Sunday, 26 September 2010

Napier Report Imminent?













With the Report of Brian Napier QC, long overdue but expected at any time, Team Voice thought we would refresh our readers/viewers’ memories, over the coming weeks, with some of our publications we believe Mr. Napier QC might, or should be, aware of as part of his enquiry/report.


On February the 23rd 2010 we published THIS Blog posting. In the Blog posting former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM told us, (among many other revelations) “I do not have the technical capability to insert my comments alongside those of Andrew Lewis. It may therefore be necessary for the reader to be in possession of the comments of the former Minister while reading my comments. If this causes difficulty I apologise. It is the best I can do with the resources available.”

In order to assist readers/viewers and indeed, former CPO Power QPM we have decided, to publish a “REDACTED” version of the original post. We have concentrated on this sentence from Graham Power QPM “I do not have the technical capability to insert my comments alongside those of Andrew Lewis."

We hope that this will be helpful to readers and all involved. Although we do strongly suggest reading the original post.

Former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis released his statement in Response to P9/2010 submitted by Deputy Bob Hill, and the sworn AFFIDAVIT of Graham Power QPM.



1. I have sympathy for the concerns that Mr Power has for his family but it must be pointed out that the reason that his daughter became aware of his plight whilst driving to work in Australia was because Mr Power, upon leaving the meeting with me and Mr Ogley at Cyril Le Marquand House, went directly to the BBC radio station to make a statement despite being advised not to do so. This story was immediately syndicated across the world.



1. In this paragraph Mr Lewis attempts to blame me for the publicity regarding the suspension. During the suspension interview he made it clear that it had already been decided that he and the then Chief Minister (who had no lawful role in the matter whatsoever) would shortly be giving a press conference, the arrangements for which had been put in place the previous day, presumably in anticipation of the outcome of the suspension meeting on 12th. It is natural and understandable that in light of this information I should decide to ensure that my side of the story was given comparable coverage.
 
 
 
 


2. Mr Power also suggests that I should have discussed my actions with the previous Minister Senator Wendy Kinnard before carrying them out. In the context of the reasons for his suspension this would have been quite inappropriate as the Minister had handed over responsibility for oversight of the abuse inquiry many months before due a conflict of interest.


2. Mr Lewis claims that any consultation with the previous Minister would have been a conflict of interest. He misses the point. The relevant period of the historic abuse enquiry was undertaken under the political oversight of another person who is not recorded as having expressed any formal concerns. In his actions of 12th November 2008 Mr Lewis was applying retrospective judgement in respect of actions which occurred prior to him assuming office. He was, in common parlance, moving the goalposts after the event. His failure to consult with the person who was actually in political office at the relevant time is a breach of the basic principles of fairness.
 
 
 
3. The act of suspension was fully in line with the disciplinary code and is designed as a neutral act in order to give the Chief Officer sufficient time to defend his position uncompromised by the constraints of office. The code has a clear process of appeal despite Mr Power’s allegations that such provision does not exist.


 
3. Mr Lewis claims that the process he applied was in accordance with the disciplinary code and he appears to imply that it was in some way fair and “neutral.” This claim is made in spite of the strong criticism of his actions by the Royal Court. He does not address this criticism and appears to prefer to pretend that it does not exist. Contrary to his claim, the disciplinary code provides for no appeal against suspension. There is a right of appeal against the findings of a disciplinary hearing. No such hearing has yet occurred and none has been arranged.


 
 
 
 
 
4. Mr Power also claims that the code was rewritten hours before it was invoked, this is quite misleading. The nature of the code was not rewritten it was simply amended for use under the new ministerial government system, which involved replacing the word committee with that of minister. The same has applied to numerous documents right across the States since the inception of ministerial government


4. Lewis says “Mr Power also claims that the code was rewritten hours before it was invoked, this is quite misleading.” If this is genuinely misleading then I am quite happy to be led towards the truth. If it was re-written at an earlier time, who did this and who asked for it to be done? Could it by any chance be the same as yet unidentified person or persons who decided, apparently without any Ministerial authority, to spend a Saturday morning drafting suspension notices for the Chief Officer of Police on the off-chance that the Minister, who according to his statement to Wiltshire Police, “had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well” might suddenly change his mind? Or was it intended that the Minister would have his mind changed for him? Without a proper enquiry we will never know.
 
