Adrian Lynch update.

A week ago today we published this BLOG POSTING setting out a number of questions concerning the disappearance of Adrian Lynch and the police's efforts to solve the case. For those who have been following this tragic story. Twenty year-old Adrian was reported missing on the 5th December 2015 after failing to return home from a work's Christmas Party at the Merton Hotel. He remains missing more than five months later.

We sent the Blog Posting, with the published questions, to the States of Jersey Police (SOJP) in the hope they would reassure the online community by answering ALL the questions to the best of their ability. Unfortunately this was not the case.

Below are extracts from the e-mail VFC sent to DCI/SIO Lee Turner, and below that, are extracts of the reply from his Press Officer.

"Dear Detective Chief Inspector.

Today (on the 5 month anniversary of Adrian's disappearance) I have published a Blog on the subject that can be read here http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2016/05/adrian-lynch-investigation-questions-to.html

The Blog Posting includes a number of questions surrounding the police investigation. These questions were taken (but not exclusively) from social media sites such as Facebook/Twitter and Blog readers. They are questions being asked by the general public in other words.

You will note that the general consensus is that there is little confidence in the investigation and in particular that Adrian might have succumbed to Hypothermia.

This, as I have mentioned in the Blog Posting, could be down to a number of reasons, one being that you/SOJP have not got your message out adequately through the media?

In an attempt to curtail (as much as possible) conspiracy theories would you please answer the questions posed in the main Blog Posting?

DCI Lee Turner.

Reply from Press Officer.

"Thank you for your letter and sharing your concerns into the disappearance of Adrian. After reading the questions listed on the blog, we can confirm that the majority of the answers you require have already been made available to the public, through the many press releases and media appeals that the police have issued over the last 5 months. We have also listed this information on our website as is usual practice and I have enclosed the link to our news archive.

http://www.jersey.police.uk/news-appeals/2016/?page=1

The last release relating to the search for Adrian was posted on April 12th, you can view all of the other related releases by scrolling through the pages of early 2016 and December 2015.

You will also find on here the map of the designated search zones. All of this information has been available to the public and we have shared as much information as we possibly could with them. Contrary to belief, the investigation is not holding anything back. What we know, we have shared."(END)

We argue that the majority of our questions HAVEN'T been answered and the SOJP haven't been as helpful as they could have been. This is something we hope to return to at a later date.

Today we want to concentrate on questions asked (or not) in the Island's  Parliament two days ago (Tuesday 10 May) from Deputy Mike Higgins to the Home Affairs Minister regarding Adrian's disappearance and the Police's investigation. Below is the audio recording of those questions and the Home Affairs Minister's "answers."

Home Affairs Minister

Deputy Kristina Moore

Readers will note (from the audio recording below) that the Home Affairs Minister claims "I am grateful to the Deputy for maintaining the profile of this important case and particularly amongst us, most member of the Assembly are parents themselves, I'm sure that we all want to remind Adrian's family how much we sympathies with them and express how we wish after five terrible months of agony their pain can be eased by finding this young man and answering the many questions they must have."(END)

Firstly readers should be aware, that according to Adrian's father, "No politicians have been in contact with us since Ady went missing""I contacted Mike Higgins after hearing on radio that it was going to be debated in States. This was the first I had heard about it. I am happy that Mr Higgins is showing us support in finding my son"

Connetable Juliette Gallichan.

This, if correct, is a truly staggering revelation. The Lynch family live in St Mary, on the boarder of St John. What happened to the Parish "community spirit" we are told so much about? The Connetable being the Mother/Father of the Parish? In this case the Connetable/mother of the Parish being Juliette Gallichan. How can it be that NONE of their own elected representatives have contacted Adrian's parent's in order to show, if not political, but practical or moral/emotional support? What does this say about the Parish system? What does this say to the wider community? If your child goes missing don't expect any help/support from us? It could be, in fairness to the elected representatives, that they feel they don't want to intrude on the Lynch family so have resisted contacting them directly.

If this is the case then why not, as quoted by the Home Affairs Minister,  "answer the many questions they must have?" Why not just ask one question in the parliament as Deputy Mike Higgins did? The fact is that not a single States Member asked a question during that States Sitting on the back of Deputy Higgins' question.

This is a damming indictment of our Island's Parliament. A twenty year-old boy disappears, without a trace, and out of forty nine so-called "independent" politicians only one of them can show any kind of public support to the family? Only one politician attempts to hold a Minister to account? No other politician has a question for the Home Affairs Minister/police in this very sad, tragic and controversial case? 

