THE “NAPIER REPORT”

GRAHAM POWER

And

LENNY HARPER

Respond.

Extract from Mr. Power’s response:

“Other issues in the report are self evident and I will not comment in detail at this time. The report plainly states that a resolve to suspend was formed during a number of secret meetings and exchanges over a period weeks, or even months before the “official” decision was taken. It states that the Disciplinary Code was wrongly applied, it states that there was insufficient evidence to justify suspension and that other solutions could and should have been attempted. It is clear in stating that I was treated unfairly. The report is right to state that I was subject to a number of allegations, but in the event none of these allegations came to anything. There were no disciplinary charges and there was no disciplinary hearing. All disciplinary action was abandoned after a period of over a year and a half and well over one million pounds of expenditure. I have always denied any misconduct or mismanagement whatsoever in relation the Historic Abuse Enquiry and I still do. If I had been given a chance to put my case to a proper independent hearing then I expected to be exonerated. The case against me was based on the evidence of a number of key witnesses whose credibility is, to say the least, seriously damaged by the revelations in the Napier report. I commenced duty as Chief Officer of the Force with an unblemished record. I retired with that record intact.”

Graham Power, Queens Police Medal

8th October 2010.


Extract from Mr. Harper’s response:

“I am aware that Bob Hill asked you to interview me but you declined as you did not wish to get bogged down. ………

“Another thing I would have told you is that I formally complained to the Met about the Interim and further report they had allegedly carried out. I would have told you that the author of the report has now been served with Misconduct papers as a result of my complaint that submitted the first report without even interviewing me, and that he then ignored completely, evidence I gave him which showed criticism to be unfounded and that he failed to interview witnesses, including Anthropologists and Archaeologists who would have corroborated my evidence.


“As I stated earlier, forgive me taking the liberty of contacting you, but I feel that you would have been at more of an advantage if you had been given the full facts. Please read these documents. Not only do they counter the criticism made, but the Affidavit gives a flavour of the corruption and obstructions that Graham Power and myself had to work with.”

Lenny Harper.

8th October 2010

Today has seen – largely thanks to the principled and determined efforts of Deputy Bob Hill – the publication of the Napier Report into the unlawful suspension of Graham Power, the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force.

During the coming days and weeks, the Napier report – the evidence behind it – and the legal and political reality of the situation will be explored in great detail.

Indeed, of such probative evidence is the Napier Report in respect of the oppressive prosecution being mounted against me – an exercise driven by two of the key culprits exposed in the Napier Report – William Bailhache and David Warcup – the issues concerning Jersey’s overtly politically contaminated prosecution system are going to be explored in great depth in court.

But – in the mean time, for those with a little more interest – and a willingness to think for themselves – I reproduce below two brief, initial responses to the Napier Report.

One by Graham Power, Queens Police Medal, the recently retired Chief Constable of the States of Jersey Police Force.

The other by Lenny Harper, the recently retired Deputy Chief Constable of the States of Jersey Police Force.

The spin that may be placed upon the Napier Report by the Jersey oligarchy and the local media is predictable.

So, to those who wish to get below the surface – and really understand these events – I commend the two, brief responses I reproduce below.

Mr. Power pulls together the fragmented – yet key – points of the report – and displays its sub-text; the blunt reality of what is revealed – notwithstanding the terribly “polite” and diplomatic efforts of Mr. Napier.

Mr. Harper, in writing to Mr. Napier, points out several of the profound defects in the entire episode that was given to Mr. Napier to examine – and points out Mr. Napier’s own failure to interview absolutely central witnesses; not least Mr. Harper himself.

Had Mr. Napier done so – he would have realised the so-called “interim Met report” – which is still cited, as though it were a valid criticism of the original abuse investigation – is now actually so utterly discredited itself – its author is now subject to Misconduct proceedings.

When reading the Napier Report – and, in particular, the vacuous flim-flam that usually constitutes the Jersey media’s response to such issues  – bear in mind one or two, ‘bottom-line’ key points:

1: In direct contradiction to two years worth of official lies – the suspension of Mr. Power was not an ‘emergency’ or ‘urgent’ action – that had to be undertaken – and undertaken at short notice. The suspension had been planned for at least two months beforehand. All that vast catalogue of “official” claims that it was an unavoidable and appropriate urgent step can now be seen for what they are – a pack of lies.

2: The prosecution system of Jersey – the Office of Attorney General – is hopelessly corrupted and dysfunctional – irredeemably contaminated as it is by political considerations.

3: The Jersey oligarchy smears, oppresses and suspends the good guys – and leaves in office and untouched, the crooks.

