Monthly Archives: August 2009





A Pleb’s Eye View of the Administration of “Justice”;

And – News of a Forthcoming Attraction!

“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice!”

Oliver Wendell Holmes, American Judge.

It’s been such a long time since I posted the first in this web-based legal advice experiment, having imagined I might write at least once a week – and engaging readers with debate and analysis of this or that basic principle, or fine point, of law.

But after one or two encounters with the courts, I realised such writings would be about as interesting – and as useful – as a 200,000 word disquisition upon “the meaning” of some glued, tied and nailed structure formed from the random contents of a skip, placed in the Tate Modern and bestowed with the Turner Prize.

What does it all mean? Whatever you want it to.

Instead – continuing with the surrealist theme – I thought I’d give a description of my experiences so far of what passes for the administration of justice in Jersey – as approved by Jack Straw and the Labour government – and intersperse and illuminate events with some apposite quotes concerning lawyers, judges and the law.

I will also, towards the end of the posting, describe just what the prime motive is behind the action against me. This having become very obvious in recent weeks.

But – before I embark upon another impressive display of my diplomatic skills – some news of a forthcoming attraction!

At some point later this week I will be posting an essay that the Jersey oligarchy are not going to like.

Not one little bit.

Oh yes.

But most readers of this blog will find fascinating.

Now – that’s that teaser out of the way – back to my legal travails.

I thought I’d search for some more novel quotes than the obvious wisecrack uttered by ‘Dick the Butcher’ in Shakespeare’s Henry VI – “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers!” – not least because so much more foul are lawyers than even politicians, many a lawyer has attempted, with heroic sophistry, to argue the quote is favourable to lawyers because it is uttered by a villain.

Of course, the quote has remained widely known and popular, from Shakespeare’s day until this, because it so accurately sums the experience of the ordinary person when encountering the profession.

Let us be frank – people do not hear that famous line, and smile beatifically at the thought of “m’learned friends” being, in some way, defended because the line is spoken by a villain.

No. That line is as fixed in popular consciousness as ‘to be or not to be’, or ‘shall I compare thee to a summer’s day’ because – well – lawyers? Everybody bloody hates them.

OK – as with politics, there are one or two honourable exceptions – but, buy-and-large, the public have got it right in identifying the four most vile professions on Earth – when placing lawyers and politicians right down there in the gutter – along with journalists – and estate agents. I mean, how much lower can you get?

And should you still not be convinced that our greatest minds had the true mark of lawyers, just consider these oh so wise words by John Keats:

“I think we may class the lawyer in the natural history of monsters.”

So – what’s happened since I last wrote on my encounters with “justice”?

Just in case you’ve been relying on the Jersey Evening Post for your information, a brief recap; I am, in fact, facing four charges. These are the alleged offences of forgetting to renew my driving licence, and, likewise, not updating the registered address of my car in time; and disclosing controlled data, and having unlawfully obtained the data in question.

To read that esteemed journal, ‘The Rag’, one could be forgiven for thinking the charges were merely the two comparatively minor alleged infractions of the motor traffic law – the vastly more serious data protection law charges being reluctantly nailed onto the end of the JEP’s reports in a manner designed to elude most people – along with the profoundly serious issues that arise from the necessity of public interest disclosure of data by elected representatives.

Though it is only a matter of time until I have ‘contempt of court’ charges laid against me, for the moment, I won’t go into too much detail concerning my resistance to all of the charges.

You’ll just have to take my word for it – for the moment – but there is more to these things than yet meets the eye.

But – here I am – on trial – in a mode foreseen by Kafka – and made real by Stalin – whilst certain senior civil servants continue to earn £250,000 of tax-payers’ money a year – without incurring so much as a suspension from their job – even though they spent the 1980s routinely savagely beating to a pulp vulnerable children in their “care”.

“The vices of the rich and great are mistaken for error; and those of the poor and lowly, for crimes.”

Lady Marguerite Blessington.

Although both British case-law, and European Court of Human Rights case-law seemed pretty clear to me – in my naivety – concerning a “fair trial” and “equality of arms” – apparently I was foolish and ignorant to imagine those dictums meant anything in practice.

I had already been refused legal aid, so had to be representing myself – but as though this didn’t put me at a great enough disadvantage, Jersey’s Attorney General, William Bailhache – de facto politician and exculpator of child abusers -decided he just had to set his leading prosecutor on me, one Advocate Baker.

God only knows how much Baker costs the public; but it isn’t only him. I couldn’t help but notice during the last court hearing that he had not one – but two – ‘helpers’ with him – scrawling notes and stuffing them into his hand during the proceedings.

So much fire-power?

Against a self-representing carpenter?

One could be forgiven for thinking they’re very worried about this case.

One of the intriguing features of this experience are the predictable occasions on which the judges have said, “You will not make political speeches. This is a court of law – not a political occasion!”

Setting aside the brick-skulled notion that judicial processes aren’t ‘political’ (read The Politics of the Judiciary, by J.A.G Griffith) – and going along with their little game, I’ve striven to work within the expected paradigm. For example, I had, promptly, delivered to the prosecution – on the 26th June – a 16 page letter describing my skeleton argument, and listing the disclosures the defence required.

Now, naturally one didn’t expect them to co-operate – or disclose all the evidence necessary to the defence pleadings.

But I’ve found it a bit rich to listen to Baker – on more than one occasion – taking the opportunity of addressing the court with various political and personal insults against me – the very kind of thing one expects to encounter in politics – but that I have been expressly told I can’t engage in, in court.

According to Baker – it is – apparently – outrageous that the defence cites public interest disclosure concerning the data in question.

That any information I’m alleged to have disclosed was pure politics – and nothing whatsoever to do with seeking to prevent the murder of frail elderly patients.

That my motive – my “mens rea” – was simply to attack that wonderful Mr. Birt – former Attorney General – and now, recently appointed, Bailiff.

And that I had used a poor unfortunate data subject as a ‘victim’ to pursue this foul political aim.

And that by resisting their charges – and availing myself of exactly the same rights as any other person to a defence – and a fair hearing – I was “making a mockery of the island’s judicial processes!”

‘Therefore’ – bellowed Baker – ‘no public interest disclosure defence could stand!’

‘OK’, thought I, ‘there’s the prosecution argument, in a nutshell, so what do I need to do to undermine and disprove that argument – as I know I rightly can?’

So in correspondence with the prosecution I made it clear that in order to support the defence case, and undermine that of the prosecution, I required some additional, specific disclosures of evidence.

For example – all of the police, prosecution and Health & Social Services records – and identity of potential witnesses – relevant to the episode in question.

Now – trying to view things from the purely ‘legal’ perspective – and setting aside all political considerations – that seemed to me to be the entirely correct way forward – given the prosecution had nailed their colours to the mast of there being ‘no public interest defence in this case’.

After all – all the case-law on disclosing evidence that supports the defence and undermines the prosecution was – I thought – pretty clear.

Though, the thought did occur to me, from that forbidden political perspective – ‘My God – just how stupid are these people?’

‘They’ve stated their case, which I can now attack with all available evidence – which they must disclose to me – and, frankly, if it meant being taken out and shot – still, from a public interest perspective, it would be a good arrangement – given how much truth would be disclosed in open court.’

So – I wrote, demanding all the relevant evidence.

But – funnily enough – and who on Earth would have predicted this – the prosecution suddenly decided that the grounds of their case were now completely different. That their argument didn’t any longer hinge around the actual facts behind the data I’m alleged to have improperly disclosed.

A dramatic change in prosecution position which was enthusiastically supported by the Magistrate last week.

Now, the prosecution case is – ?

Well – I’m not entirely sure. The charges were hopeless before.

Now, they’re even more hopeless – and an abuse of the court’s processes – and a misuse of public money – than they were at the outset.

But, I’m getting ahead of myself here.

Between those initial appearances before the Magistrates’ court – and that of last week – we had a trip to Jersey’s Royal Court – where I was making an appeal against the refusal of the Magistrate to deem herself conflicted, given the politicisation of the island’s judiciary – and the fact that that – in-no-way-partisan-or-biased figure, Phil Bailhache – presided over her swearing-in to Office – and used the opportunity to mount a direct personal and political attack on me.

This is the relevant part of what Philip Bailhache said, referring to me, during the swearing-in of Ms. Shaw –

“But wholesale attacks upon the judiciary and suggestions that they are collectively incapable of dealing with any outcomes of the current child abuse inquiry are ignorant and unwelcome, and I deplore them. Senior politicians, should know better than to attempt to subvert public confidence in our judicial institutions in pursuit of a personal agenda.”

No doubt, in my ignorance, I’m missing some other subtle legal distinction here – but it rather seemed to me that the various political speeches – like that one, and others – delivered by Phil Bailhache and his brother, Attorney General Bill Bailhache did – of themselves – prove that the Jersey judiciary was politicised and partisan – and thus incapable of being competent in the abuse inquiry.

What is it – if not overt politicisation – when the man who is chief judge – and Speaker of the island’s legislature – makes a speech in which he falsely ascribes a ‘personal agenda’ to a politician who is simply working on behalf of dozens of his constituents who are abuse survivors?

So, Ms. Shaw being politically contaminated from that moment on – I pursued my right to a fair hearing, as can any other person, with an appeal to a higher court.

The case was heard by one Sir Richard Tucker, a UK-based, long-standing Commissioner of Jersey’s Royal Court.

“A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers.”

H. L. Mencken.

You might imagine that a UK-based judge would be free of all the baggage that so contaminates the local crew – that they would satisfy the objectivity test?

Sorry. This is Jersey we’re speaking of – where the “administration of justice” is an artefact of make-believe – only kept in hallucinated existence by ‘the Tinkerbelle Effect.’

For Sir Richard Tucker – as with all judges who sit in Jersey’s various courts – was sworn-in to Office by the Bailiff. In his particular case – the Bailiff in question being one Sir Philip Bailhache.

These various UK judges who serve in Jersey’s courts invariably become acquainted with – often very closely – the Jersey characters. Indeed – often becoming friends with them.

The judge may come from the UK, but will usually know people like the Bailhache brothers, many other members of the Jersey judiciary – such as Michael Birt or Frankie Hamon – and the ‘Jurats’, for example, Jurat John Le Breton.

With those individuals, and others like them, being inextricably embroiled in the whole saga – and thus the political efforts to crush me – naturally, I had to make a recusal application to the Royal court – given the very strong likelihood that any judge sitting would know – or even be friends with – these political opponents of mine.

Having a right to a fair trial, like any other person, I informed the prosecution and the court administration that I would need to question any judge as to the extent and nature of any potential conflict of interest; question them to discover if they were known to, and associated with, any of the other parties to the action, and if so, to what extent?

Because – and no doubt our legal friends will correct me if I’ve got this wrong too – in making a recusal application – the burden of proof rests with the applicant; me, in this case.

It was the task of the defence to show – on the balance of probabilities – that the judge in question was conflicted – to an extent that an ordinary, dispassionate observer would look at the situation – and feel a suspicion that the judge may not be impartial and objective.

OK. So my prime evidence for such a conflict of interests would be the nature and extent of any personal acquaintance or friendship the judge had with the other ‘interested’ parties.

And – in order to obtain and test that evidence – I would have to question the judge.

A fair hearing does – does it not – require access to the relevant evidence and testimony?

Apparently not – in this case.

My opening requests to ask the judge questions were largely trampled into the dirt with the predictable pomposity and hubris which I’m rapidly discovering to be some kind of prerequisite for membership of the British judiciary.

Though he did, with reluctance, concede that, yes, he knew Phil Bailhache – and maybe one or two others – but, no – I couldn’t question him on the extent or depth of his acquaintance with them.

It was, though, rather a pity he seemed to be unaware of the UK Judicial Conduct Guidance, which has this to say on a judge’s responsibilities in the event of a possible conflict of interests:

Section 3.12 of that guidance says this:

“If circumstances which may give rise to a suggestion of bias, or appearance of bias, are present so that they are to be disclosed to the parties, that should be done well before the hearing, if possible. Case management procedures will often enable this to be achieved.”

And section 7.2.2 says this:

“Personal friendship with, or personal animosity towards, a party is also a compelling reason for disqualification. Friendship may be distinguished from acquaintanceship which may or may not be a sufficient reason for disqualification, depending on the nature and extent of such acquaintanceship.”

Both stipulations which were not – even faintly – met in this case.

Sir Richard, likewise, seemed wholly disinterested in the rock-solid and unambiguous case-law of Pinochet –v- R in which the vague and indirect conflict of interests of Lord Hoffman was sufficient to have the Law Lords’ judgement against Pinochet set aside as unsafe.

So – not being able to access my principal evidence – again, I was unable to obtain a fair hearing.

Which was rather a pity – as I had done my homework on the subject – and already knew, for a stone fact – that Sir Richard Tucker was very well acquainted with Sir Philip Bailhache; had been for some years, and that they socialised together.

And that Sir Richard was a key guest at Phil Bailhache’s retirement dinner – which took place on the 30th June.

Obviously, I wasn’t present – but nevertheless, interesting reports reached my ears.

In fact – so enthusiastic a guest was Sir Richard at Phil’s retirement dinner, that he spent a good 15 to 20 minutes – in the presence of several people – seriously embarrassing himself – in ways I’m sure he’d rather I didn’t elaborate upon.

Naturally, my recusal application was thrown out.

And – not content with that – for good measure, he agreed with the application made by Phil Bailhache’s brother, Bill – to have Crown costs awarded against me.

“In England, justice is open to all – like the Ritz Hotel.”

Sir James Mathew

See? Doesn’t this just get better and better?

So – following the failed attempt to secure a “fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal” – the case was back on the road to the Magistrates’ court – for a “directions hearing” – which took place last week.

I was labouring under the delusion that the directions hearing was actually quite important. Very important, in fact – because the likely outcome of this case may depend entirely on the directions given by the court.

The defence argument is that the charges are manifestly hopeless – given both the statute and case-law on public interest disclosure – politically motivated, maliciously brought, simply the latest episode in a long-running and very well-evidenced criminal conspiracy by the Jersey establishment to keep politically embarrassing crimes hidden and unpunished – in order to protect the oligarchy’s “image”, After all, we wouldn’t want anything to “Shaft Jersey Internationally”, now, would we?

Thus the charges are a plain abuse of the court’s processes, counter to the public good and should be thrown out.

Again – correct me if I’m wrong – but my reading had given me the impression that when making a case for dismissal of charges – a stay of proceedings application on the grounds of abuse of process – the burden of proof was upon the applicant.

The burden of proof is reversed, and the defence has to prove – on the balance of probabilities – that an abuse of process has occurred.

So the defence – me – has been seeking disclosure of the evidence required to prove the contention of the defence; in fact, seeking disclosure of that vital evidence for at least two months now.

How surprising do readers find it that the prosecution has exhibited a rabid refusal to disclose that evidence necessary to support the defence’s case and undermine that of the prosecution’s?

Which is why the directions hearing was so fundamentally crucial to the defence. Prove to the judge that disclosure was necessary to the defence case – and the defence obtains the evidence which would prove its contentions.

Fail to persuade the judge that disclosure was necessary – and 90% of the evidence necessary to support the defence is not admitted to the proceedings.

Therefore – before a trial-proper has even begun – the prosecution will have succeeded at the outset in destroying the defence case through using some legal ‘technicality’ to deprive the accused of 90% of the evidence they need.

“Lawyers, I suppose, were children once.”

Charles Lamb

Knowing the directions hearing to, in all likelihood, be pivotal to the entire case, I set about the task of informing the prosecution and court of what evidence I would be citing – and, in particular – what witnesses I would be calling.

However, Baker wrote back to me, urgently asserting that “the directions hearing was not an evidential occasion” – and therefore I couldn’t cite evidence or call witness.

I later came to realise it was during this episode that the prosecution had engineered a “guilty” verdict – long before the actual trial has even begun.

