Wednesday, 28 July 2010

“Not fit for purpose.”

In the series of “briefing notes” sent by recently retired Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM, to ALL local “accredited” media we bring you the sixth instalment. This instalment deals with the “not fit for purpose” disciplinary code for Chief Police Officers in Jersey. The very same “not fit for purpose” code that Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand insisted on using despite there being others available he could have used from the UK and elsewhere.

The curious thing is, why (to the best of my knowledge) have none of our “accredited” media asked our Home Affairs Minister how he is willing to use UK Policing Guidelines as in ACPO and NPIA to investigate the former Chief Police Officer, but refuses to use UK guidelines for disciplinary purposes?

In the briefing note below Graham Power QPM talks of the three Suspension Review Hearings that are in the public domain. Indeed they are in the public domain they were published by Team Voice. Not only published but published in their entirety NOT REDACTED. The former Chief Officer also mentions his “Skeleton Argument” to the Royal Court which has now been published by Rico Sorda. He further mentions his affidavit which is in the public domain, also published in its entirety by Team Voice.

Links to all three Suspension Reviews, the Skeleton Argument and the Affidavit will be at the bottom of this post.

For any potential Chief Police Officer who is thinking of applying for the job over here all five links below are a “must read”…………Hope you know what you are letting yourself in for!!

Briefing note 7

This is one of series of briefing notes prepared by Graham Power and is intended to assist Editors in reporting issues which may arise from the decision by the Minister for Home Affairs to abandon all disciplinary proceedings.


The case of the Minister for Home Affairs and the Disciplinary Code which was “not fit for purpose.”

From time to time the Minister has been challenged by journalists and others to account for the continued delays in bringing the disciplinary investigation to a conclusion. In more recent times he has been reported as saying that the delays are due to the fact that he inherited a Disciplinary Code which was “not fit for purpose. He is right about the Disciplinary Code. Both myself and my advisors agree that the Code is an ineffective vehicle for achieving a fast and effective solution to a disciplinary enquiry. That is why we have repeatedly urged the Minister to set the Code aside and to adopt a suitable code from another jurisdiction in order that effective progress could be made. We have offered to assist in such a move and have made a number of practical and realistic suggestions as to how this could be achieved. The Minister has declined all our offers.

Some of the information in this brief is already in the public domain but some of it may be new. It is offered in the hope that it may be of value in coming to an assessment of this issue.

My affidavit to the Royal Court, sworn in January 2009 is in the public domain. In that document I draw attention to the flaws in the Disciplinary Code and how it may be “capable of creative interpretation by a Minister who is so minded.” (Paragraph 5.) I give examples of comparable codes in similar jurisdictions and draw attention to UK guidelines to Police Authorities which appear to offer a fairer and more effective way forward. (Paragraph 28.)

The transcripts of the suspension review meetings conducted by the Minister in February and March 2009 are in the public domain. In those meetings my professional representative, Dr Timothy Brain, returns to the theme of the ineffective and unfair nature of the Disciplinary Code. There is a substantial debate as to what key areas of the Code actually mean. The parties are unable to agree and the Minister decides to impose his own interpretation. Dr Brain nevertheless attempts to assist by drawing attention to best practice advice from a range of UK sources and encourages the Minister to make use of what is available from elsewhere in order to move matters forward. All of these proposals are rejected by the Minister.

My application for a Judicial Review of my suspension was heard in the Royal Court in July 2009. The application was supported by a written “Skeleton Argument” which was copied to the Minister. The Skeleton Argument draws further attention to the contradictory and ambiguous nature of the Disciplinary Code and offers positive suggestions as to best practice gathered from other comparable jurisdictions. In my submission to the Court I argue that “the Minister was in error in ‘pressing on regardless’ in his use of the code when it was agreed by him and all parties that the code was flawed and that relevant alternative guidelines from comparable jurisdictions were available.” (Skeleton Argument Paragraph 40.) In open Court I offered to sit down with the Minister and agree a new set of guidelines based on best practice elsewhere in order that matters may be moved forward. The Minister did not accept this offer.

It is hoped that the above is helpful in assisting editors who may wish to probe the apparent claims of the Minister that the delays inherent in the Disciplinary Code are ones which are beyond his control, and possibly, whether the use of the ineffective Code, when effective alternatives were available, was motivated by any other agenda.

Skeleton Argument


Suspension Review 1

Suspension Review 2

Suspension Review 3 (Blast)

Friday, 23 July 2010

Scraping The Barrel.

In the series of eight “briefing notes” sent by retired Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM to ALL “accredited” media, not that you would know it judging by the way they have (or haven’t) reported on the Wiltshire Report, while being in possession of these briefing notes. Below is the fifth instalment.

Astute readers will note that these briefing notes were sent before the NINETY PER CENT Redacted Wiltshire Report was made public, with only the “accredited” media being “allowed” an embargoed copy, and at least one States Member was REFUSED a copy! Team Voice were leaked a copy of this NINETY PER CENT REDACTED Report and even under extreme provocation we adhered to the "accredited" media embargo.

We hope that after reading this instalment that readers will be that little more informed and have a better understanding of the “tactics” employed by the Home Affairs Minister in what is increasingly looking like a barrel scraping expedition.

Briefing note 9.

This briefing note has been issued by Graham Power in order to assist editors in reporting issues arising from the decision by the Minister for Home Affairs to abandon all disciplinary proceedings.


