THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND – AND THE JERSEY OLIGARCHY:

THE FOOLISH & NAÏVE – BEGUILED BY THE WICKED

The Terms of Reference of the Review – into the Review;

The First Review Having Proven Problematic

To the Jersey Oligarchy and their Protectors in London.

A very vulnerable person – a young woman – powerless, and socially isolated – suffered sexual harassment at the hands of a Church of England Churchwarden in Jersey.

The Churchwarden in question – with an extant history of sexually harassing women church-goers – is one Robb Averty – close relative of former Senator John Averty – current Chief Executive of the company that owns Jersey’s only “newspaper” – and current Deputy Chairman of Jersey’s off-shore finance industry regulatory authority, the Jersey Financial Services Commission.

Former States Deputy Bob Hill has written a very good summation of the general inadequacy and incompetence of England’s C of E hierarchy’s encounter with “The Jersey Way”.

As I wrote in a comment under that posting:

“A wise and perceptive article which draws together a lot of the obvious strands.

I’m afraid the Church of England has messed-up its response to the safeguarding failure and oppression suffered by HG.

Sadly, what we see now is yet another messy, inadequate “Jersey Way” hotchpotch of secrecy, cronyism, and conflicts of interest.

The Archbishop should speak to Her Majesty about these matters, and simply have the Dean stripped of Her Majesty’s Letters Patent.

There’s no other way any kind of meaningful accountability will ever be imposed upon the toxic, self-protecting claque that is the Jersey establishment.”

Bob Hill’s posting is a very good place to start, for those not familiar with this scandalous saga – yet another wretched, shabby & contemptible display of the invulnerability of the powerful in Jersey – and the contrasting Kafkaesque vulnerability of the weak & powerless.

The head of the Church of England in the island, the Dean – an Office which, just like that of the Crown’s Lieutenant Governor in Jersey, has been wholly captured and perverted by the local oligarchy –  sided with an abuser, and against the distressed & vulnerable victim of abuse.

Sadly – the victim in this case – HG – is not alone in Jersey.

That there can be such an extensive – and ever-growing – legion of the persecuted – of those failed by authority – victims of abuse, violence, corruption, oppression, battery, rape, attempted murder – in the Crown island of Jersey, as well as being a manifold tragedy, also speaks of the fin de siècle decadence that grips the place like a cancer.

Just once – finally – in a vast, evidenced and extensively documented catalogue of disgusting failure by the relevant overseeing and responsible UK authorities, including the government in London – it seemed – at last – one of them – the Church of England – had done the right thing: investigated properly – and instigated some accountability.

Alas – and predictably – the UK leadership of the Church of England lost its nerve – and caved-in to the bullying, influence, lobbying, money and power of the Jersey mafia – and agreed with them that “there must be some mistake” with their initial Review – and that there needed to be a Review, into that Review.

And even more predictably – the UK Church of England authorities have been beguiled into appointing as “their” Commissioned reviewer – quite obviously one of the most profoundly conflicted – and wholly unsuited – people in all of Britain  – Dame Heather Steel; a former member of the very entity most responsible for the plain failure of the rule-of-law in Jersey – the island’s judiciary.

Yes – somehow – and you simply could not invent this level of incompetence – the Church of England has ended up appointing as its Commissioned reviewer – a former member of Jersey’s structurally ultra vires judicial apparatus – and close colleague and friend of Philip Bailhache, Michael Birt and William Bailhache.

And – just in case that wasn’t crazed enough – Heather Steel is also going to be “assisted” throughout – by a Jersey police officer – chosen and appointed by the Jersey Police Force – the key authority – after the island’s judiciary – most culpable for engaging in what was a straightforward criminal enterprise – the wholly illegal kidnapping, false-imprisonment and coercion of HG.

It’s difficult to know where to begin any analyses of the Terms-of-Reference I publish below. Perhaps in the coming days we might take a close reading of what these ToR really mean – and – in particular – the issues that are omitted from them.

In the mean-time, suffice it to say, the document has been very cleverly drafted – so plausible – so credible – does it seem at first reading, to the uninitiated – the naïve.

The lack of sophistication – of understanding – on the part of the Church of England leadership, and other UK authorities, when it comes to the exercise of power in Jersey hasn’t even caught up with the 20th century, let alone the 21st.

Perhaps the only way to convey the truth to the UK – to London – about the “thing” that is power in Jersey, would be to send them an old-style pen & ink map of the Channel, with the island depicted as though by ancient explorers, as terra incognita – with the description, “Here be Monsters”.

Stuart Syvret

 Terms of Reference for the Investigation following the Korris Review into Safeguarding in the Deanery of Jersey:

Purpose

 


1. The Investigation is to make appropriate inquiries, review and report upon the available evidence, make findings of fact and make recommendations about whether or not disciplinary complaints should be brought against any member of the clergy as a result of the matters raised in the second set of paragraphs 1) to 5) inclusive of the recommendations starting on page 47 and concluding on page 48 in the Korris Review into Safeguarding in the Deanery of Jersey, [i]namely, for:



a.  Allowing a church warden to operate in contravention of the Safeguarding procedures and the training he had undertaken.



b.  Failure to notify the Safeguarding Advisor on receipt of the complaint.



c.  Failure to implement and act in accordance with Diocesan Safeguarding Procedure in the handling of the initial complaint interview.

d.  Failure to record and make all documentation available for a review of a Safeguarding matter as required by the Safeguarding procedures.

e.  Despite the request of the Bishop of Winchester, unwillingness to  permit review of Safeguarding practice and also discouraging others from participating.

f.   Any other inappropriate or unbecoming conduct in connection with  these matters.



2.   Upon receipt of the report of this Investigation, the Bishop of Winchester will decide whether and if so what actions are required, including (as a priority) whether disciplinary complaints should be laid and against  whom.  

Processes

3. The Investigation shall be conducted in private.

4. The Investigation is to gather and review all available and relevant evidence including, but not limited to, that considered by the Korris Review. Where relevant information was not made available to the Korris Review the Investigator may inquire into and seek to gather that
information and make findings of fact about why that information was not made available. 

5. The Investigator may interview or seek information from any relevant person in the course of the Investigation. The Investigator shall have the same authority to seek information from a person as if the Bishop of Winchester were seeking that information. 

6.  Any person interviewed or requested to provide information to the Investigator shall be provided with a copy of these Terms of Reference.


7 The Investigation shall be conducted in a manner which seems appropriate to the Investigator, at all times acting in accordance with the principles of fairness and respecting the human rights and other rights of those involved in the process.

Reporting



8. The Investigator shall write a report setting out:



i.  a summary of the inquiries that have been made;



ii.  relevant findings of fact that have been made;



iii.  recommendations about whether action (whether disciplinary or otherwise) should be considered in respect of any person  and in the case of any possible disciplinary process may identify the apparent causes of complaint against that person. 

9. Where it is proposed that the report will make adverse findings of fact or recommend the consideration of disciplinary action against a person, the Investigator shall ensure that that person has had an opportunity to comment on that proposed finding or recommendation before finally determining or reporting the matter. 

10. The Investigator shall deliver a copy of the report to the Bishop of Winchester. Upon receipt the Bishop of Winchester will supply a copy of the report to anyone against whom disciplinary action is recommended  and to the Bailiff of Jersey, the Dean of Jersey and the Ministry of Justice.

11. The Bishop of Winchester shall, within a reasonable period of time, notify  anyone against whom disciplinary action is recommended whether disciplinary action will be taken and the complaints which will be  considered. 

12.  The Bishop of Winchester shall provide a copy of the report of the Investigation to the Commissary of the Visitation of the Parishes of the Deanery of Jersey, Bishop John Gladwin. The report of the Investigation may be used to inform the findings of the Visitation.



13.   The report of the investigation or a summary of its findings and conclusions will be published in due course, and / or after the conclusion of any recommended disciplinary proceedings.  Where necessary the report may be summarised and / or redacted for legal reasons or to protect the identity of any person who features in the report or who has provided relevant information to the investigation.



Appointments



14.  The Bishop of Winchester hereby appoints Dame Heather Steel DBE as his Commissioner and the Investigator to lead this Investigation. 

15.  The Investigator shall be advised and assisted by a police officer  nominated by the States of Jersey Police.

16.   The Investigator may be assisted by such other person as the Investigator shall request and the Bishop of Winchester shall appoint. 

17.   The Investigator may delegate any of her functions to such other person  as she sees fit, including interviewing and requesting information from  any person.


The Lord Bishop of Winchester


[i] Independent Review of a Safeguarding Complaint for the Diocese of Winchester commissioned by the Winchester Diocesan Safeguarding Panel and published on 8 March 2013 (“the Korris Review”): “to establish whether there has been inappropriate or unbecoming conduct… which may lead to the need for a disciplinary process to be conducted.”

 

A “CONFIDENCE-GAME”

confidence game”  – any elaborate swindling operation in which advantage is taken of the confidence that the victim reposes in the swindler.

Encyclopedia Britannica

We call those who run “confidence-games”, or “confidence-tricks” – con-men, con-artist or grifters.

Their targets – the “suckers” – known  as “marks”, will often be manipulated by very elaborate cons, involving impressive locations, and “shills” – smartly-dressed people who appear plausible but who are “in” on the racket.

Indeed – some “confidence-games” are so elaborate – so staged – the spectacle is not unlike a piece of theatre.

The gold, phallic mace representing the British Crown’s power, and the Queen’s Lieutenant Governor, and Her Bailiff, sitting in control of what passes for a “judiciary” and a “court” in the off-shore Crown tax-shelter of Jersey.

The potential diversity of racketeering swindles – the invention and sale of fake services – is virtually boundless, and as old as organised society. And by no means limited to small-scale, “private-sector” confidence-men. Entire state-agencies can be rackets.

But not, of course, those authorities we look to for public safety – for our protection – for the rule-of-law – for basic honesty and truth. At least, not here in the West – not in respectable Britain.

As a society, we pay for – and we cherish – a complex policing, prosecution and judicial system that is amongst the best – if not the best – in the world.

But if, say, hypothetically, your wife or daughter was raped – or murdered – or your child was abused – and this vast, elaborately expensive “structure” that you had placed “confidence” in – that you had been duped into believing was a real “criminal justice system” – in fact turned-out to be a confidence-game run by grifters and their shills, and instead of protecting your loved-one, was in fact a scam, that actually covered-up for rapists, murderers and child-abusers if that’s what it took to protect the “image” of the racket – then you would be a “mark” – a sucker.

But you’re not like that, are you?

You’re smart – you’re no fool. Some poor schmucks might fall for such racketeering – but you’d see through the flim-flam a mile away.

So when you read this –

http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/a-bright-shining-apocalypse/

– but then you hear someone who looks and sounds plausible – the Monarch’s Solicitor General in Jersey – and who claims to be an independent director of public prosecutions on the side of the proper rule-of-law and of the truth – asserting that those evidenced, secret interferences by Crown Advocate Stephen Baker with the Nursing & Midwifery Council  – and his subsequent lies in court – were not, in fact, evidenced, secret interferences by Crown Advocate Stephen Baker with the Nursing & Midwifery Council  – nor lies in court – why, then you’ll be quite certain that there must be  – really, really must be – a genuine reason just why black-is-white?

