Who is the real Chief Minister (3)

With P166/2010 due to be debated this week we bring you an update on our Chief Minister, Senator Terry Le Sueur’s, response to Deputy Bob Hill’s proposition.


The Foot Stamping Lackey’s of the Motherland (FSLM) are going to have a field day!

Chief Minster Le Sueur’s comments could, and no doubt will be, torn apart, as he once more appears to be ducking and diving the questions in his rabid obsession of protecting The Real Chief Minister and others.

Readers can make up their own minds with the hope that not only will the FSLM be having a field day, but the commenter who goes by the name “has-the-question-been-answered” does also.

 (a) to request the Chief Minister to inform States members in a Report presented to the Assembly, or in a Statement to the Assembly, of the action he has already taken and the action he intends to take in respect of the report dated 10th September 2010 into the suspension of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police prepared for the Chief Minister by Mr. Brian Napier QC (‘the Napier Report’) and, in particular to provide information in respect of the following matters

 (i) what action, if any, the Chief Minister has taken in respect of the destruction by the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers of the original notes he took during the suspension meeting and what guidelines, if any, the Chief Minister has issued regarding the records of suspension meetings in the future;

 (i) the reporting of what takes place at any official meeting needs to be complete and accurate, and policies are already in place to ensure that this occurs. Whilst in some cases it is to be expected that original handwritten notes will be retained even after formal, typed-up versions have been produced and signed off as a true version of events, in other cases such an approach would be unnecessary and excessive. Officers have been advised to continue to use their discretion on these matters, but where there is any doubt, to err on the side of caution.

 (ii) whether he accepts the conclusion set out in paragraphs 45,67, 72 and 107 of the Napier Report that action was taken on a basis which was contrary to the advice of the Law Officers and what action, if any, he has taken or proposes to take in respect of that matter;

 (ii) as I have already indicated in response to questions in the States, I do not believe that the actions taken in respect of the suspension of the former Chief Officer of Police were contrary to legal advice. On the contrary, the action was taken in full awareness of such advice, but also in the light of all other relevant information and considerations. I have had regard to all such advice and other information when undertaking and assessing the disciplinary issues to be addressed as a result of the report.

 (iii) whether he accepts the conclusion set out in paragraphs 49–53, 55, 58–66, 107 and 108 of the Napier Report that the suspension process did not meet the requirements of the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer, issued under Article 9(1) of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 as part of the Chief Officer’s terms and conditions, and what action, if any, he has taken regarding the apparent breach of the process specified in the Code;

 (iii) Paragraphs 107 and 108 summarise the views expressed in earlier paragraphs, and in themselves can be encapsulated in Mr. Napier's own words: "the basis on which he (the former Chief Officer of Police) was suspended on 12 November 2008 was in my view inadequate (my emphasis)". I accept that this is a conclusion which he is entitled to draw from the information provided to him. However in my view it is not the only conclusion which can be drawn. Indeed various other parties both before and after the event have come to the conclusion that suspension was justified, even though the procedure could have been improved upon. I have had to weigh up these differing points of view when determining what action I needed to take, if any, in respect of disciplinary issues arising out of the suspension process.

(iv) why there has been no formal presentation of the report to members and no opportunity to discuss the findings with the author?

 (iv) The author of the report was invited to present his findings to a meeting of States members, but declined to do so. Such a presentation was not part of the terms of reference, nor part of his contractual duties. In the view of the author, the report speaks for itself.

 (v) what training, procedural and other corrective measures, if any, he has taken in order to ensure that personnel issues, and in particular disciplinary issues, are managed appropriately in the future;

 (v) Procedures are regularly reviewed as part of normal activities. I am satisfied that procedures and training for disciplinary matters are regularly reviewed. However, I am concerned to ensure that particular disciplinary codes for individual senior employees are more critically examined, and as an example I am of the opinion that there is room for improvement in the disciplinary code for the Chief Officer of Police.

(vi) whether any disciplinary proceedings have been taken as a result of the findings of the Napier Report and, if so, to update members on the outcome of those proceedings;

(vi) I have already indicated in answers to questions in the States that I was addressing any disciplinary issues arising from the suspension of the former Chief Officer of Police. That process is now complete, and as indicated in my answers in the States, the outcomes remain confidential to the parties concerned.

