Voice For Victims

From the Guernsey Evening Press. 

Why Voice For Victims needs your support…

Saturday 18th February 2012, 2:30PM GMT.

GUERNSEY’S Court of Appeal has again reduced the sentences handed out to two local men convicted of paedophile-related offences.

Unlike the earlier – and more significant – cuts the same court applied last summer to former hotel manager Mark Gunter’s jail term, the seven judges have not explained why they believe men who seek out vilely indecent images of children deserve a softer sentence.

They may do so in a written judgement and the panel of seven may also take steps to clarify what sentencing options local courts actually have in the wake of the Gunter case, which dropped a 15-month term to just three.

From yesterday’s outcome, that is likely to be along the lines of saying Guernsey can have a deterrent sentencing policy – as long as it’s not too painful for the perpetrators.

If so, and with respect to the court, that is not good enough.

As an appeal judge, the Bailiff has already drawn attention to the public outcry that greeted Gunter virtually being let off for a crime many here view as being at the top end of the spectrum of awfulness.

Three months for looking at small children being maimed, tortured and abused in the most sexually depraved fashion but mega years for a bit of spliff…

It makes no sense even to those who rightly condemn all forms of drug use.

The Guernsey Court of Appeal will come to what conclusions it will in line with the law.

And it is precisely that which makes it so important for people to support our Voice for Victims campaign. Every signature on the petition is another call to Guernsey lawmakers to take heed of what islanders believe are appropriate sentences for paedophile offences.

This island has the right to set those and the petition provides the opportunity for people to say what penalties they think are right rather than relying on the rather shadowy process at present.

Crown Advocate Gary Perry was absolutely correct when he said that lower sentences strike at the fabric of this society.

His must not, however, remain a lone, if authoritative plea.

Support him, support justice and the abused: sign up for the Voice for Victims.(END)

How fortunate are Guernsey to have a newspaper who campaigns for the victims of Child Abuse rather than the perpetrators of it?

BBC Jersey Impartial, Balanced, Honest?

Just what is BBC Jersey's role in island news gathering and imparting that news to its listeners and viewers, fairly, objectively, honestly and impartialy? Below are a set of e-mails, mostly ignored by managing director, and editor of BBC Jersey, Jon Gripton.

Readers will note that the first e-mail (below) from VFC to Mr. Gripton, sent four months ago, (which was ignored) merely asks the question is the BBC going to add balance to a prosecution case they reported on, now that they are in possession of the defence case? Readers will also note that the last e-mail asks that very same question, which too has been ignored.

Bloggers in Jersey have torn apart the "official line" concerning the Child Abuse Enquiry under the leadership of Gradwell and Warcup. Bloggers have torn apart the "official line" concerning the (possibly illegal) suspension of our most senior Police Officer Graham Power QPM. We have been the first with the breaking news, all with documented evidence, and the silence of the BBC has been deafening.

We (Bloggers) have done all we can to encourage the BBC to adhere to its charter but to very little, or no, avail. We hoped that since the JEP (Jersey's only "news"paper) and ITV's Channel Television have lost just about any credibility they might have enjoyed at one time, we hoped that Mr. Gripton would not want the BBC to been shown in the same light............

Mr. Gripton, in one of his very rare replies tells us "We remain impartial, independent, fair, balanced and honest in all aspects of our work" but continues to ignore the questions and offers no evidence of his claim.

E-MAILS


26/10/2011

Mr.Gripton.

In anticipation of a possible up-coming Blog posting and in order for me to be factually correct, and accurate, could you please clarify a couple of things for me?

Firstly, as we are all aware, Mr. Syvret furnished you with a copy of the Former Jersey Police Chief Graham Power's statement to the Wiltshire Constabulary. Could you please let me know the date this was given to you?

As the BBC extensively covered the Wiltshire Report, by reporting on the Press Conference and States Sitting given by Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand as well as interviewing him and considering the Wiltshire Report is/was the prosecution case against Mr. Power do you not have some kind of an obligation to report on Mr. Power's defence case? If so, could you tell me why you haven't reported any of it?

