Board (on very narrow grounds) to examine - but the long suffering tax paying Jersey public, are the very last to be allowed to ask questions through their supposed elected “representatives”.

The suspension of Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM is not only a personal matter that affects him.

Behind this extraordinary saga there are the most important matters of public interest and concerns that need to be raised and examined openly in public, as a matter of urgency.

Who actually determines the rules that govern Policing Policy Standards in this island, and who has the ultimate power of sanction?

We are told that Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand reviews Chief Officer Power’s suspension every month (presumably with his “very own” terms of reference) but when will Deputy Le Herissier call Ian Le Marquand before his Scrutiny Panel as the Minister’s, “all island mandate” surely demands?

Submitted by Team Voice.

Friday, 15 January 2010

Is our "Leader" showing (impartial) "Leadership"?

Regular readers will be aware of the letter sent to Chief Minister Senator Terry Le Sueur from Deputy of St Martin, Bob Hill, which was the subject of the last Blog.

Deputy Hill wanted a reply to his letter by 5pm today Friday the 15th of January 2009.

Well the Chief Minister did reply to the Deputy two days ago, the reply to his letter is reproduced below. Furthermore Deputy Hill has wasted little time in responding to the Chief Minister in which Deputy Hill outlines the Chief Ministers refusal to address the major concerns in Deputy Hill’s original letter and failure to produce "explanations" for his actions or lack of them.

One can’t help thinking that if Chief Officer Power had something to hide he would have “considered his position” (in which he was given about an hour to do so) and just retired quietly without a blemish to his name.

Also one can’t help thinking that if the Chief Minister had nothing to hide then he wouldn’t have strongly contested the Chief Officer’s request for the information concerning the dates certain letters were created.

The exchange of letters below make for fascinating reading. Somebody around here has something to hide and after reading the exchange below it appears blatantly obvious who that somebody is.

You've got a week to respond Chief Minister, please don't leave it that long the Chief Officer and the people of Jersey deserve answers NOW.

Terry's response.............

Dear Deputy Hill


I refer to your e-mail of 10th January, copied to all States members and local media.

May I commence by stating that the contract of employment entered into by the Chief of Police requires that any disciplinary proceedings are conducted under terms of total confidentiality which preclude the parties from making any public comment. I intend to abide by the terms of that disciplinary code.

However your letter goes on to complain about the allegedly dismissive action taken by the chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee. I do not intend to enter into those discussions and believe that the Chairman is well able to defend her actions if and when called upon to do so.

I will therefore limit my reply to answering the request you make in your final paragraph, where you suggest that the issues raised by Mr. Power point towards a conspiracy at the highest levels of government.

You will not be surprised to learn that I totally refute that suggestion. However it does demonstrate to me that the need for a full and impartial enquiry to be carried out by an experienced external authority (such as Wiltshire Police), and why I would wish to base my judgement on the evidence produced and the conclusions reached by that investigation. I am aware of comments made that could be subject to challenge in terms of accuracy and these will be fully addressed as part of the Wiltshire investigation. Until such time, it is in my view unacceptable for one party to be making what could be seen as defamatory comments when there is a confidentiality agreement in place.

I too would like to have seen this matter resolved earlier, but as a former police officer you will be more aware than most members of the speed at which such investigations seem to proceed. Clearly a person’s character and livelihood are at stake here, and any investigation has to be totally thorough and transparent.

I am satisfied that the matter is in no way in danger of “running out of control”, and I hope that the outcome of the investigation can be completed and published before too much longer.

Yours sincerely

Senator Terry Le Sueur.
Chief Minister

Dear Terry,
Thank you for your letter dated 13th January. (above)
I note that you totally refute that the issues raised by Mr Power which point towards a conspiracy at the highest levels of government. Unfortunately you have not given any explanation as to how you came to that conclusion.

