Monthly Archives: March 2011

JON HAWORTH

Cyber-Stalker;

Purveyor of Death-Threats;

Solitary Lunatic;

Harasser of Women;

Drunkard;

Intimidator of Witnesses;

Invader of Privacy;

Handler of Stolen Material;

Oppressor of Other Internet Users;

Ranter of Obscenities;

Secretive Coward;

Apologist for Child Abuse Cover-ups –

A Typical Loyal Foot-Soldier of the Jersey Oligarchy.
You know, it’s often wisely remarked that you can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep.
Jon Haworth  – the individual described above – was, until just recently, protected and encouraged by the Jersey oligarchy in a long-term campaign of illegal cyber-stalking, multi IP trolling, propagandising, criminal harassment of people who are opposed to the island’s establishment, the flooding of various web sites with pro-oligarchy comments under different make-believe identities, and – in particular – running a frankly deranged web-site that existed for the sole purpose of opposing the child abuse investigations.
It is so very fitting – so very apposite – that such an inadequate and dysfunctional character as Jon Haworth – should find such natural and supportive allies in the Jersey oligarchy.
It is an allegiance that speaks volumes – about Haworth – and the Jersey establishment.
You can listen to Jon Haworth’s threatening and deranged telephone call by going to the following blog then clicking on the YouTube link – though, be warned, he uses offensive obscenities:
Obnoxious, disturbing, alarming, pathetic – and yes, perhaps even faintly funny in a tragic kind of way – the telephone call is all of those things.
But – it is also something more significant than that.
It is the sound of a man supremely confident of the protections and support of the Jersey authorities.
OK, perhaps just a little too confident on this occasion. But even then – he would have got away with it had the call not been recorded – and had I not raised the matter in open court, as an attempt by him at witness harassment.
People like Jon Haworth are protected; protected by the Jersey oligarchy.
He has – only now – after many years of harassing and obnoxious behaviour – and after many different complaints to the police – by many different people – finally been prosecuted for this one, minor, charge.
Haworth fully expected to – and he would have – got away with it – again – if it were not for the recording – and the fact his conduct was raised in court.
Because when considering the behaviour of Jon Haworth, we are not – contrary to his claims in court – dealing with a one-off aberration in his conduct; a “moment of madness”. On the contrary – we are dealing with many years of similar, well-documented foul dysfunction.
I first wrote about Jon Haworth on this blog on the 20th May 2009. That posting can be read here:
I pieced together the true nature of Haworth’s conduct, following several different approaches from angry and worried constituents of mine, who had been – and still were in several cases – victims of Haworth’s cyber-stalking, invasions of privacy and intimidations.
Haworth’s conduct was so disturbing that he had even made death-threats to woman who had rejected his advances. These included such speculations as wondering “what caustic soda will do” to a woman’s face.
Jon Haworth’s brother is an ex-police officer – one who was sacked by Lenny Harper for corruptly misappropriating tax-payer funded Police Service IT equipment.
Decent people simply could not obtain protection from this obnoxious bully, so finally turned to me, to expose him and give him a taste of his own medicine.
So, as remarked above, it isn’t – in truth – at all surprising that Haworth should have found such natural bedfellows as Jersey establishment spin-doctors – and several current States members.
States members who have – with contemptible cowardice – used the blog-site Haworth runs – to churn out bile, lies and smears – under the cloak of anonymity.
It was such connections – and the fact the he provided such a “service” for the Jersey establishment – that led Haworth to become even more confident that he was untouchable and immune from the legal consequences of his behaviour.
In the coming days we will be taking a more detailed look at Jon Haworth’s conduct – and the many criminal complaints against him – and his political allies and support – and – in particular – the remarkable failures of the Jersey authorities to charge and prosecute him for the full range of offences he has committed.
In the mean time – listen again to Haworth’s telephone call – and reflect upon the fact that what you are hearing is actually a true representation of the current calibre and attitude of the Jersey establishment.
Stuart.

JERSEY CHILD ABUSE COVER-UP:

FORMER POLICE CHIEF SAYS

‘THE ISSUE OF COVER-UP’ HAS ‘NOT BEEN ADDRESSED’.

“There is still a perception – and I have to say I share this – that there may still be people in positions of authority who are associated – even with abuse –  or with covering it up. And I think that is where people still feel uncomfortable and where there is more work to be done.”

