Tuesday 12 February 2013

Curtis Warren, the Jury Nobbler and the Phantom Cop


As predicted the Disciplinary Hearing Judgement has been leaked and it was critical of the police management and law officers. The Judgement which can be read via the Voice for Children Blog raises serious concerns about missing letters, money set aside for the potential expert and it seems inexplicable that senior officers aided by an Advocate would submit unsigned statements to a Tribunal. Surely an explanation must be forthcoming.

What also requires an explanation is the Hampshire Police’s claim about the lack of co-operation which can be found in paragraph 8 of the Judgement which states: “Be that as it may, and having now been informed that the letter was never sent, the position in relation to the co-operation by the Attorney General and the States Police in Jersey remains the same. I do find it odd that having asked the Hampshire Police to investigate the matters surrounding the Curtis Warren police operation, the authorities in Jersey did not co-operate fully in the way that I would have expected given that it was they that asked for the enquiry to be carried out. Mr Cessford made this very clear and I have no reason to doubt it and that caused me some considerable surprise. I maintain that this lack of co-operation or, perhaps more accurately, lack of complete co-operation, can only have compromised the Hampshire enquiry and limited the full facts available to me to make a decision in this case. I stress again that this is just one of the unsatisfactory elements of this case which have either been decided upon or affected the Crown about which more later.”

I agree with Mr Barton that it was odd to ask Hants Police to investigate matters and not co-operate, it is also an affront to the Jersey taxpayers who paid Hants Police in excess of £117k to conduct what now appears to have been an ill conceived investigation.

What was the lack of co-operation which compromised the Hants enquiry? No doubt rumour and speculation will ensue until both the Attorney General and the Police come forward with the facts and an explanation; however I am afraid that the odds of that occurring at present are as great as Arsenal winning the Premiership this season.

One issue which must have frustrated Hants Police and should be investigated is the allegation that someone attempted to “nobble” the Jury. During the course of the Royal Court trial in September/October 2009 it is alleged that a Jury member now known as Juror 125 was approached by some person claiming to be a police officer and it is alleged that the police officer said “you know they are guilty” or something similar.

In summary, the Jury member was discharged with the trial continuing with 11 members. I don’t know what investigation was undertaken by the States Police but it is evident that Hants Police tried to do so in the summer of 2011 but its request for the Juror’s name was rejected by the Crown Officers. Why?

What is also strange is when a potential witness came forward that summer he was advised not to reveal the name of the jury member in his statement which was submitted to the Court of Appeal. After Warren and Co had been found guilty in the Royal Court in October 2009 they later appealed to the Privy Council which heard the case in February 2011 and upheld the Royal Court’s verdict.

At the end of September 2011 Warren having obtained a statement from a potential witness requested the Court of Appeal to make an order requiring the AG to disclose the name of the juror in their trial so that a statement could be taken from him to assist the Hants Police into alleged police misconduct in connection with their trial.

It is evident that the Court of Appeal was unable to assist on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the appeal.

The Court of Appeal Judgement dated 29th September 2011 makes interesting reading because apart from the possible witness being told not to disclose the name of the Juror it is also apparent that he has not been interviewed by the States of Jersey Police, why?

The nobbler could have been a police officer, but he could have been a stooge for the Defence, however the upshot was that the Juror was discharged from the Jury and steps to identify the nobbler have been thwarted.

I hold no brief for Warren and Co, the Police or the Crown Officers but I do support the principle of a fair hearing and every one being equal in the eyes of the law. The case is not just about Warren who is a career criminal but includes a naive/foolish 20 year old man with no previous convictions. He received a five year prison sentence for a crime which was estimated to be in the region of £1m. Only recently a local magistrate received 15month’s imprisonment for defrauding elderly people out of £1m., where is the equality?

There are a number of unanswered matters which have already been published but there are others such as what happened to the person Warren and Co were purchasing the cannabis from, where is the cannabis, why was the Juror’s name withheld and why did the Jersey Police and Crown Officers fail to co-operate with the Hants Police?

These are among the increasing number of questions which need answers but who will ask them and even if asked, will the full answers be given?