I claimed that you had not acted in an impartial manner by not providing Mr Power with the times and dates on which the suspension documents dated 12th November 2008 were actually created. Not only have you failed to explain why? but in addition you have provided no explanation as to why you maintained your stance for more than nine months until you had to disclose the information following Mr Power’s successfully contested application to the Complaints Board.

However following the release of the details it now appears that the "official version" is at variance with the substantiated evidence provided by Mr Power. This revelation to the ordinary people of the Island could cause them to believe that the reason you refused to act impartially and suppress the information was because you were protecting the authors of the letters. It must be apparent that the statement read to Members at the States Sitting on 2nd December 2008 was inaccurate and misled Members.

You state that you are satisfied that the matter is in no way in danger of “running out of control” and hope that the outcome of the investigation can be completed and published before too much longer. Given that the investigation has already taken 14 months at a cost nearing a million pounds, it does appear that the matter has already run out of control.

You state that you are aware that comments made could be the subject of challenge in terms of accuracy and that these will be fully addressed as part of Wiltshire investigation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The mandate of the Wilts Police does not cover any aspect of the suspension itself nor whether it was ever justified. Therefore the confidentiality requirements of the code do not apply to the suspension itself. For clarification the investigation is into the management of the enquiry. The suspension is "out of play" and accordingly does not fall under the code.

The one positive part of your letter is that you do agree that the comments made (in Mr Power’s letter) could be subject to challenge in terms of accuracy and these will be fully addressed as part of the Wiltshire investigation. However as Wiltshire Police will not be investigating the suspension issue, the investigation must be undertaken by some other body.

You did not address Wiltshire Police’s apparent pointless exercise in continuing with their investigation which in all likelihood will never be resolved because Mr Power will have reached retirement. I would like to know why the investigation should continue.
In my letter I did urge you to show leadership and this could be demonstrated by fully addressing the issues raised above and by lodging a proposition to investigate/review the circumstances of Mr Power’s suspension. This would be in line with P182/2008 (Review of Procedure regarding suspension) lodged by Connétable Crowcroft. Or P131/2009 Exclusion of the Consultant Gynaecologist lodged by me in August last year.
I look forward to hearing your response within the next 7 days.

Deputy Bob Hill.,BEM,
Deputy of St Martin.

Sunday, 10 January 2010


Below is an e-mail sent by Deputy of St Martins Bob Hill to Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur, copied in are all media including “Citizens Media” and all States members.

Deputy Hill is an avid campaigner for Human Rights, open and transparent government, accountability in government, governmental reform and just as importantly TRUTH and JUSTICE.

Regular readers will be aware Deputy Hill, along with Connetable of St Helier Simon Crowcroft, has been striving to get some answers regarding, the very suspicious, suspension of the Chief of Police CPO,QPM Graham Power.

The e-mail appears to bring into question the Chief Minister’s “neutrality” regarding the role he has played concerning Mr. Power’s suspension. It also brings into question the role played by Chairman of PPC Connetable Juliette Gallichan.

I believe it brings into question the “LEADERSHIP” of Terry Le Sueur and many more questions, which seems to be a common thread, there are always many questions and very rarely any answers coming back.

Let’s see what kind of a reply Deputy Hill gets back from Chief Minister Le Sueur. Let’s see if we end up with any answers or more questions than we started with, as is so often the case. One thing is for sure Terry needs to “get a grip” and start displaying some LEADERSHIP otherwise a vote of no confidence will have to go in and we’ll see how Senator Ian Le Marquand performs as Chief Minister. Sorry Phillip but you know it’s on the cards.

E-mail to Terry……………

Dear Terry,
Below are two Voice for Children websites which contain a letter from Mr Power to PPC dated 30th October and the reply from the Chairman dated 13th November 2009. I would add that the letters have been subject to attention from the other media.

