Scrutiny Call for Evidence.

IJCI

On the 3rd of July 2017 The Jersey Independent Care Inquiry (IJCI) delivered its damming REPORT on the decades of Child Abuse carried out in Jersey State run "care" homes and elsewhere across the island. The Panel, as part of its report, made 8 key recommendations which can be found in the link above or the shorter version can be read HERE.

In response to that report, and recommendations, a Scrutiny Sub Panel (The Care of Children in Jersey review Panel) was formed which is tasked with monitoring the Children's Minister's progress (or not) in implementing the 8 key recommendations of the IJCI. In December 2018 the Panel presented to the States its quarterly REPORT where it had set out its findings concerning the implementation (or not) of (IJCI) recommendations 1-4.

The Panel is now looking for evidence, from institutions and members of the public, from witnesses who have experience/knowledge of recommendations 5-8. The closing date for written submissions is this coming Friday 16th August 2019. Oral evidence can be given past this date. Its Terms of Reference, and contact details can be found HERE.

ITV/CTV

Some readers might (like myself) believe that all witnesses who gave evidence to the IJCI (like myself) will be receiving a letter from the Scrutiny Panel inviting them to make a submission/give evidence to it. This is because local (Old Media) ITV/CTV, who has a long history of broadcasting Fake News, told it viewer(s) this in a report last month. As I hadn't received a letter from the Panel I contacted them explaining I had given evidence to the IJCI HERE,  HERE, and HERE and not received an invitation (as reported by ITV/CTV) to give evidence to the panel. The Scrutiny Officer (who has been extremely helpful) told me:

"I’m afraid it was incorrectly reported that the Panel were writing to all those who gave evidence to the Inquiry."

I asked the Scrutiny Officer if he would contact ITV/CTV and suggest they broadcast a correction to its "incorrect reporting" because potential witnesses might believe, because they haven't received an invitation/letter from the Panel, they are not required to give evidence. The Scrutiny Officer told me that, after making contact with it, ITV/CTV will amend anything necessary on its website but would NOT broadcast a correction as I understand it. I explained to the Scrutiny Officer the long history of ITV/CTV's Fake News and in particular when it comes to do with anything about (Child)Abuse. I sent a link backing up (with hard evidence) the long and sordid history of ITV/CTV's Fake News reporting HERE to suggest, it is more likely than not, that the "misreporting" is more of a design than a mistake. No correction was broadcast (to the best of my knowledge).

In the hope of minimising the potential damage caused (again) by ITV/CTV and to, hopefully encourage witnesses to come forward, we asked Chairman of the Panel, Deputy Rob Ward if he would agree to an interview and explain what kind of evidence the panel is looking for and from whom. The Chairman was very accommodating, agreed to an interview (below) and answered our questions as best he could.

VFC's  interest primarily with recommendation 7 (The Jersey Way):

"13.18 "Throughout the course of our work we heard the term the “Jersey Way”. While this was, on occasions, used with pride, to describe a strong culture of community and voluntary involvement, it was more often used to describe a perceived system whereby serious issues are swept under the carpet and people avoid being held to account for abuses that have been perpetrated. This was well summarised in the contribution of a Phase 3 witness who told us:

“We (also) have the impossible situation of the non-separation of powers between the judiciary and political and there is a lot of secrecy, non-transparency and a lack of openness. This brings with it the lack of trust, the fear factor that many have spoken about and contributes greatly to the Jersey Way.”

"13.19 That fear factor and lack of trust must be addressed, therefore we recommend that open consideration involving the whole community be given to how this negative perception of the “Jersey Way” can be countered on a lasting basis. While constitutional matters are out with our Terms of Reference, we are of the opinion that this matter cannot be addressed without further consideration of the recommendations made in the Clothier and Carswell Reports."(END)

"The Jersey Way" and "fear factor" are not exclusive to matters concerning Child Abuse and is the culture of those who run this Island, as in Crown Officers Bailiff/Deputy Bailiff and the Law Offices Department. People live in fear of retaliation/persecution if they speak up/out and we feel this is NOT being adequately (if at all) addressed and might prevent witnesses coming forward to give evidence to this panel's review. We have previously reported on recommendation 7 and explained (or former possibly illegally suspended Police Chief Graham Power did) the far reaching (beyond Child Abuse) consequences of it HERE.

We asked Chairman Deputy Rob Ward, in regards to recommendation 7, if people have evidence of alleged political/judicial corruption, could they give this evidence to the panel/review? What assurances (if any) could he give those wishing to submit evidence that they won't become victims of "The Jersey way" and face persecution/retaliation? What "legal status" does people's written submissions have? Could the Attorney General's Office come after somebody for what they have written in their submission? The irony of that is, the Panel will no doubt be getting its advice from none other than....................The Attorney General's Office.

