Graham Power QPM. Dark Secrets of a Trillion Dollar Island:Garenne.

Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM

Further to our PREVIOUS POSTING where we interviewed former Senior Investigating Officer of the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) Lenny Harper. And in continuation of our series of interviews with those who participated in the BBC4 Rogan Productions documentary "Dark Secrets of a Trillion Dollar Island:Garenne" which can be viewed on iplayer HERE.

We were granted an exclusive interview with the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM to ask him about his thoughts on the documentary and related matters. Regular/long time readers will be aware that we at Team Voice have interviewed Mr. Power on a number of occasions following his (possibly illegal) suspension in 2008. We have covered the story of this huge miscarriage of "justice" for much more than a decade and we continue to do so....................

What is quite often overlooked is that, in the early days 2008/9/10/11 former Jersey politician, and 30-year MET Police veteran Bob Hill was the politician keeping Mr. Power's (possibly illegal) suspension on the political agenda. It should also be said that St Helier Constable Simon Crowcroft played a huge part ALSO.

Many people played a big part in keeping Mr. Power's (possibly illegal) suspension on the political agenda and indeed continue to. The problem with attempting to name them all is that one might forget somebody and create a resentment which is why we won't try and list them all here.

Former Deputy Bob Hill

Former Deputy Hill DOES deserve special mention because his pursuit of the truth and justice for Mr. Power and Survivors of Abuse almost certainly cost him his career and contributed to his near fatal stroke. Back in 2015 Bob, and his family, were delivered a severe blow when he was struck down by a stroke which we reported HERE. We followed some of Bob's progress HERE and HERE. We were pleased that the documentary (Dark Secrets of a Trillion Dollar Island:Garenne) used the footage, supplied to it by VFC, of Bob up at Haute de la Garenne showing Gradwell and Warcup to be "less than authentic" when they tried to tell us that the cellars at Haute de la Garenne didn't exist. The film footage of Bob was taken from HERE.

Mr. Power, in the interview below, gives Bob a mention and we thought it was high time we did. Readers can view Bob's Blog HERE.

Mr. Power, just as in the case of Mr. Harper in our PREVIOUS POSTING, first, and foremost, pays tribute to the Survivors of unimaginable abuse that was covered up by the Jersey Establishment for decades. He points out how the State Media got people talking about how much Mr. Harper spent on a prawn cocktail in a London Restaurant and other such mundane diversionary twaddle. It (State Media) took the focus away from the decades of suffering, and covered up Child Abuse, that Lenny Harper (and the Operation Rectangle Team), under the leadership of Graham Power, was trying to investigate. How did that happen and just as importantly "why" did it happen? How and why did the State Media turn a story of a police investigation into decades of covered up Child Abuse into a story of the lead investigator asking for a second helping in a restaurant?

Francis OldhamQC

Further discussed in the interview is the fact that neither Mr. Power, nor anybody else (who wasn't involved in it) knows why he was (possibly illegally) suspended. Fourteen years later and we are all none-the-wiser. We do know that Judge Oldham QC, Chair of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (IJCI), found that Andrew Lewis, who (possibly illegally) suspended Mr. Power, lied to both the States Assembly (the Island's parliament) AND the IJCI with his "reasons" for the (possibly illegal) suspension.

The irony is (discussed in the interview) that Mr. Power was ready to retire from the police force. He was well past his retirement date and had they have asked him to resign then he would have walked away. They chose the route to suspend him or "SCAPEGOAT" him which clearly was not the wisest of moves - or to quote Mr. Power from the interview: "it was a damn stupid decision." he further goes on to remind us: "This is not just a legal, political, academic point. While they were showing no political interest, people were suffering life changing harm. It's about real blood, real pain and real suffering that they allowed to happen"

Plenty more is discussed in the interview which we hope will open the eyes, or educate viewers, of what has been allowed to happen and what is allowed to continue to happen in this island that I was once proud to call my home. 

Bob Hill Big Step(s) Forward.

Former Deputy Bob Hill.

Regular readers/viewers will be aware that in November 2015 former Jersey politician, Human Rights and anti Child Abuse Campaigner, Bob Hill, suffered a near fatal stroke/brain haemorrhage which we reported HERE. The stroke left Bob paralysed on his right hand side and he lost his ability to speak.

Bob spent seven months in hospital/Overdale hospital recuperating and was discharged in June last year (2016). He moved back into his house where his wife Ann had had the house modified/adapted to cater for Bob's new needs. We reported on Bob's release from hospital and return home HERE.

