The Rule of Three (or Four)

If something happens three times or more, it’s probably not a coincidence— it’s a pattern. Ian Fleming knew it when he wrote Goldfinger: “Mr Bond. They have a saying in Chicago: Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.” Yet, unlike Bond’s creator, the Committee for Home Affairs does not believe in the Rule of Three. At least, not when it relates to the Guernsey police.

At the end of 2023, Home Affairs received a third complaint accusing the Head of Law Enforcement of lying under oath (perjury). But this didn’t seem to bother the Committee all that much. 

“Taking into account that perjury is a criminal offence,” President of Home Affairs, Robert Prow, wrote to the complainants, “[it] may not be in keeping with the role of Chief Officer”. However,  the law and certainly the courts take a much dimmer view. Both consider perjury a “very serious” offence; it can fetch up to seven years in prison. 

Deputy Prow went on to say Ruari Hardy would continue in his role as Chief Officer. And that was that. He took it no more seriously than my wife takes the sporadic shopping lists I leave pinned to the fridge door. 

Home Affairs didn’t think it worthwhile updating the complainants, either. So it came as a bit of a shock when the Committee suddenly announced Hardy’s retirement the following month. Deputy Prow wrote a gushing send off, thanking Hardy profusely for his efforts. “Hmm,” a puzzled Deputy told me after scanning the rave review, “I heard Hardy was fired”. 

Videos of police abuse surfaced on social media not long after. All of a sudden, Hardy was catapulted back into the role of Chief Officer. He dismissed the assault of an elderly cancer patient by saying the officer “probably had a bad day at the office”. And in attempts to justify other bad acts – where a police detainee was left unconscious and unsupervised, suffering breathing difficulties – he went further. 

According to the victim, Hardy brushed aside officers’ appalling behaviour by peddling a bogus story where the detainee had self-harmed. So, in July of last year, another complaint accusing the Chief Officer of lying landed on Deputy Prow’s desk. Surely, after receiving a fourth complaint reporting very similar misconduct, the Committee would finally take action? Well, no. It did… nothing. Home Affairs still pretends the complaint doesn’t exist and refuses to respond to polite chasers.  

Meanwhile, the original Complainants faced more delays and no updates. Nearly a year later, in October 2024, they finally received news. West Midlands police emailed to say they had been informed of the complaint and were visiting Guernsey at the end of the month. Which happened to coincide with Ruari Hardy’s last day in the job. 

The complainants requested a copy of the Terms of Reference (‘ToR’) Home Affairs had provided West Midlands police. This document sets out the details of the investigation. It then came to light the Committee had given West Midlands police incorrect information. Home Affairs had instructed investigators to look into something that had already been scrutinised.  

Investigators were informed of the ‘error’ and again asked for a copy of the ToR. West Midlands police responded: Home Affairs admits its mistake, but nevertheless denies access to the ToR, claiming it is ‘covered under legal professional privilege’.

Yet, in simple terms, the concept of legal professional privilege serves to protect the confidentiality of communications between a lawyer and client – which was not the case here. When confronted with this, Deputy Prow responded in his usual fashion. He avoided giving direct answers to queries he didn’t want to answer: “I can advise that there is no statutory basis compelling the production of a ToR to complainants within the Police Complaints legislation,” he wrote, sidestepping the question.

After 14 months, the investigation finally concluded. Investigators handed the findings to the ‘Appropriate Authority’ for a decision. As you’ve probably already guessed, Home Affairs serves as the AA for complaints against senior officers. Considering police officers get kid glove treatment from the Committee, the outcome of all complaints is a foregone conclusion. Can you remember a time where a [local] senior officer was found guilty of wrongdoing? 

Here’s my prediction: Home Affairs clears Hardy of all charges. Deputy Prow will write the outcome of the complaint; it will be vague, ambiguous, and conspicuously bereft of meaningful details. The Committee will cherry-pick what it sees as the most desirable parts of West Midlands findings, but at the same time refuse to release the investigative report. This will be locked away in a dark room, never to see the light of day, gathering dust in the ever growing library of shady goings-on Home Affairs doesn’t want you to know about.  

Rauri Hardy keeps his State pension and maybe, just maybe, settles comfortably into his new role with the Law Officers of the Crown. 

Home’s professional Spin Doctors (Comms team) will busy themselves spinning and stretching the story as far as it will go. They will create a favourable narrative in a way that aligns with Home’s agenda. The finished product will ping back and forth between Members of Home Affairs and Comms for polishing, before being handed to local media for public consumption.

In the end, nothing will have changed. No lessons will be learned. Allegations of police misconduct at the highest levels will remain buried. The Committee for Home Affairs continues to prioritise protecting police officers, and itself, no matter the cost; rather than upholding the values of justice, public protection, and equity that it claims to champion.

Committee for Home Affairs