We thank Deputy Ward for the in-depth, exclusive, interview and hope that those who feel able, will make contact with the Panel (links provided above) and submit evidence. Not only on recommendation 7 but 5,6 and 8 also.

Opinion Management

Here is another stark example of how Jersey's State Media "opinion manage" rather than report "facts" in a Un-bias and objective way.


The Review carried out by BDO/Alto and Police consultant Mike Kellett, has been misrepresented by Jersey's Media, to such an extent that the report and the reporting of it bears little if any resemblance.


Below are some more findings of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel's (Parliamentary Select Committee) Report that you WON'T be reading about, or hearing about, in any of Jersey's State Media particularly in Jersey's ONLY "News"paper, The Jersey Evening Post.


The Sub Panel's Report will be buried by the Council of Ministers (Law Offices) and by the State Media because it exposes how true power in Jersey lies in how opinion is managed by the State Media.


The Sub Panel's Report should be read in it's ENTIRETY.


169. BDO Alto further maintained that Mr. Harper was not the subject of their review and it was not the intention of the report to be directly critical of him or of any other individual. BDO Alto said that they had acknowledged the hard work of Police officers and third party contractors during the course of the Operation Rectangle enquiry and confirmed that ‘The report is not intended to be in any way critical of their individual efforts….’139

170. Mr. Kellett reiterated this point in his submission:

The Review was not an investigation of any individual but was designed to ascertain what had occurred and to make recommendations for the future. Indeed, that much is clear from my terms of reference. [ ] The manner in which some of our conclusions were expressed was diluted precisely because we had not been able to speak to Mr Harper. Nevertheless, as he himself pointed out in his oral evidence, he made the bulk of the financial decisions and he therefore cannot absolve himself of the extremely serious and costly errors that were made.

171. Mr. Kellett made a point of praising the dedication of Mr. Harper and his determination to bring suspected offenders to justice:

We have no doubt that Mr Harper was totally dedicated to the task of investigating serious crimes that had possibly occurred at Haut de la Garenne and that he was entirely sincere in his belief that child abuse there and elsewhere in Jersey was a major issue that needed to be dealt with. Throughout the period that Operation Rectangle was live, he and his staff displayed great dedication and did their utmost to bring suspected offenders to justice and we pointed out as much in our report (Emphasis added). However, we were not asked to examine motivation and dedication but rather to look at how the resources available to the investigation were managed. We did so and made nineteen recommendations. Inevitably, because of the central role Mr Harper performed, his management of the resources formed a central part of our examination but to the extent that any of those recommendations constitute criticism of his actions, no criticism of, let alone attack on, the existence of the investigation or of the motivation for it is intended or implied. (Emphasis added) 132

173. The issues raised by Mr. Kellett’s declaration above (paragraph 170) that the review carried out by himself and BDO Alto was not intended as criticism of the police investigation is a serious point which we consider later in the section on the media coverage (section 6 of this report).

SECTION 6.

227. The publication of the BDO Alto and Wiltshire reports by the Minister for Home Affairs on 14^th July 2010 was an occasion for highly critical attention on Mr. Harper. The Jersey Evening Post published an extensive six page report with headlines focussed on:

·           Celebrity lifestyle of Lenny Harper and his officers

·           Meals in top-class restaurants and first class travel at expense of tax payers

·           £42,000 – the overtime paid to a single officer in the first 15 months of the historical abuse enquiry

·           No dog’s life for handler with luxury hotel lifestyle

·           Hot on the trail of top London restaurants

·           Lenny Harper and his team enjoyed £90-a-head meals and travelled first class at taxpayers’ expense, an accountants’ report revealed

·           Off to Scotland Yard again

             .    First class on the Gatwick Express

228. The problem with the way the official review was reported is that it appears to take every opportunity to discredit, with the benefit of hindsight, those in charge of Operation Rectangle without any reference to the constraints and pressures under which the Police were operating during the early stages of the investigation. The emphasis on alleged misuse of taxpayers’ money risks implanting the impression in the public mind that the entire expenditure on Operation Rectangle was badly managed.

229. In contrast, the BDO Alto report notes:

In undertaking this Review and throughout the preparation of this Report we have been conscious of the fact that detailed scrutiny of any major inquiry will reveal errors, omissions and learning opportunities, particularly given the benefit of hindsight. It has not been our intention to be ultra-critical in our conclusions and we have attempted to be fair to all of those involved. 165

230. Mr. Kellett as previously mentioned (166 )made a point of qualifying the critical attention in the report with praise for the dedication and determination which police officers brought to the task of investigating child abuse:

We have no doubt that Mr Harper was totally dedicated to the task of investigating serious crimes that had possibly occurred at Haut de la Garenne and that he was entirely sincere in his belief that child abuse there and elsewhere in Jersey was a major issue that needed to be dealt with. Throughout the period that Operation Rectangle was live, he and his staff displayed great dedication and did their utmost to bring suspected offenders to justice and we pointed out as much in our report. However, we were not asked to examine motivation and dedication but rather to look at how the resources available to the investigation were managed. We did so and made nineteen recommendations. Inevitably, because of the central role Mr Harper performed, his management of the resources formed a central part of our examination but to the extent that any of those recommendations constitute criticism of his actions, no criticism of, let alone attack on, the existence of the investigation or of the motivation for it is intended or implied. (167)

231. No such qualification appears in the above press report. (Emphasis added)

232. Furthermore, the newspaper did not pick up on the fact that Mr. Harper had not been interviewed or given the opportunity to respond to the criticisms in the report. Nor, as far as we are aware, did the newspaper give Mr. Harper any opportunity to state his own perspective. (END)


These findings are a damming indictment of what passes for "Journalism" (Opinion Management) in Jersey and we invite readers to scroll back up and read the Headlines published by The Jersey Evening post remembering paragraph 169 of the Sub Panel's Report.

169. BDO Alto further maintained that Mr. Harper was not the subject of their review and it was not the intention of the report to be directly critical of him or of any other individual. BDO Alto said that they had acknowledged the hard work of Police officers and third party contractors during the course of the Operation Rectangle enquiry and confirmed that ‘The report is not intended to be in any way critical of their individual efforts….’139

"State Sponsored Paedophilia?"

Not for the first time, retired Former Jersey Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM, has described the allegations of Child Abuse committed in Jersey's State run institutions as "State Sponsored Paedophilia."

How else can it be described? Children were abused for decades in these institutions and nobody ever reported it? 

Following our previous POSTING we have had contact with the former Chief Police Officer and offer this "exclusive" statement on his reaction and thoughts concerning the recent publication of the Report by Jersey's Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel. (Parliamentary Select Committee). 

Statement released by Graham Power QPM, retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police following the publication of a report by the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel entitled “Issues surrounding the review of financial management of Operation Rectangle.”

The recently published report by the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel into Issues surrounding the review of the financial management of Operation Rectangle (the Jersey Historic Child Abuse Enquiry) is a thorough and well researched piece of work.   It should be essential reading for anyone interested in the operation of Jersey’s Government and the wider issues arising from the investigation of allegations concerning the systematic abuse of vulnerable children who were in the care of States of Jersey Establishments in recent decades.   While the report should be read in its entirety there are some findings which, from my perspective, are particularly noteworthy. The first is that the Scrutiny Panel have rightly pointed out that the original review of the financial management of the abuse investigation was commissioned, given terms of reference, funded, overseen and heavily influenced by people who had a clear personal interest in the outcome.   This now appears to be beyond dispute. In my view the same could be said of other allegedly “independent” reports relating to the abuse enquiry which have been commissioned and publicised by Jersey’s Home Affairs Department over recent years.

Secondly, the Panel rightly raises the issue of how it came to be that a legitimate and proper public debate about the sexual and physical abuse of small children was diverted into an argument about the cost of meals in a London restaurant, and why so many Jersey establishment figures appeared to support this change of agenda.   It is not without irony that this diversionary tactic appeared to be enthusiastically driven by a Home Affairs Department who had themselves authorised expenditure of over £38,000 on “meals and entertainment” (1) by Wiltshire officers engaged in the subsequently abandoned disciplinary enquiry into the management of the abuse investigation.   We should not hold our breath while awaiting an “independent” enquiry into that particular use of public funds.

Finally, the Scrutiny Panel are to be commended for using their powers to take the timely action of obtaining a full copy of my 62,000 word statement to the Wiltshire Investigation.   The statement is a detailed and unrestrained account of the early part of the abuse enquiry from the perspective of the Chief Officer of the Force. If nothing else, it is a piece of the Island’s history and its continued suppression by the Jersey Government, in spite of repeated promises that it would be released, is one of many examples of the biased and selective use of information which have characterised Ministers conduct in this matter.

The allegations handled by the Force under my command during 2007 and 2008 involved what was effectively State Sponsored Paedophilia and its concealment over decades by individuals in positions of authority.   Not all of the allegations were supported by the evidence, but many plainly were, and the accounts of the victims remain as a harrowing record of what can occur when those in public office fail to seek out and to confront the truth.   If I have not said it enough then I say it again, the most important people in this whole story are the victims of abuse.   It is their plight and their memories which need to be the subject of candid and public debate at the highest level. The attempts to divert this debate into discussions concerning the trivia of expense claims, is a scandal of which all involved should be thoroughly ashamed.

                                                            Graham Power

                                                            Retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.

13^th November 2011.

