"Scrutiny" The Steve Pallett way (2)

In continuance of our series concerning the allegations made by disgraced former so-called "Drug Counsellor" at Jersey's La Moye Prison, Ms Teresa Rodrigues, we bring our readers the latest developments (or not) from the Panel who are tasked with "scrutinising" the policies and procedures of the Home Affairs Department which includes the Prison.

We first reported on this subject two weeks ago where we published a series of e-mails between VFC, the Chairman of Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel, Constable Steve Pallet and Scrutiny Panel Member (another) Constable Michel Le Troquer which was published HERE.

Regular readers will know (from the link above) that Ms. Rodrigues claimed, in a National Newspaper, that she had two year sexual relationship (whilst employed at the prison) with prison inmate Curtis Warren.

Scrutiny Chairman, Constable Steve Pallett, refused to take the allegations seriously because they appeared in a newspaper that was nasty about a friend of his and went on to say (in the link above) "At present there is nothing to suggest that this is anything other than a ‘sensationalised’ story from a national newspaper with little in the way of evidence to support the allegations.

At present I do not see a role for the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel in this matter."

Yet in the same e-mail exchange Panel Member Le Troquer wrote;

"If true then there are a lot of explanations to be made……..and I don’t know how anyone will be able explain away such allegations." 

But now, yet more allegations (mentioned in video below) have surfaced, in the form of, what appears to be, an e-mail from a current member of the prison staff, sent to Deputy Montfort Tadier, parts of the State Media, seen by Constable Pallett and others, to include the Home Affairs Minister, which outlines allegations of, what only can be described as, a culture of corruption up at the Prison. We reproduce a redacted version of the e-mail here.

"Dear all,

First I will apologise for sending this information in this way, I do not have the strength to identify myself as I will be subjected to persecution by prison management and will lose my job which […] I cannot afford to do but I cant stay silent anymore.

The story instigated by Theresa Rodrigues is on the whole a fairy tale but it opens up other questions that should be asked.

Rodrigues was suspected investigated and challenged for numerous acts including sexual activity with numerous inmates(not warren) supply of drugs phones and pornographic materials. She was allowed to leave with pension reputation and a pay off from management. 

Officer AA was suspected investigated and found guilty of the same and again was allowed to leave with reputation pension intact and move too another states job

Officer BB found guilty after investigation for supply of drugs   no action taken, still states employee.

Counsellor CC guilty of supplying mobile phones to inmates  no action taken

Civilian DD   guilty of supply of drugs phones and pornographic material.. no action taken

Officer EE   Guilty of having improper relationship with Curtis Warren, passing and smuggling items and mail in and out of prison.  no action taken

Officer FF having affair with inmate..no action taken

The questions asked should be why have all these incidents been covered up by X, ultimately the buck stops with the Governor but it is common knowledge X who runs La Moye and makes the decisions.

Several Officers convicted of violent offences and kept job because of personally protected by X 

The moral in the prison is the lowest by far in the 10+ years I have been there, the management especially X run a regime based on corruption, bullying and lies and deceit."(END)

Readers/viewers/listeners will discover from the questioning in the States (Island's Parliament) this morning it now transpires that Scrutiny Panel Chairman Pallet won't believe allegations from somebody who has "blown the whistle" without anonymity in the "accredited" media (Rodrigues in the Mail). He won't pay attention to anything in the "unaccredited" media and won't take on board the allegations made in the above e-mail because the author of it wants to maintain their anonymity presumably for fear of suffering what is known as "The Jersey Way."

There is little doubt that there is an urgent need for a review to be carried out into the "practices"/policies/procedures at the prison which falls under the remit of the Scrutiny Panel. Yet the Chairman won't believe somebody who DOES waive their anonymity and won't believe somebody who DOESN'T waive their anonymity. He won't believe allegations published in the "accredited" media and won't believe allegations made in the "unaccredited" media.

Steve Pallett should resign forthwith or his Panel should call a vote of no confidence against him. 