Graham Power, Queens Police Medal.

Part 3 of the interview with Graham Power has now been published by Voice For Children. It can be watched here:

Graham Power is the recently retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force – and you might imagine that journalists would be very eager to interview him? Given the nature and gravity of the investigations Mr. Power led – and the resultant illegal suspension enacted against him by a frightened and inadequate local oligarchy who are used to always having direct political control over the Police – you wouldn’t need to be a lead reporter on the New York Times to recognise the story as dynamite.

And so it has proven to be.

In addition to the three-part video interview with Graham Power – it’s also worth reading the earlier, written interview he gave to VFC, here:

In these interviews, you have no-less a figure than a nationally respected Chief Constable openly and bluntly describing what is nothing less than a breakdown in the rule of law; the illegal, political repression of a police investigation into decades of concealed child abuse.

Why have none of Jersey’s mainstream media produced this reportage?

Not even the BBC.

You really do have to wonder just how many people are included in the bribery / blackmail circuit that constitutes “The Jersey Way”?  After all – money was never any object to the Jersey oligarchy.

In the most recent part of the interview, Mr. Power makes some observations concerning the media in Jersey:

“The Jersey paid media has generally been very disappointing on this issue. They haven’t subjected senior politicians to a type of robust challenge that is common in other places. They do seem to be able to get away with an awful lot of sleight of hand without anybody pulling them up. I’ve worked in a lot of jurisdictions where some of the things that Ministers have done over the past couple of years had been done in Scotland or parts of England some serious journalist would have been on them like a dog on a rabbit; they would have savaged them for behaving in the way they did.”

And: –

“I can only observe that there seems to be an absence of serious challenging journalism in relation to people who are in powerful positions.”

And:

“The point is there are certain opinions and voices that need to be heard, and they’re not getting heard through the conventional media and political process……

…….You don’t get a big mix of views in the paid media in Jersey – but the unofficial media often presents a very different picture.”

One of the earliest observations I made when I first started writing this blog was just how remarkable – really quite startling – was the success by which the Jersey oligarchy had so wholly tamed and suborned the media in the island. Seriously – I invite anyone to point out an example of another established Western democracy that even gets close to having such an wholly co-opted and pacified media.

But thanks to the epochal change brought about by the democratisation of news enabled by the World Wide Web, the successfully implemented traditional ‘wall-of-silence’ established by the local discredited media has been rendered redundant.

Which is why the Jersey oligarchy have been reduced to desperate acts of illegal political repression – of the very kind that so many other gangster regimes around the world engage in.

Allied troops are fighting and dying in certain countries, in efforts to overthrow repressive, criminal regimes, and to give to the people of those places a law-abiding environment, in which the weak are protected from the gangster oppressions of the strong.

Meanwhile – much closer to the United Kingdom – the British Channel Island of Jersey is in the iron grip of an entrenched, criminal, repressive regime which controls the courts, the police and media as well as the legislature. Those who form this regime – the Jersey oligarchy – are so brazenly confident in their sense of invulnerability – they don’t even attempt to hide their lawlessness. For example – the illegal suspension carried out against Graham Power – or the illegal raid and arrests conducted against me – a then opposition politician – which included a five-hour search of the home – conducted without a search warrant.

So British servicemen are in action, attempting to protect ordinary people, and assist in the overthrow of Gaddafi – a gangster, to be sure, that his country would be well rid of. But in that inimitable colonialist and hypocritical attitude that so characterises the British establishment – they’re quite happy to turn a blind eye towards a collection of anti-democratic and child abuse concealing thugs right on their own doorstep.

Jersey has always been the back-street ‘bank’ for the British elites – the place where the UK’s rich and powerful have channelled their wealth so as to avoid the taxes that the ordinary people of Britain must pay. So perhaps we shouldn’t really be so surprised that such openly practised criminality by the Jersey authorities is not only tolerated – but pro-actively protected by the powers-that-be in London.

The strange, quasi–fictitious legal jurisdiction of Jersey has long rendered the place a very handy little sewer – by which those in power in the UK can flush away their filth. Why jeopardise that very ‘convenient’ arrangement by cleaning-up the corrupt regime that runs the place?

After all, it’s only a hundred or so abused orphans and a couple of ‘difficult’ police officers and trouble-making activists who ‘still haven’t learnt to keep their mouths shut’.