You will be well aware that there are a growing number of people who believe that the BBC are State Controlled and by not reporting Mr. Power's defence case will add weight to this theory/assumption. If you do intend on reporting on it, could you let me know why it is taking so long? One would imagine you have been handed an "exclusive" by Mr. Syvret and there is always the risk that another "news" outlet could obtain this document and lose the BBC this exclusive. That is of course unless you are confident that none of Jersey's Mainstream Media have, or are looking for, a copy of Mr. Power's statement or will not report on it even if they did have a copy?

Hope you are able to address my concerns/questions and help try and restore a little confidence and trust in the BBC.

VFC.

14/11/2011

Jon.

Although my latest Blog Posting here http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2011/11/state-sponsored-paedophilia.html is an exclusive I have no objections should the BBC wish to report any, or all, of it should you find anything of public interest or "news"worthy in it. There will be no need to credit VFC should the BBC choose to report it as my primary purpose it to protect children and families in, what has become a lawless island.

VFC.

16/11/2011

Jon.

I am saddened and worried that you found nothing newsworthy, nor of public interest in the statement (below) released by the Former Chief of Police. Unfortunately though, Im not at all surprised.

VFC.

16/11/2011

From Jon Gripton.

I acknowledge receipt of your emails.

22/01/2012

Jon.

I would like to bring to your attention the latest Blog posting by Rico Sorda
http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/01/matt-tapp-files-6.html and ask if you believe (as I and others do) that the BBC have an obligation to Report on Mr. Sorda's and Former Police Chief Graham Power's findings?

Do you (BBC) see anything newsworthy or of public interest in the Blog posting?

VFC.

27/01/2012

Jon.

Have any of your "journalists" even thought about contacting Rico Sorda or Graham Power concerning Mr. Sorda's latest Blog Posting? http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/01/matt-tapp-files-8-october-8th-hubris.html

VFC.

09/02/2012

Jon.

I enclose a link to Rico Soda's latest Blog Posting. You will note that he has published the Letter from David Warcup that resulted in the (possibly illegal) suspension of Jersey's most senior police officer. The Warcup letter, in my opinion, proves that there is/was corruption at the highest level in Jersey's administration. Could I ask if the BBC believe there is a "public interest" in broadcasting/reporting this letter and if not why not? http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/02/warcup-letter-operation-end-game.html

VFC.

12/02/2012

Jon.

Along with Graham Power's 62,000 word statement to Wiltshire, David Warcup's letter that got Mr. Power illegally suspended, that you have buried. I would like to offer you the loan of a shovel (yours must be pretty worn out by now) as here is another document you will be able to bury in that ever growing whole. http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/02/metropolitan-interim-police-report.html

Don't you feel any shame, or embarrassment, as a supposed "journalist" when a Blogger is, not only leaked this stuff and you, the "accredited" media are clearly not trusted with it? Do you feel any shame, embarrassment or guilt that a Blogger HAS to shoulder the worry and burden of publishing this material because you bury it? Rico Sorda has to live in the daily fear of having his door kicked in by a 10 strong politicised police force because he's doing your job.

Hang your head in shame Jon and please don't ever insult the profession of journalism by proclaiming to be a journalist, you're nothing of the sort.

VFC.


14/02/2012 From Rico Sorda to Jon Gripton.

Dear Mr Gripton,

Could you please explain to me why  BBC Jersey haven't covered the David Warcup Letter or the Met Interim Report that I have published on my blog. These are probably the most infamous two documents concerning the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation and the illegal suspension of a Chief Of police. We have a breakdown of the rule of Law in Jersey. What is BBC Jersey going to do?

Is it all really about carrot cake and a bit of rugby on a Saturday afternoon? If it is then please just tell me. The safety of children in Jersey depends on the Media to break the stories that the goverment try to hide. This isn't happening. This is what I will be explaining to a Committee of Enquiry. Whay does my BBC remain silent on such grave issues? I need and require an explanaition please. It will help me understand when the Jersey Stazi kick in my front door served with a warrent from the Bailhache burger bar.

Kind Regards

Rico Sorda

14/02/2011 Jon Gripton reply's.

Dear Mr Sorda and VFC.

Thank you for the emails and the familiar insults.

As I have previously communicated, I do not provide a running commentary on our journalism.

I am aware of your blogs.

You will be aware we have reported on some aspects of your material, and will continue to do so.

We remain impartial, independent, fair, balanced and honest in all aspects of our work.

