With P166/2010 due to be debated this week we bring you an update on our Chief Minister, Senator Terry Le Sueur’s, response to Deputy Bob Hill’s
proposition.
The Foot Stamping Lackey’s of the Motherland (FSLM) are going to have a field day!Chief Minster Le Sueur’s comments could, and no doubt
will be, torn apart, as he once more appears to be ducking and diving the questions in his rabid obsession of protecting The Real Chief Minister and others.
Readers can make up their own minds with the hope that not only will the FSLM be having a field day, but the commenter who goes by the name “has-the-question-been-answered” does also.
(a) to request the Chief Minister to inform States members in a Report presented to the Assembly, or in a Statement to the Assembly, of the action he has already taken and the action he intends to take in respect of the report dated 10th September 2010 into the suspension of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police prepared for the Chief Minister by Mr. Brian Napier QC (‘the Napier Report’) and, in particular to provide information in respect of the following matters (i) what action, if any, the Chief Minister has taken in respect of the destruction by the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers of the original notes he took during the suspension meeting and what guidelines, if any, the Chief Minister has issued regarding the records of suspension meetings in the future;
(i) the reporting of what takes place at any official meeting needs to be complete and accurate, and policies are already in place to ensure that this occurs. Whilst in some cases it is to be expected that original handwritten notes will be retained even after formal, typed-up versions have been produced and signed off as a true version of events, in other cases such an approach would be unnecessary and excessive. Officers have been advised to continue to use their discretion on these matters, but where there is any doubt, to err on the side of caution.
(ii) whether he accepts the conclusion set out in paragraphs 45,67, 72 and 107 of the Napier Report that action was taken on a basis which was contrary to the advice of the Law Officers and what action, if any, he has taken or proposes to take in respect of that matter;
(ii) as I have already indicated in response to questions in the States, I do not believe that the actions taken in respect of the suspension of the former Chief Officer of Police were contrary to legal advice. On the contrary, the action was taken in full awareness of such advice, but also in the light of all other relevant information and considerations. I have had regard to all such advice and other information when undertaking and assessing the disciplinary issues to be addressed as a result of the report.
(iii) whether he accepts the conclusion set out in paragraphs 49–53, 55, 58–66, 107 and 108 of the Napier Report that the suspension process did not meet the requirements of the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer, issued under Article 9(1) of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 as part of the Chief Officer’s terms and conditions, and what action, if any, he has taken regarding the apparent breach of the process specified in the Code;
(iii) Paragraphs 107 and 108 summarise the views expressed in earlier paragraphs, and in themselves can be encapsulated in Mr. Napier's own words: "the basis on which he (the former Chief Officer of Police) was suspended on 12 November 2008
was in my view inadequate (my emphasis)". I accept that this is a conclusion which he is entitled to draw from the information provided to him. However
in my view it is not the only conclusion which can be drawn. Indeed various other parties both before and after the event have come to the conclusion that suspension was justified, even though the procedure could have been improved upon. I have had to weigh up these differing points of view when determining what action I needed to take, if any, in respect of disciplinary issues arising out of the suspension process.
(iv) why there has been no formal presentation of the report to members and no opportunity to discuss the findings with the author?
(iv) The author of the report was invited to present his findings to a meeting of States members, but declined to do so. Such a presentation was not part of the terms of reference, nor part of his contractual duties. In the view of the author, the report speaks for itself.
(v) what training, procedural and other corrective measures, if any, he has taken in order to ensure that personnel issues, and in particular disciplinary issues, are managed appropriately in the future;
(v) Procedures are regularly reviewed as part of normal activities. I am satisfied that procedures and training for disciplinary matters are regularly reviewed. However, I am concerned to ensure that particular disciplinary codes for individual senior employees are more critically examined, and as an example I am of the opinion that there is room for improvement in the disciplinary code for the Chief Officer of Police.
(vi) whether any disciplinary proceedings have been taken as a result of the findings of the Napier Report and, if so, to update members on the outcome of those proceedings;
(vi) I have already indicated in answers to questions in the States that I was addressing any disciplinary issues arising from the suspension of the former Chief Officer of Police. That process is now complete, and as indicated in my answers in the States, the outcomes remain confidential to the parties concerned.
Part (b) to request the Chief Minister to issue a formal apology to the retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police in relation to the failure of those involved, as identified in the Napier Report, to deal with the Chief Officer’s suspension in accordance with the procedures set out in the Disciplinary Code;
Part (b) In respect of part (b) of the Proposition, I have already been asked in the States at question time whether I would be prepared to issue an apology to the former Chief Officer of Police for the manner of his suspension. I stated then, and, in case any member is in any doubt, I reiterate now, that I do not intend to make any such apology, and that indeed in my view no apology whatsoever in that respect could be justified.
On the contrary, it would perhaps be more appropriate for the former Chief Officer of Police, and also the former Deputy Chief Officer of Police, who were jointly responsible for the mismanagement of the Haut de la Garenne investigation into child abuse, to apologise to the people of Jersey, and in particular those who may have suffered abuse at Haut de la Garenne or elsewhere in Jersey, for the unnecessary suffering and distress which they have caused through the erroneous approach which they adopted as identified in the report of the Wiltshire Police. However, I accept that this will not be forthcoming, and indeed the parties concerned seem to show no remorse for their actions.
We have already expended significant and largely wasteful levels of money and manpower on the Haut de la Garenne saga, and the time has come to declare that 'enough is enough'. We cannot turn back the clock or re-write history, but we can declare a conclusion to this sad and distasteful episode, and I hope that all Members will wish to do just that.
(end)We are able to inform readers that the Former Deputy Chief Police Officer and Senior Investigating Officer Lenny Harper has sent a letter to our only "news" paper, the Jersey Evening Post, addressing, among other things, the comments of Chief Minister Le Sueur regarding an apology, and
his "priority suspects" Morag and Anthony Jordan. We shall see if it appears in their paper before publishing it on here.
Submitted by Team Voice...........a trusted
media.
