Briefing note 1. July 2010.
This morning Team Voice were contacted by "The friends of Graham Power" and asked to circulate, to all "accredited" media 5 "briefing notes", the first of which is below.
We believed the "accredited" media would be thankful for these notes as it will enable them to be more researched when Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand sets out the "prosecution case" for them against Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. It could help the "accredited" media to do a "proper job" and ask some very searching questions of the Minister, and have the public much better informed. It could also offer Chief Officer Power some kind of defense that has been denied him by Senator Le Marquand.
As far as we are aware, the "accredited" media are happy to recieve such communication. That is all except Carl Walker from Jersey's only "news" paper. He sent a reply to the e-mail which we reproduce below. These "briefing notes" from CPO Power are going to be coming thick and fast. Team Voice, and the "accredited" media are in possession of 5 of these "briefing notes" with more rumoured to be coming later today. We (Team Voice) will do all in our power to share with our readers all the briefing notes, that the "accredited" media also have, in order to gauge the job done by our "accredited" media when questioning/interviewing Senator Le Marquand.
This is what we got back from Carl Walker from the Jersey Evening Post.
"Please could you ask Mr Power to email his responses directly.
Thank you."
Carl Walker News Editor
Briefing note issued by Graham Power QPM in relation to statements which might be made by the Minister for Home Affairs. Senator Ian Le Marquand.
Did Wiltshire recommend disciplinary charges and if so, what did the Minister do about it?
Has he really “run out of time” or did he allow time to run out?
It is understood that Senator Le Marquand will make some form of public statement in relation to the disciplinary investigation and report by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire. I have not been told what he intends to say and consequently it is difficult to prepare any response.
It nevertheless remains my position that the abandonment of disciplinary proceedings after around 21 months means that I am now formally cleared of any misconduct.
Some clues as to the Ministers intentions have emerged during his media interviews. At one stage he was heard to say that the investigation by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire made recommendations for disciplinary charges. In the interests of balance it should be known that the defence position is that we do not share this interpretation of the Wiltshire report.
In order to understand this position it is necessary to go back to the original terms of reference set for the Wiltshire enquiry. The terms of reference ask Wiltshire to report on whether my performance met ACPO/NPIA standards. (These abbreviations refer to The Association of Chief Police Officers for England Wales and Northern Ireland and the National Policing Improvement Agency, which has a remit for most of but not all of the UK. Both agencies provide guidelines to police services within their jurisdiction.) From the very beginning I have challenged the fairness of these terms of reference. Jersey does not fall within the jurisdiction of either agency and there has been repeated political confirmation of the principle that policing guidelines from the UK should not enter Jersey without Ministerial approval. No such approval has been given in respect of these guidelines. In my first application to the Royal Court I drew attention to the longer term implications of disciplinary action based on English policing guidelines. I pointed out that if the Chief Officer in Jersey could in fact be disciplined for failing to conform to English guidelines then those guidelines would thereafter become the “bible” for policing in the island. English guidelines do not of course have any regard to Jersey’s unique system of policing and the potential implications for effective working alongside the honorary police are significant. As with many other aspects of this case the Minister decided to press ahead regardless.
The Wiltshire investigation has, as anticipated from the onset, identified areas where my management was not in accordance with English guidelines. That is not a surprise. Given the terms of reference no other outcome was possible.
At the conclusion of their enquiries Wiltshire took advice from an English Lawyer in relation to potential disciplinary charges. The defence interpretation of this advice is that it relates to the disciplinary issues which might have arisen had I been a Chief Officer in and English Force bound by English guidelines. In that context the advice is useful background information and no more. The Wiltshire report does not appear to make any serious attempt to address the core question of whether I had at any time breached the policing procedures applicable to Jersey.
While the Wiltshire report will win no prizes for clarity it does attempt to summarise this position in paragraph 2.1.8 of the supplementary report provided in February 2010. This paragraph is reproduced below in its entirety:
“As Operation Haven has assessed the performance of CO POWER against the relevant ACPO/NPIA standards applicable in the United Kingdom whilst having regard to the States of Jersey Police context, so we have considered identified failings against the conduct standards applicable in the UK. We have obtained legal advice in this regard, and the specific advice relating to misconduct charges that would be applicable in the UK is contained in this Report. It is quite properly a matter for the competent Authority in Jersey to consider and accept or reject the advice we have received.”
