Will no one rid me of this turbulent policeman?

You are the Archbishop who was made by the King; whom he set in your place to carry out his command. You are his servant, his tool, and his jack, You wore his favours on your back, You had your honours all from his hand; from him you had the power, the seal and the ring. (Murder in the Cathedral, TS Eliot)

In a recent Hansard, Paul Le Claire reported the following exchange:

Not long after Deputy Andrew Lewis took over as the Minister for Home Affairs I walked through the Chamber to the top of the stairs and in his company was the former Chief Minister, Mr. Frank Walker. They were discussing the former Deputy Chief of Police, Mr. Lenny Harper. The Chief Minister at the time said: "Why did you not get rid of him?" I found that a little strange at the time for that to be expressed but I entered into the conversation by standing with them and partook in the conversation. The response - which I think is the important thing, the key thing - from the Minister was: "We were going to get rid of him but he only had a week to go so we thought it best just to let him go."

The exact date I am afraid I did not record. It was shortly after, if not the day, that the announcement was made that Deputy Lewis had taken over as the Minister.

Now this has been seen as evidence of a conspiracy to get rid of the Deputy Chief Office, Lenny Harper, particularly as Deputy Hill has noted that the only one able to remove the Deputy was in fact the Chief Officer, not the Minister for Home Affairs. So in order to remove Lenny Harper, it would be necessary to remove his Deputy. But if the only way to get rid of Lenny Harper was to suspend Graham Power - which would allow someone else to take over as Acting Chief, and suspend him - then why was Graham Power suspended after Lenny Harper had left? And who was the someone else? David Warcup didn't get sworn in as Deputy Chief until the day after Lenny Harper had left, so he wasn't in a position at the time to take over as Acting Chief Officer. The logic of this conspiracy simply doesn't work out properly.

Senator Ian Le Marquand commented on this, and I don't know if his words carried a sarcastic tone, but they are certainly there in the transcript (which I think is unduly unfair to Deputy Le Claire's honesty):

Of course we all waited today with baited breath to see what Deputy Le Claire would add to the situation. What would his evidence be? Would that change things? With great diffidence he told us that what he had overheard was a conversation between 2 States Members, he says, the Chief Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs at the time, in relation to why action had not been taken against the Deputy Chief Officer. Frankly, this is no evidence whatsoever in relation to conspiracy. There is no evidence of the sort of conspiracy alleged. What there is evidence of is that there were concerns some time before and those concerns had been transmitted from the Acting Chief Officer via the Chief Executive to the Minister for Home Affairs of the time.

In fact at that time, David Warcup was not Acting Chief Officer - until the suspension, he was only Deputy Chief Officer. According to the Le Marquand narrative, then, there was no conspiracy but only "concerns" - but Deputy Le Claire saw no evidence of what I would call "concerns" - "Why did you not get rid of him?" doesn't sound much like a concern to me, but rather a discussion of definite action which might be taken. I don't think simple "concerns" were on the table; the Le Marquand narrative simply ignores the personal equation and downplays it, and that just doesn't hold up either.

It is also clear that Mr Walker was involved in the discussions about the suspension of Graham Power as well. As Napier comments:

There was a meeting on 3 November, attended by Mr Ogley, Mr Walker and Mr Crich. At that meeting there was discussion of the possibility of suspension [of Mr Power] when he was on holiday.

And it is also clear from Napier that relations between Mr Power and his Deputy had deteriorated, and Mr Walker and Mr Ogley were already critical of Mr Power:

It is clear to me, in the light of the investigations I have carried out, that the criticisms of Mr Power, made by implication in the Interim Report and, separately, in the report of Mr Warcup, found a receptive audience when they came to the attention of Mr Walker and Mr Ogley. That is, however, a very different matter from accepting that they (with or without the knowing participation of Mr Warcup) were plotting to find a way to have Mr Power removed from office, and were using suspension as the first stage in achieving their objective.

So why was Mr Power removed? What advantages were there to doing this after Lenny Harper had left?

For David Warcup, the advantages of Graham Power's suspension would that he would have a free hand to conduct the investigation and court cases in the way he deemed necessary, without fighting a continual battle with his Chief on how it should be done. There must have been (as seems to come through in Napier), a considerable degree of frustration, especially as Lenny Harper had clearly had much more control over the media strategy, while Graham Power was happy for him to do so. Now David Warcup wanted to shift the media strategy in a different direction, and Graham Power was resisting this change. So the benefits to David Warcup was not that he would get the Chief Officer's job (which he would anyway on Graham Power's retirement), but that he could conduct the investigation along the lines which he thought were better.

But what of Senator Walker, and the reported conversation. As Napier reports, the situation between Graham Power and Senator Walker had deteriorated to the point of hostility. While there was no conspiracy as such, there must have been considerable frustration at meetings with a Chief of Police which were confrontational, and he would have known that both he and Mr Ogley were on the same wavelength as David Warcup and relations would be immeasurable smoother if Mr Warcup was in charge. The general media strategy had gone astray, with fiasco after fiasco, from Newsnight, the Parish Hall Press Conference gate-crashed and ruined by Senator Syvret, the Liberation Day speeches badly received by the public, and criticisms of the Jersey establishment and judiciary by Lenny Harper, as well as the continual sniping by Senator Stuart Syvret, which with unsuppressed feeling, he termed "the vile blog".

It would not have been unreasonable to suppose he must have surely felt a degree of anger and resentment, rather like Henry II on Thomas Becket. He had brought in this Chief of Police, and now couldn't work with him. Henry is supposed to have exclaimed, in the presence of four knights, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", but how the Latin account actually translates is perhaps far more appropriate:

"What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?"

Henry didn't actually conspire to remove Becket, but the expression of his attitude certainly pushed events in a particular direction when others (also sympathetic) were aware of it, and took it upon themselves to do something about that.

Questions on Wiltshire

Deputy Daniel Wimberley was asking questions in the States to Senator Ian Le Marquand (Minister for Home Affairs) on 16 November 2010. I know some people criticise bloggers for raking over old ground, but my principal interest here was the final question, which relates to more public documentation needed for those of us attempting to write a history of the historic abuse enquiry.

Here are the Q&A plus my comments:

In the light of the Chief Minister's statement that he believes that the findings of the Wiltshire Report fully endorse the decision to suspend the previous Chief Officer of Police, can the Minister:

Deputy Daniel Wimberley: (a) provide members with the press statements released by the States of Jersey Police relating to any one of the major elements disputed during the Haut de la Garenne inquiry, in order, and the full recordings of audio and video interviews?

Senator Ian Le Marquand: (a) I have previously indicated to the Deputy of St Mary that I am not going to do this. The press statements are in the public domain and the Deputy of St Mary should do his own research.

My comments: most of this is in the public domain, either on the police website, the States of Jersey website, the States Assembly website, YouTube etc, and I agree with Senator Le Marquand. If Daniel Wimberley is interested, I also have PDF snapshots of most of the newspaper articles relating to Haut de La Garenne, which also has selected quotations from those involved - including the BBC report where Lenny Harper says that the evidence is insufficient for a murder enquiry "at the end of the day there just might not be the evidence to mount a homicide inquiry" - long before Messrs Gradwell and Warcup said the same thing as if it was something quite new.

Deputy Daniel Wimberley: (b) provide members with the 93 page statement provided by the former Chief of Police to the Wiltshire inquiry?

Senator Ian Le Marquand (b) I would only do this if asked so to do by the previous Chief Officer and even then the statement would need to be redacted to remove reference to individuals who are not public facing.

My comments: Can the Friends of Graham Power get on to Graham and find out why he has not asked for the statement to be released to the public domain? It certainly seems to weaken his position if the onus was on him to request it to be released, as long as he could check to ensure the redaction only removed names, and was not the severe "slash and burn" of the first redaction of Wiltshire. Does he, in fact, know that he could have his statement released?

Deputy Daniel Wimberley: (c) supply evidence for the assertion that ACPO had a "policy of only making
recommendations to which [the then Chief Officer and Deputy Chief Officer of Police] had signalled prior approval?"

Senator Ian Le Marquand: (c) I have previously indicated that I will not be releasing the statements of witnesses who were interviewed by the Wiltshire Police or other evidence.

My comments: This is a major weakness of Senator Le Marquand's position. I heard him some time ago making very much the same statement that ACPO were conflicted and tailored their recommendations to the requirements of Lenny Harper and Graham Power. This might be true, but just baldly stating it, and with any evidence not visible, does not prove that it is anything more than an attempt by some people to provide spin against the ACPO reports by making baseless accusations, knowing full well that their identity and evidence will not see the light of day.

Deputy Daniel Wimberley: (d) provide a full and proper audit trail of the emails concerning the finds JAR/6 and SLJ/1?

Senator Ian Le Marquand: (d) I do not understand what is meant by "audit trails of e-mails". However, this appears to also be referring to statements or other evidence.

My comments: I believe most of this - if relating to the fragment of "skull" - was dealt with in a comprehensive press release by Lenny Harper putting the record straight with emails shortly after a critical Daily Mail story.

