Wednesday, 3 November 2010

Napier, Warcup, the MET “REVIEW”and others.

Brian Napier QC has handed over the final version of his Report. I say “final” version because we are led to believe that two others were drafted and submitted before we got the final version. As far as we are aware the only other people to see the first two drafts are the Deputy CEO John Richardson and Brian Napier QC himself.


For those that have been following this debacle, you will be aware that Deputy Bob Hill was promised oversight, by Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur, of the Napier Investigation, including the Reports. Deputy Hill never got to see the first two drafts, and has, we are led to believe, been REFUSED sight of them. Neither he, (Deputy Hill) nor the States Assembly were told that part (d) of the Terms of Reference was dropped. As far as we are able to ascertain the decision to drop this crucial paragraph was made by John Richardson and Brian Napier! Could this be why Mr. Napier was unable to find any “evidence” of a conspiracy to oust the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM from his post? Part (d) being.

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

Notwithstanding that very strange anomaly, there is another, well - the Report is full of them - but let’s just have a look at the MET Report. It is mentioned fairly extensively in the Napier Report, in how it should not have been used as part of the suspension of Mr. Graham Power QPM. The reasons given for this is because it was “heavily qualified” had “caveats” “provisos” was incomplete and such like.

Unless we've missed something, it doesn’t appear to mention, in the Napier Report, that the MET Report should never have been used in a disciplinary case because, although it has become known as a Report, it is in actual fact a “Review”. This is something that our “accredited” media don’t seem to dwell on either. An extremely dangerous and far reaching precedent might now have now been set.

Enquiries we have made with senior police sources indicate that all serious crime enquiries get a review (provided that they have been running for long enough) These reviews involve specialists from another force going over the ground of the enquiry and making recommendations to the investigating team. It is a form of "critical friend" review by fresh eyes and minds where the reviewers are encouraged to find fault and look for opportunities for improvement. There is no precedent that we are aware of for such a review being used for a disciplinary purpose. If that precedent were ever accepted then who would ever again commission a review?? Readers of the Voice will be aware from the suspension review transcripts that ILM said that the use of the review (report) for the purpose of disciplinary action caused a breakdown of relationships with the Met. The relationship with the Met is important to the force and to the Island. In an extreme emergency it could be crucial to public safety. Nevertheless it appears that those involved in the suspension were willing to jeopardize that relationship to achieve their objective of pinning “something” or even ”anything” on Graham Power QPM.


This is what Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, had to say about this at one of his suspension reviews with, at the time, suspended Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM and his representative Dr. Timothy Brain.

“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.”


The other person who would/should have been aware that the MET "Review" should NEVER have been used for disciplinary purposes was Acting Chief Officer David Warcup. Since Napier didn’t appear to mention that the MET “Report” was a “review” and by its very nature is designed to be critical, then Napier believed that the professional integrity of Mr. Warcup should not be in question. Well, we’ll have to make our own minds up about that.

It will be interesting to learn how the new Police Chief feels that any review he might commission for any of his investigations can be used against him? As well as any prosecution case against him might be put into the public domain after being denied the right to a “fair” Hearing. His contract will be worth a look at to see how it differs from his predecessor’s, and if it doesn’t differ “The Jersey way” will be something he never forgets!

Ian Le Marquand, Terry Le Sueur and others, in our opinion, have shafted the former Police Chief internationally, and will forever be remembered for it.

Submitted by Team Voice............... A media you can trust

42 comments:

  1. Cover up. Simple.

    ReplyDelete
  2. All the 'huff and puff', par for the course, they knew they would get away with it, nothing Graham can do about it!

    Game Set 'n' Match....

    or is it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. @VFC, I heard TLS say in the States that the reason TOR D was dropped was because Napier conducted a face-to-face interview with Graham Power in which he was able to give evidence and repeat what was in his affidavit. In fact, you cannot imagine that he would speak to Napier and not repeat what he'd said there.

    Now you could say that by omitting that clause it narrowed the Napier report and constrained it to the procedure followed and not the surrounding context, but that was always the purpose of the Napier report anyway. It was not designed to look into governance on Jersey or the HDlG investigation.

    Also, the final TOR D was, "The Report should highlight any areas where in the opinion of the Commissioner sufficient evidence exists that would support, in the interests of open government a full Committee of Inquiry into the manner in which the Chief Officer of Police was suspended on 12 November 2008."

    If you accept that Power was free to tell Napier anything, including what was in his affidavit, the above TOR implies that Napier was then free to recommend a full inquiry, which he did not do.

    We will probably never really know the reasons for the original TOR being changed, but I don't think I have seen Graham Power himself complain about it, nor his treatment by Napier. So I am a little curious about why you think this is such a big thing.

