Operation "Invicta" Timeline.

Further to a previous posting on OPERATION INVICTA readers will no doubt be aware that this IS a Police Operation that DID exist and our information should be viewed as reliable and factual.

In anticipation of an up-coming Blog Posting we thought it would be extremely beneficial to our readers with an interest in Operation Invicta, and the Curtis Warren car bugging case in general, to have an understanding of events leading up to "Invicta" and events subsequent to it, so we offer a "time line." (below)

Much criticism has been levelled (notably in the State Media) against the actions of the three Police Officers involved with the Warren/bugging case. The spotlight has been turned on full glare in their direction. We offer the view that while the spotlight is focussed on the Police Officers it leaves The Law Officers in the shadows and the Law Officers might have a lot more to answer for than the cops.

As regular readers will be aware, the cops have faced a criminal investigation, AND a disciplinary investigation for their part in the "car bugging incident" and have been cleared by both. But what of the Law Officers who advise the police? Have they come under ANY kind of scrutiny at all let alone a criminal or disciplinary investigation?

We invite our readers (as we have) to turn the spotlight into the shadows. The rights, and wrongs, of the cops have been well aired and discussed but what about the rights, and wrongs, of the Law Officers? While the discredited and disgraced State Media have set the agenda of "cop bashing" (in our opinion) we do what we always do and that is to "dig," ask the right people the right questions and most importantly follow the evidence.

We encourage our readers to think for themselves, don't be blinded by what you see/hear in the disgraced State Media, ask yourselves why you hardly ever see/hear the Law Officers being interviewed on the State Media? Ask yourselves who are the Law Officers accountable to? When have the Law Officers EVER been investigated?

Could it be that while the State Media keep your minds occupied on the police and politicians that the real power in Jersey (and unaccountable) Law Officers go about their (your) business unnoticed and untouched?

"Invicta" Timeline.

June 2007.

The Police receive intelligence that Curtis Warren, a dangerous criminal of international standing, is about to be released from prison in Holland and plans to travel to Jersey. It is believed that he intends to establish a base in Jersey for criminal operations. Warren has a reputation for “taking over” territory from rival criminals. There are reports that he plans to “take Jersey.” He is reputed to have considerable personal wealth which has been concealed from law enforcement authorities. He has previously appeared in the Sunday Times “Rich List.” He also has a reputation for bribing and corrupting members of police forces, lawyers, prison officers and other public officials.

The States of Jersey Police decide to mount an operation against Warren in partnership with relevant agencies in the UK. The operation in Jersey will be under Jersey Law and in particular the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Law (RIPL). The Law and accompanying guidelines require that any intrusion into the privacy of any individual should meet strict legal criteria. The normal process is for the Police Officer who is designated as Head of Operations to make a written application to the Chief Officer. The Chief Officer checks the application to ensure that it meets the legal requirements and is operationally justified. If the Chief Officer signs the application it is then forwarded to the Attorney General who has the final say on whether the application is granted or refused. At the relevant time the Head of Operations was David Minty. The Chief Officer was Graham Power. The Attorney General was William Bailhache.

July 2007.

Jersey Police Officers under the leadership of David Minty are successful in maintaining surveillance of Warren and associates. This is no small achievement given that Warren is very surveillance-aware and displays considerable tradecraft. Comparable operations against Warren in the UK and elsewhere are reported to have run for months or even years without resulting in arrests or charges. A small team of officers under David Minty are working up to 20 hours a day. The team includes Louis Beghin and Lawrence Courtness.

Intelligence indicates that an associate of Warren intends to take a vehicle from France to Holland and return with a drugs shipment. Minty applies to the Chief Officer for the vehicle to be fitted with a tracking and audio device. The Chief Officer agrees that the application is justified on operational grounds but neither he nor Minty are experts on the law relating to such operations in European jurisdictions. The Chief Officer supports the application subject to it being deemed to be lawful by the Attorney General.

