AFR case cost taxpayers £12,570, including legal fees

A HOME DEPARTMENT member has broken ranks to release more details of the costs to the taxpayer of the AFR case, although the full amount of the settlement paid to the lawyers is still secret.

Home Department member Arrun Wilkie decided to reveal the cost to taxpayers of the AFR legal case because of rumours he had heard about the sum running into millions of pounds. (Picture by Steve Sarre, 1286554)
Home Department member Arrun Wilkie decided to reveal the cost to taxpayers of the AFR legal case because of rumours he had heard about the sum running into millions of pounds. (Picture by Steve Sarre, 1286554)

A HOME DEPARTMENT member has broken ranks to release more details of the costs to the taxpayer of the AFR case, although the full amount of the settlement paid to the lawyers is still secret.

The total amount paid by taxpayers for the court battle was £12,570, according to Arrun Wilkie.

That includes the £9,325 law enforcement chief Patrick Rice said last week was for legal costs.

Although not confirmed, it is understood that the remaining £3,245 was the excess paid by taxpayers to the States’ insurer.

Deputy Wilkie released the total figure yesterday to counter speculation among islanders that the cost was much higher.

Comments for: "AFR case cost taxpayers £12,570, including legal fees "


A storm in a tea cup! Well done Guersney Press, the campaign to release the information has probably cost the States 3 times that amount in Civil Servant time to deal with the disclosure.


This is turning into more and more of a farce everyday


More irrelevant news, the only figures that count are those that cover the costs and damages paid to AFR, not these chicken feed amounts paid to various lawyers for not much work.

Terry Langlois

Phil - I disagree. The only relevant figure is what has been paid from public funds.

If the above article is true, then the total cost from the public purse was £12,570. I am certain that AFR received much more than that in recovering their own legal expenses and some compensation, but if that additional cost was met by the insurer (as the above article suggests) there is no compelling case for us to insist that we are told how much that was.



So you don't think the total paid to AFR will impact on the public purse? Any idea what the hike is for insurance cover following a seven figure claim?

Terry Langlois

Phil, it may well have a material effect on premiums. Or it may not, depending on how much the policy covers as a whole.

But knowing the amount of compensation (which the insurers required to be kept confidential) will not tell us whether insurance premiums will go up. We will still be none the wiser. And the States cannot tell us, as the insurers will not have made that decision yet.

So the demands to know how much the insurers have paid out are simply demands for demands sake, with no actual purpose, other than nosiness.



Exactly how do you know it was a seven figure claim?

Or is that some rumour that you've heard?


I agree with Terry, there is no case for us to know the settlement sum. We can only speculate about the size of it.

I would hope, and assume that the insurance premiums and any increase are transparent in the accounts however I gather the insurance policy overarches the States as a whole and any hike in premium would be affected by all claims not just this one. I see no reason why someone like Gavin St Pier could not clarify this for the public.

Island Wide Voting

OK then. Let's speculate till the cows come home and keep this pernicious problem with States secrecy and arse covering on the boil right up to the next election, when no doubt I will have to listen to the usual guff about 'the truly madly deeply intention to be open and transparent'

N.B. The fishermen's secret payment hasn't gone away ...but three of the five responsible Committee members on Commerce and Employment at the time have gone away, with Deputies Sillars and Storey surviving that particular cull

If Advocate's fees for what was probably no more than two or three days work came to £12,570 I would speculate that the whole cost of this bungle which took two years for AFR to sort out must have cost close to a million

Any advance on a million ?


By the time island wide voting is introduced you will be calling yourself "total transparency" and you will be boycotting the election.

The process has advanced Guernsey's justice system at minimal cost to the tax payer. Everyone has owned up

and coughed up and it really is time to move on.

Home member, successful career woman, brownie camp leader and single foster parent Michelle Le Clerc might decide not to be so self serving as to stand again. Instead Mary Lowe might be the poll topper and indeed perhaps the only candidate in the next election. And still you will not get the answers you want. Be careful what you wish for.

Total Transparency


So you have no problem with the arse covering aspect of this debacle which has led to a further breakdown of trust less than one year into the new 'open and transparent' States?

This has moved on way beyond the original error of the 3am raid to recover evidence stored/stashed/hidden/held in safe-keeping in a local lawyer's office to one of WHY were there such desperate and pathetically clumsy attempts to hide the facts from the public?

Surely the last month or so of angst,hand wringing,searching of consciences,specially arranged confidential meetings and all the denials was not just over a paltry twelve and a half grand ... just over a third of a self serving brownie camp leader's deputy salary?