    To me, the much more important and telling fact is that Bob Hill was kept in the dark when he was supposed to be informed at all times, which means that he never saw the un-doctored report. That looks a lot more suspicious.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think Rob Kent has a valid point concerning Graham Power. I also believe the crucial point is Deputy Hill being kept in the dark at a critical stage in the drafting of the Napier Report.

    Could we have or do we have Graham Powers opinion on the change of the TOR

    ReplyDelete
  5. 2.9 The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding the Terms of Reference relating to the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police’s sworn Affidavit:

    Will the Chief Minister inform Members why part (d) of the Terms of Reference relating to the former Police Chief’s sworn affidavit and published in the comments to P.9/2010 and in the Jersey Evening Post on 26th March 2010 was removed from the Napier Report, and who was responsible and, given the affidavit’s relevance to the suspension, why Members were not party to the decision to amend the terms?

    Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

    The original terms of reference were drafted at the time when it was not known whether the pervious Chief Officer of Police would participate in the review. As such, paragraph (d) deals in certain terms of reference as this sworn affidavit was a significant document available in the public domain that put across his version of events. When it was established that the previous Chief Officer of Police would fully participate in the investigation, Mr. Napier felt that he would be able to obtain all of the necessary information from the Chief Officer through formal interview. Prior to the detailed investigation commencing, Mr. Napier discussed the relevance of the paragraph with the Deputy Chief Executive, who was overseeing the investigation on my behalf, and they agreed it was no longer required since the copy of the full affidavit was provided to Mr. Napier as part of his original briefing. Mr. Napier makes 3 references to the affidavit in his report, and I am totally satisfied that any relevant detail contained in the affidavit was fully considered by Mr. Napier in compiling his final report.

    For a start why wouldn't Graham Power take part in the Napier Reprort?

    Why can Napier and the Deputy Chief Executive change the TOR when it has been passed in the States Chamber, is that best practice. Another point is how the hell has the Deputy Chief Executive ended up dealing with this when it's his boss thats in the firing line. Now, I don't know this but I would imagine that they probably have offices next to each other.

    This Government is a shamble, and on the radio behind me is another shambles Regs Skips.

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  6. 2.9.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

    It is not a good day for the States when we do not really get the answers one seeks, or at least the truth behind the answer. But the Minister will be aware that the affidavit contained allegations of malpractice by his Chief Executive Officer, but because the terms of reference were then altered these allegations were never looked into. Does the Chief Minister agree that by altering those terms of reference the credibility of the Napier Report is now weakened?

    Senator T.A. Le Sueur
    :
    No. As I already said, Mr. Napier did have the full copy of the affidavit. He no doubt considered the allegations referred to in that affidavit and he treated them accordingly.
    2.9

    You see why Napier should be over here explaining his report, he has left a bloody shambles by not explaining it.

    No need for a mystic in working out why he was kept as far away as possible.

    I commend Ben Shenton for his work on Reg's Skips but he cant have it both ways. They were shafted just like Graham Power, but they are on their way to justice unlike the Abuse Survivors

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  7. So VFC, in layman's terms (as we are all considered as thick as pigshit on another blog!), we eventually got sight of a report which was submitted in draft form twice, and not seen by Deputy Hill as promised by TLeS.

    Only after the final report was presented, and Deputy Hill had had sight of it, was he aware that part of the ToR had been dropped.

    We than find that a report, namely the Met Report should never have been used in any action relating to suspension or disciplinary action against Mr Power and it was.

    Well from where I am sitting in my little sty, the stench is overwhelming. No, however much we may want to forget TLeS and ILeM, you are right, we will never forget this disgraceful episode and the part they played in it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rob.

    Like I said in the main posting, the Napier Report has many anomalies, prioritising them is impossible, and certainly not what I have set out to do in this post, or any other.

    As Rico has pointed out, what right have John Richardson and Napier got to change the TOR that have been agreed by the States Assembly?. Any change to the TOR should also have been agreed by the States Assembly, not a Civil Servant and others.

    But more curiously is where TLS’s answer does not ring true. Terry said “The original terms of reference were drafted at the time when it was not known whether the pervious Chief Officer of Police would participate in the review.”

    He (TLS) goes on to say.

    “When it was established that the previous Chief Officer of Police would fully participate in the investigation, Mr. Napier felt that he would be able to obtain all of the necessary information from the Chief Officer through formal interview.”

    Now the amended TOR with “d” having disappeared were submitted in “R39/2010” and that was on the 14th of April 2010. But Graham Power didn’t speak to Napier until the 13th OF MAY! So the TOR were in fact altered STILL without anybody knowing if Graham Power QPM was going to participate or not. So Terry Le Sueur’s timeline and sequence of events, along with his explanation just don’t stack up.

