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.

State Controlled Media.

In this final episode of our exclusive and in-depth interview with Jersey's Former Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, and Senior Investigating Officer of Jersey's "Historic" Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle), Mr Lenny Harper discusses some more uncomfortable home truth's regarding Jersey's media, the "pressure" Scrutiny Panel's are under, leaks to the media and much more.

Regular readers/viewers will be aware of the ongoing Scrutiny Review concerning the BDO/Alto Report. Among many other things that have come to light is the fact that Mick Gradwell has been accused by a witness, under oath, of leaking a confidential (or parts of) Report to a "journalist" who repotedly has history of supporting convicted Child Abusers. This alleged leak would have happened while "Operation Rectangle" was still an on-going Child Abuse Investigation.

A former Assistant Health Minister has been accused, by more than one witness, of leaking a confidential police e-mail to the same "journalist" while the Investigation was still live, yet NONE of our island's media have reported this.

Senator Ian Le Marquand, Jersey's Home Affairs Minister, has told the States Assembly that after an internal police Investigation, into the leak of the confidential Report, all avenues pointed to Mick Gradwell, yet NONE of our island's media reported this.

We get three Jersey Politicians, Jimmy (potty mouth) Perchard, Ben Shenton and Sean Power, who think that Lenny Harper, or officers under his command, "might" have leaked stuff to the NOTW and the island's media are all over it, without a shred of evidence, unlike the mounting evidence against the Former Assistant Health Minister and Gradwell.

How can it possibly be that the Home Affairs Minister, during a States debate as good as, accuses Mick Gradwell of leaking confidential reports to a "journalist" which is aired live on BBC Radio Jersey, and BBC Jersey mention nothing about it, two CTV Reporters claim "they didn't hear it" and the JEP totally ignore it? It's just not conceivable.

Isn't it time we had a Parliamentary Select Committee (Scrutiny Panel), the same as the UK, that are able to scrutinise the local "accredited" media?

Part one of this interview can be viewed HERE

Part two can be viewed HERE

Part three can be viewed HERE

Part four can be viewed HERE

Lenny Harper tells us"Bring It On"

In part four of this exclusive, in-depth and revealing, interview with former Senior Investigating Officer of Jersey's Historical Child Abuse Investigation, Mr. Lenny Harper he tells us to "go with the evidence."


Regular viewers/readers will be aware that three politicians (who are up for election this year) Senator Jimmy Perchard, Senator Ben Shenton and Deputy Sean Power are asking Jersey's Attorney General to investigate the possibility of leaks to the NOTW during the Historical Child Abuse Enquiry. Mr. Harper, and a growing number of others, see this as a cynical attempt by these three politicians to attack Mr Harper, his investigation and the Abuse Victims/survivors. Furthermore Mr. Harper claims they are doing this "without a shred of evidence."

In this interview we are told that there is "ample evidence" to suggest that Senator Jimmy Perchard leaked a confidential police e-mail to a "journalist" while the Child Abuse Investigation was live. This evidence, claims Mr. Harper, is in the form of a tape recorded telephone call between the "journalist" and former Police Chief Mr. Graham Power QPM.

It must be said, as Mr. Harper states in the interview, that Senator Perchard denies this allegation and we have no reason to doubt either person's version. Although Mr. Harper states there is the evidence in way of a tape recording, there is always the possibility, if it did exist, that David Warcup could have destroyed it.

There is also evidence to show that Mick Gradwell leaked a confidential document to, possibly a number of "journalists." A witness, giving evidence to the ongoing Scrutiny Review told the Panel that Mr. Gradwell confessed to him, over the phone, that he did leak a document. Indeed our Home Affairs Minister has told us that an "investigation" pointed to Mr. Gradwell being the most likely culprit of the leak. Mr. Gradwell has been asked to give evidence to the on-going Scrutiny Review and to the best of our knowledge has so far not done so.

Mr. Harper, in this interview, also gives us the strongest indication yet that he believes a child, or children could have been murdered up at Haute de la Garenne, telling us that the possibility cannot be ruled out. The "lurid" stories that were printed in the NOTW, although have not been proven, by the same token, they've not been disproven either.

