Not for the first time Bloggers are once more having to put their necks on the line in the name of public interest, openness, transparency and integrity. We are having to do this as we have a local mainstream media that is not trusted and keep stories buried.
Today we publish the written judgement of the Disciplinary Hearing conducted by Chief Constable Mike Barton of the Durham Constabulary who presided over the Hearing against the three Jersey Police Officers accused of illegally bugging a car used by a Curtis Warren "Gang Member" while conspiring to import a large quantity of drugs to the island.
Hopefully readers, with an interest in this story, will have read our previous postings on this unraveling debacle where we brought you the story, or anomaly, concerning
"EQUALITY OF ARMS". We then brought readers attention to the way Jersey does "Democracy" where an urgent question, submitted by a democratically elected Member of Parliament, (legislator) surrounding the "Equality Of Arms" was disallowed by the Bailiff (head of the Judiciary)
HERE. We then made our readers aware of a criminal investigation (conducted by Hants Police) into the three Police Officers, and others, involved in the "car bugging incident" which was codenamed
"OPERATION INVICTA." Finally we brought you, the reader, a
TIMELINE of events which brings us up to date where we publish (below) the written judgement of the Disciplinary Hearing.
Before you read the judgement we must remind our readers of a Blog Posting we published back in August 2010 where we set out our case that Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand,
SET A PRECEDENT the day that he published the Wilts Report, which as regular readers will be aware is the prosecution case, for a Disciplinary Hearing (that never took place) against Former Police Chief Graham Power QPM. After reading the Confidentiality Clauses set out in the Wilts Report, it was clear that it should never have been made public, unless there was an "outcome" but as Mr. Graham Power QPM was denied the opportunity of a Disciplinary Hearing there never was "an outcome." Senator Le Marquand abandoned the disciplinary Hearing and not only published a heavily redacted version of the prosecution case he actually took it on a media
ROADSHOW. The precedent that Senator Le Marquand had set was that it is now acceptable for Disciplinary "prosecution cases" against Police Officers, and possibly others, can now be put into the public domain regardless of whether the Disciplinary Hearing takes place or not or of any confidentiality clauses.
We were convinced that Senator Le Marquand had breached the confidentiality Clauses contained in the Wilts Report and e-mailed him on a number of occasions in order to either verify or refute our understanding but he just chose to ignore the e-mails which has left us with the understanding that we are correct and he HAS breached the confidentiality clauses. Readers will be aware that, in the interest of fairness and balance, Mr Power QPM had asked that his submission to the Wilts (the interim defence case) be published by the Minister, which he has refused to do.
Regular readers will also be aware that the local State Media were a part of Senator Le Marquand's "Roadshow" with publicising the prosecution case against Mr. Power QPM yet now that Mr. Power's interim defence case is in the public domain not one of them have reported it. An un-redacted copy of this document was leaked to managing Editor of BBC Jersey, Jon Gripton, by former Health Minister, Stuart Syvret on September the 22nd 2011 yet over one year and five months later the BBC still refuse to publish it, something we discussed with Mr. Syvret in an interview back in August 2012 which can be viewed
HERE. This will also go some way to explain why Bloggers (Jersey's only independent, and trusted, media) have been leaked these latest documents and the State Media hasn't....................Yet again.
Senator Le Marquand was also asked in the States (the island's parliament) if he would publish the written judgement of the disciplinary Hearing into the car bugging case and the Minister has refused.
Notwithstanding the precedent set by Senator Le Marquand we believe there is a huge public interest in publishing this written judgement and that is why we are taking the equally as huge risk by doing so. The opening line of this Blog Posting makes reference to "putting our necks on the line" that is because we believe we have a corrupt and politicised judicial system on the island, there are very powerful people in the Law Offices Department who will want to keep this written judgement out of the public domain for reasons that will no doubt become apparent after reading its contents. We believe that the Law Offices (the real power in Jersey) will ensure we will pay for this. We fully expect some severe repercussions and are unable to obtain a fair trial in Jersey due to its politicised judiciary.
