Monthly Archives: October 2011

A Public Hearing:

Graham Power;

Stuart Syvret;

Giving Evidence to the Sub-Panel:

Friday, 28th October, 11.00 a.m, the States building.

Some months ago, a Jersey parliamentary committee was established to examine how a major accountancy firm, BDO Alto, came to be engaged to “review” the financial management of the historic child abuse investigation in Jersey, but then undertook this “review” without interviewing – at all – the key, centrally involved person, former Senior Investigating Officer Lenny Harper.

The Sub-Panel is also examining a number of closely related issues – not least the nature of that “review” -and how it, and its subsequent presentation, was used by certain media outlets to falsely undermine the child abuse investigation and to attack its integrity.

That Sub-Panel will be hearing evidence – in public – from two witnesses, this Friday, 28thOctober, from 11.00 a.m, in the Blampied Room of the States building.

Those two witnesses are Graham Power, and me.

Mr. Power is giving evidence from 11.00 a.m, via live-link, and I will be giving evidence in person, once the Panel have concluded hearing Mr. Power.

These are the terms of reference of the Scrutiny Sub-Panel:

·         To examine the instructions under which BDO Alto was engaged to review the financial management of Operation Rectangle and their methods for gathering evidence for this review;

·         To clarify the connection between the BDO Alto review and the review on the same matter separately commissioned by the Acting Chief Officer of Police;

·         To identify the reasons why the Senior Investigating Officer for Operation Rectangle was not interviewed by BDO Alto and was not given the opportunity to respond to the report’s findings;

·         To clarify the liaison between BDO Alto and the Wiltshire Police, in particular the references in the BDO Alto report to the Senior Investigating Officer’s statements to Wiltshire Police;

·         To investigate how details of the review into the financial management of Operation Rectangle came to be published in a national newspaper in October 2009; and

·         To consider the implications of the Sub Panel’s findings.

Regular readers will be aware that former Police Chief Officer, Graham Power, Queens Police Medal, produced a 94 page statement as a submission to the Wiltshire police inquiry. Certain parts of that document are of direct and very significant relevance to the work of the Sub-Panel – and I imagine that evidence, and the issues that arise, will be the focus of the public hearing this Friday.

Certainly – for my part, being in possession of a copy of the report, I can say now there are a number of matters I will be addressing, that fall foursquare within the Sub-Panel’s terms of reference – and which are supported by the evidence of the document.

Additionally, there are other matters in my knowledge, which will form a part of my live evidence to the Sub-Panel.

This will be the Sub-Panel’s final live, evidential hearing before it concludes its report.

As the hearing is open to members of the public, I recommend attendance if you have time.

It promises to be most interesting.

Stuart

BRITISH “JUSTICE”:

How the “Law” Really “Works”    
In the Hands of the British Establishment.
[This posting was first published on 26th October 2011 – shortly before I was jailed for whistle-blowing and it remains an historically important snap-shot and insight to the kind of undisguised British judicial corruption which has enabled decades of child-abuse cover-ups.]
I’m publishing four items of evidence below.
I’m not even going to bother explaining them in detail.
For any thinking person who reads the material below – the picture should fall into view; no further explanation necessary.
Couldn’t make it up.
Stuart.
ITEM 1: A quote from the speech made by Jersey “Bailiff”  Sir Phillip Bailhache [personally conflicted – child-abuse cover-ups, brother of equally conflicted Attorney General William Bailhache – child-abuse cover-ups] when swearing-in to Office as magistrate, Bridget Shaw [personally conflicted – child-abuse cover-ups, and until being chosen as Magistrate by the conflicted Philip Bailhache was the prosecutor who failed to bring certain child-abuse cases to court whilst working for Attorney General, the conflicted William Bailhache]  on the 2nd July 2008. The “senior politician” the conflicted Philip Bailhache was attacking in such a prejudicial manner in the paragraph below, was me.
“Mrs Shaw, you take up your post at a time when the judiciary and those in public office in the Island are, for better or for worse, under greater scrutiny than has been the case for some time. No-one can object, of course, to holding individual members of the judiciary to account for their judicial conduct or indeed for their conduct outside the court room. Indeed you have become, by virtue of your office, a member of the Jersey Judicial Association which last year adopted a Code of Ethics and Conduct setting out quite clearly what is expected of judges and magistrates in this Island. 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.” [emphasis added]
I was not following “a personal agenda”. Philip Bailhache – like his equally conflicted brother William Bailhache – is a liar. I was, in fact, “in pursuit” of the lawful duties I’d had as Minister for Health & Social Services – and on behalf of my then constituents who’d been victims of child-abuse. I had written a detailed report to then Justice Secretary Jack Straw, pointing out that Jersey’s prosecution and judicial functions were plainly structurally ultra vires – and wholly incapable – in law – because of the direct conflicts of interest of people like Philip and William Bailhache and Michael Birt – in dealing properly with the child-abuse scandals. I was right.
Some months after the conflicted Bridget Shaw was appointed as magistrate by the conflicted Philip Bailhache – his brother, the equally conflicted William Bailhache – having played a key-role in the illegal high-jacking of the police via the illegal  suspension of the good Police Chief Graham Power – ordered an illegal massed police raid on me for whistle-blowing – and then prosecuted me for whistle-blowing – and the ‘trial’ was heard by the conflicted Bridget Shaw – who had been one of William Bailhache’s prosecutors – before being appointed as one of Philip Bailhache’s judges – by Philip Bailhache – who expressly attacked me when swearing Shaw into office.
Yes. This is the British “judiciary” – in the 21st century.
ITEM 2: Two paragraphs extracted from the 94 page statement made to the Wiltshire police force by Graham Power, Queens Police Medal, the then Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, who had been illegally suspended in a criminal conspiracy – involving people like William Bailhache – so as to sabotage the 2008 child abuse investigations.  The ‘Stephen Baker’ referred to – who was obstructing the Police in their wish to charge child-abusers – is the same Crown Advocate Stephen Baker who is paid with tax-payers money by William Bailhache and Tim Le Cocq to prosecute me, the then politician who led on exposing the child-abuse cover-ups:
“208. It might be useful to offer some comment on the role of Stephen Baker. Mr Baker is a highly regarded lawyer who is experienced in working with the police. He is liked and respected by police officers. From his evidence the impression may have been given that he was a lawyer dedicated to Rectangle whose efforts at engagement were frustrated. This is not entirely the case. He is a busy criminal lawyer with a heavy and varied workload. I see from the disclosure documents he was first appointed to the case in late January and had some involvement in issues around the charging of the accused Wateridge. I will return to that matter in more detail a little later in this statement. The point I wish to make at this time, is that in the period which followed his appointment the force was having exchanges with Mr Baker of an entirely different nature. He was at that time representing a man called Curtis Warren who had a few years previously, been described as the U.K.’s leading criminal. Warren was in custody locally, having been arrested in Jersey following a covert operation by the force. Warren, who at one time appeared in the Sunday Times Rich List, was reported to have substantial criminal wealth, which he had successfully hidden from the various agencies which had sought its recovery. This led to an interesting exchange of correspondence between David Minty and Stephen Baker. David asked if Baker was being paid for his services, and if he was, whether he proposed to make a disclosure to the financial crime unit. I think that this was eventually resolved in favour of Baker, who successfully argued that he did not have to do so.”
*******
“214. The core of the story is that Wateridge was in the process of being charged, when Stephen Baker attempted to intervene but apparently was too late to change matters. My notebook for that day records that in my briefing from Mr Harper I was told that there had been an “issue regarding charging. JJ (Notebook 07/358 page 68.) Stephen Baker’s intervention came at a time about which he states “At that stage I knew nothing about the cases. JJ (Statement of Stephen Baker paragraph 7.) He had clearly been retained by the Attorney General to work on the abuse enquiry. He knew that, and obviously the Attorney General knew that.”
ITEM 3: A quote from the Jersey Evening Post – Jersey’s only “newspaper” [very seriously conflicted for profound reasons] of the 13th October 2011, in which the paper reported my appearance on the 12th October, before the conflicted magistrate Bridget Shaw. The quote – from Jersey’s only “newspaper” – should be borne in mind, and then contrasted with the actual facts as evidenced in the actual transcript, published further below:
“Throughout yesterday’s 70 minute hearing the 45 year old repeatedly interrupted the magistrate or spoke over her as she repeatedly asked him to be concise and relevant with his argument.”
ITEM 4: The actual transcript from the appearance before the conflicted Bridget Shaw on the 12th October – in which hearing I was repeatedly interrupted and shouted-down by her so as to prevent me from making my case and prevented from enjoying my Article 6 right to a fair hearing.  I had to force this court hearing because it was the only chance I had to attempt to use evidence that had been unlawfully concealed from my defence during the prosecution and the appeal. (I was prevented from using that evidence – as the grimly amusing transcript shows.) Key amongst that evidence is the 94-page statement by Graham Power – the importance and relevance of which I’ve scarcely yet touched upon. That key evidence was unlawfully concealed from me by William Bailhache’s prosecuting lawyer, Stephen Baker. The person who refused to give me access to court to raise this fresh evidence – until after the election – in which his brother the conflicted former “Bailiff” Philip Bailhache was a candidate – was William Bailhache.
“In the Magistrate’s Court of Jersey
12th October 2011
Before: B. Shaw, Magistrate
HER MAJESTY’S ATTORNEY GENERAL
-v-
Stuart Syvret
Centenier Huelin
Crown Advocate Stephen Baker
Defendant representing himself
Verbatim Transcript of recorded proceedings
 AG v Syvret: 12/10/11
 MAGISTRATE: Good afternoon.
CENTENIER HUELIN: Good afternoon.
GREFFIER: Be seated, please.
CENTENIER HUELIN: Thank you, Ma’m. Stuart Syvret.
MAGISTRATE: Good afternoon. Will you confirm your name is Stuart Syvret?
DEFENDANT: Yes, yes, that’s correct.
MAGISTRATE: Thank you very much, date of birth 30th of July ‘65?
DEFENDANT: Yes, that’s correct, Madam.
MAGISTRATE: Thank you.
DEFENDANT: Obviously before these proceedings begin, I want to begin by making a  recusal application concerning yourself.
MAGISTRATE: Well, I am going to—-
CROWN ADVOCATE: Madam, there has been a recusal application previously.
MAGISTRATE: Yes.
CROWN ADVOCATE: It has been rejected as far as the Court of Appeal. There should be no recusal application.
MAGISTRATE: Yes.
DEFENDANT: Well, with all due respect, if I may be—-
MAGISTRATE: Mr Syvret, is there any different from anything you’ve said to me before on this issue?
DEFENDANT: Oh indeed there is, absolutely. (Magistrate conferred with Deputy Greffier)
MAGISTRATE: I want to get these proceedings started, Mr Syvret. I am going to ask that the Representation is put first and then we will deal with any substantial matters.
CENTENIER HUELIN: Centenier Huelin of the Parish of St Helier, on behalf of the Constable of the said Parish, has the honour to present to the Court that, in virtue of the terms of the Criminal Justice (Community Services Orders)(Jersey) Law 2001, he is of the opinion that, for the reasons given in the attached statement submitted by the Community Service Officer, it is necessary for the Magistrate’s Court to re-examine the conditions imposed on Stuart Syvret, who, by Act of the said Court, dated 17th of November 2010, was convicted of the offence of Contempt of Court by failing to attend a hearing at the Magistrate’s Court on the 9th of November 2009, and sentenced to a term of eight weeks’ imprisonment. The said Stuart Syvret made an appeal to the Royal Court of Jersey against the said conviction of the Magistrate’s Court and, on the 8th of August 2011, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, but the appeal against sentence was allowed, in part, by ordering that the term of imprisonment be substituted with a Community Service Order of 80 hours or eight weeks’ imprisonment. The said Stuart Syvret has failed to conform to the conditions of the Community Service Order. Therefore, the said Centenier, on behalf of the said Constable, presents the aforementioned information to the Court in order that it may ordain on the facts contained in the above mentioned statement; the whole in accordance with the terms of Article 7 of the said Law.
MAGISTRATE: Thank you very much. Mr Syvret, do you understand what has been said and why you are here?
DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.
MAGISTRATE: Thank you very much.
CROWN ADVOCATE: Madam, the Defendant has said that he intends to apply for you to recuse yourself. You spent a considerable period listening to recusal applications some 18 months ago now, I anticipate. The complaints went in that regard as far as the Court of Appeal and were entirely rejected. The complaints as to bias and recusal were rejected by Commissioner Pitchers. There has been a full hearing of these allegations, these repeated allegations. The last time that they were repeated was before Commissioner Pitchers in the middle of August this year and, if you are minded to ask the Defendant whether he has anything new to add from that which was said to the Court in the middle of August 2011, then that is understandable, but he should immediately identify what it is that is new.
MAGISTRATE: Yes. Yes, Mr Syvret, if there is anything new, I want you to say very concisely what is new. If I don’t hear anything new within the first couple of minutes, then I am going to stop you.
DEFENDANT: Yes, Madam, there are new grounds. Obviously I remain of the view that the old grounds were valid.
MAGISTRATE: Yes.
DEFENDANT: And indeed I think the events showed that that was the case, but Advocate Baker has referred to the Judgment of the Royal Court, which is before you, I believe.
MAGISTRATE: Yes.
DEFENDANT: And if one looks, for example, at paragraphs 59 and 60, it does there describe how the inappropriateness of your conduct on the day of sentencing and the way you applied contempt of Court charges against me without proper due notice and without proper due process against me; and indeed the Royal Court found that these were plainly so insupportable that they were, these particular charges were thrown out by the Royal Court.
MAGISTRATE: Yes, thank you.
DEFENDANT: The conduct that you exhibited on that day, Madam, on that ground, does show very clear, powerful and dramatic actual bias. One doesn’t even need anything approaching a complex or well versed understanding of law to know that, if you lay a charge before a person, if you accuse them of a criminal offence of some description, especially one that is so significant you’re going to impose a significant sentence upon it, you have to allow that person an opportunity to defend themselves. You have to give them a reasonable notice of the charge, allow them some time to prepare their defence case and to make their defence. You did not on that occasion, Madam, do any of that. Your decisions concerning me were wholly extraordinary, wildly, massively at variance with even the most rudimentary and simple understandings of how the administration of justice operates in a clear and fair and impartial manner. Clearly your conduct was not compliant with Article 6 on that day; and I make the point that this was such a very, very clear matter because it is not as though it could be argued that this was some complex consideration, perhaps an error in law of the kind that can get made or perhaps a misunderstanding of some factual item. This was an extremely aggressive, overtly actually biased decision/decisions on your part on that day and quite extraordinarily so. I mean, I am not aware of another case where a person has been faced with charges of that nature, even contempt of Court charges, when the matter normally can be dealt with summarily of course, but that is in the cases of contempt, direct contempt, in the face of the Court. I have not been able to locate a similar case anywhere that corresponds to your conduct, your attitude towards me as displayed on that day.  The charges I had less than 24 hours’ notice of. I applied to reserve my plea. You wouldn’t even allow me to do that. You then entered a not guilty plea on my behalf and I then applied for time to then prepare some defence, some defence argument or possibly some mitigation argument to the charges in question and you absolutely refused an adjournment to me to do that, which was quite extraordinary given that these charges had only been notified to me less than 24 hours beforehand. You then proceeded to find me guilty of these charges and I then sought another adjournment in respect of sentence and sentencing so that I could appeal, and you refused that too and you also pretty much instructed the Prosecution to prepare further charges on the day, which were worked into the proceedings.  Now, these are absolutely very clear crystallisations of the bias that you displayed to me throughout the whole proceedings and it was very powerfully and dramatically overt and on display in your conduct in that particular instance, and these were, indeed so insupportable was your conduct on that occasion that not even the Royal Court could uphold it.
Now, the conduct that you displayed towards me, the attitude that you displayed towards me on that occasion in that kind of kangaroo court approach that you took does display actual bias, very clearly evidenced actual bias. There is no other word for it. We are not even talking about potential bias here or conduct that might risk appearing to be biased. This was overt, aggressive, biased conduct and one has to also read the Judgment that you delivered on that day and see that there are various passages in it, various observations that depart considerably from consideration of the verdict and the law and so on and effectively amount to a Jersey establishment press release condemning me in all kinds of ways, calling me a liar and things of that nature for having tried to protect my constituents by making the public interest disclosure that I did. Indeed, the evidence that you refused to allow me to use in my defence case is now published so that the public can see for themselves how serious that matter was. You brought, as it were, the Prosecution argument that somehow it had been wrong of me to have published that information, the original information, with some kind of a political commentary alongside it.
Now, that may or may not have been a legally correct decision. I don’t believe it was a legally correct decision judgement or yours, nor of the Royal Court consequently, but it is quite one thing, even if I were wrong to have published that material, for me to have published it in a way that didn’t suit your particular interpretation of the law, but then to write at great length of how I was some kind of malicious liar in what I have written—-
CROWN ADVOCATE: This can’t be relevant.
MAGISTRATE: Is there any … the Royal Court has ruled on my previous Judgment, Mr Syvret. The Royal Court has upheld it and I am not going to reopen anything regarding that. Have you anything else directly to say to me that you haven’t said to me before about why I shouldn’t sit?
DEFENDANT: Yes, the, the case uhm that, of the uhm, the uhm, sorry the contempt of Court matters that you put before, that you put before me, this does demonstrate very clearly and dramatically actual bias on your part.
MAGISTRATE: Yes, you said that.
DEFENDANT: As did a lot of the other proceedings. It is also since those events occurred, which takes me onto the second plank of the argument, and that is really why I am here today, because I obtained some evidence recently from a source in the—-
CROWN ADVOCATE: This can’t be relevant to recusal.
MAGISTRATE: I don’t think fresh evidence can be relevant to why you are here before the Court or why I shouldn’t sit in the case.
DEFENDANT: Well, I think it is. Perhaps you would care to listen to the explanation before coming to a judgement?
MAGISTRATE: Well, we’re talking about fresh evidence and the evidence in the case has been heard and that stage of the case is over.
DEFENDANT: The evidence in question is a 94 page statement to the Wiltshire Police Force by Graham Power. Now, clearly in a variety of different ways that evidence is of dramatic and central—-
 CROWN ADVOCATE: I am sorry to—-
 MAGISTRATE: I just don’t follow this.
CROWN ADVOCATE: I did not interrupt Mr Syvret at all—-
 MAGISTRATE: Yes.
CROWN ADVOCATE: —–in the substantive proceedings, but it is my intention to interrupt him if it is apparent and obvious that he is going to address the Court on matters which are utterly irrelevant to the issue before it. What you are being asked to do at present is to recuse yourself because of actual bias. A 96 page statement by Mr Power to Wiltshire can have nothing to do with that whatsoever and was canvassed in the Royal Court on appeal and dealt with on appeal by the Royal Court and unless—-
DEFENDANT: That’s not true.
CROWN ADVOCATE: —–and unless Mr Syvret can show that it has anything to do whatsoever with the recusal application, you shouldn’t hear him. He shouldn’t be given any more indulgence than any other citizen in this position.
MAGISTRATE: Mr Syvret—-
DEFENDANT: The—-
 MAGISTRATE: —–I don’t see on the surface of it what the 96 page statement by somebody else will have to—-
 DEFENDANT: It is 94 pages actually.
MAGISTRATE: Will you tell me in two sentences what the link is between my sitting and this statement?
DEFENDANT: Certainly. You, Madam, are mentioned in the document, I think in a couple of points, in your previous capacity as being involved as a legal adviser with the police force in respect of the child protection issues and investigations and that does have a bearing on the recusal application. This was not evidence or knowledge that was in my possession before and this is not an argument that has been advanced before.
MAGISTRATE: But I don’t see what that can have to do with breach of a Community Service Order.
DEFENDANT: This is in connection with the recusal application, Madam. You have—-
MAGISTRATE: Yes, but what I am sitting on is a Representation to do with a breach of a Community Service Order. I’m not sitting on the trial. Mr Syvret, you haven’t raised anything else.
DEFENDANT: But this is a part of the recusal application—-
 MAGISTRATE: Which can be—-
DEFENDANT: —–this is evidence that I was not aware of previously that I am now aware of which goes further to the fact that you have a history, as it were, of involvement in the background issues and that goes further to the strength of the argument that you must recuse yourself from this case. Your past involvement with these matters and your acquaintance with a number of the individuals involved, of the interested parties as it were, is magnified and made even clearer by the fresh evidence.
MAGISTRATE: Okay, well—-
DEFENDANT: That is fresh evidence that goes to—-
MAGISTRATE: —–well that is your point, right.
DEFENDANT: —–the recusal ap—-
MAGISTRATE: I hear what you are saying. Thank you very much.
DEFENDANT: —–the application.
MAGISTRATE: Right.
DEFENDANT: The evidence is of further relevance, and I must address this because Advocate Baker raised the point, I did not. Advocate Baker suggested, and he used the word “canvassed”, he suggested that the matter of the 94 page statement of Mr Power had been dealt with in detail in the Royal Court. It in fact had not. That is simply incorrect and that is another one of the numerous untruths uttered by Advocate Baker throughout these proceedings. I repeatedly, indeed before you and before the Royal Court, sought disclosure of this document. Advocate Baker throughout most of the proceedings repeatedly asserted that this document would not be disclosed because, in his judgement, it was of no relevance to the Defence arguments of things like abuse of process and malicious prosecution.
MAGISTRATE: Mr Syvret, thank you very much. I have heard enough about that.
DEFENDANT: But—-
MAGISTRATE: I don’t see that—-
DEFENDANT: Am I allowed to actually make my case?
MAGISTRATE: I have heard enough, thank you very much. Would you, would you sit down?
DEFENDANT: I haven’t finished making my case.
MAGISTRATE: Well, you might not have finished, Mr Syvret, but you’re saying there is something in this statement to say that I worked for the Law Officers and had some involvement in child abuse cases in the past. From what you’ve been telling me, I cannot see that this can have any possible relevance to whether I should sit on a breach of Community Service Order in the Court now, so would you just take a seat for the moment?
DEFENDANT: Well—-
MAGISTRATE: No.
DEFENDANT: —–well, Madam, I must respond to that. What you are hearing today, whether it is a breach of Community Service Order or any other matter, the nature of the case you are hearing is immaterial. You are sitting in the capacity of a judge and, if I have grounds for considering that you are conflicted or that you have exhibited bias towards me, I am entitled to make that argument. The particular nature of the case you are hearing is immaterial. If there is a credible argument that you have exhibited actual bias, then you have exhibited actual bias and the nature—-
MAGISTRATE: You have made that point—-
DEFENDANT: —–the nature of—-
MAGISTRATE: —–in relation to the contempt of Court. Now you are bringing in something that doesn’t seem to me to be directly relevant.
DEFENDANT: Madam, this is of relevance as to whether you are capable of being an objective judge in any matter concerning me and I do not believe that you are capable of being an objective judge in this matter before the Court today or, frankly, in any other matter concerning me. That is the argument I am making and now if I could please—-
MAGISTRATE: Right, thank you. No, I understand the argument you are making, Mr Syvret. Would you sit down, please?
DEFENDANT: But I haven’t—-
MAGISTRATE: I want to hear from Mr Baker.
DEFENDANT: But I haven’t finished making—-
MAGISTRATE: No, I don’t wish to hear any more, Mr Syvret.
DEFENDANT: Well—-
MAGISTRATE: I understand the nature of what you’re saying.
DEFENDANT: But—-
MAGISTRATE: If what you’re saying is right, then—-
DEFENDANT: With respect, Madam, there—-
MAGISTRATE: —–you’ve said sufficient already on the contempt matters.
DEFENDANT: There are entire strands of the argument that I have not yet addressed.
MAGISTRATE: Mr Syvret, I just don’t see that you’re saying anything to me that I can see is relevant to the proceedings today.
DEFENDANT: Any matter that demonstrated conflicts of interests or bias on your part—-
MAGISTRATE: Yes.
DEFENDANT: —–is of relevance.
MAGISTRATE: Yes, but you have raised it and I understand that you’ve raised it.
DEFENDANT: I haven’t yet—-
MAGISTRATE: And, therefore, I shall take it into account—-
DEFENDANT: I haven’t yet finished.
MAGISTRATE: —–when I consider what to do.
DEFENDANT: But I haven’t yet finished making the argument.
MAGISTRATE: You have raised the matter and said that I was involved in child abuse cases when I worked for the Law Officers’ Department. Where does that take you?
DEFENDANT: Well, we go back to the earlier considerations and they do have to be put forward again in that—-
MAGISTRATE: No, no, you have said the earlier considerations.
DEFENDANT: Madam—-
MAGISTRATE: Can we go back to the—-
DEFENDANT: —–when you—-
MAGISTRATE: —–to what you are saying to me now because I really don’t follow what you’re saying.
DEFENDANT: When you made the earlier decision not to recuse and you considered yourself able to hear this case, you did on that occasion refuse, as you did on several occasions throughout the proceedings, you refused to itemise and declare openly who your particular acquaintances were, who you knew and so on and the extent to which you may have worked with them. Now, if you worked further with these people, as indeed is indicated by this statement, then that is further grounds for me, new grounds for me, arguing that for you to meet the test of coherence of objectivity, you must declare quite openly the full extent and nature of your acquaintance with any of these interested parties. That is a perfectly reasonable test of openness and transparency. If you do not declare openly each such acquaintance, then you can’t meet the test of the appearance of objectivity.
MAGISTRATE: Right.
DEFENDANT: And the recently obtained evidence adds weight to my previous argument that there is a requirement for you to declare quite openly your acquaintances with any of the involved parties.
There is another dimension to this argument too, which I advance against you hearing any case concerning me, and—-
MAGISTRATE: What is that?
DEFENDANT: That is the question of judicial, simply professional competence. Anyone has a right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the ECHR—-
MAGISTRATE: Yes.
DEFENDANT: —–and part of a fair hearing has to be competency. If a judge isn’t fully competent, then they are not capable of presiding over a hearing in an effective manner.
MAGISTRATE: Yes.
DEFENDANT: Now, you, Madam, agreed with the Prosecution throughout that they not be required to disclose to me any of the evidence I sought that was of relevance, obviously central relevance, to what were in many ways the very key foundation stones of the Defence argument. Those arguments were abuse of process, malicious prosecution, politicised prosecution and personal conflicts of interest on the part of the prosecutor. Now that was, if you like, the very centre, in many ways the foundation stone of the defence case throughout. You repeatedly refused, quite remarkably, to disclose any of that evidence, in particular and expressly and directly the evidence provided by Mr Power to the Wiltshire investigation. That was never a decision I accepted. I always knew perfectly well that there would be, quite obviously, material within that evidence that would, could not be anything other than of relevance to the Defence arguments, but you refused and that evidence was not disclosed to me.
MAGISTRATE: Yes.
DEFENDANT: I have now obtained the evidence and I will be exploring it in some detail and it shows in fact, precisely as one would expect, I think as any reasonable person even without legal training would expect, and fully as I expected, that in fact substantial parts of that evidence do without question go absolutely directly and most powerfully to the Defence case I was running—-
MAGISTRATE: Hmm hmm.
DEFENDANT: —–namely abuse of process, malicious prosecution and essentially a structural set of proceedings by the prosecution authority in Jersey that were wholly non-compliant with the ECHR. Now that Defence argument now is effectively proven and Mr Power’s statement proves it, as it was probably always going to do. I believe that so extraordinary was your decision not to order the disclosure of that  evidence to me and indeed some other similar decisions that it has to raise very serious questions about your basic competency as a judge.
MAGISTRATE: Right, okay, that’s your third point.
DEFENDANT: And there are also other questions that have to go towards the whole consideration of competency. It is entirely right that when considering whether judicial proceedings are Article 6 compliant, the person before the tribunal has a right to consider that everyone taking part in it is fully competent and to understand what the methodology and the standards are of the proceedings taking place. Further to that end, I repeatedly sought disclosure from you of whichever third party or parties you’ve taken advice and guidance from during the course of the proceedings against me and during adjournments and so on and again you have refused to disclose that information, much like—-
 CROWN ADVOCATE: This must be a repeat.
DEFENDANT: —–much like you refused to disclose … well, it is a different argument if you don’t mind.
CROWN ADVOCATE: It is a repeat.
DEFENDANT: You refused to disclose—-
MAGISTRATE: All right.
DEFENDANT: —–the acquaintances you had.
MAGISTRATE: So you are saying for various reasons I am incompetent, yes?
DEFENDANT: Yes, Madam, I think you are on the evidence, and this is not merely an assertion of mine.
MAGISTRATE: Right.
DEFENDANT: And this is an important point because obviously it is very easy for any accused person just to stand up and cast condemnations upon the Court that is hearing them and, you know, justice would not function if such claims were to be  taken seriously without any kind of evidential background to any kind of robust grounds for making such claims, but in this particular case I do have such robust claims. I am able to argue in powerfully evidenced detail that you have in fact made many decisions in this case certainly concerning me and possibly in other cases too that do cast the most telling light on your basic competency as a judge. Now that is an entirely legitimate argument. If it is true, then the proceedings you preside over will not be Article 6 compliant, so, if I can show to the tribunal, if I can demonstrate that you have made basic errors and that you’ve been incompetent in some regards as a judge, then your capacity in the past tribunal and indeed any other tribunal hearing matters concerning me becomes vitiated.
MAGISTRATE: Thank you.
DEFENDANT: So—-
MAGISTRATE: I understand what you’re saying.
DEFENDANT: —–that is an argument I am entitled to make and to make on an evidenced basis.
MAGISTRATE: No, you can make representations—-
DEFENDANT: I want to tell you—-
MAGISTRATE: —–which you have just have done. Mr Baker?
CROWN ADVOCATE: Madam, the Defendant has, as he so frequently does, utterly overstated his case. He accuses you of actual bias and incompetence and what the material that he has drawn to your attention shows is only this, that the Appellate Court concluded that you had made errors in procedure. It makes no comments whatsoever on the merits of the conduct which was under consideration. By that I mean merits of the conduct by the Defendant, which was under consideration. There is absolutely nothing to suggest actual bias. There is nothing to suggest apparent bias and any reasonably or properly informed independent observer would come to  no conclusion other than the Appellate Court had concluded that you followed the wrong procedure in what is a difficult area and an uncommon area of law to have to deal with.
His attacks upon your competence are wholly misplaced. Your Judgment at first instance was upheld in its entirety effectively by the Appellate Court. The Court had no criticism whatsoever of your conclusion that the Defendant had lied to you. It concluded that the convictions on the main charges were entirely justified. In fact, the proper reading of the transcripts and the whole of the case shows that you have demonstrated remarkable patience with the Defendant, as in fact have all the judges who have had to deal with this Defendant’s case, and you have shown remarkable patience in the face of unprovoked and unsustainable and (in the words, in the mouths of a lawyer) utterly improper allegations against you. There is nothing whatsoever in this application that you recuse yourself and you should sit.
MAGISTRATE: Thank you very much. Mr Syvret—-
DEFENDANT: I haven’t actually finished.
MAGISTRATE: Well, I have heard four headings under which I shouldn’t sit. Is there a separate heading?
DEFENDANT: Well, I mean, I am dealing with the evidence under those headings.
MAGISTRATE: No, no. I have heard those headings. I have heard you outline what your arguments are. It is not an occasion on which to bring evidence. I will deal with this matter by way of submissions. I have heard submissions from you and I have heard them from Mr Baker. I would say I am not going to recuse myself in this case.
DEFENDANT: But—-
MAGISTRATE: I do not have actual bias against you and any informed bystander I believe would not think that there is an appearance of bias.
DEFENDANT: No informed bystander—-