A story about some emails.

From time to time I take a look at the “Voice” website. This is because it is sometimes interesting and also so that I can find out what is going on given that the Jersey Government are not telling me anything.

I see that the “Voice” now have a copy of the version of the Wiltshire Report which has gone to the media. Lucky them. No doubt I will find out more about it in time.

What they seem to have discovered is that the Minister has apparently circulated some copies of alleged emails. This is an interesting development which merits some quick comment.

From the details I have it looks as if the emails were given to the Minister around November 2009. I received copies of them a few weeks later along with other papers. While I do not wish to bore anyone with legalistic details about process (but there again the Minister is a lawyer so he should be capable of getting the process right every time) there is something decidedly irregular about the way that this has been handled. To begin with the emails have never been investigated under the Disciplinary Code. They are obviously not part of the original terms of reference and we are asked to believe that they just “turned up” as an aside to other issues. When he received the copies the Minister had a choice. He could appoint an Investigating Officer to make enquiries (asking me if I knew anything about the emails would have been a start) or he could simply do nothing. Up to today it looked as if he did the latter. Nobody was appointed to investigate the emails, no notices were served relating to them, no questions were asked, and no statement from me was requested. (Under the Disciplinary Code the Chief Officer must be asked for a statement regarding any allegation.) So it all just went away. Until now.

Perhaps by the time he had the copies the Minister was growing in confidence. Having apparently decided that he was not going to need the inconvenience of a disciplinary hearing with a bothersome defence team putting forward evidence, he also appears to have decided that he could do without a bothersome investigation which would give me a chance to answer questions and perhaps ask a few of my own. Until of course the whole disciplinary investigation collapsed around him, and barrels had to be scraped in order to justify the unjustifiable. Then the emails were brought out of their box.

Just for the record, during a working day I send large numbers of emails and forgot most of them soon afterwards. The copies I have look genuine but without more information I cannot assist further. I have however managed to speak to one of the alleged recipients, who told me that he has no recollection of the message in question. Without a proper investigation and a chance to ask some questions, that it about as far as the matter can be taken. So far, on the information available, I have made no admissions whatsoever regarding the authorship of any emails.

What is however a good deal more interesting is what this episode reveals about the type of investigation which has been commissioned by the Minister. Like everyone else I have my sources of information, and the tale of the emails confirms what I have been told. Namely that the Minister has paid investigators to search through years of my computer activity looking for something, anything, which could be made to stick. But it does not end there. UK sources tell me that investigators have also been tasked to search the UK for former colleagues, including people I worked with up to 20 years ago, and have given them the opportunity to “dish some dirt” relating to my past working life should they be so inclined. So far as I know nobody has taken up this invitation.

Some people might think that this is commendable. It demonstrates a collective resolve to leave no stone unturned (and no expense unclaimed) in the pursuit of.............. well, in the pursuit of what actually? How did something which started off as an attempt by the Police to deliver justice to people who said that they had been systematically abused in the care of the States turn into a licence for the Minister to spend money on barrel-scraping witch-hunt against the Chief Officer of the Force? Who is setting priorities here and what is their real agenda?Sometimes it pays to step back from the noise and look at the bigger picture. Editors are encouraged to do so.

11th July 2010.

Submitted by VFC.

Wednesday, 21 July 2010

VFC Editorial.

There was a time when what I read in the JEP (online) would infuriate me, disgust me and bewilder me and I felt compelled to write to them expressing this. they would never publish what I wrote. And being the humble man that I am, and with hindsight I can see now that some of it, but by no means all, might have been OTT and not fit for publication.

As is often the case I have a friend who scans and e-mails me the “odd” “editorial” or anything my friend thinks would be of interest to me, today being one of those “odd” editorials. At time of writing this Blog it is not on their online edition.

I could spend hours here dissecting today’s JEP editorial, but the JEP is, in my opinion, becoming a bit of a laughing stock and instead of being infuriated, disgusted and bewildered I now feel sadness for them. I am sad because I believe we are starting to see the beginning of the end of the JEP and there are no doubt some good people that work there and will be losing their jobs because of the actions of a few of the top tier.

When a new "challenging" concept turns up, in this case Blogging, it goes through three stages with our “powers that be”. The first stage is “denial” they try to ignore it in the hope that it will go away. We have clearly passed that stage, there is barely a day goes by where Blogging isn’t mentioned in the States, in the Mainstream Media and on the streets.

Stage two is to “attack it”. This is the stage we/they are at now. They can no longer ignore Bloggers, they can no longer deny their existence so they are trying to fight us. “They” being the JEP and the majority of our government. I am pleased to say, other “accredited” media on the island have commenced stage three, which is to engage, but not the good old JEP they will go down with this government.

What the JEP has attempted to do in their editorial today is to “demonise” Blogs and Bloggers. They have tried to do this without admitting that Blogs and Bloggers are becoming influential and in turn means that the strong power that the JEP once enjoyed over the Jersey community is dwindling, it is dwindling because of Blogs.

In my humble opinion the JEP are trying to “blame” Bloggers, in part, for the inevitable demise of Acting Chief Police Officer David Warcup. They are also attempting to demonise those Politicians that were seeking to get answers concerning, what could turn out to be the illegal suspension of CPO Power and the role David Warcup played in it.

