NAPIER – WHEN WILL WE GET IT AND WILL WE GET IT ALL?

Outlined below is a written question (with answer) I asked at the last States sitting with regard to the ridiculously overdue ‘Napier Report’. The question is a straight-forward one and needs comparatively little explanation. I post it now only in the light of the latest saga encountered in trying to finally get the author’s long-overdue findings into the public arena.

As some readers will have heard by now this latest delay is being put down to the sending of official letters to a number of key players in the suspension of the former Chief Police Officer. These letters are known in the trade as ‘Scott letters’. When utilised they are meant to provide a last chance for any individual about to be criticised, and possibly even face disciplinary proceedings, as a result of aspects of their conduct to attempt to explain or justify this.

At least that is how it works in the UK. The process is not meant to be a means of manipulating the findings of a report in order that potentially embarrassing elements of those findings might then be watered down or be kept out of the public arena. Will this same above board process be carried out here in Jersey? Just consider the answer to my question below for a moment:

“it (the report) will be published in full.”

Even long overdue, a clearer promise one could surely not get, and I hope that it ultimately proves to be adhered to. However, whilst not only have politicians subsequently been unable to get an answer to the question of when exactly did the Chief Minister and the senior civil servant at his department receive a copy of the report, I also have it from a pretty reliable source that attempts will be made to keep certain key details likely to lead to disciplinary measures confidential.

And this simply can’t be right.

One good thing about having focussed so much on what was obviously a deeply flawed process surrounding the suspension of the Chief Police Officer as I did has been that – and in stark contrast to the Home Affairs |Minister’s temper tantrum in the States last month I can’t help but point out – I knew that I for one would not be eating the Minister’s much-vaunted ‘humble pie’. The process and its handling has, after all, been a total shambles. This is I’m afraid cold, hard fact no matter how much he might try to deny it.

Not least in the simultaneous use of material meant specifically for a full disciplinary procedure whilst all disciplinary measures were in fact unceremoniously dropped. Indeed, if one is to go by the inconsistent statements from the Home Affairs Minister between Scrutiny hearings and the States Assembly itself suggest most likely were never genuinely to be pursued at all?

Now, while I believe that all must be accountable for their actions if things don’t go as they should, criticism of the Chief Police Officer’s failings have been played out in full view of the public – some might say to overkill by certain sections of the media – yet this has been done, as I say, without the proper full and fair disciplinary process that both the individual at the centre of it all and we, the taxpaying public, should have been able to expect to be certain no stone was left unturned.

Could it really consequently be right if some of the equally significant failings – I can say no more than that right now – of some of those deeply involved in the very same process are allowed to be hidden away by means of a quickly cobbled together excuse of ‘confidentiality’; likewise the outcome of any resultant disciplinary action?

The answer has to be 100% that it is not. Neither will the presentation to politicians and the public of a report ‘redacted’ until it is only 30% of the original text; 10% of the overall material - thus removing the bulk substance of the issues at hand. Will such a ploy be attempted? With the Chief Minister apparently now back from a break it is high time he laid any such concerns to rest. Maybe he will even let us know if the now retired former Chief Police Officer got the offer of the Scott letter process…


Written Question to the Chief Minister 22nd July 2010

 
'Will the Chief Minister clarify the full reasons as to why the report into the issues surrounding the suspension process of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police - promised to the Assembly to be completed in six weeks - has instead not been completed prior to the announcement that all disciplinary measures were to be dropped; further still, when will this report be completed and made available in full to all States Members?'
 
 
Answer
 
The original timescale for the completion of the independent review into the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police was six weeks as stated in the Deputy’s question. Unfortunately, due to difficulties in arranging convenient dates for interviews and travel disruptions caused by the Icelandic volcanic ash cloud, it was not possible to complete the interview process with one of the key witnesses during the Mr Napier’s first visit to Jersey. A second visit had to be arranged to that suited both people.
 
All of the interviews were completed by 9th June 2010 and I am awaiting the final report. Unfortunately, due to other work commitments, Mr Napier was unable to complete his final report immediately after the interview process was complete.
 
