Sunday, 27 December 2009

Stuart Syvret v AG 27th August 2009

I Have put this up because it ties in with Stuarts latest blog post concerning the disclosure of evidence.
Please leave comments but no slagging
If you disagree with senator Syvret please leave constructive arguments so we can look at the facts
( have you got that bencher )
27th August 2009

Stuart Syvret
Tape late in being switched on, recorded from 14.16.03.
DEFENDANT: … today certainly, and I would hope I could take a few moments to respond to some of the points made by Advocate Baker.

JUDGE SHAW: Well all I want to deal with today is, is there a prospect of you obtaining Legal Aid. Now if Legal Aid were granted (inter)

DEFENDANT: In the near future, no.

JUDGE SHAW: Very good. Therefore we’ll proceed for the moment with you representing yourself, if you become legally represented as the proceedings progress, decisions that have been taken could be reviewed if there are new arguments to be put that haven’t already been put and we’ll leave that door open. We would do that in the case of a defendant for example who had entered a guilty plea whilst not represented and then if he receives representation and there is a legal argument to be put on his behalf, then it’s his right that the matter be reopened. If somebody is already represented and enters a guilty plea normally the court would not allow that matter to be revisited. Do you understand the (indistinct)

ADV BAKER: Madam will you then give me ten minutes to consider your suggestion?


ADV BAKER: Because it seems to me that the future conduct of the case will depend upon that decision alone.

JUDGE SHAW: Yes. I’ll just outline perhaps for Mr. Syvret’s benefit as well as anyone else’s the issues. Abuse of process argument that Mr. Syvret brings alleges that there is in a sense a conspiracy against him to bring him to trial for improper purposes, I think that would put the matter in a nutshell. The overriding consideration in abuse of process is whether someone can obtain a fair trial. There is also the issue of whether the authorities have acted with such repugnance that the court ought not to entertain a prosecution in a particular case. It’s, I believe has been the practice in the United Kingdom more and more often to deal with abuse of process as part of the trial process, because a lot of these issues turn on evidence and you don’t know what the evidence is until you’ve heard it, it can be a waste of time to call those witnesses first to deal with a separate abuse of process argument and they’d have to recall them at a later stage. Alternatively there is the case of… of course we have the issue in this case where there are two trials and therefore somebody whom the Defence may say is a relevant witness may be a witness to fact in one case but may be a witness as Mr. Syvret would say to relevantly overall conspiracy theory which would apply only to abuse of process, so it may not be relevant to the other trial. I’ll leave you to think about that, do you understand the issue that I’ve raised with Mr. Baker?

DEFENDANT: I believe so yes, I mean is it possible for me to say a few words before the adjournment?

JUDGE SHAW: Is there anything that you wish me to rule on at this stage? You can discuss the matter by all means with Mr. Baker as to what both parties think would be the correct approach and you may both make submissions to me after you’ve discussed it. It’s just that I’ve raised this uhm… which obviously Mr. Baker hasn’t had an opportunity to give a great deal of thought to, neither I assume have you. So what I would propose to do at this stage is adjourn for ten minutes or so to give you both an opportunity to think it over before hearing any submissions.

DEFENDANT: It’s just that I am increasingly getting the feeling that I’m appearing at these hearings and Advocate Baker speaks for ten minutes, whatever, outlining his case and the Crown case against me and I don’t get a chance to respond.

JUDGE SHAW: We’re at a very early stage at the moment, you will have an opportunity to outline uhm… all Advocate Baker is doing today is outlining a timetable. Now if you disagree with any of that, clearly I’m going to hear from you but at this stage what I want to hear from both of you is on the question of abuse of process. Should it be a distinct hearing or should we deal with the issues of abuse of process within the context of each trial.

DEFENDANT: My personal view is that it should be dealt with as a distinct process.

JUDGE SHAW: Well that’s why I’m going to give you some time to think that over and Mr. Baker some time to think that over because there are advantages and disadvantages of whichever way we deal with it.
Court Rise
Court Resume

JUDGE SHAW: Just one moment Mr. Baker and Mr. Syvret. The Greffier tells me that the recording, the court recording equipment wasn’t working for the first few minutes of our hearing today. I think the only matter that has been missed is the schedule of the timetable Mr. Baker laid out but I’m going to go through that with you anyway Mr. Syvret and then I’ll make orders at the end, thank you very much. Will you sit down for the moment Mr. Syvret.

ADV BAKER: Madam, these are words you’re probably likely to hear rarely in this case I anticipate but I’m pleased to say that Mr. Syvret and the Crown have reached an agreement. We both agree that there should be a separate hearing in relation to the abuse and we also believe that there should be no evidence heard today. So the witness Miss Labey has been told that she can leave court.

JUDGE SHAW: Very good.

ADV BAKER: In which case Madam you need to move to consider the directions needed to progress this case to trial and firstly to abuse of process. Can I say that in relation to abuse of process, the abuse of process hearing should deal with both Road Traffic matters and the Data Protection, there can be no question of two abuse of process hearings.

JUDGE SHAW: Well a lot of the issues are the same.

ADV BAKER: Yes. The Crown take the view that the central allegation that there’s some form of criminal conspiracy to prosecute Mr. Syvret should be dealt with before trial.

JUDGE SHAW: You’ve no witnesses to call for that?


JUDGE SHAW: Do you wish to make any further submissions beyond your skeleton argument?

ADV BAKER: No Madam, the Crown’s position set out in the skeleton and the enclosed correspondence. There is… the uhm… the Crown position presently is that the matter can be dealt with on the papers. I’ve made it plain that there is no unused material in the possession of the Crown which in any way indicates some conspiracy by dark forces to prosecute Mr. Syvret. If there was it would be obviously disclosed and in fact this prosecution discontinued. However, I also make it plain that the obligation for disclosure is a continuing one and Mr. Syvret’s disclosed to me a lot of material today, I’ve had the chance to skim some of it. I’ve said it appears to be much of the same though there’s some new material that he’s… I’ve noticed that he’s put forward. I will review that and continue to review that and continue to consider it my duties in that regard.

JUDGE SHAW: Very good, and I shall always make it plain to Mr. Syvret that the Prosecution has as Mr. Baker says a continuing duty to disclose any evidence which is relevant which may come into the Prosecution’s possession during the course of any hearing and any subsequent trial. Also that if we deal with the abuse of process as a distinct hearing at the beginning, that’s not the end of the matter. If during the trial issues arise which show an abuse of process then the court still has power to stop the trial, that matter is always kept under review, do you understand, is that quite clear, thank you.

ADV BAKER: Madam, you asked me about your powers in relation to disclosure.


ADV BAKER: The Magistrate’s Court and in fact the Royal Court, operate under the old English common law system, the test in Keen, the gist of which is that relevant material, potentially relevant material should be disclosed and that you have a power to control the proceedings in your court to ensure that justice is done and if you order the Crown to disclose material, then subject to the usual procedure, and the Crown will abide by your rulings. So I accept that you have the power to make rulings.

JUDGE SHAW: Very good. Do you accept… my view is that the question of relevance is primarily a matter for the Prosecution.

ADV BAKER: My responsibility.

JUDGE SHAW: It’s your… entirely your responsibility, therefore if the Defence is saying that you have something that is relevant and you decide it is not relevant, then is it for the Judge to judge to make a decision on that matter?

ADV BAKER: Well if Mr. Syvret persuades you that I’ve got it wrong then you should direct me that you (inter)

JUDGE SHAW: Mr. Syvret would have to persuade me that you were wrong.


JUDGE SHAW: And then I… my view is that I would order you to reveal or disclose an item, but only if I thought that without that item Mr. Syvret could not obtain a fair trial.

ADV BAKER: Absolutely.

JUDGE SHAW: I’m operating under the provisions which require you to have a fair trial under the Human Rights (Jersey) Law, because there’s no other legislation which enables me to order the Prosecution to disclose any particular document, but there must be an overarching responsibility of the court to ensure a fair trial and if the Prosecution do not comply then I would have to stop the prosecution as an abuse of process. That’s the view I take.

ADV BAKER: Madam yes. Madam it must be the case that the common law ensures there’s a fair trial.

JUDGE SHAW: Yes, very good. Mr. Syvret, Mr. Baker has produced a schedule and perhaps for the benefit of the recording I will go through this to be very clear. He estimates that the abuse of process hearing will take one day and I’ll go through the proposed directions and then come back and you can make representations on each one individually if you wish to do so. He wishes to ask if your skeleton argument is final and if so the Prosecution require 14 days in order to respond. He wishes provisional trial dates I think to be set for the Data Protection trial and Road Traffic trial because… I say provisional because of course if your abuse of process argument succeeds there would be no trial. The issue has to be tackled as to what witnesses can be required to attend court. Whether the Prosecution say they have no more disclosure to give you in relation to the abuse of process or in relation to the Road Traffic. They say there is some more to be served in the Data Protection case, two more primary statements, one from Mr. Faudemer and one from Mrs. Martins, and some unused material. They say they have reviewed the unused material in the abuse of process and the Road Traffic case and it is their view that there is nothing further of relevance to disclose to you, if you wish to contest that then that’s a matter you have to bring before me. The… any orders as to disclosure should be made at this stage and witness orders should be made. Now firstly let’s deal with the abuse of process argument, you’ve agreed that that should be a distinct hearing. The Prosecution say that that should take one day, now do you agree with that timescale?

DEFENDANT: Possibly. I mean it would take at least one day I would imagine, it’s not inconceivable it could continue longer.

JUDGE SHAW: Well that will depend largely on which witnesses you propose to call and whether those witnesses will attend and whether they are compellable. So we’ll deal with that later as regards to witnesses. Now the court has a proposed date for the abuse of process hearing…

GREFFIER: (indistinct)

JUDGE SHAW: The court can accommodate the hearing on Monday the 19th of October. That would be an all day hearing. If all evidence was not heard and the case was not concluded by the end of the Monday the 19th, the afternoons of Tuesday the 20th and Wednesday the 21st are also available.

ADV BAKER: Madam that date is convenient to the Crown.

JUDGE SHAW: Is that convenient to you Mr. Syvret?


JUDGE SHAW: The next question Mr. Syvret is, the skeleton argument that you have served on the court, is that the extent of your argument?

DEFENDANT: To the best of my knowledge at the moment, I mean if… it may help the court if I could just explain my key positions for a few minutes.

JUDGE SHAW: Is there anything else of substance you’re going to add to what you have already served, that’s the question?

DEFENDANT: Well I have served… I mean I accept, first of all I apologise for the lateness in the serving of the documents but as I’ve said before, I’m working single handily on this as a non lawyer and what was going to be the Defence argument was rather kyboshed by the non calling of the Defence’s witnesses.

JUDGE SHAW: That’s… Mr. Syvret, can I just put you straight at the moment. This hearing is not for calling of witnesses, we’ll discuss the calling of witnesses at a later stage but today was never listed for the calling of witnesses.

DEFENDANT: Well I mean… obviously you’re the expert in these matters but it seemed to me that as we are talking about such issues as disclosure, things of that nature and the appropriate procedure, it may be that there are evidential matters that may have a bearing on those decisions.

JUDGE SHAW: I’m not proposing to hear any evidence at the moment. If you raise anything today which leads me to believe that I need to hear evidence then we can hear evidence on another occasion before the 19th of October.

DEFENDANT: Yes well I mean if I may just say a few words to outline my position. I’ve been accused by the Crown of seeking to play havoc with the judicial system and that the court should deal with me robustly. That’s an accusation I reject, I would remind Advocate Baker that I did in fact produce a detailed 16 page letter describing the broad thrust of the Defence’s arguments and the Defence’s disclosure requirements which was given to the Crown on the 26th of June, and since then, indeed some disclosures have been forthcoming but nothing like the disclosures that the Defence considers adequate and necessary to its defence, and if I may just quote a few words from my… that skeleton argument uhm… Advocate Baker in his skeleton argument wrote similar words to those which he has spoken earlier this afternoon, but if I could just quote what I’ve written in response. ‘Now it is a fact that any person facing charges does in fact have the right to use such legal principles as recusal applications, abuse of process applications and applications for stays of proceedings. It is also a fact that any person, even a non establishment politician has the same rights as any other person to make certain applications to the court and to receive a fair and impartial consideration from that court. It may not be common for the average defendant to seek to make such applications before this court, but in point of fact other defendants are not prevented from so doing. The defendant in this case, me, is simply exercising the same rights available to all people and I do believe that that is a view that the court, I would hope, would hold in mind.’ It may also help the court and indeed Advocate Baker, and I accept he has not had time to read this material yet, but I do think I should just quote a few paragraphs of that which I’ve written here concerning the issue with disclosure as it is plainly going to be the core fundamental argument about which certainly the whole abuse of process issue is going to hinge, and I do think this is of relevance. I’ve written, ‘The disclosure requirements of ECHR case law’ uhm… I’ll quote a few paragraphs if that’s okay with the court?

JUDGE SHAW: Do you have a copy of this, is this your (inter)

DEFENDANT: This is my skeleton argument, it begins on page 13.

JUDGE SHAW: I don’t think I’ve got a copy of this, have I got a copy of it?

GREFFIER: (indistinct)

DEFENDANT: I will proceed just to quote the relevant facts (inter)

JUDGE SHAW: Just one moment. It would be helpful if I… the Greffier has printed the matters you have emailed this morning but I haven’t had an opportunity to read them. What’s the date of the document you’re reading from?

DEFENDANT: Well I finished it last night and emailed it out early this morning.

JUDGE SHAW: Is this dated the 27th of August 09.44 Defence stay of proceedings?


JUDGE SHAW: It begins pre-amble, the Defence is making an application.

DEFENDANT: That’s right. I’ll just quote the bits, the parts that I consider are relevant.

JUDGE SHAW: If you just give me the page numbers.

DEFENDANT: Page 13 onwards.


DEFENDANT: 13, yes. ‘The refusal to disclose much of the necessary evidence actually goes further to the proof of the Defence’s contention that this is a politically motivated process. It should also be noted that the credibility of the Prosecution’s refusals to disclose in this case is further badly damaged by the seeming non compatibility with the Attorney General’s own guidelines. However, even setting aside those considerations, the Defence must draw the court’s attention to paragraph 6.178 of Human Rights Practice, Sweet and Maxwell, which is headed Prosecution’s Duty of Disclosure. The Defence makes this point concerning disclosure, and this is a point that I would ask the court to (inter)

JUDGE SHAW: Do you copy that paragraph anywhere?

DEFENDANT: I’m going on to quote relevant parts of it yes. ‘The Defence makes this point in particular because it deals not only with the determination of guilt or innocence but also with such questions as mitigation. Article 6 of the ECHR guarantees to citizens of signatory state certain fundamental rights in respect of obtaining a fair trial.’ The Defence quote from Human Rights Practice section 6.178 and this is titled The Prosecution’s Duty of Disclosure. ‘In Edwards v- The United Kingdom the court held that ‘it is a requirement of fairness, indeed one which is recognised under English Law, that the Prosecution must disclose to the Defence all material evidence for or against the accused. However, the entitlement to disclose is not an absolute right.’ I then go on ‘Here it is seen that the court has taken a view that the standards of disclosure whilst not absolute or boundless, nevertheless impose a very high burden of disclosure upon the Prosecution. Indeed the court made specific reference to the disclosure requirement being recognised and established in English law. It is therefore established that disclosure is a powerful right of the Defence which a prosecution must comply with. But it is also stated that the right to disclosure is not an absolute right. We therefore must pose the question, in the present case involving these four charges against the defendant, where does that boundary fall, that threshold up to which the Defence rightly demands disclosure and beyond which the Prosecution can legitimately refuse disclosure? When reading the reference work will be seen that it goes on to make reference to public interest immunity as being a ground which may be cited by a prosecution to a trial judge in the event of a prosecution wishing to withhold material from the Defence when of the opinion such disclosure would endanger national security. Suffice it to observe that legitimate grounds for refusing disclosure are rare and must achieve a very high threshold of necessity.’ This interpretation is made crystal clear from the very next line of section 6.178 of Human Rights Practice which says this, and I quote ‘In Gespers -v- Belgian the Commission held that this duty extended to the investigating authorities as well and included an obligation to disclose not only any material which is in the possession of the police or the Prosecution but also any material to which they could gain access. It applied to material which might assist the accused, might assist the accused in exonerating himself or’ and I’ll ask the court to note this, ‘or in obtaining a reduction in his sentence, and included material which might undermine the credibility of a Prosecution witness. Non disclosure of evidence may also raise an issue under Article 6.3.’ The Defence must also draw the court’s attention specifically to the final section of 6.179 of Human Rights Practice which says this, ‘A procedure whereby the Prosecution itself attempts to assess the importance of concealed information to the Defence and waives against the public interest in keeping the information secret cannot comply with the requirements of Article 6.1.’ I repeat that, ‘cannot, it cannot comply with the requirements of Article 6.1.’ So that concludes the direct quotation Mam from my skeleton argument but in summary I would suggest that on that basis and these are extremely authoritative sources, works, ECHR case law. It is in fact very clear that the requirement to disclose evidence is in fact a good deal broader. Whilst not boundless, I accept it is nevertheless I think quite plainly a good deal broader in law than that which is contended by the Prosecution.

