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.

Former Police Chief Exclusive.

In November 2008 Jersey's most senior Police Officer was (possibly illegally) suspended from duty during the biggest Child Abuse Investigation Jersey has ever witnessed. Regular readers will be aware that the "official line" surrounding this suspension as portrayed by the Jersey government along with its State Media just doesn't stack up and has been torn apart by this Blogsite and others including RICO SORDA'S

The latest turn of events has seen the publication of a 62,000 word document submitted by the former Police Chief, Graham Power QPM, to the Wiltshire Constabulary who were tasked with producing evidence against him to take to a disciplinary hearing. A disciplinary hearing that never could have, or ever did take place but still cost the Jersey Taxpayer in excess of ONE MILLION POUNDS

Mr. Powers 62,000 word, 94 page, submission to Wiltshire was leaked to former Jersey politician and Health Minister Stuart Syvret who most will know spoke out, or blew the whistle, while still in post, on the institutional, decades long, Child Abuse in Jersey State run institutions and "care" homes. Mr. Syvret too was removed from his post as Health Minister. 

The document itself is, as previously described, "DYNAMITE" and for those with an interest in the full picture of this whole sordid and ghastly affair the document can, and should be, read HERE.

It should also be mentioned that Mr. Syvret gave a copy of this document to BBC Jersey State Radio, over TEN MONTHS AGO back in September 2011 and despite reporting on the case AGAINST Mr. Power they have kept his defence case buried ever since. (More about that in an up-coming Blog).

As a result of Mr. Power's document being published we contacted him in order to verify its authenticity and asked him if he could explain to us its significance, how it came about and related matters. This is in stark contrast to BBC Jersey State Radio, and the rest of the island's State Media who have not sought to ask him a single question, either on its authenticity nor its contents, which in a functioning "Democracy" with an independent media would seem quite staggering, but in Jersey, alas it is quite the norm where Bloggers are the only real independent media there is.

Below is Mr. Power's response to our request and we thank him for his willingness to respond to any, and all, questions put to him in order that history can record a true reflection of the Jersey Child Abuse Atrocities and related issues which you'll not find anywhere in the State Media.

I have been approached by the “Voiceforchildren” website and asked if I want to comment on the apparent publication on another website of my 62,000 word written statement to Wiltshire Police which I prepared in response to the disciplinary investigation into my management of the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry, when I was Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. The Chief Constable of Wiltshire was appointed to conduct the disciplinary investigation in December 2008.

I have viewed the website on which the statement is said to be published. I have not read the full publication or compared it word-for-word with my copy of the original. I have however checked some randomly selected extracts from the website and found them to be an accurate reproduction of the original document. It appears from the available evidence that the publication on the website is a true copy of the original document, albeit with some redactions for the protection of third parties. I did not provide a copy of my statement to the website or the person who operates that website.

I prepared the statement in 2009 because I was required to do by the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand, who activated the relevant part of the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of the Force, which requires that such a statement be provided. I should perhaps record at this stage that the provision of a statement was not the first option which was considered. I was at first approached by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire, Brian Moore, and asked if I would agree to be interviewed. It was proposed that the interview would be conducted in a Jersey hotel or similar location and would last for about a week. I know of no precedent for an interview of that duration in a disciplinary enquiry. In a criminal investigation the law would normally prohibit an interview of that length other than in exceptional cases with the agreement of a Court. Terrorism investigations are an example of the type of enquiry where authority might be given for an interview lasting for a week.

In spite of the exceptional nature of the request I nevertheless entered into correspondence to establish whether it would be possible for me to give my agreement to what was proposed. I noted that Mr Moore and his team were benefiting from legal advice funded by the Jersey Government. I therefore asked for a similar facility which would enable me to be advised in respect of the request for an interview, and to be represented during any interview which was agreed. This request was considered by the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand, who decided that he would not allow funding for me to have any legal advice or representation, stating that any legal costs would have to be met from my own personal resources.