There is a school that believes David Warcup and Mick Gradwell were brought over here to “close down” the Child Abuse Scandal. I am in that school. Not because I think it is a good school to be in, it’s because I have read CPO Power’s sworn Affidavit I have read the transcripts of ILM’s suspension reviews of CPO Power. I have researched “Operation Rose” I have witnessed Warcup and Gradwell’s Press Conference I’ve read the HMIC Reports on Lenny Harper and Graham Power. I have read the 4 ACPO Reports on the HDLG Investigation under Lenny Harper and Graham Power and I have read the NINETY PER CENT REDACTED Wiltshire Report (“Haven 1”) I have “researched” and looked at both sides of this ongoing saga, which has a long way to go yet. And I don't believe in Tooth Faries!

Anyhow, back to the JEP Editorial. It just smacks of desperation and they cannot accept that Blogs are now becoming influential and taking the power away from them. We (Bloggers) can not be blamed for the inevitable demise of David Warcup if we are not influential. What has really happened, in my opinion, is that Gradwell and Warcup “failed” to close down the Abuse Scandal and that is because of well researched Bloggers. Not because they (Warcup and Gradwell) have been called a couple of nasty names on the internet by Bloggers it’s because we have researched the FACTS. The “establishment” have lost this one, it didn’t go their way and they will be starting to realise that they can’t rely on the JEP like maybe they once could to “manage opinion”.

The writing is on the wall for the JEP as demonstrated by today’s editorial, it’s only a matter of time before they are out of business and that does sadden me for the people who work there that don’t deserve to lose their jobs because of their editor and his cohorts.

By the time the JEP gets to stage three (engage) it will be too late. And as difficult as it will be they will have to concede that Bloggers are influential and credible sources of news and the JEP were just not up to the job.

Submitted by VFC.

Tuesday, 20 July 2010

Do the Honourable thing Minister.

Yesterday, Monday 19th July 2010 saw the surprise (for some) announcement by Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, that Acting Chief Police Officer David Warcup no longer wants to become the Chief Officer.

Among the “reasons” for Mr Warcup’s decision is that he is/was facing “political hostility” and slurs have been made on his character. Which, to my way of thinking, brings into question the calibre of Mr. Warcup as a potential Police Chief, or Deputy Police Chief for that matter.

During the “Historic” Abuse investigation, former DCO Lenny Harper, it has been reported, was subject to DEATH THREATS, IMMENSE POLITICAL INTERFERENCE AND PRESSURE. Ridicule, character assassination, the list goes on, so too was Chief Officer Graham Power, although I’m not sure about the death threats. But like seasoned professional cops THEY GOT ON WITH THE JOB of attempting to bring the guilty to justice without FEAR or FAVOUR. Can the same be said for Mr.Warcup?

Acting Chief Police Officer Warcup, believes, unless I am mistaken, that due to the political opposition against his appointment as CPO that his position is now untenable……and there’s the rub.

Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand has said that if David Warcup does not receive the confidence of the House, then he (ILM) would resign. Now I have repeatedly asked the question what does he mean by “the confidence of the House?” We all know that “the establishment” hold the majority vote in the House, so it could be seen as an empty promise.

In ILM’s own words, he knows that there will be between 18-20 votes against the appointment of Mr.Warcup so he would not have had the full confidence of the House. With so many predicted votes against Mr.Warcup, it would appear, his position would be un-tenable.

So time to fall on your sword Senator and salvage what little credibility you have left. David Warcup does not have the full confidence of the House, you backed the wrong horse. Do “the honourable thing” and resign as Home Affairs Minister. But before you do you might want to consider an apology the Former CPO Graham Power QPM for the disgraceful way he has been treated by you and this government. And then ask yourself, what self respecting Law Enforcement Officer would want to apply for the job as Chief Police Officer in Jersey knowing that what has been done to CPO Graham Power, could be done to them?

Submitted by VFC.

Saturday, 17 July 2010


Below is an e-mail sent by Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM in response to an e-mail he had received from, shall we say “an interested party”. The recipient of the e-mail has requested that I do not include their e-mail in this Blog…… I’ve REDACTED IT!! The e-mail has also been viewed by a number of politicians with an interest, which incidentally is growing.

For those of us who read the Blog Tony's Musings we are aware of the research, objectivity, impartiality, humour, satire and most importantly, in my opinion, his search for facts. He is meticulous with his research and does his utmost to inform his readers of “balanced facts”. Tony recently published a Blog about the 70% “redaction” of the Wiltshire Report.

Well the 70%, as Tony now knows might be a little “economical” and there is a strong chance that the true figure could be more than NINETY PER CENT REDACTED!

If this is correct, then the tax payer has paid well over a million quid and Ian Le Marquand is trying to convince anybody that will listen that he is being “fair” to Chief Officer Graham Power with less than TEN PER CENT of a report, after denying him a fair trial.

I was ready to show some humility to the Wiltshire Constabulary, believing that ILM and his cohorts had approved all the redacting, but after re-reading the Chief Officer’s e-mail, it reads to me as though Wiltshire have joined in with the redaction game.

Naturally, this is all truly alarming, if true, and just exposes, even further, what a sham this all is and what an utter Kangaroo Court ILM is conducting and expecting us all to swallow!

