Former Police Chief speaks on controversial "Interim" Report. Re-Post.

In conjunction with Rico Sorda's latest POSTING and following the National, and International, Press coverage, concerning the vital work of this, and Rico Sorda's Blog, in exposing the facts behind the (possibly illegal) suspension of Former Jersey Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM we thought this would be an ideal opportunity to remind our regular readers and inform our new readers of some of those "facts."

Since the original posting of the Blog (below) more vital information has come to light, in where it appears (in the Rico Sorda link above) that the former Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis, who originally suspended the (then) Chief Police Officer  Mr. Graham Power QPM, misled the island's Parliament. It all revolves around what the Former Home Affairs Minister DID or DIDN'T see and that is the "Interim MET Report" (or "The Britton Memo")

The Former Home Affairs Minister told the island's Parliament (in a secret session that was never meant to see the light of day) regarding his suspension of the Former Police Chief.

"As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal.”


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.  

But running alongside that statement we have, in the subsequent Napier Review in paragraph 101;

"As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it.”

We now also know, thanks to the tenacity and determination of the Senior Investigating Officer of the original Child Abuse Investigation, (Operation Rectangle) Mr. Lenny Harper to ensure the truth behind the lies are told that, and quoted from OPERATION TUMA "In the Heads of Complaint made by Mr Harper he states that the review criticised a number of areas of the investigation. The review does not criticise the investigation. The Review does not criticise any individual involved in Operation Rectangle."


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.

Original Posting from Feb 2012.
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.

One of the most "popular" questions was "does an official Met Interim Report exist?" We at Team Voice have been of the view, since November 08 that it DOESN'T and Mr. Power appears to be of the same view where he tells us "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 his trademark clinical manner the Former Police Chief chronologically explains certain events that surround his very dubious (possibly illegal) suspension and the Met "Interim" Report as some call it or other descriptions could be "Officer's Report", "memorandum" or "favour to David Warcup."

From Former Jersey Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.)
6. On 10^th 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.)
7. On 11^th 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 11^th 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.
8. On 12^th 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.

Napier - Initial observations from Graham Power QPM.

The long awaited Napier Report has finally been published. Without having read it all I will not offer my conclusions or thoughts on it just yet. But Team Voice, in the coming weeks, will be examining its contents and trying to discover, among other things, how the Terms Of Reference in the final Report managed to change from those it was supposed to begin with and who in the Chief Minister's office, or elsewhere, might have/could have "doctored" them?

As was the case with the Wiltshire Report, unlawfully and unfairly, suspended former CPO Graham Power QPM has not been kept informed, by the Jersey authorities, of the development(s) concerning the Brian Napier QC Report. However he has now been able to obtain a copy, and after an initial reading of it, has sent out, to the "accredited" and "unaccredited" media, his immediate thoughts and observations in a "briefing note".

As former CPO Mr. Power QPM has published this as "Briefing note 1" we must assume there will be more to follow!!!

Although there are many sentences or paragraphs I could highlight from this briefing note here are just two that stand out.

"The case against me was based on the evidence of a number of key witnesses whose credibility is, to say the least, seriously damaged by the revelations in the Napier report."

And to show that he has not lost sight of who the most important people are in all of this, and credit for him for doing so, he says this.

"Finally, I should at least record my hope that the inevitable controversy in high places which will follow the publication of the Napier report does not divert attention from the people who are the most important in the whole affair, namely the survivors and victims of the sexual abuse which took place in institutions managed by the States of Jersey, and who were denied the chance of justice for decades before the commencement of “Operation Rectangle.”


The “Napier Report”


Briefing note 1.