Kind regards

Jon Gripton.

14/02/2011

Jon.

How can you claim to be impartial, independent, fair, balanced and honest when you have had Graham Power's "defence case" for around four months and not reported a single word of it? You broadcast and published sections of the prosecution case, therefore in the interest of just basic fairness you have an obligation to report on the defence case.

The question is a simple one why won't/haven't you added some balance to the prosecution case that you published/broadcast?

VFC.(END)

Readers are encouraged to view the links contained in the e-mails sent to Mr. Gripton. Ask yourselves have you seen, or heard any of them, from the BBC? Then readers might want to ask themselves if they agree with Mr. Gripton when he said "We remain impartial, independent, fair, balanced and honest in all aspects of our work." 


Due to the death threats, threats of physical violence and threats to harm my children because of this Blog's campaign in seeking the truth behind the Jersey Child Abuse and related events, the name "VFC" in the e-mails is a replacement.

How things are done in Jersey.

A letter sent by the Former Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, to the Privileges and Procedures Committee, (PPC) is as relevant today as it was back in January 2010 when we "exclusively" broke the story. It sets out the chain of events leading up to and including the Chief Officers (possibly illegal) suspension.


The official version of events just didn't, and still don't, stack up and on top of this the PPC did not act on the evidence they were given.........And still haven't by claiming it's not in their remit.


This is how Chief Police Officers, who's force investigate, alleged "State Sponsored Paedophilia" are gotten rid of.


To give readers a flavour of how things were done, in the words of the Former Police Chief, we offer these snippets from the letter below.


"It is a matter of public record that the Chief Executive has admitted destroying the original notes of the suspension meeting on 12 November 2008."


"The claim that the decision to suspend was a result of a proper process entered into in consequence of evidence viewed on 11 November 2008 is plainly false."


"It is now disclosed that this letter was created at 0848hrs on Saturday 8 November 2008. This date is three days prior to the receipt of the information which is alleged to have given rise to the suspension, and four days before the disciplinary meeting at which the Minister allegedly “decided” that I was to be suspended from duty."


Letter From Former CPO Graham Power QPM to PPC.


Dear Chairman,
Outcome of my appeal under the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982. Complaint arising from the disclosure of information regarding the events preceding my suspension

This letter arises from the recent disclosure of information regarding the times and dates on which documents relating to my suspension from duty were actually created. You will be aware that this information was first requested by me in November 2008, and that its release has been consistently opposed by the Chief Minister and others. You will also be aware that as a result of a hearing before the Complaints Board under the above law, the information has now been released.

Enclosed with this letter are documents relevant to the complaint which will be set out below. It is believed that the documents are largely self explanatory and that it is not necessary to repeat the content in any detail. The relevant documents are:

A copy of the document bundle setting out details of my appeal to the Complaints Board at a hearing on 16 September 2009, which was conducted in accordance with the law set out in the heading to this letter. My application to the Board related to the refusal of the Chief Minister to disclose details of the times and dates on which certain documents relating to my suspension from duty were actually created.

A copy of the findings of the Board published on 14 October 2009 and presented to the States on 20 October 2009.

A copy of a letter from the Director of Information Services dated 19 October 2009 providing the information requested in the initial application.

It is requested that the Committee study all of the attached documents in conjunction with this letter.

In my application to the Board I summarised what I described as the “Official Version” of the events which led to my suspension. I can find no record of any claim on behalf of the Chief Minister or others that the “Official Version” was not effectively summarised in my application. In brief, the “Official Version” of the sequence of events is that on 10 November 2008 the Deputy Chief Officer, Mr David Warcup, wrote to the Chief Executive, Mr Bill Ogley, expressing concerns regarding aspects of the management of the Historic Abuse Enquiry, (document bundle page 28.) This was received on 11 November 2008 by Mr Ogley who, the same day, wrote to the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis, enclosing a copy of Mr Warcup’s letter. (Statement of W Ogley, document bundle page 30.) In his statement to Wiltshire Police Mr Lewis states “Up until I received the letter from David WARCUP, I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” (Statement of A Lewis, document bundle page 33.) The Minister for Home Affairs and the Chief Executive along with other Ministers and Civil Servants attended a presentation and briefing the same evening, given by Mr Warcup and the then Senior Investigating Officer, Mr Mick Gradwell. The briefing on 11 November 2008 is said to have given details of the content of a press briefing which was to take place the following morning.

