Friday, 8 October 2010

Napier - Initial observations from Graham Power QPM.


The long awaited Napier Report has finally been published. Without having read it all I will not offer my conclusions or thoughts on it just yet. But Team Voice, in the coming weeks, will be examining its contents and trying to discover, among other things, how the Terms Of Reference in the final Report managed to change from those it was supposed to begin with and who in the Chief Minister's office, or elsewhere, might have/could have "doctored" them?

As was the case with the Wiltshire Report, unlawfully and unfairly, suspended former CPO Graham Power QPM has not been kept informed, by the Jersey authorities, of the development(s) concerning the Brian Napier QC Report. However he has now been able to obtain a copy, and after an initial reading of it, has sent out, to the "accredited" and "unaccredited" media, his immediate thoughts and observations in a "briefing note".

As former CPO Mr. Power QPM has published this as "Briefing note 1" we must assume there will be more to follow!!!

Although there are many sentences or paragraphs I could highlight from this briefing note here are just two that stand out.

"The case against me was based on the evidence of a number of key witnesses whose credibility is, to say the least, seriously damaged by the revelations in the Napier report."

And to show that he has not lost sight of who the most important people are in all of this, and credit for him for doing so, he says this.

"Finally, I should at least record my hope that the inevitable controversy in high places which will follow the publication of the Napier report does not divert attention from the people who are the most important in the whole affair, namely the survivors and victims of the sexual abuse which took place in institutions managed by the States of Jersey, and who were denied the chance of justice for decades before the commencement of “Operation Rectangle.”


The “Napier Report”


Briefing note 1.

This briefing note has been prepared by Graham Power QPM, retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. It is intended to assist editors in reporting on the “Napier Report” which I understand has just been made available to the public. The observations below are based on an initial quick read of the report. I have not been provided with a copy, or indeed any relevant information, by the Jersey Authorities. In no particular order my first observations are as follows:

1. Para 45. It is unusual for there to be a public release of advice given by the Law Officers, but editors may find the information in this paragraph particularly revealing. Its presentation is also consistent with the style of the report which sometimes does not “flag up” key pieces of information but rather leaves them for the carful reader to discover in the text. It is also sometimes necessary to read together paragraphs which appear in separate parts of the report. Paragraph 45 appears to say that the Law Officers advised that if a report from the Metropolitan Police was to be relied on for the suspension then there must be “no caveats or provisos” in the report. Paragraph 69 makes it clear that the report when received was in fact heavily qualified. Subsequent paragraphs show that the relevant parties pressed ahead regardless. The implication of these paragraphs, taken together, is that actions were taken contrary to legal advice.

2. Paragraphs 55 (particularly the second half) and paragraph 79. These appear to state that a resolve had formed “at the highest level of the administration” to pursue the suspension of the Chief Officer and that this resolve had been formed as early as September 2008, perhaps two months before the “decision” was allegedly taken. Editors may feel that this contradicts what has been for almost two years the “official version” of events, namely that the decision was taken following the receipt of a report on 11th November 2008.

3. Paragraph 80. Following the above the author refers to preparations for suspension which were taking place in October 2008. In Mr Napier’s view there was “little objective basis” for such preparations.



4. Paragraph 73. This paragraph records the denial of Andrew Lewis that he was coerced in taking his decision to suspend by the then Chief Minister, Frank Walker. However, editors may find it helpful to read this paragraph in conjunction with paragraph 22 which records the observation by Lewis that he was “coming under a lot of pressure from his fellow politicians.” Also relevant is paragraph 44 which refers to a meeting on 3rd November 2008 which was to discuss the possibility of suspension. The persons present were Bill Ogley, Ian Crich and Frank Walker. Andrew Lewis, the only person with the power to suspend, was not present. This appears to run contrary to the claims made in paragraph 73.



