Monthly Archives: December 2012

BRITISH ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE:

“The Jersey Way” – And Its Protectors –

On Trial.

What follows is a brief extract from the Grounds, Statement of Case, and Skeleton Argument in the following legal claim: Stuart Syvret – Applicant – vs. – Secretary of State for Justice, First Respondent – and Privy Council, Second Respondent.

This section of the claim deals with the plain and evidenced breakdown in the proper administration of justice in the Crown Dependency of Jersey and a number of mischief’s  that flow therefrom – not least stark denials of Article 6 Rights to fair trials.

The section on the collapse in the objectivity of what passes as a “judicial” function in Jersey, and the plain failure of that “judicial” function to even meet the necessary “test of the appearance of objectivity”, has a number of sub-sections that deal with each of the judges / courts the applicant appeared before, and certain other matters.

The particular sub-section from the Grounds reproduced below is that dealing with Michael Beloff QC.

Stuart Syvret

An Extract from the Grounds, Statement of Case, and Skeleton Argument; Stuart Syvret vs. Secretary of State for Justice and Privy Council:

Commissioner Michael Beloff QC:

Reference has been made above to the attempted judicial review made by the applicant – given judicial review was the only available remedy, Commissioner Pitchers having agreed with Bridget Shaw that the Attorney General was above the law, insofar as any examination of the actions of that Office (the Jersey prosecution function) were concerned in the context of the criminal proceedings.

However – Commissioner Pitchers having been selected – in spite of already being the criminal trial judge – by his directly conflicted dining partner – former Attorney General Michael Birt – to hear the judicial review application – then decided that the Attorney General was also above the law in any civil sense by rejecting the judicial review application. The applicant appealed that decision.

The appeal-court was lead by Michael Beloff QC. A long-standing member of the Jersey bench and long-standing friend of Philip Bailhache, Michael Birt and William Bailhache.

Those conflicts of interest – Beloff’s long-standing friendship with, and involvement with those key, centrally conflicted parties, renders him wholly unable to lawfully be involved in any judicial capacity in any matter involving them, and/or the applicant.  Any and all involvement of Beloff was, and is, not compatible with Article 6, nor older English jurisprudence.

The resultant decision of the Jersey appeal-court was – as is increasingly apparent in certain other Jersey appeal-court cases – simply corrupt.

It is a basic principle of the rule of law – that no person or entity – and no public authority – is above the law.

“Be you never so high, the law is above you,” as Dr Thomas Fuller wrote in 1733. An opinion famously endorsed to universal approval by the much respected late Tom Bingham, in his book The Rule of Law.

That principle applies to the Office of Attorney General in Jersey. That public authority is bound by the law – and answerable in law for its actions.

Not – however – according to the Jersey judiciary.

A judiciary comprised of lucratively rewarded friends of the Jersey Attorney Generals – past & present – men such as Philip Bailhache, Michael Birt and William Bailhache – and chosen and appointed by them.

In neither the malicious, corrupt, politicised criminal actions taken against the applicant – nor in a civil action – has the vires of the actions, conduct and policies of the Jersey Attorney General been able to be challenged.

This outcome is against all established administrative law case-law – and all relevant ECtHR case-law.

The questions have to be these:

“Does all English jurisprudence – and all relevant findings of ECtHR law – have it wrong – and – uniquely – Jersey’s judicial apparatus have it right?”

“Does this sleazy, lawless, tax-haven secrecy-jurisdiction lead the way in a correct interpretation on the laws of accountability and conflicts of interest?”

It does not seem likely somehow.

For example, a foreign national – Raj Bhojwani – whose business interests conflicted with those of British establishment and military interests – was prosecuted in Jersey, convicted and jailed for supposed “money laundering”. A very considerable sum of money was then seized and placed into the unregulated, non-publically accounted “Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund” – which is administered by the Jersey Attorney General, and from which sums are “spent” on various activities – including “court and case-costs” – which involve the employment, commissioning – and other emolumentations – of various clerks, lawyers and judges.