 (1) Details of the costs of the Wiltshire Investigation up to May 2010 were given in a written answer in the States on 22^nd June 2010.   Ref 1240/5(5459).

If it's about money then let's look at how the Wiltshire Constabulary were paid so much for a bungled investigation. But as Mr Power quite rightly points out this should never have turned into how much a meal cost in a London restaurant, it's about decades of Child Abuse that seemingly flourished in Jersey "care" homes. How was it able to be kept so quiet for so long? Just what is the extent of it? Has the surface only just been scratched? Why was the Child Abuse Enquiry shut down by DAVID WARCUP? With all these questions un-answered how is anybody supposed to trust the Jersey authorities?

It's about (or should be) the victims and survivors of Child Abuse. Who's going to speak up and represent them? "The attempts to divert this debate into discussions concerning the trivia of expense claims, is a scandal of which all involved should be thoroughly ashamed."

State Media and Scrutiny.

Today saw the publication of the long awaited Report from the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel's Investigation into Issues surrounding the Review of Financial Management of Operation Rectangle (Jersey Child Abuse Enquiry).

Firstly this Sub Panel's Investigation came about because of questions asked by Bloggers. Well one question and that was "how can a Report be conducted into the expenditure of the Historic Child Abuse Enquiry (HCAE) without the Senior Investigating Officer of that Enquiry being interviewed?"  The Senior Investigating Officer being Lenny Harper, we've all seen and heard the Headlines "The Lavish Lifestyle of Lenny Harper", "Meals at top class London Restaurants paid for by the tax payer" "First class trips to Australia" etc, etc. Yet not one of Jersey's "Journalists" thought to ask, "what does Lenny Harper have to say about this?"

These headlines, and many others similar, came on the back of a Report commissioned to examine the expenditure of the HCAE. This Report has been totally misrepresented by Jersey's State Media and used as a stick to beat Lenny Harper and Former Jersey Chief of Police Graham Power with, two cops, with their team, who were investigating Child Abuse that carried on for decades in Jersey State run Institutions.

The Scrutiny Sub Panel chaired by Deputy Trevor Pitman with members Deputies Daniel Wimberley and Roy Le Herissier has opened up a huge can of worms that should become one of the most important documents for anybody researching this dark period in Jersey's History.

The Report made a number of recommendations and findings and can be viewed on Rico Sorda's Blog HERE

One of the key issues highlighted in the Sub Panel's Report is the role of Jersey's State Media, the mis-reporting, the non-reporting and creating a completely false impression to its audience.

Deputy Pitman, along with Senator Ian Le Marquand, were guests on BBC Radio Jersey this morning (recorded by TJW and we'll put a link to it when published later tonight) where they explained how they are in agreement when it comes to the poor media reporting. Once more yours truly phoned in to the show and was prevented from going on air but as regular readers will be aware that's nothing new.

Below is part 1 of a two part in-depth interview with Deputy Trevor Pitman, edited in order that we can focus predominantly on the subject of Jersey's State Media. We also discuss the man who took over the HCAE upon Mr. Harper's retirement and that's Mick Gradwell. He has been accused by at least one witness under oath at the Scrutiny Panel, including the Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand telling States Members that after an internal enquiry all avenues of a leak to the National Media led to the door of Mr. Gradwell.......And Jersey's State Media didn't think it newsworthy?

This is just one of the cans of worms opened by this Sub Panel's enquiry which will surely now demand that the HCAE under the leadership of Mr. Gradwell is revisited and his motives questioned? Gradwell trashed the Child Abuse Enquiry under the command of Lenny Harper and at the same time allegedly leaking confidential information (during a live Child Abuse Investigation) to a journalist with a history of supporting convicted paedophiles?

The same Mick Gradwell that the Home Affairs Minister, reluctantly conceded, had he (Gradwell) not been seconded and was a States Of Jersey Police Officer would likely be facing disciplinary charges. The same Mick Gradwell that said he would take part in any enquiry set up to look at the HCAE didn't give evidence to this enquiry.

Finally This Scrutiny Review, along with the "Lime Grove" Review is what Scrutiny should be about, tackling "real" issues that seriously challenge our government and credit must go to Deputies Pitman, Wimberley and Le Herissier, now all we need is a media that will do the same (challenge our government) so us members of the public don't have to live in this culture of fear by highlighting the stuff they should be.

State Media, Awards and Blogs.

Yesterday (Friday 28th October 2011) saw the final Hearing of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel investigating issues surrounding the Review of financial management of "operation Rectangle." (Jersey's Child Abuse Investigation).

The final witness giving evidence was Former Health Minister, and Senator, Stuart Syvret who brought up, what has become, a recurring theme during this Review and that is The (State) Media.