Because you’re no fool.

Meanwhile – those of us a who aren’t dupes – who are not “marks” – have to ask, “are the Crown functions  in Jersey – such things as the judiciary, the prosecution system – anything other, in truth, than a racketeering operation?”

After all, when we listen to our grifter telling a collection of idiots (the Jersey parliament) that “black-is-white”  – we look at the facts – like the letters – the transcripts – the evidence, there to be read in that link above –  those of us who are not schmucks can see as clear-as-day that there is only one thing the Crown could have said in the Jersey parliament on Tuesday 4th June 2013 in answer to the stark fact of the Crown’s corruption – the Crown’s perversion of the course of justice – so as to conceal the most serious of crimes – and to oppress democratic opposition politicians – and that was – “it’s a fair cop”.

Or words to that effect.

The Crown, of course, didn’t say that – because the Crown – its delegated power in Jersey at least – is a “confidence-game” – and no matter what the plain facts are, if enough men with received pronunciation and wearing suitable fancy-dress assert the opposite of the plain facts – then the hallucination will be maintained.

At least, that is, in the eyes of fools.

But remember, this is not merely the conduct of some local party boss – or a few “bought-and-owned” hick-town grifters. This is the conduct – these are the behaviours – of shysters  who have been expressly gifted the power and immunity to enact such corruptions  via the personal – executive – grant of “Letters Patent” by the British Queen.

So when we listen to crooks like “dim” Tim Le Cocq (Jersey Attorney General – expressly appointed by the Queen) or Howard “blunt” Sharp (Jersey Solicitor General – expressly appointed by the Queen) – in response to questions from Deputy Trevor Pitman, lying to the Jersey legislature on Tuesday 4th June 2013 – to the ultimate purpose of attempting to criminally conceal the fact that a number of my former constituents were subjected to murder and attempted murder – and that those crimes have been criminally concealed – it’s important to understand the “chain-of-agency”. Whilst it’s individual holders of “Letters Patent” who are lying to us, they’re  merely links in that “chain-of-agency”; the ultimate power – the “authority” – that is, in fact, conning us with a Jersey “law-enforcement” system that is, in truth, little more than a racket, is the Crown.

At least, that is, if the highest Crown authority knows the truth of what is being done in the name of the Crown?

If the Crown authorities in London have been “suckered” – like so many “marks” have in Jersey – then that would be a different matter.

But the Crown has to be able to show – at law – that it has exercised proper oversight – due-diligence – of the use made of its delegated powers; due-diligence because the truth could never be expected to be actively passed up to the Crown by the Jersey oligarchs. Even in the case of those not personally conflicted in the corruption, so insular – so insulated from reality – so crazed with Groupthink are the local collection of flim-flam men and grifters – they’ve actually succeeded in even conning themselves into buying their own shtick  – into believing their whole confidence-routine is reality.

Of course seasoned Jersey watchers are already familiar with the antics of these local nutcases; These spectacles are ever entertaining, but not so surprising. The fascinating question, and it’s one that’s going to become more and more of a curiosity, is just how on Earth the Crown – the very British state – and all that it’s supposed to represent in respect of “values” – of “democracy” – of the “rule of law” – came to be in a position whereby its name, authority and fiat was being so abused by a collection of manifest villains and halfwits, so as to cover-up child-abuse, attempted murder, murder, rape and assorted examples of conspiracies to pervert the course of justice – including the evidencedly illegal suspension of the Police Chief?

It has to say something powerful – and not a little alarming – about decadence – of stagnation – of decline and fall – of the failure of what should have been the self-protecting robustness of the British system. As I’ve observed before, the manifest criminal anarchy the Crown functions in Jersey have descended into in recent years is “too-big-to-be-too-big-to-fail”. If, that is, the “system” has any sense of respectable self-preservation?  The usual way – with the British system – and the British establishment – is that scandals – even very, very serious ones – can be “discreetly” “parked” – kept on the back-burner – fiddled with by one or two defective, ‘make-believe’  “inquiries” – until sufficient time has passed – a couple of decades maybe – when the various culpable officials – and establishment villains – have passed away. Then, eventually, something like the truth is permitted to emerge. As with Hillsborough, Orgreave, the murder of Daniel Morgan, the murder of Stephen Lawrence, Mid-staffs, Savile, the BBC, Stuart Hall, Dolphin Square  – and many other, though lower-profile, examples of the endemic – but startlingly unacknowledged – corruption in  British society.

It is in such cases that we see that the ultimate “safeguard” we’re supposed to enjoy – that “thing” known as “the-rule-of-law”  – can fail, often disastrously. But then an even bigger illusion – that the UK actually has the effective rule-of-law – can carry on being projected to an hallucinating society via the occasional – decades-too-late – major “revelation”.

But is the stark collapse in the rule-of-law, of democracy – of basic public safety – in Jersey in that category of scandals, in which the truth can be held at bay for a couple of decades until the various gangsters and shills – bent judges, bent cops, bent civil servants – responsible for it are dead?

The Crown has sleep-walked into permitting self-interested factions, such as London & Jersey’s Freemasons, to run this conveniently “self-governing” – and lucrative tax-haven enclave – as a de facto mafia-state – with corruption actually worse than you find in Sicily – on open display; the local potentates & their hired-hands performing just as brazenly and with all the icy nerve – all the “confidence” – you’d expect from  skilled con-artists. Corruption hiding-in-plain-sight. For example – the Crown’s Attorney General answering questions in the Jersey parliament – straightforwardly lying – to the purpose of covering-up dramatic crimes – and further covering-up the corrupt cover-up of those crimes – and further compounding all of the evidenced conspiracies to pervert justice.

Something that would have seemed extraordinary – did we not now know that actual United Kingdom Attorney Generals – such as Sir Michael Havers – concealed child-abuse  – supressed investigations and charges – so as to protect the British Establishment from scandals. Just as the Jersey Attorney Generals have striven to protect the Jersey Establishment – and frequently themselves – from the same scandals.

The delegated Crown power in Jersey is a racketeering operation – a confidence-game – in which the key grifters, empowered by Her Majesty’s “Letters Patent”, are conducting themselves in ways in which all pretence – even any attempt at subtlety – has been abandoned, and claims are made that “black-is-white” to a local applauding claque of foot-stamping lackeys most of whose place in the Jersey parliament has been carefully engineered precisely because they are a-moral, pliable cretins.

Still, as much as we may marvel and be grimly fascinated  at the parallel-universe antics of Jersey’s crypto-feudal fantasists – for the public good, they have to be  – sooner  – or later – confronted with reality, stopped – and made accountable.

The facts and the consequences are going to out.

As they always, inevitably, were.

And British state-power must needs be on the right side of that history.

And quickly – for the hour’s getting late.

Stuart Syvret

EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON: # 7

COMMUNIQUÉS FROM THE APOCALYPSE.

Welcome to today’s dispatches from the front-line – where Samuel Beckett could be on a dérive – in the plot of Catch-22 – or a frightened Franz Kafka could be revising the plot of The Trial – from observing the Potemkin Court that is the Jersey “judicial” system.

Stuart Syvret

EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON – # 7

“Thanks to modern systems of accessing knowledge, and personal experience – it can be stated with some confidence that this applicant is probably better-placed than any person in the previous 800 years of Jersey’s status as a quasi-self-governing jurisdiction to see and understand the truenature of the Crown’s purported “judicial” function in the island.

Whilst very extensive written submissions are made in these applications – submissions which deal in detail with both evidential facts and legal argument – there is a need for an economical way of summarising what it is we are dealing with – a means of distilling “the issue” down to its pure essence – so that it can be easily held up to the light, as it were – and the responsibilities of the respondent Crown, Privy Council, and Secretary of State can be considered accordingly.

No new terminology needs to be invented. The perfect phrase already exists:

Potemkin Village.

The Jersey judicial and prosecution function is a Potemkin Village.

It is as simple as that.

With grand buildings, and fanfares, and fancy-dress, and ceremonies and stentorian posturing – the prosecution function and the judicial function in Jersey might – at the most fleeting of glances – give the appearance of being a real prosecution function – and a real judicial function.

They are not.

The “system” is a Potemkin Village.

With a Potemkin Court.

The instant you get up close to it – you see it for the painted scenery that it is. The fakery isn’t even well done. You can see the supposedly solid structures, swaying with the breeze. You go up to them – peer around the edges of the sagging cardboard and paste – and see a few silly old men and their stage-hands desperately trying to keep the painted flats propped-up with a few lengths of 2 x 4 and some bits of string – the images running & melting in the dampness – futile in the hard gale and rain of modernity.

The Crown prosecution function and the Crown judicial function in Jersey are not – remotely – lawful – are not real. Not by any even vaguely credible application of the basic principles of the proper administration of justice.  They are fake; are make-believe.

The phrase Potemkin Village arose from what many historians now say was a myth, of Grigory Potemkin erecting fake villages along the banks of the Dnieper River in order to give a false impression of inhabited and happy communities to Empress Catherine II during a visit to the Crimea in 1787.

Although of dubious historic origin, the phrase Potemkin Village is now widely used in languages around the world – typically in politics, economics and law –  to describe any construction (literal or figurative) built solely to deceive others into thinking that some entity or state of affairs is better than it actually is.

The phrase “Potemkin village” has come to mean, especially in a political context, any hollow or false construct, physical or figurative, meant to hide an undesirable, inconvenient or potentially damaging reality.

There could not be a better description of the purpose – and the reality – of the Crown functions in Jersey.

The phrase Potemkin Village is especially valuable in the context of these applications – and the responsibilities – and unlawful failures – of the defendant UK authorities, because the phrase is often used to describe tortuous and, essentially artificial legal constructs, arrived at by courts so as to avoid potentially controversial collisions with the executive or legislative realms.

The construction of a Potemkin-Village-judgment by a court will be engaged in when the court – often wrongly – finds it easier to avert its eyes from the plain realities of a case, because a true and accurate judgment would effectively drive an important and far-reaching policy decision. Some judges and some courts are especially cautious about producing judgments which might be seen to tread onto the territory of matters best left to the executive and the legislature.

It seems probable that such considerations – whether the issues concerning the breakdown in good governance and the structural ultra vires of the polity in the Crown Dependency of Jersey should be best left to the UK executive – will colour the thinking of the London courts in respect of these applications.

However – the rule of law is, ultimately – the rule of law.

Then no matter that the correct application and enforcement of the law does force the executive into a change in policy – so be it.

As the late Tom Bingham wrote in his book, The Rule of Law: –
“Ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for the purpose for which the powers were conferred, without exceeding the limits of such powers and not unreasonably.
“This principle follows naturally from the two principles just considered, and indeed may be said to be inherent in them. But it deserves separate mention, since many would regard it as lying at the very heart of the rule of law principle. It is indeed fundamental. For although the citizens of a democracy empower their representative institutions to make laws which, duly made, bind all to whom they apply, and it falls to the executive, the government of the day and its servants, to carry these laws into effect, nothing ordinarily authorizes the executive to act otherwise than in strict accordance with those laws.”