Deputy Daniel Wimberley: (e) provide members with the final version of the Wiltshire Report, redacted as necessary but with as much as possible of the missing 270 pages, which the Minister promised to issue to me by "early September" in his email of 3rd August 2010

Senator Ian Le Marquand: (e) I have planned to do this but the task is extensive and has been delayed by work on the CSR process and by other work pressures upon the individuals who are completing the redaction process on my behalf. I have reminded them of this task and will continue to do so. The date of September 2010 was the date given to me but has proved to be unachievable.

My comments: It is good to see the delay acknowledged, but without any target set in the future for its completion, this means the date of release can just slip by endlessly. It would be good to have some target to aim at, even if it is over generous, such as 3 months.

Handwritten Notes in Napier

The Chief Minister was forced to admit that States chief executive Bill Ogley - the most senior civil servant - had destroyed hand-written minutes of the meeting to suspend the police chief before Mr Power had agreed that they were accurate. Senator Le Sueur told the States yesterday that a typed transcript had been made from the notes before they were thrown in the bin. The transcript was subsequently signed off by the then Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis, but without the original notes being shown to the police chief.

(http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/02/04/top-civil-servants-under-fire/#ixzz11zqUUnqm)

Of this meeting with Bill Ogley and Andrew Lewis and Graham Power, Brian Napier's report says:

"Subsequent to the meeting, the handwritten notes of the meeting taken by Mr Ogley were destroyed. That, I was told by Mr Crich, was in accordance with normal practice. I have to say that, in all the circumstances, it is my view that it would have been wiser to have retained all that was available by way of record of that crucial meeting. But I accept Mr Ogley's account - that he transcribed the notes immediately after the meeting and that they were subsequently typed up for the parties to sign."

Now Bill Ogley is Jersey's equivalent to the Cabinet Secretary in the UK Government (and is probably paid almost as much). But when we look at what happens with the Cabinet Secretary in the UK, we find quite different record keeping in place The National Archive notes that:

"The Cabinet Secretaries' Notebooks are the hand written notes which the Cabinet Secretary makes when he attends Cabinet Meetings as the Senior Secretary. (1)

Of course, as I'm the first to admit, that doesn't apply to all meetings, only to important Cabinet ones, but nonetheless there are lessons there for the situation with the meeting at which Graham Power was suspended. This is because whether or not it is standard practice to destroy notes in Jersey, it is certainly questionable whether the written minutes were an exact transcript of the meeting. For example, returning again to the Cabinet Secretaries notebooks (the equivalent of Bill Ogley's hand written notes), the official British Archives site notes how these differ in important respects from the final minutes:

"Q. How do the notebooks differ from the official cabinet minutes?
A. The main difference is that the official minutes do not attribute views to individual ministers as the Notebooks do. Nor do the items necessarily correspond: the Cabinet Secretary did not note every item, but sometimes included incidental discussion not reflected in the official minutes."(1)

Minutes then may well represent a form of redaction, which the transcript (the raw data) does not. A situation depicted with humour in "Yes Prime Minister":


"It is characteristic of all committee discussions and decisions that every member has a vivid recollection of them, and that every member's recollection of them differs violently from every other member's recollection; consequently we accept the convention that the official decisions are those and only those which have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials; from which it emerges with elegant inevitability, that any decision which has been officially reached would have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials, and any decisions which is not recorded in the minutes by the officials has not been officially reached, even if one or more members believe they can recollect it; so in this particular case, if the decision would have been officially reached, it would have been recorded in the minutes by the officials and it isn't so it wasn't." (Yes Prime Minister)

A Tribunal on this subject further commented on the Cabinet Secretary's handwritten notes of a Cabinet meeting:

". the manner in which an individual takes contemporaneous notes is likely to be idiosyncratic and could well give a false impression as to the weight and importance that should be attributed to a particular part of the debate or the tone in which the points of discussion were expressed."

But the Tribunal also considered that there could be exceptional circumstances in which it was important to check the handwritten handwritten notes with the formal minutes:

"Were the handwritten notes to reveal something of significance which was not recorded in the formal minute, the Commissioner might take a different view. Each case, however, must be considered on its own particular merits" (6)

It is clear that this practice of handwritten notes was also not continued with the suspension review meetings under Ian Le Marquand where there are not minutes of the meeting but a complete transcript of the audio recording - Mr Crich's normal practice did not apply then, nor of course with scrutiny hearings, for which there is also a written transcript of the
audio recording.

One would have expected - given Senator Le Marquand's subsequent use of full audio transcription - for Brian Napier to have commented on how matters had been improved, or why matters had changed between Mr Crich's comments to him and the later meetings with Mr Power, and perhaps noted that this had been done precisely to avoid the accusation that the minutes distorted or omitted matters of significance.

This also comes under the sphere of data retention policies, where requirements, especially for handwritten notes of substance (which can always be easily scanned as PDF images), can be important:

Document retention, especially the retention of electronic data has become a hot topic in the legal industry. In the 21st century business world, companies are creating and storing the electronic document and information at light speed. Electronic documents are not only found on desktops and laptops but also stored on the phones like Blackberry's etc. But for modern business organizations storing all this business information can be expensive not only because of the cost of physical storage of tapes but also because of the potential liability of keeping sometimes seemingly useless information for too long.

A document retention policy provides for the systematic review, retention and destruction of documents received or created in the course of business. A document retention policy will identify documents that need to be maintained and contain guidelines for how long certain documents should be kept and how they should be destroyed. (2)

Those notes are from India which is striving to comply with the data protection laws of the EU, and to which Jersey is also subject with its own Data Protection Law. On the subject of which documents must be protected, they note:

Temporary Records: Temporary records include all business documents that have not been completed. Such include, but are not limited to written memoranda and dictation to be typed in the future, reminders, to-do lists, report, case study, and calculation drafts, interoffice correspondence regarding a client or business transaction, and running logs.

They note that temporary records need not be kept as long as final records, so that - provided a minute is signed off by all parties as accurate, the documents from which it is transcribed can be destroyed. Regarding how long any documents - including written memoranda - should be kept, the matter is open - and this is the same position as in Jersey's own Data Protection Law. But note the caveat at the end, which would, in my opinion, certainly apply to the handwritten notes that were shredded:

How long should documents be kept? Only for so long as the law requires or for as long as you actually have use for them, and not a moment longer. There is no bright line number. In typical lawyerly fashion, my real answer is that "it depends." Any records management program must ensure that legally required documents are kept for at least the minimum prescribed time periods. But, are there circumstances under which they should be kept for a longer period of time? In my view there are two answers to that question. First, there may be records you think are critical to preserving historical continuity, for example, minutes of strategic planning meetings or of policy development sessions..... The second reason may be litigation or governmental investigations and enforcement actions... These latter circumstances will almost always out trump your retention and disposition schedule.

We can see that handwritten documents also feature in requests to the UK's own Information Comissioners Office. Two examples of this kind of request follow:

Case Ref: FS50113234: Date: 28/01/2008: Public Authority: Northern Ireland Court Service: Summary: On 29 November 2005 the complainant made a request to the Northern Ireland Court Service ("NICS"), for documentation, notes (handwritten, electronic or otherwise), telephone records received into and emanating fromNICS in relation to emails and letters sent by the complainant.

On 14 June 2006, the PA wrote to the complainant with the outcome of the internal review. It states that the reviewer was unable to find a request, prior to 27 May 2006, for the [handwritten] notes taken during the meeting between the inspector and the complainant but encloses them. It goes on to say that the single reference within the inspection evidence to the "difficulties" faced by the governing body does not provide an explanation of what those difficulties were.

Now I do note that it is common practice in offices for handwritten notes to be made and then destroyed after the minutes have been agreed; I also note that on occasions where I have been present, there may have been mistakes in the minutes that I've spotted (or others have noted), and these are corrected by feedback before the minutes are finalised. So - for a start - honest mistakes can be made. But these are meetings where all concerned are not engaged in any form of disputation, and it would seem - particularly in view of the audio transcripts instituted later (a new policy?) by Senator Ian Le Marquand - that such a practice was not appropriate for such an important meeting.

I would not say the minutes differed materially from the transcript although I would be interested in Mr Power's comments on how they differed from what had taken place. But without harking to any great conspiracy here, there may have been different emphases, or items of significance left out. One has only to look at the Minutes of States Meetings (still produced) and compare them with Hansard, or Hansard and JEP reports, or to try and produce a summation of the meetings with Dr Brain, Graham Power and Ian le Marquand to see that some selection and reduction must have taken place, even for a short meeting of 30 minutes.

And this begs the question, which Napier does not ask: why was previous practice deemed sufficient in view of the seriousness of the meeting? Shouldn't a Chief Advisor be aware that more stringent practice was needed, as indeed Senator Le Marquand obviously did later - after, of course, Mr Power had decided to contest his suspension?

Mr Power had part of the letter headed "Disciplinary Code" read to him and was shown the letter. He was then offered, but declined, an opportunity of one hour to"consider his position".