This briefing note has been prepared by Graham Power QPM, retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. It is intended to assist editors in reporting on the “Napier Report” which I understand has just been made available to the public. The observations below are based on an initial quick read of the report. I have not been provided with a copy, or indeed any relevant information, by the Jersey Authorities. In no particular order my first observations are as follows:

1. Para 45. It is unusual for there to be a public release of advice given by the Law Officers, but editors may find the information in this paragraph particularly revealing. Its presentation is also consistent with the style of the report which sometimes does not “flag up” key pieces of information but rather leaves them for the carful reader to discover in the text. It is also sometimes necessary to read together paragraphs which appear in separate parts of the report. Paragraph 45 appears to say that the Law Officers advised that if a report from the Metropolitan Police was to be relied on for the suspension then there must be “no caveats or provisos” in the report. Paragraph 69 makes it clear that the report when received was in fact heavily qualified. Subsequent paragraphs show that the relevant parties pressed ahead regardless. The implication of these paragraphs, taken together, is that actions were taken contrary to legal advice.

2. Paragraphs 55 (particularly the second half) and paragraph 79. These appear to state that a resolve had formed “at the highest level of the administration” to pursue the suspension of the Chief Officer and that this resolve had been formed as early as September 2008, perhaps two months before the “decision” was allegedly taken. Editors may feel that this contradicts what has been for almost two years the “official version” of events, namely that the decision was taken following the receipt of a report on 11th November 2008.

3. Paragraph 80. Following the above the author refers to preparations for suspension which were taking place in October 2008. In Mr Napier’s view there was “little objective basis” for such preparations.

4. Paragraph 73. This paragraph records the denial of Andrew Lewis that he was coerced in taking his decision to suspend by the then Chief Minister, Frank Walker. However, editors may find it helpful to read this paragraph in conjunction with paragraph 22 which records the observation by Lewis that he was “coming under a lot of pressure from his fellow politicians.” Also relevant is paragraph 44 which refers to a meeting on 3rd November 2008 which was to discuss the possibility of suspension. The persons present were Bill Ogley, Ian Crich and Frank Walker. Andrew Lewis, the only person with the power to suspend, was not present. This appears to run contrary to the claims made in paragraph 73.

5. Paragraphs 66 to 68. These paragraphs cover some of the ground which was debated during the Judicial Review hearings and give support to the view that once he had been suspended from duty it was highly improbable that the Chief Officer would return to work. Or to put it plainly, what was being considered was effectively dismissal. It may be useful to read these comments in conjunction with paragraph 82 which records that once Mr Warcup had submitted his letter in support of the suspension process, his position would be untenable should I ever return. Mr Napier does not explore whether the letter was written against a background of any assurances on that issue. It would however seem unlikely that the matter was not discussed or at least considered.

6. Paragraph 97 refers to, but does not entirely resolve, the reference in the suspension documents to a meeting “earlier today” when it is now agreed by all sides that no such meeting happened.

7. Paragraph 98 raises but is not able to resolve the conflict between the different versions of the “interim report.” During the disciplinary enquiry I was provided with a document which was said to be the document provided to Mr Warcup. It is a memorandum written by a civilian employee of the Metropolitan Police which expresses heavily qualified personal views some of which are positive and some of which are critical. It makes no claim to be a corporate document written on behalf of the Metropolitan Police as an organisation. The document shown by others to Mr Napier, although containing the same words, is apparently packaged and presented as an official Metropolitan Police report. At this time I choose not to speculate further on this matter.

8. Paragraph 101. This might usefully be read in conjunction with the above. In it Mr Napier tactfully, but nevertheless plainly enough, challenges the confidentiality of the “interim report.” This is important because it was apparently on grounds of operational confidentiality that both Andrew Lewis and Bill Ogley were denied sight of the report, in apparent conflict with the advice of the Law Officers Department. Editors may also recall that over one year after the suspension the current Minister for Home Affairs also stated that he had not seen the report on similar grounds. I have a copy of the report. There are no operational issues in the report which cannot be managed by simple redaction, and in any event, operational matters were not the issue in question. The relevant part of the report deals with management issues which have no particular sensitivity. Mr Napier appears to be unable to find any serious justification for the full report being withheld from the Minister and nor can I. This difficulty may of course be capable of being explained away. However, in the absence of a credible explanation there will inevitably be speculation. It is probable that this speculation will involve discussion of whether the full report “lives up to” the claims made in the selected summary on the basis of which Andrew Lewis claims to have acted. The implication in the Napier report is that it does not.

