The Openshaw Report

• GSD says criticism must not be silenced

The Gibraltar Government on Thursday said the McGrail Inquiry must be allowed to run its course without becoming a “gladiatorial contest of allegations”.

In a statement, No.6 Convent Place said it was unfair that government parties in the Inquiry should be subjected to “premature, unsubstantiated, untested and undetermined allegations” during procedural sessions and before the full hearing of the Inquiry had commenced.

The statement prompted a reaction from the GSD, which agreed that the Inquiry must be allowed to do its work and that the allegations made “are so far unproven”.

But the GSD said too that the serious issues at the heart of the process should be “completely ventilated” without any attempt to “put a lid on issues”.

No.6 Convent Place was reacting in the wake of the recent session of the public Inquiry, which is tasked with probing the reasons and circumstances leading to Mr McGrail’s controversial early retirement in June 2020, after a 36-year career and halfway through his term in the top post at the Royal Gibraltar Police.

During that session, lawyers for Mr McGrail told the Inquiry that the Chief Minister and his legal team had “threatened” former police Commissioner Ian McGrail and his lawyers with potential defamation action in a bid to “gag and silence” their submissions.

At the time, Caoilfhionn Gallagher, KC, a UK barrister representing Mr McGrail, said “we deprecate that approach in the strongest terms”.

“We consider it to be both inappropriate and continuing intimidatory and victimising conduct,” she told the Inquiry.

Sir Peter Caruana, KC, the barrister representing the government parties, immediately refuted that position and insisted “there is no threat”.

The Chief Minister, he said, had only reserved his rights as provided in law, adding that the position had been expressed in the context of “objectionable material” that the parties had finally agreed should not be published at this early stage in the Inquiry process.

Sir Peter Openshaw, the retired UK judge in charge of the Inquiry, left no doubt that he was concerned about the development and said “the threats of defamation were misplaced”.

“People must be allowed to make their submissions and witnesses must not be deterred from giving evidence or making submissions to the Inquiry, and as I say, I regret that that threat was made,” he said at the time.

The exchanges in the Inquiry prompted coverage in the UK press and criticism of the Gibraltar Government’s stance.

In an article published two days after the session, Mark Stephens, co-chair of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, told The Guardian: “Lawyers should be free to represent their clients without fear of being personally sued for defamation.”

“It is disappointing and an affront to human rights to see this tactic being used by the government of a British overseas territory against UK and Gibraltar lawyers.”

On Thursday, No.6 Convent Place sought once again to reaffirm its position.

In a statement, it stressed that it was the Gibraltar Government that had convened the public Inquiry and that it had given a commitment to publish its report.

No.6 said Sir Peter Openshaw should be allowed to investigate and report on his findings in a fair and independent manner as per the terms of his appointment.

Reflecting exchanges heard during procedural sessions of the Inquiry, No.6 Convent Place said Mr McGrail and his legal team had made “very serious allegations” of personal wrongdoing against the then interim Governor, the Chief Minister and the Attorney General “at every opportunity” and “however procedurally inappropriate”.

“This is despite the Inquiry not having made any finding of facts or wrongdoing, of any kind, that would justify the allegations…which, needless to say, the Government strongly denies and refutes,” No.6 Convent Place said in the statement.

“The Government is conscious that these individuals have rights too, not just Mr McGrail, including the important right to protect their reputations while the Inquiry process takes it course.”

“It is not fair or right, in the context of a statutory inquisitorial inquiry set up precisely to establish the true facts, that these individuals who hold or have held high office in Gibraltar, and indeed Gibraltar as a whole, should be suffering the reputational consequences of premature, unsubstantiated, untested and undetermined allegations of the sort being made by Mr McGrail and his legal team on his behalf.”

“The Chief Minister also has the right and, indeed, the duty to protect the reputation of our jurisdiction from such unproven, mere allegations.”

“The legal team representing Mr McGrail, and those commenting on the subject, should reflect that everyone has human rights, even politicians and senior officials.”

“Protecting their human rights is as fundamental as the protection of the rights of all others.”

“No one involved in this inquiry should think otherwise.”

POLITICAL REACTION

On Thursday, the GSD reacted to the Gibraltar Government statement and agreed that the Inquiry should run its course and be allowed to do its work, and that all parties in the process had rights.

But it said too that the Government “…cannot just deploy the fact that they convened the inquiry as some form of conclusive answer to the issues raised by the Inquiry as if that supported its case that it is blameless and, in some way, immunised the Chief Minister’s handling of the circumstances leading to the departure of the ex-police Commissioner and related issues.”

Keith Azopardi, the Leader of the Opposition, said the Government had been dragged “kicking and screaming” to convene the Inquiry in 2022, after first announcing it on July 31, 2020.