Teresa Rodrigues, La Moye Prison, a Raft of Questions/Allegations and a Call For Information.

In continuation of what will now be a series of posts concerning the allegations made in a national newspaper by a former so-called "Drug Counsellor" from La Moye Prison in Jersey Teresa Rodrigues.

Ms Rodrigues claimed to have had a two year affair with prisoner Curtis Warren whilst she was employed at the prison and gave (possibly sold) her story to the Mail newspaper which was published HERE.

VFC, after reading the article, contacted the Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel (Parliamentary Select Committee) in order to get some answers and to ask if the Panel would be investigating these very serious allegations made by Ms Rodrigues, or would be asking the Home Affairs Minister to make a public statement?

Regular readers will be aware that the response received from the Panel Chairman was dismissive, rude, and quite frankly "staggering" which can, and should, be read HERE.

Deputy Montfort Tadier submitted an Urgent Oral Question, (Below) to the discredited, and disgraced, Minister of Home Affairs at the earliest opportunity concerning the allegations made by Ms Rodrigues in the National Newspaper. The "answers" given were completely unsatisfactory and left us with more questions than answers.......Yet again.

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following urgent oral question of the Minister for Home Affairs –

“Would the Minister advise whether a former prison employee had an inappropriate relationship with a prisoner at HMP La Moye and, if so, what assurances can he give that correct safeguards are in place so that such alleged practice may not occur in future?”

The "answer" can be listened to HERE.

In the video below Deputy Tadier discusses the information he, and others, have received concerning the alleged "practices" up at the prison and makes some startling claims which suggest that Ms Rodrigues' alleged affair with Curtis Warren is just the tip of the iceberg.

VFC has spoken with a number of credible sources who tell us Ms Rodrigues was making a good income on the side, up at the prison, by selling mobile phones and drugs to prisoners at extremely high rates for quite some time, and that just about everybody knew of Ms' Rodrigues' antics but she was "untouchable" and earned the nick-name, among some staff members as "Teflon Teresa" (nothing could stick). We have also been told that if she did have an affair with Curtis Warren, then he wasn't the only one. But more about that in up-coming posts.

It looks as though Ms Rodrigues' revelations/allegations, in the Newspaper, has opened up a whole new can of worms and as viewers/readers will discover (from the video below) she is not the only member of the prison staff to be accused of abusing her position.

It's at this point we remember the words from Scrutiny Panel Chairman Constable Steve Pallett. "At present I do not see a role for the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel in this matter."

We acknowledge that the prison authorities, Home Affairs, and Ms Rodrigues will strenuously deny the allegations made in this Blog, and interview, which will give more reason to hold an "independent" Committee of Inquiry so we can get to the truth.



Deputy Tadier can be contacted at m.tadier@gov.je

"Scrutiny" The Steve Pallet Way.

Readers will be aware of a recent article in the MAIL ONLINE concerning a former so-called "Drugs Counsellor" at La Moye Prison, Ms.Teresa Rodrigues.

Ms. Rodrigues, in the Mail article, claimed she had a 2 year affair with a prisoner, Curtis Warren, while she was employed at the prison.

Naturally if these claims are true then they raise some very serious questions as to how this affair, with a maximum security prisoner, was able to take place and to go on for so long?

The discredited, and disgraced,Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, still hasn't grasped how a so-called "Democracy" is supposed to work and has reverted to his dictatorial and totalitarian ways and refuses to answer any questions surrounding these extremely serious allegations. In the absence of an independent mainstream media, it looks like he/his Department won't be held to account and any questions will remain unanswered.

But that is what Scrutiny (Parliamentary Select Committee) is there for right?

Constable Steve Pallet is the Chair Person of the Scrutiny Panel who are supposed to "Scrutinise" the disgraced Home Affairs Minister and his Department. The only other Member on his Panel is another Constable Michel Le Troquer who actually voted for Geoff Southern to be Chairman. But guess who voted for Steve Pallet (besides the rest of the establishment members)? None other than the disgraced Home Affairs Minister himself!

