Select a region
The Chief Minister has said she is unable to involve herself in discussions relating to an independent review into unlawful raids of premises allegedly connected to Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich as her husband's firm "acted for one of the parties" involved in the connected legal proceedings.
The review was announced by Deputy Moore in November, shortly after search warrants - used by police officers seconded to the Economic Crime and Confiscation Unit to raid two properties in April last year - were "obtained unlawfully".
The issue surrounding the warrants resulted in police chief Robin Smith agreeing to apologise to two applicants – referred to throughout the ensuing legal proceedings as ‘XY’ and ‘A Limited’ – and pay damages to them using public funds.
Deputy Moore has previously said the review she requested will "ensure any lessons learned can be considered and implemented in the most expedient manner".
However, the Government refused to provide further details about when the review would start, who would lead it and its terms of reference.
In January, when Commissioner Sir William Bailhache handed down a judgement – regarding the amount of legal bills the police would need to pay – a statement approved by Deputy Chief Minister Kirsten Morel and Treasury Minister Ian Gorst said measures had been put in place, "to ensure that such an operational error concerning the application for warrants does not happen again".
There was no suggestion in the statement that an independent review had been undertaken - instead, the statement said that "the Attorney General and the Chief of Police have reviewed the circumstances around how the operational error with the warrants arose".
Despite repeated questions from Express and the JEP, no clarification on what the new measures were has ever been provided.
In response to a written question from St Brelade Deputy Montfort Tadier earlier this month, following repeated attempts by the JEP and Express to gain further information, Deputy Moore said the statement issued in January "explained developments obviating the need for an independent review".
However, in this morning's States sitting Deputy Tadier asked when the decision to cancel the review was taken and why.
Deputy Moore said: "As the Deputy is aware, following my announcement I discovered that I had a conflict – I was not aware of that at the time of calling for an independent investigation therefore I have had to recuse myself and I have had no further part in these discussions, which is why I offered to the deputy that either the Deputy Chief Minister [Kirsten Morel] or Deputy [Ian] Gorst might be better people to answer this question."
Deputy Tadier asked for clarification on why the conflict prevented her from explaining why the review hadn't happened.
Pictured: Deputy Montfort Tadier grilled the Chief Minister on the matter this morning.
Deputy Moore reiterated that she had declared a conflict and was no longer involved, adding: "Therefore I am not party to discussions and nor can I answer the deputy's question."
However, Deputy Bailiff Robert MacRae said that under standing orders Deputy Moore was obliged to "clearly state the nature of the conflict of interest".
Deputy Moore said: "It was stated in a judgement that has been published by the court that my husbands firm acted for one of the parties in this case for a small number of days and therefore I consider that I have a conflict in this matter."
Deputy Sam Mézec asked which party her husbands firm had been representing in the case.
Deputy Moore said: "Sir I think you will have some sympathy that I do not know, generally, who my husband's clients are and therefore I am afraid I couldn't even recall which of the parties in this matter was the client at that time."
In a statement given to Express after the sitting, Deputy Moore added: "I learned about the conflict of interest on or about 15 November 2022 and immediately arranged for the matter to be dealt with by other ministers (the Deputy Chief Minister and Treasury Minister).
"It is a normal and proper course of action for a minister to recuse themselves from a matter when they become aware of a conflict of interest. The source of the information concerning the conflict is legally privileged and confidential but was not from my husband’s law firm. I cannot comment further for the reasons already explained in the States Assembly.
"This matter is the subject of current proceedings and a criminal investigation."
What happened to the "independent" review of the unlawful Abramovich raid?
Chief Minister orders review into unlawful Abramovich investigation raid
Public money to fund damages for unlawful 'Abramovich raid'
Police admit unlawful search at premises linked to Abramovich, report claims
$400m jet seizure bid exposes Abramovich Jersey web
Reports of new Jersey probe into Abramovich as Chelsea sale passes
Russian assets frozen by Jersey firms top £1bn
Jersey firms froze £700m in Russian assets in March
Jersey seizes '$7bn assets' suspected to be linked to Abramovich
Abramovich yacht 'moved to Jersey company on day of Ukraine invasion'
Police and regulator work to track down Russian wealth
Abramovich: Too "risky" for Switzerland... but not for Jersey?
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.