 


5. Both Mr Power and Deputy Hill claim that the decision to suspend the Chief of Police was somehow rushed, “done on a whim with little consideration and without seeking advise”. I refute this suggestion most strongly. I had been aware for sometime of concerns about the command and control of the Child Abuse enquiry and in my capacity as Minister had been regularly briefed by the Deputy Chief Officer on the progress of an independent review of the case, being carried out by The Metropolitan Police.


5. In his recent statement Mr Lewis says “I had been aware for some time of concerns about the command and control of the Child Abuse Enquiry.” In his formal statement to Wiltshire Police he states “Until I received the letter from David WARCUP, (on 11th November 2008 – the day before the suspension) I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” (Paragraph 3.) Is Mr Lewis now admitting that his statement to Wiltshire Police is not true? If it helps, it appears that prior to signing his statement to Wiltshire Police, Mr Lewis signed a declaration which among other things (such as page numbers and the like) states “This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything in it which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.” If the signed statement to Wiltshire Police is not true then it is a serious matter. On the face of it, his recent public statement, and the statement to Wiltshire cannot both be true. This is something which may require a more formal investigation. I will return to this issue later.
 
 


6. Mr Power had also been regularly briefed on the progress of the review in even more detail than I. He was also informed that the Deputy Chief Of Police was planning to brief Ministers on the 11thNovember on the findings of the review that were expected to be shocking. Despite this Mr Power decided to go on holiday. I questioned this with him but he claimed that there was nothing in the Met report to be concerned about. Subsequent revelations that are now well documented were of course quite the opposite.
 
6. Mr Lewis states that I was aware of the planned briefing to Ministers on 11th November 2008. This is just plain untrue. Pure and simple. This was planned and executed without my knowledge. If he claims that I was aware it might be useful for him to state who told me, and when. He then states “Despite this Mr Power chose to go on holiday.” This is almost a total reversal of the truth. Mr Lewis knows, or at least he should know, that my absence was not a “holiday.” I was attending to family welfare issues in the UK which had by that time been postponed for too long due to work commitments. The evidence indicates that far from my absence being some form of abdication of responsibility on my part, it was seized upon in a series of events which bear all of the characteristics of a planned coup d’ état. The first day of my leave was 7th November 2008. By the following morning persons unknown were preparing suspension notices and, on the evening of my return to the island I was told to attend a meeting the following morning.
 
7. During my final meeting with Mr Power he was not asked to resign he never has been, it was an action that I did not wish to invoke because it was important that a thorough investigation of the allegations made in the Met review was undertaken before any further action was taken in respect of Mr Power’s position. Hence the suspension was an important neutral act. I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Met Report as I am bound by the disciplinary code. However I refute strongly the repeated suggestion by Mr Power that he does not know why he has been suspended, full details of the reasons are contained in the two page letter that was given to him at our meeting with him on the 12th November 2008.


7. Lewis states that I was not “asked to resign.” All parties agree on at least one thing. That is that at the start of the meeting I was asked to“consider my position.” I leave it to others to decide what is commonly understood to be meant by this statement. Interestingly Mr Lewis states “I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Met Report.” According to his statement to Wiltshire Police he could hardly do so given that he claims “I never saw the Metropolitan Review Document.” (Paragraph 14.) Again, it is hard to reconcile these two statements.
 
 
 
 
 
8. Mr Power also claims that the notes taken at the meeting on the 12thNovember which were later typed from Mr Ogley’s notes some how differed from Mr Power’s recollection of the meeting. The transcripts of the meeting were forwarded to me for my approval. I can categorically state that they were a true and accurate record of the meeting. Mr Power has never corresponded with me to the effect that they did not reflect the meeting.
 
