Serious Complaint (3)

Readers will note that the correspondence below has been sent to all States Members and just as importantly to the islands mainstream media. The correspondence could be viewed as further evidence of a cover-up, so will our States Members be asking any questions, and will our mainstream media even report it let alone "investigate" any of it?

                                                                                                                 

from	Bob Hill B.Hill@gov.je
to		"All States Members (including ex officio members)"
cc		Ben Queree , "dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com" , Channel 103 , Channel TV , JEP Editorial , JEP Newsdesk , BBC Radio Jersey & Spotlight TV , "Spotlight (Spotlight)"
date		Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:38 PM
subject		Complaint relating to Removal of Part (d)
mailed-by		gov.je

Dear Colleagues,

Members will recall that last Tuesday 7th June during question time I asked an Oral Question of Senator Ozouf in relation to my complaint against a senior officer. On four occasions Senator Ozouf stated that the Investigator had found no substance to my complaint. The question arose from the removal of part (d) of the Napier Terms of Reference. My attached letter of complaint to Senator Le Sueur will set the scene, also attached is Senator Ozouf's letter in which he has summarised the Investigator's findings. The third letter is from Mr Power in which he states that he regarded the failure to be informed of the changed Terms of Reference as an act of deception.

As one can see from my allegations only a small number of people had to be interviewed. The key people being myself, Senator Le Sueur, Mr Power and most certainly Mr Napier and the Officer, Mr Richardson. One should  note that the cost of the investigation was a little over £6000. The report has apparently only been seen by Senator Ozouf whose letter claims to be a summary of the Investigator's response to each of the allegations

I spent around two hours with the investigator and provided the key documents including a copy of an email from Mr Napier in relation to his discussion with Mr Richardson about the Terms of Reference. Mr Napier states " I can confirm that I did not feel constrained in any way by its removal, although I do recollect a comment I made, to the effect that I did not want to participate in setting my own Terms of Reference. In other words, I remember expressing the view that the decision to change the terms was not one which I should personally make or participate in, though I had no objection to the amendment being made by those who were instructing me and I was entirely happy working with the amended terms"

When one reads Mr Napier's comments it is difficult to understand how anyone can come to the conclusion that part (d) was not removed particularly as it does not appear in the Final Napier Report. It is also difficult to understand how anyone can form any contrary view when two of the key witnesses, Mr Napier and Mr Power were never interviewed. (That fact was confirmed by Senator Ozouf during question time). I don't know whether Senator Le Sueur was interviewed but given that part (d) was removed or not proceeded with (by a mutual understanding!!!!) the document he was given to sign was not an accurate one and the subsequent presentation of R39/2010 was only partly accurate because the Terms of Reference had been amended. It is now claimed that the absence of part (d) was an administrative error, it will be for Members to come to their own conclusions however Senator Ozouf states that allegations 6 & 7 were proven. Therefore his statement to Members that the Investigator had found no substance to my complaint is incorrect and should be rectified.

In Senator Ozouf's letter it is claimed that Mr Richardson did not "instruct" Mr Napier to remove part (d) but he concluded that a mutual understanding developed between Mr Richardson and Mr Napier not to proceed with part(d) as it was not relevant. Such a claim is nonsense. The fact is as a result of that " mutual understanding " part (d) was removed as stated by Mr Napier  this is substantiated by its absence, without any explanation in the Final Report. Whatever excuses are offered it cannot be disputed that Part (d) does not appear in the Terms of Reference in the Napier Final Report. It cannot be disputed that even if there was a "mutual understanding between Mr Napier and Mr Richardson not proceed with Part (d) It was not within the gift of Mr Richardson to take such action without consulting myself and Senator Le Sueur. If we had agreed then it was imperative that Mr Power and all other witnesses were notified that as a result of a "mutual understanding with Mr Richardson, Mr Napier was not proceeding with part (d). Also both myself and Senator Le Sueur should have been informed as per our agreement.

I met the Investigator and was of the view that he was experienced and quickly grasped the situation. I do not believe that he was so incompetent to form the views attributed to him particularly as he did not interview Mr Napier  but had thewritten account of the removal of part(d).

I believe that the removal of part (d) was to deflect Mr Napier away from digging too deep. however his findings must have disappointed certain people because he found that those involved with the former Police Chief Officer'ssuspension had acted untoward. If our Government is to have any credibility it must be transparent and its Ministers and all its Officers must act with propriety without fear or favour. The evidence to hand proves there was a conspiracy to remove Mr Power. Those responsible have been shown to have acted in an untoward manner probably believing that they were either above reproach or no one would bother to scrutinise and if anyone did, there would be Ministers and Civil Servants who would make life difficult for those who tried to expose the truth. They have been proven to be wrong.

