#Jsy2014 – The Government You Deserve

This is a picture of Philip Ozouf.

Philip Ozouf – the first finance & economics politician in Jersey’s modern history to have generated and presided over a budget deficit. That’s a fail, Phil.

Philip Ozouf – the first finance & economics politician in Jersey’s modern history to have generated and presided over a budget deficit. That’s a fail, Phil.

Philip Ozouf is so utterly toxic – so Machiavellian, divisive and maddened with petty hatreds, arrogance & calculating duplicity – that his reputation goes before him. Even many of those in Jersey who don’t maintain a keen interest in local politics have a sense of the poisonous cloud which envelops him.

Those more familiar with Jersey politics know the truth even better.

The labyrinthine plottings and triangulations of Phil Ozouf  – the schemings, manipulations, betrayals, brattish sense of entitlement and delusional megalomania that surrounds him and his courtiers  – boils away in the corridors of power like some dark carcinoma in the heart of the Jersey polity.

But – this is Jersey. So the average stake-holder in the island – well, at least those that matter, like the wealthy, the moneyed, the land-owners, lawyers and rentiers – have cared not that Ozouf poisons all he touches and endarkens every administrative endeavour. All such things were forgivable – indeed, just fine, actually – provided he delivered on one thing. That thing was being the Safe Pair Of Hands on Jersey’s purse-strings.

Philip Ozouf had one job – and one job only: to deliver calm, reliable stability to Jersey’s taxation, economic and financial environment. The one job that mattered in particular: managing Jersey’s public finances.

He failed.

And not just a little bit.

He has failed on a sustained basis – failed year after year.

Failed so badly – he is the first ever politician in Jersey’s modern history with responsibility for public finances – to have presided over a budget deficit.

And not just a little deficit.

A £95 million deficit.

With – in truth – no sign of that going away – and no plan B.

He has been involved in managing Jersey’s public finances, in one capacity or another, during most of his time as a States member – and he has failed throughout.

He has failed from back in the days of the old Finance & Economics Committee – from back in the mid-2000s – when he was involved in producing and driving through the policies which saw Jersey surrendering most of its then taxation base – company taxation – with no real, competent idea how that would be replaced.

And in particular, getting Jersey’s taxation policies right really, really mattered from 2004, when international pressure against Jersey’s tax-shelter fiscal regime became very intense.

2004 to 2014  – and here we are – with  a public-spending black-hole, a diminished tax-base, growing international pressure against off-shore finance activities, debt, creative-accounting  – and a £95 million budget deficit.

Philip Ozouf stands – with this smoking wreckage at his feet. It is his deficit  – his failure.

For it is not as though the various challenges – the problems, the risks, and the many diverse possible policy responses – were unforeseeable.

They were foreseen, foreseen by me and others.

We told you so.

The detailed proposition and accompanying report I reproduce below was written by me, and taken to debate in the Jersey parliament ten years ago – 2004. What I did was identify a number of the problems, issues, challenges and possible solutions, and I asked the Jersey parliament to simply undertake a detailed, evidenced, public study. Naturally, the Jersey parliament being what it is, the proposition was rejected, so the research-tasks I identified were never undertaken.

Philip Ozouf was at the forefront of opposing the report & proposition I reproduce below – and now he – and sadly, Jersey – confronts the consequences of the strategic failure to competently address economic and taxation policy.

Philip Ozouf had only, really, one task in the polity – competently managing public finances. And he didn’t even get that right.

Philip Ozouf is so toxic – such a foul source of division, suspicion, disunity & petty self-interested wars, that it will – actually – take generations to heal the conflicts and divisions he has sown in the Jersey body-politic.

Just as it will take generations to fix the catastrophic mess Philip Ozouf has made of Jersey’s public finances.

Stuart Syvret

Taxation Policies: A Transparent Inquiry
Report & Proposition written by Stuart Syvret 2004
Rejected by the Jersey parliament 2004.  


THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion –

that before asking the States to consider its taxation proposals the Finance and Economics Committee be required, in co-operation with other Committees of the States and States members, to undertake a transparent enquiry into the taxation policies of the Island, and specifically –

(a) to commission and make available to all States members an independent risk assessment of the Committee’s tax proposals with particular reference, but not limited to, the likely acceptability of the proposed rate of 0% corporation tax to the European Union and the OECD over the medium and long term;

(b) in co-operation with other Committees of the States to investigate and report upon the likely social and economic impacts of the taxation proposals contained in the Finance and Economics Committee document “Facing up to the Future”, with particular reference, but not limited to, the effects upon –

(i) individuals and families across both income and wealth spectrums;

(ii) the cost of living in the Island;

(iii) the labour market and employment trends;

(iv) local businesses;

(v) population trends;

(vi) States’ income;

(vii) the provision of services by the States, and the likely future role of ‘user pays charges’;

(c) to produce and publish a strategic analysis of the risks, effects, opportunities and economic alternatives faced by the Island in a potential post-financial services industry future, such analysis to include positive strategic proposals for the community should such an outcome occur;

(d) to produce and make available to all States members a list of all reports, advisory notes and analysis produced either in whole or in part at public expense, concerning taxation and economic issues during the last 10 years;

(e) to produce and publish a plain English description of all tax planning/avoidance mechanisms and devices available under the present taxation regime, such description to include, as far as possible, an estimate of the tax foregone;

(f) to produce and publish a plain English description of all tax planning/avoidance mechanisms and devices that might be available under the proposed regime, such description to include, as far as possible, an estimate of the tax potentially foregone;

(g) to produce and publish a detailed examination of the opportunities for applying wealth taxes, including, but not limited to, capital gains tax;

(h) to produce and publish a detailed analysis of the fiscal impacts and opportunities presented by the Island’s accommodation industry, such analysis to include –

(i) a detailed consideration of the flow of public money into the accommodation industry,

(ii) a detailed description of the tax planning/avoidance mechanisms available to and furnished by the accommodation industry, such description to include, as far as possible, an estimate of the amount of tax revenue foregone in unlimited interest tax relief to activity within the accommodation industry,

(iii) a detailed examination of the opportunities for applying capital gains tax to the accommodation industry,

(iv) a detailed examination of the opportunities for applying development taxation to the accommodation industry,

(v) a detailed examination of the opportunities for applying commercial property taxes to the accommodation industry, and such examination to take into consideration potential reforms to the parish rates system,

(vi) a detailed examination of the opportunities for applying a Land Valuation Tax, and such examination to take into consideration potential reforms to the parish rates system;

(i) to produce and publish a detailed examination of the opportunities and effects of potential taxes and charges upon the labour market, such examination to include, but not be limited to –

(i) payroll taxes upon employers, taking into account potential sectoral variations,

(ii) a training levy, taking into account potential sectoral variations,

with such examination to include the potential reform of the Social Security system;

(j) to produce and publish a detailed examination of the opportunities and effects of introducing sectoral taxes, such examination to include, but not be limited to, utility taxes;

(k) to produce and publish a detailed examination of the potential opportunities and effects of environmental taxation;

(l) to produce and publish, on the basis of both existing information and information produced as a result of the above proposals, a full menu of all taxation options to facilitate informed public debate.



From time to time political discourse in the Island is gripped by issues that seem of great significance at the time. Occasionally the subject may be a single issue, the apparent significance of which can quickly fade. With other subjects, the issue may be of more lasting importance to the community; the process of reforming our system of government may fall into this category. Yet even that subject, consuming as it has vast amounts of political time and effort, almost pales into insignificance compared to the future of the Island’s economy.

The security and confidence people have in their lives, for their families and subsequent generations, depends upon their financial security, which in turn depends upon the economy. This is certainly reflected in public interest. Few subjects can ignite impassioned public concern as surely as matters of money.

Since the publication of the report of the Finance and Economics Committee, and the accompanying report by consultants, ‘OXERA’, I have discussed tax and spend issues with people from all parts of the community – parents, students, professionals pensioners, working people from all walks of life. What I have found most striking when speaking with people is their shared perception – admittedly expressed in different ways – that we, that is the States and the broader community, don’t fully understand the issues; we don’t really know what is happening and we’re not in a position to take a sober look at all of the possibilities facing the community. And that perception is accurate.

I have spoken to people working in the finance industry, all of whom have expressed some degree of concern at what is being proposed, sometimes for differing reasons. Virtually all of these conversations have involved people asking me what I – and my fellow States members – make of x or y possibility? What do we think of doing A versus B? What analysis has been undertaken into this or that scenario?

The shocking truth is that I, along with most other States members, am simply in a state of virtual ignorance when confronted with these types of hard questions which go to the very heart of the future of our community – its ability to survive economically.

Can it be acceptable that, when making the most significant changes to Jersey’s tax structure since the introduction of income tax in 1928, most members of our government, upon whom our community are depending to make the right choices, could not honestly begin to speak in an informed way about most of the issues raised in this proposition or the Finance and Economics Committee’s proposals? It is not acceptable.

The extensive proposition above represents an amalgam of the ideas, fears, questions and concerns put to me by Islanders over recent weeks, as well as some thoughts of my own. It will perhaps be argued that the tasks required by the proposition are extensive and perhaps therefore too demanding. It simply cannot be so. Surely much detailed work relating to the very questions posed in the proposition must have already been undertaken? How else can such a narrow set of proposals as the preferred option of the Finance and Economics Committee be so confidently espoused, if not from a position of great knowledge? If these questions and issues can occur to many people from all parts of our community, the Island’s government cannot continue without addressing them. To do so would be to willingly embrace a state of ignorance whilst making the most important decisions faced by the community for many decades. We cannot proceed on that basis. The proposition requires the Finance and Economics Committee to work on these tasks in co-operation with other States Committees and States members. Only by embracing such teamwork and co-operation can we fully address this major challenge.

I address each part of the proposition below.


There is no evidence in the furnished documentation that a detailed risk analysis has been undertaken. Have representatives of Jersey sat down with representatives of the European Union and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and spoken with them? Have we put our proposed 0%/10% structure before them and asked if it is likely to satisfy them in the medium and long-term? We know from recent communications that representatives of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man have been in detailed negotiations with the E.U. Commission’s legal advisers concerning the status of Protocol 3 in the context of the proposed new European Constitution. If this type of detailed negotiation can give us long-term security as far as our present Protocol 3 rights are concerned, has there been a similar negotiating process concerning 0%/10%? If so, what was the outcome? What is the long-term prognosis? If such negotiation has not taken place, why not?

It seems essential that the European Union must accept that it meets their requirements that a Jersey company owned by a Jersey person be taxed differently from a Jersey company owned by a non-Jersey person. If the E.U. does not accept this position – then the entire scheme falls flat on its face. After all what’s really the difference between these proposals and that which prevails now, when Jersey people pay more tax on Jersey companies than non-Jersey people do?

Having spoken to people in the finance industry, the more optimistic of them imagine that the 0%/10% proposals will keep the wolves of external pressure from our door for up to 10 years. The less optimistic give it 5 years. Where is the risk analysis? There is a real risk that growing international pressure upon what are claimed to be “harmful tax practices” will eventually dramatically reduce the scope and scale of the finance sector. The Democratic candidate for President of the United States, Senator John Kerry, has publicly promised to crack down on Britain’s tax havens. The Massachusetts Senator is known to take a tough line on ‘offshore’ activities, promising to tackle the British overseas dependant territories of Bermuda and the Cayman Islands within 500 days of taking office. Whilst some may not perceive this as a particular threat – at this time – to the Crown Dependencies, the international trend is plain.

And what are we to make of the supposed “20% means 20%” rule robustly espoused by the documents in certain sections, when other sections freely accept that “20% means 20%” won’t be the deal faced by the particularly wealthy with their negotiated settlement arrangements? What are professional individuals and couples who will be dramatically hit by the proposals to make of this outcome? What risk assessment has been made of the social and labour market impacts? Will it be the case that those hit by the “20% means 20%” rule will leave the Island, or is it in fact anticipated that the rule can be avoided in order to keep those key people whose services are essential?

What of the impact of the regressive and inflationary nature of many of the proposals? Already high-street prices are generally higher than the Isle of Man, and they have a 17.5% VAT rate. Has recent research been done as to why our prices are so much higher? If not, why not? Even if it were proven that the Island’s market could in fact absorb some form of sales tax, would not its introduction have to wait until the Competition Law had been introduced and its capacity to reduce prices had been observed and proven?

Given that inflation has long been acknowledged as a significant problem in Jersey there is every likelihood that the introduction of a sales tax will have a higher inflationary impact than indicated in the reports. No attempt appears to have been made to accurately assess the cost burden upon small businesses of the introduction of a sales tax. It is important to recognise that a General Sales Tax (GST) is not the same as VAT. As a consequence it could really increase costs for local businesses. Nor does there seem to be any serious appraisal of the costs of administering this tax both by the States and by business, to determine whether a 5% rate would actually contribute serious revenue, and at what cost, to the States.

Nor has any serious attempt been made to analyse the impact of the introduction of such a tax upon the Tourism industry which has already been decimated by, amongst other factors, inflationary pressure in Jersey, making the Island an expensive destination. Given this impact, how seriously are we to take the asserted wish to broaden the economic base of the Island? This is without even considering the highly regressive nature of many of the proposals and the consequent impact upon ordinary people. This last point has to be of particular concern, given that we already face central London living costs, and it is simply impossible to guarantee that – once the psychological barrier of introducing such a tax has been overcome – we will not eventually find ourselves with a 17.5% rate, matching that of the U.K., just like the Isle of Man.

Given there are a variety of down-sides to the proposals, surely the least we must demand is a thorough risk-analysis which assesses whether the measures have any likelihood of actually working in the long-run?


The preferred option of the Finance and Economics Committee would clearly have a number of very significant impacts. Some of these may be obvious; others less so. Would it really be acceptable for the Island’s government to agree to the introduction of such dramatic changes in its tax policies without an analysis of the impacts and effects of such policy changes – especially as many of them will be irreversible?

Much ad-hoc analysis and comment from different quarters has already identified some of the likely impacts and effects, but we cannot rely for guidance on this most important of subjects upon fragmented, individual attempts to assess specific effects. The community of Jersey already faces central London living costs – and these are inescapable in an island environment where we cannot commute to a cheaper region. What effect will the regressive nature of these proposals have upon the less well-off in our community? Economically, how many more expensive state interventions will be required to enable ordinary working people to simply live in their Island?

The issue is clear; a variety of effects and impacts will flow from these – and in fairness, any other – significant changes to our tax structure. The Island’s government simply has no choice other than to assess and quantify as far as possible the consequences of such policy changes.


Whatever the future may actually hold, there is clearly a very real risk that the financial services industry could cease to be a significant part of the Island’s economy. Even some people in the industry will privately acknowledge that its days may be numbered. There are several, clearly identifiable factors that could drive ‘offshore’ to near extinction as far as Jersey is concerned.

The most well-known of these is external pressure at a national or international level. The Island has been extensively criticised in the past by authorities in other jurisdictions for allegedly facilitating money-laundering. Whilst the Island does now co-operate on this matter with other authorities, and has had in place for some time now ‘all crimes money laundering legislation’, still external criticism and pressure remains, for new reasons. Now the target is “harmful tax practices”. The OECD and the European Union have both demonstrated their hostility to what they perceive as “harmful tax competition”. A major factor in driving the 0%/10% proposals has been the need to attempt to satisfy the E.U. requirement of equal treatment of resident and non-resident entities. However, as explained previously, there is a very real possibility that the 0%/10% proposal will not placate the E.U. Indeed, it seems likely that the only reason the 0%/10% proposal could be said to ‘legally’ meet the E.U. requirement is poor drafting and lack of foresight on the part of the E.U. team who prepared their position document. Let us be clear; the objective of the government forces behind the E.U. pressure is to stop what they perceive to be a haemorrhaging of tax revenue to offshore jurisdictions. They are most unlikely to forego this objective simply because of some legalistic jiggery-pokery on the part of the Crown Dependencies.

Competition with other jurisdictions could render the whole exercise futile. We are already engaged in a race to the bottom with Guernsey and the Isle of Man. Competing against other jurisdictions on this basis is clearly a game that none of the communities can win. Where does the concept of tax competition end? How are we to know that 0% will satisfy our clients? How long before the “look through” provision seems excessive in terms of ‘operating costs’ in comparison to other jurisdictions? It can only be remarked that it is quite extraordinary and bizarre that there appears to have been no attempt by the ruling elites in any of the 3 Crown Dependencies to engage in a non-competition treaty or convention. The 0% race to the bottom can clearly have only one outcome and that is economic harm to the 3 communities, greater social hardship, a significantly greater transfer of the tax burden on to the shoulders of ordinary people – and, of course, a significant reduction in real tax-take from Island businesses, and the elites who own them due to greatly increased opportunities for tax planning. Though, naturally, this last outcome is purely co-incidental.

Another factor that must be faced is the growing international influence of anti-offshore campaigns. A number of highly respected NGOs are now openly critical of ‘offshore’ facilitated tax avoidance. For example OXFAM has produced an extensive report identifying a vast cash loss from developing countries to offshore centres. They claim that the ability of corporations and corrupt elites to use offshore to “launder profits” is contributing dramatically to the plight of the world’s poor. This pressure can only grow as it is not only an issue to developing countries. With aging populations and ever more costly social infrastructure, developed nation states are increasingly aware of the need to capture tax revenue for their own populations, especially when having to contend with an international trend to lower taxes due to the mobility of capital and globalisation. It may simply be the case that nations and blocs such as the E.U. will simply have no choice other than to shut out of the game small jurisdictions that specialise in tax avoidance. And no matter how much we may correctly protest that they’re not applying a level playing field, they are unlikely to be deflected. We can get some measure of the growing international hostility to offshore from the fact that the Democratic candidate in the U.S. Presidential elections John Kerry, has made anti-offshore commitments as part of his election platform.

When considered in this light the 0%/10% proposals look more and more like a short-term palliative measure and less and less like the required structural re-configuration of the Island’s tax structure. If there is a real risk of the 0%/10% proposals doing little more than buying us a few years’ breathing space, have we attached sufficient weight to the downside of the proposals? Have we taken a robust enough view of the possible alternatives? Especially when such alternatives may prove longer lived?

Extremely unpalatable as it may be, we simply cannot ignore a possible future without the financial services industry. What would such a loss mean to the community? What would be its impact? How would we pick up the pieces? How would we move on? Quite obviously, the foundation of the Island’s economy is the financial services sector, if that sector were to go, the resultant significant unemployment would lead to emigration and a crash in the accommodation industry, the second tier of the Island’s economy.

So what is of particular importance is the question of what we can do now – whilst the going is good – to prepare, whilst we can, for what may be an economic meltdown, and to perhaps adopt policies in the present, that will ameliorate some of the harm.

It is the purported aim of the Finance and Economics Committee to broaden the economic base of the Island. We must ask how serious an objective this is when the tax proposals seem geared entirely to the interest of wealth-holders, the finance sector and big businesses, and to be actually regressive and harmful to the concerns of small businesses and grass-roots entrepreneurship. The policies advocated by the Finance and Economics and Policy and Resources Committees would actually be counter-productive and damaging to the Island’s post ‘offshore’ opportunities and chances. Our culture, our quality of life, our heritage, our environment – the beauty of our Island, will be further damaged and eroded by these short-term ‘cash in while we can’ policies. The more our unique selling points are eroded the less likely we will be able to build a future based upon tourism, culture, arts, our environment, agriculture, international events and festivals and education. If we do not both finally arrest the damage being done to the Island, and begin to gather wealth from capital rich activities in the Island to invest in our future, we will clearly be acting against the interests of our community beyond the next decade.

Real opportunities exist for real economic diversification, if only our elites would accept it. The recently published ‘Draft Culture Strategy’, an excellent, bold and imaginative document, states at one point –

“The Finance Industry. This is suffering turbulence post 9/11 and as a result of the ending of the dot com boom. The faltering of the industry, and its subsequent rationalisation, has led to decreasing sponsorship for cultural activities. The contraction of the industry and the recognition of the over-dependence of the Island on this one sector, provides the opportunity for the development of the commercial creative industries. For the near future, these are likely to be small scale but will help to diversify the Island’s economy. They will also attract other business sectors.” (My emphasis)

Should not our policies be geared, at least in part, towards developing this kind of future for the Island? Another sector we must consider is the development of a Jersey University. Yes, at present this may seem a distant objective. It would require dramatic investment, expert strategic development and the development of St. Helier as a ‘campus town’. These developments would require an influx of staff and students, which at present may appear problematic from a population perspective – but if we find ourselves experiencing a population decline in the event of a serious contraction of the financial services sector, we may be extremely glad of such an avenue of replacement. With the attractiveness of the Island, its weather, its beaches and nightlife, Jersey could become an extremely attractive destination for a couple of thousand students to spend 3 or 4 years doing their higher education. The development of Jersey University would of course generate a significant range of other business opportunities in the Island.


I looked around the States Chamber during a recent Sitting and asked myself ‘of the 53 members – the people whom have the responsibility of making these most vital decisions on behalf of our community, how many of us will be fully informed? How many States members will have undertaken detailed study of the research prepared at public expense by our departments? Come the day of debate, how many of us will be able to pronounce on these issues with anything approaching real authority and understanding?’ The answer to this question is terrifying.

The plain fact is that most States members have been, either by accident or design, kept out of informed involvement in the policy formulation process. Private individuals from within the finance industry have been given privileged access to the policy formulation process in a group known as FISBAG, in ways that exceed the involvement of most of the public’s elected representatives, who, by way of contrast, receive the occasional PowerPoint lecture.

I have no expertise in this field. I have limited knowledge and I have had little success in gaining unencumbered access to all of the information – despite repeated requests. Yet I get the impression that my understanding of these issues, limited though it is, exceeds that of a majority of our elected representatives. Yet I, if asked for an honest appraisal of my understanding of these subjects, would have to admit it is extremely limited. Can we rush into these decisions without making some effort to ensure we are as informed as possible? Simply, the answer is no. Frankly, a vote against these proposals is a vote for ignorance; a vote for blind paternalism and a vote for ill-informed and incompetent government.


It is probably fair to say that the Island’s economy, its tax and spend policies – and the consequent impact upon the lives of people are the most important political issues the Island has faced for many decades. The present attempt to address our taxation policies represents the most significant change in Island tax law since the introduction of income tax in 1928.

Given that those of us who profess to govern the Island do not possess a party political mandate for a particular set of policies, informed public consent for major policy changes is to be greatly desired. Accepting that, the present process embarked upon by the Finance and Economics Committee is manifestly woefully inadequate. How can the community be meaningfully engaged in an informed debate concerning taxation options when most ordinary people have no or little knowledge of the variety of tax planning and avoidance devices that are available to, and commonly used by, people in different wealth brackets to avoid taxation? How many people understand whether different tax planning and avoidance opportunities are available to partners in a partnership as opposed to employees? Should we not have some quantification of how much tax has been foregone by the States over the decades through our previous – and frankly disgraceful – acceptance of the “boundless” opportunities to avoid tax available to company directors? Many of these devices may well be important to the Island’s economy. That might be so, but we must at least have an informed discussion concerning them. Simply asserting that we don’t want to look under that particular rock because the rich may leave, just won’t wash anymore. Ordinary people are leaving Jersey simply because they can’t afford to live here.