“The lay litigant enters a temple of mysteries whose ceremonies are dark, complex and unfathomable. Pre-trial procedures are the cabalistic rituals of the lawyers and judges who serve as priests and high priests. The layman knows nothing of their tactical significance. He knows only that his case remains in limbo while the priests and high priests chant their length and arcane pre-trial rites.”

Stephen Elias

The prosecution – knowing full-well that the evidence required for disclosure by the defence would nullify their charges – and be immensely politically damaging for the oligarchy – have rabidly fought against virtually all the disclosures sought by the defence.

Knowing I’d have to evidence my case extremely well in order to stand any chance of getting the judge to require disclosure – I followed the correct procedure for subpoenaing certain witnesses – Attorney General William Bailhache amongst them.

My Letter of Instructions was found to be in order, and was accepted by the relevant authority who – I was assured – would proceed to serve the summonses.

The summonses to my witness did not get issued.

Now – you might want to sit down before you read any further – or perhaps have a stiff drink at hand.

It was – days later – that Bill Bailhache sent around an e-mail – to the court, the prosecution, the Viscount’s department, who issues summonses, and me – in which he informed everyone that “he had heard that I may be subpoenaing witnesses some days earlier – and had, therefore, contacted the Viscount’s department, – and “advised” them not to issue my summonses – as he “didn’t consider them appropriate”.

This, even though he was one of the witnesses to be summoned himself – and is a party to the case – in more ways than one.

Neat, no?

When I get summonsed for not paying Bailhache’s costs order against me – why, I’m just going to get in touch with the Viscount’s department and tell him not to issue the summons -“as I don’t consider it appropriate”.

No – wait – this gets even better.

In an attempt to protect themselves, Bailhache and the Viscount’s department knew they couldn’t undertake this action unilaterally – they knew they needed the court – the judge’s endorsement; some kind of ruling from her that she agreed with them that the directions hearing need not be an evidential occasion.

Bill Bailhache’s “approach” to the Viscount – and the resultant agreement not to issue the defence summonses – was effected via a letter to the judge from the Viscount’s department seeking “guidance” – and the judge’s agreement with Bailhache’s intervention.

The defence side was – finally – notified of all this unilateral and covert intervention with the judge – some days after Bill Bailhache’s interferences began.

Once again, I’m sure I must simply be terribly ignorant of these things – but I had thought that when procedural points are raised with a judge by a party – which both parties have a right to do – the other party had to be simultaneously copied-in on all the relevant correspondence – and given an equal opportunity to argue their position.

Such practice being essential to the concept of a “level laying field”, “equality of arms”, and a “fair hearing”.

I had thought – silly me – that covert approaches by a party to the justice apparatus – in a plain effort to massively disadvantage the defence case – was simply – and straightforwardly – an attempted perversion of the course of justice.

Especially when the judge agrees to go along with it.

“Laws are the spider’s webs which, if anything small falls into them they ensnare it, but large things break through and escape.”


So – last Thursday, I appeared in court – for the pivotal directions hearing – the legal oligarchy, amongst themselves, having stitched-up whatever chance I may have had of securing the disclosure of the evidence that is required for my defence.

And Baker then stood there – and without batting an eyelid – proceeded to denounce me for “Making a mockery of justice in Jersey!”

I had to strive mightily not to laugh out loud at this Orwellian gem.

I doubt if I’ll bother next time.

The proceedings were predictably Kafkaesque. Baker, supported by his two colleagues was given pretty much free-reign to say what he wanted, when he wanted.

I was allowed a little more opportunity to speak on this occasion – but only a little bit – and even then, only because I complained about it.

I attempted to make a case for the disclosures I require – but it was a futile effort – as I couldn’t prove the relevance of the evidence I sought – because I didn’t have it – because I couldn’t prove its relevance – because I didn’t have it – because I couldn’t prove its relevance – because I didn’t have it – be…. – I’m sure you get the picture.

Even setting aside the defence’s detailed disclosure requirements, as laid down in my letter of the 26th June – the few, key items of evidence I asked for last Thursday were dismissed by the judge.

The defence case rests – fundamentally – on abuse of process, of public interest disclosure, of the evidenced need for that public interest disclosure, an extremely well-evidenced consistent, dangerous and corrupt pattern of the concealment of serious malfeasances by the Jersey establishment, abuse of powers – and a criminal conspiracy to keep such malfeasances, and their concealments, hidden.

My ability to run that defence – and associated applications – was, effectively, terminated last Thursday by the Jersey judicial oligarchy.

The judge called several, frankly mystifying, adjournments in the course of the afternoon – which gave every impression she was taking guidance or advice from some other person or persons in her chambers.

In addition to agreeing with the prosecution that the defence evidence should not be disclosed – she also agreed with them that they needn’t call any witnesses to the trial except those they want to. Which has the effect of leaving the defence to summon any witnesses it considers to be relevant – but – get this – because the defence has been left to call them – the defence cannot then cross-examine them.

Oh well – I try to look on the positive side – when my action for personal damages is mounted against Jack Straw – or whoever may succeed him – it’s all further grist to the mill.

In fact, there were a couple of mysterious gentlemen in black suits sat at the back of the court. I didn’t know who they were, but my sources have suggested to me they were UK Ministry of Justice spooks.

No doubt trying to figure out if this farrago will be remotely defensible once it gets to Strasbourg.

Or trying to assess just for how much longer the British Judiciary can continue to get away with assigning judges to cases involving me – who are friends with the Bailhache Brothers and Co?

“Judges are but men, and are swayed like other men by vehement prejudices. This is corruption in reality, give it whatever other name you please.”

David Dudley Field

Why – given the actions they’re taking involve dicing with disaster – are the Jersey oligarchy – and the “Friends at Court at Whitehall” – proceeding in this way?

As I’ll explain on another occasion – there have been, and continue to be, several obvious and different motivations behind these oppressions.

There is, however, one – which is both fundamental – and very obvious from the nature of the prosecution arguments so far.

Convicting me is not their prime objective; they know that as soon as the charges reach a civilised court – even if that does have to be Strasbourg – they’ll be thrown out.

Their prime motivation is the exculpation of Michael Birt.

They want to try and get Birt off the hook for his failures to prosecute a number of very serious crimes.

Pure and simple.

In the alleged breach of the data protection law, Michael Birt – now Bailiff – and thus figure-head of the Jersey oligarchy – is condemned for not seeing through the prosecution of the immensely dangerous data subject in question, back in the day when Birt was Attorney General.

The authorities know Birt’s position is precarious – hopeless, in fact – but they want to try and salvage him anyway.

The prosecution of me – therefore – is nothing more than an opportunity for the police to stand up in the dock and take to themselves responsibility for not prosecuting the man concerned.

The cops will claim, “well, we just didn’t think we could make it stick, so we gave up”.

“It was not because of any input or decision of that wonderful Mr. Birt.”

That being the political objective of the prosecution – they can hardly then actually disclose to the defence lots and lots of evidence which may well disprove their attempted spin on Birt’s position.

I mean, just imagine if evidence which showed a Culture of Concealment, and of the failure to prosecute serious crimes, was made available to the defence – as it should be, given that that argument is central to the defence case?

Not only would the court be having to consider the full evidence concerning this data subject and associated episode.

The defence would be citing Birt’s failure to prosecute those responsible for concealing child abuse for at least 15 years at Victoria College.

And – the defence would also be examining in great detail Birt’s corrupt decision to let the child-torturing McGuires off the hook.

By this stage – I’m sure you are a smart enough bunch of readers to have made the obvious extrapolation.

If a former Attorney General – who went on to become Deputy Bailiff – and now Bailiff – can have his reputation deservedly annihilated because of a repeated failure to prosecute serious crimes – such as child abuse – then what is to stop a similar public interest disclosure happening again in the future?

Perhaps when another former Attorney General – who went onto become Deputy Bailiff – and will go onto become Bailiff – finds his despicable failure to prosecute child abusers exposed – and his “reputation” likewise destroyed?

A certain Mr. W. Bailhache wouldn’t care for that prospect.

Not one little bit.

Which is why they’ve got to crush me and rescue Birt.

Who said politics was boring!

“Make crime pay. Become a Lawyer.”

Will Rogers.




Jersey’s Only “Newspaper” Reaches New Depths;

The Rag and Its Lies.

As regular readers will know, I’m rather busy with other matters at present – such as trying to stop Jersey’s toxic oligarchy having me jailed for exposing mass-murdering psychopaths – after they’d already been let off by Michael Birt – the new ‘Bailiff’. (He seems to have gotten into a bit of a habit there.)

Incidentally – my next court appearance is 2.00 pm – in the Magistrates’ Court – this Thursday, 27th August. I’m moving that the case be stayed – abandoned, basically – as an abuse of process.

And in making that application, I’ll have to explain a lot of evidence concerning the Jersey establishment’s various corruptions.

If you’re able – come along.

It could be quite entertaining – in the, perhaps forlorn, assumption I’ll be given a fair hearing.

So I don’t have time to undertake a detailed analysis of the contents of the Jersey Evening Post right now; later in the week, hopefully.

But – oh dear – I’ve seen some roiling rancid scum in the form of “news” stories in The Rag over the years – but during the last few days – they seem to have re-discovered their old, disgusting, selves.

It’s as though we were back in the 1950’s and 1960’s – and the Jersey Evening Post was waging its unremitting, fascistic war against Norman Le Brocq – in case he embarrassed them by gaining political influence – and asking questions about just how much money they took off the Nazis during the Occupation – in exchange for peddling Hitler’s garbage – rather like ‘Lord Haw Haw’.

Unfortunately, the bosses of The Rag didn’t join him on the gibbet – just too terribly embarrassing for the British establishment, you see?

But for those who are curious about the contents of The Rag – a few observations.

Two disgusting, foul, multiple child abusers have been convicted.

One has been sentenced.

The other awaits sentencing.

They were able to get away with it for decades – just as, indeed, were dozens of others; others who have not been brought to justice.

Doesn’t that gross structural, decades-old failure in Jersey’s child protection system make you worried?

Don’t you ask, “Could that still be going on?”

“Could it happen to my children?”

“How did the authorities fail so badly for so many decades?”

Yes – those questions – and many others like them – are what any thinking, decent person would be contemplating now.

But – as I remarked in my last posting – those are precisely the very questions The Rag and its bosses are desperate for the people of this island NOT to be thinking about.

Which is why we’ve had four days of desperate, panicking, lies and propaganda from The Rag.

Do you want to know just how the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster was able to happen; was able to be covered-up all those decades?

Read the last four editions of the Jersey Evening Post.

You’ll find your answer there.

There is no other newspaper in the respectable democratic world that would – at the successful conclusion of two major child abuse trials – produce four days of fulminating garbage – such rubbish as to be an insult to the intelligence – that focused on attempting to attack and smear THE cop who led the successful investigations.

As I said – later in the week we can undertake some detailed de-construction of the contents of The Rag’s recent output.

But should you wish for one or two quick illustrations of just how defective their ‘reporting’ is – just consider these points.

The Rag asserts – again and again – that “there were no child killings” – as though that were a proven, demonstrated fact.

It is not.

A misidentification of a single fragment of evidence – which is what the JEP clings to – like a drowning man – doesn’t make the rest of the questions go away.

Should you have the misfortune to read tonight’s Rag – look carefully for where it reports the other bone fragments?

Or, where it reports the 70 plus, children’s’ teeth?

Or – what about the mysterious lime-pits?

You see – contrary to the empty assertions of the Jersey Evening Post, and its efforts to brainwash you as though you were an idiot, the plain fact is that – we just don’t know if there were – or were not – child killings at HDLG.

As I wrote in response to a comment:

“As you know – a judge can only comment on what has been put before him.

And in these cases – as it will be in any others – it suited very well indeed the purposes of BOTH the prosecution AND the defence to heap doubt upon the possibility of child killings.

So one cannot expect the judge to comment on information, evidence, testimony or pleas that were NOT placed before him.

The reality is somewhat different concerning the possibility of killings.

Though The Rag repeatedly asserts – as though it were an established, proven bald fact – “there were no killings” – actually, in truth – we just don’t know.

Remember several human bone fragments were found – and about 75 children’s’ teeth – which had come from a number of different individuals.

And the lime-pits?

And the frequent lighting of massive bonfires at HDLG during the 1960s and 70s?

All remain utterly unexplained.

Certainly, the 5 page Political press-release issued by Gradwell and Weirdcop last year didn’t explain away these findings.

And in response to that press conference I wrote a blog posting, “37 Questions to Officers Warcup and Gradwell”, on Thursday 13th November, 2008.

I suggest anyone interested read that blog posting, which is in the archive.

Not one of the questions were answered.

Of particular importance in the posting were questions 22 to 37 – which deal with radionuclide testing of the teeth.

Whilst not an expert in that subject, I do know a little bit about it.

Gradwell and Warcup have simply refused to have those radionuclide tests carried out – quite falsely claiming it would cost too much.

I know of serious laboratories across Europe that would undertake the tests for a few thousand pounds – at most.

Why the mystifying refusal to undertake what are rudimentary tests which would give us some crucial information?

So – what it is true to say is that we do not know for sure there were child murders at HDLG post-1945 – and equally – we do not know for sure there weren’t – no matter how much the JEP may assert otherwise.

We just don’t know.

And The Rag knows perfectly well that both prosecution and defence had a shared interest in rubbishing the possibilities of child murders – an interest shared with The Rag.

When I think of that subject – my mind always goes back to those ’37 Questions’ – and why Weirdcop and Gradwell’s immense reluctance to answer any of them?

Especially, the reluctance to have that radionuclide testing undertaken?

So – child killings at HDLG?

I very much hope not.

But – contrary to the lies of The Rag – it, sadly, remains an open question.”

And in another comment I wrote today on a blog in the USA – where people are deeply sceptical about the “official” claims of the Jersey and British establishments:

“There were around 75 teeth recovered. The police said they came from a number of different individuals.

Many did not show the signs of wear you would expect, given the likely age of the children when the teeth “came out”.

Many of them had long roots still attached.

The forensic scientist they had looking at them at the time said of many of the teeth, “they could not have come out naturally.”

A point that has always deeply disturbed me is this. Following Lenny’s retirement – and the unlawful suspension of the Chief of Police, Graham Power – the “new management” of the Jersey police force have flatly refused to subject the teeth to radionuclide dating.

It is my understanding that a little, specific, radiocarbon dating was undertaken on some of the burnt bone fragments, but this proved inconclusive.

However, a more relevant set of tests would be to analyse the internal matrix of some of the teeth for the presence of novel radionuclides – or anthropogenic quantities of naturally occurring radionuclides – of the kind that were widely spread around the world – contaminating everyone – during the era of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing.

The Jersey oligarchy have tried to argue that these children’s’ teeth are old – from the Victorian era at the latest – but maybe hundreds, or even thousands of years older than that.

The concern many of us have is that the teeth may, in fact, originate from children who were living post-1945, and more easily testable, post-the early 1950’s due to the huge increase in nuclear bomb testing which began around then.

The analysis – and the issue it would resolve – is simple and clear.

You test those teeth; if there is no internal contamination – that is, within the tooth matrix – with radionuclides such as Plutonium, Strontium 90, or anthropogenic quantities of Carbon 14 – then the children were not living post 1945.

If such contaminations are discovered during the analysis – then the children those teeth came from were living post-1945 – or later. Not arguable. Period.

What – do we imagine – is the reason behind the profound reluctance of the Jersey and British authorities to have these tests undertaken?

I’ve written in detail about the bizarre conduct of the Jersey police in respect of these matters in a blog posting I did on the 13th November, 2008. Sorry, I’m no good at hyperlinks, but here’s the address:”

I’m sorry to have to write about these possibilities – and the shocking failures of the authorities to undertake every possible test – concerning the question of child killings.

But when confronted with The Rag’s repeated and desperate efforts to lie to the population of Jersey – and try and brainwash people into thinking that the possibility of any unexplained child deaths at HDLG had been disposed of – one has to keep on coming back to the truth.

Which is – we just don’t know for sure – one way or the other.