    Hope this helps.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jill.

    I/we might be as thick as pig sh1t. But let's be honest about it, one hardly needs to be "Sherlock Warcup" to see what a bl--dy shambles all this is.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So what happens in the chamber doesn't mean crap because a civil servant can change what he wants when he wants. Again this is based on fact,we are bloody lawless over here " Operation Save Teflon Bill" is in full swing or "Operation cant Afford to get rid of him" more like.

    It really is plain crazy

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  11. you only have to read JEP headline tonight David Cameron "supports" independance effectively so no wonder Napier & the like do as they wish!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. @VFC, "what right have John Richardson and Napier got to change the TOR that have been agreed by the States Assembly?. Any change to the TOR should also have been agreed by the States Assembly, not a Civil Servant and others."

    Okay. Now that is a different matter - who had the right to change the TOR and why they did that. I don't know anything about the protocol and procedures for that.

    But I would still question whether that actual change made any difference to the final report, given that Power had his say to Napier and that Power himself has not complained publicly about it and, in fact, seemed to welcome the Napier report and approve it as a good report.

    I agree with you that there are many anomalies about the report, which may have arisen during the amendment process.

    The final report is actually very critical of people like Warcup and of the whole suspension process. The best thing it says is that he 'found no evidence of a conspiracy', which doesn't mean there wasn't one.

    But when you look at the history of events that led to Power's immediate suspension, as laid out in Napier, without any preliminary hearings or disciplinary process, any sane and logical person could not conclude anything other than a conspiracy.

    The report makes it clear that Walker, Warcup, Ogley and others wanted to get rid of Power back in September 2008 and had meetings to discuss it - what is that if not a conspiracy? Maybe there is some very narrow, legal definition of the word 'conspiracy' that required greater evidence, but to those of us who speak natural language, it's a conspiracy.

    It's a shame that Napier cannot answer those questions himself, that is, why were the TOR changed and how did that change affect the investigation and final report.

    It would also be instructive to see the original report so that we could deduce where the pressure points were and how the final report was weakened.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rob.

    I was able to talk with Deputy Hill briefly and this was the gist of our chat.

    On 14th April, R39 was lodged, no one noticed that the part with reviewing the Affidavit had been taken out, Deputy Hill was never consulted. 

    In Mid July after Warcup had indicated his retirement and Chief Minister’s Department had published the redacted Wiltshire Report, Deputy Hill thought there must be something going on with the Napier Report so started checking.

    He went through R39 and was annoyed that he had not noticed the deletion of part (d). He circulated a number of emails to Terry Le Sueur (that I am in possession of) which was before the Napier publication asking if Napier was working to COMS  (3) or R39. I.e. the original TOR or the doctored TOR.

    Terry continued to ignore this question. On 17th September when Deputy Hill was given the Napier Report he noticed the deletion and tackled both TLS and John Richardson who said that it must have accidentally left out of the TOR as he (Deputy Hill) had not had time to read the Report at the time and said he would be in touch when he had read it.

    On reading it he has continued to ask via emails but has been ignored. Readers might have seen the answers given to Deputy Hill’s Oral Question. The Chamber has been mis led because the TOR were published on 14th April which was a week before Graham Power QPM had confirmed that he was willing to participate. Whether Mr. Power QPM had agreed or not there was still no need to delete part (d). One can understand it being deleted because it narrowed the scope of the Review and reduced the need to interview, Lenny Harper, Wendy Kinnard, Paul Le Claire and the Civil Servants who were mentioned in the Affidavit and might have been able to give “evidence” of a conspiracy to oust Mr. Power QPM and possibly much more. 

    ReplyDelete
  14. That throws a bit more light on it, thanks.

    It makes it look even more like a duck...

    ReplyDelete
  15. This is the same conspriracy nonsence you keep on churining out week after week on this blog yet you seem oblivious to the fact that nobody actully cares.

    Why don't you concentrate on issues that actually affect people in Jersey and stop pondering to an ex chief of police who took us all for a ride and does not even live here anymore anyway? Your Phone-in points about children being let down was more interesting than this waffle and Bob Hill's voice gets on my nerves, if only he would stop talking through his nose.

    ReplyDelete
  16. tonights JEP By Ben Queree page 6.

    Public confidence 'had part to play'in police suspension

    I am a member of the public and have less confidence in the police.Even more so if the new police chief was ''chosen''

    I see Graham Powers suspension based solely on someone lined up to take his job indefensible

    Cover up right to the top. I am still waiting to hear justifiable reasons and facts for Graham Powers suspension.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Is it legal to lie in the States. To say you will do something on the record and then willy nilly ignore it.

