Russell Labey Speech. P.19/2016

On 28 May we published THIS BLOG warning readers of the latest tool being used by the former Attorney General (Tim Le Cocq) and the government to silence political dissent, and those of us exposing the Jersey Child Abuse cover-up among much more alleged corruption perpetrated by powerful people who enjoy complete impunity on the island.

It came in the form of a proposition (P.19/2016) brought by the Chief Minister but presented by Senator Philip Ozouf. Who had this to say concerning the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris; "all communities from around the world needed to stand in solidarity with our French cousins to condemn what as an unacceptable infringement on the ability for freedom of expression and speech." Of course offending Muslims is one thing but "offending" people in Jersey is a lot more serious than that!

As we correctly predicted the proposition was adopted in the region of forty votes in favour - five against. The votes can be viewed HERE, HERE and HERE.

Deputy Russell Labey.

During the debate, where those who are in favour of free speech clearly won the argument, but lost the vote, some very poignant and informative speeches were made against the proposition, not least by St Helier (District NO.1) Deputy Russell Labey. (video below)

The Deputy warned of possible "sinister consequences to free speech" "Sleepwalking into dodgy legislation." He pointed out that it is legislation that people might expect to find in "totalitarian states like North Korea." 

He went on to explain how Bloggers gained the trust and confidence of whistle-blowers who leaked public interest documents to us. The Mainstream media (MSM) were not trusted and were believed to have "gone native" with the Jersey establishment. The Deputy mentions, in his speech below, the leaking to Bloggers of the BARTON REPORT.

The Barton Report was a disciplinary investigation against the three cops accused of illegally bugging a car used by member(s) of the Curtis Warren gang. The investigation was instigated by the Law Officers Department (LOD).

It was leaked to Bloggers because it was believed the MSM would bury it which demonstrates the trust and confidence that Bloggers have gained from whistle blowers.

The Barton Report shows that it is the Law Officers themselves who have questions to answer, and despite instigating the investigation, the Law Officers did/would not fully co-operate with it.

The link also contains further links that are of huge public interest, including, "Operation Invicta" which is the criminal Investigation against the cops. Again the cops were exonerated but left question marks over the LOD.

Of course the Barton Report is not the only document/information leaked to Bloggers over the years as regular readers will be aware. We will look to publish a few of those documents over the next couple of days in the comment section of this posting.
In the meantime, credit to Deputy Labey, and others, for seeing what this latest piece of legislation is, and for having the courage to speak up about it. Speaking up/out, as a result of this legislation will soon be a thing of the past in Jersey.

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?

Curtis Warren Car Bugging Disciplinary Hearing's Written Judgement

Not for the first time Bloggers are once more having to put their necks on the line in the name of public interest, openness, transparency and integrity. We are having to do this as we have a local mainstream media that is not trusted and keep stories buried.

Today we publish the written judgement of the Disciplinary Hearing conducted by Chief Constable Mike Barton of the Durham Constabulary who presided over the Hearing against the three Jersey Police Officers accused of illegally bugging a car used by a Curtis Warren "Gang Member" while conspiring to import a large quantity of drugs to the island.

Hopefully readers, with an interest in this story, will have read our previous postings on this unraveling debacle where we brought you the story, or anomaly, concerning "EQUALITY OF ARMS". We then brought readers attention to the way Jersey does "Democracy" where an urgent question, submitted by a democratically elected Member of Parliament, (legislator) surrounding the "Equality Of Arms" was disallowed by the Bailiff  (head of the Judiciary) HERE. We then made our readers aware of a criminal investigation (conducted by Hants Police) into the three Police Officers, and others,  involved in the "car bugging incident" which was codenamed "OPERATION INVICTA."  Finally we brought you, the reader, a TIMELINE of events which brings us up to date where we publish (below) the written judgement of the Disciplinary Hearing.

Before you read the judgement we must remind our readers of a Blog Posting we published back in August 2010 where we set out our case that Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, SET A PRECEDENT the day that he published the Wilts Report, which as regular readers will be aware is the prosecution case, for a Disciplinary Hearing (that never took place) against Former Police Chief Graham Power QPM. After reading the Confidentiality Clauses set out in the Wilts Report, it was clear that it should never have been made public, unless there was an "outcome" but as Mr. Graham Power QPM was denied the opportunity of a Disciplinary Hearing there never was "an outcome." Senator Le Marquand abandoned the disciplinary Hearing and not only published a heavily redacted version of the prosecution case he actually took it on a media ROADSHOW. The precedent that Senator Le Marquand had set was that it is now acceptable for Disciplinary "prosecution cases" against Police Officers, and possibly others, can now be put into the public domain regardless of whether the Disciplinary Hearing takes place or not or of any confidentiality clauses.

