"Entirely Accurate"

Readers/viewers will have to make up their own mind as to what, or who, is “entirely accurate” with their reporting. To do this we share some e-mail correspondence between Channel Television and Team Voice.


There is an argument to be had that the official – party - line (helped by the “accredited” media) is that Brian Napier QC, “concluded” in his report that there was no plot to oust the former Chief of Police Graham Power, therefore the public will swallow that stuff if it is repeated enough times, which it has been!

But the “facts” are quite different, but when have the “accredited” media allowed “facts” to get in the way of the party line?

We have redacted, or changed the authors’ names in the e-mails. On the part of the Team Voice representative, this is because of the death threats he has received, along with the threats of physical violence against him and the threats to harm his children because of his speaking out against Child Abuse.

In the case of the CTV representative, we have redacted the name, as we would like the issue to remain on a professional rather than personal level and would be reluctant to publish any personal attacks.

As you will note by the e-mails below, we at Team Voice believe that CTV have misled their readers/viewers by their less than factual/accurate reporting. On the other hand CTV believe that their report is “entirely accurate”………………………………what do you think?



to broadcast@channeltv.co.uk
date Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 2:42 PM
subject Misleading.
mailed-by googlemail.com
hide details Oct 9 (6 days ago)

Dear CTV.

We are contacting you in the hope that you will right a wrong.

On Channel Report last night Jess Dunsden said that “the Napier Report has concluded there was no plot to oust him” (Graham Power QPM). When the “fact” is Mr. Brian Napier QC, in his Report said “I have found no evidence of a “conspiracy” to oust Mr. Power for some improper reason".

The key word being “evidence”. There is, we are sure you would agree, a big difference between what was said By Miss Dunsden and the facts.

Furthermore we have noticed on your website you have published this “But the report has concluded there was no plot to oust the police chief” Again this is factually incorrect as explained above.

Either intentionally or otherwise your readers and viewers have been misled. This is evident in some of their comments that you have published, for example one commenter says this “I think the main point here is that there was no conspiracy to have him removed. This has been echoed throughout the Net for nearly two years now and its ended up being proven as a 'porky pie'.

To put this into perspective, if on the PDF Napier Report one types in the search of your reported words “there was no plot to oust” then there are no “hits”, that is to say that it doesn’t exist in that document. On the other hand if one types in the words “have found no evidence of a “conspiracy” to oust” then you are taken directly to paragraph 111 on the final page.

We very much hope that you will right this wrong, possibly by way of an apology, for misleading your viewers (intentionally or otherwise) on Channel Report and indeed as is evident on your website.

There are those of us that believe the reason Mr. Brian Napier QC. Was unable to find any “evidence” of a conspiracy to oust Mr. Power QPM for some improper reason, was because it looks like a part of his original Terms of Reference have disappeared, that being

(d) Review all information relating to the original suspension procedure, including relevant sections of the published Affidavit from the suspended Chief Officer of Police.


Moreover we believe there is a story to be had there, which we will be pursuing ourselves.

In conclusion there is evidence that your viewers/readers have been misled by yourselves mis-reporting the “facts” and we hope that you will apologise for this both on your website and on Channel Report.

Kind Regards.

Team Voice.

from Name Redacted.
to voiceforchildren@googlemail.com

date Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:25 PM

subject Re: Fwd: Misleading.
 
Dear VFC (name changed)

Thank you for your email. Our journalists paraphrase reports and information as part of their job. It is obviously important that this is done in a way that is clear and accurate. I have viewed the report to which you refer both in Channel Report and online and I am satisfied that the information in both stories was entirely accurate.

Should you wish to take your complaint further, you may contact the regulator, Ofcom, at

Ofcom

Riverside House

2a Southwark Bridge Road

London

SE1 9HA

Tel: 0300 123 3333 or 020 7981 3040

Or they may be contacted online through www.ofcom.org.uk

Yours sincerely, (name redacted)

from voiceforchildren


to CTV
date Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:43 PM

subject Re: Fwd: Misleading.

mailed-by googlemail.com

hide details Oct 11 (4 days ago)

Dear CTV (name changed).

Thank you for your response. We thought we had demonstrated adequately that at least one of your readers had been misled by your report on channelonline.

We maintain that "the Napier Report has concluded there was no plot to oust him"
is wholly inaccurate, as Napier "concluded" no such thing. With fear of sounding repetitious the words he (Napier) used were I have found no evidence of a "conspiracy" . therefore he hasn't "concluded" there was no conspiracy, he has "not seen evidence".

It is unfortunate that you are unwilling to have your viewers/readers (for the sake of a couple of words) that much better informed, and appear content with them to be somewhat misled.

Thank you for pointing us towards OFCOM but we have been down that route previously and have come to learn that it is a waste of time.

You might want to ask yourself, are the amount of Jersey Blogs/Bloggers any kind of reflection on the quality of local "accredited" media?

We have come to learn that rather than writing to OFCOM, our complaints/observations are better aired on our Blogs. With that in mind, we shall be sharing this correspondence with our readers/viewers.

