Below is a "guest Posting" from Former Deputy Chief Police Officer and Senior Investigating Officer of the Jersey Child Abuse Enquiry Mr. Lenny Harper.
What you are (hopefully) about to read is nothing short of "staggering" and gives an insightful look into, not only the disgraced and discredited Wiltshire Report, but how the Freedom Of Information Law is not worth the paper it is written on, well when it comes to the Wiltshire Constabulary anyway.
All this new "evidence" has come to light as a result of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel Review chaired by Deputy Trevor Pitman. The very same Review that has seen witnesses being "economical" with the truth (under oath). The very same review that Mick Gradwell has refused to give evidence to. The very same review that has been told of leaks to the media during an ongoing Child Abuse Enquiry by said Mick Gradwell (under oath). Leaks to the media by politicians and others during the "live" Child Abuse Enquiry (under oath) and guess what? Graham Power nor Lenny Harper nor any "Anti Establishment" Politician have been accused of leaking anything.
Is it any wonder that the Establishment will do anything they can to discredit this Review?
Over To Mr. Harper.
Voice For Children has asked me to compile a guest posting in order to draw together all that has happened in the four or five months in respect of BDO/Alto and the Wiltshire Police. I am very happy to do so.
I first became aware of BDO around the beginning of May this year (2011). I did an interview with VFC about various aspects of the criticism of myself and I mentioned that I had never at any stage been questioned about my expenses. Over the next few days both VFC and Rico Sorda expressed incredulity that I had never been asked by anyone about my expenses. One of them asked me if BDO/Alto had not raised the issue. “Who are BDO?” I asked.
Within a day or two I had read the BDO report. Enough has been said about the contents and I have provided evidence to contradict the findings at length in a document on one of the blogs. Suffice to say as I read the factual inaccuracies and untruths in the report I became angrier by the minute. I was also astonished to read quotes in the report from the confidential witness statement that I had made to Wiltshire Police who interviewed me as part of their now discredited disciplinary investigation into Graham Power. I was particularly surprised at this, as when I asked if I would be given a copy of my statement Wiltshire told me in no uncertain terms that I would not be. They told me the statement was confidential, that no one would get a copy, and that it would be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. I then agreed to make the statement only on the basis that it would be given to no one and that it be used for no other purpose than the discipline investigation for which I gave it. I am also aware that at least one of the New Scotland Yard staff who gave a witness statement to Wiltshire (and who was asked questions about my expenses but gave evidence contradicting what BDO/Alto said, but whose statement is not mentioned) also made his statement under the same conditions.
To emphasise the confidentiality of the statements and the other documents in the investigation, the Chief Constable of Wiltshire made the following comment;
1. 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 to 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
In the light of this I felt that it would not have been Wiltshire Police that released my statement but more likely the Jersey Home Affairs Minister. Three days earlier I had e-mailed Mr Le Marquand and asked him to release my Wiltshire Statement. He had refused. I have now e-mailed him several times asking who had told BDO not to interview me and also if he knew who had handed my witness statement to them. After first denying that he knew anything about the BDO Terms of Reference he changed his mind and admitted that he would have known. He denied knowledge of the leaking of my statement. He undertook to get back to me with a satisfactory explanation of events. I am still waiting.
At the same time I sent several e-mails to Mr Corbin of BDO asking for an explanation as to why they had not bothered to contact me, the person who had made most of the decisions they examined and whom they had been critical of. He refused to engage with me in any way.
On 18th May, I contacted Wiltshire Police and outlined my concerns to them. Below is the transcript of what I sent them.
“I was recently interviewed by your staff and made a statement in relation to a Disciplinary investigation carried out by your force under your personal supervision, into Mr Graham Power QPM, the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. Your officers refused me a copy of my statement at the time and told me that it was being made for one purpose and one purpose only, it would be used for nothing else, and that no one else would be given a copy. I have recently learned that a copy of my statement was given to a company called BDO, a jersey firm of accountants, who were compiling a report separate from your own enquiry. My belief is that they were given this statement by someone in the Jersey government. However, this has been denied by the Home Affairs Minister there who states that it must have been yourselves who handed the statement over. I have a long experience of untruths told by the Jersey government but of course have to seek clarification from you. I would be grateful if you would tell me if indeed you, or a member of your force, handed my statement to this company in direct contravention of the assurances I was given. Furthermore, I would be grateful if you would now supply me with a copy of the statement which I made to your officers. Thank You.
Expected outcome: As in body of e mail.
Identity of Officer / member of staff: Chief Constable Brian Moore”
Wiltshire told me they would investigate and get back to me.