We were convinced that Senator Le Marquand had breached the confidentiality Clauses contained in the Wilts Report and e-mailed him on a number of occasions in order to either verify or refute our understanding but he just chose to ignore the e-mails which has left us with the understanding that we are correct and he HAS breached the confidentiality clauses. Readers will be aware that, in the interest of fairness and balance, Mr Power QPM had asked that his submission to the Wilts (the interim defence case) be published by the Minister, which he has refused to do.

Regular readers will also be aware that the local State Media were a part of Senator Le Marquand's "Roadshow" with publicising the prosecution case against Mr. Power QPM yet now that Mr. Power's interim defence case is in the public domain not one of them have reported it. An un-redacted copy of this document was leaked to managing Editor of BBC Jersey, Jon Gripton, by former Health Minister, Stuart Syvret on September the 22nd 2011 yet over one year and five months later the BBC still refuse to publish it, something we discussed with Mr. Syvret in an interview back in August 2012 which can be viewed HERE. This will also go some way to explain why Bloggers (Jersey's only independent, and trusted, media) have been leaked these latest documents and the State Media hasn't....................Yet again.

Senator Le Marquand was also asked in the States (the island's parliament) if he would publish the written judgement of the disciplinary Hearing into the car bugging case and the Minister has refused.

Notwithstanding the precedent set by Senator Le Marquand we believe there is a huge public interest in publishing this written judgement  and that is why we are taking the equally as huge risk by doing so. The opening line of this Blog Posting makes reference to "putting our necks on the line" that is because we believe we have a corrupt and politicised judicial system on the island, there are very powerful people in the Law Offices Department who will want to keep this written judgement out of the public domain for reasons that will no doubt become apparent after reading its contents. We believe that the Law Offices (the real power in Jersey) will ensure we will pay for this. We fully expect some severe repercussions and are unable to obtain a fair trial in Jersey due to its politicised judiciary.

We make no comment on the findings in the written judgement other than to say that the three cops damn well should be hauled over the coals and be held to account for their actions or inactions and believe they have been. They have been investigated by an outside police force in a criminal investigation and found with no case to answer. They have been subject to an internal Disciplinary Investigation and Hearing presided over by an outside Chief Constable and found with no case to answer. Not only have they been found with no case to answer but, as we previously posted, this all started with Former Police Chief Graham Power, Former Acting Police Chief David Warcup, and others recommending a commendation for the three Officers for the part they played in the Curtis Warren Investigation. After being subject to a criminal investigation AND a disciplinary investigation it has ended with the same recommendation. It is now time for the Law Officers to be subject to the same scrutiny and intense investigation as the cops have. With what has been revealed in the written judgement (below) we argue that there is a case for a criminal investigation into the activities of the Law Officers but encourage readers to come to their own opinions/judgements based on the evidence.

Some readers might not understand some of the findings set out in this written judgement but help is at hand. We are publishing this Blog Posting in conjunction with fellow Blogger, and Team Voice Member, Rico Sorda.

Rico has obtained, from local experts with experience in cases of this nature, a document that explains, in laymen terms, the meaning/significance of some of the most crucial paragraphs contained in the written judgement which can, and NEEDS to be read HERE.

Some names/identifications have been redacted.


In the Matter of Disciplinary proceedings

And in the matter of the Police (Complaints and Discipline Procedures)
(Jersey) Order 2000

Detective Chief Inspector David Minty,

Inspector Louis Beghin Detective Sergeant Lawrence Courtness

Decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal

Introduction

1. This matter concerns the police investigations into the criminal activities of Curtis
Warren and others which commenced in or around June 2007.

2. In broad terms it is alleged by the Presenting Officer that the three officers who have 
been charged with disciplinary offences namely, Detective Chief Inspector David
 Minty, Inspector Louis Beghin and Detective Sergeant Lawrence Courtness, all
 agreed to mislead foreign authorities in relation to their activities with regard to the
 Warren investigation and particularly all three officers were involved in misleading
 the foreign authorities particularly the French, Dutch and Belgium law enforcement
 authorities in relation to audio surveillance of a vehicle which was used by the
 Defendants in the furtherance of their criminal activity.

3. It is alleged that these three officers not only misled foreign law enforcement officials
 but also senior officers within the States of Jersey Police Force and members of the 
Law Officers' Department in relation to the audio surveillance of the vehicle as it
 travelled through the foreign jurisdictions.

