Friday, August 20, 2010

News Flash Latest on Napier

Following on from the latest posting from VFC NAPIER EMAILS we now have the latest news on the Napier Report. Here is a reply from the Chief Minister TLS.

From: Terry Le Sueur
Sent: 20 August 2010 08:31
To: Bob Hill
Cc: All States Members (including ex officio members); Channel 103; Channel TV; JEP Editorial; JEP Newsdesk; BBC Radio Jersey & Spotlight TV; Spotlight (Spotlight)
Subject: RE: The Review into the suspension of the Chief Police Officer.


Dear Bob,

Thank you for your further e-mail. I should just point out that the timescale of 4 to 6 weeks was one stated by Mr Napier (as reported in the JEP), and all that I said was that I hoped it was achievable. I suggest that you ask Mr. Napier in due course (rather than me) why he has found that the process took longer than he first thought.
I note that you are shortly to go on holiday ( as am I) and I am advised that the final report is not expected to be produced until 10th September at the earliest. I have asked that Mr Napier be invited to present his report to States members, and again I am advised that he will not be available until the week of 20th September. I confirm that I have not received Mr Napier's Report, and do not expect to do so prior to 10th September. I presume that you will be back in the Island by then.
As previously stated, I intend to follow proper practice and await the (first and final) report of Mr. Napier, rather than interfere with the integrity of his findings, and I suggest that you do likewise.

Terry Le Sueur

So Deputy Hill don't interfere with Mr Napiers findings ummmmm I thought Deputy Hill was overseeing it.

Now this is just my own opinion but im getting a bad feeling about this but what I will do and must do is trust Mr Napier's Integrity. We must remember that what is in the public domain is damning enough.

We will keep you posted with any developments

We don't want Redaction we want the Truth

ILM failed lets hope Terry Delivers

rs










Veterans: Douglas Bader (left) and Czech pilot Alexander Hess outside the Duxford Officers' Mess. At 41, Hess was one of the oldest pilots in the Battle of Britain. Having lost his legs in a flying accident in 1931, Bader became famous as the pilot with 'tin legs'. He took command of No.242 Squadron in June 1940

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267916/Unseen-images-Battle-Britain-heroes-duty.html#ixzz0xALcN6xj

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Napier- The Chief Minister Responds

In this Blog Posting I have reproduced the letter sent to Deputy Bob Hill from the Chief Minister T.Le Sueur.

It is an amazing insight into what is happening with the Brian Napier Report

At the turn of the year Deputy Hill asked the Chief Minister if he was going to have an enquiry into the suspension of the former Chief of Police Graham Power the Chief Minister said 'NO'.

Deputy Hill then informed the Chief Minister that he would in fact bring one and lodged it the very next day.

This then woke up our Chief Minister who told our states members don't vote for Bob Hills proposition P9/2010 but back my far quicker one. This turned out to be the Brian Napier Report, it will take about 6/8 weeks. Now that was in February 2010.



From:    Terry Le Sueur 
Sent:   16 August 2010 14:08
To:     Bob Hill
Cc:     All States Members (including ex officio members)
Subject:        RE: The Review into the suspension of the Chief Police Officer.
 

Dear Bob,
 
I am pleased that you have now received my letter.      I am therefore now copying it to all States members for information.        I am satisfied with the integrity of the process to date and I am anxious to ensure that proper procedures are followed at all times.
 
Terry.



Chief Minister

Cyril Le Marquand House
St Helier, Jersey, JE4 8QT

Dear Bob

Thanks for the e-mail of 6th August.

I am not aware of any interim report being issued as such. I am aware that John Richardson asked Brian Napier for a progress report, which i referred to in my letter of 22nd July as a 'position paper'. I am not aware of the date on which John Richardson received this progress report, and he is currently on leave.

Since the date, I am aware that Mr Napier has submitted a preliminary draft of his report to relevant Key witnesses whom he had interviewed. The purpose of this , as i said earlier letter, was to enable the recipients to respond and put their side of the case before any FINAL report is issued. I have not seen a copy of this draft and nor should I.

When the final report is issued, I confirm that you and I should receive full un-redacted versions, even if we have to treat such versions as confidential.

Yours sincerely T. Le Sueur


So when the House went with the Chief Minister where did they agree that Deputy Chief Officer John Richardson would be the one overseeing the Napier Report.

The DCO is handling a report that concerns his boss. Can this be right. They agreed that Deputy Hill along with TLS would be overseeing this.

So Terry is not aware of any Interim report but knows John Richardson has had a 'progress report' which is a 'position paper' but we don't know when these arrived as he is on holiday ( are they in the safe?).