On 22nd June 2011 I received a letter from an Andrew Knight, the solicitor acting for Wiltshire Police. He said the following;
“I have had the opportunity of speaking with the investigating officers. To the best of their knowledge and belief they have not passed a copy of your statement to BDO Alto Limited. Unfortunately I am unable to confirm whether BDO are in possession of your statement to which they refer within their May 2010 report or an explanation as to how they came by possession. I assume that such knowledge will be in their own possession and may I suggest that you direct your enquiries to them. I appreciate that you have attempted to elicit a response from them beforehand”
No uncertainty there then. It seemed that the matter would rest there. Then Mr Kellet and BDO gave evidence to the Scrutiny Panel and told the panel under oath that Wiltshire had indeed handed them my statement. They had been allowed to read it, take notes, but not to take it away. Many people might think that this contradicted Wiltshire’s assertion that they had not “passed a copy of (my) statement to BDO.” Many people, but it seems not Wiltshire nor their solicitor. After hearing the Kellet/BDO evidence I e-mailed the solicitor for Wiltshire again. Here is what I said.
“From: Lenny Harper
To: "aknight*****" ; NesbittCarly
Sent: Friday, 22 July 2011, 9:44
Subject: BDO Alto Good morning Mr Knight and Inspector Nesbitt;
I am not sure which of you I should send this to first, so I have forwarded it on to both. Perhaps the correct recipient will let me know.
On 22 June 2011, Mr Knight sent me a letter and an e mail informing me that after an investigation, Wiltshire police had concluded they "had not passed a copy of (my) statement to BDO."
On 15 July 2011 Mr M. Kellett, a consultant who was employed by BDO Alto, gave evidence to the Jersey Parliamentary Scrutiny Panel, together with Mr M Corbin, of BDO Alto, that he had met with officers of Wiltshire Police and that they had indeed passed him a draft copy of my statement. According to Mr Kellet and Mr Corbin they were 'passed' the statement to read through and take notes from, but were told they could not take the statement away. They did make notes and sections of it were used in the report which was leaked to a journalist supporter of convicted paedophiles almost immediately, and then used to attack me in the media.
I accepted Mr Knight's reassurances without question. However, the evidence of Mr Kellet and Mr Corbin does need to be addressed. As I see it there are now three scenarios arising;
Firstly, Mr Kellett and Mr Corbin are lying.
Secondly, someone at Wiltshire Police is lying.
Thirdly, someone at Wiltshire Police has deliberately been pedantic in the choice of the word "passed" when stating that they had not "to the best of their belief and knowledge passed (my) statement to BDO." Of course, if one wanted to be equally pedantic it could be said this was untrue as they had "passed" it to be read and for notes to be taken even if it was taken back.
If this third option was the case I would see this as a serious breach of my privacy and of the conditions under which I made this witness statement - particularly in the light of the statement by Mr Moore in which he himself stated that the Wiltshire report, of which my statement was part, was exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. I was told in no uncertain terms that this statement would be given to no one, least of all not even to me. BDO Alto was a firm of accountants and Mr Kellett was working with them. They should not have been allowed near my statement. It has been accepted by Mr Corbin and Mr Kellet that the media used the statement to mount a false public attack on me by misuse of the information. Being accused of wrongdoing in such a fashion caused me serious embarrassment.
In the circumstances I would appreciate clarification as to whether Mr Kellet and Mr Corbin are actually telling the truth and a re-affirmation of the circumstances surrounding this whole affair.
Leonard Harper”
On the 29th September, Mr Knight replied to the above. In his letter he now admits that Wiltshire did pass a copy of my statement to Mr Kellett and BDO but denies that his first letter was misleading. I presume this is because they were not allowed to take the statement away, just the notes they had made of its contents. This rather stretches the imagination somewhat. More than that, it is laughable. He then goes on to claim a ‘Public Interest’ reason for passing over the statement (but not allowing it to be taken away). As Wiltshire asked me not one question about my expenses, and BDO spent a lot of their report criticising me for this, it is difficult to see what the public interest was. Read for yourself and judge;
“From: Mr Andrew Knight
Veale Wasbrough Vizards Solicitors 29 September 2011
Dear Mr Harper,
BDO Report on Operation Rectangle
I apologise for the delay in providing you with a substantive response to your email dated 22 July 2011. As you are aware, the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel of the States of Jersey are conducting a review into the financial probity of the Haute de la Garenne police investigation and will be delivering their findings at the end of this month.
One of the Terms of reference for the Scrutiny Panel was to review the liaison between BDO Alto Limited and Wiltshire Police. It followed disclosure of references within the BDO report to extracts from the statement you provided to Wiltshire Police. I am aware that, as part of their investigation the Scrutiny Panel heard oral evidence and received written representations from a number of individuals including yourself, Mr Kellet, and a representative from BDO.
Until the Scrutiny Panel completed the hearing of evidence, it has not been possible for me to identify how BDO may have come into possession of your statement. Whilst it is not my intention to predict the outcome of the review, it is evident that Wiltshire Police did not supply a copy of your statement to BDO as previously confirmed within my letter to you dated 22 June 2011.
