Friday 18 January 2013

Curtis Warren---Still More to Come



In my last Blog below I said that it was anticipated the Durham Chief Constable would be presenting his Judgement in a matter of days and I intended publishing another Blog after it had been published. I was being a bit optimistic because I doubted whether the Judgement would be put into the public domain particularly as the officers had been exonerated and it was likely to record some criticism of senior police and crown officers.

I understand that the Judgement has now been presented to the States Police who have given copies to the three officers and their Advocate. I also understand the Judgement is for their eyes only and at this stage will not be made public. If this is the case it is not acceptable.

During Question Time at the States Sitting last Tuesday in answer to a question from Deputy Monty Tadier re the Curtis Warren costs, the Home Affairs Minister stated that to date it had cost the tax payer over £1m on the arrest and security plus another £217,674 on the disciplinary action taken against the 3 police officers. I hope that some States Member will lodge a written question not only asking for a breakdown of the police costs but also of the prosecution costs which according to the AG are around £2m and still mounting.

Over the past 5 years the words “in the public interests” have been banded about, the term is often used to justify questionable actions. The initial arrest, the decision to charge, the court Hearings and the decision to take disciplinary action against the 3 officers were apparently “in the public interest.”

Way back in the days when people were really accountable there was a general rule that “When in doubt, throw it out.” Alas this does not seem to be the case today because it is apparent that at every stage the authorities pushed the boundaries “in the public interest.” What is worth noting is that all the actions taken were by public servants and at considerable public expense. Therefore it is reasonable to expect that those responsible in the “Warren Affair” to be accountable for their actions. Also they have no right to assert that reports of any sort are of no concern to the public. Apart from being conflicted they have no right to say who can or can’t see the reports.

My Blogs along with the many Comments received have highlighted a number of anomalies and posed even more questions which have arisen because of contradictory statements made by a number of the leading players. For example in the States on Tuesday the Attorney General made it abundantly clear that he did not level any complaint nor participated in the police discipline case. He is entitled to make that claim and to be believed. However in the press release from the Advocate who successfully represented the 3 officers, one will see that he claims that it was the Attorney General who personally made the complaint of misconduct against the officers.

In fairness to both gentlemen we know that Curtis Warren and Co were arrested way back in 2007 when a different AG was in post, so was he responsible? It is certainly “in the public interest” to know where the truth lies.

On Tuesday the Home Affairs Minister stated that Hants Police were asked to investigate the police officers actions by the new Police Chief Mr Bowron, because as it turned out, he rightly anticipated that the officers would be heavily criticised by the Appeal Court. However it is reported that the Deputy Police Chief Officer Barry Taylor is quoted as saying that it was as a result of the concerns raised by the Privy Council that Hants Police were asked to investigate. So who is to be believed?

In attempting to justify the decision to level disciplinary action, the States Police have stated that it was important to have a clear, independent and transparent process to examine the concerns raised initially by the Privy Council so that the public of Jersey can continue to have trust and confidence in the States Police to do the right thing. Hear, hear we all say, but where is the transparency and where is the Judgement?

Confidence in the police is dependent on decisions taken by the ordinary coppers in the front line and sharp end of policing AND the decisions taken by officers sitting in the Ivory Towers at Police Headquarters who should be equally accountable for their actions. Policing is complex and even more so today so it is incumbent on senior police officers to set examples and to treat their officers with fairness, compassion and consistency. They appear to have failed in this particular case.

In Jersey the decision to prefer criminal charges is based on two tests, one is the evidential test and the other being the public interest test. The public is entitled to know who was responsible for the decision to instigate disciplinary action. Although the charges were not criminal had the officers been found guilty the outcome would have had serious consequences not only for themselves but for their families. Therefore who ever was responsible for instigating the action presumably conducted both tests and must have been reasonably confident of a successful outcome.

Unfortunately we now learn that the States Police has incurred over £200k of taxpayers money on a disciplinary case which according to the Defence Advocate was based on allegations which were ill-founded in fact and law and never had any reasonable prospect of success.

Apart from incurring unnecessary time, expense and untold hardship for 3 officers and their families, the disciplinary case has bankrupted the Police Association funds which needed a £10k handout from the public via the Home Affairs Minister to ensure that the 3 officers had equality of arms. Presumably because it was “in the public interest”

During Question Time last Tuesday Members were told that the prosecution costs to date are around £2million. In that sum is around £1m to cover legal assistance for Curtis Warren and his associates. It does seem ironic that the procedures in place for the 3 officers to defend them selves fell far short than those they arrested. For example whilst the Curtis Warren team was granted legal aid, there was no provision for the officers. Also there is no procedure in place for the Adjudicator to award any costs to the officers to meet their personal costs and suffering.