I write to express my deep concern not just at the contents of Mr Power's letter but also by the dismissive action taken by PPC's Chairman who appears not to have discussed the letter with her Committee.
As you will see Mr Power has made allegations regarding the untoward actions surrounding the events leading to his suspension which he is able to substantiate. I think it is important to remind you that in a statement read by the former Home Affairs Minister at the States Sitting on 2nd December 2008 in relation to Mr Power's suspension, the Minister said, and I quote " In addition, of course, the Chief Officer cannot comment and has not yet had the full opportunity that the process allows to answer to these matters and to defend himself. Any debate would thus be unfair to him as the full facts are not yet known. I am sure, however, that Members will readily understand that a suspension in these circumstances is a neutral act and implies no finding one way or the other, but is rather an entirely prudent course to preserve the integrity of the investigation,"

A neutral act should by definition be neutral with neither side impeding the integrity of the investigation which should be conducted in an even handed and transparent manner. Also before any suspension is implemented those responsible for the implementation should be above reproach. Clearly from the contents of Mr Power's letter the integrity and motives of those involved with the suspension are highly questionable. It would appear that there is substance to Mr Power's observation that the actions of a number of people raises the possibility of a " Government within a Government" in which unidentified and unaccountable individuals exercise power outside the parameters of the law.

You are aware that the Chief Executive has admitted to destroying the original notes of the suspension meeting on 12th November 2008. Also although the Royal Court, when considering Mr Power's application for Judicial Review was unable to formally pass judgement on the initial suspension, it did say "we feel constrained to voice our serious concern as to the fairness of the procedure apparently adopted by the previous Minister." In page 4 of his letter Mr Power makes reference to significant differences between two media scripts which have come to light by the Wiltshire Constabulary. There appears to have been an alteration to a script drafted on 5th November 2008 and the one actually used at the briefings a week later. It may be pure co-incidence but the person involved with both scripts had much to gain from Mr Power's removal from Office.

I believe you should already be in receipt of the exchange of letters between Mr Power and PPC and considering the action to be taken.. However to give you the benefit of the doubt I ask that you read the letters below and ask yourself if you can allow for such damning evidence to be put aside. I remind you that the suspension has been claimed to be a neutral act. For many months Mr Power was denied details of the dates of documents which he eventually obtained via a successful application to the Complaints Board. It should be recalled that you personally defended the request for the details at the Hearing. Where was the neutrality? Mr Power had not been charged with any offence.

Home Affairs engaged the services of the Solicitor General to oppose Mr Power's application for a Judicial Review of his suspension. Where is the neutrality? Mr Power had not been charged with any offence.
You and the Council of Ministers successfully opposed the Connétable of St Helier's proposition (P182/2008) to request the Minister for Home Affairs to commission a compliance check on the procedures followed by his predecessor in suspending Mr Power, Where was the neutrality? Had you supported the proposition, not only might an honourable and decorated man and his family have been spared the stress and uncertainty, but also the States might have saved in excess of a million pounds on Royal Court and Complaints Board Hearings, costs to cover Mr Power's suspension and the ever rising cost of the Wiltshire Constabulary investigation. Also at stake is the Island and Government's integrity and reputation.
Mr Power's suspension issue has been running since 2008 against a background of extensive publicity little of which has reflected well on the island or its government. If one of the original aims was to protect the reputation of the island then this has clearly not been achieved. It is now a matter of public knowledge that Mr Power is to retire sometime this year, if the object of the exercise was to remove him from office then this exercise now appears to be pointless. He is to leave the service this year anyway and against that background, any disciplinary action, which has not yet been decided upon let alone started, would appear to be pointless. This whole matter has now been "drifting along" since 2008. It appears that Ministers are oblivious to the human cost to Mr Power and his family and the financial cost to the taxpayer.
The issues raised by Mr Power are too important to ignore and it would appear that they are pointing towards a conspiracy at the highest levels of Government, therefore immediate action needs to be taken to find a way forward. I must urge that you to show leadership and to "get a grip" before the matter runs further out of control and further damage is done and needless public expense is incurred. I would be grateful if you would inform me of your proposed actions by 5pm next Friday.