Given that the subject matter of the interview was entirely concerned with things I had done in the course of my duties as Chief Officer of the Force, and that the investigating Officers and the Minister were benefiting from full legal advice, I did not think that the Ministers decision was fair or consistent with the principles of Natural Justice. I therefore declined to attend for interview but said that I would comply with the Code and provide a written statement. I was then given a list of points to cover and a deadline for the submission of the final document.

It might be worth recording at this point that apart from the lack of fairness, I did not think that the Ministers decision to require me to provide a written statement was wise. In my opinion few people in his situation would have done the same. The consequence of his decision was that I would produce a full and candid written account of the investigation from my perspective. This would include previously undisclosed information regarding the role and actions of Jersey Ministers and other key figures. Once the statement had been created it would exist thereafter, copies would be made, and interest would be expressed in its content. Given the nature of things in Jersey it would inevitably find its way into the public domain by one means or another. If another person had been the Minister they might have preferred not to have compelled the document to be created in the first place. They may have seen it as a future source of conflict and embarrassment. They could have found another way of dealing with the situation. Senator Le Marquand apparently thought otherwise. That might be one of the reasons why the controversy is still live over three years afterwards. In the circumstances another Minister may have sought a way to “close down” the matter of my suspension and move on to address the core issues of the decades of child abuse, and the reasons for the abuse being covered-up by people whose duty it was to act. That has not happened.

If the publication of my statement and any issues which arise from that publication are troublesome to the Minister, then it is trouble that he has made for himself. He took the decision to require me to write it. All that has followed could have been foreseen.

Once it was clear that I would be providing a written statement and that there was a deadline to be met I set about the task. At this time both the Wiltshire Police team and the Minister were benefitting, not just from the comprehensive legal advice which I have described earlier, but also from fully staffed administrative support and modern office facilities. I on the other hand did my own typing on a laptop computer with family members acting as proof-readers. Looking back on those events I am confident that a situation was deliberately contrived in order to create feelings of isolation and hopelessness on my part. This would have been done in the hope that I would break under the pressure and quietly slip away. That did not happen.

It is now a matter of record that in spite of a long investigation and suspension costing well over a million pounds, no disciplinary charges were brought and no hearing was ever called. I retired in July 2010 three years after my “normal retirement age” as set out in my conditions of service.

I was surprised when, shortly before I retired, the Minister made it clear that he intended to publish a redacted version of the Wilshire report. This document was effectively the “prosecution case” which would have been used at the hearing which the Minister never called. I thought that this was unfair and said so in clear terms. It had been made clear from the onset that all documents in the case were to be kept strictly confidential. The Minister was breaching that rule. He also sought to present the Wiltshire report as some form of “independent review” which it plainly was not. The idea of a thorough management review of the investigation, and the lessons to be learned, to which I was happy to contribute, had been considered and turned down by the Minister early in 2009. The document which he eventually published was designed to be presented at a disciplinary hearing which never happened. Had the hearing taken place the contents of the report would have been subjected to significant challenge and opposing evidence would have been brought.

When I learned of the Ministers intentions I said that firstly, the Wiltshire report should not have been published, but if it was to be published, there should be at least a parallel publication of my own written statement. This was communicated by a variety of means including a letter to the Chief Minister dated 3rd April 2010. Under some political pressure Senator Le Marquand promised that he would do this, but his promise was never kept and it has now been overtaken by events.

All that said, I believe that the statement which has now entered the public domain is a valuable contribution to the understanding of a significant period in the Island’s history. I believe that it is revealing, not only with regard to the abuse enquiry, but also the cultures, attitudes, and style of governance which existed at the time.

If it serves any purpose in assisting the victims, or preventing similar events in the future, then the time spent compiling it will have been worthwhile.



Graham Power.

North Yorkshire.

August 2012.(END)

Is there any wonder why this story continues to attract NATIONAL and INTERNATIONAL media interest? 

You Don't Deserve Your Day In Court Minister.

Now that the Vote Of Censure against Treasury Minister, Senator Philip Ozouf will not be debated in the States (Parliament) he feels a little hard done by. The Senator feels that nobody should be treated in the way he has, in that a damming Report can be released into the public domain, against him, and he is denied the right to defend himself because the Vote Of Censure has been withdrawn. Senator Ozouf clearly has a very short memory and is not able to grasp that this is how business in Jersey is conducted.