Publication of information on known current tax planning and avoidance mechanisms and devices, possible abuses of such, and a quantification of their impact is, and must be, an inescapable prerequisite of informed debate.


The furnished reports suggest that Jersey companies should be subject to 0% corporate tax rate in future. This proposal dramatically intervenes in the relationship between corporate profits and salary payments and immediately suggests that people will wish to retain profits in companies for two reasons –

1: The tax on profits will be lower than the tax on salaries paid to owners.

2: There is incentive to keep profit in the company and then sell it, heavily laden with cash, to realise an apparent capital gain which will actually represent accrued income but which will be deferred income in all but name.

OXERA and the Finance and Economics Committee imagine they have got around this problem by proposing that for companies owned by Jersey resident people the income of the company will be added to the earnings of the shareholders and will be taxed as if it is part of their income. On the face of it this seems – at best – an extremely naive proposal given the fact that the existing tax structure leaks like a colander so we need not strain very hard to imagine that any new opportunity to avoid tax will be used maximally. The opportunity these proposals create for tax “planning” seem enormous.

It is feasible that the potential tax loss from the scheme could be very dramatic. Maybe £40 million of income tax could be lost to the States a year by reason of local Jersey companies and wealthy families transferring their ownership into offshore discretionary trusts in other jurisdictions and by then using various, quite easily conceivable schemes to convert income into capital gains, which when remitted to Jersey would be tax-free. In this way the entire proposed arrangement for adding income of companies to that of their owners could be avoided.

It’s worse than that though. The self-employed are paying £40 million of tax a year according to the 2004 budget and they might see that by incorporating their businesses and going offshore using the devices available in other jurisdictions, they too could save substantial amounts of tax. This added to the possible £40 million company loss brings the total possible tax planning loss to £80 million a year. And this, I stress is on top of the £100 million a year already foregone.

Of course it can be argued that the de facto owners of these companies will need something to live on so the trusts that own the shares in what used to be their companies will now have to pay them something. Under the Jersey tax code this might mean recipients are taxable on that payment in Jersey. This is true, but only partially so. Because Jersey does not have a capital gains tax, if the trust generates a capital gain, and the distribution from the trust is structured in the form of capital, it would not be liable for tax in Jersey.

It is quite possible to envisage other scenarios. Jurisdictions which have lower, or even 0% rates of personal taxation, could suddenly find themselves doing a roaring trade in welcoming expatriates from Jersey. The erstwhile Jersey resident company-owner will be paying tax – if paying anything – in their new host jurisdiction while their company pays 0% in Jersey. It is said that only death and taxes are inescapable. Well, we seem to be defeating the tax part of that equation.

I, in common with most States members, am no expert on taxation. But we have the responsibility to make these profound decisions on behalf of our community. It would be the grossest irresponsibility to make these decisions in a state of ignorance. Before the new tax regime is agreed, we must avoid the mistakes of the past and be aware of every tax planning and avoidance device and mechanism that may be available under the new proposals.


The Finance and Economics Committee document asserts that “A general wealth tax or capital gains tax would not be consistent with Jersey’s position as a location for international financial services, and could seriously harm Jersey’s international reputation.”. This assertion rings extremely hollow, in the light of the fact that it is accepted international practice to have a different capital gains tax regime depending upon resident or non-resident status. Thus the E.U. requirement for equal tax treatment for localised -v- non-localised clients simply would not apply. When considered in this light, a carefully structured capital tax regime could appear to be an attractive option given the current international pressure on the Island. Clients of the Island’s financial services industry could continue to receive a competitive treatment, whilst capital gains made by on-Island individuals and entities would attract the relevant tax – this being entirely consistent with international practice – though obviously this policy would be much less attractive to local business and land-owning elites. Such a policy may require some anti-avoidance legislation to capture the local tax, but probably a good deal less than the 0%/10% proposal. Indeed, in respect of capital gain made in the highly developed local accommodation industry it would probably be difficult to avoid if some changes were made to the rules governing property ownership. I personally would not favour a capital gains tax on profit made on the sale of the principle place of residence, although such a tax upon the residences of the super-rich may be a good way of ensuring they contribute more to society. But we need not go as far as capital taxing ordinary households in any event. There is quite clearly so much speculative and commercial property transaction in the Island that a capital tax on this activity may, by itself, become a highly useful component in the Island’s tax system.

I am happy to concede that, as a non-expert in these matters, there may be reasons why the suggestions above may not be so easy to apply. I can, however, be absolutely certain of this much: The glib dismissal of such an approach in 4 paragraphs, after at least 3 years’ work, simply won’t wash.


Could it be that the hostility to wealth and capital taxes has, in fact, more to do with local elites than the harsh fiscal reality facing the community? Let’s face it, if you happen to be in the fortunate position of having a significant wealth stream – let’s not call it ‘income’ for the avoidance of confusion – and you ask an accountant to minimise your tax burden, one of the first things they will do is engineer your affairs so that the wealth stream becomes just that – not income – but instead a capital accrual and – hey presto! No tax liability because we don’t have capital gains tax in Jersey. These types of capital accrual opportunities have, incidentally, been readily furnished by the Island’s accommodation industry over the decades.

Avoiding tax by finding ways of rolling up income into a capital gain has long been the ‘Great Game’ of tax avoidance in Jersey. There are a large number of ‘wealth-holders’ in Jersey (the wealthy immigrant 1(1)(k)s are, frankly, merely the tip of an iceberg and the pressure on 1(1)(k)s is simply to not do what the existing local rich do). The majority of these wealth-holders [company owners, landlords, significant property owners, professional classes with saved wealth] will have arranged their affairs to maximise (untaxed) capital gain and minimise (taxed) income. In the complete absence of any, even slight attempt to tax this wealth gain, any talk of the proposals of the Finance and Economics Committee being balanced or fair can be seen for the transparent nonsense that it is. Take for example the graph ‘Figure 1’ on page 6 of the Finance and Economics Committee report. The accompanying caption states: “The above chart indicates that only around 10% of household income is available to tax above a (gross) household income threshold of £80,000. As a result, tax measures that are exclusively aimed at households with high incomes do not yield particularly large amounts of tax revenue. The Committee has taken income distribution into account in formulating its preferred option.” It is important to note here the very particular use of the phrase “income available to tax”. What if we were, for the purposes of this exercise, to substitute the word “wealth”, or perhaps “capital accrual” or perhaps “wealth stream not available to tax under the present regime”? If we then considered that in fact under new measures that did bring these wealth streams into a category available to tax, aimed at households with high “wealth” or “wealth streams”, might we then get a rather different picture of possible taxation options?

There is another – altogether less palatable – yet profoundly important reason why the Island must embrace some form of wealth and capital taxes whilst it still can.


The Island’s economy is virtually entirely dependent upon the foundation of the financial services industry. Most of the remaining successful economic activity in the Island grows from it. Without its money in the Island’s economy there would be precious few jobs, hence an exodus of people, a collapse in the property market, and a similar collapse in most other aspects of significant economic activity. Such is the level of dependency upon the financial services industry, that if its scope and scale were to be dramatically reduced in the future, or even if it were to be shut down completely, the Island would undergo complete economic meltdown.

It is to be greatly hoped that such a scenario does not occur; but if it did? What does the Island of Jersey have to show for the ‘gold-rush’ years by way of an ‘insurance policy’? A strategic reserve that would struggle to keep essential services running for one year. It has been speculated, by people with knowledge of the industry, that it may have 10 years left; at least in its present, significant form. The Island’s government must, as an insurance policy, be seeking to secure more tax income now, whilst the opportunity still exists. It has been suggested to me that businesses and individuals with capital assets in the Island, such as significant companies and/or property, will seek to, as it were, “cash their chips” in the form of capital gain generating sales of assets, now, whilst the ‘going is still good’. Indeed, it has been suggested to me that that process has already begun. If people with their finger on the pulse of business in the Island are starting to speak privately in this way, surely the time is now, that the States must introduce at least some form of capital tax. As stated earlier, it is to be hoped that such a scenario does not materialise. But should there be only comparatively few years left of “boom time”, the Island’s government has a duty to secure an appropriate tax-take from what may be a significant cashing-in on capital assets in the Island. Should the financial services industry go, the community would need a significantly larger reserve than that presently available to enable us to cushion the blow. Should the States sit back and watch a potential tax income stream pass by in a welter of private capital gain in the next decade, knowing that times may become much harder for the Island’s people?

The proposals of the Finance and Economics Committee have been described to me by one Jersey Accountant as “A smash-and-grab raid. Pure and simple. These policies have been designed to suit the local rich. The supposed capturing through personal tax on the owners, of the money lost to the 0% has got to be a joke, it’ll be so easy to avoid. And no capital gains tax? Well, there’s a surprise!”


The attitude of the States to the Island’s accommodation industry has been akin to a person finding an elephant in a friend’s sitting-room but only making polite conversation about their choice of curtains. Quite obviously the foundation of our modern wealth is the financial services industry. And just as obviously, the second major area of economic activity in the Island is the accommodation industry – land ownership, rentier wealth and income, property investment and speculation, development activities, the construction industry, associated mercantile businesses, maintenance industries, property financing, conveyancing, the sale and purchase of residential accommodation, the residential rental property market, the sale and purchase of commercial accommodation, the commercial rental and leasehold property market. It is quite possible that the total economic value of activity in this sector taken as a whole over the last few decades runs to billions of pounds – and yet the Island’s government has never approached it as a distinctive taxable entity in this way, preferring to pretend that it doesn’t exist. How great might our reserves be if we had a sensible tax policy in respect of the accommodation industry? How much have we lost? Is it in fact the case that the Island has simply been used as a piece of money-making apparatus in the last few decades, with precious little regard for the community’s long-term security?

No analysis of the Island’s economy and its taxation policies can have any claim to be taken seriously if it ignores the accommodation industry – as the furnished documents virtually have. The Finance and Economics Committee document ‘Facing up to the Future’ – which Orwellianly does the opposite of that – devotes how much analysis to the accommodation industry? In just one paragraph on pages 8/9 it dismisses capital gains tax and property taxes – and that is all the attention it gets.

The OXERA report in 3 paragraphs beginning on page 16 dismisses wealth taxes such as capital gains and property taxes without further discussion. That is obviously a wholly inadequate consideration of such an important issue when the entire economy of the Island is under review.

The Island’s government is about to make the most significant changes in our taxation policies since income tax was introduced in 1928 – and the consideration given to the second largest sector of economic activity in the Island amounts to a total of 4 dismissive paragraphs. This is simply not acceptable.

This part of the proposition and its sub-paragraphs seeks to enable us to develop an understanding of the Island’s accommodation industry. Dramatic amounts of public money, principally private sector rent rebate, flow from taxpayers into the pockets of landlords. There will be other ways by which the state subsidises the industry, for example the below-cost provision of state services such as building control and planning.

The States must at last engage in a full analysis of how its taxation laws and other policies interact with the accommodation industry. At present we grant unlimited interest tax relief on all commercial borrowings. Whilst this may be common practice in other jurisdictions, certain special circumstances may apply in Jersey. For example, the state providing an artificial subsidy, which is what this provision amounts to, is inflationary, indeed highly inflationary in a market such as Jersey’s. We have recently decided to cap mortgage interest tax relief availability to home-purchasers. Yet, if you are buying to let, which is effectively engaging in a commercial venture, and which will always be inflationary in the context of Jersey’s current market – you will still have unlimited interest tax relief available upon your commercial borrowings. At the very least we should make some attempt to assess just how much potential tax take the States is forgoing through its policy of subsidising and fuelling highly inflationary property speculation.

There can be little doubt that dramatic capital gains are made by the Jersey accommodation industry. It is only by the making of such gains that prices can have reached their current levels. Furthermore due to tax planning/avoidance mechanisms it is frequently possible for the industry to accrue its wealth in the form of capital gains which we do not tax in Jersey. Have we even attempted to assess how much capital gain is made in the accommodation industry? It is likely that by not having a capital gain tax, perhaps specifically in the form of a property development or transaction tax, the States is forgoing many millions of pounds a year which we could be raising from speculative activity in the second major part of our economy, the accommodation industry. Instead, the Finance and Economics Committee would have us try and raise millions of pounds through regressive measures like GST raised upon the less well-off members of our community.

The documents furnished by the Finance and Economics Committee are blithely contemptuous in their dismissal of the concept of commercial property taxes or Land Valuation Taxes. Yet, as already pointed out, the accommodation industry is the second major sector of economic activity in the Island. The obvious great economic value of this sector must require that the Island’s government at least examine its taxation potential thoroughly. The decision of the Finance and Economics Committee to virtually ignore this possibility is simply mystifying when one considers the great difficulty in avoiding or evading such taxes, and the comparative simplicity with which they could be raised in comparison with the extreme range of anti-avoidance legislation likely to be needed to prevent the 0%/10% policy haemorrhaging potential tax-take.


The Finance and Economics Committee and the Policy and Resources Committee appear to favour “growing” the economy or “expanding” the economy. This, we are told, is the answer to our problems. This is of course code for expanding the population. Essentially, business as usual. More of the same approach that has been the de facto policy of the States for the last 3 decades. If that policy has brought us to where we are now, why should it work any better in the future? The answer is of course that it won’t if we have the same labour market conditions. If – and it is a significant if – we must expand population to stimulate the economy, we must at least ensure that we take any opportunity to consider the fiscal impacts and opportunities presented by the labour market. Expanding the population has meant a greater demand for state services such as education, health and housing. A significantly increasing population has a financial cost and a significant environmental impact; traffic congestion, waste disposal and development of the countryside, to name but a few. Will we need another reservoir; another land reclamation site? The impacts of economic expansion simply through growing the population are clear to see; this has, after all been the undeclared policy of the States for some decades. If we must go down this path, we must ensure that every possible opportunity has been explored for payroll taxes, training levies, sectoral taxes and variably applying rates of social security charges. We must require this sector to internalise what are at present “externalities” – the on-costs to the Island.

If we do not take the obvious opportunity to make the labour market work for the community we will simply be repeating the failed policies of the past. Of course, simply growing the population will indeed work, as it has done hitherto, for the short-term self-interests of the Island’s business and rentier elites. A regular inflow of people means a regular supply of cheaper labour for your business; it means a regular stream of tenants for your extortionately priced lodging houses; inflation in the property market to maintain to your advantage over purchasers and tenants; a never-sated demand for new housing land, so you will continue to be able to look forward to a fat lump of capital when that farm land you own is re-zoned for housing development; and generally an increasing supply of customers for your shops, pubs and clubs. Whilst such a policy is clearly extremely beneficial in terms of short-term self-interest if you happen to be a landlord, property-owner, shop-proprietor, or local business shareholder, it has not, as presently managed, brought medium and long-term economic security for the community as a whole. What then, are we to make of the possibility of a significantly expanded population, fuelling the financial growth of local businesses – that will now pay 0% corporate tax and whose owners will be able to avail their selves of an even greater range of tax avoidance and planning opportunities? And this whilst the States must ultimately pick up the inevitable extra costs of a larger population.

Unless we make the labour market work for the Island, the prospect of a growing population under the 0%/10% regime will produce even less lasting economic security for the community than it has done to date. If simply growing the customer and labour base available to local businesses was the path to economic security, why hasn’t it worked so far? After 4 decades of this policy?


The proposals of the Finance and Economics Committee apply, in a limited way, the concept of sectoral taxation by recommending a 10% rate of tax upon the financial services industry. Why is the concept not developed further? I have previously addressed the accommodation industry, for example. Perhaps the local motoring industry, which is extremely profitable but also imposes very significant costs upon the States, should be considered for a particular tax rate on motoring dealership franchises?

In other jurisdictions special taxes are sometimes raised from utility providers. Given that we are now beginning to see competition in some parts of the utility sector, and we may yet see privatisations, we must consider the possibilities of taxing this sector, including the possibility of ‘windfall taxes’.


Professing a concern for the environment is extremely easy; we’re all environmentalists now. Yet in the present political climate serious consideration of environmental issues is seen as a rather quaint anachronism. Indeed, the most rigorous and extensive public consultation exercise carried out in Jersey produced the report ‘Jersey in the New Millennium: A Sustainable Future’ an extremely good report representing many months of community effort. Yet so unpalatable was this document to the customarily dominant elites in Jersey, advocating as it did less short-term cashing in, that it was immediately shelved at the very back of the cupboard. Instead we now have the comparatively paltry “Imagine Jersey” process, designed and engineered to ‘manufacture consent’ for policies that more suit the short-term interest of Island elites.

Where is our communal – and irreplaceable – asset of our environment to be found in our tax and economic policies? Virtually nowhere. We still allow companies and partnerships to include excessive and unnecessary vehicles as legitimate costs against taxation. How much sense does that make in an island of limited space and frequent urban traffic jams? Is such a policy responsible government, when our children have one of the worst rates of asthma incidence in the U.K.? Unpopular though it may be, the burdens of leadership must require us to take a hard look at the fiscal impacts and opportunities of Jersey’s manifestly excessive motoring industry.

What will be the effects of yet more, short-termist ‘go for growth’ polices upon both the urban environment, in which most of the Island’s poor live, and on the countryside, which is, regrettably, viewed by many simply as a capital asset waiting to be cashed? The policies of the last 30 years have clearly had a significant impact upon the Island’s environment. Some will claim that a good environment has a cost, and that the wealth-generating activities of the economy will bring environmental improvements. If this were a remotely credible claim we would not have to witness the disgraceful failure of the States to carry out the Island’s millennium project of creating a new Town Park in the heart of the most densely populated, deprived and poorest part of the Island.

Although this will seem an eccentric and irrelevant “externality” to some, we must also consider our impact upon the global environment. We produce more garbage per capita than New Yorkers and we have a liking for gas-guzzling cars of extremely limited value and purpose in a small island. Yet where is any sign of a meaningful carbon tax? Global climate change is a threat to us all. Indeed, some scientists predict a rapidly de-stabilising global climate in which we may see – in our lifetimes – shocking changes in weather patterns; changes that may even de-stabilise society. Should we not at least take a serious look at whether our tax policies can be considered remotely responsible in an international context, especially, as an extremely wealthy society, we are better placed to do something about our environmental impacts than the world’s poor?


Politicians like very much to be able to claim public support for their preferred policies. This is why the opinion management industry features so strongly in modern politics. But could we really even begin to claim public support for a particular set of tax proposals unless and until the public had access to the full menu of all taxation policy options? Nobody wants to pay more tax, yet taxation is the price we pay for living in a decent society. The Island finds itself in a situation where the reality is that we are all likely to have to pay some additional form of taxes. The community has a right to see the full range of options and be satisfied that those increasing tax burdens which may be necessary are being apportioned in a just manner.


The political reaction to this proposition is of course predictable. I could write most of it now. The most obvious objection will be that the task is too large and will take too much time. This objection is easily disposed of. The Finance and Economics Committee, taken with its predecessor, have been working on the present fiscal review for at least 4 years. Prior to that, the Fiscal Review Working Group worked for some years on taxation matters. The issues and questions raised by the proposition are not novel or obscure. These are questions that have readily occurred to people who have contacted me in recent weeks, along with some of my own concerns. Surely much – if not all – of the relevant studies and data must already be available, with comparatively little remaining to be investigated? For if this is not the case, then what has actually been undertaken during the last 6 or so years? And how could Finance and Economics be quite so certain in their policy preferences if the issues raised in the last few weeks by people across the community, issues which are reflected in the proposition, remain to be addressed?

Financial and manpower statement

There will clearly be some additional financial and manpower requirements in producing the work required by the proposals. However, given the vital importance of the work, such outlay is essential. Provided that a thorough and comprehensive tax structure is put in place, the many millions of pounds produced would far outweigh any initial investment.

It should also be pointed out again that – provided successive Finance and Economics Committees have undertaken their work thoroughly – most of the studies required ought to be largely available already, perhaps simply requiring some minor expansion and up-dating.


Where is “Policing” in Jersey?

From:  Stuart Syvret
Date: 9th September 2014  14:11

Subject: Professional Standards Complaints

Chief Officer Bowron

I am formulating a serious Professional Standards Complaint against you in your capacity as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force (SOJP).

The Complaint will also be directed against the Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police – and its senior command structure in general.

Obviously – these matters cannot be dealt with by any systems or personnel internal to the SOJP.

Given the substance and nature of the Professional Standards Complaints – and the very significant overlap with other factors – and the ultra vires / corrupt conducts of various other public authorities and public officials in Jersey – nor can the Professional Standards Complaints be dealt with by any part of the local polity.

I would be grateful if you would provide me with a fully detailed explanation of the procedures you and the SOJP propose to use in addressing such complaints – and a fully detailed explanation as to the procedure I should adopt in making the complaints?

Thank you for your assistance.

Stuart Syvret

Former Minister for Health & Social Services
Children’s Rights & Patient Safety Campaigner
Independent Journalist





The small island of Jersey is a kind of liminal quasi-jurisdiction – not part of the UK – but under British control – in a “legal” and fiscal marriage-of-convenience; a curious status-quo immensely beneficial to the British establishment at its very highest levels.

But the incapacities and corruptions of the island’s polity – the overt rot, and frank danger posed to the public by Jersey’s public administration – is no longer disguisable, and has its most high-profile manifestation in decades of concealed child-abuse.

To this very day, every part of Jersey’s public authorities – the Crown functions in particular, of policing, prosecution and judiciary – are wholly conflicted, corrupted, and pro-actively involved in concealing the concealments of those decades of the abuse of children.

But, you know, in many ways the current disastrous condition of public authority in Jersey isn’t so surprising; the island’s polity isn’t – and hasn’t ever really been – a lawful system.

It’s a Potemkin village – a sham – a fake. Mere painted cardboard, put up to disguise the toxic lawless reality behind.

It is that way – has been enabled to be that way – and is protected in being that way – by the powers in London.

The collection of low-grade spivs, pervert Freemasons, tax-dodge-grifters, shysters in blazers and overt functional psychopaths who’ve been given licence to run the island would be swept away – in certain cases suspended, arrested, in jail on remand awaiting trial – all within 24 hours – if that was the mind of the real powers in London.

In the main legal application to be brought against the Crown, Secretary of State for Justice and Privy Council, I write this: –

“The Jersey judicial and prosecution function is a Potemkin Village.

It is as simple as that.

 With grand buildings, and fanfares, and fancy-dress, and ceremonies and stentorian posturing, the prosecution function and the judicial function – which are so overlapped and cross-contaminated in Jersey as to be indivisible in any credible sense – might, at the most fleeting of glances, give the appearance of being a real prosecution function – and a real judicial function.

They are not.

 The “system” is a Potemkin village.

With a Potemkin court.

 The instant you get up close to it – you see it for the painted scenery that it is. The fakery isn’t even well done. You can see the supposedly solid structures, swaying with the breeze. You go up to them – peer around the edges of the sagging cardboard and paste – and see a few silly old men and their stage-hands desperately trying to keep the painted flats propped-up with a few lengths of 2 x 4 and some bits of string – the images running & melting in the dampness – futile in the hard gale and rain of modernity.”

I was reminded of the Potemkin village nature of what passes for a polity in the crown Dependency of Jersey when reading of the latest abusive and illegal campaign of harassment, intimidation, breaches of the Data Protection Law, and attempts to destroy careers and livelihoods engaged in by one of the Jersey oligarchy’s state-sponsored trolls.