But this is one scandal that is never going away.

The illegal conduct of Jersey’s authorities since early 2007 onwards – was a step too far; an exercise in hubristic over-reach.

And the longer it has gone on, the more and more people – and institutions – become entangled and contaminated by it. Consider Jersey’s present Home Affairs Minister, for example.  Ian Le Marquand made no secret of the fact that he was seeking election in 2008, to “bring the police under political control”. It not occurring to him and other Jersey oligarchs that, actually, the police should not be under political control, but should, instead, be non-political. Le Marquand believed that the clock should be turned back – to the bad old days – when former politicians like Dick Shenton and Mike Wavell would, essentially, tell the leadership of the police force who they were – and who they were not – to investigate.

With all of the self-deluding vanity so typical of Jersey oligarchs, Ian le Marquand imagined that he would succeed in that ill-judged plan, and, moreover, he’d be eternally thanked for it by a grateful populace. Instead, he’s been a fool – and his reputation lays in smoking ruins.

In typically restrained manner, Mr. Power makes these observations concerning Ian le Marquand:

“I would have thought what you would look for in a person who was Home Affairs Minister would be somebody who would be a champion of fair play and justice. And who would understand that positions of power and authority ought to be used for the benefit of people who don’t have power and authority………

“……….The role of a Home Affairs Minister is to champion human rights, equality and fair treatment for everybody. My perception of how that position is being discharged now, as I said earlier – it’s become an advocate for a particular establishment view. Maybe people just see it as ‘that’s the way it has to be’. But I don’t see it as the way it ought to be. You should look to the incumbent in that position to have a strong sense of fair play and equal treatment.”

Ian Le Marquand has wholly failed to deliver any of those qualities to the great majority of decent Jersey people. Instead – as Mr. Power observes – Le Marquand has become an “advocate” for the agenda of the Jersey oligarchy. He has failed to support fair play – let alone regard his Office as being one that should work to the protection of the powerless, from the abuses of the powerful.

The terrible lesson that Ian Le Marquand has had the misfortune to learn – is that the days when the Jersey oligarchy controlled what the public did – or did not – get to know, are over. No more can Jersey’s corrupt public authorities act with brazen lawlessness, secure in the knowledge that – after a little bit of fuss – and keeping their heads down for a while – it would all fade away and be forgotten.

The Jersey oligarchs – and those who have supported them, and who do their bidding, are struggling to come to terms with a paradigm-shift. This time – none of it is going away.

In his interview, Graham Power says:

“I’m not going to give up on this. If the Jersey authorities, want to keep,  if you like, picking this argument, then I’m going to stay with the argument, I’m going to say ‘look’ don’t talk about  the abuse inquiry, talk about the abuse.”

One of the lessons of history, for those who would control society, has been, “choose your enemies carefully”.

I would never have chosen to make an enemy of a man like Graham Power.  

It is of such errors that empires are lost.

“What is Jersey going to do about its historic child abuse problem, and how it’s going to convince everybody that that sort of thing cannot possibly happen again and that everything possible has been done? I’m not sure that I’m convinced that everything possible has been done; I’m not sure that the island is convinced that everything possible has been done already…..

“I’m not quite sure that the issue of cover-up has been addressed in a forthright way. ‘Who knew about this? Who should have known about it? What did they tell and who did they tell it to and what was done about it?’  There is still a perception – and I have to say I share this – that there may still be people in positions of authority who are associated – even with abuse – or with covering it up. And I think that is where people still feel uncomfortable and where there is more work to be done.”

“More work to be done.”

I’m so very glad that I’m on the right side.

Stuart.

JERSEY MINISTERS AND THE TWISTED AGENDA.

Graham Power

On How We’ve Been Diverted.

Part 2 of Graham Power’s interview for Voice For Children has been posted, and it can be watched here:

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2011/03/graham-power-qpm-interview-part-2-of-3.html

In the interview, Mr Power – Jersey’s recently retired Chief of Police – makes some dramatic and very blunt observations on just what has taken place in Jersey – and just how the Ministers of Jersey’s government have conducted themselves.

And in addition to Mr. Power’s observations – I can reveal below, some simple, brief evidence that shows just how spin-doctoring the entire child abuse disaster was always the core – the central – objective and priority of Jersey’s public authorities.