Just how is that a Senior Investigating Police Officer (Mick Gradwell) can be accused by the Home Affairs Minister, and witness(es) to the Scrutiny Review of leaking confidential police information, during a LIVE Child Abuse investigation, to a "journalist" with a history of supporting convicted paedophiles and NONE of Jersey's State Media think this is newsworthy or in the public interest? It's just not conceivable.

How can CTV win AN AWARD for little more than a cut and paste job of somebody else's work and without interviewing Lenny Harper? We must also remember that the Chief Executive Officer for Home Affairs has described how he felt "sick to the pit of his stomach" after watching a CTV Report on this Scrutiny Review and further described the Report as "Gibberish."

As a result of the evidence given to this Scrutiny Review by a number of witnesses Jersey's State Media MUST come under the spotlight and be scrutinised for their role in the Reporting (or not) of Jersey's Child Abuse atrocities. The role of the State Media MUST also be included in the forming of the Terms Of Reference for the up-coming Committee of Enquiry.

The opinions shared in this interview are those of the witness and not necessarily shared by VFC.

Lenny Harper Guest Posting(Uncovering the truth/lies)

Below is a "guest Posting" from Former Deputy Chief Police Officer and Senior Investigating Officer of the Jersey Child Abuse Enquiry Mr. Lenny Harper.


What you are (hopefully) about to read is nothing short of "staggering" and gives an insightful look into, not only the disgraced and discredited Wiltshire Report, but how the Freedom Of Information Law is not worth the paper it is written on, well when it comes to the Wiltshire Constabulary anyway.


All this new "evidence" has come to light as a result of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel Review chaired by Deputy Trevor Pitman. The very same Review that has seen witnesses being "economical" with the truth (under oath). The very same review that Mick Gradwell has refused to give evidence to. The very same review that has been told of leaks to the media during an ongoing Child Abuse Enquiry by said Mick Gradwell (under oath). Leaks to the media by politicians and others during the "live" Child Abuse Enquiry (under oath) and guess what? Graham Power nor Lenny Harper nor any "Anti Establishment" Politician have been accused of leaking anything.


Is it any wonder that the Establishment will do anything they can to discredit this Review?


Over To Mr. Harper. 


Voice For Children has asked me to compile a guest posting in order to draw together all that has happened in the four or five months in respect of BDO/Alto and the Wiltshire Police.  I am very happy to do so.

I first became aware of BDO around the beginning of May this year (2011). I did an interview with VFC about various aspects of the criticism of myself and I mentioned that I had never at any stage been questioned about my expenses.  Over the next few days both VFC and Rico Sorda expressed incredulity that I had never been asked by anyone about my expenses. One of them asked me if BDO/Alto had not raised the issue.  “Who are BDO?” I asked.

Within a day or two I had read the BDO report.  Enough has been said about the contents and I have provided evidence to contradict the findings at length in a document on one of the blogs.  Suffice to say as I read the factual inaccuracies and untruths in the report I became angrier by the minute.  I was also astonished to read quotes in the report from the confidential witness statement that I had made to Wiltshire Police who interviewed me as part of their now discredited disciplinary investigation into Graham Power.  I was particularly surprised at this, as when I asked if I would be given a copy of my statement Wiltshire told me in no uncertain terms that I would not be.  They told me the statement was confidential, that no one would get a copy, and that it would be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.  I then agreed to make the statement only on the basis that it would be given to no one and that it be used for no other purpose than the discipline investigation for which I gave it.  I am also aware that at least one of the New Scotland Yard staff who gave a witness statement to Wiltshire (and who was asked questions about my expenses but gave evidence contradicting what BDO/Alto said, but whose statement is not mentioned) also made his statement under the same conditions.

To emphasise the confidentiality of the statements and the other documents in the investigation, the Chief Constable of Wiltshire made the following comment;

1.     This Report contains personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, and Wiltshire Police would breach the first data protection principle if it were to disclose that information. Hence, the information is exempt under s.40(2) Freedom of Information Act 2000

3. This Report contains information that has been, and continues to be, held by Wiltshire Police for the purposes of an investigation which it has a duty to conduct and which ought not to be disclosed (under s.30 Freedom of Information Act 2000).

4. An obligation of confidence upon Wiltshire Police arises from the duty outlined at 1. Above, and disclosure of information would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey. Information, therefore, ought not to be disclosed (under s.27 Freedom of Information Act

In the light of this I felt that it would not have been Wiltshire Police that released my statement but more likely the Jersey Home Affairs Minister.  Three days earlier I had e-mailed Mr Le Marquand and asked him to release my Wiltshire Statement.  He had refused.  I have now e-mailed him several times asking who had told BDO not to interview me and also if he knew who had handed my witness statement to them.  After first denying that he knew anything about the BDO Terms of Reference he changed his mind and admitted that he would have known.  He denied knowledge of the leaking of my statement.  He undertook to get back to me with a satisfactory explanation of events.  I am still waiting.