Mr Azopardi said that when it first announced the Inquiry in 2020, the Government had said it would appoint a chairman within “some weeks”, but that the process took a lot longer.

The Government had previously explained that the delay was a result of the pressures of dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic and the Brexit fallout, but the GSD said it should have been a faster process.

“If that had happened the inquiry would have run its course and have concluded a long time ago,” Mr Azopardi said.

“The public are left to wonder whether it was politically inconvenient to convene an Inquiry sooner so that its outcome would not be known till after the next general election.”

“That is a legitimate political comment given the failure of the Government to fulfil its promise to appoint a chairman for the Inquiry ‘quickly’ and within ‘some weeks’.”

“The GSD repeatedly reminded the Government of this after July 2020 and urged the Government to do what it had said it would.”

“In fact, the Government did not appoint the Inquiry till February 2022, almost two years after Mr McGrail had retired.”

“In the meantime, it is within the public domain - because the Chief Minister has said so - that he tried to dissuade the former police Commissioner from persisting with his demand that an Inquiry be held.”

Mr Azopardi said it was “obvious” that there was much for Sir Peter Openshaw to consider and that the allegations being made were “extremely serious”.

“It is correct to say that the allegations made are so far unproven and the chairman should be allowed to do its work,” he said.

“Equally however, the Chief Minister, against whom very serious allegations have been made, cannot expect, given the nature of these, for there not to be any fair comment or to restrain comment on these by defamation ‘threats’ which the chairman of the Inquiry has already described as inappropriate.”

“Nor is it appropriate for Mr Picardo to simply say that he is defending the jurisdiction from reputational damage of allegations he says are denied when in fact he is protecting his own political reputation.”

“The reputation of Gibraltar and his reputation are not the same things.”

“That would be to wrongly conflate issues in the hope of public sympathy for his stance.”

“It is important for democracy that the Inquiry be independent and conducted in full public view so that allegations on all sides can be tested and determined.”

“The outcome of what transpired is for the chairman of the Inquiry.”

“But it would be wrong for the Chief Minister or Government to attempt to silence criticism or put a lid on issues.”

“Given the severity of the issues at stake the reverse is true.”

“They should be completely ventilated and tested one way or the other.”

“That is what would happen in any other democracy.”

1 Like

Ian McGrail's lawyers have once again called for the Government to withdraw its threats of defamation proceedings and apologise.

The legal team is representing the Former Commissioner in the Inquiry into his early retirement.

They say they are disappointed that the Government have decided to reassert the defamation threat, despite widespread condemnation, including from the judge hearing the Inquiry.

They also point out that Mark Stephens, co-chair of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, also condemned the Gibraltar Government’s conduct, stating that lawyers should be free to represent their clients without fear of being personally sued for defamation.

The lawyers say the Government is engaging in a threat of a strategic lawsuit against public participation, a tactic which has recently been condemned by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in the UK.

1 Like

The three men who were charged following the conspiracy investigation into the Bland case, but whose prosecutions were discontinued last year, have been granted Core Participant status in the McGrail Inquiry.

John Perez, Thomas Cornelio and Caine Sanchez were facing charges of conspiracy to defraud Bland Limited and undermining its ability to perform its National Central Intelligence System.

In January last year, the Attorney General entered a nolle prosequi, a rare legal instrument which effectively brought an end to the prosecutions of John Perez, Thomas Cornelio, and Caine Sanchez. He cited public interest as the reason for the decision.

Last November, the three men were granted legal funding for representation in the Inquiry into the early retirement of former Commissioner Ian McGrail.

The Inquiry judge, Sir Peter Openshaw, has now ruled that the three men have a significant interest in an important matter to which the Inquiry relates, and that they would benefit from being represented in the case.

They now join the Government parties, the Police, the Police Authority, the Police Federation, and Mr McGrail himself on the list of core participants.

3 men charged in Bland case granted Core Participant status in McGrail Inquiry

The Supreme Court heard legal arguments on Tuesday in a claim for costs brought by three men who had faced charges of conspiracy to defraud Bland Ltd before the case against them was stopped last year.

John Perez, Thomas Cornelio and Caine Derek Sanchez had been charged with conspiracy to defraud Bland Limited in connection with a contract for security-related work for the Gibraltar Government.

From the outset they had denied the charges and lawyers for the three men had filed a motion for the case to be dismissed.

But in January 2022, before the application for dismissal could be heard, Attorney General Michael Llamas, KC, stopped the case and entered a ‘nolle prosequi’, a legal term to describe a decision to voluntarily end a criminal prosecution before trial.

At the time, Mr Llamas cited “matters in the wider public interest” for his decision not to proceed to trial.

But the three men later said the case had been halted not because of public interest issues but because the prosecution’s evidence “could not stand up in court”.