So we also know that a Mr Napier has submitted a preliminary draft of his report to relevant Key witnesses whom he had interviewed. "The purpose of this , as i said earlier letter, was to enable the recipients to respond and put their side of the case before any FINAL report is issued"

What so they can change there stories?

Remember what Deputy Hills remit was

"I am afraid that the letter's contents do not provide the answers to my questions. Also the fact that you now inform me that a second report has been forwarded which you claim you have again not seen is just not acceptable. You and I should be seeing what is being submitted. I again remind you that you agreed that I would be involved with the ongoing work of the Commissioner, the reporting mechanism and the reports themselves, including the Final Report. The fact that you now say that a second report has been forwarded which you have not seen or informed me of is turning your promise to me into a farce. The perception of openness is paramount, the fact that the reports are being sent to and acted upon be a civil servant who is directly answerable to his boss who is apparently deeply implicated in the suspension is just not acceptable because of the civil servant's conflict of interest,"

So all the witnesses have seen the preliminary drafts this includes John Richardson's boss Chief Executive Bill Ogley who probably has more 'Scott's' than the phone directory . Just what is going on here

Here we have the Civi Servants running the show again and the elected politician pushed to one side.

Remember the Chief Minister didn't even want this review so is hardly bothered about playing ball. This is going on time and time again and no one bats an eyelid.

Who could forget Ben Shenton's complaint against Deputy Hill for saying he couldn't trust the Chief Minister.

Bang on again Bob



From: Ben Shenton
Sent: 25 February 2010 15:08
To: Michael De La Haye (States Greffe)
Cc: Terry Le Sueur
Subject: Complaint

Dear Michael,
 
I wish to make a formal complaint about the conduct of the Deputy of St Martin who has impugned the reputation of both the States Assembly and the Chief Minister.
 
Standing Orders clearly state –
Elected members should at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the States of Jersey and shall endeavour, in the course of their public and private conduct, not to act in a manner which would bring the States, or its Members generally, into disrepute.
Elected members should at all times treat other members of the States, officers, and members of the public with respect and courtesy and without malice, notwithstanding the disagreements on issues and policy which are a normal part of the political process.
In a document circulated to All Elected States Members, Channel TV, Radio Jersey, Spotlight, JEP and other media, dated 21/02/2010, he wrote;
 
“ The Chief Minister now offers this concession, not because he is persuaded that it is a good thing.   He does so through clenched teeth because he is now cornered and can think of nothing else.   Why should anyone trust the Chief Minister to deliver anything which is impartial and fair now?   He has opposed fairness, justice, and transparency at every turn.   I regret to say that he does not deserve to be trusted, and nobody should accept his assurances.   His ineffective proposal should be rejected and a proper, independent and robust Committee of Enquiry be established in accordance with my proposition.”
 
Furthermore the JEP Headline dated 25th February, 2010 reads “They want it swept under the carpet”.
 
In a comment on a debate held ‘in-camera’  Deputy Hill outlined issues to the journalist  that had been raised in the confidential debate and is quoted as saying – “There will be a cosy in-house inquiry with the leading players saying what they want.” The headline and story casts doubt on the reputation of every Member that voted against the proposal of Deputy Hill.
 
An allegation of a Government cover-up by States Members when there is no evidence to support the claim is a very serious matter. Similarly the assertion that the Chief Minister “does not deserve to be trusted, and nobody should accept his assurances” undermines the whole of the States Assembly and in particular the position of the Chief Minister and reputation of the Council of Ministers.
 
Please advise the correct procedure in order that this complaint may be lodged.


So that was Senator Shenton watching Terry's back

But look at what is happening here

Deputy Hill is being proved right

We will bring you the news as we receive it. You can all make up your own minds but look at what Terry's letter says

"When the final report is issued, I confirm that you and I should receive full un-redacted versions, even if we have to treat such versions as confidential"

Not the Redaction again

Deputy Pitman " The Shambles is on its way"

READ ALL ABOUT IT P9/2010

RS











Ater having joined the RAF in 1937, New Zealander Al Deere was in the thick of the action right from the start of World War II, serving with distinction over France and Dunkirk in May and June 1940 against the dreaded Messerschmitts. He survived a crash-landing during a head-on attack and helped to defend London and the south-east during the Battle of Britain effecting numerous escapes in tight combat situations. He went on to command a flight in 602 Squadron, to lecture in America, to command RAF Kenley, Biggin Hill and then to lead the 145 French Wing in France before becoming Wing Commander, Plans with 84 Group. Post-war, he took up many more significant postings including commander of North Weald, and Aide de Camp to HM the Queen. If it could be said that he had a "good war", he enjoyed an ever better peace. The author had the full co-operation of family, friends and colleagues when researching the source material to write this biography. It includes many of Deere's letters and papers on the tactics and strategy of combat, and his previously unpublished story, "Escape".