JUDGE SHAW: Mr. Syvret. Do you have any comment on that Mr. Baker?

ADV BAKER: Just very briefly Madam. I don’t blame Mr. Syvret for this he’s not a lawyer, but the last comment which he put so much emphasis on refers to a system where a prosecuting lawyer has decided that some material is relevant to the Defence and then himself goes on to decide but it’s not in the public interest to disclose it to the Defence, that’s not the system here. If there was material which I’ve considered was relevant to Mr. Syvret and I didn’t want to disclose it, then I would have to put that before the court and the court would decide whether it should or shouldn’t be disclosed. So I don’t… obviously of course I don’t criticize him for it but he’s misunderstood it.

JUDGE SHAW: Mr. Syvret.

DEFENDANT: Uhm… but I mean, I think we’ve seen the problem illustrated in what Advocate Baker has just said, he has said that any evidence that he considers might be relevant to the Defence case he would put before you Mam for consideration but first of all of course, that evidence has to overcome the views and the objectives of the Crown before achieving that disclosure to yourself to test whether it is admissible or not, and I would just make the point that it is important to remember that we are not talking merely about a question of determining guilt or innocence here, we are also talking about serious, and I think well evidenced abuse of process arguments which I think requires disclosure of evidence that would be broader than that merely constrained to the actual charges themselves. And also I refer again to the point of an accused person, a defendant having a right to obtain evidence which even in the event of them being found guilty, would go to their mitigation to lessen the penalty upon them and that in the hypothetical event of guilt being established in my case I’m very strongly of the belief that a very, very powerful and well evidenced plea of mitigation for any penalty could be made but it can only be made if the relevant evidence is disclosed.

JUDGE SHAW: Thank you Mr. Syvret. Mr. Syvret, disclosure as Mr. Baker says is governed by… in Jersey by the English common law case which has been adopted in Jersey and that’s the case of Keen, and the case of Keen very clearly said that it is the responsibility of the Prosecution to assess relevance. Firstly relevance as to the case that they are putting so that they would give you any what we call primary disclosure, that’s the evidence the Prosecution wish to bring against you, and if you plead not guilty and give the Prosecution an indication of the basis of your plea, which you have done so, then the Prosecution will reassess any evidence then they must also serve their unused material at this stage, and they will assess what will assist the Defence or might undermine the Prosecution case, and that’s a matter for the Prosecution to do to make that assessment. Now if there is any particular document which you have notice of which you believe is relevant and you can convince me is relevant then I would… and you can convince me it would be necessary for you to have sight of that in order to conduct your trial, then I could order the Prosecution to reveal that to you.

DEFENDANT: Is that an argument you want me to hear… you would wish to hear from me now?

JUDGE SHAW: Well Mr. Syvret, it is not for the court to assess relevance, it’s the matter… that’s a matter for the Prosecution. If there is a particular document that you can point to when you say the Prosecution has made the wrong assessment, then you would have to persuade me that I should order the Prosecution to disclose it. If I thought that it was necessary to achieve as a fair trial to disclose that document, then I would order the Prosecution to do so. I believe that you would be in agreement with that state of uhm… (inter)

ADV BAKER: Yes Madam.

DEFENDANT: Would it help the court if I were to ask through you Mam a question of Advocate Baker uhm… does he accept that the issues of the abuse of process dispute as it were, and the potential issue of mitigation are matters that are of relevance in determining whether evidence is disclosable?

JUDGE SHAW: I don’t think Mr. Baker would contest that.

ADV BAKER: Madam there is an obligation to disclose relevant material as regards abuse of process applications.

JUDGE SHAW: There’s no doubt about that.

DEFENDANT: There was an (inter)

JUDGE SHAW: Because that’s part of your case Mr. Syvret.

DEFENDANT: Indeed abuse of process is a fundamental part of my case. I don’t remember off the top of my head all of the precise detail of all of the information I described in my 16 page letter of the 26th of June but I can point to two specific branches of evidence which I believe to be of relevance, perhaps three in fact of significant relevance to this case. That is firstly any communications that took place between the Attorney General and the Parish Constable in connection with any of the Actions taken against me and in particular the raid and searching of Deputy Labey’s home, because as you will see once you have time to read it, it is very strongly contended by the Defence that that arrest and consequent searching of the property was in fact unlawful.


DEFENDANT: We believe there are powerful grounds for believing that.

JUDGE SHAW: Can you point to any piece of correspondence, do you know there has been any correspondence between the Attorney General and the Parish Constable?

DEFENDANT: Well I’ve asked that question in my letter of the 26th for any such correspondence and the Prosecution certainly as far as I recollect have not come back to me and said there was no such correspondence, they’ve simply declined to address most of these questions.

JUDGE SHAW: That’s not what Mr. Baker said in his correspondence, Mr. Baker said that he has carried out his duty and his duty is to assess any relevant correspondence, anything, anything in the possession of the Prosecution which is relevant. If this was a matter which was in the possession of a third party then that’s another matter, but Mr. Baker is there…

ADV BAKER: There’s nothing to disclose, there’s no relevant material to disclose.

DEFENDANT: Well obviously that’s a view… I disagree with and well I mean the evidence I’ve just described is one item of evidence, there are two other items of evidence. Again the uhm… Advocate Baker has said that there would be a further statement coming from the Data Protection Commissioner. Now, personally I have no view as to whether the information I have requested comes in the form of a written statement from the Data Protection Commissioner or the actual statistical data that I originally requested, but this is actually fundamentally important to the Defence. I’ve asked for the records of the registration or otherwise of all States Members I think for the last five years or something like that for the purposes of the Data Protection Law, and that’s statistical data, and I’ve asked for that evidence because it is my belief that it will show that certainly for the last two years uhm… I in particular have been singled out for Data Protection, well harassment as I would term it, where as it’s been common practice for many States Members to proceed without in fact being registered as data controllers. Now, that is my belief and understanding at the moment, this statistical data I’ve asked for would clarify that point.

JUDGE SHAW: Is it your understanding that the statement which is to come will cover that?

ADV BAKER: It will.

JUDGE SHAW: It will, very well then you’ll have that.

DEFENDANT: And finally then, the final central piece of evidence which is the crux of this case are the two statements written by the Chief of Police Graham Power and Detective Inspector Alison Fossey in the summer of 2007. Graham Power attended a Corporate Management Board meeting on the 25th and Detective Inspector Fossey attended what I think was an emergency meeting of the Jersey Child Protection Committee on the same day. It is my understanding, and Graham Power did when he was still in work, formally notify me following a complaint from me that the police possessed certain evidence which went to the strength of my complaint.

JUDGE SHAW: Your complaint being?

DEFENDANT: My complaint being uhm… a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and (inter)

JUDGE SHAW: In relation to these cases?

DEFENDANT: Yes, because I believe that people like the Attorney General and the Data Protection Commissioner were very active during that controversial period in opposing me and trying to politically nullify me in one way or another. But to be honest, it isn’t really the Attorney General, the Data Protection Commissioner that’s the main point of concern. It is my understanding, I don’t know what’s in those two sets of notes but it is my understanding from what I’ve been told that the two police officers were so concerned at what they were hearing and observing, that they did make these notes quite specifically because it concerned them that basically uhm… the, what may well be the unlawful engineering of my dismissal was taking place.

JUDGE SHAW: This was in 2007?


JUDGE SHAW: That is two years previous to the matters we’re dealing with now, how do you say that these are connected?

DEFENDANT: It is connected because of abuse of process proceedings because it may be that the evidence revealed in those notes would lead the Defence to other avenues of investigation, other pieces of evidence perhaps that would (inter)

JUDGE SHAW: You don’t know what’s in these notes so you don’t know that they’re relevant.

DEFENDANT: I do know, I (inter)

JUDGE SHAW: You think that they might be relevant.

DEFENDANT: I believe that they might be relevant yes and I won’t know for certain until I see them. But certainly Mr. Power when he was acting, gave me a pretty clear indication of the nature of the content of these notes.

JUDGE SHAW: Well what did he tell you?

DEFENDANT: He essentially said that following the complaint I had raised with the police (inter)

JUDGE SHAW: Which complaint is that?

DEFENDANT: A complaint of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and misconduct in public office.

JUDGE SHAW: By whom?

DEFENDANT: By a number of senior civil servants, principally those in charge of Education and Health and Social Services, but also including the States Chief Executive Bill Ogley, who were engaged in a process to engineer my removal and dismissal from office in an attempt to carry on disguising the fact that the States of Jersey had for years been running a manifestly unlawful regime of punitive and coercive solitary confinement against children.

JUDGE SHAW: Yes uhm… I still don’t see how this connects to this case Mr. Syvret.

DEFENDANT: Well it is the… if you read the skeleton argument you will see that it is very strongly the contention of the Defence that these events are merely a… the latest and most extreme episode of a very well evidenced pattern of biased, unethical, frankly improper action conducted against me in the past and these notes are of fundamental importance to enable me to understand the picture of what took place, how it took place and of what evidential value they would be to possibly an abuse of process pleadings, but certainly I would refer again to the quote I gave concerning, from the Human Rights Act concerning the right of an accused person, even if found guilty to be able to access evidence that might go to their mitigation or to the lessening of any penalty placed upon them, and I believe very, very strongly that those notes and perhaps other similar types of evidence would in fact do just that thing.

JUDGE SHAW: Thank you very much.

ADV BAKER: Madam, we have obtained the notes and reviewed them and there is nothing in them to be disclosed, there is nothing to suggest that Mr. Syvret’s dismissal as Health Minister in 2007 has anything whatsoever to do with his prosecution in 2009 for Data Protection matters. There’s a document behind divider 2, page 103

JUDGE SHAW: Is this in Mr. Syvret’s bundle?

ADV BAKER: They’re in my bundle.

JUDGE SHAW: Is this your advanced disclosure or your (inter)

ADV BAKER: It’s the bundle for today, the black lever arch file headed Case Management Hearing, it was emailed to you or delivered to the court yesterday afternoon, you do have that.

JUDGE SHAW: Oh yes, yes. Sorry, where is it in your (inter)

ADV BAKER: Its divider number 2, there’s some A B C D’s you’ll see at the beginning.


ADV BAKER: And then some white dividers.

JUDGE SHAW: Divider 2 I have a statement of Benjamin Le Lay.

ADV BAKER: That’s right, if you go to page 103


ADV BAKER: ‘On Friday the 20th of March 2009 12.55 am, To: David Warcup, Shaun Du Val, Michael Gradwell, Alison Fossey, the murders of X******, importance high.


ADV BAKER: ‘The States of Jersey Police. I realise the concept of cover-ups by the Jersey oligarchy will come as a deep shock to Mr. Warcup and Mr. Gradwell but experienced Jersey cops will recognise what I reveal here with weary resignation.’ And then he says that he’s putting on his website details of an old police report that he has in the investigation into the Data Protection. This Data Protection offence began after that. There’s nothing at all to suggest that what happened in 2007 in Mr. Syvret’s political career has anything to do with this prosecution.

DEFENDANT: If I may just make an observation in response to that. It is my understanding from what I’ve read in recent weeks that the court has also has a duty to bear in mind such factors as the overall public interest and the public good.

JUDGE SHAW: Are you talking about public interest immunity?

DEFENDANT: No I’m just speaking generally about having regard for what is in the public interest, for example, sometimes prosecutions are not embarked upon because the officers involved determine it not to be in the public interest. But I have to ask myself why the desperate desire of the Prosecution to keep these two sets of notes from me if there is nothing in them that would go to say, for example, just hypothetically, a plea of mitigation in the event of any guilty verdict being established. I mean, if in fact one has been the victim of a, basically a conspiracy by a number of people who wished to disguise their own malfeasances and past failings, and has been thrown out of one’s job because of it, it does tend to lead one to a rather stressful time and I believe that evidence from that period and onwards which has a bearing on the true nature of what was going on behind me and what was being done is in fact of relevance, may well be of relevance to the abuse of process issues, but is certainly and without question, of relevance to the uhm… any potential hypothetical plea of mitigation.

JUDGE SHAW: Thank you. Anything further Mr. Baker?

ADV BAKER: Do you want me to repeat (indistinct) Madam?

JUDGE SHAW: As far as mitigation is concerned, is there anything that could possibly be relevant?

ADV BAKER: Well in relation to… no there’s not but uhm… no, no there’s not. I simply say that if Mr. Syvret is trying to say to the court he’s guilty because he was acting under stress, I doubt that er… he’s guilty but he was acting at a stressful time, I doubt there’ll be much dispute about that.

JUDGE SHAW: Mr. Baker do you wish me to review these documents?


JUDGE SHAW: You don’t, very well. Mr. Syvret, from what I’ve heard, I’m not convinced that you cannot get a fair trial without seeing these documents. If you want to raise issues making allegations that people have brought these proceedings, these particular proceedings against you for reasons which are not proper reasons, the correspondence… sorry, notes of meetings that police officers made two years before and not directly relevant to this matter, I do not see can be disclosable. (sic)

DEFENDANT: If I may just say Mam, once you’ve had an opportunity to read the skeleton argument you will see that it is strongly contested… contended by the Defence that the raid that took place in April was in fact undertaken for a number of different motives and in fact may not have been legal, and indeed maybe even had some conceivably criminal element to it which was why Deputy Labey was here for example ready to take the stand and be questioned about it. We are dealing here with a pattern of incidents that have occurred over a period of some years, and it is also clear as I’ve again described in the skeleton argument, that the police force, the States of Jersey Police force were aware that I was in possession of the report in question from I think November 2007. Because as soon as I became aware of the covert child abuse investigation, suddenly my confidence in the police force was massively increased and I felt able to draw their attention back to that case and ask them if they would in fact investigate it again because it remained deeply, deeply concerning to me. Now I had no response to that and understandably given of course that it’s a cold case as it were and the police were very busy with the child protection issues, but the States of Jersey Police force, and there was email evidence to this effect, I think the Prosecution has this evidence, knew that I had a copy of this report and that I might be minded to show it to third parties from November 2007. Yet from me sending that email to the States of Jersey Police force until the raid this year in April, not one word has been… not one word of warning, of caution, of any description has been expressed to me by the States of Jersey Police concerning the report in question.

JUDGE SHAW: And your point is?

DEFENDANT: Well my point is that there is I think a variety of different motives behind the action that was taken on the night and it doesn’t seem to me that the action was compatible even with the requirements of the Data Protection Law which has a specific search warrant requirement in it, and (inter)
JUDGE SHAW: Well we’ll get on to that matter when we deal with the abuse of process, you can put all those… you can put those points, but the questions we’re dealing with today are to do with disclosure at the moment and as far as those notes are concerned, I don’t see that those are relevant to your defence and therefore I’m not going to order the Prosecution to disclose them to you. We need to move on to item 3, I think you’ve made your point about the skeleton argument, as far as I know you’re not going to serve anything else at this stage and Mr. Baker I’ll give you 14 days to respond to that argument.

ADV BAKER: Thank you Madam.

JUDGE SHAW: The trial dates for the Data Protection and the Road Traffic trials, are you able to fix these at the moment Greffier?

ADV BAKER: No Madam (indistinct)

JUDGE SHAW: Well we’ll hold those over and identify prospective dates which would only as I say, come into force if the abuse of process argument fails, but to be fair to any prospective witnesses the court will communicate with both parties and identify a date as soon as possible.

ADV BAKER: Thank you Madam.

JUDGE SHAW: Could we have a time estimate for both trials?