It is alleged that the Police Chief Officer does not wish to respond to the concerns raised in the Disciplinary Judgement on the grounds that it is an internal matter. He is entitled to that view which perhaps was acceptable in other jurisdictions where he has served. However it is no longer just an internal matter but is very much of public interest. It is his Force which is under scrutiny and whose reputation is being challenged. It is evident that something has gone wrong and the public’s confidence in his leadership is being questioned. For his own sake and that of the States Police he should respond.

It is also evident that a jury member was “nobbled” because he was discharged. It will never be really known what affect if any, the “nobbling” had on the Jury, but surely in the interest of justice efforts should be made to assist the Hants Police to trace the "nobbler." As a result of a recent question in the States we know that over £2m of taxpayer’s money has already been spent on the legal costs, no doubt some of which will have been spent withholding the identity of the Juror.

The application on 29th September 2011 is not the only occasion that attempts have been made to obtain the Juror’s details in what is becoming a tug of war between Curtis Warren and the Crown Officer’s Department, but why is it withholding the Juror’s name, what has it to hide, who is it protecting and is the withholding justified or just an abuse of power?














47 comments:

  1. Bob you said the 20 year was charged with 1 million pounds worth of drugs the police never got 1 pounds worth of drugs. Also when warren and co were charged it was 300 000 pounds worth of drugs.You could not compare the 20 year old with a magistrate who has conned,it sounds like a lot of people out of their life savings if he was not a magistrate he would get 7-10 years for that much fraud.Not 15 months. He will be out of jail in 6 months with a million pounds. How much will the 20 year old come to?. I know his life will be over if he hasn't done some type of courses in jail he will be unemployable. I think the police should explain why they have destroyed his life by fitting them up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One should always hope that “the punishment fits the crime” as far as the 20 year old is concerned I will summarise what can be found in the Court Judgement dated 5th May 2010.

      The AG took the starting point of 11 years imprisonment. His reasons were that the man was active in the furtherance of the plot from the outset. He had a significant financial interest in the importation. He was 20 years old at the time of the offence, 22 at the time of sentence. His principal mitigation was his youth and previous good character.

      His advocate submitted a letter to the Royal Court from the applicant expressing remorse for causing so much grief to his family. He denied the offence and the Court was referred to a probation report. Although the Crown had alleged a substantial financial involvement the only money he had in his possession when he was arrested disembarking from the boat from France was £700.

      His Advocate argued for a lower starting point on the ground that, on the Crown case, he played a substantially lesser role than others. Letters of reference were produced to the Court and a psychotherapist's report was taken into account. The 20 year old was of good character, supported by his family and fully engaged with the probation.

      His Advocate also submitted that there should be a reduction in sentence to reflect police misconduct and asserted that, if that principle applied, it should apply across the board.

      The Court’s response was “We have indicated in each of these applications that we reject the submissions that sentences should be reduced to indicate disapproval of police misconduct and we are not persuaded that the sentence passed on the 20 year old was even arguably wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. All his considerable mitigation was properly reflected in his sentence.”

      Did the “punishment fit the crime in this instance?

      When compared with the Magistrate one can hardly say that it did for the 20 year old.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the reply bob well done for seeking the truth if only there were some more ex policemen willing to do the same.

      Delete
  2. Dear Bob, so many questions and so few answers, when will it all end? why? People have the right to ask questions, it's cost a lot of money, why no answers? Well done for seeking the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, but as I said in my Blog will they be asked and will the answers be given?

      Delete
  3. Did anybody ask the French, Belgian or Dutch Police to confirm the details of the bugging operation so far as they were concerned?
    I have read much from this side of the water about their decisions and behaviour but nothing directly identified with a named officer. Have they in fact confirmed that the information offered here or in London is correct and did the Hants or any other Police carry out any investigations directly in these "foreign" jurisdictions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it is taken as read that consent was not given for audio bug.

      As the Hants Police report is not in the public domain (Yet??)I don't whether they made equiries with any one on the Continent.

      Delete
  4. I'd concur in your assessment on the 20 year old; it seems he was previously someone of good character who was unfortunate in this one lapse of judgement. It certainly does not seem a fair prison sentence in those circumstances when considered alongside the former Acting Magistrate who also played a more peripheral part in the matters in which he took part.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Tony,

      It is likely that had he not been in company with Curtis Warren would have received a lighter sentence.

