Wednesday, 12 November 2014

Open Letter to Former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis. (Unhappy Anniversary 6)





On November the 12th 2008 during the biggest Child Abuse Investigation (Operation rectangle) Jersey has ever seen the Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM was (illegally?) suspended from duty under extremely dubious circumstances.

Team Voice has, over those six years, exposed the facts, and evidence, behind the suspension and have revealed that the "official" version of events does NOT stand up to scrutiny and a number of deliberate lies look to have been told by those involved in the suspension.

Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) have been leaked, and published, official documents, to include sworn AFFIDAVITS from the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. The letter from disgraced former Acting Chief Police Officer DAVID WARCUP which inevitably resulted in Mr. Power's suspension.

We have been leaked, and published the Hansard of a SECRET PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE where it appears deliberate lies could have been told concerning the "official" version of events surrounding Mr. Power's suspension. The former Chief Police Officer has given his most IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW to this Blog exposing, among much more, how he was treated worse than a terrorist by the discredited Wiltshire Constabulary. We exposed how disgraced former Senior Investigating Officer Mick Gradwell leaked CONFIDENTIAL POLICE INFORMATION during the live Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle)  to a national "journalist" with a history of supporting convicted paedophiles and trashing Child Abuse Investigations.

In one Blog Posting alone we have BLOWN THE LID OFF the nonsense fed to us by the local State Media and the "official" version of events surrounding Operation Rectangle and related matters.

In stark contrast the local State Media has been kicking Abuse Victims IN THE TEETH. Winning awards for publishing PROPAGANDA and misrepresenting THE FACTS.

The local State Media has BURIED VITAL DOCUMENTS concerning the suspension of Mr. Power. It has buried public interest and VITAL NEWS STORIES (published by Bloggers) that expose the Jersey cover-up. The local State Media has even gone so far as to PROMOTE HATE SITES attacking a journalist investigating the Jersey cover up. Yet now that there is a Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry on the Island the Bloggers are BANNED FROM EFFECTIVELY REPORTING FROM IT in favour of the State Media.


We understand that former Chief Officer, Mr. Power, has been interviewed in-depth by lawyers representing the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry and it is anticipated that he will be giving evidence in a public hearing at a later date. now that he is no longer a serving police officer and free from the constraints imposed by the terms and conditions of his (illegal?) suspension he might have significantly more to say on the question of child "protection" in Jersey than was possible previously.

Mr. Power has told us; 

"My interest in the subject is as keen as ever and everyone can rest assured that I will be doing all that I can to enable the Inquiry to get to the truth and achieve some justice for the victims."

It is believed that the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry will be looking at the (illegal?) suspension of Mr. Power and with the former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis (who suspended the Chief Officer) now back in the Island's Parliament after recently being elected in St Helier District 3/4 we have sent him an open letter (e-mail) in the hope he can clear up some of the mess he created and explain some of the anomalies in his contradictory statements.

E-MAIL TO Deputy Andrew Lewis.

Deputy Lewis.


Now that you are once again a States Member I am hoping you are able to clear up a few anomalies left over since you were last in the States Assembly back in 2008.

It concerns your suspension of the (then) Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, during the biggest Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) the Island has ever seen.

In an in-camera States debate (2008) http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-transcript-of-in-camera-debate.html in explaining your decision to suspend the Chief Police Officer you told the Assembly;

“If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all.”

Further during the in-camera debate in answer to a question from former Deputy Paul Le Claire you told the States Assembly;

"I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place.”

You were referring to the alleged MET Interim Report .So it is clear by these statements that you had read the MET interim Report. But in the Napier Report (paragraph 101) it states;

As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it. The reason given was the nature of the information that was contained therein. It was, said Mr Ogley, a police document and it was inappropriate that he (or anyone else) should have
access to it. Mr Ogley says that he was told both by the Attorney General and Mr Warcup that he should not look at the interim report and neither he nor Mr Lewis did so.”

Furthermore, according to the former Chief Police Officer Mr. Power your testimony to the discredited Wiltshire Constabulary’s Investigation stated;

“Until I received the letter from David WARCUP, (on 11th November 2008 – the day before the suspension) I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” (Paragraph 3.)

In February 2010 you issued a statement http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/09/napier-report-imminent.html in response to the former Chief Police Officer’s Affidavit http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/02/copy-of-affidavit-of-chief-police.html where you wrote;

“I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Met Report as I am bound by the disciplinary code.”

So it would appear that you have given two different accounts concerning your sight (or not) of the MET Interim Report.

Question 1. Could you please tell me which account is correct? The account you gave to the Wiltshire Constabulary and the Napier Review or the account you gave to the in-camera States debate? Did you, or did you not see the MET Interim Report?

Both can’t be true and on the face of it you have either misled the States Chamber or potentially committed a criminal offence by misleading the Wiltshire Investigation and the Napier Review.

To address this part of your statement to the in-camera debate;

“If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal.”