Some readers might think this doesn't effect/concern you, but what if it was your child? What if your child was missing under such suspicious circumstances, the police's official line doesn't make sense to the general public/lay person. Who could you rely on for support? Has your Deputy/Constable or Senator asked a question in the States concerning this case? You might want to contact them  and ask them? If so all States Members contact details can be found HERE. 

Deputy Mike Higgins.

Deputy Higgins asked another crucial question (audio below) of the Home Affairs Minister. What were the recommendations made by the outside partner agencies who reviewed the investigation into Adrian's disappearance? This question is crucial because one of the recommendations could have been that the investigation should have been up-graded to a murder inquiry. Another could have been that the SOJP don't have the expertise in this field and the investigation could/should be handled by a UK force who do have expertise in this area. There are many more recommendations that could have been made but the Home Affairs Minister won't tell us what they are. This could be for operational reasons and the Minister has advised Deputy Higgins to put the question to the police which we believe he will be doing shortly.

As posted above, the Home Affairs Minister stated: "I am grateful to the Deputy for maintaining the profile of this important case and particularly amongst us, most members of the Assembly are parents themselves, I'm sure that we all want to remind Adrian's family how much we sympathies with them and express how we wish after five terrible months of agony their pain can be eased by finding this young man and answering the many questions they must have."

The audio recording bears little, or no resemblance, to that statement.

Our thoughts and support remain with Adrian's family, and friends,  through, what must be, such an agonising time of uncertainty and turmoil.

For related Blogs published by Team Voice on the disappearance/police investigation of Adrian Lynch please click on the labels at the bottom of the posting. Alternatively please click on the links below.

Adrian Lynch still missing. DAY FIVE.

Adrian Lynch still missing. DAY 7/8

Adrian Lynch still missing. DAY/13/14

Adrian Lynch still missing. DAY 31/32

Adrian Lynch still missing. DAY 35/36

Adrian Lynch THE OFFICIAL LINE QUESTIONED.

Adrian Lynch Investigation. QUESTIONS TO THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE.

Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry Transcripts. (Andrew Lewis Part Three)

former Chief Police Officer

Graham Power QPM.

In November 2008 the then Home Affairs Minister, and current Chairman of Public Accounts Committee, Deputy Andrew Lewis, controversially (possibly illegally) suspended the Chief of Police while his force was investigating  (Operation Rectangle) decades of concealed Child Abuse in State run institutions and elsewhere in Jersey.

As part of our "transcript Blogs" we are currently looking at the transcripts of Deputy Andrew Lewis. These are the transcripts of those who have given evidence to the on-going Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry (COI).

In this, part three, publication we continue attempting to determine how credible Deputy Lewis' testimony to the Inquiry is......or isn't.

For those who have been following this story you will be aware that the law required Deputy Lewis bring a statement to the parliament after suspending the Chief Police Officer. He suspended the Chief Officer on the 12th November 2008. He brought the statement to the parliament on the 2nd December 2008 so plenty of time to get his story straight one would expect?

Clearly this wasn't the case and has been well documented since so no need to repeat it in this posting.

Today we look at why Deputy Andrew Lewis believes (or tried to convince the COI) thirty of our politicians voted against releasing the Hansard of the in-camera (secret) States Debate when delivering his statement regarding his suspension of Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. 

Deputy Mike Higgins.

Deputy Mike Higgins, on 23rd May 2012, lodged a proposition asking the parliament to make public the Hansard of the 2nd of December 2008. The proposition was debated on 26th June 2012 and can be read HERE. Both the December 2nd 2008 debate and Deputy Higgins' proposition were held in-camera (secret)

Deputy Andrew Lewis looks to be attempting to convince the COI, and public, that the reason thirty politicians voted against Deputy Higgins' proposition to have the December 2008 Hansard released was because those thirty politicians weren't confused over what he meant when discussing a preliminary/interim report. Deputy Lewis, in the transcript below, seems to be of the impression that those thirty politicians knew he was talking about "The Warcup Letter" (that he never mentioned during the December 2nd 2008 debate) and not the Metropolitan Police preliminary/Interim report. (which he did mention on a number of occasions)

We produce this part of the transcript here.