Probably the most frightening aspect of all is, if this is what can be done to the most Senior Police Officer -what have they - and what can they - do to us, the plebs?

We also must remember that the 4 ACPO Reports and the HMIC Reports scrutinizing Lenny Harper and Graham Power can be viewed in their entirety, thanks to Citizens Media (ACPO Reports) why are we only allowed to see less than TEN PER CENT of Wiltshire?

I might be thinking a little optimistic, (which is a very rare treat for me) and reading something that isn’t there (Graham Power’s e-mail below) but I could be forgiven for believing that Graham Power intends on publishing his defence somewhere along the line. It is reported to be in the region of SIXTY TWO THOUSAND words and up to a hundred pages long.

One thing is for sure - every single word of it will appear on this Blog given half the chance.

As I have explained, this document/e-mail has been redacted and slightly edited and does not make for comfortable reading.

The e-mail from CPO Power QPM in response to questions he had received from an interested party.

The problem here is that he is dealing with the redaction of a redaction.  
The "Wiltshire Report" that I have fills three and a half crates. The "report" part is the investigating officers selective summary of the evidence extracted from a huge quantity of statements and documents.   The defence case would have been that he has been unfairly selective in focusing on the negative elements of the evidence. So before the second "redaction" there has been a first "redaction" which in the view of the defence ignores witness evidence and documents friendly to my case.

Balance can only be achieved if the Wilts summary is read alongside my own statement.   There is no other way. And my own statement should certainly be part of any archive.

Let me bore you with an example. The Wilts summary of the evidence criticises media lines taken by Lenny. But when I search through the piles of paperwork I discover that a PC (name redacted) was tasked with researching Lenny’s broadcasts and producing a summary. In that exercise he failed to find any record of claims of buried bodies and the like. On the contrary he extracts quotes such as "there is no evidence that anyone was murdered or died at HDLG in these rooms but there is evidence of abuse there."  (covered in my statement para 302)........................  consequence??..............this evidence is completely ignored by Wilts in their "report" because it does not fit their agenda.......................Again.............the selectively include negative evidence offered by a media consultant named (name redacted)..............but when I dig out his report from the files I find that he also quotes Lenny as saying "We have no allegations that anyone died or was murdered there."..................(my stat para 301.)  result??...............again.....totally ignored in the Wilts report...............which is selective and biased enough before being further redacted by the Minister to make it look even worse. Only the more general availability of my statement can redress this balance.

Some States Members have attempted to work out how much of the "evidence" has been redacted..............they may not be aware that a massive redaction has already taken place before the second redaction.

At a very rough assessment the evidence made available to States Members is probably less than 10% of the total.

I hope that this note is helpful..


Submitted by VFC.

Thursday, 15 July 2010

Operation Blast.

Here is another “Briefing note” sent from CPO Graham Power to ALL island Media. I’ve not seen it crop anywhere on the “accredited” media and re-produce it below.

It sets out some clear “facts” how once more the Chief Police Officer is denied a defence to Ian “Skippy” Le Marquand’s Kangaroo Trial by media prosecution.

It might be worth noting, that CPO Power has given a THIRTEEN THOUSAND word reponse to the Operation Blast "allegations".


Briefing note 3.

This briefing note has been issued by Graham Power in order to assist editors in reporting issues arising from the Decision by the Minister for Home Affairs to abandon all disciplinary proceedings.

Why any statement made by the Minister relating to the “Haven 2” Enquiry (Operation Blast) may be particularly unfair.

While I would argue that unfairness is not an unfamiliar feature of the behaviour of the Minister for Home Affairs in his dealings with my case, his proposed action, in providing briefings on the matter which he calls “Operation Blast” is particularly excessive. This is because the rules governing the management of sensitive intelligence appear to prohibit the putting forward of any defence to allegations which the Minister may make.

The Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand, announced the investigation known as “Haven 2” in June 2009 and in September of the year Mr Brian Moore, Chief Constable of Wiltshire, was appointed Investigating Officer. After completing his preliminary enquiries Mr Moore asked me to provide a written statement and I agreed to do so. I prepared a document of over 13,000 words which was completed on 10th March 2010. In preparing my statement I made reference to confidential intelligence material which had come into my possession in a professional capacity.

I offered the opinion that in view of its content the statement ought to be classified as “Secret.” Mr Moore subsequently offered the view that, after consideration and advice this classification could be downgraded to “Restricted.” What is important about this exchange is that nobody doubts that my statement, which sets out the core of the defence case, should only be seen by those with a legitimate professional interest. It most certainly cannot be part of any public briefing. I am aware that at some stage Wiltshire were seeking advice on what if anything in the statement could be revealed to the Minister. In light of this Editors may see value in asking the Minister whether he has seen a copy of the defence statement and whether he has taken it into account in anything he might say in relation to the enquiry.

It does however appear probable that there is to be a presentation on the “prosecution case” in circumstances which do not allow for any part of the defence case to be revealed at all.

This may well add to the frustration and disagreement which is likely to follow the forthcoming exchanges in this case. People were looking for a “verdict” or at least a clear answer to a long-running and contentious issue. They are likely to get neither. They will get a briefing on the “prosecution case.” They will get snatches of the “defence case.” There will be no hearing, there will be no cross-examination of witnesses, there will be no appeal. In spite of an enquiry lasting 21 months and costing well over a million pounds there will be no definite “answer.”
It is my contention that in these circumstances it is right that we should fall back on the basic principle of justice which decrees that he who is not proven guilty is presumed to be innocent. I have not been proved guilty. Therefore I am presumed innocent. That is as close to a clear result as any of us are likely to get.