Monday, August 16, 2010

'Napier' the Search Continues.

Below is an email from Deputy Bob Hill to our Chief Minister TLS

Just what is going on with the Brian Napier Report

It's very strange how John Richardson is handling the 'Interim' Napier Reports when his Boss Chief Executive Bill Ogley features heavily in the original suspension.

Cant we find anyone who is neutral on this Island

All we want are the answers to the many questions, its that simple.

This Government scares the hell out of me at the moment. To say its dangerously incompetent would be an understatement.

I have had permission to reproduce the email

rs
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bob Hill
Date: Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:20 AM
Subject: The Review into the suspension of the Chief Police Officer.
To: Terry Le Sueur
Cc: "All States Members (including ex officio members)" , Channel 103 , Channel TV , JEP Editorial , JEP Newsdesk , BBC Radio Jersey & Spotlight TV , "Spotlight (Spotlight)"


**********************************************************************
If this e-mail has been sent in error, please notify us immediately and delete this document. Please note the legal disclaimer which appears at the end of this message.
**********************************************************************


Good Morning Terry,
 
Further to our previous emails regarding the review into the suspension process of the Chief Police Officer. Thank you for your letter, the hard copy arrived on Saturday morning.
I am afraid that the letter's contents do not provide the answers to my questions. Also the fact that you now inform me that a second report has been forwarded which you claim you have again not seen is just not acceptable. You and I should be seeing what is being submitted. I again remind you that you agreed that I would be involved with the ongoing work of the Commissioner, the reporting mechanism and the reports themselves, including the Final Report. The fact that you now say that a second report has been forwarded which you have not seen or informed me of is turning your promise to me into a farce. The perception of openness is paramount, the fact that the reports are being sent to and acted upon be a civil servant who is directly answerable to his boss who is apparently deeply implicated in the suspension is just not acceptable because of the civil servant's conflict of interest,
I have asked that when the Commission is next in the Island he should avoid the period when I am on leave. He should now be close to finalising his Report therefore it is imperative that we meet him to discuss it and ensure that it is line with the Terms of Reference as shown in the Council of Ministers Coms (3) to my P9/2010 and agreed upon by the States on 24th February as an alternative to my Committee of Enquiry. Therefore his review should include the information relating to Mr Power's Affidavit and whether the Commissioner should highlight any areas where, in his opinion, sufficient evidence exists that would support, in the interest of open government, a full Committee of Inquiry into the manner of Mr Power's suspension. I am concerned that those parts of the review may be omitted as they were not included in R39/2010.
I have asked for copies of the Interim/Progress or whatever name you choose to give to Mr Napier's reports and the dates when the copies were requested. I also ask that when the Commissioner returns to the Island he does so when I am not away. I look forward to a positive response.
States Members, the public and the media are concerned about the delay in the publication of Report which you said would be a much quicker and simpler process than that required by formation of a Committee of Inquiry. Clearly this has not been the case, therefore in the public's interest I am copying this email to all States Members and the media so they are updated.
I shall also send a copy to the Commissioner.
 
Regards
 
Deputy  F. J. (Bob) Hill, BEM.,
Deputy of St Martin.



Below is a Tribute to Hugh 'COCKY' Dundas one of 'The Few' and a Legend








Hugh Dundas, a pre-war member of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, was called up early in the war, serving with 616 Squadron. After a promising start as a fighter pilot, Dundas was shot down and injured during the Battle of Britain, but quickly returned to his squadron which in early 1941 was at Tangmere and came under the command of Wing Commander Douglas Bader. Dundas became one of the leading members of that Wing and frequently flew with Bader, gradually building his reputation as a fighter pilot and tactician. After receiving the DFC, Dundas became Flight Commander in 610 Squadron. December 1941 brought another promotion as commanding officer of 56 Squadron, the first in the RAF to be converted to Typhoons. Posted to the Mediterranean in 1943, he led 244 Spitfire Wing from Malta and later Italy. In 1944, Dundas was awarded the DSO and became one of the youngest Group Captains in the RAF. For some years after the war, Dundas served once more with the RAuxAF during which time he became CO of 601 Squadron. Cocky Dundas flew Spitfires with 616 Sqn during some of the heaviest air fighting of the Battle of Britain. With several victories to his name he was shot down on August 22nd and wounded. Later this distinguished pilot flew in Douglas Baders famous Tangmere Wing, and subsequently commanded successively Typhoon and Spitfire Wings.
Sir Hugh Dundas (22 Jul 1920 - 10 Jul 1995) Served with 616 sqd 1939 - 1941, 56 sqd 1941 to 1942, 324 wing north Africa, Sicily and the first wing to move to Italy 1943 - 1944, 240 wing 1944 - 1945 in Italy.


rs

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Brian Napier QC

So below are the Terms of Reference for the review of the management process that led to the suspension of the Chief of Police.