Counsel to Inquiry Cathryn McGahey QC questioning Deputy Andrew Lewis:

Can I stop you there. Where in this States debate (2nd Dec 2008) had you already said that this was information from Mr Warcup?

That's the issue, ma'am, and you're correct, I have not mentioned Mr Warcup, but then why have members later on said "It is very clear that Mr Lewis is talking about Mr Warcup's letter"? Why are they saying that? That's a matter of record in Hansard.

How do you think that they deduced that you were talking about Mr Warcup, bearing in mind you did not refer to him once?

Well, you have to ask them, ma'am. 30 of them felt that. That was the vote after that debate (26 June 2012), so you would have to ask all of them..............

The full transcript of that Public Hearing can be read HERE. The excerpts published by VFC can be read HERE.

So Deputy Lewis has (under oath) told the Public Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry:

"but then why have members later on  said "It is very clear that Mr Lewis is talking about Mr Warcup's letter"? Why are they saying that? That's a matter of record in Hansard."

We searched the Hansard of 26th June 2012 debate using the quote used by Deputy Lewis; "It is very clear that Mr Lewis is talking about Mr Warcup's letter" That term DOES NOT exist in the Hansard search we did.

What we did do, also, is to read the Hansard of those who voted against Deputy Higgins' proposition to discover if (as Deputy Andrew Lewis seems to think) those who chose NOT to release the December 2008 Hansard voted against the proposition because there was no confusion and that those thirty politicians knew he (Deputy Andrew Lewis) was referring to "The Warcup Letter" that was NEVER mentioned in the November 2008 debate...........Yeah, I know!

Out of the thirty who voted to keep the December 2008 Hansard a secret, we counted only ten of them spoke.

We reproduce extracts of that Hansard below in order to demonstrate our point that if any of the thirty politicians thought "It is very clear that Mr Lewis is talking about Mr Warcup's letter" They did not say those words, and even if there were those that believed (despite Deputy Andrew Lewis never mentioning any "Warcup letter" in the December 2nd 2008 debate) the Deputy was referring to it then this was NOT the sole reason as to why they voted to keep that Hansard a secret.

Selected excerpts from Hansard from June 26th 2012 debate:

Bold emphasis added by VFC.

(Then)Deputy James Reed said:

“……….I do not know, necessarily, what the former Minister for Home Affairs at the time exactly what he was referring to but it is quite likely that the report that he was referring to was, indeed, the summary that Mr. Brian Napier acknowledges was contained in a letter sent by Mr. Warcup to Mr. Ogley on 10th November. So if that is the case, we are going to have extreme difficulty in determining whether the report that is referred to which, indeed, was a summary, presumably reflected the main points of the interim report and it was that which was relied upon, rightly or wrongly, by those at the time to determine the actions that they took.”

Didn't know what he (Andrew Lewis) was referring to. VFC.

Deputy Steve Luce said:

“I do not feel that I am going to be able to support this proposition. The proposer has given us a reasonable sized document to read and to new Members here who have not had the benefit of sitting in the last House, this is all new. We are trying to listen to the debate, read the document at the same time and then pass judgment that has been well made. I do not think I can do this justice in the period of time we are going to be here.”

Didn't have enough time to make a decision. VFC.

(then) connetable Phil Rondel said:

“No matter what is being said here by my colleagues today, I am having difficulty in saying that I could support this because I have not had all the evidence.”

Lack of evidence. VFC

                                      Deputy Rod Bryans said:

 "I feel that I understand what Deputy Higgins has brought to this Assembly. But I am very concerned and I support what the Deputy of St. Lawrence and the Deputy of St. John has said, it seems now that there are 2 germane documents that seem to be missing and that is the summary provided by Mr. Warcup and the actual interim report itself. Because if these 2 things marry-up and look very similar and the content is germane to the whole situation, then there is not, as the Connétable of St. John says, that to me seems, as he said, in the middle of all of that situation with it in full flow you would have to make your decisions as you go along and although I totally understand where Deputy Higgins is coming from, I think those 2 documents would now have to be discovered by certainly the new Members who have not been party to all of this and so I could not support this motion.”

Missing documents. VFC.

Senator Philip Ozouf said:

"I do understand the frustration of Members but I think that we are not in a position to be able to release information that was collected and expected to remain in camera, I think as a matter of principle. The Deputy believes that the former Minister has said something incorrect. I do not know. I am in the same position. I was in the debate. I simply do not know. The difficulty is that I do not think that we can publish a transcript because it reveals also other Members’ questions which they had a legitimate expectation that would remain secret."

