Wednesday, 6 February 2013

Former Police Chief Exclusive. ("Evidence Did Not Come From me.")

Further to our PREVIOUS POSTING where we "Exclusively" published the written judgement of Chief Constable Mike Barton involving the disciplinary Hearing of three Police Officers involved in the Curtis Warren car bugging case. We now bring our readers another exclusive in the form of a statement issued by former Jersey Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. 

Mr. Power issued the statement as a result of questions put to him by VFC in the hope to clear up yet another anomaly thrown up in the "Barton Judgement." 

Re-produced below is extracts from the e-mail sent to Mr. Power outlining the discrepancy contained in paragraph 3 of Chief Constable Mike Barton's report/Written Judgement.

E-mail extract From VFC to Graham Power QPM.

I was hoping that you could be of some help in order to clear a little something up concerning the recent disciplinary case against the three Jersey Police Officers involved in the Curtis Warren car bugging case.

In paragraph 3 of Chief Constable Barton's Report he writes;

"3. It is alleged that these three officers not only misled foreign law enforcement officials
 but also senior officers within the States of Jersey Police Force and members of the 
Law Officers' Department in relation to the audio surveillance of the vehicle as it
 travelled through the foreign jurisdictions."

Highlighted (bold) is where I'm a little confused. You are on record as recommending the three Officers for a commendation for their work in capturing the drug gang. Yet they stand accused of misleading their superior Officers in the Jersey Force which one might be led to believe includes you as Chief Officer.

Could you please shed some light on this? Did you give evidence, either to the Hampshire Police Investigation (Invicta) or the disciplinary investigation presided by Chief Constable Barton to the effect that either yourself, or any of their superior Officers, were misled by the three accused Officers?

With the research I have already conducted, I can't see that you gave any evidence to either investigation but it is always possible that I might have missed something and hope that you are able to fill in any gaps?(END)



I have been asked to make comment on media reports concerning the findings of a recent Disciplinary Tribunal relating to three Police Officers who, during my time as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, were involved in the investigation of Curtis Warren and others. The Disciplinary Tribunal apparently arose in consequence of an investigation by Hampshire Police which was requested by the relevant authorities in Jersey. The Presiding Officer at the Tribunal was the Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary. At the end of the hearing the Tribunal acquitted all three officers of all allegations against them.

It is a convention in senior levels of the Police Service that a former head of a police force should avoid making comment on matters arising under the command of his successors. This is a sound convention which exists for good reasons. Accordingly I have declined to make general comment in respect the disciplinary investigation or the Disciplinary Tribunal.

However, I do not believe that this convention applies to matters which relate specifically to my own actions or to any views or opinions which may have been attributed to me. This is particularly the case when such alleged views or opinions may be inaccurate.

In reading what is reported to be the findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal I have noted that in paragraph 3 of the findings it is said that the three accused officers were alleged to have mis-led senior officers within the States of Jersey Police. Given that at the time I was the Chief Officer of the Force and that at least some of the documents relevant to the activity undertaken by the officers would have crossed my desk, I think it is reasonable to assume that it appears to have been alleged that I was misled in some way and that this allegation formed part of the disciplinary allegations against the three officers. Readers of the findings of the Tribunal may also have assumed that I was to some extent a party to the allegations that Senior Officers were deceived. In this context I feel that, notwithstanding the convention I have described above, it is appropriate that I briefly make my position clear on this issue alone.

I therefore wish to make it clear that I have no knowledge of any occasion on which I, or for that matter any of my senior staff at the time, were misled by any of the officers concerned. I have never alleged that I was misled by any of them in any way whatsoever. I have never been asked to assist in any disciplinary enquiry relating to this case. I have not been interviewed by Hampshire Police. I have not made any written statement relating to the disciplinary enquiry. I have not been asked to give evidence at any Disciplinary Tribunal.

If any evidence was presented to the Tribunal which purported to show that I was misled in any way whatsoever then such evidence did not come from me.