Events begin to move quickly and so an arrangement is established whereby Minty and his team take advice directly from the Law Officers Department. One of the Advocates designated to assist the police with the legal aspects of what is proposed is Advocate Matthew Jowitt. Complications arise regarding the consent for the audio device to be used in France and other jurisdictions. According to Court Records a discussion took place regarding the legalities of what was proposed. This discussion involved Beghin, another officer (now retired) and Advocate Jowitt. The records indicate that Jowitt told Beghin that a Jersey Court would be unlikely to exclude the evidence of an audio device in the vehicle whether permission had been obtained from other jurisdictions or not. It is reported that Jowitt said “If it was me I would go ahead and do it but don’t quote me on that.” Records of subsequent evidence indicate that officers took it that they were to install the audio device before the opportunity was lost. Legal experts could then consider at greater length whether the product of the audio could be used as evidence or not. If they did not install the device then there would be no opportunity to consider the matter one way or the other.

Subsequently Beghin, Courtness and another officer went to France and installed a tracking device and an audio device in a hire car to be used by an associate of Warren. The Hire Company was aware of the police activity and had given their consent.

A few days later Warren and his team are arrested. The Jersey Law Officers Department, having considered the matter in more detail, determine that the evidence from the Audio Device can be put to a Court. At a subsequent “Trial within a Trial” a judge hears arguments from both sides and rules that the evidence can be used. Warren and his associates are subsequently convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.

2007 to 2011.

Chief Officer Power, Acting Chief Officer Warcup and Senator Ian le Marquand, the Minister for Home Affairs make separate public references to the work of the officers in the investigation of Warren and praise the professionalism and dedication of those involved. Both Power and Warcup are recorded as saying that some form of formal recognition of their achievement would be justified.

Meanwhile Warren and others are pursuing an appeals process which will ultimately take the case to the Privy Council. The line taken by Advocates representing Warren is that the audio evidence was obtained illegally and should be excluded by the Court. The line taken by the Jersey Law Officers is to agree that the evidence was obtained illegally but to argue that the Court has discretion to allow it to be used. Not all of the police officers in the case are happy with the manner in which their actions are being portrayed by the Law Officers. They do not agree that what they did was “illegal” in the commonly understood sense of the word and feel sure that it is not contrary to RIPL. They also feel that the way the evidence is being presented does not place sufficient emphasis on the fact that they were receiving advice from the Law Officers and that they had given a full and accurate account of what happened at the first opportunity. However, they are not a party to the case so there is nothing they can do about it.

March 2011 

The verdict of the Privy Council is expected to be released soon. The Chief Officer of the States of jersey Police, Mike Bowron, issues a press release indicating that he expects the Privy Council Judgement to criticise the actions of the officers in the case. He has therefore asked Hampshire Police to conduct a full criminal and disciplinary investigation into the operation against Warren. The investigation is subsequently named “Operation Invicta.” Among those to be investigated are David Minty, Louis Beghin, Lawrence Courtness, Advocate Jowitt and former Chief Officer Graham Power who by then has retired and is living in England. Thus, officers who had expected to be commended now find that they are suspects in a criminal investigation for alleged offences of attempting to pervert the course of justice and perjury.

Hampshire Police establish an office in Jersey and commence their enquiries. All local “suspects” are “invited” to be interviewed but it is made clear that anyone who does not agree to be interviewed voluntarily will be arrested.

The position in respect of former Chief Officer Power is more complicated. He is in England and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Jersey authorities. Any attempt to arrest him as a suspect would need an application to the relevant English Authorities which would need to supported by evidence. It is rumoured locally that such evidence is not to hand.

August 2011.

Hampshire Police write to former Chief Officer Power at his home address in England. They ask him if he will voluntarily submit himself to be interviewed as a criminal suspect in “Operation Invicta” Mr Power replies offering information in relation to his role in the Warren investigation but says that he has nothing further to say and declines to agree to be interviewed as a criminal suspect. He does however make it clear that if he is approached in any other capacity, such as a witness, he will re-consider. As it transpires he receives no further request to assist with “Invicta.” He is not asked to make a statement or to give evidence in respect of the Criminal Enquiry of the Disciplinary Investigation which followed.