To suggest that the courts might be cautious in making decisions that have far-reaching policy impacts upon the executive, is not to make any criticism of the courts. In a democracy it is right and sensible that the court be alert to the fact it is not its role to govern.

But if some current policy position of the executive is unlawful – if some acts or omissions are ultra vires – if the case-specific circumstances are such that it is proportionately required – then the rule of law trumps the policy.

The fatal difficulty for the respondent authorities in these applications – the Privy Council, Crown, and Secretary of State – is not merely that the polity of Jersey for which they are responsible is a Potemkin Village – but, actually, the apparatus and mechanism of the respondent authorities themselves – by which they pretend to discharge their duties in respect of the Crown Dependency of Jersey – is itself a Potemkin Village.

The Crown Dependencies oversight function exercised by the respondent authorities is a Potemkin Village.

It is an ultra vires situation – with many dramatic and evidenced and deeply serious ultra vires consequences.

No matter that it overturn decades of policy stasis on the part of the respondent authorities – their policy is stale – failed – stagnant – unlawful.

The rule of law will out…….”

 

“……….Commissioner Sir Christopher Pitchers:
“………….Sir Christopher Pitchers was chosen and appointed to hear the appeal by the directly and immensely conflicted Bailiff, Michael Birt – who had been the Attorney General in 1999.

Upon that basis alone – just as in the applicant’s tabled civil claims in Jersey and the appointment of Sir Charles Gray by Birt – the resultant tribunal could not be, nor ever was, regarded as “objective and impartial”.

A person cannot appoint judges in their own cause.

The fact that one has to argue for that point in Jersey – in the year 2013 – is, of itself, very clear evidence of the ultra vires failure of the Crown, Privy Council, and Secretary of State to ensure the proper administration of justice and effectiveness of human rights in the Crown Dependency of Jersey.

Commissioner Pitchers – although repeatedly asked – refused at the outset – and repeatedly refused for a sustained time – to declare his knowledge of, and acquaintance with, interested parties. This was unlawful.

It is established English jurisprudence that judges, in the first instance, can decide themselves whether they are conflicted – and can make an initial decision upon a recusal application.

However – it is established law that any potential conflicts of interest – no matter how remote – should be declared to the parties.

One of the key functions of judicial processes is the right to appeal. If a judge who has faced a recusal application which he has turned down, has failed to declare all relevant factors, then an affected party is automatically prevented from enjoying their right to mount an effective appeal.

Commissioner Pitchers only much later in the proceedings – and after persistent challenges – did eventually – and even then only with great reluctance – declare his knowledge of, and acquaintance with, certain conflicted parties.

The two parties in question being – Bailiff Michael Birt – and Deputy Bailiff William Bailhache – who Pitchers eventually admitted having dined with.

Quite extraordinarily, Pitchers had refused to disclosure these fatal facts for many, many months.

There are probably no more conflicted, interested parties in the proceedings against the applicant – than Michael Birt – and William Bailhache.

Both former Jersey Attorney Generals – both of who have – on the evidence – made various dangerous, conflicted, unsafe and corrupt decisions in respect of prosecutions; questionable prosecution decisions that the applicant was, expressly, investigating and challenging in the public interest, and as an elected representative.

Indeed, it was for having undertaken such activity – criticising the Office of Attorney General – the applicant was being prosecuted – as was made plain at an early stage, though probably inadvertently, by Michael Birt’s friend, prosecuting Advocate Stephen Baker….. ”

 

“……….Sir Christopher Pitchers was actually chosen and appointed by the most directly conflicted public official in Jersey – Michael Birt – yet not content with that, Pitchers then dines with Birt – and William Bailhache – the second-most conflicted public official in Jersey. He then – for months and months – illegally conceals these profoundly conflicting and contaminating facts from the defence.

The hubris on display exemplifies all that is dangerous and stagnant about judicial conduct in Jersey……….”

 

“………..Commissioner Pitchers was repeatedly, and from the outset, questioned about potential conflicts of interest and acquaintance with interested parties, by the defence. He kept that knowledge and evidence concealed for months.
Pitchers was not capable of constituting an objective and impartial tribunal in any matter involving the applicant – nor involving Bailhache or Birt. This is another grossly unlawful failure by Jersey’s judicial apparatus – and thus a grossly unlawful failure by the Crown, Privy Council, and Secretary of State…….”

 

“………..Nevertheless, the applicant obtained an affidavit from the former Chief of Police, Graham Power – which contains wholly damming testimony concerning the lawless conduct of Jersey Attorney General William Bailhache. The applicant again applied to make a judicial review application.
Remarkably – although he had already ruled that the question of the vires of the conduct of the Attorney General could not be challenged in the criminal appeal – Commissioner Pitchers was appointed – by the conflicted Michael Birt – to be the judge who heard this fresh judicial review application. Even more remarkably – Pitchers rejected judicially reviewing the vires of the conduct of the Attorney General – falsely claiming that the applicant already had access to a remedy in the criminal appeal – when Pitchers himself had already dismissed bringing any such matters into the criminal appeal.

By this stage events had transcended a point which the imaginings of Kafka alone could have conjured.  It was actually funny – in grim way – like some fantastical blend of The Trial – with Catch-22 – and as dramatised by Samuel Beckett.

During this rejected judicial review application, the applicant repeated a request he had made many times earlier, for the prosecution to disclose to him a copy of the detailed statements Police Chief Graham Power had prepared for the Wiltshire police force, because it had been suggested to the applicant that they contained evidence of relevance to his case and the defence arguments.

Throughout the earlier proceedings, the Crown prosecution lawyer – Michael Birt and William Bailhache’s friend, Stephen Baker – had repeatedly refused to disclose Police Chief Graham Power’s statement. Stephen Baker repeatedly claimed that “it would not be disclosed, because it did not contain anything of relevance to the case”.

Due only to the applicant’s persistence in asking the question, Commissioner Pitchers eventually – in one of his frequent and undisguised displays of irritation at the applicant’s impertinence in running a defence  – asked the prosecution lawyer “whether the document in question contained anything of relevance?”

Quiet astonishingly, the Crown lawyer Stephen Baker– after several moments of deafening silence – and staring at the ceiling – said – “I don’t know sir, I haven’t read it.”

Even setting aside all of the vast list of other, and prior, misfeasances and corruptions in the conduct of the case – and instead considering just this one moment – this was The End of the Crown’s case – the moment the prosecution self-immolated.

In making that statement, the prosecuting lawyer was admitting to having repeatedly lied to the courts – and lied throughout the entirety of the earlier proceedings – when falsely claiming that the evidence sought for disclosure had been considered, and deemed to be ‘not relevant’ and therefore, ‘not needing to be disclosed’.

This revelation showed a breathtaking abuse-of-process and a straightforward denial of justice.

It is worth digressing to just reflect upon the fact that what we are considering is – evidencedly – not some mere fatal “mistake” by the prosecuting lawyer – some inadvertent error that destroys the prosecution for having been an abuse-of-process – but rather out-and-out malfeasance. Up to the moment of his confession, Stephen Baker had repeatedly – repeatedly – with mens rea – lied to the court and the applicant. This is misconduct in a public office – and conspiracy to pervert justice – by Advocate Stephen Baker. But – in the Potemkin Village that is the criminal “justice” system in Jersey, who would charge and prosecute Baker? His close friends in the Law Officers Department who he works with on a day-to-day basis – and who were being protected from scrutiny by the malicious prosecution of the applicant in the first place?

What might have been the outcome of the prosecution against the applicant at earlier stages – if the evidence sought for disclosure had, in fact, been examined and assessed? Not only that statement by Mr Power – but other evidence too? Much – if not all of it – should have been disclosed to the applicant – as the applicant had sought from the outset in his original disclosure letter (supplied) to Advocate Robin Morris.  

The disclosures that should have followed would have had a dramatic effect upon the research, the course of – and the structure – and nature – of the defence case and arguments.

Any non-corrupt, self-respecting court – that is, any real court, as opposed to a Potemkin Court – would have – upon hearing Advocate Baker’s confession – dismissed all charges against the applicant, throwing the prosecution case against him out, there and then, as the gross miscarriage of justice and abuse-of-process it was. Moreover, a real court would have indicated it required a serious investigation into the conduct of Baker and the Crown prosecution more generally.

Commissioner Sir Christopher Pitchers – appointed by his conflicted dinning partner Michael Birt – simply ignored Crown Advocate Stephen Baker’s seismic confession – and just carried on – as though it hadn’t happened.

It was as though Commissioner Pitchers was hosting a convivial dinner-party, and Advocate Baker had farted – filling the room with a foul stench  – but host and fellow guests each stoically ignored the concussion and resultant odours – because pretending it hadn’t happened was the polite thing to do – and hoping that no-one else had noticed.

This applicant noticed.

This applicant will not go along with the pretence.

EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON: # 6

COMMUNIQUÉS FROM THE APOCALYPSE.

Today’s liftings from the lever-arches – and bulletins from the boxes.

Stuart Syvret

EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON # 6

“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.

Thus – notwithstanding stark and obvious abuses-of-process at the outset – just for example, the direct, political and personal contamination of the individual who ordered the prosecution and charging, William Bailhache – the applicant was prevented from making an effective abuse-of-process argument at all stages.

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.

Bridget Shaw repeatedly and continuously obstructed and denied the calling of virtually every defence witness.

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.

Even more extraordinarily – Wilkins obeyed Bailhache’s instruction.

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.

Further – and at the conclusion of the prosecution – Bridget Shaw had supposed “contempt of court” charges brought against the applicant – quite extraordinarily, with less than 24 hours notice – refused to allow the applicant to reserve his plea – refused to allow him an adjournment to prepare a defence against them – proceeded to find him ‘guilty’ – refused to allow an adjournment to enable him to prepare a mitigation plea – refused to grant him bail pending appeal – and had him imprisoned, there and then.

This for charges the applicant had had less than 24 hours notice of.

[In general terms, the conduct of magistrate Bridget Shaw is widely regarded as wholly bizarre. For example, in a recent, unrelated and on-going case of a prosecution for an alleged  minor, technical planning law infraction, Shaw placed the accused local business proprietor on police-bail – a requirement of which was that he report to the police station – once-a-day. This madness went on for two weeks until the bail condition was scrapped by a different magistrate. ]…….”

 

“……..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.

But yet – wholly perversely – and in a way that has no equivalent interpretation, use or enforcement in any other Western democracy – and that by the actual admission and boast of Jersey’s Data Protection Commissioner, and in overt defiance of what the legislation actually says on its face – the Jersey legislation has been abused for just such corrupt and oppressive purposes.