In spite of the fact the key action upon which Bhojwani was convicted – occurred two years before the relevant legislation was introduced – thus making his actions “criminal” retrospectively – the Jersey court of appeal – under Michael Beloff – upheld the conviction – notwithstanding its plain incompatibility with Article 6 of the ECHR, and several other Articles. Retrospectivity of the kind involved can never be compatible with basic justice, no matter what the legislation purporting to confer the retrospectivity might say.

Can it be remotely lawful for a judicial apparatus – and an accompanying incestuously  and personally entangled prosecution apparatus – to be exercising powers as “public authorities” – when both authorities are so closely entangled as to axiomatically abdicate their exclusive powers, each to the other, via such inescapable personal and professional “interests”, entanglements and conflicts?

Moreover and in particular – can it be lawful – when the entangled systems and the actual individual prosecutors, lawyers and judges themselves benefit personally from funds seized into the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund? Certainly, if the standards of English administrative law are applied – no.

In the case of the appeal that was made by the applicant, against the irrational and bizarre decisions to deny all possible remedy against the Office of Jersey Attorney General, the judgment that was given by Commissioner Beloff and colleagues was so extraordinary, as to not even be compatible with rudimentary logic and rational thought.

Consider: the applicant was seeking disclosures of evidential material in respect of the decisions of the conflicted Jersey Attorney General’s Office to prosecute him for exposing the failure of that Office to properly investigate serious crimes; Michael Beloff & colleagues’ judgement, at paragraph 55, said this:

“We do not consider that there is any prospect of any such material emerging in the  foreseeable future that would have a material impact on the arguments available to Mr Syvret; we could not sanction an adjournment of a criminal matter on a merely speculative basis.”

The question of the disclosure – or non-disclosure – of evidence was central to the entire case. Not only had 90% of the disclosure requirements stated by the defence been refused – it was also, by the time of this appeal, clear – from such factors as the inadvertent confession of the prosecuting lawyer – that key material sought for disclosure had not even been read.

We thus had a situation in which the prosecution – by its own admission – had confessed to having lied on a repeated and sustained basis throughout the entire proceedings in respect of the proper assessment and disclosure of evidence.

How, then, when the prosecution confesses to have notconsidered available evidence for disclosure purposes – can it be acceptable for Commissioner Michael Beloff – and colleagues – to dismiss a defence application for disclosure as “merely speculative”?

The statement in the judgment delivered by Commissioner Beloff cannot be regarded as a rational statement – nor a statement of law.

How can any credible court come to such a key decision – based upon a “finding” of “we do not consider”?

Why do they “not consider” that there is no prospect of any relevant material emerging?

Do those three members of the Jersey court of appeal possess second-sight?

Did they – using some hitherto non-disclosed psychic power to “channel” into the entire e-mail, letter and decision-making data-base of the Jersey Attorney General – assess the existence of potential evidence?

Did they hold a séance – and run the entire data-base through their minds – and rely upon a “cosmic-vibe” to gauge whether any of the evidence might be helpful to the defence – or support the defendant’s human rights?

Maybe they used a ouija-board?

Perhaps at one of Philip Bailhache’s, Michael Birt’s or William Bailhache’s convivial dinner parties?

It is – manifestly – an absurdity to come to a key – perhaps the key – decision in a legal judgment – on the basis of a guess. Indeed – calling it a guess is too charitable.

The finding and assertion in the judgment is an example of manifestly corrupt bias.

It is so absurd – it could not even be charitably ascribed to a legal “mistake”; people like Commissioner Beloff are experienced lawyers – and would not include wholly irrational assertions in judgments by “mistake”.

It is plain – even on the application of the most basic logic – that the Office of Attorney General will hold various communications, files, records, decisions etc – both directly and indirectly in connection with the actions taken against the applicant – and the closely related matters.

