Wednesday, 8 February 2012

How things are done in Jersey.

A letter sent by the Former Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, to the Privileges and Procedures Committee, (PPC) is as relevant today as it was back in January 2010 when we "exclusively" broke the story. It sets out the chain of events leading up to and including the Chief Officers (possibly illegal) suspension.


The official version of events just didn't, and still don't, stack up and on top of this the PPC did not act on the evidence they were given.........And still haven't by claiming it's not in their remit.


This is how Chief Police Officers, who's force investigate, alleged "State Sponsored Paedophilia" are gotten rid of.


To give readers a flavour of how things were done, in the words of the Former Police Chief, we offer these snippets from the letter below.


"It is a matter of public record that the Chief Executive has admitted destroying the original notes of the suspension meeting on 12 November 2008."


"The claim that the decision to suspend was a result of a proper process entered into in consequence of evidence viewed on 11 November 2008 is plainly false."


"It is now disclosed that this letter was created at 0848hrs on Saturday 8 November 2008. This date is three days prior to the receipt of the information which is alleged to have given rise to the suspension, and four days before the disciplinary meeting at which the Minister allegedly “decided” that I was to be suspended from duty."


Letter From Former CPO Graham Power QPM to PPC.


Dear Chairman,
Outcome of my appeal under the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982. Complaint arising from the disclosure of information regarding the events preceding my suspension

This letter arises from the recent disclosure of information regarding the times and dates on which documents relating to my suspension from duty were actually created. You will be aware that this information was first requested by me in November 2008, and that its release has been consistently opposed by the Chief Minister and others. You will also be aware that as a result of a hearing before the Complaints Board under the above law, the information has now been released.

Enclosed with this letter are documents relevant to the complaint which will be set out below. It is believed that the documents are largely self explanatory and that it is not necessary to repeat the content in any detail. The relevant documents are:

A copy of the document bundle setting out details of my appeal to the Complaints Board at a hearing on 16 September 2009, which was conducted in accordance with the law set out in the heading to this letter. My application to the Board related to the refusal of the Chief Minister to disclose details of the times and dates on which certain documents relating to my suspension from duty were actually created.

A copy of the findings of the Board published on 14 October 2009 and presented to the States on 20 October 2009.

A copy of a letter from the Director of Information Services dated 19 October 2009 providing the information requested in the initial application.

It is requested that the Committee study all of the attached documents in conjunction with this letter.

In my application to the Board I summarised what I described as the “Official Version” of the events which led to my suspension. I can find no record of any claim on behalf of the Chief Minister or others that the “Official Version” was not effectively summarised in my application. In brief, the “Official Version” of the sequence of events is that on 10 November 2008 the Deputy Chief Officer, Mr David Warcup, wrote to the Chief Executive, Mr Bill Ogley, expressing concerns regarding aspects of the management of the Historic Abuse Enquiry, (document bundle page 28.) This was received on 11 November 2008 by Mr Ogley who, the same day, wrote to the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis, enclosing a copy of Mr Warcup’s letter. (Statement of W Ogley, document bundle page 30.) In his statement to Wiltshire Police Mr Lewis states “Up until I received the letter from David WARCUP, I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” (Statement of A Lewis, document bundle page 33.) The Minister for Home Affairs and the Chief Executive along with other Ministers and Civil Servants attended a presentation and briefing the same evening, given by Mr Warcup and the then Senior Investigating Officer, Mr Mick Gradwell. The briefing on 11 November 2008 is said to have given details of the content of a press briefing which was to take place the following morning.

Ministers and others have consistently put forward the claim that the decision to initiate the disciplinary process was taken in consequence of information which came to the notice of the Minister for Home Affairs in the form of the correspondence received, and the briefing given, on Tuesday 11 November 2008. I understand from States Members that this line has been repeated during “in camera” discussions of the suspension. I also understand that it is the line taken in response to States members who have made individual enquiries.
Following almost a year of requests and applications, information has now been disclosed in relation to the times and dates when documents relevant to the suspension were created. It is self-evident that the facts now disclosed are incompatible with the “Official Version” of events.
The Disciplinary Process relating to the Chief Officer is set out in Article 9 of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 and in the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of Police, which sets out the process to be applied in the exercise of powers under Article 9. A copy of the relevant Disciplinary Code is at page13 of the document bundle.