ADV BAKER: The Road Traffic trial, a couple of hours maximum if it’s really a trial, I’m sure that it will be.

JUDGE SHAW: The Data Protection matter, it may take some…?

ADV BAKER: It may take some time.

JUDGE SHAW: It may take some time, would you estimate perhaps two days?

ADV BAKER: I think maybe longer, maybe up to a week.

JUDGE SHAW: Well it’ll take the court some time to identify that block of time which would be clear in the diary.

DEFENDANT: I mean if it helps the court, I think I would agree with the estimate of Advocate Baker, the Data Protection issues are by far the more serious of the four charges and they are the one’s that will be the most strongly contested, vigorously contested by the Defence, indeed as is explained in my argument, and indeed as evidence furnished very recently I accept, shows that frankly these charges are hopeless.

JUDGE SHAW: Well we’ll deal with that when we come to take the evidence if we get to the trial stage Mr. Syvret. As far as other directions are concerned today, Mr. Baker tells me that you’ve served full disclosure on the Road Traffic matters, the… you… as far as the Road Traffic is concerned, you wish Mr. Syvret to indicate which witnesses you require to be called, which witnesses you wish to cross examine and which witnesses you would accept to be read, for their statements to be read or you could make certain admissions.

DEFENDANT: Is this in respect of the Road Traffic matters?

JUDGE SHAW: Yes, we’re making provisional arrangements for trial (inter, indistinct)

DEFENDANT: If it helps the court, I won’t be calling witnesses.

JUDGE SHAW: You won’t be calling witnesses.

DEFENDANT: For the Road Traffic matters.

JUDGE SHAW: Which of the Prosecution witnesses would you wish to cross examine, if any?


JUDGE SHAW: You won’t, so the Prosecution then can read all the statements. So all Prosecution statements are agreed and no witnesses for the Defence. Now going back to the Data Protection matters. Mr. Baker you say you expect a statement from Mr. Faudemer shortly?

ADV BAKER: Yes, I’d ask for seven days to serve that.

JUDGE SHAW: Seven days to serve that, seven days from today’s date you will serve that on Mr. Syvret.

ADV BAKER: And Miss Martins.

JUDGE SHAW: And Miss Martins statement likewise.

ADV BAKER: Same period please.

JUDGE SHAW: I give the Prosecution seven days in which to serve additional statements of Mr. Faudemer and Mrs. Martins on Mr. Syvret. You have further unused material to deal with.

ADV BAKER: Madam that’s right, it needs to be dealt with by me and Mr. Faudemer and I’d ask for fourteen days to disclose that please.

JUDGE SHAW: Very well, fourteen days to disclose unused material in the Data Protection case.

ADV BAKER: Yes Madam.

JUDGE SHAW: Clearly your… should anything further come to light (indistinct) remind Mr. Syvret your duty is to as you know, continue.
ADV BAKER: Of course.

JUDGE SHAW: We’ve dealt I think with orders for disclosure, we now need to move to witnesses.

ADV BAKER: We do Madam. I’m not sure there’s in fact any dispute as to what the law is between us on this but I’ll take you to that first and given Mr. Syvret isn’t a lawyer, I could deal with it with you properly. Madam I’ll deal with this from paragraph 25 of my skeleton argument, have you had the opportunity to read it?

JUDGE SHAW: Yes I have read it Mr. Baker, but if you would…

ADV BAKER: I’ll remind you of the key passages Madam.

JUDGE SHAW: Take me to the key passages, thank you.

ADV BAKER: The law relating to the summoning of witnesses is found in the 1864 Law Article 15 with which you will be familiar, this is behind tab 6 divider G right at the back. I’ll give you the gist of it if I may, the (inter)

JUDGE SHAW: Spare us the French please Mr…

ADV BAKER: I will, you will be delighted to know you will be spared the French Madam. The gist of it is that a person who’s been arrested must be presented to the Magistrate’s Court as soon as possible by the Constable of the parish, thereafter the Constable of the parish personally or through the Honorary Police shall warn for the appearance in court those witnesses he considers should be heard and equally he should warn those witnesses who the accused requires to attend, the accused has the alternative option of causing the Viscount to warn those latter witnesses. So read literally, those provisions do not stipulate any requirement on the Defence or indeed the Prosecution to satisfy the court that the evidence to be given by those people sought to be called is material to the matter before it and in the implications of reading the statute absolutely literally, the defendant could require for his trial the production (indistinct) of the entire population of Jersey, regardless of whether they had anything useful to say and that can’t possibly be the proper position. The reason for that is that it’s an established principle of statutory construction that the objective is to ascertain the purposes of the legislature, not to take a purely literal approach regardless of the consequences and court seek to avoid a construction that produces an absurd result unless it is clear that the legislature intended that result. So the Crown submits that the only way for this legislation to operate without producing an absurd result is to read the word témoin witness as meaning a person with relevant evidence to give. To aware the Constable or Viscount presented with a request by a defendant to procure the attendance of a witness is uncertain whether or not to do so, it’s admitted that he should seek the view of the court and the court is best placed to say, having considered submissions from the parties whether or not the person is likely to have relevant evidence and whether or not they will be prepared to attend voluntarily, this obviating the need for the Constable or Viscount to compel their attendance. In any event, even if persons sought by the Defence are produced to court by the Constable or Viscount, the loire does not oblige the court to hear evidence from any person simply because they’ve been produced and the court must be able to manage its own affairs to the extent of not being forced to hear evidence if it considers it irrelevant. The law makes no provision for the attendance of witnesses at any hearing other than the trial of the offence, though I of course accept that the abuse of process should be considered as part of the trial, traditionally a plea (indistinct) The power to require the production by the Attorney General of relevant documents derives not from subpoenas but from its inherent power to ensure a fair trial, and we touched upon that earlier today.


ADV BAKER: Insofar as you need some authority to support that proposition that the purpose of approach is the… the correct approach in Jersey is to be found behind divider 6F, the case of Smith, where the Deputy Bailiff Birt as he then was, gave judgement in a case involving statutory construction and at page 156 paragraphs 16 to 18, that set out the principles that should be applied in Jersey. ‘If one looks back to the actual decisions of the House of Lords on questions of statutory construction over the past 30 years one cannot fail to be struck by the evidence of a trend away from the purely literal towards the purposive construction of statutory provisions,’ he’s quoting there Lord Diplock in Carter -v- Bradbeer, and then he goes on to say himself, ‘That process has accelerated in the quarter of a century since Lord Diplock wrote those words. In my judgement, it is the modern approach. The objective is to ascertain the intention of the legislature.’ He then goes on to say that ‘the court will seek to avoid a construction which provides an absurd result. This principle is summarized in sect. 312 of Bennion, Statutory Interpretation (1) The court seeks to avoid a construction that produces an absurd result, since this unlikely to have been intended by Parliament. Here the courts give a very wide meaning to the concept of ‘absurdity,’ using it to include virtually any result which is unworkable or impracticable, inconvenient, anomalous or illogical, futile or pointless, artificial or productive of a disproportionate counter-mischief. (2) In rare cases there are overriding reasons for applying a construction that produces an absurd result, for example where it appears that Parliament really intended it or the literal meaning is too strong.’ And then quotes from Maxwell on Statutes ‘Where possible, a construction should be adopted which will facilitate the smooth working of the scheme of legislation established by the Act, which will avoid producing a prolonging artificiality in the law, and which will not produce anomalous results.’ And I submit to you that applying those principles it’s clear that witness must be a relevant witness.

JUDGE SHAW: Thank you. Mr. Syvret do you have any comment on that?

DEFENDANT: It seems to me that we’re going to have a very similar argument over this point as we are concerning disclosure of actual evidence uhm… it seems plain to me that a number of witnesses I may wish to call will be opposed by the Crown uhm… and you will be asked to rule on their relevance. I do though have to perhaps put the court’s mind at ease that no absurdity such as summonsing the entire population of Jersey or anything of that nature would be attempted by the Defence. But the Defence would for legitimate and relevant reasons wish for example, to call witnesses such as the Attorney General, such as the suspended Chief of Police Graham Power who may well have some interesting and useful testimony to supply on the question of the Data subject and the Crown has after all called a former Police Officer to their case. There may be other witnesses who I would wish to call that would go to the abuse of process aspect, for example there may be witnesses who could testify to the fact that certain abusive or torturous acts or processes took place thus reinforcing the Defence’s abuse of process argument. My difficulty is that I can’t actually give a cast iron list of who my witnesses might be at this stage but I can assure the court that there would be no absurdity in it. I would not for example be seeking to call dozens and dozens of witnesses to take up days and days and days of the court’s time. The witnesses (inter)

JUDGE SHAW: Mr. Syvret you’ve got to keep clearly in mind what the issues in the case are. The court will not want to hear evidence from, for example a person who said that they did suffer abuse in order to show that somebody else might have taken steps to cover that up. The issue is whether a prosecution is being brought against you which is not bona fide.


JUDGE SHAW: And therefore the court will not stray into details of the underlying reasons why you were in conflict with various figures which you say may have been party to bring these proceedings in the way you say that they did.

DEFENDANT: I was not thinking of survivors of child abuse particularly as witnesses in this case, they didn’t seem to me to be of relevance. But it does seem to me that as the Crown are now contending that actually the report in question was entirely misguided and erroneous, and the data subject is in fact a wonderful chap, it seems to me that as that is plainly a core feature of the Crowns case, the Defence must be able to call witnesses who may have an alternative take.

JUDGE SHAW: Well this is the point Mr. Syvret. I think it’s very, very important to keep clearly in mind what the Crowns case actually is, I don’t think it is the Crowns case necessarily that the man named in your blog was an innocent man. I don’t think that is the… that’s not the basis on which the prosecution is brought, it’s not the evidence which the Prosecution would seek to bring. The question is whether on the Data Protection issue the Crowns substantive case is that you broke the Data Protection Law and your case is that you have a defence to that, that it’s in the public interest. Now, the Prosecution is not trying to establish that the man subject to that report was innocent so we don’t need to stray into areas such as that.

DEFENDANT: I understand that that individual is not on trial but with all due respect my recollection of what was said by Advocate Baker and indeed it’s in the transcripts from the previous hearings, is that, because plainly the core of the Defences case would be public interest disclosure in the event of a full trial. Advocate Baker has made it I think quite strongly clear that the Crown would be combating and fighting that public interest defence, and they would be (inter)

JUDGE SHAW: Yes, yes, they will challenge that but that’s a very different thing to say that they’re trying to establish that that man was innocent, it’s not part of their case. Now I do need to move on from this Mr. Syvret because we’re getting into areas which we will deal with at a later stage. What I want to deal with at this particular stage is the process for calling witnesses.

ADV BAKER: Madam it’s… sorry Mr. Syvret. Madam it seems that we’re in agreement.


ADV BAKER: That it’s relevant witnesses who should be called.

JUDGE SHAW: Is that right Mr. Syvret, you agree that its relevant witnesses, the question is establishing relevance?


JUDGE SHAW: Thank you.

DEFENDANT: Yes, I believe that’s so and (inter)

JUDGE SHAW: Thank you, I’ll just hear from Mr. Baker.

ADV BAKER: Madam I will come back later to Mr. Syvret’s suggestion that it’s the Crown case that X****** is a wonderful man and innocent but I won’t do that for the moment. Let me turn to witnesses. It’s important to bear in mind the distinction between abuse of process hearing and the trial.


ADV BAKER: Mr. Syvret’s defence at trial is that he acted in the public interest, he raises that and he’s entitled to call evidence relevant to that issue. And it may be for instance that Mr. Power has evidence which is relevant to Mr. Syvret’s defence at trial, I don’t exclude that. If he’s had communications with Mr. Power concerning this case then (inter)

DEFENDANT: I haven’t.

ADV BAKER: The X****** case… well, I don’t exclude the possibility that Mr. Power could have evidence to give at trial. But I want to turn to the abuse of process first.

JUDGE SHAW: Yes I want to deal with the abuse of process first.

ADV BAKER: The Crown will not call the witnesses that Mr. Syvret says that he wishes to call, I make that plain. So firstly, if you rule that these witnesses are relevant they will be his witnesses, subject to the usual rules.


ADV BAKER: He should not be given leave to call these witnesses unless he establishes to you that they are relevant.

JUDGE SHAW: Yes. I’m (inter)

ADV BAKER: I’ll turn first, sorry Madam you want to speak and I’m talking across you, I do apologise.

JUDGE SHAW: Mr. Baker, there are a number of cases, decided cases in the United Kingdom, they deal wi… there is a statute in the United Kingdom which deals with calling of witnesses but it appears to me that the principles engaged in the various cases which have come before the Divisional Court are sound principles which I would propose to follow unless there is an argument to the contrary. The principles which I propose to follow is… and I’ll give you an opportunity to come back to me. The cases that I have particularly in mind, perhaps the Reading Justices being the most recent does summarize the cases which preceded it. The principles are that when dealing with a Justice of the Peace issuing a summons for a witness, first they must be satisfied that its proper to issue the summons, and secondly that the party’s likely to be able to give evidence or produce a document, and thirdly such evidence or document is material evidence in the case, and that is to say that its both relevant and admissible.

ADV BAKER: I agree with that approach.

JUDGE SHAW: Would you have any objections?

ADV BAKER: No it seems an entirely sensible approach.

JUDGE SHAW: Mr. Syvret do you agree that that’s a sensible approach?

DEFENDANT: Well on the surface it appears to be but I’ve no doubt that if I proposed certain witnesses who I considered met those criteria they would still be opposed by the Crown Mam.

JUDGE SHAW: It comes to the court to decide, the court has to be satisfied that those witnesses can give relevant evidence and that evidence is admissible evidence.


JUDGE SHAW: Very well, I think we’re agreed on that point, thank you.

ADV BAKER: Madam then if I can touch, I hope briefly, upon the… upon certain of the witnesses that Mr. Syvret is asked for a summons to be issued on, first is the Attorney General William Bailhache. Madam before you agree that he should attend at the hearing for abuse you’d have to be satisfied that he had relevant material evidence to give. The only relevant… potentially relevant evidence that he might be asked about is a conspiracy by him and others to wrongly prosecute Mr. Syvret. There is no material to support such an outrageous allegation and before you considered ordering him to attend, Mr. Syvret would have to satisfy you that there was something in that suggestion, and unless he can do that there are no grounds to require the attendance of Her Majesty’s Attorney General.

JUDGE SHAW: Well I’m not going to rule on this point at the moment, I’ll hear your submissions relating to each witness.

ADV BAKER: In relation to Mr. Power in abuse of process, it’s difficult to see what he could possibly say on abuse of process. He’s had absolutely nothing to do with this prosecution. In relation to Miss Labey, it’s difficult to see why she would need to be ordered to attend anyway given that she’s Mr. Syvret’s partner. I’m not sure whether it is his intention to call her on the abuse of process application uhm… he says that she may be able to give evidence about failure to investigate others. Well even if that was so, what on earth has that got to do with abuse of process in this case? And as to Blackwood, it may be that there’s evidence to be given at trial in the public interest possibly, but again it’s difficult to see how a psychiatrist could give any useful evidence as to why this prosecution could amount to an affront of justice. Could you just give me a moment… well, I’ve made the point that the lady was here today to give evidence, there’s no reason for her to be compelled anyway. Those are my submissions.

JUDGE SHAW: Thank you very much. Mr. Syvret, as far as the abuse of process hearing is concerned, have you formulated a list at this stage of those you would wish to have as witnesses at court?

DEFENDANT: Not a completed list but the four mentioned by Advocate Baker may well be amongst that final list. Would it help if I addressed my arguments as to why I consider them relevant?

JUDGE SHAW: Well just one moment, is there anyone else you have in mind at the moment?

DEFENDANT: At the moment no, but I can’t rule out that other relevant witnesses may occur to me in the coming days, and presumably there is sufficient time to alert the Crown and the court should…

JUDGE SHAW: I think sufficient time has been put aside. If there are further witnesses then you would have to come back for a further hearing.


JUDGE SHAW: If those witness would not come voluntarily, do you understand, is that clear?

DEFENDANT: Yes. I mean, if it helps the court, I issued er… sought to issue the summonses because it was my understanding simply that that was how it was done, there was no (inter)

JUDGE SHAW: It’s not necessarily done in that way.

