This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.
Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.
STATES OF JERSEY
STATEMENT MADE IN CAMERA' ON 2ND DECEMBER 2008: RELEASE OF TRANSCRIPT
Lodged au Greffe on 23rd May 2012 by Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier
STATES GREFFE
2012 Price code: A P.48
PROPOSITION
THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion
- to agree, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 160(4), that the transcript of the Statement of the Minister for Home Affairs relating to the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police that was made in camera on 2nd December 2008 in accordance with the provisions of Article 9(4) of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 (including the transcript of the questions to the Minister that followed the Statement), should be made public; and
- to agree , in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 160(4), that, if any of the debate on this proposition takes place in camera, the transcript of this debate should also be made public.
DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER
Page - 2
P.48/2012
REPORT
The purpose of this proposition is to right a wrong. Although this debate took place a week before I took my place in the States Assembly on 8th December 2008, I have reviewed the transcript of the debate in the States Greffe and believe, in the light of subsequent information, that States Members were misled by the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew D. Lewis of St. John , into the reasons why the Chief Officer of Police was suspended.
Because of the nature of an in camera debate I cannot set out in the report the reasons why I believe Members were misled – but I will be requesting the States to debate this proposition in camera so that these reasons can be revealed to members.
The purpose of the proposition is not to debate whether or not the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police should have been suspended later, on the basis of information obtained at great expense to the public purse after his original suspension, but to look purely at the original suspension itself.
Whether the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police should have been suspended later and ultimately disciplined is another matter which has never been fully tested before any court or tribunal. Nor has he ever had the opportunity to formally answer the charges made against him. In such circumstances the case against him has not been proven one way or another.
Financial and manpower implications
There are no financial or manpower implications for the States arising from this proposition.
Page - 3
P.48/2012