I hope that this statement clarifies my position in respect of any allegation that I was misled by any of the three officers who were subject of the disciplinary action. I have made no such allegation and if any allegation was made by any person purporting to represent my views, then it was a false allegation made without my knowledge or agreement.

North Yorkshire.

5th February 2013.

The obvious question must now be "where is the evidence to substantiate the claim that the three Officers misled their superiors?"

Will Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, be issuing a statement explaining this latest, in a long line of (tax payer funded) debacles, to take place under his watch?

Will the Jersey Law Offices' Department now be investigated.....If not, why not?


  1. So it was the Law Officer's department that made it up?

    They are quite good at that aren't they.

    They also seem to do it quite alarming regularity.

    Thank you VFC.

  2. From this perhaps? As read in the Judgement made by the Privy Council.....
    At 07.44 hrs on 19 July, DCI Minty emailed Mr Power, the Chief Officer of the Jersey police, saying that they had now wired the hire car for tracking and audio "pursuant to the original [Commission Rogatoire] and a police to police request to assist. French Gendarmes have their own judicial authority, and we have the full consent and co-operation of the owners of the car (Alamo rent a car). We took legal advice from the Crown yesterday and we/they are content with this."

  3. "We took legal advice from the Crown yesterday and we/they are content with this."

    Well they were, were they not! Unless the above was a direct response to a clearly worded question from Mr Power, that line would not appear to be misleading.

    As the Judge stated " In my view, however, this is not a deliberate attempt on the part of the
 officers to mislead but more an incomplete picture which is very much influenced by
 the extremely long hours that they were working and the pressures they were under
 throughout this investigation."

  4. Mr. Power, on State Radio, has said "the wisdom of whoever brought this disciplinary/criminal investigation needs to be challenged."

    The former Police Chief conceded he didn't know who brought the disciplinary investigation but after intense questioning in the States Senator Le Marquand left us with the impression that it was Chief Officer Bowron.

    Can a Chief Police Officer bring disciplinary action or does it need to be the DCO, in this case Barry Taylor?

    Chief Officer Bowron refused to comment and still expects to have the trust, and confidence, of the Jersey people.

    Hopefully TJW will have the recording up later.

  5. Taylor told the disciplinary hearing that HM AG was the complainant in the matter. HM AG has denied this publicly and in the States. Le Marquand told the States that it was BOWRON who was the complainant. Taylor is meant to be a deputy chief constable and head of the police professional standards dept. he would be the one to instigate any proceedings.... Eg disciplinary against any member of staff. This is in the police law somewhere apparently. So we have a chief constable complaining about his own staff to his deputy who then lies about the identity of the complainant, and the judge decides there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by any of the accused officers. If someone is compiling a book about all this it is unlikely that any publisher would believe the plot either as fiction or truth!! Oh, on the subject of fiction who is handling the deputy police chief lying on oath now then?? hello hello hello....

  6. In fairness to DCO Taylor we can't rule out that the AG was "less than accurate" with his answer?


  7. Good work Team Voice, well done also to the people who leaked this information they are to be applauded because again the truth is damming of their so called professional conduct, it has completely shown the what a shower they are.

    At the top of the tree is Minister Le Marquand.

    He has normally trouble coming clean, and needs to qualify who initiated this case and why was it laid against the three police men. Who has been lying ?and how much it has cost the tax payers and is the Crown advocate still in a job.

    Finally what is the story about the expert witness who suddenly became invisible along with the fund to finance him ?

    Will Ian Le Marquand come clean ?

    Not looking good is it ?

  8. Well that's as maybe but then le Marquand told the assembly that Bowron was the complainant.... They are all blaming each other and running for cover now that it has blown up in their faces. Bowron declined to comment when asked by radio jersey and that tells a story in itself.

  9. Yes, whoever leaked the Barton written judgment to us should be applauded. It takes a huge amount of courage to be a whistle-blower on this lawless island, we’ve seen what happens to them in the past.