No,there is something much bigger lurking in the background... something someone with enough power to direct Le Tocq to take the course of action he did

If that's a mile off the mark then it simply boils down to our Deputy Chief Minister Le Tocq simply being a complete idiot and not fit to be in the important post he holds

Deputy Jones says that in terms of the final missing piece in the jigsaw, the compensation paid to AFR makes it a very small cock up indeed

While one has to be a little cautious of what a Minister in charge of a multi million pound budget classes as small, if that is indeed correct it merely goes to add weight to the suspicion that someone important has arranged to have his ar*e covered and Scrutiny needs to follow the paper trail and get to the bottom of it in order to clear the air before it becomes an overflowing cesspit

Terry Langlois

IWV / TT - that is one hell of a conspiracy theory that you are building there!

The cause of the lack of trust is because certain people are willing to believe their wildest imaginations rather than engaging their brains.

The States PR machine has certainly been a little naive in dealing with the GP and certain parts of the public on this matter, but I don't think that it is any more than that. We know that there is a confidentiality obligation in place, as required by the insurers who were paying the bill, so the States is correct that it is legally prevented from telling us how much was paid by the insurers. They have finally revealed how much was in fact paid by the States, but unfortunately certain people are now so worked up about this issue that the tiny amounts make their opprobrium look rather misplaced and foolish. As a result, they think that there must be more to it, and so it goes on. Just because certain people think that there is a cover up, doesn't mean that there is a cover up.


IWV/Toto conspiracy

if you want to speculate on the settlement figure why not imagine that the damages figure is in the hundreds (compensating someone for the inconvenience of getting out of bed in the middle of the night) and the AFR legal fees are less than SOGs? As they are advocates and can advise themselves.

So our laws were proved to be behind the times, well what a surprise? What's so astonishing about that? We know our laws and processes are out of date. All our laws are subject to challenge, many do not stand up to modern principles due to inadequate investment by Guernsey in this area. The only laws which are fit for purpose are the financial services laws. Doesn't everyone know this? We can't blame the law officers they just do what they are told and work to the book according to the priorities given to them by the States.

I have always been realistic about transparency, the biggest problem is knowing where to locate information. There will always be some situations where it is not possible to publish information due to the rights to privacy of other parties such as employees, who have dealings with the States.

In this instance I gather the legal case is still ongoing and it always disappoints me when the goodies ie the police, are thwarted from getting the evidence they need to catch the baddies ie the criminals. Of course processes are needed to guard against miscarriage of justice and to protect rights but it all just makes it easier for the baddies to work the system to their advantage.

I haven't seen the angst and hand wringing, just decisions made and statements of facts. As usual the States representatives involved need PR expertise but unfortunately they just don't have the budget to cover that, a fact which the GP regularly exploits to sell newspapers. You would be naive not to see that.

I sympathise with Le Tocq, but maybe he did make a rod for his own back by losing his rag with the GP and then putting up the barricades. Nevertheless other media outlets have reported this in a much more measured way which reflects the reality of the situation rather than the sensationalism.

Storm in a teacup.

Island Wide Voting


Equally it doesn't prove that there isn't a cover up

Let's hope that Scrutiny's report is strong enough and in plain English so that it provides proof either way otherwise the film script just keeps on building

Not sure if it will end up as a comedy or a tragedy

Terry Langlois

Sparty @ 7.17am - very good post

Island Wide Voting


I had a dream that the AFR figure would be in hundreds, rather than hundreds of thousands but I woke up beside myself before the end

I suppose all the speculation and conspiracy theories should now be rested until Scrutiny publish their report, unless some bright bushy tailed newbie has looked into the matter of Parliamentary privilege and found it safe to spill the beans at the March Assembly .. in which case SJAB might be wise to park a couple of their vehicles nearby and swot up on the treatment for acute apoplexy

There is an old 'two cow' joke doing the rounds at the moment which might lighten the general mood ..


You have 2 cows.

You give one to your neighbour.


You have 2 cows

The State takes both and gives you some milk.


You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and sells you some milk.


You have 2 cows.

The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other and then throws the milk away.


You have two cows.

You sell one and buy a bull..

Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.

You sell them and retire on the income.


You have two cows.

You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.

The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.

The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.


You have two cows.

You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.

Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has died.


You have two cows.

You go on strike, organize a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.


You have two cows, but you don’t know where they are.

You decide to have lunch.


