Saturday 26 January 2013

Curtis Warren--- Car Bugging ? Questions Without Answers???

Readers who have been following my Blogs on the Curtis Warren Affair will have noted the growing number of questions that need answers. Although a number of questions have already been asked, readers will be pleased to know that more are being asked at the States Sitting next Tuesday.

States Question Time has become known as Questions without Answers simply because Ministers are able to get away without giving full answers. No doubt there will be a recurrence next week. There are a total of six questions relating to Curtis Warren and are published below along with my comments.

There are three Written Questions;

Deputy Tadier has lodged the following written question about the discipline case which requires an answer from the Minister of Home Affairs.

“Will the Minister give a breakdown of the total cost to his Department in respect of the disciplinary action against three of the officers involved with the importation of illegal drugs in 2007, as follows –

(a) The cost of the criminal investigation by Hampshire Police and their associated legal costs?

(b) The States’ police’s legal costs preceding the disciplinary Hearing?

(c) The cost of the disciplinary hearing including the legal advice for the Presiding Officer?

(d) The travel and accommodation cost for the various officers attending the disciplinary Hearing and advise from which budget the funding is coming from.

Readers will recall that via an Oral Question at the last States Sitting, the Home Affairs Minister stated that the cost to date was £217,674. I believe that figure is very conservative which requires a breakdown of the expenditure to date. However how do you calculate the human cost of suspending one officer, another ending up in intensive care and putting the third officer through a disciplinary hearing about things he is supposed to have done five years previously only to have all allegations against him thrown out."


Deputy Mike Higgins has two Written Questions his first to the Attorney General is as follows;

“Will Her Majesty’s Attorney General explain to members the various checks and balances that apply to the Law Officers and the Law Officers Department and explain how and in what way the department is accountable to the States of Jersey Assembly?”

Readers will note that questions regarding the accountability of the Crown Officers have been raised in my Blogs and it will be interesting to see what answer is given.

Deputy Higgins' second question is to the Home Affairs Minister and is also most opportune,

“Will the Minister explain the apparent contradiction between the Supreme Court’s criticism of the actions of the three police officers involved in the recent Curtis Warren bugging case and their exoneration by the Disciplinary Panel? Is the Minister satisfied that the public retains faith in our police force and the judiciary?”

It is evident that at the Disciplinary Hearing some new evidence must have come to light which led the Chief Constable exonerating the officers. The public and certainly the three officers are entitled to a full explanation, anything less is totally unacceptable.

There are 3 Oral Questions the first by Deputy Monty Tadier is;

“Given the criticism of States Police and a Lawyer in the Law Officers’ Department by the Privy Council in relation to the Curtis Warren prosecution and the alleged involvement of the Attorney General in the subsequent police disciplinary case, would the Attorney General make a statement clarifying the situation?”

Although this question is akin to one being asked of the Home Affairs Minister it is important to note that the Hants Police investigated the role of 3 police officers but apparently the lawyer’s role has not been the subject of any enquiry. Also given the allegations that it was the AG who instigated the Disciplinary actions, the public is entitled to a full explanation and if the AG was not responsible who was?

Deputy Roy Le Hérissier will be asking the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –

“Given the verdict of the Police Disciplinary Tribunal, is the Minister satisfied that the police acted with complete authority in the matter of bugging a vehicle in the case Re Curtis Warren?”

Readers who have been following the case will recall that my Blog published on 17th October contained the 2009 Royal Court Judgement. In paragraph 18 one will see that the advice given to the police officers by the Crown Advocate was in the opinion of the Court “honest and well intentioned.” The Crown Advocate’s advice was; he didn’t see a Jersey Court ruling any evidence which was obtained inadmissible, it would be a matter for the Court to decide. it was an operational decision for the officers to decide. He added “If it was me I’d go ahead and do it, but don’t quote me on that.”

No doubt the officers shared the Court’s view that they were given honest and well intentioned advice and took it. The Crown Officer was correct with his assertion that it was for the Court to determine whether the evidence obtained was inadmissible. In fact not only did the Jersey Royal Court accept the evidence but also the Privy Council which then strongly criticised the officers’ action, how bizarre.

The third Oral Question is being asked by Deputy Mike Higgins who will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –

“Due to the important public interest issues involved will the Minister publish the written decision of the disciplinary tribunal involving the three police officers involved in the Curtis Warren car bugging case, and if not why not? And if so when?

It is likely that the Minister will refuse to publish the Judgement claiming that it is an internal disciplinary matter and/or like the Wiltshire Police Report it is a confidential report. However the Wiltshire Report was put into the public domain by none other than the same Minister, What’s the difference? I am sure that the 3 officers would be delighted if the Report was released.

The Jersey Way Blog has been doing an excellent job in publishing audio recordings of the Oral Questions and I am sure that next Tuesday's will be on its Blog site that evening.