Senator Ozouf should actually be thankful that no potential criminal acts (as far as we are aware) have been employed in order to smear his reputation and that he is not bound by "A Freedom Of Information EXEMPT" Clause so can offer his defence without fear of retribution criminal or otherwise.

Regular readers will be aware that the same privileges were not afforded to the Former Chief Of Police Graham Power QPM. Mr. Power was (illegally?) suspended from duty during the biggest Child Abuse Investigation the Island has ever seen, for reasons that still aren't clear to this day, and not only was he denied his "Day In Court" he had the prosecution case against him (possibly illegally) published by Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand and the State Media, while he (GP) was bound by the confidentiality clauses set by the Wiltshire Constabulary, the same FOI Exempt clauses that Senator Le Marquand was bound by, but apparently chose to ignore.

Below is a letter of complaint to the then Chief Minister, Terry Le Sueur, from the Former Police Chief, concerning the discredited and disgraced, Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand and the way he conducts his business.


Graham Power

                                                                                                          North Yorkshire,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Saturday 3rd April 2010.


The Chief Minister,


Cyril Le Marquand House,


Jersey.

Dear Chief Minister,

Request for independent investigation into the conduct of the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand.

The purpose of this letter is to set out the basis of my request for an independent investigation into the conduct of Senator Ian Le Marquand, the Minister for Home Affairs. I also have some additional representations to make concerning the current disciplinary enquiry.

You will recall that I was suspended from duty as Chief Officer of the States Police in November 2008. The suspension occurred towards the end of what, from all independent accounts, was a successful and distinguished period of service to the Island. From the very beginning of the suspension, and at all times subsequently, I have maintained that the suspension was unjustified, and that any allegations against me were false. That position has not changed.

As part of the suspension process I was served with documents and a copy of the Disciplinary Code which clearly stated that “All parties involved in the operation of this Code will maintain confidentiality while proceedings are being progressed.” I have at all times sought to observe this requirement.

In addition, I have at every stage attempted to move things forward, and to assist in bringing the matter to an early conclusion. I have co-operated fully with Mr Brian Moore, the Chief Constable of Wiltshire, who is the Investigating Officer acting on behalf of the Chief Executive. In July 2009 I provided Mr Moore with a statement consisting of over 62,00 words, and in March 2010 I provided a further statement of over 13,000 words.

Nobody should be surprised to learn that since November 2008 I have been approached by a number of journalists, some representing major UK media interests, who have sought to persuade me to provide them with exclusive material relating to the abuse enquiry, the Jersey government, and the circumstances of my suspension. I have consistently dealt with these approaches by declining to make comment, on the basis that to do so would constitute a breach of the Disciplinary Code.

Against this background you are aware that I have made a number of representations, culminating in my letter to the Deputy Chief Executive dated 1st March 2010, in which I set out the history of my suspension, and offered the view that the Minister had by then prolonged matters to a point at which a return to work was impossible, and I had therefore effectively been dismissed. I have not received a reply to that letter. This is entirely consistent with the behaviour which the Minister, and those acting on his behalf, have shown throughout this matter. Letters seeking information are often simply ignored, and the normal courtesies of professional correspondence and fair play are treated with a disdain bordering on contempt. I hope you will appreciate how difficult it has been for me to sustain a meaningful engagement in the face of this behaviour.

You will also know that Mr Moore has formally recorded his own view on the confidentiality of his report, and has provided all parties with a written notice in which he states that the contents of his report are exempt from any Freedom of Information disclosure, and “the disclosure of information would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey.”