Even before one gets to the stage of assessing whether those records might assist the defence – it is already plain that such records and information do exist. Why, then, should there be no prospect of any such material emerging”?

The plain fact is that such material did exist – such material does exist – such material isof relevance, both to the charges – and to the abuse-of-process arguments  – made by the applicant; such materiel is of relevance to his human rights – and the assertion of  Commissioner Michael Beloff QC is biased and absurd and corrupt.

And it is no mere speculation that such relevant material mayexist – because certain items of just such evidence have – subsequently – come into the applicant’s  possession.

Were Jersey’s judicial apparatus not a biased and corrupted enterprise – all such material would have been disclosed to the defence – when the defence first made the disclosure applications.

In July – 2009.

Some Brief Legal Discussion:

It is not necessary at this section to examine in great detail the arguments concerning objectivity and apparent and actual bias in judicial and quasi-judicial functions and the controlling English and ECtHR jurisprudence; those matters of  principle and established law are focused upon in section 4 of this document. However, when reflecting upon the role and conduct of Michael Beloff QC, it is worth being briefly reminded of some key facts and established principles.

Firstly, let us again be reminded that a key – in fact the key – public official in Jersey, with the very highest possible stake in the outcome of the data protection prosecutions against the applicant, is Michael Birt – the person who as the Attorney General (sole prosecuting authority in Jersey) made the key decisions, and who was expressly and directly and seriously criticised by the applicant in the applicant’s public interest disclosures.

Since being Attorney General (a structurally conflicted and ultra vires Office in Jersey, not least because of its overt politicisation and close involvement with the executive, combined with being the sole prosecution authority in the island) Michael Birt has progressed up the traditional career-path to become, first “Deputy Bailiff”, and then “Bailiff”; anachronistic and ultra vires Crown-appointed posts that see the incumbent as the active, unelected “speaker” of the legislature – and as an active judge, andhead of the island’s judiciary.

Such is the evidenced nature – and gravity – of the matters involved in the public interest disclosures made by the applicant – that were his concerns to be shown to be publicly justified, such an outcome could not other than result in the complete annihilation of the career of Michael Birt.

But yet – in his capacity as Bailiff, Michael Birt has selected – and appointed – every single judge – in every single Jersey judicial setting – before which the applicant has appeared.

This has included Michael Birt’s long-standing colleague, friend and business-associate, Michael Beloff QC.

Were there not allready substantive grounds for seeing apparent bias and actual bias in the performance of Michael Beloff – the mere fact he is personally known to – and is selected by – and appointed by – the public official with the most to lose should the applicant have been exculpated, amounts to the most gross and offensive assault upon objective justice.

Originally expressed as the rule ‘No man a judge in his own cause’ (Nemo judex in re sua), no tribunal that has the presiding Office-holders chosen and appointed by an interested-party can ever approach the requisite standards of lawful objectivity.

In the case of Michael Beloff QC, the applicant expressly sought from him in open court a statement of his knowledge of any interested parties, and a declaration of any conflicts of interest that might be seen to afflict him in his involvement as the key figure in the tribunal. Beloff flatly refused to make any such declaration.

The applicant sought recusal from him, and, in similar fashion, Beloff refused to recuse.

The general expectation is that a judge, who realises that there are grounds on the basis of which a party might legitimately consider apparent bias may arise, should disclose that interest. Indeed, a failure to disclose has in some cases been thought to contribute to an appearance of bias.  As Kirby J put it in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy: “In some circumstances, failure to disclose … an interest will … lead to a sense of disquiet, and perhaps the suggestion that the want of disclosure has an improper or sinister explanation”. Lord Bingham’s view in Davidson v Scottish Ministers (No. 2) was that “the fact of non-disclosure in a case which calls for it must inevitably colour the thinking of the observer”.