Curtis Warren and his associates must be amused at how events have evolved and how the credibility of those responsible for his conviction is suspect. Will it assist him in his endeavours to overturn his conviction, only time will tell?

I titled my last Blog “Own Goal—More to Come,” as we can see there is still more to come, but will we get the answers, see the Judgement and will anyone be accountable?



34 comments:

  1. Bob.

    In 2007 I believe it was William Bailhache who was AG but as AG is a Corporate Sole doesn't that make Tim Le Cocq accountable?

    As for making the disciplinary judgement public, as it clearly is in the "public interest" is something being asked for HERE

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are correct re William Bailhache being AG in 2007 and may also be correct about the Corporate Sole. I would welcome a ruling on that matter.

    As far as AG Le Cocq is concerned he was being asked a direct question about his involvement and as such gave a direct answer.

    Pleased that you too think the matter to be "in the public interest" and well done with your Blog and recommend it to readers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. An excellent blog with some relevant points raised. There is one thing that we can already be sure of. If the written judgement of the hearing supported the official "party line" then it would have published days ago accompanied by glowing media releases and interviews with the Home Affairs Minister and others. The fact that it is being keps secret already tells us something about its content. Let us hope that political pressure will force them to publish the document, or that some brave person leaks it to one of the blogs. Yet again it is the bloggers who are making the running on an important matter of public interest with the paid media nowhere in sight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the compliment and I totally agree with you.

      You may recall the Home Affairs Minister going to great public expense of redacting the Wiltshire Report and publishing it after the former Police Chief had retired. One wonders why he has not published the Hants Report with the same relish.

      I hope there is political pressure to release the Judgement and or a request under the Freedom of Information Law for its release “in the public interest.”

      Delete
  4. Well done Mr Hill. Along with VFC you are keeping this very important story alive. The Jersey Media can only go so far with this. In reality, that's about half way up an icy queens road with racing slicks on.

    The jersey bloggers must stick at it. You must also learn to push forward with a united front.Until someone knocks on the door of William Bailhache and tells him the games up you will have a long road yet to travel. Those who know Jersey will also know that total control lies in the hands of so few. The Jersey Law Office dictates exactly what happens in Jersey.

    Follow the money and knock on the door..

    Keep going

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you.
      Re a united front, that will best be achieved by the media, bloggers, the public and States Members pressing for answers.

      Delete
    2. Totaly agree with your comments keep up the good work Bob you have more courage than most

      Delete
  5. Are you aware of any previous case where an Attorney General has personally made a misconduct complaint against a police officer? I have never come across this before and find it very strange.

    Usually a matter is refered to the AG for a decision on whether to bring a criminal charge against a police officer. That is all the AG, to my knowledge, has to decide.

    If no criminal charge follows then it is for the police themselves to decide what, if any, disciplinary offence has been committed and to deal with it internally.

    What was the AG doing getting involved in police disciplinary matters?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your understanding of the AG's role but what needs to be determined is, did the AG personally make the complaint, if he did, when, which one and why? It would also be interesting to know whether the complaint was overseen by the Police Complaints Authority.

      That said, it is open to anyone to make a complaint against police if they feel agrieved. However I am not aware of any AG making a complaint against police.

      Delete
  6. I must say how impressed i am with the level of good research and hard facts your blog has, Bob. We must ask questions, we must seek the truth. People must be held to account. We must keep up the pressure and keep asking the right questions in order to get to the bottom of 'this very strange' set of circumstances. I do feel we all agree, we are not surprised by the responses or the outcome but we must move forward and together work on getting Jersey into the 21st century for future generations.

    If people in power, make mistakes, they must be held to account for those mistakes, as we all are.

    Keep going...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Interesting 're the status of the AG.
    I recall that a commitment given by Birt as AG 're the Maquires was deemed to be binding on subsequent AGs. But maybe this was just a matter of convenience?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not aware of Mr Birt’s involvement with the Maquires.

      I think there was a Royal Court judgement some years ago in a Housing case were there was a ruling on the Corporate Sole whereby a decision taken by one committee had a binding affect on future committees. Perhaps a reader may be able to throw a bit more light on the matter.

      Delete
  8. Presumably Curtis Warren will be pushing the hardest of all for answers on the points raised here so these will be revealed in the fullness of time no matter what the press or bloggers do.
    Also, I suppose some of the others convicted on the same basis will also have a motivation to discover some answers and to challenge decisions already made. Are any of these being financed from local funds or any other funds because, if so the final bill could be very much higher.
    Do we know of any appeals currently pending in Eastern France near the border with Germany?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am pretty certain that Curtis Warren and his associates will be pressing for answers.