But we do know for sure – what we can see evidenced in the pages of the Jersey Evening Post – is that the authorities don’t want to undertake the necessary tests – and that the powers-that-be in Jersey are simply desperate to keep us distracted with their lunatic attacks on Lenny Harper.

In the hope that we forget about the real issues.

Such as – very, very serious child abusers convicted – decades too late – in what can only be seen as the grotesque, total, dishonest, unprofessional and disgusting decades-old failure of Jersey’s so-called child “protection” apparatus.

And the fact that a few, brave souls had said the system was rotten and broken.

And Jersey’s oligarchy – and its ‘house journal’, the JEP – dismissed them and sided with the abusers and concealers of abuse.

That the few were right.

And the powerful were wrong.

And how can we expect to begin protecting children properly here onwards – if there is still this crazed and fearful denial?

A refusal to come to terms with the truth?




An Occasional Column Devoted to a Study of the Opinion Management Industry.



Child Abuse in Jersey

And the Response of the Island’s Only “Newspaper”.

This evening it had been my plan to share with you various mind-boggling revelations concerning my battle to stop the Jersey oligarchy neutralising me by sticking me in their jail; this for the unpardonable sin of allegedly breaking the data protection law – by making public interest disclosures concerning dangerous criminals.

Tonight I was going to post part 2 of our experiment in legal advice from a web-based community.

However, I’ve decided to make you wait for that particular report back from the front line of Jack-Straw-Labour-Party approved insanity – otherwise known as the “administration of justice in Jersey”.

Instead – I thought I’d do a brief post in response to the almost unbelievable propaganda and spin from Jersey’s only newspaper – the Jersey Evening Post – or The Rag as it is more usually known on this rock.

Look – most readers of this blog will be very familiar with the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster – so I needn’t rehearse all those issue now; instead – let’s cut to the chase.

After over two years of very serious and dedicated work by the police, survivors, witnesses, and campaigners like me – we now have three of the child abusers convicted.

Much to the undisguised rage and fear of the local spivs.

Today, one Claude Donnelly – 69 years old – was sentenced for 13 counts of indecent assault – and 5 counts of child-rape – all against young girls.

He has received a well-deserved 15 years.

Yesterday, another Jersey child abuser – one Gordon Wateridge, was convicted of 8 counts of indecent assault, and one of assault.

He awaits sentencing.

These abusers being just two – of a very, very limited number the Jersey establishment has had to prosecute – because they had no choice.

At least 15 others have escaped justice – not even being charged – even though in the case of some of that number, I know for a stone fact they’re guilty.

But – for the moment, let’s just focus upon these two – Donnelly and Wateridge.

It has been obvious for a very long time that the Jersey oligarchy were getting down on their knees every night – and praying, praying, praying – for “not guilty” to be the verdict against Wateridge for every charge he faced.

The Jersey Evening Post almost certainly had its pages ready to roll – something like this:

“Wateridge is Innocent! Lenny Harper is THE Anti-Christ! See! We told you so all Along!”

However – much to the undoubted devastation of the Jersey oligarchy and The Rag – the jury returned “guilty” verdicts on many of the charges; this notwithstanding determined and desperate last minute attempts by the Jersey oligarchy and its Rag to prejudice the Jury’s deliberations.

However – The Rag has not allowed such trifling details as the fact that Lenny Harper was right – and that he was the cop who initiated and led the investigation which has brought these disgusting old perverts to conviction – to deflect them from their objective – which is – attempting a quite despicable smear-campaign against Lenny Harper – in a text-book propaganda attempt to divert attention away from the real issues.

The real questions.

What The Rag is doing is a text-book propaganda and spin device.

There is a big, nasty, story happening – which is very inconvenient to you or your bosses – so what do you do?

Why, of course, you manufacture a fake, diversionary story – or over-inflate a tired, old re-tread of obsolete ‘news’.

Yesterday and today – with more to come – the Jersey Evening Post has striven mightily to turn the story on its head.

The Rag is trying to diminish public focus upon the conviction and sentencing of these two child abusers – by trying to draw public attention on to a load of dishonest, obsolete, smear-campaign garbage – against THE police officer who led the investigation which nailed these two bastards.

Why do you think that might be?

Why should Jersey’s only “newspaper” be almost certainly the only newspaper in the entire Western, democratic world – which would focus more effort, vitriol – and lies – against the police officer who brought these two disgusting criminals to conviction – than it does upon the foul abusers themselves?

There are several, equally valid, answers to those questions – answers we’ll explore in the coming days.

But just as a brief post – I thought I’d pose a few questions for you to think about – and raise some issue that all decent people should be focusing upon – rather than falling into the JEP trap of being diverted by irrelevancy.

These are just a very few of the questions that any self-respecting journalist – and any decent human being – should be asking.

And – of course – these are the very, very questions that The Rag doesn’t want you to be thinking about.

How come it has taken so long for these abusers to be exposed, charged and punished?

How many others like them are there out there in this community?

How were Wateridge and Donnelly – 78 and 69 years old, respectively – able to have spent decades unpunished?

Why – for decades – has the entire edifice of public administration in Jersey failed to discover, expose, stop and punish these abusers – and dozens of others like them?

What the bloody hell – for all those decades – in days gone by – were the police force of the day doing?

Why were so many complaints of abuse – made to many different agencies in Jersey over the decades – simply ignored – or, more accurately – pro-actively concealed – by the very people who tax-payers employ to, in theory, stop these dreadful crimes happening?

If Jersey – and its ruling establishment – are so perfect and respectable – how come all of these monstrous abuses were able to be concealed for at least seven decades – and only – finally – be exposed and punished by a straight, tough, belligerent Ulsterman?

Why should the Jersey oligarchy now be expending more effort upon attacking Lenny Harper – than they are in addressing these type of obvious questions?

What – in truth – does that say about our ‘traditional’ notion of what our community represents?

Instead of being diverted by the lies and garbage of The Rag – think about the real questions – and later next week we’ll engage in a close analysis of the local reportage – and the motives that lay behind it.




Distortions, Lies, Manipulations, Smears

From the Jersey Oligarchy’s Media.

More regurgitated Attacks on Lenny Harper

Designed to Deny the Survivors Justice.

To readers outside Jersey it is almost impossible to accurately describe just how riddled with venality, lies, idiocies, ethical bankruptcy, out-and-out corruption and quite staggering abuses of power this place is.

After all – we’re a British Channel Island – a Crown Dependency, no less. And situated right on the doorstep of France and the UK – as opposed to being some far-flung ex-colony – so, we must be “respectable” – right?


Every component of the Jersey power-apparatus is rotten to the core. Billions of dollars flood through here each year – with Christ knows what malign influences – and in the process, increasing the tax-burden on people in large nation-states.

And every kind of internal rot imaginable infests the local political scene. Certain members of the legislature having their votes and influence bought? No problem.

No construction development permission – unless the politician of the day with the relevant power gets “a suitcase stuffed with cash” – and sex with you wife? “The Jersey Way”.

Predatory serial rapists of young women – occupying positions of great power and influence – and remaining untouched by the police – to this day? Well, that’s just the way it goes.

Rapidly approaching total destruction of the island’s environment – due to more planning authority corruption than every English county combined? Well, it’s not what you know – it’s who you know – and what you know about who you know.

Complete stagnation in the administration of justice – to the extent that I – a defendant in a case of malicious prosecution – can properly issue summonses to require witnesses to attend the court-case as a part of my defence – only for Jersey’s Attorney General, William Bailhache, to secretly contact the department responsible for issuing those summonses – and tell them not to – because he “doesn’t consider the summonses appropriate”?

Even though he is a party to the action – and one of the people to be summoned?

And one-hundred-and-one other, similar corruptions that are routine in Jersey.

And all tolerated – nay – actually pro-actively protected, by this Labour Government – and Mr. Straw in particular.

As you might imagine, I’ve been following with very great interest the situation in the Turks and Caicos Islands. A British Overseas Territory, a designation that brings with it certain subtle differences to Jersey’s designation as a British Crown Dependency.

But nevertheless – ultimately – the British government carries final responsibility for good governance, the proper rule of law and the good administration of justice in all these places.

The British authorities identified compelling evidence for corruption in the Turks and Caicos Islands – and a ‘climate of fear that prevented ordinary, decent local people from speaking out against those in power’.

Remarkably similar to Jersey.

Except that things in Jersey are worse.

Far worse.

And one of the things that make it far worse is the sheer, entrenched invulnerability of the ruling oligarchy here.

So concerned with the situation in the Turks and Caicos Islands – the British government has intervened and taken direct governance for a period of two years – until the proper rule of law and good governance is restored.

So – why doesn’t the British Government do that with Jersey – at least to the extent of taking direct control over all aspect of law enforcement and the good administration of justice?

I can tell you why.

Firstly – a great number of highly placed British establishment figures have made highly lucrative use of Jersey’s off-shore finance industry for many decades; often perhaps in ways which were not entirely legal and tax-compliant.

But, there is a more obvious reason why people like the Labour Party, its Government and Jack Straw won’t do the correct thing and intervene here to restore the proper rule of law. I made this point to Mr. Straw in an e-mail sent a few days ago. This is a quote from that e-mail:

“Your colleague, Foreign Office Minister Chris Bryant, recently took the necessary and proper step of suspending the government of the Turks & Caicos Islands due to – ‘rampant corruption, a break-down in the rule of law and a climate of fear amongst many ordinary people who dared not speak out for fear of being targeted.’

“That description could have been written about Jersey.

“Except that the situation in Jersey is worse.

“I realise the task of restoring Jersey to good governance, the proper rule of law and the good administration of justice will be a more difficult task than in the Turks and Caicos Islands – given that in the Jersey case, you would not be dealing with ‘inconsequential’ – black – descendents of slaves – but instead an entrenched grouping of Oxbridge educated, multi-millionaires who are terribly, terribly well-connected throughout the upper-reaches of the British establishment, including the judiciary, who belong to all ‘the right clubs’, who have “Friends at Court at Whitehall” – and who are all – exclusively – white.

“Nevertheless, I put it to you as a Labour Party Cabinet member, that rectifying the Jersey issues are challenges you must accept.”

Just imagine – how more influence and power do dozens and dozens of Oxbridge-educated, multi-millionaire, “clubbable chaps” – who are exclusively white – have than a small grouping of black people – with limited “influence” – and who live a long way away?

And given that rampant abuses of power, derelictions of duty – and levels of banana-republic type-propaganda openly flourish here – one can only remark upon the profound irony that it’s all being protected and propped-up – by a Labour Government.

Which brings me to a key-stone in the Jersey oligarchy’s power – its media.

Our mob could have taught Peter Mandelson a thing or two seven decades ago.

We are just nearing the conclusion of one of the few, token, child abuse prosecutions; one of the bear, de minimous, number the Jersey oligarchy thought they could get away with. The Jury has been sent out and are deliberating upon their verdict.

Obviously, the trial has been followed as it unfolds by what passes for the media in Jersey. And my old friends at the Jersey Evening Post – lapsing back into The Rag mode – have – oh so tastefully – used the defence lawyer’s summing up to mount yet another barking mad, simply dishonest and manipulative all-out assault upon Lenny Harper – producing a vast headline and lead story. The huge headline reading, “Harper Made Up ‘Remains’ Story”!

Those people in this community who are capable of thinking for themselves know full well – simply on the basis of a moment’s calm reflection – what utter cobblers such an assertion must be. Not that one can blame the defence lawyer for trying his luck in running such an argument – it is, after all, his duty to do his best for his client.

Though surely even a lawyer – and even a JEP journalist must know they’re pushing their luck in focusing upon an aspect of the whole saga that simply has no relevance to the actual case being tried – “remains” not being relevant to these charges?

But don’t we get into deeply circular territory when a key assertion in the defence case is, essentially, recycled lies from the Jersey Evening Post – used in court – then recycled in turn – again – by The Rag itself?

But so desperate – and frightened – are the festering Jersey oligarchy that they seized upon this defence assertion – without waiting for a response from Lenny Harper to a load of obsolete questions – of the kind he’s answered dozens of times already.

Perhaps there are some people in Jersey who actually enjoy being lied to by the island’s only “newspaper”; perhaps some islanders enjoy being taken for fools?

I know that most do not – and are increasingly sick of the corrupted power we, sadly, see in Jersey all too often.

So – as there is zero chance of The Rag doing it – here, the Quite Vile Blog brings you Lenny Harper’s response to the questions The Rag put to him – simply as an insurance policy – so they could say they’d asked him for a response – whilst then rushing ahead without his answers – instead printing the regurgitation of their own lies – rather like a dog returning to its vomit.


Lenny Harper’s Response
To the Jersey Evening Post;
A response they didn’t wait for.

From: Lenny Harper
To: Diane Simon>
Sent: Wednesday, 19 August, 2009 15:46:31
Subject: Re: claims


Firstly, I was never served a witness order to go to court in Jersey. The Jersey court can order until they are blue in the face but if they do not communicate a request to those concerned it is rather farcical, or more likely, a deliberate ploy to try and suggest that the witness is avoiding something. The nearest I got to a witness order was finding a piece of Strathclyde police message paper through my door on return from holiday asking me to contact them about a court hearing in Jersey. I did. They could only tell me that there was a court case in Jersey the next day. They could not say why I was required and what evidence I was being asked for. As I had made no witness statement I found this rather odd. I contacted the Crown Office in Edinburgh. They told me it had something to do with producing day books. They also told me they had no enforceable witness order. As I had no day books and the Jersey authorities knew this, I reasoned, and still do, that this was not the real reason they wanted me there. It probably had more to do with the false stories they had given the media. I did not trust them and offered to the Crown Office to give evidence in front of any UK court. This was confirmed as an option but Jersey never took it up. One reason is that they knew I had no day books and that was on the advice of Scotland Yard. Jersey sent two officers to the Yard and obtained a statement confirming this. I have no doubt that officers over my time in Jersey have observed me using A4 books. I have described in great detail several times what the one I carried during the enquiry was. As for the book I was photographed holding – who knows? People carry all sorts of books.

As for defence claims that the abusers would not get a fair trial. Rubbish. None of the trials features any evidence about teeth or bones. Try and find a statement where these are mentioned.

You are right. I do not trust the Jersey authorities. There are many reasons why. Try the lies they told the media about what I had said – try blaming me for unlawful spending when I have an e mail – highlighted by the Sunday Times only a few weeks ago, where I am firmly admonished by Bill Ogley on behalf of the Chief Minister for daring to consider the costs of the enquiry – “Cost is irrelevant” he said. The Sunday Times highlighted this and other untrue assertions made by them. I would trust a fox in a chicken house more than I trust the Jersey authorities.

The book business is rubbish. The conversation you mention never took place. The sum of £200,000 is fantasy and ridiculous. Yes – I did say many times that I could not consider a book until I retired. Is that a wrong thing to say? Would I not have been more wrong to consider it whilst working? You can’t win can you? Who in their right mind would offer £200,000 for a book about Jersey? Like all Jersey public officials I was in the company of journalists many times, and yes I was at a dinner where a NOTW journalist was present. Scotland Yard officers who were also there made a statement to Jersey police in which they categorically stated that nothing untoward was said by me and that I spent most of the time outside on the phone. I think that may have been the night I received the call about the teeth, but as Scotland Yard officers said in a sworn statement that was not mentioned publicly by me. Of course I would have mentioned it to officers in private later but do you not think that this would have been headlines immediately in the papers if we had told the journalist? Ask about the statement by the Scotland Yard officers – unless of course this is another piece of inconvenient evidence which has now been lost.

Read the Sunday Times article about the timing of the Julie Robert’s fragment. Also read her journal. She makes it clear that she never changed her mind but that she could not now be so sure. She did not get it back until, I think, April, and on that date she writes “now that the work on the context is finished.” They did not finish work on the context until well after we sent the fragment off. This is another untruth by those seeking to twist the facts. As I have said, read the Sunday Times article and ask to see the relevant parts of Julie’s journal. Funny how they have kept this bit under wraps. However, the Sunday Times had it and revealed it. Furthermore, see the quotes from the Anthropologist in the UK who told the Sunday Times that he had never heard me say anything contrary to his findings and that he even waived his fee so impressed was he with the professionalism we showed. Where has this all gone?

