STATES OF JERSEY
CHIEF OFFICER OF THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE: REVIEW OF PROCEDURE REGARDING SUSPENSION
Lodged au Greffe on 18th December 2008
by the Connétable of St. Helier
THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion -
to request the Minister for Home Affairs to commission a compliance check on the procedures followed by his predecessor, the former Minister for Home Affairs, in suspending the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police on 12th November 2008 and to report to the States on the outcome of this compliance check no later than 1st March 2009.
CONNÉTABLE OF ST. HELIER
Given the provisions of Article 9(4) of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974, the debate on this proposition must take place in camera. It follows that the contents of this report have been kept as brief as possible and that there is as little enlargement as possible upon its subject matter in order that the provisions of the relevant law are complied with.
Purpose of the proposition
This proposition seeks a simple check by an appropriately qualified body such as the Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service, or any other independent body with expertise in the interpretation of industrial relations, into the actions taken by the Minister of Home Affairs in suspending the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police on 12th November 2008.
Any employee of the States of Jersey should be able to expect any complaints against them to be dealt with correctly. Therefore, the proposition has more general relevance as a willingness by the States to have their employment procedures checked for compliance should reassure all States of Jersey employees that their employer, the States, will not disregard the principles of good employment relations and of natural justice in their dealings with their employees.
Financial and manpower implications
Should this proposition be approved I would estimate that the work in reviewing the suspension procedure could be undertaken by a local, appropriately qualified and experienced Human Relations practitioner in half a day. The cost of this work would therefore be relatively insignificant.
Statement by the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police
This Statement gives me no pleasure but I wish to inform the Assembly in accordance with my powers under Article 9 of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974, on 12th November 2008 I suspended the Chief Officer of Police from duty pending an inquiry under the Disciplinary Code applicable to the Chief Officer. The terms of that code place on me obligations of confidentiality and there is little that I can say about this matter at this time. I can, however, say that pursuant to that code I have taken steps to put an investigation in hand into matters of concern and that investigation is part of a process that when completed will result in a decision on the part of my successor as to what steps should then be taken. I am sure that Members will entirely understand that it would be most inappropriate to discuss any of the substantive matters that caused me to suspend the Chief Officer and to initiate the procedure under the Disciplinary Code. I cannot comment on them and I would ask the Assembly not to seek to explore them at this time. At some stage at the end of the process, my successor, whoever it will be, will need to make a decision about these substantive matters and he or she should not be influenced in any way by any views expressed by Members of the Assembly. In addition, of course, the Chief Officer cannot comment and has not yet had the full opportunity that the process allows to answer to these matters and to defend himself. Any debate would thus be unfair to him as the full facts are not yet known. I am sure, however, that Members will readily understand that a suspension in these circumstances is a neutral act and implies no finding one way or the other, but is rather an entirely prudent course to preserve the integrity of the investigation. If the Assembly wishes to ask questions I will endeavour to be helpful, but I do not propose to answer any questions that will breach the obligations, confidentiality or that I will disclose the detail of any of the substantive matters under investigation.
Now Members will be aware, I am sure, that the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 requires that any discussion in the States regarding the suspension of the Chief Officer shall take place in camera and I must, therefore, ask the transmitters to close down the transmission and ask those in the public gallery to withdraw so that the period of questioning allowed by Standing Orders may take place.
[Questioning proceeded in camera]
So i thought i would take a quick look at this proposition brought by the Constable of St Helier in January 2009
The reason im doing this is because of my chat with Andrew Lewis last month. What stuck in my mind during that chat, was, Andrew Lewis saying he was trying to protect Graham Power. Now i thought this was strange, but, it makes a little more sense when you read the above statement which he made to the states in November 2008.
I believe the second half of this statement needs to read by every states member, and, more importantly should be stuck on the wall at the bottom of Senator ILM'S bed.
This is where i believe ILM is loosing all track of what is going on
Who would of thought that the former Magistrate after having 15 months to sort this out is going to hold a 'KANGAROO COURT' in the States Chamber.
So let us look at that statement.
1."At some stage at the end of the process, my successor, whoever it will be, will need to make a decision about these substantive matters and he or she should not be influenced in any way by any views expressed by Members of the Assembly"
No chance of that happening with ILM. How can he make a decision when time has run out and not for Graham Power but ILM. Suspension is a neutral act.
2."In addition, of course, the Chief Officer cannot comment and has not yet had the full opportunity that the process allows to answer to these matters and to defend himself."
Now this is a very important, read it again, what a crucial point Andrew Lewis makes. This is why i believe a former Magistrate will be holding a Kangaroo Court on the 19th July.
When has Graham Power had the 'full opportunity that the process allows to defend himself'.
All Graham Power has had is the suspension reviews and the Judicial Review and this is without Wiltshire. ILM has said he is bringing information to the house in July, my guess it will be the 19th, just before summer recess and then ages before he faces any questions.
A former Magistrate is going to tell all states members how guilty Graham Power is without first bringing any disciplinary charges against him, or allowing him to defend himself against these allegations. He will bring in hand picked pieces of information and then the communications unit will work out a front page headline for the JEP. 'Simples'
They have had 18 months to bring charges against Graham Power and the yellow belly cowards have waited until he retires, this in my opinion, its a complete and utter disgrace.
The Attitude of Sen ILM is an utter disgrace. To think a former man of the law is going to condemn the former Chief of Police without first giving him the chance to defend himself against these allegations is Shocking beyond belief
Listen to the audio on 'thejerseyway' blog site. ILM goes on about ground hog day, lol he is learning, he knows it diverts the question.
He then gets asked about the Met complaints investigation and totally ignores it,check the audio.
The other puzzle about the rejection this Proposition is that in June 2010 we are still waiting for Commissioner Brian Napier QC who in February was only meant to take 6 weeks.
For my next blog i will be asking you readers to write the JEP headline for ILM
Because believe me they are working on it all ready
Who could ever forget this headline from Di 'scoop' Simon
By Diane Simon
SUSPENDED police chief Graham Power should be disciplined for failings in his supervision of the investigation at Haut de la Garenne, the Wiltshire Constabulary report has recommended.
But the report has taken so long that it is now unlikely that a full disciplinary hearing will take place. Mr Power is to retire in July.
The Wiltshire Constabulary’s report has not yet been released, but the JEP has discovered that in its present form it criticises Mr Power’s performance in relation to a number of areas of the inquiry.
Criticism is made about the way in which the investigation at the former children’s home was described by the police to the media and the financial management and organisational structure of the investigation.
Article posted on 1st April, 2010 - 3.00pm
Do you see how clever that front page was, and then on the inside bugger all,oh and a question and answer with ILM that was a joke and one he had to backtrack on in the states so funny.
Be prepared its coming
My Headline is this
GRAHAM POWER IS 'GUILTY'