You have 5,000 cows. None of them belong to you.

You charge the owners for storing them.


You have two cows.

You have 300 people milking them.

You claim that you have full employment and high bovine productivity.

You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.


You have two cows.

You worship them.


You have two cows.

Both have mad cow disease.


Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.

You tell them that you have none.

Nobody believes you, so they bomb the crap out of you and invade your country.

You still have no cows but at least you are now a Democracy.


You have two cows.

Business seems pretty good.

You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.


You have two cows.

The one on the left looks very attractive..


You have two cows borrowed from French and German banks.

You eat both of them.

The banks call to collect their milk, but you cannot deliver so you call the IMF.

The IMF loans you two cows.

You eat both of them.

The banks and the IMF call to collect their cows/milk.

You are out getting a haircut.


You have two cows. One of them is unemployed


You have two cows. You may speak openly about the small cow

but the larger one is subject to a need to know confidentiality agreement


Awsome Ray best read/laugh in ages.

I think Sparty has black and white cows.


Of course Sparty has no problem with *ss covering, TT, she invented it...

and it worked...

for a while...

and then being an obtuse pain in the *ss about every political issue on these comments boards became her new career choice.

Pays a lot less, still at least she's achieving the same as she did in her previous career, ie. nothing, so the traditional local politician's drive to maintain the status quo is magically maintained...

in her mind, anyway.

- there you go, Sparty maluv, summat to chew on for the weekend :) Looking forward to your cheerless, humourless, endless, rambling responses which you'll be busily composing whilst I'm out having a nice pint.




You are a malicious sour old goat. The only secret I want to know is what made you so poisonous?

I'm not who you think I am but I suppose you enjoy your speculating and theorising and putting others down in your inimitable fashion which I suppose makes you feel slightly important which otherwise you would not feel.

I don't know why you have devoted your time to bash out your troll post today at 4.58pm or what difference you think it will make to anything but I'm sure you realise it is indicative of an underlying insecurity in yourself.


I'm not sure about my goaty, Sparty, but something's certainly gotten yours.

I am not remotely important and quite secure in that, but bless you for your attempt at psychoanalysis, I shall attempt to return the complement...

You've been accused of being obtuse and pulled up on your lengthy ranting/insulted/confronted many times before, so the only reason I can see my observation is closer to the nerve is that I refer to your performance in what I consider to be your former career...

something you vehemently deny, so I find it interesting you should take that so personally.

There are stupid people, and then there are obtuse people. To be obtuse is the far more lamentable thing, because stupidity can’t always be helped.

Obtuseness, on the other hand, is a long time epidemic among those who are supposedly “educated” or “smart.” One might say it is the curse of the educated and semi-educated alike:

a. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.

b. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.

Unjustifiably arrogant people, in all walks of life and possessing all degrees of learning, have been spouting jack-*ssery ever since man learned to talk.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect

It is the unfortunately large overlapped area of low creativity, low intellectual depth and high arrogance tendencies where obtusity throbs. And the impact of the obtuse on the rest of us is made immeasurably worse by something known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is an example of cognitive bias in which “people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it”.They therefore suffer an illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average. This leads to a perverse result where less competent people will rate their own ability higher than relatively more competent people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence because competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding.

Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.

The thing about obtuse people (and obtuse viewpoints) is their sheer ubiquity.

A more lighthearted way to look at it, is like bird sh*t on the wind shield of one’s car.

If one is driving along, enjoying a beautiful afternoon on the open road, and one experiences the intrusion of some especially egregious bit of nonsense, it's a bit like an avian bomber taking aim at the front of one’s car.

The thing to do is to cheerily wipe off the p** and just keep on keeping along...after all, the vast majority of obtuse utterances rate just below bird crap in terms of lasting significance.

But sometimes this is harder said than done.

It seems the unfortunate case that some people, in their irritating combination of smugness, pomposity and big-mouthed pinheadedness, can just make us damned mad.

This is for the most part illogical because, when it comes down to it, getting angry at the hapless spoutings of an obtuse person has about as much useful long-term effect as raging at the offending pigeon or sea gull as it flies away. Even whipping out a slingshot and nailing the bird would be of little point...

there are, for all intents and purposes, an infinite number of guano-depositing bird-brains in circulation.

I hope this helps in some way, it certainly has me, I feel far more peaceful about life in general.

- that reminds me, must dash, need to get some windscreen wash.

a la perchoine,




I think you are just jealous because Ed and me are enlightened beings ;-)

If I am a pigeon as you imply in your analogy, you will just make a t*t of yourself trying to stop me, a bit like Dick Dastardly in the cartoon.