In the interview, when referring to the fact that so much time has been spent focusing on allegations against the police investigation, instead of on the child abuse, Graham Power says:

“We’ve all fallen into a trap….we’ve all fallen for it again……we’re talking about the abuse inquiry – and not talking about the abuse……… You’ve got to give Ministers credit where it’s due. They have very skilfully and very successfully deflected the agenda……”

“…..The agenda has to be brought back – to talking about the abuse……..because if you follow some of the accounts given by some of the victims – you are dealing with what is effectively state-sponsored paedophilia that occurred over decades.”

Mr. Power goes on to say:

“What is particularly disturbing is the number of people who I recall said – “look, I drew this to the attention of the police, I drew this to the attention of the authorities. It was all swept under the carpet, nothing was done about it. Too many of the offenders were too well connected, they knew enforcement people, and it was just made sure that I wouldn’t get any justice.””

Of course – those observations are correct. Making a huge – diversionary – “controversy” – usually based upon nothing of any substance – is one of the text-book devices in the armoury of the propagandist – or spin-doctor, as we call them today.

It is a common and favoured tactic of the Jersey oligarchy. For example, regular readers could cast their minds back to the summer of 2007, when I first exposed the systemic failure of Jersey’s public authorities to protect vulnerable children. What was the big, high-profile, “issue” then? The “story” that consumed the Jersey media – with undiluted focus?

Not the fact that here were many evidenced examples of concealed  – recent – child abuse. Nor that here was the government of Jersey – in the 21st century – oppressing a Social Services Minister for trying to protect children.

No – “the story” was – ‘how terrible – that this dreadful politician was “undermining staff morale” – by holding them to account for failing to protect children.’

So yes, it is easy for any thinking person to see just how the real – the important – issues, can be hidden beneath a load of fake, manufactured diversionary spin.

But as important as it is to not lose focus on the core issue – we also need to recognise and understand just how it is we have been manipulated.

Because the vast child abuse cover-up by Jersey’s public authorities did not happen by accident.

It didn’t even happen through only the collusions of a few low-grade spivs.

It was planned – it was calculated.

You paid for it.

Cathy Keir.

Cathy Keir is the very expensive spin-doctor employed by the Jersey Chief Minister’s department.

She worked for Frank Walker. She works for Terry Le Sueur.

A former BBC Jersey – and BBC South-West hack.

Some readers may remember the news footage from when Walker decided – at the height of the Jersey child abuse controversy – to call a press-conference – for the sole purpose of lying about me, in an attempt to disguise his inadequacy and the utter failure of his leadership in respect of something so rudimentary as opposing child abuse.

I was asked to attend by the international media, and attempts were made to remove me by one of the Jersey oligarchy’s thugs, including the snatching of chairs from my hands, before I was able to sit down. Walker predictably lacked the courage to have a head-on debate with me, and ran away after a couple of perfunctory questions from the journalists.

The event was a shaming disaster for Jersey’s public authorities. No respectable government on the face of the planet would have acted in such a way, at such a time.

This disastrous and ill-judged PR stunt was the idea of Cathy Keir.

Although the full, bleak horror of it doesn’t come across on the film – an abiding memory of the occasion was the spectacle of one of Keir’s subordinates shouting at – and interrupting – internationally respected journalists – and trying to tell them what they could – or could not – ask her beloved leader, Frank Walker.

The journalists, behind the cameras, just kept turning their heads, to look at each other, with expressions of wide-eyed disbelief at the amateurish and tasteless conduct of the Keir PR strategy.

Jersey tax-payers fund her – and the entire spin-doctoring operation that has so “very skilfully and very successfully deflected the agenda.”

A good use of your hard-earned taxes?

But the spin-doctoring and manipulation didn’t stop back then.

Let me invite readers to cast their minds back to the despicable episode when Graham Power was subjected to what has since been confirmed as an unlawful suspension.

November 2008 – a matter of a few days – terribly conveniently – before the election of 29 members of the Jersey parliament. What better timing – to help persuade confused voters that all of this “fuss” about child abuse was just some “nonsense” dreamt-up by an “out-of-control” police force?

What better way to convince Jersey voters – just at this crucial moment that – actually – the traditional oligarchy politicians were reliable after all – and weren’t responsible for the corrupt and wicked concealment of decades of child abuse?