Ministers and others have consistently put forward the claim that the decision to initiate the disciplinary process was taken in consequence of information which came to the notice of the Minister for Home Affairs in the form of the correspondence received, and the briefing given, on Tuesday 11 November 2008. I understand from States Members that this line has been repeated during “in camera” discussions of the suspension. I also understand that it is the line taken in response to States members who have made individual enquiries.
Following almost a year of requests and applications, information has now been disclosed in relation to the times and dates when documents relevant to the suspension were created. It is self-evident that the facts now disclosed are incompatible with the “Official Version” of events.
The Disciplinary Process relating to the Chief Officer is set out in Article 9 of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 and in the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of Police, which sets out the process to be applied in the exercise of powers under Article 9. A copy of the relevant Disciplinary Code is at page13 of the document bundle.

It will be noted that no person other than the Minister for Home Affairs has any disciplinary powers in respect of the Chief Officer of Police, and that the disciplinary process can only be initiated by a letter from the Minister to the Chief Executive under paragraph 2.1.1 of the Code. The code does not appear to permit action on any other basis. Suspension powers are set out in paragraph 2.3.3 of the Code and are again, vested entirely in the Minister for Home Affairs.
It might now be appropriate to examine the information which has subsequently been disclosed. In the interests of consistency I have followed the sequence set out in the letter of the Director of Information Services dated 19 October 2009. All of the three letters referred to are dated 12 November 2008 and refer to information received on 11 November 2008. They can be found at page 21 of the document bundle. (It may be noted that the letters make reference to a review by the Metropolitan Police. The comments made in the review were subsequently withdrawn by that force in respect of their use for suspension or disciplinary purposes.) The information which has now been provided in relation to the three letters is as follows:
The letter from then Deputy Andrew Lewis to Mr Ogley initiating disciplinary action under paragraph 2.1.1 of the Disciplinary Code
It is now disclosed that this was created at l400hrs on Tuesday 11 November 2008. This is the day on which it is stated that Mr Ogley received the letter from Mr Warcup, which he forwarded to the Minister for Home Affairs the same day. The time of the letter does however precede the presentation and briefing which took place later that day.

Letter from the Minister for Home Affairs notifying me that the disciplinary process had been commenced
It is now disclosed that this was created at 0844hrs on Saturday 8 November 2008. This is three days before the receipt of the information which is claimed to have led to the decision to commence the disciplinary process, and three days before the creation of the letter from the Minister instructing the Chief Executive to take action under the Code. Former Deputy Andrew Lewis in his statement to the Wiltshire Police investigation claims that he instructed that the letter be drawn up on Wednesday 12 November 2008 and he is supported in this claim by Mr Ogley. (Document bundle pages 32 and 31.) The disclosure reveals that these statements are untrue.
Written notification that I was suspended from duty

It is now disclosed that this letter was created at 0848hrs on Saturday 8 November 2008. This date is three days prior to the receipt of the information which is alleged to have given rise to the suspension, and four days before the disciplinary meeting at which the Minister allegedly “decided” that I was to be suspended from duty. It should also be noted that the suspension letter was created three days prior to the letter which, under paragraph 2.1.1 of the code, is required to commence the disciplinary process.

While there remains uncertainty regarding some of the events surrounding the creation of the documents, it is evident that the “Official Version” of the decision-making process cannot now be sustained. The claim that the decision to suspend was a result of a proper process entered into in consequence of evidence viewed on 11 November 2008 is plainly false. Against this background and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the following questions would appear to fall within the remit of the Committee:

Whether any person in Government has made false and misleading statements to myself or persons enquiring on my behalf, during the suspension and disciplinary process which could have denied me my entitlement to fair treatment under the Disciplinary Code.

Whether the proper preparation of my defence has been wilfully impeded by false information provided from within the Island’s Government.

Whether false and misleading statements have been made to the States and to those States members who have enquired about the integrity of the process.

Whether any person has made a false statement to the disciplinary enquiry.

Whether any person currently in office has been a party to a “cover up” of the facts which have now come to light.

