Inquiry Chairman examines "cumulative" loss of confidence in Ian McGrail & "letters of inducements"

The Inquiry examined a list of incidents and allegations said to have contributed to the Chief Minister’s and then Governor’s “cumulative” loss of confidence in Ian McGrail.

These predate the 12th May, when the RGP sought to execute a search warrant against James Levy.

In addition, the Chairman considered Mr McGrail's allegation that Government jobs were given to RGP whistleblowers in exchange for false statements about him.  

The Chief Minister and the then Governor, Nick Pyle, gave evidence to the Inquiry that their loss of confidence in Ian McGrail had been cumulative.

Sir Peter Openshaw examined each of the events that were said to have played some part in this decline.

The report has been published online by the Government.

AIRPORT INCIDENT

He said the 2017 Airport Incident involving the arrest of MOD personnel had “coloured” Mr Pyle’s opinion of Mr McGrail’s competence and judgement and was one of the reasons for his loss of confidence.

He points out it isn't the Chairman’s role to decide whether this incident should have been handled differently. But, he remarks the episode "caused massive damage to the relationship with the UK and its Armed forces, which took a long time, and much patient diplomacy, to repair."

Nevertheless, he notes the airport incident was not mentioned in any correspondence between Mr Picardo, Mr Pyle, or the GPA prior to Mr McGrail's retirement. 

ASSAULT INCIDENT

Sir Peter Openshaw highlights that no complaint about the way the RGP had investigated the 2017 assault of a helicopter crew was made by Mr Pyle before May 2022.  

He says he found the RGP’s investigation “highly competent and professional,” and if the alleged failures coloured Mr Pyle’s view of Mr McGrail “It should not have done.”

He concludes that "this rumour was, in my opinion, quite unfounded." 

ALCAIDESA CLAIMS

The Chief Minister told Mr Pyle that the Alcaidesa “saga” had contributed to his growing concerns over his loss of confidence in the senior management of the RGP.  The episode took place in 2010 during the course of a police operation, resulting in RGP officers being fined in a Spanish court for trespass and theft. 

After examining the evidence, Sir Peter Openshaw concludes that Mr Picardo's position “appeared to be attributing some undefined responsibility to Mr McGrail on account of his superintendence of the force at the time.”

He says, “No possible criticism could properly be made of Mr McGrail personally… I do not think that this issue played any part in Mr Picardo losing confidence in Mr McGrail.”

APPOINTMENT OF IAN MCGRAIL AS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Nick Pyle's email exchange with Fabian Picardo on the 14th May stated that he thought Ian McGrail was the wrong choice for Police Commissioner and that the recruitment process had been "abject".

The Chairman notes that Mr Pyle did not raise either the Airport Incident or the investigation into the assault of the helicopter pilot, adding, “It was inappropriate, and even unfair, of Mr Pyle to have allowed these matters to be referred to at the time of Mr McGrail’s retirement, without making clear that he had not raised them at the time of his appointment.”

Sir Peter Openshaw states, he found no procedural fault or flaw with the process noting, "Mr Pyle had marked Mr McGrail as being 'suitable' for appointment."

POLICE FEDERATION BULLYING CLAIMS AGAINST IAN MCGRAIL

In respect of bullying allegations made by the Police Federation against Ian McGrail, Sir Peter Openshaw accepts there was a difficult and fractious relationship between the former Commissioner and the GPF, and that this contributed to Mr Pyle's growing sense of unease.

The Chairman says while he has no doubt Mr Pyle was genuinely concerned by the rumours he'd heard, "he shouldn't have been influenced by such matters."

While, he accepts that a complaint was made by the Police Federation about bullying, he concludes, "I did not find that it established that there was bullying in the RGP, still less that Mr McGrail was responsible for it."

JOBS FOR RGP “WHISTLEBLOWERS”

Ian McGrail alleged that the 19 present and former RGP officers turned whistleblowers were offered employment, or other inducements, in exchange for providing false evidence against him. Their statements were submitted to the Inquiry via Hassans law firm. In total, 23 individuals submitted statements to the inquiry.

The Chairman ruled that ultimately none of these were relevant to his Terms of Reference.  