DEFENDANT: There was no particular… well I mean I had a fairly clear idea that the Attorney General wouldn’t attend on a voluntary basis but I imagine the others would have done.

JUDGE SHAW: Very good. Firstly can I just make a point to you that Mr. Baker has eluded to? If the Prosecution do not call these people as witnesses and if you were to call them as witnesses, they would be your witness. If you are calling a witness you may not cross examine that witness, do you understand? You asked a witness a question, then you would have to accept their answer, because they’re your own witness, you can’t cross examine your own witness, it’s the general position. So for example if it was the Attorney General and you were to ask him are you involved in a criminal conspiracy against me and he said no, then it wouldn’t be open to you to cross examine him and put evidence to him which would contradict that. Do you understand that that would be your position?

DEFENDANT: Mm, well I didn’t but I do now.

JUDGE SHAW: Well do you want to take a moment to think about that when considering which witnesses you would actually wish to call, do you want me to retire for… I’ll retire for a few minutes and I’d like to give you an opportunity to think about the witnesses you actually want because if you want to make submissions and I’ve got to hear about them then I want to be sure that those are the witnesses you wish to call. There are other comments made by Mr. Baker in respect of Mrs. Labey, she attended voluntarily today, normally if a witness attends voluntarily there’s no need for the court to make an order.


JUDGE SHAW: Mr. Blackwood, it may be that what Mr. Blackwood has to say is more relevant to the trial of the issue and to your defence than to the abuse of process, and we want to make sure the right witnesses come to the right hearing.
DEFENDANT: Indeed, perhaps I could seek your guidance on a point then. My understanding was that a, an argument, a component of an abuse of process argument can be that the charges are manifestly hopeless and amount frankly to a complete waste of the court’s time er… and I believe Doctor Blackwood could make, or give some powerful testimony to the court to that effect in respect of the two Data Protection charges.

JUDGE SHAW: Well (inter)

ADV BAKER: Madam, if you will allow me to respond, I hope usefully to Mr. Syvret. It’s difficult to see how a weakness in a charge, even if its made out could possibly amount to an abuse of process, whether a case is brought or not is a matter for the Prosecution not for the court, and therefore that would be the usual position. Mr. Syvret will listen to what I’ve said and can ponder on it. In relation to Mr. Power, there’s a point that I missed. Mr. Syvret made application for disclosure of various documents earlier.


ADV BAKER: He hasn’t maintained his application for disclosure of a document which he says Mr. Power could produce relating to an operation called Blast, you may have seen something about this in the newspapers uhm… he had made application for disclosure of his file relating… kept by the police, that’s been reviewed and there’s nothing in that which touches upon this case whatsoever. So in those circumstances, I don’t know whether the request for Power is maintained anyway, given that the application for disclosure hasn’t been pursued but the Crown would say that on that topic Power has nothing useful to say, nothing relevant.

JUDGE SHAW: I’m going to retire for the moment Mr. Syvret and I want you to review the application for witnesses in the light of what I’ve said to you and in the light of the comments Mr. Baker has made. Thank you.
Court Rise
Court Resume

JUDGE SHAW: Thank you Mr. Syvret. Now, as far as the abuse of process witnesses are concerned, do you want to tell me who you would like called as a witness?
DEFENDANT: Well, I mean to be honest, I’m not sure I can answer that question now given that issues have been raised about their non relevance and the inability of the Defence to cross examine.

JUDGE SHAW: Well I’ll tell you what I’ll do Mr. Syvret, if we’re going to the 19th of October for the abuse of process hearing, we need to list this matter for an interim hearing in any event. At the moment you have served with your original skeleton argument yesterday, a bundle of correspondence, email correspondence between yourself and the Attorney General. I have seen that, I haven’t seen anything else which would lead me to believe that the Attorney General is a necessary witness. I haven’t read the rest of your bundle which was served today and there may be other matters which you wish to raise or other evidence which you seek to serve. So I’ll put the matter to an interim date for you to make submissions on the calling of witnesses and I think that will give you plenty of time to think about the witnesses, to collate whatever information you wish to put before me to persuade me that these witnesses need to be called. I would also like you to confirm that if you wish Mrs. Labey to attend… is that just in relation to the abuse of process or is that in relation to both that and the substantive matters. Mr. Blackwood I’d like you to give thought as well to whether he is relevant to the abuse of process or only to the substantive matter, and similarly with Mr. Power, and the matter in the Attorney General would only be relevant to the abuse of process argument, I can’t see that he has any bearing on the other substantive matters unless you produce anything which tells me otherwise. I would also like you to consider whether there are any other witnesses you wish to name that you would like me to issue witness summonses in respect of, and whether… sorry, going back to Mrs. Labey, if she’s a voluntary witness in any way… in any event, you need not obtain an order in respect of her. I don’t know whether you’ve asked Mr. Blackwood whether he is willing to attend or whether again you require a witness summons for him and similarly Mr. Power. The court was copied into an email from the Attorney General saying that if the court determined he was a relevant witness then he would attend without the… on the basis of a phone call rather there being a need to actually issue a summons. I would also like you to think about the full list of witnesses in both cases. I think we have put aside sufficient time for witnesses in the abuse of process argument with one day plus the two succeeding afternoons. I believe that all day Thursday is available as well, is that correct Greffier?

GREFFIER: All day Thursday is available.

JUDGE SHAW: All day Thursday is correct.

DEFENDANT: Which date?

JUDGE SHAW: I think is that… the 22nd, is that right?

GREFFIER: The Thursday would be the 22nd Madam.

JUDGE SHAW: The 22nd.

DEFENDANT: September?


DEFENDANT: September

GREFFIER: October.

DEFENDANT: October, that would be for the full abuse of process hearing?

JUDGE SHAW: Yes, that’s (inter)

DEFENDANT: You suggested an interim hearing?

JUDGE SHAW: An interim hearing, Greffier is there a suitable date, 20… late September…

GREFFIER: (indistinct)

JUDGE SHAW: If I put aside the afternoon of Tuesday the 22nd of September, is that convenient?

ADV BAKER: Madam, is there any prospect of having the hearing before the 16th of September, I’m hoping to begin a substantial trial on the 16th of September and may be able to come out of that to do these abuse of process hearings, and if I can’t I’ll just have to return the case, but if there was a date before the 16th of September it would make my life easier.

JUDGE SHAW: I have a substantial matter beginning on the 15th or 16th of September as well uhm… how long is your trial likely to last?

ADV BAKER: It’s listed for six weeks at the moment but uhm… depending on certain rulings next week it may become a jurat trial, not a jury trial so I’m hoping the court will give me some leeway to come and do this. It’s more likely I’ll be given some leeway of the preliminary hearing and this is before the 16th of September. … …
JUDGE SHAW: Mr. Baker the court can accommodate a hearing on the 14th of September at two o’clock in the afternoon.

ADV BAKER: Madam, yes, thank you.

JUDGE SHAW: Mr. Syvret, the 14th of September? I still think that gives you sufficient time to give thought to your witnesses.

ADV BAKER: Yes, can I (inter)

JUDGE SHAW: Just a minute, I think Mr. Syvret was about to speak.

ADV BAKER: I’m sorry, I do apologise Mr. Syvret.

DEFENDANT: Off the top of my head I believe that date’s suitable for me, I’m just wondering if it coincides with a States meeting.

JUDGE SHAW: It’s a Monday afternoon.

DEFENDANT: That should be fine then yes.

JUDGE SHAW: Monday afternoon. Again (inter)

DEFENDANT: Two o’clock?

JUDGE SHAW: Thank you. Again it’s not anticipated there is a need to call witnesses to that hearing. Again it’s a matter which would be heard on submission of papers. So if you have any material you wish me to consider in order to determine whether a particular witness could give relevant and admissible evidence, and by that I mean actually giving evidence, it’s not an opportunity to call a witness merely for cross examination.


JUDGE SHAW: Do you understand?


JUDGE SHAW: The witness would have to give… the material would have to be something a witness… actual evidence a witness could give on your behalf.



ADV BAKER: Madam, can I say this? If I believe the Attorney General had relevant evidence to give, then I would arrange for him to attend in the usual way.


ADV BAKER: It’s because I submit, he’s got no evidence which is relevant to give that I say that it would have to be Mr. Syvret who called in and gave his evidence in the usual way.


ADV BAKER: But I make it plain, if I believed that he did and if you believe that he does I’ll tender him.

JUDGE SHAW: Very well. That means Mr. Syvret that if I look at the material and say that Mr. Bailhache could give evidence in chief then he would be tendered to you by the Prosecution and you could cross examine him.

DEFENDANT: Very well.

JUDGE SHAW: Do you understand the difference?

DEFENDANT: Yes I do, I think (inter)

JUDGE SHAW: In calling your witness you cannot cross examine him.

DEFENDANT: I understand.

JUDGE SHAW: The Prosecution give you one of their witnesses who they do not believe can add anything to their case but may be able to help yours and they tender him for cross examination.

DEFENDANT: I understand that now.

JUDGE SHAW: You understand that.

DEFENDANT: You said that the matters would be on the 14th, the interim hearing matters would be decided on the papers. I accept that I’ve just issued a substantial argument, I think it runs to 45 pages and a significant number of emailed attachments too. Uhm… obviously I don’t expect anyone in the court to have had an opportunity to read or absorb that material at this stage but on the assumption that it is all read and fully absorbed on the 14th which I’m sure it will be uhm… would that then possibly be an opportunity to invite you to reconsider any issues about for example the relevance of evidence.

JUDGE SHAW: In terms of disclosure?

DEFENDANT: In terms of disclosure yes.

JUDGE SHAW: Yes, well disclosure is an ongoing obligation of the Prosecution.


JUDGE SHAW: And if something relevant comes out of this paperwork which makes me think that the Prosecution do have something relevant which they disclose to you of course I would reconsider it.
ADV BAKER: Madam, can I (indistinct) as an issue as you read through the papers. I’ve submitted that the matters should be dealt with on the papers in its entirety, the abuse of process, one area for you to look at is the search of Mr. Syvret’s home, that seems to be the most likely area that there could be a dispute but my position is that it should be dealt with on the papers (inter, indistinct)
JUDGE SHAW: Yes, it may be that I want to hear from… if I read the papers and I want to hear from one of the witnesses then clearly on the 14th I shall make that very plain and the Prosecution will clearly call a witness that the court would like to hear.

DEFENDANT: Could I ask for guidance uhm… would I be called as a witness or examined in any way?

JUDGE SHAW: No, you can make your own submissions, we’re not taking evidence and as you’re representing yourself you can put anything you want to put by way of submissions from your position.

DEFENDANT: Certainly Advocate Baker was correct that the search is a source of great contention and frankly I have (inter)

JUDGE SHAW: I’m talking about the 14th of September at the moment.


JUDGE SHAW: When we come to the abuse of process argument you will give evidence, I presume you would want to give evidence in your own defence and then you would give sworn evidence (inter)

DEFENDANT: Indeed, yes.

JUDGE SHAW: But on the 14th you need not give sworn evidence.

DEFENDANT: Yes indeed, but I was just thinking about issues that may be raised on the 14th in respect of the abuse of process and therefore relevancy of disclosability of evidence and things of that nature. And it does appear to both me and Deputy Labey that the search was unlawful on a number of grounds and simply disproportionality by the ECHR as indeed was my arrest and detention locked in the police cells for seven hours, especially given that there is a provision in the Data Protection Law for a Data… an alleged Data Protection (inter, indistinct) to be dealt with.

JUDGE SHAW: There are two matters Mr. Syvret. One is the bringing of the prosecution in the first place and your contention that that is a malicious prosecution to put it broadly, second is how evidence is gathered and whether evidence is gathered illegally or not, can also be dealt with during the trial because the court would always have a discretion to exclude evidence which has been abnormally obtained. So that matter could come up in both… that was one of the reasons I suggested you may want to hear the abuse of process… deal with the abuse of process during the course of the trial. Is that clear?

DEFENDANT: I understand.

JUDGE SHAW: Very good. Very well, the court will adjourn to 14.00 hours on the 14th of September. On that date we will deal with the question of witness summonses if any are required, we will not hear live evidence and I would want from you Mr. Syvret a full list of everyone you wish to call at both hearings, both the abuse of process hearing and the Data Protection hearing should we get to that stage. So that’s whether you… and of those witnesses I want to know whether the witnesses will come voluntarily or not, and I want to know what relevant evidence each of those witnesses could give.


JUDGE SHAW: Very good. In the meantime I have already stated that the Prosecution will respond to your skeleton argument within 14 days. It is expected that the Data Protection trial… that the abuse of process matter will take possibly one day but there is provision to go over into two further afternoons and a further full day starting on the 19th of October. The Data Protection matter is likely to take one week, Road Traffic matter will take a couple of hours if that, the … Mr. Syvret you have already indicated that you accept all the Prosecution witnesses in the Road Traffic matters so that they all may be read and that any further primary disclosure from the Prosecution will be served on you within 7 days, any unused material in the Data Protection case will be served on you within 14 days and we will deal with witness orders when we come back on the 14th of September. Very good. Are there any other matters outstanding, Mr. Syvret?

DEFENDANT: It’s clear as far as I can… as far as I am capable of understanding.

JUDGE SHAW: Mr. Syvret if you do wish to make an application for Legal Aid, if you do so at the earliest opportunity so if your lawyer is represented then they can be served with all the relevant material and be up to date to represent you on the 14th of September. The court is adjourned

Tuesday, 22 December 2009


I have put up Lenny Harpers guest posting because of the information and evidence it contains.

Time to read it again and look at what Warcup and Gradwell are saying and what evidence they used.

It's not every day the Chief of Police is suspended 

Was it a political move?

So many questions 

Lenny Harper’s Guest Posting:

I have been away from Scotland for the past two weeks and have therefore missed the intellectually challenged journalistic nonsense from Diane Simon of the JEP, including the interview with Supercop Mick Gradwell. My thanks to those who have updated me.

I began counting the inaccuracies and downright falsehoods but gave up there were so many of them. Mick Gradwell said in a letter a few months back to a Daily Mail journalist that “the best I can say about Mr. Harper is that he is a man who has difficulty in understanding basic facts”. But it seems to me that he and Diane Simon cannot recognise facts even when they are laid out in front of them several times. I will return to Mr. Gradwell later when I yet again make clear how ludicrous and dishonest some of the assertions made by various people are, including his rather nasty and juvenile attack on some senior staff of the States of Jersey Police (SOJP). First however, and I am sure all the readers of this blog will understand, I need to defend myself against some of the personal attacks made on me by Messrs Gradwell, Warcup, Simon - and a few others who have reasons to see the Abuse enquiry fold.

When the e-mail from Ms. Simon slithered under my virus defence my initial instinct was to delete it and ignore it. There were a number of reasons for this. Firstly, she had asked me all these questions on at least two previous occasions, one of them a sunny Saturday at Haut de la Garenne. On each occasion I had not only answered the questions, but I had also e-mailed the answers to her, such was my mistrust of the way the answers would be used. Presumably, she still had those e-mails. My mistrust was well founded as her questions, although not my answers, were to provide the basis of an article attacking me which was posted in a national paper by one of a group of journalists who mentioned her, and who had previously produced books and articles in support of perverts such as the North Wales Care Abusers and Frank Beck, the Leicestershire Child Rapist. Indeed, some of these journalists had even given evidence to Parliamentary Committees in which they said that the above abusers were victims of miscarriages of justice and the “False Recall Syndrome” of victims, or indeed, just made up allegations. Therefore, on this occasion I had no doubt as to what her motives were and this was confirmed when I was told the first story had appeared even before she received my reply. Her plea in the e-mail for me to answer the questions so that she could “tell all sides of the story” was as sincere and believable as the “Trusssst in me” uttered by Kaa the snake in Disney’s version of the Jungle Book. Ms. Simon must be the only person she knows who believes that this type of ingratiating fawning is not totally transparent.

Notwithstanding my absolute belief that the seeking of my views was a total sham, I realised that it would be better not to give her the opportunity to claim that she had sought my views and I had refused. I therefore answered all her questions which meant of course that she just had to ignore most of what I said. To ensure that I did get my point across to the majority on the island who actually wanted the truth, I copied my response to Stuart Syvret and he posted it on his blog.