Trying to make sense of this historically, one obvious surmise, given the question about Graham Power "considering his position", was that the expected outcome of the meeting was resignation, rather than suspension, in which case the recording of the meeting would not have been as important as it subsequently became. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that suspension, which clearly had been prepared for, was not the only option, but was a fall back position in readiness in case Mr Power declined to resign.

In this hypothesis - and I am only putting it as an historical hypothesis, but one which would make sense of the facts, and the brevity of the meeting - that would be probably the real significance of the handwritten notes, rather than an audio transcription being made - normal practice of handwritten notes, put into minutes, was in place because it was not expected that there would be any subsequent meetings after Mr Power's resignation. There the matter would have ended.

Links
(1) http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/news/qanda195-19-may.htm
(2) http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l428-Data-Retention-Policies.html
(3) http://www.ico.gov.uk/tools_and_resources/decision_notices/2008_01.aspx
(4) http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50124420.pdf
(5) http://www.ico.gov.uk/global/search.aspx?keywords=handwritten%20minute&collection=ico&start=0
(6) http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50088735.pdf

Climbing Mount Improbable

Voice For Children (despite the carping of one blog in particular), has pulled off a remarkable coup, not only in following the continual delay of the Napier report, but also in bringing out the reply from Terry Le Sueur, which confirms to Deputy Hill that "the Napier Report will be published in a full and unredacted form", unlike the Wiltshire report.

Dear colleague,
As you may be aware, I have now received the Report into the suspension on 12th November 2008 of the (former) Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police ("the Napier Report").
Having read this Report carefully, I am of the view that there could possibly be grounds for disciplinary action arising out of the report. I am taking advice on this and considering it as a matter of urgency and anticipate making a decision on this shortly.
I have also sought appropriate advice about the publication of the Napier Report prior to any disciplinary proceedings which may, after consideration, take place and I am advised that publication might prejudice any disciplinary process which may be required.
Although I have shared the Napier Report in confidence with the Deputy of St. Martin, he has acknowledged that it is important for any disciplinary process that may be required to be conducted properly so that there can be no question of any impropriety. The Deputy of St. Martin has therefore agreed to continue to hold the Report in confidence.
I am grateful to the Deputy for his understanding in this matter and I hope that all States members will similarly respect the need to conclude any disciplinary issues prior to publication.
I confirm that on the conclusion of any disciplinary issues, the Napier Report will be published in a full and unredacted form.
Yours sincerely,
Terry Le Sueur
Chief Minister

What is obviously the key matter for speculation is who would be subject to any disciplinary proceedings. Clearly, as Graham Power is no longer an employee of the States of Jersey, he is certainly out of the frame, and Deputy Andrew Lewis is no longer in the States, so no action by PPC can be taken against him. This means, of necessity, that if there are "grounds for disciplinary action" - and let's note that this is not absolutely clear-cut, it must be a civil servant. I'm not going to speculate on this, suffice it to say that those present at the first disciplinary meeting, or those giving poor advice, are obvious candidates.

Of course, the good Senator has yet to make up his mind about what to do - whether to proceed with disciplinary action; he's only had the report since 13th September, which is only just over three weeks, so at the snails pace at which he seems to dither along, it would be quite remarkable if he acted with any speed. Given the speed of disciplinary processes in Jersey, the phrase "it will all be over by Christmas", which was used in 1914 by hopeless optimists at the start of the Great War, seems horribly appropriate.

Meanwhile, despite Senator Le Marquand stating on the eviscerated Wiltshire that "The versions now on the States website are in pdf and if downloaded as a document will be searchable", whoever updates the website has not done so, nor have they appeared in less redacted form, as was also promised back in July. Tardiness appears to be a disease of Government, spreading out to afflict its many departments.

The bulk of the missing pages are now being redacted. This is a big task and the departments involved have many other things to do. I think that the rest of what I can properly put out should be available by early September 2010. There are sections of the Blast report which will not be redacted because that would reveal the identities of the officers involved.

I can fully understand that time and pressure of the States Business Plan and the Comprehensive Spending Review, along with general departmental business can consume available, and cause delays. That is entirely understandable. But surely it is not beyond the bounds of simple courtesy and politeness to the voting public to say as much, and apologise for the delay, and just not be like one of those annoying people whom you ring up - if they owe you money - they say "they'll get back to you", and they never do, hoping that you'll forget all about it. It seems that the less redacted Wiltshire Report, like the cheque in the post, is still to arrive. It's a pity there's not a Government Report chasing agency.

Links
(1) http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/10/napier-imminent-3put-upor-i-will.html

They went to sea in a Sieve

They went to sea in a Sieve, they did,
In a Sieve they went to sea:
In spite of all their friends could say,
On a winter's morn, on a stormy day,
In a Sieve they went to sea!
(Edward Lear)

A lot of ink has been spilled writing and commenting on the investigations into Haut de La Garenne. I had resolved not to write on the subject again, unless I had something new to comment. It is not that I have lost interest; it is simply that there is no point doing a "groundhog" day, as Senator Le Marquand out it, and going over old ground. [Incidentally, there could be a different moral to be taken from that film, for it is only after he has learned something important about himself from the endless repeated time that Bill Murray eventually finds his way out.]

So the different matters that I want to examine here are (1) when did leaks to the public domain begin? (2) why was Wiltshire released so precipitously, when it was patently obvious that it had been given such a rough redaction, and a less redacted copy was promised later?

With regard to the release of documents such as the Wiltshire report, Senator Ian Le Marquand has given as a justification that the supporters of suspended chief of police Graham Power had already leaked a lot of material to the public domain supporting Mr Powers case. However if you go back to 4 October 2009, which is long before either the ACPO reports, the minutes of the suspension review meetings or even Lenny Harper's guest posting one month later [on Stuart Syvret's blog], there was an article in the Daily Mail entitled "Bungled Jersey child abuse probe branded a '£20 million shambles", in which it was noted that:

"A leaked report by financial auditors into the investigation shows Grime received £750 a day for the first seven days' work his dog did and £650 a day for 136 days thereafter."

So one of the first leaks clearly came not from the supporters of Graham Power but from those who criticised him. Where did this leak originate? It either came from the financial auditors themselves, or from someone in government who had seen the report, and I would suggest the balance of probabilities would favour the latter. It is very much like the position as portrayed in "Yes, Minister" that the ship of state is the only ship which leaks from the top. No one seems to be that bothered by the fact that confidentiality was being broken by someone who must have been in a fairly senior position. The Minister? The Chief Advisor, Bill Ogley? Someone else?

I suspect that we never will find out who leaked this report but the fact that it predated leaks from Mr Power's supporters demonstrates that the process of putting information into the public domain did not, as Senator Le Marquand suggests (and very probably believes), start with Mr Power's supporters. What they did and where that differs from the Daily Mail was to disseminate wholly complete primary source documents, of which there are, unfortunately, a scarcity.

Hacker: They'd have to have another leak enquiry.
Bernard: Will they really set up an enquiry?
Hacker: Bound to.
Bernard: Won't that be embarrassing?
Hacker: No, no, no. That's what leak enquiries are for. Setting up... They never report. If the culprit is a civil servant, it'd be unfair to publish. Politicians take the rap. If it's a politician, you can't publish or he'll disclose other leaks by his colleagues.
(Yes Minister, The Bed of Nails)

However, there is some good news on the way for historians - in that more of the Wiltshire report will see the light of day. A second redacted version with considerably more material has been promised by the end of September 2010, as well as a version of PDF files that is searchable. As even what is there in the "cut price" version jumps about in a sometimes quite at hazard manner, it will be useful for tying up the various chronologies.

It is questionable, however, why the first severe redaction was released in the first place, when something much more detailed was possible. Senator Le Marquand has stated (this is one version, but they all use much the same words):

It was imperative that I inform States members and the general public of the conclusions of these four reports as soon as possible. What was produced was the best which could be achieved within the short period of time available for the redaction process.

With the greatest of respect to the Senator, this begs the question of why it should be deemed "imperative" to release the information as soon as possible in such an incomplete form. The passive voice conceals the active motive, and is well known as a literary device for ambiguity and hedging. But I can think of two good reasons - even though they are not stated explicitly by the Senator.

The first is that the disciplinary process had collapsed because of a lack of time and given Mr Power's statement on the matter, the release of these parts of the Wiltshire report would effectively put the lid on the matter at least as far as the general public were concerned. This certainly seems to have been the case because apart from some members of the blogging community the matter has sunk without trace.

The public are notoriously fickle with regard to news stories, and journalists based in Jersey and in the UK always chase the latest story. At the present, the focus is very much on the floods in Pakistan in the national media, and Haiti, although still struggling severely with the problems of the earthquake is now no longer newsworthy. The only newsworthy item locally regarding Graham Power is the report from Brian Napier, hugely delayed, and when that is released, we can expect to see the matter appear, albeit briefly, in the public media. Being a professional cynic in these matters, I cannot help feeling that the Napier report will play like a provincial version of the Hutton report and leave the critics dissatisfied.