It will be noted that no person other than the Minister for Home Affairs has any disciplinary powers in respect of the Chief Officer of Police, and that the disciplinary process can only be initiated by a letter from the Minister to the Chief Executive under paragraph 2.1.1 of the Code. The code does not appear to permit action on any other basis. Suspension powers are set out in paragraph 2.3.3 of the Code and are again, vested entirely in the Minister for Home Affairs.
It might now be appropriate to examine the information which has subsequently been disclosed. In the interests of consistency I have followed the sequence set out in the letter of the Director of Information Services dated 19 October 2009. All of the three letters referred to are dated 12 November 2008 and refer to information received on 11 November 2008. They can be found at page 21 of the document bundle. (It may be noted that the letters make reference to a review by the Metropolitan Police. The comments made in the review were subsequently withdrawn by that force in respect of their use for suspension or disciplinary purposes.) The information which has now been provided in relation to the three letters is as follows:
The letter from then Deputy Andrew Lewis to Mr Ogley initiating disciplinary action under paragraph 2.1.1 of the Disciplinary Code
It is now disclosed that this was created at l400hrs on Tuesday 11 November 2008. This is the day on which it is stated that Mr Ogley received the letter from Mr Warcup, which he forwarded to the Minister for Home Affairs the same day. The time of the letter does however precede the presentation and briefing which took place later that day.

Letter from the Minister for Home Affairs notifying me that the disciplinary process had been commenced
It is now disclosed that this was created at 0844hrs on Saturday 8 November 2008. This is three days before the receipt of the information which is claimed to have led to the decision to commence the disciplinary process, and three days before the creation of the letter from the Minister instructing the Chief Executive to take action under the Code. Former Deputy Andrew Lewis in his statement to the Wiltshire Police investigation claims that he instructed that the letter be drawn up on Wednesday 12 November 2008 and he is supported in this claim by Mr Ogley. (Document bundle pages 32 and 31.) The disclosure reveals that these statements are untrue.
Written notification that I was suspended from duty

It is now disclosed that this letter was created at 0848hrs on Saturday 8 November 2008. This date is three days prior to the receipt of the information which is alleged to have given rise to the suspension, and four days before the disciplinary meeting at which the Minister allegedly “decided” that I was to be suspended from duty. It should also be noted that the suspension letter was created three days prior to the letter which, under paragraph 2.1.1 of the code, is required to commence the disciplinary process.

While there remains uncertainty regarding some of the events surrounding the creation of the documents, it is evident that the “Official Version” of the decision-making process cannot now be sustained. The claim that the decision to suspend was a result of a proper process entered into in consequence of evidence viewed on 11 November 2008 is plainly false. Against this background and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the following questions would appear to fall within the remit of the Committee:

Whether any person in Government has made false and misleading statements to myself or persons enquiring on my behalf, during the suspension and disciplinary process which could have denied me my entitlement to fair treatment under the Disciplinary Code.

Whether the proper preparation of my defence has been wilfully impeded by false information provided from within the Island’s Government.

Whether false and misleading statements have been made to the States and to those States members who have enquired about the integrity of the process.

Whether any person has made a false statement to the disciplinary enquiry.

Whether any person currently in office has been a party to a “cover up” of the facts which have now come to light.

Whether any person who had a duty to ensure that processes conducted under the law and the disciplinary code were carried out in a proper and lawful manner, failed in that duty.

In the light of the disclosures, the real reasons for the suspension must be regarded as uncertain. Clearly this is an unsatisfactory position to be in after a year, and places me at an unfair disadvantage in the preparation of my defence.
The 1974 Police Law and the Disciplinary Code set out arrangements for the Political Oversight of the Chief Officer. There is a widely held view that these arrangements are imperfect. The absence of a Police Authority and of the checks and balances common in other jurisdictions are seen as significant defects. Nevertheless the Law and the Code, taken together, clearly identify the intention of legislators that the power of suspension should be vested entirely with the Minister for Home Affairs, and that this power should only be exercised through due process and the proper consideration of evidence.

If Ministers and others have colluded in a common endeavour to frustrate the intentions of the Law and the Code and to produce a misleading account of events, then this would be a serious matter. In the course of the Complaints Board Hearing, which was held in public, I had an opportunity to respond to the Chief Ministers submissions on the question of public interest. In doing so I said “Mr Chairman, if Ministers, assisted by Civil Servants, have, for whatever motive, put together a false account of events, and have produced paperwork and made statements to sup port that false account, and if others have subsequently become aware of what has been done, and have used their position to cover up the truth and attempt to prevent it from becoming known, then there is certainly an issue of public interest.” In setting out the reasons why I believed that the Board should support disclosure I said “Finally on this issue, but certainly not least, there is the question of the integrity of government, and the degree of trust we can place in the statements made, and assurances given, by those in executive positions.” The Committee will be aware that the Board found in my favour.