So it will come as no surprise to learn that although Panel Member Constable Le Troquer believes questions need to be asked/answered, Steve Pallet, the Chairman, does not. "Why not" you might ask?

I suggest it is because Constable Pallet doesn't know how Scrutiny is supposed to work. But just as alarmingly the Constable won't be Scrutinising the Minister (who voted for him) seemingly because The Mail has said some horrible things about a friend of his!

Below are extracts from an e-mail exchange between the Scrutiny Panel, and VFC, which demonstrate the mess this Island is in because of no checks and balances, an unwillingness/refusal of the "Scrutiny" Chairman to "Scrutinise" the guy who voted for him because a newspaper said some horrible things about his friend and why the Chairman should resign, with immediate effect and give the position, to a non-conflicted, and capable Member.

Sunday 16 Feb 2014

Constables.

I contact you in your capacity of Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel Chairman/Member and bring to your attention an article in today's Mail Online http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560282/Prison-manager-two-year-affair-Britains-biggest-gangster-jail-cell-But-allowed-away-it.html

Could I ask if either of you will be submitting an urgent question to the Home Affairs Minister this coming Tuesday, will you be asking him to make a statement and, as a Scrutiny Panel, will you be scrutinising the policy/procedures that allowed a maximum security prisoner to spend so much time alone with a (presumably vulnerable)  female member of staff let alone allegedly be involved in an illicit sexual relationship with her for 2 years?

I await your reply/answers with anticipation.

Reply From Constable Michel Le Troquer 16th Feb 2014

Thanks for the information. I’ll be speaking with the Chairman Constable Steve Pallet and I’m sure this is the start of something that will go on for some time. If true then there are a lot of explanations to be made……..and I don’t know how anyone will be able explain away such allegations.  We shall update you after we have discussed the matter. There are likely to be many other Members who too will be seeking an explanation. Thanks again for advising us.

Kind regards,

Reply from VFC 16th Feb 2014

Constable.

Thank you for your reply, if no answers to my questions, as yet.

You'll forgive me for not sharing your optimism in "there are likely to be many other Members who too will be seeking an explanation" 

The Assembly (if you'll excuse my bluntness) is full of head nodding lobby-fodder who don't seem to have the ability to ask a question and I would be very surprised if anybody, other than Deputies Tadier, Higgins, and possibly Le Herissier, will ask anything.

Hopefully yourself, and Constable Pallet, will put pressure on the Home Affairs Minister to issue a Statement to the Assembly and possibly the Media concerning this grave matter?

I look forward to my questions being addressed (answered) in due course.

Reply from Scrutiny Panel Chairman and Constable Pallet. 17th Feb 2014

Further to your e-mail below,I will not be asking the Home Affairs Minister to make a statement or be submitting an urgent question to the Minister in regards to comments made in the Mail on Sunday yesterday either as a back bencher or as Chairman of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel.

I for one have no faith in the journalistic credibility of this newspaper especially after the printing of a story very recently  linking the local radio presenter Murray Norton to the death of charity organiser and blogger Simon Abbott.So called facts in the article were totally flawed and bear no resemblance to the truth.

In regards to these latest allegations,the Minister has stated publicly this morning  that he considers them to have no basis and did not want to give any creedance to the article by commenting on it to any great degree.Undoubtedly the Minister will carry on an informal internal investigation but I am sure he believes that this so-called affair was ,more than likely,a figment of Miss Rodrigues imagination.

There will though be an opportunity to question the Home Affairs Minister at the next Quarterly Hearing if necessary to investigate the current procedures for professional visitors to inmates at HMP  La Moye which I have little doubt is extremely stringent, as I have seen on visits I have made to the prison in the past.One of these visits was with the Scrutiny Panel in late 2012 whilst Curtis Warren was still held at La Moye.

At present there is nothing to suggest that this is anything other than a ‘sensationalised’ story from a national newspaper with little in the way of evidence to support the allegations.

At present I do not see a role for the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel in this matter.