December 2011.

“Suspects” in the “Invicta” criminal investigation are formally notified that, following an examination of the evidence by an independent QC in the UK, it has been determined that there is no basis for any criminal charges against any person.

December 2011/Early 2012.

Officers who have been cleared by the Criminal Enquiry but have not retired or left the Force are told by senior officers that they will be subject to disciplinary proceedings before a Tribunal presided over by a Chief Constable from the UK. Those facing disciplinary action include Minty, Beghin and Courtness. They indicate that they will strongly deny any allegation of misconduct and engage lawyers to represent their interests.

During much of 2012 a number of legal issues arise and there are also problems with the availability of the Chief Constable initially selected to preside at the hearing. The matter drags out through a series of adjournments and delays. Minty and Beghin develop symptoms of stress-related illness. Beghin is placed on sick leave. Minty is suspended in relation to an unrelated matter said to be in respect of his non-attendance at a meeting.

December 2012.

The disciplinary hearing eventually convenes under the chairmanship of Mike Barton who is the Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary. Mr Barton is assisted by Jersey Advocate Santos-Costa. Legal and procedural arguments are heard and the hearing adjourned until January 2013.

January 2013.

The full hearing finally takes place and evidence for and against the officers is heard and assessed. In his judgement the Presiding Officer makes criticism of the States of Jersey Police, the Law Officers Department, and the standard of evidence against the officers. All disciplinary charges are dismissed and the Tribunal recommends that all three officers be commended for their role in the Warren Investigation. The evidence and findings of the Tribunal are subsequently set out in a nine page typed document signed by the Presiding Officer.

January 2013.

Concerns are expressed locally relating to the timescale and the cost of the disciplinary action. States Members, Bloggers and interested parties ask the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian le Marquand to release the written findings of the Tribunal. He refuses to do so.(timeline end)

Yet another debacle to add to the growing list under the tenure of Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand. We have previously reported how he has been able to spend millions of pounds of taxpayers money on fruitless disciplinary investigations and possible personal vendettas HERE.

This latest debacle goes one step further though. It started with the three Police Officers being recommended for commendations, then  over a matter of years, a number of inquiries (to include criminal) and millions of £s of taxpayers money being spent, we have come full circle, with it ending with the same recommendation as it all started!

Senator Ian Le Marquand would have been receiving legal advice from the very highly paid, unelected and seemingly unaccountable Law Officers, as were the police. Yet the Law Officers have come out of all this totally unscathed or scrutinised...........How could this be?

With Senator Le Marquand's refusal to publish the findings of the disciplinary case, could it be that the Law Officers DON'T come out unscathed and DO have questions to answer? Will ANY of the island's State Media be submitting an "Access To Information" (Jersey's poor equivalent to FOI)  request to obtain this document?

Will Senator Le Marquand, the Law Officers and State Media be praying this document doesn't get leaked to a Blogger like so many others have in the past?

An Act Of Sheer Desperation?

What could drive a person to go to such extreme lengths as to spend possibly around three hours in, what must have been, the middle of the night and freezing temperatures, to write in huge writing, on a sea wall, a story that is as chilling, and frightening as it is Heart-Wrenching?

VFC can exclusively reveal the sheer magnitude of the "graffiti" sprawled on a sea wall at St. Aubin and the chilling tale that it tells. We have obtained the photographs of this "event" and with the help of The Right Of Reply have put them together in a very short video (below) so readers can grasp the scale and gravity of what has occurred.

We have to ask (as the title suggests) is this a "Sheer Act Of Desperation?" The author claims that the Church, and others, "Silenced" the alleged victim(s) of these horrible crimes. Is it that the author had nowhere left to go after attempting to report the alleged atrocities and "sex ring" to the appropriate authorities but was met with deaf ears and silence? It seems inconceivable to believe that anyone would go to these extreme lengths without going through the correct channels first and had been left with no choice.