MAGISTRATE: The case against you was taken on appeal to the Royal Court. The Royal Court found that I did make procedural errors in dealing with your contempt. The Court has dealt with that. That doesn’t mean that any judge who is overturned by a superior Court bears malice towards a defendant in that case. Nor does the procedure I adopted on that occasion demonstrate actual bias towards you. In terms of my competence, the vast majority of my decision at first instance was upheld by the Royal Court. I was right, they said, on the disclosure issue and I don’t think my competence is being, can seriously be called into question.
DEFENDANT: Well—-
MAGISTRATE: So, Mr Syvret—-
DEFENDANT: —–with respect—-
MAGISTRATE: —–I intend to—-
DEFENDANT: —–I haven’t yet finished.
MAGISTRATE: No, that is the recusal matter over with.
DEFENDANT: Well, I have to state that it is not the recusal matter over with as far as I am concerned because you have not permitted me to explain the facts properly.
MAGISTRATE: No, you have brought up the planks of your argument, Mr Syvret. I don’t think they are sustainable.
DEFENDANT: We have not seen, we have not examined, we have not considered the evidence.
MAGISTRATE: No, well we’re not going into the evidence. We don’t go into the evidence in cases like that.
DEFENDANT: But there is—-
MAGISTRATE: We deal with the matter by way of representation.
DEFENDANT: There is ample evidence available which could be explored and argued about here and now that would indeed seriously challenge your competency. Indeed, one of the factors that makes that relevant to be dealt with at this particular time is the fact that that evidence was not in fact before the Royal Court and was not in fact heard or considered by the Royal Court, largely due to the mendacity of Advocate Baker; and that evidence does in fact now, as it is before this Court at the moment, does in fact go powerfully to questions of your competence, and this is not a matter that has been dealt with in any other Court—-
MAGISTRATE: Right.
DEFENDANT: —–because of the failure to disclose the evidence. It is now before this Court for the first time and it does indeed form a substantive argument, evidenced grounds for exploring whether you are competent as a judge and I have a right to make that argument. For example—-
MAGISTRATE: Mr Syvret, we are here to deal with an allegation of breach of a Community Service Order.
DEFENDANT: Well, with respect, we’re here first of all to—-
MAGISTRATE: No, no, Mr—-
DEFENDANT:  —–we are here first of all to deal with—-
MAGISTRATE: Mr Syvret—-
DEFENDANT:—–the question of whether your presiding—-
MAGISTRATE: No, we are not.
DEFENDANT: —–over this Court case—-
MAGISTRATE: I have ruled on that matter, Mr Syvret.
DEFENDANT: —–is Article 6 compliant.
MAGISTRATE: I don’t wish to ask, I don’t wish to hear any more.
DEFENDANT: So you’re not—-
MAGISTRATE: That matter is, that matter is closed.
DEFENDANT: So you’re not prepared to hear the evidence?
 MAGISTRATE: Mr Baker, can we carry on?
DEFENDANT: You’re not going to permit me to explain the evidence?
MAGISTRATE: No, no.
DEFENDANT: No?
MAGISTRATE: I’m not.
CROWN ADVOCATE: Madam, before I do, can I just say that the suggestion that the “mendacity of Advocate Baker” could in any way persuade a High Court Judge not to look at something is utterly ridiculous and it should be dismissed for the piffle that it is. Can I then move on to the breach of the Community Service Order?
DEFENDANT: I can bring the transcripts up.
MAGISTRATE: No.
CROWN ADVOCATE: This matter is listed before the Court today because the Defendant has been ordered to serve 80 hours’ community service. That 80 hours’ community service was imposed for an offence of contempt of Court. The contempt of Court was his absconding from Jersey for some six months and thus not being available for his trial. In England, the matter would have been dealt with under the Bail Act in all likelihood, but in Jersey by our law it is dealt with as a contempt of Court and it is dealt with frequently as a contempt of Court in this Court. He was convicted and sentenced by you for contempt of Court on the 17th of November 2010. A transcript of what transpired is in the bundle before you and will be easily in your recollection in any event, Madam, but he was sentenced to eight weeks’ imprisonment for that contempt of Court. The reason that he was sentenced to eight months’(sic) imprisonment—-
MAGISTRATE: Eight weeks.
CROWN ADVOCATE: Eight weeks, I do apologise, eight weeks’ imprisonment that day was because he refused the offer of community service as an alternative. You specifically gave him the opportunity of undertaking community service and he declined it and you therefore sentenced him to eight weeks’ imprisonment, which was inevitable. He thereafter, as soon as he could, applied for bail from the Royal Court and he was granted bail by the Royal Court pending his appeal in regard to a series of convictions and sentences which had been passed, but it is only the contempt for absconding which concerns you today.
His appeal against conviction was rejected by the Royal Court on the 11th of August of this year and, as to sentence, the learned Commissioner and Jurats offered him the opportunity of doing community service and he accepted that opportunity. Commissioner Pitchers told him on that occasion that he had no doubt that he could do community service and asked him whether he was willing to do it as an alternative to prison. The Defendant said that he was. The Commissioner then substituted 80 hours’ community service for the contempt and told the Defendant that, if he failed to comply, he could be resentenced and made it clear “This is the sentence that the Magistrate wanted to pass the first time round”, so he was left in no doubt as to what the consequences might be should he fail to co-operate and carry out his community service.
It is alleged that he has failed to comply with the requirements of the Community Service Order. He has refused to attend a single appointment for work. He attended one meeting at the Community Service, at the Probation and was largely offensive and insulting at that meeting. You have before you a report prepared by Mr Le Marrec, who sits behind me, dated the 12th of October 2011 and who is available to give evidence or answer questions, as is the normal course in this Court. I hope I can encapsulate the Probation Service’s position, but they can speak for themselves if and when you have questions for them, Madam, but that they consider that the Defendant has been dismissive of them and has effectively been contemptuous of them in the casual use of the word. You will see that in paragraph 4 of the report “You don’t really expect me to take this seriously” is what he says to Community Service, and this days after he has been sentenced to community service as an alternative to custody. (Pause)
MAGISTRATE: Carry on.
CROWN ADVOCATE: As I say, the Probation Officers can speak for themselves, but arrangements had been made for him to attend Community Service on a Wednesday morning, on a day when lighter work and more vulnerable prisoners – sorry, not prisoners, more vulnerable convicted persons – are carrying out their order. They tend to carry out tasks at the zoo, at Durrell, sweeping up leaves and the like. What I submit to you – and you should ask the Probation Officers some questions – but what the report which the Probation Service has prepared for you reveals is just exactly the same type of conduct as you have faced for 18 months and which the Royal Court faced, with him playing a medical card when he thinks its suits him, being dismissive of people when it suits him and not engaging and then making allegations against people when it suits him. So that when he comes across people who don’t see the world as he does, or who want him to do something he doesn’t want to, he seems incapable of engaging with them and, rather than engaging in reason and reaching compromise with them, he accuses them, makes wild allegations with virtually no evidence or no evidence at all to back it up. What you see in the report, I repeat, is what you’ve seen throughout these proceedings and he is “swinging the lead. “
Commissioner Pitchers was in no doubt in the middle of August that he was capable of doing community service. He is Exhibit A as to why he is capable of doing community service. He is a man who will argue with you until he is blue in the face. He will talk across you. He will insult you and he is more than capable of  engaging with things when he wants to. It is just when he doesn’t want to, when it doesn’t suit him that he decides that oh he’s too ill, “I’ve got a doctor’s report saying that I’m unfit for work” and he resorts to insults and excuses as to why he can’t comply with something he has been ordered to do; this in circumstances where a retired High Court Judge says that he is certain that he can carry out community service. Again, you doubtless will ask some questions of the Officers, but 95% of people who are ordered to do community service in Jersey carry it out, and in the Wednesday working group at the moment there are several people who have doctors’ certificates saying they are unfit for work, who carry out community service. It is about seven hours on a Wednesday. It can be as low as four and a half hours and any sensible engagement with Probation leads to persons being able to carry out community service.
Madam, you have power to deal with the alleged breach under Article 20(3) of the Magistrates’ Courts Law. I don’t intend to take you to it unless you wish me to.
MAGISTRATE: Article 23?
CROWN ADVOCATE: I have got 20(3).
MAGISTRATE: Yes, sorry 20.
CROWN ADVOCATE: It is behind divider 8—-
MAGISTRATE: Yes.
CROWN ADVOCATE: —–of the bundle I have put before you.
MAGISTRATE: Yes.
CROWN ADVOCATE: Do you wish me to read it?
MAGISTRATE: Yes, the Royal Court has effectively varied a decision of the Magistrates’ Court. Is that what you’re saying?
CROWN ADVOCATE: Yes, that is right.
MAGISTRATE: Yes.
CROWN ADVOCATE: The Defendant claims to have material which affects the safety of his conviction on one of the data protection offences. Any such material is entirely irrelevant to this Community Service Order, which he has been ordered to complete for contempt of Court, not for the data protection offence, about which he says there is evidence which may affect the safety of that conviction. It is plain that he has been told that in terms by Commissioner Pitchers, and there is an email behind divider 6.
MAGISTRATE: Hmm hmm.
CROWN ADVOCATE: Mr Syvret wrote to the Bailiff’s Judicial Secretary saying he needed an immediate injunction, or something of that type, to suspend the orders which had been made against him, and Commissioner Pitchers replied through the Bailiff’s Judicial Secretary, saying that he had read the documents submitted by Syvret, “he wishes to seek a stay of the orders made on appeal, applications properly made to me, he argues a new witness is relevant in the defence of public interest under Article 55 of the law” – that is the offence I was referring to.
MAGISTRATE: Hmm hmm.
CROWN ADVOCATE: “Accordingly whatever the outcome of this application for convictions and sentences to do with the data protection offences, the two motoring offences and the contempt of Court offence will be unaffected. The fines and the community service for those offences will remain.” So he knows, because Commissioner Pitchers has told him, that any material which might be relevant (and there will be a dispute as to that doubtless) to the data protection offence is not relevant to this.
Madam, if the breach of Community Service Order is proved or admitted by the Defendant, then you have various options. One option is to allow the order to run with a final warning to the Defendant that, if he does not complete community service, then you will have no option but to send him to prison. That is entirely your decision and the Crown in this Court has no role in submitting as to what it believes you should do, but, should the Defendant refuse to undertake community service, then the likelihood is that the Court will be left with no option but to send him to prison to serve the eight weeks’ imprisonment. The Prosecution indicates that it has no desire that the Defendant be sent to prison. It is in highly unusual circumstances, that people get themselves into a position where a Court has to send them to prison where they have been sentenced to community service. If he is sentenced to imprisonment, it will be entirely a consequence of his own acts and he would effectively have chosen to be imprisoned. It is all his doing. It is all his choice.  Madam, I have told you that there is a report from the Probation Services dated the 12th of October 2011. Mr Le Marrec is here behind me, as is his boss, if you will excuse the colloquialness, and they are here to answer any questions you might have.
MAGISTRATE: Has that report from Mr Le Marrec been supplied to Mr Syvret?
CROWN ADVOCATE: Yes.
MAGISTRATE: Thank you. Mr Syvret, you’ve—-
DEFENDANT: Can I make my—-
MAGISTRATE: Sorry?
DEFENDANT: Can I make my case now?
MAGISTRATE: No, I’m going to ask you some questions about what Mr Baker has just said. Firstly, he said that there is an allegation of a breach of a Community Service Order, and the details of what is alleged to amount to the breach is contained in a report by Mr Le Marrec. Have you read the report by Mr Le Marrec?
DEFENDANT: I only received the report, it was handed to me in a physical copy today. I’ve glanced at it briefly. I haven’t had time, sufficient time to absorb it, properly read it and absorb it all.
MAGISTRATE: Has that been emailed to you before?
DEFENDANT: No, it has not. The first I have seen of this was today.
MAGISTRATE: Right.
CROWN ADVOCATE: As for me, as with me.
MAGISTRATE: You saw it for the first time today?
CROWN ADVOCATE: Yes, I did.
MAGISTRATE: The report.
DEFENDANT: With respect, Advocate Baker is a trained lawyer. I am a lay person.
MAGISTRATE: I beg your pardon?
DEFENDANT: I said, with respect, Advocate Baker is a trained lawyer. I am a lay person. I haven’t had sufficient time to consider this.
CROWN ADVOCATE: You have had all day. He has had all day. He has had from ten o’clock to read this.
DEFENDANT: No.
MAGISTRATE: Well, Mr Syvret, this isn’t so much a matter of law but a matter of fact. All the law requires for you to do is to do the work as directed and to keep appointments and Mr Le Marrec’s report is saying what he says happened. So have you actually read the report?
DEFENDANT: I have glanced through it briefly. I haven’t had a chance to study it or absorb it, no.
MAGISTRATE: At this stage are you able to say whether you agree or disagree with the basic allegations that Mr Baker has just—-
DEFENDANT: I can’t, no.
MAGISTRATE: —–enunciated, that you failed to keep appointments?
DEFENDANT: Well, I failed to keep the appointments, but I have been signed, signed off ill. I mean, that is, that is the case. I mean, as far as the specific detailed allegations, I have not yet had time to consider them.
CROWN ADVOCATE: Madam, it is entirely a matter for you, but let’s give him 15 minutes to read it.
DEFENDANT: Well, with all due respect, I haven’t yet—-
CROWN ADVOCATE: He has had all day. He has had all day and it is not acceptable to be in Court for breach of community service, to be given the report and not to bother reading it.
DEFENDANT: But with all due respect—-
CROWN ADVOCATE: He knows he is here for breach of community service. This is the report and to tell you that he has skimmed it is utterly unacceptable.
DEFENDANT: Madam, this, this, this grandstanding and this PR speak by Advocate Baker playing to the gallery is really quite transparent and quite tiresome.
MAGISTRATE: Well, what I want to know—-
DEFENDANT: If people are being thrust documents upon them that they are then being expected to comment upon in a case that day, it isn’t adequate. It is simply basic rudimentary due process that people are given adequate time to reflect upon documents. People might want to take advice on documents. This is not unreasonable. This is a perfectly proper approach and—-
MAGISTRATE: Yes. Mr Syvret, can I just stop you there? The other question that I wanted to ask you is whether you wish to be legally represented in these proceedings and have you thought about applying for Legal Aid?
DEFENDANT: Well my view on that remains the same as it has always been. I would like to be legally represented by a paid lawyer of my choice, but, as that is not going to happen, then I have to represent, I have to try.
MAGISTRATE: So you accept that you are going to represent yourself in this matter?
DEFENDANT: With reluctance, yes.
CROWN ADVOCATE: Madam, this matter has been dealt with in entirely the usual way.  He has been treated exactly as any other citizen.
MAGISTRATE: Well, yes. Mr Baker, I was just going to make the point that it is the usual practice in this Court to ask a defendant whether they wish to seek legal advice and, if they do, to grant a two week adjournment. That is perfectly standard practice and Mr Syvret will be afforded that opportunity should he wish to take advantage of it. From what you’ve just said, you don’t seem to want an adjournment to seek legal advice. Is that correct?
DEFENDANT: Well, I may well try and take some pro bono legal advice on these matters, yes, I may well do that.
MAGISTRATE: Well, I—-
DEFENDANT: But, you know, the question you put to me was whether I would be represented by a lawyer.
MAGISTRATE: Well—-
DEFENDANT: And my answer to that is no. If the question is will I, would I like an opportunity to seek some pro bono advice on these matters, the answer is yes.
MAGISTRATE: Yes.
DEFENDANT: They are two different questions.
MAGISTRATE: Well, right. Can I just stop—-
DEFENDANT: But, but—-
MAGISTRATE: —–can I just stop you there, because this matter, if the Court is, if the matter is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that you were to be in breach, then clearly you would be at risk of going to custody. You understand that, don’t you?
DEFENDANT: I do.
MAGISTRATE: Very well. In that circumstance, the Court would normally make an adjournment available for someone to seek legal advice. Now, whether that is pro bono advice or whether that is advice that you pay for or that is advice under the Legal Aid Scheme, that is a matter for you, but you can face custody if this matter is found against you.
DEFENDANT: Yes, I fully understand that.
MAGISTRATE: You have been given this report from Mr Le Marrec today. I would have thought that you would have been able to read that in some detail because you have had several hours today, but I want to give you an opportunity, if you wish to take the opportunity, to take legal advice as to your situation—-
DEFENDANT: Well, I—-
MAGISTRATE: —–including any matters raised in the report and any matters you would like to raise if you want to say that you are not in breach of this Community Service Order.
DEFENDANT: Yes, indeed. I would indeed want to take advice on those points because there are—-
MAGISTRATE: Well, yes, I don’t really need to know why—-
DEFENDANT: Well—-
MAGISTRATE: —–but that is the normal procedure of the Court. So—-
DEFENDANT: I’m trying to, well, to answer you, and I am trying to assist the Court, Madam. To answer your question, would I wish an adjournment to take advice on the report and the options in it and what arguments I might make—-
 MAGISTRATE: And what arguments? Because what would happen if I did find—-
 DEFENDANT: The answer to your question—-
MAGISTRATE: —–if the Court did find—-
DEFENDANT: —–the answer to your question is yes.
MAGISTRATE: Yes, because, if the Court did find that you were in breach, then the Court has various options, and sentencing, re-sentencing for the original offence is one of them, for which you might like to take advice.
DEFENDANT: If—-
MAGISTRATE: —–and you might like to take advice as to, and sit back and think about what position you’re in and what your approach to the Community Service Order is in the cold light of day.
DEFENDANT: Well, if—-
MAGISTRATE: So what I am going to do, Mr Syvret, is adjourn the case for two weeks. That is the standard adjournment.
DEFENDANT: But before—-
MAGISTRATE: Is that a convenient date for the Court? (Magistrate conferred with Deputy Greffier) Tuesday the 25th?
DEFENDANT: Before the, I am trying to assist the Court here—-
MAGISTRATE: Yes.
DEFENDANT: —–so as not to have be accused of raising these issues again in the future. I am trying to be helpful. I was going to apply for an adjournment in any event because I want to subject your decision today to a judicial review. You are, that is your decision to refuse to recuse.
MAGISTRATE: Yes.
DEFENDANT: You are a public authority exercising a statutory power.
MAGISTRATE: Well—-
DEFENDANT: Exercising a discretionary power. All public authorities bar statutory waiver are susceptible to judicial review.
MAGISTRATE: Well—-
DEFENDANT: Now, there is no appeal of course that lays from interlocutory decisions in the Magistrates’ Court. I think we have established that on past procedures. There are, however, grounds, and this does relate to the matter that we have just discussed actually, the question as to whether I have breached the order, there are matters that I need to take advice on and there are grounds upon which I would seek judicial review of your decisions in this matter.
MAGISTRATE: I think the 25th of October should be sufficient, Mr Syvret.
CROWN ADVOCATE: Madam, I am not available on the 25th of October. It is a half term week—-
MAGISTRATE: Oh yes.
CROWN ADVOCATE: —–and I have arranged to be away for some considerable time.
MAGISTRATE: Yes. What about the beginning of the following week?
CROWN ADVOCATE: I am in Court on the 1st of November.
DEFENDANT: Madam, could I finish the point I was making, because it may help the Court in making its arrangements?
MAGISTRATE: Hmm hmm.
DEFENDANT: Advocate Baker made a number of assertions which are untrue. For example, he accused me of not engaging with these procedures.
MAGISTRATE: Hmm hmm.
DEFENDANT: Well, I am more than happy to engage with the full range of judicial procedures and I am more than happy to use those, and I am entitled to use them in ways that meet my human rights. Advocate Baker also asserted quite volubly that I make “wild allegations” that are not substantiated with evidence. Well, as I think  today’s proceedings have demonstrated, as indeed did a lot of the other proceedings, I do have in fact ample evidence that does prove my concerns, but I am repeatedly prevented from using that evidence in Jersey’s courts.
Now, one of the reasons that I wish to judicially review this matter is that the key argument I am bringing forward – and this does address a point that was advanced by Advocate Baker in his arguments a moment ago – he suggested that this matter was simply a question of whether I had complied with the order in respect of the contempt of Court charge. Advocate Baker asserted, therefore, that any matters I might raise or bring before this Court or other courts were, or this Court, were of no relevance. The other charges, for example, were of no relevance.
MAGISTRATE: Yes.
DEFENDANT: Well, that isn’t the case because my key argument is that the entire proceedings against me dating from the very original decisions of the Attorney General to have me investigated, raided, arrested, charged and prosecuted, right back from that day forward, the entire proceedings against me are structurally unlawful and evidencedly so an demonstrably so. Now, the case, if I had access to a higher Court where I could run these arguments, let us suppose hypothetically, I know you don’t share my views on this matter, but it must be regarded as a hypothetical consideration. Let us suppose hypothetically I were to win that argument which did show and did prove that the basic fundamental administrative decisions and decisions of the Attorney General concerning all of the actions taken against me in the first place and all of the charges and so on, were structurally unlawful, then all of the proceedings against me and all of the charges and all of the convictions would fall away.
MAGISTRATE: Yes.
DEFENDANT: And that would—-
MAGISTRATE: You have—-
DEFENDANT: —–true of all of them.
MAGISTRATE: Yes, but—-
DEFENDANT: Now—-
MAGISTRATE: —–but you have exhausted those remedies, Mr Syvret.
DEFENDANT: With respect, Madam, no, I have not. Since the decision in the Royal Court to reject the appeal, two things have occurred. A witness came into my knowledge who could well have placed an entirely different complexion upon the whole public interest disclosure argument I ran, and in fact that witness was known to the Court Greffier, Mr Le Heuze, yet the identity and the existence of that witness was not informed to me, not notified to me and I came, I had no knowledge of this witness until after the appeal when the witness themselves approached me. The second factor that has changed is of course I have come into the possession of the 94 page statement of Mr Power.
Now, both of these dramatic bits of evidence do clearly at the very least more than justify the reopening of the appeal. These clearly are matters that should have been considered and I should have had access to as evidence to enable the working of these considerations into at least my appeal and frankly probably the proceedings beforehand. Now, had I been able to do so, it is conceivable, it’s possible that such evidence, particularly for example the report of Mr Power, would have demonstrated sufficiently to the Court indeed my argument that I have always made, the actions of the Attorney General were unlawful, would be upheld, in which case all of these proceedings would be overthrown. Now the difficulty I face from a legal perspective is that I sought—-
MAGISTRATE: I can’t see that, Mr Syvret, at all.
DEFENDANT: Sorry?
MAGISTRATE: I can’t see that as a matter of law is possible.
DEFENDANT: It is.
CROWN ADVOCATE: Madam, the—-
DEFENDANT: Well, it is possible—
CROWN ADVOCATE: Madam, his comments are legally illiterate. He is being sentenced for contempt of Court, namely absconding.
MAGISTRATE: Yes, yes.
CROWN ADVOCATE: That is what you are dealing with.
MAGISTRATE: Yes, I entirely take your point, Mr Baker.
CROWN ADVOCATE: Madam, I am not going to suggest that you depart from your normal procedure and an adjournment for legal advice.
DEFENDANT: Madam—-
MAGISTRATE: No, no, no.
CROWN ADVOCATE: Excuse me, I am speaking.
DEFENDANT: Well, I was speaking actually.
MAGISTRATE: No, I want to hear Mr Baker at the moment. I just want a date.
CROWN ADVOCATE: If that is the normal, if that is the normal procedure, then I don’t in any way suggest—-
MAGISTRATE: Yes, yes.
CROWN ADVOCATE: —–that you should not follow it, you should, but I do make it plain that, on 16th September, a month or so ago now, Mr Le Marrec wrote to Mr Syvret saying “It has been decided to return your case to Court because, in the opinion of the Community Service Officer, you have failed to comply with the conditions of the Community Service Order. This is known as breaching the order. You will be notified when a Court date has been set—-
MAGISTRATE: Yes.
CROWN ADVOCATE: —–You are strongly urged to seek legal advice. If you wish to apply for Legal Aid, then you should call the Legal Aid Office or email the current Acting Bâtonnier. You may then be given a personal appointment.” So what you have here, you should of course follow the normal procedure, but what you have here is this man again manipulating events to his benefit.
MAGISTRATE: Well, I am afraid that the experience of this Court, Mr Baker, is a lot of people appear before this Court without having taken legal advice first when they perhaps should have done.
CROWN ADVOCATE: I am sorry, Madam, I didn’t mean to sit down, yes.
MAGISTRATE: All I want to do at this stage—-
DEFENDANT: In response—-
MAGISTRATE: Mr Syvret—-
DEFENDANT: May I respond?
MAGISTRATE: No, Mr Syvret—-
DEFENDANT: Well, Madam—-
MAGISTRATE: —–the things you are telling me—-
DEFENDANT:  —–you have just allowed—-
MAGISTRATE: —–no, Mr Syvret, the things that you are telling me—-
DEFENDANT: —–you have just allowed Advocate Baker—-
MAGISTRATE: —–are not—-
DEFENDANT: —–to lie. You have just allowed Advocate Baker—-
MAGISTRATE: No.
DEFENDANT: —–to make a misleading assertion.
MAGISTRATE: I am—-
DEFENDANT: I received that email that he has—-
MAGISTRATE: I am not interested in that email, Mr Syvret.
DEFENDANT: —–referred to. The report in question that I was given today—-
 MAGISTRATE: I am saying I am not interested in it.
DEFENDANT: The report in question—-
 MAGISTRATE: A lot of people don’t—-
 DEFENDANT: —–that had the detail I was only—-
 MAGISTRATE: —–get the Legal Aid that they need.
DEFENDANT: —–handed today.
MAGISTRATE: I am adjourning this case for you to seek Legal Aid and I am asking for a date from the Greffier—-
DEFENDANT: But—-
MAGISTRATE: —–which is convenient to the parties.
DEFENDANT: But, Madam, I was in the middle of speaking when Advocate Baker interrupted.
MAGISTRATE: But you’re in the middle of saying things, Mr Syvret, that really don’t make a great deal of sense. You’re hypothesising that you might have a third route of appeal, sorry a second route of appeal beyond the Royal Court and hypothesising that a number of not only the case to which you think you might have a route of appeal would be thrown out but everything else besides. I really don’t think that that is tenable in any way. Therefore—-
DEFENDANT: But, Madam, with respect, you—-
MAGISTRATE: —–I am going to allow an adjournment for you to seek legal advice.
DEFENDANT: —–you have just expressed a prejudiced view and you haven’t even considered the evidence yet.
MAGISTRATE: It is not a question of evidence, Mr Syvret, at this stage—-
DEFENDANT: Well, if Court cases are not questions of evidence—-
MAGISTRATE: —–it is a question of allowing you an adjournment for legal advice and, therefore, I am asking for a date from the Greffier.
DEFENDANT: May I finish what I was saying when Advocate Baker interrupted?
MAGISTRATE: No, you may not.
DEPUTY GREFFIER: Madam, if Mr Baker is not available on the 1st, if Mr Syvret is also available, the 2nd in the afternoon. Might I suggest Wednesday the 2nd pm?
MAGISTRATE: 2nd of November.
DEFENDANT: Can I finish what I was saying?
MAGISTRATE: Well, no, you can tell me whether you are available on the 2nd of November.
DEFENDANT: Well, this was the point I was attempting to address.
MAGISTRATE: No, you are saying that you would like to take my decision on recusal to judicial review. 2nd of November would give you time to make an application should the Court entertain that and, if you wish to take legal advice you can do so and, if you don’t have any other reason why you shouldn’t attend on 2nd November, then I shall adjourn the case until that date.
DEFENDANT: Well, if I may continue with the explanation I was making before Advocate Baker interrupted—-
MAGISTRATE: No, no, Mr Syvret, I just don’t see the relevance of what you are saying. I am going to adjourn the case—-
DEFENDANT: With all due respect, Madam—-
MAGISTRATE: —–until the 2nd of November.
DEFENDANT: —–you’ve not yet heard what I was going to say, so how can you gauge whether it is going to be relevant?
MAGISTRATE: Well, you have prefaced it with a long introduction relating to additional evidence that you might have in other cases. I just don’t see how they can impact on the case that we’re dealing with at the moment.
DEFENDANT: Well, admittedly—-
MAGISTRATE: 2nd of November—-
DEFENDANT: —–admittedly I’m not a lawyer, but let me try and explain my thinking—-
MAGISTRATE: —–at 2.30pm.
DEFENDANT: —–on the question. My thinking is that if, as I believe it does, the statement of Mr Power demonstrates structural unlawfulness of the office of Attorney General in respect of me, then all of the decisions of that office in respect of me are vitiated.
MAGISTRATE: Yes, yes, I understand that that is what you think.
DEFENDANT: That is, well it is not a question of what I think, Madam. There are, there is substantial case law on the requirement, the very strict requirement from public authorities when making discretionary decisions such as those to prosecute. There is a very clear body of evidence that such public authorities must not be conflicted—-
MAGISTRATE: Yes.
DEFENDANT: —–and that officers within them must not have direct personal conflicts of interest. Now, this is rock solid, uncontroversial, English jurisprudence.
MAGISTRATE: Yes, I understand you want—-
DEFENDANT: I am pointing—-
MAGISTRATE: —–to raise these matters, Mr Syvret—-
DEFENDANT: —–I am pointing to that.
MAGISTRATE: —–but now is not the time or the place. It is the 2nd of November at 2.30 in the afternoon.
DEFENDANT: Well, Madam, you were fixing the date and that date might not be possible because of the proceedings I am going to bring—-
MAGISTRATE: Well, then you will have—-
DEFENDANT: —–in the other Court.
MAGISTRATE: —–to come back to the Court and say so, Mr Syvret, but for the time being it is the 2nd of November at 2.30 in the afternoon. (Magistrate conferred with Deputy Greffier) Is there any need for conditions on the bail?
CROWN ADVOCATE: No, I don’t think he is on bail. Is he on bail?
MAGISTRATE: Well, he will be on bail from now on. The Court will grant bail to that date. Mr Syvret, you are under an obligation to attend.
DEFENDANT: Madam, may I—-
MAGISTRATE: —–and you know you will be arrested if you don’t.
DEFENDANT: —–may I point out at the end of these proceedings that I consider your conduct today to again exhibit actual bias.
CROWN ADVOCATE: Madam, I do apologise, the Probation have raised this with me. The Probation have prepared a report upon this man. I have referred to it. It has been prepared for the purpose of these Court hearings.
MAGISTRATE: Yes.
CROWN ADVOCATE: And they are concerned to ensure that it doesn’t get published to the world on a blog or something of that type and they invite me to invite you to remind Mr Syvret that there are conditions upon him being given a copy of that report, namely that it is used for this.
MAGISTRATE: Yes. Mr Syvret, you know the obligations. You are familiar with the Data Protection Law.
DEFENDANT: Yes.
MAGISTRATE: And there has been a report given to you in connection with these proceedings and, apart from your legal adviser, if you have a legal adviser, then that report should otherwise remain confidential.
DEFENDANT: Can I just be clear about this? Does that mean that I can’t publish it on my blog, but it’s okay for it to be given to Channel Television by the Probation Department and they can publish it?
MAGISTRATE: No.
CROWN ADVOCATE: Of course it is not.
MAGISTRATE: Of course it is not.
CROWN ADVOCATE: That is an absurd suggestion.
MAGISTRATE: Very well.
Court adjourns.”