4. It is also alleged that Dl (name redacted) and DC (name redacted) were also involved in this deception 
although neither appear before this tribunal as Dl (name redacted) has now retired from the 
police force and DC (name redacted) has apparently been dealt with by the States of Jersey
 Police. In all cases the officers are charged contrary to paragraph 2 of the Discipline
 Code under the Order of 2000 namely that they acted without honesty and integrity in 
relation to Operation Koala-Floss (the code for the Curtis Warren investigation) and
 secondly, that their acts or omissions in relation to their activities in the furtherance of
the Curtis Warren investigation were likely to bring discredit on the States of Jersey Police Force contrary to paragraph 13 of the Discipline Code of the 2000 Order. These charges were particularised by the Presenting Officer and whilst a number of submissions have been made in relation to them, I have ruled and I am satisfied that the final version of the Particulars as circulated, gave all three officers ample opportunity to know the case that was being put against them and what they had to do to meet that case.


5. I am aware of the law in accordance with which I have to decide this matter and I am 
familiar with the test for 'honesty and integrity' as well as the test for 'disreputable 
conduct'. For ease of reference these tests and references to the law are set out 
very clearly at paragraphs 11 to 18 inclusive of Advocate MacRae's Skeleton
 Opening and the Human Rights legislation insofar as it is relevant is also set out very
 clearly at paragraphs 19 and 20 of the same document. No one has taken issue with 
these definitions and I fully endorse their accuracy. I should also point out that I have
 to determine the issues before me on the balance of probabilities and at the outset I
 would like to thank Advocate MacRae and Advocate Sinel for their advocacy in this
 case. Advocate MacRae has referred me to all of the relevant evidence in this
 matter and has done so in detail and has been of great assistance to me in reviewing 
the evidence. Advocate Sinel, albeit late in the case, has tackled his brief with great 
enthusiasm.

6. I should also say that I could not have presided in this case without the expert, 
knowledgeable and wise counsel provided by Advocate Santos-Costa. I would like to 
make it absolutely plain that all decisions made in this case are my own although 
Advocate Santos-Costa has advised me on the law and has made it clear to me that I 
have to determine this case on the balance of probabilities.

7. I should point out at this stage that not all advocacy in this case has been as good.
The officers can, quite rightly, feel aggrieved that Advocate Gollop did not recognize 
an immediate conflict of interest. I also deprecate the manner in which Advocate 
Whittacker left the officers unrepresented. I remain perplexed where the money set
 aside for the potential expert McKay has gone. I also stated when I gave my verbal 
decision on Thursday 10 January 2013 that I did not expect to see my comments in 
the media and whilst I was not gagging others, I did make it clear that I did not
 authorise the use of my comments other than for this hearing and I do not authorise 
the publication of this written judgment other than for the purposes of this hearing.


8. I should also point out that when I gave my verbal decision in this matter, I referred 
specifically to a letter written by Assistant Chief Constable Pryde of the Hampshire
 Constabulary to the Attorney General dated 28 July 2011 did not receive an
acknowledgement let alone a response. This was the evidence given by Detective 
Chief Superintendent Cessford who was a representative of the Hampshire Police. I
 am, however, informed that this letter although shown to me and confirmed by Mr
 Cessford as having been sent, was not actually sent to the Attorney General in 
Jersey and therefore my comments about finding it odd that there had been no
 response to this letter were, at the time that I made them, inaccurate. Be that as it 
may, and having now been informed that the letter was never sent, the position in
 relation to the co-operation by the Attorney General and the States Police in Jersey 
remains the same. I do find it odd that having asked the Hampshire Police to 
investigate the matters surrounding the Curtis Warren police operation, the
 authorities in Jersey did not co-operate fully in the way that I would have expected
 given that it was they that asked for the enquiry to be carried out. Mr. Cessford made 
this very clear and I have no reason to doubt it and that caused me some
 considerable surprise. I maintain that this lack of co-operation or, perhaps more 
accurately, lack of complete co-operation, can only have compromised the
 Hampshire enquiry and limited the full facts available to me to make a decision in this
 case. I stress again that this is just one of the unsatisfactory elements of this case
 which have either been decided upon or effected the Crown about which more later.