Team Voice.

"Procedural Errors"

Secret meetings taking place as early as September 08 discussing the removal of the Chief Police Officer.


Contradictory statements by the then Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis. Letters being “redacted” (doctored?) to suit the agenda of getting rid of the Chief Police Officer. Hand written notes being destroyed. Pressure being put on politicians (by who?) to get rid of the Chief Police Officer, and many more anomalies.

Terry Le Sueur labels this/these as “procedural errors”. Brian Napier QC has seen no evidence of a conspiracy to oust the Chief Police Officer, but, according to Terry Le Sueur Mr. Napier QC doesn’t want to come over and present his Report. Perhaps the above, and below, will go some way to explain why Mr. Napier QC doesn’t want to come over to present his Report and answer any questions?

Is there any wonder that Terry Le Sueur wants to put this to bed?.........Is there any wonder that former CPO Graham Power QPM has no intention of this being put to bed?????????


The Napier report.


Briefing note 2.

This briefing note has been issued by Graham Power QPM, retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. It is intended to assist editors and others in addressing issues arising from the publication of the “Napier Report.”

“Procedural Errors.”

1. Following the publication of the Napier report the Chief Minister has said that the report had revealed a number of “procedural errors” in the handling of the suspension. This term was later repeated in the editorial of a newspaper. The Chief Minister used the phrase several times in the States on 12th October 2010 when answering questions. The tone and context in which the term was used have been seen as “playing down” the significance of the revelations in the report. It may therefore be of value to explore the nature of some of the matters which, in the judgement of the relevant Jersey authorities, can be described as “procedural errors.”

2. Before looking at specific issues it might be useful to make the point that the disciplinary process for the Chief Officer of Police is not a normal personnel process. It is set out in a Code made under the Police Law and is subject to review by the Royal Court. It is a legal process rather than a HR procedure. It is therefore appropriate to assess whether the actions of individuals meet the standard which a statutory process would normally involve.

3. In this context it may be appropriate to begin with the signed statement made to Wiltshire Police by Andrew Lewis, who was the Minister of Home Affairs who initiated the suspension. At the head of the statement the witness is asked to sign a declaration which says “This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything in it which I know to be false and do not believe to be true.”

4. In paragraph three of a statement dated 7th May 2009 Mr Lewis says “Up until I received the letter from David WARCUP, I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” In case there is any doubt on this point, in paragraph eight Mr Lewis describes his earlier meeting with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Homicide Working Group who were advising the investigation. He states that he was told by the group that the investigation “was a ‘shining example’ of how an investigation of this type should be run.” Napier confirms that the letter from David Warcup was received on 11th November 2008, but that planning for the suspension in the form of meetings and exchanges involving Andrew Lewis and others, was taking place in the previous September.

5. The Lewis statement sets out what is effectively the official version of events, namely that there were no concerns until 11th November 2008 when the letter was received from David Warcup. All previous suggestions that secret plans were in place months beforehand were dismissed as “conspiracy theories.” We now know from the information revealed in Napier that the “official version” of events was simply untrue. It is understood that nobody now claims that paragraph three of the written statement made to police by Andrew Lewis is an accurate reflection of the truth. Jerseys Chief Minister is quoted as regarding this as a “procedural error.”

6. There is also the question of the statement made in the States by Andrew Lewis on 2nd December 2008. This again, was a requirement of the Police Law and therefore had a legal status. The statement and the subsequent questions were in camera. I am aware that attempts are currently being made to obtain the release of a transcript of what occurred. For the time being we can only rely on the recollections of those present to provide an account of what was said. However, it is commonly recalled that Mr Lewis said something along the lines of “if you had seen the evidence I have seen then you would have acted in the same way.” We know from Napier that in fact he had seen very little evidence, and in conflict with the advice from the Law Officers, he had not viewed the interim document prepared by an employee of the Metropolitan Police. It is also commonly recalled that he gave the impression that he had formed his concerns on the basis of evidence received on 11th November 2008, when we now know that he had been engaged in discussions for a number of weeks but, in contravention of the requirements of the Disciplinary Code, he had not raised any issues with the Chief Officer. On this matter Napier says that he “does not know” why the Minister did not take an earlier opportunity to resolve issues (paragraph 55.) Until we have more information we cannot be sure whether, and to what extent, the States may have been misled, or indeed, whether other persons present on the day had information contrary to what was being said by the Minister and chose to say nothing. It appears that Jerseys Chief Minister regards such potential issues as “procedural errors.”

7. Other issues relating to the integrity of the process have been raised, either by Napier, or in earlier exchanges. For example the admitted destruction of the original record of the suspension meeting has been a matter which has been in the public domain for some time. The document trail indicates that this destruction happened after written notification had been given that the matter was to be the subject of an application to the Royal Court. In some jurisdictions the destruction of evidence prior to a Court hearing may be regarded as a criminal issue. In Jersey it is a “procedural error.”