You are wrong about me, obviously and entirely, but much to my amusement.

Island Wide Voting

Blimey Scarlett

Are you Ed in disguise?


thankfully, IWV, no, I'm not, just like to fight fire with fire, as it were, especially when it's a bonfire of the vanities....;)


Unless it comes out of the taxpayers pocket then why should it be released?

It really does not matter what AFR received as long as the insurers paid it.

Why do you need to know Phil?


Oh, I see, so basically the police can basically do whatever the hell they like as long as the insurance company picks up the tab? Forget transparency, forget the legalities, forget reputational damage, forget responsibilities etc etc.

I don't NEED to know, I WANT to know, and I think the public OUGHT to know. By knowing the amount of the settlement we can then get a better idea of how serious the cock-up was, small settlement = small cock-up, big settlement = big cock-up. Let's face it, we clearly can't rely on anyone from the police or the States to tell us the truth of the situation, so we have to try and find that out elsewhere.



Even if the settlement is made public it won't make any difference to the way the police operate,you are convinced that the States and police won't tell us the truth anyway so what is the point?

Dave Jones


Singling out the police for making mistakes is pointless, every profession carries insurance when one or more of its members gets things wrong.

Whether it’s a surgeon who makes a surgical mistake during an

operation, you wouldn’t say for instance, that surgeons can “do whatever the hell they like” Or massive incidents that cost the lives of passengers on ships, trains or planes, did “whatever the hell they like” and now people are dead.

Insurance companies are there to cover those costs when things go wrong.

The banks for instance, have had to pay billions because they got it wrong and sold a product (PPI) that they should not have done. Unfortunately the banks will make all of us pay that back over the years.

In this case the police got it wrong and the claim was settled, it is not an everyday occurrence and it should not happen at all, but it does and in all walks of life.

Finally on your yardstick for measuring these things, you will have to take my word that this was a very small cock up indeed.

Terry Langlois

Phil - do you want the insurers to pay for this or the States?

Because if the insurers are picking up the tab, they call the shots. If they demand confidentiality, then the States has no choice other than to say - don't worry, we'll fund it ourselves so that we can be totally transparent with the electorate.

Where the States did go wrong was to treat the public like fools and say "you don't need to know". By revealing nothing, the demand for information built up a head of steam which is out of all proportion and has lost sight of the realities or any sense of reasonableness.

If the States had said at the outset: "It cost us (ie you) £12,570 and the insurer paid the rest but the insurer won't let us tell you how much THEY paid", then I doubt very much that there would this rabid mob demanding to know something which doesn't directly affect them and doesn't actually help them asses what happened.

As to your comments about needing to know how big a cock-up this was - that again is misplaced. The cock-up is not judged by the size of the compensation. The only thing that the compensation indicates is how much loss AFR suffered from all of this. That is the effect, not the cause. If you want to know how big the cock-up was, read the facts of the case which describe what actually happened.


£3,245 excess paid to states insurers means a large sum going into AFR favour


What puzzles me is that I understood the states had an excess of £5k, so the numbers still don't stack up...


Well that wasn't so hard now was it? A bit of an anti climax in the end. The costs are understandable, mistakes were made, lets move on. The point was that tax payers have a right to know where their money goes.


The legal costs were never going to be significant on an open and shut case. It's the compensation payment that will be the biggy. Now whose got the balls to release that Deputy Wilkie. Suggest you go back to obtain permission to break ranks again.


Nice try, but the majority of the cost has still not been revealed.

So far we have:

1) Civil costs

2) Insurance excess

What about:

1) Full settlement to AFR

2) Law officer's time

3) Court costs

4) Police costs

5) Reputation (un-measurable)


.............. and the compensation figure is?

Still waiting.

Mr Bee

We know the legal fees, now tell us how much the AFR pay off was.


Phil/West/Jamie C/mrs p/Mr Bee,

What's it got to do with you?

If you want to ask a question then why not try and find out if the States compensation insurance premium will go up, that is more relevant.

Dave Jones


This in an E-mail to all States Members from Deputy Wilkie.

"The total cost to the Tax payer is £12,570.00, the rest of the costs are covered by the States insurer.

The figure paid by the states insurer is so low that it will not impact at all on the States Insurance premiums."


Kevin darling,

It has everything to do with us.

We have the right to question anything and everything those in power are doing with our money and in our name.