Part (b) to request the Chief Minister to issue a formal apology to the retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police in relation to the failure of those involved, as identified in the Napier Report, to deal with the Chief Officer’s suspension in accordance with the procedures set out in the Disciplinary Code;

Part (b) In respect of part (b) of the Proposition, I have already been asked in the States at question time whether I would be prepared to issue an apology to the former Chief Officer of Police for the manner of his suspension. I stated then, and, in case any member is in any doubt, I reiterate now, that I do not intend to make any such apology, and that indeed in my view no apology whatsoever in that respect could be justified.

On the contrary, it would perhaps be more appropriate for the former Chief Officer of Police, and also the former Deputy Chief Officer of Police, who were jointly responsible for the mismanagement of the Haut de la Garenne investigation into child abuse, to apologise to the people of Jersey, and in particular those who may have suffered abuse at Haut de la Garenne or elsewhere in Jersey, for the unnecessary suffering and distress which they have caused through the erroneous approach which they adopted as identified in the report of the Wiltshire Police. However, I accept that this will not be forthcoming, and indeed the parties concerned seem to show no remorse for their actions.

We have already expended significant and largely wasteful levels of money and manpower on the Haut de la Garenne saga, and the time has come to declare that 'enough is enough'. We cannot turn back the clock or re-write history, but we can declare a conclusion to this sad and distasteful episode, and I hope that all Members will wish to do just that. (end)

We are able to inform readers that the Former Deputy Chief Police Officer and Senior Investigating Officer Lenny Harper has sent a letter to our only "news" paper, the Jersey Evening Post, addressing, among other things, the comments of Chief Minister Le Sueur regarding an apology, and his "priority suspects" Morag and Anthony Jordan. We shall see if it appears in their paper before publishing it on here.

Submitted by Team Voice...........a trusted media.

Unhappy Anniversary (2)

Exactly one year ago today we published a Blog containing an interview with Deputy Bob Hill concerning the possible illegal suspension of Graham Power QPM which can be viewed here.

One year on we are not that very much the wiser as to what "really" went on. We do know that Senior Civil Servants were having secret un-minuted meetings discussing the suspension weeks, if not months, before the "official version" of events had said.

Today "The Friends of Graham Power" have released a Press Statement to all island "accredited" media and VFC. This might be the only place you will see it in its entirety if past performance of the "accredited" media is anything to go by.

In fairness the Press Release says only little more than what has been said in the past. However one thing it does say, that is not written, is that the former Police Chief  "is not going away". Hamish Marett Crosby, Terry Le Sueur, Ian Le Marquand and others might be getting bored with all the questions still being asked about this possibly illegal suspension. But what must start becoming apparent is that two years down the line there is no letting up of these questions, neither will there be until we start getting some answers. Furthermore if our local "journalists" were asking them then we wouldn't have to.

The key players in this disgraceful act, Andrew Lewis, Bill Ogley, David Warcup and Ian Critch have not been interviewed by ANY of our "accredited" media...........why not? Are they ("accredited" media) really that useless or are they under orders to "put this to bed?".


THE FOLLOWING RELEASE HAS BEEN ISSED BY FRIENDS OF GRAHAM POWER QPM, THE RETIRED CHIEF OFFICER OF THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE, ON THE OCCASION OF THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF HIS SUSPENSION FROM DUTY.

On 12th November 2008 the then Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, Graham Power QPM, was suspended from duty by the Minister for Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis assisted by the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers, Bill Ogley.

The suspension occurred in the midst of a family holiday and was without prior warning, without a hearing and without representation. The Royal Court and more latterly, Brian Napier QC in a report to the Chief Minister, have criticised the manner in which the suspension was carried out and the evidence upon which it was based. At the time of the suspension the then Minister claimed that he was in possession of evidence which indicated that Mr Power had been negligent in his oversight of the Historic Abuse Enquiry. A claim which Mr Power strongly denies.

In spite of a disciplinary enquiry and suspension costing well over a million pounds no disciplinary charges were ever brought and no hearing was called. Mr Power retired in July 2010 having served for over three years past his normal retirement date.

Earlier this year the States agreed to commission a report from Brian Napier QC into the manner of the suspension. In his report Mr Napier is critical of the process used in the suspension and the evidence on which it was based. Mr Napier suggests that the suspension appears to have been carried out contrary to the advice of the Law Officers. He is also critical of the fact that any alleged concerns were not raised with the Chief Officer at an earlier stage, and that there was no preliminary hearing to allow Mr Power to put his case before suspension was considered, in accordance with the requirements of the Disciplinary Code made under the Police Law.