First blog contains Mr Power's letter to PPC.

Second blog contains PPC's Chairman's reply

Deputy Bob Hill, BEM.,
Deputy of St Martin.
Tel: 861019

Friday, 8 January 2010

The “POWER” of PPC

The interesting thing about this letter from PPC to Chief Officer Graham Power is - it doesn’t appear to be from PPC!

For those of you that have read the previous post you will be aware that Chief Officer Power wrote a letter addressed to the Privileges and Procedures Committee. This letter contained “evidence” that the sequence of events, according to the official line, surrounding his suspension just did not stack up. And without answers to certain questions it looked remarkably like certain members of our Council of Ministers and certain Civil Servants might have acted, shall we say, “improperly”.

You will note by the reply the Chief Officer received to his letter sent to PPC that the reply is authored by Connetable Juliette Gallichan who is the Chairman of PPC and she refers only to herself in it. That is to say at the start of the letter she says “ . I have been giving considerable thought to your enquiry” and goes onto use the word “I” rather than “we” or “the committee”.

Now as if the contents of the letter aren’t alarming enough the question has to be asked “do the PPC members even know about Chief Officer Power’s letter”? “Has the Chairman come to the conclusions all on her own?”.

Team Voice e-mailed all the members of PPC to ask them these questions and up to now have only had a reply from Senator Ian Le Marquand, who has stated he wasn’t aware of the letter ‘til last week. Some might say well there’s no point in telling him about it because he is conflicted anyway, which is something else Senator Le Marquand has stated in his e-mail.

This is true but one could also argue he should have been informed of it’s existence purely for the minutes of any meeting where he would declare he was conflicted, so it is then a matter of public record.

Again we must remember we are talking about a highly respected and decorated member of Her Majesty’s Police Force with an exemplary policing pedigree………until he came to Jersey! Also he is not complaining about a minor misdemeanour. He is providing evidence of a possible “government within a government”, the very strong chance that Civil Servants might have co-opted or manipulated elected officials to break the law!

The reply he received from Connetable Gallichan just goes to show if such a powerful man as the Chief of Police can be treated like this by our government what chance have the rest of us got?

There are still a multitude of questions that need some kind of an answer like “what can the Chief Constable do with his evidence”? Who are the Council of Ministers accountable to?” and many, many, more questions far too many to list here.
Below is the reply the Chief Officer got from Connetable Gallichan and if her “recommendation” to the chief Constable wasn’t so chillingly frightening it would almost be laughable. But the sorry thing is she is deadly serious.

Below Connetable Gallichan’s reply to the Chief Officer is the e-mail sent by Team Voice to all members of PPC, to which only Senator Le Marquand has replied.

Privileges and Procedures Committee
Our ref: 1240/9(134)
Mr. G. Power
13 November 2009 Dear Mr. Power,
Outcome of your appeal under the Administrative Decisions (Jersey) Law 1982. Complaint arising from the disclosure of information regarding the events preceding your suspension

Thank you for your letter dated 30 October 2009. I have been giving considerable thought to your enquiry and to whether the Privileges and Procedures Committee is able to assist you further.

Clearly, the process relating to your complaint under the above Law is complete. having been able to reverse the decision that you had complained about, and obtained the information you sought.

On page 3 of your letter, you list matters that you consider fall within the remit of the PPC. I’m afraid I am unable to agree that these do fall within the area that PPC covers. It is for the Council of Ministers to oversee the work of Ministers, and in this it is guided by the Code of Conduct for Ministers (R.14/2006) and through the Chief Minister, the work of officers supporting the executive function, PPC has authority to enquire into the conduct of a member where a complaint has been received, and in this is guided by the Code of Conduct for Elected Members to be found at Appendix 3 of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey. Any complaint against a Minister or Assistant Minister acting in an official capacity would be dealt with under the procedure set out in R.14/2006.