    Is this legal. They are playing games with Deputy Hill. At the expense of truth

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oh Anonymous - if only you knew that people actually DO care about what happened to Graham Power, the Napier Report and all that goes along with it.

    I'm sure you have been told before that there is no reason to read this blog if these matters are of no interest to you.

    It may be the best thing for you take your own advice and stop talking through your a*se oops sorry - nose.

    VFC - a great, great shame Bob Hill's proposition was defeated. Vulnerable children lose out again.

    ReplyDelete
  19. [Why don't you concentrate on issues that actually affect people in Jersey]

    You don't get it do you!!

    That is exactly why this will keep going and going and going, as it affects many people in ways you obviously cannot imagine.

    I guess you must be one of those 'foot stomping lackeys'.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 4 November 2010 15:21
    Jill Gracia said...
    Oh Anonymous - if only you knew that people actually DO care about what happened to Graham Power, the Napier Report and all that goes along with it.

    No they don't because they know he is never coming back. Neil came out with some interesting claims for a chnage on the Phone in and it would be better if you people put more energies into dealing with things that are locally more important. This Power/Napier whallowing won't change a single thing and come on, you all know it!!!

    ReplyDelete
  21. The suspension of Graham Power made no difference to the historic child abuse investigation and I was glad that independant people were brought in to air a clearer opinion. What is it with you people? Were you anxious for murders to of happened? Sounds like it now.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Is it legal to lie in the States. To say you will do something on the record and then willy nilly ignore it.

    Is this legal. They are playing games with Deputy Hill. At the expense of truth

    We have now many cases not brought to Court? on the basis of insuffiicient evidence. I wonder why? Does that not tell you something. Oh no they do not want to acknowledge child abuse in Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
  23. [What is it with you people?]

    I assume this is aimed at those who wish for fair justice.

    So what is it with those who are okay with the "Jersey Way"!! On the payroll are we!

    ReplyDelete
  24. {We have now many cases not brought to Court?}

    I'm not surprised, when you might have the SG saying one thing and the AG saying the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Using an excuse about knowing whether Graham Power would participate with Napier has backfired. Or blatant lie.

    You have shown that regardless of knowing whether Graham Power would participate the TOR were altered.

    Why was Graham Power suspended?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Re, "Why don't you concentrate on issues that actually affect people in Jersey"

    What more important issues could there be for any society than the rule of law, justice, and an open democracy?

    Can't you see the connection between the Jersey Way - as exemplified by the treatment of Graham Power and the cover up of the HdlG investigation - and the many poor decisions that are executed by the Jersey government?

    It is precisely their 'we know best' attitude that has led to this mess in the first place.

    From what I can see, the Voice blogs and Rico are saying that people are fed up with that system of government and want to live in an open, democratic, accountable system.

    There are others that would prefer a closed, clandestine system ruled by a powerful clique who think they know best for the rest of you.

    Take your pick.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Rob.

    This on praragraph of yours sums it all up nicely.

    "From what I can see, the Voice blogs and Rico are saying that people are fed up with that system of government and want to live in an open, democratic, accountable system."

    Couldn't have put it better myself. This is not about, Graham Power, Lenny Harper, Stuart Syvret, etc. It's about what our government are willing and able,(with the help of their media) to do to people in such high profile positions.

    It all just frightens the living daylights out of me. It's complete lawlessness of an out of control government, politicized Judicial System and Civil Service.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Copied from Diane Simon's report in the JEP, where she asks the Chief Minister relevant questions and where the responses often evade the questions altogether.

    Brian Napier QC concluded that there were insufficient grounds for the suspension.


    DS: The suspension of former police chief Graham Power was carried out in a way which the Napier Report said was unfair to Mr Power, was against the advice from the Law Officer's department, and led to the spending of £1 million in taxpayer's money. Why do you believe that the Island should now move on without taking any further steps?

    TLS: 'One can't get back the £1 million which was spent as a result of the delay in the Wiltshire Report (into Mr Power's supervision of the historical child abuse inquiry) coming out with its findings. I remain convinced that the suspension was carried out at the time for valid reasons. Subsequent events have confirmed this.'

    ------

    The relative question was 'Why do you believe that the Island should now move on without taking any further steps', in the context of taking action against any civil servant for errors in not following the correct procedures proceeding the suspension of Graham Power.


    - NOT RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION

    a) One can't get back the £1 million which was spent
    b) I remain convinced that the suspension was carried out at the time for valid reasons
    c) Subsequent events have confirmed this

    My conclusion: Question was not answered.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I was going over the Q&A with Diane (Shackles) Simon and TLS also. What is, to me anyway, strikingly obvious is that TLS is prepared to make himself look so pathetic in his rabid protection of Bill Ogley.......why?