So Graham Power was subjected to an immediate suspension – with the absolute abandonment of due-process – and with no opportunity to defend himself.

But – according to the Jersey oligarchy – and in particular, people like Frank Walker and Andrew Lewis – the suspension simply had to be conducted immediately.

I’m sure anyone who has followed the matter will remember – vividly – just how it was repeated – again – and again – that the suspension enacted against the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force was an “emergency” decision – taken in only the preceding 24 hours or so, because of the sudden receipt of some supposedly critical report.

Of course – other revelations and published evidence have since shown that “official” version of events to be false; Frank walker and Andrew Lewis have been proven to be liars; Bill Ogley and David Warcup proven to be crooks.

But – here is another dimension to the whole – disgusting and reprehensible – saga.

I publish below an e-mail from the Jersey Chief Minister’s spin-doctor – Cathy Keir.

The e-mail was written to convey the States of Jersey policy on “precautionary suspensions”.

The “precautionary suspension” under consideration was that to be conducted against Graham Power.

This on the 24th September – nearly two months before the illegal suspension was carried out.

Nearly two months – before the supposed “sudden” and “emergency” suspension was enacted.

Setting aside the obvious questions – of just how it was your government – your politicians – were able to lie to you – to your parliament, by falsely stating the unlawful action against Graham Power had not been long-planned, and was instead an “emergency” action – ask another question:

Just what the hell is a spin-doctor doing – being involved – at least two months earlier – in plotting and conspiring to unlawfully remove from authority your Chief of Police?

Ponder that question – and you might begin to understand a little more clearly – just why the Jersey government Ministers “have very skilfully and very successfully deflected the agenda”.

Stuart.

From: Cathy Keir [mailto:C.Keir@gov.je]
Sent: 24 September 2008 12:51
To: [addressee name removed]
Subject: Info as requested


********************************************


If this e-mail has been sent in error, please notify us immediately and delete this document. Please note the legal disclaimer which appears at the end of this message.


*******************************************
[greeting]

Here is information, as requested, re States policy on precautionary suspension.

‘Precautionary Suspension 24-09-2008.doc’

Cathy – Communications Unit


Chief Minister’s Department
Cyril Le Marquand House
PO Box 140
St Helier
Jersey
JE4 8QT


T: +44(0)1534 440430
E: c.keir@gov.je
w. www.gov.je
http://www.gov.je/
F: 440408

JERSEY’S POLICE CHIEF:

THE MAN THE JERSEY GOVERNMENT

UNLAWFULLY SUSPENDED.

Interview with Graham Power QPM:

A Chief Constable

And Citizen’s Media.

Graham Power, the recently retired Chief Constable of the States of Jersey Police Force, has been extensively interviewed by Jersey citizens’ media site, Voice For Children.

Mr. Power is the first Chief of Police in the history of Jersey to take a professional, rigorous view of the need to enforce child protection.

He was also the first – and so far, only – Chief of Police in the island of Jersey to recognise the role of the police as to fairly and objectively enforce the law – especially in ways that protect the weak from the strong – rather than to simply ignore the great mass of serious crime engaged in by Jersey’s traditional ruling elite and their vassals.

A very stark truth is revealed about Jersey’s authorities – in the fact that Mr. Power became the first ever Jersey Chief of Police to be suspended – suspended unlawfully.

Only in Jersey could an organisation under very serious criminal investigation – the States of Jersey – “solve” that “problem” – by simply suspending the Police Chief.

Similar, in many ways, to the fact that the Jersey parliament became the only legislature on the face of the planet – that would sack a Social Services Minister – for trying to protect vulnerable children.

As has been observed so many times before, Jersey’s public authorities – and the entrenched local oligarchy who control them – constitute little short of a de facto mafia.

But as with criminal regimes around the world – the Jersey oligarchy is threatened by the democratisation of media.

Graham Power – and the citizens’ media of Jersey – are making British history.

When else has no less a figure than a nationally respected Chief Constable, willingly engaged with a few ordinary citizens with laptops – in order to fight a corrupt and lawless local political regime?

And is it not truly remarkable – that the ordinary people of Jersey and elsewhere cannot find this kind of dynamite reportage in any of the traditional media?