I must also say that the PPC has no remit to investigate “a general complaint against the conduct of government” (your page 5). I appreciate that you are seeking a remedy, and I note that you copied your letter to the Connétable of St. Helier. It may be that he can assist you from a political perspective.
I am sorry that I can’t offer more specific help in this matter but you will appreciate that Standing Orders determine the parameters within which PPC is able to work.
Yours sincerely,
Connétable de Ste Marie
Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee j
States Greffe I Morier House St Helierl Jersey I JE1 1DD
Tel; 01534 441033 I Fax: 01534 441098 email:

Dear PPC member.

As some of you might be aware we at "Team Voice" recently published the letter sent to you by Chief Officer Graham Power on one of our Blogsites. For those of you that haven't read it yet it can be found here

As you will see by a comment left on the Blog, by a member of Team Voice, there is confusion as to how the decision making process of PPC works.

After looking at the minutes of PPC meetings on the States website, there appears to be no record of a meeting taken place to discuss the truly alarming contents of Chief Officer Power's letter nor how Connetable Gallichan came to her "findings" in her letter to Cheif Officer Power dated the 13th of November 2009.

Would somebody be so kind as to inform members of the public.

1. Did a meeting of PPC take place to discuss Chief officer Power's letter? and if so, where can one find a public record of this meeting?

2. If a meeting wasn't held, does this mean the decision making process was entirely down to Connetable Gallichan? baring in mind the Chief Officer's letter was addressed to the Privileges and Procedures Committee and not exclusively to the Connetable.

3. If it is the case that the decision making process comes down soley to the Connetable what is the point of having a committee?

In the interests of fair and open government we hope one, or all of you, can clear these questions up with clear and concise answers?

Kind Regards.

Team Voice.

Tuesday, 5 January 2010

Facts, Evidence, Untruths, and is somebody telling “LIES“?

Out of sheer necessity this Blog posting is somewhat longer than the norm and really has to be read in it’s entirety, perhaps 4 or 5 times in order to be able to untangle the web of confusion that surrounds the suspension of Chief Officer Graham Power.

Although, without wishing to fall foul of any defamation, or libel laws, one is led to believe, after reading the “evidence” in the letter below that somebody has been telling some rather large Porky Pies.

The truly frightening thing about this letter (below) to the Privileges and Procedures committee is that it’s from none other than the top law enforcement officer in the land, Chief Police Officer Graham Power. The Chief Officer is a highly decorated, distinguished and extremely well respected man in his field of Law Enforcement.

Look the “facts” and “evidence” speak for themselves - the document below has to be read - and read again until it is digested. The “facts and “evidence” can be cross checked with Chief Officer Power’s Judicial Review.

The reply from the Privileges and Procedures committee will (hopefully) be published on here in a few days, possibly a week, and if you think this makes for frightening reading, wait ’til you see the reply they gave the Chief Officer.

Dear Chairman,
Outcome of my appeal under the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982. Complaint arising from the disclosure of information regarding the events preceding my suspension

This letter arises from the recent disclosure of information regarding the times and dates on which documents relating to my suspension from duty were actually created. You will be aware that this information was first requested by me in November 2008, and that its release has been consistently opposed by the Chief Minister and others. You will also be aware that as a result of a hearing before the Complaints Board under the above law, the information has now been released.

Enclosed with this letter are documents relevant to the complaint which will be set out below. It is believed that the documents are largely self explanatory and that it is not necessary to repeat the content in any detail. The relevant documents are:

A copy of the document bundle setting out details of my appeal to the Complaints Board at a hearing on 16 September 2009, which was conducted in accordance with the law set out in the heading to this letter. My application to the Board related to the refusal of the Chief Minister to disclose details of the times and dates on which certain documents relating to my suspension from duty were actually created.

A copy of the findings of the Board published on 14 October 2009 and presented to the States on 20 October 2009.