40 comments:

  1. Dear Bob, Politician, Tadier, Higgins and Le Herriseiur, very well thought out writing Bob and very well and structured questions. All people want is the truth and it is in the public's interest to get to the bottom of this. It's a great start, can I ask a question if Ministers keep not giving answers how can this change? is there some rule on this? surely Ministers have a role to play in answering competent and well thought questions? well done and it feels now for the first time that there is good straight forward thinking taking place here which deserves good straight forward answers....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, unfortunately there have been well drafted questions asked before, but have not received straight answers.

      I agree that the truth is asked for, we will see what comes up on Tuesday.

      Delete
  2. Well done for posting the questions Mr Hill. Will the people of Jersey get the answers? Who in Jersey has oversight of the Jersey Law Office?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, I don't think the States Assembly has oversight. I do have an idea who does so will be looking for confirmation on Tuesday.

      Delete
  3. We should never underestimate the slippery and evasive nature of our Home Affairs Minister, but this case seems to be unusually straightforward. The money wasted on this disciplinary action could have fed several Jersey families for a number of years. The Police are accountable to the Minister and the Minister is accountable to the States. Perhaps for just this once LeMarquand will behave like a man and take responsibility. If he does he might even get some respect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Home Affairs Minister is not the only Minister who struggles with straight forward questions.

      I believe that the total cost of the disciplinary action will be considerably higher than the figure given by Senator Le Marquand two weeks ago and I agree that the money would have been better spent if it helped families.

      You are correct about the line of accountability that will change when the Police Authority is established.

      We will have to wait and see how Senator Le Marquard copes on Tuesday, if he does not come clean I am sure he will be asked further questions at future States Sittings.

      Delete
  4. Answering or not answering questions! I have noted that on some occasions the Home Affairs Minister will answer a question with a larger amount of background information not required, but likes to give a (unnecessary) complete picture, but other times he gives a curt response, which means more questions need to be asked.

    I pose the question, who is the least cost efficient in answering questions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is not unusual for Ministers to go round the houses to avoid giving a straight answers. I suppose the least cost effective are those who take the longest time in giving amswers. Senator Ozouf would probably get that award. Although he does not play in the States cricket matches, he is without doubt the best "spinner" in the House.

      Delete
  5. Are we any closer to finding out who complained about the officers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Detective Chief Officer Barry Taylor said it was the Attorney General Tim Le Cocq. Tim Le Cocq said it wasn't him. Somebody is telling lies.

      Delete
    2. I was not at the Disciplinary Hearings so I can't comment and that is why both the Home Affairs Minister and the AG should make statements clarifying the matter.

      Delete
  6. Anonymous 14:29 Good comment

    Perhaps questions should be put to the Home Affairs Minister Habitually prefaced with a statement.

    Home Affairs Minister without giving the background information (time wasting, distraction) will the Minister answer the question posed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oral Questions must not contained more than 70 words. As one can see from the 3 oral questions in the Blog above, they are short and to the point. They should receive short and to the point answers, but I bet they wont be.

      Delete
  7. Dear Bob, this is a silly question but why is Le Marquand not able to give appropriate answers? what is the problem? his role is to be answerable to the public who voted him in, so why is he not able to give short and straight forward answers? does he need some training for this? sorry to sound silly but I wanted to ask if he was having problems in giving short answers. Perhaps he should write them down and count the 70 words it takes to answer them as are the same asked of the politicians asking the questions.... why is he treated any differently, this would save time and get to the point in the States Chambers....lets get some good solid politics back to 2013!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oral Questions are given to Ministers around 2pm on the Thursday before the next Tuesady sitting, so Ministers have an oppurtunity to prepare a short concise answer. That does not happen when a Minster tries to avoid given a straight answer and will ramble on in avoiding the answer. Sometimes the Bailiff does press Ministers to be concise but can do very little if a Minister chooses to avoid giving a straight answer.

    I don't think Senator Le Marquand is any worse than others, but he could be accused of being too defensive. That is why he is losing respect and had a great deal to do his withdrawal from the Chief Minister's race where at one time he was a front runner.

    Next Tuesday he has an opportunity to "come clean" with his answers and also publish the Judgement.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Replies
    1. Hi Voice,

      Thanks for the link to an excellent Blog, well done.

      Delete
  10. Hope The Jersey Way will have a chance to put up the audio from the States. We have come to rely on TJW's blog for the permanent record.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Bob.

    Here we are, sorry a bit Late, but I hope it Helps.
    Just put up the Audio of the Questions without Answers From the States Sitting today, you & your readers can listen HERE

    Hope it helps,

    TJW.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link. Readers will note how poor the answers were. I regret to say but the answers to the Written Questions were even poorer than the Oral answers.

      Delete
  12. Dear Bob, I too listened to the answers and talk about going round in circles, I must say I thought Higgins, Pitman, Tadier and Le Herrisieur were superb in their questions... I hope they are reading this, Le Marquand was finding answering an uphill struggle, so no accountability from the Attorney General and he doesn't know who asked for the Police investigation in Jersey, so he's passing the blame to? we still don't know, mr invisible! Politicians must keep asking questions, I have no doubt the document will come out in the wash! and this would be good as the word private meeting and no way of reading the document does not sit well with me at all, it all sounds as if Jowitt has been protected (the law officer) why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately the answer to the comment below appears in as a response to the Comment above. However in response to the Comment below re the Crown Officers Officer’s accountability I will shortly publish another Blog with answers to a Written Question received yesterday.