      Delete
  5. Dear Bob, so do we have answers about Matthew Jowitt? is he going to be asked the questions he should have been asked? Why is this not so?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your Comment is very interesting because it raises further questions.

      In a comment in my previous Blog I inserted the word “alledged” before Advocate Jowitt’s advice to the police officer’s. In the Judgement dated 28th March 2011 published following the Privy Council Appeal one can find the following’;

      Decision

      144. It follows from what we have said that leave to appeal against conviction on Ground 3 is, in each case, refused.

      He then considered the role of Crown Advocate Jowitt and said that he found him to be an honest witness who was a man of integrity. Referring to the advice that he had given on 11 July, he said: "I have no doubt that his advice was honest and well intentioned and I acquit Crown Advocate Jowitt of any impropriety or criminality or of acting recklessly or in disregard of the law." He agreed with the defence suggestion that the Chief Officer of Police and the Attorney General were people of integrity and referred to the detailed submissions made on behalf of the defence that they had been misled by the police, which suggested that neither of them was being accused of complicity in any unlawfulness. The Commissioner reviewed the evidence of Superintendent Du Val, DCI Minty and Howard Sharp from the Law Officers' Department, but made no findings about them.

      One wonders how the Judge could say that he found the Advocate to be an honest witness who was a man of integrity, if he did not give evidence before him. Also if one reads the Court of Appeal’s Judgement dated 5th May 2010 it would appear that the Advocate did not attend in the original trial in September 2009 because the following appears in that Court’s Judgement

      Ground 3
      "The Commissioner's refusal to allow the defence to call the witnesses Pashley, Beghin and Jowitt."

      130. At the conclusion of the prosecution case, Advocate Baker filed an application to call a number of witnesses – Detective Sergeant Louis Beghin and Detective Inspector Gary Pashley, of the Jersey Police, Crown Advocate Matthew Jowitt, and others. The reason for the application was given as follows:-

      The reason can be found in the Judgement but upshot of the request was that it was rejected.

      Having attended any number of Trials I have found that on occasions some witnesses from either side are not called because of the affect they may have on their case.

      If the Advocate was not called for the Prosecution it will be for Readers to question why. At the same time they might like to question why all the accused exercised their right not to give evidence.

      Delete
  6. If it was an illegal bug under French or Dutch law surely somebody is liable to be arrested for planting it in those countries..and if the Jersey police are aware of its illegality according to Jersey or foreign rules then surely there is a conspiracy to commit a criminal act that needs to be investigated by the Jersey police. After all, we are told that the "gang" was conspiring to do something illegal...but of course the difference is that they never actually did it. The Jersey police with the apparent support of others - including the Crown Officers - actually carried out the intention of their conspiracy so are potentially doubly criminal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The more one looks at the case, the more questions arise. As the bugging took place on the Continent, should it not be for the Police Forces over there to investigate the matter?

      That said one does get the impression that a blind eye approach to the Law was acceptable for the Prosecution but not for the Defence.

      Delete
  7. Let's not forget either that yet another bunch of former News of the World and Sun journalists have just been arrested in the UK for a conspiracy to "bug" some years ago.
    Is this type of surveillance ever just an acceptable expedient?
    Do police officers really have extra powers that include breaking the laws that apply to the rest of us?
    Yes - there are plenty more questions that can be asked - it depends whether we really want to hear the answers...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Given that it was a Crown Officer who gave the advice and the police acted upon it, I would not hold out much chance of any anyone being held to account

      Delete
  8. Dear Bob, have the Crown made a statement? Has Matthew Jowitt been questioned about 'the advice' he gave? these really are questions that do need answers to, how on earth did the Privy Council report be so damning of the Police but sort of 'let the Crown' off in their assessment? Why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This Reply will also cover the Comment below.

      From an answer given by the AG in the States on Tuesday 29th January 2013 he said he would not give a statement clarifying the position of the Law Officers Department on the Warren case.

      On Tuesday 5th February in the JEP's report on the leaked Disciplinary Judgement which was published in the Voice for Children Blog a few days earlier, the paper states that following its request to the Law Officer's Department it published a short statement in which in summary praised Adv Jowitt who is very able and conscientious advocate who has done excellent work for the benefit of the Island both while employed in the Law Officers' Dept and subsequently in private practice.

