THE 7.00 A.M AFFIDAVIT

The Journey to Strasbourg Begins

“To get through the hardest journey we need take only one step at a time, but we must keep on stepping”

“I haven’t a clue as to how my story will end. But that’s all right. When you set out on a journey and night covers the road, you don’t conclude the road has vanished. And how else could we discover the stars?”

Monday morning – weekend flitted by in rest, joy or anti-climax – another five days of work begin to loom at the horizon’s brim of consciousness as the alarm clock blips and glacks vehemently into the cloud of rest; it might be raining outside; you hit the snooze-button and begin to engage, psychologically, with the day’s preparations. Is there enough milk for breakfast – how many attempts will it take to persuade the children to get ready for school – is the day’s work going to be boring, challenging – thinking of the people you’ll be working with, nice, nasty, or just flatly bizarre? The tolling slow-motion tumult of mundanity coalesces on its territory – Monday morning.

7.00 A.M – Monday morning – but somewhere – something else – something unusual – is happening in the small, quasi-self-governing island of Jersey. Amidst the predictability, a process – a journey – will be beginning; a journey that has at its end the long over-due destruction of a captured and corrupted power structure; an overlapped and conflicted system of governance that has enabled the entrenched local oligarchy to run Jersey in ways that are utterly lawless – to serve their own ends – for over 800 years.

Strasbourg – here we come.

Yes, a small piece of history will occur – in Jersey’s Royal Court at 7.00 A.M tomorrow morning – when the court convenes to hear and dispose of my judicial review application, by which I have sought to have the court fulfil the role of providing scrutiny and oversight of the unlawful and corrupt activities and abuses of power of the conflicted Office of Jersey Attorney General; the island’s sole prosecutory authority.

An authority that is nothing more than a legally empowered wing of the corrupt set of gangsters who rule Jersey; a prosecution system that protects the entrenched establishment by letting off the criminals who are on their side – or those who to prosecute would be terribly embarrassing – and, instead, criminally abuses it prosecutory powers to oppress opposition politicians and other dissidents.

The magnificent apparatus of Jersey’s Royal Court has decided – in its wisdom – that convening the entire show – at 7.00 A.M on Monday morning – is vitally necessary; because if they didn’t – well, that would mean the petty process in Jersey’s Magistrates’ court against me might have to be adjourned for a day – or even a morning.

And we just couldn’t have that now – could we?

Because – well, hell – we all know copies of the Napier report are floating around, and – who knows – it might have certain findings in it, which could give strength to my abuse-of-process argument – which the oligarchy are absolutely and indecently determined will be disposed of on Monday morning in the Magistrates court.

Just in case I should obtain a copy of Napier.

And – as they’ve gone to so much trouble – deeply embarrassing trouble – to expressly deny me disclosure of known evidence I need to prove the abuse-of-process argument – and deny me access to other  evidence that would strengthen my public interest disclosure defence – and have even deemed all such evidence “inadmissible” – it wouldn’t look too clever if some material got published which showed them to be a load of crooks – especially people such as Dave Warcup and Mick Gradwell.

The two cops who led the politically oppressive actions against me.

I guess when you’ve already conducted yourselves in such extraordinary ways – you may as well have lit a bonfire of a thousand copies of the European Convention on Human Rights in the Royal Square – convening the Royal Court to throw out a judicial review application at 7.00 A.M – when few – if anyone – will be around to come and watch – and listen to what is said – just seems a normal and natural thing to do?

But – have no fear!

That 7.00 A.M, court hearing – just too much of a freaky intrusion into your Monday morning?

Exclusively – to the Quite Vile Blog – you can read my 65 page affidavit – which is published below!

And pay attention now. This is a sworn affidavit – that is before Jersey’s Royal Court – and is forming the very core of a fundamentally important examination of public law – of public policy – of human rights – of power – in Jersey.

So – read it carefully – and remember – it is a sworn affidavit – so if I have lied in it – why, we all expect – don’t we – perjury charges to be brought against me forthwith.

Well, I mean, to say, if that doesn’t happen – then – well – we’d have to conclude it’s all true.

And if it’s all true – then – we are, indeed, ruled by a collection of utterly despicable gangsters.

Shameless criminals – who have occupied and captured the highest Offices in Jersey.

But even if you can’t make Monday morning, but still fancied the idea of enjoying such a spectacle – don’t worry – I’ll be appealing – and appealing – and thence – taking it to Strasbourg.

And not just this action either! Why, I have at least another four others nearing launch.

And, no – the threats of massive court-costs and bankruptcy do not – and are not – going to deter me.

Not for one second.

I’ll be bankrupted soon – and – I just don’t care.

It’s all far, far too late for the oligarchy to be relying upon such a tactic.

I’ve had nothing left to lose for a long, long time.

And that makes me legally and politically dangerous.

Really dangerous.

Like I said – Strasbourg – here we come!

Stuart.

In the Royal Court of the Island of Jersey

(Samedi Division)

In the matter of the application of Stuart Syvret for leave to institute judicial review proceedings in respect of decisions, acts, measures, policies, omissions and conduct of Her Majesty’s Attorney General.

In the matter of the application of Stuart Syvret for leave to institute judicial review proceedings in respect of decisions, acts, measures, policies, omissions and conduct of the Connetable of Grouville.

The decisions, acts, measures, policies, omissions and conduct of Her Majesty’s Attorney General, and the decisions, acts, measures, policies, omissions and conduct of the Connetable of Grouville complained of, constituting – as described in detail below: –

Various unlawful acts, inter alios: –

Various breaches of his Human Rights, contra the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000;

Incidental breaches of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002;

Various conspiracies to pervert the course of justice;

Various Torts;

Various breaches of Article 47 of the States of Jersey Law 2005;

Various examples of misconduct in a public office;

Various examples of misfeasance in a public office.

Affidavit of Stuart Syvret

1. I, Stuart Syvret of – – St. Helier, Jersey, MAKE OATH and state that the contents of this, my affidavit, are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and say as follows:

2. I make this affidavit in support of my applications for leave to institute judicial review proceedings in respect of the decisions, acts, measures, policies, omissions and conduct, on various dates, of Her Majesty’s Attorney General; and the decisions, acts, measures, policies, omissions and conduct, on various dates, of the Connetable of Grouville.

3. I do so in support of the reliefs sought as laid out in the Form of Notice for Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (Rule 16/2(2)).

4. Should it be necessary, I also make this affidavit in support of my application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings more than 3 months having elapsed from any of the dates when the acts, measures, policies, omissions and conduct complained of, occurred.

5. I make this affidavit in support of the accompanying Form of Notice – because all of the matters raised are of the utmost public law, public policy and public interest concern – and thus require the proper and public scrutiny and oversight of the court, for the general public good.

6. I am Stuart Syvret, and until April of 2010, I was a member of the parliament (‘the States’) of the island of Jersey.

7. First elected to the States at the age of 25 as a Deputy for St. Helier No. 3/4 district in 1990. I was elected three years later as a Senator by the whole island, coming second in the island-wide poll, by which six Senators are elected for a six year term of Office. I was re-elected as Senator in 1999, on that occasion coming first in the poll. I was again re-elected as Senator, again coming first in the poll in 2005.

8. The 2005 election marked a change in the island’s system of government from a Committee system to Ministerial government, with a cabinet that would be led by a Chief Minister. I was the only candidate to go to the electorate with a declaration that, should I be re-elected, I would seek election as Chief Minister by the States assembly.

9. My centre-left/Green politics and outspoken ethical and moral stance against corruption in Jersey power circles has always caused me to be profoundly unpopular with the political / judicial / business establishment, who have frequently persecuted me for having such a political philosophy. It was no surprise, therefore, that I was not chosen by the States assembly to become Chief Minister.

10. As an example of the type of anti-democratic political oppression I have been subjected to, I was improperly suspend from the States assembly for approximately 6 months in 1996. This action was initiated and driven against me by the then Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache, in a corrupt effort to protect his friend and political ally, the then Senator Reg Jeune who I had exposed engaging in the corrupt abuse of his position as a member of the States and as President of the then Policy & Resources Committee.