We make no comment on the findings in the written judgement other than to say that the three cops damn well should be hauled over the coals and be held to account for their actions or inactions and believe they have been. They have been investigated by an outside police force in a criminal investigation and found with no case to answer. They have been subject to an internal Disciplinary Investigation and Hearing presided over by an outside Chief Constable and found with no case to answer. Not only have they been found with no case to answer but, as we previously posted, this all started with Former Police Chief Graham Power, Former Acting Police Chief David Warcup, and others recommending a commendation for the three Officers for the part they played in the Curtis Warren Investigation. After being subject to a criminal investigation AND a disciplinary investigation it has ended with the same recommendation. It is now time for the Law Officers to be subject to the same scrutiny and intense investigation as the cops have. With what has been revealed in the written judgement (below) we argue that there is a case for a criminal investigation into the activities of the Law Officers but encourage readers to come to their own opinions/judgements based on the evidence.
Some readers might not understand some of the findings set out in this written judgement but help is at hand. We are publishing this Blog Posting in conjunction with fellow Blogger, and Team Voice Member, Rico Sorda.
Rico has obtained, from local experts with experience in cases of this nature, a document that explains, in laymen terms, the meaning/significance of some of the most crucial paragraphs contained in the written judgement which can, and NEEDS to be read
HERE.
Some names/identifications have been redacted.
In the Matter of Disciplinary proceedings
And in the matter of the Police (Complaints and Discipline Procedures)
(Jersey) Order 2000
Detective Chief Inspector David Minty,
Inspector Louis Beghin Detective Sergeant Lawrence Courtness
Decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal
Introduction
1. This matter concerns the police investigations into the criminal activities of Curtis
Warren and others which commenced in or around June 2007.
2. In broad terms it is alleged by the Presenting Officer that the three officers who have
been charged with disciplinary offences namely, Detective Chief Inspector David
Minty, Inspector Louis Beghin and Detective Sergeant Lawrence Courtness, all
agreed to mislead foreign authorities in relation to their activities with regard to the
Warren investigation and particularly all three officers were involved in misleading
the foreign authorities particularly the French, Dutch and Belgium law enforcement
authorities in relation to audio surveillance of a vehicle which was used by the
Defendants in the furtherance of their criminal activity.
3. It is alleged that these three officers not only misled foreign law enforcement officials
but also senior officers within the States of Jersey Police Force and members of the
Law Officers' Department in relation to the audio surveillance of the vehicle as it
travelled through the foreign jurisdictions.
4. It is also alleged that Dl (name redacted) and DC (name redacted) were also involved in this deception
although neither appear before this tribunal as Dl (name redacted) has now retired from the
police force and DC (name redacted) has apparently been dealt with by the States of Jersey
Police. In all cases the officers are charged contrary to paragraph 2 of the Discipline
Code under the Order of 2000 namely that they acted without honesty and integrity in
relation to Operation Koala-Floss (the code for the Curtis Warren investigation) and
secondly, that their acts or omissions in relation to their activities in the furtherance of
the Curtis Warren investigation were likely to bring discredit on the States of Jersey Police Force contrary to paragraph 13 of the Discipline Code of the 2000 Order. These charges were particularised by the Presenting Officer and whilst a number of submissions have been made in relation to them, I have ruled and I am satisfied that the final version of the Particulars as circulated, gave all three officers ample opportunity to know the case that was being put against them and what they had to do to meet that case.
5. I am aware of the law in accordance with which I have to decide this matter and I am
familiar with the test for 'honesty and integrity' as well as the test for 'disreputable
conduct'. For ease of reference these tests and references to the law are set out
very clearly at paragraphs 11 to 18 inclusive of Advocate MacRae's Skeleton
Opening and the Human Rights legislation insofar as it is relevant is also set out very
clearly at paragraphs 19 and 20 of the same document. No one has taken issue with
these definitions and I fully endorse their accuracy. I should also point out that I have
to determine the issues before me on the balance of probabilities and at the outset I
would like to thank Advocate MacRae and Advocate Sinel for their advocacy in this
case. Advocate MacRae has referred me to all of the relevant evidence in this
matter and has done so in detail and has been of great assistance to me in reviewing
the evidence. Advocate Sinel, albeit late in the case, has tackled his brief with great
enthusiasm.
6. I should also say that I could not have presided in this case without the expert,
knowledgeable and wise counsel provided by Advocate Santos-Costa. I would like to
make it absolutely plain that all decisions made in this case are my own although
Advocate Santos-Costa has advised me on the law and has made it clear to me that I
have to determine this case on the balance of probabilities.
7. I should point out at this stage that not all advocacy in this case has been as good.
The officers can, quite rightly, feel aggrieved that Advocate Gollop did not recognize
an immediate conflict of interest. I also deprecate the manner in which Advocate
Whittacker left the officers unrepresented. I remain perplexed where the money set
aside for the potential expert McKay has gone. I also stated when I gave my verbal
decision on Thursday 10 January 2013 that I did not expect to see my comments in
the media and whilst I was not gagging others, I did make it clear that I did not
authorise the use of my comments other than for this hearing and I do not authorise
the publication of this written judgment other than for the purposes of this hearing.