Whether any person who had a duty to ensure that processes conducted under the law and the disciplinary code were carried out in a proper and lawful manner, failed in that duty.

In the light of the disclosures, the real reasons for the suspension must be regarded as uncertain. Clearly this is an unsatisfactory position to be in after a year, and places me at an unfair disadvantage in the preparation of my defence.
The 1974 Police Law and the Disciplinary Code set out arrangements for the Political Oversight of the Chief Officer. There is a widely held view that these arrangements are imperfect. The absence of a Police Authority and of the checks and balances common in other jurisdictions are seen as significant defects. Nevertheless the Law and the Code, taken together, clearly identify the intention of legislators that the power of suspension should be vested entirely with the Minister for Home Affairs, and that this power should only be exercised through due process and the proper consideration of evidence.

If Ministers and others have colluded in a common endeavour to frustrate the intentions of the Law and the Code and to produce a misleading account of events, then this would be a serious matter. In the course of the Complaints Board Hearing, which was held in public, I had an opportunity to respond to the Chief Ministers submissions on the question of public interest. In doing so I said “Mr Chairman, if Ministers, assisted by Civil Servants, have, for whatever motive, put together a false account of events, and have produced paperwork and made statements to sup port that false account, and if others have subsequently become aware of what has been done, and have used their position to cover up the truth and attempt to prevent it from becoming known, then there is certainly an issue of public interest.” In setting out the reasons why I believed that the Board should support disclosure I said “Finally on this issue, but certainly not least, there is the question of the integrity of government, and the degree of trust we can place in the statements made, and assurances given, by those in executive positions.” The Committee will be aware that the Board found in my favour.

The Code of Conduct for Ministers requires them to act in accordance with the relevant laws and procedures and emphasises the importance of providing “accurate and truthful information to the States” (paragraph 3ii.) Additionally Ministers are required by the Code to be “as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take” (paragraph 3) and to “conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the publics trust and confidence in the integrity of the States of Jersey,” (paragraph 8.) The Committee will be aware that the States of Jersey (Powers, Privileges and Immunities) (Scrutiny Panels, PAC and PPC) (Jersey) Regulations 2006, provides the Committee with the relevant powers to investigate any alleged breach of the Code.

It may be that I have provided sufficient information to enable the Committee to consider a way forward on this issue. However, in the hope that it may be helpful, I will offer some personal thoughts and additional information which may assist.
On a straight reading of the available evidence it may occur to many people that the most likely probability is that the former Minister for Home Affairs knowingly provided an account which is distant from the truth. That may be the case, but there are other possibilities. One is that he was not the main author of the process. The known facts allow for an alternative explanation. That is, that the decision to suspend was in fact taken by others for motives of their own, and that the then Minister was brought in at the final stages to provide his signature, and thereby appear to legitimise a process which was conceived by others. Such an interpretation would of course raise the possibility of a “Government within a Government” in which unidentified and unaccountable individuals exercise power outside the parameters of the law. If that was the case then the constitutional implications would be significant. This would be particularly true in the context of a potential impact on the independence of a part of the Criminal Justice System.

In considering these issues the Committee might find it helpful to be alerted to the apparent relationship between the suspension, and what was said to the media and the outside world in general on Wednesday 12 November 2008. During the course of his enquiries on behalf of the Minister, the Chief Constable of Wiltshire has disclosed to me a number of documents. The two most relevant in respect of this issue are the draft media presentation script which was shown to me by Mr Warcup on 5 November 2008, my last working day before a short period of leave, and the script actually used on 12 November 2008. There are significant differences between the two which must have resulted from changes made between 5 and 11 November 2008. For example, the draft script says “It has never been suggested by the States of Jersey Police that Child Murder took place at Haut de Ia Garenne.” The script actually used in the briefings on 11 and 12 November 2008 says “Statements which were issued by the States of Jersey Police suggested that serious criminal offences had been perpetrated against children and also that there was a possibility that children had been murdered, bodies had been disposed of and buried within the home.” Other differences between the scripts are of a similar nature. Against this background it is legitimate to consider another possible explanation for the actual sequence of events. That is, the decision to suspend was taken on or before 8 November 2008 by persons unknown for reasons at present unknown. The media script was then subjected to significant changes (I believe that “sexed up” is a popular term used to describe this type of process) in order to enable the Minister to claim that he took a decision after being shown the content of the presentation on 11 November 2008, and in order to conceal the real reason or purpose behind the action taken. This may or may not be what actually occurred. Until the truth is known we cannot be sure.
Finally, in assessing the integrity of Government actions in this matter the Committee may find it helpful to be reminded of the following:

Although the Royal Court, in considering my application for Judicial Review, was not able to formally pass judgement on the initial suspension, it did say “we feel constrained to voice our serious concern as to the fairness of the procedure apparently adopted by the Previous Minister.” (Published judgement of the Royal Court, paragraph 19.)