11. Sir. Philip Bailhache being the brother of William Bailhache, the Attorney General responsible for the unlawful actions taken against me – which actions form much of the grounds for this judicial review application. William Bailhache having since been promoted from the post of Attorney General to that of Deputy Bailiff, with responsibility for the actions of his Office when Attorney General devolving to his successor in that post, Timothy Le Cocq.

12. Nevertheless, in spite of various obstructions, my political career continued to be successful. Following the 2005 elections, I remained the politician with the highest electoral mandate in the island at that time, and as the longest continually serving Senator, was ‘Father of the House’.

13. Therefore, for a sustained period of approximately twenty years, I was an effective and respected politician, doing a job I was good at, felt genuinely committed to, and was popular with the public. Whilst things are always uncertain in politics, I had a credible expectation that I would continue in Jersey politics for further terms of Office, still being comparatively young, at 45 – having been elected at the age of 25.


14. However, the ethical and anti-corruption approach I took throughout my political career was always regarded as a serious threat to the traditional ruling oligarchy.


15. Now – my political career and my life has been unlawfully destroyed by the malfeasant actions, criminalities, inactions and unlawful nature of certain public authorities in Jersey, such as the Attorney General, and accessories before and after the fact, such as the Connetable of Grouville.


16. After 20 years of dedicated, honest and principled public service, I find myself homeless, single, unemployed, penniless, with no assets, no pension, my involvement in politics terminated, no career, and of poor health. This situation in which I find myself is as a direct result of the unlawful actions of the Attorney General, the Connetable of Grouville, and certain other public authorities in Jersey, who have misused and abused their powers as public authorities to politically oppress me in illegal ways, in order to prevent me from exposing a wide variety of otherwise hidden, criminal malfeasances, the public exposure of which is, or would be, massively damaging to the island’s political establishment and/or certain senior individuals within that establishment.


17. I should state at this point that other Jersey public authorities have also acted in malfeasant and criminal ways – the conspiracies and unlawful campaigns against me involving a number of individuals and departments. Other actions will, in due course, be taken by me in respect of those unlawful practices. However, for the purposes of this affidavit and judicial review application, it is specifically the unlawful actions of the Attorney General and the Connetable of Grouville that cause them to be the respondents.


18. Of all of the unlawful and oppressive harassments I have suffered in the course of my career as a dissident politician in Jersey, the mobilisation against me of a conflicted and deeply politicised prosecution system and partly-corrupted policing apparatus – so as to use the police and the law enforcement system to do to me what legitimate political opposition had failed to achieve – namely obstruct, de rail, discredit and destroy my political work and career, is the most serious.


19. Even more than the corrupt and anti-democratic exclusion of me from the Jersey parliament in 1996, as caused by Sir Philip Bailhache, as referred to in paragraph 10 – the inconsistent, biased, disproportionate, conflicted, improperly motivated, corrupt and unlawful use of policing and prosecutory powers against me amounts to an illegal enterprise of the most damaging kind, inflicting a variety of harms and wrongs against me, and, significantly, against the public good; the facts of which are elaborated below.


20. During 2007, I was unlawfully obstructed, harassed and oppressed by various public employees and authorities – including the Attorney General – for the improper purpose of preventing me from fulfilling my statutory duties in respect of child protection when I was Minister for Health & Social Services. So deliberate, calculated and effective was that conspiracy that it succeeded in engineering my removal from Office as Minister.


21. The conspiracy referred to above was so brazen, an attempt was even made by senior civil servants to suborn and draw into the criminal enterprise, the Chief Constable of the States of Jersey Police Force, Graham Power, Queens Police Medal. Mr. Power flatly rejected all such approaches, and wrote a contemporaneous file-note recording the meeting in question. That file-note forms part of the evidence for this application.


22. So great was the shock I felt during 2007 – as first I investigated and discovered many years of previously hidden child abuse – and then experienced the corrupt wrath of certain authorities and individuals who were responsible for concealing such crimes for many, many years – that I had to fundamentally re-appraise the capacity of public administration in Jersey to deal honestly and ethically with difficult and problematic issues. This caused me to re-visit and re-asses various other controversial matters and view them with a fresh seriousness.


23. Amongst those matters was a 1999 police report that represented an initial investigation into a male nurse – ‘Nurse M’- against who there was prima facie evidence for being a mass-murderer and serial rapist.


24. Although aware of the case for some years, I had previously been assured that there were, in fact, no grounds for concern, the matter had been investigated fully, and that the allegations of murder against Nurse M had been discovered to be baseless.


25. However, by the end of 2007, I had experienced something akin to culture-shock. In the course of 12 months, it had become starkly clear to me that straightforward concealment – the burying – the “brushing under the carpet” – of any major scandal – no matter how criminal – was the routine modus operandi of the States of Jersey, its public departments and its senior managers. I labelled it the Culture of Concealment, so widespread is it. The Culture of Concealment is inimically hostile to the public good – yet – it is all but impossible to fight – because avoiding problematic, embarrassing scandals, suits everyone involved. Workers, managers, union representatives, chief executives, politicians and Law Officers. The “anything-for-a-quite-life” approach is utterly dominant. And woe betide anyone who breaks ranks and exposes failings and malfeasances; such a person will find themselves with virtually no allies; may find themselves with their lives utterly ruined, as mine has been.


26. Nevertheless, by now, around late 2007 and early 2008, I could not escape concluding that the matter of Nurse M, was not some mere fleeting suspicion; some misunderstanding that had been adequately investigated. Given what I had so plainly and shockingly learnt about the endemic Culture of Concealment, as much as I did not want to face the truth, I knew that the 1999 investigation had been no “mistake”. I realised the grounds for the investigation must have been good – but the crimes represented an unspeakable nightmare – that had been buried by “the system”.


27. I made two attempts to persuade authorities to take the case seriously and re-examine it. When I became aware of a new, professional approach by the police under the leadership that had chosen to investigate the many decades of previously hidden historic child abuse, I e-mailed them a copy of the 1999 report, and expressed the hope the case would be re-opened once time and resources allowed following the child abuse investigation. Additionally, I tabled the 1999 report as an item of evidence in the Royal Courts of Justice in London during an attempt to secure a judicial review of the UK Justice Secretary’s failure to ensure the proper rule of law in Jersey.


28. Neither attempt to secure “official” intervention having succeeded, I took the decision to make a public interest disclosure of the 1999 report in accordance with the statutory public interest disclosure clause and the journalism clause in the Data Protection Law.


29. It was – ostensibly – the public interest disclosure of the 1999 report on my internet blog that led to a massed police raid, my arrest, unlawful imprisonment, and the total searching – without a search warrant – of the home I shared with my then partner, who was also an elected member of the Jersey parliament.


30. I now know that these actions against me were not motivated by some rational or reasonable or proportionate concern in respect of a possible breach of the data protection law.


31. The unlawful surveillance, grossly disproportionate police raid, and resultant malicious prosecution had – and has – in addition to the data protection law – further, entirely different motives.


32. Yes, the publication of the report – a deeply shocking document – caused obvious concerns to the Jersey establishment – indicating as it did a scandalous failure to see through to a conclusion the investigation of a man who appeared to be as dangerous – if not worse – than Harold Shipman. Moreover, a profoundly series matter – the investigation of which had been improperly abandoned by the then Attorney General. Michael Birt, who, by 2009, was Deputy Bailiff, and is now Bailiff. Naturally the Jersey authorities wanted to intimidate me into taking down the report in an effort to minimise embarrassment and controversy.


33. But there were other motives, as I later discovered. During one of the early directions hearings, the prosecuting Advocate, Stephen Baker asserted words to the effect that there had been no long-term, politically motivated police surveillance engaged in against me or my then partner. However, after that hearing, a police source imparted a quantity of information to me which indicated that Baker had lied; committed perjury.


34. My source told me a number of things. Amongst these were the facts that the officer who had replaced Lenny Harper – the senior police officer who had led the historic child abuse investigation – one Mick Gradwell, had, in fact, spent a majority of his working duties in Jersey on the “task” of “investigating” Mr. Harper and me. Moreover – my source robustly confirmed that I had – in fact – counter to the claims of Advocate Baker – been subjected to a regime of politically motivated covert police surveillance. My source was even able to give me the names of two of the office involved – Mark Cane and Julia Jackson.


35. Upon being confronted with this information, Advocate Baker had to concede its accuracy – essentially admitting perjury. He later quoted in court from a note written by Mick Gradwell, which, in addition to confirming the validity and accuracy of my source, purported to justify the unlawful surveillance on the grounds that “there was a concern I might be writing defamatory remarks on my blog”.


36. The perjury by Baker – and the admittance by Gradwell that, essentially, the police and prosecution actions against me were, basically, designed to stop me, and by example, others, from expressing disfavourable views concerning those in public authority in Jersey – the entire illegality of the exercise against me was established at that point. [Improper motives by the public authorities; powers not being used for the legislative purpose for which they were granted; abuse of powers; breaches of the ECHR etc]


37. Thus my source was proven to be robust and reliable, even correctly identifying two of police officers involved. I therefore have confidence in the accuracy and robustness of the remaining information supplied to me concerning the several improper and unlawful motivations of certain public authorities, of the Attorney General, the acting Chief of Police, David Warcup, and the Chief Executive to the States, Bill Ogley.


38. The unlawful police raid mounted against me was expressly designed to be ludicrously excessive. Massively over-the-top – in order to attempt to frighten and intimidate me into adopting a far lower and less troublesome profile – and – even more clearly – send a “message” to the burgeoning local blogosphere that which was beginning to make dramatic in-roads with respect to changing and re-directing the usually staid and tame local news agenda. I had to be crushed, as a “frightener”; I had to be made an example of, in an effort to deter other citizen media journalists and non-establishment politicians.


39. A further – very clear purpose of the surveillance – and of the raid – was as an attempt to identify my many sources of information; the various whistle-blowers who provide me with public interest information that would never get published if left to the local mainstream media. (The attempt failed in respect of such important sources, as my habit and practice was to not store or retain information in a discoverable form that could cause them to be identified.) My source also said – as though it needed stating – that a purpose of the raid was also to intimidate and frighten my sources – thus closing off the embarrassing flow of leaks – and, greatly reducing, as a consequence, my effectiveness as a politician.


40. However, my source assured me that the surveillance and raid had one overarching, unambiguous objective to which all others were secondary – one fundamental purpose the Jersey authorities were desperate to succeed in.


41. The then Attorney General, and the political executive he advised, were convinced they would find – amongst my files or on my computer – evidence that would show and prove that either, or both, Lenny Harper and Graham Power (the then Chief of Police) had been leaking me confidential, internal police information and reports.


42. The conversation was around a year ago, so I can’t be absolutely precise about the exact phraseology, but my source said words to the following effect: “they were absolutely convinced they would find them. [the leaks] They just could not accept the idea that you had your own sources and your own initiatives and methods. They were desperate to find leaks to you from Lenny and Graham, because, well, obviously, they needed something, anything, they could grab onto to use to try and discredit Graham and Lenny. And of course that would have done the job. Though Lenny was retired, they still needed something to try and rubbish him with, as the smear-campaign against his competence wasn’t taken seriously by anyone who mattered, and they had suspended Graham, but everyone knew that was on a load of b*ll*cks. The establishment were very worried about the weakness of their position – so a nice fat load of e-mails, or internal police files leaked to you, which would show these senior cops “playing in politics” and breaking the Data Protection Law would have answered their prayers. [Person X] told me [they] thought Bailhache and Ogley were going to cry when they realised the raid had drawn a blank.”


43. In addition to the obviously improper and unlawful motivations for the various political mobilisations of the law enforcement apparatus as described above – such actions were also overtly – and seriously criminal.


44. Criminal – as is the malicious prosecution being mounted against me – because a fundamental motivation and objective of the entire exercise has been to unlawfully conceal a very substantial quantity of serious criminal acts, by a number of individuals, States departments and public authorities. I was dutifully working as a politician to expose such crimes – crimes traditional hidden by the Culture of Concealment. Therefore, I had to be politically oppressed in order to stop me from exposing previously hidden crimes.


45. For example – crimes committed by the Office of Attorney General – such as perverting the course of justice, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, breaches of the Children (Jersey) Laws and of misconduct in a public office. Such crimes having – evidencedly – been engaged in by a former Attorney General, Michael Birt, and his successor, William Bailhache.


46. Indeed, it would appear that the “requirement” to perpetuate the continued unlawful concealment of such malfeasances and crimes has been adopted and is being carried forward by the current Attorney General, Timothy Le Cocq.


47. I am being prosecuted for four alleged offences. Stated simply, the alleged offences are:


48. Alleged failure to up-date the address to which my car was registered.


49. Alleged failure to renew an out-of-date driving licence.


50. Alleged failure to be registered under the Data Protection Law.


51. Alleged unlawful disclosure of controlled data.


52. Obviously, the two alleged data protection law infractions are, by far, the significant charges, and it is those I focus upon primarily. However, the two motoring charges are not irrelevant – given they arise out of the same unlawful, politicised, prosecution and police surveillance as the Data Protection Charges, and demonstrate significant bias and disproportionality by the prosecution in the action against me.


53. Further – as I will explain – the two motoring charges and the nature in which they were investigated – such investigation involving as it did at least two of the island’s amateur, voluntary, elected political police forces, which are answerable to the Attorney General’s Office – raises a number of serious matters – both of the general and the particular nature.


54. For example, in Jersey the professional police do not possess the power to charge; that power resides exclusively with officers of the island’s twelve ‘honorary’ political police forces. Moreover – each of those twelve parish police forces is led by an elected parish Constable – who are fully empowered, voting members of the island’s legislature, ‘the States.’ The Constable of the parish in which I resided during the relevant time – Connetable Dan Murphy, of Grouville – who is a respondent to this application, is widely known to be a political and personal enemy of mine and of my former partner. Given his highly conflicted role – as a parish Connetable – as both a fully active and empowered member of the legislature – and the head of a powerful, elected police force – neither he, nor the Office he holds, can meet, nor is capable of meeting, the requisite test of a public authority that it must not “have a direct interest in the outcome of a decision, or show actual bias or a real possibility of bias”.


55. A further – extremely problematic – issue arises when considering the twelve political police officers who are also members of the legislature and who are the heads of the twelve elected, voluntary – but powerful – political police forces.


56. The Jersey Attorney General is the overall head of the twelve ‘honorary’ police forces, and the associated powers confer upon the Attorney General a degree of influence and control over these politicised police forces and the twelve police officer members of the legislature, the parish Connetables.


57. Both the post of Connetable in general, as presently structured, cannot operate lawfully, and, in the instant case, the individual post-holder cannot fulfil the lawful expectations upon a public authority, in respect of the applicant. I return to this subject below.


58. The post of Attorney General in Jersey carries with it a variety of highly conflicted and unsustainably mutually exclusive powers; powers that simply cannot be lawfully exercised – given the need for “a public authority to have no direct interest in the outcome of a decision, or show actual or real bias”. The authority relationship the Office of Attorney General has over the twelve Parish Connetables is but one conflicted and unsustainable power. The others are elaborated upon in greater detail below.

59. I will now provide a brief summation of the unlawful acts giving rise to this application. Before progressing to the specific, detailed, evidenced serious concerns in connection with the actual conduct of the prosecution against me – I will begin by describing the unlawful police actions – including the covert surveillance, breaking and entering, unlawful arrest, unlawful imprisonment and unlawful search.


60. It should be noted, that – following an unlawful conspiracy involving the then Attorney General, William Bailhache, the then Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis, the Chief Executive to the States, Bill Ogley and the then Deputy Police Chief David Warcup, the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force had been unlawfully suspended in November 2008. The police force had, therefore, from that point come under leadership that was amenable to the unlawful and political purposes of the Attorney General and the political executive.


61. Because of the immense range of conflicted and mutually exclusive powers held by the Office of Attorney General in Jersey, the said Office will have played a significant role in initiating, instructing, advising, guiding, controlling and/or influencing the police investigation of me and subsequent unlawful actions.


62. The extent to which this has occurred is not yet clear, but that it did occur is known. For example, the previous Attorney General, William Bailhache, at the time of my unlawful arrest, originally denied all knowledge of it. Under questioning in the island’s parliament he subsequently recanted on this denial, albeit in a manner involving a brazen degree of sophistry.


63. The fact is – the very idea that the police in Jersey would mount a massed police raid on the most senior elected member of the island’s legislature, imprison him for seven-and-a-half hours, search the house from top to bottom – without a search-warrant – and remove his constituents’ parliamentary privileged data – without the prior knowledge and agreement of the Attorney General is – quite literally – incredible.


64. Mr. William Bailhache could not – and cannot – be regarded as capable of ever being an objective and fair public authority in respect of decisions concerning me. This is the case given his direct political and personal conflicts of interest in matters concerning me – especially in respect of the efforts I was making to expose unacceptable and unlawful failures to bring child abusers – and child abuse concealers – to justice. Mr. Bailhache – along with the Advocate actually conducting the malicious prosecution against me, Advocate Stephen Baker, both being – evidencedly – involved in obstructing the police in bringing to justice highly evidenced child abusers.


65. In the knowledge, therefore, of the involvement of the Attorney General’s Office in the following matters, I turn to a description of the unlawful conduct of the police.


66. Unlawful, politicised, police surveillance and investigation.


67. It is the case, inter alios, that: –

68. The very extensive, long-term police investigation of me, and surveillance mounted against me and my former partner (also an elected politician, Deputy Carolyn Labey of Grouville) was unlawful.


69. It was conducted with improper motives.


70. It was engaged in ‘bad faith’.


71. It was engaged in by a public authority, notwithstanding the fact the public authority in question was, and remains, incapable of meeting the principle test: “A body must not have a direct interest in the outcome of a decision, or show actual bias or a real possibility of bias”.


72. It was engaged in by a public authority which was failing to exercise statutory powers for the purposes for which they were conferred, and not on relevant grounds of public interest.


73. It was politically motivated.


74. It was personally motivated.


75. It was a breach of certain Rights as guaranteed under the ECHR.


76. It had a variety of different motivations and objectives – most of which were unlawful and most of which did not relate to the charges brought against me.


77. It involved at least two – but probably several more – covert, unlawful intrusions into the property by police officers.


78. It breached legal privilege, given certain legal matters I was engaged in.


79. It breached the Data Protection Law.

80. It breached parliamentary privilege – in that it amounted to a direct and highly invasive intrusion into the privileged communications between many private constituents and their elected representatives.


81. It threatened the public good, by amounting to a police-state type assault against a prominent opposition politician – thus jeopardising the safe functioning of free democracy.


82. It constituted a direct, criminal breach of Article 47 of the States of Jersey Law.


83. It was – plainly – ‘disproportionate’.


84. The conduct described above directly and closely involved a number of police officers – the identity of at least three of which has been discovered by me – notwithstanding earlier – perjured – denials by the prosecution; the three in question being Mick Gradwell, Mark Cane and Julia Jackson.


85. The conduct described above served no ‘legitimate purpose’, given its disproportionality, unlawfulness, excessiveness given the nature of the allegations against me – and was illegitimate, given the Data Protection (Jersey) Law (DPL) contains within it provisions for investigating and enforcing alleged breaches of the (DPL) which were not followed in the extant case.


86. The above unlawful actions – involving breaches of statute law, common law, tort law and my human rights – have caused dramatic, and very substantial distress, damage and actual harm to myself and my health, my relationship, family and friends, the destruction of my career prospects and professional reputation – thus causing great distress and anguish, in addition to the complete loss of my livelihood.


87. The unlawful regime of covert police surveillance described above progressed to an unlawful, politicised, police raid, false imprisonment and unlawful property search.


88. At approximately 9.00 am on one morning in April 2009 I stepped from the front door of the property to collect an item from inside my car. Three unmarked police cars – each carrying so far as I could tell under the circumstances, two plain clothes officers – sped up the drive, stopped, and two officers exited from each vehicle. I was immediately surrounded by these officers, one of whom grabbed my wrist and told me I was “under arrest for an alleged breach of the Data Protection Law, and that I would now be taken to Police Headquarters, where I would be questioned whilst the property was searched.”


89. It was later revealed that in addition to these six officers, a further two specialist search officers had been waiting nearby, and a further two officers were also present, equipped with a ‘battering-ram’ – of the kind used in drugs raids – had I not exited the building and it “had become necessary to effect a forced entry”.


90. There were, therefore, to the best of my knowledge, ten police officers at the site of the property – this to give effect to the arrest and detention of an unarmed, elected member of the Jersey legislature – in connection with an alleged breach of the Data Protection Law, and this notwithstanding the fact that the police were already aware of his possession of the item of data at issue – not least because he himself had e-mailed it to the police – on at least two previous occasions.


91. In addition to the ten police officers referred to above, at least a further five were involved in the exercise, in an operational capacity from Police Headquarters. Amongst that number being one Dave Minty.


92. Therefore, at least fifteen police officers were involved in an operation that involved the unlawful raid, arrest, detention and searching – of a prominent opposition politician – concerning the alleged improper handling of an item of data – which the police were already aware of the politician’s possession of – because he himself had disclosed his possession of the item to them.


93. Before being taken to Police Headquarters, I asked if I might get a clean T-shirt. Several of the officers escorted me back into the property. A cleaner was present in the house at this time, and she was terrified, as was Deputy Labey’s mother, who, by this stage was aware of something happening, and was deeply shocked and very worried the police might take the computers of Deputy Labey’s children, which contained their vital school work.


94. Whilst briefly in the house, the thought occurred to me to ask to see the search warrant.


95. Though I was lied to at the time, it later became clear that no search warrant existed.


96. When I asked, the officer who had arrested me began to reach into his jacket pocket, but hesitated, and stopped, and said to me, “no – we’ll give you a copy of the search warrant when you’re at Police Headquarters”. This was a straightforward lie by the arresting officer.


97. Instead of obtaining and relying upon a search warrant, as described in the Jersey Data Protection Law, the police and Attorney General’s Office had instead decided to rely upon Article 29 of the Jersey Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence Law (the Jersey equivalent of PACE) which – allegedly – confers upon any police officer who has a “reasonable suspicion” that evidence of a crime may exist in or on a property – to search that property upon the simple expedient of arresting a suspect in or near the property in question – without requiring any formal search warrant.


98. The use of Article 29 in the aforesaid manner is plainly a dangerous abuse of power, subverting as it does in theory, virtually all requirement on the police to obtain search warrants. The use of Article 29 in this way and for these purposes was illegal.


99. The general public policy implications of such an abusive misapplication of Article 29 are self-evidently profoundly serious. Especially so when the Article is abused to – essentially – engage in acts of terror against opposition politicians.


100. Immediately following my arrest, I was taken to Police Headquarters. Upon arrival, I was forced to hand over what few personal possessions I had in my pockets, I was photographed, my belt was removed, so I had to hold my trousers up for the rest of the day – and I was placed in a windowless, ground-floor interview cell, into which I was locked for most of the day. The only significant period of time I left the cell before release, was when being taken to a larger interview cell, equipped with recording equipment, where I was questioned for approximately two hours, before being returned to the ground floor cell and locked-in again. I was able to leave this cell on a couple of occasions by pressing an electric call-bell that, eventually, resulted in an officer appearing, who would escort me to the lavatory, before returning me to lock-in.


101. After approximately seven-and-a-half hours under arrest and under lock-and key – I was eventually released. My goods were returned to me in a clear plastic bag and I was told to leave via the van entrance, where I was filmed, still holding my trousers up.


102. During my time under false arrest, the entire property (which belongs to my ex-partner and her mother) was searched from top to bottom. This included the children’s bedrooms, their wardrobes, chests-of-draws, personal effects and their computers.


103. My former partner’s personal possessions were, likewise, searched aggressively, including her clothing cupboards and draws. Deputy Labey’s files and computers were also searched.


104. The sofas in the sitting room – although replaced – had obviously been turned upside-down, and the kitchen bin had been simply up-ended on the kitchen floor. Whilst some attempt had been made to replace the garbage, food scraps and other waste was still present on the floor.