The second is that the appointment of David Warcup had been shifting further and further into the future, partly because it was clear that a letter from Mr Warcup was instrumental in initiating the process which led to Mr Power being suspended. It was therefore necessary to show States members the outcome of the Wiltshire report as a means of showing that Mr Warcup's actions had been justified. Indeed Senator Le Marquand had stated that he wanted to place as much information as possible before the States prior to that debate.

With the lack of information, a question mark hung over Mr Warcup, and the appointment debate had now shifted to September and the new session of the States. It was therefore critical to release the information before the summer recess, however rushed and redacted that version might have been, because it meant that States members would be ready for the debate in September. This second reason for the release of Wiltshire being " imperative" collapsed of course when Mr Warcup decided to hand in his own resignation for the end of the year. But at the time of release, Senator Le Marquand, not being clairvoyant, had no idea this was going to happen, and it would have been eminently rational to release as much of the report as he could even if it had been severely butchered; otherwise, he would have faced a difficult debate in September.

What is certainly the case is that Senator Le Marquand wishes to move on to the appointment of a new Chief of Police and leave behind what he regards as a matter which has now become a waste of time, regarding its consumption of States time and resources well beyond its significance.

Whether he will be successful in that respect is another matter. In England, yet another enquiry into Iraq war is taking place as well as further controversy over the death of Dr David Kelly. Some matters do not go away, but in the small backwater of Jersey where limited points of view received Islandwide coverage there is a strong likelihood that the whole question of the suspension will fade away.

The only way in which it would probably receive greater publicity would be any actions taken by Graham Power or Lenny Harper, either by legal challenge or by writing their own version of the events in which they played a part. It is also very likely that if the matter was featured in any memoir by Dr Brain, it would certainly be most critical of the handling of the suspension process, as indeed Dr Brain was at the time, I think justifiably.

But none of that is on the agenda at the moment, so I suspect that the JEP / Wiltshire version of history will remain, for the time being, the one most commonly perceived by the general public as "the truth". That's not to say that it may not contain elements that are true, but a proper history would also try to assess how much weight to give different sources, and why, and state where ambiguity still remains.

The deepest, the only theme of human history, compared to which all others are of subordinate importance, is the conflict of skepticism with faith. (Goethe)

The Truth, not the Whole Truth, and nothing but the Redacted Truth

It is easy to see that the state must be a constant danger, or (as I have ventured to call it) an evil, though a necessary one. For if the state is to fulfil its function, it must have more power at any rate than any single private citizen or public corporation; and although we might design institutions to minimize the danger that these powers will be misused, we can never eliminate the danger completely. On the contrary, it seems that most men will always have to pay for the protection of the state, not only in the form of taxes but even in the form of humiliation suffered, for example, at the hands of bullying officials. (Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations)

I was reading these lines in Popper, just before I read Deputy Carolyn Labey's account of the police raid on the home she shared with Stuart Syvret, and considering the price she had to pay, which is really too high for a civilised society.

As she has posted her account as a comment on Syvret's blog, and hence in the public domain, there are no Data Protection issues, so I quote it in full. She was on holiday at the time when Senator Syvret was arrested - when he was outside the house they shared - in a dawn raid by police, during which time they entered - without a search warrant - and ransacked the house for materials relating to a breach of Data Protection by him. This is her account of what happened:

It is one year ago to the day since my home was raided. News eventually got to me, that my mother was in a terrible state shock. She being the only family member left on the premises as 10 police officers stormed my home. They had stopped her going in certain rooms, as she questioned what they were doing in my children's bedrooms. They were looking for a file.

Yet they started the search - without a search warrant and without a third party present - in my childrens bedrooms. Then the bathrooms, they moved creams, shampoos, went through all my bedroom drawers, downstairs; through books, family photographs, the kitchen, the rubbish bag, tipped up the sofas and then bagged up and took away my personal computer. (To date they haven't even told me my pc was taken off the premises, and to date, I have not switched it on for fear of what might have been done with it).

I remind readers, they were looking for a file. Four hours later, after being found having their lunch inside one of the old sheds, they moved to another building where the office is located. And obviously where they knew all along, the office was located. Taking photographs as they went of my son's moped number plate, the outbuilding interior, photo's of personal belongings and private phone numbers on wall sockets, no doubt for future use. In the office they went through my constituency work thus breaching Data Protection Laws.

Let me run that by you again. The States of Jersey Police were ransacking my home and then office because a file that had been exposed had apparently breached the Data Protection Laws. Rather than ask the person they had arrested and taken off the property to locate the file, they chose to breach the Data Protection in trying to locate it themselves. As well as my constituency work, a very fat file box of mine on the subject of 'Re-zoning land' was tipped out and gone through. This particular file of mine contains material surrounding, what most jurisdictions would class as corruption, in the recent re-zoning of land for housing. All of which was reported to Inspector David Minty, who after speaking to one of my witnesses for 10 minutes decided there was not enough evidence. I spoke to the witness for 3 and a half hours. What goes on in our Island, basically prices first time buyer homes at £450,000 each, instead of £300,000. Another witness has since come forward with information about certain politicians and others that would make your hair stand on end. I wasn't even looking for evidence - I just made a speech in the States Assembly.

Inspector Minty, was coincidentally in charge of the raid on my home. Two days later Inspector Minty was taken off the case and another serving Inspector appointed. On my return from holiday, I made a 60 point complaint to the Police Complaints Authority - who I have not heard a word from, and to the Police. The Acting Chief of Police - who was ultimately in charge of the raid, drew up the Terms of Reference for Warwickshire Police to investigate. Needless to say the terms were extremely narrow. The Report was concluded on 30th September, 2009, and to date I have been refused a copy. I was kindly given a redacted version - redacted by the States of Jersey Police lawyer's, which needless to say, is not worth the paper it is written on.

I don't think there has been a day in the past year, where I am not repulsed and angered by what they did to me, my family and my family home. I am still pursuing getting my hands on a copy of the full report about my complaint. I am pursuing the Data Protection issues against me and my constituents and I am pursuing the alleged corruption complaints, albeit without the assistance of the Police. In our free civilised society.

Note that - after what amounted to something very much like legalised burglary - she was given a "redacted" version of a report, even after the terms of that report were drawn up by the Acting Chief of Police - which is surely a conflict of interest, if ever there was one.

Redaction is the new game. We have seen this with the UK members of Parliament and their expenses claims, which eventually saw publication, in a form so severely edited that it was laughable. It made matters even worse, because the Telegraph was cheerfully publishing the non-redacted version, which allowed comparisons to be made, and exposed the slippery nature of the editing process.

Now we have the Wiltshire report on the way, and it is not clear if that too will suffer redaction. Why is it so important that it is released in as complete a form as possible? Because if only a few individuals decide, what they decide may well distort matters. C.S. Lewis, writing about historical documents, and why narratives are preserved, considers how different judgements can effect what is preserved, and visible, and what has been lost. But his remarks apply equally to modern day, because several people editing a report have a considerably narrower viewpoint that many; they certainly do not have - however honest they may be - a God-given objective viewpoint of what is important:

Their standards do not agree with one another nor with ours. They often tell us what we do not greatly want to know and omit what we think essential. It is often easy to see why. Their standard of importance can be explained by their historical situation. So, no doubt, can ours. Standards of historical importance are themselves embedded in history. But then, by what standard can we judge whether the 'important' in some high-flying Hegelian sense has survived?

Lewis himself supplies a good example of this, in which removal of key passages can seriously distort the meaning:

Let us assume a mutilated MS, in which only a minority of passages are legible. The parts we can still read might be tolerable evidence for those features which are likely to be constant and evenly distributed over the whole; for example, spelling or handwriting...But there is nothing in the world to prevent the legible line (at the bottom of a page)

Frimian was the noblest of the brothers ten

being followed by this missing one:

As men believed; so false are the beliefs of men

Now I'm not saying that such gross distortion would take place with editing the Wiltshire report for publication. But there are all kinds of subtle factors which may come into play.

A qualification may not be thought necessary about a witness statement, and its removal may mean the statement has an authority beyond its scope. The sources for some "facts" may be omitted, and yet unless we can examine what those sources are, we have only to take on trust that they are reliable, which they may not be. Expert testimony may be thought weak, and omitted, but that is a judgement by the editor, not necessarily shared by everyone. Some of the report may be considered prejudicial to officials, but its omission may give a completely different perspective of the political ferment of the time. What might be considered potentially libellous may rest on the decision of a few individuals, who may have let their own prejudices effect their judgement, however much they told themselves consciously that it would not.

So even the fairest and most honest redaction of Wiltshire will be prone to all kinds of problems. And that is the best case scenario, which does not allow conspiracy or cover-up, to enter the equation.

There may be an added factor of avoiding exposure of officials behaviour where they have made mistakes or have dealt with Graham Power in an underhand manner. For this, I leave the reader with the following extract from "The Skeleton in the Cupboard", an episode of "Yes Minister", which shows how easy it is to fabricate excuses to "lose" information. For correspondence lost in the floods, you might substitute "hand written minutes shredded by accident" for the local situation!