It is hoped that this note is helpful. Other notes will be made available as issues are identified.

Submitted by VFC.

Tuesday, 13 July 2010

Kangaroo Court.

Today saw the beginning of Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian (P9-26) Le Marquand’s Kangaroo Court, and guess who wasn’t invited? Yeah yours truly!

Senator Le Marquand has now set about telling the world of the prosecution case against our most Senior Police Officer Graham Power QPM. He is doing this using the “redacted” Wiltshire Report that was intended for disciplinary purposes. Had there been any disciplinary action our most Senior Police Officer would have been entitled to defend himself. So although the “redacted” Wiltshire was meant for disciplinary action, Ian Le Marquand is using it for something completely different, and what he is using it for is to “nail” Graham Power (in my opinion).

However I have been attempting to be granted a position at today’s Press Conference held by Senator Le Marquand, so I would be able to put some well researched questions to him and offer him the opportunity to show that he is not conducting a Kangaroo Court. He, and others, have refused Citizens Media a place at the Press Conference under the guise that if he let me in, he might have to let “hundreds” of Bloggers in……HUNDREDS? Yeah I know, but that’s the best he could come up with.

So today, myself and a couple of Team Voice members went down to the Royal Square to see if we could get a word with any of our “representatives” as they went in for their presentation of Ian Le Marquand’s Kangaroo Court, but nobody wanted to talk.

Unsurprisingly, Deputy James Reed the Minister for Education Sport and Culture was the first to refuse a word with Citizens Media. Perhaps he thought I was going to ask him questions about the Senior Civil Servant at his department who remains and remained in place while he was under investigation for Child Abuse?

We then went down to the Cyril Le Marquand House where the Press Conference was to be held, and if Ian Le Marquand could see there wasn’t “hundreds” of Bloggers wanting to go in he might allow me in? Nope selected, or could that be “selective” media only were allowed in.

Thanks to WebGuru and agent 49 for their pictures.

Submitted by VFC.

Monday, 12 July 2010

A proper job. (1)

Briefing note 1. July 2010.

This morning Team Voice were contacted by "The friends of Graham Power" and asked to circulate, to all "accredited" media 5 "briefing notes", the first of which is below.

We believed the "accredited" media would be thankful for these notes as it will enable them to be more researched when Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand sets out the "prosecution case" for them against Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. It could help the "accredited" media to do a "proper job" and ask some very searching questions of the Minister, and have the public much better informed. It could also offer Chief Officer Power some kind of defense that has been denied him by Senator Le Marquand.

As far as we are aware, the "accredited" media are happy to recieve such communication. That is all except Carl Walker from Jersey's only "news" paper. He sent a reply to the e-mail which we reproduce below. These "briefing notes" from CPO Power are going to be coming thick and fast. Team Voice, and the "accredited" media are in possession of 5 of these "briefing notes" with more rumoured to be coming later today. We (Team Voice) will do all in our power to share with our readers all the briefing notes, that the "accredited" media also have, in order to gauge the job done by our "accredited" media when questioning/interviewing Senator Le Marquand.

This is what we got back from Carl Walker from the Jersey Evening Post.

"Please could you ask Mr Power to email his responses directly.
Thank you."

Carl Walker News Editor

Briefing note issued by Graham Power QPM in relation to statements which might be made by the Minister for Home Affairs. Senator Ian Le Marquand.

Did Wiltshire recommend disciplinary charges and if so, what did the Minister do about it?
Has he really “run out of time” or did he allow time to run out?
It is understood that Senator Le Marquand will make some form of public statement in relation to the disciplinary investigation and report by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire. I have not been told what he intends to say and consequently it is difficult to prepare any response.

It nevertheless remains my position that the abandonment of disciplinary proceedings after around 21 months means that I am now formally cleared of any misconduct.

Some clues as to the Ministers intentions have emerged during his media interviews. At one stage he was heard to say that the investigation by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire made recommendations for disciplinary charges. In the interests of balance it should be known that the defence position is that we do not share this interpretation of the Wiltshire report.

In order to understand this position it is necessary to go back to the original terms of reference set for the Wiltshire enquiry. The terms of reference ask Wiltshire to report on whether my performance met ACPO/NPIA standards. (These abbreviations refer to The Association of Chief Police Officers for England Wales and Northern Ireland and the National Policing Improvement Agency, which has a remit for most of but not all of the UK. Both agencies provide guidelines to police services within their jurisdiction.) From the very beginning I have challenged the fairness of these terms of reference. Jersey does not fall within the jurisdiction of either agency and there has been repeated political confirmation of the principle that policing guidelines from the UK should not enter Jersey without Ministerial approval. No such approval has been given in respect of these guidelines. In my first application to the Royal Court I drew attention to the longer term implications of disciplinary action based on English policing guidelines. I pointed out that if the Chief Officer in Jersey could in fact be disciplined for failing to conform to English guidelines then those guidelines would thereafter become the “bible” for policing in the island. English guidelines do not of course have any regard to Jersey’s unique system of policing and the potential implications for effective working alongside the honorary police are significant. As with many other aspects of this case the Minister decided to press ahead regardless.