If what passes for a judiciary in Jersey has any corporate desire to salvage some fragments of credibility – these issues – and more – will be explored in detail – in open court – during the coming weeks and months.

Whilst we wait for those processes to occur – reflect upon the observation I reproduce below.

This war has a long way to run – and it will be won.

By a few good men.

Stuart.


Graham Power, Queens Police Medal:


Initial Response to Napier Report.


“Briefing note 1.


This briefing note has been prepared by Graham Power QPM, retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. It is intended to assist editors in reporting on the “Napier Report” which I understand has just been made available to the public. The observations below are based on an initial quick read of the report. I have not been provided with a copy, or indeed any relevant information, by the Jersey Authorities. In no particular order my first observations are as follows:


1. Para 45. It is unusual for there to be a public release of advice given by the Law Officers, but editors may find the information in this paragraph particularly revealing. Its presentation is also consistent with the style of the report which sometimes does not “flag up” key pieces of information but rather leaves them for the careful reader to discover in the text. It is also sometimes necessary to read together paragraphs which appear in separate parts of the report. Paragraph 45 appears to say that the Law Officers advised that if a report from the Metropolitan Police was to be relied on for the suspension then there must be “no caveats or provisos” in the report. Paragraph 69 makes it clear that the report when received was in fact heavily qualified. Subsequent paragraphs show that the relevant parties pressed ahead regardless. The implication of these paragraphs, taken together, is that actions were taken contrary to legal advice.


2. Paragraphs 55 (particularly the second half) and paragraph 79. These appear to state that a resolve had formed “at the highest level of the administration” to pursue the suspension of the Chief Officer and that this resolve had been formed as early as September 2008, perhaps two months before the “decision” was allegedly taken. Editors may feel that this contradicts what has been for almost two years the “official version” of events, namely that the decision was taken following the receipt of a report on 11th November 2008.


3. Paragraph 80. Following the above the author refers to preparations for suspension which were taking place in October 2008. In Mr Napier’s view there was “little objective basis” for such preparations.


4. Paragraph 73. This paragraph records the denial of Andrew Lewis that he was coerced in taking his decision to suspend by the then Chief Minister, Frank Walker. However, editors may find it helpful to read this paragraph in conjunction with paragraph 22 which records the observation by Lewis that he was “coming under a lot of pressure from his fellow politicians.” Also relevant is paragraph 44 which refers to a meeting on 3rd November 2008 which was to discuss the possibility of suspension. The persons present were Bill Ogley, Ian Crich and Frank Walker. Andrew Lewis, the only person with the power to suspend, was not present. This appears to run contrary to the claims made in paragraph 73.


5. Paragraphs 66 to 68. These paragraphs cover some of the ground which was debated during the Judicial Review hearings and give support to the view that once he had been suspended from duty it was highly improbable that the Chief Officer would return to work. Or to put it plainly, what was being considered was effectively dismissal. It may be useful to read these comments in conjunction with paragraph 82 which records that once Mr Warcup had submitted his letter in support of the suspension process, his position would be untenable should I ever return. Mr Napier does not explore whether the letter was written against a background of any assurances on that issue. It would however seem unlikely that the matter was not discussed or at least considered.


6. Paragraph 97 refers to, but does not entirely resolve, the reference in the suspension documents to a meeting “earlier today” when it is now agreed by all sides that no such meeting happened.


7. Paragraph 98 raises but is not able to resolve the conflict between the different versions of the “interim report.” During the disciplinary enquiry I was provided with a document which was said to be the document provided to Mr Warcup. It is a memorandum written by a civilian employee of the Metropolitan Police which expresses heavily qualified personal views some of which are positive and some of which are critical. It makes no claim to be a corporate document written on behalf of the Metropolitan Police as an organisation. The document shown by others to Mr Napier, although containing the same words, is apparently packaged and presented as an official Metropolitan Police report. At this time I choose not to speculate further on this matter.


8. Paragraph 101. This might usefully be read in conjunction with the above. In it Mr Napier tactfully, but nevertheless plainly enough, challenges the confidentiality of the “interim report.” This is important because it was apparently on grounds of operational confidentiality that both Andrew Lewis and Bill Ogley were denied sight of the report, in apparent conflict with the advice of the Law Officers Department. Editors may also recall that over one year after the suspension the current Minister for Home Affairs also stated that he had not seen the report on similar grounds. I have a copy of the report. There are no operational issues in the report which cannot be managed by simple redaction, and in any event, operational matters were not the issue in question. The relevant part of the report deals with management issues which have no particular sensitivity. Mr Napier appears to be unable to find any serious justification for the full report being withheld from the Minister and nor can I. This difficulty may of course be capable of being explained away. However, in the absence of a credible explanation there will inevitably be speculation. It is probable that this speculation will involve discussion of whether the full report “lives up to” the claims made in the selected summary on the basis of which Andrew Lewis claims to have acted. The implication in the Napier report is that it does not.