I have been advised by Mr Napier, that he is currently writing his final report which should be completed by the end of July. Once the report has been issued and all parties concerned have had the opportunity to consider any findings, it will be published in full.
 
 

The Wiltshire Report. And Yet Another Abuse of Process

Here are two self-explanatory open emails to Senators le Sueur and le Marquand, from Trevor and Shona Pitman. Even to the bitter end, any substantial fault there may or may not have been on Chief Constable Power's part continues to be overshadowed by ongoing abuses of process by the Home Affairs and Chief Minister's Departments.

"Dear Terry/Ian

Please could you tell us all, why the Wiltshire Report has been sent to the media (embargoed) before Members of Government. Please tell us why this happens so often - the COM are always telling us that 'it won't happen again', but it always does. It shows nothing but disrespect and contempt for your colleagues. Also, could you tell us if this is the full report.

Once again, a hugely important piece of information and States Members (or non-exec Members) are left out. Can we have some answers.

shona"

"Ian & Terry

Just to follow this up from Deputy Shona Pitman. Please could you tell us why you feel it acceptable or necessary that the Media should be given this document (much redacted of course) to go over for three days longer than States Members? That it is embargoed for reporting is irrelevant.

With several hundred pages wouldn't it be far better for all involved if the rest of us States Members were given time to digest this and come up with appropriately informed, searching questions for the presentation? Perhaps not, eh...

Could you also tell us all why I only found out about this issuing of the document through a media contact?

Could you also tell us why, even as a States Member, upon inquiry I was initially fobbed off that nobody knew if the media were getting copies - when it was quite clear from my earlier inquiries that ten lovely shiny new copies hot off the press had winged their way to the Chief Ministers Department this Friday afternoon?

Why I was eventually told by the Deputy CEO that it was simply all down to a problem with the printing, and you were hoping to send everything out but couldn't because of the rush with the Business Plan.

But then told I still couldn't - as a States Member - have one even if I drove down that minute and saved the taxpayer the postage? Where was the inconvenience - I could have picked mine up along with Channel, BBC, 103 and the JEP!

Finally, as per Shona's e-mail, please tell all of us, right, left, centre and greens amongst us - what kind of 'government' deems it correct or conducive to the development of 'inclusive' government to send out such a hugely important document to journalists before other elected members of that government?

Actually, don't bother answering the last one - I will do that for you. It is the kind of government that time and time again treats non-executive members with utter contempt; a COM so arrogant and bloated with self importance that it just doesn't care about acting in this fashion; it is the sort of COM for which the first priority is always to spin the angle they want the public to buy.

Out of interest will States Members also be issued with the full details of the complaint the IPCC instructed the MET to investigate reference alleged evidence and witnesses that the authors of the report would not incorporate? Having no axe to grind for anyone but purely being interested in fairness and transparency as I am I am certain you will make sure that this is done...

Just for the record, Ian made mention of people eating 'humble pie' in the States this week. Though I wasn't referred to as one of them, fact is that as I have focussed all my questions on the truly appalling handling of this incredibly flawed suspension process from start to finish - I have already been proven right a 100 times over. This latest shambles really puts the icing on the cake.

I now just can't wait to hear first-hand about the senior civil servant who wasn't involved in any way in receiving illegal police reports on the backgrounds of States Members...

[Trevor]"

TREVOR AGREES TO PUT P201 - ‘STRATEGY FOR DEALING WITH YOUNG OFFENDERS’ WORKING GROUP PROPOSITION ON HOLD

Trevor has just informed us that following discussions with Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand he has agreed to put his proposition to establish a working group to develop a strategy for dealing with young offenders ‘on hold’ until April.

Trevor explains: ‘Having been one of the politicians who called for the urgent construction of an all-encompassing ‘Children’s Plan for Jersey’ (whilst Vice-Chairman of the Vulnerable Children’s Services Scrutiny Review), I’ve taken this decision to allow us to see if all that is needed can come out of the work recently commissioned with Andrew Williamson. Similarly, to establish if the claimed ‘reactivation’ of the Corporate Parent which failed so dismally in the past can now live up to its responsibilities. It’s no good just having a new name – it has to deliver.’