Regards

Deputy  F. J. (Bob) Hill, BEM.,

Deputy of St Martin.

Catel Cottage,

Rue du Catel,

Trinity, JE35HA,

22^nd February 2011.

Senator T Le Sueur,

Chief Minister,

Cyril Le Marquand House,

St Helier.

Dear Chief Minister,

 Complaint against Mr John Richardson

On 12^th November 2008 the former Chief Police Officer was suspended from duty. It was an unprecedented and controversial act which was to bring an abrupt end to a highly distinguished police career. The act not only led to well over a hundred questions being asked at States Sittings but also very expensive Court, Judicial Hearings and Reviews which has cost the tax payer in excess of a million pounds.

From answers to questions and the publication of Mr Powers Affidavit it is apparent that the Chief Executive played a leading role in the pre and post suspension process which received considerable publicity. The Affidavit contained a number of allegations regarding the conduct of senior civil servants and States Members which led to suspicion of cover ups and conspiracies. Therefore one would assume that the Deputy Chief Executive would have been cognisant of that fact.

Following increasing concerns regarding the circumstances surrounding the Police Chief’s suspension, on 1^st February 2010 I lodged P9/2010 which called for a Committee of Inquiry to publicly review the suspension. Just prior to the debate on 24^th February, the Council of Ministers, (COM) presented Comments to my proposition. The Comments called for a rejection of my proposals in favour of a Commissioner to conduct a review which would be in private.

Whilst my proposition called for approval of a Committee of Inquiry there were no terms of reference because it was envisaged the Committee would have drafted their own in line with the proposals contained in my proposition.

The two main thrusts to the COM’s proposal were that it would be simpler and quicker, and there were definite Terms of Reference. What is particularly relevant was part (d) which was to “Review all information relating to the original suspension procedure including relevant sections of the published Affidavit from the suspended Chief Officer of Police.”  The Comments also stated that the Chief Minister would inform Members of the person appointed to undertake the task.

You will recall that the States rejected my proposal in favour of the COM’s; you will also recall that you asked if I would to assist you in the selection of the Commissioner. I informed you and other Members that I did not want to have any part in your Review because the expert would be reporting back to you and your department. In simple words I did not trust you or those around you to conduct a review that would be open and transparent.

When interviewed by the JEP after the debate I said the suspension pointed to a conspiracy and it needed to be fully investigated. I also was reported to have said “I am just disappointed, there will be a cosy in-house inquiry with leading players saying what they want. They will be under no obligation to speak to the expert.”

The JEP in its edition on 25^th February chose to report on its front page with the headline “They want it swept under the carpet”

Following the JEP report Senator Shenton lodged a formal complaint to PPC which you supported; Senator Shenton alleged that my comments breached Standing Orders.

Although the allegation was lodged on 25^th February, on 1^st March you emailed me inviting me to re-consider my decision regarding the selection process. You did not say why you wanted me to re-consider but I presume it was to give some credibility to the review.

For convenience the exchange of emails is attached as appendix 1. You will note that I stated that I would be willing to assist but I still had reservations as your expert would be reporting back to you and your department and those reservations remain. However I would be willing to assist provided that I could have the same oversight as you in the selection process, the review process undertaken by the selected person, the reporting mechanism and reports that were received prior to the publication of the Final Report. Again in simple words I thought that if I had oversight of the review I could ensure that it was open and transparent.

Later that day you replied by email agreeing to my request, John Richardson was copied in to the email. That assurance was quite explicit and I had every reason to believe that I would be party to all issues relating to the review. I was also putting my trust in both you and Mr. Richardson that the review would conducted in an open and transparent way.

During March with you, me and John Richardson we eventually selected Brian Napier, QC. On 25^th March 2010 ⁱⁿ your office we met Mr. Napier and we agreed the Terms of Reference which were the same as in the COM Comments P9/2010 which included part (d). Mr. Napier said he could get his review underway by early April. The appointment was made known to the media and a report appeared in the JEP the next day which included a photograph of Mr. Napier and the Terms of Reference which included part (d).  As per your commitment to States Members I assumed that arrangements would be quickly put in place for the appointment to be circulated to them. There was no reason why there should have been any delay in submitting details however they were not presented until 14^th April via R39/2010.

At no time from the 25^th of March was I ever party to any decisions or have sight of any of the reports that emanated from the Review until you gave me a copy of the Final Report on 17^th September. This was in complete breach of our agreement.

I understand that on 25^th February Mr. Power wrote to Mr. Richardson saying he had heard there would be some form of review of his suspension and wanted further information.