We are going over old ground here that I have explained to you many times. I am sorry to say I doubt the motivation for this. I told you previously that the fragment was identified at the scene. I also told you that not only did we find a newspaper journalist hiding in the bushes at the same time, but that we knew nothing would stay secret for long. Your paper well knows that with your frequent use of sources to reveal news from within the force. How many times do you have this on record? The infill/rubbish was nonsense. See the report from the Archaeologist which disappeared from the police web site due to “a fault.”

Again, the judgement of the legal establishment seems strangely at odds with how journalists remember it. In the words of the Sunday Times journalists he did not believe the more lurid stories because “Lenny Harper warned me against them.” This is corroborated by a number of BBC and other journalists. However, the Judge can, I suppose, only comment on what is laid (selectively) before him. No wonder the British Government think there is something wrong with Jersey.

Until we entered the building I did not have the evidence to mount a dig. What changed my mind is well documented in the report which was on our web site and which we circulated to the media. I attach a copy of it here.

The overtime at HDLG was for security and was nothing different from the norm at a scene which was a potential major crime scene. The levels of security were endorsed as necessary by the ACPO team present who said we had no choice but to treat the area as a potential major crime scene. Uniform Operations Management supplied the officers who had to be on overtime to avoid removing police officers from protecting the public in Jersey. Martin Grime was not only a dog handler, he was the NPIA search advisor when the major crime search experts were away doing other things. Have you bothered to enquire of the rates we were receiving at the hotels we used? They were rates way below the norm. The Treasury were well aware. Where should we have put him up? In a tent? As for the last nasty little smear about restaurant bills, I was often in London and managed to accumulate many, many, services, reviews, and advice from officers and others there free of charge. Has anyone told you how much that lot was worth? I bet not. Operating as we do on an island, networking and hospitality is an essential part of that. I do not know what is being enquired into – the authorities are so desperate to deprive the victims of justice once again that they will stoop to any level. Nothing surprises me anymore.





My Appeal for an Objective and Impartial Court.

Just a very brief post, as I’m busy ploughing through various law-books and things of that nature.

I’m in court again tomorrow morning, at 10.00 at Jersey’s Royal Court – where I shall be mounting two arguments.

Readers will recollect that when appearing before the Jersey Magistrate’s court, the first step I took was to argue that the court could not meet the well-established tests of impartiality and objectivity.

Naturally, the judge rejected that argument – so tomorrow, I am going to the Royal Court to appeal against her decision.

But – of course – all the arguments concerning structural biases and conflicts of interest that I mounted in the Magistrate’s court – also apply to the Royal Court.

Indeed – if anything – dramatically more so.

Therefore – before we get onto my actual appeal against the Magistrate’s court decision – I’m mounting what is known as a recusal application before the Royal Court – just as I did the lower court.

Now – this exercise is going to be quite fascinating.

You see, I have a variety of legal sources to refer to – and a variety of evidence, which I have submitted – and – for tomorrow’s purposes – a particular witness I shall need to cross-examine to stand any chance whatsoever of making my case.

Will the witness submit to cross-examination?!?!

How exciting!

If he does – we get a very interesting legal case.

If he doesn’t – I don’t get a fair trial.


Come and watch Jersey justice in action.

10.00 am, tomorrow morning.











Yes – it’s another ‘you-couldn’t-make-it-up’ moment.

Time for some more Beckettian black farce.

Did you know that – apparently – some of those poor, sweet, dears in the ranks of Jersey’s senior civil service are being “bullied”?

That someone is being so utterly dreadfully unreasonable as to expect social services senior mangers – who are only paid £150,000 per year – plus big fat final salary pension – to, you know, do stuff like stop children being raped and battered?

Isn’t it just monstrous – that a Chief Executive of Health & Social Services should be expected to not be a lying, lazy, incompetent ethically bankrupt shyster who conceals child abuse – given he only earns £250,000 of tax-payers’ money per year?

Dear oh dear – someone even took a proposition to the island’s parliament recently to seek a Committee of Inquiry into why Mike Pollard – and most of his senior management team – had caused the unlawful death of a patient, rigged the subsequent investigation – then lied to the media about it.

I mean – as though having suffered the penalty of having to pay for his own guitar lessons weren’t punishment enough?

And what about that poor, dear man, the Treasurer of the States – who has just blown many millions of pounds of Jersey tax-payers’ money through sheer, brazen incompetence in failing to hedge the exchange costs in funding the new incinerator? Did you know that some people are so unreasonable as to expect accountability if you’re being paid £250,000 a year to run the island’s finances?

I mean – isn’t it just so unreasonable to have expected him to learn a little bit about handling money – given that he’d already run-up several hundred million pounds of debt in the Teachers Superannuation Fund, when he was Treasurer of that department – and nobody complained about that at the time?

And who could be quite so beastly as to place criticism on those poor innocents who very nearly caused the States of Jersey to get hooked into a deal with Harcourt to develop St. Heller’s waterfront – without bothering to undertake a due diligence test – you know? Like to check the company wasn’t embroiled in various legal battles and may have no viable bond?

Did you know there are still some people who get all worked up about half-a-million tonnes of ultra toxic incinerator ash just being dumped into the sea-porous land reclamations sites around St. Helier? I mean, for Heaven’s sake – what’s the matter with these people? What’s a cocktail dose of dioxins, furans, mercury, PCBs, lead, arsenic, zinc and cadmium – in comparison to the “burdens” on the shoulders of those poor departmental Chief Officers?

And – believe it or not – there are still some States members – and a goodly number of members of the public – who still get very angry when thinking of that £49 million in tax-payers’ money wasted on capital overspends during the 1990’s.

And there is – supposedly – a States member who gets very angry and very unpleasant to over-paid, under-worked, lying crooks who, after all, were just following “The Jersey Way” when they went along with the concealment of foul crimes against children for decades. But surely people like Marnie Baudains, Anton Skinner, Geoff Spencer – etc. – should just be left in peace to enjoy the millions they’ve “earned” from Jersey tax-payers.

Who could this mystery, foul person be – who would prefer to see a couple of dozen over-paid idlers who collectively cost the public maybe £10 million a year – sacked – rather than close down day-care centres for the elderly?

Just who is this despicable monster – who would rather see youth facilities kept open and nurses paid properly – instead of “employing” senior managers who cover-up the torture and battery of children – and conceal the unlawful killing of patients?

Yes – it’s confession time.

This hideous and appalling enemy of “The Jersey Way” – is me.

And I know for sure it’s me – because Jersey’s Chief Minister, Terry Le Sueur has written to me and told me so.

In fact – so certain is he and his Council of Ministers of this fact – and just how dreadful it is – he has decided to take the immensely brave step – under the present public financial circumstances – of employing – at public cost – yet another expensive outside consultant – for all these poor, maligned, benighted moronic slackers – err – sorry – senior civil servants to cry on the shoulder of.

And then to produce yet another very expensive report stating just what a dreadful bastard and thug that Stuart Syvret is. (And, you know, he’s such a swine, he won’t even take any notice of it.)

A very funny thing happened to me on my way from the Co-Op this evening; a person stopped me and said, have you seen the JEP? ‘No’, said I. “Why? What have I done this time? Burnt down the States building?”

“Oh no, nothing like that today. It’s just that there are three letters in the paper you’ll agree with very much. And – get this – they’re all from countryside addresses. How weird is that?”

So purchasing a copy of the said journal, I turned to the letters on page 15 and, sure enough, there were indeed, three letters – under the heading, ‘Incinerator Costs’; from a Mr. Connor, a Mr. Wheeler and a Mr. McGregor.

And, sure enough – I agreed with every word, every syllable of those letters.

The people of Jersey are getting angry – getting very angry – and this anger – traditional oligarchy dopes, note – is across the political spectrum – and across the class spectrum.

In truth – we should have wrestled to the ground and driven a stake through the heart of the culture of utter invulnerability – of immunity from accountability that infests the higher reaches of the civil service decades ago.

If people are paid an awful lot of tax-payer’s money – for their supposed “professionalism” and “expertise” – then with that remuneration should come an appropriate degree of ‘moral hazard’.

You fail – you clear your desk – and walk.

End of.

Yet, instead – and quite extraordinarily given the very hard – and getting harder – financial times we all face – instead of finally grasping that nettle – and imposing some form or professionalism, discipline and accountability on the bloated upper-reaches of our massively unsustainable senior civil service – Terry Le Sueur, Philip Ozouf and the rest of the Clowncil of Ministers – are going in exactly the opposite direction!

Which brings me to Senator Le Sueur’s letter – which I reproduce below.

There’s a funny thing about his letter – which is – unintentionally, very revealing.

For good or ill – I am one of your chosen elected representatives. You may hate me – you may disagree with me – but if you’re a democrat – and if you believe your elected representatives should be free from harassment, and not be pressured to act against your interests as tax-payers – then you will expect your politicians to be willing – and able – to hold the executive to account.

And that’s what I try to do as a States member.

But – according to Senator Terry Le Sueur in his letter – my efforts to do what he and his Clowncil are incapable of – and combat the collection of buffoons otherwise known as the Corporate Management Board – is the work of an “external party”.

According to Terry Le Sueur and his Clowncil of Ministers – I’m not a States member.

They’ve decided that, ‘well, Syvret might be an elected member – placed in the States by the voting public – but as far as we’re concerned, he’s merely an “external party”’.

I suggest you read Senator Le Sueur’s deeply alarming and profoundly dangerous letter – and think very carefully about just what it means.

Some readers will be familiar with the TV comedy series, “Yes Minister” – which depicted elected politicians as the puppets of an utterly out of control, unaccountable, unelected senior civil service that was running rings around them.

I’ve often remarked that the situation in Jersey is worse – far worse – than that parody.

And now we have proof – in the form of Terry Le Sueur’s letter.

I’ve always viewed my role as a politician to be that of protecting the public interest from the edifice of public administration. For reasons which have always eluded me – 95% of Jersey States members seem to have the opposite view – that it is, somehow, their job to protect public administration from the public.

If what is revealed in Senator Le Sueur’s letter is not a frankly horrifying attempt to crush democratic public control – to intimidate, harass and silence your elected representatives – whoever they may be – and instead fix another layer of armour-plating over the bloated collection of expensive, unethical and incompetent shysters that cost you millions each year – then I don’t know how to write obnoxious e-mails.

Read Terry Le Sueur’s letter – and be afraid for you bank-balance – be very afraid.

And to give you an even more detailed and alarming impression of the sub-text to a great deal of this saga – read my reply, which appears below his letter.

I am going to sue the Council of Ministers – and sue the States – because the actions they took against me were criminal. Calculated and determined efforts to silence me – carried out at the express demands of these very senior civil servants – who wanted to try and stop me exposing decades of their gross professional – and criminal – failures.

Such action is – sadly – the only way the truth will be dragged out – and the only way the broken shambles of Jersey’s public administration will be fixed.

But in the interim – please – will somebody save us from people like Terry Le Sueur, Philip Ozouf and the rest of them.

We’re already running out of time.



Terry Le Sueur
Chief Minister
Cyril Le Marquand House
St Helier

Tel: +44 (0)1534 440400
Fax: +44 (0)1534 440408

11 August 2009

Dear Senator Syvret

I am writing to advise you that the States Employment Board has received a letter from the Health and Safety Inspectorate advising that they have received a complaint that States employees are allegedly being bullied by an external party during the course of their duties. I enclose a copy of the letter.

Although the letter talks in general terms, I regret to say that a visit to the Human Resources Department by the author of the letter has confirmed that the external party is you.

The Inspectorate has more recently followed up this letter with a second letter asking for details of what the Board is doing about the complaint (copy attached).

The Board has decided to commission an independent investigation into this complaint. The investigation will be carried out by Mr Christopher Chapman who lives in the UK and who, amongst other things, is an Employment Tribunal Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Central Arbitration Committee. Mr Chapman is particularly keen that you should be included in his investigation and will most certainly want to meet with you. A copy of his CV is attached.

The terms of reference for the investigation are as follows:

• to consider the extent of alleged staff harassment by an external party and the effect this is having on the personal health and welfare of the staff affected and their ability to perform their jobs competently;

• to consider the means through which the alleged harassment is perpetrated;

• to determine the effect this is having on the general culture, work environment and the self-confidence of staff other than the alleged Victims;

• to make recommendations to the States Employment Board on how best to arrange for the alleged harassment to be addressed.

I do hope that you will see this as a positive way of addressing the concerns raised and agree to participate in the investigation.

Yours sincerely

Senator Terry Le Sueur
Chairman, States Employment Board
direct dial: +44 (0)1534 440439


—–Original Message—–
From: Stuart Syvret
Sent: 12 August 2009 13:27
To: Terry Le Sueur
Cc: Council of Ministers; William Bailhache
Subject: RE: E-mailing: Syvret bundle

Senator Le Sueur

I do thank you for providing me with a little light relief.

Well – at least, it would be – were it not for the fact that your letter is another brazen – and, frankly, idiotic – example of the “Culture of Concealment” still being used by the Jersey oligarchy – here in 2009.

I’m sure the media are going to love it.

You and Mr. Chapman can undertake the proverbial hike.

I will not be meeting with him. I will not be speaking with him. I will be not altering one jot of what is written on my blog. I shall continue to write about the significant grouping of demonstrable criminals within the senior civil service. Largely a grouping of self-protecting incompetents who are barely employable, and who, in many cases, have behaved utterly disgracefully.

You – Senator Le Sueur – are simply too weak, unprincipled and spineless to exhibit the necessary leadership required to safeguard the public good, and deal with these people.

Instead, you are their poodle. As your letter shows.

As you and your establishment allies always appear to regard me as a moron – let me explain to you exactly what my various legal researches have shown to me.

I have a right to free speech as guaranteed under Article 10 of the ECHR. It is not an absolute right, rather, it is a qualified right. But nevertheless, the European Court of Human Rights has attached great significance to protecting the right to free expression.

The lawful methods of testing whether my free speech is, in any hypothetical case, sufficiently ‘unlawful’ to merit interference with are very well documented and established.

Hate speech – such as racism, or incitement to violence – would be unlawful. As I oppose both racism and violence, and have advocated neither (on the contrary) no such method of restraining my free speech could be invoked.

The other, principle test as to whether the exercising of free speech is unlawful, is a defamation action. Those who feel baseless things have been spoken or written about them, may sue the party who made those expressions for defamation.

As what I write on my blog is not protected by parliamentary privilege – the supposed aggrieved parties are at perfect liberty to sue me for defamation.

None of them have – a fact I feel we can draw certain conclusions from.

Let me put it to you why none of them have sued me.

It is because they know – full-well – that the process of discovery, of examining all the evidence, of testing the matters in court – the prospect of me calling 18 men who would, for example, testify about the savage batterings they received as children from a certain Chief Officer and his predecessor – would destroy them.

They know that I would win any such action (assuming a competent court) – and consequently, their reputations would be annihilated.

Just as would yours – for your spineless, anti-public interest determination to protect these clowns.

And just as the reputation of the Attorney General would be destroyed – as so much evidence would emerge in court as to demonstrate many of his various refusals and failures to prosecute to be literally incredible.

Your letter represents merely the latest in a chain of increasingly desperate acts of oppression and abuses of powers that have been deployed against me by you and the rest of the Jersey Establishment Party during the last two years.

Firstly – the very civil servants you now seek to protect engaged in unlawful and unethical acts in an effort to engineer my dismissal; this in attempt to conceal their incompetence and, frankly, criminal conduct.

You – and all the then Council of Ministers willingly joined in with that oppression – and in customary Jersey Oligarchy fashion, cast aside the public interest in order to engage in another exercise of concealment.

The Council of Ministers unlawfully fast-tracked the dismissal meeting against me.