This is not some light hearted review

There are so many issues that need answering

We are talking about the suspension of the Former Chief of Police Graham Power a man who was suspended in the middle of one of the biggest Police investigations since the 'Beast of Jersey'.

As time passes you can forget the enormity of this single act, you can forget about what the political climate was like at the time, you can forget about Former Chief Minister Walker making an ass of himself on Newsnight, the debacle press conference at St . Martin, Deputy Le Claire overhearing what sounded like someone demanding Lenny but settling for the Chief,you can forget these things.

The year 2008 will live long in Jerseys memory

Who could forget the bailiffs Liberation Day Speech when poor Jersey came before the Abuse Survivors, this again was setting the tone. The date was May 9th 2008.

This was all leading up to a Grand Finale the Big Show the date penciled in was the 12th November 2008. Now why was this date chosen why did they have to do it right then, well the answer is a simple one.

THE CHIEF WAS ON HOLIDAY

'When the Boss is away the mice will play'

This is why we must remember the climate in which the CPO was suspended this is very important.

Remember it wasn't just the 23rd February 2008 that went 'World Wide'

The 12th November 2008 also went ' World Wide'

What have we had so far. Well we have spent 1 million pounds on nothing, a redacted disciplinary report so paper thin that its nothing short of a joke and an insult to anyone with an ounce of intelligence.

If there are any States Members out there who thinks the process was fair and the report was some kind of Guilty Verdict please do not enter the States Building again. You are a danger to me, my Island , and the very lively hood of every person living on this Island. It tells me you do not know right from wrong that makes you a liability and very dangerous.

For me watching what has happened to people like Power,Harper, Syvret and Bellwood is not a shock it was at the time but not now. We just cant seem to get anything right over here.

When they embarked on the Suspension of GP did they just think

"look we just get him suspended no one ever asks questions all will be ok and that Met thing gives it some meat"

So lets hope we find out, here are some of the points.

"Review the manner in which senior officers collated information and presented it to the Minister for Home Affairs that ultimately led to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police"

So this must be Warcup expressing his concerns to the Chief Executive that the investigation was not following UK guidelines, writing a letter that included a Met Interim Review that had not interviewed any of the main characters plus should never be used in a suspension, the original dates on the suspension drafts having been drawn up before the Met report arrived on the 10th, what would the then Minister for Home Affairs know what is right or wrong.

We know the Judicial Review was very critical of the original suspension

We Know the notes of the suspension meeting had been destroyed before all parties had signed them off

We Know TLS fought like crazy to stop GP getting the dates for the original suspension drafts

We know Scott letters have been sent out so things cant be looking good.

We also have this

3. Report

A Report should be prepared for the Chief Minister. The Commissioner must
be aware that the entire disciplinary process for the Chief Officer of Police is
conducted under his Terms and Conditions of Employment, which include a
Code of Conduct for Disciplinary Process. This Code requires confidentiality
to be maintained by all parties throughout the disciplinary process. As such,
the report should therefore be in 2 parts –

(i) Part I should consist of matters appropriate for immediate publication
to States Members and the Public;

(ii) Part II relating to those matters specific to the Chief Officer of Police
which under his Code of Conduct have to remain confidential until the
disciplinary process has been completed.

So seeing as there are no disciplinary proceedings it looks like the whole Napier Report can be made public with zero redactions what a complete blessing.

So we are going to get a full report where we can see exactly what happened

Why is it taking so long to come out?

Where all procedures followed correctly in suspending the Chief of Police

This is not about Graham Powers role in the Historic Child Abuse investigation this is about whether he got Sacrificed at the Alter of Jerseys Image.

The suspension of Graham Power was a small price to pay for some. The foot stamping head nodding lackeys of the States Motherland would agree with this.