It, for Senator Ozouf, was a matter of principle that secret debates should stay secret and he simply "didn't know" if Deputy Andrew Lewis said something "incorrect." (misled the parliament). VFC.

Deputy Richard Rondel said:

“What I am hoping is that people that were there do speak and advise us exactly that happened because it is very difficult to look at all this information in a short space of time and make a judgment.”

Hasn't had time to look at all the information. VFC.

Connetable Juliette Gallichan said:

“But if you simply read the transcript and understand the way that the Deputy of St. John expressed himself habitually and how you knew how his mannerisms, et cetera, were, he says: “I saw a preliminary report” as if I was given some information at the beginning. It is not, necessarily, I would put it to you “the interim report” and if we are hinging the entire possibility of changing the way we look at in camera debates and the release of transcripts on the interpretation of a couple of words, I think the Assembly does itself no justice at all and I really was expecting a more cataclysmic revelation from Deputy Higgins than what he has given, and from that point of view I really am at a loss as to how we justify the trade-off between our tradition and something that Members have come to rely on as being very important even though it is to be used extremely sparingly, i.e. the in camera debate. We have no way of knowing unless we talk to the former Deputy of St. John exactly what he meant by that ……..”

No way of knowing what Deputy Lewis "meant by that" and wanted to uphold the Jersey tradition of secrecy. VFC.

One must also keep in mind that Connetable Juliette Gallichan is the former Chairman of Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) who has questions to answer herself HERE and HERE. Why she was not called as a witness to the Child Abuse Inquiry is still a mystery.

(Then) Senator Ian Le Marquand said:

"The second approach is that where there is any debate of a matter that individuals who contribute to the debate must have the right to expect that what they have said in camera will remain in camera and remain confidential and that is a very important principle that should not be overturned, and the effect of this proposition is to do that. I have found this extremely difficult because I understand both those principles. I think the first principle is right. That is a reason why the statute requires these matters to be in camera and I think the second principle is probably right as well; Members should be able to trust that what was in camera remains in camera."

Although in the full Hansard Ian Le Marquand believes Deputy Lewis, it is not the sole reason for upholding the secret Jersey Way as he explains above.............It's about secrecy as well.

Ian Le Marquand has a number of questions to answer also. Not least from HERE.

(Then) Deputy Sean Power (or what ever his real name is) said:

“It is not specific in this text as to what he is referring to and he refers on the bottom of that page, which is the fourth page that we have, he refers to it again. He says: “I believe if this preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal.” So, again, he is referring to a report, which is a synopsis or some sort of briefing situation because I am quite sure………”

He goes on further to say:

“Again, we have this vagueness as to what he is actually referring to in using the words “preliminary report” and Senator Le Gresley has referred to that. Then on the bottom of page 4 he refers to the fact that: “I am purely acting on information contained this time in a report.” He does not even use the words “preliminary report” and we do not know what the source of that report is, we do not know where it came from, and we are not sure who prepared it.”

Self explanatory.VFC.

Senator Philip Bailhache.

“……and now we are asked to agree that the transcripts of an in camera debate be released so that the reputation of a former Member can be dragged in the dust. We are asked to do this on the flimsiest of evidence and without hearing what the former Member has to say about it. I agree with the Senators Le Gresley and Le Marquand and I am not at all persuaded that there was an attempt or an innocent misleading of the Assembly. Deputy Pitman says that the integrity of the Assembly is in question and he is right. Even if the former Police Chief was treated unfairly, and I simply do not know whether or not that was the case, I do not think that that is a justification for treating the former Deputy of St. John with unfairness. The short answer for me is that the former debate, or the debate held on 2nd December 2008, was held in camera in accordance with the mandates of the law and it should take a very, very strong reason, in my view, for that to be overturned. There may be reasons why such a transcript should be released but at the moment I cannot think of such reasons. Of course a Member should speak the truth, whether they are speaking in camera or in public; that goes without saying. Some Members have said that the transcripts clarify matters and therefore they should be put into the public domain. I must say that as a new Member I do not share that view at all. If you are a new Member you need a great deal more information than we have heard this afternoon in order to understand what is going on.”

Well as much as Senator Bailhache tried to pass himself off as a "new member." He neglected to mention that he actually chaired the December 2nd 2008 secret debate that is being discussed/voted on here.