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 her Majesty in Council approves primary legislation for the Crown Dependency of Jersey – a process which, if it is to be reasonably diligent and competent must examine the said legislation for its basic vires, and to ensure it is compliant with UK treaty obligations, such as the ECHR – such consideration by her Majesty and the advisory apparatus must take the draft law on its face.

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.

However – the reasonable and operative assumption has to be the process of approval by her Majesty in Council of primary legislation is not a fraudulent process – but, rather, it is undertaken objectively and in good faith.

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.

But that is not how the Jersey authorities have used the Data Protection Law.  

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.

Further – the Jersey authorities have invented for that Law a power to engage in overt, undisguised discrimination.

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.

It is unlawful for her Majesty in Council to permit the Jersey Data Protection Law to be abused for manifestly corrupt, oppressive and discriminatory purposes – purposes which are directly counter to the actual written provisions of the Law – and counter to that Law’s legislative purposes.

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.

For example – this applicant – and others in Jersey – have suffered, and continue to suffer, human rights abuses directly in violation of:-

Article 3 – Inhuman or Degrading Treatment;

Article 5 – Liberty and Security;

Article 6 – Fair Trail;

Article 7 – Retrospectivity;

Article 8 – Private and Family Life;

Article 10 – Freedom of Expression;

Article 11 – Freedom of Association;

Article 13 – Effective Remedy;

Article 14 – Discrimination.

And Protocol 1-

Article 1 – Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;

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.”

EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON: # 5

COMMUNIQUÉS FROM THE APOCALYPSE.

Welcome to today’s quotes from the Claim-Forms – observations for the Draft Orders….

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Stuart Syvret

Extracts from Armageddon: # 5



“…….Yet other examples can be cited; the illegal oppression of this applicant in 1996 by Sir Philip Bailhache when he – wholly unlawfully – excluded me from the legislature for six months, in a criminal attempt to silence and coerce me, so as to protect his friend and senior Jersey Freemason, then Senator Reg Jeune, from the consequences of having his nakedly corrupt actions exposed by this applicant.

On that occasion Sir Philip Bailhache – exclusively and unassailable empowered by Her Majesty’s Letters Patent – acted overtly and repeatedly criminally. He engaged in misconduct in a public office, and he repeatedly engaged in a conspiracy to pervert justice.

In many ways that episode is indicative of the criminal dysfunction of the Jersey polity and – of especial relevance in these proceedings – the failed relationship with the authorities in London.

For no matter that Jeune had been caught – red-handed – in an unambiguous act of corruption – and this applicant had done his public duty in exposing  it – the Jersey legislature, the Jersey judiciary, and the Jersey policing function all failed to deal correctly with the matters. In the case of the legislature and the judiciary – both of those corrupted and decadent institutions in Jersey set about – pro-actively – abusing and illegally oppressing this applicant.

In the case of the police, they refused to even investigate the matter in any meaningful way when this applicant made formal criminal complaints to them. But – indeed – if the police had acted lawfully – the prosecution file would have simply landed on the desk of Bailhache and Jeune’s friend – the Attorney General Michael Birt. Therefore – even if there had been a lawful policing function (which there was not at that time) – there was not – nor is there – any lawful prosecution function for a lawful policing function to report to.

This structural ultra vires – which renders the proper rule of law impossible in Jersey – and thus the proper application of the ECHR impossible – is the responsibility of the respondent authorities – the Privy Council, the Crown, and the Secretary of State.

As there is not a “statute-of-limitations” in English – or Jersey – law – those various crimes arising from the notorious LLP Law episode – in which the Jersey parliament became, infamously,  a “Legislature-for-Hire” – remain outstanding – and unaddressed.

It is therefore a part of the cause-of-action in these applications that the respondent authorities put in place an effective policing, prosecution and judicial system, so that such criminal acts can be – and are – lawfully investigated, charged, prosecuted and tried. The commercial hi-jacking of the Jersey legislature for the purposes of introducing the privately-drafted Limited Liability Partnerships Law in 1996 – and then the consequent illegal oppression of this applicant for having done his public duty in exposing it – remains an unaddressed and outstanding episode of brazen corruption.

That episode is also of deep evidential relevance in respect of a broad purpose of these applications – namely, that of inquiring into and reviewing the lawfulness – or otherwise – of the manner in which the respondent authorities discharge their duties to people of the Crown Dependencies.

Plainly – key questions have to be, “are those duties discharged objectively and fairly? Or is the interface between the respondents and the Jersey establishment one of  ‘clientism’?” If that latter – then the situation is unlawful.

Extremely detailed, formal complaints were made in 1996 by the applicant – who had been wholly illegally prevented from taking his seat in the legislature by Sir Philip Bailhache – acting under the power of Her Majesty’s Letters Patent – and with the support of his de facto party political allies.

That episode remains outstanding – and undressed – and it must be addressed – not least because of the simple seriousness of it; but also it is, after all, a powerfully evidenced criminal enterprise; one which no part – no part at all – of the Jersey apparatus has – or could lawfully – address.

In 1996, the detailed complaints by the applicant against the illegal – anti-democratic – and coercive abuse he was suffering,  were made to the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard. At that time the responsibility for the Crown Dependencies rested with the Home Office, not the Justice Department.  For notwithstanding six months of entirely illegal coercion and anti-democratic exclusion inflicted upon this applicant for doing his public duty and opposing corruption – no response was ever received from the Home Secretary – and no lawfully adequate intervention – to restore good governance or the rule of law ever occurred.

A failure made all the more legally serious give that the Office-holder who led the corrupt oppression against this applicant – Sir Philip Bailhache – was solely empowered by Her Majesty’s Letters Patent – issued by her – in London – in a residual executive act. Bailhache was a pure creature of the Crown.

Thus the illegal and corrupt abuses inflicted on this applicant by Bailhache  – were  illegal and corrupt abuses inflicted on this applicant by the Crown.

Qui facit per alium facit per se

The “methodology” and the evidential documentation relevant to that ultra vires failure by the United Kingdom authorities must be examined by the court. Examined – because that episode is of key evidential relevance to the fundamental questions that these applications put before the courts – and examined because the criminal offences remain outstanding – and unaddressed. The passage of time does not diminish or insulate them – nor the fraudulent and misfeasant conducts that in turn facilitated and shielded such conduct at the time.

Fraus omnia vitiat ……..”

 

“………Indeed – the problem – that of the actually disturbing lack of “quality” and of “calibre” on the part of the self-sustaining, self-recommending, self-elevating, self-protecting claque of Crown Officers in Jersey – who then receive the power of Her Majesty’s Letters Patent – goes further than the startling political illiteracy  on repeated display. For even though they are lawyers – they frequently display what are frankly jaw-dropping ignorances of even the law.

For example – and in one of the more amusingly Kafkaesque moments of the plain descent into anarchy that has gripped the Crown functions in Jersey during the last six years – the current Solicitor General, Howard Sharp, when opposing one of this applicant’s judicial review applications, argued in open court that “it was not possible for the courts to judicially review decisions and actions of the executive”.

Still – that was not a problem for Solicitor General Howard Sharp – because that was the judicial review application I was forced to make before the conflicted, corrupt judge / Advocate  Julian Clyde-Smith – who quickly stepped-in – and rescued the Solicitor General, and ran his case for him……”

EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON: # 4

COMMUNIQUÉS FROM THE APOCALYPSE.