I want a full report from Napier

And I want the Wiltshire report or at least 80% of it

Until we have this no one knows what went on

rs


A review of the management process that led to the suspension of the
Chief Officer of Police

1. Commissioner

The Chief Minister wishes to appoint a Commissioner to undertake a review
of the manner in which the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police was
suspended from his duties on 12th November 2008. Given the length of time
that has elapsed since the Chief Officer of Police was suspended, and the
concerns raised by States Members particularly following the publication of
the Affidavit from the suspended Chief Officer of Police, the Chief Minister is
proposing to commission an independent review to assure himself and States
Members that the management of the process was conducted correctly.

2. Terms of Reference

The purpose of the Review is to –

(a) Examine the procedure employed by the Chief Minister’s Department
and the Minister for Home Affairs in the period leading up to the
suspension of the Chief Officer of Police on 12th November 2008.

(b) Review the manner in which senior officers collated the information
and presented it to the Minister for Home Affairs that ultimately led to
the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police.

(c) Investigate whether the procedure for dealing with the original
suspension was correctly followed at all times, including –

(i) the reason for the immediate suspension of the Chief Officer
of Police;

(ii) whether there were any procedural errors in managing the
suspension process.

(d) Review all information relating to the original suspension procedure,
including relevant sections of the published Affidavit from the
suspended Chief Officer of Police.

(e) The Report should highlight any areas where, in the opinion of the
Commissioner, sufficient evidence exists that would support in the
interests of open government a full Committee of Inquiry into the
manner in which the Chief Officer of Police was suspended on
12th November 2008.

3. Report

A Report should be prepared for the Chief Minister. The Commissioner must
be aware that the entire disciplinary process for the Chief Officer of Police is
conducted under his Terms and Conditions of Employment, which include a
Code of Conduct for Disciplinary Process. This Code requires confidentiality
to be maintained by all parties throughout the disciplinary process. As such,
the report should therefore be in 2 parts –

(i) Part I should consist of matters appropriate for immediate publication
to States Members and the Public;

(ii) Part II relating to those matters specific to the Chief Officer of Police
which under his Code of Conduct have to remain confidential until the
disciplinary process has been completed.










This a picture of Robert Stantford Tuck in his Hurricane,he had 30 victories when he was shoot down in 1942 he survived the war ( A real legend)

' One of the Few'

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Deputy Bob Hills Letter In Full

Below is the Letter from Deputy Bob Hill that appeared in tonight's JEP.

I have had permission from Deputy Hill to reproduce it in full.

The reason the full letter appears here is because of the word restriction on letters in the JEP

In my opinion I believe the JEP have done a good Job with Deputy Hills letter, and its good to see, its all we bloggers ask.

Deputy Hill is also thankful of the coverage the JEP gave his letter

It appears here so people overseas and none readers of the JEP can read it

All yours BOB


Dear Sir,

Now that we have had time to reflect on the Acting Police Chief’s announcement that he will not be seeking appointment to his former boss’s job it may be opportune to give readers an insight to some of the facts which seem to have gone unnoticed.

From comments that have been published it appears that the Home Affair’s Minister, the JEP and Mr Warcup himself believe that a significant part of the blame for his departure rests with certain States Members who are allegedly Graham Power supporters. From the context of these comments it appears that some of these criticisms have been directed towards me on the basis that I have repeatedly raised issues regarding the manner in which the case of the suspended officer has been handled. Just in case anybody has forgotten, it might be appropriate to remind readers that I am an elected Member of the States. It is part of my role to challenge the actions of Ministers and to hold them to account. These challenges are part of the democratic process, and in the circumstances of this case it could be argued that we need more such challenges rather than less. This is especially the case when the Ministers appear to be acting with so little regard for the human and financial cost of their actions, or the reputation of the island.

The suspension of any employee is a serious matter and is one that must be handled with sensitivity and extreme caution. It is apparent that this was not the case with the former Chief Officer’s suspension. In its judgement dated 8th September 2009 the Royal Court expressed its “serious concern at the fairness of the procedure apparently adopted by the previous Minister. He was dealing with the person holding the most senior position in the police force who had enjoyed a long and distinguished career. Bearing in mind the implications of suspension, we would have thought that fairness would dictate firstly Mr Power being given a copy of the media briefing and Mr Warcup’s letter and secondly an opportunity to be heard on whether there should be an investigation and if so, should he have been suspended during that investigation.” (Judgement paragraph 19). Anyone who has examined the case cannot entertain any serious doubt that, whatever the merits or otherwise of the criticisms directed against the former Chief Officer, the suspension and subsequent investigation has been miss-managed at significant public cost. To claim that a dubious suspension followed by a disciplinary process lasting 21 months and costing over a million pounds, which is then abandoned without a single charge being brought, is anything other than incompetent government, is to ignore reality.