I thankyou for your e-mail and for alerting the Panel of this story.

Reply from VFC 17th Feb 2014

Constable.

Thank you for your response and for demonstrating that you do not understand how the Scrutiny Process is supposed to work.

I have only 2 questions, before I consider a substantive reply to your e-mail.

1. Are you a friend of Murray Norton's?

2. On the strength of your e-mail will you be submitting your resignation from Scrutiny?

Reply from Scrutiny Panel Chairman and Constable Pallet. 17th Feb 2014

 Please do as you see fit.I have no intention of entering into a dialogue with you over your interpretation of the Scrutiny process.

1.Yes I do consider myself a  friend of Murray Norton’s and make no excuse for being so.Neither do I or have I hidden the fact.

2.No.

Kind Regards Steve

Ps Please do not waste either your or your own time on a substantive reply to past e-mails

Reply from VFC 17 Feb 2014.

Constable.

I find your tone extremely dismissive and offensive and in contravention of States Members Code of Conduct, and on that basis I intend submitting a complaint to PPC citing our e-mail exchange as evidence.

I'll take your advice on not substantively responding to your previous e-mail but instead will publish our correspondence in a Blog Posting where I will be suggesting that you are willing to turn your back on the scrutiny Process because a newspaper has given negative press to a friend of yours. Furthermore that you believe if the Minister (who you are supposed to be "scrutinising") says he is not going to answer questions then that's good enough for you.

Being a responsible Blogger (Jersey's only independent media) I would like to offer you a video interview on this subject so you are given the opportunity to explain your actions on this matter?

I intend on publishing the Blog tomorrow, containing extracts from our correspondence, but am willing to postpone for 24 hours if you would like to defend your actions in a video interview.(END)

The (rude and offensive) Constable has not replied to the last e-mail so it looks like he has declined the offer of an interview.

It should also be mentioned that Teresa Rodrigues has a very colourful and worrying past, as a counsellor, which I'll not go into just now and questions need to be asked as to "why" she "left" the prison in 2011 and how the hell she got the job in the first place?

But as we know the "Scrutiny" Chairman isn't looking to "Scrutinise" any of it.

VFC acknowledges that Curtis Warren strenuously  denies the claims made by Ms. Rodrigues.

HAS LE MARQUAND “GONE NATIVE” IN THE STATES POLICE?

A “Parliamentary Sketch” by a friend of "The Voice."

For the benefit of anyone who does not know, Senator Ian Le Marquand is Jersey’s Minister for Home Affairs. Under the current arrangements he is the person to whom the Chief Officer and Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police are politically accountable. The leadership of the Force is accountable to the Minister. The Minister is himself accountable to the States (the Jersey Parliament.) That is the arrangement. Or at least that is how things are supposed to be. But not apparently how they actually are if the Minister’s responses to questions in the States today Tuesday 19th Febrary 2013 are anything to go by.

The background to the questions is straightforward enough. Three police officers have recently been cleared of disciplinary allegations by an independent Tribunal. The Tribunal followed an independent investigation by Hampshire Police. As it happens the allegations concerned their actions in a high-profile case during which the actions of the same officers were criticised by the Courts. Not surprising therefore that there has been some quite legitimate interest in how these apparently conflicting outcomes can be reconciled. Step forward the Minister for Home Affairs. Who could be better placed to explain things to States Members and the public at large? Except that “explaining things” is not exactly a Le Marquand strong point.

On 29th January 2013 questions from States Members brought little information from the Minister. Le Marquand refused to release the written judgement of the Tribunal or to provide any meaningful information. He did however offer the following in response to a written question. In his answer he said “the public can be fully confident that the issues were properly investigated by an outside police force.” Not much “wriggle room” there you might think. Well, with hindsight that appears to be depend on the slipperiness of the wriggler and just how much he is allowed to get away with.

No sooner was the ink dry on the Ministers refusal to release the Tribunal judgement than the same document was leaked to a local leading Blogsite and PUBLISHED. (I hope nobody is ever foolish enough to trust the Jersey Government with any real secrets given their poor record on holding on to the meagre secrets they actually possess, but I digress.)