Two years after the suspension the issue remains controversial. A proposition which asks the States to agree that the Chief Minister be required to address the outstanding issues from the Napier report and to seek closure is due to be debated in the States next week.

Mr Power is understood to be living in North Yorkshire, but continues to have a close interest in Jersey issues.

Friday 12th November 2010. (End Press Release).

Submitted by Team Voice, a media that strives to be "Entirely Accurate".

Who is the real Chief Minister (part 2)

In part 2 of this series, part one being HERE we bring you an excerpt from the sworn affidavit of Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. Below that are some questions that arose from it in our States Chamber as recorded on Hansard.

Excerpt from sworn affidavit of Graham Power QPM.

13.  The feeling in the room was tense and there was general talk about the questions asked by the Health Minister and the need for some sort of action in response. I had the feeling that “something was going on” to which I was not a party. After the meeting the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley, asked me to stay behind. Also remaining were the head of States H.R., Ian Crich, the Chief Officer of Health, Mike Pollard and the then Chief Officer of Education, (Tom McKeon who has since retired.) The Chief Executive said that it was anticipated that the Council of Ministers would tomorrow be asked by the then Chief Minister, Senator Frank Walker, to pass a vote of “no confidence” in the Health Minister and that this could result in his removal from office. I was then told of measures that had apparently been put in place to facilitate this. I was told that the islands Child Protection Committee (C.P.C.) was due to meet at the same time as we were meeting and that arrangements had been made for it to pass a vote of “no confidence” in the Minister. It was then suggested that as the heads of the relevant public services we should do something similar and that this would give support to the proposal that the Chief Minister would bring forward the next day.

14. I was shocked by this and initially did not know what to say. I eventually made two points. Firstly I said that the Minister was entitled to ask difficult questions. As I saw things that was his role and it was our role to provide a response, and secondly, even if that was not agreed, what was being proposed was civil servant and police engagement in political activity. I stated clearly that I did not see that as acceptable and that I would have nothing to do with it. At this point the Chief Executive asked me to leave the meeting which I did. I then made contact with a police colleague who had been at the C.PC. and discovered that this colleague had also had left their meeting for similar reasons. Shortly afterwards we both made brief notes in relation to what had happened. This was my first noteworthy experience of the formation of an “inner circle” of politicised senior civil servants loyal to the Chief Minister. The Chief Executive and the head of H.R. subsequently played a significant role in my suspension. (End)

Hansard 19th Jan 2010

6. Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chief Minister regarding the involvement of the C.M.B. in discussions relating to the dismissal of the Minister for Health and Social Services in July 2007:

Did a meeting led by the Chief Executive take place after the C.M.B. (Corporate Management Board) meeting on 25th July 2007 to discuss matters relating to then Minister for Health and Social Services, and if so who was present at the meeting? Was the possible removal from office of the then Minister discussed, and if so would the Chief Minister suspend all those present from their duties pending a full investigation into the matter?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

The Chief Executive has confirmed that there was a meeting of some chief officers following a meeting of the Corporate Management Board on 25th July 2007 to discuss the impact, which the then Minister for Health and Social Services’ criticism of Social Services staff was having on staff morale. Those present at the meeting were the Chief Executive, the Chief Officer of Police, the Director of Human Resources, the Chief Officer of Education, Sport and Culture and the Chief Officer of Health and Social Services. The Chief Police Officer did not attend the entire meeting. The Chief Executive confirmed that at no time was there discussed at this meeting the possible removal of the then Minister from office.

[11:30]

3.   6.1  Deputy T.M. Ptman:

I have a copy of the file note from the Chief of Police on my desk. Could the Chief Minister just clarify, the States C.E.O. (Chief Executive Officer) stands effectively accused by the Island’s most senior police officer with what he concluded was a lead involvement in an attempt to remove a Minister from office regardless of the rights and wrongs of what that Minister did? How can this not result in suspension as a neutral act while this is investigated, particularly given that the C.E.O. was later to play a major part and a contentious part in the suspension of the Chief of Police?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I have to be fully careful here because I am not sure whether this file note may have any relevance to the investigation that is currently underway and I maybe urge caution in answering this but say merely that I believe that any reference to a file note, which may be contained in some blog or other source should be treated with the appropriate level of certainty.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

It is a copy of the file note; it is not in some blog.