It is a matter of public record that the Chief Executive has admitted destroying the original notes of the suspension meeting on 12 November 2008.
Although there may be insufficient information to formulate specific complaints against named individuals at this stage, I hope that the Committee will agree that there is a sufficient basis to provide reason to believe that one or more persons at the heart of Government have used their positions in order to engage in a deliberate abuse of process, and have made false and misleading statements to conceal their actions.

I am aware that complaints which are specific against serving Ministers should be addressed to the Council of Ministers. However, given the difficulty in identifying who is responsible for what, and the possibility that one or more members of the Council of Ministers may or may not be implicated, the Committee may agree that the general complaint against the conduct of Government falls within its remit and merits further enquiry.

Although some of the facts remain in contention it is believed that the following are not in dispute:

The suspension is almost one year old.

The public cost is reported to be in excess of half a million pounds and rising.

No disciplinary charges have been brought.

No hearing has been called.

No conclusion is in sight.

This matter is placed in the hands of the Committee in the belief that its remit covers the circumstances of this complaint and that the Committee will see the need to take further action. However, if the Committee considers that I should progress this matter by some other route then I will of course consider whatever is recommended, in consultation with my professional advisors.
I hope this is sufficient for your purposes at this time, and that you will ask if you need any further information.
Yours sincerely
Graham Power
Cc Dr I Brain. Chairman. Chief Police Officers Staff Association.
The Connétable of St Helier

Former Police Chief speaks on controversial "Interim" Report.

Former Jersey Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, at the request of VFC, has set out his knowledge of the so-called Met "Interim" Report and related matters  It once more lays bare the facts from the perspective of Jersey's former most Senior Police Officer which tells us a different story as to the one we are told by our rulers and the State Media. A PREVIOUS POSTING sparked a lot of interest in this document and many questions were asked and in this posting the Former Chief Officer has set out to answer them.

One of the most "popular" questions was "does an official Met Interim Report exist?" We at Team Voice have been of the view, since November 08 that it DOESN'T and Mr. Power appears to be of the same view where he tells us "It has subsequently become clear that this is the document which some have claimed is the “Interim Report” from the “Metropolitan Police.”   It is patently nothing of the sort."

In his trademark clinical manner the Former Police Chief chronologically explains certain events that surround his very dubious (possibly illegal) suspension and the Met "Interim" Report as some call it or other descriptions could be "Officer's Report", "memorandum" or "favour to David Warcup."