Here’s today’s extracts from Armageddon – Communiqués from the Apocalypse – # 4 – an article from the arguments – a flick through the statements-of-fact.
Some first drops from le deluge – which is arriving somewhat more avant – than the après some had reckoned upon.
Stuart Syvret
EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON: # 4
“………To understand what follows – it needs to be recognised that Jersey is, essentially, a feudal society; an anachronism that has survived for centuries, no matter the thin veneer of modernity. The Channel Islands were the only European territory occupied by Nazis during WWII whose indigenous power-establishments prospered and survived during – and after – those events, untroubled and unchanged. Much of the manifestly surreal dysfunction – the palpable sense of absolute power and reckless invulnerability enjoyed by the local oligarchy today – can be traced back to Crown and United Kingdom failure to hold to account and clean-up the profiteering and corrupted Jersey media, policing, prosecution and judicial functions in the immediate wake of the Occupation. To this very day – the power-structure and apparatus of Jersey is wholly analogous to a feudal “court” – in which political power, patronage, careers and law-enforcement are in the “gift” of the feudal “court” and its “courtiers”. You are “of” the “court”, or one of its vassals – or you are an enemy of the “court” – and will be ruthlessly crushed……..”
“………Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith:
Notwithstanding the seriousness of the matters raised above – which represent a transcript-evidenced catalogue of sustained and overt judicial corruption almost certainly without equivalent  in modern British history – the conduct of Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith – alone and of itself – represents a collapse in the proper and lawful administration of justice in Jersey.
That this state of affairs remains unaddressed by the Crown, Privy Council, and Secretary of State is an unanswerable ultra vires failure of Crown obligations and responsibilities.
One of the most serious and dramatic breakdowns in the rule of law and failure to deliver the protections of the ECHR to have occurred in Jersey is the illegal suspension of the legitimate Police Chief, Graham Power, Queens Police Medal.  A corrupt act undertaken by Jersey’s conflicted and lawless public authorities.
Whilst that illegal action was, and is, an abuse of the rights of Mr. Power himself – it is more significantly an abuse of the human rights of most ordinary members of the population of Jersey, who have various Convention rights that depend – absolutely depend – upon the existence of objective and impartial and fearless policing; that is, as opposed to policing that is under the corrupt control of a narrow claque of partisan politicians, powerful criminals, corrupt public officials, Freemasons, assorted spivs – and rapists.
Just as the illegal suspension of the Police Chief represents unlawful failures, omissions and actions by the Crown, Privy Council, and Secretary of State – so too does the politicisation and corruption of the Jersey judicial apparatus that failed to protect the Police Chief, and in that failure, failed to protect the rights of ordinary people and the very rule of law.
Following the corrupt and illegal suspension of Mr Power, his copy of a written amendment to his contract – one that guaranteed him legal representation – was removed without due process from a locked cabinet in his office. He was then refused access to the document – or, remarkably – even a copy of it.
This corrupt repression forced Mr. Power into the position of having to represent himself in court when he attempted to judicially review the illegal suspension enacted against him.
When Mr Power’s application came before court, it was heard by Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith – sitting with two “Jurats” – Jill Clapham – and John Le Breton.
Both of the two Jurats were, and are, conflicted.
Jill Clapham is married to a lawyer who worked in the same law firm – Ogier – as Julian Clyde-Smith. The Attorney General Tim Le Cocq, who was representing the Home Affairs Minister against Mr Power’s application is also a close friend of Julian Clyde-Smith – having previously also been a senior partner at Ogier.
John Le Breton is the former deputy headmaster – Vice-Principal – of Victoria College – who had to resign in disgrace from that post for the concealment of many years of child-abuse. Numerous complaints had been made, which were not responded to adequately. Instead, Le Breton and other members of staff went so far as to actually attempt to humiliate and intimidate at least two of the child victims of abuse into withdrawing their complaints. Those matters are detailed and evidenced in the Sharp Report.
Just as in the case of the Pitmans – it is almost beyond words, to describe the monstrous illegality of an individual who is fighting for child-protection, such as the Police Chief, to then find themselves in front of a court that has the child-abuse concealing Jurat Le Breton as a member.
Quiet plainly – Le Breton is wholly conflicted from any kind of case that may involve – in any way – any child protection matter. That aside from the even more obvious point that as the man is clearly unfit to hold any kind of public Office, the most serious and pressing questions must be raised concerning the entire function of the “Jurat” system, its standards of “governance” and its failure to apply “fit and proper person” tests.
Commissioner Clyde-Smith himself is a senior partner at Ogiers – where the Attorney General Tim Le Cocq – and Jill Clapham’s husband – worked for many years.
As did former Jersey Attorney General – currently Bailiff – Michael Birt, a close friend of Clyde-Smith’s.
It is also of general and central relevance to these applications that Michael Birt  has been – on evidenced grounds – directly and publically criticised by the applicant for the unlawful interference in police investigations, unlawful failures to bring necessary charges and prosecutions  – and the unlawful abandonment of other prosecutions; for example the corrupt abandonment of the prosecution of the child-abusing Jane and Alan Maguire.
When the unlawfully suspended Police Chief Graham Power, QPM, brought his judicial review application – which was predictably rejected – before court, neither Commissioner Clyde-Smith – nor the two Jurats – declared their conflicts of interest.
In particular – and most seriously – Advocate Clyde-Smith failed to declare the key client-based conflict of interest arising from his private-sector, commercial involvements.
It could be described as laughable – in a grim, Kafkaesque manner – that three such wholly and manifestly conflicted individuals can be permitted to sit as a “court” – to, in truth,  fraudulently pretend to be a court – under the good name of the British Crown – in the 21st century. But to use such words runs the risk of giving the impression that it is a mere figure-of-speech.  Sadly, it is not.
It is a fact that, increasingly, many hundreds of islanders are – actually – laughing at the palpably fake and absurd nature of what passes for a “judicial” function in Jersey.
There is no indication in any available evidence  – at all – that the respondent authorities – the Crown, Privy Council, and Secretary of State – have met even the basic administrative-law requirement of undertaking “sufficient inquiries” in respect of their obligations for the administration of justice in the Crown Dependency of Jersey.
They actually appear not to know that the judicial function in Jersey is in a state of lawless anarchy, which only continues “its functions” in the eyes of the diminishing number of those who “agree” to pretend along with it, in a kind of charade – a game of “make-believe” in which the participants are supposed to keep their fingers crossed behind their backs, and pretend that this overtly politicised posturing claque of mutually elevating and mutually protecting cocktail party friends are a functioning judiciary – rather than a set of multi-conflicted middle-class criminals who have succeeded in raiding a dressing-up box and accessing the Crown’s bank-accounts.
Let there be no illusions about the gravity of these matters – nor the sheer magnitude of the unlawful failures of the respondents – the Secretary of State, Privy Council,  and Crown. For not only have the respondents failed – grossly – to secure to the ordinary people of Jersey a lawful, functioning judiciary as required by Article 6 – the respondents have also unlawfully failed to ensure the protection of that population’s access to objective, impartial policing.
Not least by – as in this case – permitting a “court” of three individuals all conflicted to a point of jaw-dropping absurdity – to deny the unlawfully suspended Police Chief access to justice.
The involvement of members of that “court” with an extremely powerful individual – who was directly under dramatic police investigation for profoundly serious crimes – until shortly after the illegal suspension of the Police Chief under whose leadership the investigation was taking place  – is, in many ways, all that needs to be said about the plain end of the rule of law in Jersey.
If, indeed, Jersey has ever really had the proper rule of law, in truth – as opposed to a fake, feudal, simulacrum?
The respondent authorities – the Privy Council, the Crown, and the Secretary of State – must answer for these matters in London’s courts.

EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON: # 3

COMMUNIQUÉS FROM THE APOCALYPSE.

Welcome to today’s Extracts from Armageddon – Communiqués from the Apocalypse  – #3 – a dispatch from the dividers – a blast from the bundles – a chorus from the case-law.

Stuart Syvret

EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON: # 3

“When considering the above-facts – the history – and all the supporting evidence – it is, frankly, remarkable – in light of Barclay & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 1319 (02 December 2008) – that the respondent authorities have failed to intervene to end the unlawful nature of the Jersey judicial function, and put in place a lawful system.

In the cited  case the applicants were seeking to challenge the promulgation of the Reform Law in the island of Sark on the grounds that aspects of that law were not compatible with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Sark, like Jersey, is one of the British Channel Islands, and like Jersey, is a Crown Dependency, with the UK authorities having ultimate responsibility for good governance, the administration of justice, and human rights.

The case refers to the Sark “Seneschal” – the equivalent position in Jersey being the “Bailiff” – and the Sark legislature, “Chief Pleas” – the equivalent in Jersey being the “States assembly.” As with the Seneschal in Sark, in Jersey the Bailiff is chief judge, and president of the legislature.

In the above-cited Court of Appeal judgment, the appellants were unsuccessful on four of the five grounds of appeal. However – and crucially – they succeeded on a fifth.

The successful ground – “Ground 2” in the application and judgment was: –
(2) The functions and powers of the Seneschal under the Reform Law breach Article 6 of the Convention, in particular his dual role as President of Chief Pleas and Senior Judge on Sark.

It should be noted that the unsuccessful respondent  – the Secretary of State for Justice – against who Ground 2 was upheld, chose not to appeal that decision.

In light of that unchallenged judgment – the current judicial function of Jersey is unlawful.

In the Court of Appeal judgment, the lead Judge – Lord Justice Pill – in paragraph 52, found:

“The Seneschal’s position as Chief Judge must be seen in the context of his duties in Chief Pleas and also the existence of the power to make other judicial appointments for Sark.”

Having described the context – that of the “Seneschal” being both the speaker of the Sark legislature – and being the head of the judiciary in Sark – Lord Pill went on to address the legal issues.

“57: Whatever the outcome of ground 1, it is submitted that the Seneschal’s position as judge is inconsistent, in Article 6 terms, with his legislative and executive duties. His influential political position, it is submitted, will inevitably and legitimately arouse in litigants appearing before him fears about his independence and impartiality.
58: In Starrs v Ruxton [2000] JC 208, Lord Prosser, considering the position of temporary sheriffs in the administration of justice in Scotland, stated, at page 232:
“But I am inclined to see independence – the need for a judge not to be dependent on others – as an additional substantive requirement, rather than simply a means of achieving impartiality or a perception of impartiality. Independence will guarantee not only that the judge is disinterested in relation to the parties and the cause, but also that in fulfilling his judicial function, generally as well as individual cases, he is and can be seen to be free of links with others (whether in the executive, or indeed the judiciary, or in outside life) which might, or might be thought to, affect his assessment of the matters entrusted to him.”
That passage was cited by Lord Bingham of Cornhill in the Privy Council in Millar v Dickson [2002] 1 WLR 1615, at paragraph 9. Lord Bingham also cited, at paragraph 26, the speech of Lord Steyn in Brown v Stott [2003] 1 AC 681, at page 708C:
“. . and it is a basic premise of the Convention system that only an entirely neutral, impartial, and independent judiciary can carry out the primary task of securing and enforcing Convention rights.”
Lord Bingham concluded, page 1628A:
“The conduct of trials at all stages by an independent and impartial tribunal is in my view recognised by the Convention and the authorities, subject to waiver where that is permissible, as a necessary although not a sufficient safeguard of the citizen’s right to a fair trial. It is a safeguard which should not, least of all in the criminal field, be weakened or diluted, whatever the administrative consequences.””

Further – in paragraph 65, Lord Pill  said,  I do, however, see the combination in Sark of the judicial with the other functions of the Seneschal as inconsistent with the Article 6 requirement to establish by law an independent and impartial tribunal.”

And in paragraph 66, Lord Pill  said, “Sark appears to have been fortunate, in recent years, in not having had substantial litigation, either civil or criminal, but while it seeks to maintain a separate system for the administration of justice, as the Reform Law does, the safeguards for independence and impartiality required by Article 6 must be provided. That includes a consideration of appearances. A judge independent of the legislature and executive is in my judgment required even for the comparatively modest litigation described in the Seneschal’s diary.”

And in paragraph 68, Lord Pill said, “The law must provide a structure in which those who do, or who may, come before the court can be confident in the independence and impartiality of the judge.”

The third of the Court of Appeal judges who heard the case was Lord Justice Etherton, who made an important contribution to the judgment when, at paragraph 161, he said:
“A litigant cannot be expected to know whether the Seneschal has been involved in a process within the Chief Pleas which, whether in relation to legislation or an executive matter, might have some direct or indirect bearing on the subject matter of the proceedings. The reasonable assumption would be that the Seneschal probably had been, or at least might well have been, so involved, but the litigant cannot reasonably be expected to have researched and discovered any such involvement. Accordingly, in every case, so far as the litigant is concerned, there exists a possibility of lack of independence and impartiality by the Seneschal acting in a judicial capacity. In view of the inevitably limited knowledge of the litigant about the involvement of the Seneschal in the Chief Pleas on any particular occasion or matter, the problem is not resolved by rights of appeal or judicial review. For those reasons, I consider that the Reform Law gives rise to a violation of Article 6.”
It is worthy of note that the appeal-court judges on that occasion – and the arguments generally – largely focused on what might be termed a “theoretical” consideration of the “possibility” of the Seneschal – in some hypothetical future situation – not being able to meet the test of the appearance of objectivity in the judicial capacity, in the eyes of members of the public, because of his role in the legislature. There was also some discussion of the possibility – the possibility only – that the Seneschal might be politically – and thus judicially – biased against a member of the legislature, should they come before him in his capacity as a judge.
Such mere possibilities – possibilities only, note – with no current examples of any actual such occurrences – were considered more than sufficient grounds for the Court of Appeal to uphold Ground 2 – such is, plainly, the vital importance of the purity of the administration of justice.
Turning to the Jersey judicial function  – the situation would be wholly analogous – save for the fact it is actually worse.
In Jersey the judicial function is  – on unanswerable and extensive evidence – biased and dysfunctional – to the point of undisguised, openly-practised corruption – and direct – express – personally and politically contaminated acts of “judicial” harassment, discrimination and oppression against members of the Jersey legislature.
The failure – the unlawful failure – of the respondent public authorities, the Crown, Privy Council, and Sectary of State to have cured the Jersey system in accordance with their various legal duties and obligations – is so unlawful, it is the tort of misfeasance in a public office. Consider: –
The respondent authorities have known the system was unlawful.
The respondents have known that they had no legal power to act as they have done, to permit the continuance of the unlawful system and its unlawful acts.
The respondents have known that the unlawful acts in question would cause severe harm and losses and damage to people such as this applicant, and similar classes of persons, for example the Pitmans.
The conduct of the respondents – in that regard – even far transcends mere “reckless indifference” which, according to the House of Lords judgments, grounds the tort – and have instead pro-actively participated in the defence and continuance of the unlawful and damaging acts.……”

 

“…….Unlike in the USA – where the very highest powers in the land were held accountable by the law – where “the system worked” – as in the Watergate scandal – the true power of the British state and of those individuals working within it at the highest levels, remains unassailable – and hidden in the calculated and cultivated obscurantism of the smoke-and-mirrors of the Privy Council.
The fundamentally problematical arcanery of the Privy Council – ensures that, in any attempt to hold its actions and powers accountable under law, an ordinary litigant is attempting something akin to wrestling with ghosts – in a hall-of-mirrors.
The intrinsically unchallengeable – even unidentifiable and unknowable – problem that is the Privy Council – a kind of mystical fog-bank in the heart of the British  state – was laid-out by Patrick O’Connor QC, in The Constitutional Role of the Privy Council and the Prerogative. (ISBN 978-0-907247-47-0)……”

EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON: # 2

COMMUNIQUÉS FROM THE APOCALYPSE.