Ms. Simon and officers Warcup and Gradwell seem to be saying that I became a really bad cop “overnight.” (I will explain why I say ‘overnight’ below.) Ms. Simon is a journalist of course and is at a disadvantage, but her view of me as a cop seems to be only slightly better than my view of her as a journalist. Each is entitled to their opinion, even if it is from a distance. However, the claims from Mr. Warcup and Mr. Gradwell need closer examination and perhaps a more detailed dismantling.

I do not know a lot about Mr. Warcup or the now retired Mr. Gradwell. I do not know the extent of Mr. Warcup’s practical experience; whether he spent his career at the sharp end as I did, or whether all his years with Northumbria Police were spent in departments like Personnel. What I do know is that the only reference I can find on the internet to him relate to allegations (perhaps unfounded) that he hid the true extent of crime from the public through the use of spin, and some other comments of a personal nature criticising him for something which frankly is no one’s business but his own.

However, I do know that he has admitted destroying evidence in the abuse case - which perhaps does give some clue as to his motivation or professional judgement.

As for Mr. Gradwell, again I do not know a lot about him. He is fond of telling people, including one of the journalists I mentioned above, that he is known for investigating the tragic incident when foreign workers drowned on a beach. I believe that manslaughter convictions resulted for some of the people connected with the employment of these unfortunate victims. This must have been a very challenging enquiry for him. I am pretty sure also that he must have investigated some more conventional manslaughters and murders - where the suspects were not known. I cannot speak for him, only myself. I know that I have a number of commendations for “detective ability,” leadership, and other professional skills earned in the investigation of many murders including terrorist murders, gang murders, stabbing murders with multi victims, domestic murders, and huge experience gained in South London in the investigation of Rapes and Child Abuse.

I hope this does not seem like some sort of Lenny Harper ego trip, but when people like Mr. Gradwell, Mr. Warcup, and Ms. Simon, criticise my ability, I cannot help but refer to others who have expressed a contrary view. Over the past few years I have worked with and for some of the most respected senior police officers in the UK. Others who I have never worked for have come and independently examined what I have done in Jersey. What they say is in marked contrast to the three above, and what they say illustrates what I mean by saying that I must have become a disaster ‘overnight’. Forgive me for running through some of these professional assessments, but it will show the operational calibre of people with very different views to those which have appeared in the JEP of late and in the public utterings of Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup.

Her Majesty Inspector of Constabulary came to review the SOJP in 2002, two years after Graham Power had taken over and some months following John Pearson and I arriving. They noted huge improvements from the Inspection Report prior to Mr. Power’s arrival and spoke in complimentary terms about the Senior Management Team, its leadership style, and how the force supported the changes made.

A different Inspection team carried out another examination of the force in 2008. It made the following comments under the heading of ‘Strengths’.

“The current Senior Management Team has continued to make improvements in performance, resources, management and capability.”

“The force has an effective Professional Standards Department which is effectively led by the DCO (who) drives the need for integrity across the force.”

Under the category of ‘Leadership’, the HMI wrote; “The Chief Officer Group is forward thinking, proactive in terms of the development of the force, and accessible to staff. They seek and utilise good practice from UK forces in ways that are applicable to the operational context of Jersey.” The Report team went on to say that they were “impressed with the receptiveness, drive, and commitment of the Chief Officer Team to make Organisational changes in line with areas of improvement.” They also said “The Chief Officer Team promotes a culture of empowerment, innovation, and learning through various means.”

Finally HMI, in summing up said “there is strong evidence to indicate that the SOJP is perceived as modern, fast moving with high expectations of operational and cultural change amongst a motivated workforce.”

As I stated above, I have worked with, and for, some of the most respected and professional police officers in the UK. A number of them have carried out assessments on my performance and ability. Again, apologies for what seems almost self congratulation, but among them Sir William Rae (former Chief Constable of Strathclyde) said in 2002, just before my move to Jersey, that I was currently “serving with distinction.” He went on to say the following.

“Superintendent Harper is an intelligent and articulate officer who is performing his current duties to an extremely high level. Since transferring to Strathclyde Police he has shown himself to be a dedicated and highly responsible team player who maintains a consistently professional approach to his duties at all times. The excellence he has shown since joining Strathclyde Police was mirrored during his time with the Metropolitan Police. In April 1989 when stationed at Peckham his Divisional Commander stated that in his role as Detective Inspector he was ‘one of the most effective I have ever known.’ Praise such as this has followed Superintendent Harper throughout his career and for good reason. A modest individual, he has received five commendations, all relating to the investigation of serious crime including one relating to the arrest and conviction of two INLA terrorists.”

Sir William went on to say that my appraisals in Strathclyde had been of an extremely high standard with senior managers universally praising my diligence and abilities at both the operational and strategic levels. He attached copies of my last three staff appraisals which had been written by two senior officers who are now both Chief Constables in Scotland.

Against that backdrop of unimpeachable professional commendation, the trinity of Simon, Warcup, and Gradwell have made it their mission in life to tell as many people as possible how unprofessional and incapable (and even worse) I am. All this on very little knowledge of me, and bolstered by, to borrow Ms. Simon’s words, “lies and half truths.” She would certainly know about lies and half truths, wouldn’t she? With such a volume of informed and respected professional opinion to the contrary, no thinking person would prefer to believe the nonsense, of Simon, Gradwell & Warcup. So am I bothered?


Now let me turn to the actual substance (an ill chosen word to describe what was in these pieces of journalistic rubbish) of Ms. Simon’s articles. I will start with the interview with Mr. Gradwell. I do feel rather weary at this point as I have made all these points before to Simon and others. At least this time however, I am making them to people who will have the ability and willingness to assimilate them.

The attention seeking headline in the Gradwell article was that the operation at Haut de la Garenne was “a waste of time and money.” According to Mr. Gradwell, as reported in the JEP, the decision to excavate was made without hard evidence or intelligence. Up until then, he said, the enquiry was being run “essentially along UK lines.” Okay – if I understand him then, we were doing OK until we decided to excavate HDLG. It follows then that he would not have done so. He would have ignored all that we found and walked away. Here again are the (much repeated) reasons why we excavated - in chronological sequence.

By the closing weeks of 2007, we had been carrying out the enquiry for some time. A recurring feature of the evidence and information gathering process as we moved into January 2008 was that a number of victims and witnesses had told us they had been assaulted and abused at the former home. There was evidence from one witness that a child had been chased by a member of staff through an upper floor corridor and in desperation had leapt out of a high window. The child had not been seen again. At that stage we had no name. (Mr. Gradwell was to say that over a year later he traced the child – perhaps he did. However at that time we had what we had.) We had non-specific information from a number of witnesses that they had witnessed children being dragged away at night and not being seen again. There was intelligence of illegal forced abortion and of a still born child.

I found all of this highly alarming and worrying but I did not consider at that stage that it warranted a full excavation of HDLG. (This is an important point, because after speaking to Gradwell and Warcup, the Met Police accused me of ordering the excavation on the evidence of a few “disturbed” people. I took issue with this description of the victims and made this clear in a number of e-mails to those concerned.) Mr. Gradwell confirms my suspicion about the origin of this slur on the survivors by his comments to Diane Simon. He and David Warcup at their infamous and discredited press conference last year also peddled this myth about the reasons for digging. The truth is simple to illustrate, because it is well documented.

I arranged to go to the UK to meet experts who would be well qualified to advise us on the way forward. On 5th February 2008, I went to Oxford with our Forensic Services Manager and other staff, and at the Headquarters of LGC Forensics met with Karl Harrison, their lead scientist, National Policing Improvement Agency Homicide Search Advisors, and forensic staff representing Forensic Archaeology and Anthropology, as well as a Cadaver Dog Advisor. We had already asked Mr. Harrison to prepare a desk based study brief of HDLG and he circulated this at the meeting.

The decision made at this meeting was that we should carry out an initial reconnaissance of the site over a short period to seek to clarify a number of objectives. It was decided that we would deploy several different assets, to be deployed in a “systematic fashion using best value and best practice guidelines.” In simple terms, we wanted to establish if there was anything there which would need further investigation - or if we could “walk away” from it -without further investigation.

Two weeks later we moved in to the grounds of HDLG. We deployed Geophysical assets and Ground Penetrating Radar in order to identify anomalous areas for further investigation. We also used Gridded probing techniques to assist the dogs, and of course we had the anecdotal evidence of witnesses and victims. We decided we would not at any time carry out speculative searching but would deploy the forensic and archaeology assets in areas where there was corroboration that something needed further investigation. Before we excavated, we would give full consideration to possible explanations given by earlier work or utilities. We also studied in depth building plans and maps. It was during this process that builders who had worked on the site told us that a few years before they had found bones they were convinced were human but had been told to ‘forget them’ and “let bygones be bygones.” (This phrase became a catchword among my team whenever the subject of attempts at cover up would arise.) One worker was so convinced they were human he took them home to examine them against computer images which only strengthened his fears. (Eventually these bones were examined by a Jersey Pathologist after police had called her to the home. She told the officer “I don’t like the look of this,” but was later to say she could not remember making that comment. She was “not saying it wasn’t made, but just couldn’t remember it.” She took the bones to her boss whose extremely short (five lines) report said the bones were too large to be human but also stated that one of the bones “could not identified.” He gave the measurements of the bones and our anthropologist took issue with his findings saying that the size of the bone concerned was within the size range of a child. Unfortunately the bones were destroyed by the pathologist without being examined by an anthropologist. Our advice was that they should have been so examined as the pathologist was not qualified to rule on whether or not they were human. The builders told us that they had found two child’s shoes with the bones. The pathologist told us that he had sent them for examination and had been told they were Victorian. The person he said he sent them to remembered no such incident. Unfortunately the shoes too had been destroyed and were unavailable to us.

At the same time as we were digesting this deeply puzzling sequence of events, we received a positive reaction from the dog trained to find traces of human remains. This reaction came at the same spot as the builders had found the bones mentioned above. At this point, I took the decision to authorise the archaeologists to dig at that location. I would do the same again. It beggars belief, and I am at a loss to imagine why, Mr. Gradwell and David Warcup should say they would have taken a different decision. To me that would be gross negligence. My decision was fully endorsed by the ACPO team who were mentoring us and this team included the former head of the Met Homicide Department and a vastly experienced Senior Investigating Officer. It was also unanimously supported by all of my senior team including the UK Homicide Search Advisors. The dig was necessary because there were matters which needed further investigation. Indeed, the advice of the ACPO Homicide Team was that we had no choice but to treat the scene as one of a potential homicide. This advice was expressed frequently, and I know it was given to Frank Walker.

I will deal in more detail later with the charred bones found in the cellar areas, but for now will concentrate on the reasons for excavating that area. We had evidence from victims who said they were confined and/or abused in what they described as cellar areas. We could not find them until a local builder who had worked at the area came forward and said he knew where the entrance to these ‘cellars’ were. He showed us and we were eventually able to uncover them. Before excavating further we put the dogs into the area. As we did so, the Chief of Police arrived with the Home Affairs Minister, Wendy Kinnard. They were actually present when the dogs reacted strongly in the cellar and where we were then to find the charred bones and teeth. So, the question is obvious when one thinks that Mr. Gradwell is still claiming that we should not have searched HDLG. At what point should we have walked away? Should we have not started at all - and therefore not found anything – and left the remains (because that is what they are) where they were? Should we have stopped at the wing where the dog initially reacted and, instead, ignored all we knew about the bones found by the builders? Or should we have ignored the dog’s possible corroboration of the victims in the cellar area?

Messrs Gradwell and Warcup said there was no evidence of murder and that my team was wrong to say there was. They are not telling the truth, deliberately or otherwise - because I had never said there was evidence of murder - only evidence that there was something that needed investigation. A subtle, but crucial, distinction which people could be forgiven for not understanding, given the utter nonsense that’s been peddled recently. There are many, many examples of what I did, actually, say, to be found still. Check the BBC News website on 31st July 2008. Read David James Smith’s excellent article in the Sunday Times. (Reproduced in Stuart Syvret’s blog on Sunday, 10th May, 2009). They all state - clearly and unequivocally - that I was saying ‘we did not have evidence of murder’. Why would Ms. Simon and the two senior cops say otherwise? I and many others know why. However, we still do not know how, where, or when those children died and probably never will. We think we know how the bones ended up where we found them, and that was expertly laid out by Karl Harrison in his Archaeological Theory of the Burnt Debris including Human Bone Fragments and teeth found in the East wing. His view was that the Solid Fuel Furnace in the West Wing was used to dispose of human remains and they were then transferred to the East Wing around 1960-1970. We included his report in the document we posted on our website. Strangely enough when the Sunday Times journalist David James Smith attempted to access this document it had been removed under Warcup’s leadership. David James Smith was told by the Press Officer that there had been a problem with the computer. Of course there was! In any event, I reproduce a quote from the report by Karl Harrison below. You might ask the question that if an independent expert such as Karl Harrison is giving us this information, what kind of police officers would we have been to walk away and ignore it? As I say, it beggars belief. Unless your name is Diane Simon, David Warcup, or Gradwell that is.

Here is a quote from the report by Karl Harrison:

“With regard to the human remains recovered from cellars 3,4 & five. Karl Harrison, LGC Forensics lead archaeologist explains :

Detailed archaeological analysis of the building and its structure, in conjunction with archive plans, has provided time lines for historical renovations within the building. Phase I – area above the cellars is a School Room - Victorian styli and slates are dumped in large quantities on the cellar floor. These are in such quantities that it would suggest the floors were being taken up when they were deposited. Although they are mixed throughout the cellar deposits, many slates are lying on the base of the earthen floor, suggesting an early fall. A number of dateable Phase I items (Victorian coinage, Napoleon III coin, Victorian Jubilee medal) have been found in close association with this material.

Phase II/III - At the extension of the building following the major works over the bathhouse directly south of the School Room, educational activities move southwards to our Press Room (as was). The School Room becomes a Play Room in the early 20th C. This would explain the lack of pen nibs such as those in the cisterns entering the record here.

With the exception of a few coins of the period, native Phase II/III material seems to be in short supply. Instead we seem to have imported material - masses of shoe leather and heel irons relate to the shoemakers that functioned through the 20s and 30s, along with buttons and thimbles from the neighbouring dressmakers room. This is closely associated with concentrations of kitchen waste (bottle glass, jar glass, plain domestic ware, patterned ware and charnel), which seems contemporaneous based on design and scraps of printed labels remaining.

All of this is mixed with two distinct non-native soils - a virgin 'potato' soil which provides much of the compressed material, and a concentration of charred material - coke, clinker and some charcoal (in very small fragments) - whilst the charred material is associated with smoke stained masonry, none of the goods in the cellar have been burned (as opposed to cooked in the case of animal bone) - other than some of the bone fragments.

Phase IV - Phase IV is characterised by sweeping, evidenced by changes in texture of the cellar fills and the presence of large numbers of plastic bristles and brush head fragments stuck through lower elements of the contexts. In terms of depositions in phase IV, these are (with the exception of a single coin) native in character - the room above the cellars remains a Play Room, and we have a profusion of glass marbles, toy soldiers, play money, farmyard animal figures)

Phase V - Access is gained through the floor by hatch cutting for the 2003 refurbishment - some of the outlying bone and teeth fragments perhaps owe their position to cable laying. What I now think has happened is that a mass of material has been imported from the west wing at a time when the floor of the Play Room was up. This would explain the mix of material from north to south along the wing (glass and ceramic from kitchen larders, leather goods from the shoemakers, buttons from the tailors and high-temperature char from the bake house foundations) These renovations to the west wing have been carried out since 1960 (the brush bristles relate to sweeping of floor surface elsewhere and have been incorporated into the fill elsewhere, rather than someone bothering to sweep a cellar's earthen floor) - they have involved cleaning, but also significant digging into underlying soil (we have small concentrations of Phase II/III pot sewer pipe, as well as the mass of potato soil). Whilst some of the material might have been taken off site, some has been ditched in barrow and bucket loads on the cellar floor, hence the complex lensing of charred and virgin soils, especially along the footing trenches.”

Fairly significant is it not? Yet, we should not have been in there according to Gradwell, Warcup and Simon. We should have walked away and left the remains there. It was, supposedly, all a waste of time and money, not to mention professionally inept. We may not have found the answers but I am in no doubt that we had to ask the questions. That is what we were police officers for.