The then Deputy Bailiff – now Bailiff – improperly advised that due process could be cast aside.

The supposed “case” against me was e-mailed to me less than 24 hours before your fast-tacked, unlawful meeting.

The Data Protection Commissioner – with the full support, encouragement and connivance of the Attorney General – began a process of the abusive and oppressive application of the data protection law against me.

These even leading to the quite laughable spectacle of her writing to me – and attempting to argue that, somehow, the data protection law empowered her to make me stop writing things on my blog which were simply things told to me by my constituents, and involved no controlled data.

We have more recently had the banana-republic police raid and “fishing expedition” type search, that saw the house being turned over from top to bottom, me being locked into police cells for seven hours – all through the utterly unlawful and abusive application of Article 29 of PPCE.

All that having failed to deflect me – the police now, from time to time – issue me with “warning notices”, citing the harassment law; another comically incompetent attempt to silence me as though Article 10 of the ECHR just didn’t exist.

All in a futile effort to stop me doing my public duty and protecting the public interest from a manifestly incompetent, out of control, invulnerable, bloated, expensive – and frequently criminal senior civil service.

You – Senator Le Sueur – prefer instead to protect this shower of buffoons, idlers, liars, shysters and criminals.

It is plain to me where my public duty lays.

I should inform you that I will be including your letter and associated documents, and this e-mail, in the evidence bundle for the abuse of process application I am making.

Let me also take this occasion to briefly inform you of another, related matter, though I will write in more detail concerning this on a later occasion.

The actions of the Council of Ministers, certain civil servants, the then Deputy Bailiff, and certain others – as conducted against me during the summer of 2007 were unlawful.

That is, unlawful in both the criminal and the civil sense.

Plainly – things being as they are in Jersey – there is not the remotest possibility of the criminal aspects being pursued by today’s police force – nor the Attorney General – given he is a participant in the criminal activity complained of. Nevertheless – I have given extensive formal statements to the police.

The actions of you, the rest of the Council of Ministers and certain civil servants being a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and misconduct in a public office.

The letter you have sent to me – in which you are seeking to engineer my silence, so that criminal acts continue to be concealed, is another example of that criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

As I said – I don’t expect these matters to be pursued – given the complete break-down in the rule of law we witness in Jersey.

Nevertheless – for a variety of reasons – reasons further evidenced by your letter – I hereby give notice that I am going to initiate civil legal proceedings against the Council of Ministers, certain senior civil servants, and others – for a variety of wrongs committed against me – and will be seeking substantial personal damages.

I will write, in due course, with the detail of the wrongs you and others have committed against me. Naturally, you will not wish to accept culpability, so the matter will go to a full civil trial. And so broad will be the issues at contention – that a great deal of ‘discovery’ will be necessary. Incidentally, the parameters of discovery are far wider in civil actions than in criminal actions.

The civil trial will also present a huge, over-arching public advantage – in that very many of the survivors will have their day in court – and a great deal of the truth will emerge. Indeed, perhaps even one or two witnesses who recall very clearly being savagely beaten with a rod by a certain former teacher at De La Salle.

The events complained of largely began to take place in the summer of 2007 – and have continued to the present day. I have, therefore, until the summer of 2010 to initiate the legal action.

I look forward to seeing you and all your colleagues in court.

Yours sincerely,

Senator Stuart Syvret
States of Jersey





If so – Now is the Time to Mobilise

And Make YOUR Government Act.

Read my Report to Jack Straw

Below this Posting –

Then Demand That he Act.

In my last posting, I wrote about the naïve sense of optimism I felt at learning of the covert police investigation into the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster, back in November, 2007.

The cynicism tutored into me by 18 years in Jersey politics was suddenly lifted – for a time – with the news that, at last, we had a straight, decent police force who were investigating the many decades of concealed child abuse.

But a part of me still suspected – perhaps subconsciously knew – that if the Jersey oligarchy were left to their own devices – by hook or by crook – they’d find a way of burying it all again – and denying justice to the survivors.


So whilst the Jersey police – at least when under the leadership of Graham Power and Lenny Harper – were doing their policing job – I knew I would have to be doing my political job.

Different tasks – needing to be pursued in different ways – but working to the same objective.

Seeking the proper rule of law and the good administration of justice.

So amongst the mountainous volumes of work I’ve done during these last two years – one of the key things was writing the report I re-produce below.

I sent it – on the 27th March, 2008, to the Justice Secretary of the British Government – Jack Straw MP. Cabinet member, former student radical – and now someone who – apparently – fancies his chances of becoming leader of the Labour Party, should Gordon Brown not survive in that job.

Along with my report, I sent certain appendices which evidenced much of what I had written. I had kindly been supplied, by Westminster contacts, with Straw’s direct Office e-mail address, to which I sent it.

And – to make doubly sure he couldn’t claim to have never seen the report – two MPs – John Hemming, Lib-Dem, and Austin Mitchell, Labour – saw that copies were actually thrust into his hand.

I’m sometimes asked if I plan to write my memoirs. A few years ago, I fully planned to do just that, and had said so publicly – to the mocking amusement of my “esteemed colleagues” – before any of this controversy began. Now? I’m just really not sure I have the energy or inclination any more.

But if I did – a very strong contender for the title would – tragically – have to be – “I Told You So.”

Re-reading the report below for the first time in around six months made me again ask myself the question – “what on Earth ever possessed me to be – for a time – optimistic that truth and justice would prevail?”

I knew it wouldn’t.

It’s all there in the report.

Every burningly obvious defect, malfeasance, conflict and danger exhibited by the Jersey oligarchy in respect of the Child Abuse Disaster – I knew.

Which is why I wrote it all down in the report below.

In fact – when thinking about it now – I realise I was terrified – that isn’t too strong a word – for my constituents.

Terrified that they’d be betrayed by The System – yet again.

Jesus – I can’t even write about them – their feelings – their needs, now. I was going to – but I just can’t.

My sense of personal failure is just too overwhelming.

The report is long – I felt I had to cover all bases – to give it my best shot.

But it just wasn’t good enough – when faced with the entrenched might of the British Establishment – the Jersey oligarchy’s powerful connections – their infamous “Friends At Court At Whitehall.”

I was going to say Straw simply ignored it; but, actually, that would be conferring too high a credibility on his response. I don’t believe he actually bothered to read it; and – to actually make matters worse – he simply placed it in the hands of those Whitehall mandarins who appear to be little better than performing monkeys – at the command of the Jersey oligarchy and their high connections in the British military.

Inevitably – the only response from London was intransigence. So five months later, John Hemming and I set about the task of attempting to get Jack Straw’s acts and omissions judicially reviewed in London. The case, eventually, came to court in March, 2009.

What happened?

I was self-representing – not being able to afford a lawyer – and turned up in the Royal Courts of “Justice” – to discover – guess what?

That two judges had been chosen to hear the ‘permissions application’ – one of them, a man who had been suspected of being a flasher – Stephen Richards – and the other – Michael Tugendhat  – a friend of Jersey’s directly conflicted “Bailiff” Sir Phillip Bailhache.

Because, like, that’s what you expect, yeah?

You’re going to court arguing that the Jersey judiciary has been pro-actively involved in covering-up sexual perversions – and the two judges you get to hear your case are a man with an unfortunate history of being prosecuted for sexual perversions – Richards – and a man who was appointed to Jersey’s Court of Appeal by Jersey’s London-appointed head of judiciary Phil Bailhache – Tugendhat.

I was ordered to stand low down in the intimidating well of Court No.1 at the Royal Courts of Justice, so I had to crane my neck to look upwards at the two judges.  The Government’s lawyers were high & distant on the ascending rows of benches behind me. I was given only one hour to make the application, I was constantly interrupted, diverted, shouted-over, distracted and hampered in the making of our case by the judge who had been acquitted of flashing women on a train. By contrast the UK Government side were not even required to state their case. The two judges retired for 15 minutes – to tweak a little bit the “judgment” they had plainly already written. And when they returned – they basically told us to sod off.

And bear in mind – this wasn’t a rejection of our case in a judicial review.

This was simply an utterly irrational flat refusal of permission to even mount a case for judicial review; a decision simply incompatible with precedent, the case-specific evidence, case-law and the relevant constitutional authorities.

I was not even supplied with a copy of the judgment, or a transcript of the proceeding. But going from memory, the argument of the two judges was basically this:

“You want the actions of the UK Justice Secretary to be judicially reviewed because he is tolerating a corrupt and stagnant judicial system in Jersey. What you should be doing then is going before that corrupt and stagnant judicial system in Jersey – and ask then to judicially review themselves.”

You just couldn’t make it up.

So – sure enough. Every concern I had for the rights and protections of my constituents – all the dangers that troubled me – every hazard – every probable outcome – that I tried to head-off by writing to the Labour Party’s Jack Straw when he held the relevant Office of Secretary of State for Justice has come to pass.

A few, token – not well-connected – scumbags have been prosecuted in Jersey – for appearances sake.

A few survivors have got justice.

The vast majority of the criminals have not even been prosecuted. They’ve simply been let-off – as predicted – by the Jersey oligarchy.

Most of the survivors betrayed – again.

In fact – the one of the few major court cases we’re going to see – is me – being prosecuted for allegedly breaking the data protection law by making public interest disclosures.

Funny, no? In a tragic kind of way?

And it just isn’t going to get any better. You want to know what’s changed since I wrote the report?

The then Bailiff, Phil Bailhache has settled into luxurious retirement.

Michael Birt has been promoted from Deputy Bailiff to Bailiff.

Bill Bailhache  – Phil Bailhache’s equally conflicted brother – has been promoted from Attorney General to Deputy Bailiff.

So the whole armour-plated, invulnerable, teflon-coated succession of self-sustaining, self-protecting megalomaniac, unethical neo-feudalists continues – with the apparent blessing of the Labour Government.

So I’d like to make a simple appeal to those who read this posting – who read the report below – and who are members or supporters of the Labour Party.

Your leaders don’t give a damn.

They have sat-back – and watched the plainly stagnant and corrupt upper-class, rich oligarchy in the medieval tax-haven of Jersey get away with protecting and concealing child abusers.

And betraying the victims of child abuse.

If you believe the Labour Party should exhibit higher values – greater responsibility – better ethics – then many thousands of you ordinary members of the Party need to get angry – get mobilised – and get a very – very – clear and powerful message to your bosses.

Because they sure as hell aren’t going to do the right thing unless driven to it by grass-roots pressure.

And when reading the report below – always bear in mind what it is the survivors, the whistleblowers, the many decent people of this community, and some of our politicians, like me, are seeking.

Not revolution, not anarchy, not invasion by the UK, not the destruction of this small island’s culture, not annexation, and nor some kind of utopian fantasy.

All we seek are a genuinely independent judiciary, an objective and non-political prosecution service, a separation of powers, objective and impartial courts, effective checks and balances, the good administration of justice – and the proper rule of law.

And this in the 21st century.

Is that really too much to seek?

Stuart Syvret


From: Senator Stuart Syvret
C/O Morier House
St. Helier


27th March 2008


Jack Straw M.P
Justice Secretary
House of Commons

Dear Mr. Straw,

I write to you to draw to your attention a very serious range of issues for which you have responsibility, and to request that you use your constitutional powers to ensure the good administration of justice in Jersey.

Please forgive the length of this report – but the maters it deals with are of the utmost gravity.

The situation is this:

Hundreds of vulnerable children in Jersey have suffered the most appaling child abuse. This abuse has affected generations of people, leaving most of them with ruined lives. Others have committed suicide.

The scale of the abuses, their systemic nature – and the fact that they were able to take place largely unexposed and unpunished for decade after decade represents a catastrophic failing of ‘checks and balances’ in Jersey.

Such failure to protect vulnerable children calls into question the Rule of Law and the good administration of justice in the island.

Every part of the Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus is hopelessly conflicted in respect of any matter – civil or criminal – which may arise from the child abuse crisis in Jersey.

This fact is well-evidenced.

I will explain that evidence later.

Accompanying this e-mailed letter are two PDF files, the Sharp report and the Dylan Southern Report.

Both reports evidence in detail disastrous breakdowns in child protection and the Rule of Law in Jersey.

Given the profound conflicts of interest concerning the Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus, no part of it is remotely capable of meeting the test of the “appearance of objectivity” which any credible judicial process must meet.

I am, therefore – and at the express request of a significant number of my constituents who are victims of the systemic child abuse in Jersey – writing to request that you use the constitutional powers vested in you to ensure good governance and the proper administration of justice in Jersey.

Structure of this Report.

In this report I detail the following facts:

1: The background to the present child abuse disaster in Jersey.

2:Your constitutional responsibilities and powers in respect of the Crown Dependencies.

3: The nature of the United Kingdom’s international obligations for what takes place in the Crown Dependencies.

4: The good name of the Crown – and why that good name is presently in serious jeopardy in Jersey.

5: The established and accepted doctrine of the separation of powers.

6: The conflictedness of the Jersey judiciary.

7: The conflictedness of the Jersey prosecutory service.

8: The established and accepted test of ‘the appearance of objectivity’ which any respectable judicial process must meet.

9: Democracy and the good administration of justice: recognising that they are not always the same cause.

10: The United Kingdom: jus cogens, erga omnes and Jersey.

11: Evidenced examples of possible criminality by senior figures in Jersey’s judicial and prosecutory services.

12: The present status of the current investigations of those senior figures by the Police Force.

13 Action that must be taken by you in defence of the victims, in the name of the Rule of Law, to defend the good name of the Crown and to meet the United Kingdom’s international obligations.

14: Conclusion.

1: Introduction.

As you will be aware, the island of Jersey is having to come to terms with at least seven decades of the most monstrous and persistent child abuse.

95% of which has gone unexposed and unpunished.

These crimes may have even included child murder.

The States of Jersey Police Force are still undertaking their investigations, and expect to make a substantial number of arrests.

The offences being investigated by the Police Force are not confined only to instances of abuse; they are also investigating the extensive cover-ups and concealments of that abuse – abuse which has taken place over many decades.

In this respect, they will almost certainly be seeking to bring charges of Perverting the Course of Justice, Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice and Misconduct in a Public Office.

And it is this aspect of the crisis – the concealment of abuse and resultant perversion of the course of justice – that is of particular interest to you given your constitutional responsibilities and powers.

The central importance of this aspect of the Jersey child abuse disaster cannot be over-stated. Every community, sadly, has abusers within it. Other jurisdictions have also experienced well-documented examples of persistent abuse concealed for many years by certain institutions.

However – what makes the Jersey situation so extreme is the sheer quantity of victims – and the fact that the abuse was able to persist largely unexposed for generations.

This failure by the island’s authorities to adequately protect Jersey’s vulnerable children has been caused by a near-complete breakdown of effective checks and balances.

Whilst there has, plainly, been a catastrophic breakdown of oversight and regulation on the part of the island’s government – of more alarming concern must be the failure of the Crown in Jersey to properly fulfil its role with respect to good governance, the rule of law and the good administration of justice when dealing with child abuse.

I will explain these – well-evidenced – failures later.

I will now turn to your role and responsibilities in helping the people of Jersey re-gain the proper protection of the Crown, the rule of law and the good administration of justice.

2: Your constitutional powers.

As Justice Minister, a post formerly designated Lord Chancellor, you have ultimate power over the Crown Dependencies insofar as “good governance and the proper administration of justice” are concerned.

It is, naturally, disputed by the Jersey authorities of today that you possess these responsibilities and consequent powers.

Such a claim is historically and constitutionally unsustainable and readily disposed of.

Over the generations, most Jersey authorities – including its Crown-appointed officers – have accepted that the Crown ultimately has responsibility for – and thus the consequent power to intervene in – matters of “good government and the proper administration of justice”. In practice these responsibilities and powers lie with the UK government.

This view was the conclusion of the 1973 Royal Commission on the Constitution (the Kilbrandon Report)

I will refer to the Kilbrandon Report in more detail later.

3: The United Kingdom’s International Obligations.