From Former Jersey Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM

1. I have been asked to provide a short summary of the Metropolitan Police Review of the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry, known as “Operation Rectangle.”   As I am now long retired I do not have access to current police files and records relating to this issue.   I have however searched my own files and consulted with others who were involved, and on this basis I have constructed the following narrative which may be of value to interested parties.
2. In early 2008 the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) appointed an independent team of experts to advise and assist Lenny Harper in his role as the Senior Investigating Officer for “Operation Rectangle.”   The team was headed by a former Commander (a rank equivalent to Assistant Chief Constable) in the Metropolitan Police who was then a Deputy Director of the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA.)   He is an internationally recognised expert in the investigation of Serious Crime.
3. As the relationship with the ACPO team developed there was discussion regarding the need for a Review of Operation Rectangle by another Police Force.    Such Reviews are recognised good practice in the investigation of serious offences.   The purpose of a review is to provide a “critical friend” examination of the enquiry and to make recommendations to improve its effectiveness.   The ACPO team advised that the Review should be conducted by the Metropolitan Police and that it should be timed to form an agenda for the new management team who were to take over from Mr Harper.   This recommendation was accepted.
4. In the Summer and Autumn of 2008 the Metropolitan Police team and the new management team for “Operation Rectangle” were on the ground and taking up their responsibilities.   The Met Review team were headed by a Bryan Sweeting who is a Detective Superintendent in the Metropolitan Police.   He is assisted by a Mr Peter Britton who was described as a former Detective Chief Inspector who was then working for the Met as a Civilian Advisor on Major Enquiries.   It may be of note that neither of the Met representatives had ever overseen a major crime enquiry at Chief Officer level, and that neither had significant experience outside of London.   In terms of seniority and experience they were several levels below the ACPO team which had been advising Lenny Harper since early 2008.   That said, the Met team communicated their views as they progressed with their work and all of their comments were acted upon by the Force.
5. In October 2008 the new police management team consisting of David Warcup as Deputy Chief Officer, and Mick Gradwell as Senior Investigating Officer was firmly in place.   Lenny Harper had retired some months previously and all significant recommendations made verbally by the Metropolitan Police team had been implemented.   Their full written report was awaited but it was expected that it would not contain anything which had not already been discussed and acted upon, (which subsequently proved to be the case.)
6. On 10^th November 2008 the Chief Officer was off the Island attending to an urgent family welfare issue in the UK.   The Deputy Chief Officer, David Warcup, wrote a letter to the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers (Bill Ogley.)   He said that he had that day received an “Interim Report” from the Met which documented their “Initial Findings.”   He did not attach a copy of the Met report which he said was “restricted” due to the sensitivity of the information it contained.   (Subsequent readers of the alleged “Interim Report” who have offered comment  have not  been able to identify any content in the report which justifies it being withheld by Mr Warcup, or which could not have been addressed by simple redaction.   Those expressing this view include Brian Napier QC who was commissioned to review the matter and whose report is in the public domain.   Mr Warcup resigned shortly before the publication of the Napier report.)
7. On 11^th November 2008 the letter from David Warcup was considered by the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis.   Mr Lewis was about to leave office.   He had not stood for re-election in the 2008 Jersey elections which were reaching a conclusion around that time.   It was the last, and perhaps only, significant issue he had to deal with during his short political career.   In a subsequent statement to Wiltshire Police, prior to which he signed a legal declaration making the statement admissible as evidence in Court, Lewis claimed that he had no concerns regarding the Historic Abuse Enquiry until he received the letter from Warcup on 11^th November 2008.   The report by Brian Napier QC makes it clear that this part of his statement is untrue.   Napier established that for some months Lewis had been meeting secretly with others, including the Chief Executive Bill Ogley and the then Chief Minister Frank Walker, in an effort to devise a means by which the Chief Officer of the Force could be suspended.   To what extent Lewis was his “own man” in these discussions and to what extent the decisions he subsequently took were genuinely “his” are matters on which it is legitimate to speculate.   That evening Lewis contacted the Chief Officer on his mobile phone in the belief that he was still out of the Island but due to return soon.   He discovered that travel arrangements had changed and that the Chief Officer was at home.   He asked the Chief Officer to attend a meeting in the office of the Chief Executive the following morning.
8. On 12^th November 2008 the Chief Officer attended the arranged meeting with Lewis and Ogley.   The Chief Minister Frank Walker was in the adjacent room.   After a short encounter lasting about 30 minutes the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police was suspended from duty.   Events determined that he never returned to duty.   The brief meeting with Andrew Lewis and Bill Ogley therefore became the final event in a police career spanning over 40 years throughout the British Isles.   The Chief Officer was not shown the letter from Warcup or the alleged interim report from the Met.   He was not told in advance of the purpose of the meeting or given chance to prepare.   He was not offered representation or an opportunity to consult with his staff association.   Ogley made notes of what was said at the meeting but destroyed these after he was given notice that the matter may be referred to the Royal Court.