8. I should also point out that when I gave my verbal decision in this matter, I referred
specifically to a letter written by Assistant Chief Constable Pryde of the Hampshire
Constabulary to the Attorney General dated 28 July 2011 did not receive an
acknowledgement let alone a response. This was the evidence given by Detective
Chief Superintendent Cessford who was a representative of the Hampshire Police. I
am, however, informed that this letter although shown to me and confirmed by Mr
Cessford as having been sent, was not actually sent to the Attorney General in
Jersey and therefore my comments about finding it odd that there had been no
response to this letter were, at the time that I made them, inaccurate. Be that as it
may, and having now been informed that the letter was never sent, the position in
relation to the co-operation by the Attorney General and the States Police in Jersey
remains the same. I do find it odd that having asked the Hampshire Police to
investigate the matters surrounding the Curtis Warren police operation, the
authorities in Jersey did not co-operate fully in the way that I would have expected
given that it was they that asked for the enquiry to be carried out. Mr. Cessford made
this very clear and I have no reason to doubt it and that caused me some
considerable surprise. I maintain that this lack of co-operation or, perhaps more
accurately, lack of complete co-operation, can only have compromised the
Hampshire enquiry and limited the full facts available to me to make a decision in this
case. I stress again that this is just one of the unsatisfactory elements of this case
which have either been decided upon or effected the Crown about which more later.
The Facts
9. I do not propose to go into the facts of this case in any great detail. The Disciplinary
Hearing has been fully recorded and all of the facts fully ventilated by Advocate
MacRae both in oral submissions and in his skeleton opening. In essence, however,
the facts are that in June 2007 the States of Jersey Police received intelligence
suggesting that John Welsh (one of Curtis Warren's co-defendants) intended to
orchestrate the shipment of a consignment of drugs, namely cannabis, into Jersey.
As a result of the intelligence received, the States of Jersey Police sought to deploy
intrusive surveillance on Welsh's motor vehicle, a Jersey registered VW Golf,
J(number excised)
10. Initially an application was made under RIPL for 'property interference', in the form of
a tracking device. That application was granted by the Solicitor General as Acting
Attorney General on the 15 June 2007.
11. On the 3 July 2007 a separate application was made under RIPL for intrusive
surveillance in the form of an audio device or 'bug' to be placed in Welsh's motor
vehicle to monitor conversations between Welsh and his associates. The application
was recommended by Sergeant Beghin who was, at the relevant time, the sergeant
in charge of the drug squad. Again, the application was approved by the Acting
Attorney General, Stephanie Nicolle QC, on the 3 July 2007. DCI Minty was
ultimately in charge of the investigation particularly with regard to the surveillance
and his subordinates in the operation were Dl (name redacted) and DS Beghin.
12. On 10 July 2007 a decision was taken to set up a covert monitoring post in the SOCA
premises in the UK. The intention being that any product obtained from the audio
device could be monitored and evidenced in the UK.
13. On 13 July 2007, the covert tracking device and audio recording device which had
been authorised was deployed in Welsh's vehicle, J(number excised), and monitoring
commenced.
14. It soon became obvious that Welsh intended to travel in his Jersey vehicle to Holland
via France and Belgium and both Dl (name redacted) and DCI Minty were informed at a
meeting with SOCA on 11 July 2007 that SOCA would not commit to recording of the
audio product from Welsh's Jersey motor vehicle in the event that it travelled through
Belgium, Holland and/or France without permission from the countries concerned.
This was because the United Kingdom was a signatory to their Schengen Convention
which required the consent of foreign nations to intrusive surveillance on their soil.
The officers were therefore aware that in order to obtain further audio product there
had to be a requirement for Letters of Request or Commission Rogatoires to be
made by the Attorney General of Jersey and granted by the relevant foreign state.
Advocate Jowitt was informed of this requirement by a telephone conversation on 1
July 2007 and he directed the officers to Rebecca Boxall of the Law Officers'
Department who then undertook to make three urgent applications for permission to
track and to undertake audio surveillance in Welsh's Jersey VW car.
