Tuesday, 31 May 2011

Serious Complaint (2)

As stated in in our PREVIOUS POSTING and interview with DEPUTY BOB HILL we reproduce Senator Phillip Ozouf's interpretation of the findings made into the complaints of Deputy Hill against the Deputy Chief Executive Officer Jon Richardson.


Readers will learn that although we are all allowed to see a selection of the Report made by the Wiltshire Constabulary against our former Chief of Police Mr. Graham Power QPM, the same rules do not apply when it comes to Jersey's (soon to be) top Civil Servant. The stalwart of openness and transparency, Senator Phillip Ozouf, doesn't want anybody to see the "independent" Report commissioned into the complaints against Mr. Jon Richardson.


Also re-produced below is Mr. Graham Power's letter to Senator Phillip Ozouf in response to Mr. Ozouf's conclusions. 


"JR"=John Richardson. "BN"=Brian Napier. "GP"=Graham Power. "BH"=Bob Hill. "TLS"=Terry Le Sueur.


From Senator Ozouf to Deputy Hill.




Deputy Chief Minister
P O Box 352, Cyril Le Marquand House, The Parade St Helier, Jersey, 
JE4 8UL Tel: +44(0)1534440597
States of Jersey
Deputy Bob Hill                                                                                              28 April 2011
Catel Cottage
Rue du Catel
Rondin
Trinity
Jersey
JE3 5HA
Our Ref: DCM/PO/HdH
Dear Deputy Hill,
I refer to your complaint of 22 February 2011, against John Richardson, Deputy Chief Executive, addressed to the Chief Minister. You will recall that, given the tatter's involvement in the matter which was the subject of your complaint, I was asked, in my capacity as Deputy Chief Minister, to handle the complaint.
I commissioned an independent investigation into your complaint by an external Human Resource Consultant and he has now reported. He has found that there is no substance in your complaint.
Investigations and actions under the Chief Officers' Disciplinary Code are strictly confidential, but I set out below the investigator's response to each of the detailed allegations you made:
Allegation 1:    John Richardson instructed Mr Napier to remove part (d) without discussing the matter with the Chief Minister or Deputy Hill.
This allegation was considered in two parts:
Part 1:              John Richardson instructed Mr Napier to remove part (d).
Finding:            I find that JR did not "instruct" BN to remove part (d) but I concluded
that a mutual understanding developed between JR and BN that part (d) was unlikely to have ongoing relevance given GP's full participation in BN's investigation. Given that part (d) had been drafted by JR in the first place, I accept that this mutual understanding was based on whether the underlying purpose anticipated for part (d) continued to exist (that if GP refused to participate, the investigator would at least have his affidavit to refer to). I find this mutual understanding to be reasonable.
Part 2:              John Richardson did not discuss the removal of part (d) with the Chief
Minister or Deputy Hill.
Finding:            In summary my finding under this heading is that in April 2010 there
was no definitive "removal of part (d)" to discuss with TLS or BH, hence JR did not fail to do so.
Allegation 2:    JR failed to inform TLS or BH of the decision (to remove part (d).
Finding:   I accept JR's contention that there was no substantial "decision" about which to inform TLS 
or BH, because the mutual understanding between JR and BN did not amount to a material change in how JR had instructed BN to carry out his investigation in terms of the V2 ToR.
Allegation 3:    JR failed to inform Mr Power of the decision.
Finding:            I accept JR's contention that there was no substantial "decision" about
which to inform GP, because the mutual understanding between JR and BN 
did not amount to a material change in how JR had instructed BN to carry out 
his investigation in terms of the V2 ToR.
Allegation 4: On 9 April 2010 JR submitted documentation to the Council of Ministers which included 
part (d) of the ToR when part (d) had been removed.
Finding:            I find no evidence to support this allegation - part (d) had not been
"removed" at this time.
Allegation 5: On 13 April JR submitted documentation to TLS which included part (d) of the ToR when 
he knew that part (d) had been removed.
Finding:            I find no evidence to support this allegation - part (d) had not been
"removed" at this time.
Allegations:    On 13 April whilst responsible for the submission of Mr Napier's appointment, CV and 
ToR to the Greffier for publication, the second page containing part (d) and part (e) was 
not included in the submission.
Finding:              I find this allegation proven but I accept that the cause was an
administrative error and not a deliberate act by JR.
Allegation 7: Following the presentation of R39/2010 on 14 April JR failed to correct the document so 
that the full ToR were accurately reported.
Finding:            I find this allegation proven but I accept JR's explanation that the
cause was not a conscious act of omission on his part.
I now consider this matter to be closed and do not intend to take any further actions. Yours sincerely