Editors may see the implications of this paragraph as significant. Firstly it appears to support the defence position that the Wiltshire report makes no recommendations in respect of disciplinary action under the laws and procedures applicable to Jersey. Secondly it provides confirmation that the Minister was in possession of the final Wiltshire view in respect of disciplinary charges as early as February of this year, and was aware that Wiltshire were effectively passing the whole issue back to him as the “competent Authority.” He appears to have taken no effective action one way or the other. However, the Ministers knowledge goes back further than that. Editors should be able to verify that the Minister has made repeated public statements to the effect that he was in possession of the draft Wiltshire report as early as November 2009 and that the final version does not differ significantly from the earlier draft. Far from “running out of time” the Minister appears to have had time in abundance to bring forward what he claims are “disciplinary charges” which he has admitted have been in his possession since November 2009. Editors may feel entitled to challenge him on this point. Has he run out of time, or has he allowed time to run out? Thereby preventing the defence from putting forward their case at a hearing.
As we have been denied the opportunity of a hearing it will not now be possible to put the defence case forward and to test it against whatever evidence, if any, the Minister proposed to submit.
It is however very much the view of the defence team that the current actions of the Minister, in which he seeks to put in the public domain allegations which he did not bring to a hearing, is grossly unfair and constitutes a further abuse of Ministerial power.
For the past 21 months I have been opposed by the Minister for Home Affairs who has made full use of his apparently unrestricted access to legal advice, civil service support, investigative resources and public funds. I on the other hand have conducted my defence while working from home, assisted only by family and unpaid volunteers. Editors may consider that in these circumstances I should now be given the benefit of any remaining doubts in respect of my actions.
Further briefing notes may be issued as more information emerges in relation to the Ministers intentions.
Sumitted by Team Voice.
This morning Team Voice were contacted by "The friends of Graham Power" and asked to circulate, to all "accredited" media 5 "briefing notes", the first of which is below.
We believed the "accredited" media would be thankful for these notes as it will enable them to be more researched when Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand sets out the "prosecution case" for them against Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. It could help the "accredited" media to do a "proper job" and ask some very searching questions of the Minister, and have the public much better informed. It could also offer Chief Officer Power some kind of defense that has been denied him by Senator Le Marquand.
As far as we are aware, the "accredited" media are happy to recieve such communication. That is all except Carl Walker from Jersey's only "news" paper. He sent a reply to the e-mail which we reproduce below. These "briefing notes" from CPO Power are going to be coming thick and fast. Team Voice, and the "accredited" media are in possession of 5 of these "briefing notes" with more rumoured to be coming later today. We (Team Voice) will do all in our power to share with our readers all the briefing notes, that the "accredited" media also have, in order to gauge the job done by our "accredited" media when questioning/interviewing Senator Le Marquand.
This is what we got back from Carl Walker from the Jersey Evening Post.
"Please could you ask Mr Power to email his responses directly.
Thank you."
Carl Walker News Editor
Briefing note issued by Graham Power QPM in relation to statements which might be made by the Minister for Home Affairs. Senator Ian Le Marquand.
Did Wiltshire recommend disciplinary charges and if so, what did the Minister do about it?
Has he really “run out of time” or did he allow time to run out?
It is understood that Senator Le Marquand will make some form of public statement in relation to the disciplinary investigation and report by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire. I have not been told what he intends to say and consequently it is difficult to prepare any response.
It nevertheless remains my position that the abandonment of disciplinary proceedings after around 21 months means that I am now formally cleared of any misconduct.
Some clues as to the Ministers intentions have emerged during his media interviews. At one stage he was heard to say that the investigation by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire made recommendations for disciplinary charges. In the interests of balance it should be known that the defence position is that we do not share this interpretation of the Wiltshire report.