Fellow blogger and anti-child-abuse campaigner Rico Sorda has written a series of remarkable postings which detail the many months of abuse he and his wife have suffered, which included threats to her career & health and that of her unborn child.

The postings – which include interviews with Mr Sorda – and a recording of the troll making one of his many obnoxious and threatening telephone calls – can be found here: –

The most remarkable thing about the postings is the detail and chronology of attempts by Rico Sorda – and his wife – to make formal criminal complaints to what passes for a policing function in Jersey – and the absolute refusal of the Jersey Police to take any protective action towards Mr & Mrs Sorda – to even investigate their complaints – to even have the courtesy to respond to e-mails.

That refusal by what passes for a Crown policing function in Jersey to investigate and protect people from crime is all the more remarkable when one considers the fact the troll – as he reveals in the telephone call – has been supplied with the private, personal income tax details of Mr Sorda by someone who has access to the public’s income tax data.

The politicised lawlessness of the Crown policing function in Jersey comes as no surprise to civil society in the island and campaigners who have sought to oppose and expose the decades of illegally concealed child-abuse.

Whilst national and international readers always find these things shocking, it is simply “The Jersey Way” – local, semi-ironic short-hand for the seething, fly-blown dung-heap of baksheesh, venality, freemasonry, sleaze, fraud, corruption, undisguised criminality and endemic racketeering that forms the reality of life in the island beneath the cosmetics of mowed lawns, flags and ornamental cows.

Why – and how – Jersey is like this isn’t difficult to explain. Again, as I write in the main legal application against the Crown, Privy Council & Secretary of State:

“To understand what follows – it needs to be recognised that Jersey is, essentially, a feudal society; an anachronism that has survived for centuries, no matter the thin veneer of modernity. The Channel Islands were the only European territory occupied by Nazis during WWII whose indigenous power-establishments prospered and survived during – and after – those events, untroubled and unchanged. Much of the manifestly surreal dysfunction – the palpable sense of absolute power and reckless invulnerability enjoyed by the local oligarchy today – can be traced back to Crown and United Kingdom failure to hold to account and clean-up the profiteering and corrupted Jersey media, policing, prosecution and judicial functions in the immediate wake of the Occupation. To this very day – the power-structure and apparatus of Jersey is wholly analogous to a feudal “court” – in which political power, patronage, careers and law-enforcement are in the “gift” of the feudal “court”, its Barons, thanes and its “courtiers”. You are “of” the “court”, or one of its vassals – or you are an enemy of the “court” – and will be ruthlessly crushed.”

When we look at Jersey and what it is, what we observe is an actual, feudal society – with all of the inherent lawlessness – hiding in plain sight – in 21st century western Europe.

That is why a public-spirited, independent investigative journalist like Rico Sorda is not provided with the proper protections of objective policing – and his criminal abusers are encouraged and shielded. By deciding that he was going to help oppose and expose decades of concealed child-abuse, Mr. Sorda inadvertently put himself in opposition to Jersey’s feudal “court” and its decades of lawless failure to protect vulnerable children.

I’m in the same position myself, of course – having been foolish enough to think that a Social Services Minister, with express, statutory legal obligations to investigate child protection failures – should investigate child-protection failures.

I wasn’t, of course, the only senior public official with a duty to child-welfare to be oppressed for trying to carry out those duties; the same fate befell the only good Police Chief Jersey has ever had, Graham Power QPM, who made the “mistake” of believing the absolute legal requirement on the Police to enforce the law impartially, should mean just that.

Police Chief Graham Power was illegally suspended – in what will yet prove to have been a terminal act of stupidity and hubris by Jersey’s oligarchy. It seemed the “perfect solution” to them – a “stroke of genius”. The inevitable reckonings of history were bearing down upon them and decades of the routine concealments of serious crimes – not just child-abuse – were in the process of unraveling – and spilling the stinking entrails across the picture-postcard face of the Crown’s favorite tax-haven. Sex-offenders in the Crown Offices, the routine concealments of crimes in and by public sector departments, planning corruption, corporate manslaughter, battery, rape, child-rape and clinical murders; sleaze, corruption and savage, life-wrecking crimes – concealed in any case involving the well-connected, the powerful or the public-sector. The boil was about to be lanced by the first good, impartial Police Chief in Jersey’s history – so he was illegally suspended by the very corrupt apparatus whose malfeasances were being exposed.

That criminal conspiracy – the illegal suspension of Jersey’s Police Chief – remains an uninvestigated criminal enterprise.

The Jersey Police – now back under the customary private-sector control that historically always operated policing in Jersey – have refused to investigate that crime. The refusal to investigate in this case had a black-farce comic element in the desperation of the cops to wash their hands of the problem.

In order to be able to bury the burial of the criminal conspiracy against Police Chief Graham Power, the Jersey Police under the leadership of Mike Bowron had to maneuver themselves into a position where they had drawn a kind of fake “line” under the complaint, and could write in their records words to the effect the complaint had been “investigated”, found to be baseless, and the complainant notified. To make that concoction of cobblers appear less incredible, they had to find a way of “disposing of the evidence” or, at least expunging all trace of it from their “official” records. But merely “destroying” the evidence – well, that’s a bit of a no-no, in this day and age. Bowron and his cops alighted upon the “genius solution” – of just simply sending it all back to me.

There then follows yet another farce of Beckettian blackness that has seen the Jersey Police make repeated attempts to make me come and collect the copies of the evidence from the Police Headquarters, and have me take it all away with me. Not being a total halfwit, I saw immediately why they were doing this; if the evidence were not only gone from Police HQ, but had actually been accepted back into the hands of the complainant, that would mean they could falsely rig the records with words to the effect the complainant had “accepted” the “outcome” of the investigation. (The Jersey oligarchy are always on the look-out for “genius”, “perfect solutions” of this kind.)

The evidence in support of the complaints of criminal conspiracy behind the suspension of Graham Power was no longer “evidence” – it was “my property” – and I had to remove it from Police Headquarters.

Here is just some of the correspondence: - 

From:         Percival, Jeremy
To:              Stuart Syvret
Date:          2nd September 2013
Time:          14:15

Dear Mr Syvret,

I understand from our Property Officer that you have not been to collect your documents that were provided to the SOJP last year.

If you could drop into the Enquiry Desk at Police Headquarters and give them the following reference number they can return them to you…


Thank you. 


Here’s my reply: –

“From: Stuart Syvret

To:    Percival, Jeremy

Date:6th September 2013

Time:          12:28

Dear Officer Percival

The documents you refer to are my statement of criminal complaint – and various evidential documents which support that complaint – concerning the illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power.

The current Chief Officer – Mike Bowron – has refused to investigate the complaint – and has refused to seek the charging and prosecution of the many evidenced criminals which the evidence and the facts identify.

Instead, the States of Jersey Police under the leadership of Mr Bowron, have sought for themselves an excuse – a “reason” – to ignore the evidenced criminal conspiracy in which the basic rights of many people in Jersey to objective, impartial policing were undermined and abused by a group of powerful, wealthy criminals – including politicians and Crown Officers – who mounted a coup against unbiased policing in Jersey. 

I have been informed that the States of Jersey Police and Mr Bowron “obtained legal advice from Jersey lawyers” – which “advice” – unsurprisingly – falsely claimed that “no criminal offences were apparent”. 

That “advice” is plainly incorrect, false, and a continuance of the cover-ups. 

I formally require to know – who were the legal advisers in question? 

Just to cite one example of the evidence – former Attorney General – now Deputy Bailiff – William Bailhache, made an wholly illegal – criminal – attempt to coerce Police Chief Graham Power into dropping an investigation into planning corruption. This fact is evidenced by no less a witness than the former Police Chief himself, who describes – in his affidavit – William Bailhache ending the communication with the words “so be it!” 

I view the present actions of the States of Jersey Police Force – and of Mr Bowron – in refusing to take proper policing action in this matter, to be a furtherance – and an extension of – the self-same criminal enterprise by which Graham Power was illegally suspended. 

I reject – entirely – the failure and refusal of the States of Jersey Police Force to take these matters forward. 

As far as I – and others – are concerned – this remains a “live” matter – an on-going criminal enterprise – subject to a recorded criminal complaint. 

Therefore, I want and expect the statement of criminal complaint – and the associated evidence – to remain on the record with the States of Jersey Police Force – until such time as the Force is under non-politicised, non-criminally collusive leadership – when the criminal complaints will then be properly investigated. 

I repeat – as far as I and others are concerned – this complaint, and associated issues are not “at an end”; they remain live and out-standing. 

The present conduct of the States of Jersey Police Force and of Mr Bowron will become a component in the litigation against the Privy Council, Crown and Secretary of State for Justice.  

In the mean time, I await the answer to my question concerning the identity of the “legal advisers” the States of Jersey Police Force and Mr Bowron have used in providing them with the “cover” for refusing to take the proper, lawful action, by falsely “advising” that the criminal acts complained of are “not criminal”. 

Thank you for your assistance. 

Stuart Syvret”

Although the refusal of the Jersey Police to investigate those crimes is already deeply serious, one of the more entertaining features of the Police conduct was their refusal to tell me who their “legal” advisers were.

Detective Constable Percival responded to the above e-mail at 11:11 on 10th September 2013, asserting the following:

“I am not at liberty to disclose the name of the Police Legal Advisor.”

This was such an overtly outrageous piece of nonsense, questions were asked in the Jersey parliament of the Home Affairs Minister on the 5th November by Deputy Trevor Pitman. Here is the question – and the wretched concoction of fabrication, omissions and outright lies given in an “answer” by Jersey’s Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand: –

Deputy T. Pitman:-

“Would the Minister inform members whether the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, in response to allegations made to the Police by former Senator S. Syvret relating to corruption, advised Mr. Syvret that his concerns had been referred to a local legal firm and had been deemed groundless, and, if so, which legal firm was utilised and why?”

Senator I Le Marquand: -

“I am assuming that the matters to which Deputy Trevor Pitman refers relate to a complaint made by Mr. Syvret to the States of Jersey Police in May 2012.  The allegations made by Mr. Syvret were not new and were both complex and numerous, totalling some 60 separate allegations.  Inquiries and independent legal assessment by the Jersey law firm Carey Olsen concluded early this year when Mr. Syvret was advised in March 2013 by the Deputy Chief Officer of Police that there was no new evidence to support his assertions of criminality, the majority of matters having already been subject to earlier consideration, investigation and where appropriate, action.  The independent legal assessment was sought by the police from Carey Olsen because that firm had previously been involved in advising in relation to similar complaints.”

Deputy T. Pitman: –

“I thank the Minister for that and for revealing which firm it was.  Could he just clarify, was the information, the decision as it was, put across to Mr. Syvret in writing or was it verbal?  Does the Minister know if that can be verified in any way?”

Senator Le Marquand:

“There was a letter written by the Deputy Chief Officer of Police and that is what I have quoted in my answer.”

The answers given by the Home Affairs Minister are the customary hotchpotch of fairy-stories, self-hypnoses and glossolalia we’ve come to expect as normal in the Jersey Parliament.

Hey – maybe that’s the way Ministers feel compelled to act, these days – given the last time a States of Jersey Minister said anything honest about the decades of concealed child-abuse – he was removed from Office in an illegal coupe led by the culpable senior civil-servants and Crown Officers – and was then subjected to a Stalinist show-trial for whistle-blowing?

So – that’s how it is – within Jersey, there exists no part of the law-enforcement system – police, prosecution, or judiciary – nor any part of the legislature – that is not contaminated – and not wholly captured, politicised and corrupted – and bound, now, to a doomed conspiracy of self-protection – and on a path that only ever leads, no matter its windings, to one destination.

The evidenced – unlawful – conduct of the States of Jersey Police Force on display against Rico Sorda, and against me – and against every ordinary powerless person in Jersey who should be able to rely on the impartial protections of effective policing – is now another entry on the ledger.

There’s going to be a reckoning.

Stuart Syvret



Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming has tabled an “Early Day Motion”, or EDM, on the need to include the Crown Dependencies in the overarching UK child-abuse inquiry. This is the last day of parliament before it begins its summer recess, so this particular EDM is unlikely to gain much attention, but it still places on-the-record the key issues concerning the proper investigation of child-abuse issues in the Crown Dependencies such as Jersey.

As Jersey has sadly shown, these small quasi-self-governing enclaves simply do not have effective checks and balances, or meaningful separations of power. In Jersey, rather than each of the relevant authorities holding each-other to account, they close-ranks against the vulnerable, the weak and against the public interest in order to protected “The Jersey Way” from scrutiny and protect the ruling oligarchy from “damage to its reputation”.

When the UK parliament resumes in September, more sophisticated procedures will be used to raise these issues and campaign for the proper rule of law and real child-protection in Jersey.



  • Session: 2014-15
  • Date tabled: 21.07.2014
  • Primary sponsor: Hemming, John
  • Sponsors:

That this House, being conscious of the numerous cases of previously concealed child abuse in which individuals have been able to use their status as public figures to deter victims and to prevent or disrupt investigations of their crimes, and being conscious that in some cases abusers, and those who have concealed abuse, have been able to use their positions in public office and the institutions of the state such as Parliament and Government to shield them and their wrongdoing from proper, lawful scrutiny, recognises that the dangers of such cover-ups occurring are even greater in small, quasi-self-governing communities than at national level, where, even though checks and balances are more extensive, child abuse and cover-ups by the well-connected have still occurred; notes that a local public inquiry in Jersey into child abuse, the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry, has not gained the confidence of all victims and witnesses; and calls on the relevant UK authorities, the Secretary of State for Justice, the Crown and the Privy Council, in exercise of their responsibilities and powers to ensure good governance, the rule of law and proper administration of justice in the Crown Dependencies, to empower the overarching UK inquiry into child abuse to include the Crown Dependencies.


Gets Into the Parallel Universe of Jerseyland –

Where Even the Corruption –

Is Outstripped by the Stupidity.

“We now know – only by the happenstance of the recent disclosure by Google of a letter (copy attached) – that contrary to the lies of the Jersey Attorney General – and the lies of his friend the prosecuting Advocate Stephen Baker – and the perjury of Data Protection Commissioner, the conflicted Emma Martins – that in fact the Jersey oligarchy were desperately attempting to get Google to shut down my blog – actually get the entire URL removed from the internet – from at least November 2008 – when I was opposing child-abuse cover-ups and questioning the obviously illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power.”

From the Application by Stuart Syvret for Legal Funding – to Jersey Public Inquiry – 22nd April 2014.

“Such an interpretation would of course raise the possibility of a “Government within a Government” in which unidentified and unaccountable individuals exercise power outside the parameters of the law. If that was the case then the constitutional implications would be significant. This would be particularly true in the context of a potential impact on the independence of a part of the Criminal Justice System.”

Former Police Chief Graham Power – writing to the Jersey parliament Privileges & Procedures Committee in reference to the illegal suspension conducted against him – and quoted by Stuart Syvret in his application for Legal Funding.

“I was oppressed and suppressed in my political work – as the Police Chief was oppressed in his work – by conflicted powerful people with individual and collective interest in covering-up the facts concerning their own corruptions and the breakdown in the rule of law in Jersey.

Those same people then set about oppressing and suppressing me in my journalistic work.

Those people are the “Government within a Government” in which unidentified and unaccountable individuals exercise power outside the parameters of the law.

Those individuals are the Crown Officers: – Bailiffs, Lieutenant Governors, Deputy Bailiffs, Attorney Generals, Solicitor Generals, Data Protection Commissioners.

Central to the oppression, harassment, witness-tampering and suppression directed against me have been four factors:

  • The corrupt abuse of the Data Protection Law by a conflicted Data Protection Commissioner;
  • The corrupt, politicised abuse of prosecutory powers by directly conflicted, corrupt Attorney Generals;
  • Police-state abuse & oppression carried out by a captured, corrupted, politicised policing function following the illegal suspension of Mr Power;
  • Political-oppression via Stalinistic show-trials in front of corrupt, conflicted judges.”

From the Application by Stuart Syvret for Legal Funding – to Jersey Public Inquiry – 22nd April 2014.

The Parallel Universe – of the Land of Stupid.

When the long and wretched history of the breakdown in the rule of law in the Crown tax-shelter of Jersey comes to be written – when the festering stagnation of the polity of the island is dissected, the overt rot that gripped governance here will be seen to have had certain defining characteristics.

One of those core conditions is stupidity.

Simple stupidity. For example, the kind of stupidity that can even imagine it being possible for William Bailhache to remain in any kind of public office – let alone be promoted to “Bailiff” – without “the system” ultimately cutting its own throat.  The failure of those in “the system” to see the stark fact that the man is simply finished – finished, or “the system” is – is a level of stupidity that only arises when your polity is, in truth, really nothing more than an 800 year old racketeering matrix.

I mean, you know – this is a quote from an actual affidavit – published – sworn testimony – from an actual Chief of Police – in which the Chief of Police is referring to the behaviour of the then Attorney General William Bailhache: –

“In any event the outcome was that we could not agree, and the exchange finished with what I took to be an angry email from the Attorney General expressing apparent frustration at my perceived failure to sufficiently oppose the criticism of his brother the Bailiff, and finishing with a phrase something like “so be it,” which I read as having a threatening tone.   So far as I can recall, that was the last email I received from the Attorney General.   Not long afterwards I was suspended.”

Sworn, published testimony – by an actual Chief of Police.

You can see how really stupid the Jersey oligarchy is, in that it continues to think the rest of us are stupid. These people think we’re cretins; they think we can’t read – think we can’t see; they think our cognitive abilities and curiosities go no further than having a few quid to spend down the bingo or on the dogs.

That these people just carry on – and carry on – thinking the rest of us are idiots, is there to be seen in their actions.

They think we’re idiots – because they think they can rescue themselves and their system from their swamp of corruption by performing ever more nutty acts of stupidity. And they think we’re stupid, so we won’t recognise their stupidity when we watch them heaping stupidity – upon stupidity.

Stupid – because, like, when the very credibility of your entire system of governance is thrown into doubt by the exposure of decades of concealed child-abuse – the thing you really, really need to do to restore confidence is another act of gangsterism – like oppressing the Social Services Minister for trying to protect children. And, so, when that doesn’t get the lid back down on the atrocious mess, just what you need to do is illegally suspend the Police Chief. Then – when that too proves, for some reason, to have just thrown more petrol into the flames – what you need to do is get expressly & directly conflicted judges to throw-out the Police Chief’s judicial review application. And when – for mystifying reasons – you’re faced with quite an inferno by this stage – what you need to do to rescue your edifice of governance from the flames is order a massed illegal police raid against the leading opposition member of the legislature. And when that – inexplicably – has proven only to stoke the fires – you prosecute the bastard for whistle-blowing, that’ll teach him. And when his public-interest disclosure defence not only destroys the prosecution case – but rather inconveniently shows the Jersey polity to have concealed clinical serial-murders – well, then, hey, no worries, you just deem this embarrassing defence-case “no longer admissible”. Three months into the proceedings. And you make sure you don’t have to worry about the court not agreeing with this action because – hey – you chose and appointed the judge – and she’s already a directly conflicted party because of her involvement in the endemic failure of Jersey’s prosecution system to bring child-abusers to justice. But yet – still the flames rage higher – you’re burning – burning – the entire edifice is going up – the flames threaten you – so, what you really, really need to do now is to get some more directly conflicted judges – to stand the entire data protection law on its head – in a way that has no parallel in any democratic state – and make free-speech and investigative journalism actually illegal; criminalised not via legislation, but judge-made-law. Now, all of that could have been a problem – but you were able to bring in even more of your judges – from outside of Jersey – to give you credible cover. Who will ever notice that one of them simply read-out in court a load of crap written by an improperly hired spin-doctor? And the bloody plebs will never see that the extraordinary conduct of the other one now contaminates the UK Supreme Court – rendering it structurally conflicted in any matter touching upon Jersey for as long as he remains in office. Well, that’s no problem, the FACAWS will ensure no case concerning Jersey corruption ever runs up through the London court system. What’s this? Still the inferno grows? Out, damn flames! This will douse the fires of modernity! A public inquiry! There! That’s what we needed! What finer fire-brigade could one call upon – other than that trusty get-out-of-jail-free-card that has so often been the “insurance-policy” of the British establishment – a public inquiry – reliably peopled with Ourchaps? What – what’s this!? The bastard wants legal representation? Tell him to fuck off!!! It’s our public inquiry and it can do whatever the fuck it pleases! Now what? What? The plebs are going on about the “Salmon Principles” now! Who taught this fucking rabble to read – oh it’s getting hot in here – so hot – the smoke – struggling to see! Somebody pass me another can of incendiary stupid – quickly! Before the fucking proles start citing the primacy of Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention – and all of the associated ECtHR case-law….!

In the parallel universe that is Jerseyland – where the criminals run the justice system – and they jail the good guys – where directly conflicted criminals try and coerce the Police Chief into not investigating them – and when he refuses to be coerced, they organise his illegal suspension – where that’s able to happen – without fear of prosecution on the part of the person doing the coercion – because the coercer was actually the Attorney General and sole prosecuting authority – where, conflicted, bent judges – can jail those who try to expose their corruption – where those who occupy the highest public offices are simply thick – a self-perpetuating claque of dopy cretins with the corporate intellectual advantage of a slime-mold – where people of intelligence – and especially of integrity – are pro-actively crushed out of “the system” – where you can stand human civil society and all it values on its head – if you have enough money and silly titles – in the realm of the Jersey oligarchy where 800 years of thoroughbred anarcho-feudal cretinism is colliding with modernity – what passes for a “public inquiry” into decades of concealed child-abuse issued some statements.

One of which was to refuse to provide me any legal representation funding – de facto to refuse to provide me with legal representation – contra all requirements of settled case-law – and of Article 6 of the ECHR.

Apart from that – apart from denying legal representation to a person who is quite feasibly the key witness into the structural breakdown in the rule of law in the Jersey polity that permitted so much concealed child-abuse – the public inquiry has been busying itself – organising an “open-day” at which members of the public can take a look around the offices and room where the inquiry will hold its carefully pre-structured public-hearings.

I’ve been urged to attend. But as I said in response, “what on Earth” – or words to that effect – “for? Do they have especially nice chairs for me to test? Am I to admire the choice of wallpaper? Is the hue of carpet especially soothing? Am I to raise an appreciative artisan eyebrow at the timbered desks? Are they some marvellous blend of Douglas Fir and Indian Rosewood sculptured, as by wakened hands, a la Jim Krenov? I mean – why? Do these people not grasp that I’ve been repeatedly jailed – and will be again – for seeking to protect powerless victims of crime in Jersey? Jailed by the same collection of child-abuse concealing gangsters and bent judges that stand behind the authority of this public inquiry? I’ve seen the inside of courtrooms during the last five years probably more frequently than most of Eversheds lawyers. If these clowns think I’m ‘nervous’ – that a cosy trip to their office might allay my ‘fears’ – then they simply haven’t been paying attention.”

But, those are my circumstances; I guess it could be seen as a reasonable enough assumption that members of the public – those who’ve never been involved in quasi-judicial or judicial proceedings – potential witnesses like many of the victims of child-abuse in Jersey – might have benefited from seeing the arena.