With these issues in mind I have observed, with growing incredulity, the conduct of the Minister for Home Affairs over recent days. On Sunday 21st March 2010 the Minister was heard live on the BBC Radio Jersey “Talkback” programme. At the time of writing steps are in hand to obtain a transcript of the Ministers comments. Nevertheless, from my notes of the broadcast, it is clear that the Minister engaged in what appeared to be a number of persistent and deliberate contraventions of the confidentiality requirements of the Disciplinary Code. In addition, he also indicated a degree of pre-judgement of the evidence which was inconsistent with his role as a “judge” in my disciplinary case, and which demonstrated complete disregard for my Human Right to a fair and independent hearing under Article 6 of the Convention. My notes indicate the Minister said on live radio that he had a copy of the report with him in the studio, and there is a suggestion that some part of it may have been seen by, or at the least discussed with, another States member who was present. He also took the position that there was mismanagement of the Historic Abuse enquiry, and I was in some way responsible. I regard these claims to be totally false and without justification. I also noted that he spoke of a senior member of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) who is a potential defence witness on my behalf, and described the conduct of that person as "scandalous". The conduct of the Minister on “Talkback” was in its own right a serious breach of the Disciplinary Code, and one which undermined any claim he may make to be capable of properly discharging his disciplinary responsibilities. However, more was to follow.

I have subsequently seen a media report which indicates that Senator Le Marquand has told a Scrutiny hearing that he will release parts of the Moore report to States Members. This would appear to constitute a further expression of intent to contravene the confidentiality requirement of the code, and to undermine my right to a fair hearing. You are of course aware that my ultimate disciplinary authority is the States as a whole. This being the case it is difficult to see the Ministers stated intention as anything other than an attempt to prevent me from receiving a fair hearing before the States, should that eventuality arise.

You will now be aware, that notwithstanding the apparent breaches of the rules of integrity, fair play, and respect for Human Rights, which had been committed by the Minister during March 2010, a further breach occurred on 1st April 2010 which, in the view of most observers, surpassed all which had gone before. An article appeared as a lead story in a Jersey newspaper which left no doubt that significant parts of the Moore report had been leaked, and that the leak had come either directly from the Minister, or others acting on his behalf. The article purported to give details of the Moore report, and was accompanied by a photograph of what appeared to be the cover of the report bearing the Wiltshire Police crest. The Minister is quoted extensively in relation to the Moore report, and appears to be uninhibited in his willingness to discuss publicly a report, the confidentiality of which he is obliged to uphold. The leaks are targeted and selective. They make mention of alleged critical comment of my own role, but omit reference to evidence of political interference in the abuse investigation, or of the difficulties created by the failure of the Jersey authorities to establish proper arrangements for the accountability of policing. In addition, the Minister, in his comments, makes the false allegation that I was in some way responsible for delays in relation to interviews and the provision of statements. He omits to mention that these delays arose entirely from his own refusal to provide for me to have the protection of fair legal representation. The leaks from the report and the Ministers comments appear to be a premeditated and calculated attempt to destroy any prospect of a fair and independent hearing of any disciplinary allegations which may be brought against me. They constitute a gross and premeditated abuse of Ministerial power. In engaging with the media in this manner the Minister appears to have forfeited any right to play a further role in respect of my case. Accordingly, after having taken appropriate advice, I have determined to act as follows:

1. I request an immediate and independent investigation into the conduct of the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand in relation to his breaches of the confidentiality requirements of the Disciplinary Code, and of whatever understanding he may have entered into with the Chief Constable of Wiltshire, Mr Brian Moore, regarding the confidentiality of Mr Moore's report. Given that the Moore report contains personal data, a criminal investigation may be appropriate. It would be logical for an investigation to include any Civil Servants who have supported the Minister in his conduct. I am of course willing to assist with any such investigation and to give evidence if required.

2. I formally give notice that in view of his persistent breaches of both the Code and my Human Rights, I have lost confidence in the Minister for Home Affairs. I consider that my relationship with the Minister has broken down, and that this breakdown has been deliberately engineered by the Minister, and is irrevocable. In consequence, I invite you to consider how matters affecting me should now be progressed. Clearly, in the circumstances it would be difficult for me to have any further dealings with the Minister, and I can imagine no circumstances in which I would agree that he should be entrusted with any information relating to me which is personal or confidential. I leave it to you to make whatever arrangements, or indeed take whatever action you see fit, in light of this decision.

3. I consider that it is now beyond reasonable dispute that any possibility of a fair and unprejudiced hearing of any matters which may be alleged against me has been totally destroyed. I understand from media reports that the Minister may also have admitted that his repeated delays in taking the matter forward have now reached a point at which a disciplinary process can no longer be completed. This being the case I would regard it as a serious abuse of process, and oppressive behaviour, to continue with the pretext that there is some prospect of disciplinary proceedings and I therefore request that all proceedings under the disciplinary code be formally ended.