We are not aware of any evidence to suggest that Deputy Sean Power or Senator Ben Shenton have leaked any documents, as suggested by Mr. Harper in this video, to journalists but are aware of other dubious activities by them concerning e-mails and tape recorded telephone calls.

Will these three politicians be so keen, as Mr. Harper appears to be, to have "a Root and Branch" investigation into leaks to the media?

"Bring it on".................

Part one of this interview can be viewed HERE

Part two can be viewed HERE

Part three can be viewed HERE

Leaks to the JEP.

Part three of this exclusive and in-depth interview with Jersey's Former  Deputy Chief Officer (DCO) of the States of Jersey police - raises the questions - who in the force has been feeding Jersey's only "news"paper with information that they shouldn't have been? Have the JEP ever paid Police Officers for any of this information?

The former DCO and Senior Investigating Officer of Jersey's "Historical" Child Abuse Investigation, along with others, believes these questions ought to be answered......or at least asked/investigated.

Mr. Harper claims that the three politicians, Senator's Jimmy (Potty Mouth) Perchard, Ben Shenton and Deputy Sean Power who are  calling for an investigation into the relationship of Senior Officers and the NOTW journalists are "deliberately trying to smear a hard working team of detectives on the Historical Abuse Enquiry."

He goes on to tell us "it was plainly obvious that somebody within the organisation (SOJP) did have an improper relationship with the Jersey Evening Post." Who is this person? Is it only one person? Are they still in the Police Force? Have they received financial gain for their alleged "improper relationship" with the JEP?

Again, more questions than answers, hopefully if/when this Committee of Enquiry gets off the ground, the TOR's will include investigating Jersey's "accredited" media........There are a lot of questions that will need answering.

Part one of this exclusive Interview can be viewed HERE

Part Two can be viewed HERE

Cowardly, Underhanded and Dishonest.

Team Voice has put the question to former DCO and Senior Investigating Officer Lenny Harper that he believes Deputy Sean Power, along with Senator's Perchard and Shenton, are too cowardly, underhanded and dishonest to admit they are inferring.

They appear to be inferring that he has had improper dealings with the News of The World but in reality they are probably just trying to further smear the name of Mr. Harper.........but why would they want to do that?

Firstly let's just have a quick look at some of the antics of these three individuals and how well placed they are to question ANYBODY'S integrity or morality.

Deputy Sean Power stole a fellow States Member's personal e-mail correspondence scanned it, passed it on to at least one other third party where it subsequently was published on the internet. It's difficult to determine what is the most despicable, the fact that he took the e-mail in the first place, the fact that he showed it to others which caused it to be published on the internet. But possibly the most despicable part of this horrible episode is that the particular e-mail had the names of the fellow States Members Children contained in it, even when it was published on the internet. What does this say about Deputy Power's feelings to protecting children? What does it say about his integrity and his morals?

Senator Ben Shenton records a personal telephone call between himself and a fellow Senator. Sits on it, and when the time is right, produces it to a Scrutiny Panel to try and nail his fellow Senator giving his fellow Senator no indication that he had recorded the phone-call, nor warning him he will be using it against him at this panel hearing. Integrity, morality?

 Senator Jimmy Perchard attempts to encourage a fellow Senator to kill himself, not only that he also denied doing/saying it. He was caught out and exposed as being a liar. He also allegedly used disgraceful language from that filthy potty mouth of his when suggesting his fellow Senator go "slit his wrists." He also denied using the disgusting language, in the States Chamber, which he subsequently had to admit to. Integrity, morality?

As regular viewers will be aware these three individuals are having another pop at one of the Police Officers who exposed one of Jersey's dirty secrets. The fact that children were abused in State run Institutions for decades by people in authority who STILL have complete impunity.

So for the benefit of Ben Shenton, Sean Power and Jimmy Perchard here it is from the horses mouth.

Incidentally if any of you three have the courage to be interviewed and answer straight questions, like Former DCO Harper and former CPO Graham Power QPM have then let's do it?

Or are you going to prove Mr. Harper right and show us that you truly are cowardly, underhanded and dishonest?

Part one of the this exclusive and in-depth interview with Mr. Harper can be viewed HERE. Part three coming soon.............