The Code of Conduct for Ministers requires them to act in accordance with the relevant laws and procedures and emphasises the importance of providing “accurate and truthful information to the States” (paragraph 3ii.) Additionally Ministers are required by the Code to be “as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take” (paragraph 3) and to “conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the publics trust and confidence in the integrity of the States of Jersey,” (paragraph 8.) The Committee will be aware that the States of Jersey (Powers, Privileges and Immunities) (Scrutiny Panels, PAC and PPC) (Jersey) Regulations 2006, provides the Committee with the relevant powers to investigate any alleged breach of the Code.

It may be that I have provided sufficient information to enable the Committee to consider a way forward on this issue. However, in the hope that it may be helpful, I will offer some personal thoughts and additional information which may assist.
On a straight reading of the available evidence it may occur to many people that the most likely probability is that the former Minister for Home Affairs knowingly provided an account which is distant from the truth. That may be the case, but there are other possibilities. One is that he was not the main author of the process. The known facts allow for an alternative explanation. That is, that the decision to suspend was in fact taken by others for motives of their own, and that the then Minister was brought in at the final stages to provide his signature, and thereby appear to legitimise a process which was conceived by others. Such an interpretation would of course raise the possibility of a “Government within a Government” in which unidentified and unaccountable individuals exercise power outside the parameters of the law. If that was the case then the constitutional implications would be significant. This would be particularly true in the context of a potential impact on the independence of a part of the Criminal Justice System.

In considering these issues the Committee might find it helpful to be alerted to the apparent relationship between the suspension, and what was said to the media and the outside world in general on Wednesday 12 November 2008. During the course of his enquiries on behalf of the Minister, the Chief Constable of Wiltshire has disclosed to me a number of documents. The two most relevant in respect of this issue are the draft media presentation script which was shown to me by Mr Warcup on 5 November 2008, my last working day before a short period of leave, and the script actually used on 12 November 2008. There are significant differences between the two which must have resulted from changes made between 5 and 11 November 2008. For example, the draft script says “It has never been suggested by the States of Jersey Police that Child Murder took place at Haut de Ia Garenne.” The script actually used in the briefings on 11 and 12 November 2008 says “Statements which were issued by the States of Jersey Police suggested that serious criminal offences had been perpetrated against children and also that there was a possibility that children had been murdered, bodies had been disposed of and buried within the home.” Other differences between the scripts are of a similar nature. Against this background it is legitimate to consider another possible explanation for the actual sequence of events. That is, the decision to suspend was taken on or before 8 November 2008 by persons unknown for reasons at present unknown. The media script was then subjected to significant changes (I believe that “sexed up” is a popular term used to describe this type of process) in order to enable the Minister to claim that he took a decision after being shown the content of the presentation on 11 November 2008, and in order to conceal the real reason or purpose behind the action taken. This may or may not be what actually occurred. Until the truth is known we cannot be sure.
Finally, in assessing the integrity of Government actions in this matter the Committee may find it helpful to be reminded of the following:

Although the Royal Court, in considering my application for Judicial Review, was not able to formally pass judgement on the initial suspension, it did say “we feel constrained to voice our serious concern as to the fairness of the procedure apparently adopted by the Previous Minister.” (Published judgement of the Royal Court, paragraph 19.)

It is a matter of public record that the Chief Executive has admitted destroying the original notes of the suspension meeting on 12 November 2008.
Although there may be insufficient information to formulate specific complaints against named individuals at this stage, I hope that the Committee will agree that there is a sufficient basis to provide reason to believe that one or more persons at the heart of Government have used their positions in order to engage in a deliberate abuse of process, and have made false and misleading statements to conceal their actions.

I am aware that complaints which are specific against serving Ministers should be addressed to the Council of Ministers. However, given the difficulty in identifying who is responsible for what, and the possibility that one or more members of the Council of Ministers may or may not be implicated, the Committee may agree that the general complaint against the conduct of Government falls within its remit and merits further enquiry.

Although some of the facts remain in contention it is believed that the following are not in dispute:

The suspension is almost one year old.

The public cost is reported to be in excess of half a million pounds and rising.

No disciplinary charges have been brought.

No hearing has been called.

No conclusion is in sight.