8. Unusually, Napier gives details of the legal advice which was given prior to suspension. Paragraph 45 provides details of the advice, and paragraph 69 provides information relating to how that advice was acted upon. The implication of these paragraphs taken together is that action was taken contrary to legal advice. From subsequent public statements it appears that this interpretation is now widely accepted. It should be remembered that the actions of the then Minister, contrary to legal advice, resulted in public expenditure well in excess of a million pounds. In most jurisdictions this would be regarded as a grave matter with possible legal consequences for those involved. In Jersey it is a “procedural error.”

9. The Napier Report makes further revelations regarding the interim document prepared by an employee of the Metropolitan Police and its use in the suspension process. In paragraph 69 Napier makes it clear that the document did not meet the criteria set by the Law Officers for use to support a suspension. Paragraph 70 describes how parts of the document which suited the argument for suspension were selected for inclusion in a letter, and those parts which did not suit the argument, and which specifically ruled out its use on the basis of legal advice, were excluded. Taken together these actions amounted to a significant misrepresentation of the central piece of evidence used in the suspension process. A process which, for reasons given earlier, had the force of law. Furthermore, in paragraph 93, Napier describes how the letter was subsequently changed, by implication, to strengthen its effect. Nobody admits to having made such changes. These are matters which the Chief Minister regards as “procedural errors.”

10. In other sections of Napier he makes it clear that the Disciplinary Code was wrongly applied (paragraph 107.) That the decisions were unfair to the Chief Officer (paragraph 109,) and that alternatives to suspension could and should have been considered (paragraph 108.) Some of these latter actions might just, in fairness, be just capable of being described as “procedural errors.” However, readers of this document may be able to think of other expressions which may more accurately describe some of the actions set out above. In most cases “procedural errors” is not the first phrase which comes to mind.

12th October 2010.

Napier Press Conference and long overdue apology?

Deputy Bob Hill has sent an e-mail to Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur and all States Members requesting a Press Conference be held so Brian Napier QC can present his Report and hopefully answer some of the many questions that arise from it.

We remember only too well the Press Conference and massive media coverage that followed the release of the Wiltshire Report. Where Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian (P9-26) Le Marquand dropped all disciplinary action against Mr. Graham Power QPM (without informing him…………or Wiltshire!). He (ILM) proceeded to give, the media (before States Members) the prosecution case against Graham Power QPM without publishing a single word of Mr. Power’s 75,000 word defence……………And still hasn’t!

Mr. Graham Power QPM and his advisors believe, that if Ian Le Marquand had have given them the opportunity, then they would have “torn apart” the prosecution case. Maybe that’s what ILM believed also, and that’s why it never got to the disciplinary stage? We may never know……..or will we??????????

So we await Chief Minister Le Sueur’s response to the Press Conference, and now we move onto the (long overdue) public apology to Mr. Graham Power QPM.

There is little doubt that he has been treated worse than a criminal. He has, by the Chief Minister, and others, been denied access to evidence that would have strengthened his case. He’s been denied the right to a fair hearing and has been subject to a Kangaroo trial by media. His reputation and his totally unblemished (up until Jersey) career trashed.

So come on Chief Minister, it’s your move, are you finally going to do the right thing, Give us the chance to question Napier, apologise to the former Chief of Police and hold those to account for their mis-handling of his wrongful suspension? (Dismissal by stealth).

E-mail from Deputy Bob Hill to Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur.

Good Afternoon Terry,


Thank you for releasing the Napier Report. Unfortunately due to the timing we did not hold a joint press release or allow for anyone to question Mr Napier on his findings. Perhaps that can be arranged.

I also believe you should make a statement in the States on Tuesday. You commissioned the Report, its findings clearly show that Mr Power was unfairly suspended and is therefore entitled to a public apology. I believe your statement should include the plan of action that you will be taking against those responsible for breaching the requirements of the Police Force (States) ( Jersey) Law 1974 and the Disciplinary Code made under that law. Perhaps you will also wish to consider whether the States were at any time misled in relation to the sequence of events and decision making process which was applied in this case.

Regards

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

Deputy of St Martin.

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.

Napier Report Immenent (5) Double Standards?

With all the rush to criticize Lenny Harper and Graham Power QPM, It would appear that those criticized in the Napier Report will not be subjected to the same rush, treatment,  standards or media attention.


The e-mails below are once more self explanatory and are the next in the chain recently published by Rico SordaTeam Voice will endeavour to keep readers up to date with any developments as they happen, or not, as the case may be.

From: Terry Le Sueur

Sent: 07 October 2010 08:35
To: Bob Hill
Cc: All States Members (including ex officio members)
Subject: RE: Napier Report Response

Dear Bob,


I acknowledge that this process is taking longer than any of us would have liked. However I am determined not fail at the last hurdle by being pushed into a course of action which might prejudice the whole outcome. That is why I do not wish to publish the Report before the resolution of any disciplinary issues, and neither, I am sure, would you.

I will alert you as soon as I am in a position to publish the report.