5. Paragraphs 66 to 68. These paragraphs cover some of the ground which was debated during the Judicial Review hearings and give support to the view that once he had been suspended from duty it was highly improbable that the Chief Officer would return to work. Or to put it plainly, what was being considered was effectively dismissal. It may be useful to read these comments in conjunction with paragraph 82 which records that once Mr Warcup had submitted his letter in support of the suspension process, his position would be untenable should I ever return. Mr Napier does not explore whether the letter was written against a background of any assurances on that issue. It would however seem unlikely that the matter was not discussed or at least considered.

6. Paragraph 97 refers to, but does not entirely resolve, the reference in the suspension documents to a meeting “earlier today” when it is now agreed by all sides that no such meeting happened.

7. Paragraph 98 raises but is not able to resolve the conflict between the different versions of the “interim report.” During the disciplinary enquiry I was provided with a document which was said to be the document provided to Mr Warcup. It is a memorandum written by a civilian employee of the Metropolitan Police which expresses heavily qualified personal views some of which are positive and some of which are critical. It makes no claim to be a corporate document written on behalf of the Metropolitan Police as an organisation. The document shown by others to Mr Napier, although containing the same words, is apparently packaged and presented as an official Metropolitan Police report. At this time I choose not to speculate further on this matter.



8. Paragraph 101. This might usefully be read in conjunction with the above. In it Mr Napier tactfully, but nevertheless plainly enough, challenges the confidentiality of the “interim report.” This is important because it was apparently on grounds of operational confidentiality that both Andrew Lewis and Bill Ogley were denied sight of the report, in apparent conflict with the advice of the Law Officers Department. Editors may also recall that over one year after the suspension the current Minister for Home Affairs also stated that he had not seen the report on similar grounds. I have a copy of the report. There are no operational issues in the report which cannot be managed by simple redaction, and in any event, operational matters were not the issue in question. The relevant part of the report deals with management issues which have no particular sensitivity. Mr Napier appears to be unable to find any serious justification for the full report being withheld from the Minister and nor can I. This difficulty may of course be capable of being explained away. However, in the absence of a credible explanation there will inevitably be speculation. It is probable that this speculation will involve discussion of whether the full report “lives up to” the claims made in the selected summary on the basis of which Andrew Lewis claims to have acted. The implication in the Napier report is that it does not.

9. Other issues in the report are self evident and I will not comment in detail at this time. The report plainly states that a resolve to suspend was formed during a number of secret meetings and exchanges over a period weeks, or even months before the “official” decision was taken. It states that the Disciplinary Code was wrongly applied, it states that there was insufficient evidence to justify suspension and that other solutions could and should have been attempted. It is clear in stating that I was treated unfairly. The report is right to state that I was subject to a number of allegations, but in the event none of these allegations came to anything. There were no disciplinary charges and there was no disciplinary hearing. All disciplinary action was abandoned after a period of over a year and a half and well over one million pounds of expenditure. I have always denied any misconduct or mismanagement whatsoever in relation the Historic Abuse Enquiry and I still do. If I had been given a chance to put my case to a proper independent hearing then I expected to be exonerated. The case against me was based on the evidence of a number of key witnesses whose credibility is, to say the least, seriously damaged by the revelations in the Napier report. I commenced duty as Chief Officer of the Force with an unblemished record. I retired with that record intact.

10. Finally, I should at least record my hope that the inevitable controversy in high places which will follow the publication of the Napier report does not divert attention from the people who are the most important in the whole affair, namely the survivors and victims of the sexual abuse which took place in institutions managed by the States of Jersey, and who were denied the chance of justice for decades before the commencement of “Operation Rectangle.”



Friday 8th October 2010.

Submitted by VFC.

41 comments:

  1. The battle for justice continues ...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi VFC.

    Just Put up the interview from this evening.

    Well done to Deputy Bob Hill & yourself.

    It sounds as if this report is as good as it could of got.

    http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2010/10/reaction-from-napier-report.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. 5. Paragraphs 66 to 68. These paragraphs cover some of the ground which was debated during the Judicial Review hearings and give support to the view that once he had been suspended from duty it was highly improbable that the Chief Officer would return to work. Or to put it plainly, what was being considered was effectively dismissal. It may be useful to read these comments in conjunction with paragraph 82 which records that once Mr Warcup had submitted his letter in support of the suspension process, his position would be untenable should I ever return. Mr Napier does not explore whether the letter was written against a background of any assurances on that issue. It would however seem unlikely that the matter was not discussed or at least considered.