You might be aware of a complaint made by the former Deputy Chief Police Officer, and Senior Investigating Officer of Operation Rectangle, Mr. Lenny Harper to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (Operation Tuma)? http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/01/matt-tapp-files-7-operation-tuma.html

Mr. Harper complained that he, and others, were criticised in the MET Interim Report after your statement. Operation Tuma was unequivocal in this regard, and found against Mr. Harper, where it states;

"In the Heads of Complaint made by Mr Harper he states that the review criticised a number of areas of the investigation. The review does not criticise the investigation. The Review does not criticise any individual involved in Operation Rectangle." (para 4.36)

Question 2. Could you please tell me (if you did see the MET Interim Report) do you stand by your words “If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal?”

Either yourself, or the Independent Police Complaints Commission, are being dishonest.

Question 3. Could you please tell me who is being dishonest here, is it you or the IPCC?

I’m sure you can appreciate the seriousness of these questions/contradictions as a Chief Police Officer with a 42-year career was suspended on what looks to be spurious, if not illegal grounds, and answers are needed in order to clear your own name in this debacle.

It has been reported that Mr. Power is in the process of giving a comprehensive statement to the lawyers of the on-going Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry (COI) and he will be called to give evidence at a public hearing. It is also believed that his suspension is being looked at by the COI and you clearly have questions to answer in this regard.

Question 4. Have you been asked, or have you offered to, submit evidence to the ongoing Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Chaired by Francis Oldham QC, if not, why not?

As mentioned in the first paragraph of this e-mail, now that you are once more a States Member, you will be voting on my behalf in the Island’s Parliament and I, as a constituent, need to know that you are an honest, and trustworthy representative.

I would appreciate clear, and concise answers to my four questions.(END)

For those with an interest in this, what looks to be, travesty of justice, and possibly illegal, suspension of Jersey's most Senior Police Officer please view our previous 5 "unhappy Anniversaries."


UNHAPPY ANNIVERSARY ONE

UNHAPPY ANNIVERSARY TWO

UNHAPPY ANNIVERSARY THREE

UNHAPPY ANNIVERSARY FOUR

UNHAPPY ANNIVERSARY FIVE












 

77 comments:

  1. Liar Lewis back in the states
    Never has the return of a bad smell been so welcome LOL

    Well done VFC! -A very well drafted and factually cross referenced open letter to the new Deputy.


    Shouldn't the supposedly "professional" media be asking these questions?

    He shall not answer you as he will not answer in parliament. Team Paedo and team cover up run the show.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Shouldn't the supposedly "professional" media be asking these questions?"

      In a word "yes" but if you click on the links in the main posting you will see that the local State Media is a big part of "the problem" and will not be holding Deputy Lewis to account or asking ANY questions.

      Delete
  2. Lewis is now chairman of PAC scrutinizing states spending. How many millions did his illegal suspension of Graham Power cost?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A conservative guess would be in the region of £2m plus. Indeed the PAC should be investigating the expenditure of the discredited Wiltshire Investigation but it doesn't look that that will happen!

      Delete
  3. Suggest all concerned parties bombard Mr Lewis with demands that he address these issues. I've started the ball rolling on Twitter. Please join in if you agree we need answers.

    @JRCbean

    ReplyDelete
  4. Andrew Lewis doesn't owe bloggers an explanation of anything. He may have questions to answer should he be called by the COI, but suggesting to people that they harass him on Twitter is as inappropriate as it is misguided

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew Lewis owes the victims/survivors of abuse, the people of Jersey, Mr. Power, the discredited Wiltshire Constabulary, Brian Napier QC and the States Assembly an explanation for the contradictory statements he has made.

      Delete
    2. Not according to the law he doesn't, but what does that matter I guess ?

      Delete
    3. "Not according to the law he doesn't ..."

      VFC said that Lewis owes the abuse victims etc, Brian Napier QC and the States Assembly an explanation. WHERE does VFC say that this is required by law?

      VFC and others are entitled to ask elected representatives reasonable questions. His continued failure to explain himself speaks volumes. It is probably just as well because if he did open his mouth more lies would doubtless come spilling out.

      On the subject of law there ARE laws (and long have been) that persons are not allowed to batter, torture, rape, seduce or bugger minors -but you do not seem too bothered about this.

      These are among the things which Lewis' lies cover in his illegal suspension of the island's legitimate Police Chief.

      Filth !

      Delete
    4. Someone apparently does not like you or anyone else holding the powerful to account, nor even speaking truth to elected officials.

      Elle

      Delete
    5. Not "harass on Twitter", what are you on about! He's an elected representative of the people, and as such I have a right to ask him valid questions that concern me regarding his position in the states and will continue to do so. If you don't have the balls to question your elected representatives and hold them to account that's your problem.

      JRCbean

      Delete
    6. You can drop the righteous indignation because nobody is questioning your right to ask him questions. It's why you feel the need to incite others to 'bombard him with demands' that's a bit odd. Now what is it you call somebody who feels the need to hunt in a pack ?

