“LIAR”!

Today on BBC Radio Jersey we heard Senator Ian “Skippy” Le Marquand accusing our Chief Police Officer of being a “liar”. It was over the subject of who was dragging out the disciplinary process. “Skippy” claims it was the Chief Police Officer and vice versa. So I believe it is safe to say, one of them is a liar.

Here’s where it gets a little curious. As regular readers will be aware, CPO Graham Power sent out a series of 8 “briefing notes” to ALL local “accredited” media. And this was on the 12th July 2010 (6 days ago) so Christie Tucker would, or certainly should have been able to quote from them, can’t remember if she did or not, but I don’t recall her challenging Skippy with the briefing note below (but stand to be corrected).

Briefing note 8.

This briefing note has been prepared by Graham Power in an attempt to assist editors in reporting issues arising from the decision by the Minister for Home Affairs to abandon all disciplinary proceedings.

Topic:

“Running out of time.” What was said during the Judicial Review hearing.
In September 2009 the Royal Court published its verdict in relation to my application for a Judicial review of my suspension. My application was refused but the Court made strong criticism of how the suspension had been carried out by the previous Minister. The current Minister applied to the Court for the award of Costs. The Court refused his application.

The Minister when challenged has sometimes been heard to say that the Royal Court found that he was “right” to maintain the suspension. That is not strictly true. Courts rarely pass a view as to whether a Ministerial decision was “right” or “wrong.” Courts are concerned with whether decisions are lawful or unlawful. In particular a Court will determine whether a Minister acted within his powers. That is not the same as deciding that the Minister was “right.” A Court could, for example, come privately to the view that a Minister had acted unwisely or even foolishly, but that he had not exceeded his powers. That is not the same as deciding that the Minister was “right.”

My application to the Court was wide ranging but one feature is now particularly relevant. This was the part of my submission which invited to the Court to consider whether the Minister was drawing out the process to a point at which there would be no possibility of a return to work, and that there was a diminishing probability that I would get an opportunity to present my defence at a fair hearing. In my submission to the Court I said “The applicant invites the Court to consider whether the Minister is in fact engaged in a process of ‘dismissal by stealth’ which would effectively by-pass the need for an evidence based assessment and a fair hearing.” (Skeleton Argument paragraph 91.) The Minister opposed this submission. It was said on his behalf that a report from the Chief Constable of Wiltshire would be available soon and, should disciplinary issues arise, the Minister had every intention of arranging a fair hearing at which evidence on my behalf could be heard. Having considered both arguments the Court found in the Ministers favour. In the published judgement the Court states “Judging from previous precedents, he (Mr Power) maintained that the suspension of a person of Chief Officer rank was normally a career ending event and in perpetuating the suspension the Minister knew full well what he was doing. The longer the suspension, the less the probability of the Chief Officer successfully resuming a career. As it transpires, Mr Power is due to retire in any event in 2010.

We can sympathise with anyone in Mr Power’s position and can understand the deleterious effect of a lengthy suspension. However, there is no evidence that the Minister is engaged on a cynical exercise of his powers to bring about a constructive dismissal without a fair hearing.” (Court Judgement.Paragraphs 51 and 52.)

The judgement was of course delivered in September 2009 and a good deal has happened (and not happened) since that date.

With the benefit of hindsight Editors may feel entitled to form a view as to whose evidence to the Royal Court on this issue has proved to be the more accurate.

Submitted by VFC.