Terry.

from Bob Hill


to Terry Le Sueur

cc "All States Members (including ex officio members)" ,

Channel 103 ,

Channel TV ,

JEP Editorial ,

JEP Newsdesk ,

BBC Radio Jersey & Spotlight TV ,

"Spotlight (Spotlight)"

date Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM

subject RE: Napier Report Response

mailed-by gov.je

Dear Terry,


Publication of the Napier report and any related disciplinary action.

Thank you for your email below and for addressing the matter so promptly. I think that it is clear that we are now both agreed on the need to publish the report and also to address any disciplinary issues which arise from its contents. Where we appear to differ is on matters of timing and the sequence in which the necessary actions need to be taken.

It might be useful to remind all parties that the report refers to actions which took place in November 2008 and which have already been subject to significant examination and comment, both in the Royal Court, the States, and the Media. I think it improbable that, as Chief Minister, you will find much information in the Napier report that is new. I take it as given that over the previous two years you will have made yourself familiar with the sequence of events which the report now addresses. What is now new is that these events are described in a form which is reader-friendly and which sets out a number of observations and conclusions, none of which will come as a great surprise to those who have been following the case. I am also aware that the final signed-off version of the report has been in your possession since 13th September 2010.

I have of course been in possession of the final version of the report since 17th September on a confidential basis as part of the arrangement which was established prior to Napier being commissioned.

In our recent exchanges you have repeatedly urged me to desist from publishing the report on the basis that you are considering disciplinary action in light of what it reveals and that you do not wish any disciplinary measures to be prejudiced. In this morning’s exchange you ask for further delay on this basis. Our most recent exchanges have been copied to other States Members and there is now significant media interest in the report and your anticipated response. Unsurprisingly, I have been urged by some to publish the report immediately regardless of the consequences. Equally, it has been suggested to me that I am in some way being manoeuvred into a position in which my decision to publish will be used as an excuse to abandon disciplinary action for which you and fellow Ministers have no genuine appetite or inclination. I have had to give some considerable thought to these conflicting pressures and have tried to decide what it best in the public interest.

In considering these matters I have researched my files on the relevant events and it is clear that there are precedents which indicate to me that the prejudicial risk may not be as significant as you suggest.

For example, you will be aware that in August and September 2009 the local media featured a series of interviews with the retiring Senior Investigating Officer, Mick Gradwell, in which he criticised the management of the enquiry prior to his appointment. The interviews received extensive coverage and were widely interpreted as an attack on the conduct of Mr Harper and Mr Power. Lawyers representing Mr Power’s Professional Association wrote to the then Solicitor General (now the Attorney General) protesting at the apparent prejudicial nature of what had been disclosed. The Solicitor General replied in a letter dated 7th September 2009 said “it is not accepted that the statements of Mr Gradwell would be prejudicial to the fairness of any hearing concerning Mr Power.”

You will also recall that on 21st March 2010 the current Minister for Home Affairs spoke on the local BBC “Talkback” programme. During that programme he made extensive reference to the report by Wiltshire Police spoke of alleged criticisms said to have been expressed in that report. About the same time the Minister gave a detailed interview to the JEP relating to the Wiltshire enquiry and the disciplinary proceedings against Mr Power, which were still live at that time. In a leading article the newspapers showed a picture of the cover of the Wiltshire report and commented on its anticipated contents. In subsequent exchanges both yourself and the Minister for Home Affairs denied that any prejudice had occurred.

If the above precedents are followed it would appear that the dangers of prejudice arising from a publication of the Napier report may have been over-stated.

In light of all of the above I have had to decide which course of action on my part would best serve the public interest at this time.

After some thought I have decided to provide you with a further opportunity to complete your consideration of any disciplinary issues and would hope that you can do this before the end of this week. I am however alert to the fact that the States are sitting next Tuesday (12th October 2010) and that questions on the matter are inevitable. I think that it is realistic to say that, whatever the complications; the next States sitting is effectively a deadline for us both.

I hope that this letter is useful in setting out a timetable for events and that any outstanding considerations can be completed within the next few days.

Regards

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

Submitted by Team Voice.

Napier Report Imminent (3)“PUT UP…….OR I WILL!!”



As part of our “Napier Imminent” reports, Team Voice bring you an ultimatum issued by Deputy Bob Hill to the Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur.


The e-mail below was sent to all States Members, “accredited” and “unaccredited” media at 9.43 this morning and is self explanatory……………..Your move Terry, nothing to hide, nothing to fear, justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.

Dear Terry, 


I am most concerned about the delay in circulating the Napier Report. It was my understanding that you were going to make a statement and/or circulate the Report to States Members and the Media at the end of last week to be embargoed until early this week. I am mindful of a court case and that the parties concerned might have an interest in the Napier Report. I making no comment as to its value but I believe that both parties should have sight of the Napier Report before the conclusion of the case and not after. 


I understand that the case resumes on Friday therefore time is running out. 


