My reading of it was that procedure was not followed because there was really no precedent for this kind of suspension, it had never happened before.
In the sense that he was suspended without due procedure on the basis of a half-complete interim report from the Met that only Warcup saw? You only have to read the conclusions of the Napier report to know why Ian le Marquand was bumbling and confused during that hearing:
"I have identified several failings of a procedural nature in the handling
of the suspension of Mr Power, and I will not repeat here the details of matters
set out in the above paragraphs. Whatever view may now be taken of the
substantive criticisms that have been made of Mr Power’s conduct of the
historic abuse inquiry, the basis on which he was suspended on 12 November
2008 was in my view inadequate. There was at the time a lack of hard
evidence against him showing lack of competence in relation to the running of
the historic abuse enquiry. Too much reliance was placed on information
coming from one source, Mr David Warcup."
We know that Andrew Lewis was 'confused' when he told the States how he was 'shocked' when he saw the Met report, because he never actually saw it. Ogley was equally 'shocked' when he didn't see it. He was so shocked, he shredded his notes about how shocked he was.
Ian le Marquand was shocked when Warcup told him how shocked the other two were. And then he had to confront the clinical analysis of Dr T Brain, which is why I think le Marquand was flailing around, because he knew the States didn't have a leg to stand on.
And that was before Power and his representatives were even given a chance to rebut the accusations against him. Which is is something else everyone was shocked by - that they just ran out of time, given three years to do it in.
I used to think that there was a conspiracy behind all this but I don't any more. I just think everybody was so shocked that they couldn't think straight for a few years. Frank Walker was so shocked that he personally amended Bill Ogley's contract so that he got 2.5 years of his annual salary should he have to leave early (how prescient was that?). The meeting at which that happened was never minuted or the minutes were shredded. How shocking!