 

A REMINDER:

The Policies – and Qualities

Of Stuart Syvret

A brief reminder for those who may not have made their mind up yet, of some of the policies I support – and the personal qualities I offer as a politician.

The polls opened at 8.00 a.m for the island’s general election, and people will be able to vote until 8.00 p.m.

I am a candidate for the post of Senator.

I’m asking that people vote for me because I believe I have the abilities – and the qualities – this community needs in its parliament.

I am keeping this posting brief; I hope the public will already know enough, to understand the issues.  

I have written below two, brief, lists. The first itemises ten key policies I pledge to pursue should I be elected.

The second is the list of qualities – as a politician – and as a person – that I offer the people of Jersey.

If I am elected – I pledge that, within the first twelve months of the term-of-office, I will bring before the States assembly propositions that will address the following policy areas:

Taxation and Economic Policies: A Transparent Inquiry:

In 2004 – at a time when Jersey’s taxation polices faced great upheaval, I studied the matter carefully, and recognised just how shallow and defective was the thinking of the traditional establishment when trying to address the problems. Many options were not examined – certain obvious and key strategic issues not properly appraised – and the policies they proposed, such as 20 means 20, and zero/10 were never going to work properly. In an attempt to get the States to at least undertake a detailed examination of the real issues, I wrote a detailed report and position, “Taxation Policies: A Transparent Inquiry”, which asked the States to examine the issues properly. Predictably, the assembly rejected my proposition. It gives me no pleasure to say “I told you so” to those politicians. Now – we need to undertake that work more urgently – and more comprehensively – than ever.

Protection of Employment Opportunities for Resident People:

Jersey faces many serious economic challenges, not least growing unemployment. We have the ability and right to introduce a system of work-permits, to protect employment opportunities for those already resident in Jersey. Such a policy has always been resisted by the traditional political establishment, but it can no longer be avoided if we are serious about tackling unemployment.

A Public Inquiry into Jersey’s Child Protection Failures:

The States has recently agreed to ask the Council of Ministers to establish an inquiry into the decades of child protection failures on the part of the States. Whilst credit must be given to those States members who drove that decision – the reality is, it’s too little – too late. And any meaningful and robust inquiry cannot involve the Council of Ministers, or the Law Officers in drawing up the terms of reference. Those two bodies are the two most culpable authorities in Jersey for the gross failures of governance, oversight and the application of the rule of law that lies at the heart of the systemic problems. The child protection issues will remain a source of injustice – and of division – until finally examined properly.