At the same time I sent several e-mails to Mr Corbin of BDO asking for an explanation as to why they had not bothered to contact me, the person who had made most of the decisions they examined and whom they had been critical of.  He refused to engage with me in any way.

On 18^th May, I contacted Wiltshire Police and outlined my concerns to them. Below is the transcript of what I sent them.

“I was recently interviewed by your staff and made a statement in relation to a Disciplinary investigation carried out by your force under your personal supervision, into Mr Graham Power QPM, the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. Your officers refused me a copy of my statement at the time and told me that it was being made for one purpose and one purpose only, it would be used for nothing else, and that no one else would be given a copy. I have recently learned that a copy of my statement was given to a company called BDO, a jersey firm of accountants, who were compiling a report separate from your own enquiry. My belief is that they were given this statement by someone in the Jersey government. However, this has been denied by the Home Affairs Minister there who states that it must have been yourselves who handed the statement over. I have a long experience of untruths told by the Jersey government but of course have to seek clarification from you. I would be grateful if you would tell me if indeed you, or a member of your force, handed my statement to this company in direct contravention of the assurances I was given. Furthermore, I would be grateful if you would now supply me with a copy of the statement which I made to your officers. Thank You.
Expected outcome: As in body of e mail.
Identity of Officer / member of staff: Chief Constable Brian Moore”

Wiltshire told me they would investigate and get back to me. 

On 22^nd June 2011 I received a letter from an Andrew Knight, the solicitor acting for Wiltshire Police.  He said the following; 


“I have had the opportunity of speaking with the investigating officers.  To the best of their knowledge and belief they have not passed a copy of your statement to BDO Alto Limited. Unfortunately I am unable to confirm whether BDO are in possession of your statement to which they refer within their May 2010 report or an explanation as to how they came by possession.  I assume that such knowledge will be in their own possession and may I suggest that you direct your enquiries to them.  I appreciate that you have attempted to elicit a response from them beforehand”

No uncertainty there then.  It seemed that the matter would rest there.  Then Mr Kellet and BDO gave evidence to the Scrutiny Panel and told the panel under oath that Wiltshire had indeed handed them my statement.  They had been allowed to read it, take notes, but not to take it away.  Many people might think that this contradicted Wiltshire’s assertion that they had not “passed a copy of (my) statement to BDO.”  Many people, but it seems not Wiltshire nor their solicitor.  After hearing the Kellet/BDO evidence I e-mailed the solicitor for Wiltshire again.  Here is what I said.

“From: Lenny Harper
To: "aknight*****" ; NesbittCarly
Sent: Friday, 22 July 2011, 9:44
Subject: BDO Alto

Good morning Mr Knight and Inspector Nesbitt;

I am not sure which of you I should send this to first, so I have forwarded it on to both. Perhaps the correct recipient will let me know.

On 22 June 2011, Mr Knight sent me a letter and an e mail informing me that after an investigation, Wiltshire police had concluded they "had not passed a copy of (my) statement to BDO."

On 15 July 2011 Mr M. Kellett, a consultant who was employed by BDO Alto, gave evidence to the Jersey Parliamentary Scrutiny Panel, together with Mr M Corbin, of BDO Alto, that he had met with officers of Wiltshire Police and that they had indeed passed him a draft copy of my statement. According to Mr Kellet and Mr Corbin they were 'passed' the statement to read through and take notes from, but were told they could not take the statement away. They did make notes and sections of it were used in the report which was leaked to a journalist supporter of convicted paedophiles almost immediately, and then used to attack me in the media.

I accepted Mr Knight's reassurances without question. However, the evidence of Mr Kellet and Mr Corbin does need to be addressed. As I see it there are now three scenarios arising;

Firstly, Mr Kellett and Mr Corbin are lying.

Secondly, someone at Wiltshire Police is lying.

Thirdly, someone at Wiltshire Police has deliberately been pedantic in the choice of the word "passed" when stating that they had not "to the best of their belief and knowledge passed (my) statement to BDO." Of course, if one wanted to be equally pedantic it could be said this was untrue as they had "passed" it to be read and for notes to be taken even if it was taken back.

If this third option was the case I would see this as a serious breach of my privacy and of the conditions under which I made this witness statement - particularly in the light of the statement by Mr Moore in which he himself stated that the Wiltshire report, of which my statement was part, was exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. I was told in no uncertain terms that this statement would be given to no one, least of all not even to me. BDO Alto was a firm of accountants and Mr Kellett was working with them. They should not have been allowed near my statement. It has been accepted by Mr Corbin and Mr Kellet that the media used the statement to mount a false public attack on me by misuse of the information. Being accused of wrongdoing in such a fashion caused me serious embarrassment.