Welcome to Extracts from Armageddon – Communiqués from the Apocalypse # 2 – a re-mix from the actus reus – a mash-up of the mens rea – a selection of the citings!

A random pick-&-mix selection of The Case Against the Crown.

Stuart Syvret
Extracts from Armageddon # 2
“…….The very fact that Le Breton was able to become a Jurat raises the most dramatic questions concerning the very safety – lawfulness – and Article 6 compliance – of the entire Jurat system.

Any system that is so central to the very administration of justice – but yet which fails to employ basic and effective “fit-and-proper-person” tests – is plainly unsafe.

And if the system can recruit such an evidencedly unfit and wholly compromised individual in Le Breton – who is to say the other Jurats are not similarly unfit – and compromised?

The Jurat system is unlawful on the above-grounds alone – even setting aside the other fatal, structural issues.

But it is nothing less than an outrage – and a grossly unlawful failure by the respondent UK authorities to meet their legal obligations to ensure the good administration of justice, and the application of Article 6 of the ECHR – that Le Breton should have been one of the Jurats involved in the case of the Pitmans.

Further – it is another damming indictment of both the competency – and neutrality – of the presiding judge – Commissioner Sir Charles Gray – that he permitted the tribunal to operate on such a catastrophically conflicted basis.

It is axiomatic, that in a tiny community such as Jersey, any judge presiding over a mixed-tribunal should inquire – at the outset – for possible conflicts of interests of members of the court he or she is about to lead. It requires no great – or frankly even any – legal expertise to be familiar with the basic requirement that the administration of justice must be scrupulously impartial and free of contaminations.

It is difficult to know which is more damning of Sir Charles Gray or illustrative of his incompetence – the fact that he (we must assume) made no such inquiry of his fellow tribunal members at the commencement of the case – or that he has remained silent in the face of the subsequent revelations concerning the gross and ultra vires conflicts of interest on the part of the Jurats?

Deputy Trevor Pitman is one of the very few Jersey politicians to have actively worked to try and combat the wretched history of child-protection failure and child-abuse cover-ups in Jersey.

It is nothing less than staggering – a manifest collapse in the proper objective administration of justice – that the child-abuse concealing Jurat John Le Breton should have had any involvement in the Pitmans’ case whatsoever.

It is even more staggering – and one of the plain necessitating factors in this litigation – that this collapse in the Jersey judicial function has been subsequently drawn to the attention of the respondent authorities – the Secretary of State, Crown, and Privy Council – only to receive a brief, pro-forma ‘brush-off’ in what is plainly a calculated gesture of contempt.

The conduct of the respondent authorities in this matter greatly adds to – and amplifies – and further evidences – the clear and unanswerable grounding of the tort of misfeasance in a public office.” 

EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON: # 1

COMMUNIQUÉS FROM THE APOCALYPSE.

This is the first in an occasional series of pithy postings drawn from the law-suits being launched against the UK Crown, Privy Council, and Secretary of State for Justice. Those British public authorities – “the respondents” – are responsible for the rule of law, good governance, proper administration of justice, and for human rights, in the British island of Jersey.

They haven’t met those duties.  They’ve helped, supported and shielded the Jersey oligarchy in the maintenance of so much undisguised misfeasance, oppression, criminal brutality and corruption, the island’s actual polity is a criminal enterprise.

So, several overlapping strands of legal challenge are being launched against the respondent UK authorities in the London courts.

Found some of the previous legal postings too long and tedious? Worry not!


Extracts from Armageddon – Communiqués from the Apocalypse – is going to bring you a random selection from the servings – a lucky-dip from the litigation!

Don’t expect this random series of postings to be sequential, or placed in context. I won’t even tell you what sections of the applications they’re taken from; much more fun for readers to speculate.  Some of these posting might only be a couple of paragraphs; I’ll see how the mood takes me.

And henceforth, I’ll be posting an Extract from Armageddon at least once-a-day – until, that is, the Jersey mafia jail me.

Again.

Stuart Syvret
 

Extract from Armageddon: # 1


“Even taken on its own – and artificially viewed as though it were a distinct, “firewalled” apparatus, thoroughly insulated from the political and executive realms, as the judicial function is in the UK – the gross judicial conflicts of interest on display in the Pitmans’ hearing, and the failures to declare them, and the management of these matters by the presiding judge, and then the failure of the head of the island’s judiciary to act on the subsequent complaints – is an un-disguisable collapse in the lawful administration of justice.

But – and further to the ultra vires failures of the respondent Crown, Privy Council, and Secretary of State – this matter is dramatically amplified in the Jersey context – given the plain, unarguable, politicised and non-Article 6 compliant nature of the judicial apparatus, and its day-to-day involvement in legislative and executive matters. The Crown-empowered – and appointed – judicial function in Jersey is – overtly – Political.

Indeed – the documented examples of overt and undisguised politicisation on the part of the Jersey judiciary are too extensive to list. But for example, the absolutely regular and unlawful interference by successive Bailiffs and Deputy Bailiffs – including Philip Bailhache, Frances Hamon, Michael Birt and William Bailhache – with opposition members tabling of questions, amendments, propositions, reports,  and the obstruction of their statements. Similar nakedly political and biased interference is evidenced, and there to be observed in virtually every States assembly meeting…….”

 


“…….Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache also illegally prevented the publication of this applicant’s Official Comments Report, which I had prepared for tabling in response to the illegal conspiracy to obstruct me, and remove me from Office as Health & Social Services Minister so as to prevent me from lawfully discharging the legal requirements of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.  The criminal conspiracy in question is witnessed by the former Police Chief Graham Power, QPM.

That one example alone, is illustrative of the “functional psychopathy” of the present Jersey system. No legitimate – nor, frankly, even any formally purported – power exists on the part of Bailiffs or Deputy Bailiffs to edit and censor what members of the Jersey legislature may write and publish in reports to that legislature. Yet – Sir Philip Bailhache – exclusively and unassailably empowered by Her Majesty’s Letters Patent– did just that – even though – even though – he himself was directly and expressly conflicted in the matters at hand.

Such conduct and behaviour is simply beyond invention.



Yet – there it is.

Able to be engaged in – under the unaccountable – and wholly unassailable power – of Her Majesty’s executive conferral of Letters Patent……”

 

“…….The conduct of current Bailiff Michael Birt – solely empowered by Her Majesty’s Letters Patent – is not one scrap less Political or unlawful.

Birt has – and continues to – mount interference after interference – obstruction after obstruction – in the path of opposition members of the legislature. Indeed – it is something that can only become known and understood after a long exposure to Jersey potentates such as the Bailhache brothers and Michael Birt, who are the beneficiaries of upper-middle-class educations, and thus seem extremely plausible when observed causally or engaged in conversation – but all of these people are startlingly ignorant when one scratches below the surface.

They genuinely appear not to have even the first – real – understanding of the proper  and necessary  requirements of functional democracy. They seem to actually believe that it is lawful and right – for them to take partisan positions in politics – and to interfere with – and obstruct – opposition members……”


“……..In general terms – there is no indication, in the conduct of the Crown Officers and judiciary in Jersey that they have any grasp of such concepts as the ultra vires nature of conflicts of interest – nor any understanding of the vital public importance of the role of checks-and-balances – nor of any grasp of the purposes of a separation-of-powers.
 


It is entirely plausible to imagine the Jersey judiciary being handed copies of The Rule of Law, written by the late Tom Bingham, and them fumbling, mystified at it, as though it were some wholly alien text from ancient outer-Mongolia.

And it does not end.



To cite a current wretched and despicable example – the present Bailiff Michael Birt has – predictably – adopted an wholly partisan position in supporting the Jersey Dean Robert Key, even though that man failed disastrously in a safeguarding case of a vulnerable young woman who had been sexually harassed by a church-warden. Indeed – that episode saw the unwell and poor and deeply distressed young woman being subjected to sudden arrest at her home, jailed – and held for two weeks – before actual formal written statements of criminal complaint had been received – hauled before the disgusting and morally rotten excuse for a “judiciary” in Jersey – where she was told she would remain imprisoned unless “agreeing” to be deported. She was then put on a plane and flown to England – and dumped there in destitution: “problem solved.”

Michael Birt – London-appointed Bailiff and chief judge in Jersey – when exercising the plainly legally absurd power of chairing the Jersey legislature – led a highly politically partisan “welcome” to the Dean Robert Key when he resumed his UK-appointed seat in the chamber.
 


That spectacle – and others like it – are so disturbingly bizarre – are so wholly at variance with even the rudiments – or even any thin pretence – at neutrality and objectivity, frankly questions have to be raised concerning the mental fitness of Michael Birt. He actually appears to be living (as do the Bailhache brothers) in some kind of hallucinatory realm coloured in the shades and spectres of a mediaeval fiefdom.

The point is serious. The personal fitness and actual capacity – or otherwise – of Crown-appointed judges to in fact deliver professional and competent judicial services, is the responsibility and liability of the appointing-authority. There is zero indication in the available evidence that the appointing – respondent – authorities have exercised any such due-diligence since they removed from Office one of their previous appointees, a former Deputy Bailiff Vernon Tomes.

It appears not to have occurred to Michael Birt that the matters involving the evidenced failure in office of the Dean might – in one form or another – come before Jersey’s courts – come before Birt himself – or unavoidably, judges chosen and appointed by him.

Thus – at a stroke – Michael Birt has rendered the entire Jersey judicial apparatus structurally – systemically – now incapable of ever dealing lawfully with any matter that arises from the case of the Dean, the safeguarding failures and the subsequent further unlawful abuse of the victim by the Jersey criminal “justice” system.

That such structural – and self-inflicted case-specific – ultra-vires non-existence of a judicial function in Jersey repeatedly manifests itself, is another unanswerable and damming unlawful failure by the Crown, Privy Council, and Secretary of State.……”

“…….It is clear enough – for all kinds of reasons – that what passes for a judicial function in Jersey is simply unlawful and wholly dysfunctional. But the situation is not even as good as that.