Nevertheless, Trevor is keen to stress that at this stage he is certainly not pulling or abandoning the proposition.

‘Like the Minister I obviously do not wish to see any work unnecessarily duplicated,’ he told us. ‘But one of the pleasing outcomes of my earlier proposition, P148, was that the debate around it in November 2009 has really contributed to focussing people’s minds on the urgent need to get to grips with the issue of young offenders.

Thus, given that things have finally begun to move somewhat I’m happy to put the proposition on hold for a couple of months to see what develops. But I will be watching the situation closely. This is not just about sorting out the Youth Justice system. Far from it!

We need a root and branch look at everything that underlies and contributes to young people ‘going off the rails’ and offending. If the work initiated by the Home Affairs Minister and his colleagues fails to deliver in terms of the necessary depth then come April I will bring the proposition back to the States for debate. This is just too important to risk not getting right.

Trevor also told us of his real frustration with the failure of Ministerial government to utilise the many different skills and work experiences of Members existent within the States.

‘I obviously have very real concerns about how the Chief Minister has consistently told us he is committed to ‘inclusive’ government - yet time-after-time has acted to implement the exact opposite. Setting up this style of strategy group would have been an example of precisely the way the States should be making use of individual Members professional experience and skills to get the best results for the community.

This is an area of work I am passionate about coming from the background that I do; and where I would like to play a part. Many other ‘backbenchers’ feel exactly the same about other areas. We appear to have taken a step in the right direction with the recent acceptance by the States of the Fort Regent working group advocated by Scrutiny. And if we are not to forever be a ‘them’ and ‘us’ government then this is surely the way forward that we must be willing to follow. Unfortunately, I admit I can’t help feeling that for many within the COM ‘inclusion’ is just a convenient sound-byte for the spin-doctors’.

JDA LAUNCHES JUSTICE FUND

The JDA today announces the launch of a “Fund for Justice”.

We have received many calls and letters from supporters and others who are shocked by the punitive and disproportionate level of the penalties imposed by the Royal Court on the two JDA deputies, Shona Pitman and Geoff Southern for breaching the notorious Article 39A of the Elections Law, .

This law, which exists nowhere else in the world, prevents those who need help to apply for a postal vote from receiving such help from a candidate for election. We believe it is an attack on the democratic process, and a breach of the human rights to protection from discrimination and to participate fully in free and fair elections.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those who have offered to help at this critical point in the development of our democracy and I invite those who wish to make a contribution towards meeting the £12,000 court fines and £10,000 legal costs.

Donations should be sent to JDA Treasurer, 8 Winchester Street, St Helier. Cheques should be made payable to “JDA Fund for Justice”.

Further information: Christine Papworth: 07797 788603

Christine Papworth, JDA chairperson

Justice seen to be done (choose own punctuation:- "!"/ "?")

21st May
I’m sure that JDA supporters are shocked at the harshness of the fines imposed on Geoff and Shona in their court case, and disgusted with the coverage the JEP gave to Rod (bad loser) Bryans enabling him to express extreme views, in addition to their unsympathetic editorial.

Their fines could not have been heavier if they had engaged in the bribery, fraud and interference with the ballot that some have inaccurately accused them of. Even if you take the view that as they broke the law and needed to be punished, these fines are outrageous for hard-working deputies who have no means other than their States Members’ pay. Moreover, any unbiased person who attended the hearing could not fail to be shocked by the evidence that was presented about the course of the debate that led to the introduction of this law. Many States members were of the opinion that helping someone to complete an application form constituted interference with the ballot, and others seemed to think that this law would bring them into line with the UK when in fact no such law exists in any other Commonwealth country. Even if this was not a deliberate device to nobble Shona and Geoff, it does seem that the IQs and comprehension skills of some States Members fall short of what one would wish.

Meanwhile, I’m sure that Shona and Geoff would like to thank all those who have sent messages of support at this difficult time.

Athena