Napier, Warcup, the MET “REVIEW”and others.

Brian Napier QC has handed over the final version of his Report. I say “final” version because we are led to believe that two others were drafted and submitted before we got the final version. As far as we are aware the only other people to see the first two drafts are the Deputy CEO John Richardson and Brian Napier QC himself.

For those that have been following this debacle, you will be aware that Deputy Bob Hill was promised oversight, by Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur, of the Napier Investigation, including the Reports. Deputy Hill never got to see the first two drafts, and has, we are led to believe, been REFUSED sight of them. Neither he, (Deputy Hill) nor the States Assembly were told that part (d) of the Terms of Reference was dropped. As far as we are able to ascertain the decision to drop this crucial paragraph was made by John Richardson and Brian Napier! Could this be why Mr. Napier was unable to find any “evidence” of a conspiracy to oust the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM from his post? Part (d) being.

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

Notwithstanding that very strange anomaly, there is another, well - the Report is full of them - but let’s just have a look at the MET Report. It is mentioned fairly extensively in the Napier Report, in how it should not have been used as part of the suspension of Mr. Graham Power QPM. The reasons given for this is because it was “heavily qualified” had “caveats” “provisos” was incomplete and such like.

Unless we've missed something, it doesn’t appear to mention, in the Napier Report, that the MET Report should never have been used in a disciplinary case because, although it has become known as a Report, it is in actual fact a “Review”. This is something that our “accredited” media don’t seem to dwell on either. An extremely dangerous and far reaching precedent might now have now been set.

Enquiries we have made with senior police sources indicate that all serious crime enquiries get a review (provided that they have been running for long enough) These reviews involve specialists from another force going over the ground of the enquiry and making recommendations to the investigating team. It is a form of "critical friend" review by fresh eyes and minds where the reviewers are encouraged to find fault and look for opportunities for improvement. There is no precedent that we are aware of for such a review being used for a disciplinary purpose. If that precedent were ever accepted then who would ever again commission a review?? Readers of the Voice will be aware from the suspension review transcripts that ILM said that the use of the review (report) for the purpose of disciplinary action caused a breakdown of relationships with the Met. The relationship with the Met is important to the force and to the Island. In an extreme emergency it could be crucial to public safety. Nevertheless it appears that those involved in the suspension were willing to jeopardize that relationship to achieve their objective of pinning “something” or even ”anything” on Graham Power QPM.

This is what Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, had to say about this at one of his suspension reviews with, at the time, suspended Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM and his representative Dr. Timothy Brain.

“One of the difficulties is to try and persuade the Metropolitan Police to produce a redacted, reduced version of the report which would only effectively make reference to the matters which related to management structures and so on, and not to individual cases. But I am not sure whether they are going to agree to do that because there is a second difficulty which I will be absolutely open with you about, which is this, and it is a relationship issue in relation to the States of Jersey Police and the Metropolitan Police who are not entirely happy that a report was produced for a particular purpose and is now going to be involved for a different purpose.”

The other person who would/should have been aware that the MET "Review" should NEVER have been used for disciplinary purposes was Acting Chief Officer David Warcup. Since Napier didn’t appear to mention that the MET “Report” was a “review” and by its very nature is designed to be critical, then Napier believed that the professional integrity of Mr. Warcup should not be in question. Well, we’ll have to make our own minds up about that.

It will be interesting to learn how the new Police Chief feels that any review he might commission for any of his investigations can be used against him? As well as any prosecution case against him might be put into the public domain after being denied the right to a “fair” Hearing. His contract will be worth a look at to see how it differs from his predecessor’s, and if it doesn’t differ “The Jersey way” will be something he never forgets!

Ian Le Marquand, Terry Le Sueur and others, in our opinion, have shafted the former Police Chief internationally, and will forever be remembered for it.

Submitted by Team Voice............... A media you can trust