To ensure that justice is not denied, I ask that by 4pm today you either make a formal statement as to why the Napier Report cannot be released or by that time it is released to all States Members, the Media, Mr Power and Mr Syvret and embargoed until 3pm tomorrow. 


If you decide to do neither I will release the copy you have given me to the above mentioned persons at 430pm today and embargoed until 3pm when I will hold a public press conference to answer any questions that may arise from the Report.  


Regards

Deputy  F. J. (Bob) Hill,

BEM.,Deputy of St Martin

Submitted by Team Voice.

Napier Report Imminent (2)

As part of our “Napier Report Imminent series” Team Voice bring you the second instalment, to help readers/viewers recall just some of the goings on surrounding the very suspicious suspension of our most Senior Police Officer - Graham Power QPM.

The Interview (below) with the Connétable of St Helier Simon Crowcroft took place on the 12th November 2009 which was “officially” one year after the Chief Police Officer’s suspension. Although we all know that the suspension letter(s) were being created at 8.44 am, Saturday, the 8th of November 2008.



Submitted by Team Voice.

Wiltshire Report – value for money? Or a nice little earner?

Below are a set of (redacted) e-mails between Team Voice and the Wiltshire Constabulary. We have excluded a couple of the e-mails as we believe they add nothing to the debate.

Regular readers will be aware that Chief Constable Moore of the Wiltshire Constabulary was charged with investigating former Jersey Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM and his handling of the Haute de la Garenne Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle).

Chief Constable Moore’s investigation, into the investigation, took longer than the investigation. It missed just about every deadline set and went way over budget, indeed Chief Constable Moore’s investigation costs will be the subject of an upcoming Blog!

As is so often the case the Wiltshire Report (Operation Haven) raises more questions than answers. And as is so often the case, the answers are not forthcoming. In these cash strapped times Did the Wiltshire Constabulary seize the opportunity to make themselves a nice little earner with a report they knew was never going to be used as part of a disciplinary process? Has our Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand “prejudiced relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey” by duping Wiltshire into believing their Report was going to be used as part of a disciplinary hearing, only to go on and release parts of it to the “accredited” media in an attempt to discredit former CPO Graham Power QPM? Why won't Cheif Constable Moore either condem or condone the actions of our Home Affairs Minister?

Readers will have to make up their own minds to these questions and the many more that arise from the communications below, the motives of the Wiltshire Constabulary, and those of our Home Affairs Minister.


From: voiceforchildren voiceforchildren

Sent: 04 August 2010 21:13

To: Coppen, Lucy

Subject: Operation Haven.

Dear Chief Constable Moore.

(paragraph redacted)
We are contacting you in the hope that you will help us decifer some of the confusion that surrounds your Report ("Operation Haven.") We are in possession of the "redacted" Operation Haven that was released to our media some weeks ago.

We have a number of questions we hope you will be able to help us with in order that we can publish factual material to our readers, these are.

1). What date was Wiltshire Constabulary (yourself) made aware that all disciplinary proceedings against Graham Power QPM were dropped?

2). How were you made aware the proceedings had been dropped and who made you aware?

3.) What is the stance of Wiltshire (yourself) on knowing all disciplinary proceedings were dropped and your Report (Operation Haven) was subsequently released to all Jersey "accredited" media?

The reason (or part of) we are asking these questions is because on the top of page 2 of 383 of the "redacted" version given to the media it states "highly confidential - personal information". Also on the same page it lays out the obligation to confidentiality which reads, to the lay person, that our Home Affairs Minister might actually have breached this confidentiality clause.

Yours sincerely.
(names redacted)


From Hills, Michael

to voiceforchildren@googlemail.com

date Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:59 PM

subject 1761 Operation Haven.

mailed-by wiltshire.pnn.police.uk

Dear (names redacted)
Further to my previous email below, I can now report that Chief Constable Brian Moore has read your email.

The Chief Constable responds to the points raised in your email:

With reference to your questions 1 and 2 - Chief Constable Moore became aware through media reports and had no prior or separate briefing, albeit he was not expecting any such facility.

With reference to question 3 - the outcome of the investigation and the formal release of the material to the media is a matter for the states of Jersey.

Chief Constable Moore has no further comment to add and thanks your for your enquiry.

Yours Sincerely

Michael Hills

Chief Constable's Office



from voiceforchildren voiceforchildren

to "Hills, Michael"

date Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 8:15 PM

subject Re: 1761 Operation Haven.

mailed-by googlemail.com


Dear Mr. Hills.

Thank you for your reply. We are sure you can appreciate the gravity of what has occurred in respect of former CPO Graham Power QPM and our Government's handling of the case. It's repercussions could be far reaching and affects every person in Jersey.

We only seek to find the truth of how a Report, that was meant for disciplinary purposes, was only ever used to give the media the prosecution case against our most Senior Police Officer.

Could you please answer for us a further few questions in order to help us, and our readers/viewers make some sense of all this?

1. If you were aware, that your investigation into Operation Rectangle was never going to be used for disciplinary purposes, would you have started it in the first place?