What a pity, then, that the “open-day” consists of 2 hours on a Monday afternoon – when the vast majority of people will be working.

Still, things could be worse I guess. The public inquiry could have employed spin-doctors with a directly relevant history of working for an organisation responsible for concealing abusers who had victims in Jersey, and could thus – in certain ways – be legitimately seen as relevant witnesses themselves.

Or the London legal chambers involved in the public inquiry could be directly conflicted because they already have clients amongst expressly involved organisations.

Well, thank God nothing that crazy has occurred, eh!?

Anyway – you can read the Committee of Inquiry’s “ruling” – their rejection of my application for legal funding – on their web site. I publish the link below.

They lay out their “reasons” for rejecting my application in a little over two pages. It’s the predictable “lawyers-guff”, so I’ll have to explain it to you. The “reasons” issued by the public inquiry for refusing to see that I receive unconditional legal funding are – to use the technical term – complete horseshit.

Here are what are known as the “Salmon Principles” – the settled, procedural safeguards that underpin the conduct and methodologies of public inquiries. These are not controversial: –

“The Salmon Principles

1. Before any person becomes involved in an inquiry, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there are circumstances which affect him and which the Tribunal proposes to investigate.

2. Before any person who is involved in an inquiry is called as a witness, he should be informed of any allegations which are made against him and the substance of the evidence in support of them.

3. (a) He should be given an adequate opportunity of preparing his case and of being assisted by his legal advisers. (b) His legal expenses should normally be met out of public funds.

4. He should have the opportunity of being examined by his own solicitor or counsel and of stating his case in public at the inquiry.

5. Any material witness he wishes called at the inquiry should, if reasonably practicable, be heard.

6. He should have the opportunity of testing by cross-examination conducted by his own solicitor or counsel any evidence which may affect him.”

Sometimes legal questions actually don’t require lawyers. Sometimes the facts and the law are starkly plain to any person who can read.

This is such a case, which is why the “ruling” of the public inquiry – to refuse to give me unconditional legal funding – in spite of the fact this public inquiry has chosen to use a methodology – to set “protocols” – that plainly defy, and are not in compliance with, the Salmon Principles – merits no greater exposition than the description “complete horseshit”.

My human rights are engaged by these quasi-judicial proceedings.

Indeed – these proceedings could – quite easily and foreseeably – subpoena me before the Committee of Inquiry and demand that I reveal, for example, the identity of certain of my sources over the years. I will not do so.

And when I don’t do so – the Committee and its processes and powers could trigger actual contempt of court proceedings against me – which would – again – involve directly conflicted Offices and directly conflicted individuals – in jailing me – again.

For up to two years.

For two years – this time.

So, you see, I’m not being entirely unreasonable – in wanting a lawyer – when faced with a quasi-judicial body – that has the power to have me jailed for two years – jailed by directly conflicted people – again – but which is not following the settled “Salmon Principles” by which public inquires conduct themselves.

Not unreasonable – in wanting a lawyer who could then advise me on my rights – and the many serious public interest issues that could – very easily – arise should this public inquiry seek to use its dramatic coercive legal powers against me in ways designed to target the numerous witnesses, victims and whistleblowers who have informed me over the years.

Look – if you hold a public inquiry – you axiomatically give centrally involved parties legal representation.

If you’re not going to give centrally involved parties legal representation – then you don’t hold a public inquiry. End of.

What you can’t do, is hold a public inquiry – and refuse to give involved parties legal representation.

Refuse to give them legal representation unless they assign their rights – by agreeing to some fucking “contract” that involves them in surrendering themselves – and their sources – and witnesses – and the public interest – and their liberty – again – to the mercies of an overtly conflicted collection of sleazy and despicable old men who run the racketeering operation that is the Jersey polity and the Potemkin village that masquerades as a Crown judicial system.

Stuart Syvret

Text of the Application for Legal Fees & Expenses Funding made by Primary Whistle-Blower, Former Health & Social Services Minister Stuart Syvret.

Dear Ms Garner & Mr Jones

I write as a key witness in the public inquiry into decades of concealed child-abuse in Jersey and the attendant concealment of the systemic and endemic governance failure by the Jersey polity.

As a member of the Jersey parliament, I had political and legal responsibility for child-protection matters from November 1999 until September 2007. From 1999 I was the President of the Health & Social Services Committee. When Jersey changed its system of governance from a Committee system to a Ministerial system in November 2005, I became the Minister for Health & Social Services.

It is plain – already shown on published evidence – that decades of concealed child-abuse – and associated child-protection failure – took place in Jersey. I became the first ever Jersey politician to identify, investigate and make public these matters.

In answer to a Jersey parliamentary question asked of me on the 16th July 2007, I said this: –

“I have serious concerns, to be honest, about the whole child protection, child welfare standards of performance of Jersey, not just within my own department, Social Services and the Children’s Service, but across the board. I am aware of a number of issues, this being one of them, a number of cases, a number of incidents that lead me more and more strongly to the conclusion that we are failing badly in this area. I am probably going to be seeking to initiate a major independent review into the whole sphere of child welfare, child protection in Jersey. So if you are asking me honestly, do I believe the performance of certain senior individuals within this field and of the departments generally is acceptable, no, it is not.”

I had come to those conclusions following months of my own investigations in the face of wilful obstructions from a number of senior civil servants and the Law Officers who were “advising” them but in reality acting as a “Government within a Government”. You will see that I knew then that only an external investigation would stand any chance of addressing the child-protection failures. I went on to propose that a Committee of Inquiry should be established.

Thus it is that the work of this Committee of Inquiry begins six-and-a-half years after I had intended – in my capacity as Minister for Health & Social Services – that there should be such an Inquiry.

A draft press-release, discussed at the Jersey Council of Ministers’ meeting of the 26th July 2007, contained the following: –

“Thirdly, the Council has decided to accept the recommendation of the Health and Social Services Minister, that a Committee of Enquiry should be established. At its next meeting on 6th September, the Council will consider terms of reference for this much wider review of child protection procedures throughout the States.”

However, unbeknown to me, but known to Jersey’s Crown Law Officers, and certain other Ministers, the senior civil servants were already engaged in an illegal conspiracy to engineer my dismissal. We know that to be so, because they made an attempt to suborn the Chief of Police into their plot during a meeting on the 25th July 2007. The Police Chief Graham Power QPM left the meeting and wrote a file-note (copy attached), in which he said this: –

“BO [Bill Ogley] and the others were persistent and I was left with the clear impression that they were attempting to draw me, in my capacity as Chief of Police, into a civil service led attempt to remove a Minister from Office.”

The above illustrates very clearly two points: –

  • I am not opposed to a meaningful, serious, objective public inquiry into Jersey’s decades of child-protection failure and the attendant systemic and endemic failings of the Jersey polity. On the contrary – such an investigation was my idea – I being the first Jersey politician to have indentified and spoken-out concerning our failures to protect the vulnerable.
  • I am a central witness to those issues.

In addition to the political role I played, I have also played a key and historic role in my journalistic capacity. As an independent journalist blogging at I provided – for the first time in Jersey’s history – a media outlet for the views and concerns of the island’s child-abuse victims – and evidence and testimony from many of them. I also provided – again for the first time in Jersey’s history – a media outlet that was willing and able to publish documentary – public-interest – evidence; evidence of harassment, abuse, violence, battery, rape, attempted murder, murder, the incompetence, ethical bankruptcy & cover-ups that permitted such things and widespread & endemic corruption in the Crown Dependency of Jersey.

The extensive and damming nature of the evidence I have published is such that the extant Jersey power-apparatus is exposed for being a simply lawless entity – essentially, a thinly disguised feudal “court” in which power is abused by and for the “court”, its courtiers, thanes and vassals – and against anyone who dare oppose them. If you are “of” the “court”, you can commit approved crimes with utter impunity – if you are not “of” the “court” crimes will be committed against you and you will have no remedy or protection.

That broad truth is so plain on a reading of the evidence published on my blog that the Jersey oligarchy have subjected me to political imprisonment for blogging and the “crime” of being a political dissident. When that coercion failed to make me remove evidence for their corruption, they took the step of persuading Google to take-down my entire blog.

Of course – with the assistance of international supporters – the blog has been re-established, and it can now be read here,

We now know – only by the happenstance of the recent disclosure by Google of a letter (copy attached) – that contrary to the lies of the Jersey Attorney General – and the lies of his friend the prosecuting Advocate Stephen Baker – and the perjury of Data Protection Commissioner, the conflicted Emma Martins – that in fact the Jersey oligarchy were desperately attempting to get Google to shut down my blog – actually get the entire URL removed from the internet – from at least November 2008 – when I was opposing child-abuse cover-ups and questioning the obviously illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power.

In the course of his battle against that plainly unlawful suspension, Mr Power wrote to the Privileges & Procedures Committee of the Jersey parliament. It is useful to quote from that letter (copy attached): –

“It may be that I have provided sufficient information to enable the Committee to consider a way forward on this issue. However, in the hope that it may be helpful, I will offer some personal thoughts and additional information which may assist.

On a straight reading of the available evidence it may occur to many people that the most likely probability is that the former Minister for Home Affairs [the then Deputy Andrew Lewis] knowingly provided an account which is distant from the truth. That may be the case, but there are other possibilities. One is that he was not the main author of the process. The known facts allow for an alternative explanation. That is, that the decision to suspend was in fact taken by others for motives of their own, and that the then Minister was brought in at the final stages to provide his signature, and thereby appear to legitimise a process which was conceived by others. Such an interpretation would of course raise the possibility of a “Government within a Government” in which unidentified and unaccountable individuals exercise power outside the parameters of the law. If that was the case then the constitutional implications would be significant. This would be particularly true in the context of a potential impact on the independence of a part of the Criminal Justice System.”

I was oppressed and suppressed in my political work – as the Police Chief was oppressed in his work – by conflicted powerful people with individual and collective interest in covering-up the facts concerning their own corruptions and the breakdown in the rule of law in Jersey.

Those same people then set about oppressing and suppressing me in my journalistic work.

Those people are the Government within a Government” in which unidentified and unaccountable individuals exercise power outside the parameters of the law.”

Those individuals are the Crown Officers: – Bailiffs, Lieutenant Governors, Deputy Bailiffs, Attorney Generals, Solicitor Generals, Data Protection Commissioners.

Central to the oppression, harassment, witness-tampering and suppression directed against me have been four factors:

  • The corrupt abuse of the Data Protection Law by a conflicted Data Protection Commissioner;
  • The corrupt, politicised abuse of prosecutory powers by directly conflicted, corrupt Attorney Generals;
  • Police-state abuse & oppression carried out by a captured, corrupted, politicised policing function following the illegal suspension of Mr Power;
  • Political-oppression via Stalinistic show-trials in front of corrupt, conflicted judges.

That oppression has included the politicised perversion of the data protection “law” as a means of state-sponsored suppression of political opposition – illegal massed police-raids – conducted without a search-warrant following the unlawful suspension of Police Chief Graham Power – my arrest, detention in a locked, windowless police-cell for seven-and-a-half hours – the theft of vast quantities of my then constituents’ private data, the theft of my parliamentary-privileged lap-top – my prosecution on the orders of the conflicted, corrupt then Attorney General William Bailhache – coercive show-trials in front of a succession of judges axiomatically conflicted for being chosen and appointed by their friends, conflicted Bailiffs such as Philip Bailhache and Michael Birt – and a succession of on-going political imprisonments.

It is clear – and established on the evidence – that: –

  • I am the victim of a number of criminal acts associated with the improper concealment of child-abuse and the concealment of child-protection failures – and other crimes – in Jersey. Those criminal offences included – for example – conspiracies to pervert the course of justice, and of numerous examples of corruption, and of misconduct in a public office;
  • I am the victim of a catalogue of past and continuing human rights abuses at the hands of a dysfunctional, plainly corrupted and structurally ultra vires Crown apparatus in Jersey.

These are exceptional circumstances.

Having now read the protocols published by the Committee of Inquiry, I am far from assured that this process signals an end to the oppression I have suffered. Instead, I have concerns that it could lead to more of the same.

Not the least amongst my concerns are the range of deeply troubling conditions that are automatically imposed upon anyone who takes up “Interested Party” status.

It seems to me that a number of serious legal issues arise, and that those conditions engage my human rights. I therefore must take independent legal advice. The Inquiry has a mechanism for funding legal representation for witnesses, but that process requires that an applicant must sign-up to Interested Party status first, before legal funding will be granted.

I am not going to sign-up to any conditions until and unless I have been able to take independent legal advice on those conditions first.

Only a fool is coerced into signing a contract, which they can only take legal advice on, after they’ve signed it.

And in addition to the conditions attached to Interested Party status, there are a number of further significant legal issues arising from the methodology and protocols adopted by the Inquiry – issues for which I need legal representation.

Paragraph 2 of the Inquiry protocol on Legal Fees says: –

Applications for an award in respect of legal fees and expenses for someone who is not an Interested Party will only be considered in exceptional circumstances.

These circumstances are exceptional – and I herby apply for legal fees and expenses funding.

I would be grateful if the Inquiry would confirm as a matter of urgency that it agrees to my request, and that it issues to me a formal notice of agreement to fund that I may then use in my negotiations with prospective legal representation.

Thank you for your assistance.

Stuart Syvret.


  • Police Chief Graham Power’s July 2007 file-note re conspiracy against the Health & Social Services Minister;
  • Letter disclosed by Google showing sustained attempts by Jersey oligarchy to get Stuart Syvret’s blog removed from the internet from at least November 2008;
  • Police Chief Graham Power’s letter to Jersey parliament’s Privileges & Procedures Committee.


The Jersey Public Inquiry Into Concealed Child-Abuse rejected the above application for legal representation funding. The text of that rejection can be read here:


And When Nurses Kill in Tax-Shelters.

Realms Without the Rule of Law.

On 29th March, in Manchester, UK, male nurse Victorino Chua was charged with three counts of murder. Chua has also been charged with one count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, 22 counts of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent and eight offences of attempting to administer poison, under the Offences Against the Person Act.

These charges relate to a cluster of deaths and serious illness amongst patients in Steppings Hill Hospital, Stockport, England in June & July 2011. In spite of the hospital management and the police becoming quickly aware of an anomalous death & illness rate, and the rapid launching of an investigation it has taken nearly three years to bring these charges. That’s not a criticism of the UK police & prosecutors but rather a recognition of just how difficult it can be to uncover and map-out the facts in a murder-case such as this; a case when the police are starting from a position when the victims, and the tools of the murders – and the alleged attacker – are all known to have been in the same building – the hospital – at the relevant times. You might think that’s a huge advantage to a police team, compared to other murder investigations, when there may be little, if any, evidence that places the victim, and the weapon – and the murderer – together at any particular time or the same location.

But a hospital environment automatically presents a setting with hundreds of unwell people – and dozens of deaths as a normality of each week. The use by hundreds of staff – on different shifts – of medicines and medical technology, the misuse or withholding of which could potentially harm or kill, is routine. And if anomalous deaths are even noticed in the first place in such an environment, any investigation is unavoidably starting from a position in which there are literally dozens of entirely credible suspects – any one of whom could have withheld those drugs, changed that prescription, administered the wrong medicines, turned-up that diamorphine-pump, contaminated the products, detached the drip, administered insulin improperly, tampered with life-support machines or blocked that lung-drain tube.

The vast majority of those staff will be innocent. One will not be.

But the brute fact confronting hospital management and police is that there might be dozens of entirely credible suspects who had access to the means and the opportunity to harm or kill the patients who have suffered unexpected near-death episodes, or who have suddenly died. That fact distinguishes hospital murders from other killings, in which the police can usually and very quickly narrow down the cohort of credible suspects to two or three people; in fact, usually one person – the prime suspect – pretty easily.

But when unlawful killings have been recognised in a hospital – where there could be twenty realistic prime suspects – where do the management and the police start?

Sometimes, they don’t.

Sometimes very credible suspicions – and eyewitness complaints – and hard evidence – for attempted murders – murders in hospitals – can exist, yet the management not even notify the police.

There is no other profession that provides both the opportunity and the means to murder people – murder perhaps dozens, even hundreds of people – and to do so with comparatively slight risk of detection as nursing.

And that is so, not least because the deaths are hidden in plain sight.

The complexities of such cases are well-summarised by a report in the Manchester Evening News which said: –

“Rachel Smith, who is part of the prosecution team, said: “The defendant has been charged with three murders and a significant number of other serious offences arising out of the investigation into the poisonings of patients at Stepping Hill Hospital in 2011, and further offences relating to patient records in 2012.

“This case is listed for preliminary hearing – the defendant having been charged on Friday, and having appeared at the lower court (Manchester Magistrates) on Saturday.

“This is a case of some complexity – the evidence currently amounts to more than 20,000 pages and the current witness list exceeds 600 witnesses. The collective view is that this case could take three to four months to try.

“The size of this case, its complexity and the amount of expert evidence involved in it is such that it would seem unlikely that those representing the defendant would have everything they need to be ready for trial by September – the next most obvious point to set a trial of this length would appear to be January 2015.

“Engaged in this case are experts to causes and consequences of hypoglycemia, there’s neuropathological evidence, likely pathological evidence in respect of those with whom there are murder charges, evidence from forensic biochemists as to sampling of blood from patients and the interpretation of that sampling, and one of the experts engaged by the prosecution is, I understand, a world-renowned expect based in Cologne in Germany.

“There is other expert evidence relating to handwriting, all of those areas would have to be considered by those who represent the defendant.

“The case may ultimately become ‘was it this defendant who was the perpetrator?’ – or there may be a challenge to the assertions the offences occurred in any event.””

Profoundly serious issues – reflected in the fact so many witnesses, so many resources – so many pages of evidence – are involved.

In the expert opinion and cases I cite below, you will read how sometimes authorities go to extraordinary lengths to actually conceal the fact there may have been a serial-killer nurse in their hospital.

How far can those extents go?

Let me put it this way – I exposed a case in which a rogue male nurse almost certainly murdered at least 13 of my then constituents – in the sample two-month period – and quite probably murdered perhaps dozens of other people – in other locations – over the years.

I was prosecuted for making that public-interest disclosure – and was given zero legal representation – and have had, all-told, well in excess of 25,000 pages of documentation served on me – to which I have been expected to respond – without so much as £50 to spend on employing a lawyer.

And if that doesn’t illustrate sufficiently starkly the extent to which authorities will go, and collude, in concealing clinical murder cases – in Jersey those who prosecuted me for whistle-blowing – and the judges who heard the case – were actually chosen by the directly conflicted individuals.

The individuals responsible for the original cover-up.

It is not by accident that the public authorities in the British quasi-self-governing jurisdiction of Jersey – the world’s largest tax-shelter – have been given such protection and licence to engage in and conceal such utter breakdown in the rule of law.

Were Jersey like Manchester things would have been straightforward enough. But instead the “almost-legal” liminal Crown realm of Jersey harbours too much of the City of London’s client-wealth to “risk” giving free-reign to the rule of law.

Stuart Syvret

Twenty Five Murdering Nurses: A Global Media Survey – Introduction:

The following quote is taken from an article for Crime Library, titled, Angels of Death: The Male Nurses:

“In an article for Forensic Nurse, Kelly Pyrek, indicates that since the mid-1970s, there have been 36 cases of serial murder among nurses and other healthcare workers in the U.S. A survey shows that the incidences appear to be increasing, with 14 during the 1990s and already five since 2000. (The article was written before Cullen’s atrocities came to light, so that makes at least six.) ‘Many experts speculate,’ says Pyrek, ‘that healthcare has contributed more serial killers than all other professions combined and that the field attracts a disproportionately high number of people with a pathological interest in life and death.’”

In USAToday, journalist Rick Hampson wrote of the 2003 case of the male nurse and mass-murderer Charles Cullen: –

“But possibly the biggest reason that some nurses kill is that they can.

“They have access to patients who are often very sick, very old or very young — and access to drugs powerful enough to kill unobtrusively through an intravenous tube. And they work at institutions with an inherent aversion to litigation and publicity.

“Katherine Ramsland, a forensic psychologist at DeSales University in Centre Valley, Pa., has worked with FBI profilers.”Some hospitals don’t want the public to know they had someone like this, so they sort of shove the problem aside” with a dismissal, she said. “But then the nurse gets a job somewhere else.”

In the case of the New Jersey mass-murdering male nurse Charles Cullen, seven nurses at St Lukes Hospital who worked with Cullen later met with the Lehigh County district attorney to alert the authorities of their suspicions that Cullen had used drugs to kill patients. They pointed out that, between January 2002 and June 2002, Cullen had worked 20 percent of the hours on his unit but was present for nearly two-thirds of the deaths. But investigators never looked into Cullen’s past, and the case was dropped nine months later for lack of evidence. It was later learned that hospital administrators had stymied the investigation by not being totally forthcoming with investigators.

In September 2002, Cullen found a job at Somerset Medical Centre in Somerville, New Jersey.

The executive director of the New Jersey Poison Information and Education System warned Somerset Medical Centre officials in July 2003 that at least four of the suspicious overdoses indicated the possibility that an employee was killing patients. But the hospital put off contacting authorities until October. By then, Cullen had killed another five patients and attempted to kill a sixth.

State officials penalized the hospital for failing to report a non-fatal insulin overdose in August. The overdose had been administered by Cullen. When Cullen’s final victim died of low blood sugar in October, the medical centre alerted state authorities. An investigation into Cullen’s employment history revealed past suspicions about his involvement with prior deaths. Somerset Medical Centre fired Cullen on October 31, 2003, for lying on his job application.

Initially charged with 16 murders, Cullen’s involvement in dozens of other deaths came to light. Experts have estimated that Charles Cullen may ultimately be responsible for some 400 murders, which would make him the most prolific serial killer in American history.

The obvious conclusions and concerns in respect of nursing and the opportunity the profession provides for murder were expressed by John Field, an Australian Barrister and registered nurse, who studied killer nurses for a PhD. During an interview with Australian radio, Field said: –

“Virtually the only time that these nurses are detected is when there’s a pattern of unusual deaths that’s discovered. So there are a number of implications of that, but one of them is that oftentimes the killing can go on for a long time so then they have multiple victims over a number of years. They move from place to place, they have no pattern that’s picked up.

“I think what we can learn is that nurses themselves need to have a heightened awareness of it. They have to at least at first accept the possibility that this could happen. And what I found was during the whole time I was doing this study, when nurses would ask me what I was doing my PhD on and I’d say, “Nurses that murder their patients”. And they’d say, “Oh, you mean euthanasia, you know, putting people out of their misery”.

“And I’d say, “No, I mean people who are murdering their patients, that are actually doing it with malice and forethought, that are intentionally killing them for no good reason and sometimes when they’re healthy.” And they’d be astonished. They couldn’t believe that a nurse would do such a thing. And I think that’s part of the problem is that it’s so hard to contemplate that that would be the case, it’s such a foreign concept that it would be almost impossible to suspect your colleague of doing that.”

Interviewer: “And you found that even in the response of some hospitals in these cases that quite often they simply moved that nurse on if there were some suspicions, which only opened up the possibility of them doing it somewhere else?”

“That’s right. Now the practice of permitting people who were suspected or considered to be possibly be killing patients, just moving them on, probably isn’t a satisfactory way of dealing with it. And the fact that those people then went on to have long killing careers, sometimes 16 or more years, suggests that’s a very poor practice.”