Thus it is that Michael Beloff appears to be conflicted in the case – carries the appearance of bias – has plainly exhibited actual, real bias – and all of the said conduct of Beloff stands in direct opposition to established, current English jurisprudence.

So, does then, the objectivity and appearance of objectivity of judicial tribunals, simply not apply in Jersey – as though the island were some parallel-universe?

Is the Secretary of State for Justice, and the Privy Council entitled – in law – to do as they plainly have done and continue to do – and permit the Crown Dependency of Jersey to ignore the objectivity of the administration of justice – as though it were some form of ‘outré, new fangled imposition’ by European foreigners?

It is plain that even without reference to the European Convention on Human Rights, the resultant ECtHR case-law, and the domestic effect of the HRA – there exists in English law an unassailable expectation and right to the impartial administration of justice, and an objective court-of-law.

And – such is the central place of that foundation-stone of the good administration of justice – the right and expectation to impartiality is not even limited to those cases where an actual, testable, objective bias or conflict-of-interests arises – but does, in fact, extend in law to even the “appearance” of bias.

Thus it is – unassailably– established in English law that courts must not only be objective and impartial – they must also meet the test of “appearing” to be objective and impartial.

Indeed, it is well-established in all respectable jurisprudence that the administration of justice must be both impartial – and appearto be impartial.

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

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

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

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

Lord Hewart CJ – in what is, perhaps, the most famous statement of that principle arising in English jurisprudence – said:

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

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

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

Generally complainants avoid making submissions of actual bias even where there would appear to be good cause to do so.  A clear recent example of this sort of reticence is the case of Howell v Lee Millais.  It appears clear that had the CA been invited to find that Smith J was actually biased, they would have done so.  Yet, the parties shied away from such a submission, even in such an extreme case. 

Notwithstanding such acknowledged fear and intimidation that afflicts parties and even the most experienced of Council, the applicant, throughout all of the “judicial” proceedings in Jersey has maintained his right to objective and lawfully impartial treatment from Jersey’s public authorities. The applicant’s insistence on doing so often lead to even greater levels of overt hostility and bias against him.

In fact, at one point in the applicant’s attempts to secure justice in the face of the corrupt, politicised proceedings carried-out against him by those friends of Michael Birt – William Bailhache and Tim Le Cocq – Bailhache’s dining-acquaintance, Commissioner Christopher Pitchers, lost his temper and said to the applicant words to the effect “You just want to destroy everything!”(It is assumed, from this, that by “destroy everything” Commissioner Christopher Pitchers was in fact referring to the “necessary” emperor’s-new-clothes hallucination, required to sustain the delusion that the manifestly ultra vires “gentlemen’s-club” patrician nature of the prosecution/judicial apparatus in Jersey, somehow, amounts to the lawful administration of justice?)

We can profitably return again to the words of Lord Hewart CJ, R v. Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthy, where the learned gentleman said:

“Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice. Speaking for myself, I accept the statements contained in the justices’ affidavit, but they show very clearly that the deputy clerk was connected with the case in a capacity which made it right that he should scrupulously abstain from referring to the matter in any way, although he retired with the justices; in other words, his one position was such that he could not, if he had been required to do so, discharge the duties which his other position involved. His twofold position was a manifest contradiction.”

If one “twofold” position is fatal – a “manifest contradiction” – what, then, do we make of two-twofold positions – in compound and amplification?

We are faced with Michael Beloff QC – in the twofold position of long-standing friend of Michael Birt – and, as appeal-court judge in a case that – had it concluded favourably for the applicant – would have been instantly professionally terminal for Beloff’s friend Michael Birt. Yet – upon that “twofold position”, we have a second “twofold” position – of Michael Birt – in being the most centrally and directly conflicted public official in Jersey – whilst also then choosing and appointing the appeal court judge (a friend of his), to hear the applicant’s case, which would have been terminal to Birt, if the applicant succeeded.