Even setting aside the established, constitutional existence of an inherent power of the Crown to intervene in the Crown Dependencies for the purposes of good governance and the proper administration of justice, there are further – unambiguous – obligations upon, and therefore powers vested with, the United Kingdom.

Whilst the authorities of Jersey are customarily allowed to govern the island’s internal, domestic affairs, it is well-established that the United Kingdom does, indeed, carry responsibility for any international or foreign policy matter which bears upon the island.

The United Kingdom is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. The island of Jersey is also a signatory to the ECHR. But in the case of Jersey, we are signatories to the Convention through the United Kingdom. This is also the case in respect of many other international treaties and conventions.

Therefore any breach of the Rights enshrined in the ECHR by the Jersey authorities, has the effect of placing the United Kingdom in breach of its Convention obligations.

To illustrate this point further we need only reflect upon the fact that any human rights case pursued by a resident of Jersey to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg is always designated [the plaintiff] ‘Vs the United Kingdom’

The fact that the United Kingdom carries responsibility for adherence to the Convention in the Crown Dependencies has long been recognised by London.

Let me give two, brief examples of intervention by London to ensure compliance with the ECHR by the Channel Islands.

Homosexuality remained illegal in Jersey up until the late 1980s. The island authorities of the day strongly resisted the arguments for change. The States of Jersey exhibited much prejudice, and resisted persuasion from London. There was an absolute determination by the States of Jersey to resist the necessary legislative changes.

But the criminalisation of homosexual acts was not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore the refusal of the Jersey government to meet its ECHR obligations had the effect of placing the United Kingdom in breach of its convention obligations. This fact was well-recognised by the authorities in London who made increasingly serious attempts to make the Jersey authorities undertake the necessary legislative changes. Yet still the traditional establishment of the island resisted.

Ultimately, therefore, Jersey was told by London “Either you change your laws as required – or we will do it for you – and impose the necessary legislation.”

The island’s authorities – reluctantly seeing the inevitability of legislative intervention – conceded in the final analysis and changed the law. But only did so after immense pressure – and finally the ultimatum “you change your law – or we will do it for you.”

In this case we see on the part of the authorities in London, a clear recognition of the fact that the UK is placed in breach of the ECHR if breaches of that Convention are permitted in the Channel Islands. Moreover – with such a consequence for the UK, it was also recognised that, ultimately direct intervention by London both could take place, and may even be necessary.

A further, more recent, example of intervention by the authorities of the United Kingdom in Channel Island domestic affairs is to be found in the case of Sark.

The island of Sark was – until very recent changes, which were required by the United Kingdom – Europe’s last functioning feudal society. Democracy did not exist as the Sark ‘parliament’ – the Chief Pleas – consisted of wealthy landowners who were not elected – but instead had an automatic seat in the assembly by dint of their property ownership.

The feudalism of Sark – whilst appearing quaint to some – was clearly wholly incompatible with several key clauses of the ECHR. This was, again, recognised by the United Kingdom. Not wishing to become in breach of the Convention, London brought immense pressure to bear upon the authorities in Sark and Guernsey to introduce functioning democracy. The ultimate threat was the imposition of legislation from London. So, although the traditionalists strongly resisted change – they recognised the inevitability of UK intervention and, reluctantly, changed their legislation so that it met the requirements of the ECHR.

There is also the view – indeed it was the conclusion of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution in 1973 (the Kilbrandon Report) – that if the United Kingdom has an international obligation, then it must have the concomitant legal power to take such action as is necessary to ensure that the United Kingdom does not breach that obligation.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this will mean that if there were an international obligation binding on the United Kingdom as a result of, in this case the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Kingdom can assert that it was in law entitled to take action to ensure that Jersey performed its obligations.
Considering the above points, it is, therefore, clearly established that the government of the United Kingdom has the constitutional power – in the name of the Crown – to intervene for the purposes of good governance and of the proper administration of justice.

It is also clearly established that in respect of foreign policy matters – such as adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights – the United Kingdom carries responsibility for what takes place in the Channel Islands – and therefore has a concomitant power to ensure adherence to such conventions.

In the present case it is difficult to imagine a more serious ECHR requirement than ensuring the good administration of justice – that Article 6 of the Convention is adhered to.

There can, therefore, be no credible argument against your powers to intervene in order to ensure the rule of law and the proper administration of justice in Jersey.

4: The Good Name of the Crown.

Whilst Jersey is proud to be a self-governing jurisdiction – the apparatus of the state and its powers in the island is not based upon purely ‘indigenous’ institutions.

The island is proud of its status as a Crown Dependency, always expresses loyalty to the Crown – and, in particular, its judiciary enjoys the authority and credibility of association with the good name of the British Crown.

Indeed, it should be clearly noted at this point that the senior judicial and prosecutory officers of Jersey’s Royal Court are, in fact, appointed from London.

They are not accountable to any entity or public authority in Jersey.

It is, therefore, even more clearly demonstrated that the United Kingdom cannot wash its hands of responsibility for the standards and performance of its appointed agents in Jersey, such as the senior judiciary and Crown Prosecution officers.

It must be understood clearly – and there can be no escaping this fact – that if the Crown-appointed, Royal Court authorities in Jersey display any misfeasance or malfeasance then the good name of the Crown becomes blackened.

If the British state is content to allow the good name of the Crown to be used by Jersey, and if the Jersey authorities are likewise pleased to enjoy that credibility of association – then both sets of authorities must defend the reputation of the Crown from any possible hint of taint.

5: Separation of Powers.

In modern democracies it has long been recognised and established that there should be a separation of powers. Although in the United Kingdom some small, but largely symbolic, overlap in powers remains, in practice the Crown Prosecution Service, judges and the Courts are free from any political association, let alone political interference.

Thus the administration of justice in the United Kingdom is recognised to be amongst the finest in the world.

But in Jersey, an archaic and profoundly unhealthy overlap exists between the legilsature and the judiciary. Moreover, this overlap also politically contaminates the island’s Crown Prosecution Service.

To briefly explain the conflicts of interest as manifested in Jersey’s arrangements.

The head of the island’s judiciary, its chief judge, is known as ‘the Bailiff’. But in addition to being the Crown appointed leader of Jersey’s judicial apparatus – he is also President – the equivalent of Speaker – of the island’s parliament, ‘the States’.

The present incumbent is Philip Bailhache. The present Jersey Attorney General is his brother, William Bailhache.

The deputy head of the island’s judiciary – and also deputy Speaker of its parliament is the ‘Deputy Bailiff’; the present incumbent being Michael Birt, a former Attorney General.

The present Attorney General is William Bailhache, the Bailiff’s brother. In Jersey the Attorney General is the de facto Director of Public Prosecutions and its Crown Prosecution Service.

His deputy is the Solicitor General, who is vested with similar powers.

Therefore we have the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff – who are active and busy judges in Jersey’s Royal Court – also acting as Speakers in the island’s parliament.

And in this latter role, they frequently exercise extremely archaic supposed ‘powers’ to determine what bills may be tabled, or what questions may be asked, by elected members of the States assembly.

6: The Jersey Judiciary.

However, the major concern with the deeply conflicted position of Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff is in the exercising of their judicial functions.

Routinely chairing meetings of the Jersey parliament, both of these individuals are regularly exposed to all of the ideological arguments, purposes, disputes, motivations and political influences on display during the debating of legislation – laws they are subsequently expected to adjudicate upon.

These contaminating influences therefore clearly render both individuals incapable of meeting the necessary test of ‘the appearance of objectivity’ when hearing cases in the Royal Court.

However the conflictedness of these two individuals is even more serious. Both the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff are deeply politicised individuals – indeed, often making little attempt to hide that fact.

By way of recent – and highly pertinent example – the Bailiff gave a political interview to the island’s only newspaper, the Jersey Evening Post. This was published on Saturday 15th March 2008.

In this interview he strove to repeatedly defend the island’s political establishment. This included making a number of quite clearly false assertions – such as ‘the island’s authorities are doing all in their collective power to ensure the truth emerges and that wrongdoers are punished.’ Numerous examples show this to not be the case.

He went on to make the political assertion that all was well and safe in child protection in Jersey today. This claim is also demonstrably untrue and simply the regurgitation of the ‘spin’ of the Jersey political establishment.

Most interestingly, he asserted that the Courts in Jersey were capable of dealing with any matter – civil or criminal – arising out of the child abuse disaster.

It apparently not occurring to Mr Bailhache that by giving this political interview – in which he strove to defend the Jersey political establishment – he was simply demonstrating, through his own actions, the dangerous politicisation of his position.

Moreover – he was demonstrating clear prejudice in respect of a number of matters which will, inevitably, come before the Jersey Royal Court.

The concern shared by very many of the victims, whistle-blowers and witnesses I represent is that the Jersey judicial apparatus is politicised, conflicted and incapable of constituting an impartial tribunal.

Judicial proceedings must be – and must be seen to be – completely objective.

Any individual who, or entity that, has a clear interest in a case – or who has expressed prejudice prior to proceedings – cannot remotely be regarded as meeting the test of ‘the appearance of objectivity’.

Having overtly sided with – and defended – the Jersey establishment, essentially the same oligarchy responsible for the decades of concealed child abuse, he has demonstrated that he holds a highly prejudiced personal and political bias in these matters.

Though it should not need pointing out, this fact clearly eludes the Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus: namely that the Courts should be entirely indifferent to the considerations or the reputations of the government.

The Political victory of this or that faction should play precisely zero part in any consideration concerning the rule of law and the good administration of justice.

The law is the law. And the Courts should be coming to an objective judgement on the law – and the facts of each case.

If such adjudication proves profoundly embarrassing or problematic for a government – that is simply ‘tough’.

Yet in Jersey we have a Court system so incestuously entwined with day-to-day political considerations that it is simply not competent to properly administer justice when to do so would be damaging for the Jersey political establishment.

We need look no further than the highly political and prejudiced interview given by Jersey’s chief judge, Philip Bailhache, to the Jersey Evening Post.

The hopeless position of the Jersey judiciary in respect of the present child abuse disaster is thrown into even starker relief by the UK Crown Prosecution Service guidance “Judicial independence, open justice and advance sentence indication”, a short excerpt of which I quote here: –


Judicial independence is fundamental to the Rule of Law.

The integrity of the Criminal Justice System depends upon a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

These principles must be followed by all CPS staff in the conduct of casework.”

In Jersey, the island’s judiciary has frequently committed itself to overt and explicit political positions, the effect of which is to have – by its own hand – rendered itself incapable of meeting the reasoned Principle quoted above.
The Jersey judiciary cannot meet the fundamental independence test required by the Rule of Law.

A politisised judiciary cannot deliver a “fair and public hearing by an impartial tribunal” – when the tribunal in question has demonstrated itself to not be independent of partisan political considerations.

It is plain – even to a lay-person – that “justice must not only be done – but must be seen to be done.”

The Jersey judiciary cannot remotely hope to meet such a requirement under the present circumstances. So hedged about with conflicts and contradictions are the Jersey judicial and prosecutory functions, that every faction – every party – be they victims of abuse – or those accused of abuse – already holds the indigenous Jersey apparatus in contempt.

This is a matter of such fundamental importance I will return to it later.

But the inescapable fact is that no ‘reasonable person on the Clapham omnibus’ could even begin to see the Jersey Courts as ‘disinterested’ parties – with no stake in the outcomes of criminal or civil actions arising from the child abuse disaster.

7: The Jersey Prosecution Service.

Precisely the same observations apply to the prosecutory service of the island.

Turning to the position of Attorney General and the Solicitor General. Both of these Crown-appointed Law Officers are classified as members of the States assembly – in which they are able to give speeches in the course of debates. So whilst they do not, however, possess a right to vote in debates – nevertheless, they frequently exercise tremendous influence in the course of debates; this by giving “legal” opinions – or frequently by simply making overtly partisan and political remarks.

In theory they are members of the States assembly so that they may give “legal advice” to members during debates.

But in addition to “advising” the island’s parliament in this way – they are also the legal advisors to the individual Ministries and departments of the States of Jersey.

Essentially, they provide day-to-day legal advice to all parts of the executive – as would jobbing lawyers to their private clients.

This is not to argue that the Jersey government should not be able to take legal advice – but we cannot but recognise the fact these London appointed, Crown Law Officers should not be involved in providing partisan legal advice to a political executive function.

Were this insurmountable conflict not sufficient argument, we must turn to another – even starker – example of the hopeless and indefensible position of the present arrangements in Jersey.

The island does not have an independent Director of Public Prosecutions. It does not have an independent Crown Prosecution Service.

Instead – quite extraordinarily – these functions are fulfilled by the Jersey Attorney General and Solicitor General.

No prosecution in the island’s Royal Court can take place without it first gaining approval from either one of these two individuals.

Consider just how absurd and unsustainable this arrangement is?

As explained above, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General are both, routinely involved – on a day-to-day basis – in giving general legal advice to departments of the States of Jersey – as though they were private lawyers advising private clients.

But these are the very same two individuals who must then determine whether prosecutions take place.

We have, therefore, the truly remarkable situation whereby these Law Officers may have been giving jobbing legal advice to a States of Jersey Ministry one week – only for a file to land on their desk the next week recommending that the department be prosecuted.

Such a profound conflict of interests would be disturbing under normal circumstances. But today – we are considering the deserved prosecution of a number of States of Jersey departments and States of Jersey employees in connection with the child abuse disaster.

And it will – ultimately – unless you use your constitutional powers to ensure the impartial Rule of Law in Jersey – be either the Jersey Attorney General or Solicitor General who will have to decide upon such prosecutions.

The same people who have been providing – often seriously defective – legal advice to departments in respect of child protection and welfare matters for many years.

It is true that the giving of advice to departments is usually split between the Attorney General and Solicitor General – thus had one been giving legal advice to a particular department which subsequently faced criminal action – the determination of the prosecution would be considered by the other.

But for a variety of reasons, this arrangement does not approach satisfying an ‘appearance of objectivity’ test.

Both Law Officers work from the same building, and often take advice themselves from the same Crown Advocates working in their department. Both individuals are close colleagues – and generally share an interest in providing legal protection for States departments, de facto political support – and, of course, they share a common interest in protecting each other’s professional reputations.

How realistic, it must be asked, is the prospect of one of these Law Officers prosecuting a States department whose policies and actions transpired to be ultra vires but had been legally advised that such polices were lawful by the other Law Officer?

To this toxic mix of conflicts of interest we must also recognise that both of these post-holders are deeply politicised and have frequently engaged in public support for the political establishment of Jersey.

Would – we must ask – the proverbial “reasonable person on the Clapham omnibus” be expected to view these arrangements as reliably objective?

The answer to that question is plainly ‘no’.

If we take as a model, the Code for Crown Prosecutors, as issued by the Crown Prosecution Service of the UK, we see, at section 2, General Principles:

“2.2 Crown Prosecutors must be fair, independent and objective. They must not let any personal views about ethnic or national origin, disability, sex, religious beliefs, political views or the sexual orientation of the suspect, victim or witness influence their decisions. They must not be affected by improper or undue pressure from any source.”

The entire child protection disaster in Jersey – in addition to being catastrophic for the victims – also threatens – and justifiably so – the integrity and standing of Jersey’s historic amalgam of legislature and judiciary. The present episode represents a crisis for the Jersey establishment of greater threat than the Nazi occupation of the island – which the traditional local elites seemed to survive remarkably easily.

Even without the extremely serious conflicts of interest I will explain later, no reasonable person could imagine the present prosecutory service in Jersey to be impartial and indifferent to the political consequences of this or that prosecution and conviction.

The prosecution service as presently configured in Jersey cannot even remotely approach the necessary ‘appearance of objectivity’.

Even under normal circumstances, the present – deeply politicised and conflicted – nature of both the prosecutory and judicial apparatus in Jersey clearly could not continue.

It would be an historic anachronism – one incompatible with the good, objective administration of justice and the rule of law – even during uncontroversial times.

With the island confronting the child abuse disaster – the worst peace-time crisis in Jersey’s 800 year history as a quasi-independent jurisdiction – it is not even faintly credible to imagine the present arrangements can suffice or continue.

