Saturday, 12 January 2013

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?

29 comments:

  1. It would seem that Minty is doubly protected with our tax payers money. Not only has it paid for his lawyers in this case but its got to be remembered that the tax payer is also paying for his Super Injunction.

    The Jersey Law Office is well and truely involved in both cases and its wrong to use Minty as one of the scape goats.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A very important and pertinent posting.

    It is also worth noting that in the massed, illegal actions taken against me by the Jersey oligarchy - I too had zero - not one penny of public-funding - towards any legal representation or defence.

    Indeed - to this day, those who would silence and oppress me - have spent - and are STILL spending - apparently limitless quantities of public money (it could easily run into several million by now)upon suppressing me.

    As ever, your readers should never lose sight of one key - crucial - fact: responsibility for the overt and extensive unlawful, oppressive and anti-democratic actions of the Jersey authorities - resides with London.

    The UK Crown, Government and Justice Secratary are responsible for all of this.

    Jersey is a lawless enclave - because it suits the powers-that-be in London for the island to be this way.

    Just think of Jersey - and the way things are here - when you next see a UK Government minister lecturing other countries around the word on the importance of "democracy", the "rule of law", "judicial impartiality" and "human rights".

    It would be no surprise if the media from countries like Iran, Syria or Russia came to Jersey to make investigative documentaries - to demonstrate shameless British hypocrisy.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anon at comment 1,
    Don't forget the third strand of the argument, what about the paid three months Minty's has had since suspension by Bowron for failing to obey a lawful order?

    Ian on another computer.

    ReplyDelete
  4. On top of the £10,000 given to the 3 Curtis Warren coppers which was denied to Graham Power - they were also given a disciplinary hearing - which was denied to Graham Power by Ian Le Marquand.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why did Minty need to take out this Super Injuction? And what is Minty's Super injuction going to achieve?

    ReplyDelete
  6. It must be stressed that this so called “Super injunction” is mere speculation and we have no proof to show that it exists. Equally we have no proof to show who might be involved with it if it does exist. We are sure that ALL will be revealed in time……….If there is anything to reveal.

    ReplyDelete
  7. John Hemming proved it exists!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Remember Graham Power's defense case was so powerful they had to "lose" a contract during their brazen safecracking operation. Why? One reason: That contract stipulated that his legal fees were to be covered in the event he faced legal challenges stemming from his duties in Jersey.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  9. Stuart why do they say you turned down legal aid and I remember something similarly said in the media in 2011?

    ReplyDelete
  10. If Stuart was offered legal aid that would mean even he was better treated than Graham power.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Super injunctions cannot be made in Jersey so John Hemming & Co have spun you a yarn.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Let us remember just what constitutes "legal aid" in Jersey.

    It is an non-lawful, un-funded "voluntary" assignment of a lawyer - not of your choosing - from a rota.

    Even a former administrator of what the Jersey oligarhcy call a "legal aid system" said in court it was not compliant with the requirements of the ECHR.

    The "legal aid" assigned to some people in Jersey is not funded. So the lawyer "representing" you is expected to do the work for nothing - in between doing what most Jersey lawyers do most of the time - namely helping their international clients racket out of various nation's tax systems.

    Penniless "legal aid" clients are a mere annoying distraction; something to be given to the office junior to look at, 30 minutes before the court-hearing.

    Certainly I turned down that - because it does not constitute "effective" legal representation.

    To have been lawful, the "legal aid" would have needed to be funded - to have an actual budget proportional to the vast sums of tax-payers money being spent by the gangster-oligarchy.

    It would also have needed to be legal representation of my choice - not some oligarchy agent.

    As I said above - I had precisely zero spent on my legal representation - and - it still would have been zero - even if I had been mug enough to have accepted the ultra vires un-funded nonsense the Jersey oligarhcy try to peddle as "legal aid".

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  13. Comment left at 10:07 says 'Super injunctions cannot be made in Jersey so John Hemming & Co have spun you a yarn.'

    I feel I should explain for the benefit of your readers whoever submitted that comment does not know the first thing about law.

    Courts can issue injunctions against a party to do, or to cease doing, pretty much anything. All the applying party has to show is that the action or inaction they wish to prevent, is unlawful in some way.

    Similarly, any court can issue what have become known as 'super injunctions', by attaching an order for secrecy upon not only the content of the injunctive proceedings, but even the very existence of the proceedings.

    The court in Jersey is perfectly able to issue super injunctions. The making of such orders is fundamentally within the inherent jurisdiction and authority of the court in the island, just as courts in the UK are able to issue similar orders.

    As a regular reader of the Jersey blogs may I suggest to your trolls that they need to raise their game if they wish to be taken seriously. At present they expose themselves for the ignorant fools that other bloggers claim them to be.

    England Legal.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Glad you said 'England Legal'.
    List one case in which a Super Injunction has been issued in Jersey because according to my legal sources no application has ever been made.

    ReplyDelete
  15. As we've seen in this posting on "Equality of Arms" The Jersey Administration, including (especially) Law Officers can do what they like and just make it up as they go along. Indeed there is a video on Youtube somewhere with Senator Philip Bailhache saying something along those lines.

    As for this comment;

    “List one case in which a Super Injunction has been issued in Jersey.”