Since his return home Bob has been making slow but significant progress. He is still paralysed down his right hand side and struggles with his speech although there has been significant improvement with his speech.

Last week I watched Bob stand up out of his wheelchair (with his walking aid), do a 360 turn, and sit back down again. This was a huge step forward and very encouraging. Well I suppose, strictly speaking, it was a few steps in a circle but you get what I mean!

Less than a week later I watched Bob (video below) get out of his wheelchair, walk to the front door, get the mail from the letter box, and walk back to sit down. This is very significant progress and lots of steps forward!

A number of our readers/viewers have contacted us both publicly (comments on Blogs) and privately asking how Bob and family are getting on, is Bob getting better? We've even been asked if he is still alive!

After witnessing these massive steps forward today we wanted to share this significant event with our readers and well wishers.

It should be mentioned that Bob is under instruction NOT to attempt walking without a physiotherapist being present. Bob's wife Ann has had to sign a waiver taking responsibility should Bob fall while trying to walk. This explains why Ann is a lot more worried when Bob is on his feet than he is!

Those who know Bob will know that he's never been one for doing what he is told and, as the saying goes; "you can't keep a good man down!"

Bob Hill Discharged from Overdale Hospital.

Bob Hill.

Former Jersey Deputy, Human Rights and Anti Child Abuse Campaigner, Bob Hill was today discharged from Overdale Hospital. (Video below)

Regular readers will know that back in November 2015 Bob suffered a near fatal brain haemorrhage/stroke and was flown to Southhampton where, for a while, it looked touch and go, if he would survive the stroke, or make any kind of recovery. We reported on this HERE.

After 7/8 months of physiotherapy/speech therapy at Overdale Hospital Bob was able to return home today, something he has been very much looking forward to for quite some time now.

Throughout Bob's recuperation he has had solid support from his family, Alison and Catherine (his daughters) have been flying over regularly from the UK to be by his side and play a big part in his recovery. His wife Ann has (despite her own frailty from Multiple Sclerosis)  been a rock worthy of commendation, not least for organising their home conversion to accommodate Bob in his wheelchair so that he was able to return home as quickly as possible. Grandson Matthew has also been by his grandfather/mother's side throughout, whether it be visiting Bob at the hospital, or helping Ann out at their home with practical/manual support.

Watching the strength, and love, of Bob's family during this very difficult time has been both humbling and inspiring, and I am sure that strength and love has played a major part in Bob's recovery. Bob, and Ann, I know, are very proud of their family who are a huge testament to them.

Bob has a long way to go in his recovery as he is still paralysed down his right-hand-side and his speech has not yet come back as well as it could/will do. Bob's own determination has also been inspirational during his recovery and it's that determination, and his family support, that will get him back to his good old self. His "regime" of physio and speech therapy will continue now that he is at home where he will spend the next few days getting into a routine and familiarising himself with the new layout of the house and learning what he can/can't do and what he needs to learn to do in order to enjoy the new house as independently as he can.

The family have asked me to thank everybody for their support whether it be cards, phone-calls, visits, letters and positive social media comments. They have all been an inspiration and encouraging to Bob and the family.

Bob Hill In "Critical Condition."

Below is a Press Release, which confirms the sad news, that former Deputy Bob Hill has suffered a severe brain haemorrhage and is being treated at Southampton Hospital in the UK.

Regular readers will be aware of Bob due to his tireless work on Human Rights Issues, campaigning for Abuse Victims and survivors, and also writes his own excellent BLOG.

We hope readers will show their support for Bob and his family.

“Former St. Martin Deputy and Human Rights Campaigner Bob Hill, suffered a severe brain hemorrhage on Thursday 12th November.

Bob was taken by Ambulance to the Jersey General Hospital where he remained overnight and was air lifted to Southampton on Friday and where he remains today in a critical condition.

Bob’s wife Ann Hill has said that “Bob is as strong willed and determined as anybody she has ever known, and that he will be drawing on every bit of this will and determination to pull through.”  

He is surrounded by family members at the Southampton Hospital where they say his care, and treatment, has been first class.

Bob’s family are naturally distraught and ask that those who pray to please spare a prayer, and for those who don’t, please cross your fingers, or spare a thought for him during this critical period.

The family would like to thank those who have sent their well wishes and their support over the last few days.”(END)

Our thoughts are with Bob and his family at this time and pray that he makes a speedy recovery.

Jersey Child Abuse Rally 7th Anniversary.

As PREVIOUSLY REPORTED today saw the seventh Anniversary of the first Jersey Child Abuse Rally and it was marked in the Royal Square by around 50-60 people which included Victims/Survivors, Politicians, (past and present) whistle blowers and supporters.