It is very clearly – and tragically – established in the public record, beyond any credible dispute, that nursing as an activity is attractive to that small number of people who have psychopathic urges to exercise the power of life and death over vulnerable people. The public record also shows that nursing – perhaps uniquely, because of the amount of time and unsupervised access nurses have to vulnerable patients – presents to psychopaths an unparalleled access to the opportunity – and the means – to kill. And to kill with comparatively slight risk of detection.

Twenty Five Murdering Nurses: A Global Media Survey:

1: Robert Diaz


Robert Diaz was an American serial killer that used his position as a nurse to gain access to his victims. In March and April 1981, he murdered at least 12 hospital patients. His victims, both men and women, ranged in ages from 52 to 89. His choice of weapon was the drug lidocaine.

Robert Diaz, also known as David Robert Diaz, was born in Gary, Indiana in 1938. He grew up in a large, poor family, but managed to capture the attention of his parents with the many illnesses he suffered throughout his younger years. Because he was frequently ill he also missed a lot of school and only completed 10 grades before dropping out.

At the age of 18 Diaz joined the Marines, but he was unable to adapt. He was later discharged after going AWOL for six weeks.

In 1981, Diaz worked through a temporarily employment agency which placed him in various hospitals in counties all around Riverside County in California, usually to work graveyard shift. Immediately the number of older patients dying noticeably increased. Many of the patients dying were not considered critical cases which raised the suspicions of hospital administrators.

An investigation was launched and in several of the cases the coroner found high levels of lidocaine in the tissue of the deceased patients. Lidocaine is used to regulate heartbeats, but when administered in too high a dosage the outcome can be lethal. The dosage found in patients was up to 2,000 milligrams. The normal lidocaine dosage is 50 to 100 milligrams.

An anonymous tip into the San Bernadino County coroner named Diaz as being responsible for several of deaths. Investigators took notice and began piecing together timelines. It did not take long to determine that Diaz was somehow involved in the suspicious deaths.

At the Community Hospital of the Valley in Perris, California, there was a 12-day span when several patients died suspiciously. Diaz had worked 10 of those shifts. He also worked one shift at the San Gregorio Pass Hospital in Banning when another patient died due to an overdose of lidocaine.

Co-workers told investigators that Diaz had an uncanny ability to predict when some of the patients would die and even went as far as suggesting that co-workers schedule their breaks based on his predictions. Diaz was also seen giving injections to patients prior to their deaths.

The investigators had enough evidence to get a search warrant for Diaz’ home. There they found several bottles of lidocaine and morphine, as well as syringes containing lidocaine that were labeled with some of dead patient’s names. Many of the lidocaine syringes were also labeled as being a lower dosage than what they contained.

Judge John J. Barnard found Diaz guilty on all counts and on March 29, 1984, he was sentenced to die and was sent to San Quentin to await execution.

2: Genene Jones


“Genene Anne Jones (born July 13, 1950) is a former paediatric nurse who killed somewhere between 11 and 46 infants and children in her care. She used injections of digoxin, heparin and later succinylcholine to induce medical crises in her patients, with the intention of reviving them afterward in order to receive praise and attention. These medications are known to cause heart paralysis and other complications when given as an overdose. Many children however, did not survive the initial attack and could not be revived. The exact number of murders remain unknown, as hospital officials allegedly first misplaced then destroyed records of her activities to prevent further litigation after Jones’ first conviction.

While working at the Bexar County Hospital (now The University Hospital of San Antonio) in the Paediatric Intensive care unit, it was determined that a statistically inordinate number of children Jones worked with were dying. Rather than pursue further investigation the hospital simply asked Jones to resign, which she did.”

3: Donald Harvey:


“Donald Harvey is a serial killer responsible for killing 36 to 57 people, many of who were patients at hospitals where he was employed. His killing spree lasted from May 1970 until March 1987, only ending after a police investigation into the death of a patient resulted in Harvey’s confession. Labelled the “Angel of Death” Harvey said he first began to kill to help ease the pain of dying patients, but a detailed diary he kept paints the picture of a sadistic, cold-hearted killer. Beginning on August 11, 1987, and throughout several more days, Harvey confessed to killing over 70 people. After investigating each of his claims he was charged with 25 counts of aggravated murder, to which Harvey pled guilty. He was given four consecutive 20-year sentences. Later, in February, 1988, he confessed to committing three more murders in Cincinnati.

In Kentucky Harvey confessed to 12 murders and was sentenced to eight life terms plus 20 years.”

4: Richard Angelo


“Working the graveyard shift put Angelo into the perfect position to continue to work on his feeling of inadequacy, so much so that during his relatively short time at the Good Samaritan, there were 37 “Code-Blue” emergencies during his shift. Only 12 of the 37 patients lived to talk about their near death experience.

Angelo, apparently not swayed by his inability to keep his victims alive, continued injecting patients with a combination of the paralyzing drugs, Pavulon and Anectine, sometimes telling the patient that he was giving them something which would make them feel better.

Soon after administering the deadly cocktail, the patients would begin to feel numb and their breathing would become constricted as did their ability to communicate to nurses and doctors. Few could survive the deadly attack.

Then on October 11, 1987 Angelo came under suspicion after one of his victims, Gerolamo Kucich, managed to use the call button for assistance after receiving an injection from Angelo. One of the nurses responding to his call for help took a urine sample and had it analyzed. The test proved positive for containing the drugs, Pavulon and Anectine, neither of which had been prescribed to Kucich.

The following day Angelo’s locker and home were searched and police found vials of both drugs and Angelo was arrested. The bodies of several of the suspected victims were exhumed and tested for the deadly drugs. The test proved positive for the drugs on ten of the dead patients.

Angelo was ultimately convicted of two counts of depraved indifference murder (second-degree murder), one count of second degree manslaughter, one count of criminally negligent homicide and six counts of assault with respect to five of the patients and was sentenced to 61 years to life.”

5: Waltraud Wagner


Waltraud Wagner started began a murder spree at Lainz General Hospital, Vienna, Austria. Most of the people who go there are elderly, many of them with terminal illnesses. It’s not difficult to hide a murder or two among people who are already at death’s door.

Wagner began the killings in 1983 and by the time officials began to look into the suspicious deaths some six years later, the death toll stood at 42. However, an unofficial count was in the hundreds.

Wagner, 23, had a 77-year-old patient who one day asked the girl to “end her suffering.” Wagner claims to have “hesitatingly” obliged by overdosing the woman with morphine. It was then that she discovered she enjoyed this kind of power. It was apparently not difficult for Wagner to recruit accomplices from the night shift. Maria Gruber, 19, was happy to join. So was Ilene Leidolf, 21. The third recruit was a grandmother, 43-year-old Stephanija Mayer.

Wagner was the “death pavilion” leader, and they planned the murders as a group. She taught the others how to give lethal injections, and she added some fatal mechanisms of her own creation. The “water cure” involved holding a patient’s nose while forcing him or her to drink. That was an agonizing death that filled the lungs, but undiscoverable as outright murder. Many elderly patients had fluid in their lungs.

All four women were arrested in April 1989.

Collectively they confessed to 49 murders, and Wagner took credit for giving a “free bed with the good Lord” to 39 of them. She had decided that their deaths were long overdue, and she reveled in the fact that the power over their lives rested with her. However, one of her accomplices believed that Wagner’s death count was closer to 200 in just the past two years.

Ultimately, Wagner was convicted of 15 murders, 17 attempts, and two counts of assault. She was sentenced to life in prison. Leidolf got life as well, on conviction of five murders, while the other two drew 15 years for manslaughter and attempted murder charges.

6: Irene Leidolf


Irene Leidolf, 27 at the time, was the “second-n-command” to Waltraud Wagner. Leidolf had come to Vienna with her parents from the agricultural north of Austria. She was a shy woman who rarely joined in any of the other nurses’ gossipy chats, but Waltraud Wagner liked her because she always did as she was told.

Throughout the years of wholesale murder in the hospital, the slight good-looking Irene never gave any indication that what she was doing was wrong. Her only comment to police was: “I had a family to feed and I wasn’t going to put my job on the line by refusing to help Nurse Wagner.”

Leidolf was sentenced in March 1991 to life for seven counts of murder.

7: Joseph Dewey Akin


Nurse Joseph Dewey Akin, 35, who worked at Cooper Green Hospital in Birmingham, Alabama, was tried in September 1992 for killing Robert J. Price, 32, a quadriplegic, with a lethal dose of lidocaine. Investigators suspected Akin in over 100 deaths in the area over the past decade in twenty different facilities where he worked. However, many of those facilities had thwarted investigations.

Akin had long been suspected of causing many Code Blue medical emergencies, both in Alabama and in hospitals around the metro Atlanta area. The number of such emergencies at one hospital in Georgia was unusually high when Akin was working there, and colleagues noticed that at least four types of heart drugs had been stolen.

In the incident in which Akin was arrested, the amount of lidocaine found in Price’s body was twice the lethal dose and four times the therapeutic dose. While defense experts attempted to explain it as something other than murder, prosecution experts had a ready counter-explanation.

At Akin’s trial, Marion Albright, Price’s assigned nurse, testified that when she came back from a lunch break she saw Akin walking out of Price’s room. She attempted to enter it to check on her patient but he had tried to prevent her from doing so.

In the end, after just over an hour of deliberation and only two votes, the jury decided that the circumstances warranted a conviction. When the verdict was read, Akin put his hand to his face.

One juror, when interviewed for the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, said, “Too many people all placed him at the scene of the crime, and nothing he said to explain it made sense.”

On appeal, Akin’s conviction was overturned, yet when he was tried again, the jury was unable to reach a verdict. Another retrial was scheduled for March 1998, but two months before it was to begin, Akin pled guilty to manslaughter. He received a sentence of 15 years.

8: Beverley Allitt


“Beverley Gail Allitt (born 4 October 1968, Corby Glen, Lincolnshire, England), dubbed by the media the Angel of Death, is an English serial killer who murdered four children and injured nine others while working as a State Enrolled Nurse (SEN), on the children’s ward of Grantham and Kesteven Hospital, Lincolnshire. Her main method of murder was to inject the child with potassium chloride (to cause cardiac arrest), or with insulin (to induce lethal hypoglycaemia).

She was sentenced to life imprisonment at her trial at Nottingham Crown Court in 1993 and is currently being held at Rampton Secure Hospital.”

9: Orville Majors


“A former nurse who gave lethal injections to six hospital patients has been sentenced to 360 years for the “diabolical” murders.

Orville Lynn Majors, 38, who reportedly told a colleague that old people ”should all be gassed”, had been linked to 130 deaths.

But he was only tried on the seven cases the prosecution thought most likely to secure a conviction. Majors was found guilty on six of those counts last month.

“It’s the judgement of this court that the maximum sentence is the minimum sentence in this case,” said Judge Ernest Yelton.

Relatives of Majors’ victims broke down in tears as he was sentenced to 60 years for each of the six murders.

Judge Yelton described Major’s crime as “a paragon of evil at its most wicked”.

The patients, four women and two men aged 56 to 89, died between 1993 and 1995 at the Vermillion county hospital in Clinton, Indiana.

Prosecutors said Majors gave his victims fatal overdoses and that some of the injections were witnessed by their loved ones.

Investigators said he used the potentially heart-stopping drug potassium chloride, vials of which were found in his home and car.”

10: Edson Izidoro Guimarães


“Edson Isidoro Guimarães (born 1957) is a Brazilian nursing assistant and convicted serial killer. He confessed to five murders of which he was convicted of four, but is suspected of committing up to 131 in total. He claimed that he chose patients whose conditions were irreversible and who were in pain.

Guimarães worked as a nurse in the Salgado Filho Hospital in the Méier district of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He was caught in 1999 when a hospital porter saw Guimarães fill a syringe with potassium chloride and inject a comatose patient who immediately died. The police were informed and a higher than average death rate on his ward increased their suspicions. On his arrest he confessed to five murders.”

11: Kristen Gilbert


“A former veterans hospital nurse who killed four of her patients with injections of poison should spend the rest of her life in prison, a federal jury decided Monday. Kristen Gilbert, a 33-year-old mother of two, could have faced death by lethal injection and would have become the only woman on federal death row.

Gilbert was convicted March 14 of the first-degree murder in the deaths of three veterans. She also was convicted of the second-degree murder, which is not subject to the death penalty, in the death of another veteran. Gilbert also was convicted of trying to kill two other veterans in her care.

From August 1995 through February 1996, Gilbert dealt out wholesale death. Her victims were helpless patients who trusted her as a caregiver, only to learn too late that she was a killer, her weapon a drug capable of causing fatal heart attacks. But she got away with murder until three of her fellow nurses could no longer ignore the proliferation of deadly “coincidences” on Gilbert’s watch. Investigators believe Kristen Gilbert may have been responsible for as many as 40 deaths.”

12: Alison Firth

2001 “A nurse who drugged and killed a frail elderly woman has been found guilty of murder by a jury at Newcastle Crown Court.

Alison Firth, 36, poisoned 84-year-old Alice Grant with an overdose of the sedative drug heminevrin in May last year.

The court was told Firth may have killed Mrs Grant because she was lazy and could not face having to provide regular care for her in the future.

Outside court, Detective Superintendent Chris Symonds, who led the inquiry, said the nurse acted in an evil manner and was a disgrace to her profession.

He said: “The verdict demonstrates that elderly people have the protection of the law, notwithstanding the fact that they are extremely ill and in the last stages of their natural life.

“In this case Alice Grant, as was articulated by witnesses, although very ill, was described as alert and able to express feelings through her eyes and touch to those who were caring for her.

“She did not deserve to be killed in this way.

“Firth deliberately set out, planned and executed the death of Alice Grant and the jury have seen Alison Firth for what she is.”

13: Timea Faludi

“In early 2001 the Hungarian nurse Timea Faludi (then 24) confessed on killing approximately 40 elderly patients “for mercy”. The case was uncovered when the medical director of the Gyala Nviro Hospital in Budapest noticed, that the death toll was unusually high, when sister Timea was on night-shift. Controls of the drug usage showed a shortage of tranquilizer. Faludi withdrew her confessions during trial and as all the victims had been cremated there was no evidence left.

Faludi was convicted to 9 years in prison for repeated attempts of murder and a lifelong prohibition to work as nurse.”

14: Christine Malèvre


“French Nurse Jailed in 6 Deaths

A French nurse who said she helped the terminally ill die out of compassion was sentenced today to 10 years in prison for the deaths of six hospital patients.

The nurse, Christine Malèvre, had been charged with the murder of seven patients at a lung hospital in Mantes-la-Jolie near Paris in 1997 and 1998. She faced life in prison.

Ms. Malèvre’s case sparked energetic debate on euthanasia in France, a predominantly Roman Catholic country, after she initially said she had “helped” about 30 terminally ill patients end their lives.”

15: Lucy de Berk


“A nurse thought to be one of the most prolific serial killers in the Netherlands has been jailed for life after a court found her guilty of the murder of four of her patients and the attempted murder of three others.

Lucy Isabella Quirina de Berk, 41, has repeatedly protested her innocence but on Monday a court in the Hague concluded that she had killed three babies and one elderly woman by lethal injection.

It also found her guilty of trying to murder two other babies and another pensioner.

The case has captured the public imagination because of the large number of people who died under suspicious circumstances in de Berk’s care. She was initially accused of killing 13 and of attempting to murder five others.

The murders happened between 1997 and 2001 at three hospitals in the Hague. In each case the patient died of an overdose of either potassium chloride or morphine and de Berk was the last person to be at the bedside. During her trial, statisticians gave evidence that the chances of her being present coincidentally at each death were one in 342 million.”

16: Anne Grigg-Booth


“Detectives charged Grigg-Booth in September 2004.

The nurse was charged with murdering June Driver, 67, in July 2000; Eva Blackburn, 75, in November 2001; and 96-year-old Annie Midgley in July 2002.

She was also accused of trying to kill 42-year-old Michael Parker in June 2002.

As well as the murder and attempted murder charges, Grigg-Booth faced 13 counts of unlawfully administering poison to 12 other patients.

She was due to go on trial in April 2006, but died of an overdose aged 52 on 29 August 2005.

The night nurse practitioner was charged with the murder of three elderly patients after illegally prescribing and injecting powerful painkilling drugs as if she was a qualified doctor.

But police believe she may have killed many more during her 25 years working at Airedale General Hospital in Keighley, West Yorkshire.

Grigg-Booth also faced an attempted murder charge and 13 counts of unlawfully administering poison to 12 other patients but was never brought to trial because she died from a drink and drugs overdose at her home in 2005 at the age of 52.”

17: Charles Cullen


“Charles Edmund Cullen (born February 22, 1960) is a former nurse who is the most prolific serial killer in New Jersey history, and suspected to be the most prolific serial killer in American history. Cullen told authorities in December 2003 that he could specifically recall the murder of perhaps 40 patients during the 16 years he worked at 10 hospitals in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. But in subsequent interviews with police, psychiatric professionals, and the only journalist with whom he had ever granted interviews, Charles Graeber, it soon became clear that he had killed many more, whom he could not specifically remember. Experts have estimated that Charles Cullen may ultimately be responsible for some 400 murders- making him the most prolific serial killer in American history.”

18: Abraão José Bueno


“Abraão José Bueno (born 1977) is a Brazilian nurse and serial killer. In 2005 he was sentenced to 110 years imprisonment for the murder of four children and the attempted murder of another four.

Bueno worked as a nurse in the Instituto de Puericultura Martagão Gesteira of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

In 2005 Bueno, working in a children’s ward, began injecting babies and older children with overdoses of sedatives, causing them to stop breathing. He would then call medical staff to resuscitate them. In the course of one month up to fifteen children are thought to have been targeted, all between the ages of one and ten. Many suffered from AIDS and leukaemia.

Bueno was arrested in November 2005. On 15 May 2008 he was found guilty by judge Valéria Caldi on four counts of murder and four counts of attempted murder. He was sentenced to 110 years in total.”


19: Stephan Letter


“A German nurse has been convicted and sentenced to life in prison for killing 28 patients at a hospital he worked at in the southern part of the country. Stephan Letter was found guilty of 12 counts of murder, 15 counts of manslaughter and one count of illegal mercy killing.

Letter, who was nicknamed the “Angel of Death” in the German media had admitted to giving lethal injections to 16 elderly patients at a local hospital and was thought to have killed 12 more.

He eventually said he could not remember how many he had killed.During the trial, Herbert Pollert, the lead prosecutor, said autopsies had been performed on 42 former patients at a hospital in the Bavarian town of Sonthofen.

The victims all died during the 17 months Letter worked at the clinic and most of the patients were above the age of 75, though one was as young as 40.

The deaths didn’t raise any red flags at the medical facility because of the patients’ age, but concerns appeared when officials found medications had disappeared.

Letter was finally arrested after authorities found some of the drugs at his home — an amount large enough to have killed 10 more patients. The nurse used a mixture of a sedative and muscle relaxant to kill the patients, and the drug cocktail would have taken only five minutes to induce death.

“We have the strongest suspicions that all 42 of the disinterred were killed by the accused,” a police spokesman said. However, Police are unable to check the causes of death of 38 other patients who were at the hospital during the same period, because their bodies were cremated.”

20: Benjamin Geen


Killer nurse given 17 life terms.

A hospital nurse found guilty of murdering two patients and causing grievous bodily harm to 15 more has been sentenced to 17 life terms.

Benjamin Geen was told he would serve at least 30 years for the offences at Oxfordshire’s Horton General Hospital between 2003 and 2004.

The nurse injected patients with drugs to stop their breathing to satisfy his lust for excitement, the court heard.

The judge described Geen’s actions as a “terrible betrayal of trust”. The Banbury nurse was given life sentences for two counts of murder and 15 of grievous bodily harm.

Geen gave a total of 17 victims injections of drugs such as muscle relaxants, insulin and sedatives to stop them breathing.

The court heard how Geen looked elated as his patients went into respiratory arrest and even boasted to one doctor, “There is always a resuscitation when I’m on duty”.

David Onley, 77, from Deddington, died on 21 January, 2004, and Anthony Bateman, 66, from Banbury, died on 6 January, 2004.

Fifteen other patients recovered shortly after they developed breathing difficulties.

Initially, doctors could not explain the abnormally high level of respiratory arrests between December 2003 and February 2004.

Suspicion fell on Geen, a lieutenant in the Territorial Army, when it emerged that the incidents had taken place while he was on duty.

When he was subsequently arrested at the hospital on 9 February, 2004, police found a syringe filled with a potentially lethal muscle relaxant in his pocket.

Detective Superintendent Andy Taylor, who led the murder investigation, said: “Ben Geen abused this position of trust.

“We may never know what motivated him to select and poison his victims.

“It is clear that he wanted to be the centre of attention and in order to fuel this desire, brought some of his patients to the brink of death and coldly murdered two of them.”

21: Vicki Dawn Jackson


“A former hospital nurse pleaded no contest Tuesday to killing 10 patients nearly six years ago by injecting them with a drug used to temporarily halt breathing.

Vickie Dawn Jackson, 40, will be sentenced to life in prison, the maximum sentence she faced if she had been convicted by a jury.

Authorities have not offered a motive for the slayings.

Jackson was accused of killing the patients, including her third husband’s grandfather, by injecting them with a drug used to stop breathing to allow insertion of a breathing tube.

Prosecutor said the deaths occurred during her night shifts at Nocona General Hospital in 2000 and 2001. More than 20 vials of the drug were missing and a syringe with traces of the drug was found in the nurse’s garbage, they said.”

22: Irene Becker


German Nurse Sentenced to Life for Killing Patients.

A nurse has been sentenced to life imprisonment for killing six patients in her care at the Charite Hospital in Berlin with an overdose of medication.

The German nurse went on trial in April for the murder of six people and the attempted murder of two others between June 2005 and October 2006. Berlin’s Charite hospital, Europe’s biggest university hospital, came in for manifold criticism throughout the trial for failing to raise the alarm earlier.

Becker, who worked in cardiology, was arrested in October 2006 after a fellow nurse alerted a doctor about the disturbingly high number of patients dying in their ward. Most of the nurse’s victims had been elderly and close to death.

23: Colin Norris:

“A senior nurse who murdered four elderly women patients began a minimum 30-year jail term yesterday without showing remorse or explaining what led him to take his victims’ lives.

Passing sentence on 32-year-old Colin Norris, Mr Justice Griffith Williams said months of evidence had left him no wiser about the motives behind a “thoroughly evil” betrayal of trust.

He had carried out the murders with increasing confidence over a six-month period in 2002 at two Leeds hospitals.

The court and police praised Dr Emma Ward, who questioned an insulin dose given to one victim, 86-year-old Ethel Hall, and triggered the police investigation. But Hall’s son Stuart, 53, said yesterday that the family and other victims’ relatives were seeking talks with Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust about an independent inquiry into the case.

“We hope Colin Norris never leaves prison and is never in a situation where he can harm anyone else again,” he said. “I do not understand why he pretended to be a caring nurse when he was really a cold-blooded killer who preyed on the vulnerable.”