The published judgement revealed that the hearing was surprised that the Jersey Authorities, including the Police, had apparently failed to fully cooperate with the Disciplinary Investigation which they had themselves commissioned. This failure to cooperate had hindered the investigation and the work of the Tribunal. Additionally, there was a recorded concern at the accuracy of some of the typed, but not signed, witness statements which the hearing was asked to take into account.

No surprise therefore that at the next available sitting of the States interested Members invited the Minister to re-visit his earlier answers and to provide more information. A fair and reasonable exercise of the democratic process you might think. Well not according to the democratic ideals of Senator Le Marquand. Astonished back-benchers were told that their questions “should not have been asked” and were, they were repeatedly told “outrageous” and a “waste of time.” (Readers might be able to form their own view as to who was actually being “outrageous” in these exchanges, but worse was to follow.)

                                        

Deputy Shona Pitman had the nerve to draw to the Ministers attention to the Tribunal findings which appeared to say that the Force had not cooperated with the Hampshire investigation and had therefore prevented that investigation, and the subsequent Tribunal, from being as effective as they could have been. While, in observance of the conventions of the Assembly, nobody was named, all concerned knew that the lead for the Force in respect of the Hampshire investigation was the Deputy Chief Officer, Barry Taylor. But no worries, our worthy Minister had a full and complete answer. These outrageous allegations had been fully and comprehensively investigated by none other than, the Deputy Chief Officer, Barry Taylor. No readers, I am not making this up. I am not that good a fictional writer. Nobody could make this up (someone else’s catchphrase I know but on this occasion he might not mind.) Listen for yourself in the recording on “The Jersey Way” which should be available later tonight HERE or read it in Hansard. Yes, he actually made that claim. He told the States that the esteemed Deputy Chief Officer had spent a good deal of time on the matter. He had listened to the transcript of the hearing and he had spoken by telephone with the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. At the end of these enquiries the Deputy Chief Officer had been able to exonerate himself totally from any allegation that he, or for that matter anyone else in the Force, had failed to cooperate with the Hampshire Investigation. The Minister appears to have accepted this outcome without question, which is not surprising given that he later told the Assembly that it was his role in the matter to “defend my senior officers against serious allegations.” So that surely deals with that “outrageous” allegation? Well it does if you are an obsessive autocrat who has lost even an elementary grasp of some of the basic principles of democratic accountability.

If on the other hand you think that the right to vote is not in itself a guarantee of democracy and for any system to be genuinely democratic there needs to be active processes which include checks and balances, and proper accountability, then you might have a problem.

So what is going on here? Has the Minister simply “lost the plot” "gone native" in the police and totally forgotten that it is for the Force to be accountable to him and for him to be accountable to the States? Or is there yet another “cover up” with some bigger secret waiting to be revealed? It is difficult to be sure, but there are some basic facts which, while not providing all of the answers, at least give some of the background.

Le Marquand was selected to be Minister for Home Affairs by the new administration which came into office in 2007. It is now 2013. Having been rejected for any other significant position in Government he hangs on in the first and probably the only position he will hold in the Government of the Island. Like his predecessors he is involved in the selection and appointment of senior police officers, and like his predecessors he follows UK guidelines which encourage such appointments to be made on a fixed term basis, usually of no more than five years. The reasons recorded in the UK for this policy are in the public domain and make reference to such issues as “unrecognised staleness” and the danger of Chief Officers potentially becoming too close to other senior figures and members of their own staff. Is it time for Le Marquand to take a long look at himself in this context, or if he will not do so, for somebody else to do it for him? Is there anybody out there who seriously thinks that he is now adding value to the governance of the Island by his increasingly strange behaviour in the States and elsewhere? Or is he making us all a laughing stock as he slips further towards the edge?

More to the point, can Jersey’s democratic institutions prove themselves capable of dealing with the Le Marquand problem or are they just spellbound, waiting in trepidation for the next twist in the downward spiral which is the governance of Jerseys Home Affairs Portfolio?

