Suspension Review Meeting of CPO Graham Power (2)

These suspension Reviews are full of “facts” and “evidence” and a real insight into how Home Affairs Minister Ian (P9-26) Le Marquand operates.

To a mere, barely educated, Pleb like myself it looks like Ian (P926) Le Marquand is continuing the suspension of our most senior Police Officer purely on “accusations” or “opinions” of David Warcup.


The possibility that David Warcup could be the most conflicted person in all of this doesn’t appear to be relevant in the decision making of Ian (P9-26) Le Marquand. David Warcup could have everything to gain by the dismissal/removal of Graham Power, promotion (Graham Power’s Job salary, pension and status increase) yet Senator Ian (P9-26) Le Marquand will take the word of this man rather than look at the ACPO Reports, who have nothing whatsoever to gain and can no way be accused of confliction......

Acpo 2 should now be available on Senator Syvret's Blog, what could they possibly contain that would warrant the suspension of Chief Officer Power. What could they possibly contain to justify the berating Lenny Harper has recieved from Mick Gradwell, courtesy of our "accredited" media?
 
Up until I had started reading the “facts” of CPO Graham Power’s suspension, I fancied Ian Le Marquand as our next Chief Minister. After reading the “facts” I now see no other alternative than a vote of no confidence, not only in Ian (P9-26) Le Marquand, but in Senator Terry (P9-26) Le sueur.
 
CPO Graham Power QPM, I must ask you not to judge the “good” people of Jersey on the actions of our government, they are not representative of the “good” people of Jersey in any way, shape or form and I feel compelled to apologise to you for them and their actions.



Senator Ian (P9-26) Le Marquand, something tells me history is not going to be kind to you, please do the right thing while you still have the chance!


Whilst every care has been taken to accurately, re-create from the original document there is always the chance there could be errors in the posting below, which has been taken from the original document.









STATES OF JERSEY
SUSPENSION REVIEW MEETING
THURSDAY, 5th March 2009

Present:
Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs)
Mr. G. Power (Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police)
Dr. T Brain (Chief Constable, Gloucestershire)
Mr. M. Pinel (Head of Employee Relations, States of Jersey)

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

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

Good morning.

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

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

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

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

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

Mr. G. Power:

I thought you got them as well.

Dr. T Brain:

No.

Senator B.I Le Marquand:

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


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

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

Dr. T. Brain:
I do not think that is our understanding of it.

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

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
That is all right I am just raising a possible way forward.

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

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

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
We are still being tape recorded.

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
That is fine.

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

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

Dr. T. Brain:
If you could just go through the references that you proposed to exclude again.

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

Dr. T. Brain:
Yes.

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

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Where is that? I see.

Dr. T. Brain:
That is the first sentence under …

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Well, it has come out for the purpose anyway.

Dr. T. Brain:
I understand exactly what you mean and we can proceed on that basis.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Okay. Can I just catch up on my notes now because I have not been writing notes?

Dr. T. Brain:
Certainly. Yes certainly.

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

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
So if I said a general and normal review?

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

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

Dr. T. Brain:
Thank you.

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

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


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

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

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

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
All right, yes, if you want to say more on that, please do then.

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

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

Dr. T. Brain:
If you bear with me for a moment, Minister.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
But you did start making submissions before.

Dr. T. Brain:
Yes.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
But it would be helpful if you could make …

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

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

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I suppose you put it before me on the basis of it being fair.

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes, I understand. I understand.

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

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

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes, okay. But it is a protocol so it is guidance notes; would that be right?

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

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

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


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

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

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

Dr. T. Brain:
Yes.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
The technical aspects fall away.

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

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

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

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

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Do you want me to reply on that?

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
No. I have tried to formulate that into a full wording.

Dr. T. Brain:
I will give you a few moments to do that.

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

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
You would prefer “likely.”

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
“Likely” is stronger than “a serious possibility.”

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

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

Dr. T Brain:
Indeed.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
So, there may be a parallel.

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I accept that is a relevant criterion.

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

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

Dr. T. Brain:
It is. Yes, indeed.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
It just focuses my mind on a particular aspect.

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Have you completed your submissions in relation to the – going back to the letter of 30th January – criteria?

Dr. T. Brain:
I think it has been most helpful. Thank you.

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

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

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

Dr. T. Brain:
I have no observations to make on that.

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

Dr. T. Brain:
Thank you very much, Minister. I would like to start this point of the proceedings by expressing our gratitude that you have reconvened this hearing in a reasonable amount of time, given all of the pressures on everybody’s diary. So, I am grateful for that.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I hope you know that I came back from holiday to do this. Not holiday off the island …

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

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

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

Dr. T. Brain:
I am very grateful for Mr. Pinel’s comment. I must say, Minister, that is staggering.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
That is news to me, I have to say.

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

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

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Indeed, yes.

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
If you could give us the date. So, it was summer ...

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

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

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Right.

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

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

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes. Okay, that is good.

Dr. T. Brain:
I will do that now.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
That is good. Thank you very much then. I will adjourn then until 3.00 p.m. unless I take longer.

Dr. T. Brain:
Thank you.

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

Mr. G. Power:
Thank you very much.

ADJOURNMENT

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

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Well, I am, for all number of reasons. Yes.

Mr. M. Pinel:
I will report that back.

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

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes.

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes.

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
You have paraphrased that.

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Can I just comment ...

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes, okay. Can I just comment. I thought it was public concern that was the issue whereby ...

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

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes, okay. That is fine. Thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen.