The British Judicial Establishment
And Their Approach
To Protecting You.
This is a brief posting – intended as an introduction to the serial presentation of evidence – which I hope to begin with another posting later this evening.
Watch this space – and remember – as you wait – that quote from the Tindersticks song, En Diablo En El Ojo:
“I wouldn’t close your eyes just yet
I wouldn’t turn the lights down yet
Because there are things you’ve got to see here
There are things you’ve got to believe with me.”
In the mean time, it may interest you to know that I have written to the court administration in my own name, seeking to make a formal complaint about Tuesday’s farrago, get it deemed a mis-trial and secure a fresh hearing.
I’ll explain my concerns below, but first let us consider some of the dialogue which took place under the previous posting.
Those who have read readers’ comments under the previous blog will have been as surprised as I was to learn of certain facts.
Not least that one of the two judges – Lord Richards – was tried for exposing himself to a woman. One commenter pointed out that he was acquitted. To which another commenter wrote in response – saying:
“True. And that case is closed. However, even if completely exonerated, anyone charged with a similar crime could expect to have formed strong opinions about such things.
In most of the world’s jury systems, Richards would be automatically disqualified even from citizen jury service.
On that basis alone, if the presiding judge knew a juror had been falsely accused, the court would have to consider his views contaminated by his prior experience with the process. Even a witness account would likely be challenged if he or she had ever been charged with related crimes.
Richards can’t expect to be seen as impartial, and will have to recuse himself or face public scrutiny on an international scale. Just imagine what future books on The Jersey Matter will say!”
Amongst my comments last night I wrote this:
“Now, the decision of the judges in question makes perfect sense.
As I said in the posting – the billionaire Barclay brothers can JR Jack Straw in London – but my constituents can’t.
Look – the question of Richards’ supposed innocence just isn’t the question. The issue is that when you have any, remote, kind of tainture – anything which may give rise to a suspicion of non-objectivity – then you do not involve yourself in determining a judicial procedure which touches upon similar territory.
And Tugendhat – knows Phil Bailhache and the rest of the crew – because he’s served as an appeal court judge in Jersey – and appointed to that post by – Phil Bailhache!!!
Christ on a bike.
We go to London on behalf of my constituents – who are victims of the most foul abuses and maltreatment – and resultant cover-ups by the Jersey oligarchy.
And we get as beaks a man who is mates with the prime objects of our criticism – and a man who may or may not be a sexual pervert.
Rock & roll!
I suppose one should find it funny, really.
I mean – really – you just couldn’t make it up.”
This drew the following comment:
“Oh here we go.
You lose your case and guess what … yep, the English judges are all bent allies of the oligarchy.
You’re nothing if not completely predictable Mr Syvret.”
To which I responded with the obvious observation:
“Well – as the – belatedly – revealed facts in this case show – yes!
‘Allies of the Jersey oligarchy’.
A man with a history of accusations against him of sexual perversion.
And a man who is mates with Phil Bailhache – and was appointed by him as a Jersey appeal court judge!
Yea – one could not contrive to manufacture the said material!
Facts is facts, son.”
So – what to make of the ‘fine traditions’ of the British upper-classes?
Protecting each other – rather than protecting you and your family.
As will become horrifyingly clear when I post the first item of evidence.
So – whilst you wait for the next posting – and the tragedy and obscenity of what it reveals – you might like to read my complaint to the court administration, which I reproduce here:
“I believe that what occurred on Tuesday was a mis-trial. And that rather than having to mount an appeal – the Applicant is entitled to a re-hearing of the Application.
The grounds for complaint are as follows:
The Applicant did not receive a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal. This because: –
The Applicant was given only approximately one hour to make its case – this notwithstanding it had been scheduled for two hours – and, in fact, the hearing had been scheduled as the final business – so could have continued into the afternoon.
The lead judge, Lord Richards, repeatedly and excessively interrupted and questioned me, as I attempted to make the Applicant’s case. This had the effect of disrupting the flow of my presentation; answering his constant interruptions caused me to have to repeat a number or points which I had already covered – and introduced digressions down paths which were of less significance for the Applicant. This further had the effect of causing much of the Applicant’s case to be left unstated.
The absurdly short time allowed – and the fact that the presentation of the Applicant was constantly pro-actively disrupted, thus consuming more time – plainly prevented the Applicant from fully presenting and rounding-out its case.
On this ground alone – a clear breach of British jurisprudence and of Article 6 of the ECHR – the Applicant did not receive a fair hearing, nor anything remotely resembling a fair hearing.
We then have to consider the two judges, Justice Tugendhat and Lord Richards.
Neither of these two judges should have been hearing this case – nor should Lord Richards be hearing any cases which touch upon matters of sexual deviancy.
Both of these judges should have recused themselves from this case.
Lord Richards has a history of being accused of a sexual perversion – namely flashing a woman on a train. He was acquitted of this charge – but he can be expected to have “formed strong opinions” concerning accusations of sexual misconduct – many of which underpin the Jersey case. Lord Richards cannot, therefore, be regarded as a legitimate component of an impartial tribunal when the tribunal in question is hearing cases involving sexual misconduct.
His involvement in cases, such as that of the Applicant, breaches the need for the appearance of objectivity to be retained at all times.
Justice Tugendhat was appointed by Jersey’s Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache – one of the prime objects of the Applicant’s complaints – to the post of Jersey appeal court judge. This fact was revealed only at the very start of the hearing – not some weeks before – and in the declaration, it was made clear that Justice Tugendhat knew not only Philip Bailhache, but also many of the other prime objects of the Applicant’s concerns.
Given the financial constraints of the Applicant, we were unable to, realistically, mount an objection – as this would have meant an adjournment for possibly some weeks – and another very expensive visit to London.
The Applicant should have been told of Justice Tugendhat’s conflict of interests significantly before the day of the actual hearing. Had the Applicant been so informed, it would have objected strongly to the involvement of Justice Tugendhat.
Instead – no such realistic or practical opportunity was afforded the Applicant – therefore we had to proceed with a plainly and heavily conflicted judge.
Similarly, had the Applicant been informed, it would have strongly objected to any judge who had an unfortunate history of accusation of sexual perversions. It is nothing less that extraordinary that Lord Richards should have considered himself – let alone the court administration consider him – to be an appropriate judge in this, or similar, cases.
Both judges were plainly conflicted and should not have been there.
It was also clear to several people in the audience that the judgment of the two judges had been largely determined and written beforehand; their short retirement enabling them to merely tweak it a little to give a semblance of having taken into account that which was said in the hearing.
In addition to a formal complaint against the conduct of the hearing – and against the inappropriate involvement of the two judges – I also wish to formally complain to the appropriate department or person who has responsibility for determining which judges will hear which cases.”
British “justice” in action.
When you read the next posting, you won’t, perhaps, be surprised that the appalling events depicted in it did not receive a completed investigation – and that then Attorney General Michael Birt, told the States of Jersey Police to drop the enquiry.
Read my next posting – hopefully I’ll have time to get it done later tonight – and then take another look at our high guardians