Wednesday, 1 February 2012

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 10th 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 11th 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 11th 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 12th 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.
























47 comments:

  1. Thanks for this promised post VFC.

    Well that has clarified matters.
    We now have the timeline from Mr.Powers view,which helps clear up any confusion.
    As for the Interim report,we now have it confirmed that there really was one,but most importantly that it did not contain criticism sufficient to suspend Mr. Power.
    We and HE now need to know on what alleged grounds he was suspended.

    Has it ever been stated by anyone on the prosecution side that the interim report WAS the basis for suspension.I am certain that it has but would like to know where to see confirmation please.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I disagree with anonymous who says: `` As for the Interim report,we now have it confirmed that there really was one''.

    I'm sorry, i beg to differ on this point! Re-read GPs statement, he says:

    ``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''.

    This is not the same as the Met saying that there was an `official' Metropolitan Police Interim review/report'! Notice the way that the issue has been cleverly side stepped. Quote ``an interim report was prepared by staff engaged in the review''.

    No where have the Met confirmed that they the `Met' issued an `official' document called the Metropolitan police interim review/report'.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Watch your back Mr Bowron or have you been paid enough to keep shtuuum!!
    Other UK areas will be watching this with interest in case they want rid of a Chief Of Police as they can see that for the right amount the police will drop each other in the s..t quite willingly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ian Le Marquand was very keen to quote the Napier Report yesterday, and here too the Former Chief Police Officer quotes it.

    "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 11th 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. "

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you add in Warcup going behind his Chiefs back on October 8th 2008 you start to see the picture forming. Warcup gets Tapp to Ogley on October 8th the compramise of Graham Power is starting right there. This didn't come out yestreday. Why wetre they going behind the back of the Chief of police?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "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"

    Haaaaaaaaaang on a minute here.

    Graham Power is saying that he was at home on the evening of the 11th november 2008 when Lewis thought he would still be out of the island.

    lol

    I bet a million dollars that Lewis didn't tell him that they were all off to Cyril Le marquand house that night. I bet he had a shock when he found out that Graham Power was on dry land in Jersey instead of being out in the channel.

    It gets worse it really does

    ReplyDelete
  7. ``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''.

    Quite clearly the Met state that they prepared an interim report.
    Does it really matter that they say they did. Its not the existence of the document that is a problem.Its the contents that are of concern. Well they would be of concern if they were derogatory,but we are told thats not the case.
    Did i hear ILM state that he has compared Warcups letter to the interim report?

    ReplyDelete
  8. ILM has claimed that the Tapp report was not delivered by Tapp until after the suspension.If thats the case....who used it and when was it used.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The evidence Jerseys home affairs minister can produce to justify the suspension of Graham Power

    Appear to be his own reference to selected parts of selected reports, his own interpretations on these selected parts, his ability to use his position and PR Media to protect himself and States of Jerey by misinforming the public.

    The investigation into Child abuse in Jersey has been Stitched up like a kipper.

    ReplyDelete
  10. We know Commissioner Pitchers used it, or referred to it in a Child Abuse case and are led to believe that Rico Sorda and/or others will be revealing more about the Tapp Report and its use in the near future.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes - why was £2.5k of public money spent on a report that was obviously not of any significance for suspending GP, so what was the point of the report?

    ReplyDelete
  12. This is all very well but it's just his side of the story in the face of multiple critics of his work during HDLG, and if Graham Power believes his suspension was illegal then why doesn't he sue his multi-million Pound Employer?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yesterday was the last (half) credible chance for ILM to come clean and save his skin as well as his soul.

    It must go international now.

    Tweet, Twitter, facebook and cloud source.

    Keep it real and keep it accurate!

    Yours,
    H+

    ReplyDelete
  14. This is a fascinating read.

    Thank you Mr Power

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tapp "delivered" his report AFTER GP's suspension.

    We know that SoJ love their "INTERIM" Reports so I bet they asked for one from Tapp PRIOR to GPs sacking (I mean suspension)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Napier:80

    "...... The letter from Mr Ogley to Mr Lewis dated 11 November 2008
    informing him of Mr Warcup’s letter does not make clear that the report
    received by Mr Warcup from the Metropolitan Police was only an interim one,"

    Napier made his report based on the fact that he believed the so called "interim report" was from the Metropolitan Police, prior to the full report, whereas it was from an assistant involved, who by the evidence I have read, stepped outside his box and did a solo report which his boss knew nothing about!!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. The whole issue around the Interim report plays into the hands of the establishment. With hindsight we know the Met report was not to be used in the way Ogley used the alleged ''interim Met report''

    Even with the Interim report they did not have support of the Met to use it as they did. It is irrelevant.