(It is also worth being reminded at this point, that Michael Beloff QC was also asked to “recommend” – for Michael Birt to appoint – yet other judges in matters involving the applicant, and in which matters – in any favourable outcome for the applicant – Beloff’s friend Michael Birt would be professionally destroyed.)

Hewart CJ, in the case already cited, said: –

“It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the notes of the evidence in case the justices might desire to consult him, the justices came to a conclusion without consulting him, and that he scrupulously abstained from referring to the case in any way. But while that is so, a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”

Here – in the case of the Jersey justices – whilst all splendid fellows, no doubt, and worthy of being members of the most exclusive of gentlemen’s clubs – they have known each-other for many years – actually socialise with one-another – dine with one-another  – employ one-another – recommend one-another – appoint one-another – and sit in judgment on one-another’s cases – and do so in cases in which a victory for a lowly pleb applicant would result in the career-annihilation of one or more of their number.

Whilst no-doubt, certain people wish we could return to a simpler, more civilised age – in which a gentleman’s word and reputation was all the guarantee one required – the applicant remains unaware, in spite of relevant research,  of any ECtHR jurisprudence that endorses being a “stout-fellow” or a “clubbable-chap” as satisfying the “positive obligations” upon the contracting state to secure the “procedural” and “substantive” measures required to secure the “effective” delivery of Article 6.

[The above-quoted text is a short extract from the Grounds, Statement-of-Case, and Skeleton-Argument in Stuart Syvret vs. Secretary of State for Justice, and the Privy Council.]

Stuart Syvret

 

REVISITED: A BRIGHT, SHINING APOCALYPSE:

SIMILAR-FACT-EVIDENCE:

THE JUDICIAL CONCEALMENT OF CHILD-ABUSE

THE JUDICIAL CONCEALMENT OF CLINICAL MURDER 

A Criminal Conspiracy to Pervert Justice
Between the Nursing & Midwifery Council
And Jersey’s Crown Prosecution Service:
Three Key Evidential Exhibits Explained.

January 2015  – and I’m expanding this article so as to explain more fully the context and background to this evidence, which I originally published in December 2012.

I’m up-dating this posting in support of the national campaign to fully expose and understand the child-abuse cover-ups, and by adding to that public understanding, help society prevent such things in the future.

Sooner or later – inevitably – the focus of the UK investigative campaigns to expose the decades of child-abuse cover-ups is going to settle upon the British judiciary.

Yes – as shocking as that may seem to a UK audience, culpability for the scale and depth of the British child-abuse cover-ups is as much a case of judicial corruption, as it is of political corruption.

Read this posting – consider the evidence here – and you will begin to understand how power in the British Establishment – yes,  even judicial power – can be turned towards the cover-up of shockingly serious crimes.

The unthinkable is – in fact – thinkable.

In July 2007, in my then capacity as a Senator, and as Health & Social Services Minister, I became the first ever public figure in Jersey to investigate, identify and speak-out against the decades of concealed child-abuse.

Consequently, I was subjected to an illegal conspiracy involving Jersey’s London appointed Crown Officers and the island’s most senior civil-servants to engineer my dismissal.  This was back in July 2007 – long before the public were aware of the Jersey scandals – longer still before aware of Jimmy Savile, and before the other celebrity child-abusers became known – long before the associated failures and collusions of various public authorities such as the BBC were recognised – long before the suggestion of a Whitehall child-abuse ring was globally reported.

Back in July 2007, it seemed to Jersey’s corrupt and culpable public-authorities – and the authorities in London who empower and protect them – that the lid I was lifting could be crammed back down – slammed-shut – if only I could be discredited. Thus it was – in response to my investigations into child-abuse cover-ups – I came to be accused of “undermining staff morale” for rejecting inadequate Special Case Reviews (SCRs), for demanding answers to hard questions, and for publicly criticising Jersey’s child-protection apparatus. In particular, I was attacked for giving an honest Ministerial answer to a question I was asked in the Jersey parliament concerning child-protection. On the 16th July 2007, in my answer I said: –

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

Within hours of me giving that answer in the Jersey parliament,  the conspiracy to engineer my dismissal had begun. We now know for a stark – evidenced – fact that that conspiracy took place, because since then, a contemporaneous file-note written by Jersey’s good Police Chief has been obtained.