What is the emotional and physical state of the alleged rape victim and how safe is she? Besides calling the author of the graffiti "A vandal" (BBC) what will ANY of the island's State Media, or authorities, be doing to encourage, and assure, the victim to come forward (possibly again)?

No doubt there is a lot more to this story than what will be told by the State Media, as it might be problematic to Jersey's "image." Any information can be submitted to the Blog in strictest confidence should any of the effected parties wish the FULL story to be told.

VFC credits the Jersey Evening Post for the final photograph in the video sequence below.

Operation "Invicta", A conspiracy theory and A Promise.

Although VFC has built up a reputation for delivering hard evidenced facts that are generally covered up by the State Media we thought we would break from tradition and give our readers, what "might" be described as, a "Conspiracy Theory."

There has been many a conspiracy theory peddled, predominantly by the State Media, ever since former Deputy Chief Police officer Lenny Harper, and former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM blew the lid off of, what has been described as "Jersey's Dirty Secret." The Dirty Secret being the abuse of children, in State run institutions, and elsewhere, that was able to carry on for DECADES in Jersey.

Since the "lifting of the lid" we have witnessed smear campaigns against Mr. Harper and Mr. Power, misinformation and half truths peddled by State Media, and others, and conspiracy theories galore.

VFC, and other Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) have, with documented evidence, provided its readers with the fuller picture and truth behind the "stories" told by the local Press, whether it be the Gradwell assertion that there were no cellars at HAUT DE LA GARENNE or the nonsense peddled by the State Media that the alleged Child's Skull fragment unearthed at HDLG was apparently a piece of COCONUT that contained 1.6% collagen (only found in mammals).

In short we have provided some facts behind the myths concerning the Child Abuse atrocities and left the conspiracy theories to the State Media.

In this posting we offer our readers a theory (conspiracy or otherwise) that the Jersey Establishment have been trying to nail both Lenny Harper, and Graham Power, with anything they can get to stick since the Child Abuse revelations and we concentrate this posting on how this apparent desperation to get something to stick against Graham Power QPM could involve the Curtis Warren Case, the three Police Officers who have just been cleared of any wrong doing concerning the alleged illegal bugging of a car used in the conspiracy to import drugs into Jersey, the parts played by key players such as Chief Police Officer Mike Bowron, former Acting Chief Police Officer David Warcup and others.

Regular readers will know that during the live Child Abuse Investigation Former Police Chief Graham Power was (illegally?) suspended from duty by the then Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis. The whole suspension was a complete shambles and the Jersey Establishment found themselves in a mess, of their own creation, and realised this suspension could not stand up to any scrutiny and they will need to find another way/reason/excuse to keep the Chief Officer suspended. Andrew Lewis retired from politics and was replaced by Senator Ian Le Marquand at Home Affairs. To cut a long story short Ian Le Marquand managed to suspend Mr. Power AGAIN and REFUSED to look at the original suspension by Andrew Lewis..........Job done?

The discredited Wiltshire Constabulary were tasked with (to coin a phrase) getting "something to stick" against Mr. Power so he could be disciplined over his actions, or in-actions during the Child Abuse Inquiry, thus justifying the suspension and discrediting Mr. Power and the Child Abuse Investigation. 
After the costly, bungled and FAILED attempt to discipline Mr. Power over the Abuse Inquiry, and yes it did fail, nobody should believe the rubbish about "running out of time" after two and a half years, and countless missed deadlines, it was strung out until Mr. Power retired because they knew that it would not stand up to any independent adjudication.

 
After that the Establishment STILL needed something to stick so they trawled through old cases and came up with the "Warren Inquiry" and the bugging of the car. Previously the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand and even  Warcup himself had said, words to the effect that it was a great operation and worthy of commendations for the police. So the Establishment were in a bit of a quandary. But no worries just get the new  Chief Police Officer Mike Bowron or THE CHOSEN ONE to find a reason to change tack and set off a criminal investigation designed to nail Mr. Power for, let's say, conspiring to pervert the course of justice or perjury? Granted they might not find anything jail-worthy but at the very least surely Mr. Power could be banged up for a couple of days for "questioning." That would teach him to defy the Jersey Establishment and it could set an example to others who might be thinking of "Stepping Out Of Line."
 