I do not believe my letter of 22 June was misleading in its facts. Evidence submitted by Mr Kellet and BDO to the Scrutiny Panel affirm that Wiltshire Police did not disclose a copy of your statement to BDO.
You will be aware of the content of Mr Kellet’s written submission to the Scrutiny Panel. Having spoken with officers from the Operation Haven investigation team I understand that Mr Kellet was shown a copy of your statement but not given a copy of it.
Following the decision by States of Jersey Police that it would conduct its own internal review of certain aspects of the Operation Rectangle investigation, it became apparent that there was the potential for overlap between their investigation and that being conducted by Mr Moore on behalf of the States of Jersey. Both investigations were seeking to review the financial probity of certain aspects of the Operation Rectangle investigation which involved examination of the same documentation and interviewing of particular witnesses.
In conjunction with the States of Jersey Police, the decision was taken that it would be of mutual benefit to both investigations if the Operation Haven investigation team worked with Mr Kellet. It enabled them to access documents that were potentially relevant, probative and of value to their investigation.
The sharing of information with Mr Kellet assisted Mr Moore in conducting an investigation that was thorough and proper in its examination of the evidence and enabled Mr Moore to deliver a report that was fair to Mr Power when considering any failures in his supervisory responsibilities of Operation Rectangle. An additional benefit of this decision was the saving of cost and time by not duplicating effort between the investigations.
It is evident from Mr Kellet’s evidence that Wiltshire Police were not privy to the decision to include references from your statement within the BDO report.
In summary, a lawful purpose existed for the sharing of the data contained within your statement with Mr Kellet and it was fair to do so. I do not believe there has been a breach of your privacy. Reference to the Freedom of Information Act and Data Protection Act within Mr Moore’s report was to prevent access to personal data by third parties after delivery of it to States of Jersey. The context in which your data was shared with Mr Kellet was that it occurred during the evidential gathering state and in the belief that it would be of mutual benefit to both investigations. It did not contravene the assurances give to you and there has not been a breach of legislation.
I hope the above is of assistance and that I may close my file.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Knight.”
I sent the following reply.
“Dear Mr Knight;
Thank you for your letter and for your assistance in this matter. I do not believe that your original letter was misleading as far as you are concerned. I believe the information you were given was misleading. I do not see the difference between handing a copy of a statement over to keep and handing a copy over to take notes from and to then hand back. I see this as a breach of my privacy given the conditions under which I made the statement and supplied the information, particularly when I was refused a copy of my statement. I should also point out that the BDO/Kellet Review was a review of the Financial spending. At no time did Wiltshire officers ask me about my spending. I see no reason then why they should have handed over a copy of my statement either temporarily or permanently.
Also, I think you have the wrong impression of the Scrutiny Panel. It is not a review of the probity of the spending on the investigation. It is a review into the probity of the BDO Alto review itself.
In the light of this I shall now make a formal complaint to the IPCC against Mr Moore and the officer(s) who handed over my statement for confidential and conditionally provided information to be leaked.
Once again, thank you for your assistance.
Lenny Harper”
To claim that it is not misleading to state that the statement was not passed over, and then when that lie is nailed under oath by the very persons who received that statement, to admit that it was, shows a bare faced effrontery which is almost stunning. Except of course, that this is the Jersey government and its cohorts and we have been here so many times before.
Other aspects of Mr Knights letter are almost as bizarre as him admitting that Wiltshire did pass over my statement and then in another paragraph, denying that they did. He has of course got the reason for the Scrutiny Panel very wrong. How many times have the Panel emphasised that their job was NOT to re-examine the spending on the investigation? Furthermore, as this excerpt from Mr Warcup’s evidence to the Scrutiny Panel shows, he did NOT, as Mr Knight claims, agree to the sharing of information between Kellet/BDO and Wiltshire.
“My understanding was that the States of Jersey Police and those working for the States of Jersey Police would not see any of the evidence in relation to the Wiltshire inquiry…..It would raise an issue should there any misconduct procedure I would have thought it would have been a matter which would be subject to challenge within the misconduct process to say why did that happen and was it appropriate and what was the purpose”
Where Mr Knight gets this idea from, one can only speculate. It is certainly par for the course in respect of the professionalism shown by Wiltshire throughout this whole affair.
I have now lodged a formal complaint against the Chief Constable of Wiltshire and the other officers concerned with the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The result remains to be seen.
Lenny Harper (END)
As Mr. Harper has said " The result remains to be seen." Well not only the results of his complaint to the IPCC against Wiltshire but it remains to be seen if Channel Television, The Jersey Evening Post or BBC Jersey report any of this turn of events now that they are in the public domain............
