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.

Topic:

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

Affidavit

Suspension Review 1

Suspension Review 2

Suspension Review 3 (Blast)

13 comments:

  1. ILM - NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do you really believe Graham Power?

    He is trying to save face after doing a bad job. This is how anybody else that works will translate all this waffle.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The code may not be fit for purpose - but it served thier purpose perfectly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well Anonymous - do you really believe David Warcup then?

    Do you really believe that a hardened policeman in the twilight of his career is going to refuse a nice lucrative little number in good old Jersey just because some bloggers and politicians called him a funny name and questioned his agenda?

    No, neither do I.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Re "Do you really believe Graham Power?"

    Don't you think it is important to hear both sides of the story?

    Seeing as this is never going to be tested in a tribunal, it is only fair that Graham Power gets to defend himself against the highly-selective quotations taken from the Wiltshire Reports.

    Contrary to ILM's response to the question in the House, where he said that Graham Power has been using the blogs to publicise his side of the story, in fact, he was given no option because the States of Jersey (ILM) went public and criticized him months ago.

    Secondly, it is highly likely that Graham Power is still bound by confidentiality agreements (written or implied) that go with his job, so he is unable to fully defend himself by revealing what he knows.

    So although you may not believe Graham Power (on the grounds of 'he would say that, wouldn't he'), you presumably accept his right to reply?

    We can all choose to believe who and what we want but when evidence is published that contradicts us, only a fool would ignore it.

    What bothers readers of this blog and others is not that there is disagreement over interpretation of the facts but that certain facts are totally ignored by those who criticize 'Operation Rectangle'.

    This is why we are suspicious. For example, the version of events that led up to Graham Power's suspension as provided by Andrew Lewis and ILM has been proven to be totally false, a lie in fact.

    It was proven technically that the suspension documents were created at a time when the Home Affairs Minister stated publicly that he was totally happy with the conduct of Power and the whole investigation.

    This is a proven lie and when publicly exposed as such, no explanation is given, no defence is offered, and they just move on to their next propaganda coup. By keeping the story moving on, they hope the public will forget the inconsistencies.

    That is why these blogs annoy them so much, because they keep on reminding the public of the facts and the inconsistencies in the official version.

    Of course, they will tell you via the JEP that it is because the bloggers use intemperate language, foolish monikers, and publish personal insults but that is just a diversion. TonyMusings blog is polite and civilised; if the other blogs stopped calling Warcup 'WeirdCop', it wouldn't stop them criticizing him or exposing the facts around his arrival and departure.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is desperate to hold on to Graham Power's words like you are doing. No wonder you are gtting nowhere with this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Judicial Review of Suspension

    What comes over from a careful reading of GP's documents is that he and his advisors have been consistantly stonewalled by ILM and his collaborators. The violations of basic rights, such as being informed of what you are accused and who exactly your accusers are, hearing both sides of an argument etc., have been ignored.

    What is perhaps even more worrying is that the Judicial Review launched by GP into the suspension was effectively denied.

    Unfortunately the Judges (two jurats and a commissioner) who heard the request for a Judicial Review concluded that the suspension was not disproportionate. Only the finding is published, so we do not have public access to the full case and their reasoning.

    You cannot appeal against refusal to allow judicial reviews of decisions, so I imagine the only way to reopen this now would be to sue ILM for constructive dismissal. This has been approach pursued successfully elsewhere where suspensions were dragged out until resignation or opting for retirement.

    PS. By the way, I think that your approach to the pro-establishment trolls that infest this weblog is exactly the right one: just keep asking them to justify their assertions and repeat what is already known.

    ReplyDelete
  8. [This is how anybody else that works will translate all this waffle.]

    I guess this poster makes a point, being, he has obviously either not read or understood the significance of GP's defence etc... and so it appears to be waffle! I guess ILM must be relying upon ignorance so he comes across as fair, but those who do understand English can see he has been far from fair and even conflicted!

    ReplyDelete
  9. To the reader with no personal ties to the island, the official case against Graham Power simply does not make much sense.

    Printing the comments of those who ardently defend the status quo does aid the outsider's appreciation of the Jersey Police Chief suspension controversy - but in ways probably not intended. If their comments reflect the case of those who oppose a right of defense for Graham Power, they have not offered a reasoned analysis of any facts.

    There is simply no website or forum or published article which justifies or explains away the appearance that a Police Chief was systematically denied a fair defense at nearly every turn.

    Without the taint of polarised local opinion, one can examine all the known, verifiable facts and documents on record now in the public domain. They show there has been no coherent case presented against Mr. Power beyond some superfluous data pertaining to expensive lunches and upgraded airline tickets for which he was denied a right of defense.

    It would be difficult to draw any other inferences: either Official Jersey is attempting to deny most internationally accepted standards for basic human rights to the defense of Mr. Power, or those in charge of his prosecution are not aware of the modern legal standards of fairness accepted by developed nations over the centuries.

    Any thinking person can expect to ask why. I suspect most will link this to a need to further conceal the crimes he investigated at Haut de la Garenne.

    WDD

    ReplyDelete
  10. The side which opposes bringing almost any factual information out into the open seems likely to be hiding something. Certain ministers must have a lot to hide.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is desperate to hold on to Graham Power's words like you are doing. No wonder you are gtting nowhere with this.

    29 July 2010 12:30


    Your not one of the people that has received a NAPIER letter are you?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Read Stuart Syvret's latest posts on re-zoning green zones ant you will see what this is all about. The Wiltshire Report was used to get rid of some people who found out that people like Bill B and his cronies making a mint out of rezoning prime real estate, plain and simple. Those people who lost so much to ensure people made money were Miss Labey, Mr Syvret, Mr Power.

    ReplyDelete
  13. • Against this background the disciplinary investigation can only reach one conclusion. The applicant accepts that it is probable that the investigating officer will discover that in Jersey, the police do not always operate in accordance with the policing guidelines written for use in England. Given the unique laws, customs, and policing traditions of the island it would be remarkable if it were otherwise. The Minister must be aware of this, and he must also be aware of the future implications for the islands policing if the precedent is set that the Chief Officer can be disciplined for failing to apply English guidelines locally. The applicant sees this as further evidence of bias, and also of a willingness to override precedent and tradition in the pursuit of a single goal.

    So can you tell me if the SOJP are now run along uk guidelines?

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.