This matter is placed in the hands of the Committee in the belief that its remit covers the circumstances of this complaint and that the Committee will see the need to take further action. However, if the Committee considers that I should progress this matter by some other route then I will of course consider whatever is recommended, in consultation with my professional advisors.
I hope this is sufficient for your purposes at this time, and that you will ask if you need any further information.
Yours sincerely
Graham Power
Cc Dr I Brain. Chairman. Chief Police Officers Staff Association.
The Connétable of St Helier

28 comments:

  1. Did GP get a response?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes he got a response but it wasn't from the Committee, they weren't made aware of the letter. The first some of the PPC members learnt of the letter was after reading it on this Blog.

    Here is the reply HE GOT

    ReplyDelete
  3. and the advice he got:-

    "I note that you copied your letter to the Connétable of St. Helier. It may be that he can assist you from a political perspective."

    So he did and what happened when Bob Hill tried to get answers, I believe he was at times treated with contempt by those who did not want the truth known.

    ReplyDelete
  4. OK, lets stack up all the verifiable evidence, one side against the other. Oh, wait! The hard evidence is all on Graham Power's side!

    ReplyDelete
  5. "......That is, that the decision to suspend was in fact taken by others for motives of their own, and that the then Minister was brought in at the final stages to provide his signature, and thereby appear to legitimise a process which was conceived by others. Such an interpretation would of course raise the possibility of a “Government within a Government” in which unidentified and unaccountable individuals exercise power outside the parameters of the law. If that was the case then the constitutional implications would be significant. This would be particularly true in the context of a potential impact on the independence of a part of the Criminal Justice System....."

    Wendy Kinnard was fully supportive of LH & GP. She got the boot and lewis stepped in. He would say whatever he was told to say and sign anything that he was told to sign. End of! But the interesting point made is "taken by others for motives of their own" Who are these individuals? There are people out there that have not been named on any blog that have a lot to answer for. Without question, the tip of the iceberg has not YET been identified!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Slightly off topic, but I could not help noticing this.

    Guernsey Evening Press launches Voice for Victims campaign.

    http://www.thisisguernsey.com/news/2012/02/08/signatures-will-help-bring-change-for-child-abuse-survivors/

    ReplyDelete
  7. The people of Guernsey are very fortunate to have a newspaper that will campaign for the victims of Child Abuse, rather than the perpetrators of it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The people of Guernsey are very fortunate to have a newspaper that will campaign for the victims of Child Abuse, rather than the perpetrators of it."

    Exactly and its hard to believe they appear to not shy away from dealing with any political issue with vigour, strange they are owned by the Guiton Group!!

    Talking of media, I am amazed that CTV often challenge Guernsey politicians rather more aggressively than the Jersey establishment ones, when I hear one of them challenging I can't help thinking, why oh why don't you do the same to say Bailache, strange that!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jersey State Media have been informed at every step, every stage with every discovery uncovered by citizen media into the child abuse enquiry, bloggers and a few resilient States members have consistently informed them from the outset.

    The BBC Channel TV and the JEP were repeatedly emailed, bloggers have contributed to phone-ins,they have provided links to reports and issues as they arose

    This media still with all the evidence provided here on Ricos blog and Mr. Syvrets continue to disregard the implications in everything you have given them.

    Inexcusable

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nobody is interested in this anymore. We need new people in the States. People with fresh ideas. People who will do what the Establishment and media tell them. We also island wide mandates including for Constables and we need fresh welks...

    ReplyDelete
  11. I guess one way of silencing bloggers by State Media would be to close down the one phone in programme.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes and the talkback show. One of the bitterest pills that I have had to swallow during this ghastly and dark period in Jersey's history is discovering the BBC's role in it.

    Most of us grew up trusting this institution and respecting it, they have managed to destroy that trust and respect and continue to do so for more, and more, others................Sad so very, very, sad.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Ministers and others have consistently put forward the claim that the decision to initiate the disciplinary process was taken in consequence of information which came to the notice of the Minister for Home Affairs in the form of the correspondence received, and the briefing given, on Tuesday 11 November 2008. I understand from States Members that this line has been repeated during “in camera” discussions of the suspension. I also understand that it is the line taken in response to States members who have made individual enquiries.
    Following almost a year of requests and applications, information has now been disclosed in relation to the times and dates when documents relevant to the suspension were created. It is self-evident that the facts now disclosed are incompatible with the “Official Version” of events."

    In layman terms the official version was a pack of lies.

    ReplyDelete
  14. VFC, On the same topic this is a repost of a comment on Stuart's blog.