The Facts

9. I do not propose to go into the facts of this case in any great detail. The Disciplinary 
Hearing has been fully recorded and all of the facts fully ventilated by Advocate 
MacRae both in oral submissions and in his skeleton opening. In essence, however,
 the facts are that in June 2007 the States of Jersey Police received intelligence
 suggesting that John Welsh (one of Curtis Warren's co-defendants) intended to
 orchestrate the shipment of a consignment of drugs, namely cannabis, into Jersey. 
As a result of the intelligence received, the States of Jersey Police sought to deploy 
intrusive surveillance on Welsh's motor vehicle, a Jersey registered VW Golf,
J(number excised)

10. Initially an application was made under RIPL for 'property interference', in the form of
 a tracking device. That application was granted by the Solicitor General as Acting
 Attorney General on the 15 June 2007.

11. On the 3 July 2007 a separate application was made under RIPL for intrusive
 surveillance in the form of an audio device or 'bug' to be placed in Welsh's motor
 vehicle to monitor conversations between Welsh and his associates. The application
 was recommended by Sergeant Beghin who was, at the relevant time, the sergeant 
in charge of the drug squad. Again, the application was approved by the Acting
 Attorney General, Stephanie Nicolle QC, on the 3 July 2007. DCI Minty was 
ultimately in charge of the investigation particularly with regard to the surveillance 
and his subordinates in the operation were Dl (name redacted) and DS Beghin.

12. On 10 July 2007 a decision was taken to set up a covert monitoring post in the SOCA
 premises in the UK. The intention being that any product obtained from the audio
 device could be monitored and evidenced in the UK.

13. On 13 July 2007, the covert tracking device and audio recording device which had
 been authorised was deployed in Welsh's vehicle, J(number excised), and monitoring
 commenced.

14. It soon became obvious that Welsh intended to travel in his Jersey vehicle to Holland 
via France and Belgium and both Dl (name redacted) and DCI Minty were informed at a 
meeting with SOCA on 11 July 2007 that SOCA would not commit to recording of the
 audio product from Welsh's Jersey motor vehicle in the event that it travelled through
 Belgium, Holland and/or France without permission from the countries concerned.
This was because the United Kingdom was a signatory to their Schengen Convention
 which required the consent of foreign nations to intrusive surveillance on their soil.
 The officers were therefore aware that in order to obtain further audio product there 
had to be a requirement for Letters of Request or Commission Rogatoires to be
 made by the Attorney General of Jersey and granted by the relevant foreign state.
 Advocate Jowitt was informed of this requirement by a telephone conversation on 1
 July 2007 and he directed the officers to Rebecca Boxall of the Law Officers' 
Department who then undertook to make three urgent applications for permission to 
track and to undertake audio surveillance in Welsh's Jersey VW car.

15. The result of these requests were that neither the French authorities nor the Dutch
 gave their consent for audio tracking to be monitored within their jurisdictions and in
 very broad terms the allegations are that the officers knew this and knew that they
 needed French and Dutch consent to monitor the audio product in those jurisdictions, 
didn't have it and proceeded without it.

16. To a large extent this is a factually accurate summary of events, however, the French 
and Dutch authorities did give consent to track Welsh's Jersey vehicle through 
France and Holland as did the Belgium authorities and, Commissions Rogatoires 
were in place in relation to that particular vehicle. There was however, no permission 
granted by the French or the Dutch authorities at any time to install and monitor
 audio tracking devices in their jurisdictions. Both DS Beghin and Dl (name redacted) (as they 
then were) did speak on 11 July 2007, to Advocate Jowitt, the Crown Advocate with 
 conduct of the criminal prosecution against Warren and others, about the likelihood 
of receiving the necessary permissions for this technical tracking and audio 
monitoring in other jurisdictions. In essence, Crown Advocate Jowitt stated that this
 was essentially an operational decision for the police but he also stated that any
 audio evidence obtained was unlikely to be excluded by a Jersey Court regardless of
 whether consent had been obtained or not. He went on to say, "if it was me I would
 go ahead and do it but don't quote me on that". The Presenting Officer makes it
 clear that in his view, this was not 'legal advice' and should not have been relied 
upon. Whilst I accept that this was not legal advice as such, I nevertheless think that 
it was a comment made by a senior Crown Advocate having conduct of the
prosecution of the case which could only serve to encourage the officers in deploying 
the audio monitoring device in the vehicle and obtaining the product to see later
 whether it would be admissible in Court or not. It is right that this was an operational
 decision but, nevertheless, it cannot be the case that the officers are not entitled to at 
least take some comfort from what they are told by the Crown Advocate prosecuting 
the case. Ultimately, it became clear that Welsh would not be travelling in his own
 vehicle but would be travelling as a foot passenger to France where upon he would
 collect a hire car. Ultimately the officers decided to ascertain the identity of the hire
 car and obtained the permission of the hirer namely, (name redacted), to install devices into the 
hire vehicle. As far as fitting the tracking devices on the hire car were concerned, a
 police to police request was made of the French police to allow the installation of a
"tracking device on the rental car". No mention was made of an audio device and
 ultimately the French police apparently gave consent for a tracking device to be
installed.