    I have been going over some Hansard stuff from 2009 where TLS in my opinion is looking and sounding pathetic in his rabid protection of Bill Ogley........why?

    The problem I have at the minute is, I want to get a Blog together, that demonstrates TLS's protection of Bill Ogley. But it's just knowing where to bl--dy start! THERE'S MOUNTAINS OF THE STUFF!

    I think I'll have to start publishing a "series" of Blog postings of where TLS has allowed himself to look so rediculous in his protection of Bill Ogley. What I have been reading so far is just embarrassing and making me cringe for Le Sueur.

    In the up-coming series of postings which will be titled "The Real Chief Minister" I hope to determine who really holds all the power in this government!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Copied from Diane Simon's report in the JEP, where she asks the Chief Minister relevant questions and where the responses often evade the questions altogether.


    Brian Napier QC concluded that there were insufficient grounds for the suspension.


    DS: Do you not think that Islanders are entitled to be told what steps are going to be taken in view of the report's findings?

    TLS: 'I think the public are above all disappointed that the reputation of the Island may have been unfairly tarnished. However, the police officer in overall command at the time is no longer a
    member of the force, and no disciplinary process could usefully be pursued against him. I acknowledge that it was not Mr Power's fault that time ran out. It is disappointing to me that although the Wiltshire Report was thorough, it took so long to finalise. As we have seen with the Napier Report, reports often take longer than first envisaged.'

    ---------

    The relative context was within the procedures leading up to Graham Power's suspension.


    - NOT RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION

    a) I think the public are above all disappointed that the reputation of the Island may have been unfairly tarnished.
    b) the police officer in overall command at the time is no longer a member of the force, and no disciplinary process could usefully be pursued against him.
    c) I acknowledge that it was not Mr Power's fault that time ran out.
    d) It is disappointing to me that although the Wiltshire Report was thorough......

    My conclusion: Question was not answered - furthermore (b), the report was no about whether disciplinary action should be taken on Graham Power and the question wasn't aimed at that.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Copied from Diane Simon's report in the JEP, where she asks the Chief Minister relevant questions and where the responses often evade the questions altogether.


    Brian Napier QC concluded that there were insufficient grounds for the suspension.


    DS-Q3: Why was Mr Napier not asked to make recommendations in his report, as they were included in the Wiltshire Report?

    TLS-A3: 'The two reports are about different activities. Mr Napier reviewed the suspension process and to see whether a further committee of inquiry was necessary, which he concluded was not. He carried out all of the duties required of him by the States. Mr Napier believed that all the facts were made available to him, including Mr Power's affidavit, which he was free to do with as he wished.'

    ---------

    The relative context was in the terms of reference.

    - NOT RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION

    a) The two reports are about different activities.
    b) Mr Napier reviewed the suspension process and to see whether a further committee of inquiry was necessary, which he concluded was not.
    c) He carried out all of the duties required of him by the States.
    d) Mr Napier believed that all the facts were made available to him, including Mr Power's affidavit, which he was free to do with as he wished.


    My conclusion: Question was not answered

    I note that in:

    a) although, TLS acknowledges the two reports are about two different activities, he has already got them muddled up in his previous responses.

    b) a committe of inquiry was relative to the claims of a conspiracy, nothing to do with correct procedures and possible recommendations

    Brian Napier
    I have seen no evidence to support the claims (which, if substantiated, would certainly point to a need for further investigation) that these were part of some plot or conspiracy within the public service to frustrate police investigation in
    Jersey.

    c) Does not explain why he wasn't asked, also it is doubtful he carried out all of the duties required of him by the States, as the terms of reference were changed without the States knowing

    d) Facts that could be considered, were only those he was required to investigate under the remit, as TLS states later in this report, I wanted an independent report from a suitably qualified
    person, and was more interested in getting the right person who would address the key terms of reference

    ReplyDelete
  32. Just finished reading last nights Q and A What I clearly see is TLS is really struggling to avoid giving a answers to the question of what are the justifiable reasons that Graham Power was suspended. (A simple question)

    How many times will he state ''I remain convinced that the suspension was carried out at the time for valid reasons subsequent events have confirmed this''

    TLS may be convinced but I think he is lying and the more he avoids giving the answer instead of his opinion the bigger & deeper I believe the lies go. So if Mr.Le Sueur is so convinced and has valid reasons please please finally share them with the public.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Copied from Diane Simon's report in the JEP.

    Brian Napier QC concluded that there were insufficient grounds for the suspension.

    DS-Q4: As States chief executive Bill Ogley is the Islands most senior civil servant, would it not be appropriate if Islanders and States Members were informed whether he is going to be disciplined for mistakes which Napier pointed out he made over the suspension?