Sir Humphrey: "This file contains the complete set of papers, except for a number of secret documents, a few others which are part of still-active files, some correspondence lost in the floods of 1967..."
Hacker: Was 1967 a particularly bad winter?
Sir Humphrey:  No, a marvellous winter. We lost no end of embarrassing files.
Sir Humphrey: "...records lost in the move to London, or when the War Office joined the Ministry of Defence, and the withdrawal of papers that could give grounds for an action for libel or breach of confidence or cause
embarrassment to friendly governments."
Hacker: Well, that's pretty comprehensive. How many does that normally leave for them to look at? How many does it actually leave? About a hundred? Fifty? Ten? Five? Four? Three? Two? One? Zero?
Sir Humphrey: Yes, Minister.

Unlike "Yes Minister", there will be documents to hand at some point, but look at the excuses, especially "give grounds for an action for libel or breach of confidence" and "except for a number of secret documents, a few others which are part of still-active files". I venture to suggest that any edited Wiltshire will probably, if required, justify itself on those grounds.

Inconsistency and Ian Le Marquand

Put at its simplest, the issues boil down to this. Was the historical abuse inquiry mismanaged, with resulting unnecessary adverse international publicity for Jersey and its people, difficulties in the conduct of resulting prosecutions and wasted expenditure? (Senator Ian Le Marquand)

Senator Ian Le Marquand has said - according to the Jersey Evening Post headline - that if the States do not vote in favour of David Warcup as next chief of police, he will resign. I think he is being inconsistent with his own framing of the arguments over Graham Power's continued suspension, and I am not convinced that a delay would harm Mr Warcup.

On the contrary, should he be vindicated as a "whistleblower" over mismanagement by Graham Power, then he will be able to take up the position with no political baggage.

Let me explain where Ian le Marquand's thinking goes with relation to the suspension of Graham Power. In the 2nd Suspension Review meeting with Dr Brain, Senator Le Marquand makes it clear that the suspension is based on concerns raised by Mr Warcup:

Senator B.I Le Marquand: What I am suggesting, as a way forward, just to clarify that, is that I simply go upon the basis of the earlier paragraphs of the letter which are those in which Mr. Warcup expressed a view. You see what effectively happens is Mr. Warcup expresses concerns and then he calls in aid the Metropolitan Review Interim Report as support for his already expressed concerns. That is my understanding of the situation.

Now following these concerns, the Wilshire police were asked to undertake a detailed investigation to see if the concerns raised by Mr Warcup were substantial. We still do not know how this inquiry is being framed. Dr Brain noted that this information was simply not forthcoming:

Dr Brain: I have some observations to make about the nature of the Wiltshire Inquiry. I wrote to Mr. Moore on 20th February and I asked him on that occasion that I wished to understand from him what the nature of his investigation was and my critical sentence is: "Is it a management inquiry, a full discipline investigation, or a preliminary investigation?" After 3 months I did not think that was a staggeringly difficult question to ask or required much in the way of deliberation before I received an answer. The answer I got was: "I acknowledge receipt of it [that is my letter] and will respond substantively as soon as I have clarified one or 2 points of detail."

Given this, it is clear that Ian Le Marquand takes the view that the Wiltshire inquiry has to be seen as forming grounds for "a full discipline investigation". This seems to me to be reasonable. Given a number of scenarios, the "worst case scenario" has to be addressed as one possible outcome, and to act as if it was not likely is simply not prudent. I have no problems with this action.

Following this assumption by Ian Le Marquand, and trying to follow his thinking, when it comes to the grounds for maintaining Mr Power's suspension - given the potential seriousness of the Wiltshire inquiry outcome - it seems to me that Ian Le Marquand produces at least two very solid arguments for continuing the suspension.

1) The Worst Case Scenario and Graham Power

The issue as to whether the Wiltshire investigation can properly continue while Mr. Power remains in post. I cannot see how the Wiltshire investigation, which involves the evidence of other police officers, all of whom are alleged to be very much junior to Mr. Power, can properly continue ... and which will also involve the use of police systems. I cannot see how this can properly continue while Mr. Power remains in post. He is the Chief Officer of Police and not some junior who can be moved across to some other section.

The other one relates to public confidence, and it has to be remembered that when he refers to the "November 2008 information", he must be considering the press conference by Mr Gradwell and Mr Warcup, and the letter expressing serious concerns by Mr Warcup:

2) The Matter of Public Confidence and Graham Power

Public confidence. This is a major issue here. The November 2008 information led to great public concern about the management of the Haut de la Garenne investigation and, consequently, to great public concern in relation to the senior leadership of the States of Jersey Police, including that provided by Mr. Power.

So let's look at these arguments in relation to the appointment of David Warcup. And let's me clear. I am taking them as good arguments for continuing the suspension of Graham Power, even if some people may dispute them.

3) The Worst Case Scenario and David Warcup

Let's look at the worst case scenario argument. If it turned out that David Warcup's concerns were essentially not substantiated, or even worse that Graham Power raised some kind of action against the outcome of the inquiry in the United Kingdom, and David Warcup's part in the suspension proceedings, then where would that leave public confidence in David Warcup? If Mr Warcup's position should prove untenable, or there was some claim against him for damaged reputation, would it not be better that he had not been appointed?

The "worst case scenario", to be consistent, must apply to both Graham Power and David Warcup. This might not be the outcome, and Senator Le Marquand may have more information to suggest that it is not ( as yet unreleased to the public domain), but until the suspension inquiry (and not just the Wiltshire inquiry) is concluded, he simply has to assume on the grounds of prudence that it might apply - by his own arguments.

And reading between the lines, I am not sure that some kind of action in the U.K. may well ensure:

Dr. T. Brain: Minister, I am sorry, you made several assumptions about the way the law is applied in the U.K. It is not for me to determine whether those were correct. They will be determined elsewhere now

4) The Matter of Public Confidence and David Warcup

Rephrasing Senator Le Marquand's question, I would ask:

Was the November 2008 information mismanaged, with resulting unnecessary adverse international publicity for Mr Power, difficulties in the conduct of resulting suspension reviews and wasted expenditure?

In other words, the argument for public confidence goes both ways. If the public are to have confidence in David Warcup, the suspension hearing must be concluded, with a visible public outcome. Who was responsible for the extraordinary public 2008 press conference in which "facts" were cited contrary to established sources? If it should turn out that it was promoting more a potent myth about events rather than accurate factual information, who was responsible - David Warcup or Mick Gradwell?

Conclusion

So here are the inconsistencies. The "public confidence" argument has to apply both ways. If it is sufficient as a ground for continuing the suspension of Graham Power until the inquiry is resolved, then it is also sufficient as a ground for maintaining David Warcup as Acting Chief of Police until the inquiry is resolved. Likewise, the "worst case scenario" has to look at the possibility of David Warcup's concerns (or allegations) being unsubstantiated. That is not to say that David Warcup's concerns may not be vindicated, but simply to say that until they are, he should remain as Acting Chief, which is very much more a neutral act than a suspension.

Having waited so long, and Ian Le Marquand on BBC Radio Jersey was now looking at another 8-9 months for the outcome to be finalised, what grounds are there for rushing through the appointment of Mr Warcup? It is not a matter of a lack of confidence or trust in Ian le Marquand, but on the contrary, applying his very own arguments for being prudential to the situation until it is resolved.

To say that he will make this a resigning issue, is in my opinion, rather childish. I have a good deal of respect for Ian Le Marquand, but a delay does not mean a lack of confidence in his ministry, and to use resignation as a tool of persuasion rather than solid argument is really a kind of political blackmail. It is reminiscent of the Barclay brothers closing all their businesses in Sark just because they didn't get their own way in the elections. It is not a good way to conduct politics.

I hope that he will have the courage to say that he was mistaken in making that declaration, and instead brings a vote of confidence in continuing to have David Warcup as Acting Chief Officer until such time as these matters are resolved. That certainly would be a fair issue for resigning on.

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.". Nevertheless, pace Emerson, I would like to see a little consistency in Jersey politicians.

Postscript: since writing that posting, I have since discovered from Ian Le Marquand that ther Jersey Evening Post have produced a misleading account of his position, and that he will in fact be looking at a delay - see

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2010/04/ian-le-marquand-exclusive-on-wiltshire.html

which just goes to show how wonderful our "accredited media" can be in reporting!

Links
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/03/suspension-review-meeting-of-cpo-graham_13.html

Legal Costs and Graham Power

Senator Ian Le Marquand (as reported in the JEP) suggests that Graham Power could afford to be professionally represented by a Jersey Advocate, mainly on the grounds that Mr Power is suspended on full pay.

When the case of the Pinel family has run up legal costs of around £300,000, it is clear that this is not as straightforward as it sounds. Senator Le Marquand believes that libellous statements have been made on blogs, begging the question why those allegedly libelled do not sue for damages, but the reason is most probably the same - the costs can be prohibitively expensive, and if those making allegations have no assets, there is not much compensation available.

