With all the rush to criticize Lenny Harper and Graham Power QPM, It would appear that those criticized in the Napier Report will not be subjected to the same rush, treatment, standards or media attention.
The e-mails below are once more self explanatory and are the next in the chain recently published by Rico SordaTeam Voice will endeavour to keep readers up to date with any developments as they happen, or not, as the case may be.
From: Terry Le Sueur
Sent: 07 October 2010 08:35
To: Bob Hill
Cc: All States Members (including ex officio members)
Subject: RE: Napier Report Response
Dear Bob,
I acknowledge that this process is taking longer than any of us would have liked. However I am determined not fail at the last hurdle by being pushed into a course of action which might prejudice the whole outcome. That is why I do not wish to publish the Report before the resolution of any disciplinary issues, and neither, I am sure, would you.
I will alert you as soon as I am in a position to publish the report.
Terry.
from Bob Hill
to Terry Le Sueur
cc "All States Members (including ex officio members)",
Channel 103,
Channel TV,
JEP Editorial,
JEP Newsdesk,
BBC Radio Jersey & Spotlight TV,
"Spotlight (Spotlight)"
date Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM
subject RE: Napier Report Response
mailed-by gov.je
Dear Terry,
Publication of the Napier report and any related disciplinary action.
Thank you for your email below and for addressing the matter so promptly. I think that it is clear that we are now both agreed on the need to publish the report and also to address any disciplinary issues which arise from its contents. Where we appear to differ is on matters of timing and the sequence in which the necessary actions need to be taken.
It might be useful to remind all parties that the report refers to actions which took place in November 2008 and which have already been subject to significant examination and comment, both in the Royal Court, the States, and the Media. I think it improbable that, as Chief Minister, you will find much information in the Napier report that is new. I take it as given that over the previous two years you will have made yourself familiar with the sequence of events which the report now addresses. What is now new is that these events are described in a form which is reader-friendly and which sets out a number of observations and conclusions, none of which will come as a great surprise to those who have been following the case. I am also aware that the final signed-off version of the report has been in your possession since 13th September 2010.
I have of course been in possession of the final version of the report since 17th September on a confidential basis as part of the arrangement which was established prior to Napier being commissioned.
In our recent exchanges you have repeatedly urged me to desist from publishing the report on the basis that you are considering disciplinary action in light of what it reveals and that you do not wish any disciplinary measures to be prejudiced. In this morning’s exchange you ask for further delay on this basis. Our most recent exchanges have been copied to other States Members and there is now significant media interest in the report and your anticipated response. Unsurprisingly, I have been urged by some to publish the report immediately regardless of the consequences. Equally, it has been suggested to me that I am in some way being manoeuvred into a position in which my decision to publish will be used as an excuse to abandon disciplinary action for which you and fellow Ministers have no genuine appetite or inclination. I have had to give some considerable thought to these conflicting pressures and have tried to decide what it best in the public interest.
In considering these matters I have researched my files on the relevant events and it is clear that there are precedents which indicate to me that the prejudicial risk may not be as significant as you suggest.
For example, you will be aware that in August and September 2009 the local media featured a series of interviews with the retiring Senior Investigating Officer, Mick Gradwell, in which he criticised the management of the enquiry prior to his appointment. The interviews received extensive coverage and were widely interpreted as an attack on the conduct of Mr Harper and Mr Power. Lawyers representing Mr Power’s Professional Association wrote to the then Solicitor General (now the Attorney General) protesting at the apparent prejudicial nature of what had been disclosed. The Solicitor General replied in a letter dated 7th September 2009 said “it is not accepted that the statements of Mr Gradwell would be prejudicial to the fairness of any hearing concerning Mr Power.”
You will also recall that on 21st March 2010 the current Minister for Home Affairs spoke on the local BBC “Talkback” programme. During that programme he made extensive reference to the report by Wiltshire Police spoke of alleged criticisms said to have been expressed in that report. About the same time the Minister gave a detailed interview to the JEP relating to the Wiltshire enquiry and the disciplinary proceedings against Mr Power, which were still live at that time. In a leading article the newspapers showed a picture of the cover of the Wiltshire report and commented on its anticipated contents. In subsequent exchanges both yourself and the Minister for Home Affairs denied that any prejudice had occurred.
