Complaint to PPC (Part 1)

On the 12th November 2014 I published an OPEN LETTER to disgraced former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis. Deputy Lewis, in 2008, (illegally?) suspended the Chief of Police during Jersey's biggest ever Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle). In that Open Letter I pointed out that Deputy Lewis had given different versions of events to what report(s) he had, or hadn't seen, and indeed the alleged content(s) of said report(s).

I wrote, in the Open Letter;

"In an in-camera STATES DEBATE (2008)  in explaining your decision to suspend the Chief Police Officer you told the Assembly;

“If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all.”

Further during the in-camera debate in answer to a question from former Deputy Paul Le Claire you told the States Assembly;

"I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place.” 

You were referring to the alleged MET Interim Report .So it is clear by these statements that you had read the MET interim Report. But in the Napier Report (paragraph 101) it states;

“As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it. The reason given was the nature of the information that was contained therein. It was, said Mr Ogley, a police document and it was inappropriate that he (or anyone else) should have

access to it. Mr Ogley says that he was told both by the Attorney General and Mr Warcup that he should not look at the interim report and neither he nor Mr Lewis did so.”

Furthermore, according to the former Chief Police Officer Mr. Power your testimony to the discredited Wiltshire Constabulary’s Investigation stated;

“Until I received the letter from David WARCUP, (on 11th November 2008 – the day before the suspension) I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” (Paragraph 3.)

In February 2010 you issued a STATEMENT in response to the former Chief Police Officer’s AFFIDAVIT where you wrote; 

“I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Met Report as I am bound by the disciplinary code.”

So it would appear that you have given two different accounts concerning your sight (or not) of the MET Interim Report.

Question 1. Could you please tell me which account is correct? The account you gave to the Wiltshire Constabulary and the Napier Review or the account you gave to the in-camera States debate? Did you, or did you not see the MET Interim Report?

Both can’t be true and on the face of it you have either misled the States Chamber or potentially committed a criminal offence by misleading the Wiltshire Investigation and the Napier Review.

To address this part of your statement to the in-camera debate;

“If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal.”

You might be aware of a complaint made by the former Deputy Chief Police Officer, and Senior Investigating Officer of Operation Rectangle, Mr. Lenny Harper to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (OPERATION TUMA)?

Mr. Harper complained that he, and others, were criticised in the MET Interim Report after your statement. Operation Tuma was unequivocal in this regard, and found against Mr. Harper, where it states;

"In the Heads of Complaint made by Mr Harper he states that the review criticised a number of areas of the investigation. The review does not criticise the investigation. The Review does not criticise any individual involved in Operation Rectangle." (para 4.36)

Question 2. Could you please tell me (if you did see the MET Interim Report) do you stand by your words “If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal?”

Either yourself, or the Independent Police Complaints Commission, are being dishonest.

Question 3. Could you please tell me who is being dishonest here, is it you or the IPCC?

I’m sure you can appreciate the seriousness of these questions/contradictions as a Chief Police Officer with a 42-year career was suspended on what looks to be spurious, if not illegal grounds, and answers are needed in order to clear your own name in this debacle.

It has been reported that Mr. Power is in the process of giving a comprehensive statement to the lawyers of the on-going Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry (COI) and he will be called to give evidence at a public hearing. It is also believed that his suspension is being looked at by the COI and you clearly have questions to answer in this regard.

Question 4. Have you been asked, or have you offered to, submit evidence to the ongoing Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Chaired by Francis Oldham QC, if not, why not?"(END)

Deputy Lewis ignored that particular e-mail (Open Letter) for as long as he could and finally responded HERE and offered NO answers to my perfectly legitimate, public interest, questions. The only official avenue left open to me was to complain to the Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) under the States Members Code Of Conduct.

Complaint to PPC.

Dear Chairman/Panel.

I have been forced to make a complaint against Deputy Andrew Lewis in his capacity as a States Member. I have sent a number of e-mails to the Deputy (attached) that you will see he ignored until I threatened him with a complaint to PPC and informed him I will be door-stepping him. You will also see that he refuses to communicate with me so I am unable to resolve any matters with him and have no choice other than to submit this complaint to PPC.

I believe It should be up to the Panel to decide how he has breached the Code of Conduct for States Members but I would suggest paragraph 5 (and possibly others) of the code has been breached in his ignoring of my e-mails, refusing to answer (public interest) questions and his refusal to engage with me any further.

“Maintaining the integrity of the States

5. Elected members should at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the States of Jersey and shall endeavour, in the course of their public and private conduct, not to act in a manner which would bring the States, or its Members generally, into disrepute.

Elected members should at all times treat other members of the States, officers, and members of the public with respect and courtesy and without malice, notwithstanding the disagreements on issues and policy which are a normal part of the political process.”

However this is only one aspect of my complaint and the second aspect goes right to the heart of the honesty, and integrity, of Deputy Lewis, as a States Member, and the States as a whole.

The attached e-mails should be self-explanatory where I argue that Deputy Lewis has been dishonest and misled the Island’s Parliament and the electorate concerning his sight (or not) of the Interim Metropolitan Police Report (Operation Haven 1) and indeed the alleged contents of the said Report.

I believe my complaint has been correctly framed and addressed within the spirit of the code and should be clear of what it is I am complaining about. However if the committee feels that my complaint has not been appropriately set out, or that more information is required then please let me know?

I am able, if needs be, to elaborate further on the details of my complaint and would invite an opportunity to meet with the committee in order to do so.

I look forward to your response.(END)

In part two I will publish PPC's response and set out to demonstrate that the very regime/culture that enabled paedophiles to prey on Jersey children for decades is the exact same regime/culture that exists today.

Needless to say that the day after  the Council Of Ministers published its new MINISTERIAL CODE OF CONDUCT PPC's (in)actions concerning the disgraced former Home Affairs Minister will show that it is not worth the paper it is written on.