15. The result of these requests were that neither the French authorities nor the Dutch
gave their consent for audio tracking to be monitored within their jurisdictions and in
very broad terms the allegations are that the officers knew this and knew that they
needed French and Dutch consent to monitor the audio product in those jurisdictions,
didn't have it and proceeded without it.
16. To a large extent this is a factually accurate summary of events, however, the French
and Dutch authorities did give consent to track Welsh's Jersey vehicle through
France and Holland as did the Belgium authorities and, Commissions Rogatoires
were in place in relation to that particular vehicle. There was however, no permission
granted by the French or the Dutch authorities at any time to install and monitor
audio tracking devices in their jurisdictions. Both DS Beghin and Dl (name redacted) (as they
then were) did speak on 11 July 2007, to Advocate Jowitt, the Crown Advocate with
conduct of the criminal prosecution against Warren and others, about the likelihood
of receiving the necessary permissions for this technical tracking and audio
monitoring in other jurisdictions. In essence, Crown Advocate Jowitt stated that this
was essentially an operational decision for the police but he also stated that any
audio evidence obtained was unlikely to be excluded by a Jersey Court regardless of
whether consent had been obtained or not. He went on to say, "if it was me I would
go ahead and do it but don't quote me on that". The Presenting Officer makes it
clear that in his view, this was not 'legal advice' and should not have been relied
upon. Whilst I accept that this was not legal advice as such, I nevertheless think that
it was a comment made by a senior Crown Advocate having conduct of the
prosecution of the case which could only serve to encourage the officers in deploying
the audio monitoring device in the vehicle and obtaining the product to see later
whether it would be admissible in Court or not. It is right that this was an operational
decision but, nevertheless, it cannot be the case that the officers are not entitled to at
least take some comfort from what they are told by the Crown Advocate prosecuting
the case. Ultimately, it became clear that Welsh would not be travelling in his own
vehicle but would be travelling as a foot passenger to France where upon he would
collect a hire car. Ultimately the officers decided to ascertain the identity of the hire
car and obtained the permission of the hirer namely, (name redacted), to install devices into the
hire vehicle. As far as fitting the tracking devices on the hire car were concerned, a
police to police request was made of the French police to allow the installation of a
"tracking device on the rental car". No mention was made of an audio device and
ultimately the French police apparently gave consent for a tracking device to be
installed.
17. The hire car company certainly gave its consent for the hire car to be wired and this
is clear from the fact that they handed over the hire car to the Jersey police in the first
place and the Jersey police had to pay for the rental of the vehicle until such time as
they could remove the tracking devices so they did not impact on anyone else who
may have hired the car.
18. It is also right to say that the foreign authorities assisted the Jersey police in relation
not to the VW in respect of which Commission Rogatoires had been obtained but in
respect of the Citroen hire car.
19. The allegations therefore are that DCI Minty and DS Beghin (as he then was), lied to
foreign authorities by not informing them that an audio tracking device had been
deployed in the hire car and that they were going to monitor the audio product from
Jersey.
20. As far as DC Courtness (as he was then) is concerned, then he is accused of being
party to a lie to the French police because he was called on duty to travel to France
in order to fit the tracking and audio devices and prior to leaving the Jersey police
headquarters to catch the boat to go to France he asked DS Beghin (as he then was)
what he should say to the French if they asked what he was doing fitting the audio
device and DS Beghin told him to say that this was a back-up tracking device which
was clearly not the case. In the event, DC (name redacted) who accompanied DC Courtness to
France was there as an interpreter and it was she who told the French police that the
audio device was a back-up tracking device and that is essentially the allegation
against DC Courtness.
Evidence
21. I found all of the officers to be open and honest. They were working 20 hours a day
for a month at a stretch. Any errors, omissions or partial briefings in e-mails or
similar are understandable. This case spanned far more than whether the Dutch had
agreed to the listening of an audio device in the hire car. For example, there were
Commission Rogatoires in place - indeed the three countries, Holland, Belgium and
France, fully co-operated with surveillance assets, interestingly for the red Citroen
hire car, not the VW Golf that Rebecca Boxall had stipulated in her requests for co
operation. I found DS Courtness' evidence to be utterly convincing. He was placed in an unenviable position and has approached his role professionally. He was asked to do a particular job on a particular day and was not directly involved in communicating anything at all to French police officers. Indeed, he could not speak French and they could not speak English so I fail to see how he could have misled them in any way. He asked, understandably in a covert policing operation, what he was to say to French police in the event that they asked questions about the audio device and his superior officer told him what to say. In the event he didn't say anything at all to the French Police and, therefore, I find it difficult to see why he is in this position defending disciplinary charges.