8. In his recent statement Lewis refers to the typed notes which are alleged to be a true record of the disciplinary meeting and says “Mr Power has never corresponded with me to the effect that they did not reflect the meeting.” In a letter addressed to the Minister dated 1st December 2008 I begin “Dear Minister.” I then go on to list a number of issues. In paragraph 5 and 6 I refer to the alleged typed notes of the meeting and list areas of the notes which I consider to be untrue. On 5th December 2008 I received a reply which had been sent on the Ministers behalf. I have copies of both letters. The recent claim by Lewis that “Mr Power has never corresponded with me to the effect that they (the notes) did not reflect the meeting” is a further transparent falsehood and can be shown to be so.



9. I am deeply concerned that the subsequent enquiry into this matter conducted by Wiltshire constabulary has taken so long. I was advised that such an investigation would only take until March 2009. The longer such matters are left the more open they are to wild allegations of conspiracy. Such allegations I most strongly refute. The reasons for suspension were compelling; the process was diligent, professional and painstakingly considered in accordance with the disciplinary code. I took full legal and HR advice from highly competent professionals and followed the prescribed procedure of the day.



9. I am grateful for the comments of Andrew Lewis in this paragraph. He confirms that he and others were apparently misled as to the duration of the disciplinary enquiry, stating that he was told that it would be concluded by March 2009. It is now of course almost March 2010 and the matter is still outstanding. He does not say who misled him or speculate as to their motives. He says that he is “deeply concerned” about this issue. His concerns, if authentic, are appreciated. During this time he has of course been getting on with his life. I am the one who has been suspended until such time as there is no possibility of a return to work, and I have therefore effectively been dismissed.
 
 
 
 
10. I had on a number of occasions publicly and privately extolled my respect and admiration for Mr Power as competent manager and Chief Police Officer. Which was why I was deeply shocked by the revelations and allegations presented by other competent independent policing authorities concerning Mr Powers command and control of Jerseys biggest ever criminal investigation.



 
10. In this paragraph Mr Lewis praises my professional virtues. He then says that he was shocked by the revelations presented by “competent independent policing authorities.” He does not say who these authorities were. Whoever they were they could not have been the Metropolitan Police whose report he “never saw.” (Witness statement paragraph 14.)


 
 
 
 
 
 
11. Such allegations must be and I am led to believe have now been thoroughly investigated. I now look forward to the publication of the Wiltshire Constabulary’s report, which I have fully cooperated with. If further enquires are proved necessary I would fully support and cooperate with such a process.


 
11. Mr Lewis states that he will now “look forward to the publication of the Wiltshire Constabulary’s report.” In that respect he may be disappointed, given that Wiltshire have ruled their report to be confidential and stated that their report is exempt from any Freedom of Information laws on a number or grounds, including the claim that any disclosure would be “likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey.”(Confidentiality rules. Wiltshire report.) I will of course abide by the confidentiality rules imposed by Wiltshire. Andrew Lewis apparently intends otherwise. In this paragraph Mr Lewis goes on to state that he would fully co-operate with any further enquiries which may be necessary. I am pleased to hear this in view of what I have to say below with regard to this issue.
 
 
Personal comment. 


Having concluded my comments on the recent release by Andrew Lewis, I now offer the following thoughts: 

Among all of the conflicting accounts and confusion a number of things appear to be evident. Nobody appears to dispute that important evidence, in the form of the original record of the suspension meeting was wilfully destroyed.

There is evidence that suspension documents which bore the date 12th November 2008 and which claimed to be in response to information received the previous day, were, shall we say, deficient in authenticity.

There is an apparent conflict between things said in the legally admissible statement made by Andrew Lewis and the things which he is saying now. There might be an explanation for this, although none is immediately apparent.