9. Other issues in the report are self evident and I will not comment in detail at this time. The report plainly states that a resolve to suspend was formed during a number of secret meetings and exchanges over a period weeks, or even months before the “official” decision was taken. It states that the Disciplinary Code was wrongly applied, it states that there was insufficient evidence to justify suspension and that other solutions could and should have been attempted. It is clear in stating that I was treated unfairly. The report is right to state that I was subject to a number of allegations, but in the event none of these allegations came to anything. There were no disciplinary charges and there was no disciplinary hearing. All disciplinary action was abandoned after a period of over a year and a half and well over one million pounds of expenditure. I have always denied any misconduct or mismanagement whatsoever in relation the Historic Abuse Enquiry and I still do. If I had been given a chance to put my case to a proper independent hearing then I expected to be exonerated. The case against me was based on the evidence of a number of key witnesses whose credibility is, to say the least, seriously damaged by the revelations in the Napier report. I commenced duty as Chief Officer of the Force with an unblemished record. I retired with that record intact.


10. Finally, I should at least record my hope that the inevitable controversy in high places which will follow the publication of the Napier report does not divert attention from the people who are the most important in the whole affair, namely the survivors and victims of the sexual abuse which took place in institutions managed by the States of Jersey, and who were denied the chance of justice for decades before the commencement of “Operation Rectangle.”


Graham Power.


Friday 8th October 2010.


Lenny Harper:


Initial Response to Napier Report.


“Dear Mr Napier;


Please excuse me taking the liberty of writing to you – you do not know me, but I am Lenny Harper, the former Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.


I was disappointed to learn that in your just released report to the Jersey government, that you accepted and re-stated the criticisms of myself that were used as one of the reasons for the attack on Graham Power. I particularly regret that, unlike those that are also criticised in the report, that I did not receive a letter from you giving me the opportunity to rebuff, as I have on many occasions, criticisms which have been proved over and over to have no substance. Whilst I have no doubt that it was not your intention, I seem to have been given less of an opportunity to clear my name than those who seem to have supplied mis-information about Grahams suspension.


I am aware that Bob Hill asked you to interview me but you declined as you did not wish to get bogged down. Whilst I understand that, given the criticisms of me that you repeat in your report, it would have been only fair to have given me the opportunity. I would have answered those criticisms. I would have supplied you with the two documents I have attached to this e mail, one, an affidavit I made for the High Court in London, and secondly, a rationale for the operation at HDLG. I will not bore you with the details in this e mail but would ask you to read the documents even though I know you must be very busy. As an example, in relation to criticism of my Media policy, criticism you make mention of on several occasions, one of the main criticisms was that I whipped up a media frenzy over the “shackles” found at HDLG. As I explain in my Affidavit, this is untrue. Builders who had found these items five years before and left them went to the media and told the media that “the police are going to find shackles.” I refused to confirm this and refused to say that I had found shackles. The main source of the criticism against me in this respect was a Jersey Evening Post Journalist by the name of Diane Simon. Yet, she originally ran a story in which she clearly stated that she had been told by outside sources that the police would find shackles. Her story clearly has me refusing to comment on the fact that we had found shackles. Yet, months later, the same journalist was writing a story blaming me for introducing shackles. Both stories were run together on one of the many blogs supported by the victims. I would have pointed all this and more out to you.


Similarly, another criticism was that I entered HDLG and dug it up on a whim. Read the Op. Rectangle Summary and decide yourself if that is so.


Another thing I would have told you is that I formally complained to the Met about the Interim and further report they had allegedly carried out. I would have told you that the author of the report has now been served with Misconduct papers as a result of my complaint that submitted the first report without even interviewing me, and that he then ignored completely, evidence I gave him which showed criticism to be unfounded and that he failed to interview witnesses, including Anthropologists and Archaeologists who would have corroborated my evidence.


As I stated earlier, forgive me taking the liberty of contacting you, but I feel that you would have been at more of an advantage if you had been given the full facts. Please read these documents. Not only do they counter the criticism made, but the Affidavit gives a flavour of the corruption and obstructions that Graham Power and myself had to work with.


Yours sincerely,


Lenny Harper.


Friday 8th October 2010.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.