      Delete
    7. @12:20 "Now what is it you call somebody who feels the need to hunt in a pack"

      Maybe a Jersey paedophile ring member?

      The hijack of the island's police function was for a reason. Several actually -all of them evil.

      Delete
    8. Well done. That really adds something to the discussion. And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously

      Delete
    9. @16:09 You can drop your unrighteous indignation. You are taking it seriously enough to not only read, but comment as well.

      If it wasn't serious you wouldn't be here.
      You are not Wherry Worried are you?

      Do you doubt that paedophiles tend to organise themselves into rings and surround themselves with support and protection?
      Or do you state that Jersey is the only place on earth where paedophiles do not organise themselves into rings?

      www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-29456114
      Jersey Care Inquiry hears girls 'sedated and raped'

      www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/jersey-police-uncover-abuse-cellar/story-e6frg6to-1111115697431?nk=8c4c040bdafd6154161df300731a5a37
      Boys raped by Jersey politicians

      www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9616121/Jimmy-Savile-Steptoe-and-Son-actor-Wilfrid-Brambell-abused-boys-in-Jersey-claims-whistleblower.html
      Children supplied for visiting VIP's to abuse


      If you have a point then let's hear it.

      Delete
    10. "Jersey Care Inquiry hears girls 'sedated and raped" LINK.

      "Boys raped by Jersey politicians" LINK.

      "Children supplied for visiting VIP's to abuse" LINK.



      Delete
    11. "You can drop the righteous indignation" "what is it you call somebody who feels the need to hunt in a pack?"

      Anon @12.20 you are a sad little individual, muddying the waters again. I don't see anything wrong of demanding the answers to difficult questions of our elected representatives and indeed asking and encouraging others to do the same. Quite the contrary in fact. If you not prepared to deal with VALID but difficult questions, then don't stand for politics!

      Also is it right then that everyone campaigning on the side of justice should do so totally alone and without calling for support from others? If so I see a lot of lonely placard waving marches down king street that have zero effect.

      Andrew Lewis has not stood again to answer these questions that by any reasonable stretch of the imagination he should already have done so. In my view he clearly has an agenda and is not to be trusted. He was desperate to get in, and was I feel partly coerced into doing it by others. Time will tell, but watch carefully for more possible underhand dealings.

      Delete
    12. Well said @09:21
      Lewis was the all-too-eager-to-please boy in short pants who the Establishment used to (illegally?) get rid of a disobedient Police Chief, and he couldn't even do that right
      What a short stint as Home Affairs Minister that was!

      Lewis is a liability so why have the Establishment brought him back on board?
      .....Well he is still a useful "yes man" but more importantly when finally the "crapaud" hits the fan, he is a ready made fall guy. A sacrificial goat, a head on a plate (or other suitable part of anatomy).

      Delete
  5. Without answers from Lewis he will be perceived as a dishonest man so he should be jumping through hoops to prove his integrity as was displayed on his election posters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He may be perceived as such by a small band of bloggers and those they encourage in their views. But given that the electing public, and the vast majority of his colleagues in government, seem to trust him, I'm sure he won't lose too much sleep over that.

      Delete
    2. “But given that the electing public, and the vast majority of his colleagues in government, seem to trust him.”

      The electing public will know very little of Deputy Lewis’ apparent dishonesty because the State Media has not reported it. Not sure how you know the “vast majority” of his colleagues “trust” him but that could be because they are about as honest as he seems (not) to be.

      Andrew Lewis in the States Chamber’

      “If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all.”

      Independent Police Complaints Commission;

      "In the Heads of Complaint made by Mr Harper he states that the review criticised a number of areas of the investigation. The review does not criticise the investigation. The Review does not criticise any individual involved in Operation Rectangle."

      Deputy Lewis in the States Chamber;

      "I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place.”

      Napier Report;

      As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report.”

      And a “vast amount” of his colleagues trust him? Without answers to these contradictions do you trust him?

      Delete
  6. For more evidenced shenanigans concerning the (illegal?) suspension of the former Chief Police Officer readers should read the Blogs posted today by former Deputy Bob Hill and fellow Blogger Rico sorda.

    Bob Hill's POSTING.

    Rico Sorda's POSTING.

    ReplyDelete
  7. An excellent, concise blog post. Thanks Team Voice. I recall how I felt on that day on hearing about the press conference and Graham's suspension. Having followed Jersey media all my life and local blogs from 2006 onwards, it was so obviously a set up. I felt angry and shocked and oppressed and I wasn't even an abuse victim. Then Gradwell went on to tell a gathered group of child abuse survivors that there wasn't much hope them and how Graham had led them up the garden path. Imagine how they felt right then.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Combined, these are among the best VFC blog postings outsiders can read. Excellent compilations of links in the blog entry and summary of background. An unhappy anniversary, but this truth can't be burned and buried, so there is reason for hope.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  9. The tipping point is near!
    But considering its only the beginning of the end, and considering the yes people that have just been slipped in as ministers.
    We are a least 4 years away.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Leave them to it.
    You only have to search through the archives of this blog to see that none of these one sided stories ever get anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome back troll :-)