    Did they promise Dave Warcup the top job? Is that why they tried to rush it through the states before it got blocked. All becoming clear now.

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  4. 9. Other issues in the report are self evident and I will not comment in detail at this time.

    That means there is more to come , nice one Mr power, I know you wont let the abuse victims down.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Strange how some follow legal advice when not really relevant and disregard legal advice when highly relevant, or is is someone trying to cover their backside?

    ReplyDelete
  6. How come CTV opened and closed their report with no relevance to the report, ie: nowhere mention of conspiracy in the remit. However, I do believe that if there is just one piece of evidence available to add weight then a full public enquiry will have to be opened.

    ReplyDelete
  7. well said Mr Power.it was clear even on a first reading that there were inconsistencies in this report
    not least is what is a conspiracy?
    secret meetings held in advance of the suspension sounds like it to me,
    Over the next few days and weeks I
    hope there will be more critical analysis of the events,Tony's blog
    has already made some salient points
    one last point Where is Wendy Kinnard?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for the interview thejerseyway.

    Very interesting and revealing and obviously still far more questions to be answered, in particular, who altered the TOR??

    I also find it most appalling and downright bad practice that Mr Power has not been kept in the loop by our Government in all this, the very people that destroyed his reputation (or tried to).

    Obviously this matter is far from over yet. Keep up the good work Deputy Hill, and let's have some more honest and brave politicians on the case. It should concern you all.

    All the best to Mr Power.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I would concentrate not on what there is no evidence of but what the report show there is evidence of. Shocking

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lenny Harper, who Brian Napier declined to interview was criticised in the Napier Report and unlike others was not offered the right of reply. Here is Lenny's letter to Mr. Napier, with Mr. Napier's reply to follow.

    Dear Mr Napier;

    Please excuse me taking the liberty of writing to you - you do not know me, but I am Lenny Harper, the former Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.

    I was disappointed to learn that in your just released report to the Jersey government, that you accepted and re-stated the criticisms of myself that were used as one of the reasons for the attack on Graham Power. I particularly regret that, unlike those that are also criticised in the report, that I did not receive a letter from you giving me the opportunity to rebuff, as I have on many occasions, criticisms which have been proved over and over to have no substance. Whilst I have no doubt that it was not your intention, I seem to have been given less of an opportunity to clear my name than those who seem to have supplied mis-information about Grahams suspension.

    I am aware that Bob Hill asked you to interview me but you declined as you did not wish to get bogged down. Whilst I understand that, given the criticisms of me that you repeat in your report, it would have been only fair to have given me the opportunity. I would have answered those criticisms. I would have supplied you with the two documents I have attached to this e mail, one, an affidavit I made for the High Court in London, and secondly, a rationale for the operation at HDLG. I will not bore you with the details in this e mail but would ask you to read the documents even though I know you must be very busy. As an example, in relation to criticism of my Media policy, criticism you make mention of on several occasions, one of the main criticisms was that I whipped up a media frenzy over the "shackles" found at HDLG. As I explain in my Affidavit, this is untrue. Builders who had found these items five years before and left them went to the media and told the media that "the police are going to find shackles." I refused to confirm this and refused to say that I had found shackles. The main source of the criticism against me in this respect was a Jersey Evening Post Journalist by the name of Diane Simon. Yet, she originally ran a story in which she clearly stated that she had been told by outside sources that the police would find shackles. Her story clearly has me refusing to comment on the fact that we had found shackles. Yet, months later, the same journalist was writing a story blaming me for introducing shackles. Both stories were run together on one of the many blogs supported by the victims. I would have pointed all this and more out to you.

    Similarly, another criticism was that I entered HDLG and dug it up on a whim. Read the Op. Rectangle Summary and decide yourself if that is so.