A
Senator
Philip Ozouf
Deputy Chief Minister
direct dial: +44 (0)1534 440287 email: p.ozouf@gov.je


From Graham Power QPM to Phillip Ozouf.


Senator Philip Ozouf,
Minister of Treasury and Resources,
Cyril Le Marquand House,
PO Box 353,
St Helier,
Jersey,
JE4 8UL.

Dear Minister,
Terms of reference for the enquiry by Brian Napier QC.

I am writing to you in order to place on record my position relating to matters concerning the terms of reference of the enquiry by Brian Napier QC. The enquiry examined my suspension as Chief Officer of the States Police, which took place in November 2008.   Mr Napier’s report of his enquiry, commonly called “The Napier Report” was published last year.

While I have had no direct involvement in the matter I understand there have been a number of political exchanges regarding changes which were made to the terms of reference for Mr Napier. I am also told that a Mr Gerald White has recently prepared a report on your behalf in relation to the matter. I do not know a great deal about Mr White, or his report. I know that in March of this year he asked for my contact details, which were provided. I also know that in April I had an exchange with him in which he confirmed that he had my details, and that he would get in touch with me should he see that as appropriate. I have had no further contact with Mr White.

I am told that he has since completed some form of report in relation to the terms of reference for the Napier enquiry. I am also told you have informed Deputy Bob Hill of your interpretation of what Mr White has to say in his report, but you have declined to release the report itself. I understand you have refused to release the report in response to an application by Deputy Hill under the States of Jersey Code of Practice on Access to Information, stating that you believe that you are entitled to withhold it on a number of grounds, which apparently include an assertion that the confidentiality requirements in an employment code take precedence over the Code on Access to Information.   If this is true then I find it a surprising position given that the Code is often claimed to be an effective substitute for a freedom of information law, and in itself has the backing of the law in the appeal process.   I have offered Deputy Hill my opinion that should he exercise his legal right to appeal he would stand a good chance of success, particularly in light of the precedent set in respect of the disciplinary report relating to my own circumstances, but that is of course a matter for him to consider. I have given some thought to exercising my own rights under the Code in respect of the report, but have decided that for the immediate future I will concentrate on pursuing other issues concerning my suspension.

Nevertheless, for the benefit at least of the historical record, I think it appropriate that I should place on file my own account of the relevant events. Everything which I have to say on this matter is of course supported by documentary evidence which I hold on file.

On 29th March 2010 the Deputy Chief Executive wrote to me and enclosed the terms of reference for the Napier enquiry. The terms of reference which were enclosed were those which had been generally publicised and recognised as the terms for the enquiry and included part (d) which makes reference to the Affidavit sworn as part of my Judicial Review application.

I replied on 31st March 2010 seeking clarification regarding the relationship between the work of Mr Napier and the Disciplinary Investigation which was still live at that time. At the core of my concerns was the extent to which evidence from one enquiry could be used in another, and the need to come to an understanding on this and other matters before I decided what part if any I would play in respect of the Napier enquiry.

Correspondence on these matters progressed over the following
weeks in an attempt to address my concerns. On 22nd April 2010 I wrote to the Deputy Chief Executive and informed him I felt that a point had been reached where it was possible for me to agree to meet with Mr Napier, and I asked for the necessary arrangements to be made. This agreement was of course based on my understanding that the terms of reference for the enquiry were those which had been sent to me on 29th March 2010. I had not been notified of any change in the terms of reference, nor had I any reason to believe I was agreeing to participate in any enquiry other than that described in the letter from the Deputy Chief Executive dated 29th March.   For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever my agreement to participate in the Napier enquiry was on the understanding that the terms of reference were those provided to me in the correspondence dated 29th March 2010 and on no other basis.