Plainly – the judicial function in Jersey has collapsed – and is in a state of roiling anarchy and lawless chaos.

The emperors have no clothes.

It simply isn’t disguisable any more.”

“LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION”, ADMINISTRATIVE POSTURING, AND SOCK-PUPPETS

“The 2010 “review” of the Crown Dependencies by the Justice Select Committee – and the consequent response by the Ministry of Justice – can be cited as a telling and striking example of just such a “waltz” through the predictable, yet ultimately vacuous tropes of idle administrative  posturing.”

As things seem fairly quite at the moment, I thought readers (the good guys at least) might find this section from the imminent London legal action entertaining.

Stuart Syvret  

(What follows is a Section from “Combined Legal Application – Stuart Syvret vs. Monarch, Crown, Privy Council, Secretary of State for Justice, & United Kingdom Attorney General”) 

The Crown Dependency of Jersey: Recent Scrutiny – and Recent Policy Statements – by the United Kingdom

“Legitimate Expectation”.


1.     This part of the application considers what are the most recent and up-to-date examples of scrutiny, and of policy statements by the United Kingdom authorities in respect of UK government, Crown and Privy Council responsibility for the Crown Dependencies.


2.     This part of the application introduces the “legitimate expectation” arising – and the general background “conduct”  of the respondent authorities  – towards the applicant and other members of the public, in light of the public, policy statements and commitments made by the relevant UK authorities.

Legal Relevancy:

3.     Judicial review case-law tends to the position that such tests as Wednesbury unreasonableness, procedural unfairness and substantial unfairnessare more weighty causes-of-action against a public authority than “legitimate expectation” on its own – nevertheless, such is the startling and repeated breach by the defendant authorities of their own, declared, published policies – that the arising breaches of legitimate expectation deserve a particular focus.

4.     This is not to say that procedural unfairness, substantive unfairness, Wednesbury unreasonableness – and other causes – are not founded in this case – they most certainly are, and are argued separately.  

5.     But such is the startling failure of the defendant public authorities to adhere to, and to carry-out their own declared, published policies, the court must examine the conduct in question.

6.     Firstly – let it be clear what the relevant, declared, published policy is.

7.     In addition to the established constitutional position – and various historic precedents for intervention by the United Kingdom to ensure good governance, the proper rule of law and good administration of justice in Jersey – none of which decisions and actions and powers have been nullified by subsequent changes in law or policy – the most recent, written policy is to be found in the  “Government Response to the Justice Select Committee’s Report: Crown Dependencies”, published in November 2010 (copy supplied), and – expressly – a Foreword to that document by the Secretary of State for Justice.

8.     Indeed, the Introduction to the said document unambiguously states, “The Government’s view of the current position is set out in the Ministerial foreword to this document.”

9.     Especially noteworthy and relevant from that Foreword are the following passages: –

a.     “Relationships with the Islands are the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government as a whole. The Ministry of Justice holds the policy responsibility for the constitutional relationship but all departments should be engaging routinely with the Crown Dependencies where appropriate to their policy responsibilities.”

And: –  

b.     “The United Kingdom Government has a responsibility to ensure that the Crown Dependencies have the advice and assistance necessary to function as socially and economically sound democracies.”

And: –

c.      “The United Kingdom respects each Crown Dependency’s laws and policies as the expression of the will of a democratic government with the power of self-determination. The UK government is responsible for the Crown Dependences’ international relations and ultimate good governance and has the commensurate power to ensure these obligations are met.”

10.                        Thus politically – and in the context of this application to court and the invoked legal principles in particular – there can be zero credible dispute to a core contention and position that the defendant public authorities do, in fact, have the responsibilities and powers in question. The defendant Secretary of State for Justice declares so in current, published policy.

11.                        Before going on to address, in the next section, what that policy requires – and how the relevant authorities have failed to honour it – it is useful to lay-out some observations concerning what might be termed the general structure, methods and habits by which the United Kingdom goes-through-the-motions of examining the conduct of the Crown Dependencies, and the UK’s arising obligations to the residents thereof. For such customary examinations as do take place – for example, that of the Justice Select Committee, and subsequent departmental responses – are invariably defective and woefully inadequate.

12.                        The findings of the Justice Select Committee are, of course, the work of a parliamentary body, working under parliamentary privilege, and it has no executive power or responsibility.  This application makes no challenge to the right and power of the Committee to find as it sees fit.

13.                        However – the application has a perfect right to state plainly when that Committee has clearly got it wrong – and come to erroneous conclusions which are simply not remotely compatible with the reality-on-the-ground in respect of the actual conduct of the insular authorities in the Crown Dependency of Jersey.

14.                        It goes without saying that this application is directed against those public authorities with executive power and responsibility for the matters at hand. Nevertheless, as those authorities will attempt to claim some form of justification for their failures because of the failure of the Select Committee to highlight the serious problems, that defective scrutiny process deserves some description.

15.                        When scrutinising the words of the United Kingdom authorities when it comes to issues of good governance and the proper rule of law in the Crown Dependencies, it is very difficult to escape the conclusion that some form of charade is being engaged in; that boxes-are-being-ticked – motions-gone-through – and words being spoken and written to fulfil certain “appearances” – without there ever being any serious intent by, say the Crown, Privy Council or the Ministry of Justice, that they would be held to the principles and policies they espouse, or that they would be expected to take action upon them.

16.                        In the case of Jersey, that impression has been solidly built-up on the basis of at least three decades of fine words that say one thing – contrasted with acts and omissions (which this claim argues are ultra vires) that do the other.

17.                        The 2010 “review” of the Crown Dependencies by the Justice Select Committee – and the consequent response by the Ministry of Justice can be cited as a telling and striking example of just such a “waltz” through the predictable, yet ultimately vacuous tropes of idle administrative  posturing.

18.                        Some parts of the 2010 Justice Select Committee report are so protective of the status quo and the power of the local potentates in Jersey – they could have been written by the Chairman of the Policy & Resources Committee of the City of London Corporation, and that syndicate’s “Remembrancer”. Indeed, perhaps they were? That is not a flippant speculation.

19.                        Yet another “review” – by the Justice Select Committee has been announced. This bears all the hall-marks of panic, given the increasingly undisguisable breakdown in the basic rule-of-law in Jersey – for example, the frank abandonment of even any pretence that the prosecution function – or judiciary – in Jersey are anything other than party-political protection-rackets. The review will go through yet another “polite” and “plausible” exercise – in order to produce yet another cloak of “respectability” behind which the rampant Crown corruption in Jersey can be hidden and the attendant ultra vires inactions and failures of the Ministry of Justice can be excused.

20.                        Consider, for example, the requirements imposed by the Select Committee on written submissions and accompanying evidence. According to the web site of the Justice Select Committee, submissions should “be about 3,000 words in length / run to no more than six sides of A4 paper”– and – “as far as possible comprise a single document attachment to the email”.  Those conditions exclude – just by way of one, single example – the submission of the 94 page interim statement of the former Jersey Police Chief Graham Power, Queens Police Medal – a man who was illegally suspended by a conspiracy involving the corrupt Jersey (but London-appointed) Attorney General, corrupt subordinate police officers, corrupt Jersey politicians and corrupt judges.

21.                        How the latest review by the Select Committee will go is entirely predictable. A few token “rebellious” submissions will be made – a few opponents of the corruption of the Jersey polity will be entertained at public hearings where they will give live evidence as witnesses – some token acknowledgment of such concerns will be expressed by the Committee – but the vast majority of written and witness submissions will be from professional “Men In Suits” – who will espouse just how fine the “ancient privileges of the Crown Dependencies” are – how “the current arrangement matches the interests of the United Kingdom” – and how “everything in the garden is rosy in terms of good governance and justice in a place like Jersey” – and “even if it wasn’t, why, then the Justice Secretary could intervene.”

22.                        And that will be that.

23.                        Another cosmetic exercise – will have succeeded in doing what such exercises always do – namely, manufacturing a “clean-bill-of-health” and a “justification” for non-intervention.

24.                        The modus operandi of the Justice Select Committee is not that of a body remotely seriously interested in genuinely inquiring into dramatic and evidenced matters concerning breakdowns in good governance and even the basic rule of law in the Crown Dependency of Jersey – and the attendant plain failure of the relevant UK authorities to prevent such criminality and decadence.

25.                        However – the legal reality of the United Kingdom’s constitutional responsibilities – and the startlingly disingenuous nature of how those responsibilities are dodged – is becoming increasingly obvious to observers around the world.

26.                        In the book, Treasure Islands, Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World, (ISBN 97818 4792 1109) Nicholas Shaxson writes (page 17, paragraph 3):

a.     “Britian’s understated but controlling role is the bedrock that reassures flighty global capital and underpins the overseas territories offshore sectors. The gesture towards local representation keeps Caymanians happy, and as with the Crown Dependencies, affords Britain the chance to say, “It’s not our business to interfere” when something unpleasant breaks the surface. Periodically, the charade is exposed. In August 2009 Britain imposed direct rule on the Turks & Caicos islands after corruption there spun out of control. Britain plays down these episodes as much as possible, to distract from its control.”

27.                        The corruption that is rampant in the Jersey polity is – evidencedly – worse – dramatically so – than the corruption in the Turks & Caicos islands. Indeed – this was – frankly the evidenced case by 2009 – when the Justice Select Committee decided to undertake its previous review.

28.                        Yet that review and the response of the government was the predicable “gentlemen’s club” confection. But – for all those defects – this application cites and uses the response of the Ministry of Justice – and does so because that response still embodies the traditional acknowledgment of ultimate responsibility for good governance in the Crown Dependencies such as Jersey – and this application is going to – finally – hold the UK to its words.

29.                        For this is an important point – even though the Select Committee plainly – and on the evidence – got things wrong in certain respects – those errors do not prevent the Committee – nor the Ministry of Justice – both coming to, and agreeing with, the ultimate conclusion that the United Kingdom is responsible for good governance, the rule of law and good administration of justice in the Crown Dependencies, and the overarching responsibility of the United Kingdom for adherence to international treaties; for example, the European Convention on Human Rights.

30.                        Remember these words from the Foreword by the Secretary of State for Justice:

a.     “The UK government is responsible for the Crown Dependences’ international relations and ultimate good governance and has the commensurate power to ensure these obligations are met.”

31.                        But, of course, whilst that ultimate constitutional and legal responsibility of the UK government is found – and agreed – by both the Select Committee – and the Secretary of State – another commonality of ground between both of those parties is that “no intervention is presently required, because – yes, whilst hypothetically possible that things could go very badly wrong in a Crown Dependency – they haven’t done so – so at the moment, everything in the garden is rosy.”

32.                        This application will, in due course, move on – from the general constitutional and legal position as arrived at by those UK agencies – with which the application agrees – to the particular– concerning the standards of governance, justice, law-enforcement and human rights in the Crown Dependency of Jersey, as claimed by those UK agencies – with which this application does not agree.