      The fact that the Law Officers' Department was willing to publish a short statement shows contempt to the elected States Members who were unable to obtain a statement from the AG via legitimate questions in the States.

      It is also evident that the Law Officers' Department is content with the Advocate's actions not withstanding the Courts comments.

      What is also evident is the degree of "buck passing" which is coming into play by the Police, Crown Officers and the Courts. Not a pretty spectacle.

      Delete
  9. Did the Crown come back with a statement? if yes, where can one get this information? if no, why not?

    ReplyDelete
  10. In the world of tax avaidance (not evasion of course) there have been some vrey interesting test cases where trust administrators have taken legal advice and acted accordingly - only to find themsleves being pursued in the courts for potentially illegal activities. Thus "legal advice" - whosoever gave it - is not to be treated as the word of god.
    Some of these cases have had implications so far as giving the UK tax ollecting authorities access to Trusts registered in Jersey etc.
    The point is that the world is changing. Dixon is no longer the last word on police procedures and their public responsibilities...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would be comforting to think that we still lived in the Dixon era, but even then there were grey areas. One can question how many people were executed on the evidence of police officers and other witnesses. “Let him have it Chris” is one statement that springs to mind.

      Although life has moved on it has become even more sophisticated which makes getting to the truth that more difficult. However the breaking of laws by those engaged in the fight against crime must never be taken as being acceptable.

      Delete
  11. I have read your blogs with great interest Mr Hill, the question that keeps being raised is the Crown, where is their accountability? I look forward to the response.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your Comment and for reading my Blogs from which you will have gathered that I have great concern about accountability.

      Next Tuesday there are a number of Written and Oral Questions lodged and the one below from Deputy Higgins will be of particular interest.

      You will have also gathered that there were and still are just a few States Members who are prepared to challenge established sacred cows, what those Members need is the public's support by asking them to ask the 48 plus other States Members why they are not supporting "the few."


      14. H.M. Attorney General will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier –

      (a) Will H.M. Attorney General set out clearly each of the steps that need to be taken by anyone wishing to make a complaint (including misconduct) against the actions of any of the following office-holders, explaining in detail each step and each level, until the matter reaches the persons or bodies ultimately responsible for determining such matters –
      (i) Legally qualified members of the Law Officers’ Department;
      (ii) H.M. Solicitor General;
      (iii) H.M. Attorney General;
      (iv) Deputy Bailiff;
      (v) Bailiff;
      (vi) Jurats;
      (vii) Magistrates?
      (b) To whom are the office-holders (i) to (vii) listed above accountable for appraisal purposes?”

      Delete
  12. Your quesion 14 is one I will wait for with great interest, is there anyway you can email on your blog the link after it is recorded on Tuesday? What is very worrying is that in 2013 Politicians are actually asking the questions that have never been asked? This question is actually going to go to the root of the problem in Jersey. Lack of accountability at a high level. I look forward to reading this issue on your blog further. Good work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, I am hoping to publish the answer on Tuesday evening.

      Delete
  13. Dear Bob, it really feels for the first time we are getting to the real issues that need answers to, this can only be a good thing, look forward to hearing the answer to question 14. Keep up the great work.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dear Bob, quick question am I presuming that the above list also includes Judges? does that come under (i)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No I don't think so as I believe that (i) covers people like Advocate Jowitt.

      Given that the Bailiff and the Deputy Bailiff are also Judges, they would come under (v)& (iv).

      Delete
  15. Yes, of course The Bailiff and The Deputy Bailiff are Judges, thank you for that, once one knows the person to complain too, one can bring out in the open the issue of a Judge with a huge conflict on a case that would not stand down from a case, the question above is one, we hope will at last bring people of 'high' standing to accountability. It is long overdue, but at last on the road! however rocky!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Do read CTV notes on report re: Warren's lawyer wants to see, The Hampshire Report, is there anyone out there that has it? it's time for open accountability, no more secrets please....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did see the broadcast but thought that given that Warren's lawyer seems to have come across a brick wall every time he has appealed for anything I would not rate his chances at getting his hands on the Hants Report.