A copy of a letter from the Director of Information Services dated 19 October 2009 providing the information requested in the initial application.

It is requested that the Committee study all of the attached documents in conjunction with this letter.

In my application to the Board I summarised what I described as the “Official Version” of the events which led to my suspension. I can find no record of any claim on behalf of the Chief Minister or others that the “Official Version” was not effectively summarised in my application. In brief, the “Official Version” of the sequence of events is that on 10 November 2008 the Deputy Chief Officer, Mr David Warcup, wrote to the Chief Executive, Mr Bill Ogley, expressing concerns regarding aspects of the management of the Historic Abuse Enquiry, (document bundle page 28.) This was received on 11 November 2008 by Mr Ogley who, the same day, wrote to the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis, enclosing a copy of Mr Warcup’s letter. (Statement of W Ogley, document bundle page 30.) In his statement to Wiltshire Police Mr Lewis states “Up until I received the letter from David WARCUP, I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” (Statement of A Lewis, document bundle page 33.) The Minister for Home Affairs and the Chief Executive along with other Ministers and Civil Servants attended a presentation and briefing the same evening, given by Mr Warcup and the then Senior Investigating Officer, Mr Mick Gradwell. The briefing on 11 November 2008 is said to have given details of the content of a press briefing which was to take place the following morning.

Ministers and others have consistently put forward the claim that the decision to initiate the disciplinary process was taken in consequence of information which came to the notice of the Minister for Home Affairs in the form of the correspondence received, and the briefing given, on Tuesday 11 November 2008. I understand from States Members that this line has been repeated during “in camera” discussions of the suspension. I also understand that it is the line taken in response to States members who have made individual enquiries.
Following almost a year of requests and applications, information has now been disclosed in relation to the times and dates when documents relevant to the suspension were created. It is self-evident that the facts now disclosed are incompatible with the “Official Version” of events.
The Disciplinary Process relating to the Chief Officer is set out in Article 9 of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 and in the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of Police, which sets out the process to be applied in the exercise of powers under Article 9. A copy of the relevant Disciplinary Code is at page13 of the document bundle.

It will be noted that no person other than the Minister for Home Affairs has any disciplinary powers in respect of the Chief Officer of Police, and that the disciplinary process can only be initiated by a letter from the Minister to the Chief Executive under paragraph 2.1.1 of the Code. The code does not appear to permit action on any other basis. Suspension powers are set out in paragraph 2.3.3 of the Code and are again, vested entirely in the Minister for Home Affairs.
It might now be appropriate to examine the information which has subsequently been disclosed. In the interests of consistency I have followed the sequence set out in the letter of the Director of Information Services dated 19 October 2009. All of the three letters referred to are dated 12 November 2008 and refer to information received on 11 November 2008. They can be found at page 21 of the document bundle. (It may be noted that the letters make reference to a review by the Metropolitan Police. The comments made in the review were subsequently withdrawn by that force in respect of their use for suspension or disciplinary purposes.) The information which has now been provided in relation to the three letters is as follows:
The letter from then Deputy Andrew Lewis to Mr Ogley initiating disciplinary action under paragraph 2.1.1 of the Disciplinary Code
It is now disclosed that this was created at l400hrs on Tuesday 11 November 2008. This is the day on which it is stated that Mr Ogley received the letter from Mr Warcup, which he forwarded to the Minister for Home Affairs the same day. The time of the letter does however precede the presentation and briefing which took place later that day.