The Wiltshire investigation has, as anticipated from the onset, identified areas where my management was not in accordance with English guidelines. That is not a surprise. Given the terms of reference no other outcome was possible.

At the conclusion of their enquiries Wiltshire took advice from an English Lawyer in relation to potential disciplinary charges. The defence interpretation of this advice is that it relates to the disciplinary issues which might have arisen had I been a Chief Officer in and English Force bound by English guidelines. In that context the advice is useful background information and no more. The Wiltshire report does not appear to make any serious attempt to address the core question of whether I had at any time breached the policing procedures applicable to Jersey.

While the Wiltshire report will win no prizes for clarity it does attempt to summarise this position in paragraph 2.1.8 of the supplementary report provided in February 2010. This paragraph is reproduced below in its entirety:

“As Operation Haven has assessed the performance of CO POWER against the relevant ACPO/NPIA standards applicable in the United Kingdom whilst having regard to the States of Jersey Police context, so we have considered identified failings against the conduct standards applicable in the UK. We have obtained legal advice in this regard, and the specific advice relating to misconduct charges that would be applicable in the UK is contained in this Report. It is quite properly a matter for the competent Authority in Jersey to consider and accept or reject the advice we have received.”

Editors may see the implications of this paragraph as significant. Firstly it appears to support the defence position that the Wiltshire report makes no recommendations in respect of disciplinary action under the laws and procedures applicable to Jersey. Secondly it provides confirmation that the Minister was in possession of the final Wiltshire view in respect of disciplinary charges as early as February of this year, and was aware that Wiltshire were effectively passing the whole issue back to him as the “competent Authority.” He appears to have taken no effective action one way or the other. However, the Ministers knowledge goes back further than that. Editors should be able to verify that the Minister has made repeated public statements to the effect that he was in possession of the draft Wiltshire report as early as November 2009 and that the final version does not differ significantly from the earlier draft. Far from “running out of time” the Minister appears to have had time in abundance to bring forward what he claims are “disciplinary charges” which he has admitted have been in his possession since November 2009. Editors may feel entitled to challenge him on this point. Has he run out of time, or has he allowed time to run out? Thereby preventing the defence from putting forward their case at a hearing.

As we have been denied the opportunity of a hearing it will not now be possible to put the defence case forward and to test it against whatever evidence, if any, the Minister proposed to submit.

It is however very much the view of the defence team that the current actions of the Minister, in which he seeks to put in the public domain allegations which he did not bring to a hearing, is grossly unfair and constitutes a further abuse of Ministerial power.

For the past 21 months I have been opposed by the Minister for Home Affairs who has made full use of his apparently unrestricted access to legal advice, civil service support, investigative resources and public funds. I on the other hand have conducted my defence while working from home, assisted only by family and unpaid volunteers. Editors may consider that in these circumstances I should now be given the benefit of any remaining doubts in respect of my actions.

Further briefing notes may be issued as more information emerges in relation to the Ministers intentions.

Sumitted by Team Voice.

Saturday, 10 July 2010

Wiltshire Police Report for the Media only.

As Lenny Harper once said “this stuff wouldn’t make for a credible fictitious story” and how right he was/is.

It appears that the “cherry picked” Wiltshire Police Report that Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian (P9-26) Le Marquand is presenting to our Democratically elected “representatives” this coming Tuesday is already in the possession of our local “accredited” media.

Not only that, our democratically elected “representatives” are actually being REFUSED a copy. And who is refusing them a copy, well according to Deputy Trevor Pitman, none other than the Civil Servant who is tipped to take the top job from CEO Bill Ogley and that is Deputy CEO John Richardson. Yes elected members of our Parliament, according to Deputy Pitman, are being refused documents by a top Civil Servant, while the “accredited” media are more than welcome to a copy.

So the “accredited” media get a copy of this several hundred page document(s) on Friday, 4 days before the Kangaroo sitting in the States on Tuesday……… The States Members? They get their copy ONE DAY BEFORE the Kangaroo sitting. So our States Members are expected the read and absorb what is rumoured to be around 700 pages of information, just ONE DAY before they are “allowed” to ask questions about it.

Below is “part one” of an interview with Deputy Trevor Pitman, in part two, I will be looking at, among other things, just what is the point of this “cherry picked report”? According to Deputy Pitman, he was told by the Deputy CEO that it was never intended to be used for disciplinary purposes, so what is it intended for then?

Naturally if the Deputy CEO would like a “right of reply” (which is more than Graham Power is allowed) then I will be happy to publish his comments.

Submitted by VFC.

Friday, 9 July 2010


Is Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand about to conduct a Kangaroo Court?

Can it be remotely plausible, or possible, that he is going to bring “cherry picked” parts of the Wiltshire investigation, which by all accounts looks like it was a complete shambles itself! Missing deadlines and published over a year late as well as going way over budget.

Where in any western “Democratic” government have you ever seen a (Kangaroo) court case where the only “evidence” divulged is that of the prosecution case? It looks like Senator (P9-26) Le Marquand is going to tell the whole world of the evidence against our most senior Police Officer, and offer him no right of reply! What kind of “justice” is that?