      He could go down the Freedom of Information route but that could take ages.

      Delete
  17. I have just read JEP's article dated Tuesday 5th February, titled "Lawyer encouraged bugging of hire car in drugs baron case". How come Matthew Jowitt is not being thrown the legal book at him? his actions to most, should mean a disciplinary hearing and even a prison sentence. Or have I missed something? how on earth is this man still working as a Crown Officer.......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that it does seem strange and I covered the point on 16th Feb at 0944 above. I note that there is a question being asked in the States next Tuesday re a commendation being awarded to the police officers, I wonder whether the Advocate will be in line for a commendation too?

      Delete
  18. Having just read your article 12 February, it is quite astounding at how Jersey have dealt with this. A lot of money has been spent on report, upon report. It is of course in the Public's interest to know the truth, I agree, everyone should get a fair trial. There should be no exceptions! Matthew Jowitt seems to be the person who encouraged the Police, is his work being checked.... how can this be avoided again? will the missing Juror ever be asked what happened? if not, why not? what is there to hide....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having read the various Judgements it appears that Warren's Lawyer might not have been up to speed when the matter arose during the 2009 trial. As a result it appears that an opportunity was lost and it is now an uphill task to remedy the matter.

      That said it does seeem odd that Hants Police were hampered in their attempts to investigate the Jury nobbling. There are questions being asked in the States on Tuesday and it will be interesting to know what reasons will be given as why Hants were obstructed and what steps if any were taken by the States Police to trace the nobbler was apparently a police officer.

      Delete
  19. The plot thickens, lets wait for this Tuesday. Is there access to the recording of what is being said questions and answers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope to publish the Written Answers on Tuesday evening and I am pretty sure that The Jersey Way will publish the Oral Questions in its Blog that evening too.

      Delete
  20. The juror exclusion is entirely unrelated to the disciplinary allegations and hearing; don't confuse the two entirely separate issues. An inside source has seen the various reports of Hants. They lack any analysis of evidence and lack the insight of a competent investigator. Hants also failed to review 90% of the intelligence and evidence so their allegations were hopelessly wide of the mark.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It may well be that the juror exclusion and the disciplinary hearing are unrelated and I am not casting any aspersions but it could be said that until the alleged police officer is identified, he could be any States Police Officer, including any of the three. Or it could be that the nobbler was a stooge.

      Therefore is it not surprising that so few steps have been taken to identify the person?

      I note you comments regarding the Hants Report and about their allegations being hopelessly wide of the mark. Does that include the allegations that their investigations were hampered by the lack of co-operation from the Jersey Authorities?

      Delete
  21. And also how does the person above who says the Hants failed in their report know? did they read the report, unless we read it, we won't know will we?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As always, when documents are withheld speculation takes over. The writer was relying on an “Inside source.” Until the Report is released there will be continued speculation. That said, the speculation about the Senior Police Officers and Law Officers involved in the Disciplinary Hearing was not far off the mark. So who is to say the information from the Inside Source is incorrect.

      Delete
  22. The writer above who wrote the Hants failed, sounds as if this person knows how to investigate......sounds like the same old Jersey, when we don't like how a report is going we 'make a mess of it'. Sounds very similar, the Hampshire's were paid to do a job, if by doing their job they are descredited by not being able to carry out their duties, then how can the Hants have failed, in what? sounds like so many reports in Jersey, they get carried out and then when Jersey don't want to hear it, they stop it! sounds all too familiar I am afraid.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As mentioned above there will be much speculation about the Report. One would have hoped that the Hants Police were capable of investigating the matter, but if their hands were tied and avenues blocked, who knows what the Report will contain.

      Delete
  23. Agreed which is why we go back to the point, we need to see the Hampshire Report so we can make our own decision.....

    ReplyDelete
  24. It's time now for Jersey to be open in it's dealings, it's time for Jersey to stop keeping secrets, let's be honest ! if we really are we all know 'it's time'. Lets be honest.....

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dear Bob, I look forward to hearing the questions and answers on Tuesday, fingers crossed the answers are as professionally given as the questions! lets see. Note for Mr Le Marquand, short answers and to the point please! thank you.

    ReplyDelete