17. The hire car company certainly gave its consent for the hire car to be wired and this 
is clear from the fact that they handed over the hire car to the Jersey police in the first
 place and the Jersey police had to pay for the rental of the vehicle until such time as 
they could remove the tracking devices so they did not impact on anyone else who 
may have hired the car.

18. It is also right to say that the foreign authorities assisted the Jersey police in relation
not to the VW in respect of which Commission Rogatoires had been obtained but in 
respect of the Citroen hire car.

19. The allegations therefore are that DCI Minty and DS Beghin (as he then was), lied to
 foreign authorities by not informing them that an audio tracking device had been 
deployed in the hire car and that they were going to monitor the audio product from
 Jersey.

20. As far as DC Courtness (as he was then) is concerned, then he is accused of being 
party to a lie to the French police because he was called on duty to travel to France 
in order to fit the tracking and audio devices and prior to leaving the Jersey police 
headquarters to catch the boat to go to France he asked DS Beghin (as he then was) 
what he should say to the French if they asked what he was doing fitting the audio 
device and DS Beghin told him to say that this was a back-up tracking device which 
was clearly not the case. In the event, DC (name redacted) who accompanied DC Courtness to
 France was there as an interpreter and it was she who told the French police that the
 audio device was a back-up tracking device and that is essentially the allegation
 against DC Courtness.

Evidence

21. I found all of the officers to be open and honest. They were working 20 hours a day
 for a month at a stretch. Any errors, omissions or partial briefings in e-mails or
 similar are understandable. This case spanned far more than whether the Dutch had
 agreed to the listening of an audio device in the hire car. For example, there were
 Commission Rogatoires in place - indeed the three countries, Holland, Belgium and
 France, fully co-operated with surveillance assets, interestingly for the red Citroen
hire car, not the VW Golf that Rebecca Boxall had stipulated in her requests for co
operation. I found DS Courtness' evidence to be utterly convincing. He was placed in an unenviable position and has approached his role professionally. He was asked to do a particular job on a particular day and was not directly involved in communicating anything at all to French police officers. Indeed, he could not speak French and they could not speak English so I fail to see how he could have misled them in any way. He asked, understandably in a covert policing operation, what he was to say to French police in the event that they asked questions about the audio device and his superior officer told him what to say. In the event he didn't say anything at all to the French Police and, therefore, I find it difficult to see why he is in this position defending disciplinary charges.

22. I find that on the evidence as a whole (hire car firm) did consent to the property interference
 in relation to their car. This is implicit from the fact that they allowed the officers to 
install the devices, made the car available and charged the States of Jersey Police to 
be able to remove the kit.

23. I find some of Detective Inspector Beghin's evidence to have been eroded by time. 
His fortitude in giving evidence against a doctor's advice has gone in his favour. He 
was working incredible hours and he is a witness of truth. I can see why he feels he 
was thrown to the wolves. I also understand that since the time of my verbal decision 
in this matter and this written Judgment, Dl Beghin has fallen ill and was admitted to 
intensive care. I wish him a speedy recovery and I hope that he is able to move on
 with his life once he does recover.

24. DCI Minty had more of a pivotal role in allegedly mis-informing colleagues. Much has
 been made of his e-mail traffic and influence on others. His evidence in recollection 
also has been affected by time but I found his evidence to be compelling. It was also 
helpful to have the perspective offered by retired Inspector (name redacted). One could see 
the passion of the team for crime fighting.

25. I do not find it sinister that there are similarities in evidence given by witnesses. 
Officers will have discussed matters and there recollections have been tested in
 more than one Court.

26. I stress that this was a covert operation in relation to the investigation of serious 
crime with regard to serious criminals particularly, Curtis Warren, who was apparently
 seeking to get a foot hold in Jersey which would have been very detrimental indeed to
 the Jersey community.

27. It is, of course, right to say that when analysed objectively and in a vacuum, some of 
the e-mails that Advocate MacRae has referred me to, together with some of the
 exchanges that have taken place, do not necessarily depict the entire truth of the 
situation. In my view, however, this is not a deliberate attempt on the part of the
 officers to mislead but more an incomplete picture which is very much influenced by
 the extremely long hours that they were working and the pressures they were under
 throughout this investigation. Decisions had to be made quickly and evidence had to 
be obtained quickly otherwise it would be gone forever.

