Please Note: As Deputy Curgenven’s recent arrest did not result in a charge, Express would not normally have covered the story or published his name, for data protection and privacy reasons. However, he has given us written permission to use his name in the subsequent coverage relating to Deputy Leadbeater’s decision to publish Deputy Ozanne’s email.
The politician who heads the committee responsible for overseeing the Police has denied knowing anything about a fellow deputy’s arrest… despite posting a screenshot of an email on Facebook which raised questions about whether the arrest had taken place.
Deputy Marc Leadbeater, President of Home Affairs, told Express he “had no knowledge whatsoever of any arrest or of any police matter” until we contacted him.
However, the previous day Deputy Leadbeater posted a screenshot on Facebook of an email from Deputy Jayne Ozanne, which asked Deputy Rob Curgenven a series of pointed questions about whether he had been arrested recently, as well as questions about the nature of the alleged incident.
Express then contacted Deputies Ozanne and Leadbeater, asking several questions. Only Deputy Leadbeater responded.
He said: “Given that you have now confirmed, following your correspondence with Deputy Curgenven, that this is indeed a police matter, I believe it would be inappropriate for me to offer any further comment.
“Speculation about police matters is rarely helpful, and I certainly would not wish to set a poor example in that regard.”
After we received Deputy Leadbeater’s statement, we asked for a clarification and sent over some follow-up questions.
He stood by his original statement, saying it remained his “official response”.
At the time of writing, Deputy Leadbeater had not removed the Facebook post.
Public spat
The row exploded after Deputy Curgenven published a screenshot of an earlier part of the email chain on Facebook, in which Deputy Ozanne responded to a series of questions he had asked Deputy Andrew Niles about the GFSC with her own questions.
They included asking whether Deputy Curgenven used AI to draft his questions and why he was taking up politicians’ and civil servants’ time with so many questions.
Deputy Ozanne then appeared to respond to Deputy Curgenven’s decision to make the email public, with a new email which included a series of questions about Deputy Curgenven’s arrest, as well as other questions which alluded to the possible nature of the alleged incident.
Deputy Leadbeater posted an unredacted screenshot of that email on the comment thread below Deputy Curgenven’s post, with the caption: “For full transparency, this is the follow up email from one shared here.”
‘Public allegations’
Deputy Curgenven has told Express he believes that publishing the email on Facebook amounted to a public allegation of criminal behaviour, as the questions could lead people to think there was “no smoke without fire”, despite the lack of a criminal charge.
Under Guernsey’s data protection rules, information concerning criminal behaviour, including allegations as well as convictions, is treated as special category personal data and so requires additional protection.
The Office for the Data Protection Authority (ODPA) says special category data is “different to ‘personal data’ as it is recognised that this type of data could create more significant risks to a person’s fundamental rights and freedoms, for example, by putting those persons at risk of unlawful discrimination”.
Deputy Curgenven said he also believes it was particularly inappropriate that Deputy Leadbeater shared Deputy Ozanne’s email, given his role as President of Home Affairs requires him to have oversight of the island’s Police force and previous statements about confidentiality.
Previous clashes
This is not the first time Deputy Leadbeater, Deputy Ozanne and Deputy Curgenven have clashed over sensitive information relating to the Police.
In January, Deputy Curgenven was thrown off the Police Complaints Review Group, for allegedly breaching confidentiality in a social media video about “the formal discontinuation of an investigation into historical sexual offences”.
Deputy Curgenven has consistently denied breaching the group’s terms, and said he had “never commented on a live police complaint”.
At the time, Deputy Leadbeater, the group’s Chair, said its members had all “agreed we would all refrain from commenting in the public domain on live or individual cases and maintain the same rules the Committee follows around confidentiality”.
He added: “This has been, and always will be, about ensuring the review is an effective piece of work.
“It isn’t about personalities, but this project could have a serious impact on our justice system and so it is very important it is carried out professionally and with integrity, without interference and entirely inappropriate behaviour undermining it.”
Deputy Ozanne, who is a group member, said in January Deputy Curgenven had “acted in a way that is inconsistent” with its neutrality and independence.
“We have an important job to do, and we need to do so in a way that can ensure that we maintain the trust and confidence of all involved,” she added.
“Questions are ‘No smoke without fire’ allegation”
Deputy Curgenven told Express he did not understand why Deputy Ozanne had “circulated serious and unverified questions about my arrest to every States Member, and copied in the Bailiff”, who had not been included in the earlier emails.
“For some reason, Deputy Leadbeater then published her email on Facebook, before anyone knew the facts or whether any inquiry was still live.
Publishing questions of that kind creates a ‘no smoke without fire’ impression, whatever the truth.
Deputy Rob Curgenven
“That is inconsistent with the standard he ostensibly applied when he removed me from the police complaints review group, which he said was commenting on individual police matters, including live investigations.”
“The damage to my reputation had by then already been done, and it has caused real distress to me and my family, none of whom had any part in this.
“Publishing questions of that kind creates a ‘no smoke without fire’ impression, whatever the truth, and it should not happen to any colleague or member of the public.
“I cannot see what legitimate purpose it served.”
Is Deputy Leadbeater’s claim credible?