In the circumstances I would appreciate clarification as to whether Mr Kellet and Mr Corbin are actually telling the truth and a re-affirmation of the circumstances surrounding this whole affair.

Leonard Harper”

On the 29^th September, Mr Knight replied to the above.  In his letter he now admits that Wiltshire did pass a copy of my statement to Mr Kellett and BDO but denies that his first letter was misleading.  I presume this is because they were not allowed to take the statement away, just the notes they had made of its contents.  This rather stretches the imagination somewhat.  More than that, it is laughable.  He then goes on to claim a ‘Public Interest’ reason for passing over the statement (but not allowing it to be taken away).  As Wiltshire asked me not one question about my expenses, and BDO spent a lot of their report criticising me for this, it is difficult to see what the public interest was.  Read for yourself and judge;

“From: Mr Andrew Knight

            Veale Wasbrough Vizards Solicitors                                 29 September 2011

Dear Mr Harper,

BDO Report on Operation Rectangle

I apologise for the delay in providing you with a substantive response to your email dated 22 July 2011.  As you are aware, the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel of the States of Jersey are conducting a review into the financial probity of the Haute de la Garenne police investigation and will be delivering their findings at the end of this month.

One of the Terms of reference for the Scrutiny Panel was to review the liaison between BDO Alto Limited and Wiltshire Police.  It followed disclosure of references within the BDO report to extracts from the statement you provided to Wiltshire Police.    I am aware that, as part of their investigation the Scrutiny Panel heard oral evidence and received written representations from a number of individuals including yourself, Mr Kellet, and a representative from BDO.

Until the Scrutiny Panel completed the hearing of evidence, it has not been possible for me to identify how BDO may have come into possession of your statement.  Whilst it is not my intention to predict the outcome of the review, it is evident that Wiltshire Police did not supply a copy of your statement to BDO as previously confirmed within my letter to you dated 22 June 2011.

I do not believe my letter of 22 June was misleading in its facts.  Evidence submitted by Mr Kellet and BDO to the Scrutiny Panel affirm that Wiltshire Police did not disclose a copy of your statement to BDO.

You will be aware of the content of Mr Kellet’s written submission to the Scrutiny Panel.  Having spoken with officers from the Operation Haven investigation team I understand that Mr Kellet was shown a copy of your statement but not given a copy of it.

Following the decision by States of Jersey Police that it would conduct its own internal review of certain aspects of the Operation Rectangle investigation, it became apparent that there was the potential for overlap between their investigation and that being conducted by Mr Moore on behalf of the States of Jersey.  Both investigations were seeking to review the financial probity of certain aspects of the Operation Rectangle investigation which involved examination of the same documentation and interviewing of particular witnesses.

In conjunction with the States of Jersey Police, the decision was taken that it would be of mutual benefit to both investigations if the Operation Haven investigation team worked with Mr Kellet.  It enabled them to access documents that were potentially relevant, probative and of value to their investigation.

The sharing of information with Mr Kellet assisted Mr Moore in conducting an investigation that was thorough and proper in its examination of the evidence and enabled Mr Moore to deliver a report that was fair to Mr Power when considering any failures in his supervisory responsibilities of Operation Rectangle.  An additional benefit of this decision was the saving of cost and time by not duplicating effort between the investigations.

It is evident from Mr Kellet’s evidence that Wiltshire Police were not privy to the decision to include references from your statement within the BDO report.

In summary, a lawful purpose existed for the sharing of the data contained within your statement with Mr Kellet and it was fair to do so.  I do not believe there has been a breach of your privacy.  Reference to the Freedom of Information Act and Data Protection Act within Mr Moore’s report was to prevent access to personal data by third parties after delivery of it to States of Jersey.  The context in which your data was shared with Mr Kellet was that it occurred during the evidential gathering state and in the belief that it would be of mutual benefit to both investigations.  It did not contravene the assurances give to you and there has not been a breach of legislation.

I hope the above is of assistance and that I may close my file.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Knight.”

I sent the following reply.

“Dear Mr Knight;

Thank you for your letter and for your assistance in this matter. I do not believe that your original letter was misleading as far as you are concerned. I believe the information you were given was misleading. I do not see the difference between handing a copy of a statement over to keep and handing a copy over to take notes from and to then hand back. I see this as a breach of my privacy given the conditions under which I made the statement and supplied the information, particularly when I was refused a copy of my statement. I should also point out that the BDO/Kellet Review was a review of the Financial spending. At no time did Wiltshire officers ask me about my spending. I see no reason then why they should have handed over a copy of my statement either temporarily or permanently.

Also, I think you have the wrong impression of the Scrutiny Panel. It is not a review of the probity of the spending on the investigation. It is a review into the probity of the BDO Alto review itself.

In the light of this I shall now make a formal complaint to the IPCC against Mr Moore and the officer(s) who handed over my statement for confidential and conditionally provided information to be leaked.