A Revision of the Island Plan and the Planning Law:

The States has recently approved an Island Plan. Whilst it has good aspects – it does not protect our environment well enough. It needs improving and refining. Our Planning laws, too, are inadequate. The Planning Minister has too much power. We must revert to a Committee which works in a transparent manner.

A Public Inquiry into Jersey’s Accommodation Industry:

When Jersey’s economy is discussed, it is usually in terms of sectors such as finance, tourism, retail, agriculture etc. What we never hear discussion of is the accommodation industry. That whole sphere of economic activity – which includes property speculation, construction, land-ownership, housing, home-sales, the rental sector, re-zoning, estate-agents, building supplies etc – is – after the finance industry – the second largest economic sector in Jersey. But yet – remarkably – the States has never undertaken a strategic appraisal of that whole industry – and the economic and taxation polices that are associated with it. I believe we must finally get to grips with, and fully understand, the accommodation industry, and its role in Jersey’s economy and society.

A Separation of Powers:

Virtually every respectable, functioning democracy in the world has a separation of powers. That is – a clear separation between the legislature, the executive, the prosecution system and the judiciary. Those necessary powers are separated – so that they be independent of each-other and capable of acting as a check and balance on each-other, to protect the public good from the excesses and failings of any public authority. Jersey does not have an effective separation of powers. The result has been disastrous for this community. For example – the extent of the child protection failures – and the failure to hold the public sector to account – is a direct result of our present, conflicted system. We must have a separation of powers.

A Review of Policing in Jersey:

Events of recent years – such as the illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power – and other examples of corrupt, politically motivated interferences with policing – have shown that law-enforcement in Jersey needs protecting improper pressures and corrupt manipulations. We must have a judicially empowered, external inquiry into policing – to ensure the great majority of ordinary, decent people are protected from illegal acts by the powerful, the influential and the States.

A Public Interest Disclosure Act:

One of the most important methods of ensuring that public authorities are acting reasonably, effectively and lawfully, is to ensure that there is robust protection for whistleblowers. Jersey has no such protection – indeed, the opposite is the case – with it being the standard practice of all of Jersey’s public authorities to unit in the persecution of anyone who has exposed wrong-doing. The island must introduce a Public Interest Disclosure Act to give protection to those who reveal failures and crimes.

A Public Inquiry into the Role and Conduct of the Media in Jersey:

In a functioning democracy like the United Kingdom, the established media often exposes failures and wrongdoing by the powerful and the government. In Jersey, the mainstream media acts in the opposite way, frequently helping to conceal failures and criminal acts by the island’s public authorities. In the UK, a major public inquiry is underway into the conduct of the media and its relationship with politicians and business. Jersey must undertake the same exercise.

Citizens Juries: Involving the Public in Contributing to Policy Formulation:

In Jersey, we don’t embrace party politics. Some people see that as a good thing. However, the consequence is that we, the voting public, have no control over the actual policies our government pursues. We have to change that. A system of Citizen’s Juries would enable representative cross-sections of the community to contribute to the formulation of States policies.

In addition to an understanding of the policies your politicians will pursue, it’s also important to have an understanding of the personal qualities of those who would be your representatives. And in the absence of party-politics in Jersey, it’s even more important for voters to choose people of high integrity and personal calibre.

These are the personal qualities I possess:

I am honest.

I am intelligent.

I am sincere.

I am ethical

I work hard.

I bring a degree of intellectual rigour to researching political polices.

I do not come from a privileged background – so I genuinely understand the day-to-day realities faced by working families. 

I am empathetic.

I am principled.

I am fearless.  

Today we are participating in Jersey’s first general election. I hope as many islanders as possible use their right to vote.

Stuart

PHILIP BAILHACHE

And the Jersey Establishment:

Time for Accountability;

Time for the Facts.

Here is an important question for Jersey voters; which do you prefer?

Transparency, scrutiny and accountability?

Or genteel posturing, omerta and “politeness”?

What you about to read is a considered examination of the record and conduct of Philip Bailhache; a study of some of his evidenced failings – from 1990, to the present day.

And to introduce the subject of the failure of scrutiny and accountability in Jersey – and how the public are conned – I thought it would be helpful to begin with the St. Brelade hustings meeting which took place last Friday – given the presence in the audience of one of Bailhache’s allies, Deputy Sean Power.

There was a good illustration of the inadequacy of our traditional, deferential, “polite” political culture to be observed at that St Brelade meeting. At present, most people in Jersey don’t like the idea of party politics. But – be honest – do you really believe that because the establishment don’t have a declared political party – they don’t organise, and work together behind the scenes – secretly – along party-political lines?

Sat in the audience was former Senator Frank Walker – who has organised and encouraged a slate of candidates in many of the contested seats across Jersey. For example, Walker party candidates include Andrew Lewis in St. John, and the dreadful Kristina Moore in St. Peters. But sat right alongside Frank Walker on Friday was St. Brelade Deputy Sean Power – another Walker party candidate.

But is it not in the public interest to know where all of these secret allegiances lie?

Of course it is. The vast majority of people in the hall, and the rest of the constituency would be far better served if there had been open debate about such matters. But if I had chosen to speak of that subject – there would have been mutterings of discontent around the room. “Irrelevant”, some would have said, “we want to hear about policies that matter”. As though being aware of secret allegiances that lead to your government servicing the short-term interests of property speculators was not in the public interest.

But an even more hostile – yet self-defeating – reaction would have come from the audience had I really striven to serve the public good – by speaking of the conduct and true nature of Deputy Sean Power directly. There is, it would appear, no greater offence in the eyes of the Jersey electorate, than to be “impolite” about other candidates. Which, of course, means that the public – unwittingly – end up protecting a load of rapscallions, chancers, mountebanks, grifters and spivs from the kind of robust and deserving scrutiny only other candidates would give them.

Deputy Sean Power is a liar and a crook. Can people have forgotten so soon his efforts to grift his way into a commercial relationship with the Irish consortium that was in-the-running to develop the Waterfront? The obscenities he wrote to the company in question when they wouldn’t get involved with him? Of course, Sean Power has the blarney – a great actor, to be sure – who can seem interested in your issues, and to be caring – as all good confidence-tricksters and con-artists can. A “man of the people” – who will listen to your problems with social security, over a pint in the Horse & Hounds. But why – when he washed-up in Jersey – leaving an “interesting” past in his wake – and quite a few people in the UK and the Irish republic who would like to have a chat with him – did he change his name from Sean Dooley to Sean Power?

Perhaps the voting public of St. Brelade would have liked to know – so they could ask Sean Power, why, back in the day before he was elected, he would pretend to be friends with another candidate – but be secretly passing all that candidate’s e-mails on to Frank Walker? You see – at the moment, most Jersey voters would regard such a question as terribly “impolite” – but wouldn’t the quality of our political culture be improved with such robust scrutiny?

The voters of Sean Power’s district in St Brelade have a right – and should also have the wish – to see those who are their elected representatives properly held to account for their actions at election time. But alas – such is Jersey’s uncritical and deferential political culture, Sean Power was not asked to explain why he – directly and personally – participated in the straightforward theft of private, personal data – of zero public interest relevance – and then leaked that stolen material to third-parties, and helped to publish it? It would also have been an important public interest discussion, to question why Sean Power was not prosecuted for the evidenced theft of that personal data – data of no public-interest merit – in contrast to the massed police raid, arrest, search without a search-warrant and prosecution mounted against me by Philip Bailhache’s brother, William Bailhache – for the publication of an item of data that I had in my possession legitimately, and which was unarguably a public interest disclosure?

The electorate in St. Brelade would also have been far better informed – had someone explained to them the fact Sean Power writes – anonymously, like the wretched little coward he is  – tirades of obscenity-laced abuse on a pro-child abuser web site he helps to run.

Jersey’s political culture is so “unfit-for-purpose”, that voters will go to the polls in St. Brelade, with none of those absolutely legitimate public-interest matters having been openly questioned and discussed – and consequently risking unwittingly voting for Sean Power – a liar, con-man and thief.

Those who were present at the St. Brelade hustings meeting on Friday will have seen this culture of silence – this protection of election candidates from scrutiny – at work in a particular example. One candidate was attacked and criticised for daring to question – in the most mild of ways – the performance of another whilst in Office.

Senator Freddie Cohen has, rightly, been criticised for the design of the monstrous Costa del Sol-style apartment block he gave development permission for when he was Planning Minister. Election candidate David Richardson – quite accurately and reasonably – described the resultant excrescence as “architectural savagery”, and criticised the performance of Senator Cohen, to applause from the audience.

What followed was a powerful example of Jersey’s failed and inadequate political culture. Although 90% of the population would agree with Mr. Richardson’s view – when it was Philip Bailhache’s turn to speak, he made a point of saying words to the effect that “the remarks of Mr. Richardson criticising Senator Cohen were quite unacceptable.”

And – amazingly – quite a number of people in the hall applauded the former Bailiff’s words. In many cases – the same people who – only a few minutes earlier – had been applauding Mr. Richardson’s accurate condemnation of the vast building that has blighted their coastline.

But – this example of the failure of accountability becomes even more remarkable.

When it was next his turn to speak again – Mr. Richardson caved-in to the criticism from Mr. Bailhache – and apologised to Senator Cohen.

Do voters really – if they stop to think about it – seriously believe that such a genteel approach to politics serves their interests? Is it really imagined that all of those States members – who most of the population feel dissatisfied with – can ever be properly scrutinised and held to account for their performance if robust debate is considered “impolite”?

The Jersey establishment have carefully maintained and nurtured this defective and inadequate political culture over the years and decades. For as long as real politics – real debate – real scrutiny is considered “impolite” – they are protected from ever being held to account for their failures.

It is no surprise, therefore, that Philip Bailhache often opens his speech by saying words to the effect that he seeks to “reform the States” to put an end to political “bickering” – to bring an end to “time-wasting debates” – and to bring an “end to the division” and the “personal criticisms” between members which – he suggests – have “disfigured” the States assembly.

And in what I’m tempted to describe as “Exhibit 1” in my claim that Jersey’s deferential and uncritical political culture is our greatest problem – those words of Philip Bailhache are often met with applause.

But perhaps I’m being unfair on those members of the public who applaud in the heat of the moment? After all – who likes “division”, and “personal criticisms”, and “time-wasting”, and “bickering”? It all sounds – if you don’t think – like such a reasonable observation, doesn’t it?

But the States assembly is a legislature – filled with politicians – who will express the views of their differing voters (that’s you) by challenging and arguing with each-other – and holding members to account for their actions. It is called democracy. That Mr. Bailhache is so very keen to try and convince members of the public that it is mere “bickering” is a fearful warning to voters.

Elect him at your peril.

In truth, Mr. Bailhache’s words are a very thinly veiled attack upon public scrutiny – democratic debate – transparency – challenge – and, in particular, personal accountability.

And it’s hardly surprising that – of all people – Philip Bailhache should be trying so hard to maintain the fiction that we shouldn’t robustly and directly hold people to account for their actions.

Because Philip Bailhache has behind him, a catalogue of the most disgraceful professional and ethical failures. Truly despicable conduct. Some of which is so bad, as to constitute unambiguous criminal offences. Or, at least would do, if the prosecution authority did not consist of his close friends – and his brother.

Mr. Bailhache does not want the public to be reminded of these matters; he does not want to be challenged; he does not want his performance and conduct to be scrutinised; he does not want the voting public to be fully informed – he does not want to be held to account.

So of course he, and the Jersey oligarchy he leads, are going to do all they can to condemn any such scrutiny and challenge as “unacceptable personal criticisms” and “needlessly impolite”. 

Our political culture is not “fit-for-purpose” – because we do not challenge and scrutinise enough. And Mr. Bailhache and his friends very much want things to stay that way.

But unfortunately for Mr. Bailhache – and fortunately for the broad public good – I was honest and absolutely serious when, announcing my candidacy in this election, I said “it was necessary so that there be some meaningful challenge and scrutiny placed upon the former Bailiff;  I had to shoulder that public responsibility, because no other candidate would.”

I keep my electoral promises.

So what follows is an examination of some of the failures, offences and inadequacies of Philip Bailhache.

And when reading what follows – consider this; I have twice, in the course of this election, invited Philip Bailhache to have a head-to-head debate with me concerning these, and other issues.

He failed to accept the challenge.  

Selling a Crown Property at a Knock-down Price, from under the feet of Sitting Tenants.

In the early 1990’s , a large and very valuable terraced building in St. Saviours Road was in Crown possession when its legal owners could no longer be traced, at a time when Philip Bailhache was the Attorney General, and had a responsibility for such properties.

Without giving the sitting tenants an opportunity to buy their apartments – or even notifying them of an intention to sell – Philip Bailhache agreed to the sale of the building to a multi-millionaire property speculator – via the law-firm Becquet and Syvret (no relation, I think) of which, Edgar Becquet and Ken Syvret were friends of Bailhache’s, and Becquet was the then Deputy for Trinity.

The existing tenants all then faced eviction – and attempting to help them was one of the first major battles I became involved in when elected as a Deputy in 1990.

So scandalous was the nature of the sale and questions concerning the conduct of Attorney General Philip Bailhache that I took a proposition to the States assembly to establish a Committee of Inquiry. I made the proposing speech, and the then Bailiff Peter Crill immediately invited Bailhache to respond – which he did, with a tirade of threatening and intimidatory ranting.

Then – instead of there being a debate – the then Senator Dick Shenton used a procedural device to move to the next item.

That was my first experience of the Jersey oligarchy – and Philip Bailhache – avoiding scrutiny and accountability for their actions.

The Limited Liabilities Partnerships Law – and Illegally Excluding an Elected Member from the Chamber.

In 1996 a long, complex piece of legislation – the Limited Liabilities Partnerships Law – appeared on States members’ desks – as though it had sprung from nowhere. The establishment were very keen to rush this through, but a few of us – former Deputy Garry Matthews and me, for example, were very concerned at the mysterious appearance of this major example of legislation, when no law-drafting time had been agreed by the States, and there had been no ‘in-principle’ agreement for the introduction of such a law. We succeeded in getting the debate delayed for a couple of weeks whilst we researched the matter.

What I discovered in the coming days was nothing less than staggering.

The law in question was being introduced at the sole and express request of the law firm Mourant, du Feu and Jeune – who were being paid by their clients – accountancy firms Ernst and Young and PriceWaterhouse – to secure the introduction of an LLP law in Jersey, so as to put pressure on the UK government to compete, by introducing LLP legislation in the UK. Mourants had even drafted most of the law themselves with the assistance of a London law firm.

This was your parliament – the States of Jersey – being used a “legislature-for-Hire”.

As scandalous and unlawful as that was – it gets worse.

The draft LLP law had had to be tweaked a little by States law drafters. The decision to allocate that public time and resource to the task was made by the then Policy & Resources Committee – the President of which was former Senator Reg Jeune.

Reg Jeune was a founding partner of Mourant, du Feu & Jeune, and retained a close working involvement with the law firm – and a continuing financial relationship with it.

But – quite staggeringly – notwithstanding those direct conflicts of interest – Reg Jeune failed to declare his conflict of interests when the law drafting time request – and a decision to “fast-track” the law – came before the P & R Committee, and he continued to chair the meeting and to participate in the decision.

Equally as bad – during that first debate in the assembly on the LLP law, at which we had had it delayed, Jeune made a speech in favour of the law being adopted. Again – he chose to not declare his direct and stark conflict of interests.

In the coming days I discovered the evidence for what I describe  – including a five page letter from Ian James of Mourants, to the then President of the Finance & Economics Committee, that explained their whole request and wish to have the legislation introduced.

When the draft LLP law next came before the States, I raised, as a “matter of privilege”, Reg Jeune’s conduct – said he had a financial interest in the matter which he had failed to declare, and that this was a very serious matter that needed inquiring into. (Consider the current scandal concerning UK politician Liam Fox; the situation Jeune had placed himself in was a thousand times worse. He’d actually used the law-making process and the entire legislature to introduce controversial legislation – for no other reason than his law firm wanted it introduced. This would be immediate resignation from the legislature in any law-abiding democracy – and probable prosecution for corruption.)

To cut a long story short – rather than supporting me and the high standards of parliamentary behaviour and conduct that he claims to endorse – the then Bailiff, Philip Bailhache – attempted to criminally coerce me into withdrawing my complaints against the illegal actions of Jeune (a senior Jersey Freemason) and tried to coerce me into apologising to Jeune.