It should be recalled that on January 21st 2009, Ministers and fellow States Members had the opportunity of agreeing to Connétable Simon Crowcroft’s Proposition P182/2008 which was to request the Minister for Home Affairs to commission a compliance check on the procedures followed by his predecessor in suspending the Chief Police Officer and to report to the States on the outcome of this compliance check no later than 1st March 2009. Such a review could have cleared the air and paved the way for a swift and relatively low-cost resolution of the issue.

Unfortunately the proposition was opposed by the Ministers and as a consequence it was rejected by 29 votes to 21.


Last February the Chief Minister resisted the opportunity of accepting my proposition P9/2010 which called for a Committee of Inquiry which could have started work immediately, to conduct a 3 month review of the suspension process. Initially the Chief Minister opposed the suggestion of a Review on the grounds that Wilts Police were doing so. That assertion was completely incorrect and it was only after I had lodged my Proposition on 2nd February that the Chief Minister conceded that he was wrong. However rather than accept my proposition he persuaded States Members to agree to his allegedly quicker and simpler alternative arrangement whereby an Independent Commissioner would review the suspension process. It is now August and the Chief Ministers “quicker and simpler” process has yet to be concluded.

On 16th March 2010, The Minister for Home Affairs lodged P30/2010 seeking to appoint Mr Warcup to succeed Mr Power. The Minister appeared to be oblivious to the fact that 3 weeks earlier he and 25 fellow States Members had rejected my proposition for a Committee of Inquiry in favour of the Chief Minister’s alternative proposal. It should have been obvious that until the outcome of the Review was known, he could hardly expect Members to debate the appointment of Mr Warcup, who was one of the leading players in the suspension process,

It follows that no one should have been surprised when a few days later I lodged P33/2010 which asked the States to agree that no proposition to appoint a new Police Chief Officer should be debated until the outcome of the Commissioner’s review was known. One should recall that at a Scrutiny Hearing on 30th March the Home Affairs Minister stated that he would resign if Mr Warcup was not appointed. Had the Minister been so confident about Mr Warcup’s appointment it was down to him to set a date for debate, but he never did. The fact that Mr Warcup no longer wants his boss’s job can hardly be down to those Members who for months have sought the truth about the suspension.

It is agreed by all sides that the sole evidence relied upon to suspend Mr Power was a letter from Mr Warcup dated 10th November 2008 which was apparently supported by an Interim Report supplied by the Metropolitan Police at 1527 hours that day. However reference to the letter and report can be found in the suspension letter dated 12th November 2008 but drafted on 8th November. It appears from the information available, that the decision to suspend Mr Power was taken first and then evidence to justify the decision assembled afterwards. It is also evident that the Met Police has withdrawn its Interim Report and one of the officers involved with it is the subject of an official complaint. This sequence of events puts Mr Warcup at the heart of the controversial suspension of his then Chief Officer. A suspension which is now to be the subject of a report by an eminent QC. Having taken such a pivotal role, Mr Warcup has no basis to complain that he is now caught up in the controversy surrounding his actions.

Mr Warcup was aware that the Metropolitan Police had been requested to produce a review of the Haut de la Garenne investigation. The purpose of the review was to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the States Police’s handling of the investigation. The time to evaluate the Report was when it had been completed. If there were concerns which were deemed to be so serious to warrant a suspension Mr Warcup should not have allowed himself to become involved for a number of obvious reasons not the least of which was his substantial professional and financial interest in the outcome.

Mr Warcup’s participation in the suspension process was a high profile and unprecedented act. The political and media fallout from the event was entirely foreseeable and should have been taken into account by all involved. There is however one aspect of this matter on which I believe that Mr Warcup and myself will be of the same mind, that is, that the pressures and exposure which have been associated with these events have gone on for far too long,. I suggest however that in attributing blame Mr Warcup looks more closely at the actions of his own Minister who has repeatedly blocked attempts to bring about a timely solution, and who now stands empty handed at the conclusion of one of the most expensive disciplinary enquiries in the Island’s history. The Chief Minister and Minister for Home Affairs have emerged from this saga with no disciplinary case, no Chief Officer, a pending report from a QC likely to be critical of the Island’s Government, and a bill for over a million pounds. They are not well placed to criticise the actions of others.

Deputy F.J. (Bob) Hill, BEM

The 'Sailors' Spit


Monday, August 2, 2010

Jar/6- Andrew Lewis

Before I go into the Expenses of Wiltshire I thought I would take a quick look at JAR/6 the piece of ' Skull' found on the 23rd February 2008.

It always comes back to this moment, everything over the past 2 yrs comes back to this moment.