Since the publication of the article in the newspaper I have learned from a public internet site that Senator Le Marquand has stated that he hopes to publish further parts of the Moore report. I would regard this as unacceptable. The report in question was prepared as a “preliminary report” for the purposes of the Disciplinary Code. It contains significant inaccuracies and makes statements which are not true. Should any disciplinary proceedings have followed the report it was my intention to subject its contents to significant challenge, and it's author to detailed cross-examination. I regard the threat to publish the report at this or any other time as an expression of malicious intent, and should publication occur, all of my options are reserved. However, without prejudice to any of the above, your intention is drawn to the existence of my own report on the management of the enquiry which is set out in the form of an extensive statement, a copy of which is in the Ministers possession. Should the Minister decide, in spite of all of the above, to proceed with further publication of the Moore report, then it would appear to be entirely reasonable that my own report be published at the same time.

Finally, please note that I have written separately to Mr Moore expressing my concerns at the leak of his report and asking that no further confidential information relating to my interests be provided to the Minister, or anyone acting on his behalf.


I look forward to an early reply.






Yours sincerely










Graham Power.

Cc Dr T Brain.

Mr. Power received a reply from the then Chief Minister, Terry Le Sueur some THIRTEEN DAYS LATER on 16th-04-10 in which he acknowledged the complaint and said that he was taking legal advice on the content and that he would respond within 2 weeks. Nothing further was heard and around 6 weeks later Mr. Power retired.

So the Treasury Minister, if all are equal in the eyes of the Jersey Establishment, does not deserve his Day In Court. 

Furthermore one has to ask does Senator Ozouf still feel so hard done by?

Former Police Chief speaks on controversial "Interim" Report. Re-Post.

In conjunction with Rico Sorda's latest POSTING and following the National, and International, Press coverage, concerning the vital work of this, and Rico Sorda's Blog, in exposing the facts behind the (possibly illegal) suspension of Former Jersey Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM we thought this would be an ideal opportunity to remind our regular readers and inform our new readers of some of those "facts."

Since the original posting of the Blog (below) more vital information has come to light, in where it appears (in the Rico Sorda link above) that the former Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis, who originally suspended the (then) Chief Police Officer  Mr. Graham Power QPM, misled the island's Parliament. It all revolves around what the Former Home Affairs Minister DID or DIDN'T see and that is the "Interim MET Report" (or "The Britton Memo")

The Former Home Affairs Minister told the island's Parliament (in a secret session that was never meant to see the light of day) regarding his suspension of the Former Police Chief.

"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.”


That statement, From Andrew Lewis, one can only surmise, is telling the secret parliament session that this "preliminary Report" by the MET Police into the Child Abuse Investigation is a damming indictment on the investigation under Mr. Power's control and he had no other choice other than to suspend Mr. Power.  

But running alongside that statement we have, in the subsequent Napier Review in paragraph 101;

"As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it.”

We now also know, thanks to the tenacity and determination of the Senior Investigating Officer of the original Child Abuse Investigation, (Operation Rectangle) Mr. Lenny Harper to ensure the truth behind the lies are told that, and quoted from OPERATION TUMA "In the Heads of Complaint made by Mr Harper he states that the review criticised a number of areas of the investigation. The review does not criticise the investigation. The Review does not criticise any individual involved in Operation Rectangle."


Mr. Power later in the Blog Posting tells us just what the MET Review was supposed to be used for and how that use has been abused by the Jersey Authorities, and quite clearly by the then Home Affairs Minister. At the time of writing the Blog below, Mr. Power was unaware of the statement made by Mr. Lewis to the secret parliament session.


This whole mess that has been created by the "Jersey Elite" in the lies deceit and cover-up involving Child Abuse that was able to flourish in State Run "Care" Institutions FOR DECADES is now starting to attract worldwide attention as it (the cover-up) continues to spiral further, and further, out of control.