Letter from the Minister for Home Affairs notifying me that the disciplinary process had been commenced
It is now disclosed that this was created at 0844hrs on Saturday 8 November 2008. This is three days before the receipt of the information which is claimed to have led to the decision to commence the disciplinary process, and three days before the creation of the letter from the Minister instructing the Chief Executive to take action under the Code. Former Deputy Andrew Lewis in his statement to the Wiltshire Police investigation claims that he instructed that the letter be drawn up on Wednesday 12 November 2008 and he is supported in this claim by Mr Ogley. (Document bundle pages 32 and 31.) The disclosure reveals that these statements are untrue.
Written notification that I was suspended from duty

It is now disclosed that this letter was created at 0848hrs on Saturday 8 November 2008. This date is three days prior to the receipt of the information which is alleged to have given rise to the suspension, and four days before the disciplinary meeting at which the Minister allegedly “decided” that I was to be suspended from duty. It should also be noted that the suspension letter was created three days prior to the letter which, under paragraph 2.1.1 of the code, is required to commence the disciplinary process.

While there remains uncertainty regarding some of the events surrounding the creation of the documents, it is evident that the “Official Version” of the decision-making process cannot now be sustained. The claim that the decision to suspend was a result of a proper process entered into in consequence of evidence viewed on 11 November 2008 is plainly false. Against this background and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the following questions would appear to fall within the remit of the Committee:

Whether any person in Government has made false and misleading statements to myself or persons enquiring on my behalf, during the suspension and disciplinary process which could have denied me my entitlement to fair treatment under the Disciplinary Code.

Whether the proper preparation of my defence has been wilfully impeded by false information provided from within the Island’s Government.

Whether false and misleading statements have been made to the States and to those States members who have enquired about the integrity of the process.

Whether any person has made a false statement to the disciplinary enquiry.

Whether any person currently in office has been a party to a “cover up” of the facts which have now come to light.

Whether any person who had a duty to ensure that processes conducted under the law and the disciplinary code were carried out in a proper and lawful manner, failed in that duty.

In the light of the disclosures, the real reasons for the suspension must be regarded as uncertain. Clearly this is an unsatisfactory position to be in after a year, and places me at an unfair disadvantage in the preparation of my defence.
The 1974 Police Law and the Disciplinary Code set out arrangements for the Political Oversight of the Chief Officer. There is a widely held view that these arrangements are imperfect. The absence of a Police Authority and of the checks and balances common in other jurisdictions are seen as significant defects. Nevertheless the Law and the Code, taken together, clearly identify the intention of legislators that the power of suspension should be vested entirely with the Minister for Home Affairs, and that this power should only be exercised through due process and the proper consideration of evidence.

If Ministers and others have colluded in a common endeavour to frustrate the intentions of the Law and the Code and to produce a misleading account of events, then this would be a serious matter. In the course of the Complaints Board Hearing, which was held in public, I had an opportunity to respond to the Chief Ministers submissions on the question of public interest. In doing so I said “Mr Chairman, if Ministers, assisted by Civil Servants, have, for whatever motive, put together a false account of events, and have produced paperwork and made statements to sup port that false account, and if others have subsequently become aware of what has been done, and have used their position to cover up the truth and attempt to prevent it from becoming known, then there is certainly an issue of public interest.” In setting out the reasons why I believed that the Board should support disclosure I said “Finally on this issue, but certainly not least, there is the question of the integrity of government, and the degree of trust we can place in the statements made, and assurances given, by those in executive positions.” The Committee will be aware that the Board found in my favour.

The Code of Conduct for Ministers requires them to act in accordance with the relevant laws and procedures and emphasises the importance of providing “accurate and truthful information to the States” (paragraph 3ii.) Additionally Ministers are required by the Code to be “as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take” (paragraph 3) and to “conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the publics trust and confidence in the integrity of the States of Jersey,” (paragraph 8.) The Committee will be aware that the States of Jersey (Powers, Privileges and Immunities) (Scrutiny Panels, PAC and PPC) (Jersey) Regulations 2006, provides the Committee with the relevant powers to investigate any alleged breach of the Code.