I am told that some claims have been made which allege that I gave my consent to participate in the Napier enquiry prior to 22nd April 2010.   I regard any such claims as untrue and capable of being refuted by the available evidence, including the correspondence which I hold on file.

I do not know if you have in any way been misled by any person in relation to this matter. If you have you will no doubt wish to consider whether some form of action on your part is appropriate.

I made contact with Mr Napier and we met on 13th May 2010. I had prepared for the meeting on the basis of the terms of reference which had been sent to me by the Deputy Chief Executive. I produced documents and made verbal submissions on the understanding that Mr Napier and I were working to the same agenda, and that the notified terms or reference formed the basis of that agenda.   Had I participated in the meeting knowing that the terms of reference had been changed then I would have prepared differently and made different submissions to Mr Napier. I would have seen the removal of Part (d) as a significant event, which reduced the focus of the enquiry on the history and background to the relevant professional relationships prior to the actual suspension.   I would also have expected that an investigation under the original terms of reference would have necessitated some contact with the person who was Minister for Home Affairs during the events on which the suspension was allegedly based. I cannot of course say with certainty how my evidence to Mr Napier would have been different had I been told of the change in the terms of reference, or even whether I would have agreed to participate under different terms of reference. Had I been informed of the change, I would have taken advice and acted in accordance with that advice.   As I was never told of the change I did not take advice and therefore do not know what that advice would have been. I have been told that claims have been made that the change in the terms of reference made “no difference” to the enquiry and subsequent report.   Nobody is in a position to justifiably make such a claim.   Had I been told of the change in the terms of reference, and agreed to continue with my participation, I would have put forward different evidence at my meeting with Mr Napier. Nobody knows what that evidence would have been it follows that nobody is in a position to state what the effect would have been.

For the avoidance of any doubt I regard the failure to inform me of the changed terms of reference, and hence the agenda for my meeting with Mr Napier, as an act of deception which undermined my ability to make the most of my interview with him, and to make all of the submissions which I would have made had I been in full possession of the facts.

You may wish to consider to what extent this deception may have undermined the intentions of the States when initial approval was given to the proposal to appoint a person to undertake an enquiry, and whether confidence in the outcome of that enquiry has been damaged by subsequent revelations regarding the changes in the terms of reference which took place without my knowledge. It may be that the situation arose because of a deliberate attempt to undermine the original intention of the enquiry, or it may be as a result of straightforward incompetence. Without a proper investigation which takes account of the evidence of all the witnesses we cannot be sure which is the case.   It is a matter for you to consider whether the issue of the changes in the terms of reference now requires a fresh examination in the light of the evidence I have to offer, or indeed whether there is a need to explore why my evidence was never asked for when this issue was allegedly subjected to some recent form of enquiry.  

Had I been interviewed by Mr White in the course of whatever enquiries he made on your behalf, I would of course have told him everything that I have set out in this letter. In the event Mr White decided, for whatever reason, that you did not wish to be aware of my evidence, and it was therefore not considered in the preparation of his report.

I am told that in spite of this situation it is your intention to close your file in relation to the terms of reference. That is a matter for you, but I nevertheless ask that this letter be placed on the file for the benefit of the historical record. My own file on this and related issues will of course remain open until all matters are resolved to my satisfaction.

Yours sincerely,
Graham Power.  (End)


Our Deputy Chief Minister, Senator Phillip Ozouf considers the "case closed?????????????"............AND SO HISTORY SHALL RECORD.




50 comments:

  1. Nothing new here then, just the usual whitewash with the same defective brush!

    Corrupt liars and cheats to a man....

    ReplyDelete
  2. We need help from the outside... this is worse than Libya

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am told that some claims have been made which allege that I gave my consent to participate in the Napier enquiry prior to 22nd April 2010. I regard any such claims as untrue and capable of being refuted by the available evidence, including the correspondence which I hold on file

    All the evidence can be found on the rico sorda blog

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bdo as you go....31 May 2011 at 13:13

    Hey, its not only us who make it up as we go along.............