22. I find that on the evidence as a whole (hire car firm) did consent to the property interference
in relation to their car. This is implicit from the fact that they allowed the officers to
install the devices, made the car available and charged the States of Jersey Police to
be able to remove the kit.
23. I find some of Detective Inspector Beghin's evidence to have been eroded by time.
His fortitude in giving evidence against a doctor's advice has gone in his favour. He
was working incredible hours and he is a witness of truth. I can see why he feels he
was thrown to the wolves. I also understand that since the time of my verbal decision
in this matter and this written Judgment, Dl Beghin has fallen ill and was admitted to
intensive care. I wish him a speedy recovery and I hope that he is able to move on
with his life once he does recover.
24. DCI Minty had more of a pivotal role in allegedly mis-informing colleagues. Much has
been made of his e-mail traffic and influence on others. His evidence in recollection
also has been affected by time but I found his evidence to be compelling. It was also
helpful to have the perspective offered by retired Inspector (name redacted). One could see
the passion of the team for crime fighting.
25. I do not find it sinister that there are similarities in evidence given by witnesses.
Officers will have discussed matters and there recollections have been tested in
more than one Court.
26. I stress that this was a covert operation in relation to the investigation of serious
crime with regard to serious criminals particularly, Curtis Warren, who was apparently
seeking to get a foot hold in Jersey which would have been very detrimental indeed to
the Jersey community.
27. It is, of course, right to say that when analysed objectively and in a vacuum, some of
the e-mails that Advocate MacRae has referred me to, together with some of the
exchanges that have taken place, do not necessarily depict the entire truth of the
situation. In my view, however, this is not a deliberate attempt on the part of the
officers to mislead but more an incomplete picture which is very much influenced by
the extremely long hours that they were working and the pressures they were under
throughout this investigation. Decisions had to be made quickly and evidence had to
be obtained quickly otherwise it would be gone forever.
28. I am, of course, mindful of the Privy Council decision. Indeed, I agree with the
Learned Law Lords (for what it is worth) as they have overturned in my view what
was bad law in relation to the impact of admissible evidence tainted with police
malpractice. Insofar as concerns the monitoring of the audio device and the use of
its product, it may well be deemed to be unlawful insofar as concerns the lack of
specific foreign consent to these actions but, this is not because it is contrary to
RIPL. It is not RIPL that creates the unlawfulness as RIPL is an enabling Statute.
The unlawfulness is simply caused by the fact that it is simply unlawful to obtain
intrusive surveillance in foreign jurisdictions without the consent of that jurisdiction.
Be that as it may, the Privy Council ultimately ruled that the evidence was admissible
and this evidence was clearly important evidence in the conviction of Curtis Warren
and his gang. As a result of the obtaining of this evidence, a serious criminal had
gone to jail for a very long period of time.
29. As far as the Privy Council case is concerned then this is a different hearing. In
relation to this disciplinary hearing I have heard different evidence, evidence that the
Privy Council did not hear and that is why I have come to a verdict which some may
say is contrary to the comments made by the Privy Council but I disagree that it is
contradictory because as I have said I have heard different evidence. I have tried my
best to be fair to all parties throughout these proceedings. I have let matters run
within a reasonable time and I have read all the evidence offered in documentary
form, even the unsatisfactory elements such as statements that have been submitted
to me unsigned and transposed onto Hampshire Police paper without the signed
versions being put to the witnesses. It may well be that these statements are
identical to the signed versions but when a witness calls the statements into question
I am in some difficulty when the signed versions are not put before me. Moreover, it
was made clear to me that the Presenting Officer had put forward all of the evidence that was necessary in this case and that did not include signed versions of the statements. I have, however, listened carefully to all of the witnesses and I have balanced all of the evidence to come to my conclusion. In my conclusion I have no doubt that the officers have done nothing reprehensible. They have not broken the disciplinary code. Indeed, the evidence has shown me that they were part of a professional and effective investigation team.
30. I have heard the reported remarks attributed to Messrs. Warcup and Power about
commendations for these officers and I agree with those sentiments. These and
other officers protected the Island of Jersey from one of the UK's worst criminals, for
that they should continue to take professional and personal satisfaction.
31. In all the circumstances, I find that none of the charges against these officers are
proved and I dismiss all charges accordingly.
Dated this 15th day of January 2013(END)
Time now then to investigate the Law Offices' and ask why the State Media were not trusted with this document?