But like so many of their half thought out and hair brained ideas it had a flaw. Mr. Power was now living in England. No trouble you might think given that it was an English force (Hampshire) who were to do the Inquiry ?
 
Hampshire Police are an English Force so do not have any jurisdiction to investigate alleged crimes in Jersey. That is the territory of the Jersey Police. But not to worry, once they are formally invited to investigate a Jersey matter as official "mutual aid" to the Jersey Force they become temporary Jersey Officers with the full powers and privileges of the Jersey Officer but as Jersey Officers their police powers are confined to Jersey. So if they are Hants officers they cannot investigate Mr. Power for matters occurring in Jersey and if they are temporary Jersey Officers they can investigate Mr. Power as much as they want so long as they stay in Jersey. But as soon as they step outside of the Jersey they lose that authority.  So exactly what can they do about someone in England who they want to "pull" in relation to matters in Jersey? Well not a lot as it turned out.
 
If you (the reader) are a little confused over all of this don't worry. It took Hampshire Police and the States of Jersey Police MONTHS to work it out! Probably when they did "finally" work it out they thought "what a bu--er."

So in the end a nice Assistant Chief Constable from Hampshire might have written Mr. Power a nice letter asking him if he would be an awfully decent chap and volunteer to be interviewed as a criminal suspect in relation to "Operation Invicta." (if it exists) Mr. Power might have written him an awfully decent reply saying "thanks but not thanks." 
 
That left them with the option of applying to London for authority to pull Mr. Power in England but given that such a formal application might require something as boring as actual "evidence" then that proved to be a bit of a sticky point.  
 
After a while Mr. Power "might" have received a letter from Hampshire Police telling him he had no case to answer, or to coin a phrase "couldn't get anything to stick"............................AGAIN!
 
So what to do now? They trump up disciplinary allegations against officers who worked with Mr. Power (during his tenure as Chief Officer) and might have been careless enough to confess that they did not think that he was the devil incarnate the Establishment want him to be and that Mr. Power might even have sometimes knew what he was doing as a 42 year Police Veteran decorated by the Queen. We offer the theory that the hope was that the three Police Officers would confess and say that they only did what they did (bugging the Curtis Warren Gang Members car) because the evil Mr. Power told them to and that they were too scared to do otherwise. That might provide enough material, or evidence for Mr. Power to be denounced and discredited or would/could get "something to stick!"
 
Some of the accused retired but three remained and by some means or another they acquired the nerve and determination to fight it out. In spite of all "offers" and other pressures, such as a trumped up suspension of Minty for not attending a meeting. They held out and when it came to that thing which the Jersey establishment fears, a truly independent hearing, all disciplinary allegations were thrown out for the trash that they were.
 
As the title of this posting states we offer this information in the form of a conspiracy theory. Readers are entitled to make up their own minds as to whether there is any truth in it, or not. Similarly readers might think that we have people on the INSIDE.

Of course one way of helping to prove this all IS a conspiracy theory is for the Hampshire, Investigation, Judgement/Report to be made public. What could the Establishment have to fear? Everybody's innocent aren't they? Everything is above board isn't it? There's nobody left to "blame" is there? God forbid that the Law Offices might have been less than blameless!

It is sometimes said that all conspiracy theories should be strangled at birth and we agree. Well with this one the Jersey Establishment has an opportunity to do just that. We PROMISE that if the judgement in the disciplinary case is published in full and if it shows that, notwithstanding the outcome, the disciplinary Inquiry and hearing were fully justified on solid evidential and professional grounds, then we will publically RETRACT our conspirary theory and APOLOGISE for any offence caused. So come on Senator Ian Le Marquand, Minister for Home Affairs, here is an open public offer. Your big chance to get one back at the Bloggers. Just publish the document and prove us wrong. And we promise to grovel..................

