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.

Press Release:

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







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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.