At first glance, Deputy Leadbeater’s claim that he had “no knowledge whatsoever of any arrest or of any police matter involving Deputy Curgenven before Express contacted him raises questions, given that he had shared an email on Facebook the previous day which explicitly referred to a possible arrest.
He appears to be drawing a distinction between knowing about Deputy Ozanne’s questions about the arrest – which he clearly did – and knowing whether they were based on something true.
However, not knowing whether the arrest happened is arguably different from having “no knowledge whatsoever” about it, although Deputy Leadbeater is, of course, entitled to characterise his knowledge as he sees fit.
It also calls into question why Deputy Leadbeater now feels it would set a “poor example” to comment, when earlier he thought it was appropriate to post the screenshot on Facebook despite the fact that – by his own admission – he did not know if the suggestion Deputy Curgenven had been arrested was true.
He also didn’t remove the screenshot from Facebook once we made him aware there had been an arrest but no charge.
At the time he posted it, there were several possibilities ranging from there having been no arrest to Deputy Curgenven having been charged with a serious crime.
As he’s refused to answer most of our questions, it’s impossible to know what Deputy Leadbeater’s thought process was for posting the screenshot, but it’s hard to imagine a scenario which would paint the decision as prudent.
If there had been no arrest, he would have risked damaging a fellow deputy’s reputation by publicising questions that could create a ‘no smoke without fire’ impression about an arrest that had never happened.
If criminal proceedings had been under way, publishing allegations about the case could also have raised questions about the risk of prejudicing those proceedings.
In the end, it turned out the arrest happened, but the Police neither cautioned nor charged Deputy Curgenven.
However, Deputy Leadbeater’s Facebook post brought questions about Deputy Curgenven’s arrest into the public domain, when the arrest itself would otherwise have remained private.
None of this means Deputy Curgenven’s decision to publish Deputy Ozanne’s first email (about AI) was prudent either, and there are legitimate questions to ask about his judgement in sharing it on Facebook.
Deputy Leadbeater and others may well feel justified in arguing that Deputy Curgenven was the first to turn a behind-the-scenes spat into a public one.
Deputy Leadbeater may explain his thought process to other deputies, perhaps behind closed doors.
At the moment, though, we have no idea what he was thinking.
Our questions to Deputy Leadbeater
We asked the following questions to Deputy Leadbeater, as well as some follow-up questions when we got his response.
Here’s what he said – and what he didn’t.
- Were you aware of Deputy Curgenven’s arrest before Deputy Ozanne sent the email? And if so, how did you become aware of it, and in what capacity?
✅ Answered. While Deputy Leadbeater didn’t directly answer the question, his answer implies that he didn’t know anything prior to Deputy Ozanne’s email and wasn’t aware whether the suggestion was true until we contacted him. - What was your purpose in publishing a screenshot of Deputy Ozanne’s email on Facebook?
❌ Not answered. - Did you consider the implications of publishing an email that could create an impression of criminal wrongdoing, particularly given that Deputy Curgenven had not been charged?
❌ Not answered. - Did you seek Deputy Curgenven’s comment before publishing the screenshot?
❌ Not answered. - Did you consider whether publishing the email could compromise anyone’s privacy or prejudice any Police investigation?
❌ Not answered. - Given Home Affairs’ oversight of the Police and the Police Complaints Commission, do you consider your decision to publish the email consistent with your responsibilities and appropriate standards of conduct?
❌ Not answered. - Did you consider whether publishing the email was appropriate and lawful, and what steps, if any, did you take to assess the potential legal implications?
❌ Not answered.
Follow up questions
- Please can you explain how you did not know about the arrest when you a) received Deputy Ozanne’s email b) shared it on Facebook? (which we sent you the screenshot of).
❌ Not answered. - And if it’s inappropriate to comment on an ongoing Police matter now why did you feel it appropriate to share Deputy Ozanne’s email on Facebook?
❌ Not answered. - Why did you feel it appropriate to publicly share questions about a possible arrest, as Home Affairs President, when you yourself admit not knowing at that stage whether there was any truth in it?
❌ Not answered.
Deputy Leadbeater’s full response
Deputy Leadbeater said the following after our original enquiry:
“Thank you for your email and for clarifying the position.
“Until receiving your correspondence, I had no knowledge whatsoever of any arrest or of any police matter involving Deputy Curgenven. I have no knowledge of the circumstances or any information beyond what has now been conveyed to me through your enquiries.
“Given that you have now confirmed, following your correspondence with Deputy Curgenven, that this is indeed a police matter, I believe it would be inappropriate for me to offer any further comment.
“Speculation about police matters is rarely helpful, and I certainly would not wish to set a poor example in that regard.
“I therefore trust you will understand why I do not intend to comment further or respond to your individual questions.”
He then gave the following response in return to our follow-up questions:
“Just because someone asks someone if they have done something wrong, it doesn’t mean they have done anything wrong. My position has always been that, just because someone says something, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s true. Heed the wise words of Kirsty MacColl in 1981 when she told us – there’s a guy works down the chip shop swears he’s Elvis!
“The questions Jayne asked remain unanswered, wouldn’t it be a better use of your time to chase up those answers?”