The Bailiff:

Sorry, what is your question, Deputy? Deputy what is your question? Deputy, this is question time, were you asking a question? Deputy, I am speaking to you, please stand up when I am speaking to you.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I was not aware you were talking to me, Sir, apologies.

The Bailiff:

Well I am not sure who else I was talking to, but anyway ...

3.6.2 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I was just quite shocked at the dismissive nature that everything comes from a blog; it is a proper file note so perhaps my question would be, would the Chief Minister perhaps now take that more seriously?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I will treat it to the extent that I need to treat it at this stage, with the appropriate level of seriousness, yes.

3.6.3 The Deputy of St. Martin:

We have heard the positions of certain people who were kept behind, will the Minister explain as to why the majority or the whole of the Corporate Management Board were not asked to discuss this particular issue?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I made it clear that the purpose of the meeting was the effect of criticism on staff morale. The meeting was directed at those officers directly concerned with staff morale.

3.6.4 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:

Just following on from Deputy Pitman’s question, first of all has the Chief Minister seen the file note, which the Chief of Police recorded at police headquarters after his meeting with the Chief Management Board? Has he seen this first of all and, secondly, if he has not, if he takes a copy of it will he please act on it? Because it does seem to indicate there was far more to that meeting than meets the eye.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I have not seen the original file note, I have seen a copy of it and as I have previously said it will be treated with the appropriate level of seriousness.

3.6.5 Deputy S. Pitman:

I would like to refer to that file note on 25th July from the former Chief Officer and he does say coming back from that meeting: “I was left with the clear impression that they were attempting to draw me [that was the C.M.B.] in my capacity as the Chief of Police into a Civil Service-led attempt to remove a Minister from office.” I add there that the Chief Executive was also there. Bearing that in mind - and the Chief Executive was also involved in the organisation of Operation Blast and he burnt the notes of the meeting that was held in the Chief Officer’s suspension - surely the Chief Minister should be taking some leadership and looking into these issues of the Chief Executive? He should be taking them very seriously.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The file note in question and contents of it may form a matter of the disciplinary investigation. I do not feel inclined at this stage to make any comment on the content of that file note.

3.6.6 Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:

If, as the Chief Minister alleges, the meeting was held in respect of staff morale, why was the Chief of Police not requested to leave the meeting? Why was it a matter of his own choice to leave the meeting? Secondly, were any notes taken of the meeting?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The decision of the Chief of Police to attend or not attend is a matter for the person concerned and not for me. To the best of my knowledge no notes of the meeting were taken; it was an informal meeting.

3.6.7 The Deputy of St. Mary:

The question will be what is the Chief Minister saying was not discussed? I just want to refer to the file note. The discussion was led by B.O. (Bill Ogley), who we know is the Chief Executive Officer, who disclosed: “The Child Protection Committee will this afternoon be discussing a vote of no confidence in the Minister … Attempts were made by the C.E.O. to draw me into this. I was told that my people were part of the Island’s arrangements and I should show collective support by opposing the criticisms of the Minister.” Could the Chief Minister tell us what was not being discussed?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I do not think I can. I do not believe it is appropriate to speculate on the content of that file note, as I say, while there is still a disciplinary process ongoing.

3.6.8 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I stand to be corrected, but I believe I heard the Chief Minister imply that this could not be looked at because there was an inquiry into the suspension of the Chief Officer. Could he just clarify how the 2 are in any way related? How can that stop him taking action to investigate allegations against another senior civil servant?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

My comment was that the content of the file note might form part of an ongoing disciplinary investigation. (End Hansard)








So here we are left with a few more questions. A couple being are we expected to believe that our most Senior Police Officer is making up a complete pack of lies about the Chief Executive Officer, Bill Ogley, by not only submitting a file note, but is willing to risk possible imprisonment for perjury by swearing an affidavit that he knows to be false?

Now that all disciplinary action against the former Chief Police Officer has been abandoned by Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand, there are no more “investigations” going on, why hasn’t the Chief Minister initiated an investigation into the claims made against Mr. Ogley in the sworn affidavit of Graham Power QPM?

Something very untoward appears to have gone on and it is the “duty” of our supposed Chief Minister to get to the bottom of it, why hasn’t he?......................Who is “the real Chief Minister?”

Submitted by Team Voice.

Who is the real Chief Minister? (PART 1)

In this first of a series asking “who is the real Chief Minister?” I re-produce a quite staggering exchange taken from Hansard in Feb 09. It should be said that the Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM is on record as saying that the typed notes of his suspension are not an entirely accurate reflection of what was said at the suspension meeting.