If the above precedents are followed it would appear that the dangers of prejudice arising from a publication of the Napier report may have been over-stated.
In light of all of the above I have had to decide which course of action on my part would best serve the public interest at this time.
After some thought I have decided to provide you with a further opportunity to complete your consideration of any disciplinary issues and would hope that you can do this before the end of this week. I am however alert to the fact that the States are sitting next Tuesday (12th October 2010) and that questions on the matter are inevitable. I think that it is realistic to say that, whatever the complications; the next States sitting is effectively a deadline for us both.
I hope that this letter is useful in setting out a timetable for events and that any outstanding considerations can be completed within the next few days.
Regards
Deputy F. J. (Bob) Hill, BEM.,
Submitted by Team Voice.
The e-mails below are once more self explanatory and are the next in the chain recently published by Rico SordaTeam Voice will endeavour to keep readers up to date with any developments as they happen, or not, as the case may be.
Sent: 07 October 2010 08:35
To: Bob Hill
Cc: All States Members (including ex officio members)
Subject: RE: Napier Report Response
Dear Bob,
I acknowledge that this process is taking longer than any of us would have liked. However I am determined not fail at the last hurdle by being pushed into a course of action which might prejudice the whole outcome. That is why I do not wish to publish the Report before the resolution of any disciplinary issues, and neither, I am sure, would you.
I will alert you as soon as I am in a position to publish the report.
Terry.
to Terry Le Sueur
cc "All States Members (including ex officio members)"
Channel 103
Channel TV
JEP Editorial
JEP Newsdesk
BBC Radio Jersey & Spotlight TV
"Spotlight (Spotlight)"
date Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM
subject RE: Napier Report Response
mailed-by gov.je
Dear Terry,
Publication of the Napier report and any related disciplinary action.
Thank you for your email below and for addressing the matter so promptly. I think that it is clear that we are now both agreed on the need to publish the report and also to address any disciplinary issues which arise from its contents. Where we appear to differ is on matters of timing and the sequence in which the necessary actions need to be taken.
It might be useful to remind all parties that the report refers to actions which took place in November 2008 and which have already been subject to significant examination and comment, both in the Royal Court, the States, and the Media. I think it improbable that, as Chief Minister, you will find much information in the Napier report that is new. I take it as given that over the previous two years you will have made yourself familiar with the sequence of events which the report now addresses. What is now new is that these events are described in a form which is reader-friendly and which sets out a number of observations and conclusions, none of which will come as a great surprise to those who have been following the case. I am also aware that the final signed-off version of the report has been in your possession since 13th September 2010.
I have of course been in possession of the final version of the report since 17th September on a confidential basis as part of the arrangement which was established prior to Napier being commissioned.
In our recent exchanges you have repeatedly urged me to desist from publishing the report on the basis that you are considering disciplinary action in light of what it reveals and that you do not wish any disciplinary measures to be prejudiced. In this morning’s exchange you ask for further delay on this basis. Our most recent exchanges have been copied to other States Members and there is now significant media interest in the report and your anticipated response. Unsurprisingly, I have been urged by some to publish the report immediately regardless of the consequences. Equally, it has been suggested to me that I am in some way being manoeuvred into a position in which my decision to publish will be used as an excuse to abandon disciplinary action for which you and fellow Ministers have no genuine appetite or inclination. I have had to give some considerable thought to these conflicting pressures and have tried to decide what it best in the public interest.
In considering these matters I have researched my files on the relevant events and it is clear that there are precedents which indicate to me that the prejudicial risk may not be as significant as you suggest.
If the above precedents are followed it would appear that the dangers of prejudice arising from a publication of the Napier report may have been over-stated.
In light of all of the above I have had to decide which course of action on my part would best serve the public interest at this time.
After some thought I have decided to provide you with a further opportunity to complete your consideration of any disciplinary issues and would hope that you can do this before the end of this week. I am however alert to the fact that the States are sitting next Tuesday (12th October 2010) and that questions on the matter are inevitable. I think that it is realistic to say that, whatever the complications; the next States sitting is effectively a deadline for us both.
I hope that this letter is useful in setting out a timetable for events and that any outstanding considerations can be completed within the next few days.
Regards
Deputy F. J. (Bob) Hill, BEM.,
Submitted by Team Voice.