In these circumstances I believe that there is a compelling case for a full independent investigation with intrusive legal powers, into the actions of Andrew Lewis and others on and around 12th November 2008 and that given the circumstances, a full criminal investigation, by an independent police force, may be appropriate. This is of course a matter for others to decide. Nevertheless, notwithstanding my effective dismissal from the police service, I remain fully committed to support any enquiry, criminal or otherwise, into the events of November 2008. 

34 comments:

  1. Bring on the Napier Report and lets piece this complete shambles together.

    Another good post Team Voice

    ReplyDelete
  2. Voice for Children

    I will be looking forward or, should I say, I hope I have the opportunity to read the Napier report.

    This report is very important as I hope it will clear up the many issues surrounding the original supsension of Chief Police Officer Power.

    I have followed this sorry affair since November 2008 and whole heartedly agree there are many issues that do need to be resolved.

    One of the main issues I have had is the actual treatment of Graham Power. I have found it incredible that, not only does the original suspension seem a little strange from the outside, Senator Le Marquand's handling of the Wiltshire debacle and the suspension was truly horrific.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Keep on fighting

    So glad you don't give up

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you VFC for yet again an excellent posting, and for reminding us all what a farcical shambles Mr Power's suspension was.

    Let us hope that Napier produces what we have probably known all along - how were 'they'going to remove a straight and honest police officer who did not subscribe to the Jersey Way?

    Well therein lies the answer - the Jersey Way.

    I can only hope and pray that Brian Napier is honest, upright and forthright in his report of which I expect we should be able to see in its' fullest form.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lets hope Brian Napier QC, reads Stuart Syvret's latest posting & Affidavit!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jill.

    Re; "I can only hope and pray that Brian Napier is honest, upright and forthright in his report of which I expect we should be able to see in its' fullest form."

    All research has concluded that Brian Natier QC is indeed an honorable man and highly respected in his field of work.

    As I have posted previously, Napier is no mug. He knows his professional reputation and credibility is on the line here. He will be only too aware of how much documentation is in the public domain.

    I don't believe he is the sort that will deliver an "our chap" Report........I only hope that I am right.

    ReplyDelete
  7. VOICE, are you going down to the royal court tomorrow.
    You have to admit these are pretty unusual circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Deputy Lewis

    9.

    "The reasons for suspension were compelling; the process was diligent, professional and painstakingly considered in accordance with the disciplinary code. I took full legal and HR advice from highly competent professionals and followed the prescribed procedure of the day."

    In that case the Napier Report will back this statement up.

    ReplyDelete
  9. VFC,

    I hope you do cover the court session tomorrow.

    There are more than a few of us (Americans) who will be watching the Jersey blogs and as of several months ago, CTV has blocked our viewing of any of their C.I. Report telecasts.

    Leigh

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1.3.18 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

    I am disappointed to hear the last speaker because this newspaper, which is the Jersey Evening Post, 15th September - today in fact - has a quote here. It quotes Advocate Tim Hanson, who is a partner of Hanson Renouf, and who represented one of the accused boys in the Family X case, and he said that: “The costs were incurred by virtue of Senator Perchard’s steadfast refusal to agree that Family X received the correct care and that all experts said they needed …” If we cannot look after our children, what are we here for? We have seen enough failures in this Island in the past and, as many speakers have already said, this is the first line of defence, it is identifying them and getting them into a system to try to give them help. Do not pare this one down, support the proposition, please.

    Senator J.L. Perchard:

    Just a comment. I hope the Deputy does not believe everything he reads in the J.E.P. and particularly from a lawyer who charged Children’s Services nearly £400,000.

    The Deputy Bailiff:

    Senator, if I may say so, I was going to pull up Deputy Higgins on the use of the name of the lawyer, which is not in accordance with usual practice, and it invites the sort of response that you have just added; that is the reason for the practice. Could I call on Senator Le Gresley.

    Remember this
    rs

    ReplyDelete
  11. Voice

    Any reason for not having Stuart's latest posting on your side bar?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Leigh.