    Another thing I would have told you is that I formally complained to the Met about the Interim and further report they had allegedly carried out. I would have told you that the author of the report has now been served with Misconduct papers as a result of my complaint that submitted the first report without even interviewing me, and that he then ignored completely, evidence I gave him which showed criticism to be unfounded and that he failed to interview witnesses, including Anthropologists and Archaeologists who would have corroborated my evidence.

    As I stated earlier, forgive me taking the liberty of contacting you, but I feel that you would have been at more of an advantage if you had been given the full facts. Please read these documents. Not only do they counter the criticism made, but the Affidavit gives a flavour of the corruption and obstructions that Graham Power and myself had to work with.

    Yours since
    Lenny Harper

    ReplyDelete
  11. Brian Napier QC reply to Lenny Harper.

    Dear Mr Harper

    Thank you for your email.

    I hope you will appreciate that I cannot at this stage enter into any discussions about the content of my report, but I assure you I will read the material you have sent to me.

    Perhaps I can just quote from para. 9 of the report where I said “Where I have ascribed views or opinions to others, I have done so only on the basis of information that was provided to me in interview or in documentation I have read.” I have not sought to go beyond the terms under which I carried out my investigations, and it certainly was no part of my brief to make any judgment on your conduct. It would, as you rightly point out, be unfair for me to do so when I had not spoken to you. I had to take account of criticisms that were made of you because these criticisms formed part of the background to Mr Power’s suspension, but that is the only concern I had with your part in the whole affair.

    Yours sincerely,

    Brian Napier QC

    ReplyDelete
  12. So when the JEP do their next hatchet job on Lenny and how he was criticised in the Napier Report will there be any mention of this?

    "I have not sought to go beyond the terms under which I carried out my investigations, and it certainly was no part of my brief to make any judgment on your conduct. It would, as you rightly point out, be unfair for me to do so when I had not spoken to you."

    ReplyDelete
  13. Would be interested on reading more about Terms of reference being altered. Who was responsible can this be reversed and re-submitted.

    ReplyDelete
  14. As a relative newcomer to this, can someone post the original terms as agreed with Deputy Hill and the terms that were actually used by Napier.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Brilliant job from VFC.

    My own reading of Napier and first analysis is at:

    http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2010/10/turning-over-napiers-bones.html

    ReplyDelete
  16. 73. ….....Mr Lewis for his part was insistent that the decision to suspend was his, albeit one
    which was supported by advice given by his advisors. He does not accept that he was bullied or coerced into making that decision by Mr Walker and/or Mr Ogley.

    Who were his advisers? Why did they not give him the advice from the SG. I assume it was Ogley and co, who did not pass on the very IMPORTANT advice to Warcup, if they did, he ignored it!, or it was 'cover my arse' file note.

    101. ….. It was, said Mr Ogley, a police document and it was inappropriate that he (or anyone else) should have access to it. Mr Ogley says that he was told both by the Attorney General and
    Mr Warcup that he should not look at the interim report and neither he nor Mr Lewis did so. I have seen no record of any advice given, but I have not explored all sources. The Attorney General does not recollect giving such advice and believes he never saw the Interim Report documents itself. It must therefore remain uncertain exactly what legal advice (if any) was provided, and, if advice was provided at what stage in the proceedings this took place.

    So did Ogley lie about getting advice from the AG? Strange that he would do so and yet ignore advice from the SG! I guess if your aim is to remove the COP at all costs you risk your job, unless you say you never saw the report, hey presto, Warcup is the fall guy, hence he will not be the next COP.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Desperate posts from a bunch of idiots. No conspiracy, its over.

    ReplyDelete
  18. VFC

    Could you please explain where this leaves ILM and his debacle. Did he not fully back David Warcup. And was it not him and Ogley that tried and fast tracked Warcup.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Old cliche absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    If evidence not available in the equation doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Im sure Rico VFC Deputy Hill and many others will get to bottom of this.

    ReplyDelete
  20. just not long ago seen tlm nomate of mine devloper going to see him squeaky bum time maybe?

    ReplyDelete
  21. So it looks like it was the original part D from the Terms of Reference that was left out?