    Surely by the very nature of super-injunctions nobody is going to know about it/them are they? And if your “legal source” had of told you about any then he/she would be breaching the super-injunction themselves wouldn’t they?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Just ask yourself why anybody would need to get a super injunction against a blogger?
    No credible news outlet ever repeats slanderous accusations on blogs anyhow, so again, why would one be needed?

    ReplyDelete
  17. “No credible news outlet ever repeats slanderous accusations on blogs anyhow”

    Blogs ARE the only “credible news outlet” in Jersey.

    “why would one be needed?”

    Because Bloggers are exposing what is being covered up by the State Media?

    ReplyDelete
  18. 'Because Bloggers are exposing what is being covered up by the State Media?'

    That is just a matter of opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Your troll says, 'That is just a matter of opinion.'

    But it isn't though, is it?

    As someone who is used to dealing with evidence, I can state with some confidence that if one follows the Jersey situation in both the island's mainstream media and the blogs it's a case of 'no contest' insofar as which side has produced evidence-based reporting, and has cited documents and witnesses.

    The Jersey bloggers win, hands down.

    In fact, it was the remarkable contrast between the vacuity of your traditional media's spin-doctoring and PR churnalism on the one hand, and the sheer quantity and quality of hard documented evidence produced by the Jersey bloggers on the other, that induced me into following the scandals closely.

    I was going to respond the patent foolishness of the assertions concerning the existence of super injunctions in Jersey, but I see you've done that admirably already.

    I can see why people use the saying, 'don't feed the trolls'. Clearly this absurd joker would carry on attempting to assert black was white all day long if given the space. Is this the infamous 'Stella O'clock' character? If so, he would appear to have had several already.

    England Legal.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Rather than drop my own counter arguments to a level of insult which seems to be the norm on here by some people sometimes, my simple question is that if these blogs did hold so much news that is not only in the Public interest but is wholly accurate than why hasn't any MSM ever repeated it all verbatim then? What do they fear if all what is said about other is so true by the bloggers? It's not the $64,000.00 question because these claims and attacks on others have been coming up over the years pretty repetitively yet the MSM will not repeat them. I think it proves not all is as 'black and white' as some bloggers proclaim. In fact I would say many things are blown completely out of proportion.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Slanderous accusations? Utter twaddle! If anyone had been slandered (or libelled) by any bloggers, then they surely would have taken that blogger to court. And we have heard on many occasions that it is not worth it, because the bloggers would be unable to pay any damages; I have yet to hear that someone merely wants the truth to be made public.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Elle @ 03:58 can you tell some more about the brazen cracking of Graham Power's safe like where was the safe and who cracked it?

    ReplyDelete
  23. The cracking of Graham Power's safe was covered in a Blog posted by Rico Sorda HERE

    ReplyDelete
  24. Readers are strongly encouraged to read the above link. It is informative, insightful, "evidenced" and strongly suggests criminality at the highest level.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You miss one key point here and that a Safe at Police HQ is the property the States of Jersey Police. Just a like a locker in the work place it is the property of the Employer so they do have the right to access it in your absence.

    ReplyDelete
  26. That might, or might not, be correct. Whether it is, or not, the questions remains why did ACO Warcup, Ian Le Marquand and co. not want ANY representative of Graham Power present at the opening, or “cracking” of the safe/cabinet? Why did David Warcup give a different set of events to the Wiltshire constabulary?

    Taken from the link above;

    “December 2008- In late 2008 Graham Power is contacted by the Chief Ministers Department about gaining access to his secure cabinet which is held in the Chief of Polices office. Graham Power agreed a process whereby a Jersey Advocate representing Graham Power would be given the code in a sealed envelope and would take this to police and be present when the cabinet was opened.

    December 22nd 2008 - The Chief Ministers wrote to Graham Power and said that although this arrangement had been put in place Acting Chief David Warcup had objected and the matter put on hold.

    January 13th 2009 - Graham Powers representative Constable T. Brain wrote to Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand stating that Connetable Simon Crowcroft had agreed to be present when the cabinet was opened as an observer and subject to all appropriate requirements of confidentiality. The letter also pointed out that as part of his office Simon Crowcroft was a police officer and subject to disciplinary procedures.

    January 22nd 2009 - Acting Chief of Police opens Graham Powers secure cabinet. Also present is Superintendent Wayne Bonne of Wiltshire Police and David Warcups Staff officer Dave Burmingham. Staff Officer Burminghams role was to compile a list of contents in Graham Powers secure safe and office.”

    ReplyDelete
  27. Staff Officer Burminghams role was to compile a list of contents in Graham Powers secure safe and office.”

    Will Staff Officer Burmingham still be able to produce that COMPLETE list. When, (one day soon) cross examined under oath?!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Just spotted this interesting comment made by Stuart Syvret under his blog.

    'Hi Stella & apposite friends.

    You know, I thought you’d be interested in the title of Section Five of the Statement-of-Case against the Secretary of State for Justice, and the Privy Council.

    “The Four and the *****-**********: A Case-Study in the Corruption of Criminal and Civil Law-Enforcement in Jersey.”

    You know, I think it’s pretty splendid – even if I say so myself!

    I just love this stuff.

    I really do.

    It’s like being a witness at the decay and collapse of the Roman Empire.

    Stuart.'

    That's a bit like a cross-word clue, 5 letters and 10. can we fill in the missing words?

    ReplyDelete

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