Further to our PREVIOUS POSTING where we "Exclusively" published the written judgement of Chief Constable Mike Barton involving the disciplinary Hearing of three Police Officers involved in the Curtis Warren car bugging case. We now bring our readers another exclusive in the form of a statement issued by former Jersey Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.
Mr. Power issued the statement as a result of questions put to him by VFC in the hope to clear up yet another anomaly thrown up in the "Barton Judgement."
Re-produced below is extracts from the e-mail sent to Mr. Power outlining the discrepancy contained in paragraph 3 of Chief Constable Mike Barton's report/Written Judgement.
E-mail extract From VFC to Graham Power QPM.
I was hoping that you could be of some help in order to clear a little something up concerning the recent disciplinary case against the three Jersey Police Officers involved in the Curtis Warren car bugging case.
In paragraph 3 of Chief Constable Barton's Report he writes;
"3. It is alleged that these three officers not only misled foreign law enforcement officials
but also senior officers within the States of Jersey Police Force and members of the
Law Officers' Department in relation to the audio surveillance of the vehicle as it
travelled through the foreign jurisdictions."
Highlighted (bold) is where I'm a little confused. You are on record as recommending the three Officers for a commendation for their work in capturing the drug gang. Yet they stand accused of misleading their superior Officers in the Jersey Force which one might be led to believe includes you as Chief Officer.
Could you please shed some light on this? Did you give evidence, either to the Hampshire Police Investigation (Invicta) or the disciplinary investigation presided by Chief Constable Barton to the effect that either yourself, or any of their superior Officers, were misled by the three accused Officers?
With the research I have already conducted, I can't see that you gave any evidence to either investigation but it is always possible that I might have missed something and hope that you are able to fill in any gaps?(END)
STATEMENT ISSUED BY GRAHAM POWER QPM. FORMER CHIEF OFFICER OF THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE
I have been asked to make comment on media reports concerning the findings of a recent Disciplinary Tribunal relating to three Police Officers who, during my time as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, were involved in the investigation of Curtis Warren and others. The Disciplinary Tribunal apparently arose in consequence of an investigation by Hampshire Police which was requested by the relevant authorities in Jersey. The Presiding Officer at the Tribunal was the Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary. At the end of the hearing the Tribunal acquitted all three officers of all allegations against them.
It is a convention in senior levels of the Police Service that a former head of a police force should avoid making comment on matters arising under the command of his successors. This is a sound convention which exists for good reasons. Accordingly I have declined to make general comment in respect the disciplinary investigation or the Disciplinary Tribunal.
However, I do not believe that this convention applies to matters which relate specifically to my own actions or to any views or opinions which may have been attributed to me. This is particularly the case when such alleged views or opinions may be inaccurate.
In reading what is reported to be the findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal I have noted that in paragraph 3 of the findings it is said that the three accused officers were alleged to have mis-led senior officers within the States of Jersey Police. Given that at the time I was the Chief Officer of the Force and that at least some of the documents relevant to the activity undertaken by the officers would have crossed my desk, I think it is reasonable to assume that it appears to have been alleged that I was misled in some way and that this allegation formed part of the disciplinary allegations against the three officers. Readers of the findings of the Tribunal may also have assumed that I was to some extent a party to the allegations that Senior Officers were deceived. In this context I feel that, notwithstanding the convention I have described above, it is appropriate that I briefly make my position clear on this issue alone.
I therefore wish to make it clear that I have no knowledge of any occasion on which I, or for that matter any of my senior staff at the time, were misled by any of the officers concerned. I have never alleged that I was misled by any of them in any way whatsoever. I have never been asked to assist in any disciplinary enquiry relating to this case. I have not been interviewed by Hampshire Police. I have not made any written statement relating to the disciplinary enquiry. I have not been asked to give evidence at any Disciplinary Tribunal.
If any evidence was presented to the Tribunal which purported to show that I was misled in any way whatsoever then such evidence did not come from me.
I hope that this statement clarifies my position in respect of any allegation that I was misled by any of the three officers who were subject of the disciplinary action. I have made no such allegation and if any allegation was made by any person purporting to represent my views, then it was a false allegation made without my knowledge or agreement.
North Yorkshire.
5th February 2013.(End)
The obvious question must now be "where is the evidence to substantiate the claim that the three Officers misled their superiors?"
Will Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, be issuing a statement explaining this latest, in a long line of (tax payer funded) debacles, to take place under his watch?
Will the Jersey Law Offices' Department now be investigated.....If not, why not?