Lenny Harper ridiculed

Graham Power suspended

Jerseys reputation in tatters ( not my opinion) just propaganda


1 million spent on what exactly? some call it Wiltshire some call it a Redacted Nothing.

So what of JAR/6. In the Wiltshire report is there a full laid out Audit trail for this very important piece of Jersey History.

Where was it ever tested and found to be 'Coconut' some have said it was sent to Kew Gardens in 2009 and was found to be 'Coconut' but why send a piece in 2009 when it has been discounted from the investigation in 2008.

The Term Coconut I believe was first used by Journalist David Rose

Now what I will put up here is a little exchange that took place in the house on the 17th June 2008 between Andrew Lewis and others

Shame we don't have the Andrew Lewis statement from Wiltshire

If there should be a clear audit trail on anything it should be on this one piece, with all audio, TV and any press statements from Lenny Harper.

So why haven't we got it

This is a late night blog but I found this exchange so wanted you to read it

rs


9.          Statement made by the Assistant Minister of Home Affairs regarding the origin of the skull fragment found at Haut de la Garenne

9.1     The Deputy of St. John (Assistant Minister of Home Affairs):
I have now reviewed the Chief Officer’s report and relevant correspondence and am able to answer the questions raised by Senator Perchard and Deputy Power that were referred at the last sitting.  It remains the case that there is no definitive scientific finding as to the nature of the fragment found on 23rd February 2008, which might indicate whether or not the statement made subsequently by the Senior Investigating Officer was incorrect.  So I trust Members will understand that this is an ongoing investigation and that therefore it is not possible to make any further comment.  If deemed necessary, any such matters could form part of a brief for the Committee of Inquiry which has been proposed to proceed upon completion of the investigation.  Thank you, Sir.

9.1.1  Senator J.L. Perchard:
I thank the Assistant Minister and while I do know and understand the sensitivities that surround this ongoing inquiry I do think there is a certain aspect that the Assistant Minister will surely want to get cleared-up.  As the find at Haut de la Garenne on 23rd February was described at the time as what appears to be the partial remains of a child, will the Assistant Minister advise the Assembly what action is now being taken to establish the accuracy or otherwise of that description?

The Deputy of St. John:
At the time the on-site anthropologists and forensic scientists were led to believe that that was what the item was.  Without undertaking further forensic tests on the item, which is no longer of any interest in the investigation, it would not be possible to draw a full conclusion on the item, Sir.  As it is no longer relevant to the investigation I see no further reason to establish whether it is or is not what people think it is.  The fact is that it is inconclusive and, as it is inconclusive, Sir, and irrelevant to the inquiry at this stage, we will not be commenting on the matter any further, Sir.  Thank you.

9.1.2  Senator J.L. Perchard:
I thank the Assistant Minister and understand his dilemma.  Will the Assistant Minister arrange for the material found on 23rd February to be released to the States of Jersey Pathology Department in an effort to assist the police identifying the origins of the material?

The Deputy of St. John
I think not, Sir.  I do not think the Pathology Department here has the level of expertise that will be required to make such a judgment, Sir.  We have used some of the top labs in the U.K. and they have had difficulty, Sir.  This is not an exact science and if it is required to be investigated further, Sir, it would cost further money which is no longer of any relevance to the investigation.  This particular item, as we have said on a number of occasions, is no longer relevant to the investigation at this time.  However, it does form part of the evidence for the case and will be kept as such in case it ever is required, Sir.  Thank you.

9.1.3  Deputy D.W. Mezbourian:
I would just like to make a point to anyone considering making a statement in the House.  As we are all well aware, the House is never - or not always - fully attended by Members and at the last sitting, indeed, some of us were absent.  So to have a statement which makes reference to questions raised and were deferred at the last sitting but without identifying what those questions were, it is difficult for those of us… [Interruption] I think perhaps, Sir, someone is phoning the Deputy to raise the same point with him as I am making now.  Indeed, Sir, not only for Members who are perhaps absent from the House at the time but for those people are listening - and no one seems to be listening to me at the moment, certainly not within the House.  But I repeat, Sir, for those members of the public who may not have heard the questions raised at the last sitting, for those Members of the House who may not have heard, may I ask that in this instance the Assistant Minister reminds us what the questions are or were that he is referring to and reiterate that for future statements Member will remember my comment.

The Deputy of St. John
[Aside]  The Deputy has a fair point and I will recite the question as was given to us at the last session for the benefit of Members and particularly for the benefit of the Deputy.  Deputy Power asked the question and it was as follows, Sir: “In view of the forensic opinions as to the nature of the alleged fragment of skull found at Haut de la Garenne, does the Minister still maintain her view that the comments made by the Deputy Chief of Police at a press conference on 23rd February were appropriate?”  That was the question and I apologise, the Deputy is quite right it should have been stated when I answered the question, Sir.