    Stuart lost in his application for a Judicial Review in the Royal Court this morning. His Abuse of Process started in the Magistrates Court 25 minutes after he left the Royal Court.But the ever so compassionate prosecuting Lawyer suggested a 30 minute adjournmant to which, as she always does, the Magistrate agreed. That's right not a day or two adjournmant 30 minutes!

    Stuart has said he will keep readers updated of the events, prceedings on his Blog.

    Anon.

    I've no idea why Stuart's latest Blog posting has not up-dated on my side-bar.

    And finally, ROLL ON NAPIER!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Andrew Lewis. "I took full legal and HR advice from highly competent professionals and followed the prescribed procedure of the day."

    There is the rub. He took legal advice. It appears all Ministers take this "legal advice". but when, as is often the case, it all goes tits up, none of the "legal advisers" who are nameless and faceless take the rap.

    Make no mistake, the real power lies with the "legal advisers". Ian Le Marquand, just like Andrew Lewis, has been getting "legal advice" from these people concerning the Graham Power QPM case. And it won't be them losing their seat or facing public humiliation.......will it Ian?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Exactly the sane nasty dirty tricks as played in the illegal secret family courts, but we have to go through all the motions, in order to prove the full extent of how fallen into absolute corruption the whole process is. Keep plodding on, don't get disheartened. Can you get Stuart to read all those points out on camera and posted onto YouTube so we can circulate it to other people, folk do want to know what is going on, not just in Jersey, thanks xx

    ReplyDelete
  15. Taking legal advice does not excuse anyone from personal prosecution if the advice given proves to be at fault.

    The ultimate responsibility lays with the 'office holder'.

    It would be odd though, if the advice was more of an instruction, it would beg the question who does govern the Island.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Re; "it would beg the question who does govern the Island."

    To quote the words of Graham Power QPM, from the main post.


    "Could it by any chance be the same as yet unidentified person or persons who decided, apparently without any Ministerial authority, to spend a Saturday morning drafting suspension notices for the Chief Officer of Police on the off-chance that the Minister, who according to his statement to Wiltshire Police, “had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well” might suddenly change his mind? Or was it intended that the Minister would have his mind changed for him? Without a proper enquiry we will never know."

    ReplyDelete
  17. History has a habbit of repeating itself. Please spare half an hour of your time tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I flew back from Jersey at lunchtime today so I was awaiting the outcome of today's early morning farcical "hearing". No real surprise there so I will follow the next stages with interest.

    It was great to meet Stuart, Jill and Team Voice. Putting the faces to the names was a real pleasure and my confidence in what you do was confirmed. Keep up the good work everybody!

    Lorna
    X

    ReplyDelete
  19. Lorna - it was indeed good to meet you and put a face to the name as well. Can you mail me as I have tried to contact you, but having no joy at all. I hope your visit was worthwhile and productive.

    VFC - just listening to the States, and am staggered to hear Tel Boy (Le Main)saying that the police WILFULLY destroyed Haut de la Garenne during their investigations there! What planet does this man reside on, because it is not the real world. What the hell does he expect when an investigation of such magnitude is taking place, and to use the word 'wilful' beggars belief.

    As if that were not enough we then have Deputy Anne Dupre suggesting that the name of the building be changed so that people can forget the bad memories associated with the place. Which people Deputy Dupre? because I am sure that a lot of the children who passed through there will never erase their memories no matter what the God forsaken place is called.

    Oh dear - I despair.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jill.

    Ann Dupre is one of the Foot Stamping Lackeys of the Motherland (FSLM). I have witnessed abuse survivors leaving the public gallery in anger and disgust after witnessing the behaviour of Ann Dupre and Angela Jeune.

    Dupre hardly ever says a word in the States, but when she does and you can make any sense of it, she's saying something that will please the powers that be, and p1ssing off the "good" people of this island.

    Rico will be publishing a series of the FSLM and Dupre will be featuring very heavily. I too will be posting Blogs featuring Ann Dupre, but will be closer to the next election.....if she has the audacity to run again.

