AFR case: details released
Saturday 2nd March 2013, 12:00PM GMT.
LEGAL fees paid by taxpayers for the bungled AFR court challenge have finally been revealed.
Law enforcement chief Patrick Rice, pictured, yesterday confirmed that fees incurred by taxpayers for legal advice during the failed two-year battle were not part of the confidentiality arrangement he agreed with AFR Advocates and other interested parties.
‘Exceptionally as regards this issue’ he could reveal that taxpayers paid:
- £2,050 for advice from an English QC stating that the warrant used to raid AFR’s office in the early hours of the morning was indefensible in court.
- £5,520 to an English barrister to review the complaint against police to see if there was any misconduct
- £1,755 for a local advocate’s advice relating to the judicial review.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Monday 17 June
- Guernsey agrees to Cameron tax deal
- Travel - Everest part two
- GP Ted - Meet the 'sponge mob'
- Press People - Brian Green and Tommy Duquemin
- Sport - GIAAC 'super weekend'
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
….seems cheap as chips…still not totally convinced we have the whole picture though..
Report abuse
Of course we haven’t I didn’t expect it any more than you did I suspect.
It seems to me none of the deputies have any interest in transparent government despite the promises made. Surely there must be a mechanism
for the electorate to remove the States and call an election. Maybe a senior law officer would like to comment.
Report abuse
Maybe the states should take their own advice and get experts from the UK to run the government.
Report abuse
Now this really has become a total farce, we have politicians, Le Tocq, telling us there is a confidential clause and he can’t disclose the figures.
He won’t say exactly who insisted on the confidential clause, but he will tell all to the deputies at a meeting for deputies only. Then he doesn’t.
We have the Guernsey Press saying that in fact there was no legal binding on the confidentiality side of the action and it appears to be down to the individuals and AFR, if they are happy to disclose.
We are led to believe that AFR are quite happy to disclose, so who was it that wasn’t happy to disclose?
Now we get the chief of police, Patrick RICE, saying its ok to disclose and here are the figures for three out of four of the costs, but I can’t give you the fourth because of a confidentiality arrangement.
Why on earth were these modest costs not disclosed to the taxpayer in the first place.
Now this just leaves the figures for AFR which we have been led to believe they have no objection to being made public.
So who is holding them back, our bumbling Home Affairs Minister, who doesn’t appear to know what is going on, but happy to make speeches about it,
or in fact, are AFR not happy about releasing the figures?
Talk about “Yes Minister”, this would be an award winning episode.
The quicker scrutiny instigate an inquiry as to how the Public have been mislead, in what without doubt looks like a deliberate cover up by the Home department, or gross inefficiency by them in getting their facts right in the first place, the better.
Report abuse
I gather the settlement with AFR was covered by the insurers and that is why there is a confidentiality agreement on the insurers request. This was an insured risk so naturally it was appropriate to make a claim to ensure best value for money. Naturally the insurers would want confidentiality. Naturally the police would not want to jeopardise the insurance arrangements.
The legal costs were funded from the police budget and were separate because, I gather they were spread over a period of time and were separate items falling below the insurance threshold. I don’t know why this information was held back.
It really does seem, as stated all along, that the sums involved were modest and this is a good result from a bad situation.
Report abuse
Spartacus
I repeat my earlier question on another thread. Are you a member of the Home Department?
Report abuse
FFS I knew you were also using the name Jimbo and you denied it on 19 January. Very disingenuous pretending to be another person just to support your own arguments and mislead people. How many other pseudonyms do you have?
Report abuse
It’s called Subjugation of the populace.
Report abuse
and how much compensation to AFR??????????
Report abuse
This seems like an incredibly good deal. The total here is less than 10k. That’s likely to be at most 30 hours of advice at lawyers rates.
We have been told that the case was incredibly complex, seems these matters were not so tricky based on the costs of the advice taken.
If the advice was straightforward, why did it take two years to work it out?!
How many hours did the law officers and police spend on the matter?
Report abuse
So, after all the magic mystery, hoo haa, and all that unseemly jazz, we now have a ball park sum of money.
Still too much money for us tax payers to fork out.
Report abuse
The legal fees are a red herring.
The issue is compensation. How much to AFR? How much to the individual whose case triggered the raid?
Report abuse
Exactly. And what was the cost of the States employees time? Court costs, Law Officers, Police time. AFR’s costs and damages?