9. The Jersey Government quickly publicised its actions.   The Chief Officers elderly mother learned of his suspension by means of a news item on her local TV station in Yorkshire.   The Chief Officers daughter learned the news on her car radio in Sydney.   With hindsight the Chief Officer now sees these actions as those of a corrupt and malicious administration resolved to trample over every rule of fairness and justice in an effort to break the spirit and resolve of an individual who is an obstacle to their plans and intentions.   It did not work.   What they in fact achieved was to initiate a long running and divisive controversy which is alive more than three years afterwards, and which in terms of reputational damage and cost exceeds anything which they may have been seeking to avoid.   Their malice is matched only by their stupidity and incompetence.   In the absence of the Chief Officer, David Warcup was appointed “Acting Chief Officer” with the pay and entitlements of the Chief Officer.   He then moved into the Chief Officers Office.
10. In January February and March of 2009 the new Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand was legally responsible for the continuing suspension and was said to be familiarising himself with the case.   A number of prominent local figures and States Members urged him to bring the matter to an end by seeking a swift pragmatic solution which acknowledges that the suspension was an unjustified act and to seek an outcome through consultation.   He rejected all of these approaches.   He conducted two suspension review meetings with the Chief Officer and his professional representative.   The meetings were recorded and the transcripts are in the public domain.   During these meetings the Minister disclosed that the Met would not allow him to see the review report, they will not allow its use for disciplinary purposes, and that its use for suspension purposes has caused a rift between the Met and Jersey.   He nevertheless decided to keep the suspension in place.
11. In July 2009 Wiltshire Police, who have been appointed by the Minister to conduct a disciplinary investigation into the Chief Officer, begin to make arrangements for the Chief Officer to respond to their enquiry.   They deliver statements and other documents to his home address.   The documents fill three large boxes and are carried to the house by two people.   The Chief Officer is given a list of questions to which he is asked to respond.   The questions refer to statements and documents which are in the three boxes.   A deadline is set.   The deadline for reading and digesting the material in all of the boxes and for making a response is, on the face of it, totally impossible and may have been intended to be such.   But is it not.   Plans have been made.   Family members and friends have been assembled to act as administrators, proof readers and editors.   The Chief Officer submits a written response within the deadline.   The response is over 62,000 words (the size of a small novel.)   At various times the Minister has promised to publish this response.   He has never done so.
12. Among the documents in the three boxes are two reports relating to the review by the Metropolitan Police.   One is their full report which bears the crest of the Force on its cover and is clearly a document of which the Metropolitan Police have corporate ownership.   The other is a different type of document.   It is an 18 page document headed “Officers Report” and is a memorandum from Mr Peter Britton who, as described earlier, was a civilian member of the Met Review team.   The report is not bound.   It does not have the force crest on its cover, and it makes no claim to be a report by the “Metropolitan Police.”   The document sets out the emerging thoughts of Mr Britton.   It is heavily qualified.   It is clear from the report that Mr Harper has not been interviewed.   Paragraph 1.1 of the report states “any observations in this report may be subject to amendment.”   It has subsequently become clear that this is the document which some have claimed is the “Interim Report” from the “Metropolitan Police.”   It is patently nothing of the sort.   In the controversy which has followed, the views of Mr Britton have been notably absent.   We do not know what was said to him in order to persuade him to produce his memorandum.   In the light of subsequent events it seems certain that whatever he was told it was not the truth.   It is simply inconceivable that the Metropolitan Police would allow a relatively junior member of staff to associate the Force with a Review document to be used as a pretext for the suspension of the head of a police force.   There is no precedent for such an action, and if one was to be established it would destroy the basis of mutual trust which is vital to the proper review of major enquiries.
13. To complete the story, in 2010, almost two years after my suspension, I retired as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police more than three years after my official retirement date.   No disciplinary charges were ever brought, and the Wiltshire Enquiry, costing variable amounts according to different accounts, but almost certainly well over £1m when suspension costs and other matters are included, was abandoned.
14. It has since been learned from other sources that Mr Harper has complained that he was treated unfairly by the Met in that they allegedly criticised him (and myself) and the Abuse Investigation without proper consultation or a right to respond.   It is understood that the Met may have at some stage denied that there was an “interim report” and then modified that view to say that an interim report was prepared by staff engaged in the review.   The Met have however given specific written assurances that no review report by them makes criticism of either myself or Mr Harper or of Operation Rectangle.   Mr Harper has published these assurances on the internet.
15. I hope that this information is of assistance to those with an interest in these events.   In particular I hope that they will be of value to the most important people in the whole affair, namely the survivors of the long running and systematic abuse of vulnerable children which was conducted in establishments run by the Jersey Government and which went unchallenged for decades.