    (d) Review all information relating to the original suspension procedure,
    including relevant sections of the published Affidavit from the
    suspended Chief Officer of Police.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mac.

    You have got it spot on. I see somebody is asking about this on Stuart's Blog perhaps you could answer on there as well?

    Of course the "accredited" media, it would appear, don't believe there is a story to be had here, so once more it will be left to the "unaccredited" media.

    Team Voice will be contacting CTV later today concerning what we believe to be sloppy/lazy journalism at best. Or banging out the establishment line with half truths and spin at worst.

    We will keep readers informed.

    ReplyDelete
  23. VFC

    I've posted it here, Rico's, Stuart's and the Jersey way blogs

    I couldn't find the original Terms of Reference on Hansard as it was held in camera, but remembered that it was included in the COM comments on P9

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well done VFC team, I see our cousins in Guernsey have mentioned the Napier report on their blog Vuedesisles.co.uk

    So I have posted a link to here and the Vile blog for deeper back round information regarding Graham Powers and Lenny Harpers response.

    “ The truth returns as an enemy, only when it’s been forgotten as friend “

    Russian poet.

    Boatyboy.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Warcup was interviewed for the Deputy and CPO job at first. He already had the future CPO job. Gradwell was interviewed/appointed by Power and Warcup...so how brought in to do a hatchett job!>>

    ReplyDelete
  26. Gradwell was not appointed by Graham Power. I also remember Lenny Harper saying that all of the applicants except Gradwell made efforts to speak to him and that the only one who didn't was Gradwell. Co-incidence?

    ReplyDelete
  27. RELEASED TO MEDIA AT 4.50 PM ON WEDNESDAY 23 APRIL
    THE Deputy Chief Constable of one of the UK’s top performing Police forces is to be the new Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.
    David Warcup, who is currently the Deputy Chief Constable at Northumbria Police was one of four shortlisted candidates who was interviewed by a panel in Jersey on Wednesday 16 and Thursday 17 April.

    He was interviewed by a panel made up of the Home Affairs Minister, Wendy Kinnard, Chief Executive of the States Bill Ogley, the Director of States Human Resources, Ian Crich, and the Chairman of the Appointments Commission, Mike Liston.

    Mr Warcup will succeed the current Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper, who is due to retire from the States of Jersey Police in August this year. Mr Warcup will undertake an induction programme before he begins his duties as Deputy Chief Officer.

    Sorry

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sorry forgot this bit

    Information for media:

    Comment from Mr Warcup, and a photograph of him can be obtained through the Northumbria Police Press Office on 01661 868 888.
    (1) The succession plan approved by the States Employment Board and the Appointments Commission envisages the new D.C.O. succeeding to the Chief Officer Position in 2010 subject to satisfactory performance.

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  29. Team voice rico included. Napier has completely and utterly vindicated you, bob hill trevor pitman and everybody else who has sought to find the truth behind the suspension of graham power. Well done all of you and thankyou for your courage.

    ReplyDelete
  30. So the first person who should be disciplined must be Warcup, for not telling anyone that the Interim Report was heavily qualified, I can only guess he did not tell anyone because he wanted Graham Power suspended to speed up his promotion, why else would he not disclose to anyone the qualifications! As no-one else saw the document, nobody knew that it was not sufficient, although the SG was very perceptive, perhaps he should have liaised with his AG as he was advising that nobody should look at it!. In fact, even ILM did not look at it as he was advised not to by the (SG?) Law Officiers, so no advice from the AG then!

    So it looks as though ILM got some bad advice from the SG perhaps this came from the AG.



    NAPIER REPORT:
    72. I cannot see that a report as qualified in its contents as was the Interim Report meets the stringent tests which were identified as appropriate (rightly, in my own opinion) in the advice from the Solicitor General’s office on 11 November 2008 before any act of suspension should take place. In my view the concerns quite properly flagged up by the Solicitor General with regard to the act of suspension in his advice of 6 and 11 November were not given sufficient weight in the taking of the decision to suspend, either by the Minister or by those advising him (a group which did not include, in this respect, Mr Warcup).