    TLS-A4: 'I said in my response to the States that any disciplinary inquiries are carried out in a way which preserves the integrity and confidentiality of the process. I have taken such action as was necessary in light of Mr Napier's findings, and I appreciate the independent external review which Mr Napier brought. I have considered the disciplinary issues which arose from the report and taken all such actions as were appropriate in the light of those findings, but I do not intend to comment publicly on that issue in the same way as I would act for other public employees. The States chief executive deserves the same respect as other States employees, and even more respect. He is in charge of the whole civil service, and has respect for other States employees. Equally, States Members have a particular duty of responsibility and courtesy to him.'
    ----------

    My conclusion: Question was answered, although it poses other questions, such as why was Graham Power suspended making it very public, rather than given the 'even more respect' as he was in charge of the entire Police Force.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Copied from Diane Simon's report in the JEP.

    Brian Napier QC concluded that there were insufficient grounds for the suspension.

    DS-Q5: In light of findings in the Napier Report that inquiries were being made by senior civil servants to the Law Officer's department about the suspension procedure of the police chief two
    months before it took place, do you now regret refusing to allow Mr Power to have access to details of the dates on which the suspension letters were drafted by former human resources director Ian Crich on Mr Ogley's instructions?

    TLS-A5: 'Yes, I do regret it. I took this stance following professional advice before reaching my original decision, but I accept the Review Board felt otherwise. With hindsight, though, I wouldn't have acted differently. I would continue to take advice and act upon it, but if I thought that advice was manifestly unfair I would challenge it. I do regret that my decision led to Mr Power being delayed in receiving information which the Review Board considered he should have been given, and I accept their findings.'
    ---------

    The relative question was, '..do you now regret refusing..... In light of findings in the Napier Report'

    a) Yes, I do regret it.
    c) With hindsight, though, I wouldn't have acted differently.

    My conclusion: Question was in the first instance answered unambiguously, then (c) answered again in contradiction,


    c) with hindsight!! surely means 'In light of findings' he would still do the same, so surely that means that the 'findings' did not bring about any honest regret!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Copied from Diane Simon's report in the JEP.

    Brian Napier QC concluded that there were insufficient grounds for the suspension.

    DS-Q6:Why do you have no intention of issuing the apology to Mr Power in light of Mr Napier's findings that the suspension was unfair and contrary to the disciplinary code and Law Officers' advice?

    TLS-A6:'My view is that Mr Power did a grave disservice to the Island, While I acknowledge the findings of Mr Napier, I don't believe that errors made in the suspension were in themselves grounds on which any meaningful apology could be justified. I still believe that the suspension was the right thing to do and that all parties concerned considered carefully all of the options and that, on balance, there were still valid grounds for the suspension. I am also reassured that the new Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, when taking a fresh look at all the facts, also came to the conclusion that a continued suspension was justified. I am satisfied that there were ample grounds at the time for the suspension, and the Wiltshire reports provided further confirmation had that been needed.'
    ---------
    All the above is NOT RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION

    Firstly as TLS has stated, the two reports are about two different activities, the activity that the question was related to the Napier report not the Wiltshire or anything else.

    TLS view on Mr Power has no relevance to the Napier findings about the procedures before suspension. Whether TLS thinks there were valid grounds is irrelevant, and as to TLS being reassured by Senator Ian Le Marquand that the suspension was justified also means nothing, in fact ILM's decision was flawed as he did not ensure there were no caveats in the Met Report. It does not matter one iota whether there was overwhelming evidence that the whole world agreed with, simply, the procedures leading to Graham Power's suspension were unfair. The Wiltshire Report did not provide any evidence on the suspension procedure, so again not relevant to the question.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Copied from Diane Simon's report in the JEP.

    Brian Napier QC concluded that there were insufficient grounds for the suspension.

    DS-Q7: Does that mean you disagree with Mr Napier when he said he believed there had been insufficient grounds for the suspension when it was carried out?

    TLS-A7: 'Effectively yes, I do disagree with Mr Napier on that point. When you have two lawyers
    (Mr Napier and the Law Officer's department) with two different views, one has to accept that there is often more than one valid conclusion about an issue.'

    ------------------
    My conclusion: Question was answered

    a) When you have two lawyers (Mr Napier and the Law Officer's department) with two different views

    Or when you have an AG giving contradictory advice (or not as they case is also stated) compared to the SG.

    I guess he can also accept why some people believe there was a conspiracy, as they too disagree with Mr Napier on that point, with good justification!

    ReplyDelete
  37. has-the-question-been-answered7 November 2010 at 20:20

    Copied from Diane Simon's report in the JEP.