2. Were you surprised to learn that all disciplinary proceedings against Graham Power QPM had been dropped?

3. By releasing parts of Operation Haven are we correct in believing that Ian Le Marquand has breached its confidentiality clauses as there never was an “outcome” of any disciplinary hearings? as the disciplinary hearings did not exist.

4. When did you realise (the date) that there was not going to be any disciplinary process?

5. Given the highly politicised nature of these issues what steps if any did you take in an attempt to prevent your investigation being used as a political tool?

We would like to point you to our latest Blog posting that explains why we believe our Home Affairs Minister has either breached the confidentiality agreement or mis-applied it. http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/08/outcome-precedent-has-been-set.html

We look forward to your reply.

Kind Regards Team Voice.



from Hills, Michael

to voiceforchildren voiceforchildren

date Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 5:29 PM

subject 1761 Operation Haven.

mailed-by wiltshire.pnn.police.uk


Dear Team Voice

Chief Constable Brian Moore has read the email that you sent me.

His response to the email is as follows:

'It is inappropriate for me to comment further and I will not be doing so. I appreciate the frustrations expressed but will not be answering further emails or correspondence on this subject'

Regards

Michael Hills

Chief Constable's Office



from voiceforchildren voiceforchildren

to "Hills, Michael"

date Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:11 PM

subject Re: 1761 Operation Haven.

mailed-by googlemail.com


Dear Mr Hills/chief Constable Moore.

We are sorry but we must strongly disagree with Chief Constable Moore's first paragraph (below). We would argue that the Wiltshire Police have spent in excess of £1million of Jersey Tax Payers money and are therefore accountable, in part, to the Jersey Tax Payer.

We believe that the questions we have asked are, not only valid, but they are perfectly reasonable considering the amount of money that was spent on the "Haven" Investigation(s). We would strongly urge you to reconsider your position.

Your silence only creates more questions, such as - why after being given the opportunity do you not support the actions of our Home Affairs Minister, are you trying to distance yourself from them? Chief Constable Moore has repeatedly been given the chance to endorse what has happened and he has repeatedly declined the opportunity.

We humbly ask that Chief Constable Moore re-visits our "reasonable" and "valid" questions set out below and provides us with full and frank answers, or at the very least, a full, frank and legitimate reason why he shouldn't answer them.

Kind Regards.

Team Voice.



from voiceforchildren voiceforchildren

to "Hills, Michael"

date Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:22 PM

subject Re: 1761 Operation Haven.

mailed-by googlemail.com


Dear Mr Hills/Chief Constable Moore.

We understand you might be busy but thought we would just send you a gentle reminder that we, and the Jersey Tax Payer, are still waiting for the answers to our questions.

Hope you are able to get back to us soon.

Kind Regards.
Team Voice.

We have had no further reply and quite honestly don't expect one. Although it is interseting to learn from Chief Constable Moore "I appreciate the frustrations expressed"

Submitted by Team Voice.



Napier Report Imminent?

With the Report of Brian Napier QC, long overdue but expected at any time, Team Voice thought we would refresh our readers/viewers’ memories, over the coming weeks, with some of our publications we believe Mr. Napier QC might, or should be, aware of as part of his enquiry/report.

On February the 23rd 2010 we published THIS Blog posting. In the Blog posting former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM told us, (among many other revelations) “I do not have the technical capability to insert my comments alongside those of Andrew Lewis. It may therefore be necessary for the reader to be in possession of the comments of the former Minister while reading my comments. If this causes difficulty I apologise. It is the best I can do with the resources available.”

In order to assist readers/viewers and indeed, former CPO Power QPM we have decided, to publish a “REDACTED” version of the original post. We have concentrated on this sentence from Graham Power QPM “I do not have the technical capability to insert my comments alongside those of Andrew Lewis."

We hope that this will be helpful to readers and all involved. Although we do strongly suggest reading the original post.

Former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis released his statement in Response to P9/2010 submitted by Deputy Bob Hill, and the sworn AFFIDAVIT of Graham Power QPM.

1. I have sympathy for the concerns that Mr Power has for his family but it must be pointed out that the reason that his daughter became aware of his plight whilst driving to work in Australia was because Mr Power, upon leaving the meeting with me and Mr Ogley at Cyril Le Marquand House, went directly to the BBC radio station to make a statement despite being advised not to do so. This story was immediately syndicated across the world.

1. In this paragraph Mr Lewis attempts to blame me for the publicity regarding the suspension. During the suspension interview he made it clear that it had already been decided that he and the then Chief Minister (who had no lawful role in the matter whatsoever) would shortly be giving a press conference, the arrangements for which had been put in place the previous day, presumably in anticipation of the outcome of the suspension meeting on 12th. It is natural and understandable that in light of this information I should decide to ensure that my side of the story was given comparable coverage.
 
 
 
 

2. Mr Power also suggests that I should have discussed my actions with the previous Minister Senator Wendy Kinnard before carrying them out. In the context of the reasons for his suspension this would have been quite inappropriate as the Minister had handed over responsibility for oversight of the abuse inquiry many months before due a conflict of interest.