9.1.4  Deputy S. Power:
In lieu of the fact that the Assistant Minister has now indicated that the fragment found on 23rd February is no longer of relevance to the investigation, is it not in the interests of the Home Affairs Department to put that non-relevant piece of fragment into the public domain?  Thank you.

The Deputy of St. John
No, Sir, because whatever way you look at it this item is still evidence and until a conclusive result is achieved from further forensics, it will remain evidence.  Unless the Attorney General can correct me otherwise I would imagine any type of evidence uncovered in this type of investigation would have to be kept until after any subsequent trials, if indeed there are some, Sir.  Thank you.

Deputy S. Power:
Sorry, can I ask him just to clarify that last answer.  I understand the Assistant Minister to have said that the item is no longer of any interest to the investigation.  If it is no longer of any interest to the investigation how can the Assistant Minister call it evidence?

The Deputy of St. John
I think that is a matter for greater minds than mine from a legal profession, Sir.  As far as I understand it, it is evidence and it should be kept as such until the investigation is completed.  Perhaps the Attorney General could clarify that, Sir?

The Attorney General:
I am sorry, Sir, that I was not in the Chamber at 2.15 p.m., I apologise to Members.  Can I ask what precisely I am asked to clarify?

The Deputy of St. John
Mr. Attorney, I wonder if you could clarify.  The Deputy has asked that the evidence which I am making reference to in this answer be released to the public as it is no longer of relevance to the investigation.  My understanding is that all evidence remains as such until any court proceedings or any subsequent investigations are completed.  That is now evidence - Crown evidence, I assume - and the Deputy is asking whether that is the case or not?

The Attorney General:
I now understand the point being asked.  My firm advice to Members is that this is not a matter which ought to be put in the public domain at the moment because it might have an impact upon any of the prosecutions yet to come.  I do not, for my part, think it is appropriate that we risk the integrity of those prosecutions and the judicial process by analysis of evidence, whether directly or indirectly relevant at this stage.  It is very difficult to tell what evidence might be relevant.  The police may well have reached the view, as I think has been expressed previously, that the piece of skull - or not skull as the case may be - which was referred to in February no longer forms part of the police investigations.  That would mean that it is not part of the prosecution case.  But there is no way of knowing at the present stage whether it may or may not form part of the defence case, in which case all relevant material in relation to that would need to be provided to the defence as part of the duties of disclosure.  For all these reasons it is just not appropriate to risk prejudice to the integrity of the judicial process in my view at this stage.

9.1.5  Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter:
Will the Assistant Minister look into the case which I think was publicised in the National Press whereby it was indicated that the item that was found was not bone and in fact that the further investigation that was required was to find out whether it was coconut or walnut?

The Deputy of St. John:
You have concerned me greatly that the lab in question made any statement at all to the press.  Having said that, Sir, they have said - and this is has been in the public domain already - that the investigations or the science used to establish what this item is are inconclusive, Sir.  So I do not see how one could say categorically whether it is wood, coconut or anything else, Sir, without further investigation.  They have said that to us, this particular lab, but I was most disturbed and concerned that they released that information in the first place, Sir.  I will repeat, without further forensic tests we cannot prove conclusively that it is bone or any other items, Sir.

9.1.6  The Deputy of St. Peter:
A supplementary, if I may.  Would the Assistant Minister confirm that in effect that the lab indicated in very clear terms that to quote: “This ain’t bone” and that further investigation was required to find out exactly what it was in relation to what form of wood it was?

The Deputy of St. John
I could go into more forensic detail as to why they could not make such a statement but I have been advised not to by our legal advisors, Sir, but I can categorically state that this evidence has not been proved conclusively as to exactly what it is and I do not wish to comment any further on the item, Sir, as I have been advised not to.

9.1.7          Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:
The Assistant Minister refers to the ongoing investigation and of course its significant associated costs.  Could he give Members any indication or indicate to Members whether there has been any move from his officers as to how much further this investigation will carry on for?  Thank you, Sir.

The Deputy of St. John:
That will depend on whether the Constable is talking about the specific area which I am talking about here which is the Haut de La Garenne investigation or the greater abuse investigation.  The abuse investigation generally could go on for many, many months, Sir.  There is precedent here in other jurisdictions where it has gone on for considerable time.  With regard to the actual site at Haut de la Garenne investigations there are almost complete, Sir.