In many respects, that the traditional authorities in Jersey cannot – or will not – see that fact simply serves as final proof of their inadequacy and inability to furnish the people of Jersey with the effective Rule of Law and the good administration of justice according to accepted standards of jurisprudence.

8: The Necessary Appearance of Objectivity.

Although the above factual descriptions of the conflictedness of the Jersey prosecutory and judicial authorities are sufficient of themselves, we must further illustrate the case with an examination of the established principles of natural justice.

It is well-established in all respectable jurisprudence that the administration of justice must be both impartial – and appear to be impartial.

Any person appearing before a Court should be able to have faith in the fact that the judge is independent of Government and equally that the judge is independent of the parties.

Historically a person has a right to a audi alterem partem, or a fair trial, meaning a trial which is independent, impartial and timely. This has long been a common law entitlement.

The fact that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done has been given specific judicial approval in the English case of R v. Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256.

In this case, a solicitor, whose firm acted for a defendant in a civil action for damages, had also sat as a clerk to the Justices in respect of the criminal aspect of the case. Whilst it was not suggested that the solicitor/clerk had been biased – the mere appearance of conflict was unacceptable.

Lord Hewart CJ said:

“A long line of cases shows that it is ……of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done ……. Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper inference with the course of justice.”

Should there still be any doubt about the absolutely essential nature of the appearance of objectivity – simply consider the case of Lord Hoffman. He was one of the Law Lords who sat to determine whether the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was able to be charged and prosecuted.

Lord Hoffman – it was revealed later – was a supporter of Amnesty International. This mere appearance of bias was sufficient to cause the decision to be set aside.

These fundamental principles are further described and enforced in the European Convention of Human Rights.

“Article 6 – Right to a fair trial

In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law….”

The inescapable facts are these:

(a) Given what might be perceived to be the political pressure upon the island’s authorities to secure convictions – many of the accused will – without doubt – argue that they cannot receive a fair hearing at the hands of the judiciary of Jersey – it being so entwined with the political considerations of the day.

(b) Victims could also – justifiably – be of the view that prosecutions of those who harmed them will be confined to only the most extreme cases – this in order to minimise ‘reputational’ damage to the Jersey establishment.

(c)  Plaintiffs in civil actions for compensation may, with good grounds, view the Jersey judicial processes biased against finding for them – or awarding them sufficient damages against the States of Jersey.

And let there be no misunderstanding about the seriousness of, or degree of, conflictedness of the Jersey prosecutory and judicial authorities.

For it is already a matter of public record, that Jersey’s Attorney General has advised the Chief Minister of Jersey to not apologise to any of the abuse survivors as this may increase the quantum of damages they may be awarded.

And let us remember – this is the same Attorney General who will be determining whether prosecutions should take place.

A man already committed to a partisan political position.

9: Democracy and the Good Administration of Justice.

It will, no doubt, be argued by the Jersey authorities – and if things run true-to-form, certain advisers in Whitehall – that if these problems with the administration of justice exist in Jersey – if its present judicial and legislative arrangements need changing – or if there were public demand here for such change – then the island’s government; its parliament, can make those changes itself – if it so wishes.

That, it is claimed, would be the normal course of democratic self-determination.

There is, of course, an obvious and fatal flaw in such an argument. For it assumes that democracy – and the good administration of justice – are the one-and-the-same thing.

They are not.

The ‘democratic’ will of the mass – of potentially the mob – can very easily be opposed to objectivity, the rule of law, the human rights of minorities and the good administration of justice.

It may be that 100 people would wish to lynch 1 person – the ‘democratic’ will in action. But that ‘majority’ decision would be unlawful, unjust and barbaric.

Thus the political establishment of Jersey may decide to maintain “tradition”, and not embrace the impartiality of the good administration of justice. And may even have public support for such a position. But that ‘democratic’ will may result in oppression and trampling of the rights of individuals to justice. A denial of such things as a ‘fair hearing before an impartial tribunal’.

It is abundantly clear that there is not the remotest possibility of the Jersey political and judicial establishment agreeing, of its own initiative and free-will, to introduce such changes as an effective separation of powers.

We must, therefore, conclude that the United Kingdom authorities cannot rely upon an argument to the effect that “if change is needed, the island’s government can enact such change.”

Both the good name of the Crown, and the United Kingdom’s obligations under the ECHR, require that London take whatever measures are necessary to ensure the good, objective and impartial administration of justice – the effective Rule of Law – quite regardless of the political whim of the Jersey establishment.

10: The United Kingdom and jus cogens and erga omnes.

The case, the right, the power of the UK authorities to intervene is already categorically established, for the reasons described above. But even if the historic and constitutional case for Crown power in Jersey – especially in respect of the protection of its subjects and that of the good name of the Crown itself – was not so clearly established, we could consider the legal principles of erga omnes, which is argued by some to confer an obligation upon a state to the broader community of states. I think it fair to argue that the systemic rape, battery and torture of vulnerable children – possibly even their murder – must give justification to invoking erga omnes.

A similar argument applies to the legal principle of jus cogens – or the ‘compelling law’ that nation-states may be expected to honour. Whilst there may be arguments as to the applicability of jus cogens to particular circumstances – if jus cogens bears any credibility at all – it must surely do so in the case of a need to act to punish and prevent the abuse, battery and possible murder of vulnerable children.

11: Suspects who are members of Jersey’s judiciary and Prosecution Service.

We must always bear in mind the profound seriousness and truly horrifying nature of what has taken place.

Vulnerable children – already in need for a variety of reasons – used, abused, tortured – and even possibly murdered; children who were helpless – and yet were subjected to the most foul and despicable crimes.

It is clear that the scale and persistence of the abuse which has taken place in Jersey is such that it cannot be viewed as an aberration; some isolated crimes carried out occasionally by small, secretive groups of abusers.

That the abuse and suffering of these children was able to carry on for decade after decade after decade must force us to conclude that some, fundamental, structural failing within the island’s ‘checks and balances’ enabled the concealment to take place over generations.

Whilst public attention has been focused upon the police investigation of actual abuses, it should not be forgotten that the police are also enquiring into the concealment of abuse; the failure to report abuses – and the failure to punish those guilty of abuse.

I have been able to contribute to the police enquiry by furnishing them with evidence – and making formal statements to them in respect of what are a number of criminal offences; for example:

(A) Perverting the Course of Justice.

(B) Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice.

(C) Misconduct in Public Office.

Whilst apprehending and punishing the abusers is, clearly, the priority – we must not lose sight of the question: “how were all of these terrible things able to persist for such a long period of time – and 95% of the offences go unreported and unpunished?”

For, in many respects, this question is the most fundamental. If we are to recognise and honestly accept the ‘cultural’ failings of the island’s public administration which led to the atrocities taking place and going unpunished – there can be no immunity from scrutiny; no deferential failure to challenge those in possession of great power – if those people have questions they must answer.

And many of them do.

The following senior figures – Crown appointed judges and prosecutors – each have well-evidenced, more than prima facie cases to answer in respect of one – or more – of the offences I describe above.

(A) Sir Philip Bailhache, the Bailiff; presently head of the island’s judiciary and the President of its legislative assembly, ‘the States’. Formerly the Attorney General, and thus then head of the island’s Crown Prosecution Service and Director of Public Prosecutions.

(B) Michael Birt, presently Deputy Bailiff, presently deputy head of the island’s judiciary and deputy President of its legislative assembly. Also a former Attorney General, thus then head of the island’s Crown Prosecution Service and Director of Public Prosecutions.

(C) William Bailhache, presently Attorney General and head of the island’s Crown Prosecution Service and Director of Public Prosecutions. Also the brother of the present Bailiff.

(D) Francis Hamon, presently a judge of Jersey’s Royal Court, and former Deputy Bailiff. A Governor at Victoria College during an extensive abuse episode.

(E) John Le Breton, ‘Jurat’ – a lay-judge – of Jersey’s Royal Court – formerly Vice-Principle of Victoria College during an extensive abuse episode.

As explained above – a fundamental concern that any civilised person must have is the question of the cover-ups and the concealments of abuse.

For it is that issue which makes the Jersey child abuse disaster so uniquely persistent and appalling in modern western democracies.

I will describe briefly the culpability of the five, above-named senior figures from the Jersey judicial and prosecutory apparatus.

I will then go onto describe and affirm the fact that these matters are being investigated by the Police Force.

The Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache, head of Jersey’s judiciary. Potential Criminal Offences.

Philip Bailhache cannot be seen to be objective. He is conflicted. The reasons for this are several. He is one of the individuals who need 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 then went on to abuse children whilst a parish police officer.

This gross failure must amount to a conflict of interest so severe as to make his position untenable. And that is to take a charitable view.

Philip Bailhache should face a charge of Misconduct in Public Office for this dereliction of duty alone.

The Bailiff, Philip Bailhache, 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 re-investigated. No person is above the Law. The Bailiff should be charged with both Perverting the Course of Justice, and with breaching his legal requirements to protect children from harm, as described in the Children (Jersey) Law 1969.

Philip Bailhache also unlawfully prevented my parliamentary response to the dismisal motion against me from being published. He also failed to declare a conflict of interest in this matter, as some of the evidence he was suppressing related to the child abuse offences committed at Victoria College when he was Chairman of the Board of Governors.

In similar vein, he unlawfully and undemocratically stopped me from delivering a speech of empathy for abuse survivors.

The Deputy Bailiff, Michael Birt, Deputy Head of Jersey’s Judiciary: Potential Criminal Offences.

The previous Attorney General – now Deputy Bailiff, Michael Birt – exhibited all of the politicised and conflicted behaviour I described earlier. As is plain from the now widely distributed Sharp report, the now Jurat Le Breton, who, at the time was Vice-Principle of Victoria College, should have been prosecuted at the time of the child abuse scandal at Victoria College. Just as should the Principle, Jack Hydes. Just as should Francis Hamon, a Governor of the school at the time and a person who went on to become Deputy Bailiff. A person who still remains a senior Judge in Jersey’s Royal Court.

Another individual who, without question, should have faced prosecution is Piers Baker, the man described in the Sharp report engaging in wilful attempts to obstruct justice – and who – infamously – said to the Police at the time of the investigation that paedophilia was “teachers perks”.

Whilst an overwhelming case could be made for the prosecution of Le Breton, Hamon, Hydes and Baker for Perverting the Course of Justice, an even more relevant Law, the breaking of which renders each man answerable to a Court, 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 the then Attorney General – now Deputy Bailiff, 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. The then Attorney General, Michael Birt, also abandoned a prosecution for another set of very serious offences against children.

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”.

And it is the battery, torture and abuse of children, as committed by these two, which is part of the subject matter of BBC Panorama, scheduled to be broadcast on Monday 31st March 2008.

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 used to run for the then Education Committee, which body had responsibility for child “protection” at the relevant time (1980s to mid-1990s).

When I was Minister for Health & Social Services, just one of the many issues I 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 is absolutely compelling. Many witness statements, affidavits of victims, statements from other members of staff, an “internal” report from 1990 by the Children’s Service, which concluded that the actions complained of were happening – and, essentially, a catalogue of utter savagery against the children.

Notwithstanding this plain and evidenced conclusion reached in 1990 – 8 years before the police came to know of the crimes – the Children’s Service of the day failed to inform the police of the abuse – instead allowing Mrs McGuire to “retire” from running the group-home – and instead to come and work in the Family Development Centre.

Purely through happenstance, the States of Jersey Police became aware of the abuse episode – 8 years later – in 1998.

The McGuires were investigated and charged.

Yet Michael Birt, the then Attorney General, asserted, as in the record of Court I quote above, that there was “insufficient evidence” to continue the prosecution.

But I have read the files of evidence. That evidence describes 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 held down and made to drink Dettol. One child had his head smashed violently against a bunk bed frame. One of the part-time support staff witnessed “Big Al” 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. Female child residents were sexually abused by Mr Maguire.

Most of these offences were evidenced, witnessed by former victims or junior staff members – and yet the then Attorney General, Michael Birt, claims to have had “insufficient evidence” to carry through a prosecution.

The decision of Birt to not proceed with the prosecution was a straightforward Perversion of the Course of Justice.

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 – the 1980s – 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 Family Development Centre! It would also have meant exposing to contempt and disgrace a Jersey Establishment icon, Iris Le Feuvre, then President of the relevant Committee, who happily went along with the cover-up in 1990 and, moreover, wrote a quite sickening letter of “thanks” to the Maguires upon their “retirement”.

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.

Birt also – though this is incidental – endorsed and supported an illegal departure from due process as described in the States of Jersey Law when the Jersey Council of Ministers – fast-tacked – a dismissal meeting against me – giving me less than five days notice of the meeting date – and only supplying the ‘case’ against me less than 24 hours before the meeting. I was, incidentally, being dismissed for publicly stating that I had no confidence in Jersey’s child protection systems – this, apparently, constituting the heinous offence of – “undermining staff moral”.

But if the above-described events were not appalling enough – the habits and approach of Michael Birt remain – to this day – despicable – and truly extraordinary.

The States of Jersey Police Force made public their covert investigation into historic child abuse in November last year. They said at the time they were examining an historic range of abuse episodes, but in particular, they were examining abuse at Haute de le Garren – and the Jersey Sea Cadets.

The Sea Cadets being of particular interest as certain members of staff had been convicted of child abuse in individual cases some years ago.

The Police applied for a warrant to enter, search and remove evidence from the building. The judge they had to apply to was Michael Birt.

He rejected their application for the warrant.

The word “astonishing” doesn’t get close to describing this ruling.

Here were the police – already heavily committed to an investigation into historic child abuse; an investigation they had been conducting covertly for about a year; and here was an institution that was one of their two principle targets – and an institution which “had form” so to speak when it comes to child abuse in Jersey.

And the Deputy Bailiff, Michael Birt – second-in-command of Jersey’s judiciary – refuses to give the police a warrant.

Birt should be charged and tried for these offences. Indeed – I have made formal statements to the States of Jersey Police in this regard – as I will explain below.

William Bailhache, present Attorney General and brother of Bailiff, Philip Bailhache.

As far as the Attorney General, William Bailhache is concerned, some time ago when I was President of the then Health & Social Services Committee, I sought from him (and I still have the correspondence) the full police report and its six appendices into the child 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 1969 and the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 in that I was not able to carry forward my investigation into improvements in child protection legislation and policies. This obstruction of the lawful duties – and clear obligations – of my then Committee for Health & Social Services, as defined in the Children (Jersey) Laws, was criminal.

But again – things get worse.

Even in the course of the last year – when issues of child protection and child abuse have been of paramount public concern in Jersey – the Attorney General, William Bailhache – has received reports from the police describing charges for child abuse offences – and he – astonishingly – has refused to prosecute – on the supposed grounds that to do so “would not be in the public interest”.

This conduct also has the appearance of being criminal, in that it may be a Perversion of the Course of Justice.

A further, 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 nor 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 in decades of policies which were unlawful lays with the Attorney General and the Solicitor General or their predecessors.

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.

This is not an even faintly credible or sustainable situation.

Francis Hamon, Commissioner in Jersey’s Royal Court and former Deputy Bailiff.

Francis Hamon was, infamously, a senior figure in the Victoria College Board of Governors during the sustained abuse episode which took pace throughout much of the 1990s.

As is described in the Sharp report, the Principle, Jack Hydes, informed Hamon ‘during a squash game’ that he was receiving complaints of abuse. He asked Hamon what he should do about it.

Hamon advised him to do nothing, and it would all be forgotten about.

This was a further, unambiguous criminal offence – both a Perversion of the Course of Justice, and a breach of the Children (Jersey) Law 1969.

Hamon, like Hydes, Le Breton and Baker should have been prosecuted.

Instead, their friend Michael Birt failed to do so.

John Le Breton, ‘Jurat’ of Jersey’s Royal Court.