105. The search was further unlawful, in that notwithstanding the unlawful use of Article 29 of PPCE under these purposes, the said law requires that the police obtain permission from the owner/controller of a neighbouring property before extending an Article 29 search into such premises. The work office used by Deputy Labey and myself was in a converted room of an outbuilding that belongs to Deputy Labey’s mother. No permission was sought or given for the Article 29 search to be extended into this building. However, the police raid intruded heavily into this area – where they discovered my computer and files. The computer and several very sensitive files were unlawfully removed by the police from this building.


106. Additionally – and significantly – certain of Deputy Labey’s files were also disturbed and copied. Amongst the disturbed files was one box in particular that contained some information relating to bribery and corruption in respect of planning policies that the Deputy was investigating, and had reported to the police.


107. During 2007 and early 2008, the Deputy of Grouville, Carolyn Labey, was growing increasingly concerned at plans to re-zone a significant number of areas of open land across the island. Designated in the legally binding planning policy as ‘country-side’ or ‘green-zone’ land, the many fields in question were – supposedly – protected from development.


108. From September 2006 discussions took place amongst a group of people, including the Planning Minister, the twelve parish Connetables, certain property developers and the then Housing Minister – Terry Le Main.


109. These discussions had the supposed objective of identifying land suitable for development to provide “essential” housing for the over-55s, and eventually led to the production of a ‘white-paper’ which was then presented at a number of public meetings.


110. At face value, this exercise might seem perfectly reasonable; after all, perhaps there genuinely was a pressing need to create such housing.


111. However – upon closer examination, the exercise had a number of deeply puzzling characteristics.


111.1. For example –


111.2. The eight large sites identified for such housing – just happened to be in the countryside-zone or green-zone.


111.3. The twelve Connetables – in “surveying” the populations of their parishes to gauge the supposed “need” for such housing – used different criteria – or even no criteria – from parish to parish, leading to random and amorphous results – the veracity and consistency of which could never quite be pinned-down.


111.4. No methodologically sound, verifiable analysis of the supposed “need” for this housing has ever been produced.


111.5. This open land was being proposed for development – over and above far more suitable ‘brown-field’ sites – such as some redundant glasshouses; the island’s tomato growing industry having declined.


111.6. Strangely, the re-zoning of these eight pieces of land was being rushed through – even though a fundamental review of the island’s planning policies and zoning had begun. Far more rational, surely, to wait twelve months, and examine the need for such housing – and any resultant need for land re-zoning – within the broad policy of planning in Jersey, the ‘Island Plan’?


111.7. Notwithstanding the absence of any methodologically robust justification for, or analyses of, the supposed “need” for this specific type of housing – nor any meaningful contextualizing of it within a broad housing strategy – the then Housing Minister – Tel Boy Le Main – was rabid in his insistence that the “need” was ‘urgent and pressing’ – and in using his political influence to ensure that these eight sites be re-zoned to enable development. Indeed, when bringing forward the proposals for debate, the Planning Minister made it clear he was doing so only because of the insistence by the Housing Minister that the re-zoning for this type of housing was essential.


111.8. Of the eight sites brought forward for re-zoning, a certain property developer – a Mr. Geoff Noel – had a heavy commercial interest in at least five of them.


111.9. Mr. Noel happens to be a personal friend of the then Housing Minister, Terry Le Main.


111.10. The same Housing Minster who had to recently resign – for having sought to use his influence to have a prosecution of another friend of his, dropped.


112. In early 2008, being deeply concerned at the seeming irrationality of this exercise, and alarmed at what may well be the needless destruction of environmentally important open land, Deputy Carolyn Labey brought a proposition for debate before the States (P.33/2008) in which she argued strongly that the proposed re-zoning made no sense ahead of the Island Plan review; that there was no consistency or method in the assessment of the supposed “need” for such housing; and that, in any event, if such need did exist, the States should first look to such brown-field sights as certain redundant glasshouses.


113. The major part of her proposition was that the re-zoning of the eight sites should not be proceeded with, and, instead should be considered as a part of the overall Island Plan review.


114. The debate took place in April 2008, and that central part of the motion was heavily defeated – there being a Jersey Establishment Party ‘three-line-whip’ to vote against it.


115. Subsequently, the re-zoning proposition – P.75/2008 – was tabled, debated – and approved – in July 2008.


116. However, the two debates – as is often the way of these things – were of particular interest to quite a number of members of the public, who contacted the Deputy – and provided her with information that made the whole re-zoning exercise appear even more dubious.


117. Deputy Labey then spent some months investigating the matter further, and gathered more information.


118. What she learnt so alarmed her – she reported the matter to the police.


119. And not just any police officer – but the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, Graham Power, Queens Police Medal.


120. Mr. Power considered the Deputy’s information and agreed that it could be a very serious matter, and that it did, indeed, merit full and thorough investigation.


121. He handed the case to a senior officer to carry forward – one Dave Minty.


122. Minty approached the investigation with what appeared to be complete intransigence.


123. Notwithstanding repeated requests from Deputy Labey to know what progress was being made, nothing appeared to happen. Indeed, Minty flatly refused to formally interview certain willing witnesses, who were prepared to make statements.


124. Nevertheless, unable to simply ignore the complaints totally, they were instead referred to the Controller and Auditor General.


125. Earlier in this process – with rumours of investigation beginning to circulate – Le Main is known to have had a meeting with the then Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache. It was shortly after this meeting that the investigative process seemed to come to a virtual halt.


126. Deputy Labey again e-mailed the Chief of Police, Mr. Power, to express concern that the powers-that-be might be slowing the investigation in order to protect Le Main, and/or avoid a major scandal for the States. Mr. Power – quite properly – added the e-mail correspondence to the case-file. The case being supposedly investigated by Dave Minty.


127. By now, the date was early November, 2008.


128. It was around this time that Mr. Power – before leaving the island for a short break – was in communication one evening with the then Attorney General, William Bailhache.


129. Mr. Bailhache raised the issue of the Deputy’s complaint with Mr. Power – and strongly expressed to him the view that it should not be taken seriously. He said “the Deputy’s judgment couldn’t be trusted; one only had to look at who her partner was.” The pressure and stress of the various oppressions we have both suffered having since driven us apart, but at that time I was her partner.


130. Mr. Power grew angry at this, and informed the Attorney General that his remarks were wholly inappropriate; that the Deputy’s complaint to the police was the proper thing to have done, and that the matter did need inquiring into.


131. However – unbeknown to Mr. Power and Deputy Labey, Dave Minty had simply been leaking everything – including the Deputy’s e-mails to Mr. Power – directly to William Bailhache. This in direct and flagrant violation of the Data Protection Law.


132. And – in turn – William Bailhache was leaking at least some of this data – to his brother – the then Bailiff, Sir. Philip Bailhache. Again – this leaking of data – and its receipt – both being unambiguous criminal acts. For not only was the Data Protection Law being broken – it also amounted to a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.


133. That this unlawful leaking of data was taking place was discovered by Deputy Labey – or rather it was revealed to her – in subsequent events.


134. On the 5th November, 2008, the Deputy received an angry message from the Bailiff’s chambers – demanding that she attend his office that day, as there was an issue he wanted to speak with her about.


135. Although intimidated by this, the Deputy refused to attend that day, as she had other commitments, but did agree to go to his office the next day – the 6th November.


136. As soon as the door was closed and she was alone with Philip Bailhache – “he threw across the desk” at her, “a copy of one of her e-mails to Graham Power, and demanded that she explain her actions in making the complaint, and demanded that she write a letter of ‘apology’ to Graham Power ‘for having “misled” him with her e-mails’”.


137. The actions of Philip Bailhache were unlawful in many respects. Not only was he in breach of the Data Protection Law – he was also breaking Article 47 of the States of Jersey Law – by attempting to intimidate and harass a States member.


138. Shocked, intimidated and very upset at these events, Deputy Labey – with reluctance – wrote an e-mail to Mr. Power, but not one of ‘apology’; instead it, essentially, just informed him that the meeting had occurred, and what had been said to her.


139. Mr. Power, by this stage, was on leave in the United Kingdom for a few days. No doubt – once preliminary investigations, and the work of the Controller and Auditor General had been completed, the Police Chief would have then ensured a full investigation did take place.


140. However – he was unable to see that this happened.


141. At 8.44 a.m on the morning of Saturday the 8th November – William Bailhache wrote the first draft of the letter of suspension that was to be served on Graham Power – without warning – by Bill Ogley and Andrew Lewis – on the morning of the 12th November 2008.


142. That being the supposed “emergency” suspension – the letters for which, having – supposedly – been written only in the preceding twelve hours before the meeting on the morning of the 12th.


143. The “official” version of events supposedly saw the recently appointed Deputy Police Chief, David Warcup, receive an “interim report” by Brian Sweeting, of the Metropolitan Police. This being a peer-review of the historic child abuse investigation.


144. The report by Sweeting allegedly contained such criticism of the child abuse investigation, that it merited the immediate suspension of Graham Power.


145. This notwithstanding the fact that four reports by the Association of Chief Police Officers – ACPO – had thoroughly endorsed the historic abuse investigation – and Sweeting did not even interview the two, central figures relevant to the conduct of the investigation – Lenny Harper, and Andre Baker of ACPO – until the 18th November.


146. That being eight days after Warcup received Sweeting’s “Met report” on the 10th November 2008.


147. And ten days after William Bailhache wrote the first draft of the suspension letter – on the morning of the 8th November 2008.


148. Mr. Power strongly suspected that the “official” version of events was not true, and he strove to obtain the evidence.


149. Eventually – after nine months of official lies – and absolute determined refusal by Terry Le Sueur to disclose this information – Mr. Power eventually succeeded in obtaining the electronic data that showed the true date and time of when the key letters were first created.


150. Not on the 11th November – as the “official” version of events had it – but on the morning of the 8th November.


151. Two full days before the “interim Met report” was received by David Warcup.


152. Plainly – the Jersey establishment had many pressing motivations to remove, and attempt to discredit, the Chief of Police – not least their urgent wish to ridicule, in the eyes of the public, the historic abuse investigation – before the politically crucial Deputy elections later that November.


153. Mr. Power is firmly of the view that amongst those establishment motivations for ‘neutralizing’ him – was his attitude to the planning corruption issues raised by Deputy Labey – and his defence of her in response to William Bailhache’s denigrations.


154. But – no doubt to the distress of the establishment – the question of planning corruption was not terminated with the unlawful suspension of Mr. Power.


155. Deputy Labey, in response to constituents’ concerns, continued to research the subject, and press for a full investigation.


156. In April 2009, the Data Protection Law was used as an excuse to mount an unlawful massed police raid against me. At that time I shared the home of Deputy Labey.


157. The police chose to ignore that law’s requirements for a search warrant – instead relying – unlawfully – on an emergency search power. This was a tactic quite deliberately settled upon by the Attorney General, William Bailhache and David Warcup – because had the raid been conducted under a search warrant for the purposes of the Data Protection Law, the search could only have been undertaken to the extent reasonable and proportionate for the purpose for which the warrant was issued. And that would not have served the various objective of the establishment.


158. The raid and search had many motivations. Not least amongst them, enabling the theft of my constituents’ private data and communications with me – and attempting to identify and intimidate my various sources.


159. But – also this. The Deputy and I worked from the same office on the premises.


160. Amongst the files searched and copied by the police during the raid was one of her large file transfer cases, in which she kept some of the information related to the planning corruption.


161. The box in question was left with its lid open, in a disturbed state on a table in the office.


162. On the day of the raid and during the next day, the police officer responsible for the operation was quoted in the local media.


163. He was Dave Minty.


164. The same man who was prevaricating over investigating the Deputy’s complaints.


165. The same man who unlawfully leaked the Deputy’s e-mails to Graham Power – to William Bailhache – all those months earlier.


166. But – Minty suddenly vanished from all – apparent – involvement in the unlawful raid – a couple of days after it took place.


167. And – even more strikingly – even though it is a matter of public record from the media reports of the time, that he was involved in controlling the operation – his involvement has been repeatedly – dishonestly – denied.


168. The Advocate prosecuting me for supposed breaches of the Data Protection Law – Stephen Baker, formerly of 7 Bedford Row – and a former employee of William Bailhache – has repeatedly committed perjury during preliminary court hearings, by denying Minty’s involvement.


169. Why – we must wonder – should the establishment be quite so desperate to pretend that Minty was not involved in the planning or controlling of the unlawful police raid?


170. And why should the politically motivated prosecution being mounted against me – initiated by William Bailhache – have repeatedly refused to disclose to me the evidence necessary to my defence?


171. After these unlawful events, it took an excessively long period of time for me to be provided with a copy of the ‘search-book’ by the police.


172. It is the case, inter alios, that of the conduct described above: –


173. It was improperly motivated.


174. It was engaged in ‘bad faith’.


175. It was engaged in by a public authority, notwithstanding the fact the public authority in question was, and remains, incapable of meeting the principle test: “A body must not have a direct interest in the outcome of a decision, or show actual bias or a real possibility of bias”.


176. It was engaged in by a public authority which was failing to exercise statutory powers for the purposes for which they were conferred, and not on relevant grounds of public interest.


177. It was politically motivated.


178. It was personally motivated.


179. It was a breach of certain Rights as guaranteed under the ECHR.


180. It had a variety of different motivations and objectives – most of which were unlawful and most of which did not relate to the charges ultimately brought against me.


181. It breached legal privilege, given certain legal matters I was engaged in.


182. It breached the Data Protection Law.


183. It breached parliamentary privilege – in that it amounted to a direct and highly invasive intrusion into the privileged communications between many private constituents and their elected representatives.


184. It threatened the public good, by amounting to a police-state type assault against a prominent opposition politician – thus jeopardising the safe functioning of free democracy.


185. It constituted a direct, criminal breach of Article 47 of the States of Jersey Law.


186. It was – plainly – ‘disproportionate’.


187. The conduct described above served no ‘legitimate purpose’, given its disproportionality, unlawfulness, excessiveness given the nature of the allegations against me – and was illegitimate, given the Data Protection (Jersey) Law (DPL) contains within it provisions for investigating and enforcing alleged breaches of the (DPL) which were not followed in the extant case.


188. The above unlawful actions – involving breaches of statute law, common law, tort law and my human rights – have caused dramatic, and very substantial distress, damage and actual harm to myself and my health, my relationship, family and friends, the destruction of my career prospects and professional reputation – thus causing great distress and anguish, in addition to the complete loss of my livelihood.


189. However, the manifest illegality of the actions against me continue to this day in respect of the overtly unlawful, politicised conduct of the prosecution against me.


190. To show the improper and unlawful motivations of the Attorney General and the police – States and honorary – for engaging in this unlawful conduct against me, it is necessary to establish the context and preceding events.


191. From December 1999 until December 2005, I was President of the then Health & Social Services Committee.


192. Following a change to a Ministerial system of government, I became the Minister for Health & Social Services from December 2005 until 11th September 2007.


193. In addition to the broad common law responsibility to ensure a public department, such as Health & Social Services (H & SS) operates lawfully and to a high standard, the Office of H & SS Minister carries with it a number of statutory duties, obligations and consequent powers.


194. For the purposes of these proceedings, the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 is specifically cited.


195. The Minster for Health & Social Services is the public authority with responsibility for child protection in Jersey, with the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 being the primary legislation defining such responsibility and conferring the relevant powers.


196. Of particular, but not exclusive, relevance to these applications are the following Articles and relevant Paragraphs: –


196.1.1. “Article 42: Minister’s duty to investigate: –


196.1.2. Where the Minister –


196.1.3. is informed that a child is the subject of an emergency protection order or is in police protection; or


196.1.4. has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm,


196.1.5. the Minister shall make, or cause to be made, such enquiries as the Minister considers necessary to enable the Minister to decide whether he or she should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.”


196.1.6. “Article 42, Paragraph 8: –


196.1.7. “8: Where the Minister is conducting enquiries under this Article, it shall be the duty of any administration of the States to assist the Minister with his or her enquiries (in particular by providing relevant information and advice) if called upon by the Minister to do so, unless it would be unreasonable to do so in all the circumstances of the case.”


197. In early 2007, I began to receive information from unofficial sources; information which should have been fully and frankly reported to me by the relevant senior States of Jersey employees.


198. This information, when combined, in some cases, with certain information made officially known to me, caused the me to become seriously concerned that a number of examples of poor practice, and of child protection failure had occurred.