Not even the BBC – who have a bloated, expensive operation in Jersey, that produces remarkably little quality output for that resource.

Here is the link to part 1 of the interview with Graham Power QPM.

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2011/03/graham-power-qpm-interview-part-1-of-3.html

The gravity and implications of what Mr. Power says will be clear to any thinking person.

Stuart

ACCESS TO JUSTICE:

Is it possible in Jersey?

If you are poor?

Or on the “wrong” side?

Read the informed opinion of one Jersey Advocate.

 

Regular readers will know that following the Jersey oligarchy destroying my career through illegal repression by what passes for a criminal ‘justice’ apparatus in Jersey – they remain determined to jail me for a lengthy period of time – for the unpardonable ‘crime’ of trying to protect my former constituents from rape, serial-killer rogue nurses and child abusers.

Throughout this oppression – I have had to resist the full, unlimited might of Jersey’s politicised prosecution and judicial oligarchy without legal representation.

The thought occurred to me some time ago, that as this war has to be fought – I would use the opportunity to achieve as many broad advances for ordinary people as possible. One of those would be finally securing affordable – and effective – legal representation for all who need it.

To that end, I’m challenging the current law that guarantees a monopoly to Jersey lawyers. At present, if you need a lawyer to represent you in a Jersey court – you cannot, for example, employ an English barrister to speak on your behalf. Only a Jersey Advocate enjoys ‘rights-of-audience’ before Jersey courts.

I wrote about this subject in some detail in my blog-posting of the 4th January, titled ‘Legal Representation in Jersey’.

Predictably enough – the Jersey Law Society – the lawyer’s union – are mobilising against my legal challenge, and to that end recently wrote to all their members.

However – at least one Jersey lawyer – Advocate Philip Sinel – understands why I should have felt it necessary to challenge the present exclusive right of Jersey lawyers to practice before Jersey courts.

Reproduced in full, below, is Advocate Sinel’s response to the Jersey Law Society.

It amounts to a damning critique of the present – inadequate – system of ‘legal aid’ in Jersey – and of the deep and predictable hostility of the judicial establishment – towards anyone who upsets them.

Essentially – Advocate Sinel says that any Jersey lawyer – even if I could afford one – that did, by some chance, represent me effectively, would incur lasting hostility from the judicial establishment. He says: –

“The inevitable consequence of making a proper job of Mr Syvret’s representation would be to engender discrimination and hostility from the judiciary and others in this jurisdiction for evermore.”

That is – of course – true.

And we all know it.

Advocate Sinel points out – by way of contrast – that Baker & Partners are being paid a very substantial amount of public money to prosecute me. He also asks just how much public money has been channelled each year to the UK legal chambers of 7 Bedford Row – the pet legal practice of the Jersey judicial establishment?

7 Bedford Row being, of course, the legal chambers from which Advocate Stephen Baker originated.

Advocate Sinel’s letter is reproduced below – and it, and its publication, are of great significance to the cause of justice in Jersey.

What Advocate Sinel has written will, of course, infuriate many people in the Jersey establishment. But he is no political revolutionary; on the contrary, he is a very successful commercial litigation lawyer. The profound irony of the situation is that, if only a few more successful figures from law and finance in Jersey had exhibited the wisdom and courage displayed by Advocate Sinel in stating obvious – but usually unspoken truths – the Jersey establishment would never have got itself in the damaging and disastrous mess it now faces.

After all – is it really so ‘radical’ – or ‘ dangerous’ – to expect effective political opposition – and reasonable access to effective legal representation – and a non-politicised judiciary – and some meaningful funding for legal aid – in a modern, 21st century, democratic society?

Stuart.

SINELS
Advocates

By E-mail and Post:

Advocate Jane Martin
The Law Society of Jersey
PO Box 493
St. Helier
Jersey
JE4 5S2

3rd March 2011

Dear Advocate Martin

You sent recently a letter to the profession, asking for details of the numbers of Advocates, because you had been called upon to assist the Court, presided over by Sir Christopher Pitchers, in relation to allegations made by former Senator Syvret, as to the inadequacy of resource available to Defendants in this jurisdiction. Your email made reference to our exclusive rights of audience being under attack.

I very much hope that you will be presenting Sir Christopher with a balanced and accurate picture of the position. My views on this matter include at least the matters following.