2. Mr Lewis claims that any consultation with the previous Minister would have been a conflict of interest. He misses the point. The relevant period of the historic abuse enquiry was undertaken under the political oversight of another person who is not recorded as having expressed any formal concerns. In his actions of 12th　November 2008 Mr Lewis was applying retrospective judgement in respect of actions which occurred prior to him assuming office. He was, in common parlance, moving the goalposts after the event. His failure to consult with the person who was actually in political office at the relevant time is a breach of the basic principles of fairness.
 
 
 

3. The act of suspension was fully in line with the disciplinary code and is designed as a neutral act in order to give the Chief Officer sufficient time to defend his position uncompromised by the constraints of office. The code has a clear process of appeal despite Mr Power’s allegations that such provision does not exist.


 

3. Mr Lewis claims that the process he applied was in accordance with the disciplinary code and he appears to imply that it was in some way fair and “neutral.” This claim is made in spite of the strong criticism of his actions by the Royal Court. He does not address this criticism and appears to prefer to pretend that it does not exist. Contrary to his claim, the disciplinary code provides for no appeal against suspension. There is a right of appeal against the findings of a disciplinary hearing. No such hearing has yet occurred and none has been arranged.


 
 
 
 

 
4. Mr Power also claims that the code was rewritten hours before it was invoked, this is quite misleading. The nature of the code was not rewritten it was simply amended for use under the new ministerial government system, which involved replacing the word committee with that of minister. The same has applied to numerous documents right across the States since the inception of ministerial government

4. Lewis says “Mr Power also claims that the code was rewritten hours before it was invoked, this is quite misleading.” If this is genuinely misleading then I am quite happy to be led towards the truth. If it was re-written at an earlier time, who did this and who asked for it to be done? Could it by any chance be the same as yet unidentified person or persons who decided, apparently without any Ministerial authority, to spend a Saturday morning drafting suspension notices for the Chief Officer of Police on the off-chance that the Minister, who according to his statement to Wiltshire Police, “had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well” might suddenly change his mind? Or was it intended that the Minister would have his mind changed for him? Without a proper enquiry we will never know.
 
 

5. Both Mr Power and Deputy Hill claim that the decision to suspend the Chief of Police was somehow rushed, “done on a whim with little consideration and without seeking advise”. I refute this suggestion most strongly. I had been aware for sometime of concerns about the command and control of the Child Abuse enquiry and in my capacity as Minister had been regularly briefed by the Deputy Chief Officer on the progress of an independent review of the case, being carried out by The Metropolitan Police.

5. In his recent statement Mr Lewis says “I had been aware for some time of concerns about the command and control of the Child Abuse Enquiry.” In his formal statement to Wiltshire Police he states “Until I received the letter from David WARCUP, (on 11th November 2008 – the day before the suspension)　I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” (Paragraph 3.) Is Mr Lewis now admitting that his statement to Wiltshire Police is not true? If it helps, it appears that prior to signing his statement to Wiltshire Police, Mr Lewis signed a declaration which among other things (such as page numbers and the like) states “This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything in it which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.” If the signed statement to Wiltshire Police is not true then it is a serious matter. On the face of it, his recent public statement, and the statement to Wiltshire cannot both be true. This is something which may require a more formal investigation. I will return to this issue later.
 
 

6. Mr Power had also been regularly briefed on the progress of the review in even more detail than I. He was also informed that the Deputy Chief Of Police was planning to brief Ministers on the 11thNovember on the findings of the review that were expected to be shocking. Despite this Mr Power decided to go on holiday. I questioned this with him but he claimed that there was nothing in the Met report to be concerned about. Subsequent revelations that are now well documented were of course quite the opposite.
 

6. Mr Lewis states that I was aware of the planned briefing to Ministers on 11th　November 2008. This is just plain untrue. Pure and simple. This was planned and executed without my knowledge. If he claims that I was aware it might be useful for him to state who told me, and when. He then states “Despite this Mr Power chose to go on holiday.” This is almost a total reversal of the truth. Mr Lewis knows, or at least he should know, that my absence was not a “holiday.” I was attending to family welfare issues in the UK which had by that time been postponed for too long due to work commitments. The evidence indicates that far from my absence being some form of abdication of responsibility on my part, it was seized upon in a series of events which bear all of the characteristics of a planned coup d’ état. The first day of my leave was 7th November 2008. By the following morning persons unknown were preparing suspension notices and, on the evening of my return to the island I was told to attend a meeting the following morning.
 

7. During my final meeting with Mr Power he was not asked to resign he never has been, it was an action that I did not wish to invoke because it was important that a thorough investigation of the allegations made in the Met review was undertaken before any further action was taken in respect of Mr Power’s position. Hence the suspension was an important neutral act. I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Met Report as I am bound by the disciplinary code. However I refute strongly the repeated suggestion by Mr Power that he does not know why he has been suspended, full details of the reasons are contained in the two page letter that was given to him at our meeting with him on the 12th　November 2008.