On 29^th March Mr. Richardson replied asking whether Mr. Power would assist in the Review and attached the Terms of Reference which included the original part (d). On 31^st March Mr. Power replied stating that he was willing to assist but before doing so he required certain assurances. Despite answers given by you to questions on this matter, the letter most certainly did not categorically state that Mr. Power was going to assist in the Review. Mr. Power did not give consent until his letter of 23^rd April.

On 8^th and 9^th April Mr. Napier visited the Island and held discussions with Mr. Richardson. As a result of answers given by you in the States it is apparent that both men discussed the Terms of Reference on 9^th April although Mr. Napier apparently cannot remember the exact day. From the events that followed it really does not matter which of the two days they discussed the Terms but it is evident that part (d) was removed from the Terms and part(d) was replaced by part (e). From questions asked it is claimed that the decision to remove part (d) was because Mr. Power had agreed to take part in the review. That is incorrect because consent was not given until 23^rd April.

It is also now evident that Mr. Napier was instructed to remove part (d) by Mr. Richardson. As he said in a later email, it was not for him to participate in the setting of his own terms of reference, as it did not seem appropriate. At no time was I informed of the removal. Neither were States Members nor Mr. Power who was the belief that part (d) was still included when he was later interviewed by Mr. Napier.   It should be noted that when Mr. Richardson wrote to Mr. Power on 16^th and 21^st April he mentions the Terms of Reference but does state that part (d) had been removed. The meeting between Mr. Power and Mr. Napier took place in Edinburgh on 13^th May 2010.   It is now apparent that as a consequence of Mr. Richardson’s actions both parties were unknowingly in possession of different terms of reference for that meeting.   Leaving aside whatever motives may have been behind Mr. Richardson’s actions, no competent senior public servant should have allowed this situation to arise in a high profile enquiry funded and authorized by the States.

No matter whatever arrangement Mr. Richardson and Mr. Napier came to, it was not within the gift or remit for Mr. Richardson to remove any part of the Terms of Reference without reference to either of us or indeed States Members. Given the justified concerns about cover ups and conspiracies, Mr. Richardson displayed appalling naivety, lack of judgment or the removal was intended to deceive. By removing part (d) Mr. Richardson had shifted the agenda in such a way as to ensure that Mr. Napier would not be required to delve too deeply into the actions of his superior officer or indeed other senior personnel.

Following his meeting with Mr. Napier and the removal of part (d) Mr. Richardson made arrangements for Karen Pallot via an email dated 9^th April at 1515 hours to submit details of Mr. Napier’s appointment, CV and Terms of Reference to the COM. It should be noted that although part (d) had been removed that fact was not made known in the correspondence to the COM. Why was part (d) still shown in the Terms of Reference when it had been removed? I submit it was not an error.

Later that day at 1524 hours the Greffier emailed Mr. Richardson informing him that it was unnecessary for the COM to be consulted as the matter was a Ministerial Decision. I am not aware whether the COM formerly considered the email and contents but it is apparent that they were asked to consider a document that was not factual.

It is apparent that you unwittingly signed the Ministerial decision on 13^th April without checking to see that what you were signing was correct. However what you signed was not factual because part (d) had been removed so either you were told and have misled the States or you signed the documents without being told that part (d) had been removed.

It will be for you to decide, but as far as I am concerned your approval led to R39/2010 being presented to the States which was not factual. However it is now known that when the documents were submitted to the Greffier for printing the second page of the Terms of Reference which contained part (d) was not included. That is why it does not appear in R39/2010. The absence is attributed to an administrative error. Again it seems to be a convenient coincidence which was plausible and accepted by a number of people who were of the belief that Mr. Napier was reviewing part (d)

Although part (d) was omitted from R39/2010 I was of the belief that it was still part of the Terms of Reference, but following a sequence of events last July I had reason to doubt whether Mr. Napier was reviewing part (d). You will recall that we then had a number of email exchanges in which I sought assurances that Mr. Napier had reviewed part (d). This was very important because Mr. Napier had not completed his report and it would not have been too late to interview witnesses identified in Mr. Power’s Affidavit. However I never received a satisfactory reply and had to wait until I received the Final Report because I was denied the right to see any parts of Mr. Napier’s documentations.

On 17^th September you gave me an embargoed copy of the Final Napier Report. It became evident that part (d) had been removed, yet there is no explanation in the Report and since then I have received a number evasive answers to my many questions seeking an explanation.

As you know along with other States Members I have been trying to establish why part (d) was removed because in my opinion it should never been removed. I note that Mr. Napier is of the belief (although qualified) that had the terms of reference remained unchanged it would have made no difference to the contents of his report. I do not subscribe to that view because neither he nor Mr Richardson ever informed Mr Power that part (d) had been withdrawn.