If it were not so serious it would be funny and entertaining. But it is serious, and nobody should be laughing.

Curtis Warren....The fall-out continues.

In continuance of our Curtis Warren car bugging saga we offer our readers another exclusive. Another exclusive trusted to Bloggers as Jersey's Mainstream media's credibility and trustworthiness  continues to plummet.

Below is a redacted letter, sent by a serving Police Officer, to an island politician that tells us not everything is rosy down at Police HQ.

It raises further questions concerning the conduct, honesty and ethics of those at the top of the Police Force and Law Officers Department. The letter suggests not all are happy with the leadership of Chief Officer Mike Bowron, Deputy Chief Officer Barry Taylor and Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand.

We are unable to substantiate ALL the claims in this letter but have been able to substantiate enough for it to be considered authentic. Readers are encouraged to draw their own conclusions as to its authenticity.

"Re: Curtis Warren Enquiry

I am writing to ask if you can please ask some questions in the States, as I feel there still needs to be some 'answers' and that the Attorney General, The Home Affairs Minister, Chief Officer Bowron and Deputy Chief Officer Taylor have to-date not been truthful.

Firstly in the Secret Disciplinary Hearing, Deputy Chief Officer was asked 'Who is the complainant in this matter" DCO Barry Taylor didn't even think about the answer, he replied The Attorney General'. The Home Affairs Minister claimed on the 29th January 2013 that Deputy Chief Taylor was confused with the question.

Paragraph redacted

The Home Affairs Minister claimed in the States that he has a 'Duty of Care' towards Police Officers. Why then has he not responded to a letter written to him by one of the Officers who has had his pay reduced due to illness as a result of the Disciplinary?

During the Disciplinary Hearing Chief Officer Bowron's lawyer Adv. (name redacted) lied in a deliberate attempt to tarnish the Officer's characters !!!! Adv. (name redacted) must have been instructed to do this - it is not usual for a Lawyer to act in this unprofessional manner!

What Duty of Care from Chief Officer Bowron, Deputy Chief Taylor and The Home Affairs Minister has been shown to the three Police Officers and their families?

Nothing had changed from the Curtis Warren investigation, arrest and conviction so why did Chief Officer Bowron commence an internal investigation? (redaction)   

Attorney General advised the Police Officers that they could not attend the Privy Council Hearing. They actually had flights booked and had to cancel them. One of the Officer's has this week written to the Attorney General to remind him of this fact - Why could the Attorney General not remember this?

It also appears that Chief Officer Bowron and Deputy Chief Officer Taylor have been breaking all the rules. For example one Officer (name redacted) was 'dismissed' by Deputy Chief Officer Taylor for taking time off for sickness and was hospitalized. He appealed, and Chief Officer Bowron said Deputy Chief Officer Taylor's decision stands. This is in breach of the Police Force Jersey Law. He has been unable to appeal to the Home Affairs Minister as he states he must liaise with the Chief Officer, the Chief Officers advises him to liaise with the Home Affairs Minister ! 

Paragraph redacted.

Chief Officer Bowron has had the crime figures manipulated to make himself look good, I understand that (name redacted) could not work with him so has moved to (another States Department).

Finally, Chief Officer Bowron and Deputy Chief Officer Taylor are the worst, most spiteful bullies the States of Jersey Police has ever seen, and both should now do the decent thing and RESIGN.

I am not able to give you my name, as I do not want to be bullied and picked on like the Warren Officers, it's not a good place to work just now.

Can you please bring a VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE to the States against The Home Affairs Minister."(END)

Former Police Chief Exclusive. ("Evidence Did Not Come From me.")

Further to our PREVIOUS POSTING where we "Exclusively" published the written judgement of Chief Constable Mike Barton involving the disciplinary Hearing of three Police Officers involved in the Curtis Warren car bugging case. We now bring our readers another exclusive in the form of a statement issued by former Jersey Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. 