    GP - SUSPENSION REVIEW MEETING

    Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
    There is no issue with those, but we must make sure you get those. This is the sensitive area. The sensitive area is that in his letter which you have not seen Mr. Warcup makes reference partly to the Metropolitan Police report of which you are both aware. I have not seen that report, and indeed the previous Minister did not see that report, and the reason for that is because that report contains highly sensitive information regarding individual cases, naming potential offenders, victims, et cetera et cetera. Now my advisors do not want me to see that report because of that sort of sensitive information but I am aware that because reference has been made to it in Mr. Warcup's letter that it not unreasonable that Mr. Power or yourself or some representatives, which in this case might not include lawyers because of the very sensitive area, be able to see the report and to check that in fact that which has been quoted from it has been accurately quoted. This is sensitive because even my own advisors do not want me to see it, I believe for good reasons, because I am not an operational police officer and I am the Home Affairs Minister. What we have been looking at, and this has again been a reason which has slightly delayed the responses in other matters, is mechanisms for dealing with the difficulty of it containing information which frankly is not relevant directly because only the information which is referred to by Mr. Warcup in his letter is really relevant. So what we have been looking at is different possibilities which are canvassed for you now to try and get around the difficulty. One of the difficulties is to try and persuade the Metropolitan Police to produce a redacted, reduced version of the report which would only effectively make reference to the matters which related to management structures and so on, and not to individual cases. But I am not sure whether they are going to agree to do that because there is a second difficulty which I will be absolutely open with you about, which is this, and it is a relationship issue in relation to the States of Jersey Police and the Metropolitan Police who are not entirely happy that a report was produced for a particular purpose and is now going to be involved for a different purpose. But let me see if I can ... if it was not referred to in the letters it would not be in play at all.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Part1

    So the first person who should be disciplined must be Warcup, for not telling anyone that the Interim Report was heavily qualified, I can only guess he did not tell anyone because he wanted Graham Power suspended to speed up his promotion, why else would he not disclose to anyone the qualifications! As no-one else saw the document, nobody knew that it was not sufficient, although the SG was very perceptive, perhaps he should have liaised with his AG as he was advising that nobody should look at it!.


    NAPIER REPORT:
    72. I cannot see that a report as qualified in its contents as was the Interim Report meets the stringent tests which were identified as appropriate (rightly, in my own opinion) in the advice from the Solicitor General’s office on 11 November 2008 before any act of suspension should take place. In my view the concerns quite properly flagged up by the Solicitor General with regard to the act of suspension in his advice of 6 and 11 November were not given sufficient weight in the taking of the decision to suspend, either by the Minister or by those advising him (a group which did not include, in this respect, Mr Warcup).

    ReplyDelete
  32. Part2
    In fact, even ILM did not look at it as he was advised not to by the (SG?) Law Officers, so no advice from the AG then!
    GP - SUSPENSION REVIEW MEETING

    Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
    There is no issue with those, but we must make sure you get those. This is the sensitive area. The sensitive area is that in his letter which you have not seen Mr. Warcup makes reference partly to the Metropolitan Police report of which you are both aware. I have not seen that report, and indeed the previous Minister did not see that report, and the reason for that is because that report contains highly sensitive information regarding individual cases, naming potential offenders, victims, et cetera et cetera. Now my advisors do not want me to see that report because of that sort of sensitive information but I am aware that because reference has been made to it in Mr. Warcup's letter that it not unreasonable that Mr. Power or yourself or some representatives, which in this case might not include lawyers because of the very sensitive area, be able to see the report and to check that in fact that which has been quoted from it has been accurately quoted. This is sensitive because even my own advisors do not want me to see it, I believe for good reasons, because I am not an operational police officer and I am the Home Affairs Minister. What we have been looking at, and this has again been a reason which has slightly delayed the responses in other matters, is mechanisms for dealing with the difficulty of it containing information which frankly is not relevant directly because only the information which is referred to by Mr. Warcup in his letter is really relevant. So what we have been looking at is different possibilities which are canvassed for you now to try and get around the difficulty. One of the difficulties is to try and persuade the Metropolitan Police to produce a redacted, reduced version of the report which would only effectively make reference to the matters which related to management structures and so on, and not to individual cases. But I am not sure whether they are going to agree to do that because there is a second difficulty which I will be absolutely open with you about, which is this, and it is a relationship issue in relation to the States of Jersey Police and the Metropolitan Police who are not entirely happy that a report was produced for a particular purpose and is now going to be involved for a different purpose. But let me see if I can ... if it was not referred to in the letters it would not be in play at all.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Part2
    In fact, even ILM did not look at it as he was advised not to by the (SG?) Law Officers, so no advice from the AG then!
    GP - SUSPENSION REVIEW MEETING

    Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
    There is no issue with those, but we must make sure you get those. This is the sensitive area. The sensitive area is that in his letter which you have not seen Mr. Warcup makes reference partly to the Metropolitan Police report of which you are both aware. I have not seen that report, and indeed the previous Minister did not see that report, and the reason for that is because that report contains highly sensitive information regarding individual cases, naming potential offenders, victims, et cetera et cetera. Now my advisors do not want me to see that report because of that sort of sensitive information but I am aware that because reference has been made to it in Mr. Warcup's letter that it not unreasonable that Mr. Power or yourself or some representatives, which in this case might not include lawyers because of the very sensitive area, be able to see the report and to check that in fact that which has been quoted from it has been accurately quoted. This is sensitive because even my own advisors do not want me to see it, I believe for good reasons, because I am not an operational police officer and I am the Home Affairs Minister. What we have been looking at, and this has again been a reason which has slightly delayed the responses in other matters, is mechanisms for dealing with the difficulty of it containing information which frankly is not relevant directly because only the information which is referred to by Mr. Warcup in his letter is really relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Part3

    So what we have been looking at is different possibilities which are canvassed for you now to try and get around the difficulty. One of the difficulties is to try and persuade the Metropolitan Police to produce a redacted, reduced version of the report which would only effectively make reference to the matters which related to management structures and so on, and not to individual cases. But I am not sure whether they are going to agree to do that because there is a second difficulty which I will be absolutely open with you about, which is this, and it is a relationship issue in relation to the States of Jersey Police and the Metropolitan Police who are not entirely happy that a report was produced for a particular purpose and is now going to be involved for a different purpose. But let me see if I can ... if it was not referred to in the letters it would not be in play at all.

    ReplyDelete
  35. We can now see what was happining leading up to the suspension but we must not forget what happened subsequently.
    TLS has cost this island a fortune
    either by his mismanagement or by continuing the conspiracy,take your pick, yes I will use that term for in my opinion that is what took place.
    ILM backed Warcup who has now been
    shown to be heavily conflicted and insrtumental in "shafting" his boss.They should both resign they are either incompetent or corrupt
    Hypocrites who tell us the tax paying public that we must tighten our belts and accept cuts to essential public services yet squander valuable resources.VFC has anyone worked out how much this has cost?
    I am so angry bring on the elections!

    ReplyDelete
  36. If the original 'interim' report was, as we now know, merely a page or so submitted by a civilian member of staff, is it likely that it would have contained sensitive material such as the names of victims? This now smells like an excuse on Warcup's behalf to stop people seeing the document and realising its true lack of worth.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Napier says ,,, 15 '... Mr Power refers to a meeting in July 2007 of
    the Corporate Management Board at which he was encouraged to participate in a “vote of no confidence” against the then Minister of Health. He declined
    to do so, and refers to this as being his “first noteworthy experience of the formation of an ‘inner circle’ of politicised senior civil servants loyal to the
    Chief Minister.” Amongst that group he numbered the Chief Executive, Mr Bill Ogley and the head of Human Resources, Mr Ian Crich. Mr Power also makes an allegation that the Chief Executive spoke, in a meeting held on 24 October 2008, in a way that he interpreted as “a further indication of the ‘in crowd’ closing ranks against the ‘threat’ of the abuse enquiry.”

    ReplyDelete
  38. What is the point?

    Its being put to bed now because its over.

    ReplyDelete

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