Readers are strongly advised to go to the links provided in this post, and in particular THIS ONE where American, Author, Historian and Award Winning Investigative Journalist Leah McGrath Goodman writes of her treatment by the Jersey Authorities and UK Border Agency after it became apparent, to them, that she was Investigating the Child Abuse Atrocities in Jersey.

Miss McGrath Goodman tells us in her short BIO that she has written for The Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Huffington Post, ABC News, USA Today, National Public Radio, Bloomberg and Forbes about trading, wine, fine art, banking, Big Oil, rare books, Islamic finance, alternative asset classes and all manner of esoterica.


Her Best Selling Book "The Asylum" will convince any doubters of her resolve and ability that the "Jersey Elite" who have allegedly prevented her from returning to our shores to complete her research on Haut de la Garenne, the Child Abuse and possible murder, that they have got a fight on their hands from a person who doesn't bow to intimidation and threats, it's all in a days work to her. Furthermore she is able to draw on resources far bigger, and beyond the reach, of Jersey's Feudal Elite.


Following the Guardian newspaper's recent expose of the disgraceful treatment dished out to our Former Police Chief, Graham Power QPM, it looks like Jersey's State Radio were shamed into mentioning something about it. What they, nor any of the island's State Media mentioned, was the disgraceful and possibly very dangerous treatment of a Western Journalist in Leah McGrath Goodman. Why would fellow Jersey "Journalists" want to keep this quiet? It's implications could be far reaching and send shockwaves through the western journalistic world. An american journalist being refused entry into the UK and Jersey seemingly because she is investigating Institutional Child Abuse in Jersey and our State Media don't even think it's worth a mention? We know it is getting mentioned elsewhere and as stated earlier it could have huge repercussions including for those involved.

Original Posting from Feb 2012.
Former Jersey Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, at the request of VFC, has set out his knowledge of the so-called Met "Interim" Report and related matters  It once more lays bare the facts from the perspective of Jersey's former most Senior Police Officer which tells us a different story as to the one we are told by our rulers and the State Media. A PREVIOUS POSTING sparked a lot of interest in this document and many questions were asked and in this posting the Former Chief Officer has set out to answer them.

One of the most "popular" questions was "does an official Met Interim Report exist?" We at Team Voice have been of the view, since November 08 that it DOESN'T and Mr. Power appears to be of the same view where he tells us "It has subsequently become clear that this is the document which some have claimed is the “Interim Report” from the “Metropolitan Police.”   It is patently nothing of the sort."

In his trademark clinical manner the Former Police Chief chronologically explains certain events that surround his very dubious (possibly illegal) suspension and the Met "Interim" Report as some call it or other descriptions could be "Officer's Report", "memorandum" or "favour to David Warcup."