      Just like Andrew Lewis never will answer his own contradictions (AKA lies)
      You never did answer these:

      Jersey Care Inquiry hears girls 'sedated and raped'
      www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-29456114

      Boys raped by Jersey politicians
      www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/jersey-police-uncover-abuse-cellar/story-e6frg6to-1111115697431?nk=8c4c040bdafd6154161df300731a5a37

      Jersey children supplied for visiting VIP's to abuse
      www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9616121/Jimmy-Savile-Steptoe-and-Son-actor-Wilfrid-Brambell-abused-boys-in-Jersey-claims-whistleblower.html


      And if you suggest that Jersey's paedophile rings have somehow spontaneously disbanded:
      http://thebaldtruthjersey.blogspot.com/2014/06/jersey-child-abuse-cover-up-another.html


      Filth !

      Delete
    2. "And if you suggest that Jersey's paedophile rings have somehow spontaneously disbanded:" LINK.

      Delete
    3. Brilliant isn't it. You try and explain that Andrew Lewis has no obligation to answer questions from disaffected bloggers, and you get called a troll, a sad little individual, a 'Wherry Worrier', and bombarded with links to articles about child abuse unrelated to your original point.

      Check the Independent Napier report.

      '111. I do not see a need to investigate these matters further. As I have already said, I have found no evidence of a “conspiracy” to oust Mr Power for some improper reason.'

      I realise that it's a bit painful that the re-election of Andrew Lewis has effectively demonstrated how little influence your 'views' really have on the wider public, however to try and paint somebody who points out the truth as somebody who is in any way against the victims of abuse not receiving due justice is both many contributors usual tactic, and a bit desperate. Getting due justice for the victims, and following due process for Power, are not mutually exclusive.

      Delete
    4. Not forgetting that Andrew Lewis looks to have told Napier that he hadn't seen the MET Interim Report;

      "As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report.”

      But told the States assembly that he had;

      "I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place.”

      Thanks to CEO Jon Richardson Part (d) of the Napier TOR's WENT MISSING which meant the AFFIDAVIT of Graham Power was not included in the TOR's.

      While you are very selectively quoting the Napier Report you might want to look at this bit as well.

      "I have identified several failings of a procedural nature in the handling of the suspension of Mr Power, and I will not repeat here the details of matters set out in the above paragraphs. Whatever view may now be taken of the substantive criticisms that have been made of Mr Power’s conduct of the historic abuse inquiry, the basis on which he was suspended on 12 November 2008 was in my view inadequate. There was at the time a lack of hard evidence against him."





      Delete
    5. From the very selective quote you made (paragraph 111 of Napier) you could have used this bit also;

      "Key decision makers and advisers were, long before the events of 12 November, inclined to be critical of Mr Power. Perhaps because of that, officials were too ready to accept relatively weak evidence as sufficient to warrant the Minister taking the drastic step of imposing suspension on 12 November 2008."

      Delete
  11. @13:10 The Napier Report was highly critical of the improper suspension of Jersey's legitimate Chief of Police ..... even though it was FAR FROM "Independent"
    Would you like the links on the mysteriously disappearing ToR's from the Napier Report ?

    Talk about taking the meat out of the sandwich.
    They claimed that the all important ToR was missed by "accident" !

    Now you quote one tiny paragraph from the Napier report.
    It appears that Andrew Lewis LIED TO Brian Napier QC
    (The very subject of this blog BTW)

    Do try to keep up.

    @13:10 Are you trolling, or are you just not the sharpest tool in the box?

    ....Whatever, Keep it coming, you are an own goal machine :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It should also be noted exactly what the MET Report was intended for and how it should NEVER have been (ab)used for disciplinary purposes.

      In any major crime enquiry it is common to have a review conducted by an outside force. This usually takes the form of a "critical friend" going over the investigation and making suggestions for improvement.

      Participants are encouraged to be candid and self critical. The intention is that there can be a candid critical look at what has been done to date in a safe environment with the overall intention of improving the performance of the enquiry. If reviews were ever to be used for disciplinary purposes then their purpose would be defeated as everyone would "clam up" during a review and improvement would not be achieved.

      Of course we now know that the MET Interim Report WAS abused as demonstrted by Ian Le Marquand;

      "The Metropolitan Police are absolutely against this (Interim Report) being used in any way in the context of this hearing or my having access to it in any form whatsoever,"

      From HERE.

      Delete
  12. Wonder where the wherry worrier is working now because its not the hospital on the hill anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Have you had a response to the e-mail yet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No response or acknowledgement so I sent a polite reminder this morning.

      Delete
    2. Mind you, almost three years later, Lenny Harper is still waiting for a reply from Ian Le Marquand to this OPEN LETTER so it's probably a bit early yet to expect a response.

      Delete
    3. What makes you think you will get an answer to any e-mail questions for which you are not a party to in the first place.
      The suspension of Graham Power is between him and his employer, what business is it of yours?