    It also demonstrates the complete lack of trust in the local State Media and the trust we have gained by the increasing number of leaks we are given. Credit to the whistle-blower(s)

  10. Where is Fluffy white helmet Bowron in all this ?

  11. Trying to find some more good news crime statistics that is where gameshow mike is!! oh and his head of corporate communications and deputy have deserted his sinking ship....

  12. Ha! Stinking ship!

  13. Hi VFC.

    At last I've got up the Audio of Mr Graham Power getting interviewed on BBC Radio Jersey, you & your readers can listen HERE


  14. JEP p4 tonight. Deputy Chief Police Officer Barry Taylor will not release the Hampshire report to the JEP because of "continuing legal proceedings involving Mr Warren".

  15. " Where is Fluffy white helmet Bowron in all this ?
    6 February 2013 19:05 "

    Having a coffee in the Market with a lady friend apparently.

    The Beano is not the Rag

  16. well said Mr Power, Proper Chief Officer!!! Bowron remarkably quiet at the moment... if they cannot comment on internal matters I do recall them making a statement at the conclusion of the hearing to the effect that they were pleased at the outcome... ??!! Pleased the complainant Chief BOWRON was proved completely wrong? comment when they want to, not when the going gets tough though!!

  17. Are those whistleblowers who leaked this getting some unwitting help fromDeputy Chief of Police to render the mainstream media irrelevant?

  18. Perhaps Mr Bowron is experiencing what Mr Warcup experienced, ie: when Mr Warcup told Napier he had taken advice from the AG, but the AG of the time did not recollect giving any advice, well how could he, as the infamous interim statement was not shown to anyone (so we were led to believe).

    Same old, same old.

  19. I thought I would post the section 101 from Napier, to show hoe AG's are either forgetful or.....

    Napier Report 101:

    101. As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it. The reason given was the nature of the information that was contained therein. It was, said Mr Ogley, a police document and it was inappropriate that he (or anyone else) should have access to it. Mr Ogley says that he was told both by the Attorney General and Mr Warcup that he should not look at the interim report and neither he nor Mr Lewis did so. I have seen no record of any advice given, but I have not explored all sources. The Attorney General does not recollect giving such advice and believes he never saw the Interim Report documents itself. It must therefore remain uncertain exactly what legal advice (if any) was provided, and, if advice was provided at what stage in the proceedings this took place.

  20. It appears to be a prerequisite for AG's to have a poor memory.

    William Bailhache, while AG, "couldn't remember," if he had played golf with a child abuse suspect before deciding not to prosecute the child abuse suspect who is/was a member of the same Golf Club.

  21. Well- no conflict there then VFC!

    Can't let members of the Royal Jersey Golf Club be party to anything untoward at any cost.

    Perhaps a kick up the rear end would jog his memory somewhat.

  22. Or, perhaps he can't recall if they played golf together just beforehand because they get together so often anyway?

  23. "I have never been asked to assist in any disciplinary enquiry relating to this case. I have not been interviewed by Hampshire Police. I have not made any written statement relating to the disciplinary enquiry. I have not been asked to give evidence at any Disciplinary Tribunal."

    So is the case that Mr Power has had no contact with or from Hampshire Police regarding Warren. May assist with understanding the full context and relevance of his comments.

  24. All you will need to know is contained in THIS POSTING.

  25. Sickening BBC Radio Jersey's top story today was how well good chaps(?) Le Marquand and Bowron have done on bringing down local youth crime....

    Realistically was this not BBC Jersey's ploy, to take the spotlight off the trouble that Le Marquand and Bowron are now in after the interview BBC Jersey gave to Graham Power?!