      Delete
  13. Bob, a question, who do the law officers answer too? what accountability and transparency in that department is there? it's after all the advice the police officers took from that very office that caused this whole problem in the first place, who are these law officers? what do they do and who are they accountable too? if we could find this out we may be able to unravel the mystery behind how we are where we are and who was responsible....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The answers were pretty much as predicted, I agree re the 4 States Members, but have to ask where are the other Members?

      You are also correct about the Judgement. It exists and paid for from the tax payer and will be published in one form or another and will reveal some interesting facts.

      Delete
  14. So the head of the Hants enquiry was "mistaken" in his evidence at the internal secret hearing regarding HM AG and accordingly to the minister the police deputy chief Taylor was also "mistaken" when he gave his evidence he may have misunderstood the questions being asked?! Were these really senior police officers on oath to tell the truth? surely someone should be asking more questions regarding these "mistakes" given in evidence? And now we hear that the chief Bowron was the person who initiated the proceedings!! All allegations found to be ill conceived in fact and law according to the officers lawyer. Sounds very much like a comedy of errors and the ministers position as well as the chief and deputy chiefs positions are now untenable... How can our force trust any of them now??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Own goals and banana skins spring to mind too.

      The officers' lawyer was not the only one who thought the case was ill conceived in fact and law, so too did Chief Constable Barton because he dismissed the charges and exonerated the officers.

      Delete
  15. I have to write I completely agree! how can the Police force be trusted? someone authorised the bugging..... where are all the other politicians? spot on with this blog..... this is a serious issue, that needs serious answers...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am informed that the Judgement will explain matters but as it is not very favourable to certain people it is being kept confidential.

      Delete
  16. Sounds like the officers on the ground can all be trusted but they are unable to trust their chiefs!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dear Bob, the Crown, think about this scenario for a moment. Matthew Jowitt gives advice that is 'gun ho!' (I hear his father is a high court Judge even if this were not true, the truth is his advice was to say the least 'gun ho'). Now put this scenario with the fact the I believe Philip Bailhache was responsible for changing a law that allowed 'the Crown' to not be accountable to anyone. What do you think that signal is telling us? it is telling us that 'the Crown' in Jersey, unlike in the UK, is not accountable to anyone. How is this so? this is an area that needs serious addressing and now..... then add the other scenario, a Juror in the Curtis Warren Case was approached by a Policeman. He is still waiting to be asked to give a statement, why has this not happened? I know this Bob because it is the truth. It is now time for Jersey to be open and honest and to look at 'the chosen few' who have made legal rules to suit themselves. Enough is enough and that is why these scenarios need investigating and asking questions is one way to address them and get 'the chosen few to come out clean and answer them'. it is now or never!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Thank you for your Comments, I don't know about the accuracy of your comment about the Philip Bailhache, but the issue of the accountability of a number of people holding Office is one which needs addressing. The recent issue about the former Magistrate being in receipt of his salary for the number of years when he was waiting for his trial springs to mind.

      I raised questions about the matter during Question Time in the States but was told by the Chief Minister that it was one that he could not address as the Magistrate was a Crown Appointment.

      As mentioned in a comment above, I am hoping to publish my next Blog shortly which will cover the accountability issue.

      Delete
  18. Dear Bob, I think you will find that the Crown in Jersey hold no accountability to anyone, unlike in the UK! this would answer a lot of questions as to why we are in this position in relation to the Curtis Warren case in the first place. Lets get hold of the rules in relation to the Crown and who they are accountable too, it may raise some very interesting questions.....

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think it would be helpful if questions regarding the accountability of Crown Officers and other Crown appointees were asked in the States.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dear Bob, will I ask one of our Politicians to ask this very question for next week?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Bob, what is interesting is that at the beginning we were writing 'we will never find out out how the Crown actually work". Now we are confident that your question above is now one we felt we could never ask, that we can!. By the way I am happy to ask a politician to raise it, let me know. We always keep coming back to 'the Crown'. It's like a circle...... so I do feel we are warm in relation to getting to the bottom of how the legal system really operates and has done for many years, the difference this time is we have a selected, although few politicians that have the courage to ask and that is only a great thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is down to the public to push their States Members to ask the questions to seek out the truth.

      Delete
  22. Just saw CTV! what a very good report on the role of the Bailiff, now is our chance to really make change, the will is there, now is the time! I respect tradition but it is now time to put our legal and political system into the 21st century! the role of the Bailiff no more will in turn help sort out a lot of problems we have in the legal and political system, this is a very good time, time for change, time for change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The issue of the Bailiff's role has been kicking around for years. The late Sir Cecil Clothier had a go via the Clothier Report and more recently via the Carswell Report following my proposition to review the role of the Crown Officers.

      Delete