      Delete
    4. Andrew Lewis won't answer this in his life time.
      You are not a party to the suspension of Graham Power. You are not a member of the States. You are not a member of JACs, the Police, the Law Officers Department or any credible news agency. You are just a one armed ex fisherman with a chip on your shoulder the size of a planet and Andrew Lewis knows this and was reminded of that fact before you even sent your stupid e-mail to him.

      Delete
    5. To answer both questions in one as you’ve clearly not read the e-mail I sent him (main posting).

      I am a member of the public for whom Andrew Lewis will be “representing” in the Island’s parliament so have a right, if not a duty, to question his integrity. He has given different versions of events concerning his suspension of the former Police Chief and it looks like he has either misled the Island’s Parliament or misled Napier and the Wiltshire Constabulary. He is (or should be) answerable to the public in a democracy or do you believe it’s only the Law Offices/Members of the States/Jac’s or the Police who can ask questions of politicians in Jersey’s version of democracy?

      Delete
    6. You just don't get it.
      This is between Graham Power and his employers, it has nothing to do with you and he has no duty to prove his integrity to you.
      If Graham Power is so concerned about it all then he should use his avenues as a former employee to ask the questions.

      Delete
  14. You obviously missed the exchange last week in the States between Higgins and Lewis on this very subject.
    This is a confidential matter between Employer and Employee, can't you grasp that simple principle?

    "7.2.12 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

    I was not going to get into this area until I heard the answers that the candidate gave to Deputy Tadier and to Senator Ozouf. First of all, I would like to know what specific academic and professional qualifications he has got and, secondly, how he can reassure us that he will be his own man rather than merely the voice or the tool of the Chief Minister when he played a major role in the unfair dismissal of the former Chief of the States of Jersey Police at the behest of the former Chief Minister.

    Deputy A.D. Lewis:

    Deputy Higgins has had a mantra on this for the last 6 years. My family and myself have been plagued by this since I made that decision. But I am not frightened of making difficult decisions. I made decisions based on evidence in front of me. I had outstanding evidence. I had consultation with law officers, with the Solicitor General, who is now our Attorney General. I spoke to H.R. professionals. I do not take decisions without taking advice. I am not an expert on everything and that is why I took strong advice on that particular issue. My academic qualifications? Yes, I have qualifications in marketing, tourism, travel. I have run businesses, which I have elaborated in my speech, so I feel I am eminently qualified to take on the mantle of Minister for Economic Development. I repeat again, I am not frightened of making difficult decisions. I did not commit any kind of illegal act and I have never lied to this House and I never will lie to this House.

    7.2.13 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

    Supplementary. The candidate just told us that he took advice before he took the action he did do. The advice from the Attorney General at the time was to not take action unless you have a very, almost damning report from the Metropolitan Police, who were investigating the conduct of Operation Rectangle. Not as a disciplinary matter but as a method of trying to see what they did right, what they did wrong. The candidate failed to mention he did not have that advice from the Metropolitan Police, although he told the States that he had. He said he had absolute evidence, he had no choice, but the truth of the matter is, as he later admitted to the inquiries, he did not see the Metropolitan Police report. Is that not the case?

    Deputy A.D. Lewis:

    I had unequivocal evidence to make a decision. I am not frightened of making difficult decisions. The Deputy has continued to pursue this for the last 6 years. I have not ever had the opportunity to say anything about this. This was a local disciplinary matter. I was the Minister responsible legally to take action. I am not going to elaborate further on this today, simply because I was the employer. The subject, or the person you are talking about, was the employee. He has a duty of confidentiality. I am not going to discuss the case of a member of staff of the States of Jersey, who I was effectively the employer and that is the position when you are a Minister. You have to respect confidentiality. There is a difference between confidentiality and secrecy and conspiracy and this is confidential.

    The Bailiff:

    Deputy Higgins, thank you very much. We do not need a running commentary. Deputy Tadier?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So Lewis claims that he did not lie to the States.

      *IF* that is true, he must therefore lied to the Napier investigation.

      His two contradictory claims cannot both be true.

      Delete
    2. Andrew Lewis said;

      “I made decisions based on evidence in front of me. I had outstanding evidence.”

      OK what was that evidence? Was it the MET interim report where according to IPCC?

      “The Review does not criticise any individual involved in Operation Rectangle."

      And according to the Napier Report.

      “neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report.”

      Simple question; what was the “outstanding evidence” in front of Deputy Lewis?

      Deputy Higgins did try and press Deputy Lewis on the subject of the MET Interim Report;

      “but the truth of the matter is, as he later admitted to the inquiries, he did not see the Metropolitan Police report. Is that not the case?”

      Deputy Lewis did not answer that question.

      Delete
    3. Because its confidential.
      Why can't Graham Power sort out his own supposed illegal suspension himself, why does it need Dep. Higgins asking questions, explain that?

      Delete
    4. If an elected representative looks to have been dishonest then that is not confidential and deserves answers.