Now, they are seeking £380,000 in costs from the Crown.

On Tuesday Ben Cooper, KC, the barrister representing the three applicants, pointed to “a lack of good faith” in the way the Crown had handled the case against his clients.

But from the outset, the application for costs before Chief Justice Anthony Dudley ran into difficult territory.

Mr Justice Dudley expressed concern that elements of the application relating to the Crown’s handling of the Bland case could touch on factual issues that will be considered by the McGrail Inquiry.

He questioned whether the Supreme Court should, as part of a costs’ application, consider potential findings of fact that would “undoubtedly” be analysed in more detail by the Inquiry, including through witness statements.

He said he would be “very loathe” to make summary determinations “essentially of fact” on matters that the inquiry would probe in close detail.

The judge repeatedly referred to the importance of “judicial comity”, meaning the principle that a court should have respect and deference for the decisions of another.

He summed it up as “shorthand for good neighbourliness”.

On Tuesday, having flagged his concerns, Mr Justice Dudley focused solely on an initial but fundamental point of law: Whether or not the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to award costs in a case that had been stopped through a nolle prosequi.

Mr Cooper said it was “palpably absurd” to say the court did not have that jurisdiction and that to do so pointed to “obvious weaknesses” in the Crown’s ability to tackle the substantive issues.

But James Hines, KC, the barrister representing the Attorney General, said the law did not provide for a costs application in circumstances where a case was “brought to an abrupt halt” by a nolle prosequi.

Having heard submissions, Mr Justice Dudley reserved his judgement on jurisdiction and gave no indication as to when he would hand it down.

But even before the hearing was adjourned, there was no doubt about the complexity of what may lay ahead in resolving this claim if the judge rules that the court does indeed have jurisdiction to order costs.

The three applicants are asking for disclosure as to the reasons for the Attorney General’s decision to end the case, even though Mr Hines argued that in law, the Attorney General is not obliged to provide those reasons publicly.

They also want the court to review the factual circumstances around the case and the decision to end, arguing this is vital to assess the merits of the application for costs.

Mr Cooper said that while the applicants’ case could be argued on the existing evidence before the court, it was important in the interest of fairness for the court to have all available material at its disposal in reaching any decision on costs.

But Mr Hines said: “These are not matters of fairness, these are matters of statutory interpretation.”

If the Chief Justice decides he can proceed to hear the application in full, attention would refocus on any “potential overlap” with the work of the McGrail Inquiry.

Several times during the hearing on Tuesday morning, Mr Justice Dudley said he was “troubled” by that possibility.

He noted that the Inquiry had recently granted “core participant status” to the three men in that process.

In doing so, Sir Peter Openshaw, the retired UK judge heading the Inquiry, said the three men had a significant interest in one of the matters that the Inquiry will examine.

As such they were entitled to be legally represented as participants in the Inquiry, with access to relevant evidence disclosed to the chairman and an opportunity to make statements and ask questions through their lawyer.

Mr Justice Dudley said that if the costs application before the Supreme Court proceeds to a full hearing, he would consider inviting legal counsel for the McGrail Inquiry to make submissions on these issues before deciding how to proceed.

Mark Zammit appeared alongside Mr Hines for the Attorney General.

Former Commissioner of Royal Gibraltar Police Ian McGrail arrested

The former Commissioner of Police Ian McGrail has been arrested.

Senior Investigating Officer John McVea, former Chief Superintendent of the Northern Ireland police service has confirmed a 56 year old man has been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, conspiracy to obtain unauthorised access to computer material, and unlawful obtaining of personal data.

The arrest, carried out at 7.40am at a residence in the South District, is on suspicion of conspiracy to obtain unauthorised access to computer material directly related to data breach in inquiry

Mr McGrail's lawyer, Charles Gomez, is at New Mole House Police Station.

For more information as to GBC's policies on why and when we name individuals who have been arrested, please see this document.

John McVea says he recognises significance of arrest for Gibraltar & for...

Speaking to GBC's 'Gibraltar Today' programme, Senior Investigating Officer, John McVae, said he recognised the significance of the arrest for Gibraltar and for the individual - but in some ways the investigation leading to Mr McGrail's arrest is the same as many others.

John McVae recognises significance of arrest for Gibraltar and for the...

As senior investigating officer, John McVae was satisfied that the evidence was such that he had reasonable suspicion a crime may have been committed, prompting this morning's arrest of the former commissioner and his interview under caution.

Mutual aid is the provision of policing assistance from one force to another. It is usually provided in response to or in anticipation of a major incident or event. The current Police Commissioner Richard Ullger issued a request to UK policing, which the Police Service of Northern Ireland took up.