33.                        To illustrate the mutually-beneficial, tacit, “everything-in-the-garden-is-rosy” cosmetic consensus propounded by the Select Committee, Secretary of State and the Jersey oligarchy, it is useful to cite this paragraph from the Introduction to the government response – and note most carefully two fundamental – and telling  – omissions: –

a.     “The Government accepts the Committee’s advice that the Ministry of Justice should restrain itself from engaging in areas of work which do not directly concern its primary constitutional role. This is entirely in line with the way the Crown Dependencies should be viewed – as self-determining jurisdictions with sufficient autonomy and expertise to engage the UK Government as they feel appropriate. This report explicitly recognises this and sets out steps to facilitate the necessary transition in ways of working. The Ministry of Justice believes this change of policy will have the additional benefit of making best use of the resource available.”

34.                        A casual reader of that paragraph – which represents a cosy and ‘happy’ PR ‘front’ that each of the three parties – Secretary of State, Jersey and Committee – can sign-up to with mutually comfortable avoidance of controversy – would never know that the Secretary of State and Crown’s position is both ultra vires – and vastly more directly involved and responsible.

35.                        The quoted paragraph fails to recognise that: –

36.                        A public authority may not – in law – “abdicate” its powers – nor allow its authority and power to be “puppeteered” or “ventriloquised”;  

37.                        The key Offices in Jersey – the very powers that should be most relied upon to ensure good governance, rule of law and good administration of justice – but which are – on the evidence – at the heart of the collapse thereof and involved in rampant corruption and political oppression – are, in fact, not local, Jersey authorities – but are – actually – the expressly and directly appointed agents of the Crown, and of London itself.

38.                        The fact is the UK Justice Department (like the Home Office before it) and the Privy Council have allowed themselves to become “captured” by the Jersey establishment over the decades. Resources – such as funding, staff and secondments flow from the Jersey oligarchy – into the Justice Department and the “Crown Dependencies section” and other parts of Whitehall – and a variety of personal and professional entanglements and contaminations have been allowed to flourish which – structurally – render the relevant United Kingdom authorities – such as the Secretary of State, Privy Council and the Jersey-based Lieutenant Governor – not capable of discharging their powers as  “public authorities” on an objective, exclusive basis – because – “discretionary decisions” and “powers” that should be exercised exclusively by the lawfully empowered authorities in question, are being dramatically influenced and – de facto – made by external – conflicted – agencies.

39.                        Indeed – it is quite remarkable – startling even – in a way that raises the question whether, in fact, anyone involved at the Department of Justice, and Privy Council, actually understands even the rudiments of settled administrative law – that the government Response document freely admits – even boasts – of its ultra vires “abdication” of power and exclusive authority.

40.                        Consider the following passages taken from that document, which are hereby cited as evidence: –

a.     The Ministry of Justice agrees some clarification on the practical application of this relationship would be helpful. The Ministerial foreword to this response answers the Committee’s recommendation that we produce a simple account of the constitutional position. We intend it to provide a blueprint for UK engagement with the Crown Dependencies and to bolster the recognition of their separate identities. We agree that secondments by Crown Dependencies staff to central Government Departments could bring benefits in terms of increased mutual understanding and would be happy to help facilitate these.

And: –

b.     “However, it is to be hoped that increased opportunity for the Crown Dependencies to build relationships across Whitehall will raise the capacity of both Government Departments and the Crown Dependencies to engage effectively on issues like this.”

And: –

c.      The Ministry of Justice envisages a period of transition from the current way of working to the new which will involve both awareness raising in other Government Departments and supporting the Crown Dependencies in developing an engagement strategy. Lord McNally will be writing to all Government Departments to draw their attention to this response and remind them of their responsibilities regarding the Crown Dependencies. The Ministry of Justice will also be exploring a range of ways to disseminate this information at official level”.

And: –

d.    “The Ministry of Justice recognises its responsibility, on behalf of the Crown, to ensure good governance in all the Crown Dependencies. We will continue to keep a watching brief on all relevant matters and maintain our strong relationships with the Islands that will help enable us to resolve any problems which may arise in a collaborative way. We will provide advice and support to the government and Chief Pleas of Sark as the new democratic government matures.”

And: –  

e.      “We accept the Committee’s view that this can, on occasion, amount to a duplication of effort with both the Islands’ Law Officers and UK Officials undertaking a similar analysis. We consider that if the Islands’ Law Officers provided a detailed report of their analysis of a Law and how it might touch upon international or constitutional issues then the need for such questioning from the Ministry of Justice would be substantially reduced and could be restricted to specific triggers,for example any Laws concerned with the constitutional relationship, or which had significant international considerations – for example significant risks of challenge under the ECHR, EU law or other international obligations. It should be noted that this change, whilst generally more efficient for both the UK and the Islands, may require the Island’s Law Officers to commit more resource to this process, although we would expect that the analysis which would go to such a report is already carried out by the Islands’ Law Officers. We will work with the Crown Dependencies Law Officers to put an appropriate procedure in place.

f.      While the Ministry of Justice would expect to be in a position to submit for approval for Royal Assent any Law which received a satisfactory report from the Islands’ Law Officers, the Ministry of Justice wishes to make it clear that changes to this process would not affect the constitutional right of the UK to refuse to recommend for Royal Assent a Law which the UK considered should not be so approved.”

And: –

g.     “We are confident that the guidance currently being developed between the Crown Dependency Law Officers and the Ministry of Justice will clarify and improve arrangements for handling Crown Dependency legislation. We are grateful for the constructive engagement by the Attorneys General of the Crown Dependencies in the next drafting stage of a revised set of guidance for the scrutiny of insular legislation. The new guidance should, as the Committee suggests, set out with clarity the means by which the UK’s responsibilities for insular legislation may be discharged; the constitutional grounds on which insular legislation may be challenged; the responsibilities of ministers and officials at each stage of the scrutiny process; and appropriate time limits for processing legislation prior to Royal Assent.”

41.                        There is another – fundamentally important – factor, not mentioned in the government response – but which reflects precisely the same type of “capture” and of “clientism” we see expressed in the above policy-statements – and that is the position and role of the Crown’s Lieutenant Governor in Jersey.

42.                        Ostensibly, the Lieutenant Governor is the agent of the Crown – the monarch – empowered by her Majesty’s personal Letters Patent, to independently represent Crown interest and the general interest of her Majesty’s subjects in Jersey.

43.                        When considering the labyrinthine and obscure networks of contacts, relationships and communications between Jersey and the United Kingdom authorities – of all of the agencies that most needs to be independent of – and sceptical towards the Jersey potentates – and healthily at arm’s-length – it is the Lieutenant Governor and his Offices.

44.                        Instead – that Office has become wholly captured – indeed, even apparently corrupted – by the Jersey establishment – and has been perverted from the oversight role it should be exercising – and bent to the complete opposite role – namely a champion of, a defender of, a “fixer” for – the Jersey oligarchy.

45.                        This ultra vires “clientism” and “abdication” of power by the relevant UK authorities is to be seen in the fact that the Office of Lieutenant Governor – Office-holder and staff – are actually funded by Jersey. Further – and quite extraordinarily – the indigenous Jersey potentates have had ceded to them, by the Crown, the power to de facto choose who the Lieutenant Governors will be, and to veto any they find “unacceptable”.

46.                        That state of affairs – even taken on its own – is so, frankly, extraordinarily ultra vires – one couldn’t make it up.

47.                        Taken in-the-round, it is plain that the position of the Crown, Privy Council and Secretary of State is ultra vires on grounds of “abdication”, “fettering” – and of permitting their powers and responsibilities to be “ventriloquised”  and “puppeteered”.  

48.                        Thus – even if the relevant and various “discretionary decisions” by the defendant authorities were hypothetically “reasonable”  and otherwise “lawful” (which they are not)  – on these grounds alone – that of “abdication”, “fettering”, and being “puppeteered” – the decisions in question are unlawful – and must be set aside by the court.

49.                        The relevant “discretionary decisions” of the “public authorities” in question – must be their decisions – taking into account all relevant – and only relevant – factors. “Discretionary decisions” which are contaminated by third-party actors, and which take into account non-relevant factors – are not lawful decisions.

50.                        The administrative law case-law is decisive – simply crushing.

51.                        If we are to choose a single, short description – which accurately captures the nature of the relationship between Jersey’s entrenched and overtly stagnant oligarchy – and the United Kingdom authorities – the word “clientism” captures the situation most economically. “Clientism” is the tendency of resident in-country staff of an organisation to regard the officials and people of the host country as “clients”. This condition can be found in business or government. The term clientism is somewhat similar to the phrase “gone-native”.

52.                        The Crown, Privy Council and Secretary of State for Justice – and their agents, for example the Lieutenant Governors – have “gone-native” – and regard the Jersey establishment and their allies in the City as “clients” – rather than what they, in plain reality, are – a corrupt, self-protecting, overly-powerful and frankly dangerous set of backwoods and faintly crazed oligarchs who require – in the name of the public-good – the most rigorous scrutiny and challenge.

53.                        On a day-to-day basis – and in occasional official policy statements such as the 2010 government response to the Justice Select Committee – we are sold an image of a dialogue – a relationship – between two separate, independent, authorities – the Secretary of State for justice – and the insular authorities of Jersey.

54.                        That image is false.

55.                        It is deliberately cosmetic.

56.                        That being so – how might we, then, accurately perceive the true nature of what we see?

57.                        The Jersey oligarchs are wholly entrenched in the corridors of power in London – such is their degree of “capture” of the London authorities, such as the Lieutenant Governor and Crown Dependencies Section of the MoJ. Thus the image of the relevant UK authorities as meaningfully “independent” of Jersey mafia interests is legally fictitious.

58.                        But – the fiction flows in the other direction too.

59.                        London is swift enough to always describe the Jersey establishment as the “insular authorities” – and as an “independent”, “self-determining” entity – thus bolstering the view that any intervention would be some form of monstrous, colonial imposition.

60.                        But who are the real powers in Jersey – who have manifested the catalogue of misfeasances, negligences, malfeasances, political oppressions and undisguised corruptions? Those are Crown Office holders – Lieutenant Governor, Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff, Attorney General and Solicitor General – and all are creatures of – agents of – London. All are appointed – and dramatically and unassailably empowered – by her Majesty’s Letters Patent. Not one of the immensely powerful Office Holders in question is answerable to any entity in Jersey – at all.

61.                        So – in fact – the “insular authorities” – are, in reality – the London authorities.

62.                        Returning to the question – “what, then is the true nature of the “relationship” and “dialogue” we see between the Secretary of State and the Jersey potentates?”

63.                        It is this: – imagine a man with a sock-puppet on either hand – and pretending that each puppet is engaging the other in a conversation. In our analogue – the sock-puppet on one hand is the Secretary of State – and the sock-puppet on the other hand is the Jersey Law Officers.

64.                        The puppeteer conducting this charade – is the Privy Council.

 [Section from Combined Legal Application – Stuart Syvret vs. Monarch, Crown, Privy Council, Secretary of State for Justice, & United Kingdom Attorney General.]