    ReplyDelete
  5. Terry Le Sueur, and others, told us that Graham Power QPM gave his "categoric Assurance" in a letter dated 31st of March 2010 that he was willing and able to participate in "The Napier Review." That can only be described as an out and out lie.

    Graham Power QPM also has this to say in his letter to Phillip Ozouf.

    "I am told that some claims have been made which allege that I gave my consent to participate in the Napier enquiry prior to 22nd April 2010. I regard any such claims as untrue and capable of being refuted by the available evidence, including the correspondence which I hold on file."

    ReplyDelete
  6. How much more is going to come out in this coverup????????????????????

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is the letter sent to Jon Richardson from Graham Power QPM on the 31st of March 2010. The very same letter, we have been told, where the former Police Chief gave his "categorical Assurance" that he was willing/ able to participate in the Napier Review.

    Mr John Richardson,

    Chief Ministers Department,

    Cyril Le Marquand House,

    St Helier,

    Jersey.



    Dear Mr Richardson.

    Appointment of Mr Brian Napier QC. Your letter dated 29th March 2010.

    This letter is in response to the above letter which I received on 30th March 2010.

    Your letter appears to be a response to my letter to you dated 25th February 2010 in which I asked for information regarding reports of some form of review in relation to my suspension, and sought clarification in respect of the confidentiality requirements of the Disciplinary Code and related issues. I note that it has taken you approximately five weeks to reply.

    For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, it is my firm wish to assist Mr Napier with his review, provided that I am able to do so with a clear understanding of my position, and the evidential status of any information gathered by Mr Napier, while I am still subject to disciplinary notices.

    In particular the following two issues remain to be resolved:

    Whether any communication with Mr Napier, in itself, constitutes a breach of the confidentiality requirements of the code.

    Given that I have been served with notices informing me that anything I say may be used in evidence, it is important to establish whether information gathered by Mr Napier may subsequently be used in disciplinary proceedings by either party. While I note what is said in Part 3 of the Terms of Reference, I am nevertheless aware that in matters of proceedings conducted under statute, there is no such thing as a “confidential report”.

    In addition to the above, there are practical issues relating to my need to speak to Mr Napier in circumstances which allow me to have ready access to all of my files and records. It is also possible that I may wish to be accompanied at any meeting, or at the very least take professional advice before any meeting occurs. It is also possible that my Professional Association may wish to make representations in its own right. This can be decided once more is known of the review.

    I hope that you are able to bring clarification to these issues in order that further consideration can be given to how I can most effectively assist with the review.

    I recognise that my repeated request for clarification may present some difficulties with your intended timetable. If this proves to be the case then I would regard the problem as one which is entirely of your own making. Had my initial request for clarification been dealt with in a prompt manner such difficulties may not have arisen.

    I look forward to hearing from you in order that I can give further consideration to how I can support the work of Mr Napier.



    Yours sincerely





    Graham Power.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I find that JR did not "instruct" BN to remove part (d) but I concludedthat a mutual understanding developed between JR and BN that part (d) was unlikely to have ongoing relevance given GP's full participation in BN's investigation.

    LOL

    How much did this garbage cost. No one said to remove it lol it was an understanding ang GP hadn't said he would give his full participation.. This is crazy, this is stupid and must stop now.

    ReplyDelete
  9. VFC

    It may interest your readers to know that, today, I finalised a detailed affidavit, which I am submitting in respect of the two court cases I am involved in.

    Essentially - at core - the matters it deals with - are the same that give rise to these matters you and Graham Power discuss here.

    'What does the affidavit say?'

    You'll have to wait a little while to see that.

    Just let me say this:

    From here on in - it's no more Mr Nice Guy.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  10. Phillip Ozouf. writes - Finding: I find this allegation proven but I accept that the cause was an
    administrative error and not a deliberate act by Jon Richardson.

    Funny how Bill Ogley the Chief Executive of all States Chief Executives could not organise a secretary to take proper minutes in the case of Graham Power.

    Now we have his right hand man, allowing a document to go forward with a specific term of reference gone missing and called this a clerical error.

    Taking the p**s I think.

    Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
  11. Stuart.

    Unfortunately if we've learnt one thing with this cover-up it's that Affidavits are not worth the paper they are written on, more-so if they criticise Senior Civil Servants.

