From Bob Le Brocq,
Former Constable of St Helier.
BECAUSE of circumstances beyond my control, I have not responded earlier to comments made about the election of Roger Holland as an honorary police officer in St Helier.

I wish to point out, once and for all, that Mr Holland was sworn in on 10 July 1992 and that I was not in office until 30 July 1992, and the matter of his previous conviction was never brought to my attention, contrary to some people’s belief.

I was shocked and surprised by the ensuing events, which caused great stress and turmoil to myself and my family, along with Ted Gallichan and his family. I would also like to point out that neither I nor Mr Gallichan was ever charged or taken to court for any criminal offence.

I received a letter dated 14 July 2000 from the Attorney-General, William Bailhache, stating that as per a telephone conversation, there were areas of potential embarrassment given Holland’s 1986 conviction. There was also a question of how Holland had been elected in December 1995. The Oath of Office was administered by the Royal Court.

Holland was also elected as a Vingtenier in September 1997. The complaint against Holland was made in May 1999, to myself as Constable of St Helier. I followed the same procedure as my predecessor, Fred Clarke. I had asked the complainants to put their complaint in writing and I discussed this with my Chef de Police, Ted Gallichan, who was unfortunately going on leave the following day. I told him that I would present him with the statements by the complainants on his return.

Some weeks ago the Bailiff, Sir Phillip Bailache, made a statement to the media with reference to an investigation by a committee of inquiry established by the States in 2002 over Mr Holland, a convicted paedophile.

It is a great pity that the Attorney General – now our Bailiff – in 1992, when it was brought to his attention that Holland had been convicted in a Magistrate’s Court, did not bring it to the Royal Court’s notice.

Sir Phillip admits in that statement that he received an anonymous letter re Holland’s conviction on the same day. The Bailiff also states that with hindsight he would rather a different decision had been taken at the time. He knew the facts in 1992. Surely he could have come back to court the following week and asked for the swearing in of Holland to be rescinded. He failed to do so.

Surely the Crown Officers must communicate with each other on a regular basis. In view of previous incidents, I do not believe that the Crown Officers were unaware of Holland’s previous convictions, especially bearing in mind the Bailiff’s statement.

It was not until the meeting on 30 June 1999 that I gave the statements made by the complainants to the Chef de Police. He made further inquiries and submitted a report to the Attorney-General on 14 July 1999 marked ‘Urgent’. We then attended a meeting with the Attorney-General – then Michael Birt – on another matter on 30 July 1999.

The Chef de Police had asked what action had been taken re the Holland report. The Attorney-General apologised that he had not been able to turn to the matter but said that over the weekend he would read the correspondence. On 2 August 1999 he would start an investigation. The Attorney-General handed the matter over to the Solicitor-General because he was going on leave. Holland was then suspended on 11 August 1999.

I think the public have been made aware of what followed.
Because of the aggressive attitude of the Wiltshire Police at the start of their inquiries, we agreed to attend with our legal advisers at Police Headquarters to make statements. We were more than happy to co-operate. I would like to let the public know that Ted Gallichan and I were held in custody for 8½ hours and our belongings were taken from us. I believe that this was totally unnecessary.

When the public make a mistake, they are held accountable. When the Crown Officers make a mistake, who are they accountable to?
66 Clos St André,
St Andrew’s Road,
St Helier.