  26. Sorry to go off topic but has Leah announced when she is coming over?

  27. Anyone else as annoyed about the BBC Jersey Politics Hour? I thought it was meant to be about politics. I've just wasted an hour listening to someone describe how he met his wife, his favourite music, how he learned to speak Jerrais on his mothers knee and that was about it. BBC Jersey must bring back Talkback because for all its baised-ness, it was streaks ahead of this drivvle.

  28. We should be thankful to the discredited and disgraced BBC for helping make Blogs (Jersey's only independent media) the number 1 place on the island for political news/debate.

    Two weeks on the trot, for their "politics hour" programme, the guests have not been politicians but this week really has taken the biscuit in the stakes of drivel.

    This is why Blogs are becoming the most trusted media on the island. BBC is becoming less trusted and less relevant.


    What role did the Jersey Law Office play in stopping certain cases of Child Abuse reaching court.


  30. Have to agree on what you say about Radio Jersey. My Mum who used to have her radio on all the time (extra loud for Talkback and the moan-in) but now she has given up listening to it pretty much. No wonder 103's ratings have gone up again. Has Bridgit also switched off I wonder?

  31. Your link titled 'What role did the Jersey Law Office play in stopping certain cases of Child Abuse reaching court' is an interesting one because are you saying by that title that the Jersey Law Office is 100% guilty of foul play?

  32. Wow, a whole hour? Per week? Aren't we blessed, LOL

  33. Fortunatly it was far less than one hour- judging by the content.
    BBC Jersey's 'Politics Hour'- the political show of the week included;...... music, yes- I think it was 2 'favourite' tracks - plus the usual plugs, jingles, traffic, weather etc. so it comes to much less that an hour of politics. Then sift the chit chat from the poltical discussion- so you're really short changed for your one hour only when it come to politics. No wonder people are switching off- it's never been so poor. For all its faults - one-sided Talkback was far better. For starters, people were allowed to speak on air. I dont believe this is the case any longer.

    If I can be bothered to do the tedious excersise of listening to it again- I'll post a breakdown quanifying times spent talking poltics, on light conversation and non-poltical content, playing music, jingles, etc.

  34. BBC Jersey Radio is a complete turn off these days and getting worse by the day.
    Is there way we can access their plummiting listening figures?
    Anyone know?

  35. Why should Radio Jersey care? They are still getting paid.

    Oh, and I am not defending them by them way.

    The Beano is not the rag

  36. 4F's sake, get on and complain to the BBC. Save all your correspondence and lets publish it on one big anti Jersey media blog. From here we can organise a petition and a mass boycott of TV licenses if they don't get a 'grip'-ton quickly enough. Does anyone know why Roger Barrer left? Since he and Denzil Duddley have gone it's really getting worse by the day (not that they were that good- but at least they were better). And now Gwin Garfield bennet has also gone- in a hurry I hear- and I haven't heard Hamish on for ages- have you? Or the lady from Canada. Perhaps something smells in the building? And didnt one ex-staff person get into a spot of trouble a couple of years back?

  37. The lady from Canada has also left and now works in finance.

    The Beano is not the Rag

  38. Beano.

    I believe "The lady from Canada" went to work for the Canadian Embassy, but stand to be corrected.

    Re; "4F's sake, get on and complain to the BBC."

    I am preparing a complaint against two BBC Jersey staff members and will be publishing everything on the Blog, taking readers through a journey on how it is a waste of time complaining to the BBC and how the BBC issue threats if you "go public" with their "shortcomings."

    The journey, I believe, will demonstrate that the culture which existed in the BBC that allowed people like Savile to abuse for decades is alive and well today, nothing has changed post-savile.

    Watch this space............

  39. Roger B retired and fled the island. Good timing, or just the right time for him? Who knows.


  40. Something has changed, 31 claimants are taking the BBC and Savile's estate to court with more claimants expected by a UK law firm.

    It was on the UK news today. Was this mentioned on the local news as a matter of local interest ?

    Just another small thing, I have not purchased a licence for the last three years in disgust at the dismal reporting by the Jersey BBC.