Let me now move on to other criticisms levelled by Warcup in his “interview” with Ms. Simon. Firstly, his strange allegation that I was offered the services of a top Senior Investigating Officer and his “matrix” but refused and ordered him to leave the island. Well, I must have had powers I didn’t know about. I was not aware I could order or ask anyone to leave Jersey. The truth here is that I was asked if an officer from the UK could come and talk to some of my staff as he had experience of child abuse investigations and in particular in a number of administrative areas we were utilising. Whatever his experience as a senior investigating officer it was nowhere near that of the ACPO Homicide Detective who was mentoring me and reviewing my work. There was never any suggestion that he should usurp what the ACPO man was doing. Apart from anything else, it would have been duplication. The officer did speak to my staff and I recall they did get some useful stuff from him. However, he came up with this “points system” or matrix in the new, intellectual, politically correct police world of jargon. It was explained to me that it helped prioritise crimes by giving, for example, ten points to a rape, seven for an assault, and one for a towel flick. Now, that might be helpful in a case where you are looking at many dozens of different types of offences, but here although we were dealing with a large number of offences, the types of crime were few and similar. Mr. Gradwell might need a points scoring system to help him tell the difference between a rape and a cuff around the ear. I do not. That is why we said no thank you. It is just another example of how the abundance of talent in today’s police force is hamstrung and prevented from doing their jobs properly by bureaucracy introduced by people frightened of their own shadows and the effect that mistakes may have on their progress up the ladder.

Mr. Gradwell makes the comment that some journalists saw through me and others did not. Well, that depends on whether you are in the camp that wanted the enquiry to fail or not. At least one BBC journalist was in the camp Gradwell felt had not got it right - judging from the abusive text message he sent the journalist.

Mr. Gradwell says he inherited an ill managed mess, that there were no proper papers left behind. Here, he is in conflict with the ACPO Review team, who said, in their report, the policy books were properly kept and maintained. Gradwell’s assertion about the team’s “embarrassed looks” and comments that “we told them so” are bizarre, but sadly predictable, given the propaganda campaign that has been waged to falsely depict a divided team.

I wouldn’t choose to provide the following evidence of the team’s cohesion, and appreciation of my leadership, but as it’s important to combat the lies being fed to the people of Jersey, I do so. All of the team wrote messages to me on my leaving the island. They did not have to. They could not have been forced to as I no longer worked there. Below I reproduce an e-mail sent out by one of my team to all those working for me. I had already said I did not wish to have a retirement function, and knew nothing of these plans until asked to be available for an evening. Would the team have done this if Gradwell was correct in what he has said? I have removed the name of the sender for obvious reasons.

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 25 June 2008 16:06
To: All HAT Officers
Cc: Coupland, Vicky; Nibbs, Louise; Bentley, Fraser
Subject: SIO Lenny Harper's Retirement

Greetings to you all,

As you are aware Lenny Harper is fast approaching his last few weeks as the Deputy Chief Officer here in the States of Jersey Police and will be putting his hat and coat on for the final time in August 2008. Most of us have only come into close contact with him as the SIO on 'Operation Rectangle' where we have found him to be extremely professional, affable and a thoroughly good 'Governor' to work for.

We don't have a 'Social Club' for our group of investigators but having chatted amongst a few of us we have taken the decision to book a restaurant for an evening meal where we as a group can see Lenny off in style. Lenny has agreed to be available on the evening chosen and we will ask him if he would like to bring his wife too. This is not going to be a leaving function linked with the States of Jersey Police who may well organise their own function to mark his departure, as too, may the Politicians and Government ministers on the island.

The arrangements are to meet at The Tenby Public House at St Aubin Bay at 19.00hrs on Wednesday 6th August 2008.

Then to move on a few steps to the Bon Viveur Restaurant , Le Boulevard, St Aubin to sit down at 20.00hrs.

Travel to and from the venue can be organised by getting private hire Taxi vans in different groups.

I am assured that the food at the venue is excellent and for a 3 course meal with wine you will be paying £30 to £40 dependant upon how much you want to eat and drink. Bills can be organised separately.

I have a selection of menus and a wine list to view should you so desire.

Should you wish to participate in this function I would like you to reply to me by 'email' ASAP in order that we can confirm numbers with the restaurant owner who has booked us in as a group of 30 to 35. Do bear in mind that we have chosen to go out mid week so that the maximum number of us are available. Additionally it will be in the middle of the Tourist season so we have had to book early.

If you do wish to attend please give me a deposit of £20 ASAP. We would also like to present Lenny with a gift to remind him of his work with the 'Operational Rectangle' team so if anyone has any ideas please see me too.

Kind Regards,


As further evidence of just how ‘reliable’ super-cop Gradwell is, I reproduce below the comments written by the team on my retirement card, after I had finished working. These are not the kind of comments which get written by the members of a team of the kind depicted by Gradwell; a fact which indicates just how little weight should be attached to his words.

"Sir, you have brought Jersey integrity + transparency, have a long happy retirement. thank you."

"Enjoy your retirement - it has been a pleasure taking on the system. Enjoy your season ticket."

"Hope to see you at Old Trafford when Sunderland thrash the red devils. All the best for the future. Enjoy it."

"And don't forget the Hull City Tigers thrashing the red devils - well all right, even I am not putting any money on it. Boss, it's been a pleasure working with you, all the best."

"Mr. Harper, as a fellow dinosaur it has been a great pleasure to have put our heads together to sort out this plot. Many thanks for your time, efforts and sincerity. Enjoy your retirement."

"Wishing you the very best for your retirement boss. Take care for the future."

"Best wishes from the Dorset contingent."

"You have been a top boss. Enjoy your retirement."

"Mr. H., it has been an absolute pleasure working for you. This island won't seem the same without your face on the news every week or so. All the best, have a fab retirement."

"Boss, it’s been great working for you but I hope to see you in Cumbria soon. All the best for your retirement."

" I will not even mention Southend, November 2006!! Enjoy your retirement boss - enjoy the rest." xx

"Mr. Harper, it has been a pleasure working for you and being involved on the enquiry. All the best for the future."

"All the best, enjoy your retirement like I am."

"All the best. Happy retirement."

"Best wishes for the future. Enjoy your retirement go and watch West Ham. You will be missed."

Sir, Boss, Lenny, (first two scored out) What a trip - ups and downs. Many more ups than downs. I've had a ball. Enjoy the trip - you have not seen the last of me."

"Good luck, best wishes."

"Have a happy and long retirement and all the best. xx"

"If nothing else you will have contacts throughout the country. All the best."

"Wish you were staying longer. Enjoy your retirement. -x-"

Mr. Harper, cheers for having us here. You have certainly left your mark. Have a great retirement and enjoy your family."

"Sorry to see you go. Hope you enjoy your retirement. All the best."

"Does this mean I can now wear my green and gold T shirt?"

"To a fellow scouser - enjoy your retirement."

"Mr. H - thanks for the opportunity to come to Jersey. Have a long and happy retirement. All the best."

"Having made a great commitment to Jersey and certainly placed the island on the map it’s now time to have an enjoyable and fantastic retirement."

"All the best."

"Have a fantastic time and a well deserved rest."

"It's been great working with you. Have a great retirement."

"Have a wonderful retirement."

"Good luck."

All the very best - enjoy your time."

"Have a wonderful retirement."

"Wonderbar!! Kielen donf fur die gelagenheit."

"Have a long and happy retirement. Best regards."

"Lenny, thank you for being a great boss and a wonderful friend. I will miss you." x 

As I said, I would prefer not to publish these personal messages, but as so much effort has been expended by certain people in trying to portray me as some deeply unpopular and isolated figure, I feel the people of Jersey deserve to see the true picture. (Some may recall that the above messages were part of what the Attorney General insisted I hand over as he felt they constituted “unused material” critical to the case and warned me I might put the victims at risk of not getting justice if I refused.)

Which brings me to another very inconvenient fact for Mr.Gradwell, which is this:

All three convictions so far have resulted from the work done by my team’s enquiry.

He looked very proud and self-important as he stood on the steps of the court after the Wateridge conviction. It must have crossed his mind, surely, that all three convicted had already been charged and made their first court appearances before he’d even arrived in the island?

And, as the lawyers had made it clear they would not take a job to court unless there was a good chance of conviction, the evidence must have been pretty good from the outset. However, the papers, evidence, and files I left him on the priority suspects – including the Maguires - were obviously not much help to him as he has not been able to charge any of them. Though perhaps Mr. Gradwell’s inabilities were not the sole cause of this?

One has to wonder why the Attorney General, William Bailhache, sent instructions to me not to charge Wateridge? It is fortunate indeed that I was a rather thick cop and “misunderstood” the instructions conveyed to me by a lawyer. Otherwise it is possible the now convicted Wateridge may never have even been charged.

A few other things about that Gradwell JEP interview: He said in it, when referring to the disgraceful case where the lawyer changed ‘his mind’ after telling us to arrest the ‘lovely’ pair - who delighted in hitting children in the back of the head with cricket bats - that it was one of my own team who told the lawyers there was not enough evidence. I find this rather unlikely for a number of reasons. Firstly, my team were very angry at the late changing of the decision. They had been told by the lawyer that subject to interview this pair should be charged with serious assaults. We of course had an agreement that we would arrest no one unless we got the go ahead from the lawyers appointed by the AG. We adhered to this. It was forced on us after the Establishment became worried we were arresting people they would rather we didn’t - and after they’d lost control of the Wateridge process. The team arrested this pair - only to have the rug snatched from under their feet. After a rather strained conversation with the AG’s lawyer, who was sitting on a platform in a railway station in the North of England with trains running in the background, I ignored his instructions and called the Centenier into the police station to charge these two. Mr. Gradwell of course would not have done this he says. In any event, the Centenier stated that although he agreed that there was ample evidence to charge, he did not want to go against the lawyer’s ‘revised’ instruction. Never mind justice or the victims!

This left me with a dilemma. I knew word would get out in minutes that we had released these two without charge and that it would confirm the worst fears of the victims of a cover up. I therefore put out a press release making it clear that it was not our wish and that it had been imposed on us. The Attorney General was not happy and demanded a report from me explaining why I had issued the press release. I did the report - but put in it a little more than the Attorney General wanted - by going through a whole catalogue of events where I felt we had been let down by his office. Someone gave that report to the media, and it can now be read on Stuart Syvret’s blog of the 27th August, 2008. Mr. Warcup has instigated a very expensive investigation into who leaked it, he and Mr. Gradwell telling journalists ‘off the record’ that Stuart Syvret and I were being investigated. Compare that with my failure to get the Attorney General to prosecute corrupt cops for leaking intelligence off police systems!

Mr. Gradwell says that the problem was I promised the victims £1m too much and he only had £1 to give them. In some respects he hasn’t even given them that. I promised them that I would believe them and that I would do my best to get them justice. It seems to me no one else had ever done that before. I never promised huge numbers of convictions and the victims never demanded that. I promised them I would do my best, and the officers who went and saw them achieved that. The numbers of letters, e-mails and phone calls from victims who said that they felt as though a weight had been lifted from them by the officers who spoke to them was incredible and a great testimony to those officers. If promising to believe them, making my belief obvious, and doing my best to get them justice is the equivalent of £1m then so be it. The world now believes in what happened to them. And the evidence is there against other abusers. It is those in power in Jersey that are refusing to use that evidence. They are indeed offering the victims £1 or even less.

Although not directly linked to the Abuse case, we must deal with Mr. Gradwell’s little snide remark about the senior team above the rank of Inspector. Mr. Gradwell is obviously (perhaps) basing his remarks on his experience in the Lancashire force, although as politicians in Jersey kept pointing out to me, policing in the UK is totally different from Jersey. And, whilst I know that Stuart has some differing views on some of those we are talking about, I think I can claim to know those individuals better than either Stuart or Mr. Gradwell in both the professional and personal contexts. I have worked in all the jurisdictions in the UK and I found almost all of the senior officers in SOJP at least the equal of their counterparts in the UK. They had as much skill, professionalism, commitment and integrity as anywhere. In respect of integrity and courage they probably had more than most. I watched two of them, despite having to live on the island, stand up to and continue with a course of action which they felt to be correct and which brought them into conflict with senior figures in the political and legal establishments. This would of course be something Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup would not be comfortable with. One of these officers who had a hugely successful period tackling corruption and misconduct later filled my post more than capably when I was involved in the enquiry. For some reason Mr. Warcup curtailed this and brought someone in from the UK. It would seem that Jersey politicians are now backing away from their previously stated aim that we should be training and preparing local officers for most of the senior posts in the force. Mr. Gradwell was in Jersey for a specific purpose. He played no part in the everyday policing of the island. Just what qualifies him to make critical comments about people he knows little about? It seems to come easily to him.

Of course, Mr. Gradwell didn’t just sound off to the JEP. On the BBC he asked the question why, if I had evidence or intelligence about rapes 20 or 30 years ago did I then dig for human remains? I think that question is answered clearly above. He said there were no human remains found. I beg to differ. For a start, there were approximately 70 children’s teeth. Of course, Mr.Gradwell thinks they are down to the Tooth Fairy. Forget what two experts said. But let us look at his claim that “only one human bone was found and that was from the ‘Plantagenet’ era.”

It is useful to look at what I was being told by the Anthropologists we had on scene. There are two documents which detail this. Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup quoted selectively from them at the Press Conference and since. One of these documents is the Workbook of the Anthropologists and the other is the Bone and Teeth Summary.

There are numerous entries in the Bone and Teeth Summary which relate to bones found and identified as human by the Anthropologists working at HDLG with my team. It is worth bearing in mind that Anthropologists go through many years training to be considered as experts in the identification of human bones. Those that we used were highly experienced, committed, and ethical. Here are some of the entries they made during the course of their work at HDLG. They are reproduced exactly as written. They are not my interpretation. These are the words of the experts. The entries made by the Anthropologists are a record used by them, and formed the basis for the advice I was given. The reference number which each entry begins with is unique to each fragment, and the accompanying information for each exhibit describes archaeological phase and date, as well as possible origin. I have not mentioned all the teeth in the list as there were just too many. The comment below, in brackets, is mine.

KSH/137: Archaeological phase and Date: 3-4: 1940s to 1980s.
Sixteen fragments of bone submitted to University of Sheffield and positively id’d as human bone.
 (These were the fragments examined by the UK Anthropologist Andrew Chamberlain who issued a report saying the bone examined was human juvenile, had been burnt soon after death, and buried soon after burning. He also said that the bones were no more than a few decades old. His report, strangely enough, has never been mentioned by Mr. Warcup or Mr. Gradwell. When the bones were sent for carbon dating we got two results back for the batch. The first, as I recall said the bones examined dated between the 14th and 17th century. The next day we were told the rest of the bones were of a person or persons who died between the 1650s and 1950s. This led to me giving all those press briefings, even reported in the JEP, in which I said the evidence was contradictory and made it unlikely there would be a homicide enquiry. Again, all this seems to have escaped the radar of Messrs Simon, Warcup, and Gradwell. Furthermore, when David James Smith, the Sunday Times journalist spoke to Andrew Chamberlain he said he had never heard me say anything which contradicted his findings and revealed to David he had even waived his fee so impressed was he with the way we were going about our business. In an e-mail to me I was told that Mr. Chamberlain “stressed over and over again that everyone he dealt with, especially you, showed great care and professionalism.” This has obviously not reached the ears of our trio either.)

KSH/158: Archaeological Phase and Date. 3-4. 1940s to 1980s.
Single fragment of bone resembling KSH/137. Submitted to Sheffield University.

JAR/30: 3-4; 1940s to 1980s. Two fragments of burnt bone one is fragment of longbone? Tibia. Submitted to University of Sheffield with KSH/158. Origin confirmed as human. Submitted for dating awaiting results.

JAR/33: 3-4; 1940s to 1980’s.
Calcined fragment of bone. ?human.

JAR/53: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
5 fragments of calcined long bone ?human.

JAR/54: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
4 fragments of calcined bone ?human.

JAR/55: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
1 fragment of calcined bone ?human.

JAR/57:183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
2 fragments of bone of unknown origin.

JAR/56: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
1 fragment of bone ?human.

JAR/67: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Human Tooth: deciduous left maxillary first molar, age 9 yrs ± 3 yrs. Could have been shed naturally (Anthro exam).
Submitted to odontologist, see report.

JAR/69: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragments x 3 of possible human cortical bone.