199. I became alarmed and concerned with what I was discovering, as it was very clear that a number of important facts, and a number of general failures on the part of child protection standards in Jersey, had been improperly and unlawfully withheld – over a period of decades – from the relevant political authorities of the day, including me as Minister and, previously my Health & Social Services Committee.


200. I, as H & SS Minister, having reasonable cause to suspect that children had suffered, were suffering, or were likely to suffer significant harm, sought to fulfil my legal obligations – as defined in the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 – by pursuing several lines of enquiry into a number of different examples of child protection failure with a view to protecting children from harm and determining what action I should take to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.


201. In seeking to discharge this fundamentally important and unambiguously stated lawful duty, I had a right to expect full and honest support, co-operation and assistance from all relevant States employees, States departments and Ministerial colleagues.


202. Further, I was guaranteed such support as the Minister for H & SS, it being a statutory obligation upon “any administration of the States” to provide such assistance, as described in Article 42, Paragraph 8 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.


203. Following, and during, my enquiries into child protection issues, I began to express my concerns to relevant public employees, and to express my concerns publicly when providing an honest and frank answer to a question asked of me in my capacity as H & SS Minister during a meeting of the island’s parliament on the 16th July 2007.


204. Rather than receiving the assistance and support I could properly expect from the relevant public employees, and receiving the statutory assistance, as guaranteed by Article 42, Paragraph 8 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, I was, instead, subjected to a criminal conspiracy to obstruct me in the discharge of my duties, to harass me, to damage my public standing and to unlawfully engineer my removal from Ministerial Office.


205. I was unlawfully obstructed in the discharging of my lawful responsibilities and obligations as Minister for Health & Social Services.


206. These actions against me being – unambiguously – an attempt to sabotage effective child protection in Jersey, thus permitting, failing to prevent, sustaining and concealing the abuse of children.


207. Being lawfully engaged in attempting to expose several criminal offences against children, the obstructive and sabotaging actions taken against me constituting a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.


208. Further, given that many, if not all, of those so acting to obstruct and sabotage me in the discharge of my lawful duties, being the holders of ‘public office’, the actions against both me and the vulnerable children of Jersey amounting to the common law offence of ‘misconduct in a public office’.


209. The aforesaid criminal conspiracy against me is evidenced and demonstrated by Exhibit 1, submitted with this Affidavit.


210. Exhibit 1 being a file-note written by the recently retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, Mr. Graham Power, on the 25th July 2007. Mr. Power wrote and filed this note immediately following a meeting of some senior civil servants at which Mr. Power was present.


211. Involved in the meeting in question – in addition to Mr. Power – were: –


212. Bill Ogley, Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers and the Head of Jersey’s Paid Services.


213. Mike Pollard, the then Chief Executive of Health & Social Services.


214. Tom McKeon, the then Chief Executive of the Education Sport and Culture department.


215. Ian Crich, the then Director of States of Jersey Human Resources.


216. Exhibit 1 is self-explanatory, but particular attention is drawn to this sentence of Mr. Power’s file note:


217. “I was left with the clear impression they were attempting to draw me, in my capacity as Chief of Police, into a civil service led attempt to remove a Minister from Office.”


218. It is plain from this evidence from an authoritative and highly credible witness that a criminal conspiracy was undertaken against me in order to prevent me from discharging my lawful duties in respect of child protection.


219. Further, similar evidence exists in the form of the corresponding file note written by Detective Inspector Alison Fossey, who was present at the contemporaneous meeting of the then Jersey Child Protection Committee, which was likewise involved in the criminal conspiracy against me, in my capacity as the lawful, public authority with responsibility for child protection.


220. Also particularly involved in the conspiracy against me were, inter alios:


221. Marnie Baudains, the Directorate Manager of Social Services;


222. Richard Jouault, the Deputy Chief Executive of H & SS.


223. The criminal conspiracy against me representing nothing less than a complete breakdown in the rule of law, of democracy, of accountability and of functioning child protection in Jersey.


224. The criminal conspiracy against me by the senior States of Jersey employees in question, was joined by the then Chief Minister and Council of Ministers, who agreed to undertake the necessary procedures to have me dismissed from the Office of Health & Social Services Minister.


225. I have – in respect of many of the criminally unlawful acts described above – made several formal criminal complaints to the States of Jersey Police Force; these have involved the giving of several signed statements.


226. It is clear on the available evidence that several serious criminal acts have been committed over a period of time, in respect of child protection failures, and, resultantly, against me, of which I am aware, and for which more than prima facie evidence is available.


227. The offences complained of, include: –


228. Breaches of the Children (Jersey) Law 1969;


229. Breaches of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002;


230. Conspiracies to pervert the course of justice;


231. Misconduct in a public office.


232. The individuals complained of include, inter alios: –


232.1.1. Mike Pollard;


232.1.2. Bill Ogley;


232.1.3. Marnie Baudains;


232.1.4. John Le Breton;


232.1.5. Piers Baker;


232.1.6. Frances Hamon;


232.1.7. Emma Martins;


232.1.8. Frank Walker;


232.1.9. William Bailhache;


232.1.10. Iris Le Fevre.


233. Notwithstanding the powerfully evidenced case against these individuals none have been charged.


234. The failure to prosecute those who have – prima facie – committed criminal offences against me and others – must stand in marked and stark contrast to the manifestly disproportionate actions taken against me. It demonstrates the overt politicisation of the prosecution function in Jersey.


235. I – as do all people – enjoy the protections described in the European Convention on Human Rights. Many of those fundamental rights have given rise to case-law which shows a right to be protected from criminal acts.


236. The same failure to prosecute those who have committed offences against me, is of a very similarly kind to the politically motivated and contaminated decisions to not prosecute States employees who have abused children, those in positions of authority who have concealed child abuse, and public departments of the States where such departments have – as public authorities – broken the Children Law themselves.


237. And it is in the decades-old habit of not prosecuting serious crimes of all descriptions, when to do so would be embarrassing or problematic for the States of Jersey or the island’s ‘establishment’ in general – that the heart of the matter is found.


238. The overt habit of making politically motivated decisions on prosecutions is handed down from one Attorney General to the next like a disease.


239. There is an established legal requirement upon public authorities to act in the public good.


240. There is an established legal requirement for public authorities to avoid conflicts of interest – apparent or actual – and to act impartially and in a disinterested manner.


241. The Jersey prosecutory system fails to meet those standards, those tests – not only for the ‘apparent’ and ‘structural’ grounds described above – but also for an evidenced history of manifestly politicised actual prosecutory decisions.


242. Be those decisions to investigate and prosecute – as in the instant case, for example – or decisions not to investigate and prosecute, in many other cases; frequently, when to so prosecute would be problematic, embarrassing or damaging for the island’s establishment.


243. The determining factor often appears to be overtly political.


244. And – of great and central significance in respect of the instant case – many of the individuals who have, did or do occupy posts within the Jersey prosecutory apparatus, have been involved in certain of these historic, highly questionable prosecutory decisions.


245. A factor which has a highly significant bearing upon my recently terminated political work, as will be explained.


246. The reality of that overtly ‘political’ state of affairs is to be observed in many evidenced cases, but I will touch briefly upon a few.


247. 1: Unlawful dumping of toxic incinerator ash into sea-porous land-reclamation sites.


248. From 1979 until the late 1990’s, the combined ash from Jersey’s municipal waste incinerator was dumped – counter to both local laws and international convention – into the marine land-reclamation sites that form St. Helier’s Waterfront. The waste contains many significant human health hazards such as dioxins, furans, PCBs, and a variety of toxic heavy metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic etc.


249. For many years I campaigned against this criminal activity – including to the point of drawing the unlawful actions to the attention of the then Attorney General, Michael Birt. I arranged an appointment at which I and a marine biologist would explain the facts to him. Mr. Birt cancelled at the last moment, so no meeting took place.


250. To this day, what is a grotesque and manifestly seriously criminal act by the Jersey authorities – has not been prosecuted by Jersey’s Attorney General, nor his Law Officer’s Department. The same Department which will have been providing legal advice to the States of Jersey departments committing the unlawful and hazardous toxic waste dumping.