Philip Bailhache demanded a meeting with me – at which his threats were made. The conversation went like this:

PB: ‘You will have to withdraw everything you have said concerning Senator Jeune and apologise to him and the assembly.’

Me: ‘Why on Earth should I do that? Everything I said is true – and evidenced.’

PB: ‘I don’t care about that; you will have to withdraw everything and apologise.’

Me: ‘Senator Jeune’s actions are very serious and appear to be a breach of the States of Jersey law. This should be reported to the police and he should be prosecuted.’

PB: ‘That’s a hell of thing to do to a man at the end of his career.’

Me: ‘Well, that’s not my problem. Senator Jeune should have thought of that before engaging in this corruption. He’s used the States as a legislature-for-hire.’

PB: ‘Look, you are going to withdraw everything and apologise – or there will be very serious consequences for you.’

ME: ‘Upon what basis do you make that threat? My actions are correct and proper and Jeune’s are unlawful. What might those consequences be?’

PB: ‘Never mind that! Just take my word for it; there will be very serious consequences for you. And that would be such a pity as you had such a lot to offer as a States member.’

That conduct of Philip Bailhache was a straightforward criminal offence.

It is illegal to try and interfere with States members, to coerce them, and to try and prevent them from fulfilling their Oath of Office – all of which Bailhache was doing to me in an effort to protect his friend Reg Jeune from the consequences of his corrupt actions.

Philip Bailhache’s conduct also constituted a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice – and of misconduct in a public office.

Because I refused to give-in to Bailhache’s reprehensible blackmail – he carried out his threat. He tabled a proposition in his own name before the States – to have me “named” – and excluded indefinitely from the States assembly until I gave into his threats. Unless I abandoned my public duty, and resiled from the true, evidenced facts concerning Jeune – and lie to the States by saying he was “innocent” – Bailhache would have his proposition debated – and I would be thrown out.

I refused to be cowed by this criminal coercion.

Philip Bailhache put his proposition to the States assembly – and refused to allow me to speak in my defence – he refused to allow any other States member to speak in my defence or even ask questions. He put the matter straight to a vote, and, of course the oligarchy carried it.

What is even more remarkable about this episode – is that Bailhache was ignoring the rules of the assembly, and instead just inventing “procedures” to suit his purposes. There was no provision – at all – in the standing orders of the States assembly, for “indefinite suspension”. The indefinite suspension imposed upon me was just an unlawful act of coercion invented by Philip Bailhache in an attempt to help rescue his friend from the consequences of their corruption being discovered and exposed.

In the end – I was illegally prevented from taking my seat in the Jersey parliament for six months as a consequence of this corrupt action by Philip Bailhache. That was six months – of direct, unlawful, anti-democratic attack upon the rights of my then constituents to enjoy my representations in their parliament.

Philip Bailhache is an anti-democratic criminal.

When Philip Bailhache speaks of his wish that politicians “should not personally criticise colleagues” – and that States members should be “polite” – and that ““standards” in the assembly should return to an earlier era” – what he is really saying – is that he wants to turn the clock back – to the era of people like him and Reg Jeune and others – when it just “wasn’t the ‘done’ thing” – to “expose a chap’s malfeasances”.

Unlawful Interference with my Mail:

During that unlawful six-months suspension that Philip Bailhache caused to be imposed upon me – under his orders – all mail – including some letters from constituents – that was sent to me via the States Greffe, was illegally retained there, and not given to me. Some of the letters in question had even been opened and obviously read.

Interfering with anyone’s mail is a very serious criminal offence. Even more so when the mail in question is from constituents to their elected representative.

I gave a detailed formal statement of criminal complaint to the police.

The report went to Philip Bailhache’s friend and close colleague, then Attorney General Michael Birt – who ignored it completely.

Biased Interrupting of Speeches:

There are so many occasions, it would be impractical to list them – when Philip Bailhache has interrupted me (as he has frequently done to other non-establishment members) and tried to improperly interfere with, deflect and obstruct me when making speeches. This would usually occur when he knew perfectly well the establishment politicians were in serious difficulty – or I was about to use information that would be deeply embarrassing to the oligarchy.

Biased Obstruction of Questions:

Similarly, and in many ways even more powerfully evidenced than in the case of speeches – Philip Bailhache would frequently interrupt questions – or “disallow” perfectly good questions, when it was clear the questioning was dangerous for the establishment. Again – I and my constituents were not the only victims of his repressive conduct in this matter; several other non-establishment States members suffered in similar ways.

Interference and Obstructions to Propositions, Amendments and Questions:

It may not be commonly understood, but the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff have the power to vet – and to “approve” – or “amend” – or “veto” – the wording of any proposition, amendment or question tabled by any member.

On many, many occasions Philip Bailhache misused and abused this power to water-down, emasculate, obstruct and to block entirely, propositions and questions from me. The grounds upon which the power can be used are – in theory – very narrow – and limited to issues of ‘order’ and coherence. But the use of the power has been abused and stretched far beyond that function – and into the territory of straightforward denial to you, as constituents, of your right to have your concerns debated in your parliament via your elected representatives. I will now turn to a particular example of such conduct by Philip Bailhache.

States Members Business Interests and Secrecy:

With the move to Ministerial government, the new States of Jersey Law (2005) was under development and debate. I studied it very closely, and tabled a range of amendments to it. Amongst those amendments of mine was a serious strengthening of the requirement upon States members to fully declare all of their business interests.

In researching that matter, I studied the rules of the parliament of the Isle of Man. Their requirement used a well thought-out form of words that would capture all kinds of business interests – thus ensuring members could not dodge around the requirement to disclose and declare business interest by using such devices as nominee directors, proxy-shareholders, trusts, etc. The wording the Isle of Man used was “effective economic ownership” – with the emphasis on the word ‘effective’ – to describe any kind of business or asset that must be declared. An entirely reasonable requirement and wording – already in use in a jurisdiction similar to Jersey.

I duly wrote that wording into my draft amendment, in the hope the States would agree to adopt it in Jersey.

Philip Bailhache vetoed the words.

He refused to let me table an amendment that used the phrase “effective economic ownership” to describe when a States member would be required to declare an interest or asset.

Quite aside from his interference being obviously designed to maintain a system in which States members could declare certain things – but keep others secret through arm’s-length “ownership” – it was also unlawful, as the wording of the proposition was perfectly “in order” – so he had no power to so obstruct it.

Unlawfully Protecting the Connétables from Scrutiny:

Most people in Jersey may not be aware of this – but the twelve parish Connétables are able to receive additional financial support of one kind or another – from the public moneys of their rate-payers. Some Connétables also receive financial support and benefit from central sources – such as the budget of the Law Officers’ Department – and the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund.

I can’t be precise – because it is such an opaque and mysterious area.

Which is why I decided that I should – in the public interest – table some questions concerning the subject of Connétables and public money. I duly prepared some questions and – in accordance with standing orders, submitted them to be answered by the Chairman of the Committee de Connétables.

The relevant standing order is 9 (5) which says this:

“A question relating to a function or official responsibility which each Connétable has in his or her parish shall be addressed to the chairman of the Comité des Connétables.”

Quite extraordinarily – and without any authority or power to do so – Philip Bailhache simply refused to let the question be asked, issuing an order to the States Greffe that the question not be processed.

These are the actions of a dictator.

Clearly – my curiosity about the Connétables – and their receipt of public money from other sources – had absolutely hit the target. So Philip Bailhache was motivated by a wish to protect the Connétables – the hard-core of the Jersey establishment – from what might be a deeply embarrassing series of public revelations about a flow of public money from various sources into their pockets.

This is one of the reasons all of the Connétables have a clear interest in obstructing and repressing me.

Reg’s Skips and “Voisinage”:

Philip Bailhache – when Bailiff – was judging a case involving ‘Reg’s Skips Ltd.’ (RSL) – the small local firm who were facing eviction and immense legal expenses due to failures by the Planning Department. Even though the parties seeking to close down Reg’s Skips were family friends of the Bailhaches – Philip Bailhache persisted in hearing the case, failing to withdraw because of this conflict of interests.

It gets worse. Philip Bailhache advised that the party use an ancient, feudal property law, known as ‘Voisinage’, upon which to base their application to halt the business’s activity.

Not only did Philip Bailhache advise the party in that way – he also found for them when the case came to a conclusion. He later went on to award costs against the defending party, Reg’s Skips.

This one act alone would be a resigning matter for any UK judge.

Anti-Democratic Blocking of Ministerial Comments:

Although, as explained above, there is a provision in the States assembly rules that creates a power to edit or veto the words of questions or actual propositions – there is no such rule, provision or power that gives to the Bailiff the power to edit, veto or censor the words written in reports to the assembly.

Nevertheless – much like his decision to invent a non-existent “power” to cause “indefinite” suspension of members – Philip Bailhache also invented and took to himself a non-existent “power” to edit and sensor member’s reports.

He improperly interfered in that way with reports of mine on several occasions.

There is, however, one case that will always stick in my mind for the sheer unlawful, repressive and anti-democratic nature of what Bailhache did.

In the first half of 2007, I discovered and uncovered many examples of concealed child protection failures – and many examples of concealed child abuse. And it is worth noting that the vast majority of these issues did not – at that time – involve Haute de la Garren. The many and differing issues and cases that had  come to my attention and been investigated by me, involved places like Le Chenes, Greenfields, Heathfield, Blanch Pierre and others – and a number of specific, individual examples of contemporary grotesque failures by Social Services.

I revealed these concerns of mine in July 2007, when giving an honest and frank answer to a question I was asked in the States.  I discovered – only much later – that within two and half hours of me giving that answer, the senior civil servants at Health & Social Services and elsewhere had set about engineering my dismissal in an attempt to stop me exposing their failures and to discredit me.

Much later still, I obtained dramatic and powerful evidence of this unlawful plot, in the form of a file-note written by no-less a witness than good, straight Police Chief Graham Power, who the civil servants had attempted to draw into their conspiracy. In the July 2007 file-note, Graham Power wrote this:

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

Nevertheless, in the mean-time Frank Walker and his Council of Ministers – including Philip Ozouf and Freddie Cohen – had decided to help the corrupt civil servants cover-up child abuse.

They tabled a proposition seeking my dismissal as Health & Social Services Minister. I therefore knew that I had only the summer recess to do as much work as I could on behalf of the survivors and to investigate as much as I could.

When dismissal propositions are brought, the person who is the target, has the right to table an Official Report – the case for the ‘defence’, as it were – in response to the no-confidence proposition. I wrote a report and appended to it sixteen appendices of documented evidence that prove my case – that showed numerous examples of child protection failure, examples of child abuse that could have, and should have been stopped, examples of gross incompetence, examples of the unlawful suppression of whistle-blowers – and hard evidence of cover-ups.

I was working closely with many different survivors, and a number of them had previously been utterly failed and ignored by Jersey’s authorities. I was the first person – ever – in any position of authority in Jersey who had listened to them, and taken them seriously and tried to help them.

They were upset that I was being persecuted and oppressed for my troubles – but nevertheless, I told them to take heart – at least we were – for the first time ever – going to get significant documentary evidence that showed the failures of the authorities placed permanently on the public record in the form of my Official Ministerial Comments, which would be published as a States of Jersey Report.

I received an e-mail from the Greffier on Monday 10th September 2007 – the day before the debate – informing me that Philip Bailhache had ordered that my Official Ministerial Comments not be published and tabled.

This is without precedent.

It has never happened before – or since.

Philip Bailhache had zero power to block and prevent the tabling of a formal parliamentary document. But he did it anyway.

He should have had zero involvement at all – because he was directly, personally conflicted.

He had been a member of the Board of Governors of Victoria College when that institution was concealing complaints of child abuse. The evidence – “The Sharp Report” – was one of the evidential appendices that he improperly prevented from being published.

It was bad enough that I was unlawfully denied the right to have my ‘defence’ published – and that a criminal plot by corrupt civil servants was going to be supported – directly counter to every public interest consideration; far worse was the impact on the survivors I was working with.

That Monday evening – and I remember having to steel myself to do this, to this day – I had to telephone several of them – and explain to them that we were now not going to get any of the evidence of States failure and cover-up published. They had been denied justice – again.

At least two of them wept in despair. One was so wracked with sobbing, I was worried for their welfare.

Philip Bailhache had no right – simply no right at all – to do that to those people.

He unlawfully obstructed parliamentary procedure in order to protect himself and his establishment friends.

The Christmas Speech:

Later in 2007, the police went public with what had been their covert investigation into concealed child abuse – thus vindicating everything I had said, showing that I had been right – and humiliating the Jersey establishment.

At that time I was ‘Father of the House’, so come December, it fell to me to make the customary end-of-year Christmas speech. I chose to use the occasion to express some empathy and recognition towards the survivors of child abuse – and one or two who didn’t survive – and to acknowledge failures by the States of Jersey. This was the first occasion – ever – when any States member had attempted to make such an acknowledgment.

I was interrupted, barracked and shouted-down by people like Frank Walker and Terry Le Main. They had no legitimate reason for any such interruption; nothing I was saying was out-of-order.

Quite staggeringly – Philip Bailhache – rather than acting as any decent Chair would have done – and tell the interrupters to shut up and sit down – joined in with them – ordered me to stop – cut my microphone – and adjourned the meeting.

Again, an act of barbarism by Philip Bailhache that reduced some survivors to tears.

The Liberation Day Speech:

Not content with doing all he could to assist in concealing child protection failures as described above – we then come to Liberation Day 2008.

The day Jersey celebrates Liberation from the Nazis is the most important day in this community’s calendar. It is not – in any way – a day for politicking, divisiveness or political manipulations. It is – or should be – a day of happiness and unity for all people in Jersey.

In an act of frankly breathtaking barbarism, Philip Bailhache chose to hi-jack Liberation Day and Liberation Square – for his own political purposes – to mount a disgraceful attack upon the investigation of child abuse in Jersey, and those who were helping the victims and fighting for justice for them.

It was an occasions that now lives on – in infamy – in the history of the celebration of Liberation day.

Philip Bailhache never apologised for that disgusting act.

Coercing States Members in an Attempt to Conceal Planning Corruption:

In November 2008 – shortly before the illegal suspension that was carried out against Graham Power, largely at the instigation of his brother, then Attorney General William Bailhache – Philip Bailhache made an illegal direct, personal attempt to coerce and intimidate a States member into withdrawing complaints to the police concerning allegations of planning corruption; complaints that had been made to them by their constituents.

Philip Bailhache – in engaging in this act of intimidation – had illegally come into possession of the States member’s e-mails to Police Chief Graham Power. Philip Bailhache had been unlawfully given those e-mails by his brother, William Bailhache, who had, himself, improperly obtained them.

No-less a witness than the former Police Chief himself refers to this episode in a sworn-statement he prepared for me. I quote some of it here:

“I had some email and telephone exchanges with the Attorney General about the above allegations. …….

……..In any event the outcome was that we could not agree, and the exchange finished with what I took to be an angry email from the Attorney General expressing apparent frustration at my perceived failure to sufficiently oppose the criticism of his brother the Bailiff, [Philip Bailhache] and finishing with a phrase something like “so be it,” which I read as having a threatening tone. So far as I can recall, that was the last email I received from the Attorney General. Not long afterwards I was suspended. Initially it was claimed that my suspension was as a result of information relating to the Historic Abuse Enquiry which was received on 10th November 2008. It is now known that this is untrue because the suspension notices were in fact prepared on the morning of Saturday 8th November 2008, which implies that the actual decision to suspend must have been taken in the week-ending 7th November 2008. So far as I can recall this brings the decision close to my exchanges with the Attorney General regarding the need to investigate allegations of corruption at the heart of government.”

The Child Abuser Roger Holland:

In 1992, the convicted child abuser, Roger Holland was elected to the St. Helier Honorary police.

The legal procedure for preventing any such person from taking-up the Office involves the Royal Court, when they appear before it, to be sworn-in. At that stage, the Jersey Attorney General – who is the head of the island’s honorary police forces – must make any representations or observations to the court concerning the suitability of the candidate to take Office as a police officer.

The Attorney General at that time was Philip Bailhache.

He failed to make any representations to the court concerning the fact Holland had convictions for sexually abusing children.

Roger Holland then – when in post as an honorary police officer – committed further offences.

Philip Bailhache claims not to have been aware of Roger Holland’s previous convictions at the time of Holland’s swearing-in.