The file-note provides a dramatic insight into how high-level child-abuse cover-ups are able to happen in Britain, in that those conspiring to conceal the child-abuse in Jersey thought nothing of – regarded it as a natural step – to attempt to suborn an actual Police Chief  – into their plot.

The then Police Chief, Graham Power QPM ( who was himself later subjected to a conspiracy, and illegally suspended) was shocked by the plot when – at a meeting on the 25th July 2007 – Bill Ogley, Chief Executive & head of the Jersey civil service tried to involve him.  Mr Power left the meeting and returned immediately to Police Headquarters and wrote the file-note, a key part of which says this: –

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

But child-abuse is not the only profoundly serious crime the Jersey Establishment have concealed.

And, perhaps, on reflection, people shouldn’t find that so surprising.

After all – if the system is wiling and able to conceal crimes of such profundity as the battery, torture, rape, sodomy  – and possible murder – of children, surely the concealment of other crimes comes easily?

So it was that from that summer of 2007, I came to realise that a whole panoply of gross criminality was routinely – and for decades – concealed by the Jersey authorities and the narrow, self-selecting, self-protecting oligarchy that rules the island. Those crimes include routine wholesale corruption, bribery, blackmail, coercion, perjury, battery, rape, manslaughter, attempted murder- and murder. So on behalf of my then constituents I began investigating those crimes too. For the first time in over 800 years, the Jersey polity faced exposure for what it was – essentially, a lawless and dangerous feudal oligarchy ruled by a form of ancient Norman ‘cosa nostra’.

I had to be stopped. Somehow.

And that was huge problem for the Jersey Establishment because I was the most prominent opposition member of the Jersey parliament.

The courageous Police Chief Graham Power was illegally suspended in November 2008 – and thus – with the Jersey Police Force back under the customary direct political control of the local Establishment – I was then subjected to an illegal massed police raid one morning, arrested – taken into custody and locked in a police-cell for seven-and-a-half hours whilst the home I shared with my then-partner – also a member of the Jersey parliament – was turned over from top to bottom – and all that carried out without even a search-warrant.

The supposed “crime”?

Supposedly “breaking the data protection law”. I supposedly broke the law by making public-interest disclosures and publishing evidence that showed corruption – and the cover-up of many serious crimes against my constituents  – including crimes of child-abuse  – and of murder.

In essence, the Jersey oligarchy and its corrupt judiciary were desperate to crush and silence me – and make an example of me – as they had with the Police Chief. They were terrified; they knew that unless they could intimidate me into silence – and by doing so harass and intimidate other whistle-blowers into silence – many serious cover-ups were going to be exposed.

Following the raid and arrest I was charged and prosecuted by directly conflicted public officials for exposing the illegal cover-up of a powerful, establishment rapist,  and also a clinical serial-killer a rogue male nurse with a history of battery, rape, drug-abuse, hospital drug-theft and possession of unlicensed fire-arms & large quantities of ammunition.

The work I was doing on behalf of my constituents was straightforward public-interest disclosure and public-interest journalism. Nowhere else  – in any Western society would this oppressive action have been taken against me. And even if it had been – it would have been thrown out at the first hearing by any respectable court.

But this is Jersey, where – in reality – the judiciary are the real power; a “government-within-a-government” – to quote the former Police Chief.

A “judicial” establishment – with many decades of concealed child-abuse and child-abuse cover-ups – behind them.

The stakes could not be higher.

My “conviction” for “breaking” the data protection law was a pre-ordained outcome.

