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 29^th 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 31^st 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 22^nd 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 29^th 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 22^nd 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 13^th 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.