    The establishment know that. Even with the Interim report that would not make the actions taken to suspend Mr Lewis right.

    Why was Mr. Power suspended?

    ReplyDelete
  18. It could be the right time for Mr Power to contact Mr Napier again, and give him a chance to go public with how he (Mr Napier) was misled by the Sates of Jersey. The only honorable course of action by Mr Napier is to come forward. Any agreement he has with the States of Jersey should be based upon good faith, of which the States has none left. Mr Napier should not want to have his good name associated with such a sleazy hoax. Then the far less honorable Wiltshire should embrace their own chance to quickly backpeddle, by blaming the false evidence they were provided.

    Chelloise

    ReplyDelete
  19. Chelloise.

    A number of us, in the past, have contacted Brian Napier QC and the Wiltshire Constabulary. They both showed little interest, wouldn't answer legitimate questions, and told us that everything we were asking should be asked of the States Of Jersey.

    Neither Wiltshire, nor Napier presented their own Reports so couldn't be questioned on them............But they took the money.

    ReplyDelete
  20. My comments re. States Question time 31.01.201 Question 2

    Have we now got to the stage where we can accept that there was an interim report?

    Despite the claim of Andrew Lewis, that it contained damning evidence, it, as confirmed by Napier,did not.
    What is this 51 page DATA report?


    The Jersey Way audio
    01:50
    Both Napier and ILM have read both the interim report AND Warcups infamous letter.
    ILM states that the quotes from the Interim report found in Warcups letter are indeed in the interim report.
    04:15
    ILM states that it was wrong for Lewis to take into account the interim report information in Warcups letter.
    05:46
    ILM feels it wrong that he should express an opinion on the decision taken by Mr. Lewis to suspend Mr. Power, as he doesnt know all the materials that were in the possesion of Mr. Lewis.

    anon. Surely ILM has access to any government document relating to this issue.Surely when he was reviewing the matter he must have looked at the all the correspondence leading to the suspension.

    11:00

    11:00 Mr Power challenged the ILM review in The Royal Court and says ILM,his review was not overturned.

    anon. Theres a surprise !

    ReplyDelete
  21. One of the very important distinctions to make here is that the Royal Court only ruled on the “process” employed by ILM with the suspension of Graham Power. They did NOT rule that he was right, or wrong, to suspend the Chief Officer. Those of us who follow the evidence know how wrong it was and there is more further damming evidence to support that claim coming soon.

    ReplyDelete
  22. VFC...where can a copy of the
    royal Courts judicial review be found

    ReplyDelete
  23. What is the DATA(spelling may be incorrect)report referred to by ILM
    01:00 into question no.2 on TJW States Question Time audio 31.01.2012

    ReplyDelete
  24. To give readers a perspective as to how much the Wiltshire Report was redacted. If memory serves correct, Ian Le Marquand published 183 pages.

    "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."

    Add on top of that 75,000 words from Graham Power himself that have never seen the light of day, despite the BBC being in possession of 62,000 of them for four months. One can confidently say the public have been given a tiny fraction of the evidence........A very carefully selected/ive fraction at that.

    ReplyDelete
  25. thanks for the link to Graham Powers Judicial Review.

    Seems like a well reasoned document on initial reading.

    I note that this document that this doument,just like ILM, is NOT impressed with the manner of Mr. Powers initial suspension.

    I was a little irritated by this statement...

    At the conclusion of the meeting on 5th March, and on delivering his judgment, the Minister said this:-
    “But, put at its simplest, the issue boils down to this. Was the historic abuse inquiry mismanaged resulting in unnecessary adverse international publicity for Jersey and its people, difficulties in the conduct of resulting prosecutions and wasted expenditure?”


    Reminds me of a notorious Liberation Day speech.