It is noteworthy that former Senator Frank Walker, a man of substantial means, did see fit to take recourse to this kind of action against accusations by two States members that he was a wife-beater, but that Constable Dan Murphy who also says that comments against him on Stuart Syvret's blog are malicious has not. Senator Le Marquand has called into question not free speech, which is a a vital constitutional freedom but the fact that there is not any real redress for libellous information on blogs. It is just too costly in Jersey. There is an assumption that because nobody sues anyone, the information is therefore true, an assumption often fuelled by some bloggers themselves in their comments.

The same factor, I believe, applies in the case of Graham Power, where despite his Chief Officer's pay, the cost of employing a lawyer is simply too costly. Even if you win, it can bankrupt you.

One of the lessons to be learned from Islam is the popularity of Sharia law, which in countries like Nigeria provide a cheap and fair form of justice for ordinary Muslims, for whom the cost of litigation is beyond their wildest dreams. I'm not saying that we should adopt Sharia Law - in my opinion, any inflexible and theocratic legislature is dangerous - but it does address the matter of providing a justice system that is available to everyone regardless of cost.

This is a weakness in Jersey and British Law that makes it open to exploitation by those calling for the introduction of Sharia Law, and while people who have sufficient funds should be able to pay their way, I think there should be limitations imposed (perhaps by means testing) on the level of expenditure that should be incurred before the State steps in.

Jersey has a legal aid system, but it is very poor; it helps the poorest, but it does not help everyone else from being penalised with the cost of litigation. I am sure that Graham Power considered the cost of using a lawyer, and weighed that against the cost to his family, and his near retirement. The State, on the other hand, in such cases, can call upon all the weight of its own legal staff, and expert advice if required. It is not exactly a balanced and fair system.

Point and Counterpoint

Ian Le Marquand on Talkback noting:

1) Some recommendations given verbally were left out of the ACPO report

Apparently some verbal recommendations mentioned to Graham Power and Lenny Harper were, on Mr Power's insistence, excluded from one of the reports. We will have to wait for Tuesday, and the States sitting for more details, as Senator Le Marquand was not prepared to go further before making a statement to the house, although given his past form, I'm not sure how much will be forthcoming.

However, some speculation might be made about this. The recommendations cannot be such that they would negate the commendations of ACPO on the way the procedures and investigations were continuing. Therefore, they must be other recommendations covering ground not mentioned. There is some scope for this - for example, it may have been recommended to use "on the ground" resources such as a local force in Australia rather than sending officers there, and whether it was the wisest course of action - despite Frank Walker's "money no object" message, and perhaps political pressure to spend money. Or there may have been a public "money no object" and a private message to cut back on costs. Or it may have been Lenny Harper's decision to proceed with the Wateridge arrest and charge, despite the Attorney-General's advice to drop the matter. We simply cannot know at this stage, but there are certainly possibilities, and perhaps Lenny Harper himself, as he can speak out, can enlighten us if Ian Le Marquand will not. I will happily post any comments by him on this blog.

At the moment, until we are enlightened, it is unclear whether what is missing is significant (as in Archimedes method) or in fact only supposal (the missing proof of Fermat's Last Theorem).

Since writing the above, Lenny Harper has very kindly replied on Stuart's blog as follows:

As for the alleged recommendations which were supposedly left out of the report - this is just invented nonsense. There were none. There were recommendations which we decided not no implement, such as the Janet and John points systm for different crims, but they all appeared in the report anyway. There was no recommendation about using local officers in Australia -if there had been I would have rejected it. How could officers who know nothing about this case have interviewed traumatised victims? I still have e mails from the victims in Australia saying how much the caring and sensitive approach of our officer meant. No, ACPO would never have recommended that. Bear in mind also, if my memory serves me correctly, even the AG wanted officers sent out to Australia again to carry out further enquiries. Furthermore, ACPO made it cear they supported our use of resources. If you look at their reports you will see they frequently speak of the need for further resources. And finally, if there were some recommendations that they felt we had unjustly ignored, would they not have told Walker, Lewis and Ogley in their private meetings which neither Graham or I attended and which according to ACPO they have a written record of?

2) There is a "scandal"

This seems to be over one member of the team, clearly not Lenny Harper, who perhaps had leaked information or who had some question mark either over their abilities or on other grounds - they had perhaps connections with victims or accused that did not immediately come to light. Or it might relate to "Operation Blast". I thought I detected a certain relish in Senator Le Marquand's as he enunciated the word "scandal"; I have no doubt this is the kind of Tabloid headline that the Jersey Evening Post will relish. My prediction: the JEP will headline the word sometime over the week! I am not sure the word "scandal" is a very wise one to use in these circumstances, especially given Ian Le Marquand's comments on a "runaway media circus".

While on this subject, remarks that he made on 40 teeth falling through cracks in the floorboards do not seem measured or balanced, and belong to the realm of folklore - for example, eastern traditions required the child to throw the tooth into the air or under floor boards, the belief being this would keep the teeth from growing in crooked. There is not the slightest evidence of this being true at Haut de La Garenne, but it has been suggested that if teeth had somehow fallen beneath the floorboards, other small objects would also be expected to be found there. None have been reported as yet.

3) The suspension process

Ian La Marquand has no doubt the suspension process was carried out badly and rushed, without proper time taken. His own review, according to Dr Brain, left a lot to be desired. For example, at the start of the review, he stated:

Senator B.I Le Marquand:
What I am suggesting, as a way forward, just to clarify that, is that I simply go upon the basis of the earlier paragraphs of the letter which are those in which Mr. Warcup expressed a view. You see what effectively happens is Mr. Warcup expresses concerns and then he calls in aid the Metropolitan Review Interim Report as support for his already expressed concerns. That is my understanding of the situation.

Dr Brain then addressed the Warcup letter, only to find that the basis for the review of the suspension was then made on quite different grounds!! Politely, but with some degree of exasperation, he noted in conclusion:

What I would say is that I have had some difficulty, both on the previous occasion we convened and on this occasion, in discovering exactly what has been expected of me. I have been required to state criteria against what I think you should conduct a review on. I really do not think that is my job. I have done it because I have respected your role and the process that I am part of. I think it would have been much more helpful had I been given notice of that before I attended this morning. I am sure that is a matter to which Mr. Power will refer to in future judicial circumstances.

Again, it perhaps would have been helpful before we started this process to discover that was the essence of the test that you would have applied and indeed I would have endeavoured to construct my arguments around it. As it was, I was supplied with a limited amount of technical information that seemed to form the basis of the decision of 12th November upon which the previous Minister made his decision. It, therefore, struck me as entirely reasonable to construct a case around addressing those issues. To frankly discover that perhaps I should have been addressing something else is unhelpful at this stage and I must register my concern at that process.

This does not read to me like a well-conducted review, although I will give Ian Le Marquand the benefit being new to the post, and very much trying to conduct the review from scratch, without really having any experience of reviews like this. I think he should have called for someone with more experience of the review process to chair the review, and hope lessons may be learnt.

I would also point out (as it has been brought to my attention) that Dr Brain is acting on behalf of Graham Power, and is not, insofar as that is the case, completely independent. He has to accept Mr Power's statements at face value where those are not corroborated by other reports, and where there are differences in recall between Mr Power and others, he is likely to privilege the accuracy of Mr Power's point of view. Nevertheless, as he is also a historian as well as a policeman, I would suggest that his handling of sources will, for the most part, be impartial rather than partisan, and where there are ambiguities or matters of opinion, it will be seen that he does state these as a good historian should be expected to do.

5) An apology should be forthcoming

Senator Le Marquand must be praised for suggesting that an official apology should be forthcoming - after all, the States are responsible for failings at Haut de la Garenne and elsewhere. He suggests this should happen after the all the court cases are complete, which seems eminently sensible.

In this, he is being consistent with his own arguments. If he sees States members offices (such as Home Affairs Minister) as each being a "corporation sole", then the holder of the office has to take responsibility for the decisions of the office. There are numerous precedents for official apologies. He is the first States member in the Council of Ministers to mention an apology, and I think he deserves to be commended for this. I am also pleased that this was highlighted on BBC Radio Jersey this morning.

It is a shame the former Bailiff could not be so magnanimous in spirit in the infamous Liberation day speech when he derided the notion of apology.

6) The Official Version

There is clearly an "official" view taking shape in Ian Le Marquand's mind about what happened. This involves (1) a runaway media circus which was badly handled, and (2) the cases which did go to court were "rescued" by the concerted efforts of David Warcup and Mick Gradwell.

Dr Brain, it is clear, approaching this as an outsider, and perhaps better placed to be more objective, took a different view. He saw no evidence of "combative media statements" in Lenny Harper's media presentation, and noted that:

Although a media strategy was developed, it is clear that its application led to an unprecedented level of media interest and public concern. Having dealt with the Gloucester floods of July and August 2007, Minister, I can assure you that Chief Officers of Police are not in control of unprecedented levels of media interest or public concern. So, it is not really clear how this amounts to criticism of the Chief Officer. It certainly was his job to ensure that there was a media strategy in place and this he did. He can in no way be held responsible for the media circus that followed.