    One only needs to look at the Affidavit of Graham Power QPM to read what the former Police Chief had to say about (among others) Bill Ogley and then learn that Bill Ogley walked away with a £500,000 golden handshake!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi VFC

    Well, what can we say apart from it's all to easy.

    Looking at the findings of Bob Hills complaint I can only shake my head in disbelief at the answers given. It's a Joke, another BDO joke, another complete sham.

    This Island is at a tipping point of Hilarity

    The present COM and ruling Elite are so bad you would not wish them on Guernsey. Honestly they are just making it up as they go along it's so shockingly bad that I think the Bravo Channel should come over and do a 6 part series called "Fu*cked up and ruining Jersey". An in depth look at what happened when some village hicks landed some power and a chest of Gold.

    Disastrous

    Shameful

    Corrupt

    Lawless

    and a tasteless jersey royal

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  13. Allegation Part 1 finding.
    There was a '' mutual understanding''

    Damned right there was. Both knew part D) had to be left out.

    ReplyDelete
  14. We are talking about States of Jersey so called acting in this islands best interest for the people. How can the those in senior paid posititions get away with excuses as feeble as ''mutual understanding''.

    We all have mutual understanding w would that stand up in court can I prove them? Would that be accepted as excuse in court, for instance sorry did not pay fine I have mutual understanding with traffic warden that I dont have too etc etc etc.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I cannot agree VFC, affidavit's are the king of Lawful documents.

    And, as much as those already submitted have been ridiculed and then ignored, their true worth "WILL" eventually be recognised in a "competent Court of Jurisdiction"!!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. mutual understanding refers to the work done by people for their common interest.it can be define as win win policy.

    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_mutual_understanding#ixzz1Nx03x5oh

    win win not truth but their common interest. Sounds about right.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ian.

    I agree, but the trouble is we don't have a "competent Court of Jurisdiction"!!!

    I also agree that the time will come when those who have enjoyed impunity under this corrupt government will one day be put in the dock of a "real" Court.

    That day can not come soon enough..............

    ReplyDelete
  18. Part of Graham Power's letter to Phillip Ozouf.

    "It may be that the situation arose because of a deliberate attempt to undermine the original intention of the enquiry, or it may be as a result of straightforward incompetence."

    So corruption or incompetence beyond comprehension? To be perfectly honest, it could quite easily be either, but corruption is my bet.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "I find that JR did not "instruct" BN to remove part (d) but I concluded that a mutual understanding developed between JR and BN that part (d) was unlikely to have ongoing relevance given GP's full participation in BN's investigation.

    Now just look at how serious that is. We are talking about TOR'S that according to above can be changed on a nudge and a wink. What the heck does "I concluded that a mutual understanding developed between JR and BN"

    How the hell did Uri Geller reach that conclusion when he didn't even interview Brian Napier? Philip Ozouf should hang his head in shame with this junk .

    What about the COI for the Child Abuse cover up?

    TOR's set in stone?

    Nudge Wink

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  20. VFC

    The answers given to Bob HIll are so bad that im going to do my own conclusion on them backed with some evidence.

    It's so bad its laughable

    I keep reading through them and laugh my head off. Why does anyone who deals with our ruling elite end up looking like a bozo?

    rs

    ps does the comment section appear on my blog?

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rico.

    If this lot wasn't so insanely corrupt it would be laughable but I must be honest and say it scares the hell out of me.

    Yes your comment section appears on your Blog.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Are they trying to remove Rico's comment section as well?

    ReplyDelete
  23. VFC.

    Ozouf wrote that letter/document to G Power on April 28.

    When did G Power reply to Ozouf?

    And how can Ozouf reply to that?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Looks like White wants to join the ranks of the likes of Chapman, Moore, Napier and the bloke from BDO.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jersey Needs Justice1 June 2011 at 09:36

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity (a.k.a "Hanlon's Razor")
    - except in Jersey! :)

    ReplyDelete
  26. "voiceforchildren said...

    If this lot wasn't so insanely corrupt it would be laughable but I must be honest and say it scares the hell out of me."