      As for the confidentiality aspect you might have missed this from the main posting?

      “now that he (Graham Power QPM) is no longer a serving police officer and free from the constraints imposed by the terms and conditions of his (illegal?) suspension he might have significantly more to say”

      Delete
    5. You just confirmed it yourself, 'constraints of terms and conditions'.
      Andrew Lewis has clearly said that he cannot discuss Graham Power as he was an employee and that would encompass decisions made up to his suspension.

      Delete
    6. But we know confidentiality stands for nothing though don't we? Below are the confidentiality clauses and FOI exemptions of the Wiltshire Report.



      Confidentiality, and FOI exemption, counts for nothing though does it?

      Below are the confidentiality clauses contained in the Wiltshire report.

      “Highly Confidential – Personal Information

      An independent disciplinary investigation by Wiltshire Police following the suspension of Chief Officer Graham POWER of the States of Jersey Police on 12 November 2008.

      Obligation to confidentiality
      1. Paragraph 1.2 of the discipline code (for Chief Officers of the States of Jersey Police) requires that all parties involved in the operation of this code will maintain confidentiality while proceedings are being progressed. The outcome of any particular case arising under the code will not, as a general rule, be publicised, but it is accepted that following the outcome of a particular case, the Home Affairs Minister and/or the States Employment Board and/or the Chief Officer, might decide that public disclosure is appropriate.

      2. This report contains personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, and Wiltshire Police would breach the first data protection principle if it were to disclose that information. Hence, the information is exempt under s.40(2) Freedom of Information Act 2000.


      3. This report contains information that has been, and continues to be, held by Wiltshire Police for the purposes of an investigation which it has a duty to conduct and which ought not be disclosed (under s.30 Freedom of Information Act 2000).

      4. An obligation of confidence upon Wiltshire Police arises from the duty outlined at 1. above, and disclosure of information would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey. Information, therefore, ought not to be disclosed (under s.27 Freedom of Information Act 2000).”

      But we know Ian Le Marquand ignored these confidentiality clauses and went ahead and published the prosecution case against Mr. Power REGARDLESS.

      ILM told Mr. Power ON STATE RADIO he would publish Mr. Power's interim defence case. Something he reneged on.

      So the only confidentiality we have seen is the BURYING of Mr. Power's interim defence case.

      Delete
    7. I recall it was all redacted.
      Dep. Lewis is hardly going to engage with you after some of the allegations you've written anyhow.

      Delete
    8. “I recall it was all redacted.”
      SO? Did you read the confidentiality/FOI exemptions?

      Delete
  15. Dep. Andrew Lewis is on the Politics hour.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Andrew Lewis has, by the looks of things, made contradictory statements to the Island’s parliament once again in this latest Hansard reproduced above. In answer to Deputy Higgins’ question he says;

    “I did not commit any kind of illegal act and I have never lied to this House”

    Again both statements cannot be true. He told the States (Island’s Parliament)

    “I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place.”

    Then we read from HERE in paragraph 5 from Mr. Power.

    "5. In his recent statement Mr Lewis says “I had been aware for some time of concerns about the command and control of the Child Abuse Enquiry.” In his formal statement to Wiltshire Police he states “Until I received the letter from David WARCUP, (on 11th November 2008 – the day before the suspension) I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” (Paragraph 3.) Is Mr Lewis now admitting that his statement to Wiltshire Police is not true? If it helps, it appears that prior to signing his statement to Wiltshire Police, Mr Lewis signed a declaration which among other things (such as page numbers and the like) states “This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything in it which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.” If the signed statement to Wiltshire Police is not true then it is a serious matter. On the face of it, his recent public statement, and the statement to Wiltshire cannot both be true. This is something which may require a more formal investigation."




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For Lewis, lying is like breathing.

      Born for a career in PR and Jersey establishment politics.

      Delete
    2. @17:14
      It is not slander
      because it appears to be true

      Delete
    3. SLANDER
      noun
      1.
      the action or crime of making a FALSE spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.

      verb
      1.
      make FALSE and damaging statements about (someone)

      So it appears that to qualify as "slander" a (spoken) statement must be materially untrue

      Maybe you meant "libel" (which relates to written statements BTW)

      psssssst ..........it isn't libel if it is true.

      Delete
  17. Its sad to see apprentice politicians going straight into assistant minister positions. These new kids on the block were voted in for their popularity, likeability and their gift of letting people know they can change things....
    Lets see if they cope, with their voting public not liking them as much anymore, when they have to go along with their ministers?!

    ReplyDelete
  18. it isn't libel if it is true.

    Yes it is in Jersey under data protection laws,a first in civilised wester society, if you tell the truth about a lowlife sharrocks type person who is a proven troll, the truth will not save you, but the trial will be held in secret to hide the records.

    This is a fact with a proven banana administration like Jersey.




    ReplyDelete
  19. Lewis even creates a paper trail of lies and incompetence.