He has been sworn in as an officer of the RGP but Mr McVea stresses his investigation is independent. He told the media he does not discuss his investigation with the Commissioner of Police Richard Ullger, outside of the circumstances where he needs to keep him informed for “consequence management”. He said he’d had a conversation this morning to inform him that he had made an arrest. He said he does not discuss with Mr Ullger the intricacies or where his investigation is going.

Mr McVea has gone from terrorism and paramilitary gun crime in Northern Ireland to the biggest policing crisis Gibraltar has seen in more than 20 years.

Investigation by UK officers into data breach in Mcgrail Inquiry widened

The investigation by UK officers into a data breach in the Mcgrail Inquiry has been widened to include "other matters that are linked".

GBC understands matters relating to an RGP office in Secretary's Lane are being investigated.

It is a complex, sensitive situation, that seems to get more complex and more sensitive as the weeks pass.

Two officers from Northern Ireland and two from Wales are in Gibraltar.

They’re led by detective chief superintendent John McVea, who retired from the Police Service of Northern Ireland earlier this year, after a 30-year career spanning the peace process.

Of those, he spent 15 years in the serious crime branch.

Speaking on GBC’s Gibraltar Today, the Police Commissioner Richard Ullger said Mr McVea is “totally in charge” of what he stressed was an independent and transparent investigation, with findings reported to both to the Governor and the Commissioner.

Responding to a comment by the Chief Minister about former officers who had evidence of potential criminality, Mr Ullger said he had not seen this but said if anyone in Gibraltar thinks they have any evidence of criminality they need to take it to the Royal Gibraltar Police.

He acknowledged that Ian McGrail is a “very good friend” of his, but said his profession is important to him, acknowledging he needs to be seen to undertake his role ethically without compromising his position or that of the RGP.

Answering a question from a listener, he denied there's low morale in the RGP - he said it had been affected by events, but was not low.

The Commissioner told GBC the past two to three weeks have been very difficult, he used the word “turmoil”. But despite this, he praised his officers for continuing to work hard to keep Gibraltar safe.

​Azopardi questions Government claiming to have evidence of criminality

Over the last few months, GBC News has been working on a 'SenseMaker' as an explainer for the facts and events surrounding the McGrail Inquiry.

The SenseMaker will be updated as and when new information becomes available.

A Hi-Res copy of the SenseMaker is available here, right-click and click 'save as' to download:

All the information found on the SenseMaker is available in the public domain.

Our sources are as follows:

https://www.police.gi/news/commissioner-mcgrail-an...

https://coircomp.gi/#documents

https://www.5rb.com/news/5rb-barristers-appear-in-...

https://www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/legislations/crim...

https://eurocop.org/eurocop-and-rgp-clash-over-col...

http://www.police.gi/news/conspiracy-to-defraud-co...

https://www.parliament.gi/uploads/contents/hansard...

https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/press-releases/govern...

https://www.gbc.gi/news/jury-inquest-deaths-two-me...

https://coircomp.gi/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Fou...

https://www.parliament.gi/uploads/contents/hansard...

https://www.gbc.gi/news/government-has-paid-bland-...

https://www.gbc.gi/news/eurocop-president-accuses-...

https://www.gbc.gi/news/metropolitan-police-invest...

https://www.police.gi/news/man-arrested-in-relatio...

https://www.gbc.gi/news/investigation-uk-officers-...

https://www.gbc.gi/news/john-mcvae-says-he-recogni...

2 Likes

McGrail: A Brief Timeline

McGrail - A Brief Timeline

The GSD Opposition has questioned why the Chief Minister would not have passed on evidence of 'potential criminality' to the Commissioner of Police.

Speaking to GBC, Fabian Picardo said he had seen evidence while Richard Ullger said he had not.

The Opposition states all criminal allegations in the McGrail Saga should be investigated independently

The Opposition insists it's strange the Chief Minister should say he's aware of evidence of “potential criminality” but that the current Commissioner of Police, Mr Ullger said he had not seen that evidence. It adds, the Commissioner of Police told the Gibraltar Today programme that the proper port of call for anyone who does have evidence of criminal wrongdoing is to report this to the Police. It adds it's doubly strange that Fabian Picardo who's a core figure in the events of May and June 2020, should be the recipient of that information and not the Commissioner of Police.

It states what Mr Picardo’s press release on the whistleblowers law conveniently leaves out is that in the case of police officers a qualifying disclosure should primarily be made to the Commissioner of Police and in the case of criminal wrongdoing the appropriate investigative authority is the Police.

The GSD also questions the chronology saying it's unclear when this evidence was provided and whether it came before or after other jobs in the public service were given to some of the individuals. It adds legitimate questions arise in relation to the timing: as to what the motivations or inducements were for the making of these statements and how these allegations are being collated and surfacing now. It Adds if these are historical allegations it's equally legitimate to ask who is benefitting from these allegations being thrown about now.