Norris was convicted on an 11-1 jury vote of murdering Hall, Doris Ludlam, 80, Bridget Bourke, 88, and Irene Crookes, 79, and attempting to murder Vera Wilby, 90, who survived a prolonged coma after an unnecessary insulin injection.

Det Chief Supt Chris Gregg, of West Yorkshire police, said he shared the judge’s frustration at not knowing what led Norris to kill. He said after the sentencing: “Only he knows the answer to that, but I am convinced he would have gone on to kill more patients had he not been stopped in his tracks.””

24: Katariina Pantila


“A Finnish nurse dubbed “the angel of death” for murdering a mentally disabled patient and attempting to murder a healthy eight-month old baby with insulin was found dead in her jail cell, police said Tuesday.

“She has perished there,” an officer with the police in Turku, on the west coast of Finland, told AFP, confirming that Katariina Pantila, 28, died after resuscitation efforts in her cell at a Turku jail Monday.

Last week, an appeals court upheld a life sentence for Pantila, formerly known as Katariina Loennqvist, for the murder of a 79-year-old, bed-ridden woman by injecting her with insulin at a rehabilitation centre in 2007.”

25: Aino Nykopp-Koski:


“A Finnish nurse was sentenced to life in prison on Wednesday for murdering five of her elderly patients with lethal drug overdoses, and for trying to kill five others.

The Helsinki District Court found Aino Nykopp-Koski guilty of five murders, five attempted murders, three aggravated assaults, three thefts and possessing illegal drugs.

The murders happened in hospitals, hospices and private homes between 2004 and 2009.”



Another Blogger Writes.

On 6th April Mark Forskitt, a children’s rights campaigner, research engineer and environmentalist wrote a posting on his blog, Jersey Today, which will be of interest to regular readers.

So interesting is Mark’s article, I’m reproducing it in its entirety below, but the original can be viewed here: –

Mark was researching some important questions concerning whether Jersey’s proposed new hospital was being designed taking account of the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In the course of his research he made some interesting discoveries concerning the cv and career-path of the Jersey Hospital’s managing director, Helen O’Shea.

The questions that arise are legitimate public interest concerns, given the evidenced history of the concealment of catastrophic governance-failures  – including the murder of patients by a rogue nurse – by Jersey Health & Social Services.

As Mark say’s: –

“Is it possible that the hospital, knowing they had problems with a rogue nurse, as exposed by Stuart Syvret, thought they had found someone who could protect them and ‘tidy up’ from the fall out? I have no idea. There is nothing of any substantive fact to show Mrs O’Shea to be anything other than a professional in her field. And yet there are those annoying coincidences and little questions that nag away at one’s confidence.”

Mark is an interesting and thoughtful commentator on many issues, and always worth reading at his blogs: –

I remember an appointment-processes at Jersey Health & Social Services in which I was, as the Minister, a member of the interviewing panel. Unbeknown to me at that time, it was a charade – the appointment of the disaster that was Mike Pollard as Chief Executive having already been rigged with the involvement of Jersey’s so-called “Independent Appointments Commission”.

Mike Pollard then became a pro-active participant in a criminal conspiracy to engineer my dismissal, as witnessed by Police Chief Graham Power, who – in-turn – later became a victim of Jersey’s self-protecting, crime-concealing polity-mafia.

It’s good for the public interest that observant, inquiring people such as Mark Forskitt ask questions.  As history shows, we cannot rely solely on the “official systems” to protect us.

Stuart Syvret

A Coincidence or Three, by Mark Forskitt

I’ve been doing some reading around our proposed new hospital. It is not my usual arena, but recent events have highlighted some aspects that should be input into the planning of the facility, which we can easily image should last the Island a generation or more. Intuitively one would expect population and demographic models to be central. The reticence of the Minister in laying out the details of the models used is troubling. But it is not the only area of concern.

The recently published IPPC report is quite clear there are expected health, including mental health impacts on small island states. The summary can be found at . Unlike previous reports, this one explicitly identifies current impacts are occurring “Local changes in temperature and rainfall have altered the distribution of some water-borne illnesses and disease vectors”. A few other pertinent quotes are:

“The key risks that follow, all of which are identified with high confidence, span sectors and regions. Each of these key risks contributes to one or more RFCs.33
i. Risk of death, injury, ill-health, or disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states and other small islands, due to storm surges, coastal flooding, and sea-level rise”.

“Impacts from recent climate-related extremes, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, cyclones, and wildfires, reveal significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to current climate variability (very high confidence). Impacts of such climate-related extremes include alteration of ecosystems, disruption of food production and water supply, damage to infrastructure and settlements, morbidity and mortality, and consequences for mental health and human well-being. For countries at all levels of development, these impacts are consistent with a significant lack of preparedness for current climate variability in some sectors.”

I have written to the health minister to ask what extent these changes, both present and future have been considered in the planning of the hospital.

However I came across something else while looking for information. The hospital managing director is of course a pivotal person on the future of the hospital. So I did a search. A brief cv for Mrs. Helen O’Shea is on the States web site at . I used to do a lot of technical recruitment interviewing when I was running a rapidly growing software business. I’ve seen a lot of cv’s. Two things about that online piece stood out to me immediately. While all the other positions held had accompanying dates, the time at Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust does not. The other is the repeated occurrence of acting or interim office for what look like exceptionally long periods. This naturally raises the question of why she did not become the actual chief? It might be as straight forward as a glass ceiling effect.

Perhaps that temporal absence is simply a stylistic choice by a content manager. However we can infer that Mrs O’Shea was there between 2004 and 2011, rather longer than the other establishments. A very long time to be an acting chief, so I assume some other roles and positions were omitted. Her public profile on LinkedIn is even less informative, listing only the current position. More useful is zoominfo Here we can identify that in 2006 Mrs O’Shea was director of performance (not an executive director however).

A bit more digging and this came up from the 30th October 2008. Mrs O’Shea it seems did not put herself forward to be Chief Executive, despite having been acting chief for six months according to that article. (So that clarifies one of the points above). Perhaps it is not too surprising that she didn’t pursue the opportunity when you read this: I’d say that was the right decision to make for the acting Chief, but you have to wonder what responsibility the former director of performance and director of operations had for being in such a position of failing to meet standards and the public’s expectations.

That wasn’t the only problem the Trust had that year. In April it was all over the national press after a bogus nurse was in court. See–treating-hundreds-qualifications.html and Whether the recruitment, appraisal and performance checks up to that point came under Mrs O’Shea’s directorial responsibility I cannot say, but it cannot have sat comfortably given her immediate prior title.

Did the HR department and interviewing staff go to the bottom of those irritating and stand out cv points? Is it coincidence that in 2012 Jersey appointed a new hospital managing director who had experience of public glare due to a rogue or bogus nurse and a hospital failing to meet targets? Is it possible that the hospital, knowing they had problems with a rogue nurse, as exposed by Stuart Syvret, thought they had found someone who could protect them and ‘tidy up’ from the fall out? I have no idea. There is nothing of any substantive fact to show Mrs O’Shea to be anything other than a professional in her field. And yet there are those annoying coincidences and little questions that nag away at one’s confidence.

By Mark Forskitt

First published on 6th April, at Jersey Today: –


Treason – or Reason?

Regular readers of this blog will be reasonably familiar with the reality of the money-generating feudatory that is the off-shore Crown Dependency of Jersey, the anti-democratic oppression carried out by its oligarchy, and the conduct of what passes for a “judiciary” in the island.

Just for example, the endless succession “legal” battles I face at the hands of the Potemkin village “justice” apparatus of Jersey.

Mrs Windsor’s Privateers – Part 1 – which is a handy introduction to the heart of darkness – can be read here: –

To readers familiar with the Crown-empowered feudal “court” of Jersey, the e-mail I publish below requires no introductory explanation. Although a brief communication, concerning a pretty simple issue – my attempt to obtain an electronic version of a recent “court” transcript – the e-mail nevertheless states and shows – in so many ways – that what we face in Jersey is, actually, beyond Kafka.

I’ve titled this post, Mrs Windsor’s Privateers – Part 2 – because, well, that’s what we’re dealing with.

Privateers – directly empowered by the British monarch.

The still extant – in the 21st century – unbridled and absolute power of the “court” and its “courtiers”.

Just hope that your daughter or son never needs protection from those courtiers, their thanes and vassals – nor the apparatus that shields and succours them.

Stuart Syvret.

E-mail from Stuart Syvret to the Jersey “court” apparatus, concerning a transcript – and “judicial” conflicts of interest – and the monarch’s approval of William Bailhache:

From:  Stuart Syvret

To:   Jersey Appeal Court Secretariat, Bailiff’s Judicial Secretary

CC:   Secretary of State for Justice UK Government,  Privy Council, Justice Department UK Government,  Jersey Child-Abuse Public Inquiry

Date:  9th April 2014 16:47

Subject:  Re: Treasurer of the States v Syvret

Thank you for your e-mail.

Whilst I am grateful for the hard-copy, which I will collect when I am able, I require an electronic copy, so I would ask that a PDF of the transcript is e-mailed to me. (That has been the case with previous transcripts.)

My reason for requiring electronic copies of all documents I have to deal with in these interlinked cases is simple; I am self-representing (not of choice) and can only very occasionally obtain any pro-bono advice. Even that slight assistance is dependent upon me being able to e-mail electronic copies of the relevant material to those who may assist me.

There is also the simple matter of not being able to store or transport physical documents. For example, the material served on me by the directly and corruptly conflicted law firm Appleby Global / Bailhache LaBesse (which law-firm corruptly betrayed the Blanche Pierre child-abuse victims when they were legal-aid clients in 1998/9 when William Bailhache was the Senior Partner) now amounts to approximately 30 large lever-arch files – about 14,000 pages – which, alone, requires two sack-trolleys to transport. Such physical burdens are a pro-active obstruction (another) to the practical enjoyment of my Article 6 Rights.

When I have an electronic copy of the transcript, I will be able to prepare and lodge the appeal against the decisions and conduct of Michael Birt and Philip Bailhache’s dinning-companion, friend, admirer, defender, and public cheer-leader – and appointee – Howard Page QC – and his extraordinary conduct. Just for example – actually agreeing to hear the case at all – when he was (a) conflicted, (b) case-decided, & (c) functus officio – and displayed all of the thus predictable overt, actual bias in that he didn’t actually permit me to run a case against the aforesaid & associated & related evidenced factors.

The Crown judicial function in the feudatory of Jersey is – along with the Crown prosecution function in Jersey – a criminal enterprise – in-and-of-itself.

I suppose corruption will spring – wherever it is permitted to; “absolute power”, and all that. But what is remarkable about the Jersey situation is its sheer brazenness – the startling absence of even any attempt to disguise the lawlessness – the criminality hiding-in-plain-sight.

It’s the kind of brass-neck hubris that only the British ruling elites can pull off.

Directly, expressly – and very seriously – conflicted judges, such as Philip Bailhache, Michael Birt and William Bailhache – hearing cases they’re parties to – choosing and appointing their own  judges to further hear such cases – judges such as their friends, admirers, cheer-leaders and dinning-companions – like  Christopher Pitchers, Jonathan Sumption, Charles Gray, and Howard Page.

When I was most recently a political prisoner of this Crown-protected Jersey/City of London commune cosa nostra, I was denied my Article 6 Rights to access adequate “time and facilities” to prepare my legal appeals & applications. In an attempt to secure my Rights, I prepared an injunction application against the prison.

That application of mine was simply vetoed – prevented even from reaching court – by the expressly and fatally conflicted William Bailhache in the office of Deputy Bailiff. I was merely notified of his decision by a brief letter – which contained no attempted explanation or justification for this illegal, oppressive act.

The letter asserted that a fully reasoned explanation would be provided in due course.

No such explanation was ever received – and has not been received to this day.

I was thus prevented from accessing justice – prevented from securing my Article 6 Rights – when politically imprisoned by friends of William Bailhache – by William Bailhache.

That’s  the William Bailhache who I had been exposing in the public interest via Google/Blogger for such malfeasances as corruptly betraying legal-aid child-abuse victims, obstructing the 2008 child-abuse investigations, associating with priority criminal suspects, making non-prosecution decisions in cases he was directly conflicted in, breaking the Data Protection Law, aiding his equally criminal brother Philip Bailhache in the obstruction of anti-corruption investigations, attempting to illegally coerce the Police Chief Graham Power into dropping an investigation into planning-corruption, and then participating in the criminal conspiracy to illegally suspend the Police Chief.

As all of this – evidenced – conduct is so obviously approved of by the Crown – and Her Majesty personally, as evinced in the granting of Her Letters Patent to make William Bailhache Bailiff – you will understand and appreciate that I need every conceivable practical assistance – such as electronic copies of the transcripts.

A person faces hard enough odds as it is, in confronting the corruption and criminality in Jersey of Crown power. Though it hides in plain sight, who dare call it for what it is and confront its omnipotently empowered privateers?

It can only be a matter of time, surely, until the new Treason law is used to imprison me.

Thank you for your assistance.

Stuart Syvret.


The Original E-Mail – Published Below.

After Six-and-a-Half Years

Of Unremitting Corruption,

Of State-Sponsored Oppression,

The Public Inquiry into Decades of Concealed Child-Abuse Finally begins

Dear Reader

Come with me on a journey of understanding – of knowledge; let us take a look at how lives are wrecked – destroyed – how neglect, cruelty, molestation, savagery and rape can be inflicted upon generations of helpless children; children who had the entire apparatus of the state, supposedly, protecting them.


How does that happen?

It is extraordinary, is it not, to consider that  a system of public administration, of so many people, employed in so many different capacities, each with  vital professional and moral duties for child-welfare, can contrive to so disastrously fail so many vulnerable children for so long.

An entire polity – different public departments – their civil servants – and the police – and the legislature – and its politicians  – and the prosecutors – and the judiciary – a huge and expensive network who’s only purpose in existing is to serve the public good – not only failing to protect children, but in some instances pro-actively abusing them – and then all conspiring to cover-up the corporate failure – the disgusting conduct – the criminality.

How – really – does that happen?

Today a public inquiry into decades of concealed child abuse in Jersey began.

It could have – and should have – started six-and-a-half years ago.

That it didn’t – that so much time has passed – and so much opposition had to be overcome – is a fact I offer you to reflect upon. It is – in and of itself – a wretched demonstration of how large-scale child-protection failures can be concealed by public authorities.

The details of the public inquiry and how to contact it can be found on its website at the following link:

On the 16th July 2007 – after approximately nine months of often covert work with whistle-blowers and survivors – this is what I said in answer to a question I was asked in the Jersey parliament, in my then capacity as Health & Social Services Minister: –

“I have serious concerns, to be honest, about the whole child protection, child welfare standards of performance of Jersey, not just within my own department, Social Services and the Children’s Service, but across the board. I am aware of a number of issues, this being one of them, a number of cases, a number of incidents that lead me more and more strongly to the conclusion that we are failing badly in this area. I am probably going to be seeking to initiate a major independent review into the whole sphere of child welfare, child protection in Jersey. So if you are asking me honestly, do I believe the performance of certain senior individuals within this field and of the departments generally is acceptable, no, it is not.”

I had become – often in the teeth of opposition, obstructions and lies from senior civil servants – the first ever Jersey politician to recognise the gross and systemic child-protection failures in Jersey.

I undertook hard and often harrowing work to reach that state of knowledge.

I knew then that a major investigation into Jersey’s child-protection failings was needed – and that only an independent, external review could address the issues.

Once someone had uncovered some of the child-abuses, the systemic failings in child-protection – and revealed the crises to the legislature – it then takes simply staggering levels of incompetence, stupidity and ethical bankruptcy for those who have power in the executive to have resisted that truth – to have shielded the failed system – to lie.

Frank Walker – former Senator and Chief Minister – was unearthed today by Channel Television – the ITN/ITV franchise in the Channel Islands.

When I happened to see that ITV interview with Frank Walker – its lameness – its carefully choreographed spin – the absolute lack of any serious & sustained questioning – essentially a PR-package masquerading as TV news – I was reminded of why Walker underwent such a  catastrophic meltdown when faced with real journalists in 2008 when the international community learnt of Jersey’s concealed history of child-abuse. Then Walker, for the first time in his life, was facing challenge – real journalists – asking real questions – and not willing to swallow bullshit.

The result was a train-wreck.

Then, Frank Walker was shown for the incompetent, low-calibre, viciously unpleasant, frightened and fundamentally inadequate little man that he is.

But today – with Jersey’s indigenous media – it was business-as-usual.

In a very – very – carefully worded question – which didn’t actually mention Haut de la Garenne, but was nevertheless freighted with that abuse-episode implicitly – Frank Walker was enabled to give an answer which implied the whole child-abuse controversy happened before he and his colleagues were in office. Which would be true, of course – as HDLG closed in 1986, and Walker wasn’t elected until 1990.

But – of course – we’re not dealing only with Haut de la Garenne.

We’re also confronting child-abuse and child-protection failures – at one time or another – at most of Jersey’s state-run children’s institutions.

Let’s just mention a few shall we? Blanche Pierre, Les Chennes, Heathfield, Don Road, Greenfields.

But in many ways, a more fundamental problem – one that questioned the very safety of the public good in the island – was the systemic and endemic nature of the governance failures that had been discovered and revealed. These were overarching issues that should have been grasped – should have been faced head-on, and fixed – by any Chief Minister – any leader worthy of the name – in this community.

The disastrous and endemic failures of the Jersey polity to properly protect its most vulnerable – the clear non-existence of functioning checks & balances – was the great challenge Walker faced in his political career.

Sadly, for Jersey his response to this challenge was blathering, spineless failure.

Here’s the question ITV/ITN put to Frank Walker, and his answer:

“Care-leavers and bloggers are adamant that the government at the time was somehow complicit in covering up abuse and sweeping  this issue under the carpet. What do you say to that?”

“I’ve yet to see or hear any evidence of that. I wasn’t involved  personally at the time obviously, nor were any of my – um – colleagues in government when the whole – um – awful situation emerged. Um but there’s no evidence I’ve seen or heard.”

A spin-doctored answer – for a spin-doctored question.

The real question is, was Frank Walker’s government complicit in covering-up later examples of institutional and corporate child-protection failure? And – indeed – complicit in obstructing efforts to uncover historic abuse at Haute de la Garenne?


But we can’t, of course, be surprised that the ITV franchise in Jersey – which is run by Karine Rankine – should be little more than a PR-outfit for the Jersey oligarchs; after all, her husband – Glenn Rankine – is a spin-doctor for the Jersey establishment – and between them they contrive to give every assistance to their powerful & wealthy friends. This has included – for example – leaking my e-mails to “journalists” at Channel Television – to people like Frank Walker: –

“—–Original Message—– From: Glenn Rankine [] Sent: 05 February 2007 10:26 To: Frank Walker Subject: FW: The Letter Importance: High ************************************************************************************** This e-mail has been received directly from the Internet: you should exercise a degree of caution since there can be no guarantee that the source or content of the message is authentic.   If you receive inappropriate e-mail from an external source it is your responsibility to notify Computer Services Helpdesk (telephone 440440).   The Full States e-mail Usage Policy can be found here: http://intranet1/aware/internet_email_issues.htm **************************************************************************************   Frank…

I send you this in complete confidence so you get an insight to what Stuart’s up to behind the scenes… Hope it helps.


Anyway, I can see in the coming weeks we’re going to have to refresh Frank Walker’s memory about the role he – and his colleagues – did, in fact, play in attempting to suppress the truth concerning Jersey’s systemic child-protection failures.

For example, all of the abusive coercions he attempted against me, to obstruct me in the proper discharge of my duties – as defined in law – as Health & Social Services Minister in 2007.

Perhaps we need to revisit the documented history of the abusive solitary-confinement regimes being used against mentally ill children in the child-secure unit – and the efforts made by whistle-blowers such as Simon Bellwood and me to expose that?

Frank Walker and the rest of the Jersey oligarchy are going to have to remember the suffering of those victims – and then the  obstructions and oppressions endorsed and joined in by Walker against Bellwood and me – when we tried to change the system that had abused those children.

I think Frank Walker and his advisers are going to have to remember the report of the Howard League for Penal Reform. I succeeded in inviting that organisation in to Jersey to review how children had been treated by Jersey’s criminal justice system. The resultant review endorsed every single point Bellwood and I had been making.

Perhaps Walker needs reminding of the letter he wrote to the Howard League in an attempt to smear me, and discourage them from undertaking their review?

The Howard League review – as good as it was – was focused upon a narrow, but important, part of Jersey’s child-protection system. The need for a fully empowered, broad public inquiry remained.

I’m not sure it’s possible to convey – really – to other people just what it was like – how desperately hard and Kafkaesque it was to fight for a full public inquiry. Lies, obstructions and deceit were everywhere.

For example, here is a quote from a draft statement that was going to be issued by Jersey’s cabinet, the Council of Ministers, of which Frank Walker was the Chief Minister: –

“Thirdly, the Council has decided to accept the recommendation of the Health and Social Services Minister, that a Committee of Enquiry should be established. At its next meeting on 6th September, the Council will consider terms of reference for this much wider review of child protection procedures throughout the States.”

That draft statement was discussed at a Council of Ministers’ meeting on the 26th July 2007, when the CoM were going through the motions but secretly boiling-up a “crises” from the honest answer I had given to the Jersey parliament. In reality – unbeknown to me until far later – a conspiracy to engineer my dismissal was underway and already being enacted, for example, at meetings the day before.

We know that for a fact now, because we have the evidence in the form of a file-note written by the then Police Chief Graham Power immediately after he left a Corporate Management Board meeting on the 25th July 2007.

The Police Chief noted the conspiracy, and said this: –

“BO [Bill Ogley] and the others were persistent and I was left with the clear impression that they were attempting to draw me, in my capacity as Chief of Police, into a civil service led attempt to remove a Minister from Office.”

This is how the entire apparatus of the state fails to protect vulnerable children – enables the abuse of vulnerable children – and actively oppresses those who try to protect vulnerable children.

Good, honest Police Chiefs take a stand against corruption – do the right thing – and get oppressed as a result. Conscientious Social Services Ministers take a stand against decades of failure – and get  oppressed as a result.

Criminal civil servants like Bill Ogley engaged in unambiguous corruption – and get over £500,000 in pay-offs and a gold-plated pension.

This is how horrifyingly vast, systemic child-protection failures happen.

The Committee of Inquiry said today, 3rd April 2014, that they wanted to learn – to develop an understanding of the factors at play; they said they wanted to be told the kind of questions they should be asking.

OK – the public inquiry wants to know the kind of questions that must be asked to uncover the toxic heart of just how the grotesque failure of the Jersey polity occurs?

Here, then are some pertinent questions that take the Inquiry into the heart of darkness:

How is it that the first Jersey politician to identify, investigate, uncover and make public the child-protection failures ends up arrested, prosecuted by conflicted Attorney Generals, his career destroyed, and politically imprisoned for whistle-blowing?

How come the first and only Jersey Police Chief to have required a full and serious investigation into the child-abuse and its cover-ups is subjected to an illegal suspension, his professional reputation trashed, denied due-process, and denied justice by conflicted judges?

How  – by way of contrast – did the two successive Chief Ministers  – Frank Walker and Terry Le Sueur – who were centrally involved in the machinations to obstruct people like me and Graham Power – and who both told a successions of breathtaking lies to the Jersey parliament when questioned over these matters – both get OBEs?