Below are a couple of videos with the speeches given by, in part 1, Deputy Montfort Tadier and former Senator Francis Le Gresley. In part 2 former Deputy Bob Hill and former Health Minister Stuart Syvret.

3rd Anniversary of Abuse victim's deportation and STILL no support From Jersey Church/Establishment.

October 11th 2013 marked the third anniversary of the deportation of alleged abuse victim known as "HG." HG had reported (to the Dean of Jersey) that she was abused by a churchwarden. A subsequent Report was published, known as the KORRIS REPORT which was damming against the Dean and saw his commission suspended by Bishop Tim Dakin. Later to be reinstated after he (the Dean) APOLOGISED.

Since the publication of the Korris Report We have seen the Establishment CLOSE RANKS in order to protect.......The victim? No.....The Dean. It looks to have begun with this RECOGNISED FORMULA with the inevitable intrusion of Senator Philip Bailhache writing a letter to The Most Rev and Rt Hon Lord Archbishop of Canterbury in order to support.........The victim?.....No the Dean. Not only did Senator Bailhache support the Dean in this LETTER but he went one step further and labelled the victim as the abuser!

There has, in the opinion of Team Voice, been a relentless attack on HG who was treated appallingly by the Jersey authorities including being deported to England, left penniless and homeless as described by former Deputy Bob Hill (below).

Credit must go to State Radio for covering this story (3rd anniversary of HG's deportation) because as far as we are aware none of the rest of the State Media has bothered. But still one of the most burning questions hasn't been answered; Who from the church in Jersey has openly come out in support of HG? Where has the message of Jesus gone? How is it that an abuse victim can be treated in such an appalling manner and the church remain so silent? How is it that, if we remember Jesus was anti establishment, and crucified for speaking out against the establishment, that the establishment are now protecting/supporting his messenger (the Dean)? When did Jesus become part of the establishment?

The only open support this poor victim (HG) has received is from former DEPUTY BOB HILL , and local Bloggers and commenters to the Blogs.

Although Bob Hill was not (adequately) challenged by State Radio during the interview below neither was Bruce Willing published on RICO SORDA BLOG when he was in the studio the same morning.

Isn't it time the media starting challenging something/someone/anything/somebody? That said, at least the BBC made a lame effort which is more than the rest of the State Media has done. Will they be questioning as to whether Dame Heather Steele's Report will be worth the paper it is written on? Will they be questioning the Dame's apparent conflicts of interests? The Police's conflicts of interest? Who will be interested in the safety and well-being of HG, who until she was allegedly abused in Jersey or reported that she was abused was leading a perfectly happy life. Now she is penniless and homeless after being deported from the island. One wonders if she wished she had stayed quiet about the alleged abuse. Indeed after hearing what has happened to HG who will now speak out against/report abuse?


VFC credit BBC State Radio for this recording.

A Snapshot of Jersey Justice/Administration.

The first segment is of former Health Minister Stuart Syvret which he published on his own Blog HERE

The second is a member of public who contacted Deputy Trevor Pitman and was posted HERE

The third segment is of fellow Blogger, and member of the public, Ian Evans which was posted HERE

The fourth segment is from an ex-pat Brit, member of the public, which is never before seen footage. However we did publish a Blog with another interview which was posted HERE

The fifth segment of former Senior Investigating Officer of the Jersey Child Abuse atrocities, Lenny Harper , and was posted HERE

The sixth segment was an exclusive interview with American Author, and Investigative Journalist, Leah McGrath Goodman, which was posted HERE

The seventh segment is member of public, Team Voice Member, and Blogger Rico Sorda, which he published HERE

The eighth segment is of former Jersey politician, and Human Rights Campaigner Bob Hill, which published HERE

The ninth segment is of Jersey politician, Deputy Mike Higgins and was published HERE

The tenth segment is from a BBC documentary and features Jersey's current, disgraced, Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand which was posted HERE

The eleventh segment was of a member of the public, and small businessman, Sam Cannon, which was posted HERE

The twelfth segment was of the same member of public/businessman and was published HERE

The final segment is of two Jersey sitting politicians, Deputies Trevor, and Shona Pitman which was posted HERE

Senator Philip Bailhache Grouville Parish Hall Meeting.

In our PREVIOUS POSTING we gave our opinion on Senator Philip Bailhache's agenda for the meeting he had called at the Grouville Parish Hall and how we believed it was all part of his bigger plan to break ties with the UK. The meeting was apparently called in order to inform churchgoers what the implications are of the Visitation from Bishop John Gladwin concerning the suspension of Jersey's Dean, his subsequent reinstatement, and related constitutional issues.