The figures given are only for independent external advice that Mr. Rice sought. Had he not done so the case would still be dragging on. But at least Mr. Rice is showing probity and decency, but it’s not enough to defuse the situation created by the rest of them.
It’s not good enough to say ‘so what – we’re insured’ – unless you don’t care about your premium. And such an attitude flies in the face of the principle of utmost good faith upon which any insurance is based.
Report abuse
For any Deputies who might read this thread:
NOTE HOW TRANSPARENCY DEFUSES A BALLS-UP
Report abuse
My understanding is as follows:
When it was judged that individual police officers (rather than “the police” as a body) would need to defend the action by AFR for the unlawful execution of the warrant, they could no longer be represented by the Law Officers.
The local advocate that was approached on their behalf then advised that the action could not be defended.
At that point Patrick Rice took advice from a UK QC who confirmed that this was indeed the case. His advice was to settle for damages as soon as possible.
I heard Jonathan Le Tocq address the States of Deliberation and he gave the impression that the damages were covered by insurers. Others, including deputies, had a similar impression. This now appears to only apply to a very small element of the legal costs i.e. advising the individual officers that there was no defence.
The Law Officers seem to have got this spectacularly wrong.
Mr Rice suggests in today’s Press that their services are “free”. They are not. We all foot the bill for the significant costs of their time, court costs etc. and of course in addition to the damages and costs paid to AFR.
We will never know the full truth, but of concern must be the fact that individuals in senior positions, whether Law Officers, Police or members of the Judiciary will never be held to account. This was a costly “mistake”.
Mr Rice’s “other significant reason” for not disclosing the figure paid to AFR is that “other people that are potentially looking to sue us for actions we have taken in the past will be watching this very closely”. I suggest that he uses the same QC for advice and where necessary settles these claims as soon as possible. Doubtless the public will be interested to know how many such claims he is expecting.
Report abuse
Everyone seems to be missing something here. On Friday we were told no figures would be disclosed to the public. The following day, certain figures are disclosed to the public. Nobody has asked the obvious question – why did Home change its position so quickly?
Report abuse
So, some posters are now placated by the fact that Mr Rice has put his hands up at last to £9,325 worth of legal fees
Other posters might be thinking ‘well that’s a couple of years worth of my income tax down the drain’
Yet others have pointed out that the one figure that really matters is still being treated as a need to know item,and apparently the bill payers don’t need to know
A wild guesstimate breakdown of the published figures might be as follows :-
£2,050 for advice from an English QC stating that the warrant used to raid AFR’s office in the early hours of the morning was indefensible in court….
Work involved ? Two or three phone calls and a couple of e-mails
£5,520 to an English barrister to review the complaint against police to see if there was any misconduct ….
Work involved? Either a personal visit to the island or a registered letter to the UK with the file papers.A few phone calls and a couple of days to read the file and prepare a written reply
£1,755 for a local advocate’s advice relating to the judicial review….
Work involved? Interviews with the officers concerned.Half a day on research.Preparation of report
The only figure of any real importance,which would be more of a millstone rather than an advertising placard around Mr Rice’s neck is AFR’s bill for the .. wait for it .. TWO YEARS they had to spend on fighting this through the expensive Court system
Even if AFR has waved any punitive damages the bill for their time alone must run to 100 times the petty cash sums admitted? Perhaps 200 times?
This new found openness by Mr Rice is to be applauded but it’s like him saying that the car he is standing next to was involved in a Police driver fault collision.The tow charge to the repair garage was £100 but through a confidential agreement (which the repairer is prepared to break) he got a good deal for the taxpayer on the cost of the rebuilt front and the new engine
Like the new engine this has got a long way to run
Report abuse
So it seems that the individual police officers were culpable and so maybe it is their settlement agreement and their privacy which is being protected. It seems SOG themselves were not a direct party to the agreement.
The damages were covered by the employers’ (SOG) insurance and “small sums such as this are claimed fairly regularly apparently” and so the premiums should not be affected by this incident alone.
Storm in a teacup.
Report abuse
Spartacus
If this were as you put it “their settlement” shouldn’t they be paying the bill themselves?
Report abuse
Stephen John
I deduce the states insurance policy covers employees acting in the course of their duties against claims against them personally.
Report abuse
A good investment for AFR through bad policing.
Leglislation changes the law not individuals.