Below is an e-mail I sent to Senator Le Marquand before his disgraceful CTV appearance last night where Jess Dunsden was either very constrained by time or very ill researched. She allowed the Senator to rattle on about how Graham Power’s oversight of the HDLG investigation was poor and she didn’t mention ANYTHING about the ACPO Reports where it is clearly stated that GP should distance himself from it and concentrate on the political interference aspect, of which it appears there was plenty!

As you will see by the e-mail below, I have asked the Home Affairs Minister for an interview and I am “researched” and can give the interview adequate “air time”. I’ve still not had a reply from my last set of e-mails to the Senator and am not holding my breath for a reply to this one either.

From voiceforchildren
To Ian Le Marquand
Date Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:23 PM
Subject Boing!

As I am "still" waiting anything that resembles an answer from you from my previous e-mails, I thought I would ask if you are available for an interview some time tomorrow. From what I can gather it appears that you will be going ahead with a Kangaroo Court. Unless I am very much mistaken you wish to share "parts" of the Wiltshire Reports with States Members and the public. The Wiltshire Reports could be described as "the prosecution case" so what are you offering as the case for the defence? Surely natural justice dictates that "the accused" has a right to defend themselves.............don't they?

I hope you feel confident enough to give me an interview, I also hope I have got this all wrong. Naturally the interview will contain some "real questions" as myself, and many, many others want "the truth"
Kind Regards.

Wednesday, 7 July 2010

Press Statement.

For those of you who missed Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand's disgraceful outburst in the States today, it will be online later tonight on thejerseywayblogspot.

In the meantime, ILM's disgraceful outburst appears to have prompted "The Friends Of Graham Power" to immediately release a Press Statement (below)


It has been released following comments made in the States on Wednesday 7th July 2010 by the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand, who is reported to have confirmed that all disciplinary proceedings against Mr Power are to be abandoned.

Disciplinary proceedings against Mr Power are to be formally abandoned on 20th July 2010.

Mr Power will retire from the Police Service at midnight on 19th July 2010 after completing over 44 years service as a police officer. He is currently on leave prior to his retirement date.

Once he retires he will no longer be subject to the Chief Officer’s Disciplinary Code. Accordingly all disciplinary proceedings will cease.


Mr Power was suspended from duty on 12th November 2008 by the former Minister for Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis, who claimed that he had evidence relating to the management of the Historic Abuse Enquiry which justified action under the Disciplinary Code. His suspension was subsequently continued by the current Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand.

Mr Brian Moore, Chief Constable of Wiltshire, was appointed in December 2008 to carry out a disciplinary investigation and report to the Minister. Senator Le Marquand originally indicated that he expected Mr Moore to report to him by March 2009. Mr Power cooperated fully with the Disciplinary Investigation and at one stage provided a written statement of over 62,000 words.

· No disciplinary action was taken in 2008.
· No disciplinary action was taken in 2009.
· No disciplinary action was taken in 2010.
· No disciplinary charges were ever brought.
· No disciplinary hearing was ever called.
· The costs of the suspension and disciplinary investigation have been officially confirmed as exceeding one million pounds. In a recent written answer in the States the Minister for Home Affairs said that up to the end of May 2010 the cost of the suspension and disciplinary investigation had reached a total of £1,069,776. This figure does not include the costs of the time of the Civil Servants and Law Officers who have assisted the Minister Costs will continue to rise both in relation to cover for the absence of the Chief Officer, and in connection with the enquiry into the suspension currently being carried out by Mr Brian Napier QC.

The suspension was controversial from the onset. In January 2009 the Connétable of St Helier, Simon Crowcroft, brought a Report and Proposition to the States requesting an independent review of the suspension before further expenditure was committed. The proposition was opposed by Ministers and narrowly defeated. In the summer of 2009 the suspension was the subject of a Judicial Review in the Royal Court, and on regular occasions since 2008 there have been questions and exchanges in the States.

In September 2009 Mr Power successfully applied to a Complaints Board hearing for the Chief Minister to be required to disclose information relating to the creation of the original suspension documents. The subsequent disclosure cast doubt on the truthfulness of the previous accounts given by Ministers of the suspension process.

Following a Report and Proposition from Deputy Bob Hill, the Chief Minister recently agreed to an independent review of the manner in which the original suspension was carried out, with terms of reference not dissimilar to those first proposed by the Connétable of St Helier in January 2009. That review is currently being carried out by Mr Brian Napier QC.

There have also been questions in the States regarding the length and cost of the investigation led by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire, with some specific questions focussed on the scale of expenses claimed for hotels, travel and meals.

At every stage Mr Power has denied any wrong-doing whatsoever in relation to the management of the Historic Abuse Enquiry or any other issue, and said that he would defend himself against any disciplinary action that was brought against him.

Mr Power has made the following statement in relation to the imminent abandonment of disciplinary proceedings:

“I am obviously pleased this unnecessary and unjustified disciplinary enquiry is now to be abandoned. In common with everyone else, I am entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The abandonment of disciplinary proceedings after almost two years means that I can now be regarded as having been exonerated of all allegations. That is not a matter of opinion. It is an accepted principle of justice. In these circumstances it is inevitable that attention will now be focussed on the actions of those responsible for initiating and continuing my suspension. While it would not be appropriate for me to become involved in any political exchange, I remain willing to assist with any legitimate enquiry in respect of the actions of those concerned.”

