Thursday, 15 July 2010
Here is another “Briefing note” sent from CPO Graham Power to ALL island Media. I’ve not seen it crop anywhere on the “accredited” media and re-produce it below.
It sets out some clear “facts” how once more the Chief Police Officer is denied a defence to Ian “Skippy” Le Marquand’s Kangaroo Trial by media prosecution.
It might be worth noting, that CPO Power has given a THIRTEEN THOUSAND word reponse to the Operation Blast "allegations".
Briefing note 3.
This briefing note has been issued by Graham Power in order to assist editors in reporting issues arising from the Decision by the Minister for Home Affairs to abandon all disciplinary proceedings.
Why any statement made by the Minister relating to the “Haven 2” Enquiry (Operation Blast) may be particularly unfair.
While I would argue that unfairness is not an unfamiliar feature of the behaviour of the Minister for Home Affairs in his dealings with my case, his proposed action, in providing briefings on the matter which he calls “Operation Blast” is particularly excessive. This is because the rules governing the management of sensitive intelligence appear to prohibit the putting forward of any defence to allegations which the Minister may make.
The Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand, announced the investigation known as “Haven 2” in June 2009 and in September of the year Mr Brian Moore, Chief Constable of Wiltshire, was appointed Investigating Officer. After completing his preliminary enquiries Mr Moore asked me to provide a written statement and I agreed to do so. I prepared a document of over 13,000 words which was completed on 10th March 2010. In preparing my statement I made reference to confidential intelligence material which had come into my possession in a professional capacity.
I offered the opinion that in view of its content the statement ought to be classified as “Secret.” Mr Moore subsequently offered the view that, after consideration and advice this classification could be downgraded to “Restricted.” What is important about this exchange is that nobody doubts that my statement, which sets out the core of the defence case, should only be seen by those with a legitimate professional interest. It most certainly cannot be part of any public briefing. I am aware that at some stage Wiltshire were seeking advice on what if anything in the statement could be revealed to the Minister. In light of this Editors may see value in asking the Minister whether he has seen a copy of the defence statement and whether he has taken it into account in anything he might say in relation to the enquiry.
It does however appear probable that there is to be a presentation on the “prosecution case” in circumstances which do not allow for any part of the defence case to be revealed at all.
This may well add to the frustration and disagreement which is likely to follow the forthcoming exchanges in this case. People were looking for a “verdict” or at least a clear answer to a long-running and contentious issue. They are likely to get neither. They will get a briefing on the “prosecution case.” They will get snatches of the “defence case.” There will be no hearing, there will be no cross-examination of witnesses, there will be no appeal. In spite of an enquiry lasting 21 months and costing well over a million pounds there will be no definite “answer.”
It is my contention that in these circumstances it is right that we should fall back on the basic principle of justice which decrees that he who is not proven guilty is presumed to be innocent. I have not been proved guilty. Therefore I am presumed innocent. That is as close to a clear result as any of us are likely to get.
It is hoped that this note is helpful. Other notes will be made available as issues are identified.
Submitted by VFC.