Ask No Questions........

Following the controversial decision of Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, to write a cheque to the tune of £10,000 to enable "Equality of Arms" to the three policemen involved in disciplinary proceedings concerning the bugging of convicted drug dealer Curtis Warren's gang member's car. Deputy Mike Higgins submitted an "urgent question" to be asked in the island's parliament.

For our overseas readers who might not understand how Jersey does "Democracy" it is worth explaining that any questions submitted to the island's parliament by a democratically elected politician has to be vetted and agreed by the Bailiff before they (questions) are "allowed" to be asked.

The Bailiff is unelected Head of the Judiciary and Chief Judge. So before a "democratically" elected member of the legislator can ask a question, in the parliament, it has to be "allowed" by the "unelected" Head of the Judiciary............Democracy a la Jersey.

The three Police Officers, who were severely criticised for their actions by the Supreme Court, faced a "secret" disciplinary Hearing and were cleared of any wrong doing. The Law Officers (judiciary), as a result of the police's disciplinary hearing have now been severely criticised themselves and in particular the Attorney General Tim Le Cocq.

Politicians wishing to ask questions have to submit their questions, no later than, midday on Thursday's before the State Sitting on the following Tuesday. However it was too late to lodge a question surrounding the £10,000 "Equality of Arms" cheque written by the Home Affairs Minister as it wasn't made public until after midday Thursday. So Deputy Higgins lodged what is known as an "urgent question."

The Deputy's question was aimed at Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, who, prior to being elected, was himself a member of the Judiciary for some thirty years.......(coincidentally!)

The question submitted reads;

"Will the Minister justify to the States his decision to grant £10,000 to the defence of three police officers who were severely criticised for unlawful activity by the Privy Council on the grounds of Equality of Arms whilst denying similar support to the [former] Chief of Police Graham Power in his dispute and the States which fails to provide similar support to Public Servants facing disciplinary hearings"(END)

Regular readers and readers of our PREVIOUS POSTING will be aware that the Former Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, was denied "Equality of Arms" by the same Home Affairs Minister.

The "urgent question" was submitted but the Bailiff (Head of Judiciary and unelected Chief Judge) disallowed it and here is his reasoning.

We apply a three-fold test to urgent questions. This question meets the first test in that is a matter of significant public interest and I assume for the moment – although I would need confirmation – that the second test is met, in that the matter has arisen since the deadline for oral questions. However I do not consider that the third aspect is met, namely that the matter is so urgent that it would be inappropriate to expect the member to wait till the next sitting to ask the question. The question can perfectly reasonably be asked at the next meeting. Leave is therefore refused.(END)

This set of events throws up a number of questions, none of which will be asked by the State Media, so is left to Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media).

Firstly we must question the ruling of the unelected Bailiff. "The question can perfectly reasonably be asked at the next meeting." We could argue that the ruling could be levelled at just about "any" urgent question and particularly if the judiciary didn't want it asked and is pretty flimsy considering it is preventing a "democratically" elected member of parliament attempting to hold the executive to account and thus serving the public.

We must then ask, seeing as though the judiciary has been so heavily criticised, as a result of the Police's disciplinary hearing, isn't the Bailiff heavily conflicted as his loyalties could lay with the Judiciary and might want to protect it/them or at least it could be viewed that way?

The over-arching questions are; how can it be in a supposed 21st century "democracy" that the unelected Judiciary have so much power over our "democratically" elected politicians? How many other urgent questions have been blocked by the unelected judiciary? How many written and oral questions have been blocked by the judiciary.......on flimsy grounds? How many propositions/amendments have been blocked by the unelected Judiciary? What impact has this had on our so-called "Democracy?" How can it be said that the politicians (Legislator) are running the island when it is decided by the unelected Judiciary as to what our Elected Members can, and can't ask?

Equality of Arms.