It is understood Mr Power has already given detailed evidence to the enquiry being conducted by Mr Brian Napier QC and has indicated his willingness to assist Mr Napier further should that be required.

Further details in respect of Mr Power’s retirement:

Mr Power joined the States of Jersey Police in 2000. Prior to that date he held a number of senior positions in the Police Service both in England and Scotland.

Under the States of Jersey regulations relating to pensions and retirement the “Normal Retirement Age” for his position is 60. Mr Power reached that age in June 2007 but agreed to continue serving due to a number of retirements from senior positions in the Force which were taking place around the same time. He is now aged 63 and is therefore more than three years beyond the date on which he was expected to retire.

On the question of his retirement Mr Power has said:

“While I considered retiring in 2007 I felt at the time that it was right I should work beyond my retirement age in order to provide continuity of management for the Force. Since November 2008 I have further postponed my retirement in order to give the Minister for Home Affairs a fair opportunity to resolve the outstanding issues under the Disciplinary Code. I did however become frustrated at the continuing delays, and on a number of occasions in 2009 I issued public statements confirming that if matters were not resolved by 2010, I would delay my retirement no further. In January 2010 I effectively set a deadline by giving the Minister written notice that, come what may, I would retire in July of this year. This allowed the Minister a further 6 months to bring matters to a conclusion. For whatever reason, the Minister did not make effective use of that opportunity and in consequence I will retire on the date notified to the Minister at the start of this year.”

It is understood that Mr Power is retiring to England and has already left the island.

While he prefers not to actively participate in the political exchanges which are likely to follow his retirement, he may wish to consider responding to any direct criticism of his position. Should this occur, media contact details will be made available.

Tuesday, 6 July 2010

Think of a question......You'll not get an answer.

I would like to share with my readers some communication I had (am having?) with Home affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand in my quest to get to the truth, in my quest of getting questions answered, which as Deputy Trevor Pitman, Deputy Bob Hill, Deputy Daniel Wimberley, Constable Simon Crowcroft and others, I’m sure, would testify is not an easy task, an impossible task would probably be more apt.

Readers will see that some two weeks later I am still waiting for answers from the Minister.... that’s just to these questions!

From voiceforchildren
To Ian Le Marquand
Date Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:43 PM
Subject Experts.

In relation to questions, but in the absence of any real answers, to and from yourself in the States I am still at quite a loss as to who the two "experts" are that "identified" the fragment of child's skull as Coconut.

As far as I am aware the person who identified this fragment as skull is an Anthropologist and subjected the skull to some pretty rigorous scientific examination before she concluded it was skull.

What I, and many others, would like to know and hope you will help is this.

1.) Although you would like to keep from identifying the two experts at Kew Garden who "identified" the skull as Coconut, could you be more specific as to what you mean by "identified"? That is, was the fragment scientifically analysed by these two "experts". I'm sure you would agree that "identified" could mean they looked at it and said "that looks like Coconut" .

2.) Considering the name of the Anthropologist is in the public domain, why can't the names of the two "experts" at Kew Garden be in the public domain?

3.) If you will not identify the two "experts" could you, at the very least, let us know their qualifications? What are they experts in?
Kind Regards.

From Ian Le Marquand
To Voiceforchildren
Date Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 9:44 AM
Subject RE: Experts

Dear voice for children, it is my intention to release substantial parts of the disciplinary reports and of the accountant's report in relation to Haven 1 (Haut de la Garenne) and substantial parts of the disciplinary report in relation to Haven 2 (Operation Blast) at some time next month. When you see the reports in relation to Haut de la Garenne you will see that the fact that the item which was wrongly identified as a "skull fragment" was known to be not a skull fragment quite early in 2008. You seem to want to explore the idea that it was a real skull fragment but this is totally against the weight of expert evidence. The subsequent report to which you refer merely confirmed precisely what the item was, namely what we would call coconut shell. I shall speak to the Police about this last report when I next see them and will come back to you with more detail. Ian Le M.

From Voiceforchildren
To Ian Le Marquand
Date Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:30 PM
Subject Re: Experts.

Thank you for your reply, but I can't help thinking you've replied to a different e-mail. I never mentioned anything about HaveN 1, Haven 2, disciplinary, or accounts. You have not answered a single question that I have asked.
Could I please ask you to read the e-mail again and address (hopefully answer) the "crucial" questions I have asked?
Kind Regards.

From voiceforchildren
To Ian Le Marquand
Date Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:40 PM

Subject Right of reply.

While I am awaiting your answers on the experts etc. I was hoping you might be able to answer a couple more questions in the meantime.
In your previous e-mail you told me you would be bringing "parts" of Haven 1 and 2 to the States, I hesitate to use the phrase "cherry picked" so "parts" will suffice.
On that note, could you let me know if, alongside the "parts" of Haven 1 and 2 you will also be bringing (if you have them/it) Chief Police Officer Graham Power's response to them?
Surely it would be totally un-just only to tell one side of the story, and that Graham Power should be afforded the opportunity of a right of reply? Otherwise the States and the public are only getting one side of the story and the Chief Officer is effectively gagged.
Kind Regards.

I've still not had a reply.

Why aren't the "accredited" media asking "ANY" questions? Well I believe I already know the answer to that question and will keep it for the Blog I intend publishing some time soon on "accredited" journalist" (if he is one) Chris Rayner.

Submitted by VFC.