Report abuse
Does this mean that all people responsable for the ilegal break in and people responsable for given them the the orders to break in will now be appearing in court?
Report abuse
Is he taking the p***? This is not the information the public are asking for.
Report abuse
Ah case details released, and the info we actually WANT isn’t there.
Surprise.
I wonder how differently this would be handled if there was an election coming up?
WSE!
Report abuse
As the issue goes on, there almost becomes a “beware of what you wish for” aspect to this matter. Those calling for transparency in every aspect might do well to consider that the undisclosed financial information, might be only one part of the confidential information that Patrick Rice has agreed that should remain confidential.
Interestingly, the incident that lies at the heart of this, took place before Patrick Rice commenced employment in Guernsey, a point that appears to be lost on a number of contributors on this thread and others relating to this matter.
So, this all happened when former Chief of Police, George Le Page was at the helm. It now appears that under the former Chief’s regime, from the information that has been released, that serious and fundamental failings were within his Forces’ doctrine, policies and training.
So we, the Island of Guernsey, have a group of Police Officers who (mindful of the Custody Clock ticking) complete and then have several levels of sign-off, including a Royal Court Judge, and then execute a warrant at 3am to secure evidence. If this search warrant was incorrectly completed / of the wrong type / incorrectly authorised, then AFR, can be reasonably expected to contest it and those responsible. So, what’s the root cause of this debacle? Poor training? Poorly thought through and untested doctrine? Ignorance? An ambiguous law? Or, just a perfect storm of all or the aforementioned?
I would guess that in future, it is unlikely that a similar set of events will happen with the same failings or expenditure. I am possibly in the minority in having enough faith in the simple fact that the monies paid out and the political impact will ensure that not only will “lessons have been learnt”, but also that the failiings in doctrine / law / training / supervision will all be updated to mitigate the risk of a future pay-out from a similar incident.
The issue that I see for the heads on spikes brigade, is along the lines of; Just which heads do you want? Those who through their training wrote the warrant, the senior officers who signed it off and Judge Robey, Or, should we get the scaffold up for George Le Page, those employed at St James Chambers over the last twenty years and everyone in between who failed to see this coming?
In this respect, the root cause issues here, are almost identical to the failings that led to the island suffering a £2.6m fraud. Different people, same underlying issues.
3am though? It’s almost as if the Peelers were of the opinion that once the bloke who’d been busted had informed his Brief… That said upstanding member of the Bar, might have mislaId the evidence. How anyone could even consider such a scenario Is beyond me. Thankfully, such a fine upstanding company such as AFR would I am sure be only too pleased to allay these concerns and to confirm the probity of all involved who are on the payroll m’Lord.
Report abuse
This is not about “heads on spikes” but accountability and the trust of the public. Accountability requires a robust and transparent scrutiny system, and in the case of public servants such as the police, the civil service and our politicians, absolute trust in those charged with the responsibilities of public office.
The police have been found to have failed to follow correct procedures and have fallen foul of the law. It seems that the Law Officers were prepared to defend the actions of the police and only capitulated when independent advice was sought. The perception is that attempts were made to avoid responsibility for those actions and that the “confidentiality agreement” is a further attempt to hide the facts – excuses about setting precedents are a smokescreen.
The whole affair has brought Guernsey Police into disrepute, and the secrecy has only added to that perception.
It is to be hoped that the Scrutiny Committee can restore our confidence in those we trust to serve the island’s best interests – a heavy and crucial responsibility.
Report abuse
The Body
I’m not sure that the majority of posters are looking for heads on spikes at all in relation to the actions of the Police at least
Reading between the lines it appears that the local method employed for many years of applying for and granting of warrants no longer met the modern requirements of the UK system( no doubt imposed on the UK by their EU masters)
As a by the by it would be interesting to research how many similarly obtained/old fashioned Guernsey search warrants were used unchallenged on people not in the Law firm category following on from the unknown UK change
The new UK requirements were either not passed down from the UK to our law officers or they were received but placed in the ‘to do’ tray like so many other urgent items which seem to fester in that particular department’s in trays
No,what I perceive from most of the posts is total amazement and overwhelming anger at the condescending ‘need to know’ attitude adopted by the Home department
Sorry Mr Le Tocq, but what sufficed thirty years ago when Roger Berry and the gang of four lorded it over the rest of the Assembly and a more acquiescent population won’t wash in 2013
Openness and transparency figured highly at the 2012 hustings.Start delivering or there will indeed come a time when heads on spikes might be demanded
Report abuse
Excellent post “Island wide voting,”
You have placed the whole issue in a nutshell.