What we hadn't foreseen was how this meeting could be used as a platform to discredit the abuse victim (HG) particularly in light of recent events surrounding the Haut de la Garenne atrocities and the Jimmy Savile rein of terror where lessons are supposed to have been learnt.

Former 30 year MET Police veteran, Jersey politician, and Human Rights Campaigner, Bob Hill B.E.M, asked Senator Bailhache, at the meeting, a legitimate question (video below) asking "do you think "HG" (victim) was unfairly treated and will you be putting as much effort into ensuring she gets as well looked after as the Dean?" Senator Bailhache appeared stomped by that question, and it was left to Dr. Ashenden to fend it off the best he could. Dr. Ashenden told the crowd "There wouldn't be anybody in the Island's church who would want to do anything but show support and concern and love and understanding" (for HG). But we ask readers WHO in the island's church has spoken out in support of the victim HG? There has been many letters, from churchgoers, in support of the Dean but thus far, as far as we are aware, not one churchgoer has publicly declared their support for the victim. As we have previously reported we have spoken with a number of churchgoers who DO support HG but are too scared to speak up in fear of repercussions from the Jersey church hierarchy. Indeed we have received, as yet unconfirmed, information that repercussions have already taken place against, at least one individual in the church, who DID NOT support the Dean.  

Bob Hill was not going to accept Dr. Ashenden's intervention and pressed Senator Bailhache for an answer where the Senator, in our opinion, further set about discrediting HG. He also believed the question was "not fair" and by the mumblings from the good Christian crowd, it appears, he was not alone in thinking that.

Senator Bailhache made much of HG's so-called "mental illness", her "committing a criminal offence" and so forth. How she was "extremely sensitively and well treated by the Magistrates court" who bound her over to leave the island for 3 years (deported her) where she was left penniless, and homeless, in mainland England.

A churchgoer who had previously written a letter to Jersey's only "news"paper claiming that HG had made similar abuse allegations in Guernsey asked questions about this at the meeting and what transpired (in the video below) was somewhat ironic considering the questioner, and letter writer, talked of "inaccurate statements in the Korris Report."

All in all a number of us were left with the impression, after the meeting, that the good Christian Folk appeared more interested in protecting the Dean, and discrediting the victim, than they did protecting, or supporting, victims of abuse which does the Jersey church no favours at all.

Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry TOR's

Former Jersey politician and 30 year veteran of the Met Police Bob Hill B.E.M. published a BLOG POSTING with his concerns of some omitted Terms Of Reference (TOR) for the Committee Of Inquiry concerning the decades of Child Abuse that was able to continue in Jersey.

Regular readers/viewers will be aware that former Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur commissioned Ed Marsden, of Verita, to draft suggested TOR's for the Committee of Inquiry which he/they did. In the meantime we had an election which saw Senator Ian Gorst elected as Chief Minister, and for reasons only understood by Senator Gorst, he commissioned Andrew Williamson to review the suggested TOR's of Verita and come up with a revised version.

Subsequently Mr. Williamson produced a 3 page document that was inaccurate, factually incorrect, and offered very little to the debate which was seen by some as a waste of time and taxpayers money.

Chief Minister Gorst then went on to lodge P118/2012 and told us "Verita’s recommendations had been used as the foundation for its TOR's" but as former Deputy Hill pointed out there were at least two TOR's that were omitted by the Chief Minister from the Verita TOR's which are; 

"Determine whether the concerns in 2007 were sufficient to justify the States of Jersey Police setting in train Operation Rectangle."

"Review what actions the government took when concerns came to light in 2008 and what, if any, lessons there are to be learned."

Mr. Hill addresses these omissions on his own BLOG and in the video below. There a few more anomalies that have recently come to light concerning the Chief Ministers suggested TOR's which we will be Blogging about in the coming weeks.

In this in-depth interview with Mr. Hill we discuss, among many other related issues, the, what appears to be, very low profile stance adopted by Chief Police Officer Mike Bowron concerning the alleged abuse committed by Jimmy Savile on the island. Why has there not been a high profile campaign in order to encourage Abuse Victims to come forward, as the MET have adopted with "Operation Yew-tree?" The impression given by Jersey's Deputy Chief Police Officer Barry Taylor,  that the MET police are controlling the States Of Jersey Police is also discussed.