Leader of the Opposition, Keith Azopardi says “The constant question that remains is how allegations of unrelated issues that are not about what happened in May and June 2020 between Mr Picardo and Mr McGrail are actually relevant to the Public Inquiry or whether they are being deployed as diversionary tactics." Those questions, he says, are matters for the Inquiry Chairman who should assess all allegations.

Beyond that, he adds, if there is any evidence of potential criminal wrongdoing or misconduct in office this should also be investigated by the police in the normal way and as necessary the remit of the current independent investigation should be extended by the Governor to cover those issues.

The most serious allegations of criminality referred to during the Chief Minister's recent Radio Gibraltar interview were not made by RGP officers or anyone working in Government.

In answer to GBC questions, Number Six said Fabian Picardo had discussed the allegations with the Governor and the Police Commissioner, but stressed Richard Ullger is not the person who would usually receive such reports.

In answer to GBC questions, the Government said Fabian Picardo has full confidence in Richard Ullger, but stressed he would not usually, or ever as Commissioner, be the officer receiving such reports and neither is the Chief Minister the complainant who would make the reports.

It clarified the relevant individuals had made their complaints to RGP officers or to the Openshaw Inquiry solicitors.

GBC asked whether the Chief Minister had passed the evidence of potential criminality to the Senior Investigating Officer of the McGrail Inquiry Data Breach however, Number Six said Fabian Picardo has had no contact with Mr McVea.

Referring to a GBC interview last December about the Anti-Corruption Bill, where the Chief Minister said 'all criminality' should be reported to the RGP, we asked whether Mr Picardo considered there were any caveats to this. Number Six replied the Chief Minister's statement is a statement of the law. There are no caveats to it. For that reason, the relevant individuals have made reports to Police Officers, even though they may not have made them to Mr Ullger himself.

In respect of the GSD's question, about whether the police officers were moved before or after they had provided the evidence, the Government said protected disclosure is provided before the individual is moved. That protected disclosure is elevated to the status of "evidence" when it becomes a sworn statement subsequently.

In fact, it said the relevant information of the most serious criminality has been provided by individuals who are not in the employment of the RGP, or the wider Government, and who have not made protected disclosures, but who have approached the Government and the Governor to set out very serious allegations of criminal acts which they have reported, and are in the process of substantiating.

GBC asked whether Fabian Picardo considered there may be a conflict of interest in respect of this information, given that the Chief Minister himself is involved in the McGrail Inquiry. Number Six said there is no conflict of interest whatsoever by any definition of a conflict of interest.

It said in the context of the criminal law, it is in everyone's interests that any evidence of criminality be investigated by the Police. In the context of the Openshaw Inquiry, it is in everyone's interest that all relevant information be before the Inquiry for the Commissioner to determine what is relevant and to weigh it in his determination of the facts.

The Minister receiving a protected disclosure simply ensures that the person making the disclosure is not at risk of detriment as provided for in the law.

GBC reached out to Police Commissioner Richard Ullger, who said he commented on this issue during his interview last Wednesday and there is nothing else he wishes to add at this stage.

The former Commissioner of the Royal Gibraltar Police has had his police bail extended.

Ian McGrail was at New Mole House police station on Wednesday morning; he will return there on the 24th of April.

The RGP says this remains a live and active investigation.

Meanwhile, the lawyers for Mr McGrail said he believes the investigation to be "much wider than the ostensible reasons for his arrest".

They said he continues to be at the disposal of the police, and has written to the Crown Counsel and the Senior Investigating Officer with suggestions for "expediting the investigation and pre-empting possible false trails".

Former Commissioner of Police Ian McGrail has been charged with sexual assault on a female police officer while he was in post.

The charge was confirmed on Thursday afternoon by John McVea, a former Detective Chief Superintendent with the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI).

Mr McVea was asked by the Commissioner of Police, Richard Ullger, to lead the independent criminal investigation as the Senior Investigating Officer.

Mr McVea also leads the investigation into an alleged data breach relating to a public inquiry into the circumstances around Mr McGrail’s early retirement.

“Further to information received, I was asked by the Commissioner of Police to lead an independent criminal investigation into an alleged sexual assault on a female police officer in 2018. The allegation was against the former Commissioner of Police Mr Ian McGrail,” Mr McVea said.

“Shortly before 7am this morning, Mr McGrail was arrested at his home on suspicion of Sexual Assault. He was taken for interview at New Mole House Police Station.”

“Following this interview process Mr McGrail has been charged with the offence of Sexual Assault and will appear before the Magistrates’ Court tomorrow, Friday 14th April. The alleged sexual assault happened at New Mole House Police Station while Mr McGrail was the Commissioner of Police."

“As the matter has now been charged to court, I am unable to expand any further.”

