After reading the page below, which is taken from probably the most redacted Report in history, the Wiltshire Police Report “Operation Haven” I couldn’t help thinking that a very dangerous precedent has now been set.
Highly Confidential – Personal Information
An independent disciplinary investigation by Wiltshire Police
Following the suspension of Chief Officer Graham Power of the
States of Jersey Police on 12 November 2008.
Obligation to confidentiality
1. Paragraph 1.2 of the discipline code (for Chief Officers of the States of Jersey Police) requires that all parties involved in the operation of this code will maintain confidentiality while proceedings are being progressed. The outcome of any particular case arising under the code will not, as a general rule, be publicised, but it is accepted that following the outcome of a particular case, the Home Affairs Minister and/or the States Employment Board and /or the Chief Officer, might decide that public disclosure is appropriate.
2. This Report contains personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, and Wiltshire Police would breach the first data protection principle if it were to disclose that information. Hence, the information is exempt under s.40(2) Freedom of Information Act 2000
3. This Report contains information that has been, and continues to be, held by Wiltshire Police for the purposes of an investigation which it has a duty to conduct and which ought not to be disclosed (under s.30 Freedom of Information Act 2000).
4. An obligation of confidence upon Wiltshire Police arises from the duty outlined at 1. Above, and disclosure of information would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey. Information, therefore, ought not to be disclosed (under s.27 Freedom of Information Act 2000).
At the time they wrote their report Wiltshire Police were apparently resolved to resist any attempt to secure publication. They wheel out a number of reasons (some slightly far fetched such as the international relations bit) but there are grounds which, under UK law would entitle them to refuse an application under the Data Protection Act. That is the point of why they are setting out some of those grounds they are taken from UK Law as a basis on which an application for freedom of information may be refused. There is not the slightest hint that they contemplate the publication of their report. All of the indications are to the contrary. Were they “duped” into believing their Report WAS going to be a part of due process, only to find out it was something to give the “accredited” local media by Ian Le Marquand?
The bit about the Jersey Disciplinary Code has, it could be argued, been deliberately mis-applied by the Home Affairs Minister and his “advisors”. Para 1.2 of the code says that all parties will maintain confidentiality, and goes on “the outcome (my emphasis) of any particular case arising under the Code, will not, as a general rule, be publicised but it is accepted that following the outcome of a particular case the Home Affairs Minister, and/or the States Employment Board and/or the Chief Officer might decide that public disclosure was appropriate." The key thing about this is that it is clearly talking about the “OUTCOME” of a case....i.e. The Chief Officer was cleared or a warning was given, it is, in my opinion, transparent contrivance to claim that this provision entitles a minister to publish the report of the disciplinary investigation. That is a separate thing from the "outcome.” There never was an “OUTCOME”. The Home Affairs Minister abandoned the disciplinary process. But the precedent has now been set. Does this now mean that any states employee, even if un-convicted of any wrongdoing can face the prospect of the publication of a disciplinary report all over the “accredited” media? Or will it, once more turn out to be one rule for one????????????????????????????????
Submitted by VFC.
Or will it, once more turn out to be one rule for one????????????????????????????????
ReplyDeleteV.F.C....You have to ask???
Le Marquand and co are getting away with everything they desire.
ReplyDeleteBecause they are the only ones who seem to be able to make and break the rules.
They are incharge and running riot and there is no one to stop them.
So why should they, stop?
And who sits in on the appointment of the new chief of police.
ReplyDeleteI would love to know who is controlling Le Marquand and Co.
ReplyDeleteI would love to know who is controlling Le Marquand and Co.
ReplyDelete25 August 2010 22:48
Bill Ogley of course
VFC,
ReplyDeleteIt seems that ILM and TLS planned it well. Delay Napier at any expense, well lets face it what is tax payers money worth to these two, with them wasting over a million so far on this case alone?
Delay the Napier Report at any expense. Then it will be easier forgotten.
"Delay the Napier Report at any expense. Then it will be easier forgotten."
ReplyDeleteWithout letting too much out of the bag, the more they delay Napier the better.
VFC - your last comment was very cryptic!!
ReplyDeleteHowever back to your post - indeed, there never was an outcome to this sorry state of affairs. It does seem to me though that ILeM and Co are a law unto themselves and apply any interpretation that suits their agenda because they choose to think we are all stupid.
Reminds me of the old Amen Corner song with a slight twist on the words - 'Bend me, shape me, anyway you want me - long as it suits us, it's alright'
The picture in my mind of ILeM, our CM and Bill Ogley, mics in hand, singing this would not be a pretty sight!
Jill.
ReplyDeleteThey do indeed think we are all stupid. It might not have occurred to them that some of us learn and adapt.
It was a given that the Napier Report was going to be dragged out, so some of us prepared for that, well in advance.
There WILL be an outcome and I don't think it will be the one that our powers that be were expecting!
VFC,
ReplyDeleteYou havent let anything out of the bag yet.
Oh go on, just a bit.
Perhaps the Home Minister might like to publish the evidence against child abuse cases that never reached court.
ReplyDeleteAllowing the public to make up their mind as well!!
Indeed, now that the precedent has been set. We know a Senior Civil Servant at the Education Department was/is a suspect in the "Historic" Child Abuse Investigation. If ever there was a moral duty to give the "accredited" media and worried parents the findings of an investigation then that is it!
ReplyDelete