    One thing we must not forget is that all of this is a direct consequence of Ministerial government.

    The sooner this island is rid of that failed experiment, the better.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Now here’s another one of those anomalies.

    In Phillip Ozouf’s interpretation of this “independent” Report we have this.

    “This allegation was considered in two parts:

    Part 1 : John Richardson instructed Mr Napier to remove part (d)

    Finding: I find that JR did not "instruct" BN to remove part (d) but I concluded
    that a mutual understanding developed between JR and BN that part (d) was unlikely to have ongoing relevance given GP's full participation in BN's investigation. Given that part (d) had been drafted by JR in the first place, I accept that this mutual understanding was based on whether the underlying purpose anticipated for part (d) continued to exist (that if GP refused to participate, the investigator would at least have his affidavit to refer to). I find this mutual understanding to be reasonable.” (End)

    The first question is “how does Phillip Ozouf conclude the was “A mutual understanding” between Brian Napier and Jon Richardson if Brian Napier was never interviewed as part of this “Independent” Report?????

    Secondly if part (d) was removed from the TOR’S due to a result of this supposed “mutual agreement” between Richardson and Napier, then how is it on Tuesday the 5th of April 2011 in response to an oral question from Deputy Bob Hill Phillip Ozouf says this?

    “There is no confusion. The terms of reference as originally set out have been included in the report. There were some changes made. They are minor, they are insignificant, they are Mr. Napier’s.”

    So what is it Phillip, did Napier change his own TOR’s or was it the “mutual agreement?” In the real world it can’t be both.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Furthermore if Phillip Ozouf says this.

    "There were some changes made. They are minor, they are insignificant."

    Then how-come we have this from Graham Power QPM?

    “For the avoidance of any doubt I regard the failure to inform me of the changed terms of reference, and hence the agenda for my meeting with Mr Napier, as an act of deception which undermined my ability to make the most of my interview with him, and to make all of the submissions which I would have made had I been in full possession of the facts.”

    We must also remember that neither Graham Power QPM nor Brian Napier QC were interviewed as part of this "independent" Report.

    ReplyDelete
  29. re.31st may 16:41
    quote.

    Just let me say this:

    From here on in - it's no more Mr Nice Guy.

    Stuart.

    Huh!
    Are we going to spot the difference? :)

    ReplyDelete
  30. So we have this from Phillip Ozouf.

    “There were some changes made. They are minor, they are insignificant,

    Then we have this from Graham Power QPM.

    “I made contact with Mr Napier and we met on 13th May 2010. I had prepared for the meeting on the basis of the terms of reference which had been sent to me by the Deputy Chief Executive. I produced documents and made verbal submissions on the understanding that Mr Napier and I were working to the same agenda, and that the notified terms or reference formed the basis of that agenda. Had I participated in the meeting knowing that the terms of reference had been changed then I would have prepared differently and made different submissions to Mr Napier.”

    And we have this from the "discredited" media.......................................

    ReplyDelete
  31. You guys are being a bit dim. Richardson and Napier magicked d) away. So it never existed, it just appeared to exist.

    For his next trick Ozouf will pull d) out of Richardson's ass, and turn it into a golden shower - I mean hand shake.

    ReplyDelete
  32. G Power met with Napier 13th May 2010.

    But when was the latest date, before this meeting that G Power had sighted the TOR?

    ReplyDelete
  33. From Graham Power's letter to Philip Ozouf.

    "Correspondence on these matters progressed over the following weeks in an attempt to address my concerns. On 22nd April 2010 I wrote to the Deputy Chief Executive and informed him I felt that a point had been reached where it was possible for me to agree to meet with Mr Napier, and I asked for the necessary arrangements to be made. This agreement was of course based on my understanding that the terms of reference for the enquiry were those which had been sent to me on 29th March 2010. I had not been notified of any change in the terms of reference, nor had I any reason to believe I was agreeing to participate in any enquiry other than that described in the letter from the Deputy Chief Executive dated 29th March. For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever my agreement to participate in the Napier enquiry was on the understanding that the terms of reference were those provided to me in the correspondence dated 29th March 2010 and on no other basis."