However, when a public inquiry was later held into this scandal – the evidence and witness testimony that the Committee received was altogether more ambiguous.

I quote here paragraph 4.1.19:

“4.1.19     There was a conflict of evidence regarding the requirement to inform the Attorney General of the criminal records, if any, of prospective honorary police officers. The then Attorney General insisted that this was a matter for the Connétable, and correspondence from his successor supports that understanding. However, in written evidence to this Committee, the then Clerk to the Attorney General paints a different picture. She stated that: As a matter of routine, all prospective honorary police officers were automatically checked out with the Criminal Records Office, both by the Greffier on behalf of the Town Hall and by myself on behalf of our department. My requests to the Criminal Records Office were made by telephone and that office would fax the records through to us with no other paperwork being created. Criminal records are not usually kept on file as a safeguard against a Data Protection breach. She also stated: Should I or one of my colleagues have omitted to do this, it would have been picked by the Attorney General or Solicitor General before going to the Samedi Court for the swearing in process. However, in written evidence, the Attorney General has challenged that recollection. He stated that it would have been impractical to have undertaken such checks as a matter of course because of the short time between receipt of notification of the elections and the appearance of the officer before the Royal Court.”

Of those two directly conflicting accounts – I know which one I consider to be the more credible. And it is not that of Philip Bailhache.

In any event – Philip Bailhache could not deny that he definitely did become aware – shortly after the swearing-in of Holland, of his previous criminal convictions. But rather than doing what he should have done – make a representation to court to have Holland stripped of office, Bailhache chose to remain silent, and do nothing. Holland, of course, went on to commit further crimes.

Seeking Holland’s dismissal from office by the court would, of course, have meant publically acknowledging a mistake by Philip Bailhache. He would have had to accept publically – and to the court – that he erred in not making a representation to the court at the time of Holland’s swearing-in, concerning Holland’s record of offences against children. But that – surely – would have been the professional – the responsible – the ethical thing to do?

After all – failing to do so, meant leaving a man in a position of significant public trust – where he may get access to vulnerable people; a man who was a convicted child abuser – with all the associated risks that brings.

Philip Bailhache chose to do nothing – and instead remain silent.

The rest is history.

Conclusion:

Many times – and not only during this election – we hear and read claims by the Jersey establishment that it is “impolite” to challenge people – to examine the performance of those in positions of public authority – and to expose their failings.

It isn’t difficult – is it – having read the above catalogue of grotesque failure, authoritarianism  and inadequacy by Philip Bailhache, to understand why they should seek to condemn those of us who have striven to uphold the public interest. Indeed – expect more such condemnation and suppression to be heaped upon me before this election is over.

Our political culture is too deferential – too polite – too genteel – and lacking in accountability, to properly serve the public good.

And there could be no better illustration of that problem – than the candidacy of Philip Bailhache in this election.

I did challenge Philip Bailhache to a head-to-head debate in respect of all these evidenced matters. Unfortunately he lacked the courage and integrity to face such debate – instead preferring to hide behind pomposity and empty rhetoric.

As we are considering the true nature of power – of ‘real’ power – in Jersey, I invite readers to imagine what fate would have befallen me – had I committed even one-quarter of the misfeasance of Philip Bailhache as described above?

I wrote earlier in this article:

“Our political culture is not “fit-for-purpose” – because we do not challenge and scrutinise enough. And Mr. Bailhache and his friends very much want things to stay that way.

But unfortunately for Mr. Bailhache – and fortunately for the broad public good – I was honest and absolutely serious when, announcing my candidacy in this election. I said ‘it was necessary so that there be some meaningful challenge and scrutiny placed upon the former Bailiff; I had to shoulder that public responsibility, because no other candidate would.’

I keep my electoral promises.”

I have done my public duty in attempting to bring the true nature of Philip Bailhache to the attention of the public.

Behind the ‘emperor’s new clothes’ of Philip Bailhache, there is nothing more than a corrupt and fundamentally inadequate individual; a dangerous and silly little man.

Should he be elected – it will be another example of Jersey getting the government it deserves.

Stuart

JERSEY’S PROSECUTION SYSTEM:

Its Role in the Island’s 2011 Elections.

The facts you won’t learn

From the establishment media.

As I’ve said at several Hustings meetings, one of the great challenges facing this community is the existing power-structure. We don’t really understand why most of our politicians are largely powerless most of the time – and why our government just doesn’t do what we want it to.

And if, in truth, your politicians are largely powerless – then you are powerless.

If you want to understand where real power lies in Jersey – look to the Attorney General and judiciary – and look to the local mainstream media. Those two entities – the legal establishment and news outlets – wield more influence and control than you do via your elected representatives.

The press-release – published below – illustrates the power of both groups.

What you are about to read explains the true, politicised conduct of Jersey’s Attorney General and judges. The document also illustrates just how powerful the local media are. It was issued to BBC Jersey – but yet none of the important issues it describes have been reported.

Jersey’s judicial establishment – and Jersey’s establishment media – both working together, to do all they can to influence people to vote for oligarchs like Philip Bailhache.

Taking  a few minutes to read,  and reflect upon, the facts explained below will give you more insight into real power in Jersey, than you will ever gain from all of the island’s mainstream media.

Stuart.
Press Release:

(Issued exclusively to the BBC – Monday, 10th October, 2011.)

·        DRAMATIC EVIDENCE CONCEALED FROM STUART SYVRET’S DEFENCE BY THE PROSECUTION.

·        EXISTENCE OF KEY WITNESS CONCEALED FROM DEFENCE BY JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES.

·        EVIDENCE OF GRAHAM POWER’S STATEMENT SHOWS PROSECUTING ADVOCATE DIRECTLY AND HEAVILY CONFLICTED.

·        CONDUCT OF PROSECUTION ‘UNLAWFUL’.

·        STUART SYVRET DENIED ACCESS TO COURT AND CHANCE TO USE NEW EVIDENCE BY CONFLICTED DEPUTY BAILIFF WILLIAM BAILHACHE – UNTIL “AFTER ELECTIONS”.

·        CANDIDATE FORCED TO NOT COMPLY WITH SENTENCES – IN ORDER TO SECURE COURT HEARING.

Jersey’s authorities knowingly withheld relevant evidence from the defence side during the prosecution against Stuart Syvret, and during the subsequent appeal.

Jersey’s authorities also concealed the existence of a key witness from the defence side during the prosecution against Stuart Syvret and during the subsequent appeal.

The concealing of evidence and of witnesses is unlawful.

These concealments cause all of the legal proceedings against Stuart Syvret to be ultra vires and miscarriages of justice.

Mr. Syvret came to know of these concealments only in recent weeks – sometime after the appeal was rejected.

He has made an urgent application to the Jersey judicial authorities for a court hearing at which he can table the concealed evidence, given the fact the evidence shows the convictions against him to be flawed and unsafe.

The existence of the new evidence – and the very fact it was concealed – also shows the nature of the proceedings against him to be an ‘abuse-of-process’ and to thus be ultra vires.

But as a result of the dangerously flawed proceedings against him, Mr. Syvret stands convicted – and under severe and damaging prejudice as a consequence of a prosecution in which key evidence was deliberately concealed from the defence side.

Such is the power and relevance of the concealed evidence and the witness testimony, Mr. Syvret has applied – as would be the right of any person – for an urgent court hearing at which the new evidence would be tabled in support of an application to quash and stay the prosecution and conviction against him.

Mr. Syvret wrote to Jersey’s judicial authorities on the 2nd September applying for a court date to make an application to seek some form of immediate relief from the existing judgments which are no longer safe.

Immediate relief was required – as Mr. Syvret is under immediate and seriously prejudicial consequences in respect of the recent criminal proceedings against him – and the verdicts – and sentences arising – which are now clearly no longer safe.

Quite extraordinarily, Jersey’s court authorities have refused to give Mr. Syvret access to justice – until after the conclusion of Jersey’s general election, in which he is a candidate.

Even more extraordinarily – that decision to refuse Mr Syvret access to justice until after the election – was made by Deputy Bailiff William Bailhache – brother of former Bailiff Philip Bailhache – who is an opponent of Mr Syvret in the same election.

Justice delayed – is justice denied.

Any person who is suffering the prejudice and harm of an evidencedely unsafe court verdict has a right to access a court to seek relief from that prejudice. Even if such relief were to be temporary, pending a full hearing.

All people have a right to access justice – and a right to a fair trial – as guaranteed by Article 6 of the ECHR.

It is established law that the right to access justice must be an “effective” right – in order to satisfy the provisions of Article 6 of the ECHR.

For Mr. Syvret’s right to access justice to be “effective”, he requires access to a court before the Jersey elections. Refusing him such access guarantees that the sever prejudice and damage he has suffered as a result of the unlawful concealment of evidence cannot be partially repaired by him gaining some vindication prior to the election.

Therefore, the only means by which Mr. Syvret has been able to gain a court-hearing – by which he may seek justice – has been to refuse to comply with the ultra vires sentences imposed upon him. Consequently, he has been told to appear before the magistrates’ court this Wednesday 12th October, at 10.00 am.

Mr Syvret has notified the court of his attendance – and informed them of the case he will make.

However – given the bias and ultra vires nature of the past judicial conduct against Mr. Syvret, it seems probable that attempts will be made – again – to prevent him from running his defence case effectively.

The decision to deny Mr Syvret his right to access court is already rendered ultra vires by the conflicts of interests of Deputy Bailiff William Bailhache, given his brother, Philip Bailhache’s position as an election opponent of Mr. Syvret. However – the clear unlawfulness of the decision of William Bailhache to provide a timely court hearing for Mr. Syvret is rendered even more illegitimate given William Bailhache’s own, direct, personal conflicted position in the case brought against Mr Syvret.

William Bailhache was the Attorney General – the sole prosecuting authority in Jersey – who ordered and directed the investigation, covert police surveillance, massed police raid, arrest, unlawful search without a search-warrant, charging and prosecution against Mr. Syvret in the first place.

The startling illegitimacy and unlawfulness of any involvement of William Bailhache at all – in any decisions relevant to either the charging or prosecution of Mr Syvret – or, more latterly, in Mr Bailhache’s capacity as Deputy Bailiff, decisions in respect of Mr Syvret’s access to timely justice – becomes even more clear when it is understood that William Bailhache was, in fact, the initial “complainant” – and alleged “victim” – of supposed breaches of the Data Protection Law that he contended had been committed against him by Mr. Syvret – and for which Mr. Bailhache ordered the massed police-raid, arrest, search without a warrant, charging and prosecution against Mr. Syvret.

William Bailhache’s conflicted involvement as a supposed complainant and “victim” is proven by three items of documentary evidence.

Those are: –

·        1: A number of recorded Police decisions.

·        2: The statement by Graham Power QPM to the Wiltshire police.

·        3: The statement by Lenny Harper to the Wiltshire police.

The Police “Major Crime Policy File” decisions (only a few of which have been disclosed to Mr. Syvret) demonstrate a number of things:

·        That the Police Force were conducting a major, high-level investigation into Mr. Syvret’s work as a politician; work he was undertaking on behalf of his constituents;

·        That the “investigation”, surveillance, raid, arrest, search without a warrant, charging and prosecution was undertaken on the orders of William Bailhache’s office.

·        The decision included – specifically – an unlawful decision to illegally mount a raid and arrest against Mr. Syvret, so as to provide a device to “get around” the requirement of a search warrant.

·        That the Attorney General (William Bailhache) was the supposed “victim” of the supposed “crime” of Mr. Syvret.

The statement to the Wiltshire Police by Graham Power contains many, many sections which are of direct and dramatic relevance to all of the criminal proceedings conducted against Mr. Syvret – and, in particular, of huge relevance to the central defence case – namely that the actions taken against Mr. Syvret were an unlawful ‘abuse-of-process’ and a malicious prosecution.

Throughout the entire proceedings against him, Mr Syvret has sought disclosure of Mr. Power’s statement, as Mr. Syvret very strongly suspected it would contain important and highly relevant evidence.

However, the prosecution and the courts refused to disclose the evidence to Mr. Syvret.

The prosecution – acting under the instruction of William Bailhache, and, more latterly Tim Le Cocq (Bailhache’s successor as Attorney General) – repeatedly asserted that there was no requirement to disclose this evidence as it was of no relevance or assistance to the defence case.

Mr. Syvret only obtained a copy of Mr Power’s statement – from a source – in recent weeks.

As is very clear from reading Mr. Power’s statement, it is of immense relevance to the defence case – powerfully showing as it does, the deeply politicised nature of the prosecution function in Jersey –  the many and various political involvements and entanglements of the Attorney General – the “political” interest William Bailhache had in suppressing the effective investigation and exposure of the child abuse investigations – the motivations William Bailhache and his political allies had in obstructing, thwarting, damaging and discrediting Mr. Syvret in his work as a then Senator attempting to politically represent certain of his then constituents who are child abuse victims – corrupt inducements of career advancements being offered to certain senior police officers by politicians such as former Deputy Andrew Lewis – and the “investigation” into how Mr Syvret was obtaining information he needed to represent his constituents in respect of the unlawful failings of the Office of Attorney General to prosecute their abusers. That investigation was named “Operation Adrian”.

Not only did Attorney Generals William Bailhache and Tim Le Cocq unlawfully fail to disclose this evidence to Mr Syvret – their agent – prosecuting lawyer Stephen Baker repeatedly misled the court concerning the document. He repeatedly claimed it was “of no relevance” – but then, after two years of legal proceedings – inadvertently admitted that he had not, in fact, actually read the document.

However, following this incident – in the very final stages of the appeal, having been forced to actually read the evidence, Advocate Baker still falsely asserted the document contained nothing of any assistance to the defence arguments.

As can now be seen by any person reading the document, that claim was completely untrue.

Moreover – Stephen Baker himself is revealed as directly conflicted – being referred to in several parts of Mr. Power’s statement in respect of the obstructions by William Bailhache’s office to the Police wish to have certain child abusers charged and prosecuted.

The statement by Lenny Harper to Wiltshire police – in ways similar to the statement by Graham Power – powerfully evidences many examples of deeply politicised activity by Jersey’s prosecution system and Attorney General William Bailhache in particular.

For example – Mr. Harper’s statement refers to a lawyer with great experience of child protection matters – Sarah O’Donnell – offering her services to William Bailhache at an early stage – and William Bailhache replying to her “I wouldn’t worry because there are not going to be any prosecutions any way.”

Mr Harper’s statement also evidences the fact the Attorney General William Bailhache had initiated a major criminal investigation against the political work the then Senator Stuart Syvret was undertaking on behalf of specific, directly disadvantage constituents who were survivors of abuse. 

A key part of that work by Mr Syvret were his efforts to expose and challenge the improper manner in which at least four highly evidenced child abusers had been let off. Those abusers being Jane and Alan Maguire and Mr. and Mrs Bonner.

In the latter case, the States of Jersey Police Force had been forced to release them without charge, following interference from William Bailhache.

In the former case – that of the Maguires – Mr Syvret had been seeking their extradition from France, they having retired there following the improper abandonment of a prosecution against them in 1998. Their victims were utterly failed and betrayed by the Jersey authorities on that occasion.

Further – the legal representation the victims had at the time in 1998 also failed them, disastrously. That law firm was Bailhache LaBesse and the Senior Partner at that time was William Bailhache.

Under well-established standards of administrative law – a public authority that carries out a statutory function – in this case the prosecuting authority – must not be conflicted in its decision-making.

That is simply the law.

In the case of all and every prosecution decision made concerning Mr Syvret – the function has been wholly and profoundly contaminated with a dramatic and evidenced range of conflicts of interest.

Therefore all of those decisions by the prosecution system are unlawful – ultra vires – and have no legal legitimacy.

That is not because Mr Syvret claims, nor has he ever done, that he be immune from prosecution; rather – the prosecution system of Jersey has become so politicised, dysfunctional and contaminated by personal conflicts of interest – that it has taken itself into territory where it simply cannot function in a lawful manner.

Nor is its operation and conduct – given these circumstances – capable of being compliant with the ECHR.

There is a further matter.

In addition to the prosecution system of Jersey – the island’s judicial apparatus is similarly hopelessly contaminated with political and personal considerations.

The magistrate – Bridget Shaw – who heard the original prosecution against Stuart Syvret – is personally well known to several of the prosecution witnesses.

She is also friends with other parties who clearly have a powerful negative “interest” in matters concerning Mr. Syvret.