From Former Jersey Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM

1. I have been asked to provide a short summary of the Metropolitan Police Review of the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry, known as “Operation Rectangle.”   As I am now long retired I do not have access to current police files and records relating to this issue.   I have however searched my own files and consulted with others who were involved, and on this basis I have constructed the following narrative which may be of value to interested parties.
2. In early 2008 the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) appointed an independent team of experts to advise and assist Lenny Harper in his role as the Senior Investigating Officer for “Operation Rectangle.”   The team was headed by a former Commander (a rank equivalent to Assistant Chief Constable) in the Metropolitan Police who was then a Deputy Director of the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA.)   He is an internationally recognised expert in the investigation of Serious Crime.
3. As the relationship with the ACPO team developed there was discussion regarding the need for a Review of Operation Rectangle by another Police Force.    Such Reviews are recognised good practice in the investigation of serious offences.   The purpose of a review is to provide a “critical friend” examination of the enquiry and to make recommendations to improve its effectiveness.   The ACPO team advised that the Review should be conducted by the Metropolitan Police and that it should be timed to form an agenda for the new management team who were to take over from Mr Harper.   This recommendation was accepted.
4. In the Summer and Autumn of 2008 the Metropolitan Police team and the new management team for “Operation Rectangle” were on the ground and taking up their responsibilities.   The Met Review team were headed by a Bryan Sweeting who is a Detective Superintendent in the Metropolitan Police.   He is assisted by a Mr Peter Britton who was described as a former Detective Chief Inspector who was then working for the Met as a Civilian Advisor on Major Enquiries.   It may be of note that neither of the Met representatives had ever overseen a major crime enquiry at Chief Officer level, and that neither had significant experience outside of London.   In terms of seniority and experience they were several levels below the ACPO team which had been advising Lenny Harper since early 2008.   That said, the Met team communicated their views as they progressed with their work and all of their comments were acted upon by the Force.
5. In October 2008 the new police management team consisting of David Warcup as Deputy Chief Officer, and Mick Gradwell as Senior Investigating Officer was firmly in place.   Lenny Harper had retired some months previously and all significant recommendations made verbally by the Metropolitan Police team had been implemented.   Their full written report was awaited but it was expected that it would not contain anything which had not already been discussed and acted upon, (which subsequently proved to be the case.)
6. On 10^th November 2008 the Chief Officer was off the Island attending to an urgent family welfare issue in the UK.   The Deputy Chief Officer, David Warcup, wrote a letter to the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers (Bill Ogley.)   He said that he had that day received an “Interim Report” from the Met which documented their “Initial Findings.”   He did not attach a copy of the Met report which he said was “restricted” due to the sensitivity of the information it contained.   (Subsequent readers of the alleged “Interim Report” who have offered comment  have not  been able to identify any content in the report which justifies it being withheld by Mr Warcup, or which could not have been addressed by simple redaction.   Those expressing this view include Brian Napier QC who was commissioned to review the matter and whose report is in the public domain.   Mr Warcup resigned shortly before the publication of the Napier report.)
7. On 11^th November 2008 the letter from David Warcup was considered by the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis.   Mr Lewis was about to leave office.   He had not stood for re-election in the 2008 Jersey elections which were reaching a conclusion around that time.   It was the last, and perhaps only, significant issue he had to deal with during his short political career.   In a subsequent statement to Wiltshire Police, prior to which he signed a legal declaration making the statement admissible as evidence in Court, Lewis claimed that he had no concerns regarding the Historic Abuse Enquiry until he received the letter from Warcup on 11^th November 2008.   The report by Brian Napier QC makes it clear that this part of his statement is untrue.   Napier established that for some months Lewis had been meeting secretly with others, including the Chief Executive Bill Ogley and the then Chief Minister Frank Walker, in an effort to devise a means by which the Chief Officer of the Force could be suspended.   To what extent Lewis was his “own man” in these discussions and to what extent the decisions he subsequently took were genuinely “his” are matters on which it is legitimate to speculate.   That evening Lewis contacted the Chief Officer on his mobile phone in the belief that he was still out of the Island but due to return soon.   He discovered that travel arrangements had changed and that the Chief Officer was at home.   He asked the Chief Officer to attend a meeting in the office of the Chief Executive the following morning.
8. On 12^th November 2008 the Chief Officer attended the arranged meeting with Lewis and Ogley.   The Chief Minister Frank Walker was in the adjacent room.   After a short encounter lasting about 30 minutes the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police was suspended from duty.   Events determined that he never returned to duty.   The brief meeting with Andrew Lewis and Bill Ogley therefore became the final event in a police career spanning over 40 years throughout the British Isles.   The Chief Officer was not shown the letter from Warcup or the alleged interim report from the Met.   He was not told in advance of the purpose of the meeting or given chance to prepare.   He was not offered representation or an opportunity to consult with his staff association.   Ogley made notes of what was said at the meeting but destroyed these after he was given notice that the matter may be referred to the Royal Court.