Mr McGrail will appear before the Magistrates’ Court on Friday at 10am.

STATEMENT

Mr McGrail’s lawyer, Charles Gomez, issued a statement to the press hours after the charge was confirmed.

“Mr Ian McGrail vigorously denies any wrong-doing and is committed to presenting his defence to the Court as soon as a trial is set down for hearing,” the statement said.

“He appreciates the seriousness of the allegations and the importance of a fair trial for all parties involved.”

“He has the right to be presumed innocent and will work tirelessly to ensure that his reputation and rights are protected throughout the legal process.”

“Mr McGrail recognises the sensitive nature of this case and the absolute need for respect and privacy for all involved and their respective families.”

“We ask that the public reserve judgment until the facts are presented to the Court. Our client deserves a fair and impartial trial, and we are confident that justice will be served in due course.”

The former Commissioner of Police, Ian McGrail, pleaded not guilty to one charge of sexual assault on Friday morning during a brief hearing in the Magistrates’ Court.

Mr McGrail, 56, faces one charge of sexual assault relating to an alleged incident in 2018 involving a female police officer while he was serving as Commissioner of Police.

Family and friends packed into the public gallery to support Mr McGrail, who earlier this week in a statement through his lawyers vigorously denied any wrongdoing.

His lawyer, Nicholas Gomez, asked for the matter to be dealt with by the Magistrates’ Court and for a trial date to be set swiftly.

Stipendiary Magistrate Charles Pitto accepted jurisdiction but left open the option of sending the case to the Supreme Court if he felt it appropriate once he had assessed the evidence.

Prosecutor Christina Wright told the court the docket of evidence was practically ready and that witness availability would need to be sought.

The case was adjourned until next Thursday, April 20 at 10am and Mr McGrail was bailed in the sum of £500.

Lawyers acting on behalf of the former police commissioner Ian McGrail have suggested that “jobs are being offered in exchange for raking muck” against his client.

Mr McGrail denies one count of sexually assaulting a female police office in 2018. He appeared at the Magistrates Court on Thursday morning.

McGrail lawyer suggests 'jobs offered for raking muck' against his client -...

The GSD's Daniel Feetham believes the Government's management of public finances has weakened its negotiating position on the Treaty.

He was speaking on GBC Viewpoint to Ros Astengo

Feetham believes Govt's management of public finances has weakened...

Mr Feetham also said the Government is being harmed politically due to public perception over the arrest of the former Commissioner of Police, Ian McGrail.

He said rightly or wrongly, some people suspect there's a conspiracy going on behind the scenes.

Viewpoint is available online now or you can catch it on repeat Sunday night at 9pm.

Feetham says Govt being harmed politically due to public perception over

One of the two individuals arrested last November in connection with the data breach at the McGrail Inquiry has been released from arrest.

The other remains on police bail.

Last month the scope of the investigation, led by former Northern Ireland police detective John McVea, was widened to include other areas.

In answer to GBC questions, the Royal Gibraltar Police has now confirmed that one of the arrested individuals has been released from arrest.

Ian McGrail has had police bail extended until the 25th July.

The former Police Commissioner was arrested last month on suspicion of misconduct in public office, conspiracy to obtain unauthorised access to computer material, and unlawful obtaining of personal data.

The arrest was connected to material directly related to the data breach in the inquiry

Mr McGrail however has not yet been charged with any of these matters.

The McGrail Inquiry will be “catastrophic” for the reputation of the Royal Gibraltar Police, the outgoing chairman of the Police Federation has said, in a valedictory email that laid bare the fractious relationship between the staff organisation and senior management at the force.

In the email to officers, Maurice Morello, who is retiring from the force and leaving the post ahead of an election to choose a successor on May 23, pulled no punches.

He said RGP officers were “the backbone” of the organisation but were not backed by a senior management team which, he claimed, did not understand the Federation’s advocacy role in defence of its members’ interests.

Mr Morello said the already-difficult relationship between the RGP Command and the Federation had shifted “drastically” after the McGrail Inquiry opened and it became known that he and the Federation secretary would give evidence, “which will expose some of our top managers’ inappropriate behaviours”.

“The relationship deteriorated even further when several officers came forward with information, which could be very damaging to the RGP and several individuals,” he wrote in the email, which was first reported by GBC but a copy of which has been seen by the Chronicle.

“In recent months, I have seen Command more concerned at how these officers received protection, rather than the nature of the extremely compromising allegations, which have been made, some of which are criminal and which require investigating thoroughly.”

And he added: “This Inquiry will be catastrophic for the reputation of the RGP and the reputation of policing in Gibraltar.”

“What I worry about the most, is that you, in the front line and who deal with the public on a daily basis will be the recipients of the public’s comments.”

