McGrail Inquiry Explainer - Live Blog
22nd april 2024
Who’s Given Evidence So Far
We’re getting a bit of a break from the Inquiry this week while the lawyers get a chance to read through submissions. Before we get back to our analysis - we wanted to provide an overview of who’s given evidence so far:
An officer of the RGP since 1985, Superintendent Paul Richardson was the Senior Investigating Officer in charge of Operation Dehli. From his evidence we learned about the complications with Operation Delhi: the collusion, the potential interference and the disagreements about how to handle the case.
A current officer for the RGP, Chief Inspector Mark Wyan was the officer in charge of the day to day investigation during Operation Dehli. His evidence supported Richardson’s and helped us understand what really happened in May 2020.
At the heart of this inquiry, former commissioner Ian McGrail needs little introduction. He served in the RGP since 1984. He was Police Commissioner from 2018, and so had ultimate responsibility for the force. This inquiry was set up to investigate his retirement but has already uncovered so much more.
Another man who needs little introduction locally, James Levy is the senior partner of Hassan’s law firm. He was a minor shareholder of 36 North, and was the subject of an search warrant and was a suspect of conspiracy to defraud Blands of a contract with the government.
A partner of Hassan’s law firm, and Head of Litigation, Lewis Baglietto is a friend of Picardo and the Attorney General. He initially represented Levy when he challenged the search warrant. He and Levy have both been criticised for their involvement with 36 North and deleting their WhatsApp messages.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Christian Rocca, is responsible for cases that go to trial. While he agreed that the search warrant created problems, he generally believed that most of the RGP officers had acted appropriately.
16th April 2024
Lessons from Last Week’s Evidence
Last week, we had the first witnesses taking questions for the inquiry. They gave us a much better idea of what actually happened during Operation Delhi
They also gave us some key themes at the heart of the investigation and of this inquiry.
Criminality or Sharp Business Practice
One of the central questions for Operation Delhi was whether 36 North engaged in criminal activity, as the RGP clearly believed they had, or if they were just engaging in what the Department of Public Prosecutions* called ‘Sharp Business Practice’.
Both Richardson and Wyan believed they were following the right procedures, for example by trying to execute a search warrant on James Levy and trying to prosecute the individuals involved with 36 North. Others, like the DPP, the Attorney General, and the Chief Minister thought that this was a mistake. They preferred to handle the matter through conversations and without naming Levy as a suspect.
Were the RGP right to make these decisions based on their own assumptions, or should they have sought additional legal advice for dealing with a matter of this level of national importance and complexity?
Collusion
We know from the evidence that there were many ongoing conversations between everyone involved in Operation Delhi. These were not just between the Hassans partners but even Gaggero, who brought the complaint against 36N, was in contact with Picardo and Levy.
Was this interference or is this just inevitable in a place as small as Gibraltar? Even if this was just a case of “sharp business” rather than criminality, should we accept this? Are personal meetings between the owners of companies competing for government contracts the best way to manage sensitive deals?
Richardson states clearly that if McGrail was removed because of Operation Delhi it could change how crime is handled in Gibraltar by police officers. Do we want police officers to fear getting in trouble if they “mess with” the wrong people. Do we believe that influential people should be beyond reproach?
Richardson also stated that he believed disallowing search warrants could create a precedent where police are unable to obtain materials from lawyers or other individuals with privileged information. But we know that the UK has an Investigatory Powers Act which allows for sensitive information to be obtained covertly.
11th April 2024
McGrail Opening Continued
Interference
Yesterday, McGrail’s legal team argued where they believe the Chief Minister improperly interfered with Operation Delhi. Let’s go over them:
1) The CM was in communication with Lewis Baglietto about the search warrant (referring to evidence to stop the search warrant with “boom bro”). Baglietto was working for Mr Levy to try and challenge the search warrant via judicial review.
Initial Thoughts: Was this really the right way to do things?
