That statement, From Andrew Lewis, one can only surmise, is telling the secret parliament session that this "preliminary Report" by the MET Police into the Child Abuse Investigation is a damming indictment on the investigation under Mr. Power's control and he had no other choice other than to suspend Mr. Power.
Mr. Power later in the Blog Posting tells us just what the MET Review was supposed to be used for and how that use has been abused by the Jersey Authorities, and quite clearly by the then Home Affairs Minister. At the time of writing the Blog below, Mr. Power was unaware of the statement made by Mr. Lewis to the secret parliament session.
This whole mess that has been created by the "Jersey Elite" in the lies deceit and cover-up involving Child Abuse that was able to flourish in State Run "Care" Institutions FOR DECADES is now starting to attract worldwide attention as it (the cover-up) continues to spiral further, and further, out of control.
Readers are strongly advised to go to the links provided in this post, and in particular THIS ONE where American, Author, Historian and Award Winning Investigative Journalist Leah McGrath Goodman writes of her treatment by the Jersey Authorities and UK Border Agency after it became apparent, to them, that she was Investigating the Child Abuse Atrocities in Jersey.
Miss McGrath Goodman tells us in her short BIO that she has written for The Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Huffington Post, ABC News, USA Today, National Public Radio, Bloomberg and Forbes about trading, wine, fine art, banking, Big Oil, rare books, Islamic finance, alternative asset classes and all manner of esoterica.
Her Best Selling Book "The Asylum" will convince any doubters of her resolve and ability that the "Jersey Elite" who have allegedly prevented her from returning to our shores to complete her research on Haut de la Garenne, the Child Abuse and possible murder, that they have got a fight on their hands from a person who doesn't bow to intimidation and threats, it's all in a days work to her. Furthermore she is able to draw on resources far bigger, and beyond the reach, of Jersey's Feudal Elite.
Following the Guardian newspaper's recent expose of the disgraceful treatment dished out to our Former Police Chief, Graham Power QPM, it looks like Jersey's State Radio were shamed into mentioning something about it. What they, nor any of the island's State Media mentioned, was the disgraceful and possibly very dangerous treatment of a Western Journalist in Leah McGrath Goodman. Why would fellow Jersey "Journalists" want to keep this quiet? It's implications could be far reaching and send shockwaves through the western journalistic world. An american journalist being refused entry into the UK and Jersey seemingly because she is investigating Institutional Child Abuse in Jersey and our State Media don't even think it's worth a mention? We know it is getting mentioned elsewhere and as stated earlier it could have huge repercussions including for those involved.
Former Jersey Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, at the request of VFC, has set out his knowledge of the so-called Met "Interim" Report and related matters It once more lays bare the facts from the perspective of Jersey's former most Senior Police Officer which tells us a different story as to the one we are told by our rulers and the State Media. A PREVIOUS POSTING sparked a lot of interest in this document and many questions were asked and in this posting the Former Chief Officer has set out to answer them.
- I have been asked to provide a short summary of the Metropolitan Police Review of the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry, known as “Operation Rectangle.” As I am now long retired I do not have access to current police files and records relating to this issue. I have however searched my own files and consulted with others who were involved, and on this basis I have constructed the following narrative which may be of value to interested parties.
- In early 2008 the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) appointed an independent team of experts to advise and assist Lenny Harper in his role as the Senior Investigating Officer for “Operation Rectangle.” The team was headed by a former Commander (a rank equivalent to Assistant Chief Constable) in the Metropolitan Police who was then a Deputy Director of the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA.) He is an internationally recognised expert in the investigation of Serious Crime.
- As the relationship with the ACPO team developed there was discussion regarding the need for a Review of Operation Rectangle by another Police Force. Such Reviews are recognised good practice in the investigation of serious offences. The purpose of a review is to provide a “critical friend” examination of the enquiry and to make recommendations to improve its effectiveness. The ACPO team advised that the Review should be conducted by the Metropolitan Police and that it should be timed to form an agenda for the new management team who were to take over from Mr Harper. This recommendation was accepted.
