Can we gauge Grime's competency as a canine handler by his work after PdL?
This is what the enquiry into the Haut de la Garenne enquiry had to say about Grime's contribution at Haut de la Garenne:
3.10.11 We now deal with the introduction of Martin GRIME and his Enhanced
Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD) to Operation Rectangle. Operation
Haven has established through enquiry with the NPIA, that
Martin GRIME was an ACPO accredited dog handler whilst he was a
serving police officer, but forfeited accreditation upon his retirement in
July 2007. We mentioned that Mr GRIME remains on the ACPO
accredited list of experts though his EVRD is no longer accredited by
ACPO. Whilst Martin GRIME’s original contract to Jersey was for five
days, his actual deployment lasted for 130 days.
3.10.12 The forensic review carried out by X of the NPIA
questioned the presence of Martin GRIME on site for such a long
time. X , was informed that Martin GRIME had been
acting as a Deputy Crime Scene Manager to Forensic Service
Manager X , at the request of DCO HARPER. The forensic
review noted Martin GRIME’s lack of formal training or qualifications
to perform the role of Deputy Forensic Service Manager and that to
utilise him in this role ‘cannot be recognised as good practice’. The
review also noted that ‘there was concern from some persons
interviewed that too much reliance had been placed on the dogs’. It is
accepted that dogs are ‘presumptive screening assets’ only and that
any alerts or indications they give must be forensically corroborated.
In addition, it is a fact that there were no concise terms of reference
for the deployment of Martin GRIME and his EVRD or his subsequent
use as a search advisor, apparently with the support of
DCO HARPER.
3.10.13 CO POWER himself states ‘the search dog seemed to play a
significant role in determining whether a specific location needed to
be examined further. I am not an expert on dogs or what they do’.
3.10.14 Again, there is a distinct lack of documentary evidence to show any
intrusive supervision of the SIO with regard to the continued search.
This Inquiry concludes that the actions of DCO HARPER and
Martin GRIME went unsupervised for some considerable time. To
Page 116 of 383
Supervision Highly Confidential – Personal Information
CO POWER’s credit, there is an e-mail exchange between him and
DCO HARPER dated 10 May 2008 in which CO POWER raises the
question of the continued use of Martin GRIME and his EVRD. He
says ‘Lenny, it has struck me for some time that he [Mr GRIME] is an
expensive resource who has more than his fair shared of down time’.
DCO HARPER replied in the same e-mail string ‘to be fair to him
though, he hasn’t got much down time as he is also the NPIA search
coordinator and is fully employed’. CO POWER replies ‘Thanks.
Better understood now’. CO POWER does not appear to pursue the
matter further.
3.10.15 However, DCO HARPER’s reply was not factually accurate.
Martin GRIME was neither an NPIA search advisor nor fully
employed. In his statement, Martin GRIME states that ‘I am a Subject
Matter Expert registered with the UK National Policing Improvement
Agency and specialist homicide canine search advisor… I advise
Domestic and International Law enforcement agencies on the
operational deployment of police dogs in the role of homicide
investigation. I develop methods of detecting forensically recoverable
evidence by the use of dogs and facilitate training’. His expertise lay
purely in the use of dogs in searching, not as a 'search co-ordinator'.
3.10.16 OFFICER X notes that during conversation with X, CO POWER
accepted that ‘the dog was ‘probably unreliable’ and that the dog
handler, GRIME, had too much influence over the enquiry, again,
Mr POWER didn’t say how he managed or dealt with that issue’. This
Inquiry has been unable to establish whether CO POWER made any
further attempts to supervise the SIO in this key part of the
investigation.
3.10.17 OFFICER X concludes ‘decisions should be made based on
professional policing judgement and evidence. When you look at the
facts, the excavation and searching of Haut De La Garenne… was
not justified’.
Page 117 of 383
Supervision Highly Confidential – Personal Information
Conclusion
3.10.18 There are two significant issues in relation to the search of Haut de la
Garenne. Firstly, whether the search was justified and secondly,
whether CO POWER supervised the decision-making process, given
the significance of the search and what it implied about Operation
Rectangle.
3.1019 Operation Haven concludes that the decision to dig at Haut de la
Garenne was questionable. DCO HARPER was not trained to an
acceptable level and, in the case of CO POWER, we note his own
admission that he had no current training ‘in the oversight of such
investigations’. Nevertheless, this Inquiry can conceive why, in all
circumstances, it may have been considered reasonable to do so.
We do not raise formal criticism of DCO HARPER or CO POWER for
their decision to do so. We do point out however, that the decision to
search having been made, the risks in terms of public and media
speculation about police activity, if reported, should have been
predicted and carefully planned for.
3.10.20 The decision to search Haut de la Garenne and the far reaching
consequences for Jersey, its people and its reputation, should have
been foreseen. More thought and objectivity should have been
applied to the decision-making process and managing the aftermath.
We have found no evidence that CO POWER applied his mind
properly or at all to the implications of the search prior to its
commencement. This Inquiry is left with the impression that
CO POWER’s passive acceptance of the opinion of the SIO was
exacerbated by his own lack of experience.
I guess it was outside their remit to research the
true provenance of the 'enhanced' status of Grime's cadaver dog.