Again, as is well described and evidenced in the Sharp report, Le Breton was Vice-Principle of Victoria College during the abuse episode. He – like other senior figures – was aware of the complaints of abuse.

Not only did he fail to take the necessary action to protect the children – after allowing things to continue for some years until the complaints became too serious to ignore – he, along with Hydes, pro-actively attempted to humiliate and intimidate two of the victims into withdrawing their complaints.

Again – Le Breton should, Like Hamon, have been prosecuted for Perverting the Course of Justice and breaching the Children (Jersey) Law 1969.

Le Breton’s position also has the effect of rendering all of the remaining 11 Jurats conflicted. None 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 John 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 every one 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 customary powers – over and above the pure consideration of the Rule of Law, should the Jersey oligarchy be threatened in any way.

12: Status of investigation into the above-described suspects.

In respect of the above-described potential criminal offences, I have made formal complaints to the Police Force.

I have furnished the Police with documented evidence which supports the case of criminal conduct.

Given the profound seriousness of the matters, the Police Officer leading the investigation in Jersey, Lenny Harper, commissioned two officers from a United Kingdom force to come to Jersey and take statements from me, this in order to avoid any “political” difficulties for his investigation – as certain elements in Jersey have already tried to damage and obstruct the work of the Police.

I gave two statements on successive days – one of two hours and the other of four hours duration.

I have signed both statements and confirmed to the Police that I am entirely ready to give evidence and be cross-examined under oath when matters come to Court.

Since giving the statements, Lenny Harper has confirmed to me in writing the following:

(A) I have given the statements.

(B) They were extensive.

(C) They are signed.

(D) He is in possession of those signed statements.

(E) That the complaints made are going to be rigorously investigated.

As described above, the Jersey judicial and prosecutory services would be hopelessly conflicted in any event.

But to add to that fact we must now note that the key individuals within that apparatus are – in fact – suspects – in respect of Perverting the Course of Justice and Misconduct in Public Office.

It is, of course, feasible they will be acquitted – but until such time they cannot act in any role within the administration of justice.

13: Actions sought from you.

The people I am representing – including many dozens of victims and whistle-blowers – are asking you to use your constitutional powers to secure for them – and this community – certain fundamental protections.

We appreciate the historic, constitutional position of Jersey. We certainly wish it to continue to be a self-governing jurisdiction.

But given that we are a Crown Dependency – and that the good name of the Crown is the foundation upon which the administration of justice in Jersey is built – all we ask is that those administering justice in our island, as long as they use the name of the Crown – are required to perform to a standard worthy of such association.

What we seek is, by no stretch of the imagination, ‘revolutionary’ or ‘radical’.

We seek good governance.

We seek the effective Rule of Law.

We seek the good administration of justice.

We seek an independent prosecution service – one free of conflicts and political taint.

We seek an independent judiciary – one free of conflicts and political taint.

We wish it to be recognised that in a small, self-governing jurisdiction the ‘checks and balances’ provided by the judiciary are even more important than they would be in a large nation state.

Specifically –

We ask that, as a matter of urgency, you require the Jersey prosecutory and judicial authorities to accept the fact of their insurmountable conflictedness in respect of any matter – civil or criminal – arising out of the Jersey child abuse disaster.

We ask that you – or a senior figure from the British judiciary who has no prior connection with Jersey – appoint independent prosecutors from the UK to consider and lead any prosecutions arising from this episode.

We ask that you – or a senior figure from the British judiciary – appoint judges from the UK, with no prior connection with Jersey, to hear any case – civil or criminal – which may arise from this episode.

We ask that you give serious consideration to furnishing the Jersey Courts with juries drawn from the United Kingdom to hear any trial that may require a jury.

We ask that, by taking these actions, you ensure that any prosecutions or civil actions are compatible with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights in that they constitute a ‘fair hearing before an impartial tribunal’.

These actions are essential and urgent, given the imminent nature of some of the cases. There is not, therefore, time for a protracted round of argument and negotiation with the Jersey authorities.

To ensure justice in the Jersey child protection disaster – prompt and forthright action on your part is needed.

We ask that, in the fullness of time, you require the Jersey authorities to establish a permanent separation of powers, so that this island may always rely upon an impartial and non-politicised prosecutory and judicial system.

14: Summary and Conclusions.

I apologise for the length of this report; but by way of mitigation I hope you would recognise the huge degree of suffering which has taken place in Jersey over a period of decades.

In the course of the last year, I have gradually built-up contacts with many victims, got to know them, and have heard of the awful things that have blighted their lives.

All they are seeking – and all I am seeking on their behalf – is true justice and the effective Rule of Law.

We hope to hear from you soon, and thank you for taking time to read this document.

Yours sincerely,

Senator Stuart Syvret
States of Jersey.


Some Reflections on the Law:

Its Failures; Its Oppressions

And its Betrayals.

An apology to those readers who have been waiting with the patience of a Jersey Income Support applicant for the next post in our experiment in web-based legal advice. Well, apologies to all readers actually – it having been so long since I wrote anything substantive for the Quite Vile Blog.

Although the next dispatch recounting the latest news of our real-life version of ‘The Trial’ is nearly completed, it has been delayed – as certain, crucial information I need to obtain is being kept from me by the prosecution and the Jersey courts.

Not only has it proven to be immensely difficult – and I mean ‘immensely difficult’ – to get the Jersey courts to even produce transcripts of proceedings so far – I’ve been warned that such material is supplied for the purposes of the defence only – I assume to stop me publishing it here. In fact, I’ve even been threatened with “contempt of court” actions by the prosecution if I publish certain material.

OK – whilst I can see a degree of circumspection must be adopted when publishing material relevant to a live criminal case – I still very much get the vibe that the Jersey apparatus is especially keen to hamper my web-based legal defence exercise – thus further denying me a fair trial.

In fact – the defence co-ordinator – me – feels threatened and intimidated by the Jersey police, judiciary and prosecution apparatus.

Naturally, I’ll be publishing part 2 of our web-based legal advice experiment in a few days.


But before then, I’ll have to attempt to divine a path through the epistemological semiotics of the prosecution’s post-modern, fluxing aporia – which they engage in with a commitment of which Jacques Derrida would have been proud. I’m reminded of the words of Foucault, who, accusing Derrida of ‘terrorist obscurantism’, said, “He writes so obscurely you can’t tell what he’s saying, that’s the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, “You didn’t understand me; you’re an idiot.” That’s the terrorism part.”

You see? – It isn’t big – and it isn’t clever.

But when dealing with lawyers trying to prosecute you – the least you can do is find some compensatory entertainment in retaliatory word-nerdism.

A few months ago, I began the task of undertaking a major tidying and sorting of my office space. I was, perhaps, half-way through that exercise – having arranged across the office floor categorised heaps of documents, files, books, letters, transfer-cases, newspaper clippings and entire racks of note-books, filled with my illegible scrawlings, replete with “Life-Enriching” spelling-mistakes – when our very good friends, the ‘under-new-management’ States of Jersey Police Force, came calling.

They and their “Bosses” having decided to found and launch a new association – ‘The Jersey Child Abusers, Bribe-Taking Gangsters and Mass-Murderers Protection Society’.

Admittedly, the acronym doesn’t quite trip off the tongue – but the name ‘does what it says on the tin’.

I do such “stock-takes” of my political work two or three times a year. Things reach a stage when even the chaos-theory of filing begins to be tested by the sheer accretion of paper-work, so periodically, I undertake a kind of archiving exercise.

But when I eventually had time to complete that task on the last occasion, there was another purpose – namely attempting to identify what the Jersey police had gone through, copied or simply taken when they mounted their unlawful raid on my home.

Let me put it this way – an awful lot more material was taken and copied by the cops than they’ll ever admit to.

Virtually all of it covered by the protection of parliamentary privilege – and much of it being legally privileged as well.

Given that the Jersey Establishment Party have, so responsibly, ensured the courts have a lot of time available – by letting off 98% of the child abusers and concealers of child abuse – the administration of “justice” in Jersey is able to focus on the really important stuff – like arresting, searching, charging and prosecuting the first and only member of the Jersey parliament to identify, and speak out against, the decades of concealed child abuse.

For allegedly failing to renew my driving licence, and allegedly breaking the data protection law by disclosing public interest information – Barking Bill Bailhache has set his pit-bull top-dog prosecutor on me – one Advocate Baker. He had originally given the job to another Crown lawyer – but his ability to take the case forward with sufficient ruthlessness appeared to simply disintegrate upon receipt of my first letter – 16 pages – outlining what the defence requires for disclosure – and the relevance of those disclosures.

We’ve had three magistrates’ court appearances so far – and yet another directions-hearing scheduled – which will take place after my appeal to Jersey’s Royal Court against the magistrate’s refusal to accept her conflictedness. An appeal at which, incidentally, I’ll be making exactly the same ‘conflicted’ argument against the Royal Court.

And all that before we even get into a trial-proper!

God knows how much this exercise is going to cost, ultimately.

Plainly, I don’t have a prayer of getting just treatment at the hands of any component of the Jersey “justice” apparatus – so these proceedings are merely the first steps on that long and winding road to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg.

But – before we get there, we have to go through the Jersey clowns’ pantomime; an exercise which will actually give me some time to focus on some important work.

You see, I’m paying no fines – and I’m taking the jail sentences instead.

In addition to being able to do some very useful and important constituency work in Jersey’s prison – I’ll be able to really focus down on the task of writing detailed affidavits concerning all I know of the various monstrous failings of the Jersey oligarchy.

Admittedly – it won’t be a happy task – for reason’s I’ll go on to explain.

Trying to work in an environment in which you’re surrounded by crooks, liars, aggressive homosexuals, gangsters and the educationally subnormal would seem a daunting prospect to many people.

But – hell – I’ve managed it fine for the last 19 years, so I just can’t see what the big deal is, I really can’t.

Actually, no – that’s too un-diplomatic – even for me.

I’d like to apologise to the in-mates of La Moye Prison. When I spent a day visiting 19 of my constituents in the slammer a while back, I came away from the process feeling remarkably refreshed at the candour, honesty and frankness each man exhibited. The contrast with my usual work environment was actually quite startling.

But joking aside – I said that finally having the time to write down my sworn evidence – in all its detail and breadth – would not be a happy task.

If what I write on this blog seems too satirical, disrespectful, inappropriately humorous, aggressive and – heaven forefend – “impolite” – just try to bear in mind the real tragedies – real people with their lives destroyed – people betrayed – so many accounts of gross criminality I’ve almost lost count – the utter horrors I have come to be aware of – and then at least allow me the latitude to express myself.

Frankly – the things I’ve learnt during the last two years – and then observing the Jersey establishment apparatus swinging into full survival-mode in order to crush the truth – yet again – would drive a saint to express anger, mockery and contempt.

And in that vein – it’s my task to inform you of the next round of betrayals.

Expect imminently an “official announcement” that yet another tranche of the child abusers are to escape justice – current, highly paid, senior civil servants amongst them – not that you’ll be told that, of course.

My sources inform me that even certain abusers with very powerful cases against them will avoid prosecution.

Well – I suppose it’s a “public interest” decision – isn’t it? After all – Jersey’s prosecution system and its courts don’t possess limitless resources. So if you have to, effectively, ration the administration of justice, obviously, letting off the child batterers and rapists is that hard choice you just have to make – in order to prosecute real bastard threats to society – like me.

But – at this stage, some of the survivors who speak to me are not even upset by it any more; they ceased to be surprised by the escape of their abusers a long time ago.

A while ago one of my “esteemed colleagues” submitted a thinly disguised rant of anonymous abuse against me. One of the – apparently – heinous “offences” of which I should be ashamed is “having no respect for the States”.

No. Two years ago I had no respect for the States.

Today – I can scarcely discover words adequate to describe my loathing, disgust, contempt and – ultimately – the shame I feel as a States member.

Let me describe how and why I feel that way.

When I first started investigating the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster in early 2007, I began to meet a lot of damaged people; people who had been abused, ignored, betrayed and oppressed by pretty much every single component of power and authority in Jersey.

These encounters increased and continued to the present day.

A notable, shared, experience of many of the survivors was this: in the past, they had told people in authority of what had happened to them; they had reported the abuses they suffered.

But they were simply ignored, insulted, dismissed – even, in some cases, threatened with defamation actions – or even with being sectioned under the mental health law – if they continued to “repeat these psychotic delusions”.

Therefore many – many – of these people had zero confidence in the Jersey authorities – the health service, the police, social services, the courts – all of it.

I just couldn’t count the number of times people have said to me words to the effect, “well, I’m telling you this because you’re the first person to publicly tell the truth and try and do something about it. But I just want it stopped. I’m not going to the police. Complete waste of time. Come on – this is Jersey, you know as well as I do nothing will come of it.”

That was a view I, sadly, shared – until I became aware of the covert police investigation in November 2007.

Suddenly, everything seemed transformed; at last – here were good, straight cops – determined to nail the bad people.

But still – the cynicism felt by many survivors remained.

So I did absolutely everything I could in my power to meet with, speak with, and try and persuade as many survivors as possible to go to the police. I pleaded with them. I said, “Look, you’re right to feel as you do about the past. You were ignored; you were betrayed – back then the cops were a part of the problem. But please believe me – this time – things are different. Take my word for it – now, there is no longer any hiding place for the abusers.

“But they will only be brought to justice if people like you go to the police and add your testimony to that of others.”

And many survivors – against their better judgement – listened to my words – and went to the police and the NSPCC with their testimony.

Today – when I meet with some of those survivors – and look into their eyes – I feel ashamed.

Ashamed of public administration in Jersey. Ashamed of the civil service – ashamed of the island’s parliament – ashamed of the police – ashamed of the prosecution system – ashamed of the judiciary – ashamed of the local media.

The survivors had to endure every nightmare consequence of revisiting their experiences; bringing the memories back, speaking to councillors, giving statements to the police – being subjected to repeated requirements to go through statements again and again, attempting to prepare themselves for the trauma of facing their abusers across court – and recounting their experiences to a room full of people.

And in a number of cases – having to tell their partners – for the first time ever – what had happened to them.

Sometimes with traumatic consequences.

All for naught.

A tiny handful of survivors have had some justice – perhaps one or two others still might.

For most – they’ve simply been abused – all over again – by the Jersey oligarchy.

When I look back – and think of the naïve optimism I felt in November 2007 – I can only shake my head and say, “how could I have been so stupid.”

“How – after 18 years experience in Jersey politics – can I ever have imagined that this time, truth and justice would prevail?”

“What made me think, for an instant, that this time they’d bring back from the UK a certain child raping ex-Jersey civil servant maggot to face justice – when the Jersey oligarchy had already let him off – twice?”

I feel ashamed.

Ashamed for Jersey.

But not surprised. I should have known better.

When considering the Jersey oligarchy – we are looking at a monopoly of power which has remained entrenched for over 800 years. Utterly invulnerable through some kind of mystifying immunity and protection – conferred upon them by the British Crown, and so immovably embedded as to be completely untouched by five years of Nazi occupation – which the Jersey establishment passed through comfortably, with scarcely a ripple.

No. Really – we shouldn’t be surprised.

When all authority and power in Jersey has effectively pooled in a cess-pit for centuries – we could have expected nothing better.

But to the survivors – I say don’t give up.

The Jersey Establishment Party may have closed down the criminal aspects of the investigation.

But you can still take civil legal actions against the States of Jersey. There doesn’t have to necessarily be a criminal prosecution in order for you to secure some kind of justice.

I’ll write in detail about the civil legal options available to survivors soon.

Until then – consider these observations.

Do not necessarily trust your lawyers or the firms they work for.

Be aware that legally the States of Jersey doesn’t have the proverbial leg to stand on – regardless of whatever cobblers your lawyers may be giving you about your cases being ‘timed-out’. Human Rights are powerful tools.

And be assured – that there are many people out there – myself amongst them – who will testify to the true, shameful incompetence, dishonesty, negligence, collusions, corruption and out-right criminality of the States of Jersey as an entity.

Which is why I’m looking forward to getting those affidavits written and notarised.