The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
1240/5(5293)
WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 20th APRIL 2010
Question
"Further to the written and oral answer given on 9th March 2010 relating to the suspension of 2 officers from the States of Jersey Police for just less than 18 months would the Minister advise -
- w hich person within the States of Jersey Police wasresponsible for taking the decision that resulted in the suspension oftwo police officersand whether
the individual responsible for the original decision to suspend them was the same person who made the decision
to re-instate them without charge? If so, does the Minister believe that this shows sound judgement?
- th at the costs listed in the answersof 23rd March2010showedthetotal cost to the States of Jersey Police of these suspensions and included all ancillary matters such as staff costs and overtime to cover the suspendedofficers?"
Answer
(a) The Deputy Chief Officer of the force has delegated authority for all matters of complaint, conduct and discipline. At the time of suspensions in August 2008, the Deputy Chief Officer was Mr David Warcup.
In March 2009 Mr Barry Taylor joined the States of Jersey Police as Acting Deputy Chief Officer.
The formal disciplinary hearing, in which both officers faced disciplinary charges, was conducted by a senior officer of another Police force and concluded in February 2010. The suspended officers were reinstated, following the decision of that senior officer, by the Acting Deputy Chief Officer with immediate effect.
The following principles apply in relation to all police disciplinary matters.
The decision to suspend a police officer is taken on particular grounds and the decision is regularly reviewed every month. Eventually a report in relation to the disciplinary matter becomes available and following that a decision is made as to whether the matter should proceed to a full disciplinary hearing.
If, at the full disciplinary hearing, the officer facing disciplinary charges is cleared of all such charges, that does not mean that the earlier decisions either to take the disciplinary charges to a full hearing or for the officer to remain suspended pending such a full hearing were wrong.
A similar situation exists where a person facing criminal charges is remanded in custody until trial and then acquitted. The subsequent acquittal does not mean that earlier decisions either to refuse bail or to take the matter to trial were incorrect.
b) It can be confirmed that the costs listed in the answers of 9th March 2010 showed the total cost to the States of Jersey Police. These costs included the acting up costs and the salaries of the suspended officers. There were no overtime costs resulting from the suspensions.