It’s The Law!

In this final instalment of “Briefing Notes” sent by (illegally?) suspended former Police Chief Graham Power QPM to ALL local “accredited” media he spells out who is responsible for the Home Affairs Financial Management.

Now that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) headed by Senator Ben Shenton are looking at governmental over-spends and who is responsible for them, well when it comes to the Home Affairs, it appears, he need look no further than Steven Austin Vautier.

Deputy Bob Hill asked a written question to Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand on Tuesday 20th April 2010 which was published by Rico Sorda HERE In his answer Senator Le Marquand had this to say.

“d. The Accounting Officer of a states funded body is personally accountable for the proper financial management of the resources of the body in accordance with article 38 of the public finances law( jersey) law 2005 law.”

This is precisely the point being made by the former Chief Police Officer………….It’s the law! ARTICLE 38 OF THE PUBLIC FINANCES (JERSEY) LAW 2005.

One has to wonder if Steven Austin Vautier will get suspended with total disregard for due process, refused legal representation and be subjected to a Kangaroo Court?


This note has been prepared by Graham Power and is intended to assist Editors in reporting issues arising from the decision of the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand, to abandon all disciplinary proceedings in my case.

Topic:

Financial Management. Who is responsible?
It is understood that the Minister may say something in a presentation which may be critical of my role in the financial management of the Historic Abuse Enquiry. I can only deduce this from comments he has made in the media. He has told me nothing.

It might therefore be helpful for me to share some information on this topic. On this particular subject readers have the advantage of being able to look up some of the facts for themselves. The responsibilities of the parties are set out in the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005 and the guidelines issued under that law. The Law creates the position of “Accounting Officer.” The Accounting Officer is the person responsible for the financial management of a department, he or she must ensure that expenditure is properly authorised, that financial procedures are complied with, and that budget targets are met. The Accounting Officer for the Police is the Chief Officer of the Home Affairs Department. (No need to believe me...you can look it up for yourself.)

You might think that this is a foolish arrangement. I agree. From the very beginning I have pointed out how the separation of Financial Control from Operational Control had the potential to create difficulties, particularly in times of pressure when decisions had to be taken quickly.

Nevertheless I have tried hard to make a bad system work. During “normal times” I held regular meetings with the Home Affairs Department on budget issues. Written records exist of all of these meetings. During the Historic Abuse Enquiry I held the normal meetings as well as additional meetings dedicated to the financial management of the abuse enquiry. Written records exist of all of these meetings. The important points to note are that all expenditure on the enquiry was approved by the finance staff of the Home Affairs Department, and that when asked at no time did the Home Affairs staff report any concerns regarding finance issues. This is all a matter of written record.

It now looks however that Ministers may take a different view of financial responsibilities for the Police Service.

It appears that the Chief Officer who Ministers insisted should not be in control of the Force budget is going to be condemned in his absence for...................................not being in control of the Force Budget.


Editors may wish to explore whether there is any contradiction in Ministerial positions on this issue.

Submitted by VFC.