Terry Le Sueur appears extremely defensive of his Chief Executive Officer Bill Ogley (The Real Chief Minster?) as will become more apparent during this series, and is in no hurry to admit that the only people to have seen the handwritten notes of Bill Ogley, before he (Bill Ogley) destroyed them, were Ogley himself and Andrew Lewis, the then Home Affairs Minister. Graham Power QPM who was being suspended (possibly illegally) was not shown the notes so could not have signed them off.........All perfectly reasonable according to our Chief Minister.

03/02/09
The Deputy Bailiff:

There were 2 questions put to the bottom of the list because Deputy Pitman was detained, so Deputy would you like to put question 4?


4.15 Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Minister for Chief Minister regarding an inquiry into the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police:

I would like to thank the House for its understanding in moving the questions and also thank my wife for carrying me up Bonne Nuit Hill. In the light of allegations of evidence relating to the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police being destroyed by the States Chief Executive Officer, will the Chief Minister immediately implement a full independent inquiry and suspend the Chief Executive Officer until such an inquiry is completed?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

The short answer is no. I do not consider it necessary to implement a full independent inquiry into the issue referred to in the question. The handwritten notes taken at the meeting in question were subsequently used to produce a typed document which was then countersigned by the former Home Affairs Minister and distributed to all 3 persons who had been present at the meeting. The handwritten notes were subsequently destroyed. This is perfectly normal procedure in relation to employee disciplinary or grievance hearings in the public sector.

4.15.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

With due respect, in making such replies and in issuing statements about mischief-making, does the Chief Minister not accept that he really misjudges the seriousness with which the public view this and, in fact, it will just be viewed as a smokescreen for him perhaps not possessing the political testicular fortitude for suspending the C.O. (Chief Officer).

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

No, I do not believe I do misjudge the public and I believe that if the public were aware of the facts, as I have just outlined them, they would not be at all concerned.

4.15.2 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I heard the Chief Minister say that the typed document was signed by obviously the Chief Officer and also by the Minister and passed on to the 3 people involved. But was the draft signed by the third person involved? In other words, did the third person agree with what had been typed?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

In view of the fact that the matter is still under consideration from a disciplinary point of view, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the reaction of the suspended Chief Officer.

The Deputy of St. Martin:

I would have thought it was quite a straightforward question. Was it signed or was it not?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I have nothing to add to my previous answer.

4.15.3 Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:

The Chief Minister said that it is perfectly normal procedure when conducting disciplinary hearings to circulate notes from typewritten drafts from handwritten drafts and then to destroy the notes before the typewritten minutes are agreed; does he stand by that statement? Is he not aware that the normal procedure is to check that all parties have agreed that the minutes represent a fair comment?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I rephrase that that is the procedure which is currently adopted throughout the States in regard to disciplinary proceedings. I am happy to review those and agree that those procedures need to be reviewed on a regular basis. If they require updating they will be but certainly what was carried out here is in compliance with the normal procedures currently in force.

4.15.4 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Could the Chief Minister circulate to Members the procedures that are written that outline this practice please so that we can establish for our own minds what has been written down and what is the practice and what is the policy? Can he also let us know at what time that was agreed, how was it agreed, where it was agreed, who drew them up, so we can see where the policy exists in writing that this is the common practice?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Practice evolves over a period of time. I shall endeavour to find out what is available in written form to submit to Members. I cannot guarantee at this stage how comprehensive that would be.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Are there no guidelines?

4.15.5 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can I ask the Chief Minister, when the former Minister for Home Affairs signed the written document that he referred to, did he also have sight at the same time the handwritten notes? Was he comparing the handwritten notes with what was on the typewritten notes?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I cannot speak for the former Minister but I believe that was the case.

4.15.6 The Deputy of St. John:

I refer back to a yes or no answer; did the 3 people concerned all sign the document?

The Deputy Bailiff:

That has already been asked, Deputy.

The Deputy of St. John:

It was not answered, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff:

It is up to the Chief Minister whether he wants to change his answer.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The document was signed by the Chief Executive and the Minister for Home Affairs, it was not signed and it would not be expected to be signed by the suspended Chief Officer.