On the Wiltshire report, Ian Le Marquand says they have expressed "a view", which is perhaps cautious.

Even in recent history, it can be very difficult to reconstruct "what really happened". The story in the book Wittgenstein's Poker shows how the ten minute argument between Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper at Cambridge in 1946 had lots of witnesses. Yet, even after the authors had checked with living witnesses, and gone over differing accounts, it was still not possible to agree exactly what happened or was said in those ten minutes. There is agreement on some basic elements, but disagreement on others.

The danger is in prematurely taking sides, and assuming the priority of one report over others just because it is the latest. In fact, in historical research, regarding oral traditions, later reports are generally not seen as reliable as earlier ones in the matter of oral testimony, as the memory of events becomes distorted over time. There certainly seems to have been quite a lot of oral testimony emerging that somehow hasn't made its way into written records, and it would be a mistake to assume that because it finds its way into more recent reports that it is thereby more accurate. What we really need are more file notes like those made just after events, like those of Graham Power made just after a meeting with Bill Ogley.

"Note book entry made of 25th July, 2007. 16.00. I am at HQ having just returned from a meeting of the CMB (Corporate Management Board.) During the meeting BO (Bill Ogley) said that he would wish some of us to remain afterwards to discuss the comments of the Health Minister Senator Syvret in relation to child protection issues.... I was handed a copy of a report to Ministers and associated papers, which I have stamped and initialled. The discussion was led by BO who disclosed that the C.P.C would, this afternoon be discussing a vote of no confidence in the Minister. MP and TMcK did not seem surprised at this. MP seemed to be fully signed up to this course of action. Attempts were made by BO to draw me into this. I was told that my people were "part of" the island's arrangements and I should show collective support by opposing the criticism made by the Minister. I was taken aback by this but responded in two ways. Firstly I said leaving aside issues of style and manner the questions raised by the Minister were valid. Particularly in respect of the time it had taken for the abuse of a [child] in [a] case to come to the notice of the police and the apparent failure of child protection to give it priority. I said that the SCR (Serious Case Review) was a poor effort which missed the hard questions and I was not surprised that the Minister was not impressed. I conceded that all of the questions might have answers, I just thought they were good questions and ones which a Minister could validly ask... BO and the others were persistent and I was left with the clear impression that they were attempting to draw me, in my capacity as Chief of Police, into a civil service led attempt to remove a Minister from Office. Having concluded this I then moved on to my second point which was that even if I agreed with everything they said I would still have nothing to do with it. They were engaging in what I saw as political activity and it was entirely inappropriate that I should be involved one way or the other. The fact that "I will have nothing to do with this" was made clearly. At this point BO said "in that case, goodbye", or something very similar. I picked up my papers. There was no bad feeling or bad words, we just disagreed. As soon as I was outside I rang SDV (Shaun Du Val, Head of Operations) and alerted him to the possible problems at the C.P.C. AF rang me not long afterwards and told me that she had abstained. I told her to put this beyond all doubt by a follow-up e-mail to the Chair. I made this notebook entry then walked over to Ops for it to be timed in the relevant machine."

The Warcup Letter

From my reading of the minutes of the second review meeting (thanks to Voice for Children Blog), the suspension of Graham Power seems to be specifically based on allegations made by David Warcup, who is at present Acting Chief Officer, and who is now Chief Officer designate. Senator Ian Le Marquand makes this plain when he says:

The decision which I am making today is based upon Mr. David Warcup's letter of 10th November 2008, Briefing Notes of 12th November 2008, and the accompanying images and the submissions made to me today by Dr. Timothy Brain on behalf of Mr. Graham Power.

Dr Brain, the recently retired Chief Constable of Gloucester, commented on the significance of this letter:

I think we do have to enter into consideration of some of the facts that might have emerged from the investigation because it seems to me that a great deal of significance was played on the David Warcup letter of 10th November. That certainly does not have the status of a preliminary investigation. It amounts to a list of allegations. Now, it is clear from the David Warcup letter of 10th November that he had spoken to the Chief Executive in September about his concerns. If I understand the situation correctly he had not been in post for many weeks at that point. It seems also from the David Warcup letter that there was a further conversation with the Attorney General, and I quote: "Confidential matters as well as my concerns [that is the concerns of David Warcup] regarding the conduct of the inquiry."

What did the letter allege? And was this well-founded? Dr Brain commented on each of these points in turn, and refuted them - "I will try and simplify some of the issues raised by David Warcup."

These are available on Voice's site, but I've bullet pointed them for greater clarity, and singled them out from the mass of reportage on those minutes. It will be seen that Dr Brain, who has this year retired as Chief Constable of Gloucestershire, has a firmly argued rebuttal of each point made. So why did David Warcup think they were justified? And should the next Chief of Police be someone whose judgement of the situation is seriously called into question by the comments made by Dr Brain? And how could he have the judgement that there had been no "serious corruption and malpractice" in the police before Mr Power's tenure when the facts (and Dr Brain) blatantly contradict that?

I'd also like to briefly summarize Dr Brain's qualifications for speaking on these matters. This is a brief précis of some of his achievements. I don't think, on reading them, that one can take his judgement of these matters lightly; he is a vastly experienced police officer who also has achieved high standards in the world of academia - in short, a very clever man:

Dr Brain has received a number of accolades, including the Queen's Police Medal (QPM) in the 2002 Birthday Honours. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (FRSA) in 2004. He was elected a Companion of the Chartered Management Institute (CCMI) in 2007. And in the Birthday Honours of June 2008, Dr Brain became an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) for his services to the police and community. He also played a major role in shaping police strategy through the 90s and 2000s - a time which saw a watershed in the police service with the introduction of PACE - the police and criminal evidence act - and the creation of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). More recently, Dr Brain received an Honorary Doctorate of Laws at Gloucester Cathedral in recognition of his service in Law Enforcement, and in particular to the county of Gloucestershire.

Here are the allegations made by the Warcup Letter, and Dr Brain's comments. Dr Brain was a leading member of ACPO, so he is speaking from firm knowledge of his case. His comments on "financial mismanagement" are also worth noting, as this was raised as an issue by Ian Le Marquand only this morning.

I would point out that Dr Brain is acting on behalf of Graham Power, and is not, insofar as that is the case, completely independent. He has to accept Mr Power's statements at face value where those are not corroborated by other reports, and where there are differences in recall between Mr Power and others, he is likely to privilege the accuracy of Mr Power's point of view. Nevertheless, as he is also a historian as well as a policeman, I would suggest that his handling of sources will, for the most part, be impartial rather than partisan, and where there are ambiguities or matters of opinion, it will be seen that he does state these as a good historian should be expected to do.

1) Poor Command Structure

The first one was that a Gold - Silver - Bronze command and control structure was not put in place. That is an important point raised by David Warcup. In fact, it is his first point and a cardinal point for much of what follows. I have to tell you that the institution of a Gold - Silver - Bronze command and control structure in the context of murder and major investigations is entirely a matter of judgment. It would not seem to me to be necessary in the circumstances of the Island of Jersey. It certainly does not represent a breach of discipline, or amount to gross misconduct. The inference is that a Gold - Silver - Bronze command and control structure would have been put in place in England and Wales under A.C.P.O. and N.P.I.A. (National Police Improvement Agency) major murder and associated crime investigation guidelines. In fact, the A.C.P.O. murder investigation manual 2006 only requires that a Gold group be created, not a Gold - Silver - Bronze command structure, if an investigation is also declared a critical incident.

What the A.C.P.O. murder investigation manual does require is that a senior investigating officer is appointed and this Graham did; first in the form of a detective inspector, who ran the investigation for the first 18 months and then as the matter gathered seriousness, he properly reflected the seriousness and status of the forthcoming investigation by putting his own deputy in as S.I.O. (Senior Investigating Officer). I think this clearly emphasizes the seriousness with which Graham approached the whole question of the historic child abuse inquiries and the Haut de la Garenne investigations in particular.

Now, National Police Improvement Agency professional practice, and I emphasize professional practice, advice is that for the management of critical incidents the guidelines, the professional practice guidelines, provide assistance for policing, and I emphasize these words "in the United Kingdom." It is contained on the inside page of the practice advice. This practice advice contains information to assist policing in the United Kingdom. So, there is no automatic transference from the practice advice of the N.P.I.A. in the United Kingdom to the States of Jersey. The introduction to that practice advice also states that it should be used by chief officers to shape police officers to ensure that the general public experience consistent levels of service. It goes on: "The implementation of all practice advice will require operational choices to be made at a local level in order to achieve the appropriate police response." It will therefore be noted that the practice advice on critical incident management applies strictly to the U.K.

However, even if it were to apply strictly to the States of Jersey it still requires adjustment and choices to be made at a local level. It does not remove the judgment of a chief officer or any other senior rank involved in the incident. Now, the N.P.I.A. practice advice was created in order to ensure that incidents which might become critical received an appropriately high level of response at their instigation. It can in no way be suggested or inferred that the States of Jersey Police underestimated, or understated, their initial or subsequent response to the emerging historic child abuse inquiry and the specific investigation at Haut de la Garenne.