    Brian Napier QC concluded that there were insufficient grounds for the suspension.

    DS-Q8: Why wasn't Mr Napier informed before he agreed to carry out the report that he would be required to present it in the Island to States Members and the media so they could question him about his findings?

    TLS-A8: 'I wanted an independent report from a suitably qualified person, and was more interested in getting the right person who would address the key terms of reference. The presentation of that person's findings was of secondary relevance. Mr Napier was invited to present his report in the island, but preferred not to.'

    My conclusion: Question was answered

    ----------------------

    DS-Q9: Do you agree with Napier's findings that more effort should have been made earlier by those involved in the suspension to discuss their concerns with Mr Power to try to resolve the matter?

    TLS-A9: 'Looking at a situation as it develops is always an issue, not just in this incident. However, initial steps were taken to resolve this issue, but with the benefit of hindsight, it is often possible that more should have been done in pursuit of that policy.'

    My conclusion: Question was not answered

    a) Looking at a situation as it develops is always an issue, not just in this incident.

    Yep, its called employment law, an employee is pulled into the 'office' for a chat about certain conduct etc.., which any company would ensure they held minutes' for, Were there any?


    b) 'initial steps were taken to resolve this issue'

    I fail to understand what TLS means, as Mr Napier states, 'There was at the time a lack of hard evidence against him showing lack of competence in relation to the running of the historic abuse enquiry. Too much reliance was placed on information coming from one source, Mr David Warcup.'

    c) 'with the benefit of hindsight, it is often possible that more should have been done in pursuit of that policy'

    Hindsight was not required, not abiding by established procedures or best employment practice was the problem. It was just pure waffle.

    Napier Report:
    80. It has been represented to me that there was nothing wrong in the administration preparing for possible outcomes, and I accept that is so as a matter of principle. But nevertheless there was little objective basis for planning such precautionary measures as at 10 October. And as at 26 September there was even less to warrant disciplinary proceedings being contemplated. There was, apart from a general public dissatisfaction about how things (particularly media policy) had been handled, only Mr Warcup’s criticisms of the management of the inquiry contained in his briefings to Mr Lewis. While it is true that DS Gladwell was expressing to Mr Warcup criticisms of how the enquiry had been handled, the main thrust of his comments was directed at DCO Harper, and only by implication at Mr Power. The Gold Group meetings were producing material that could certainly be read as critical of the running of the enquiry but again there was little directly that pointed to what had been done, or not done personally by Mr Power, as opposed to Mr Harper. Mr Warcup himself was expressing his views that things had not been properly done in briefings to Mr Lewis, but if these criticisms were, as Mr Warcup and others maintained, carefully expressed so as not to amount to personal criticisms of Mr Power, then equally they were not a proper basis for taking action which was directly related to alleged lack of competence on the part of Mr Power himself, especially when they any disciplinary action or act of suspension was bound to have serious consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  38. has-the-question-been-answered7 November 2010 at 20:22

    Copied from Diane Simon's report in the JEP.

    Brian Napier QC concluded that there were insufficient grounds for the suspension.

    DS-Q8: Why wasn't Mr Napier informed before he agreed to carry out the report that he would be required to present it in the Island to States Members and the media so they could question him about his findings?

    TLS-A8: 'I wanted an independent report from a suitably qualified person, and was more interested in getting the right person who would address the key terms of reference. The presentation of that person's findings was of secondary relevance. Mr Napier was invited to present his report in the island, but preferred not to.'

    My conclusion: Question was answered but what a strange motive!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Copied from Diane Simon's report in the JEP.

    Brian Napier QC concluded that there were insufficient grounds for the suspension.

    DS-Q9: Do you agree with Napier's findings that more effort should have been made earlier by those involved in the suspension to discuss their concerns with Mr Power to try to resolve the matter?

    TLS-A9: 'Looking at a situation as it develops is always an issue, not just in this incident. However, initial steps were taken to resolve this issue, but with the benefit of hindsight, it is often possible that more should have been done in pursuit of that policy.'

    My conclusion: Question was not answered

    a) Looking at a situation as it develops is always an issue, not just in this incident.

    Yep, its called employment law, an employee is pulled into the 'office' for a chat about certain conduct etc.., which any company would ensure they held minutes' for, Were there any?


    b) 'initial steps were taken to resolve this issue'

    I fail to understand what TLS means, as Mr Napier states, 'There was at the time a lack of hard evidence against him showing lack of competence in relation to the running of the historic abuse enquiry. Too much reliance was placed on information coming from one source, Mr David Warcup.'

    c) 'with the benefit of hindsight, it is often possible that more should have been done in pursuit of that policy'

    Hindsight was not required, not abiding by established procedures or best employment practice was the problem. It was just pure waffle.