Mr. Power issued the statement as a result of questions put to him by VFC in the hope to clear up yet another anomaly thrown up in the "Barton Judgement." 

Re-produced below is extracts from the e-mail sent to Mr. Power outlining the discrepancy contained in paragraph 3 of Chief Constable Mike Barton's report/Written Judgement.

E-mail extract From VFC to Graham Power QPM.

I was hoping that you could be of some help in order to clear a little something up concerning the recent disciplinary case against the three Jersey Police Officers involved in the Curtis Warren car bugging case.

In paragraph 3 of Chief Constable Barton's Report he writes;

"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."

Highlighted (bold) is where I'm a little confused. You are on record as recommending the three Officers for a commendation for their work in capturing the drug gang. Yet they stand accused of misleading their superior Officers in the Jersey Force which one might be led to believe includes you as Chief Officer.

Could you please shed some light on this? Did you give evidence, either to the Hampshire Police Investigation (Invicta) or the disciplinary investigation presided by Chief Constable Barton to the effect that either yourself, or any of their superior Officers, were misled by the three accused Officers?

With the research I have already conducted, I can't see that you gave any evidence to either investigation but it is always possible that I might have missed something and hope that you are able to fill in any gaps?(END)

   

STATEMENT ISSUED BY GRAHAM POWER QPM.  FORMER CHIEF OFFICER OF THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE

I have been asked to make comment on media reports concerning the findings of a recent Disciplinary Tribunal relating to three Police Officers who, during my time as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, were involved in the investigation of Curtis Warren and others. The Disciplinary Tribunal apparently arose in consequence of an investigation by Hampshire Police which was requested by the relevant authorities in Jersey. The Presiding Officer at the Tribunal was the Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary. At the end of the hearing the Tribunal acquitted all three officers of all allegations against them.

It is a convention in senior levels of the Police Service that a former head of a police force should avoid making comment on matters arising under the command of his successors. This is a sound convention which exists for good reasons. Accordingly I have declined to make general comment in respect the disciplinary investigation or the Disciplinary Tribunal.

However, I do not believe that this convention applies to matters which relate specifically to my own actions or to any views or opinions which may have been attributed to me. This is particularly the case when such alleged views or opinions may be inaccurate.

In reading what is reported to be the findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal I have noted that in paragraph 3 of the findings it is said that the three accused officers were alleged to have mis-led senior officers within the States of Jersey Police. Given that at the time I was the Chief Officer of the Force and that at least some of the documents relevant to the activity undertaken by the officers would have crossed my desk, I think it is reasonable to assume that it appears to have been alleged that I was misled in some way and that this allegation formed part of the disciplinary allegations against the three officers. Readers of the findings of the Tribunal may also have assumed that I was to some extent a party to the allegations that Senior Officers were deceived. In this context I feel that, notwithstanding the convention I have described above, it is appropriate that I briefly make my position clear on this issue alone.

I therefore wish to make it clear that I have no knowledge of any occasion on which I, or for that matter any of my senior staff at the time, were misled by any of the officers concerned. I have never alleged that I was misled by any of them in any way whatsoever. I have never been asked to assist in any disciplinary enquiry relating to this case. I have not been interviewed by Hampshire Police. I have not made any written statement relating to the disciplinary enquiry. I have not been asked to give evidence at any Disciplinary Tribunal.

If any evidence was presented to the Tribunal which purported to show that I was misled in any way whatsoever then such evidence did not come from me.

I hope that this statement clarifies my position in respect of any allegation that I was misled by any of the three officers who were subject of the disciplinary action. I have made no such allegation and if any allegation was made by any person purporting to represent my views, then it was a false allegation made without my knowledge or agreement.

North Yorkshire.

5th February 2013.(End)

The obvious question must now be "where is the evidence to substantiate the claim that the three Officers misled their superiors?"

Will Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, be issuing a statement explaining this latest, in a long line of (tax payer funded) debacles, to take place under his watch?

Will the Jersey Law Offices' Department now be investigated.....If not, why not?