Regular readers will know that when Deputy Andrew Lewis said in that debate;

"As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. 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."

The then Bailiff and now Senator Bailhache said:

The Bailiff: (Philip Bailhache)

"Minister, do not go down this road please." HERE. 

So Senator Bailhache seems to know a bit more than he is letting on? Clearly one of his reasons for voting against Deputy Higgins' proposition was to maintain secrecy.

Twenty of those who voted against Deputy Higgins' proposition didn’t speak so we, the Committee of Inquiry, (or Andrew Lewis) have no way of knowing what they thought. So IF Andrew Lewis is saying (under oath) they believed he wasn’t misleading the House, or that they knew he was referring to the “Warcup letter” then how does he, or we, know this?

People who are economical with the truth in one topic are usually as economical in others. People who attempt to cover up one thing are usually prepared to cover up another.

The fact is that the evidence doesn't look to back up Andrew Lewis' testimony to the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry. This should be of considerable concern to the island's government and to the general public.

Andrew Lewis is a serving politicians and Chairman of Public Accounts Committee who's honesty, and integrity, should be beyond reproach.

Part one of this series can be viewed HERE.

Part two of this series can be viewed  HERE.

Lenny Harper. Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Witness.

Former SIO Lenny Harper.

On the 12th &13th of January 2016 former Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) of Jersey Child Abuse investigation (Operation Rectangle)  Lenny Harper gave his long anticipated evidence to the on-going public Inquiry Chaired by Francis Oldham QC.

Mr. Harper was (rightly) put through the mill and subjected to the toughest line of questioning, in this phase of the Inquiry, than any other witness to appear thus far. Indeed as Mr. Harper explains, in the video interview below, he is the ONLY witness to be officially cross-examined by Counsel to the Inquiry. This is despite claims by the Inquiry that witnesses will NOT be cross-examined. It must be said that Mr. Harper, almost looked as if he enjoyed the cross examination, and certainly came out on top at the end of it receiving his second spontaneous round of applause from a packed Public Gallery during his two day testimony.

As viewers/readers would expect Mr. Harper's testimony was not without controversy. Contrary to inaccurate reporting from parts of the local State Media that DID NOT include a totally corrupt Jersey Police Force (SOJP). Mr. Harper, in our video interview, explains how he told the Child Abuse Inquiry that the SOJP should be proud of itself by being able to root out a "tiny minority" of corrupt officers. They did this WITHOUT involving an outside police force. This was not highlighted by parts of the local State Media which we have now clarified.

In part 1 (of 2) of our interview (below) the former SIO discusses what looks to be a very alarming revelation in that, according to Mr. Harper, not only is there the possibility that the Jersey Law Office' have falsified documents given to the Child Abuse Inquiry as evidence, but the Inquiry itself is using these documents in the knowledge that there is suspicion over their authenticity.

Former Chief Police Officer

Graham Power QPM.

Regular readers  will know that it is not beyond the capability of the Jersey Administration to allegedly falsify dates on documents as we learned through the former Police Chief Graham Power's letter of complaint to the Privileges and Procedures Committee concerning the notes drafted (by person's unknown)of his (possibly illegal) suspension as posted HERE.

A couple of quotes from that letter (above link) to PPC from Mr. Power:

"Following almost a year of requests and applications, information has now been disclosed in relation to the times and dates when documents relevant to the suspension were created. It is self-evident that the facts now disclosed are incompatible with the “Official Version” of events.

Letter from the Minister for Home Affairs notifying me that the disciplinary process had been commenced
It is now disclosed that this was created at 0844hrs on Saturday 8 November 2008. This is three days before the receipt of the information which is claimed to have led to the decision to commence the disciplinary process, and three days before the creation of the letter from the Minister instructing the Chief Executive to take action under the Code. Former Deputy Andrew Lewis in his statement to the Wiltshire Police investigation claims that he instructed that the letter be drawn up on Wednesday 12 November 2008 and he is supported in this claim by Mr Ogley. (Document bundle pages 32 and 31.) The disclosure reveals that these statements are untrue."

So we, and the Child Abuse Inquiry, know that dates on documents look to have been falsified by Jersey authorities in the past. 

Mr. Harper drew the Inquiry's attention to a possibly falsified document back in October 27th 2015 and asked for a forensic fingerprint of the document. This request was NOT carried out. So the Inquiry was knowingly relying on a piece of evidence which it knows to have questions over its authenticity. 