    Lewis was a man totally out of his depth. He was told to get rid of the island's Chief of Police, and probably even given the three letters to do it with.

    The notion that shoolboy Lewis made the decision to suspend G.P. is farcical

    All Lewis had to do was give G.Power the three letters in the right sequence and timing. He couldn't even get that right.

    Ogley, Frank Walker and the hoods must have been furious with him

    Details from G.Power, republished on
    http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2014/11/former-home-affairs-minister-andrew_12.html

    "....The typed document [meeting notes to replace handwritten notes destroyed by Ogley] said things which were not true and left out things which were in my favour. I examined the three notices given to me at the meeting.

    All were signed by the Minister for Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis and dated 12th November 2008. The letter formally notifying me that I was to be suspended with immediate effect referred to matters which the Minister had allegedly discussed with me “At our meeting earlier today,” at which it was alleged that he had informed me that “I was considering whether you should be suspended from duty.” That was untrue. There had been no earlier meeting and I had been given no prior notice that suspension was being considered. I understand that nobody disputes this or has attempted to explain why the Minister falsely claimed in his letter that there had been an earlier meeting. The letter then goes on to say “I have now decided, in accordance with the terms of the Disciplinary Code and the provisions of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 to suspend you from duty.”

    The most likely explanation for this discrepancy is that the Minister for Home Affair, Andrew Lewis, had been advised that the letter telling me that I was to be suspended should not be given to me straight away. He had been told to meet with me first and pretend to take account of any representations I made. He was then supposed to say that he would consider the matter, close the meeting and delay announcing his decision for a short while. That might enable him to claim he had given careful consideration to anything I had said. The next step would be for him to arrange for someone else to hand me the letter telling me that after considering the issue he had decided to suspend me. But he botched the job. He got flustered and gave me the signed letter telling me that I was suspended within moments of me entering the door, without closing the meeting and pretending to “consider” the matter. Hence I was given a letter referring to an earlier meeting which had never happened. It is also possible that he just did not allow himself enough time to pretend that he was giving the issue proper consideration......."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More from G.Power (Ex chief of Jersey Police), republished on
      http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2014/11/former-home-affairs-minister-andrew_12.html

      "...In spite of all of the conflicting and contradictory accounts offered by the Jersey Government we can be sure of some things which have emerged from this issue. The facts of this story support a view that senior figures in the Jersey Government are willing to lie, to make false statements, to destroy evidence, to withhold the truth, to invent accounts and to cover-up for each other. And this is not a story about me. I am not a victim of child abuse. I do not have to seek justice from the very authorities whose conduct and ethics have been exposed by their actions in this case. It is no wonder that the survivors of decades of abuse in Jersey Government institutions have little faith in the Island’s political and legal system. If the regime will lie about one thing then they will lie about another thing. If they will destroy evidence in one case then they will destroy evidence in another. If they are willing to collude and cover up the truth in relation to one matter then they will do the same about other things. If the Jersey regime could do this to me [the Chief of Police] and get away with it then think what they could do to others. Think what they could do to the victims of abuse......"
      [and have done BTW]

      Delete
  20. http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/andrew-lewis-a-liar-and-a-crook/

    ReplyDelete
  21. 8. The Minister for Home Affairs will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier -
    “Will the Minister advise members whether she will be publishing to members a redacted copy of the submission of the former States of Jersey Police Chief to the Wiltshire Police (Operation Haven) which her predecessor advised the Assembly would be published after the release of the Wiltshire Report?”

    ReplyDelete
  22. You had an answer from Lewis yet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have had a reply but NO answers. I will look to publish the recent e-mail correspondence between myself and Deputy Lewis in my next Blog Posting.

      Delete
    2. What did he have nothing to say for himself?

      Delete
    3. Pretty much but I am offering another opportunity (e-mail today) to reconsider his stance.

      Delete
  23. With Walker, Le Sueur, Ogley, Warcup, Gradwell, & Le Marquand, now gone....
    Lewis will be on his own!?

    ReplyDelete
  24. DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT ,enough muppets voted in this time to more than replace them,sorry Muppets did not mean to denigrate your name!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although it's important to remember that a third of the States Assembly has not been voted in at all. This includes 11 out of 12 Constables.