28. I am, of course, mindful of the Privy Council decision. Indeed, I agree with the 
Learned Law Lords (for what it is worth) as they have overturned in my view what
 was bad law in relation to the impact of admissible evidence tainted with police 
malpractice. Insofar as concerns the monitoring of the audio device and the use of 
its product, it may well be deemed to be unlawful insofar as concerns the lack of 
specific foreign consent to these actions but, this is not because it is contrary to 
RIPL. It is not RIPL that creates the unlawfulness as RIPL is an enabling Statute.
The unlawfulness is simply caused by the fact that it is simply unlawful to obtain
 intrusive surveillance in foreign jurisdictions without the consent of that jurisdiction.
 Be that as it may, the Privy Council ultimately ruled that the evidence was admissible 
and this evidence was clearly important evidence in the conviction of Curtis Warren 
and his gang. As a result of the obtaining of this evidence, a serious criminal had
 gone to jail for a very long period of time.

29. As far as the Privy Council case is concerned then this is a different hearing. In 
relation to this disciplinary hearing I have heard different evidence, evidence that the
 Privy Council did not hear and that is why I have come to a verdict which some may 
say is contrary to the comments made by the Privy Council but I disagree that it is
 contradictory because as I have said I have heard different evidence. I have tried my 
best to be fair to all parties throughout these proceedings. I have let matters run 
within a reasonable time and I have read all the evidence offered in documentary 
form, even the unsatisfactory elements such as statements that have been submitted
 to me unsigned and transposed onto Hampshire Police paper without the signed 
versions being put to the witnesses. It may well be that these statements are
 identical to the signed versions but when a witness calls the statements into question 
I am in some difficulty when the signed versions are not put before me. Moreover, it
 was made clear to me that the Presenting Officer had put forward all of the evidence that was necessary in this case and that did not include signed versions of the statements. I have, however, listened carefully to all of the witnesses and I have balanced all of the evidence to come to my conclusion. In my conclusion I have no doubt that the officers have done nothing reprehensible. They have not broken the disciplinary code. Indeed, the evidence has shown me that they were part of a professional and effective investigation team.

30. I  have heard the reported remarks attributed to Messrs. Warcup and Power about
 commendations for these officers and I agree with those sentiments. These and 
other officers protected the Island of Jersey from one of the UK's worst criminals, for
 that they should continue to take professional and personal satisfaction.

31. In all the circumstances, I find that none of the charges against these officers are
 proved and I dismiss all charges accordingly.


Dated this 15th day of January 2013(END)

Time now then to investigate the Law Offices' and ask why the State Media were not trusted with this document?

Operation "Invicta" Timeline.

Further to a previous posting on OPERATION INVICTA readers will no doubt be aware that this IS a Police Operation that DID exist and our information should be viewed as reliable and factual.

In anticipation of an up-coming Blog Posting we thought it would be extremely beneficial to our readers with an interest in Operation Invicta, and the Curtis Warren car bugging case in general, to have an understanding of events leading up to "Invicta" and events subsequent to it, so we offer a "time line." (below)

Much criticism has been levelled (notably in the State Media) against the actions of the three Police Officers involved with the Warren/bugging case. The spotlight has been turned on full glare in their direction. We offer the view that while the spotlight is focussed on the Police Officers it leaves The Law Officers in the shadows and the Law Officers might have a lot more to answer for than the cops.

As regular readers will be aware, the cops have faced a criminal investigation, AND a disciplinary investigation for their part in the "car bugging incident" and have been cleared by both. But what of the Law Officers who advise the police? Have they come under ANY kind of scrutiny at all let alone a criminal or disciplinary investigation?

We invite our readers (as we have) to turn the spotlight into the shadows. The rights, and wrongs, of the cops have been well aired and discussed but what about the rights, and wrongs, of the Law Officers? While the discredited and disgraced State Media have set the agenda of "cop bashing" (in our opinion) we do what we always do and that is to "dig," ask the right people the right questions and most importantly follow the evidence.

We encourage our readers to think for themselves, don't be blinded by what you see/hear in the disgraced State Media, ask yourselves why you hardly ever see/hear the Law Officers being interviewed on the State Media? Ask yourselves who are the Law Officers accountable to? When have the Law Officers EVER been investigated?

Could it be that while the State Media keep your minds occupied on the police and politicians that the real power in Jersey (and unaccountable) Law Officers go about their (your) business unnoticed and untouched?

"Invicta" Timeline.

June 2007.