Mr Morello was hard-hitting too about the stance taken by the RGP in the inquest into the fatal collision at sea in 2020, in which a jury found the two Spaniards who died in the incident had been unlawfully killed.

He said the RGP had not supported the officers in the inquest and had then opposed a judicial review filed by the officers in a bid to quash the verdict of unlawful killing. Just last month, the Supreme Court dismissed the claim for judicial review, upholding the verdict.

The officers intend to appeal that latest decision but Mr Morello said the RGP would again oppose it, adding it was also seeking costs for the earlier claim.

Mr Morello described the RGP’s position as “an embarrassment”, adding: “I suppose it is easier to blame individuals than highlight organisational failings.”

“In all my years in policing, I had never witnessed such a gut wrenching display of abysmal leadership and poor decision-making on behalf of those leading the organisation...” he said in the email.

He said too that the application for costs would probably mean the Federation “forking out a large chunk of money”, adding this would “cripple” its finances.

“Who in their right mind would want to work for an organisation like this?” he said, adding: “The organisation has a particular talent of breaking officers.”

Mr Morello praised officers for their hard work and resilience and, despite his criticisms, insisted that “policing is a great career”.

But he said management of people in the organisation was “especially vital” and that the RGP Command did not excel at that, “despite what our senior managers may think”.

“This is something which officers have been complaining about since I can recall, and this never seems to improve,” he wrote in the email.

Mr Morello said the RGP had become “master at copy and pasting” UK policies and procedures “even though we know one size does not fit all”.

“No vision, no direction, policing by social media.”

The RGP declined to comment on the contents of the email, adding only that this was a matter for the outgoing Federation chairman.

But the force has in the past rejected persistent public criticism from the Federation, insisting it has taken wide-ranging steps over recent years to address shortcomings identified during independent audits by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, and has worked to place the focus on the well-being of its officers and support staff.

In a report last October, HMICFRS said the RGP had “significantly improved” its effectiveness by making “good progress” addressing its recommendations to promote best practice.

The HMICFRS audit of the RGP was a full and thorough inspection that covered major cultural, operational and leadership changes implemented over the past two years against the backdrop of heavy policing demands during Covid and as a result of Brexit.

It involved detailed documentary work and multiple interviews with serving police officers, as well as with personnel from other agencies.

The report was the third in six years and HMICFRS said the RGP had addressed around 80% of all recommendations in that time, some of which had been outstanding since 2016.

It found too that work was under way to address the remaining areas.

“We are pleased to report that the RGP has made good progress since 2020,” HMICFRS said in the report at the time.
“The force’s senior leadership team has prioritised addressing our recommendations and AFIs [areas for improvements].”

“This is part of its efforts to improve the force’s effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy.”

“It appointed officers to lead work on each of our recommendations and AFIs. It also set up a new governance procedure.”

“This has allowed it to oversee progress and implement change more effectively.”

Former police Commissioner Ian McGrail has been released from police bail in connection with one of the three suspected offences for which he was arrested last March.

Mr McGrail, 57, had been arrested by UK officers flown to Gibraltar to investigate an alleged breach of data relating to the McGrail Inquiry.

The former Commissioner was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to obtain unauthorised access to computer material, misconduct in public office, and unlawful obtaining of personal data.

He was granted police bail while the investigation continued but was not charged at any stage in relation to the suspected offences.

On Friday, the Royal Gibraltar Police confirmed that Mr McGrail had been released from police bail in relation to the suspicion of conspiracy to obtain unauthorised access to computer material.

It means he is no longer under arrest in respect of that suspected offence.

Mr McGrail remains under arrest and on police bail in respect of suspicion of misconduct in public office and unlawful obtaining of personal data.

Charles Gomez, Mr McGrail’s lawyer, declined to comment on the latest development.

After the arrest in March, however, Mr Gomez said in a statement on behalf of his client that Mr McGrail was confident investigators would soon find he had not committed any of the suspected offences for which he was arrested.

At the time, Mr Gomez said Mr McGrail had learnt in November 2022 of a possible breach of data kept by the Inquiry and brought it to the attention of the Inquiry, which referred the matter to the RGP.

“The importance of this is that had it not been for the reports to the authorities made by Mr McGrail, the data breach might have gone undetected,” Mr Gomez told reporters at the time.

‘LIVE AND ACTIVE’

On Friday after confirming Mr McGrail’s release from police bail, the RGP said the investigation into the inquiry data breach remained “live and active”.

Prior to Mr McGrail’s arrest in March, two other individuals had also been arrested by investigating officers.

One of those two people was released from bail some weeks ago, while the second remains under arrest and on police bail.

Former Police Commissioner Ian McGrail has been released from arrest regarding Conspiracy to Obtain Unauthorised Access to Computer Material contrary to S362 Crimes Act 2011 & Crimes Act 2011.