JAR/61: 183 Zone 4 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
23 Fragments of bone:
1 Burnt fragment which closely resembles a human juvenile mastoid process.
2. Burnt fragment of ?human mandible.
3. Fragments of burnt long bone x 3 measuring between 11.3 and 16.3 mm.
4. Fragments of unidentified burnt cortical and trabecular bone x 7.
5. Fragment of slightly burnt long bone measuring 33 mm. The cortex of the
bone resembles human but it is quite thick and the trabeculae can not be seen because it requires cleaning. It appears to have been cut at one end.
6. Fragments of unburnt unidentified long bone. x 3 The appearance and texture of the cortex of the fragments appears more animal than human but it is advised that further examination should be undertaken in order to confirm this.
7. Fragments of unidentified long bone x 7. 5 have been burnt and 2 haven’t. Species
uncertain although two of the burnt fragments could possibly be human

JAR/90: 183 Cellar 3 Zone 3 East.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragments of unidentified bone of unknown species. One which is calcined is possibly human bone.

Cellar 4 Context 169 (redeposited char material from fire elsewhere. Unsealed)

JAR/36: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of bone ?human.

JAR/37: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of burnt bone. ?human mastoid process

JAR/39: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of burnt bone ?human.

JAR/40: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of bone ?human.

GMK/18: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Human tooth. Anthro exam – deciduous left maxillary lateral incisor. Age range 6 yrs ± 2yrs.

The above is only part of the information that I was given by the Anthropologists. It gives a vastly different picture to that supplied by Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup and so enthusiastically promoted by Ms. Simon. These entries, made at the time by the Anthropologists, make it clear, that not only did they believe that they were finding human bones, but that the bones had been deposited there fairly recently, in some cases as recently as the 1960’s onwards. Reading the above, could anyone say that the dig at HDLG was a waste of time and money? Where do they get the conclusion that only one human bone was found? More puzzling perhaps, how can Mr. Gradwell or Mr. Warcup claim that I should not have authorised the search at HDLG? The problem was not identifying the bones as human – the expert Anthropologists did that very well. The problem was the contradictions in the carbon dating process which is not that reliable. When we questioned the company who pioneered the process we used they told us that they had taken a live fish out of the sea and carbon dated it several days later. The process told them the fish was thousands of years old. Our Anthropologist told us a similar story about a baby found dead in a house. Although they knew the baby had only been dead since the 1970s, the carbon dating gave a vastly different date. The carbon dating was at odds with the respected expert in the UK who said the bones were only a few decades old. Who was correct? More importantly, why did Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup make no mention of all of this and why quote only selectively from the above document. The document is not being revealed here for the first time. Messrs Gradwell and Warcup quoted from it, albeit selectively, and the Sunday Times also referred to it. What it does do is completely and utterly destroy the suggestion that I exaggerated or lied about what I was told. It will make you wonder though why Mr. Gradwell should say that the dig was a waste of time and money.

One thing is a certain fact: the document quoted above proves – unambiguously – that there was sufficient evidence to justify digging – and that the digging did find concerning artefacts, thus further justifying the process.

We might not have found all the answers - but as police officers we had to ask the questions. At least that is my view.

Mr. Gradwell puzzled me somewhat with his rant about “noble cause corruption.” I know what it is – one example of it was when the Guildford Four were arrested in Heysham, Lancashire, and were then wrongly convicted. But what on earth has that to do with HDLG? Mr. Gradwell said this was like an example of it – we had decided on guilt and then went on a ‘fishing expedition’. He went on to ask if this was what people wanted – a return to the days when police decided guilt and the era of miscarriages of justice? Now this takes me back to Mr. Gradwell’s comments about me that I “could not understand basic facts.” This is maybe why I can’t figure out whose guilt we had, supposedly, made our minds up about when we went into HDLG. We did not even know what crimes may have been committed in relation to the human remains there, never mind who the guilty party may have been. Bizarre!

There was also, of course, his comments about the Media Strategy. ‘When’, he asked, ‘did you ever see routine daily briefings on a police enquiry?’ Plenty of times would be my answer. However, I did not give daily routine briefings. As I am sure the Press Officer would confirm I faced the Press when I did because they were there in numbers and besieging her office with interview requests. On one occasion they even knocked the system out.

So there we have my perspective on what Mr. Gradwell said together with Mr. Warcup. Lies and half truths was the phrase that Diane Simon used. Make your own mind up. Which brings me to Ms. Simon.

“Harper lied about the fragment” seemed to be the gist of her recent story. I have already gone through this with her two or three times, personally, face to face, and a couple of times on e-mail. It seems I am not the only one with difficulty in grasping what I am told. She continues to peddle the myth that this fragment was identified as coconut very early on and that I lied about it. I will come to that. Let me once more relate the facts about this fragment known in the media as JAR/6.

The fragment was found on the morning of 23 February 2008. I was telephoned and went to the scene. When I arrived I was briefed as the entry on the Anthropologist’s worksheet reproduced below dated 23 February 2008. I was also told that a News of the World journalist had been caught with a camera in the bushes outside. I knew therefore that someone had leaked our work to the media and I also knew that it would only be a matter of time before the JEP found out about the fragment. Over the previous couple of years we had mounted several enquiries to find the source within the force who kept leaking details to various journalists of the JEP. My view was that if the media reported it before we did we would lose credibility with our vulnerable victims and witnesses. The entry below is quite clear. Note that it was found in Trench 3.

“23 February 2008
09.10 hrs
Examined JAR/6. Recovered from Context 011 Trench 3. Degraded fragment of bone thought to be human skull, probably from a child (see full inventory for details). Associated with mixed debris including animal bone, buttons and a leather “thong”. Discussed findings with SIO Lenny HARPER and Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND. It was decided that the bone should be sent for C14 dating*.”

Diane Simon, Mick Gradwell, and David Warcup have all said that I was told the next day that the context of the area I found pre-dated the enquiry. This is simply not true. The fragment was found under the stairs in Trench 3. Anyone who thinks that the inch by inch, painstaking, search conducted on their knees by the Archaeologists and Anthropologists took only one day knows nothing about this sort of work. Page 2 of the Anthropologists worksheet shows that they were still working on Trench 3 on 6th March and were still working under the stairs on 20th March. It was sometime around then that the work on this context was completed and we were told that the context meant the fragment was probably too old to be important to the enquiry. We then immediately ruled it out of our enquiry. Further confirmation of this is given on Page 16 of the Worksheet when the Anthropologist Julie Roberts made the entry reproduced below. This entry was made on 9th April and refers to the 8th April. Note what she says in the entry because it totally contradicts what Gradwell, Warcup, and Simon say. For instance, where she says “now that the phasing of the area under the stairs has been completed,”. This would certainly seem to contradict the information given to the media by Gradwell and Warcup that it had been completed as early as the 24 February.

“9 April 2008
On 8 April 2008 I read the C14 dating results relating to JAR/6. The report stated that the fragment was too degraded to obtain a date. The fragment can however be dated by archaeological context now that the phasing of the area under the stairs has been completed. JAR/6 was found in Context 003, Trench 3. This Context is thought to belong to the earliest phase of the building, phase 1, which has been dated to the Victorian period. It certainly predates the 1940’s aggregate 008.

On 8 and 9 April 2008 I re-examined JAR/6. Since I initially examined the fragment it had dried out considerably and changed in colour, texture and weight. These changes caused me to reconsider my initial observation that the fragment was human bone, although I cannot reach a definite conclusion without conducting further chemical analysis. I reported my findings to Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND and SIO Lenny HARPER and we discussed a number of options regarding how to proceed with the fragment. Our conclusion was that as the fragment had been found in the pre 1940’s phase of the building, no further work would be conducted on it.”

Note also what Julie Roberts says about the fragment. Gradwell and Warcup told the media she had changed her mind and now thought it was something else. That is not what she is saying, even after examining it again and reporting changes to it. She clearly says that she cannot be sure without conducting further chemical analysis.

Furthermore, Miss Roberts says that she discussed it with myself and the Forensic Manager and that we discussed a number of options regarding how to proceed. She then says that “our” conclusion was that as we had already ruled it out of the enquiry, no further work would be conducted on it. “Our” obviously includes her in the decision. According to Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup, I rode roughshod over her opinion. More misinformation.

It is the same also with the myth that this was identified as a coconut during my time in the island. I detail below the sequence of events relating to the examination of the fragment. This is fully corroborated by copy e-mails from the lab which examined the fragment. I am not aware that it has ever been identified as a coconut. Anthropologists are trained to identify human remains. The only anthropologist to examine it thought it part of a child’s skull. On seeing it later when it had changed its appearance she was not so sure. People carrying out Carbon Dating are trained for that process, not identifying the matter. Even then, they gave contradictory and confused information to us. When reading below, bear in mind that collagen is found only in mammals, not wood, not coconut.

We sent the fragment off for dating around the 3rd or 4th March. If Gradwell and Warcup are to be believed I already knew it was hundreds of years old. Why would we send it off for dating if we already knew? However, my remarks above and the Anthropologist’s worksheet make it clear this was not true. The accompanying form completed by the Forensic Services Manager which went with the fragment also makes it clear that we did not know its age when we sent it off in March. Why would Mr. Gradwell claim that we did? There are also e-mails which must still be within the SOJP system which make it clear that we did not know the age of the fragment when sending it off, particularly those sent by the Forensic Services Manager.

On 28th March we received an e-mail from a Ms Brock at the Laboratory in relation to the fragment. Here are some excerpts from the e-mail.

“Hi Vicky. Here are the details of the Jersey skull as discussed on the phone earlier. As I said, the chemistry of this bone is extremely unusual – nothing I am familiar with.” 

“During the first acid washes we often get a lot of fizzing as the mineral dissolves. The Jersey skull didn’t fizz at all, which suggested that preservation was poor, and which led me to test the nitrogen content of the bone.”

“The Jersey skull had 0.60 nitrogen, which suggested that it contained virtually no collagen. Once we had this result, Tom phoned you and told you it would be unlikely that we could date the sample, but that we would continue with the pre-treatment just in case.”

“Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”

“As there is no nitrogen it cannot contain collagen unless it is highly degraded. The chances are it is highly contaminated and any date we get for it might not be accurate. I have e-mailed the director and asked if we should proceed with a date.”

Now, if you look at that e-mail, it makes clear a number of things. Firstly, they, the experts on dating, are not sure they can date it. Secondly, they make it clear they have found more than enough collagen (only found in mammals) to date the fragment, but then change their mind again and say it is too badly degraded. Also, note the use of the terms ‘skull’ and ‘bone.’ If the experts cannot be sure on 28th March, how can anyone say that I knew on 24th February? On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’ She went on to say “If it isn’t bone I am really sorry,” but then finishes with “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as I described it.”

It is clear from those e-mails that the lab did not know what the fragment was. Why, then, have Messrs Simon, Gradwell, and Warcup insisted that the fragment was identified as a coconut by a person qualified to do so? By the time I retired, the only person to suggest the item might be a fragment of coconut was a technician who was trying to date it. No Anthropologist has ever identified it as such. One way to clear this would be to have it further examined, and I am not aware if that has ever been done. I am told, rightly or wrongly, however, that it has been lost. If true, how convenient.

At the time, I e-mailed the laboratory and asked them two questions. The first was “Are you saying definitively that this is not bone?” The second was “If you do not think it is bone how can you explain the presence of more collagen than is usually needed to date bearing in mind that collagen is found only in mammals?”

In answer to the first question they told me they did not think it was bone but the only way we could be sure was to have it re-examined by someone qualified to do so. I am still waiting on an answer to the question about the collagen.

I am therefore at a loss, given the above, which is all documented and evidenced, how either Mr. Gradwell, Mr. Warcup, or Diane Simon can say that I knew at a very early stage that the fragment was definitely old and that it was definitely a piece of coconut. The truth is that, as I left the island, we did not know what it was. The Anthropologist who declared it a piece of a child’s skull could not be as certain after seeing it six weeks later when it had changed pretty substantially. Even then she said it would need further examination, which in effect is what the lab said. Why would anyone try to make out this was not the case?

I have had to explain those details in response to so much nonsense which has been peddled by the Jersey Establishment – but we shouldn’t be diverted by the issue of this, one fragment.

The crucial fact – that the powers-that-be in Jersey don’t want people to understand – is that the single fragment in question had been discounted from the investigation.

The important thing of course is not what it is. That stopped being important when we found out how old it was. Gradwell, Warcup, and Ms. Simon have totally ignored that fact. They have tried to tell the public that I knew it was coconut and/or too old to be of interest very early on, but nevertheless pursued the investigation solely on the basis of that, one, fragment. Their story is a total fabrication.

I am aware that this is a long and pretty dry document so I will try and be brief with the rest. Ms. Simon casts scorn, along with Mr. Gradwell, on the shackles we found. No matter what he may have found someone to later say about what they could be, the facts remain as follows.

I did not introduce the term shackles to the media. When builders heard that we were searching the area they had been working in, they went and told reporters that the police would find the ‘shackles’ they had found several years before when they were working there. Without knowing this, and with the evidence of victims in our minds, when we recovered these artefacts we all felt that the items were shackles. This means that the builders and ourselves, several years apart, came to the same conclusion; these items were shackles. I do not know what Mr. Gradwell showed to the media when he described them as something to do with roofing. I do know that never have I seen anything on any roof or gutter with a length of chain and a bracelet type affair at each end. When I emerged after being told of the find I was careful not to mention shackles. However when the media asked me what I had found and I replied that I had found some items which corroborated the victims evidence, one of them said, “Ah, so you found the shackles then?” It was to be several weeks before I admitted that we thought they were shackles as by that time it seemed rather daft to keep denying it.

Something else which caused me some angst, and consternation among a large number of journalists, was the pronounciation by Mr. Warcup and Mr. Gradwell at their press conference that they had to now contradict me and say there was no evidence of murder and no murder suspects. They must have somehow missed all the press conferences and media interviews that I gave in which I said exactly the same thing. Why they should try and give the impression that I was saying something different I do not know. They only have to look at the BBC News website for the 31st July 2008, to see that I was saying that in view of the contradictory evidence from the experts in respect of the evidence of the age of the bones, unless things changed there would be no homicide enquiry. Even clearer, the Sunday Times on 10th May 2009 made it plain that I was actively discouraging their journalist from believing the more lurid headlines. A large number of journalists from television, radio, and print contacted me on the day of the Gradwell/Warcup press conference, to ask what on earth they were talking about. They all said they had checked their records and I had never said that there was evidence of murder. Why did Gradwell and Warcup get it so wrong? Why did they sit there and smugly tell the public something that was simply just not true?

Let me deal with some of the other allegations and mud that has been thrown. Diane Simon, Mr. Warcup, and Mr. Gradwell have criticised the use of Mr. Martin Grimes and his dogs, pointing to the case in Portugal as evidence of their lack of usefulness and criticising the cost, including the cost of the accommodation at the hotel we used for him. Firstly, they fundamentally misunderstand the role of the dogs. They do not, and cannot tell us that has happened at a location nor indeed, if there has been a murder or even a dead body there. What they tell us is that there is something which needs investigating. They are trained either to detect the presence of the scent of dead human flesh or blood. This they did, as in the cellar where they reacted and led us to all the bones and teeth. There were thousands of animal bones in that area and we recovered many hundreds. The dogs ignored them all. David James Smith, the Sunday Times journalist summed it up by saying that the difference between my team and the police in Portugal was that we knew the limitations of what the dog was telling us. That said, I am a great admirer of the dogs and their handler. They worked long and hard hours. We carried out frequent tests on them and they succeeded every time. One such test was when one of the Anthropologists brought some sand which had been in contact with a mummy in another country. It was put on the beach and the dog went to it. Again, it was telling us there was something there to ask questions about. Nothing else. Ms. Simon asks why we had to use Martin Grimes for so long. The answer is simple. At the outset we had Homicide Search Experts from the National Policing Improvement Agency with us. (Incidentally, they recommended our operation at HDLG as an example of good practice), but they could not stay indefinitely. The expert who was there was called to Australia to assist with a high profile murder of a British subject in which the body was never found. With his agreement and advice, Martin Grimes acted as Search Advisor in his absence, a role that he filled with skill and dedication.