However, in respect of allegations that these job offers amounted to inducements in exchange for false sworn statements to the Inquiry, he says "This would be a serious crime, akin to contempt of court". In light of this, Sir Peter Openshaw decided that an investigation would be necessary to preserve the integrity and public confidence in the Inquiry process.

Two letters presented in evidence were personally signed by Mr Picardo, who, during the main hearing, accepted that he had signed "letters".  

Former RGP officer John McVea was tasked with investigating, concluding that the "available evidence did not meet the threshold for criminal prosecution of misconduct in public office."

This was validated independently by the National Crime Agency, and confirmed by the advice of a Kings Counsel in London. 

The matter is now closed, and Sir Peter Openshaw observes, “I do not think that any further investigation by the Inquiry Team will bear on the circumstances of Mr McGrail's retirement."

INCIDENT AT SEA & CIVIL CLAIM

Nick Pyle said that without doubt, the most serious incident, which was the tipping point of his growing concerns over Ian McGrail, was the March 2020 Incident at Sea. This involved an RGP chase of a suspect RHIB which resulted in two deaths in Spanish waters.

The Chairman describes these as "legitimate and serious concerns".

Sir Peter Openshaw observes, “Mr McGrail did not provide Mr Pyle with the best available information....he did not properly discharge the duty which he owed to Mr Pyle as interim Governor,” and that the incident "seriously damaged the trust and confidence Mr Pyle had in Mr McGrail".

Nevertheless, he adds: “I am unable to find that he was dishonest or sought deliberately to mislead Mr Pyle.”

On the alleged failure of Mr McGrail to inform Mr Picardo of the subsequent civil claim arising from the incident, Sir Peter Openshaw says, “I think Mr Picardo was kept informed in a timely and transparent fashion and I do not think that Mr McGrail was in breach of any duty or obligation.”

On the incident itself, he concludes, “I am not satisfied that Mr McGrail, as Commissioner of Police, should be accountable if the incident at sea resulted from aberrant officers acting quite contrary to the operating procedures, unpredictably, on their own, without the knowledge, acquiescence or ratification of supervising or managing officers. In my opinion, none of the allegations made, or implied, against Mr McGrail withstand detailed analysis and I am not satisfied that any of them are established.”

The Chairman also notes, "Mr McGrail's alleged failures should have been properly spelled out to him at the time," but weren't raised until the 21st/22nd May. 

HMIC REPORT

The Chairman acknowledges that the 2020 HMIC report, which was very critical of the RGP, was only a contributing factor in Mr Picardo's and Mr Pyle's “accumulating loss of confidence,” and that neither had communicated their concerns to Mr McGrail himself. 

The matter was only raised by the Chief Minister in the second GPA letter of the 22nd May.

Nevertheless, Sir Peter Openshaw says, "I do not think the comments that it was 'shocking', 'quite damning' or even'very damning' were all misplaced. I think that Mr McGrail was fortunate that no calls were made for his removal at that time.”

That said, he states, the report "did not make any express personal criticism of Mr McGrail or of his leadership.

The Chairman observes that everyone at the time, including Mr Pyle and Mr Picardo, felt the criticisms could and would be remedied, with Mr Pyle noting on the 30th April that "most of the issues should be relatively easy to fix."

He notes, "it is clear their attitudes did change," and that he would need to consider why this was. 

CONCLUSION

Sir Peter Openshaw points out that, apart from the Deaths at Sea and HMIC report, none of the other reasons relied on by Mr Pyle during the Inquiry to explain his "cumulative" loss of confidence were actually spelled out in the GPA's22nd May letter to Mr McGrail. 

As for Mr Picardo, he says he "quite deliberately and cynically did not spell out that his real grievance arose from the issue of the warrant against Mr Levy," because he believed had he done so, the GPA "would have made a much more searching inquiry had they been told the truth".

He concludes, "I have no doubt that the real reason for Mr Picardo's loss of confidence was that Mr McGrail and the RGP had obtained a search warrant against his friend Mr Levy, which he was determined in one way or another to thwart."

In the end, Sir Peter Openshaw says Mr McGrail felt under pressure to retire "because he knew that the Chief Minister and the Governor had lost confidence in him, but he did so only because he knew he was being unfairly compelled to do so because neither they or the GPA had followed the proper procedures. He was, in effect, being forced out."

(You can find our separate report on Operation Delhi and the events that led to the retirement of Ian McGrail on gbc.gi)