It may be that I have provided sufficient information to enable the Committee to consider a way forward on this issue. However, in the hope that it may be helpful, I will offer some personal thoughts and additional information which may assist.
On a straight reading of the available evidence it may occur to many people that the most likely probability is that the former Minister for Home Affairs knowingly provided an account which is distant from the truth. That may be the case, but there are other possibilities. One is that he was not the main author of the process. The known facts allow for an alternative explanation. That is, that the decision to suspend was in fact taken by others for motives of their own, and that the then Minister was brought in at the final stages to provide his signature, and thereby appear to legitimise a process which was conceived by others. Such an interpretation would of course raise the possibility of a “Government within a Government” in which unidentified and unaccountable individuals exercise power outside the parameters of the law. If that was the case then the constitutional implications would be significant. This would be particularly true in the context of a potential impact on the independence of a part of the Criminal Justice System.

In considering these issues the Committee might find it helpful to be alerted to the apparent relationship between the suspension, and what was said to the media and the outside world in general on Wednesday 12 November 2008. During the course of his enquiries on behalf of the Minister, the Chief Constable of Wiltshire has disclosed to me a number of documents. The two most relevant in respect of this issue are the draft media presentation script which was shown to me by Mr Warcup on 5 November 2008, my last working day before a short period of leave, and the script actually used on 12 November 2008. There are significant differences between the two which must have resulted from changes made between 5 and 11 November 2008. For example, the draft script says “It has never been suggested by the States of Jersey Police that Child Murder took place at Haut de Ia Garenne.” The script actually used in the briefings on 11 and 12 November 2008 says “Statements which were issued by the States of Jersey Police suggested that serious criminal offences had been perpetrated against children and also that there was a possibility that children had been murdered, bodies had been disposed of and buried within the home.” Other differences between the scripts are of a similar nature. Against this background it is legitimate to consider another possible explanation for the actual sequence of events. That is, the decision to suspend was taken on or before 8 November 2008 by persons unknown for reasons at present unknown. The media script was then subjected to significant changes (I believe that “sexed up” is a popular term used to describe this type of process) in order to enable the Minister to claim that he took a decision after being shown the content of the presentation on 11 November 2008, and in order to conceal the real reason or purpose behind the action taken. This may or may not be what actually occurred. Until the truth is known we cannot be sure.
Finally, in assessing the integrity of Government actions in this matter the Committee may find it helpful to be reminded of the following:

Although the Royal Court, in considering my application for Judicial Review, was not able to formally pass judgement on the initial suspension, it did say “we feel constrained to voice our serious concern as to the fairness of the procedure apparently adopted by the Previous Minister.” (Published judgement of the Royal Court, paragraph 19.)

It is a matter of public record that the Chief Executive has admitted destroying the original notes of the suspension meeting on 12 November 2008.
Although there may be insufficient information to formulate specific complaints against named individuals at this stage, I hope that the Committee will agree that there is a sufficient basis to provide reason to believe that one or more persons at the heart of Government have used their positions in order to engage in a deliberate abuse of process, and have made false and misleading statements to conceal their actions.

I am aware that complaints which are specific against serving Ministers should be addressed to the Council of Ministers. However, given the difficulty in identifying who is responsible for what, and the possibility that one or more members of the Council of Ministers may or may not be implicated, the Committee may agree that the general complaint against the conduct of Government falls within its remit and merits further enquiry.

Although some of the facts remain in contention it is believed that the following are not in dispute:

The suspension is almost one year old.

The public cost is reported to be in excess of half a million pounds and rising.

No disciplinary charges have been brought.

No hearing has been called.

No conclusion is in sight.

This matter is placed in the hands of the Committee in the belief that its remit covers the circumstances of this complaint and that the Committee will see the need to take further action. However, if the Committee considers that I should progress this matter by some other route then I will of course consider whatever is recommended, in consultation with my professional advisors.
I hope this is sufficient for your purposes at this time, and that you will ask if you need any further information.
Yours sincerely
Graham Power
Cc Dr I Brain. Chairman. Chief Police Officers Staff Association.
The Connétable of St Helier