By Jon Clarke and Alessio Ghirlanda
THE leader of Gibraltar has been forced to apologise after he was heavily criticised over his actions in an £8million public inquiry into the ‘forced’ retirement of the enclave’s former police chief.
In a stinging rebuke of Fabian Picardo’s leadership, the McGrail Inquiry found he had ‘crossed the line’ and behaved inappropriately on various occasions surrounding the departure of police chief Ian McGrail.
Today the Chief Minister admitted to ‘lapses’ and ‘failing to be at his best’, as he was ruled to have obstructed a criminal inquiry into a close friend over Gibraltar’s sensitive security.
His actions were described as ‘grossly inappropriate and improper’ as he attempted to pervert the course of justice over an arrest warrant issued for his former boss and colleague James Levy at Hassans law firm.
Although justice did eventually prevail, Picardo’s actions led to ‘regrettable consequences’ over the retirement of McGrail, which was ultimately conducted ‘unlawfully’.
In an explosive 706-page report by Sir Peter Openshaw, which reportedly cost an incredible £8million for the public purse, the government came over badly on many occasions.
In particular, involving the leader’s ‘inappropriate’ behaviour over the RGP’s (Royal Gibraltar Police) decision in May 2020, under Operation Delhi, to arrest and seize electrical devices from the office and home of his ‘mentor’ Levy.
Sir Peter ruled it was entirely wrong to ‘berate’ the police chief over orders to seize important communications of a suspect in a high profile fraud case involving the ‘hacking and sabotage’ of the National Security Intelligence System (NSCIS).
In sharp criticism, the former High Court judge stated: “Even whilst the RGP officers were still at Hassans, with the search warrant, Mr Picardo summoned Mr McGrail to his offices and ‘berated’ him for the actions of the RGP.”
He continued: “I accept that the Chief Minister is entitled to be critical, even highly critical, of the RGP’s decisions, and even of their operational decisions. That is part of the democratic process.
“However, there is a point when criticism risks becoming interference; that point is easier to recognise than to define.
“In my opinion, this is the first point at which Mr Picardo plainly crossed that line.”
He also entirely rejected Picardo’s defence that he was protecting the reputation of Gibraltar, insisting it was ‘far more likely’ he was protecting his life-time friend and ‘mentor’ from being arrested or having his phones interrogated.
He went on to list a series of other meetings involving Picardo, including one on May 12, which he described as a ‘grossly improper attempt to interfere in a legitimate police investigation and operation’.
“That Mr Picardo still seeks to defend his actions, that he thinks that he was within his rights, is not mitigation, indeed it makes it much worse.”
However, Sir Peter accepted that the leader believed McGrail had lied to him over the arrest warrant and that his opinions on the police chief were therefore, ‘in part based on a misunderstanding’.
“This was to have (the) most regrettable consequences as this caused him to decide that McGrail had to go, to which he turned his mind almost immediately.”
The criticism went on, in particular, regarding correspondence on May 13 between Picardo and the Attorney General Michael Llamas in which they had discussed ‘confidential information’ about the ‘very serious offence arising from serious failures of NSCIS’.
“After he had received that confidential information, Picardo should not have been speaking to the lawyer then representing Mr Levy in connection with that suspected offence.”
He continued it was ‘doubly objectionable that Mr Picardo revealed this information’.
He also slammed the leader for suggesting that one possible way to retrieve Mr Levy’s devices from the RGP would be to apply to the Magistrates’ Court under section 76 of the Police Act.
“Here the Chief Minister is suggesting to the lawyer of a man who was then suspected of serious crime, involving the security systems protecting Gibraltar, how he might retrieve his client’s mobile from the police, so as to prevent the police from interrogating it, which they were very anxious to do.
“Again, one only needs to set out this proposition to demonstrate its gross impropriety.”
Sir Peter went on to slam the information given to Mr Levy as a ‘grossly improper disclosure of confidential material, which he must have known, and intended, might assist his defence to the detriment of the prosecution.”
He also drew attention to a shady meeting between Mr Levy and fellow Hassans employee Mr Baglietto that took place at Picardo’s home on May 16.
He criticised the fact the Chief Minister had not disclosed the meeting until very shortly before the Inquiry’s hearing and then ‘later said he did not recall this meeting when drafting his Third Affidavit’.
“I find his explanation implausible,” ruled Sir Peter. “A personal meeting with two of his great friends (and two fellow partners of Hassans), Mr Levy and Mr Baglietto, at this time of Mr Levy’s personal crisis, when Mr Picardo was already making moves against Mr McGrail, during the height of the Covid pandemic, would surely be highly memorable.
“I conclude that he deliberately did not disclose the fact of this meeting until his Third Affidavit (and even then he did not directly reference or give evidence about the meeting in the body of that Affidavit), because he knew that others would find it to be deeply inappropriate.”
He added that Mr Levy had also not disclosed the meeting in any of his earlier statements either. “I conclude that he also knew that it was entirely inappropriate that he was meeting Mr Picardo, in secret, to discuss the police investigation.”
And there is more, when he ruled that ‘after midnight’ on May 18 Picardo ‘came up with yet another idea’: That the attorney general might ‘exercise his constitutional power to take over and continue the search warrant proceedings against Mr Levy’.
“To my mind this is another grossly improper attempt by Mr Picardo to interfere in an active criminal investigation by the RGP, to protect his friend and mentor, James Levy.”
READ MORE: UK and Spain seal historic post-Brexit deal on Gibraltar after years of talks
In the landmark ruling, Sir Peter went on to make a series of recommendations for the enclave moving forwards to prevent future failures. A large section involves ‘conflicts of interest’.
In conclusion he stated that Ian McGrail had been forced to retire over a series of reasons including ‘procedural unfairness’, ‘improper pressure he felt he was being put under’ and his understandably worsening mental health.
He also ruled that a process of removing him via the Gibraltar Police Authority (GPA) was ‘fundamentally flawed’ and the body had made ‘serious mistakes’, for which it cannot escape criticism.
This morning, Picardo, who has been on sick leave due to an eye operation, made a lengthy statement on the report.
He admitted he was ‘open to criticism’ on the events and was ‘genuinely sorry’.
“I apologise to you if you feel my actions were not up to the standard you expect of me as your Chief Minister,” he said.
“I am genuinely sorry if you feel I failed you. If I failed to be at my very best on some of those days, I ask you to forgive those lapses.
“In doing so, I would ask you to recall that these events did not happen in a vacuum. These events happened against a backdrop of massive national crisis.
“At that time, in May 2020, we were still working on stopping the spread of COVID and preventing what were initially expected to be thousands of deaths.
“Being Chief Minister is never easy. But those were hard and dark days. Harder and darker than ever before or ever since.”
The Olive Press has reached out for comment from both Ian McGrail and his lawyers.
Click here to read more Gibraltar News from The Olive Press.