I mean if you are happy with the idea of the Police acting quite literally as a law unto themselves, a judge signing off illegal paperwork, yet MORE of our scarce tax money being used to payoff yet another party and very few of our elected officials seeming to care about any of the above, then no it's nothing to do with us.

"why not try and find out if the States compensation insurance premium will go up" hahahaha good one, this whole debacle has been about lack of information.

As for this new insurance money cop out in general, anyone with half a brain can work out what happens to their insurance premiums if they wrap their car around a tree, it's no different here. At some point you become un-insurable too.


mrs p my dear,

I'm not particularly happy that this happened however I am prepared to accept what has been quoted as an explanation of costs to the taxpayer.

Other than a further opportunity for the very vocal few to carry on moaning about something that has already been dealt with, I don't see that there is any reason to reveal the compensation amount.

In any case it is probably confidential information as the insurer paid it.


"It has everything to do with us.

We have the right to question anything and everything those in power are doing with our money and in our name."


So would you mind telling all of us exactly how much of our taxpayers money you have received over the years ?

How many visits to the doctor ( with a grant payed for with public money )

Details of all the prescriptions you have had ( so we can see the subsidy you receive towards the true cost of the drugs you receive )

Any specialist treatment you have had at the public expense.

Do you have children ? How much family allowance have you received ? What schools did they attend at what cost to the taxpayer ?

Ever been in receipt of sickness benefit ? Maternity allowance ? Bereavement allowance ? Pension ? If so, how much of taxpayers money dd you receive ?

Or perhaps you are a civil servant ? As thy are being paid directly out of public funds do we have a right to know their hourly pay rate ? And how much we the taxpayer are contributing to their pension ?

Perhaps confidentiality of payments made by the States don't seem such a bad idea anymore ....

Island Wide Voting


Not clear who your rant is aimed at but I would think that until MOST ( not all of course)working people retire and start drawing their old age pension their own annual income tax payments more than cover anything you have mentioned on your list


Toby, Toby, Toby.........

Where to start?

If you think I'm a 'civil' servant then you obviously haven't ever read a word I've ever posted on here.

As for the rest, yep! Myself and the other 'P's have occasionally used some of what you mention, most of it like the doctor's "grant" is of course paid for directly out of our SS payments............. or are you too young to remember when all our SS payments went up to fund this?

As a Guernsey tax and SS payer I'm pretty keen to see my hard earned spent in the best way and am on record on here as wanting to CUT the payments on most of what you mention above. None of which involves pay-offs to illegally raided advocates offices.

Your point is?

Terry Langlois

MrsP - unfortunately for you, Dave Jones replied 9 minutes before you did and his reply shows your comments to be completely misplaced.

- the information as to whether the insurance premiums will go up is right there in Dave's reply

- premiums are not expected to go up, so your comments about wrapping cars around trees and becoming uninsurable are well wide of the mark

- it is not our money! The insurers have paid.

Ask questions, fine. But please show a little intelligence when interpreting the answers provided. So many people on here are building conspiracy theories and chasing shadows, rather than calmly assessing the realities of the situation.

Royston Gauno

What if The States are the underwriters ?

Terry Langlois

But they are not. Next!


As the Insurance Company paid up its in nobody's interest to pursue this any further. Unless the 3 parties involved all agree to it.

Else SOG could end up with a cancelled policy and paying oodles more to find another company willing to take the risk!!



Of course everyone makes "mistakes" I do so myself quite regularly. The difference is (of course) the consequences of those "mistakes". In my case it may cost someone an hour of their time in sorting out what happened, or seeking a refund of something paid in error. In the case of a surgeon the consequences could be catastrophic, though one would hope the "mistake" would be unintentional.

Where this case differs is that the police (and the law officers) seemingly acted in a gung ho manner where they clearly believed that anyone (even a firm of advocates) had no option but to dance to their tune, they believed themselves to be beyond the law. This attitude is evidenced time and again in Guernsey, Jersey, and the UK. Whether it's advocates and politicians having their homes/offices raided, bugs being illegally planted, warrants being falsified or issued incorrectly, property being stolen, or various misdeeds i.e. child abuse being concealed to a huge extent, it is clear that the law enforcement agencies consider themselves to be exempt from having to pay the price for their illegal/immoral behaviour.


I don't believe the settlement figure could be determined solely according to AFR's loss, who could ever quantify that? Costs are one thing, damages are another, entirely.