In order to understand this position it is necessary to go back to the original terms of reference set for the Wiltshire enquiry. The terms of reference ask Wiltshire to report on whether my performance met ACPO/NPIA standards. (These abbreviations refer to The Association of Chief Police Officers for England Wales and Northern Ireland and the National Policing Improvement Agency, which has a remit for most of but not all of the UK. Both agencies provide guidelines to police services within their jurisdiction.) From the very beginning I have challenged the fairness of these terms of reference. Jersey does not fall within the jurisdiction of either agency and there has been repeated political confirmation of the principle that policing guidelines from the UK should not enter Jersey without Ministerial approval. No such approval has been given in respect of these guidelines. In my first application to the Royal Court I drew attention to the longer term implications of disciplinary action based on English policing guidelines. I pointed out that if the Chief Officer in Jersey could in fact be disciplined for failing to conform to English guidelines then those guidelines would thereafter become the “bible” for policing in the island. English guidelines do not of course have any regard to Jersey’s unique system of policing and the potential implications for effective working alongside the honorary police are significant. As with many other aspects of this case the Minister decided to press ahead regardless.
The Wiltshire investigation has, as anticipated from the onset, identified areas where my management was not in accordance with English guidelines. That is not a surprise. Given the terms of reference no other outcome was possible.
At the conclusion of their enquiries Wiltshire took advice from an English Lawyer in relation to potential disciplinary charges. The defence interpretation of this advice is that it relates to the disciplinary issues which might have arisen had I been a Chief Officer in and English Force bound by English guidelines. In that context the advice is useful background information and no more. The Wiltshire report does not appear to make any serious attempt to address the core question of whether I had at any time breached the policing procedures applicable to Jersey.
While the Wiltshire report will win no prizes for clarity it does attempt to summarise this position in paragraph 2.1.8 of the supplementary report provided in February 2010. This paragraph is reproduced below in its entirety:
“As Operation Haven has assessed the performance of CO POWER against the relevant ACPO/NPIA standards applicable in the United Kingdom whilst having regard to the States of Jersey Police context, so we have considered identified failings against the conduct standards applicable in the UK. We have obtained legal advice in this regard, and the specific advice relating to misconduct charges that would be applicable in the UK is contained in this Report. It is quite properly a matter for the competent Authority in Jersey to consider and accept or reject the advice we have received.”
Editors may see the implications of this paragraph as significant. Firstly it appears to support the defence position that the Wiltshire report makes no recommendations in respect of disciplinary action under the laws and procedures applicable to Jersey. Secondly it provides confirmation that the Minister was in possession of the final Wiltshire view in respect of disciplinary charges as early as February of this year, and was aware that Wiltshire were effectively passing the whole issue back to him as the “competent Authority.” He appears to have taken no effective action one way or the other. However, the Ministers knowledge goes back further than that. Editors should be able to verify that the Minister has made repeated public statements to the effect that he was in possession of the draft Wiltshire report as early as November 2009 and that the final version does not differ significantly from the earlier draft. Far from “running out of time” the Minister appears to have had time in abundance to bring forward what he claims are “disciplinary charges” which he has admitted have been in his possession since November 2009. Editors may feel entitled to challenge him on this point. Has he run out of time, or has he allowed time to run out? Thereby preventing the defence from putting forward their case at a hearing.
As we have been denied the opportunity of a hearing it will not now be possible to put the defence case forward and to test it against whatever evidence, if any, the Minister proposed to submit.
It is however very much the view of the defence team that the current actions of the Minister, in which he seeks to put in the public domain allegations which he did not bring to a hearing, is grossly unfair and constitutes a further abuse of Ministerial power.
For the past 21 months I have been opposed by the Minister for Home Affairs who has made full use of his apparently unrestricted access to legal advice, civil service support, investigative resources and public funds. I on the other hand have conducted my defence while working from home, assisted only by family and unpaid volunteers. Editors may consider that in these circumstances I should now be given the benefit of any remaining doubts in respect of my actions.
Further briefing notes may be issued as more information emerges in relation to the Ministers intentions.
Sumitted by Team Voice.