The Police receive intelligence that Curtis Warren, a dangerous criminal of international standing, is about to be released from prison in Holland and plans to travel to Jersey. It is believed that he intends to establish a base in Jersey for criminal operations. Warren has a reputation for “taking over” territory from rival criminals. There are reports that he plans to “take Jersey.” He is reputed to have considerable personal wealth which has been concealed from law enforcement authorities. He has previously appeared in the Sunday Times “Rich List.” He also has a reputation for bribing and corrupting members of police forces, lawyers, prison officers and other public officials.

The States of Jersey Police decide to mount an operation against Warren in partnership with relevant agencies in the UK. The operation in Jersey will be under Jersey Law and in particular the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Law (RIPL). The Law and accompanying guidelines require that any intrusion into the privacy of any individual should meet strict legal criteria. The normal process is for the Police Officer who is designated as Head of Operations to make a written application to the Chief Officer. The Chief Officer checks the application to ensure that it meets the legal requirements and is operationally justified. If the Chief Officer signs the application it is then forwarded to the Attorney General who has the final say on whether the application is granted or refused. At the relevant time the Head of Operations was David Minty. The Chief Officer was Graham Power. The Attorney General was William Bailhache.

July 2007.

Jersey Police Officers under the leadership of David Minty are successful in maintaining surveillance of Warren and associates. This is no small achievement given that Warren is very surveillance-aware and displays considerable tradecraft. Comparable operations against Warren in the UK and elsewhere are reported to have run for months or even years without resulting in arrests or charges. A small team of officers under David Minty are working up to 20 hours a day. The team includes Louis Beghin and Lawrence Courtness.

Intelligence indicates that an associate of Warren intends to take a vehicle from France to Holland and return with a drugs shipment. Minty applies to the Chief Officer for the vehicle to be fitted with a tracking and audio device. The Chief Officer agrees that the application is justified on operational grounds but neither he nor Minty are experts on the law relating to such operations in European jurisdictions. The Chief Officer supports the application subject to it being deemed to be lawful by the Attorney General.

Events begin to move quickly and so an arrangement is established whereby Minty and his team take advice directly from the Law Officers Department. One of the Advocates designated to assist the police with the legal aspects of what is proposed is Advocate Matthew Jowitt. Complications arise regarding the consent for the audio device to be used in France and other jurisdictions. According to Court Records a discussion took place regarding the legalities of what was proposed. This discussion involved Beghin, another officer (now retired) and Advocate Jowitt. The records indicate that Jowitt told Beghin that a Jersey Court would be unlikely to exclude the evidence of an audio device in the vehicle whether permission had been obtained from other jurisdictions or not. It is reported that Jowitt said “If it was me I would go ahead and do it but don’t quote me on that.” Records of subsequent evidence indicate that officers took it that they were to install the audio device before the opportunity was lost. Legal experts could then consider at greater length whether the product of the audio could be used as evidence or not. If they did not install the device then there would be no opportunity to consider the matter one way or the other.

Subsequently Beghin, Courtness and another officer went to France and installed a tracking device and an audio device in a hire car to be used by an associate of Warren. The Hire Company was aware of the police activity and had given their consent.

A few days later Warren and his team are arrested. The Jersey Law Officers Department, having considered the matter in more detail, determine that the evidence from the Audio Device can be put to a Court. At a subsequent “Trial within a Trial” a judge hears arguments from both sides and rules that the evidence can be used. Warren and his associates are subsequently convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.

2007 to 2011.

Chief Officer Power, Acting Chief Officer Warcup and Senator Ian le Marquand, the Minister for Home Affairs make separate public references to the work of the officers in the investigation of Warren and praise the professionalism and dedication of those involved. Both Power and Warcup are recorded as saying that some form of formal recognition of their achievement would be justified.

Meanwhile Warren and others are pursuing an appeals process which will ultimately take the case to the Privy Council. The line taken by Advocates representing Warren is that the audio evidence was obtained illegally and should be excluded by the Court. The line taken by the Jersey Law Officers is to agree that the evidence was obtained illegally but to argue that the Court has discretion to allow it to be used. Not all of the police officers in the case are happy with the manner in which their actions are being portrayed by the Law Officers. They do not agree that what they did was “illegal” in the commonly understood sense of the word and feel sure that it is not contrary to RIPL. They also feel that the way the evidence is being presented does not place sufficient emphasis on the fact that they were receiving advice from the Law Officers and that they had given a full and accurate account of what happened at the first opportunity. However, they are not a party to the case so there is nothing they can do about it.