A critical incident is defined by A.C.P.O. as, and I quote: "Any incident where the effectiveness of the police response is likely to have a significant impact on the confidence of the victim, their family, and/or the community. It will be noted that the order of priority is the victim, the family, and the community." Both the historic child abuse inquiry and the Haut de la Garenne investigation conspicuously put the needs of the victims and their families first, but they still had regard to the impact on the wider community, given the need to ensure that the chain of alleged abuse was finally halted and that the victims and their families were protected from threat and intimidation. The N.P.I.A. guidance goes on specifically to say that each incident must be assessed on its own merits. Those are the words used: "Each incident must be assessed on its own merits." It adds, and I quote: "There is an obligation on chief officers to ensure that critical incidents are not only declared, when it is necessary and appropriate to do so, but also that the response is proportionate to the scale of the incident." The response is proportionate to the scale of the incident.

Respecting the command structure, the practice advice simply states that there should be: "Unambiguous command and control." The N.P.I.A. advice does indeed allow for a tiered response at 3 levels; local, cross-border, and force. Crucially these are only suggested. That is the word used "suggested." So, the tiered response is not a mandate, even within a manual
that amounts only to practice advice and in which flexibility of decision-making is not merely permitted but encouraged and which explicitly applies only to the United Kingdom.

The practice advice furthermore relates to the structures and circumstances of forces in England and Wales and would be manifestly inappropriate in circumstances which are as compact as those on the Island of Jersey. It should be noted that in the last H.M.I.C (Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary Inspection) for the Island the matter of the arrangements for major investigations or critical incidents was not raised. Explicitly, it did not recommend the adoption or even the adaptation of any A.C.P.O. N.P.I.A. guidance or practice advice on major investigations or critical incident management.

Therefore, the institution of Gold - Silver - Bronze and the command structure, in the circumstances of the historic child abuse inquiry and the Haut de la Garenne investigation is at most a matter of professional judgment, even argument, and certainly not a matter per se of gross misconduct which merits the imposition of an initial suspension or its continuance now.

2) Key Partners not included

The second issue raised in the David Warcup letter is that key partners were not included at a strategic or operational level. There were sound operational reasons for not including key partners in the investigation, as suspicion had fallen on a number of senior individuals in both the departments of education and social services. The involvement of the N.S.P.C.C. (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) which Graham instigated, was a perfectly valid alternative.

3) Independent Advisory Group

The use of an independent advisory group was not effectively managed. It is a matter of record that the Attorney General viewed the involvement of an independent advisory group as dialogue with potential jurors and that he wanted the group disbanded on the basis that it was a U.K. structure with no proper place in a small jurisdiction and that its activities could be seen as prejudicial to a fair trial. I in no way invite a critique of the Attorney General's decision, but I do ask you to observe that it can hardly be levelled as a reason for suspending or investigating Graham.

(4) Bad Media Strategy

Although a media strategy was developed, it is clear that its application led to an unprecedented level of media interest and public concern. Having dealt with the Gloucester floods of July and August 2007, Minister, I can assure you that Chief Officers of Police are not in control of unprecedented levels of media interest or public concern. So, it is not really clear how this amounts to criticism of the Chief Officer. It certainly was his job to ensure that there was a media strategy in place and this he did. He can in no way be held responsible for the media circus that followed.

(5) Improper disclosures to media and breaches of Data Protection

That there had been improper disclosures to the media and breaches of data protection. There is no suggestion that any of this is attributable to the Chief Officer, even if they have occurred, and it is the position of Graham that he knows nothing of any improper disclosures. He certainly did not sanction any.

(6) No Attempt to Correct Inaccurate Reporting

Where inaccurate and misleading reporting did occur there was no evidence of any attempt to issue corrections. That is not the case and examples of correction can be given, although I would suggest that that is probably more appropriate for the investigation and any possible tribunal.

(7) The adversarial and combative stance of Lenny Harper

The adversarial and combative stance adopted by the S.I.O. was allowed to continue unchecked. This is entirely a matter of opinion and it certainly is not a disciplinary matter for the Chief Officer. It certainly does not merit something that would amount to suspension, but in that context I would invite you to consider some of the statements that were made by Mr. Harper on 31st July in this statement that was recorded by the BBC then.

He said: "For the moment it is unlikely that a murder inquiry will be opened. It has so far been impossible to date the remains precisely. We are pinning our hopes very much on the process of carbon dating. The latest information we are getting is that for the period we are looking at it is not going to be possible to give us an exact time of death. The small number of bones that we have carbon dated up to now have given us different readings. On one bone we were told there was a probability that they died in 1650, but also a smaller probability that they had died in 1960. So, while that possibility does exist then you have to ask your question ." I could go on. This hardly sounds to me like a combative media statement.

(8) Allegations of corruption within the States of Jersey Police

Allegations in the media of corruption within the States of Jersey Police by the former S.I.O. have not been evidenced. The Chief Officer will plainly state that there is an abundance of evidence of serious corruption and malpractice in previous years. The reports of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary prior to his appointment described a failing force with significant problems of standards and performance. There is now a well-documented record of robust actions taken by the Chief Officer since his appointment to address and turn around this culture.

(9) Financial mismanagement

An absence of financial controls. This simply is not the case. The Chief Officer will assert that he was not the accounting officer in the States of Jersey Police. This is a matter of legal status, and that he did formally table financial issues to the appropriate accounting officers at fortnightly meetings.

(10) No grounds for a search at Haut de La Garenne

Media reports have suggested that children have been murdered and buried at Haut de la Garenne. An assessment of the evidence casts significant doubt on this hypothesis. The evidence on which the searches were commenced was not strong and does not appear that there were grounds to commence a search of the home at Haut de la Garenne. I will refer you once again to that media statement of 31st July. But it is simply inconceivable that once information was received that a thorough search and excavation of the home at Haut de la Garenne was not carried out. To do otherwise would have risked justifiable accusations of a cover-up.

(11) Misidentification of Artifacts

I paraphrase here. The skull that was supposed to be found was not a skull. The shackles were not shackles and the cellars were in fact voids under the floor. Some facts. It was a scientist that originally investigated the trench and it was that scientist who identified an item of remains as a skull.

Initially, the Oxford laboratory that inspected that remain stated that it had extracted collagen which can only come from bone. Only later did they express doubts. The Chief Officer can in no way be held responsible for this chain of events and the eventual outcome.

As regards shackles, it was builders interviewed by the media who stated there were shackles.

As for the teeth that were found, a local orthodontist specified that the teeth were from children and that they could not have come from children that were alive. It was only later that U.K. experts offered an opposing view and indeed that opinion remains divided.

I will go back to the Lenny Harper statement of 31st July. This is the BBC here: "Police have been investigating allegations of abuse at the home from the late 1940s onwards. Many witnesses have given evidence of sexual and physical abuse in the 1960s and 1970s but Haut de la Garenne was built as an industrial school in the late 19th century and Lenny Harper said it was possible the remains could date from that time, though the police have other evidence indicating that the remains were burned and efforts made to conceal them in the late 1960s or early 1970s." This is a quote from Lenny: "So, while that possibility does exist then you have to ask, why should people go to all the trouble of moving the bones, of burning them at some stage, and of hiding them in a different place and then covering them up? We do not have answers to that and that is part of the problem" he said.

(12) Lenny Harper was not effectively supervised

S.I.O. Harper was not effectively supervised. This is simply wrong. There is no issue that S.I.O. Harper was properly supervised by Graham Power and that he did so to the best of his ability, under the guidance of an A.C.P.O. advisory group which formed the function of a Gold support group in a critical incident in the United Kingdom. His evidence of supervision is
recorded in notebooks, to which regrettably he does not now have access.

Conclusion:

Now, much has been made of the review of the 2 Metropolitan officers and that was the report, Minister, which you kindly offered to make available in a redacted form but for reasons that we have discussed is not now available to us. What I will say in respect of that though is that unless there are specific allegations of misconduct, indeed gross misconduct, contained in
that report there is no reason why Graham should not have been shown a copy prior to his suspension on 12th November.

Furthermore, the Metropolitan Police report is only one point of view. You are fully aware now that there are other reports by a very senior and experienced U.K. investigating officer which offers a different perspective. I repeat that these should have been considered before any action was taken to suspend Graham in November. That that opinion exists should certainly be
taken into account now, for to do otherwise is simply to decide the case without the full consideration of all the evidence that is available to us even now and that cannot be right in terms of Graham's human rights or the principles of natural justice.

Links:
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/03/suspension-review-meeting-of-cpo-graham_13.html
http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/gloucestershireheadlines/Gloucestershire-Chief-Constable-talks-life-policing/article-1628543-detail/article.html
http://www.gloucestershire.police.uk/Latest%20News/Press%20Releases/2008/November/item10063.html