Dave Jones


I am not aware of a string of cases of the police or other law enforcement agencies behaving in a "gung ho" manner. Most of what has been posted on here has been so over the top as to be almost hysterical.

This is the first settlement like this that I can remember in a very long time excluding the fishermans dispute over licences.

What I find so disturbing is that we are not trusted at all as representatives of the people to handle these cock up's, In fact deputies are ridiculed, defamed and slandered for trying to get he best settlement we can and if that includes a confidential clause, then it is automatically assumed by many to be to protect us rather than a common factor in these kind of matters by both parties.

Also some of the wild accusations of the amounts involved and the armchair

slueths that have all the facts it would seem but get every aspect wrong is so annoying.

Island Wide Voting

It's annoying is it?

Then YOU have the means at your fingertips to brush away that annoyance by being completely open and transparent ... or was that just a useful throwaway line at the hustings?

Bang a few heads together at the next Policy Council meeting and get this festering boil lanced once and for all .. and in a quiet moment have a think about who might have had something to gain by persuading the Home Minister / the Deputy Chief Minister no less, to take the disastrous secrecy decision which has led to this mess

Terry Langlois

IWV - you are missing the point

Dave Jones does not have the means to reveal the information that you demand, because the insurers required there to be a confidentiality clause. If Dave reveals the information, the States would have breached the terms of that agreement and, I expect, its insurance policy would be voidable.

What makes you think that the Home Minister / DCM took a "secrecy decision"? If the insurers required confidentiality, they is not much that they could do about it since it the insurers who are paying the bill.

"this mess" is largely, as it turns out, a figment of the imagination of the GP and certain posters on this forum.

Terry Langlois

Phil - AFR would have got their legal costs of bringing the case and a sum to compensate them for the loss they suffered as a result of the original action (which, in itself, was probably not very much at all).

Any damages awarded would ONLY be in order to recompense them for their loss, as estimated by them. That is the exact purpose of compensation. AFR would have proposed a figure and the States/insurers would have disputed parts of it and if the matter had got to Court, the Court would have reached a decision as to how much to award based on what the Court believed was the amount of loss suffered.

The compensation would not serve as a "fine" imposed on the States where the quantum of the fine is increased if the cock-up is larger. That would cause AFR to make a profit from the situation where there was a big cock-up which caused them little loss, or it would cause AFR to be out of pocket if there was a small cock-up which caused them a large amount of loss.

I also think that you are getting carried away when comparing this saga with illegally planted bugs, falsified warrants or stolen property. Those are intentional acts, whereas this appears to have been a procedural error. There is no indication that the police in this case thought that they were above the law. They thought that they were acting in accordance with the law, but happened to be wrong.

Unfortunately your post sums up the reaction of many to this incident - hysterical and losing all sense of proportion.



Let's not forget the person who this case ultimately relates to, someone who spent many months in prison only to be released at the eleventh hour before going to court, charges dropped as no evidence offered. How's that for gung-ho?

How much has that cost in legal aid, potential compensation etc?

I have personally witnessed the issuance of a backdated court order, produced nearly a year after it was supposedly granted by the Royal Court, all done via a cosy arrangement between the law enforcement agencies and the court. I was deeply shocked at the time, however having spoken to numerous (very) senior advocates about the matter, apparently there was nothing unusual about it at all.

Are you also unaware of the way that police and government have acted in Jersey and the UK as regards Curtis Warren, Jimmy Savile et al?

Dave Jones

I agree with TL.

Also given that there has now been an official announcment by the Chairman of Scrutiny of an official enquiry into this matter I will make no further comment until that enquiry has concluded and its findings published.


A very conveniently timed announcement eh Dave, saves having to deal with a few awkward questions

Dave Jones

If you say so Phil

Ice man

Another claim and cover up


Something strange here. Considering this took two years of investigation, Guernsey Advocates, UK barristers a UK QC, etc... I am amazed it only cost only £12,570 (excluding the actual compensation bit). Guernsey lawyers wouldn't get out of bed for that little money to defend a case for over 2 years.

Maybe the States gets a special rate and the rest of us mugs have to pay the increasingly out of touch rates?

I can only imagine the States have said, 'that if you attempt to charge us your normal rate card prices of £250-£400 per hour, we'll introduce legislation to cap your fees for everyone else, like we have on the conveyance costs." ... another cartel scam that thankfully is coming to an end."

The Cynical part of me, feels that the lawyers forced this to be kept secret to prevent the public knowing how cheap the case was to defend and stopping their regular clients from questioning the ever increasing legal fees they are expected to pay.