    Stuart

    You have raised a very important point about Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis ..."– in his statement to Wiltshire – says that he had received reports, and briefings from no less an authority than Andre Baker – of the ACPO H.W.G. – to the effect that Operation Rectangle was a 'shining example' of how these investigations should be run."

    One can't imagine any member of the Jersey MSM ever acknowledging even this simple truth. They have all fallen too far in to the quicksand of their own lies.

    It is fascinating, really, how they must truly believe they can spin themselves out of their complicity.

    There are fewer than 70,000 potential consumers of their hackery, and almost a half million readers who have come across your blog.

    I suspect the time is near when the people who know the truth will far exceed those who believe the demonstrable lies of Jersey MSM, and all who do believe such nonsense will be in Jersey.

    Sooner or later the BBC role will open up this Jersey MSM scandal to an international readership of much greater numbers. That will re-open the door to the child abuse investigation itself, which was corrupted with the knowing help of BBC Jersey.

    Jersey residents who limit their knowledge to what is spun and spoon-fed through that state run media will loudly proclaim themselves innocent.

    The media consumers and even the locally employed reporters will cry out, "We didn't know! We didn't know!"

    The rest of us should retain copies of our very many (unanswered) links, news tips and complaints to BBC. They knew. They know. They have known.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sock it to them Mr Power. You were our best Chief of Police by a mile.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Voice, you have published a record of your own contacts with BBC Jersey and their refusal to address the evidence. What if there are a great many similar emails from your blog readers which have gone unanswered by the Jersey and National BBC offices?

    Should we all be forwarding to you or to someone else the copies of our correspondence with BBC and other media outlets? It may be that dozens to hundreds of emails have been sent to BBC regarding this scandal or of their local lack of coverage of evidence. How can we maintain a record? If BBC had to acknowledge there were records of so very many of these communications, wouldn't that apply the right type of pressure?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Will reply the the previous comment tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Any readers who has complained to the BBC, or have correspondence, that will demonstrate how they operate can send them/it here.

    A number of us have a dossier of correspondence that will be put to use in the near future and any additional material could add some weight to the extensive file already compiled.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 'Another MP with much to lose was Edward Heath, Prime Minister of England from 1970-74. Heath was a frequent visitor to the Haute Garrene childrens care home on Jersey. He would quite often take young boys from the home away on ‘sailing ‘ weekends on his Yacht, ‘The Morning Cloud’., which his bodyguards rechristened ‘The Morning Sickness’. On no less than 4 occasions , Heath was warned by the Metropolitan police chief, not to loiter in public toilets, where he would attempt to pick up young boys. Never the less, Heath fell foul to blackmail and Under threat of exposure he was forced to take Britain into the Common Market under very unfavourable conditions'

    Read the whole article on www.sovereignindependent.com - Why The Justice System Favours Paedophiles.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I was reading the met remit into operation grange the review into McCann case.


    http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Operation-Grange/1400005508791/35434

    click link on right hand side for remit.

    Similar case in that the Met review in Jersey is a different jurisdiction to reviewing force.

    Met are reviewing case in different jurisdiction http://www.mccannfiles.com/id391.html
    At question 4 you asked: When completed, to whom will the Review Report be presented?

    The MPS response is: This information is exempt by virtue of Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c)
    and Section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act Constituents of this information attract Section 30 and other constituents attract Section 31 of the Act. It should not be surmised that we are applying Sections 30 & 31 to the same pieces of information.

    Under Section 30(1 )(a)(i)(ii)(b)(c) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information if it was obtained or recorded for the purposes of investigations, criminal proceedings or civil proceedings. In this case the information requested relates to an ongoing review. Disclosing specific details of a review could potentially impact and undermine any current or future reviews. This exemption can be applied after evidencing the Harm, which could be caused by its release and following completion of a Public Interest Test (PIT). The purpose of the PIT is to establish whether the 'Public Interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information.

    Under Section 31(1) (a) (b) (c) of the Act Public Authorities are able to withhold information where its release could compromise Law Enforcement. In this case the information requested relates to an ongoing review. Disclosing specific details of a review could potentially impact and undermine any current or future criminal and /or civil proceedings. This exemption can be applied after evidencing the Harm, which could be caused by its release and following completion of a Public Interest Test (PIT). The purpose of the PIT is to establish whether the 'Public Interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information.

    This email serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Act .



    It will be interesting to see how the UK Government allow this review to be played out via the media.

    Met are under as much Scruitny, if not more so, than those they are reviewing.

    I am not aware if Mr. Ameral has given a statement to the Met police?

    ReplyDelete
  21. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZtDsoFbW4

    ReplyDelete

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