As if this wasn't alarming enough the Law Offices' Department produced another document, for the first time, the day Mr. Harper was giving evidence. This document was to "allay Mr. Harper's fears" concerning the original suspicious document. Firstly readers must be mindful that Mr. Harper asked for a digital fingerprint of the original document some 2-3 months before he gave evidence. The day he is giving evidence, to the Inquiry, a document is produced which looks even more suspicious than the original one! Why was the digital fingerprint of the original document never investigated and why did the Law Offices' wait to produce this second document until the day Mr. Harper was giving evidence? Further why has the Inquiry not launched an investigation into both documents rather than rely on them as evidence with such suspicion hanging over their authenticity?

This is an alarming turn of events and unfortunately doesn't bode well for the credibility of the Public Inquiry and until these documents are authenticated (or otherwise) how can any document submitted by the Jersey Authorities/Law Offices' Department be relied  upon?

There could be a plausible explanation concerning these documents (and why they haven't been investigated) but unfortunately  it is not forthcoming and until it is they must be viewed with suspicion.

Part 2 of the interview with Mr. Harper will be published soon.

Jersey Lieutenant Governor and "Crown Interest(s)"

Current Lieutenant Governor.

(Credit JEP photo)

What does the term “Crown Interests” mean exactly and who is responsible for them in Jersey? Who are Crown appointees and who appoints them?

We know that the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff, Attorney General, Solicitor General, and the lieutenant Governor are Crown Appointees but as far as my limited knowledge on the subject (of Crown Appointees and Crown Interests) goes I believe it is the Lieutenant Governor who represents the interest(s) of the Crown in Jersey.

The Jersey Government House WEBSITE has a short “job description” of the LG but it is a little sparse on any real detail, including any accountability, who is he accountable to if he becomes part of the Jersey rot and corruption?

What does his job entail exactly? I see it that he has (Crown) responsibility for the rule of law and good governance on this Crown Dependency of Jersey. Is he adequately preforming this role? Who is watching over him? How is he appointed? Who appoints him?

According to Government House website (above link) “The Lieutenant-Governor is appointed by Her Majesty The Queen for a period of 5 years to be her personal representative and impartial adviser.”

But according to WIKIPEDIA: “In 2010 it was announced that the next Lieutenant Governor would be recommended to the Crown by a Jersey panel, thus replacing the previous system of the appointment being made by the Crown on the recommendation of UK ministers.”

So the people he is supposed to be watching over recommend him to the Crown? Who exactly is on this “Jersey Panel” that recommends him for appointment? According to the BBC “A selection panel made up ofthe Bailiff, a senior Jurat and a member of the appointments commission wouldthen make the decision.” 

How can it be that the very people he should be grassing up for any wrongdoing effectively get to appoint him? Why is there no mention of this change in the appointment process on Government House’ website?

William Bailhache.

The Chief of Police is not a “Crown appointee.”  He is appointed by the States but thereafter becomes (according to a legal opinion by William Bailhache) an "Officer of the Crown."

This is explained in paragraph 458 of former Chief Police Officer, Graham Power’s statement to the ongoing Child Abuse Inquiry:

“458. During my time in office there were many examples of ways in which there were subtle attempts by Ministers to control the SOJP. At one point, there was a draft employment law being debated where Ministers would be responsible for disciplining police officers and it was also suggested that they should be “employees” of the States. I asked the Attorney General (William Bailhache) for support and he gave a helpful opinion that police officers were not “employees” but “officers of the crown.” I cannot avoid observing that being an “officer of the crown” did not do me much good when I was removed from office at the stroke of a pen by a single politician. I do not remember the representative of the Crown, HM Lieutenant Governor for Jersey, having much visible influence in the matter.”(END)

Surely it must have been of interest to the Crown when (officer of the crown) Graham Power QPM, was (possibly illegally) suspended by the then Home Affairs Minister ANDREW LEWIS?  But apparently NOT.

Regular readers will recall that the former Chief of Police (after being possibly illegally suspended) wrote a letter to the Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC), which was NOT shared with the Committee by its Chairman Constable Juliette Gallichan.

VFC published this letter HERE and strongly recommend that readers take a close look at it. It’s difficult to single out the most damming paragraph but offer this one as an example of the letter’s content and alleged criminality and of “a government within a government.”

“It may be that I have provided sufficient information to enable the Committee to consider a way forward on this issue. However, in the hope that it may be helpful, I will offer some personal thoughts and additional information which may assist.