TG thinks that the CM should let the police do their jobs and shouldn’t give advice about ongoing investigations, especially to a close associate and business partner.
Our institutions like the Gibraltar Police Authority and the Ministry of Justice should be able to decide whether the police are acting appropriately.
2) The CM was involved with 36 North who planned on managing the National Security System. He texted the founders to wish them luck and reviewed an email from Cornelio to his former employer at Bland.
McGrail’s team say that this could only be so that 36 North would get the National Security Contract which Levy/Picardo could profit from.
Initial Thoughts: Doesn’t this sound familiar?
Just like in the audit report, it’s clear Picardo thinks he knows what’s best for Gibraltar. But experts, not politicians, should be making these decisions.
There is a conflict of interest between Mr. Picardo as a shareholder of a company, and as the man who decides which companies get contracts.
But we should be careful about McGrail’s argument that profit is the “only” reason why Levy or Picardo might have wanted to support 36 North.
We might learn that 36 North individuals were innocent and the government truly believed this company would do a better job.
Government Opening
Represented by Peter Caruana, the government repeated their view that this inquiry was just about McGrail’s retirement.
We got their version of events which is as follows:
The Chief Minister and the Governor expressed their lack of confidence in McGrail to the Gibraltar Police Authority. Caruana says they had the legal & subjective right to do so.
He stressed that the Gibraltar Police Authority decided to invite McGrail to retire independently.
The GPA factored the CM and governor’s comments but these two were not present when the decision was made. Minutes from their private boardroom discussion were provided as evidence.
Complications
When the GPA invited McGrail to retire they had done so without first allowing him to make representation. They received legal advice that convinced them of the need to withdraw their invitation, which they did.
Since the GPA could no longer act on the governor's loss of confidence, Pyle cosidered using his own powers to force McGrail to resign. He sent McGrail a letter but it mentioned "resignation" rather than "retirement" (apparently by accident).
Caruana states this made McGrail worry about his pension. He provided notes from McGrail who said concern about his pension was a reason he felt the need to retire.
Tying it All Together
So the government's case seems to be that McGrail's decision had nothing to do with interference, corruption or operational independence. Caruana states that the "proper reaction" of a commisioner who is worried about these things is to "enforce the law" and resist them, not to retire.
The Government also argue that since it was purely the interim governor's actions which led to McGrail's removal - the CM's connections are irrelevant, unless they want to claim he was manipulating the governor "like a puppetmaster".
10th April 2024
McGrail Opening
The lawyers for McGrail have stated firmly that the only reason for his treatment by the Governor and the Chief Minister was the search warrant which the RGP attempted to execute on James Levy.
They describe this as having created a ‘massive gravitational pull’ and refer to the government’s other complaints about McGrail as a ‘smokescreen’.
Powers and Responsibilities
McGrail’s lawyers have argued that the governor and the Chief Minister acted beyond their powers: interfering with the RGP’s leadership and interfering with a police investigation.
They claim McGrail was punished for simply carrying out his role and that he did not receive a fair chance to respond to the complaints made against him.
9th April 2024
What was “the alleged conspiracy to defraud”?
Central to this inquiry is the alleged hacking/alleged ‘conspiracy to defraud’ the national security system managed by Bland Group by a company called 36 North.
What we know so far:
- Bland were in a dispute over whether they or the government owned parts of the national security system.
- Thomas Cornelio, the man alleged to have hacked the National Security System was the former CTO of Bland Group.
- 36 North is part owned by the partners (shareholders) of Hassans including James Levy and Fabian Picardo.
- 36 North had business plans which referenced managing the National Security System.
The RGP believed that someone had tried to hack the national security system and were investigating individuals involved with 36 North.
Three men, including Bland’s former CTO were arrested but the prosecution was stopped in 2022 by the Attorney General.
Many facts weren’t made public by previous hearings so there’s still so much that we don’t know. This hearing should help us learn:
- Was the security system really hacked?