- In the Summer and Autumn of 2008 the Metropolitan Police team and the new management team for “Operation Rectangle” were on the ground and taking up their responsibilities. The Met Review team were headed by a Bryan Sweeting who is a Detective Superintendent in the Metropolitan Police. He is assisted by a Mr Peter Britton who was described as a former Detective Chief Inspector who was then working for the Met as a Civilian Advisor on Major Enquiries. It may be of note that neither of the Met representatives had ever overseen a major crime enquiry at Chief Officer level, and that neither had significant experience outside of London. In terms of seniority and experience they were several levels below the ACPO team which had been advising Lenny Harper since early 2008. That said, the Met team communicated their views as they progressed with their work and all of their comments were acted upon by the Force.
- In October 2008 the new police management team consisting of David Warcup as Deputy Chief Officer, and Mick Gradwell as Senior Investigating Officer was firmly in place. Lenny Harper had retired some months previously and all significant recommendations made verbally by the Metropolitan Police team had been implemented. Their full written report was awaited but it was expected that it would not contain anything which had not already been discussed and acted upon, (which subsequently proved to be the case.)
- On 10th November 2008 the Chief Officer was off the Island attending to an urgent family welfare issue in the UK. The Deputy Chief Officer, David Warcup, wrote a letter to the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers (Bill Ogley.) He said that he had that day received an “Interim Report” from the Met which documented their “Initial Findings.” He did not attach a copy of the Met report which he said was “restricted” due to the sensitivity of the information it contained. (Subsequent readers of the alleged “Interim Report” who have offered comment have not been able to identify any content in the report which justifies it being withheld by Mr Warcup, or which could not have been addressed by simple redaction. Those expressing this view include Brian Napier QC who was commissioned to review the matter and whose report is in the public domain. Mr Warcup resigned shortly before the publication of the Napier report.)
- On 11th November 2008 the letter from David Warcup was considered by the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis. Mr Lewis was about to leave office. He had not stood for re-election in the 2008 Jersey elections which were reaching a conclusion around that time. It was the last, and perhaps only, significant issue he had to deal with during his short political career. In a subsequent statement to Wiltshire Police, prior to which he signed a legal declaration making the statement admissible as evidence in Court, Lewis claimed that he had no concerns regarding the Historic Abuse Enquiry until he received the letter from Warcup on 11th November 2008. The report by Brian Napier QC makes it clear that this part of his statement is untrue. Napier established that for some months Lewis had been meeting secretly with others, including the Chief Executive Bill Ogley and the then Chief Minister Frank Walker, in an effort to devise a means by which the Chief Officer of the Force could be suspended. To what extent Lewis was his “own man” in these discussions and to what extent the decisions he subsequently took were genuinely “his” are matters on which it is legitimate to speculate. That evening Lewis contacted the Chief Officer on his mobile phone in the belief that he was still out of the Island but due to return soon. He discovered that travel arrangements had changed and that the Chief Officer was at home. He asked the Chief Officer to attend a meeting in the office of the Chief Executive the following morning.
- On 12th November 2008 the Chief Officer attended the arranged meeting with Lewis and Ogley. The Chief Minister Frank Walker was in the adjacent room. After a short encounter lasting about 30 minutes the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police was suspended from duty. Events determined that he never returned to duty. The brief meeting with Andrew Lewis and Bill Ogley therefore became the final event in a police career spanning over 40 years throughout the British Isles. The Chief Officer was not shown the letter from Warcup or the alleged interim report from the Met. He was not told in advance of the purpose of the meeting or given chance to prepare. He was not offered representation or an opportunity to consult with his staff association. Ogley made notes of what was said at the meeting but destroyed these after he was given notice that the matter may be referred to the Royal Court.
- The Jersey Government quickly publicised its actions. The Chief Officers elderly mother learned of his suspension by means of a news item on her local TV station in Yorkshire. The Chief Officers daughter learned the news on her car radio in Sydney. With hindsight the Chief Officer now sees these actions as those of a corrupt and malicious administration resolved to trample over every rule of fairness and justice in an effort to break the spirit and resolve of an individual who is an obstacle to their plans and intentions. It did not work. What they in fact achieved was to initiate a long running and divisive controversy which is alive more than three years afterwards, and which in terms of reputational damage and cost exceeds anything which they may have been seeking to avoid. Their malice is matched only by their stupidity and incompetence. In the absence of the Chief Officer, David Warcup was appointed “Acting Chief Officer” with the pay and entitlements of the Chief Officer. He then moved into the Chief Officers Office.