      I believe the above were assisted by legal aid upto and including the Court of Appeal, some of which was at the public's cost. I don't know whether they are presently in receipt of legal aid to assist with their appeal to the Court of Human Rights. Perhaps they will let us know???

      According to what the AG said last Tuesday, Jersey is trying secure some of Curtis Warren's funds to meet the court costs but could not elaborate on the matter.

      I have no idea whether there are any appeals in Eastern France.

      Delete
  9. Dear Bob,

    It's difficult to read all this but do you think that there is a possibility that they release him for all the mistakes and illegal investigation what happened by Curtis Warren. I read somewhere that he become free around 2015. And when the court says its illegal, then in Holland you get money, and also if they 100% know that you did it. It's a big shame, for what I see with my own eyes, you know what I tell you before.

    Greatings, Henk.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good Evening Henk,

    Well done with your reading, there is always the possibility of Curtis Warren receiving compensation should he be succesful with his Appeal. However Appeals take a long time and it may well be that Mr Warren and certainly most of his associates could have completed their sentences before their Appeal is heard.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bob
    Surely the concerns raised by the Privy Council were raised in the earlier court cases as indicated by the Privy Council judges? So Barry Taylor is wrong to say that they were first raised by the Privy Council. In itself not the most important detail this difference but it suggests that accuracy and precision is not considered important by the authorities. Or have I missed something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter, you are right to raise the matter of accuracy and it would appear that Mr Taylor is not singing from the same hymn sheet as his Minister.

      Readers may be interested to read the questions and answers when I raised the matter on 17th May 2011. The following can be found in Hansard.

      Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the investigation and evidence gathering by the States of Jersey Police in relation to a drugs case:

      Will the Minister update Members on the Hampshire Police investigation into the circumstances surrounding the investigation and evidence gathering by the States of Jersey Police which led to the arrest and conviction of a high profile drugs dealer who was attempting to import a considerable amount of drugs to the Island?

      Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):

      The Hampshire Police investigation in relation to this matter is still continuing and no formal report has been received by the States of Jersey Police.

      3.10.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:
      I was under the impression that the investigation began maybe 2, 3, 4 months ago. Is there any reason as to why this investigation is taking so long?

      Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
      I presume that is because that is the length of time it needs to take, but my memory is that the announcement in relation to the investigation was made just before the decision was made by the Privy Council. I did not think it was quite that long ago, but I may be wrong.

      Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

      Could the Minister inform the House, all being well and the wind behind the ship, so to speak, when does he anticipate receiving the report?

      Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
      I do not anticipate receiving the report. The report will be going to the Deputy Chief Officer of Police and not to myself. My understanding is that this may well be received in the next few weeks.

      Deputy M.R. Higgins:
      Can the Minister tell us what effect, if any, the referral of the case to the European Court of Human Rights will have and, secondly, if the European Court of Human Rights upheld the appeal by Warren and his associates, whether that will lead to compensation being paid by the Island to them if they are released, on the basis of the way that the evidence was gathered?

      Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
      This is taking me into an area which I do not know the answer to. I am not sure, if there was a successful reference to the European Court of Human Rights, as to whether that would overturn a criminal conviction or not. I have not taken advice on that point or as to whether it would purely have a civil effect in relation to that. I am afraid I do not know the answer to that and, curiously, although I am a lawyer, I would need to take legal advice on the point.

      3.10.4 The Deputy of St. Martin:
      In an answer to an oral question on 8th December 2009, the Minister stated he was not aware of any intention on the part of the acting leadership of the States Police to take disciplinary action against anyone concerned. Can the Minister inform Members why there appears to be a u-turn and why there now seems to have an investigation almost 13, 14, 15 months maybe after these initial statements and has the Minister himself been consulted with a decision to ask the Hampshire Police to investigate the matter?

      Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
      We have a new Police Chief and it may well be that the new Police Chief has taken a different view of the matter. I was informed of the decision that was being made andI am fully supportive of it."

      Surely one would expect Mr Taylor to have checked his facts before making his statement, or is it Senator Le Marquand who is wrong?

      Delete
    2. Thank you Bob. What most strikes me is the answer that the minister did not expect to receive the Hampshire report. Whilst it would formally be addressed to the person who commissioned it I would expect the minister responsible to take an interest in this sort of thing. After all the report on the expenses of the earlier Haut de la Garenne investigation was seen by the minister. These reports might reveal things of general interest. The expenses report revealed that expense claims were paid that did not have the proper authorisation: the Home Affairs finance team seemingly not bothering to check for authorisation before approving payment. That was outside the control of the Chief of Police (G Power at the time) but should have been the trigger to revise practice.
      All very odd.
      Please keep up the good work.