On a straight reading of the available evidence it may occur to many people that the most likely probability is that the former Minister for Home Affairs knowingly provided an account which is distant from the truth. That may be the case, but there are other possibilities. One is that he was not the main author of the process. The known facts allow for an alternative explanation. That is, that the decision to suspend was in fact taken by others for motives of their own, and that the then Minister was brought in at the final stages to provide his signature, and thereby appear to legitimise a process which was conceived by others. Such an interpretation would of course raise the possibility of a “Government within a Government” in which unidentified and unaccountable individuals exercise power outside the parameters of the law. If that was the case then the constitutional implications would be significant. This would be particularly true in the context of a potential impact on the independence of a part of the Criminal Justice System.” (END)

We know by the statement submitted, by the former Police Chief, to the ongoing Child Abuse Inquiry that the Lieutenant Governor (Crown Appointee with responsibility for the rule of law and good governance in the island) received a copy of Mr. Power’s letter to the PPC.

So this begs the question whether the LG considered what it revealed to be "good governance?" If he did then one has to wonder what he thought bad governance would look like? If it was not good governance then what exactly did he do about it and where can we read about the outcome?

Letter of acknowledgment from LG.

The relevant paragraph of Mr. Power’s statement to the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry, which reveals the LG received the letter to PPC, is paragraph 571 but it needs to be read in the context of paragraph 569-571 reproduced below.

“569. I believed then and I believe now that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that Bill Ogley and Andrew Lewis conspired to commit perjury in respect of the circumstances leading to my suspension. I drew my overall concerns to the attention of the Jersey Authorities by way of my letter to the Privileges and Procedures Committee dated 30 October 2009, attached as my Exhibit GP71

570. On 13 November I had a reply from the chair of the committee, Juliette Gallichan, saying that they would not deal with my complaints. The response is attached as my Exhibit GP72. I subsequently learned that the matter was not in fact put before the committee and members learned of it indirectly at a later date. Given that I had provided detailed evidence indicating that a number of senior government figures had apparently conspired to commit serious falsehoods, the response I received was disappointing but not surprising.

571. The letter was shared among a number of friends and supporters who were assisting me at the time. It appears that someone within that group sent a copy of my letter to the Lieutenant Governor for Jersey. I know this because I received an acknowledgement dated 4 November 2009, at Exhibit GP73, which appears to assume that I sent the letter which was not the case. The responsibilities of the Lieutenant Governor include the “good governance” of the Island. It is not known what action if any was taken in response to receiving a copy of my letter.”(END)

Constable Juliette Gallichan.

Juliette Gallichan's response to Graham Power was published HERE. Note the Committee (PPC) Was not made aware either of Mr. Power's letter to PPC or of the Chairman's (Juliette Gallichan's)reply. 

Did the Crown “OK” the (possibly illegal) suspension of the former police chief? Did the LG mention (to the crown) the alleged illegality contained in the letter sent to the Privileges and Procedures Committee and received by the LG himself if not why not?

As far as I understand it, the LG exists in order to represent British Crown interests in the Island and part of his remit is to observe and come to a view on whether the Island has "Good Governance" and can therefore be left to its own affairs or whether there are any grounds for UK intervention?

The letter, from Graham Power to PPC, draws to the attention of the reader a sequence of events which cast serious doubts upon the integrity of the Island's government at the highest level. It falls plainly within the remit of any interest in "Good Governance" and yet we know nothing about what (if anything) the LG did. It might be that things were done behind the scenes. If they were their effects were/are not visible. 

The existence of the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry now raises an interesting question. The Inquiry has repeatedly and publically asked for anyone with relevant evidence to make contact with them. It could be argued that for anyone in public office to be in possession of evidence and not to declare that evidence to the Inquiry is a breach of duty. Particularly as the Inquiry is being repeatedly drawn into the question of whether the Islands institutions are capable of providing a level of protection of the vulnerable which meets UK standards. 

So has the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry asked the LG, to give evidence if not, why not?  Will he be offering evidence from the files on the whole episode, which will undoubtedly exist in Government House? Does Government House have a view to offer? If not, then exactly what use are they when evidence of corruption and malpractice lands on their desk? Does this make the LG (the crown) complicit in the Jersey cover-up?

The Lieutenant Governor MUST be called as a witness to the Child Abuse Inquiry, as Must Juliette Gallichan.