But in the “judicial” proceedings against me things went catastrophically wrong for the Jersey Establishment. My defence-case and my expert witness-testimony prove the 1999 curtailment of the murder-investigation into the rogue nurse had taken place – and that I was fully justified in my public-interest defence.

How did Jersey’s politicised, corrupt, child-abuse concealing judiciary respond to this turn of events?

Suddenly – after three months of the case proceedings – they decided my public-interest disclosure defence was “no longer admissible”.

Because they had no answer to it – it annihilated the “case” against me;

But they carried on with the prosecution anyway.

You find it hard to imagine that such judicial corruption can occur in modern Britain?

This was a case of a prominent opposition politician – one who was leading the campaign to expose decades of child-abuse  – and other serious crimes – being subjected to a political show-trial  – and not being permitted to run a defence-case.

It gets worse.

Should you still find the very notion of such corruptions difficult to accept as occurring in Britain – if you still can’t accept that the highest authorities will collude and conspire to corruptly conceal dramatically serious crimes – read the three brief items of evidence below.

After my public-interest defence was banned –  by Jersey’s corrupted judiciary – I submitted the evidence concerning the dangerous rogue nurse to the UK’s nursing regulator authority – the Nursing and Midwifery Council – the nursing equivalent of the GMC.

Medical patients  – people at their most vulnerable – depend for their safety – for their very lives – on the NMC.

The over-arching responsibility  of that public authority is to protect people from dangerous nurses.

What did the NMC do with my complaint?

The NMC colluded and conspired  with the actual Crown authorities of Jersey to cover-up the case.

The Jersey judicial authorities conspired with the NMC to lie to me – and to pervert the course of justice.

Seems extraordinary? Just as the judicial cover-up of child-abuse seems extraordinary? It seems implausible – that the judiciary, and authorities like the NMC would lie – would conspire – to cover-up deeply serious crimes?

Read the three, brief items of evidence below. It’s only a few paragraphs – but it will reveal to any thinking person just what unassailable  public authorities can be capable of. The depths to which corruption can take things.

Read them – then never again be surprised at the depravity that public power can be bent and corrupted to.

The quotes below are from three key evidential exhibits in respect of the malfeasant conduct of the NMC, and the criminal enterprise that is the Jersey prosecution and judicial system. The exhibits are:

1: An extract from an e-mail exchange of questions and answers between Stuart Syvret and the Nursing & Midwifery Council,  which took place over 11th – 22nd October 2010.

2: A letter to the NMC, dated 28th May 2010, from Jersey Crown prosecution Advocate Stephen Baker.

3: An extract from the official court transcript of the 3rd November 2010, of the data protection prosecution against Stuart Syvret.

I need not write any great exposition – as, really, you know – this stuff speaks for itself.

Loud and clear.

1: Excerpts from E-mailed questions to the NMC, from Stuart Syvret, written on 20th October 2010:

[Relevant replies from Peter Pinto de Sa of the NMC, written on 22nd October 2010, below.]

Questions from Stuart Syvret (October 2010):

1: Why has the NMC been corresponding with, and allowing itself to be influenced by, Jersey’s wholly conflicted Law Officers’ department in respect of the case?

4: Why have I been misled by the NMC in respect of the Data Protection and Freedom of Information requests I have made – in that evidence of direct relevance to my complaints – and evidence in respect of the contacts between the NMC and the Jersey authorities and/or their agents – has been improperly hidden from me?

Answers from the NMC (October 2010):

“1: You state that the NMC has been influenced by the Jersey law officers. I am not aware of any evidence to support this assertion. Please provide further details.”

“4: You assert that you have been misled in respect of your request for information under DPA/FoI. You assert that the NMC has had dealings with the Jersey authorities in respect of this case. I am not aware of any evidence to support your statement. Please provide further details.”