The suspicion was in connection with a serious data breach relating to the Public Inquiry.

The RGP has confirmed the matter remains a live and active investigation.

Bail continues in relation to Misconduct in Public Office, Contrary to Common Law and Unlawful Obtaining of Personal Data, Contrary to the Data Protection Act.

Nick Pyle, the former Deputy Governor and acting Governor at the time that former police Commissioner Ian McGrail took early retirement, has been engaged by the Chief Secretary to advise on civil service training and reform.

The development was revealed by Chief Minister Fabian Picardo as he responded to questions in Parliament from Keith Azopardi, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Azopardi asked the Chief Minister whether he believed it was appropriate to have offered Mr Pyle a job given his key role as a core participant in the McGrail Inquiry, which is examining the circumstances around Mr McGrail’s controversial early retirement.

Mr Azopardi said “it doesn’t look good” in the context of “a very delicate inquiry” that was investigating serious allegations which, he said, touched on the integrity of constitutional institutions.

The questions drew a stinging reaction from the Chief Minister, who said they “unfairly” cast “suspicions” on both himself and Mr Pyle.

He pointed out that both the Attorney General and himself continued to be employed and paid by the Gibraltar Government, irrespective of their status as core participants in the inquiry, and that this was “entirely proper”.

Mr Picardo said the assumption behind the question was that “somehow” a fee would be paid in return for “improper behaviour” in the context of the inquiry.

“Does [Mr Azopardi] genuinely believe that a senior civil servant, whether he's a UK civil servant or a Gibraltar civil servant, a senior civil servant who has become a core participant in an inquiry established under statute, can be coerced or bought, as he's suggesting, to give evidence in respect of that inquiry, which would be different if he had not been employed in respect of matters that happened three years ago, most of which are set out in writing, on email, on WhatsApp?” the Chief Minister told Parliament.

“And is the allegation that he will tell a different version of the truth of what happened three years ago if he's employed by the government to do a job that he can do for the benefit of the Gibraltarian taxpayer, for the benefit of the Gibraltar public service, and that if he were not so employed, he would give a different version of the truth?”

“My God, there is a different standard of integrity that [Mr Azopardi] applies to third parties than the one he would be expecting applied to him, because I do not believe that it is possible to even perceive that one can buy the evidence, the version of the truth, from someone in this situation.”

“But never mind, the leader of the Opposition can allege it not because it matters, not because there's any grain of truth in it, but just because by planting the seed of doubt, he seeks to grow a plant of alleged disrepute against the government on any issue.”

But Mr Azopardi maintained the pressure, insisting that “the perception is there”.

“How appropriate is it for the perception of that inquiry for the government to be offering a job to a core participant that was not an employee?” he asked the Chief Minister.

“That's the issue. That's the issue. Can you not see that?”

“Utter nonsense”, the Chief Minister countered, dismissing too any suggestion that the democratic integrity of Gibraltar’s institutions was in question.

“There is not one shred of evidence put in the public domain, or not put in the public domain, that can be used to sustain such a fanciful notion,” he said.

The Chief Minister said people could “rumour monger” freely – “God knows, in the past weeks I've had to put up with enough rumour mongering” – but that to question the integrity of institutions without a “scintilla of evidence” was to “play with our democracy”.

“I said that we would hold an inquiry into this because it was called for by the person who is the subject of the inquiry,” Mr Picardo said.

“And I said we will ensure that the inquiry is able to get to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

“The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

“When the truth is out, people will see that those who have talked about the democratic integrity of the institutions of Gibraltar being at risk are no more than jokers who deserve no credibility whatsoever, who have failed Gibraltar by raising spectres that will be seen to have been no more than utter ghosts.”

“And the people of Gibraltar will then judge.”

Responding to Mr Azopardi, the Chief Minister told Parliament that Mr Pyle had been retained “given his exceptional experience as a senior diplomat” and the fact that he was staying in the area of Gibraltar having left the post.

He said My Pyle was being paid a fee of £80 an hour for his work with the Chief Secretary.

The Chief Minister was asked when the engagement commenced and how much had been paid to date, but replied he did not have that information.

FORMER POLICE OFFICERS

Mr Azopardi also quizzed the Chief Minister on how many former police officers had been employed in the public service since June 2020 – the date Mr McGrail retired from his post - and whether they retained their former salaries or were paid within the scales of the new posts.

Mr Picardo replied that a total of 13 former police officers had been transferred from the RGP to different areas of the public service in that time.

He said salaries depended on different circumstances around any transfer.

He said officers who had sustained injuries during their duties in the RGP retained their former salaries, while those who transferred under the protection of whistleblowing rules did so on a “no detriment” basis as provided in law.

Those who transferred for other reasons were paid the salaries relevant to the post.