    So one would assume from this that Mr. Power QPM only had sight of the TOR's on 29th March 2010 and was never told of any changes.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Nice try Deputy Wimberley.

    "WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER
    BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY
    ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 17th MAY 2011

    Question

    When the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police wrote to the Deputy Chief Executive
    on 31st March 2010 saying that he would cooperate with the Napier inquiry into his suspension,
    were there any qualifications or provisos made by him in that letter as to his willingness to
    cooperate with the inquiry?

    Answer

    The former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police wrote to the Deputy Chief Executive on
    31st March 2010 saying that he would wish to assist Mr Napier subject to clarification on aspects
    of the confidentiality and evidence obtained by Mr Napier. The Deputy Chief Executive clarified
    these issues in writing on 16th April 2010 along with other practical matters regarding records,
    professional advice and accompaniment. Subsequently, the former Chief Officer did indeed cooperate with Mr Napier in the inquiry.

    What this means,

    "The former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police wrote to the Deputy Chief Executive on 31st March 2010 saying that he would wish to assist Mr Napier subject to clarification on aspects of the confidentiality and evidence obtained by Mr Napier."

    "The letter from Graham Power QPM was heavily qualified and full of provisos but i've already said in the States that Graham Power QPM had given his "categoric assurance" in that letter that he would/could participate in the Napier Review and I would look like a liar if I said anything different now."

    This bit,

    "Subsequently, the former Chief Officer did indeed cooperate with Mr Napier in the inquiry."

    should have had this attached to it.

    "But Mr. Power QPM had no idea that the TOR's had been doctored and mistakenly believed he was giving his evidence under the original TOR's, but he wasn't as nobody had told him the TOR's had been doctored."

    ReplyDelete
  35. This interview on its own should be enough to have Ian Le Marquand LOCKED UP

    ReplyDelete
  36. Finding: I find this allegation proven but I accept that the cause was an administrative error and not a deliberate act by JR.

    -----
    Finding: I find that JR did not "instruct" BN to remove part (d) but I concluded that a mutual understanding developed between JR and BN that part (d) was unlikely to have ongoing relevance given GP's full participation in BN's investigation. Given that part (d) had been drafted by JR in the first place,

    -------

    Q1: When did the "mutual understanding develop" between JR and BN, before or after the administrative error?

    Q2: The fact that JR drafted the original part (d) terms, should not bear any significance, what does matter is that the States voted for the terms and did not vote to change those terms, so since when does a deputy chief executive have the power to undermine the will of the States?

    ReplyDelete
  37. "so since when does a deputy chief executive have the power to undermine the will of the States?"

    You forget this isn't the real world, it's the Jersey world where Tooth Fairies exist and evidence just disappears as well as changes shape, colour texture etc.

    Where Civil Servants can, reportedly orchestrate the removal of politicians and police chief's.

    Getting a Term of Reference to do a disappearing act without bothering the "democratically" elected "representatives" is small fry in the Jersey world.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Mind you, thinking about it, you can take your pick as to what happened to part (d) of the Napier Report.

    So far we've been told "Brian Napier removed it" (or words to that effect). "It was a clerical error". "It was a mutual agreement between Napier and Richardson". And last but not least "it wasn't removed".

    That's the selection, (there might be more) that we've had from our ruling elite.

    You might form an opinion that part (d) was purposely and surreptitiously removed so key witnesses wouldn't be interviewed by Napier. Therefore hindering his ability to gain evidence that there was a conspiracy at the highest level of government, law Offices and Civil Service to get rid of our Chief of Police before he exposed some very big players in Child Abuse, and the cover-up of it and corruption in land re-zoning.

    One must look at all the available evidence before deciding which scenario is the most likely.

    ReplyDelete
  39. JR must have wanted BO's job real badly.

    To do what he did.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Ah! JR getting Bill Ogley’s job. Possibly next week some time there will be a Blog posting on this very subject.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous said...

    "JR must have wanted BO's job real badly. To do what he did."

    Ha ha ha, that was the Oligarchy training, getting him read for what is to come!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Do you know if Mr. Hill ever followed up with questions on the release of the White report?

    ReplyDelete
  43. This was (as far as we remember) where it was LEFT

    ReplyDelete

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