As for the hotel costs which Ms. Simon criticised, what were we to do? Put him in a tent? We received excellent rates for bed and breakfast way below what the hotels would normally charge. Not only that but Steven Austin Vautier at the Home Affairs Department, and the Treasury, were well aware of the rates, and at frequent meetings agreed that they were good value. Mr. Grimes himself reduced his rates and did not charge for many expenses. All costs were known to the Treasury as they were incurred, and of course the Chief Minister continually assured us that we should use whatever resources were necessary, even to the extent of criticising me for daring to suggest to the media that cost was an issue. “Cost is irrelevant” said civil service chief, Bill Ogley in an e-mail, “the investigation is the important thing.” How then can they now criticise Graham Power or myself for the cost of the enquiry?

I keep seeing criticism of our actions which mention that there were no bodies and no reports of children missing. I have dealt with the findings of the human remains above. In respect of no reports of children missing there are a number of things to be considered. Firstly, children were brought casually to HDLG and sometimes no one even knew they were there. Records of missing persons were only held until comparatively recently by the parishes. Unlike in the UK, the professional police had no involvement. Also, children arrived from the UK without proper records being kept anywhere. One example was the Local Authority in the West Midlands area of the UK who contacted us to say they had sent six children to the island’s care system and had lost touch with them, never hearing of them again.

There is also, of course, the alleged book deal which the Jersey Evening Post and Ms. Simon seem to be fixated with. I wonder if some clue can be gleaned from the fact that Elaine Byrne of that paper telephoned at least one member of the literary world in London and told him that they had been told he had signed me to a book deal. She told him that they were interested in serialising the book and asked how much he had paid me and what the arrangement was? The person quite correctly said there was no such agreement. He had contacted me, he said, (as have many others) but I had refused, saying I could not consider it until I finished working. She then asked how much he would offer in such a case. She was given short shrift and the man contacted me. I have to say I was grateful for the call. However, it shows that either the JEP are hypocritical in the extreme in wanting to serialise such a book by me, or Elaine Byrne was lying. Which would you bet your money on? Now, of course, Diane Simon is talking about a £200,000 book deal. I wish! No, it’s simply more literally incredible nonsense from the JEP.

In any event, there is no book deal, and as yet, no book. But, who knows? One sure thing, money will not be the motivation if I do. Besides, with the circulation this will get on Stuart’s blog who needs to write a book?

Another thing which Gradwell has criticised me for in the media, was the fact that relations with the lawyers and the Attorney General’s office were abysmal.


And his point is?

They were abysmal because I refused to accept a shoddy service and constant moving of the goal posts. Anyone in any doubt as to what I mean should read the report I produced to him, on his instructions, as to why I issued a press release disclaiming responsibility for the release of two sadists who liked to hit children with cricket bats, and which someone leaked to the media. As already mentioned above, it can still be read on Stuart Syvret’s blog. That report illustrates exactly why relations were bad. What would he or Mr. Warcup have done if they had been in charge of the investigation when we arrested the now convicted Wateridge - and the AG told me not to charge - shortly before we were going to do so? I think I know. Relations were not helped either by him trying to control my dealings with the media, as shown in a number of e-mails.

Which reminds me of another criticism by Gradwell and Ms. Simon – that of the media policy and the high profile of it. I thought the Daily Telegraph summed it up well, way back in February when one of their columnists said that she saw three reasons for the media policy. Firstly, it was to reassure the victims that this time someone believed them. Secondly, to attract witnesses - and thirdly to protect myself and my enquiry from the same forces that had covered up everything before.


Make no mistake about it. If it had not been for the National media I would have been shunted off the island long before I found anything. I have a number of e-mails which detail how Frank Walker was continually saying that he was under pressure to sack or suspend me. I know for a fact that Graham Power told him, “Just you dare!”

A couple of years back a valued and trusted senior colleague caused a furore by describing the JEP as “a comic” in an e-mail to one of its journalists. The journalist ran to the Editor Chris Bright who wept, wailed, kicked up a tantrum, and then made a complaint against the officer. He did not like being called the editor of a comic. The matter was resolved without my colleague apologising. It is clear to me now that he was doing Biffo the Bear, Corky the Cat, and all those other endearing characters a gross injustice.

Oh yes, one more thing which I need to defend myself against. Several journalists have told me that Mr. Gradwell and indeed his boss in Jersey, have alleged that I was a bully, and that I aroused fear among officers. I certainly hope I did arouse fear among a small minority of officers. Let me explain.

Within a week or two of arriving in the island I had been approached by a number of officers who were obviously sounding me out. I was asked by both male and female officers how I would deal with bullying. My answer was always the same. Ruthlessly. And so, officers started coming to John Pearson, I, and other members of the Senior Management Team with complaints of bullying. There was a confidential reporting line run by a company in the UK but it was rarely used. Our staff preferred to come to us. We investigated all allegations and did so with the overwhelming support of the majority of the force. There were some unbelievable instances and I reproduce below part of the affidavit which I gave to the High Court in London for a recent court case. I have left the first paragraph in to show the type of tensions there were with some of the politicians.

"In those early days I also had a number of differences of opinion with the then Deputy Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee who was the Connétable of one of the country parishes. He objected to States of Jersey Police Vehicles driving through his parish on training duties and complained several times that they had answered emergency calls without asking his prior authority to enter his parish. This was an early foretaste of many battles to come where politicians would seek to control our day to day operational activities.

During my time as a senior officer in the United Kingdom I had become known as someone who, whilst critical of the damage that over- zealous political correctness could do, would not tolerate bullying which caused people to feel uncomfortable at work and in some cases made them ill. I became aware that a small number of officers in the SOJP were making life difficult for others through bullying. A number of the victims came to me personally and I took firm action against the bullies. I will describe a few such examples in order to put into context the response our actions brought from the Jersey establishment.

Shortly after I arrived I held a ‘forum’ for the Constables of the force. I did this in response to complaints from officers that they had never been listened to. Towards the end of the meeting I asked if anyone had anything else to ask. A female officer asked how I would deal with bullying. “Ruthlessly,” I replied.

The woman officer left it at that and I forgot about the exchange until about six weeks later when I was about to fly out from Jersey Airport to the UK. The officer approached me and asked if I remembered her asking the question. We spoke for some time and she relayed a horrific tale of abuse, assault and bullying by a Sergeant in the force against her, which was witnessed on a number of occasions by other senior officers who did nothing. When she complained to one Inspector he told her he understood her situation but if he did anything the Sergeant would “turn on him.” The female officer had eventually gone to a very senior officer who had told her to forget it or her job would be at risk.

I started enquiries and found that her story was corroborated by over a dozen officers. One male officer told how one night shift he was sitting in the Station Office with the Sergeant when the latter produced a 9mm semi automatic pistol. The Sergeant dismantled the firearm and cleaned it. When finished, he assembled it, put the magazine in and cocked the weapon. He then pointed it directly at the male officer’s head for several seconds before lowering it and saying “No, not tonight.” That male officer is still suffering the effects of the bullying by the Sergeant. The female officer concerned has a civil action pending against the force which I do not believe is being contested.

On another occasion, I was approached on behalf of a vulnerable member of staff who had reported a domestic assault on herself. The investigating officer, a long serving detective, had asked her for her mobile phone number and had given her his “in case they needed to contact each other.” A couple of evenings later she received a lengthy series of text messages spread over several hours which started with comments about her physical appearance and what she looked like bending over the photo-copier to extremely explicit texts about what the sender would like to do to her. These messages all came from the phone of the investigating officer. After I obtained the transcripts of these messages I challenged the officer. He at first denied it but changed his story. I returned him to uniform but did not discipline him as the victims vulnerable state would have meant that she would have suffered even more from a prolonged drawn out saga.

In another incident, a young Detective Sergeant reported a member of staff for carrying out particularly nasty racial bullying of a Portuguese woman officer. A short time later property belonging to him was vandalised in the CID office. We were told the suspect’s name in confidence by several detectives but had nothing we could use in evidence and no one was forthcoming. The Head of CID, who had also just come from the UK, and myself gathered every detective in the force together and warned them that if there was any repeat of this all of them would be returned to Uniform and we would re build the CID from scratch. We never did have a repeat despite only using local officers in a number of high profile anti corruption investigations which started off as covert operations.

It was clear however, that many Jersey politicians did not approve of our efforts to tackle bullying. We were openly criticised in the media by these people and on one occasion were referred to as the “politically correct KGB stalking the corridors of Police Headquarters.” At the same time however, it was clear that we had the support of the vast majority of the force as was illustrated by what Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary found when they carried out their first inspection during my time there. They found that Graham Power, myself, and John Pearson, had already made many changes which had transformed the force and the morale of its officers. The fact that the leadership style was supported by the rank and file was one of the findings. A second Inspection a few years later was to single out the work that had been done on Professional Standards and the strong leadership which had played a part in turning the force into a professional and innovative organisation."

The arrogance of the small minority who were carrying out this type of unprofessional behaviour was illustrated by the example of one senior member of staff who was the subject of several complaints to me from female colleagues. They complained about sexual innuendo and worse. Eventually I had him in my office one afternoon and warned him that another similar incident would result in disciplinary action. That night he took a visiting police staff member from the UK out to dinner and continually ran his hand along places he should not have. She complained and he left our employ soon after.

There was no doubt we did deal firmly with the bullies and the few corrupt members of staff. All of the allegations of bullying made against me seem to have come from those who were dealt with in this fashion. Bullies do not take kindly to being stood up to. Several of the corrupt cops that we removed from the force complained about their treatment. Without exception their complaints were found to be malicious or unsubstantiated. Several of them even tried to damage the historical abuse enquiry. The sister of one local businessman, who twenty police officers admitted taking favours or services from, even wrote to most of the news desks in London accusing me of abuse myself. Stuart Syvret was contacted and told not to trust me or my deputy in the investigation. Of course, being Stuart, the first thing he did was pick-up the phone and tell me about the approach. Again, I should emphasise, the bad and the corrupt were a small minority in a force brimming with talent and commitment.

I have been asked to explain what the ACPO reports were. Gladly. The evening we found the first fragment I contacted ACPO in the UK and asked them to appoint a team to oversee the enquiry and quality control it. This was something I readily agreed with Graham Power. I did so because I already knew the hostility that existed among many politicians and other areas of the establishment. I had my first taste of this back in 2007 the day I went public with the enquiry. I was ordered to attend at the office of Frank Walker, the Chief Minister. I went there with Graham Power and found that also present with Walker, were Bill Ogley and Home Affairs Minister Wendy Kinnard. Let me make quite clear now, that Wendy Kinnard was a staunch supporter of this enquiry and had to endure some difficult times because of it. An early example came at this meeting.

Walker started off by telling me I was looking at a very angry Chief Minister. I asked why. The conversation then went as follows:

FW. “You have been talking to Stuart Syvret.”
LH. “Yes I have. It was necessary for me to talk to him as not only does he have evidence that I may need, but the victims trust him and he may be able to persuade them to come to us.”
FW. “But you told him that you were going public.” (Stuart had released a press statement that morning to coincide with mine – a move which I have to admit, I did not anticipate!!)
LH. “Yes, but I also told you I was going public.”
FW. “But you showed him your press statement.”
LH. “Chief Minister, I showed it to you.”
FW. “But we’re the Government.”

Bill Ogley then intervened to ask me, “You do realise this could bring down the Government?” I told him that was not my concern. My concern was getting to the truth.

There then followed an argument about my use of the word “victims” in the media release. Walker ordered me not to use it. He explained that there were no victims until someone was convicted. I told him that was not the case. When someone alleged that they were a victim of crime, they were a victim. In a similar manner those who alleged that they were the victims of a racially motivated attack had to be treated as such even where there was not a shred of evidence of a racial motive. Walker argued, Wendy Kinnard spoke strongly in agreement with me and I continued to use the word “victims” for the rest of my time in Jersey.

Anyway, back to ACPO. Three members of the ACPO Homicide Review Group were appointed to oversee the enquiry. The team was led by the former head of the Mets Homicide Teams who now works for the Serious and Organised Crime Agency. He was probably the United Kingdom’s most experienced Murder investigator. He was assisted by an expert in the HOLMES computer system on which we were running the enquiry. A female member of the Review Group made up the trio. Their terms of reference were drawn up by them and signed by their leader and Graham Power. Included in the signed terms of reference was the commitment to quality control of the investigation and personal mentoring for myself, my deputy, and the office manager who was responsible for the computer systems used. For some reason, Mr Gradwell and Mr Warcup have sought to make people think that it was no part of the ACPO team’s remit to quality control the investigation. This is untrue and can clearly be seen to be untrue by simple examination of their terms of reference and their reports. David James Smith, of the Sunday Times, made this point in his article.

The ACPO team duly arrived and over several visits set about examining all aspects of our work. After each set of visits which lasted several days, they would issue a report and hand that report to Graham Power, the Home Affairs Minister, and onwards to the Chief Minister. Indeed, two members of the team even had an hour long meeting with the Chief Minister, Bill Ogley, and, I think, the HA Minister during which time they briefed them on the way the investigation was proceeding and their thoughts on it. This was in the absence of Graham Power and myself. If there was anything wrong with the enquiry, given Walkers hostility to it, it would surely have been made known after that meeting.

During their visits to the island the team would speak to myself and many other members of my team. They spent many hours examining the computer system and the entries on it. I had to hand over all my policy books to them for examination. They were to comment in one of their reports that the Policy Books were being properly maintained. These are the documents that Gradwell said were a ‘mess’, and led to his comments about taking over “a poorly managed mess.”

Who is likely to be correct? The ACPO Homicide Review Team or Mr Gradwell?

Each report by the ACPO team would give their comments on the way the enquiry was progressing and would make recommendations. In the second report they stated that we were to be congratulated on the speed with which we had implemented these recommendations. The Team leader told me that it was the quickest he had ever seen recommendations being implemented. Gradwell told journalists that one of the team had told him that we had said we implemented things which, in fact, we had not. I asked the leader of the ACPO team about this. “Nonsense, it was never said,” was his response.

Of the two or three ACPO reports made whilst I was there, none contained any serious criticism. As with all such reviews there were things they felt we could do, or do differently, and we always had discussions around those. If I felt that it was not applicable to the Jersey context, I said so.

For example, one of their early recommendations was that I should have a ‘Gold Group’ which would include senior figures from the “caring agencies” in Jersey. I said some of those were among our priority suspects. The ACPO team accepted that it was not a good idea.

Gradwell bitterly criticised my media strategy and one press conference in particular came in for strong criticism where they accused me of brandishing a tooth in front of the media. The truth is simple. It was an excellent idea but it was not mine. I was at HDLG and it was just after we started finding the teeth and were being told that some of them could not have come out from children who were still alive. I was going out to answer questions at the demand of the media. The head of the ACPO team suggested that as a means of showing just how small the teeth were, and of illustrating what a good job the Archaeological and Anthropology teams were doing, I should show the media a tooth. He suggested displaying it alongside a five pence piece. I did so. I was criticised by someone in the States that afternoon for using a Jersey five pence piece and making the island look bad when I could have used a UK coin.

The ACPO reports are of course there to be seen but they seem to have been ignored by Mr Gradwell and Mr Warcup. The Sunday Times has seen them of course and they posed the question as to why Warcup and Gradwell are so intent on rubbishing my work when the man who “made a little boy’s head bob up and down in the water” (whilst sexually assaulting the boy), is still free? A good question indeed.

I think that probably covers most of the allegations made against me, the enquiry, the team and indeed the victims over the past few months. A well known journalist told me he could not understand Mr. Gradwell’s obsession with me and that in other circumstances we would probably have got along very well. I do not think so. Our fundamental beliefs in the purpose of good policing are too different. I believe that police officers are there to protect the vulnerable and to put the bad guys away where they will do no harm. Simplistic I know. Mr. Gradwell tells Diane Simon that a person’s guilt is not a concern of the police. That is one reason I am glad to be out of it.

I am sorry this is such a long and dry document. Of necessity it had to be that way to deal with all the nonsense that has been written and spoken about myself, my team, the enquiry, and most of all, the victims. I hope it has not seemed too much like Lenny Harper congratulating himself, but in circumstances where people who do not know me are labelling me as all sorts of monster, I needed to redress the balance. For those who have persevered this far, my thanks. My thanks also to everyone who has written to me, e-mailed me, or expressed support in other ways. It all meant, and continues to mean, a lot.

Lenny Harper

5th September, 2009.