7. Lewis states that I was not “asked to resign.” All parties agree on at least one thing. That is that at the start of the meeting I was asked to“consider my position.” I leave it to others to decide what is commonly understood to be meant by this statement. Interestingly Mr Lewis states “I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Met Report.” According to his statement to Wiltshire Police he could hardly do so given that he claims “I never saw the Metropolitan Review Document.” (Paragraph 14.) Again, it is hard to reconcile these two statements.
 
 
 
 
 

8. Mr Power also claims that the notes taken at the meeting on the 12thNovember which were later typed from Mr Ogley’s notes some how differed from Mr Power’s recollection of the meeting. The transcripts of the meeting were forwarded to me for my approval. I can categorically state that they were a true and accurate record of the meeting. Mr Power has never corresponded with me to the effect that they did not reflect the meeting.
 

8. In his recent statement Lewis refers to the typed notes which are alleged to be a true record of the disciplinary meeting and says “Mr Power has never corresponded with me to the effect that they did not reflect the meeting.” In a letter addressed to the Minister dated 1st December 2008 I begin “Dear Minister.” I then go on to list a number of issues. In paragraph 5 and 6 I refer to the alleged typed notes of the meeting and list areas of the notes which I consider to be untrue. On 5th December 2008 I received a reply which had been sent on the Ministers behalf. I have copies of both letters. The recent claim by Lewis that　“Mr Power has never corresponded with me to the effect that they (the notes)　did not reflect the meeting” is a further transparent falsehood and can be shown to be so.

9. I am deeply concerned that the subsequent enquiry into this matter conducted by Wiltshire constabulary has taken so long. I was advised that such an investigation would only take until March 2009. The longer such matters are left the more open they are to wild allegations of conspiracy. Such allegations I most strongly refute. The reasons for suspension were compelling; the process was diligent, professional and painstakingly considered in accordance with the disciplinary code. I took full legal and HR advice from highly competent professionals and followed the prescribed procedure of the day.

9. I am grateful for the comments of Andrew Lewis in this paragraph. He confirms that he and others were apparently misled as to the duration of the disciplinary enquiry, stating that he was told that it would be concluded by March 2009. It is now of course almost March 2010 and the matter is still outstanding. He does not say who misled him or speculate as to their motives. He says that he is “deeply concerned” about this issue. His concerns, if authentic, are appreciated. During this time he has of course been getting on with his life. I am the one who has been suspended until such time as there is no possibility of a return to work, and I have therefore effectively been dismissed.
 
 
 
 

10. I had on a number of occasions publicly and privately extolled my respect and admiration for Mr Power as competent manager and Chief Police Officer. Which was why I was deeply shocked by the revelations and allegations presented by other competent independent policing authorities concerning Mr Powers command and control of Jerseys biggest ever criminal investigation.



 

10. In this paragraph Mr Lewis praises my professional virtues. He then says that he was shocked by the revelations presented by “competent independent policing authorities.” He does not say who these authorities were. Whoever they were they could not have been the Metropolitan Police whose report he “never saw.” (Witness statement paragraph 14.)


 
 
 
 
 
 

11. Such allegations must be and I am led to believe have now been thoroughly investigated. I now look forward to the publication of the Wiltshire Constabulary’s report, which I have fully cooperated with. If further enquires are proved necessary I would fully support and cooperate with such a process.


 

11. Mr Lewis states that he will now “look forward to the publication of the Wiltshire Constabulary’s report.” In that respect he may be disappointed, given that Wiltshire have ruled their report to be confidential and stated that their report is exempt from any Freedom of Information laws on a number or grounds, including the claim that any disclosure would be “likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey.”(Confidentiality rules. Wiltshire report.) I will of course abide by the confidentiality rules imposed by Wiltshire. Andrew Lewis apparently intends otherwise. In this paragraph Mr Lewis goes on to state that he would fully co-operate with any further enquiries which may be necessary. I am pleased to hear this in view of what I have to say below with regard to this issue.
 
 
Personal comment.　


Having concluded my comments on the recent release by Andrew Lewis, I now offer the following thoughts:　

Among all of the conflicting accounts and confusion a number of things appear to be evident. Nobody appears to dispute that important evidence, in the form of the original record of the suspension meeting was wilfully destroyed.

There is evidence that suspension documents which bore the date 12th November 2008 and which claimed to be in response to information received the previous day, were, shall we say, deficient in authenticity.

There is an apparent conflict between things said in the legally admissible statement made by Andrew Lewis and the things which he is saying now. There might be an explanation for this, although none is immediately apparent.

In these circumstances I believe that there is a compelling case for a full independent investigation with intrusive legal powers, into the actions of Andrew Lewis and others on and around 12th November 2008 and that given the circumstances, a full criminal investigation, by an independent police force, may be appropriate. This is of course a matter for others to decide. Nevertheless, notwithstanding my effective dismissal from the police service, I remain fully committed to support any enquiry, criminal or otherwise, into the events of November 2008.