March 2011 

The verdict of the Privy Council is expected to be released soon. The Chief Officer of the States of jersey Police, Mike Bowron, issues a press release indicating that he expects the Privy Council Judgement to criticise the actions of the officers in the case. He has therefore asked Hampshire Police to conduct a full criminal and disciplinary investigation into the operation against Warren. The investigation is subsequently named “Operation Invicta.” Among those to be investigated are David Minty, Louis Beghin, Lawrence Courtness, Advocate Jowitt and former Chief Officer Graham Power who by then has retired and is living in England. Thus, officers who had expected to be commended now find that they are suspects in a criminal investigation for alleged offences of attempting to pervert the course of justice and perjury.

Hampshire Police establish an office in Jersey and commence their enquiries. All local “suspects” are “invited” to be interviewed but it is made clear that anyone who does not agree to be interviewed voluntarily will be arrested.

The position in respect of former Chief Officer Power is more complicated. He is in England and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Jersey authorities. Any attempt to arrest him as a suspect would need an application to the relevant English Authorities which would need to supported by evidence. It is rumoured locally that such evidence is not to hand.

August 2011.

Hampshire Police write to former Chief Officer Power at his home address in England. They ask him if he will voluntarily submit himself to be interviewed as a criminal suspect in “Operation Invicta” Mr Power replies offering information in relation to his role in the Warren investigation but says that he has nothing further to say and declines to agree to be interviewed as a criminal suspect. He does however make it clear that if he is approached in any other capacity, such as a witness, he will re-consider. As it transpires he receives no further request to assist with “Invicta.” He is not asked to make a statement or to give evidence in respect of the Criminal Enquiry of the Disciplinary Investigation which followed.

December 2011.

“Suspects” in the “Invicta” criminal investigation are formally notified that, following an examination of the evidence by an independent QC in the UK, it has been determined that there is no basis for any criminal charges against any person.

December 2011/Early 2012.

Officers who have been cleared by the Criminal Enquiry but have not retired or left the Force are told by senior officers that they will be subject to disciplinary proceedings before a Tribunal presided over by a Chief Constable from the UK. Those facing disciplinary action include Minty, Beghin and Courtness. They indicate that they will strongly deny any allegation of misconduct and engage lawyers to represent their interests.

During much of 2012 a number of legal issues arise and there are also problems with the availability of the Chief Constable initially selected to preside at the hearing. The matter drags out through a series of adjournments and delays. Minty and Beghin develop symptoms of stress-related illness. Beghin is placed on sick leave. Minty is suspended in relation to an unrelated matter said to be in respect of his non-attendance at a meeting.

December 2012.

The disciplinary hearing eventually convenes under the chairmanship of Mike Barton who is the Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary. Mr Barton is assisted by Jersey Advocate Santos-Costa. Legal and procedural arguments are heard and the hearing adjourned until January 2013.

January 2013.

The full hearing finally takes place and evidence for and against the officers is heard and assessed. In his judgement the Presiding Officer makes criticism of the States of Jersey Police, the Law Officers Department, and the standard of evidence against the officers. All disciplinary charges are dismissed and the Tribunal recommends that all three officers be commended for their role in the Warren Investigation. The evidence and findings of the Tribunal are subsequently set out in a nine page typed document signed by the Presiding Officer.

January 2013.

Concerns are expressed locally relating to the timescale and the cost of the disciplinary action. States Members, Bloggers and interested parties ask the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian le Marquand to release the written findings of the Tribunal. He refuses to do so.(timeline end)

Yet another debacle to add to the growing list under the tenure of Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand. We have previously reported how he has been able to spend millions of pounds of taxpayers money on fruitless disciplinary investigations and possible personal vendettas HERE.

This latest debacle goes one step further though. It started with the three Police Officers being recommended for commendations, then  over a matter of years, a number of inquiries (to include criminal) and millions of £s of taxpayers money being spent, we have come full circle, with it ending with the same recommendation as it all started!

Senator Ian Le Marquand would have been receiving legal advice from the very highly paid, unelected and seemingly unaccountable Law Officers, as were the police. Yet the Law Officers have come out of all this totally unscathed or scrutinised...........How could this be?

With Senator Le Marquand's refusal to publish the findings of the disciplinary case, could it be that the Law Officers DON'T come out unscathed and DO have questions to answer? Will ANY of the island's State Media be submitting an "Access To Information" (Jersey's poor equivalent to FOI)  request to obtain this document?

Will Senator Le Marquand, the Law Officers and State Media be praying this document doesn't get leaked to a Blogger like so many others have in the past?