She has also refused to disclose the identity of the individual or individuals from who she has taken “advice” and “guidance” during the prosecution.

She also ruled Mr Syvret’s entire defence case “inadmissible” – after three months defence work – once it was realised the prosecution had no answer at all to that defence case and their charges had collapsed.

In the case of the appeal – matters remained dysfunctional and unlawful and non-ECHR compliant, when the case went before Jersey’s Royal Court.

The Judge, Sir Christopher Pitchers, was appointed to hear the case by ‘Bailiff’, Michael Birt – the former Attorney General who Mr. Syvret had exposed and criticised in respect of failing to properly investigate the case of a rogue nurse seriously suspected of being a clinical serial-killer.  The public interest disclosure of the case being the supposed “offence” that Mr. Syvret was eventually charged with.

Further – Commissioner Pitchers – only belatedly – eventually admitted in the case that he had, in fact, had dinner with Michael Birt – and William Bailhache – in their present posts of Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff.

That is nothing less than extraordinary.

Plainly – no person can be viewed as an objective and impartial judge – if they have wined and dined with THE two, key – directly – and centrally involved antagonistic parties in respect of the accused.

This conflict of interest is seriously compounded by the repeated refusal of Commissioner Pitchers to disclose this social knowledge of key, involved parties at a far earlier stage.

Mr. Syvret shall be making a formal complaint to the United Kingdom Lord Chief Justice concerning this conduct of Commissioner Pitchers.

It is when viewing the extraordinary conduct of Jersey’s prosecution system – and Jersey’s judiciary – in light of the above factors – that some insight is finally gained into the extraordinary judgments against Mr. Syvret – which have seen a legal precedent established against independent internet-based journalism that has no corollary or analogue anywhere else – at all – in all of the established democratic Western countries.

Moreover – it is a precedent that purports to override statute law – and replaces it with judge-made law.

The British Channel Island of Jersey has descended into a condition of overt lawlessness and corruption.

The blame, responsibility for – and the remedy to – this crisis all lays with the Office of UK Justice Secretary.

That Office is going to be challenged concerning its failure to ensure good governance, the proper rule of law and good administration of justice in Jersey – in court in London.

JERSEY ELECTION 2011

A Letter to Voters.

Jersey’s general election occurs on the 19th October, and during the coming days  – unless the Jersey authorities take steps to stop me – I will be publishing a series of postings in which I will be addressing the issues I believe to be important to the future welfare of this community – and explaining the policies I advocate.

I begin that process by publishing below a ‘letter to voters’ that I have been handing out at the Hustings meetings.

It is possible that I may be prevented by Jersey’s authorities from publishing further information and policies for some time, perhaps until after the election.

If that occurs, all I can ask is that people read – and reflect upon – what I’ve written below.

Think about it – and trust me.

Hard battles are never won quickly – but the truth waits for the righteous.

Stuart

STUART SYVRET

The only person who has shown the courage and integrity needed to really challenge the powerful in Jersey.

THE STATES OF JERSEY:

A system that has failed

YOU

And failed

THE ISLAND.

A letter to voters.

During this election, I’m doing what I can to assist the people of this community in gaining a real understanding of why the States of Jersey repeatedly disappoints us and fails to deliver the policies and performance we seek.

As election day approaches, I will be publishing a number of detailed policy statements which will diagnose the problems – and offer solutions. You will be able to read those manifesto statements at the following address:

In the mean time, do please e-mail me at the following address should there be any matter you wish to discuss or questions you wish to ask:

Most people in Jersey might agree when asked what are the serious problems that we face. For example: –

·        Too much taxation

·        Unfair taxation policies, including taxation of food

·        The rich not paying their share of tax

·        Inefficient public expenditure

·        Housing too expensive

·        Population growth not being adequately controlled

·        Our environment being ruined

·        Public money wasted

·        No real accountability

·        Expensive but unemployable civil servants getting golden-handshakes

·        Jersey families finding it too expensive to live in the island.

Those are some of the problems we have; problems we hear of time and time again.

Our government fails – year after year – election after election – to address those problems.

The time has come for us to realise that those failings don’t happen by accident. Those policy deficiencies do not survive year after year because they’re just too difficult to deal with.

The States of Jersey carries on failing to deliver the policies most of us want, because it suits those who control real power in Jersey to have things that way.

It suits the powerful – it suits their short-term self-interests – and it suits their friends in business. 

It is no “accident” that the States of Jersey “performs” like it does.

So – for us, the voting public – to finally have an election that does make a difference – one that works for us – we’ve got to do something different.

And that something different – is to understand the nature of power in Jersey. Real power; who holds it  – how did they get hold of it – on whose behalf do they wield it – and can we democratically control them?

The States of Jersey has failed.

The entire complex and expensive edifice of public administration in the island of Jersey ceased to serve the public good a long time ago.

We have a system of governance in Jersey that is secretive, unaccountable, out-of-control – often corrupt – and simply not subjected to any effective checks and balances.

The mythology is that Jersey has been well-governed over the decades. Yes – in comparison to some places – it might have been. But that does not mean our community has been governed well-enough.

Consider some of the failures of the States of Jersey.

·        A dangerous lack of economic diversity, which, especially in the current global economic crises – makes us extremely vulnerable.

·        The refusal of the States to properly explore and consider the full range of economic and taxation options available to the community.

·        The adoption of the ‘zero / ten’ tax policy – which – at best – has only partly worked – and, at that, has seen a massive transfer of the tax-burden from corporate interests onto working people.

·        A public sector that is top-heavy – with a bloated, expensive and unaccountable senior civil service consuming resources that could better be directed to front-line services.

·        A continuing failure to stabilise the island’s housing situation.

·        A gross disparity in incomes, with many people struggling financially because of Jersey’s immensely high cost-of-living.

·        Growing unemployment, yet the perennial refusal to consider protecting employment opportunities for those already present in the island through the use of work-permits.

·        No sovereign wealth fund – only a strategic reserve that is not capable of meeting one year’s public sector expenditure.

·        Taking years to introduce a freedom of information law.

·        Continued environmental degradation.

·        A waterfront that is a vast toxic waste-dump.

The structure of our public administration – with no clear separation between legislature, judiciary and executive – actively generates and maintains a system which is unaccountable.

That problem is further compounded by our traditional political ‘culture’ – in which we tolerate what is, in effect, a single-party state – with the consequent absence of scrutiny that would take place if there were an organised opposition. Likewise, the ‘culture’ of the Fourth Estate – the media – in Jersey is hopelessly deferential, unchallenging and largely captured by the interest of the island’s traditional elites.

Though we seem to have spent years – decades even – talking about whether this, or that, change to the machinery of our public administration would help to address the problems of governance that most people recognise – ultimately there is no escaping the fact that only a change in the community’s approach to politics will finally return our systems of governance to serving the public good.

Because of the events of recent years – and of the challenges about to come – Jersey can no longer afford a future of politically directionless drift. Nor can we afford the weak political leadership we see in the present Council of Ministers – an executive so inadequate it will tolerate good men being victimised and suspended for years – whilst going out of its way to defend the culpable senior civil servants who appear unsackable – no matter what expensive failures they exhibit. The Jersey establishment rewards failure, with golden-handshakes – rather than accountability.

Indeed – Jersey faces a crisis of leadership that is so bad – we are even confronted with an evidenced breakdown in the rule of law, proper administration of justice and of free, representative democracy.

And in case anyone should find it hard to accept that those in positions of great power in Jersey can, and do, abuse their position, consider these words that the retired Chief of Police, Graham Power wrote in a sworn statement he prepared on my behalf earlier this year. Here, he is addressing the conduct of the Attorney General William Bailhache:

“I had some email and telephone exchanges with the Attorney General about the above allegations. …….

……..In any event the outcome was that we could not agree, and the exchange finished with what I took to be an angry email from the Attorney General expressing apparent frustration at my perceived failure to sufficiently oppose the criticism of his brother the Bailiff, [Philip Bailhache] and finishing with a phrase something like “so be it,” which I read as having a threatening tone. So far as I can recall, that was the last email I received from the Attorney General. Not long afterwards I was suspended. Initially it was claimed that my suspension was as a result of information relating to the Historic Abuse Enquiry which was received on 10th November 2008. It is now known that this is untrue because the suspension notices were in fact prepared on the morning of Saturday 8th November 2008, which implies that the actual decision to suspend must have been taken in the week-ending 7th November 2008. So far as I can recall this brings the decision close to my exchanges with the Attorney General regarding the need to investigate allegations of corruption at the heart of government.”    

When an Attorney General – who is the sole prosecuting authority in Jersey – can act in that way – against a fine, nationally respected Police Chief – then something is very, very wrong with our systems of governance.

In that short quote – from a sworn statement by a witness of no less calibre than a decorated Chief Police Officer – we begin, at last, to see laid bare the toxic heart of real power in Jersey.

I am the only politician this community ever had, who had the courage to challenge this failed system.

If it is the wish of the voting public, I will carry on with that task.

Please consider using one of your votes to support me.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Syvret.  

Jersey Elections: A Users Manual:

Part 1

(Version 3:2 beta)

Congratulations on deciding to Use Democracy. You are now the proud owner of the right to vote, thus being able to contribute to the selection of a particular combination of individuals who will in-the-main, be the largely impotent collection of front-people and fall-guys for several established yet hidden power-blocs.  (For general description see Part 2) The remaining small minority of your preferred elected representatives will possess the meaningful power, which they will use to pursue their own interests and those of their friends, families and allies, with such interests, if you are in a fortunate tiny minority, coinciding with your own.

Although Using Elections appears to be a simple activity, unfortunately many users make basic and repeated mistakes through failing to study the instructions thoroughly. We therefore strongly recommend that you take time to read and study this Users’ Manual carefully. Whilst you may have already practised Using Elections on previous occasions, it is almost a certainty that you were disappointed by the results obtained.

Reading The Full Manual (RTFM) and making time for a little thought and reflection on the advice contained, will almost certainly greatly enhance your experience and enjoyment when Using Elections.

Contents of this Manual:

1: Health and Safety Guidance

2: Quick Start Guide

3: The Basic Components

4: Objectives

5: Operations

6: Troubleshooting

7: Warrantee

1: Health & Safety Guidance:

Like all activities that involve placing your trust in others, and having faith in people to  have a civilised and reasonable regard for your interests, Using Elections can be hazardous – bringing with it the potential for disappointment, unhappiness, financial loss,  harm to your family life, ill-health, chronic debilitating conditions, permanent injury and death. (Accidental, manslaughter or murder, depending on golf-club membership of causal agent coinciding with that of Attorney General / Coroner.)

No responsibility is accepted for any such loss, injury or death arising from Using Elections, as conditions of use and reliability of participants are all factors beyond the manufacturer’s control.

Warning: may contain nuts.

Make sure you understand local power supply.

When attempting to tap non-standard power supply, expect excessive resistance from established apparatus, shocks and malfunctions to a degree that may render Using Elections non-viable in respect of proportionate, democratic representation.

In particular – do not let original, core, power-supply – e.g., Crown, ECHR, ECtHR become detached from local power-supply. Failure to observe this precaution may result in deleterious effects as described in 1: Health and Safety Guidance, above –  and 2: Quick Start Guide, below.

Using Elections has been deemed safe in Jersey for those age 16 and over.

Keep Using Elections out of reach of children. Unfortunately, those under the age of 16 have been known to suffer unwanted and adverse effects as a consequence of exposure to the performance of the Elected, and the defects of the public apparatus under their control.  Such impacts may include neglect, incompetent teaching, cruelty, emotional abuse, violence, assault, physical and psychological injury, two-month periods of solitary confinement, outright battery, sexual molestation, rape, sodomy.

Adverse side-effects experienced by those over the age of 16 Using Elections have been observed to include financial abuse, blackmail, poverty, the demanding of money with menaces, repression – both to the individual and to family members – poor standards of public services, inability of oneself or friends or family to gain employment opportunities and/or promotions, repeated police harassment, sense of powerlessness and a faintly surreal feeling of living in a mafia-state, which only you seem to notice.

The latter side-effect may be particularly pronounced when Using Elections in Jersey, given the absence of party-politics and, consequently, the complete  free reign given to the Elected representatives selected as a result of Using Elections, to go and, basically, do whatever the hell they want – or are told to do by their real Bosses.

If you accidently consume more of Using Elections than you intended, or the product should get under your skin, drink copious amounts of alcohol, re-examine your preconceptions and consult your doctor.

Warning: In sever cases of over-exposure to Using Elections, the only effective treatment may involve fleeing the region.

2: Quick Start Guide

This Users Manual has been specially prepared for those Using Elections in the British Channel Island of Jersey.  (Version 3.2 Beta.) Whilst much of the basic information contained in this manual will be of universal application, for other regions please contact the manufacturer.  Although no responsibility is accepted for loss, injury or death arising as a consequence of Using Elections in any event, as regional and national circumstances and regulations will vary, the manufacturer herby warns that in certain regions, attempting to Use Elections may result in direct or indirect repression, kidnapping of family members, false imprisonment, malicious prosecutions, torture, mutilation, execution and the disposal of your remains in unmarked massed-graves. No responsibility is accepted by the manufacturer for any such consequence.

Warning: this Quick Start Guide is offered for convenience only. There is no substitute for Reading The Full Manual (RTFM).  Following the Quick Start Guide only will result in the customary outcome when Using Elections, i.e., a legislature unresponsive to your needs, meaningful power remaining with the customary covert power-blocs, increased taxation, a sensation of futility, dysthymia. 

Proceed as follows:

(a)  Insure inclusion on electoral role;

(b) Consider whether you possess a vague impression of the politics and qualities of the available candidates. (Important!)

(c)  On rare occasions, a candidate will positively match your hopes and expectations;

(d) More  commonly, certain candidates will appear less-bad than others;

(e)  Proceed to polling-station on election day and mark X alongside name selected after following steps (c ) and (d) above;

(f)   Place completed ballot-paper in ballot-box;

(g)    Go to work/ home/pub (as applicable) and begin process of psychologically preparing yourself for the next term of the legislature to exhibit the same inadequacies as the last term, regardless of the result of Using Elections.

3: The Basic Components

When un-packaging Using Elections, you should locate, and take time to familiarise yourself with the following components:

(a)    Power;

(b)    Understanding of real power;

(c)     The entities, factions and individuals who wield the said real power;

(d)    The different apparatus used to wield power;

(e)    Your own intellectual capacity;

(f)      Your own ethical standards;

(g)    Reliance you and your family have on the rest of society around you;

(h)    Short, medium and long-term perspectives;

(i)       Power-factions – both overt and covert;

(j)      “Law” enforcement apparatus;

(k)    Media;

(l)       Politicians;

(m) Election process;

(n)    Lessons of history.

Should any of components (a) to (n) be missing, Using Elections will only function in unreliable or unpredictable ways. (Although that may occur in any event, even with standard use of components.) However, some Users have proceeded without certain components. Obviously, with mixed results. As part of our efforts to ensure Using Elections continues to meet your high expectations, we are constantly seeking to improve the product. We therefore welcome all customer feed-back concerning their experiences of Using Elections. We are especially interested in any unusual and advantageous results obtained as a result of experimental operation. For example, some people have reported that Using Elections performed to a standard far in excess of their most optimistic expectations as a result of ignoring component (K) (Media) and compensating for the absence of that component with an additional section of component (E)(your own intellectual capacity).

Warning! Using Elections in novel or experimental ways – whilst bringing with it the possibility of greatly improved performance – also carries extreme risks. Inappropriate assembly of components – or omission of components (e), (f) and (n) – may lead to divided societies, hatred, militarised police forces, preponderance of moustaches, industrial genocide, world war.

No responsibility accepted by manufacturer.

4: Objectives

Note: an assumption has been adopted in writing this Users Manual.

That assumption is that you wish Using Elections to result in an effective and accountable government that will pursue a satisfactory balance between short, medium and long-term considerations and will do so in a manner that will address the interests of you and your family, and the interest of other people, thus causing a steady advancement in the overall happiness, stability and success of society.

Should you be indifferent to such objectives, no greater investment of time and effort is required than following the Quick Start Guide (see 2, above).  Alternatively all effort and inconvenience can be avoided entirely simply by not using Using Elections at all. Simply mail back unused product to manufacturer for full, no quibble re-fund of the investment you made. (See 7, below).

See Part 2 of –

 Jersey Elections: A Users Manual:

For the following sections:

5: Operations

6: Troubleshooting

7: Warrantee