Mr Power was of the belief that Mr Napier was going to interview the people named in his Affidavit because had they been interviewed it would have become apparent that steps were being taken to suspend him without his Minister’s knowledge.

Mr Richardson had no right to interfere with the Terms of Reference. He was aware of my role and there can be no excuses for interfering with the Terms without reference to me or the Chief Minister. I believe his actions are akin to perverting the course of justice.

Also having instructed Mr Napier to remove part (d) Mr Richardson actions there after were untoward. He failed to inform you, and Mr Power. He also submitted documents to the COM and yourself which included the reference to part (d) being part of the Terms of Reference when it is a fact that they had been removed.

I therefore make to following complaint against Mr Richardson.

1. He instructed Mr Napier to remove part (d) without discussing the matter with you or me.
2. He failed to inform you or me of the decision
3. He failed to inform Mr Power of the decision.
4. On 9^th April 2010 he submitted documentation to the Council of Ministers which included part (d) of the Terms of Reference when part (d) had been removed.
5. On 13^th April he submitted documentation to you which included part (d) of the Terms of Reference when he knew that part (d) had been removed.
6. On 13^th April whilst responsible for the submission of the Mr Napier’s appointment, CV and Terms of Reference to the Greffier for publication, the second page containing part (d) and part (e) was not included in the submission
7. Following the presentation of R39/2010 on 14^th he failed to correct the document so that the full Terms of Reference were accurately reported.

I am aware that it may be claimed that the removal of part (d) of the terms of reference may not have had significant consequences for the Napier enquiry. I would regard such a view as speculation intended to distract attention from the actual basis of my complaint. Nobody can say for sure what the consequences were. However, for my own part, had part (d) been within Mr Napier’s remit then I think it unlikely that myself and others would have accepted his report in the form it was finally presented.   I would have drawn attention to the failure to deal with some of the events set out in the affidavit and may have asked for more work to be done.  Whatever views any of us may have of the eventual consequences, the point remains that the intention of the Napier enquiry was to address and resolve a long-running controversy. The actions of the Deputy Chief Executive have undermined confidence in the outcome of the enquiry and created a situation in which the controversy continues.   This is not an acceptable performance from such a senior public servant.

As both you and the Chief Executive are clearly conflicted neither of you will be able to deal my with my complaint, therefore it will have it be forwarded to someone not conflicted, however I ask that the matter be dealt with in an expeditious manner and that a suitably independent person or organisation be appointed to conduct an investigation and prepare a report.

Yours sincerely,

Deputy F.J. (Bob) Hill, BEM.

Deputy of St Martin.

Appendix 1.

From: Terry Le Sueur Sent: 01 March 2010 18:23 To: Bob Hill Cc: John Richardson (CMD) Subject: RE: Power enquiry

Dear Bob,

Thanks for this.    I am happy that you and I should have the same oversight in the selection, although technically the person to make the decision has to be the Chief Minister.     However I would not want to appoint anybody with whom you were not comfortable.      Fortunately we have a wide choice and I hope we can agree a name quite quickly, since I would like this work to commence a.s.a.p.       I gather you could be available at lunchtime tomorrow, and would be happy if you could meet me (and John Richardson) at my office at 1.00 p.m. or shortly thereafter. 

I also confirm that I am happy for you to be involved with me in reviewing the ongoing work of the commissioner, the reporting mechanism and the reports themselves, including the Final Report to be presented to the States.   

I look forward to hearing your comments tomorrow lunchtime.

Terrry.

---

From: Bob Hill Sent: 01 March 2010 12:01 To: Terry Le Sueur Subject: FW: Power enquiry

Good Morning Terry,

Thank you for your email. You will recall that I had expressed my concern as to the transparency and effectivness of your proposal  because your Expert would be reporting back to you and your Department. Those concerns remain, however I am willing to assist in the selection process once it is known who has responded to your advertisement and that I can have the same oversight as you in the selection, the review process undertaken by the selected person, the reporting mechanism and reports that are received prior to the publication of the Final Report.

Regards

Bob.

-----Original Message----- From: Terry Le Sueur Sent: 01 March 2010 08:46 To: Bob Hill Subject: Power enquiry

Dear Bob,

Both before and during last week's debate you indicated that you did not wish to participate in the selection process of the independent Commissioner.       I am writing again to see if, following the outcome of that debate, you might have reconsidered your position.      I aim to be making that selection this week so that the work can start promptly.

Please let me know your view.

Terry. (END)


The cover-up continues...................to be exposed!............BY BLOGGERS!