9. Other issues in the report are self evident and I will not comment in detail at this time. The report plainly states that a resolve to suspend was formed during a number of secret meetings and exchanges over a period weeks, or even months before the “official” decision was taken. It states that the Disciplinary Code was wrongly applied, it states that there was insufficient evidence to justify suspension and that other solutions could and should have been attempted. It is clear in stating that I was treated unfairly. The report is right to state that I was subject to a number of allegations, but in the event none of these allegations came to anything. There were no disciplinary charges and there was no disciplinary hearing. All disciplinary action was abandoned after a period of over a year and a half and well over one million pounds of expenditure. I have always denied any misconduct or mismanagement whatsoever in relation the Historic Abuse Enquiry and I still do. If I had been given a chance to put my case to a proper independent hearing then I expected to be exonerated. The case against me was based on the evidence of a number of key witnesses whose credibility is, to say the least, seriously damaged by the revelations in the Napier report. I commenced duty as Chief Officer of the Force with an unblemished record. I retired with that record intact.

10. Finally, I should at least record my hope that the inevitable controversy in high places which will follow the publication of the Napier report does not divert attention from the people who are the most important in the whole affair, namely the survivors and victims of the sexual abuse which took place in institutions managed by the States of Jersey, and who were denied the chance of justice for decades before the commencement of “Operation Rectangle.”



Friday 8th October 2010.

Submitted by VFC.

Unhappy Anniversary

On Armistice Day 2008 – 11th November – Mr Graham Power, the Chief of the States of Jersey Police, a very senior, highly qualified and decorated, uniformed officer with 42 years in the service of Her Majesty the Queen was on holiday at home when he received a phone call from the then Deputy Andrew Lewis the Minister for Home Affairs.
The phone call from the very recently appointed Minister was to invite Mr Power to attend a meeting the following day (12th) along with Mr Bill Ogley (CEO of the Council of Ministers),the Head of Human Resources and Police Officer David Warcup.

Warcup had in August 2008, with the authority of Graham Power, commissioned the Metropolitan Police to review “Operation Rectangle” aka the historic abuse inquiry and an interim report by the Met was prepared for the 10th November and handed to Warcup on that day and to the Minister on the 11th.

On the evening of 11th November Police Officers Warcup and Gradwell had briefed the Council of Ministers about the interim report and a proposed Press Conference to be held the following day (12th) which would rubbish much of the “Operation Rectangle” investigations carried out under Deputy Chief Police Officer Lennie Harper’s supervision.

At the brief meeting, (for which Bill Ogley famously destroyed his hand written notes) commencing at 11am on the 12th Minister Lewis produced a letter which quoted from the interim report and advised Mr Power that he was to be immediately suspended from duty claiming that “this is a precautionary suspension only and does not imply that any conclusions have been reached about your alleged role in the management of the historic abuse inquiry at this stage.”

However, as is now known - following Mr Power’s successful Complaints Board Hearing against Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur for the release of information - the decision to suspend Mr Power was clearly made on or before Saturday 8th November because that was when the suspension notice was prepared.

In other words, the DECISION to suspend Mr Power was made BEFORE the Met interim report was published.

Yet, the reasons offered in support of Mr Power’s suspension on the 12th November were wholly related to his alleged failings with regard to the management of “Operation Rectangle”.

This blatant contradiction is just one small piece in this strange jigsaw.

Mr Power has subsequently had judgment against him in the Jersey Royal Court re his Judicial Review of his suspension and he represented himself.
The current Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand now says that he reviews the suspension every month - but it is not clear if the original reasons for the suspension are now valid or if some other complaints have been raised .
It seems that Mr Power does not know why he is suspended and the tax - paying public certainly have no idea.

Everything about this year old case is something of a mystery and lives are being damaged and reputations destroyed.

There is no cause for celebration in this anniversary and we do wonder whether ex Deputy Andrew Lewis will be the one chosen as the sacrificial offering when our government finally seeks to close this particular file.

Below is an interview with Deputy Bob Hill who tries to make some sense of all this.