Once again, thank you for your assistance.

Lenny Harper”

To claim that it is not misleading to state that the statement was not passed over, and then when that lie is nailed under oath by the very persons who received that statement, to admit that it was, shows a bare faced effrontery which is almost stunning.  Except of course, that this is the Jersey government and its cohorts and we have been here so many times before.

Other aspects of Mr Knights letter are almost as bizarre as him admitting that Wiltshire did pass over my statement and then in another paragraph, denying that they did.  He has of course got the reason for the Scrutiny Panel very wrong.  How many times have the Panel emphasised that their job was NOT to re-examine the spending on the investigation?  Furthermore, as this excerpt from Mr Warcup’s evidence to the Scrutiny Panel shows, he did NOT, as Mr Knight claims, agree to the sharing of information between Kellet/BDO and Wiltshire.

“My understanding was that the States of Jersey Police and those working for the States of Jersey Police would not see any of the evidence in relation to the Wiltshire inquiry…..It would raise an issue should there any misconduct procedure I would have thought it would have been a matter which would be subject to challenge within the misconduct process to say why did that happen and was it appropriate and what was the purpose”

Where Mr Knight gets this idea from, one can only speculate.  It is certainly par for the course in respect of the professionalism shown by Wiltshire throughout this whole affair.

I have now lodged a formal complaint against the Chief Constable of Wiltshire and the other officers concerned with the Independent Police Complaints Commission.  The result remains to be seen.

                                                                                   

Lenny Harper (END)

As Mr. Harper has said " The result remains to be seen." Well not only the results of his complaint to the IPCC against Wiltshire but it remains to be seen if Channel Television, The Jersey Evening Post or BBC Jersey report any of this turn of events now that they are in the public domain............

Scrutiny, "Lime Grove" and the media.

Senator Sarah Ferguson Has just published her Scrutiny Panel’s Report into the purchasing (or not as it turned out) of “Lime Grove.” Naturally the “accredited” media have wasted little time in telling the public as much as they (“accredited” media) think the public should know.

As is so often the case, in particular the Jersey Evening Post, have published an article on this Report/Review, which does not give their readers a true, or accurate, picture of just how complex, wide ranging and beyond the remit of Scrutiny that this subject had become.

The Senator explains to us how she believes the JEP "journalist" didn't even read the full Scrutiny Report and how their readers have formed an opinion based on the JEP's own opinion with little regard to the facts.


Although Senator Ferguson gave the "AWARD WINNING" Channel Television a 25 minute interview, they chose only to broadcast a 30 second soundbite and was not entirely representative of the interview given.


We (Team Voice) are pleased to bring our viewers an in-depth interview with Senator Ferguson, where she tells us much the same as she told the "accredited" media, which never got to see the light of day.


In this part one, of a two part interview, we discuss how the Scrutiny Review was much more than "buying a building." We talk of gagging orders, contracts, the way the States treat their employees, natural justice and much more.


In part two (coming soon) we discuss the "accredited" media and Bloggers.

Will Scrutiny Pay the Price?

In Part two of this exclusive and in-depth interview with the Chairman of Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub-Panel, Deputy Trevor Pitman, we discuss the “Mind Boggling” bill sent by BDO/Alto to the Home Affairs Department for having to give evidence to the Panel.

We discuss the possibility as to whether this could be seen as a form of intimidation. We believe it is unprecedented that a Scrutiny Panel has been presented with a bill from witness(es) that could indeed be subpoenaed to attend. BDO/Alto, according to Deputy Pitman, even sent in a bill for a letter they wrote trying to get the Deputy off the Panel!

Deputy Pitman, tells us in this interview, that he believes “Scrutiny is finished”, a view shared by many and it certainly would be finished if the bill of £14,000 gets paid to BDO/Alto, who have already been paid £64,000 of Tax Payers money for a Report, that many believe, was a complete waste of time………..And money.

Not only do a number of people believe it was a waste of time and Tax Payers money, but according to David Warcup, had the potential of undermining the Wiltshire Review that was going on simultaneously. It also, according to Mr. Warcup, had the potential of being perceived as a personal attack on Lenny Harper.

The JEP, and other “accredited” media, certainly tried to use it as an attack on Lenny Harper with their misleading Headlines and selective reporting on “The Lavish Lifestyle of Lenny Harper” something the Report actually bares little resemblance to.

If BDO/Alto get paid this £14,000 then Scrutiny will be finished in no time (if it’s not already). Scrutiny will not have the budget to scrutinize anything if they have to pay witnesses astronomical amounts of money for turning up to give evidence. Deputy Pitman has vowed not to pay them a penny.

Question is “Will Ian Le Marquand set ANOTHER PRECEDENT and pay it?

Part one of this interview can be viewed HERE