9. The Jersey Government quickly publicised its actions.   The Chief Officers elderly mother learned of his suspension by means of a news item on her local TV station in Yorkshire.   The Chief Officers daughter learned the news on her car radio in Sydney.   With hindsight the Chief Officer now sees these actions as those of a corrupt and malicious administration resolved to trample over every rule of fairness and justice in an effort to break the spirit and resolve of an individual who is an obstacle to their plans and intentions.   It did not work.   What they in fact achieved was to initiate a long running and divisive controversy which is alive more than three years afterwards, and which in terms of reputational damage and cost exceeds anything which they may have been seeking to avoid.   Their malice is matched only by their stupidity and incompetence.   In the absence of the Chief Officer, David Warcup was appointed “Acting Chief Officer” with the pay and entitlements of the Chief Officer.   He then moved into the Chief Officers Office.
10. In January February and March of 2009 the new Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand was legally responsible for the continuing suspension and was said to be familiarising himself with the case.   A number of prominent local figures and States Members urged him to bring the matter to an end by seeking a swift pragmatic solution which acknowledges that the suspension was an unjustified act and to seek an outcome through consultation.   He rejected all of these approaches.   He conducted two suspension review meetings with the Chief Officer and his professional representative.   The meetings were recorded and the transcripts are in the public domain.   During these meetings the Minister disclosed that the Met would not allow him to see the review report, they will not allow its use for disciplinary purposes, and that its use for suspension purposes has caused a rift between the Met and Jersey.   He nevertheless decided to keep the suspension in place.
11. In July 2009 Wiltshire Police, who have been appointed by the Minister to conduct a disciplinary investigation into the Chief Officer, begin to make arrangements for the Chief Officer to respond to their enquiry.   They deliver statements and other documents to his home address.   The documents fill three large boxes and are carried to the house by two people.   The Chief Officer is given a list of questions to which he is asked to respond.   The questions refer to statements and documents which are in the three boxes.   A deadline is set.   The deadline for reading and digesting the material in all of the boxes and for making a response is, on the face of it, totally impossible and may have been intended to be such.   But is it not.   Plans have been made.   Family members and friends have been assembled to act as administrators, proof readers and editors.   The Chief Officer submits a written response within the deadline.   The response is over 62,000 words (the size of a small novel.)   At various times the Minister has promised to publish this response.   He has never done so.
12. Among the documents in the three boxes are two reports relating to the review by the Metropolitan Police.   One is their full report which bears the crest of the Force on its cover and is clearly a document of which the Metropolitan Police have corporate ownership.   The other is a different type of document.   It is an 18 page document headed “Officers Report” and is a memorandum from Mr Peter Britton who, as described earlier, was a civilian member of the Met Review team.   The report is not bound.   It does not have the force crest on its cover, and it makes no claim to be a report by the “Metropolitan Police.”   The document sets out the emerging thoughts of Mr Britton.   It is heavily qualified.   It is clear from the report that Mr Harper has not been interviewed.   Paragraph 1.1 of the report states “any observations in this report may be subject to amendment.”   It has subsequently become clear that this is the document which some have claimed is the “Interim Report” from the “Metropolitan Police.”   It is patently nothing of the sort.   In the controversy which has followed, the views of Mr Britton have been notably absent.   We do not know what was said to him in order to persuade him to produce his memorandum.   In the light of subsequent events it seems certain that whatever he was told it was not the truth.   It is simply inconceivable that the Metropolitan Police would allow a relatively junior member of staff to associate the Force with a Review document to be used as a pretext for the suspension of the head of a police force.   There is no precedent for such an action, and if one was to be established it would destroy the basis of mutual trust which is vital to the proper review of major enquiries.
13. To complete the story, in 2010, almost two years after my suspension, I retired as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police more than three years after my official retirement date.   No disciplinary charges were ever brought, and the Wiltshire Enquiry, costing variable amounts according to different accounts, but almost certainly well over £1m when suspension costs and other matters are included, was abandoned.
14. It has since been learned from other sources that Mr Harper has complained that he was treated unfairly by the Met in that they allegedly criticised him (and myself) and the Abuse Investigation without proper consultation or a right to respond.   It is understood that the Met may have at some stage denied that there was an “interim report” and then modified that view to say that an interim report was prepared by staff engaged in the review.   The Met have however given specific written assurances that no review report by them makes criticism of either myself or Mr Harper or of Operation Rectangle.   Mr Harper has published these assurances on the internet.
15. I hope that this information is of assistance to those with an interest in these events.   In particular I hope that they will be of value to the most important people in the whole affair, namely the survivors of the long running and systematic abuse of vulnerable children which was conducted in establishments run by the Jersey Government and which went unchallenged for decades.