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.

Stuart Syvret.


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:

Professor Weir-Hughes
Nursing and Midwifery Council
23 Portland Place
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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.