- Was anyone from 36 North or Hassans involved?
- Did McGrail/the RGP investigate appropriately?
Who’s Testified So Far?
The Royal Gibraltar Police
Represented by Nick Cruz. He stated the RGP had always acted in line with their guidelines and principles. Asserted that the governor had acted outside of his role: describing the decision to push for McGrail’s retirement as inelegant, hasty, inappropriate and colonialist.
Argued that this and the government’s actions had hurt the RGP’s independence.
Former Superintendent Richardson
The officer who led the Operation Delhi Investigation. From his submission we learned more about why the police believed there was a conspiracy to defraud Bland and how that would favour 36 North (part-owned by Hassans partners). Mr Richardson felt that the Attorney General was more concerned with “placating” Mr Levy than with finding the truth.
Gibraltar Police Association
We heard the opening statement from James Neish, lawyer for the GPA. Their statement highlighted that they knew very little about the incidents we covered yesterday about the arrest of MoD staff. They claimed it was the Chief Minister and Interim Governor who made the initial decision to ask McGrail to retire.
8th April 2024
Introduction
We’re kicking off our coverage with a brief explainer of the main purposes of the inquiry.
The government claims that it lost confidence in McGrail following a series of incidents being detailed today. McGrail says he was made to retire because the government wanted to protect “powerful individuals” after he requested and acted on a search warrant at Hassans and the home of James Levy (senior partner at Hassans).
As the inquiry goes on, we’ll be updating this page with you can also follow all of our on our private WhatsApp channel.
Operation Delhi
The search warrant mentioned by McGrail was requested as part of Operation Delhi.
The Inquiry will help us understand what happened in that Operation: whether fraud was really committed, by who, and whether McGrail or the government acted improperly.
What was Operation Delhi?
Operation Delhi was an investigation by the Royal Gibraltar Police. They were trying to find whether the Gibraltar’s National Security Centralised Intelligence System had been hacked or whether companies involved in managing that system engaged in fraud.
This inquiry will help us understand what really happened.
Key Questions
1) Did Bland Group, Hassans or any other group try to profit improperly?
2) Did the government interfere with the investigation?
3) Did McGrail take advice from the appropriate parties before carrying out the search warrants?
4) Did McGrail follow or ignore this advice?
17:10
What does the government allege?
The government allege that McGrail’s leadership saw a deterioration in the standards at the RGP. This included a combination of an intimidating and bullying management style. This all culminated in a 2020 report criticising the culture and leadership of the RGP, showing that only two of eight recommendations for improvement were made over four years
The government have also alleged that under McGrail’s leadership, there were numerous incidents handled poorly by the RGP:
Blocking the take-off of an MoD plane in 2017 as part of an arrest. This kicked off a squabble with the MoD and damaged the relationship between Gibraltar and the MoD.
During this incident the RGP claimed the suspect had indecent images of children but could not find any. When taken in by the UK police they found over 40,000.
The arrest of three senior MoD personnel linked to the case above which further inflamed tensions between Gibraltar and the MoD. This event was more widely publicised and also hurt Gibraltar’s reputation and relationship with the UK.
Deliberately withholding information from the Government.
As a result of the above, the government claims McGrail damaged our relationships with the UK and Spain, that he damaged the reputation of Gibraltar. This is why the Chief Minister and the Governor claim to have lost confidence in him.
18:45
How does an inquiry differ to a trial?
It’s important to remember that this is an inquiry and not a trial. As such the chairperson is using what’s known as the inquisitorial system. It will only decide what the facts were. It won’t make any decisions about if those facts were criminal.
In the Inquisitorial System, a judge actively investigates the case, asking questions and gathering evidence to find out the truth. All parties have a legal team presenting information and arguing an interpretation of the evidence.
The purpose is to find facts, rather than for each side to be in contest.
This is different to the adversarial system where cases are like a contest between two sides (the prosecution and the defence). They present their evidence and arguments to a neutral judge or jury.