    As for changing the name of HDLG so people can forget the bad memories, well let's just hope that after the next election Ann Dupre becomes just a bad memory, and call HDLG what you will, I'm sure it will never erase the horrific memories of childhood for the people who had to endure that place.

    Haute de la Garennne is the name that people will know and remember Jersey for,for many a year to come, if not forever.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think they should change the name of" Auschitz" to "Lego Land" then all the bad memories will go away.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "In these circumstances I believe that there is a compelling case for a full independent investigation with intrusive legal powers, into the actions of Andrew Lewis and others on and around 12th November 2008 and that given the circumstances, a full criminal investigation, by an independent police force, may be appropriate." Graham Power QPM.

    Will Andrew Lewis end up in the dock?????????????

    ReplyDelete
  23. Today in the States TLS said that the Napier Report was two weeks away and that him and Deputy Hill had copies.
    Why the delays?

    ReplyDelete
  24. With Stuarts Abuse of Process, the imminent Napier Report and the Verita report being investigated again Todays usual voting of 32 to 16 the usual establishment way isnt helping matters and the popularity of the ruling(?) elite?!

    ReplyDelete
  25. [Today in the States TLS said that the Napier Report was two weeks away and that him and Deputy Hill had copies.]


    The cost must be growing week by week, why the further delay? I can only guess there must be some big problems for the 'powers that be', otherwise the report would have already been leaked to the media to say how right they were etc..

    I would not trust TLS to run a school tuck shop, it would run out of stock as deliveries would be months later and the products would cost more than originally budgeted.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Deputy Dupreeee said "I think they should change the name of" Auschitz" to "Lego Land" then all the bad memories will go away."

    I have a Polish friend who took her 16 year old daughter to Auschitz recently. The girl stood in the centre of one of the gas chambers frozen in horror for some time before falling to her knees in tears. Haut De La Garenne can have that effect too.

    The name is irrelevant. Some buildings are steeped in evil and no matter how the States of Jersey want to tart it up and call it what they will, the ambience will not go away. PULL IT DOWN!

    Oh sorry - I forgot - you can't do that in case the workmen find anything else!

    Lorna

    ReplyDelete
  27. Jill. I will phone you as I don't have your email. My trip was amazing thankyou and I have nearly got all the Chianti out of my system and the pizza stains out of my clothes!

    Lorna
    X

    ReplyDelete
  28. " I can only guess there must be some big problems for the 'powers that be', otherwise the report would have already been leaked to the media to say how right they were etc.."

    Correct

    ReplyDelete
  29. This is all bollocks. I was told this morning that the Napier Report is not the so called corrupt report you were looking for. In fact far from it, it makes you people look bloody stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  30. On a light hearted note:-

    I am in the process of laying a new lawn, and therefore have just the job for a gang of Foot Stamping Lackeys.

    I would call it The Foot Stamping Lackeys Party.

    However, they will have to avoid manure from a bull, otherwise known as 'Bull Shit', so I guess that means no-one would come, but there will be champagne..... I can already hear the Stampede.

    ReplyDelete
  31. They have turned the sh*t hole where they dumped me into a garden centre. I think I will write to them and suggest that they specialise in carnivourous and fungal plants.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "I was told this morning that the Napier Report is not the so called corrupt report you were looking for."

    There you have it "I was told". The person who submitted that comment is anonymous so there can be no comeback. They have (as usual) no proof whatsoever to qualify their comment. "I was told" just priceless!

    The main posting of this Blog is documented evidence, not something "I was told". Please provide evidence of your claims concerning the Napier Report if you wish to be taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ourchap rides again?

    I really hope not .

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Ourchap rides again?"

    Well according to the "I was told" and "rumour has it" merchants, it is an our chap report.

    However there is zero evidence to back these claims up. We shall have to wait and see.

    Personally I have allowed myself a very rare slice of optimism and believe Mr Brian Napier QC is an honorable man who won't have been bought.

    ReplyDelete

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