- In January February and March of 2009 the new Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand was legally responsible for the continuing suspension and was said to be familiarising himself with the case. A number of prominent local figures and States Members urged him to bring the matter to an end by seeking a swift pragmatic solution which acknowledges that the suspension was an unjustified act and to seek an outcome through consultation. He rejected all of these approaches. He conducted two suspension review meetings with the Chief Officer and his professional representative. The meetings were recorded and the transcripts are in the public domain. During these meetings the Minister disclosed that the Met would not allow him to see the review report, they will not allow its use for disciplinary purposes, and that its use for suspension purposes has caused a rift between the Met and Jersey. He nevertheless decided to keep the suspension in place.
- In July 2009 Wiltshire Police, who have been appointed by the Minister to conduct a disciplinary investigation into the Chief Officer, begin to make arrangements for the Chief Officer to respond to their enquiry. They deliver statements and other documents to his home address. The documents fill three large boxes and are carried to the house by two people. The Chief Officer is given a list of questions to which he is asked to respond. The questions refer to statements and documents which are in the three boxes. A deadline is set. The deadline for reading and digesting the material in all of the boxes and for making a response is, on the face of it, totally impossible and may have been intended to be such. But is it not. Plans have been made. Family members and friends have been assembled to act as administrators, proof readers and editors. The Chief Officer submits a written response within the deadline. The response is over 62,000 words (the size of a small novel.) At various times the Minister has promised to publish this response. He has never done so.
- Among the documents in the three boxes are two reports relating to the review by the Metropolitan Police. One is their full report which bears the crest of the Force on its cover and is clearly a document of which the Metropolitan Police have corporate ownership. The other is a different type of document. It is an 18 page document headed “Officers Report” and is a memorandum from Mr Peter Britton who, as described earlier, was a civilian member of the Met Review team. The report is not bound. It does not have the force crest on its cover, and it makes no claim to be a report by the “Metropolitan Police.” The document sets out the emerging thoughts of Mr Britton. It is heavily qualified. It is clear from the report that Mr Harper has not been interviewed. Paragraph 1.1 of the report states “any observations in this report may be subject to amendment.” It has subsequently become clear that this is the document which some have claimed is the “Interim Report” from the “Metropolitan Police.” It is patently nothing of the sort. In the controversy which has followed, the views of Mr Britton have been notably absent. We do not know what was said to him in order to persuade him to produce his memorandum. In the light of subsequent events it seems certain that whatever he was told it was not the truth. It is simply inconceivable that the Metropolitan Police would allow a relatively junior member of staff to associate the Force with a Review document to be used as a pretext for the suspension of the head of a police force. There is no precedent for such an action, and if one was to be established it would destroy the basis of mutual trust which is vital to the proper review of major enquiries.
- To complete the story, in 2010, almost two years after my suspension, I retired as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police more than three years after my official retirement date. No disciplinary charges were ever brought, and the Wiltshire Enquiry, costing variable amounts according to different accounts, but almost certainly well over £1m when suspension costs and other matters are included, was abandoned.
- It has since been learned from other sources that Mr Harper has complained that he was treated unfairly by the Met in that they allegedly criticised him (and myself) and the Abuse Investigation without proper consultation or a right to respond. It is understood that the Met may have at some stage denied that there was an “interim report” and then modified that view to say that an interim report was prepared by staff engaged in the review. The Met have however given specific written assurances that no review report by them makes criticism of either myself or Mr Harper or of Operation Rectangle. Mr Harper has published these assurances on the internet.
- I hope that this information is of assistance to those with an interest in these events. In particular I hope that they will be of value to the most important people in the whole affair, namely the survivors of the long running and systematic abuse of vulnerable children which was conducted in establishments run by the Jersey Government and which went unchallenged for decades.