4.15.7 Senator S. Syvret:

In a matter of such gravity as the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, really does the Chief Minister not find it extraordinary that such a piece of evidence as the contemporaneous handwritten notes was destroyed, especially as I have learnt in the course of the last 2 years that one of the very first things the police want and require on an evidential basis are the handwritten notes of any meetings or discussions that have taken place? [Approbation]

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I do not find it extraordinary at all. I agree a full record of what happened at the meeting was required and is required and is available in identical form and, you would think, far more of use than some illegible ... I must not cast doubt on people’s handwriting, but some more illegible handwritten form. (End Hansard)

Terry, surely this sort of stuff has to emabarrass you? How can the public have confidence in you, or the Civil Service, after reading this?.....................................with plenty more similar stuff to come.

Napier, Warcup, the MET “REVIEW”and others.

Brian Napier QC has handed over the final version of his Report. I say “final” version because we are led to believe that two others were drafted and submitted before we got the final version. As far as we are aware the only other people to see the first two drafts are the Deputy CEO John Richardson and Brian Napier QC himself.

For those that have been following this debacle, you will be aware that Deputy Bob Hill was promised oversight, by Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur, of the Napier Investigation, including the Reports. Deputy Hill never got to see the first two drafts, and has, we are led to believe, been REFUSED sight of them. Neither he, (Deputy Hill) nor the States Assembly were told that part (d) of the Terms of Reference was dropped. As far as we are able to ascertain the decision to drop this crucial paragraph was made by John Richardson and Brian Napier! Could this be why Mr. Napier was unable to find any “evidence” of a conspiracy to oust the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM from his post? Part (d) 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

Notwithstanding that very strange anomaly, there is another, well - the Report is full of them - but let’s just have a look at the MET Report. It is mentioned fairly extensively in the Napier Report, in how it should not have been used as part of the suspension of Mr. Graham Power QPM. The reasons given for this is because it was “heavily qualified” had “caveats” “provisos” was incomplete and such like.

Unless we've missed something, it doesn’t appear to mention, in the Napier Report, that the MET Report should never have been used in a disciplinary case because, although it has become known as a Report, it is in actual fact a “Review”. This is something that our “accredited” media don’t seem to dwell on either. An extremely dangerous and far reaching precedent might now have now been set.

Enquiries we have made with senior police sources indicate that all serious crime enquiries get a review (provided that they have been running for long enough) These reviews involve specialists from another force going over the ground of the enquiry and making recommendations to the investigating team. It is a form of "critical friend" review by fresh eyes and minds where the reviewers are encouraged to find fault and look for opportunities for improvement. There is no precedent that we are aware of for such a review being used for a disciplinary purpose. If that precedent were ever accepted then who would ever again commission a review?? Readers of the Voice will be aware from the suspension review transcripts that ILM said that the use of the review (report) for the purpose of disciplinary action caused a breakdown of relationships with the Met. The relationship with the Met is important to the force and to the Island. In an extreme emergency it could be crucial to public safety. Nevertheless it appears that those involved in the suspension were willing to jeopardize that relationship to achieve their objective of pinning “something” or even ”anything” on Graham Power QPM.

This is what Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, had to say about this at one of his suspension reviews with, at the time, suspended Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM and his representative Dr. Timothy Brain.

“One of the difficulties is to try and persuade the Metropolitan Police to produce a redacted, reduced version of the report which would only effectively make reference to the matters which related to management structures and so on, and not to individual cases. But I am not sure whether they are going to agree to do that because there is a second difficulty which I will be absolutely open with you about, which is this, and it is a relationship issue in relation to the States of Jersey Police and the Metropolitan Police who are not entirely happy that a report was produced for a particular purpose and is now going to be involved for a different purpose.”

The other person who would/should have been aware that the MET "Review" should NEVER have been used for disciplinary purposes was Acting Chief Officer David Warcup. Since Napier didn’t appear to mention that the MET “Report” was a “review” and by its very nature is designed to be critical, then Napier believed that the professional integrity of Mr. Warcup should not be in question. Well, we’ll have to make our own minds up about that.

It will be interesting to learn how the new Police Chief feels that any review he might commission for any of his investigations can be used against him? As well as any prosecution case against him might be put into the public domain after being denied the right to a “fair” Hearing. His contract will be worth a look at to see how it differs from his predecessor’s, and if it doesn’t differ “The Jersey way” will be something he never forgets!

Ian Le Marquand, Terry Le Sueur and others, in our opinion, have shafted the former Police Chief internationally, and will forever be remembered for it.

Submitted by Team Voice............... A media you can trust