Back in February 2011 we conducted what is possibly the most in-depth interview ever given by Former Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM. We encourage those with an interest in "Jersey Justice" to read the interview in full HERE

Regular readers will be aware that Mr. Power was (possibly illegally) suspended from duty while (because?) his Police Force were investigating claims of Child Abuse in State run institutions, in Jersey, over a period of decades. Allegations, that if proven, amounted to, what was described as STATE SPONSORED PAEDOPHILIA.

Mr. Power was (illegally?) suspended following a letter written by, possibly the most conflicted person there was, in the form of Acting Chief Police Officer, David Warcup. The letter was leaked to Blogger (notably no the State Media) Rico Sorda which he duly published HERE.

The controversy surrounding the very dubious suspension of Mr. Power QPM still rumbles on today as the "official" version of events has been torn apart by local Bloggers and Mr. Power himself.

Which brings us on to the latest anomaly surrounding police suspensions and "Equality of Arms" as three Jersey Policemen who have just been exonerated from any wrongdoing concerning the reported illegal bugging of convicted drug dealer Curtis Warren "gang member's" car.

We are not going to explore, in this posting, the rights and wrongs, and who is to blame for the illegally obtained evidence in the Curtis Warren case, as we believe this has been covered excellently, by Former Jersey Politician and 30 year MET Police Veteran BOB HILL. Although we feel compelled to offer an "opinion" in that the three cops were hung out to dry in order to protect the Law Offices Department.

It has been stated in the discredited and DISGRACED Jersey Evening Post (Jersey's ONLY "news"paper) that "the officers’ defence was partly funded by the taxpayer. Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand has confirmed that he agreed to pay £10,000 towards the officers’ legal expenses after their bills went over the limit that the Police Association’s insurance would cover."

So the three officers who were lambasted by the Supreme Court face a "secret" disciplinary hearing and all come out innocent but have their legal representation partly paid for by the taxpayer because, as has been quoted elsewhere, Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand believes the Cops should be entitled to "Equality of Arms."

We are asking the question as to how Home Affairs Minister, Senator Le Marquand, believes that the three cops in the Curtis Warren case should be afforded Equality of Arms yet the Former Police Chief can be denied the same, by the same Home Affairs Minister? We are all equal in the eyes of the law aren't we Minister?............well................NO.

Extract taken from in-depth interview with Former Police Chief GRAHAM POWER QPM .


11th May 2009. Moore wrote to me and proposed that I be interviewed at a suitably neutral venue, possibly a Jersey hotel, in the week commencing 15th June 2009. He said that the interview should last for “at least a week." As the law currently stands suspects in murder cases and similar crimes may, with the authority of a Court, be interviewed for around three days. I know of no precedent for a disciplinary interview lasting for “at least a week.”

19th May 2009 and thereafter. My Professional Association attempted to move matters forward in correspondence with the Minister for Home Affairs. It is pointed out that the Minister and Wiltshire Police are benefiting from legal advice at public expense. It is suggested that an interview lasting for a week or more is potentially oppressive but that I will nevertheless consider taking part provided that I am given equality of arms by means of funded legal representation. Meanwhile we obtain an estimate for the services of an Advocate during the proposed interview. The round figure given is £30k. It is also pointed out that the Disciplinary Code places me under no obligation to attend an interview. It refers to me providing a written statement. That is all that I am obliged to do. Anything more than that would be a concession on my part, but one that I am nevertheless willing to make, provided that the arrangements are fair to both sides.

Q. So you are denied “equality of arms” and all legal advice obtained by Wiltshire and the States of Jersey is funded by the Jersey Tax payer?

A. In a word “yes”(end)

It appears then that the Home Affairs Minister can treat a Chief Police Officer worse than a murderer and deny him Equality of Arms on the strength of a letter written by a man who wants the Chief Officer's job, yet the highest court in the land can condemn the actions of three Police Officers for, allegedly, illegally obtaining evidence and the Home Affairs Minister gives them £10k of taxpayers money so that they CAN have equality of Arms............How does that work?