      Delete
  12. Word leaking from police hq is that le Marquand Bowron and Taylor will all not be sitting so comfortably. The Hants "review" commissioned by Bowron and supervised by Taylor was a set up driven by Steve baker (warrens defence counsel). It somehow went from an operational review into a criminal investigation on a whim.... The cost of Hants, Carey Olsen, collas crill and other expenses eg hotels and other expensive UK advice from QCs will be somewhere over £600k when all counted up. Someone needs to actually find out the definitive costs? It is now evident that the officer leading the Hants investigations misled the disciplinary hearing regarding the involvement of AG, coupled with assistant chief constable Taylor misleading the hearing to the effect that the AG was the complainant.... One has to wonder about the competency of messrs le Marquand Bowron and Taylor and one also has to wonder how untenable each of their positions has now become after another massive waste of public money. The only ones rubbing their hands will be all the legal beagles....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your comments are very interesting, I am not surprised about the leakage and I am sure there will be a lot more before the complete Judgement is produced. Until it is there will be much speculation and probably very little being favourable towards Messrs Le Marquand, Bowron and Taylor.

      I have mentioned costs before and I expect they will be far higher than the £217k as stated by Senator Le Marquand last Tuesday, perhaps a States Member will ask for a breakdown of the costs to date.

      It also appears that Mr Taylor has a lot explaining to do as indeed do Senator Le Marquand and Mr Bowron.

      Delete
  13. Let's not get our eyes off the ball. The AG Dept or Crown are not off the hook either. Remember how Lenny Harper was made the scape goat so they could cover up the work that was not going to be done during the Child Abuse Enquiry..... Let's not be fooled again...remember that saying 'leopard's don't change their spots'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree and apart from seeking answers to the above case, answers must also be forthcoming in the Historic Abuse Committee of Inquiry, but unless its TOR are enlarged that may not happen.

      Delete
  14. Dear Bob, not wanting to change the subject. I am one of the people who suffered in Jersey in a home and at home. I do not seek money, I seek a personal apology and the time for me to speak out to people on the Island who want to listen. I have lost my childhood, my teen hood and most of my adult hood. The pain never goes away. I can see why I suffered in Jersey for so long, the same pattern is running through it's veins, the way the Island is still run politically and legally. Run by the chosen few, I know. I learn fast and I grew up fast to know this is going on around us and still. The past can't be mended but the present can and as a group of bloggers we can keep on asking the questions and keep seeking the truth. The truth will and must prevail. Thanks Bob.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No Problem but I doubt if you will get a personal apology. One can see how hollow the former Chief Minister's general apology was because as shown with the current Terms of Reference there is no intention of having a full, open and meaningful Committee of Inquiry.

      Delete
  15. Dear Bob, every year I suffered I would write the at the end of each year that date above my wall. So if I died someone would know I was there, that's the level abuse I am talking about here. Courts don't do emotion, people like me will never win that one! but what we are doing and will be doing is showing how things must change in Jersey in the legal and political arena. People like me are alive, with energy with determination for those not so fortunate. Thanks Bob. There is no turning back now, only forward!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of the difficulties the abused have to endure is the double pain, one from the abuser and one from those in authority who refuse to believe you.

      We have to change the culture and that can best achieved by people like you having the courage to come foward and speaking about it.

      Delete
  16. Dear Bob, if I get the opportunity I will do it. That's up to the system to allow me too. I'm here waiting... my door is open. Is there's?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Go for it, but take a friend.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hello! your blog is great, I'd love you to join my websites, and you put my link on your site, and so we benefit both.

    I await your response to munekitacate(at)gmail(dot)com

    kisses!
    Emilia

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Emilia,

      I have had a read of your site and others connected to it and am not sure whether mine is compatible with yours.

      However I have been wondering why my Blog has been receiving so many hits from your part of the and perhaps it is down to you. I hope that you and your friends will continue to be interested in knowing what is going on in Jersey.

      Delete
  19. Dear Bob, any news on this report (that was held in secret) at the Pomme Dor Hotel? also what's this I read in the JEP about a juror being approached by a police man during the Curtis Warren trial, has this been investigated. If this is for real then we can really look at our legal system, it means the juror's are being 'got at'..... this is serious for Jersey if this is the case.... any news?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, but I have something to say about it in my next Blog which I hope to publish shortly.

      The issue about Juror tapping is an old chestnut and is often used to weaken cases. It is a serious matter but it would need a lot more than a JEP report to get anywhere.

      Delete