    I found the following to be incredulous

    Mr Power further complained about the Minister’s refusal to have regard to the A.C.P.O. reports in coming to his decision. By excluding reference to the Metropolitan Police report, the Minister was relying on evidence from the single source of Mr Warcup, but available to the Minister could have been the contemporaneous reports from A.C.P.O. At every stage Operation Rectangle was mentored and advised by the world’s leading experts. Surely, says Mr Power, any reasonable Minister would at least have looked at these reports, before coming to a decision on suspension. Such reports would undoubtedly have come into play in any preliminary investigation and would therefore have influenced the outcome but whether or not it would have affected the outcome, the complaint is that it was grossly unreasonable for the Minister not even to look at these reports at all.

    At paragraph 16 of his affidavit of 14th May 2009, the Minister deals with this complaint in the following manner:-

    “I do not accept the complaint that I failed to consider relevant evidence. I could not consider the reports prepared under the direction of the Serious and Organised Crime agency (SOCA) [ACPO] alone because they are only one part of a whole range of documentary evidence available relating to the police management of the historic abuse inquiry. I gave Mr Power the opportunity on the 5th March (see page 52 of the transcript onwards) to persuade me that I needed to adopt a different approach on this issue. However, after hearing representations on the point, I came to the conclusion that in order to consider the SOCA reports properly and determine what weight to be attached to them, I would have had to hear oral evidence from the author(s), consider what information had been given to them and the nature of the enquiries conducted by them. I would have had to go through the same exercise with every other report relating to the management of the historic abuse inquiry. This process is disproportionate when the decision under consideration is whether or not an individual should be suspended from office.”

    Initially, we had some sympathy with Mr Power’s submissions in this respect. The complaint against him related to his management of Operation Rectangle, made after the event and here apparently were contemporaneous reports on that very subject. The A.C.P.O. reports have since been disclosed to Mr Power and were contained in the Court’s bundle. Should not the Minister at least have looked at them?

    The existence of the A.C.P.O. reports was acknowledged by Mr Warcup in his letter of 10th November 2008 where he stated that their advice concerning the development of effective investigative parameters had not been followed. Thus, the complaint of Mr Warcup had been made in the express knowledge of and notwithstanding the A.C.P.O. reports and we agree that sight of the A.C.P.O. reports themselves would not actually assist the Minister without very extensive further inquiries – in effect the precise role being undertaken by the Wiltshire police in Operation Haven. We therefore concluded that the decision not to have regard to the reports themselves was rational and certainly within the range of responses open to a reasonable Minister in his position.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Lest we forget.

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The following assertion is just one of the many damning and fatal indictments upon what passes for a judiciary in Jersey:

    "The existence of the A.C.P.O. reports was acknowledged by Mr Warcup in his letter of 10th November 2008 where he stated that their advice concerning the development of effective investigative parameters had not been followed. Thus, the complaint of Mr Warcup had been made in the express knowledge of and notwithstanding the A.C.P.O. reports and we agree that sight of the A.C.P.O. reports themselves would not actually assist the Minister without very extensive further inquiries – in effect the precise role being undertaken by the Wiltshire police in Operation Haven. We therefore concluded that the decision not to have regard to the reports themselves was rational and certainly within the range of responses open to a reasonable Minister in his position."

    That assertion is - manifestly - insupportable garbage.

    Overt sophistry of the most brazen kind.

    It is not - and never could be - 'lawful' for the Minister to make a decision of the magnitude and gravity of maintaining a suspension of the Police Chief - without considering extant and readily available evidence.

    Evidence, such as the ACPO reports.

    Jersey's judiciary operates on an "emperor's new clothes" basis. It is only taken seriously - because people go along with the fantasy - in a kind of fearful Groupthink.

    The assertion in that judgment is ethically and intellectually bankrupt.

    It is utter cobblers - and an insult to the intelligence.

    Think about it for yourself:

    If the suspension is based upon the Warcup letter - and the Warcup letter should, apparently, be accorded weight - because its author read and used the ACPO reports - then how it it possible for the ACPO reports to not fall within the documentation that the Minister should reasonably take into consideration?

    In effect, the Warcup letter is 'secondary evidence' - one person's opinion of 'primary evidence' - including the ACPO reports. Warcup's opinion is heavily disputed - so what else could any reasonable person - and reasonable decision-making process do, other than go to the primary evidence?

    Effectively, the judgment is saying that it is OK for the Minister to engage in an action the magnitude and seriousness of a suspension of the Police Chief - on the basis of one man's opinion of the ACPO reports - but that it would be 'too much work' to read the ACPO reports.