Let’s hope scrutiny have the strength to tackle the issues.
Report abuse
Another guernsey Cover Up
Report abuse
VeritasGuernsey and Island Wide Voting,
Fair responses and both of you make some valid points, my contribution was aimed at those throughout the many TIG threads relating to this matter, who are asking why individual officers are not being prosecuted? Like most here, my knowledge of the issue is limited to the information that I have either read, or listened to in the local media, From my original post, I referred to poor doctrine, training and supervision being key failings that (in my opinion) would have all contributed to the incident.
I agree completely with the need for openness and transparency in government, and support wholeheartedly the decision by Scrutiny to review the matter. I am slightly concerned though, in relation to the way in which this type of matter would be reviewed. Again, I see comparisons to the debate that followed the announcement to the States in relation to the £2.6m fraud. We have (and my guess would be that similar failures, yet to come) States departments working with out of date processes with serious consequences, that the tax-payer ends up footing the bill for. The distinction that many here don’t seem to make, is that those who are following “a normal working practice” may not be ones who are responsible for the process being out-of-date or seriously flawed (as in the case of the £2.6m).
I realise that I am posting a counter viewpoint to many here, who appear to go from one knee-jerk reaction on TIG to another in the blink of an eye. I have no particular axe to grind, but I considered it interesting to read Deputy Dave Jones refer a couple of days back to the fact that he had not received a single call in relation to this matter. Which is pretty staggering for a matter that the local media has devoted so many column inches and broadcast time to.
I really do wish that voters who feel so strongly (as per the posts on TIG) would make the extra effort to engage directly with their elected representatives. Whilst Deputy Jones is active on these threads, many of our elected representatives are not. On this basis, it is clear that our deputties will get voted in, the public will become disillusioned and public confidence in the States will decline as sure as night follows day.
VeritasGuernsey, when you say the issue has ‘brought Guernsey Police into disrepute’, are you referring to all of the officers who serve in the force, or those involved in this matter? I ask only inasmuch that I feel it a tad unfair to tar all with the same brush, when only a very small number will have been involved in this incident and the fallout from it.
If we’re all agreed that openness and transparency is the way ahead, then I would be interested to know the fimancials from the Home Department on such things as;
How much does the Home Department spend on interpreters for foreign nationals that are arrested?
How many arrested foreign nationals was this money spent on?
How many of these foreign nationals were then convicted of the offence for which they were arrested?
If these foreign nationals fines covered the cost of interpreters in their cases?
Now at the risk of being labeled as racIst, for a bit of local balance…
What is the cost to HSSD and Social Security of “free” prescriptions for drug addicts who are prescribed drugs to replace the addict’s illegal drugs habit per annum?
How many people are currently benefitting from these “free” prescriptions?
How many of those in receipt of the above are tested to ensure that they are clean before being prescribed replacement medication?
And finally, if these people are claiming benefits through being unable to work due to their addiction, what is the total cost to the States of Guernsey each year to support them and their dependents?
I await the barage of criticism, but having approached my elected representative about three months ago, I am yet to get anything beyond “such analysis is not presently available” reply.
Perhaps contributors here, might like to make some educated guesses, as they have proven to be adept at this, when it comes to the figures that The Home Department considered we shouldn’t know.
Perhaps if I ask the questions here, the GEP, will ask the questions. Seems to be the way ahead!
Report abuse
Whatever the reasons, be they poor training, ignorance of the law or just lack of accountability, the perceived failure of one or more senior officers in what turned out to be an unlawful act followed by secret deals for compensation has brought the name of Guernsey Police into disrepute. The vast majority of officers are doubtless good, hardworking, honest people. However trust and respect no longer go with the uniform and have to be earned. The secrecy and appearance of a cover up do nothing to restore the confidence of the public.
Poor judgement is also cause for concern. Whoever thought it was a good idea to raid a law firm at 3.00 a.m. – clock ticking or not – didn’t consider the possible consequences. The procedural aspects had to be 100% watertight for lawyers would certainly check the law. These are the same senior officers who might one day be called upon to order the use of the firearms that have now become an accepted part of the “tool box”. Let’s hope that the reported “red mist” is not influential that decision making process.
Report abuse