Independence For Jersey.

As a result of Deputy Trevor Pitman's latest BLOG POSTING we thought we'd explore the ramifications/consequences/implications of Jersey cutting ties with the UK and going independent.

As Deputy Pitman has explained in his Posting, Senator Philip Bailhache, and his brother, Deputy Bailiff, William Bailhache, have been exploring the idea of independence since 2007 if not earlier. One must remember that Senator Philip Bailhache was Bailiff (Chief Judge) at the time and his brother William was Attorney General, both positions, supposedly not political.

Philip Bailhache retired as Bailiff and run for election as Senator and was duly elected with the help of Jersey's only "News"paper The Jersey Evening Post. The Senator ran on a platform of "the government spend too much time revisiting already agreed decisions (propositions) in the parliament" and "members should show more respect towards each-other." Yet as soon as he was elected, the first proposition he brought was revisiting and already agreed proposition where he managed to take away (hijack) the independence of the ElECTORAL COMMISSION. The second proposition he brought (through the alleged Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst) was to overturn a proposition already agreed by the States and attempt to buy Headland at Plemont but that proposition was very narrowly defeated (25-24). As part of that proposition, the Senator, was more than willing to invoke "Compulsory Purchase" or as it has been described by a number of people "Robert Mugabe Land Grab." It was during this debate (and others) that Senator Bailhache (further going against his election campaign) was accused of personal insults against fellow politicians and members of the public. Readers can make up their own mind as to whether the accusations of personal insults are substantiated by listening to THIS. Some readers might be aware that subsequent to the defeat of purchasing Plemont in the island's parliament Senator Bailhache is STILL trying to get his hands on it and cannot accept the "democratically" reached decision. A man with a mission, and by the looks of it, a man with disregard to (what passes for in Jersey) "Democracy."

So back to the question of Independence for Jersey, where Deputy Trevor Pitman explains, in his latest posting, that this was an area the Former Police Chief, Graham Power QPM, was asked to look into by the Bailhache Brothers. Mr. Power had written about this in his 62,000 word interim defence case to the disgraced Wiltshire Constabulary. The Interim defence case that discredited and disgraced BBC refuse to publish despite them having reported on the PROSECUTION CASE.

In it (Mr. Power's statement to Wiltshire) the Former Police Chief writes;

"Such views are not confined to the older elements of the honorary service. They can be found, albeit in a more developed form, in the senior levels of government and the legal establishment where some notable figures favour an eventual severance of links with the U.K. and would see the ready acceptance of U.K. working practices as running counter to this agenda. I recall that in 2007 I assisted a small working group which included, among others, the Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache and the Attorney General William Bailhache. The purpose of the group was to prepare a draft contingency plan for complete independence. I submitted papers to the group on the implications for law enforcement, and used some contacts from my previous role to offer suggestions as to who outside of the island, could assist in developing such a plan. I provided contact details of key figures in the Scottish Government and Administration including the Scottish National Party. I recall that some of the advice and contacts I provided were in an email I sent, probably in July 2007. This and other experiences reinforced my understanding that there was a tide flowing against closer association with the U.K, and a strong local agenda to develop working models and solutions within the island."

So we are asking just what are the motives of senator Bailhache and what would be the consequences of breaking ties with the UK and becoming independent?

There are an ever growing population that believe we have a corrupt , and politicised, Judicial System on the island. Would Jersey's independence lose us the "safety" of the Privy Council? The European Court of Human Rights? Are either of them any use to us now? How will it affect our currency? How will it affect our relationship with Europe? What impact will it have on our Finance Industry? Is Jersey currently run by the politicians or the Judiciary? Will that change if Jersey is to become independent? Who will benefit from Jersey's independence and who will suffer for it? Would the UK welcome, or contest it? What are the chances of independence becoming a reality? How can it be achieved? Should we be scared (more scared than some of us are now)? Should we welcome independence? Should we do all we can to endeavour this does not become a reality?...............What can we do?