report - States Assembly

5.1.5 However, the then Chef de Police stated in oral evidence to this Committee that by then he had begun to beconcerned about Mr. Holland’s over zealous attitude.5.1.6 On 11th September 1994 there was an incident outside the Pomme d’Or Hotel in St. Helier witnessed by aCentenier and by an ex-United Kingdom police officer during which Mr. Holland was alleged to have assaulted a visitor tothe Island.5.1.7 On 16th September 1994 the Town Greffier wrote a letter to the victim of the alleged assault to establish the factsof the incident. The Town Greffier also wrote to the United Kingdom resident who had witnessed the incident. At the time ofthe alleged assault, Mr. Holland was working as a taxi driver and was not on duty.5.1.8 On 29th September 1994 Mr. Holland was caught turning right against a traffic light. He was later fined £20 forthis offence.5.1.9 On 17th October 1994, after the Town Greffier had received information from the victim of the alleged assaultoutside the Pomme d’Or Hotel and the witness, the Chef de Police wrote to Mr. Holland. He told him that he had beendirected by the Connétable of St. Helier to inform him that a serious allegation had been lodged with the Connétable relativeto Mr. Holland’s conduct.5.1.10 On 18th October 1994, Mr. Holland voluntarily surrendered his warrant card.5.1.11 On 21st October 1994 the Chef de Police wrote to the Attorney General, Michael Birt, on behalf of the Connétable,to advise him of the alleged assault by Mr. Holland and requested that the Attorney General issue such directives as wereappropriate.5.1.12 The Attorney General, in a letter dated 26th October 1994 replying to the Chef de Police, pointed out that, in thereported case ‘In re Pearce’ (1987-88 JLR p.109), the Royal Court had emphasised the importance of keeping separate theinvestigation of the criminal and disciplinary aspects of a particular incident. In this instance the Attorney General decidednot to request the States of Jersey Police to carry out a criminal investigation but decided that the facts should be investigatedby the Connétable as a disciplinary matter. For that purpose, he recommended that the Connétable obtained the assistance ofthe States of Jersey Police.5.1.13 Because the alleged victim and witness were resident in the United Kingdom, the States of Jersey Police requestedassistance from the Wiltshire Constabulary to take statements. These were eventually undertaken in February 1995.Mr. Holland was interviewed on 10th March 1995.5.1.14 A report was prepared by the Chef de Police and on 12th April 1995 submitted to the Connétable. At the end of theformal report an “Antecedents” report was included which detailed Mr. Holland’s record as an officer and previousconvictions. An early draft of the “Antecedents” report had stated: Throughout his Honorary Police Service, Mr. Holland hasgained a reputation for being a very keen officer who will tackle most incidents he is sent to, or happens across, whetherofficially ‘on duty’ or ‘off duty’. This has on occasions been interpreted as over zealousness. This paragraph was omittedfrom the report in its final form.5.1.15. At the end of the final report there was a list of recommendations. The last paragraph stated: …consideration isgiven as whether (sic) C.O. HOLLAND, by virtue of his actions outside the Pomme D’Or Hotel at 1700 hours, orthereabouts, on Sunday 11th September, 1994, showed himself to be unfit to carry out the duties of a Police Officer andshould therefore be required to resign from the Honorary Police.5.1.16 In oral evidence to the Committee the then Chef de Police was questioned about this recommendation and wasasked whether that last paragraph, although written diplomatically, was a strong recommendation that Mr. Holland should bedismissed. He confirmed that that was the case.5.1.17 The then Connétable told this Committee that he did not read the report, although he did discuss it with the Chef dePolice. He sent it to the Attorney General under cover of a letter dated 15th May 1995, asking for his comment onMr. Holland’s future as an Honorary Police Officer.5.1.18 The Connétable had already spoken to Mr. Holland and in his covering letter told the Attorney General that he hadwarned him that his conduct was not what he expected of an Honorary Police Officer and that Mr. Holland had expresseddeep regret. He also forwarded a copy of a letter from Mr. Holland in which he expressed regret and stated his desire tocontinue in the Honorary Police Service.