    The judgment is saying that it is unreasonable to expect the Minister to undertake "very extensive further inquiries". But - come along - either the ACPO reports are "in" the evidential mix - as they clearly are, because the judgment quotes Warcup's claims concerning them - or the ACPO reports are "out" of the evidential mix - in which case their existence should have played zero role in the judgment.

    The Jersey oligarhcy can't have it both ways - the evidence "in" for them, when it suits their purposes - and "out" for the other side when the evidence becomes inconveniente for the oligarhcy.

    But yet - that is how we see Jersey's judiciary conducting itself, time and time again.

    People should note the judgment - and remember it - and realise just what it means.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  28. Thank you Stuart for elaborating on that paragraph in particular,the part of the quote that...I found to be incredulous. I was intending to elaborate on it but I really cant improve on your commentary.

    'obfuscator'

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. You really need to get into the legal side of this as shown in the Syvret comment.

    The Judicial judgement is bloody brilliant. What clown delivered it and how did he get away with it? Jersey is completely bonkers lol. The ex jail bird has a better understanding of law than the judicial judge.

    ReplyDelete
  31. A reader says:

    "The Judicial judgement is bloody brilliant. What clown delivered it and how did he get away with it? Jersey is completely bonkers lol. The ex jail bird has a better understanding of law than the judicial judge."

    Oh, that's not true.

    The judge understood exactly what he was doing.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  32. Stuart's take on this is brilliant.

    "Effectively, the judgment is saying that it is OK for the Minister to engage in an action the magnitude and seriousness of a suspension of the Police Chief - on the basis of one man's opinion of the ACPO reports - but that it would be 'too much work' to read the ACPO reports."

    For the sake of those readers who are newer to this story, I would only add that the "one man" whose opinion is relied upon as the basis of suspension was the "one man" who was hoping to immediately leap into the suspended chief's job. Even if he had not been such a corrupted and politically influenced hire, Warcup's opinion should have been weighted by any court as highly conflicted - by virtue of his position as an impatient successor to Power.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  33. For those readers who are in Jersey, please go to this site and do as SUGGESTED

    ReplyDelete
  34. I am posting this comment on those Jersey blogs that have highlighted Lucy Mason's opinion piece today.

    What I would like to point out is that the unfortunate caption under the picture "Time to let the historical abuse inquiry rest" may not have been written by her, but added by her editors during page layout. Who knows? Well, maybe she does, but she's not really in a position to tell us, if she didn't write that bit.

    What she actually said in her opinion piece was "Every document relating to the issue, every email, report, memo and scrap of paper should be printed out, piled up and then chucked up in the air in the middle of the Royal Square. Then, and only then, everyone, including those directly involved, can get on with their lives".


    What she is effectively saying is "We need a totally transparent public inquiry. Only then can this be put to the rest, for all parties".

    Which is exactly what the bloggers are saying, isn't it?

    So, before people attack her, read her piece again. You can't blame her for the picture tagline. Her real message is in the body of the article.

    Unfortunately for Lucy, I think her hopes are rather forlorn, given the fallout that would ensue from her suggestion.

    ReplyDelete
  35. If you read THIS DOCUMENT, in its entirety, it will help you understand the irony and hypocrisy of Lucy Mason's article.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Voice, I have read the scrutiny review in the past, don't have time to re-read it all tonight. Help me out will you, with a page reference, or a clue, so I understand what you mean.

    Btw, not a troll. Long time reader. Don't agree that LM should be singled out for criticism. She has said today words to the effect of "the only way to resolve this is total transparency". Why does that make her a hypocrite? Sorry if I appear thick!

    ReplyDelete
  37. My own impression of Ms Mason's recommendation that documents related to the issue be "chucked up in the air," is that she is blithely dismissing the importance of indisputable evidence which has recently proved the official version - as unquestioningly parroted by her newspaper - absolutely and scandalously wrong.

    In no way has she demonstrated a willingness to consider the factual evidence in place of re-stating the JEP version which has now been proved untrue.
    Does the commenter believe Ms Mason has any ethical duty at all to cover the real truth? Or, is the commenter disputing the factual evidence? Or is he/she merely excusing Ms Mason from the professional obligation to research and understand the real version of such a vitally important matter?

    If the commenter defending Ms Mason had any awareness of journalistic professionalism outside Jersey, it would be very surprising. Only in an insular feudalistic community could a reader of the documented factual evidence not find what Ms Mason and her masters have done to be an affront to the definition of journalistic integrity. She has not hidden in the media background, reporting only on other matters, but has defined herself as an actual journalist covering the abuse investigation and related matters.