How did a directly and corruptly conflicted Attorney General – William Bailhache – who did all he could to oppress me – who blocked prosecutions – who associated with priority criminal suspects – who lied to the Jersey parliament – and who attempted to illegally coerce the Police Chief Graham Power – get to be recommended to the Queen for appointment as Bailiff?

Just what role have successive Lieutenant Governors played in these matters – and how many non-executive directorships – and other emoluments and benefits – have been given to successive Lieutenant Governors by the Jersey establishment?

Dig into questions of that type – and many similar such questions – and the Committee of Inquiry will start to expose and understand the wholly corrupted polity of Jersey – and how its stagnant, rotted oligarchy can still be resisting the clear need to restore the objective rule of law so as to protect vulnerable children – six-and-a-half years after the plain facts were known and the structural failure of governance in Jersey was confronted.

Enough of the facts were known – over six years ago –  to enable a recognition of the fundamental inadequacies of governance in Jersey

I identified those facts, and stated them in the e-mail below, dated 15th November 2007.

You want to understand how so many children can suffer – how so much child-abuse can be concealed – for so long –  by so many people – by the entire apparatus of the polity?

Read the e-mail below – then reflect upon the intervening six years of unremitting war of oppression the failed apparatus has waged upon survivors, whistle-blowers, good police officers, campaigners, bloggers – those who have tried to do the right thing.

This is how so much child-abuse can be covered-up, by so many, for so long.

Stuart Syvret

E-Mail to Jersey’s Law & Justice Agencies Concerning the Corporate and Structural Failure of Child-Protection in the Island, written by Stuart Syvret – 15th November 2007.

From:  Stuart Syvret  Sent: 15 November 2007 20:18 To: Graham Power; William Bailhache; Bailiff of Jersey; Michael Birt; Ian Le Marquand; Ian Christmas Cc: ‘’; Andrew Williamson; ‘’ Subject: The Rule of Law & Child Protection in Jersey


I write concerning the present examinations of the standards and performance of Jersey’s child welfare and protection apparatus. I am including the Lieutenant Governor as a recipient to this e-mail, given the UK government’s ultimate responsibility for the rule of law, the administration of justice and of good government in Jersey.

Although this e-mail is, of necessity, long, all I require from each addressee is a simple yes or no answer to the questions I ask at the end of this text.

Earlier this year, I began to become more and more dissatisfied with the performance of child welfare and protection services. I first made these concerns public in an oral answer in the assembly to a question from Deputy Judy Martin. Following this, and various concerns I was raising within the department, various civil servants, who understood perfectly well their inadequacy, set about engineering my removal from office.

However, since early summer up to the present, I have been researching the various issues in great depth. This has included speaking to very substantial numbers of people, including teenagers, young adults, parents, older people and front-line staff. This work is continuing – and looks as though it will continue for some time, such is the nature of the material.

This brings me to my point in writing to you.

I have no doubt whatsoever – and this is a view shared by experts from the UK who are advising me – that a variety of criminal offences against children have been committed, over a sustained period of time, by the States of Jersey through its various departments, and the Crown, through the Courts. Moreover, I am increasingly of the view that not only are we considering a variety of unlawful practices, conduct and  policies of the state, but also prima facie criminal offences committed by individuals employed by the States.

The scope and scale of the offences clearly involves every arm of the state; the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. I will explain why this is obviously so in more detail below. But in essence, the situation is this: all three arms of the state are deeply and inescapably conflicted in these matters. This would not be the case in a large nation-state, but in a very small self-governing jurisdiction such as Jersey, the conflicts of interest are boundless, obvious and inescapable.

Personally, I find it very difficult to imagine how some criminal investigations and prosecutions could not now take place. And in the interests of possible victims, in the interest of the good administration of justice, and in the interests of Jersey’s reputation – any arising criminal investigations, prosecutions and trials cannot now be carried out by the relevant local agencies.

The Police Force is conflicted, what passes for a prosecutory service in Jersey is conflicted, and the judiciary are conflicted. These conflicts exist for both specific reasons, and also for certain general principles.

I do not believe the island has any choice other than to commission a specialist team of police officers from an unconnected force in the UK to investigate any and all complaints; no choice other than to  invite the Department for Constitutional Affairs to assign a suitably qualified person to act as Crown Prosecution Agent; and no choice other than to invite the DCA to assign a Judge or Judges to hear any trial.

1: The Conflictedness of the Police.

During interviews with teenagers, young adults and their parents, it is alleged that various assaults, unlawful conduct and abuses of children under both the Children (Jersey) Law 1969 and the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 have been committed by the police on various occasions.

The police force appears to have not comprehended the fact that the legal requirements to protect, and safeguard the welfare of, children does not cease to exist merely because the child in question has committed an offence. This, it would appear, has led to the fairly regular use of excessive force against unruly, drunken or abusive children. I have had reports of worse; of incidents which appear to be little more than violent assaults. To refer to just one victim as an example:  arresting a drunken and abusive girl in the police station foyer by the method of dragging her across the floor by her hair. The same child on another occasion was arrested for drunkenness and was actually lifted off the floor by a male officer by the handcuffs around her wrists. The same girl was also re-arrested when due for release from Greenfields after  2 weeks on remand – and held for another 4 weeks in an attempt by officers to make her confess to a breaking and entering offence they needed to clear up. Whilst in the custody of the police, the police have “parental responsibility”, as defined by law, for any child so held. I have had several accounts of this legal obligation not being met. To take just the female referred to above, on one occasion she was held in a police cell overnight, locked in despite her heavy state of intoxication, the cell call-buzzer was switched off, she was unable to call for water, her mother was not permitted to see her when she came to the station, no female officer dealt with her, her period began in the night and she had no sanitary product available to her. When she was eventually released to her mother in the morning, she was severely dehydrated, ill, exhausted and covered in blood from her period.  It should also be pointed out that people in a heavily intoxicated state can die if left unattended, usually through such mechanism as choking on vomit. That this didn’t occur in this case is more down to luck than judgement.

This is but one example. There appears to be a cultural view that the unlawful maltreatment of children somehow becomes acceptable if they have committed an offence. So widespread and so persistent does this culture appear to be, that it is, frankly, impossible to imagine the States of Jersey Police Force carrying out an acceptably objective wide-ranging enquiry into its own long-term conduct.

2: The Conflictedness of the Prosecutory Service.

In Jersey, decisions whether to prosecute are ultimately made under the authority of either the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. As has already been accepted by her and the Attorney General, the Solicitor General is conflicted as she has also been the legal adviser to the Children’s Service for many years.

As far as the Attorney General is concerned,  some time ago when I was Minister for Health & Social Services I sought from him (I still have the correspondence)  the full police report and its six appendices into the abuse scandal at Victoria College. My reason for needing this information was that I was examining what went wrong in that case, whether the then current law was defective, how it compared to our present Children Law – and whether what we were doing today – in the light of the Bichard Report – was adequate. It proved immensely difficult for me to obtain anything from the Attorney General. After much persuasion he eventually sent me a version of the police report – with no appendices – but the version was so redacted as to be utterly useless. Indeed, it contained far less information than that contained in the Sharp report – which he knew I possessed already. I was not, therefore, properly able to consider this key material with a view to ascertaining what went wrong and why only one prosecution was mounted. The Attorney General’s actions in behaving in this way actively obstructed me in my lawful work under the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 in that I was not able to carry forward my investigation into improvements in child protection, and the relevant legislation.  This obstruction of the lawful duties of the Minister for Health & Social Services, as defined in the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, may well have been unlawful.

In any event, it certainly matches a pattern of “political” decisions made by both the present Attorney General and his predecessor. The present Attorney General is noted for his “political” interventions. For example, his recent political interference with the work of a Scrutiny Panel in respect of the lawfulness – or otherwise – of the present prosecution and trial procedures engaged in by the honorary police and the Magistrates Court. It appears likely that the present procedures are not human rights compliant – or rather were not human rights compliant, given the Attorney General’s very recent instruction to change procedures. Were it to be found that the procedures were not human rights compliant, the implications for the reputation of Jersey and of its ability to properly pursue the rule of law would be severe indeed. It could, for example, lead to many people – perhaps hundreds from over the decades –  seeking to have their conviction at the Magistrates Court overturned on the grounds that their right to a fair hearing was compromised. The Attorney General has even been publicly quoted as saying that the disclosure of the Cooper opinion “would not be in the public interest” – a political comment if ever there was one.

It is also the case that, having repeatedly exhibited such concerns for the public image of the States of Jersey,  the Attorney General could hardly be relied upon to set aside such political considerations and instead view his prosecutory duties entirely impartially in the present controversy. Quite obviously, the reputational fall-out for the island’s oligarchy from any widespread prosecution of States departments and of individuals employed by the States would be very considerable and very serious.

It is entirely feasible that many of those children, many of whom are now young adults, who have been convicted of offences will now seek to have their convictions considered unsafe given the human rights issues arising out of the somewhat bizarre prosecution arrangements, and for other reasons too.

The Law Officers in general are also conflicted for this reason. As well as providing a prosecutory service, they also routinely act as legal advisers to both the island’s parliament and the various executive departments. Whilst this of itself is clearly unsustainable, what is the proverbial ‘man on the Clapham omnibus’ supposed to make of the likelihood of these senior establishment figures – actually prosecuting the very departments and executive they routinely give legal advice to? No reasonable person could see them as meeting a reasonable test of objectivity.

A further – and in some ways even more insurmountable conflict – is this. It is plain that many States departments have – for very many years – been breaking various laws in respect of the care, protection and welfare of children. Obviously and inescapably so. Therefore one of the most pressing and obvious questions is this: why has neither the Attorney General or the Solicitor General ever correctly advised the relevant departments that their practices were unlawful? Why have no departments been prosecuted? It is plain that much – perhaps even a great deal of – the culpability for the States of Jersey engaging for decades in policies  which were unlawful lays with the Attorney General and the Solicitor General.

Therefore, for the Attorney General and the Solicitor General  to undertake any widespread prosecution of States departments would be to effectively put themselves on trial as well. Possibly as defendants; certainly reputationaly. Not a sustainable or credible situation.

We also have to consider the long-term record of the office. The previous Attorney General – now Deputy Bailiff, Michael Birt – in fact exhibited all of the politicised and conflicted behaviour I describe above. As is plain from the now widely distributed Sharp report, the now Jurat Le Breton, who, at the time was Vice Principle, should have been prosecuted at the time of the child abuse scandal at Victoria College. Just as should the Principle. Just as should Francis Hamon, a Governor of the school at the time and a person who went on to become Deputy Bailiff. Just as, of course, should Piers Baker, the man who thinks paedophilia is “teachers perks”. Whilst a strong case could be made for the prosecution of Le Breton, Hamon, Hydes and Baker for attempting to obstruct the course of Justice, the relevant Law, prima facie breached, was the then current Children (Jersey) Law 1969.

I quote Article 9 here:

9      Cruelty to children under 16

(1)    If any person who has attained the age of 16 years and has the custody, charge or care of any child under that age wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons or exposes him or her, or causes or procures or permits him or her to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned or exposed, in a manner likely to cause him or her unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, limb, or organ of the body, and mental derangement), he or she shall be liable to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

Le Breton, Hamon, Hydes and Baker should have been prosecuted for breaking this part of the Law. Unambiguously so. At best, all four of these creatures ‘caused’ or ‘permitted’ the children to be ‘assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned or exposed in a manner likely to cause him or her unnecessary suffering or injury to health’.

No such prosecutions took place. It is plain that Michael Birt placed the “reputational” considerations of the Jersey Establishment above the proper protection of children – and above the rule of law.

But this was not the only example of political considerations overriding the rule of law. When Attorney General, Michael Birt also abandoned a prosecution for very serious offences.

The case I refer to was the prosecution of Mrs Jane Marie Maguire and Mr Alan William Maguire. The Act of Court records that the prosecution was abandoned on the 20th November 1998.

“Her Majesty’s Attorney General declared that he abandoned the prosecution against Alan William Maguire and Jane Marie Maguire on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to support it. The Court therefore discharged the said Alan William Maguire and Jane Marie Maguire from the prosecution and, by virtue of Article 2(1)(c) of the Costs in Criminal Cases (Jersey) Law, 1961, ordered the payment out of public funds of the costs of the defence”.

The Maguires were routinely beating, abusing through grotesque punishments, neglecting and treating with great cruelty many of the children that passed through the “group home” they ran at the time for the Education Committee, which body had responsibility for child “protection” at the relevant time (1980s to mid-1990s).

When I was  Minister for H & SS, just one of the many issues I had recently had drawn to my attention by whistle blowers was the case of the Maguires. I requested access to the relevant files. I read the two very substantial lever arch files and one smaller ring-binder file. The evidence contained in these files seemed absolutely compelling. Many witness statements, affidavits of victims, statements from other members of staff, an “internal” report from 1990 by Social Services, which concluded that the actions complained of were happening (though the “performance” of Social Services in this matter is another question entirely) and, essentially a catalogue of utter savagery against the children.

Yet Michael Birt concluded that there was “insufficient evidence” to continue the prosecution. The evidence described many children being routinely – over a period of years – beaten with fists, implements and other items which were used as weapons against them. They were frequently made to eat soap. They were made to drink Dettol. One child had his head smashed violently against a bunk bed frame. One of the part-time support staff witnessed Mr Maguire throw a child a distance of about 7 feet across a room to impact against the wall because the child was not tidying up to Maguire’s satisfaction. Psychological and emotional cruelty and abuse were routine. A female child resident was sexually abused by Mr Maguire.

Most of these offences were evidenced, and witnessed by former victims and junior staff members – and yet the then Attorney General claims to have had “insufficient evidence” to mount a prosecution?

It just won’t wash, I’m afraid.

Clearly – to have prosecuted the Maguires would have been to expose to outrage and contempt a States of Jersey department for permitting the abuse to continue for a decade, and to have acted unlawfully in not informing the police the instant the abuse came to the department’s attention. Further, the department would have been viewed with even greater contempt and disgust by the public when it became known that Mrs Maguire was kept in employment by the department for some years afterwards – working in the Child Development Centre! It would, of course, also have meant exposing to contempt and disgrace that Establishment icon, Iris Le Feuvre, then President of the relevant Committee who happily went along with all this in 1990 and, moreover, wrote a quite sickening letter of “thanks” to the Maguires.

It is plain that the failure to see through the prosecution in this case represents a complete breakdown in the rule of law. An abandonment of justice in order to protect the “reputation” – such as it is – of the Jersey Establishment. The victims of the Maguires were denied justice.

In case you do not remember the relevant documents, I attach to this e-mail copies of the Sharp Report into the Victoria College abuse scandal, the 1999 H & SS report into the Maguire case, and the associated letter from Iris Le Feuvre.

I’m afraid the facts make it plain that the people of this island of Jersey cannot rely upon this prosecutory service delivering the expected protections normally afforded by the rule of law. At least not when the reputation of the Jersey Establishment is at risk.

There can be no possibility of the necessary test of the appearance of objectivity being met by the Jersey prosecutory service in respect of any possible prosecutions arising out of these grotesque failures by the States in child welfare and protection cases. We must invite the DCA to appoint a special prosecutor who has no association with the island.

3: The Conflictedness of the Judiciary.

It is not even remotely possible to conclude that the Jersey judiciary could realistically be involved in hearing, and adjudicating upon, any case arising out of these child welfare and protection issues.

It is, for example, plain that the Jersey Magistrates Court has been acting unlawfully for many many years in its approach to imprisoning children; using remand, as a de facto sentencing device, failing to deliver the requisite ‘fair hearing’ as required by the ECHR – and, perhaps most seriously, actually assigning and prescribing the type of accommodation which remanded or sentenced children would be held in. For example, specifying they be held in a cell at Les Chenes or Greenfields, as opposed to a bedroom. This was through the device of designating the child as a “Status 1″ or a “Status 2″ prisoner. Status 2, being those who were allowed to mingle with other child inmates – and Status 1 being the isolation regime, which included very substantial amounts of punitive and coercive solitary confinement. Solitary confinement when used in this way is classified as torture by international convention, it is deeply harmful and damaging to children, it is unlawful. To treat children in this way has been for the Courts and the States of Jersey to be committing straightforward criminal offences against children. This is institutionalised abuse.

The Status 1 cells  – quite contrary to the impression the Minister for Education sought to portray – until recent times had unpainted cement walls with no furnishings. The bedding consisted of a school gymnasium-type crash-mat on the floor. Even this would be removed during the daytime. One of the cells, cell 4, did not even have an eye-level window, but merely a high, inaccessible skylight.

As explained above in the context of the prosecutory conflicts, the facts show that the Deputy Bailiff , when Attorney General, has – on more than one occasion – demonstrated himself to attach far greater importance to protecting the image of the island’s oligarchy, over and above the rule of law and the protection of children. Indeed, it is entirely  feasible that his very position should be brought into question following the full public exposure of these issues.

The Bailiff too, cannot be seen to be objective. He too is conflicted. The reasons for this are several. He is one of the individuals who needs to face questions over his past  failure to protect children from paedophiles. For example, when he was Attorney General, he failed to take the appropriate action to prevent the paedophile Roger Holland from joining the St. Helier honorary police. Holland went on to abuse children whilst a parish police officer.

The Bailiff was also the Chairman of the Board of Governors of Victoria College during the early phases of the child abuse which eventually lead to the conviction of Jervis-Dykes. The paedophilic activities of this man were brought to the attention of the School leadership again and again – yet he was allowed to remain in post and committing abuse for years before – eventually – being arrested and charged. Again, this is a matter that should be investigated, and upon which the Bailiff should be required to answer some serious questions.

As already pointed out above, it is plain from the now widely distributed Sharp report, that the now Jurat Le Breton, who, at the time was Vice Principle, should have been prosecuted at the time of the child abuse scandal at Victoria College. His actions, along with the Principle, were disgraceful – scarcely believable. He and the Principle – instead of contacting the police at the very first hint of abuse,  instead made a clear attempt to humiliate and intimidate some of the victims into withdrawing their complaints by disbelieving them, questioning them in a school office environment – and doing this in front of other people! These actions were a prima facie breach of Article 9 of the Children (Jersey) Law 1969, as quoted above.

Were all this not bad enough, we must recollect that Le Breton deemed himself a fit person to sit in Judgement on the then St. Helier Constable Bob Le Brocq who had had the misfortune to have the paedophile Holland as a member of his St. Helier honorary police force. The Superior Number of the Jersey Royal Court on this occasion being led by the Bailiff,  who pronounced the judgment. It, apparently, not occurring to him that Victoria College had tolerated paedophiles amongst its staff when he was Chairman of the Board of Governors. In addition to the Court records, the events of the Le Brocq trial are explained in the front-page lead news story of the Jersey Evening Post, dated 27th February 2001. That Le Breton had the sheer gall to be in Court for this occasion beggars belief.

Perhaps the fact that Le Breton was a Governor of Les Chenes goes some way to explaining the unlawful and abusive regime which existed there.

The position of Le Breton is completely untenable.   It would also take a deeply fanciful construct to maintain that any of the Jurats could be considered sufficiently remote and impartial in these matters. All are friends and colleagues  of the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff; friends and colleagues of the Attorney General and Solicitor General. But in particular, all are friends and colleagues of Jurat Le Breton. It is well established in respectable jurisprudence that people cannot be a part of a jury if they personally know any of the key actors in a case.

All of the Jurats fail this test.

Moreover, each and everyone of the Jurats is drawn from the traditional ranks of the island’s Establishment. As detailed above – an Establishment that puts its own interests – the protection of its image, and of its power – over and above the pure consideration of the rule of law, should the oligarchy be threatened in any way.

Given the above facts, it is plain that we are dealing with the customary failing of public administration in Jersey. This being the habit of tolerating incompetence, derelictions of duty, institutional inadequacy and disgraceful mal-conduct – so when things begin to get exposed – every relevant person and agency shares the same collective interest in the cover-up and in the oppression of dissent.

Politicians, the police force, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, the Bailiff, the Deputy Bailiff, the Jurats, the Magistrates – essentially the entire panoply of agencies have a shared, substantial and very very serious collective interest in burying all of the above-described  past issues – and certainly all of the forthcoming issues – which are going to be exposed – whether Mr Williamson wants to do it or not.

In the case of this long-term, sustained cultural failure to properly protect and defend children, the entire edifice of public authority in Jersey is on trial. It, therefore, has an inescapable self-interest in again sabotaging the rule of law and engineering another cover-up.   It is a fact well established by centuries of respectable jurisprudence that not only must the administration of justice be impartial – it must also be seen to be impartial. No aspect of the current policing, prosecutory or judicial apparatus in Jersey could remotely hope to meet this test in respect of the child protection issues arising out of the present episode.

Although the Jersey Establishment is heavily characterised by its overweening arrogance, megalomania and invulnerability, sooner or later, even it will have to face facts. The year is 2007 – not 1897.

My question to each of you is simple:

1:  Would each one of you please confirm to me that you recognise the hopeless level of conflictedness of each of your services, and that you agree to invite the Department for Constitutional Affairs to independently appoint the necessary and relevant agencies from the UK to undertake any necessary police investigations, prosecution, and to hear any relevant trial?

Thank you for your assistance.

Senator Stuart Syvret

States of Jersey


Well, here’s a surprise.

The blog the Jersey establishment strove to prevent you from reading – is back.

Thanks to a variety of campaigners, survivors, whistleblowers, IT experts and concerned citizens in a number of countries around the world, the most evidenced and accessible anti-corruption news and discussion forum in Jersey history lives on.

Like it was always going to.

And I’m personally very grateful to the same group of people – and many others – around the world who gave me such support, and who campaigned during my most recent stretch as Jersey’s first political prisoner since the Nazis were thrown out. Hey, it gave us some further insight into the kind of material the Jersey authorities would like to ban. Leigh LaFon @DenverElle sent me a beautiful illustrated anthology of Pablo Neruda’s poems, On the Blue Shore of Silence. The prison regime deemed this book “contraband”, and didn’t give it to me till I was released. Still, at least it was permitted to enter the island. By mistake, perhaps?

And, you know, so many people ask me these days what the – ah – um – perks were like in Jersey’s prison, and whether I enjoyed similar – err – services to drugs baron Curtis Warren? Alas, being a poor political dissident – and not a big-time crook with £100’s millions allegedly hidden away to get Jersey’s & London’s lawyers and judges salivating – no such benefits were ever made available to me.

The most entertaining thing I ever received in prison was an ex cathedra veto by Bill Bailhache of my appeal application.

These days, as this blog is run by international administrators and editors, I’m going to be merely an occasional contributing author amongst what I’m reliably informed will be a number of guest contributors.

Now, in no small part due to the oppressive folly of Jersey’s corrupt establishment, not only is this blog, predictably, back, it’s also going to be bigger and more scary than ever before.

No more Mr Nice Guy.

D’you hear that, John?

So, let’s get down to business, and take a look at the reason – the real reason – why powerful people in Jersey wanted my blog taken down.