Jersey has a once in a lifetime opportunity, with this Committee of Inquiry into the horrific Child Abuse that was able to be kept under wraps for decades. An ideal opportunity to restore confidence in the Police Force after the damage inflicted on it by Messrs Warcup and Gradwell. An ideal opportunity to show the world at large that the government is NOT willing to leave any stone left unturned to ensure the "failings" of the past can be repeated. An ideal opportunity to show that the culture that has existed up until very recently (and possibly still exists) will no longer be tolerated and that children in Jersey are safe from predatory paedophiles.

The Terms of Reference, submitted by the Council of Ministers/Chief Minister, need to be far reaching and fit for purpose. So far this does not appear to be the case and those of us who want to rid Jersey of its reputation as a paedophile protecting secret jurisdiction ask that the Chief Minister amends his own proposition to include the omitted TOR's of Verita or explain why they have been omitted.

Jersey, and more importantly, the Victims and Survivors of Child Abuse, need to be able to move forward and put this dark period in Jersey's History behind them. Without a full, robust, far reaching and fit for purpose Committee Of Inquiry this will not be possible and the reputation of Jersey, on the world stage, will not recover.

Recorded Live Broadcast with Bob Hill.

Below is the recorded live and interactive interview with former Deputy Bob Hill from last night's Blog TV Broadcast.

Mr. Hill discussed the golden handshake given to former Chief Executive Bill Ogley that exceeded £500,000 and that how the testimony given by former Chief Minister Frank Walker to the Public Accounts Committee (who are investigating this shambles) was not supported with evidence.

We were told that an animal wouldn't be treated the way that the Former Jersey Police Chief, Graham Power QPM, was treated by Jersey government/administration including the dubious roles played by Walker, Ogley and others.

More revelations come to light during this live broadcast that we will be Blogging about in the coming weeks. The revelations were enough to spark outrage from our viewers, so much so, that they were calling for a (peaceful) protest which is something being seriously considered. We are currently verifying these revelations and will keep readers notified of the progress we make.

The audio, for the first four minutes of the recording, is a little sketchy but then sorts itself out.


BOB HILL PART 1- Broadcast your self LIVE


Former Deputy Bob Hill 2- Broadcast your self LIVE

Bob Hill Blog TV Guest.

Former Deputy Bob Hill is to be the live and interactive guest on tonight's Blog TV which will be broadcast from 7pm and will be up to an hour in duration.

Mr. Hill, as a States Member, was responsible for exposing some very uncomfortable home truths concerning the illegal suspension of the Former Police Chief Graham Power QPM, campaigned vigorously to hold those that were guilty of wrong-doing to account. He blew wholes in the "official line" held by the likes of Mick Gradwell, David Warcup and others concerning misinformation they, and the State Media, were peddling in order to put the Child Abuse Investigation to bed. "Talking of putting to bed" here is just one example of the Former Deputy's crucial pieces of work in that AREA.

Tonight, among many other topics, Mr. Hill will be asked about what he now knows of the GoldenHandshake received by Former Chief Executive to the States Bill Ogley, had Mr. Ogley (secretly) previously been disciplined by the then Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur?

We will be asking Mr. Hill if he believes his searching for (and exposing) the truth concerning the Child Abuse atrocities, and related events, cost him his seat in the last elections. Being a thirty year veteran of the Metropolitan Police Force and the recipient of a British Empire Medal for his services to policing he will be asked what his thoughts are on the supposed up-coming "INDEPENDENT" Police Authority that has just been agreed in the States.

The recent settlement of the Hospital Consultant, John Day, which cost the Tax Payer in the region of £3M. Could/should this cost, and tragedy, have been avoided, who is responsible and who is accountable? Was Mr. Day hung out to dry as a scapegoat to protect those with the real responsibility (the untouchables)?

Tonight promises to be a packed show and can be viewed HERE from 7pm.

Serious Complaint (3)

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

                                                                                                                 

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

Dear Colleagues,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

Deputy  F. J. (Bob) Hill, BEM.,

Deputy of St Martin.

Catel Cottage,

Rue du Catel,

Trinity, JE35HA,

22^nd February 2011.

Senator T Le Sueur,

Chief Minister,

Cyril Le Marquand House,

St Helier.

Dear Chief Minister,

 Complaint against Mr John Richardson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I therefore make to following complaint against Mr Richardson.

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

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

Deputy of St Martin.

Appendix 1.

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

Dear Bob,

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

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

I look forward to hearing your comments tomorrow lunchtime.

Terrry.

---

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

Good Morning Terry,

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

Regards

Bob.

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

Dear Bob,

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

Please let me know your view.

Terry. (END)


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