    Note: in this post WW2 era, making excuses for her because she is just "following orders," is simply not acceptable. I can't personally think of any excuse for a self-described journalist to apparently know or care less about the indisputable facts pointing to systemic official lawlessness than an outsider like myself. It might behove the commenter to take time to re-read the entire findings of the Scrutiny Panel regarding media complicity, and rethink the importance of an independent press to the process of democratic functionality. The role of complicit JEP reporters has been positively scandalous.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "Voice, I have read the scrutiny review in the past, don't have time to re-read it all tonight. Help me out will you, with a page reference, or a clue, so I understand what you mean."

    Although we could be here for a month of Sundays highlighting the disgraceful reporting, and non reporting of the JEP, here is but one example taken from the link above and what Lucy Mason has just written in her article.

    Lucy Mason.

    “But it is up to us, the media, to see it and balance it with unbiased information about what else has gone on, and put everything in its context.”

    From the Scrutiny Sub Panel's FINDINGS

    The publication of the BDO Alto and Wiltshire reports by the Minister for Home Affairs on 14th July 2010 was an occasion for highly critical attention on Mr. Harper. The Jersey Evening Post published an extensive six page report with headlines focussed on:

    Celebrity lifestyle of Lenny Harper and his officers

    Meals in top-class restaurants and first class travel at expense of tax payers

    £42,000 – the overtime paid to a single officer in the first 15 months of the historical abuse enquiry

    No dog’s life for handler with luxury hotel lifestyle

    Hot on the trail of top London restaurants

    Lenny Harper and his team enjoyed £90-a-head meals and travelled first class at taxpayers’ expense, an accountants’ report revealed

    Off to Scotland Yard again

    First class on the Gatwick Express

    The problem with the way the official review was reported is that it appears to take every opportunity to discredit, with the benefit of hindsight, those in charge of Operation Rectangle without any reference to the constraints and pressures under which the Police were operating during the early stages of the investigation. The emphasis on alleged misuse of taxpayers’ money risks implanting the impression in the public mind that the entire expenditure on Operation Rectangle was badly managed.

    In contrast, the BDO Alto report notes:
    In undertaking this Review and throughout the preparation of this Report we have been conscious of the fact that detailed scrutiny of any major inquiry will reveal errors, omissions and learning opportunities, particularly given the benefit of hindsight. It has not been our intention to be ultra-critical in our conclusions and we have attempted to be fair to all of those involved.

    Mr. Kellett as previously mentioned made a point of qualifying the critical attention in the report with praise for the dedication and determination which police officers brought to the task of investigating child abuse:
    We have no doubt that Mr Harper was totally dedicated to the task of investigating serious crimes that had possibly occurred at Haut de la Garenne and that he was entirely sincere in his belief that child abuse there and elsewhere in Jersey was a major issue that needed to be dealt with. Throughout the period that Operation Rectangle was live, he and his staff displayed great dedication and did their utmost to bring suspected offenders to justice and we pointed out as much in our report. However, we were not asked to examine motivation and dedication but rather to look at how the resources available to the investigation were managed. We did so and made nineteen recommendations. Inevitably, because of the central role Mr Harper performed, his management of the resources formed a central part of our examination but to the extent that any of those recommendations constitute criticism of his actions, no criticism of, let alone attack on, the existence of the investigation or of the motivation for it is intended or implied.

    No such qualification appears in the above press report.

    Furthermore, the newspaper did not pick up on the fact that Mr. Harper had not been interviewed or given the opportunity to respond to the criticisms in the report. Nor, as far as we are aware, did the newspaper give Mr. Harper any opportunity to state his own perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  39. OK, I'm with you now!

    ReplyDelete
  40. When I read the caption to the Haut de la Garenne picture: Time to let the historical abuse inquiry rest, and then read the Lucy Mason piece, I interpreted it as “throw everything available into the square let those time wasters scrabble around amongst themselves, then everybody else can get on with their lives”.
    If Lucy really believes we need a totally transparent public inquiry then I guess she will be livid with the caption, and may even resign or at least ensure her view is restated in a less unambiguous way rather than risk being totally misunderstood, I suggest: “I Believe There Should Be An Open and Transparent Public Inquiry the cost being insignificant when compared to the abuse many people have suffered throughout their lives”

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.