Most people probably don’t perceive this yet, as it’s the kind of event that only becomes readily seen from the panoramic distance  of time, but what a few of Jersey’s bloggers have achieved represents a unique development in British history. Unique, because nowhere else in Britain would you find a vacuum where the Fourth Estate was supposed to be, just waiting to be filled by citizen journalists. To find an equivalent where the internet has enabled ordinary people to start reporting the facts usually buried by the passive media of entrenched establishments, we’d have to look at regimes around the world with no good history of democracy.

There is nowhere else in Britain that such volumes of damming documentary evidence – and high-level witness-testimony – to so much stark and dangerous corruption – would exist, and some part or the other of the traditional mainstream media not seize upon it, report it, and lead a media feeding-frenzy.

Think about it: can you imagine any other place in Britain, in which, on the evidence, major child-abuse investigations had been obstructed and sabotaged by a conspiracy of corrupt, culpable officials and conflicted public prosecutors – where the Deputy Police Chief had been repeatedly obstructed, and the Police Chief had been unlawfully suspended, and both of those men were not only willing to speak-out to the media about such corruptions, but had actually produced affidavits – sworn testimony – to confirm it, but yet none of the mainstream media were interested?

It’s inconceivable – unimaginable – anywhere else in Britain.

Try imagining a place in the British Isles in which the only media willing to report the testimony of a Deputy Police Chief and of a Police Chief were a few local bloggers?

Indeed – try imagining a situation anywhere else in Britain where men of such high-ranking professionalism as a Police Chief and a Deputy Police Chief felt that a few local bloggers were not only the only available channels for their public interest concerns, but were also the only outlets to be relied upon for fullness and accuracy?

This is the situation that prevails in Jersey.

It is an unfolding event unique in British journalism.

It is unique in British policing.

It is unique in British history.

These events are at the very history-making cutting-edge of citizen’s media activism in the nation.

You could not find an equivalent state of affairs as that which prevails in Jersey, in any established Western democracy.

But Jersey’s feudal mafia have not invested so many decades – generations – in controlling the local media, to willingly face the unavoidable redundancy of that whole bloated and expensive apparatus and its definitive power of “omission” and the role that power has always played in the island’s Currency-of-Concealment.

Such an incestuous, stale, unethical – and frankly not terribly bright – claque of hick-town potentates were never likely to be willing – or able – to see their racket was over.

It was over in 2007, and someone – someone senior in London – should have quietly led them to one side and broken the news to them. That didn’t happen. And because of Jersey’s unique situation – zero functioning checks and balances and all meaningful power in the hands of a narrow intermeshed syndicate of bent lawyers, spittle-flecked rentiers and drooling sock-puppets – futile resistance to the phenomenon known as reality was always going to be mounted. Not because it was ever going to succeed – but simply because they could.

These people were going to carry on employing bent civil-servants, concealing widespread corruption, allowing child-abuse to go unchecked, covering-up child-protection failures, concealing clinical murders, illegally suspending Police Chiefs, mounting illegal massed raids on opposition politicians, appointing their own conflicted judges, mounting Stalinistic show-trials, banning entire defence-cases, fraudulently misappropriating huge sums of public money, and protecting powerful serial-rapists from charges & prosecution  – for just as long as they were allowed to – no matter the deepening swamp of bedlam thus created.

The anarcho-feudal results are there to be seen.

The only place in Britain where the entire policing function is now a party-political tool wielded by the powerful against those who oppose them, and which is silent and unmoving against the crimes of the well-connected. The only place in Britain in which the director of public prosecutions can attempt to illegally coerce the Police Chief. The only place in Britain in which the actual judicial, policing and prosecution functions are all in the de facto control of a private legal syndicate. The only place in Britain in which Data Protection “law” can be abused in an effort to silence opposition activists and independent journalism. The only place in Britain in which  Data Protection “law” can be mobilised – covertly and dishonestly – to try and prevent public scrutiny of the unlawful suspension of the Police Chief. The only place in Britain in which Data Protection “law” is used to protect child-abusers and conceal child-protection failures.

So in Jersey we have a nationally historically unprecedented situation in two ways. Firstly, bloggers have done the detailed, factual, serious, evidenced reporting – have been the Fourth Estate – whilst the traditional media has sat by in collusion with power, silence, redundancy and increasing humiliation. Secondly, in the rest of Britain there are functioning checks and balances, and clear separations between different regulatory authorities and law-enforcement agencies; nowhere else in Britain do the same narrow group of people run all meaningful power, and nowhere else in the country would a group of close business associates and friends be permitted to capture the very apparatus of law-enforcement, nor to run it into such obvious gross and evidenced corruption.

But there’s a third way in which “the Jersey situation” is without national precedent.

That is this:

Never before in Britain have the powers-that-be decided to embark upon a public inquiry into a high-level public scandal – when the key evidenced facts – and the unavoidable factors – and the undisguisable conclusions – were already out there – in the public domain – laid out across the table – adumbrated – described.

Already there – unignorable like the elephant in the room.

The British establishment has a few trusted get-out-of-jail cards it plays every time the seething, endemic, boiling corruption and unaccountability of British society erupts above the cosmetic surface, and something-must-be-done!  For example, “announce a public inquiry”. With that trusty approach, in scandals like Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence – the culpable individuals and the stagnant system know they can fend-off exposure of the truth until the 2nd, 3rd or 4th public inquiry – after it became clear the 1st was a whitewash & PR job. You know? Until two or three decades later – when the real villains are dead – like Jimmy Savile – or the corrupt public officials are safely drawing their immense pensions.

Calling for a public inquiry is the British establishment’s all-purpose escape route; it is parachute, PR-strategy, shield and insurance-policy all rolled into one. It gives ‘cover’ – it provides time – and breathing-space – whilst the shredders hum, the excuses dreamed-up, the scapegoats indentified, the script-flipped and the diversionary counter-attacks manufactured.

And who cares if it’s all bullshit?

When the 1st public inquiry is exposed as crap – after another ten years of campaigning by hardy victims who refused to accept the nonsense – those who were paid to do the “inquiring” will, in turn, have their excuses just like those they were “inquiring” into, and, anyway, the big fat cheques will have long-since been cashed in exchange for briefs fulfilled.

But for the traditional British public inquiry to fulfil its divert-distract-and-cover-up function, one or two conditions precedent have to prevail. For example, we have to have the historic cap-doffing, forelock-tugging deference to men & women in silly costumes, with absurd titles and Eaton & Cheltenham accents. When Sir Lady Lord Baronet 27th Earl of Trustfundshire Dame Oxbridge QC, Thane of Lloyds and Groom of the Remembrancer’s Stool, O.B.E is appointed, by those to be inquired into, we have to sink to our knees in gratitude when they address us in their BBC-plausible voice and assure us they really, really do have the serious and genuine interests of us scummy proles upmost in their minds and not those of their fellow multi-millionaires who appointed them and who they’ll be chatting to in a north London lawyer’s club next week.

But does that culture of deference exists anymore? Well – perhaps a little, but it’s oh so diminished.  The traditional power elites are viewed with increasing scepticism across Britain, and even, surprisingly, in Jersey. It’s increasingly obvious that 500 pages of diversionary flim-flam generated via another few million quid of public money thrown into Bedford Row won’t work as it used to – like some kind of sleeping-gas – that would tranquilise and pacify everyone for another five years, before they started to wake up to the fact they’d  been conned.

But the Jersey public inquiry into decades of concealed child-abuse faces an even bigger problem than that loss of unthinking deference.

The insurmountable obstacle, in Jersey, to a traditional British
divert-distract-and-cover-up style “public inquiry” is that “Third-Problem” – let us coin that phrase. In the Jersey crisis, the British establishment faces several “problems” that are without precedent in modern British history; firstly, we have the undiluted abandonment of the job of scrutiny by all of the traditional media – and bloggers ably stepping into that vacuum where the Fourth Estate should have been – and secondly, we have a polity utterly devoid of any check & balance & of lawful restraint, and which is the apogee of disguised corruption. And the “Third-Problem”?

The Third-Problem is that the public inquiry is already redundant, before it’s even got underway.

It is redundant, at least, in that there’s no need to discover and identify the core issues – the neglect – the psychological abuse – the violence – the savage barbarisms – the rape of children – the gross systemic failings – the collapse in professional accountability – the cultural group-think of Jersey’s polity – an absence of rudimentary competencies – widespread ethical bankruptcy – the complete absence of effective checks and balances  – jaw-dropping obstructions to honest, ethical Police Officers – undisguised corruption and abuses of power – witness-intimidation – fear – suppression – and a toxic rot in the Crown functions of prosecution & judiciary in Jersey.

All of those things are already known, evidenced facts.

They are known facts because a grass-roots network of survivors, whistle-blowers, activists and bloggers have spent the last six years sharing, researching, collating, speaking, drawing connections, studying, curating – and publishing.

Certainly, the public inquiry – a good public inquiry – could still do important work – not least at last give recognition to the survivors, give them a forum – listen to their experiences – and force the Jersey government to address their needs.

And in terms of what took place and when, in the long catalogue of systemic breakdown of governance, much detail could be added.

But, you know – in terms of the big picture issues – the overt gross failures of Jersey – what else needs to be added, really?

We know that there was extensive and sustained child-abuse throughout many state-run institutions in Jersey.

We know that some of that child-abuse was committed by public employees.

We know that some child-abuse was facilitated and enabled by public employees.

We know that some children – and some staff – and other witnesses – did complain – but were ignored – or threatened and intimidated.

We know that several generations of vulnerable children who passed through the hands of Jersey government “care” had their lives seriously damaged – in some cases destroyed.

We know that some overtly corrupt civil servants were aware of the abuse over the years and decades, but concealed it.

We know that other civil servants passively went along with the Culture of Concealment.

We know that some victims of child-abuse were absolutely failed and betrayed by their own lawyers.

We know that in some cases those culpable lawyers – and those associated with them – have abused power and money to suppress the truth.

We know that senior civil servants routinely and pro-actively lied to successive politicians; that politicians were both mislead by omission, and overtly lied to concerning child-protection issues.

We know that a variety of senior civil servants engaged in a criminal conspiracy to block the lawful discharge of the Children (Jersey) Law by the responsible Minister.

We know that conscientious, honest elected representatives are subjected to political abuse and harassment and police-state oppression if they go against the Culture of Concealment.

We know that in 2008 – by which time Jersey’s parliament actually had a Scrutiny Panel whose key task it was to inquire into child-protection issues – that Scrutiny Panel flatly and repeatedly refused to undertake those inquiries – even though by this stage decades of scandalous failure had been exposed, and the Panel was being furnished with significant documentary evidence.

We know that the many good, ethical Police Officers were routinely obstructed in child-abuse investigations and had their work sabotaged by a corrupt minority.

We know that suspects in child-porn and child-abuse cases were tipped-off by corrupt Police Officers.

We know that the Deputy Police Chief was obstructed in his work by the Law Officers Department.

We know that the Police Chief was illegally suspended.

We know that the judicial remedy pursued by the suspended Police Chief was corruptly conflicted against him.

We know that the necessary public safeguard of whistle-blowing is pro-actively suppressed by Jersey’s establishment.

We know that the Data Protection Law has been distorted, twisted and abused to suppress and intimidate whistle-blowers.

We know that the Data Protection function is politicised and biased – suppressing public-interest disclosures on the one hand – yet on the other allowing the actual theft, trafficking and publication of simple private data.

We know that successive Jersey Attorney Generals have failed to prosecute crimes of child-abuse and crimes involved in concealing child-abuse, such as perverting the course of justice and misconduct in a public office.

We know that the prosecution function in Jersey is simply dysfunctional and structurally ultra vires, given it is vested in the Attorney General, an Office with a multitude of mutually exclusive roles, not least giving “legal advice” to the very culpable departments and civil servants that should have been prosecuted.

We know that the prosecution function in Jersey has been essentially corrupted by office-holders with direct personal conflicts of interest in the very cases they’ve decided not to prosecute.

We know that what passes for a judiciary in Jersey is politicised, and like the prosecution function with which the judiciary is incestuously entwined, will engage in the concealment of scandals.

We know that Jersey’s politicised judiciary has sought to trump the legislature by attempting to generate judge-made-law that militates against the public interest by making it virtually impossible to expose public wrong-doing.

We know that in one high-profile child-abuse prosecution, the judge – Christopher Pitchers  – simply read out – incorporated into his judgment – an un-evidenced screed of politicised and misleading nonsense written by a paid spin-doctor – one Matt Tapp – whose “employment” had been covertly and corruptly engineered by the conflicted David Warcup and Bill Ogley.

We know that a number of political and private interests have – de facto – simply captured the policing, prosecution and judicial functions in the island.

We know – quite simply – that for as long as the entire might of a conflicted and corrupted polity can be turned to the illegal suppression of a Social Services Minister – and the illegal suppression of a Police Chief – THE two ultimate champions of child-protection, to who vulnerable children should be able to look for fearless defence – vulnerable children will never be safe in Jersey.

Those are the facts – because Jersey’s bloggers have accumulated and published a variety of testimony and evidence that shows them to be the facts.

And equally, on the basis of those facts, we know what needs doing to fix the system.

Most fundamentally Jersey must have – and have urgently – a de-politicised, independent judiciary – and an independent, depoliticised Director of Public Prosecutions – effectively and objectively overseen from London. Public safety in Jersey and the very rule of law requires no less.

But – that one thing – that clear central problem, that so obviously most needs inquiring into – above all other factors – the politicisation and failure of the Crown functions of prosecution and judiciary in Jersey and the conflicted personal abuse individual office-holders have made of those functions, isn’t even up for discussion.

The Committee of Inquiry has neither the terms-of-reference or the remit to “go there”. And it won’t.

So, with so many evidenced facts already discovered – and published – by Jersey’s bloggers, and the obvious conclusions – and the obvious remedies – already plain on the face of things, well, that’s a bit of problem, isn’t it?

For a public inquiry to stand any chance at all of “credibly” performing the usual divert-distract-and-cover-up stunt for the British establishment there cannot be a competing narrative.

The trick just doesn’t work – and can’t work – if there is a competing narrative.

Especially a detailed, authoritative, witnessed, evidenced, multi-voiced – and growing – narrative.

A public – and published – narrative, which has already beaten the ‘official’ public inquiry to the punch.

You know?

The kind of grass-roots, public narrative of testimony and documentary evidence – as published already by Jersey’s bloggers.

Jersey’s bloggers – and the witnesses whose trust they’ve earned – witnesses like many abuse-survivors, whistle-blowers and good, honest men like the former Deputy Police Chief and the former Police Chief.

Jersey’s bloggers – and the witnesses – and the evidentiary documents  – that have made British history; made British investigative and anti-corruption history because we’ve had to, given the total failure of the traditional Fourth Estate in this island, and the wholesale endemic and systemic corruption of the entire polity of Jersey.

Put simply – there cannot be a competing narrative – a competing depiction of events – a competing publication of evidence – running parallel to the public inquiry – indeed, already ahead of the public inquiry and on the summit of obvious conclusions – if that inquiry is to stand any chance of delivering the requisite diversionary white-wash.

The lawyers and spin-doctors recognised that from the get-go.

Which is why the Jersey oligarchy and conflicted lawyers were secretly doing all they could to try and get my blog taken down – have the entire URL excised from the internet – from at least as far back as November 2008.

Trying to get my blog taken down – without any public statement – without my knowledge – and without any admission to any court.

We know this, only because Google recently disclosed to me a letter from the directly conflicted law-firm Appleby Global (formerly Bailhache LaBesse – Senior Partner William Bailhache) which said this: –

“I refer to the above matter. As you will be aware from previous correspondence, we act for the Jersey Data Protection Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’), who first contacted Google Inc. (Google) in November 2008, regarding her concerns in relation to a blog hosted by Google Blogger, at (the Blog”). Mr Stuart Syvret is the owner and operator of the Blog.”

November 2008, eh?

And there we all were, thinking the Jersey oligarchy’s only interest and motivation in attacking this blog arose on the 19th March 2009, on which occasion I published evidence for yet another monstrous cover-up by the Crown officers in Jersey in which the evidenced conclusion was they had concealed the murder of a number of my vulnerable constituents in the Jersey hospital.

So – November 2008?

What was taking place around then? And what was I writing and publishing on this blog that can have so frightened the Jersey establishment?

Jersey’s public authorities were secretly attempting to get this blog taken down in November 2008 for three reasons: (a) to cover-up their concealment of child-abuse, (b) to prevent scrutiny of their illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power, and (c) desperate panic that their vacuous, spin-doctor-authored smearing of the Haute de la Garenne investigation had had its entire legality and scientific credibility challenged head-on, immediately, by postings like this:

The kind of questions I raised in that posting on behalf of my then constituents who had a right to the proper and professional rule of law – are now the same kind of questions that any credible public inquiry will have to address. Those questions – and many more just like them – and arising out of that whole episode.

And that’s a disaster for anyone hoping the public inquiry could be a whitewash – or even some kind of bland halfway-house, that aimed to “draw a line” under the whole controversy by giving a few scraps of concession to survivors and campaigners.

For any public inquiry that fails to address the kind of questions I posed to David Warcup and Mick Gradwell – and fails to address why the police investigation was politically sabotaged via covertly hired spin-doctors such as Matt Tapp – can have no credibility.

That posting, which so terrified and shook the Jersey authorities that they engaged in secret attempts to get Google to take-down the entire blog in November 2008, was – and is – and will remain – a key part of the competing narrative.

That posting, in which I published my 37 Questions to Officers Warcup and Gradwell, is an example – just one – from the serious, fact-based, contemporaneous narrative – which no public inquiry can credibly compete with – if the inquiry is to be a traditional “divert-distract-and-cover-up” exercise.

So blogs like mine – which publish actual evidence – such as affidavits from the former Deputy Police Chief and the former Police Chief – blogs like mine, which are based upon the witness testimony of actual victims – blogs like mine, which serve as a collective repository for so much of the history of the Jersey child-abuse cover-ups – blogs like mine, which serve as a supportive and uniting archive for many abuse survivors – blogs like mine which so starkly depict  – inescapably and on the evidence – the plain lawlessness of the Crown officers in Jersey – have to be smeared, silenced, removed, air-brushed from the public sphere – removed from history – by the Jersey/London establishment, like Stalin “airbrushed from history” so many “inconvenient” things.

And with my blog smeared, attacked, silenced – removed from the public narrative – the way would be left clear for a new, fake, narrative – a spun and manipulated and misleading narrative – to take its place. And with an example made of me, to add to the intimidation and threats routinely made against other bloggers like Voice for Children and Rico Sorda, those blogs too might be “tamed”; kind of watered-down, maybe, via a few legal threats, and slowly pushed to the margins.

Well, that worked.

Yet another train-wreck for the Jersey establishment and its London protectors.

The public inquiry & its gestures – were it not for these damn, pesky bloggers – would have been able to perform  the customary pas de deux with the local traditional media in which each side, with a nod & a wink to the other, would act out the tame chorography like a couple of fake wrestlers.

Instead – the public inquiry is going to have to compete; it is going to have whatever narrative it manufactures compared and contrasted with the narrative already to be seen in the historic and contemporaneous record to be found on Voice for Children, Rico Sorda, and this blog.

There is no hiding place.

The whole world is watching.

Given my scepticism towards the public inquiry, what do I advise survivors, witnesses and whistleblowers to do? Should they engage with it?

Yes, absolutely.

The more survivors, witnesses and whistleblowers who engage with the public inquiry, the harder any cover-up will be.

But I’m trying as gently as I can to forewarn survivors that this public inquiry could be another false-dawn. I feel I have to say that, as I have strong memories of another occasion when survivors and whistleblowers had their hopes up, and felt that, at last, some evidence for some of the failures and cover-ups would be officially published.

That occasion was going to be the publication of my Ministerial Official Comments to the Jersey legislature in response to the Jersey establishment’s engineering of my dismissal – an action we now know – thanks to the Police Chief’s July 2007 file-note – to have been a conspiracy by culpable senior civil servants.

The directly conflicted Bailiff – Philip Bailhache – prevented publication of my parliamentary response; not an action he had any lawful power to engage in. But yet, that is how a very significant selection of evidential material was improperly blocked from publication.

I remember that evening before the debate, having to telephone certain witnesses, whistleblowers & survivors to break the news to them that, in fact, the evidence they had been expecting to be officially published, had been blocked. Blocked by a directly conflicted public official. Some of them were reduced to tears of anger and despair.

It’s not an experience I’ll forget – or that I want to happen again.

So forgive me if I want the vulnerable to be cautious in their expectation. And I feel particularly obliged to say that – because in recent days three key witnesses have told me they will not now be making themselves known to the public inquiry or giving evidence.

Other key witnesses have told me they now have similar thoughts, and will likewise probably not now engage with the inquiry.


All of them feel directly and expressly threatened – intimidated – harassed and placed in fear as witnesses – by the recent public announcement of the agreement of the Queen to appoint William Bailhache as Bailiff.

The recent announcement that William Bailhache will be promoted to Bailiff has been made before the public inquiry has even begun – and whilst prima facie and unanswered evidence is in the public domain that William Bailhache is a criminal who involved himself in decisions on child-abuse prosecutions even though he was directly conflicted, that he associated with priority child-abuse suspects, and that he attempted to illegally coerce the Police Chief.

These witnesses see the promotion of the directly conflicted William Bailhache to the post of all-powerful Bailiff – where, like his brother before him he will wield such immense power over both the legislature and the judiciary – and who will actually henceforth choose and appoint the judges in all future Jersey court cases  – as a direct threat to their welfare and the future of their families.

The witnesses – who like so many other people in Jersey’s climate-of-fear were already worried about going up against “The Jersey Way” – were always conscious of the “examples” that had been made of me as the Senior Senator – and made of Graham Power as the actual Police Chief. Now they see the elevation of William Bailhache – especially at this time – as as stark and direct a threat – a signal of power – a warning – as you could get, short of finding a horse’s head in your bed.

Queen Elizabeth II decided that William Bailhache will be empowered via her Letters Patent, as Bailiff – almost certainly on the recommendation of people like his brother Philip Bailhache, and current Bailiff Michael Birt – both as fatally conflicted as he is.

And that announcement of the promotion of William Bailhache – and the timing – when in fact he and the rest of the Crown Officers should all be suspended and an external apparatus put in place to enable a fear-free public inquiry to take place without witness intimidation, is a clear demonstration that the public inquiry is simply dead-in-the-water as a credible exercise.

Dead-in-the water – even if it had wanted to do the job properly.

When the directly conflicted and corrupted power-apparatus you are, unavoidably, inquiring into has just succeeded in starkly intimidating perhaps dozens of your potentially key witnesses – then the inquiry you’re heading has just crashed-and burned – before it’s even left the ground.

But, take heart in the internet – in our archived evidence – in bloggers – in grass-roots validation of experience – in our ability to write and remember a real narrative – and our ability to not be silenced.

What we’re engaged in here has no precedent in modern British history; the entire local Fourth Estate resiled from its duties so bloggers filled the vacuum; the entire local polity is corrupted, devoid of any functioning check or balance, and is fearful, oppressive & sleazy; and from the grass-roots up, we’ve trumped any official public inquiry and challenged them with an evidenced narrative.

Although the Jersey establishment tried to hide their perversions of justice – and strove, secretly and in corrupt fear, to ban questions like these –

they failed – and those questions – and many others – will remain – unanswered – and vehement – like the telephone ringing in the dark.

Stuart Syvret