Those responsible for upholding civil liberties in this jurisdiction are almost exclusively members, of what I might term, the Criminal Bar. As crime is almost completely unremunerated this acts as a profound disincentive. The fact that monies are not made available under the legal aid system for the majority of criminal cases has, to my mind, a severely detrimental effect upon calibre of representation and the amount of choice (frequently none at all) afforded to Defendants in criminal trials.

I would now like to move on if I may, to the specifics of former Senator Syvret’s position. It is unlikely that anyone would want to act for Mr Syvret on legal aid or, for that matter, privately. The position is that the Government has a blank cheque in respect of its use of tax payers’ monies, not that the tax payer has been consulted, and it can spend hundreds of thousands, or indeed millions, on this prosecution.

Any member of a firm obtaining a legal aid slip for the defence has in effect immediately won the lottery in reverse. The costs of providing legal representation to former Senator Syvret would be prohibitive and would remove hundreds of thousands of pounds from the relevant firm’s balance sheet. To which I must add that any practitioner who dealt with the realities of that case, in the manner that they should be dealt with, would of course highlight inefficiencies, if not worse, within the system of Government in Jersey.

My experience of such actions is that they lead inevitably to judicial discrimination and persecution of the practitioner (see for example Mayo v Cantrade [1998] JLR 173 and [1998] JLR 106), Sinel v Batonnier [2000] JLR 93 and Sinel v Horsfall [1997] JLR 41. Thus it is that any person acting for former Senator Syvret would be intimidated before they started, and if they were not intimidated, that would point to an absence of perspicacity on their behalf. The inevitable consequence of making a proper job of Mr Syvret’s representation would be to engender discrimination and hostility from the judiciary and others in this jurisdiction for evermore.

It might perhaps at this stage be wise if the whole of the profession thought through the consequences of the system that we presently work under, namely that those who could, and indeed would and should, fulfil an important and legitimate function within our Society are deterred by at least the factors set out above. To which we must of course add that the Crown have unlimited resources in relation to any prosecution, to which the Defendants have no access. The prosecution have the Police, the Defendants do not have private detectives or a budget for intelligence gathering, or for that matter external Counsel. To my mind, the system in Jersey is a very long way from providing an equality of arms or anything akin to it. Likewise there is no provision for providing senior members of the Bar to those accused of serious crimes, or where points of universal application arise.

I also request by this letter that you ascertain from the relevant authorities how much of the tax payers’ money is paid to Number 7 Bedford Row every year and what the rationale for those payments is. It seems to me that a lot of money is being paid abroad, therefore it does not go into the local economy and, in particular, it bypasses the local legal profession when those monies could be better directed to growing and remunerating our colleagues.

In relation to former Senator Syvret, the question that he is raising with the Court, upon which you wrote to the profession, would not have been raised at all had he been given the ability to choose a suitably competent and qualified remunerated lawyer. His request to that end was flatly refused by Advocate Fitz.

Mr Syvret made through me a request of those responsible for providing funding in this jurisdiction, that a budget be made available for legal representation so as to give him some form of equality of arms (for a number of reasons, I did not do so on the basis that it would be this firm that necessarily represented him, as I felt that he should properly be able to look at a reasonable number of alternatives, including those who have more of a criminal practice than those in this firm). He was denied access to any funds in marked contrast to others. As I have said before, the Government is clearly paying a very great deal of tax payers’ money in relation to this prosecution to Baker and Partners.

The other point of concern in relation to this matter is this; that a number of the charges brought against former Senator Syvret relate to the manner in which he utilised information which he gained whilst fulfilling his function as an elected representative of the people of the Island in order to criticise the Government. Cases of that nature necessarily raise matters which are of great public interest and of universal application, it would be of the benefit of the Island if Mr Syvret was in receipt of an appropriate degree of legal assistance.

I very much hope that you will take this opportunity to publicise the need for us to nurture and protect our own and that we will not be saying that all is well. All is not well within the Island or within the profession.

There are many good reasons to preserve our exclusive rights of Advocacy if we can properly serve the Island’s interests.

As the recent case In the matter of MM [2011] JRC 002 demonstrates, we cannot yet attend our own affairs competently. We are a long way from becoming that positive force for legal and judicial evolution which we could and should be. That long journey should start by addressing the present position with candour.

Yours sincerely

Advocate Philip Sinel.