That exchange – which took place in October 2010 – must now be compared and contrasted with the following letter – only disclosed by the NMC to Stuart Syvret on the 7th November 2012: – 

2: Letter to the NMC, dated 28th May 2010 – from Jersey Crown prosecution Advocate Stephen Baker:

Note that this letter – from the Jersey Law Officers’ prosecutor, Advocate Stephen Baker – was written to the NMC on the 28th May 2010 – five months before the NMC were categorically denying to Stuart Syvret the existence of any such correspondence:

“BAKERPLATT
Professor Weir-Hughes
Nursing and Midwifery Council
23 Portland Place
London
WIB 1PZ
Sent by e-mail and post
28 May 2010

Dear Professor Weir-Hughes

I am the Crown Advocate who is retained by the Attorney General of Jersey to prosecute a number of allegations against Stuart Syvret, who is a local politician in Jersey. The case against Mr Syvret concerns two alleged offences committed by him contrary to the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005. In brief outline they arise from a particular posting he made upon his internet blog in March 2009 and what he said in that about [REDACTED] The trial of these matters is due to commence on 29th June 2010. [VERY SUBSTANTIAL REDACTIONS] concerning a letter that you received from Mr Syvret, which set out a number of concerns [VERY SUBSTANTIAL REDACTIONS] will not be completed before Mr Syvret’s trial in June.

“[VERY SUBSTANTIAL REDACTIONS] As part of my duty as Crown Advocate I am required to make disclosure to Mr Syvret of any matters which may be relevant to his defence. [REMAINDER REDACTED.]” (Emphasis added.)”

The above-cited letter proves – when contrasted with the answers from the NMC, as cited above – that the NMC were acting in bad faith – and lying to me – when that public authority wrote to me in October 2010, and falsely claimed that there had been no intercession with the NMC by Jersey prosecutors.

However – in addition to the evidenced lying by the NMC – it is also evidenced that Jersey prosecutors were lying in respect of the same issue – as the following item of evidence shows:

3: Extract from the official court transcript of the 3rd November 2010, of the data protection prosecution against Stuart Syvret:

The evidenced fact of the letter – cited above – from Jersey prosecuting lawyer, Crown Advocate Stephen Baker, written to the NMC in May 2010 – must now be compared and contrasted with an excerpt from the official court transcript from the 3rd November 2010, of the data protection prosecution against Stuart Syvret:

“DEFENDANT (Stuart Syvret, speaking, self-representing and cross-examining a witness):   Well, on the basis of what this witness has told to me, I’m assuming then that the intercession that has taken place with the NMC has not come from the States of Jersey Police force and that it has come from the Prosecution?

CROWN ADVOCATE:   There’s been no intercession by the Prosecution with the NMC.”

That Crown Advocate is – in fact – Advocate Stephen Baker – the man who wrote the intercession letter to the NMC. Six months earlier.

Oh dear.

Oh dear, oh dear.

Well; where that does that leave us?

I mean – it isn’t every day your entire prosecution and judicial system ends up being exposed – as a fraudulent, perjuring, justice-perverting criminal enterprise – by wholly damning, clinching evidence – supplied by a separate, external public authority – in this case the NMC – and damned by its own lies.

I mean – well; it doesn’t look too good – does it – for her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution system – to be lying – and conspiring – to illegally ‘fit-up’ opposition politicians?

Well – we can take heart; perhaps today is – in some small way – a moment of Armageddon – a beginning of the end – for a decadent regime of sleazy old gangsters and their vassals?

I mean, one doesn’t need to be terribly in tune with the basic requirements of the proper rule of law – or constitutional considerations  – to draw the obvious extrapolations from these facts; this set of circumstances – the evidence – in order to see how it ends.

Or, at least, see how it ends – if the reputation of the British Crown has any real meaning and substance.

Sometimes, “the system” has to defend itself – show to the world that “the system can work” – as in the reckoning of Watergate.

Stuart Syvret