COMMUNIQUÉS FROM THE APOCALYPSE.
“The conflicted magistrate Bridget Shaw repeatedly refused defence requests for disclosures of evidence; for example, refusing to assess, and recommend to the prosecution disclosure of any of the evidence relevant to the defence abuse-of-process application.
A very clear, extensive and fully argued disclosure list was prepared by the defence at the outset and sent to Advocate Robin Morris. The conflicted Bridget Shaw colluded with the prosecution throughout in denying the defence access to the vast majority of that material.
For example – it was necessary as a part of the abuse-of-process application to call the Attorney General William Bailhache – and the illegally suspended Police Chief Graham Power. The defence issued a summons to subpoena Bailhache – but Bailhache heard about this from his friend – and Michael Birt’s subordinate, Judicial Greffier Michael Wilkins – and quiet extraordinarily – simply told Wilkins not to issue the summons.
When the failure to issue the summons of her friend William Bailhache, by Wilkins was later raised in court by this applicant, rather than seeing Wilkins’ conduct for the grossly improper action it was, Bridget Shaw endorsed this interference with justice – and refused to allow the defence to call the witnesses.
This for charges the applicant had had less than 24 hours notice of.
“……..The Jersey Data Protection Law is approved by her Majesty in Council. It is – to all practical purposes – a copy-&-paste of the equivalent English legislation. Like the English Data Protection Law – it was introduced to do what it says on its face; such purposes include – expressly – and unambiguously – public-interest disclosure provisions, and provisions for the protection of journalism.
It was – plainly – nota part of the “legislative intent” – of the UK parliament – nor of the Jersey parliament – when introducing the Data Protection Laws – to suppress legitimate public-interest disclosure, nor to suppress journalism.
That this has been permitted to occur is a gross, ultra vires failure of the Secretary of State, Privy Council and her Majesty in Council’s oversight function in respect of the approval of primary legislation in Jersey.
If the approval of primary legislation by her Majesty in Council was to knowingly involve the approval of “laws” that said one thing on their face – and which had a plain purpose, and satisfactory safe-guards built in – but which were then going to be abused and applied for other purposes, contrary to the wording of the law, then the process of approval by her Majesty in Council would be a fraudulent process.
Expanding on that latter view, it is reasonable to assume that when her Majesty in Council gave approval to the Jersey Data Protection Law – which for all practical purposes and insofar as is relevant to these applications, is identical to the UK Data Protection Law – the assumption of her Majesty and her advisors was that the Jersey Law would be applied in accordance with what that law actually says – and its legislative purposes.
For corrupt, oppressive – and frankly dangerous purposes – they choose to ignore entire, vital, sections of the Law – its key-safeguards – such as public interest disclosure and journalism – and have instead invented for that Law entirely unwritten purposes – such as the suppression of opposition politicians, journalists and bloggers – and enabling Jersey’s authorities to corruptly conceal serious crimes.
The oppressive purposes the Jersey authorities have invented for the Data Protection law – are only applied and enforced – against their opponents. Dramatic and evidenced examples exist of the oppressive abuse of the Data Protection Law against opposition politicians and writers – which contrast with jaw-dropping examples of failure to apply the law against actual, overt criminals in connection with data abuses, but who happen to be on the side of the Jersey oligarchy.
Further – the oppressive and discriminatory abuse the Jersey authorities have been permitted to make of the Data Protection Law – quite in addition to simply not being a legitimate purpose of that law, and an abuse of the process of approval by her Majesty in Council – also has the effect of placing the United Kingdom in stark and plain breach of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Article 3 – Inhuman or Degrading Treatment;
Article 5 – Liberty and Security;
Article 6 – Fair Trail;
Article 7 – Retrospectivity;
Article 10 – Freedom of Expression;
Article 13 – Effective Remedy;
And Protocol 1-
Article 3 – Free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.
To take merely two of the above-listed Convention Rights – 10, Freedom of Expression, and 14, Discrimination – the overt, continuous and dramatically evidenced abuses of those Rights by the Jersey authorities places the United Kingdom – and thus the respondent authorities, the Crown, Privy Council and Secretary of State – in clear breach of the ECHR.
It is unlawful for any public authority to breach the provisions of the ECHR.
Those unlawful actions of the respondent authorities are seriously compounded by the plain and obvious lack of any effective remedy – contra Articles 6 and 13 – in the politicised and directly conflicted “judicial” apparatus of Jersey.”