      Delete
  25. Question
    Will the Minister advise members whether she will be publishing to members a redacted copy of the submission of the former States of Jersey Police Chief to the Wiltshire Police (Operation Haven) which her predecessor advised the Assembly would be published after the release of the Wiltshire Report?
    Answer
    On 11 September 2012, in response to an oral question by the former Deputy Shona Pitman, when asked about the publication of the affidavit submitted to the Wiltshire investigation by the former Chief of Police, my predecessor said the following:
    As a follow-on from previous answers, I needed to obtain specialist legal advice on the issue of libel. That advice was that, as I was not under any legal duty to make the statement - it is a statement, not an affidavit - public, the risks of a libel action were substantial. As a result of this, it became clear that there would need to be substantially more redaction of the document, probably with whole sections being redacted. Indeed I wondered whether it might be better to ask the former Chief of Police to rewrite his statement so as to explain his position while omitting the potentially libellous references. However, during the summer there was a further development with what purports to be the majority of the statement being placed with minimal redaction on a blog site. In the light of this I cannot now properly proceed with this task as originally envisaged because any person reading a fully redacted version could then find elsewhere the full text, which would completely defeat the whole purpose of redaction. I have to say that throughout this process, including the disciplinary process, I have constantly faced a situation in which confidential documents have been put into the public domain and this is yet a further example of that.
    In response to the follow-up question he then added:
    I must make the position clear. In relation to this situation, I was not under a duty to do this piece of work. I was urged to do so by the former Scrutiny Panel. I decided so to do, so that alongside the Wiltshire Report could stand, for posterity, the former Chief Officer’s statements in a redacted form. Redaction was incredibly important because there were all sorts of allegations contained there that should not be in the public domain: references to individuals. I have to think about fairness to the other individuals involved. Now, the fact is that purported versions of the document now do exist on another website. Frankly, I cannot go ahead. It would simply be totally unfair to the people who should have the benefit of the process of redaction. I do, however, still leave open the possibility of going back to the former Chief Officer, as I have mentioned, and saying to him: “Look, we cannot now do this as originally intended because this has been cut across by the irresponsible actions of people who have put an unredacted form into the public domain but would you like, as an alternative, to have the opportunity to produce a more truthful statement which takes out the potentially libellous matters?” That, I think, is the very best I can do.
    On first consideration the concerns that my predecessor expressed in 2012 appear to me to be as valid today as they were at the time of his statement in this Assembly. Even were I, after further advice, to consider it otherwise I would also need to consider whether or not it would be appropriate now to publish a redacted copy of the submission in the light of the terms of reference of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We must not lose sight of the fact that former Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand should never have published the Wilts Report in the first place as there was never an "outcome" after ILM abandoned the disciplinary action. Or as Mr. Power QPM tells it CHICKENED OUT OF A FAIR FIGHT.

      Below are the confidentiality clauses and FOI exemptions contained in the Wilts Report, and breached by former Senator Ian Le Marquand.

      "Highly Confidential – Personal Information

      An independent disciplinary investigation by Wiltshire Police following the suspension of Chief Officer Graham POWER of the States of Jersey Police on 12 November 2008.

      Obligation to confidentiality

      1. Paragraph 1.2 of the discipline code (for Chief Officers of the States of Jersey Police) requires that all parties involved in the operation of this code will maintain confidentiality while proceedings are being progressed. The outcome of any particular case arising under the code will not, as a general rule, be publicised, but it is accepted that following the outcome of a particular case, the Home Affairs Minister and/or the States Employment Board and/or the Chief Officer, might decide that public disclosure is appropriate.

      2. This report contains personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, and Wiltshire Police would breach the first data protection principle if it were to disclose that information. Hence, the information is exempt under s.40(2) Freedom of Information Act 2000.

      3. This report contains information that has been, and continues to be, held by Wiltshire Police for the purposes of an investigation which it has a duty to conduct and which ought not be disclosed (under s.30 Freedom of Information Act 2000).

      4. An obligation of confidence upon Wiltshire Police arises from the duty outlined at 1. above, and disclosure of information would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey. Information, therefore, ought not to be disclosed (under s.27 Freedom of Information Act 2000).(END)

      So the Home Affairs Minister is prepared to break data protection and possibly "prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey" but is not willing to risk libel in order to see that justice is done?

      Delete
    2. What are you trying to do, change history?
      If they hadn't released Wiltshire you people would be seeing that as suspicious.

      Delete
    3. I’m not sure how you think anybody is trying to change history? The history has been published (on here)

      The former Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand, contrary to the Wilts confidentiality/FOI exemptions, published a document he shouldn’t have.

      The suspicion arises when Ian Le Marquand (a former Magistrate) believes it is fair to go on a MEDIA ROADSHOW with the prosecution case against somebody while burying the defence case. This is against all known natural justice. And when asked to publish the defence case he refuses.

      Delete
    4. I totally disagree.
      I think there was enough public interest in Wiltshire to merit its redacted publication and I believe if it had not been released then people would have made claims it had found nothing.

      Delete
    5. It didn’t “find” anything. The contents of the Wilts Report are no more than un-tried, un-tested, allegations because the (then) Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand made sure they couldn’t be tried and tested by abandoning the disciplinary hearing, the very purpose the Wilts Report was meant for.

      Instead, as mentioned previously, he used the Report to go on a media campaign with it. If you believe there was enough public interest in Wilts being redacted and published (contrary to the confidentiality clauses and FOI exemptions) then surely the same should stand for the redaction and publication of Graham Power’s interim defense case?

      Delete
  26. "The culture of self supporting invulnerability demonstrated by senior officers is now going to come to an end whether they like it or not". A quote from our sacked Health & Social Services Minister from 6 years ago. Which is still destine to come true.

    ReplyDelete

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