    Napier Report:
    80. It has been represented to me that there was nothing wrong in the administration preparing for possible outcomes, and I accept that is so as a matter of principle. But nevertheless there was little objective basis for planning such precautionary measures as at 10 October. And as at 26 September there was even less to warrant disciplinary proceedings being contemplated. There was, apart from a general public dissatisfaction about how things (particularly media policy) had been handled, only Mr Warcup’s criticisms of the management of the inquiry contained in his briefings to Mr Lewis. While it is true that DS Gladwell was expressing to Mr Warcup criticisms of how the enquiry had been handled, the main thrust of his comments was directed at DCO Harper, and only by implication at Mr Power. The Gold Group meetings were producing material that could certainly be read as critical of the running of the enquiry but again there was little directly that pointed to what had been done, or not done personally by Mr Power, as opposed to Mr Harper. Mr Warcup himself was expressing his views that things had not been properly done in briefings to Mr Lewis, but if these criticisms were, as Mr Warcup and others maintained, carefully expressed so as not to amount to personal criticisms of Mr Power, then equally they were not a proper basis for taking action which was directly related to alleged lack of competence on the part of Mr Power himself, especially when they any disciplinary action or act of suspension was bound to have serious consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  40. has-the-question-been-answered7 November 2010 at 20:26

    Copied from Diane Simon's report in the JEP.

    Brian Napier QC concluded that there were insufficient grounds for the suspension.

    DS-Q9: Do you agree with Napier's findings that more effort should have been made earlier by those involved in the suspension to discuss their concerns with Mr Power to try to resolve the matter?

    TLS-A9: 'Looking at a situation as it develops is always an issue, not just in this incident. However, initial steps were taken to resolve this issue, but with the benefit of hindsight, it is often possible that more should have been done in pursuit of that policy.'

    My conclusion: Question was not answered

    a) Looking at a situation as it develops is always an issue, not just in this incident.

    is it not called employment law, an employee is pulled into the 'office' for a chat about certain conduct etc.., which any company would ensure they held minutes' for, Were there any?

    b) 'initial steps were taken to resolve this issue'

    I fail to understand what TLS means, as Mr Napier states, 'There was at the time a lack of hard evidence against him showing lack of competence in relation to the running of the historic abuse enquiry. Too much reliance was placed on information coming from one source, Mr David Warcup.'

    c) 'with the benefit of hindsight, it is often possible that more should have been done in pursuit of that policy'

    Hindsight was not required, not abiding by established procedures or best employment practice was the problem. TLS response, just pure waffle.

    Napier Report:
    80. It has been represented to me that there was nothing wrong in the administration preparing for possible outcomes, and I accept that is so as a matter of principle. But nevertheless there was little objective basis for planning such precautionary measures as at 10 October. And as at 26 September there was even less to warrant disciplinary proceedings being contemplated. There was, apart from a general public dissatisfaction about how things (particularly media policy) had been handled, only Mr Warcup’s criticisms of the management of the inquiry contained in his briefings to Mr Lewis........

    ReplyDelete
  41. has-the-question-been-answered7 November 2010 at 23:48

    Copied from Diane Simon's report in the JEP.

    Brian Napier QC concluded that there were insufficient grounds for the suspension.

    DS-Q10: What lessons do you believe can be learned from the Napier Report's findings?

    TLS-A10: 'There is a need to re-examine the disciplinary code for the Island's police chief which I believe is in hand. There is also a need for absolute clarity about the roles of the different parties.'

    My conclusion: Question was nearly answered without actually really answering it!

    a) There is a need to re-examine the disciplinary code for the Island's police chief

    b) There is also a need for absolute clarity about the roles of the different parties


    Try as I might I cannot find any reference by Mr Napier with regards to the disciplinary code in his findings that relate to the question, nor, any reference to the need for clarity about the roles of different parties.

    What I did find was:

    55. Whilst the Disciplinary Code has been widely criticised by officials as a document that was inadequate and badly drafted, it did at least contain within its terms two mechanisms designed to head off a breakdown of relations between the Chief Officer and the Home Affairs Minister, such as eventually occurred. The confrontation with Mr Power was seen coming by officials weeks in advance of 12 November, and I do not know why the opportunity to head it off (or at least attempt to do so) was not taken. I am inclined to think that the answer is that there was, at the highest level of the administration, a belief that the suspension and the taking of disciplinary action against the Chief Officer was not only what was likely to occur (by reason of the decision of the Minister, after the changeover from Senator Kinnard to Mr Lewis), but also what should happen. Efforts were accordingly concentrated on preparing for that scenario, to the exclusion of other possible mechanisms for resolving perceived failures in performance.

    ReplyDelete

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