251. 2: A series of rapes and indecent assaults committed against a number of female victims by an influential and powerful local figure.


252. Notwithstanding a very long-term police investigation – and the existence of a significant number of victims – most of who are not known to one another – the individual concerned has never been charged.


253. 3: Numerous – and frequently quite brazen – attempts to pervert the course of justice.


254. Perverting, and attempting to pervert, the course of justice in Jersey is so wildly common, it is difficult to have it recognised as a criminal offence.


255. Indeed, the Attorney General’s Department itself willingly accommodates such criminality.


256. For example, the proprietor of a local tow-truck business was bribing a number of police officers in exchange for receiving the call-out business to motor traffic accidents. Although the then leadership of the police strove to have the officers concerned, and the person committing the bribery prosecuted, such was the reluctance on the part of the Attorney General’s Office to proceed, only one officer was prosecuted for comparatively minor charges – and the business proprietor – even though admitting the bribery in open court, eventually had the charges against him dropped.


257. The dropping of the charges occurred some time after two politicians – Sarah Ferguson and Colin Egre – who were acquaintances of the accused, sought – and were granted – a private, secret meeting with the then Attorney General, William Bailhache – for the purpose of interceding on their acquaintance’s behalf.


258. Not only should the prosecution of the man accused of bribery have proceeded to a conclusion – the two politicians – and the then Attorney General himself – should have been investigated and charged for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.


259. A further, recent and similar case occurred, when the then Housing Minister, Terry Le Main, sought to intervene repeatedly in order to prevent the prosecution of a friend of his, and then further sought to have any penalty reduced. The man in question had not only been charged – and subsequently convicted of breaches of the Housing regulations – the very area of responsibility of Terry Le Main – but, it transpired, had also paid Terry Le Main’s election expenses for many years.


260. Those acts amounted to both bribery, and an attempted perversion of the course of justice by a Minister.


261. No charges have been brought.


262. 4: So many examples of misconduct in a public office it would be difficult to itemise them.


263. Misconduct in a public office – by senior civil servants, politicians, Law Officers, members of the judiciary, police and others – is so widespread it is an ingrained culture.


264. For example, recently, very substantial sums of public money were “granted” by the Health & Social Services Department in – supposed – ‘support’ of a charity that sought to assist care leavers. A Jersey branch was established – originally in good faith with the support of people, including myself. Yet the local organisation was evidencedly suborned and subverted by certain individuals based in the UK, who were – clearly and on the evidence – being bribed – with tax-payers money – by corrupt senior civil servants in the Jersey Health & Social Services Department – in order to corral, pacify and control local victims of child abuse, and to nullify and undermine the organisation, the Jersey Care Leavers Association. The UK based individuals – with the full knowledge and connivance of Jersey civil servants, engineered a manifestly unlawful ‘take-over’ of the JCLA, by plainly inadequate local individuals, who proceeded to steal significant sums of the public moneys made over to the JCLA.


265. Legitimate and well-intentioned members of the JCLA strongly resisted this lawlessness and straightforward criminality – but were – for a long time – thwarted by the UK based individuals who were manipulating events, with the support of Jersey Health & Social Services.


266. A good, non-corrupt member of the JCLA repeatedly e-mailed their concerns over the months to H & SS – only to be lied to and ignored. Eventually, the good local members finally succeeded in wresting control of the organisation back from the criminals who had hi-jacked it. Upon doing so – as expected – much evidence of brazen fraud and the naked theft of public money was revealed.


267. This was reported to the police by the legitimate Chair of the JCLA.


268. She was – eventually – told by the police that they had zero interest in investigating the fraud and theft of public money; if she wished it to be taken forward – she would have to investigate it herself, and furnish the police with more evidence.


269. Quite in addition to being criminal fraud involving external individuals who have been bribed using taxpayers money which has been fraudulently obtained and used by senior civil servants – the conduct of the staff in question is also – prima facie – misconduct in a public office.


270. The police have simply refused to investigate it.


271. 5: Numerous examples of police corruption.


272. Too vast to catalogue, but see 3 and 4 above.


273. 6: Frequent firearms offences – often involving some deeply alarming weaponry.


274. Jersey’s firearms legislation is extremely lax by UK standards. But even the law, such as it is, has proven virtually impossible to enforce. Decent, senior professional police officers have made the attempt – but there is a massive reluctance on the part of the Attorney General’s Office to prosecute people for lapsed or non-existent firearms licences.


275. 7: Widespread and virtually openly-practiced corruption – especially in respect of planning and development permissions.


276. Notwithstanding the fact that Jersey has some of the highest land-values on Earth, a seemingly inexhaustible demand for accommodation, limited land-supply, immensely high property prices and a massive accommodation industry – the island has – apparently uniquely in the entire modern world – never had a case of major planning corruption. Or it has simply not suited the Office of the Attorney General to ever prosecute any of the many examples of such widespread corruption.


277. It should be closely noted that, in respect of the instant case – the criminal concealment of wide-spread planning corruption – involving highly placed politicians – and the unlawful concealment of that planning corruption – and the oppression of honest attempts to expose it – with the direct involvement in that unlawful concealment of no less figures than the then Attorney General, William Bailhache and his brother – the then Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache – the surveillance and action taken against me – the raid on the home I shared with Deputy Carolyn Labey – and consequent unlawful search without a search warrant – is one of the central elements which demonstrate the action against me to be a malicious prosecution.


278. 8: Serial murder; the case of ‘Nurse M’.


279. As mentioned above, in 1999, a male nurse was suspected of murdering a number of frail elderly patients in Jersey’s general hospital. A police investigation was launched, and a significant amount of evidence was gathered. At an early stage, an initial police report to the Attorney General’s Office was produced.


280. It is this case concerning the serial killer nurse that forms the basis of the DPL charges against me.


281. I had obtained a copy of the police report, and, following no action from the Jersey prosecutory authorities to re-open and correctly investigate the case, it is alleged that I unlawfully published the report in question.


282. The then Attorney General who unlawfully failed to ensure that the killer was fully investigated, and prosecuted, was Michael Birt, currently the Bailiff.


283. At that time, the key agent of the Attorney General who worked on the abandoned investigation was one Cyril Whelan.


284. Cyril Whelan now being a close colleague of Advocate Stephen Baker, working for the same firm.


285. 9: Many, many examples of child abuse.


286. As the former Minster for Health & Social Services – I had political – and legal – responsibility for child protection.


287. Of all Jersey politicians who have held the responsibility for child protection since the end of WWII, I was the first – and only – to recognise gross and systemic failures in the island’s child protection systems, and to speak-out against them.


288. The Office of Attorney General – by way of contrast – has evidencedly sought to obstruct much of the investigative work into child-abuse and the necessary prosecutions.


289. Advocate Stephen Baker – the lawyer prosecuting me, as the Attorney General’s agent – was key amongst those seeking to minimise the range of abusers brought to charge. For example, in the case of the Maguires.


290. This is an evinced fact.


291. Only with massive reluctance have a few, token abusers been brought to account.


292. Of great and central significance to this case is the unlawful protections provided to – and failures to prosecute – two well-evidenced abusers – Jane and Alan Maguire.


293. Of all of the many malfeasant examples of the concealment of child abuse, the case of the Maguires was, perhaps, the most central of those I was working on.


294. I sought-out, and made contact with the victims, and I obtained evidence for the unlawful concealment of the crimes of the Maguires – and the unlawful abandonment of the prosecution of them – by then Attorney General, Michael Birt.


295. I have also – in recent months – obtained further evidence – which shows the more recent attempts by the police to have the Maguires extradited from France – and fully tried for crimes against children – to have been unlawfully obstructed by the then Attorney General, William Bailhache – the man responsible for the instant malicious prosecution against me – and – of equal significance – the direct, intimate and pro-active involvement of Advocate Stephen Baker – acting as an agent for Mr. Bailhache – and now Mr. Le Cocq – in the obstruction of the bringing the Maguires to justice.


296. That fact – alone – renders every single action taken against me – throughout the entire episode – which in any way involved William Bailhache and/or Stephen Baker – apparently biased – actually biased – and to render the public authority they represent wholly incapable of being disinterested in the outcome of the cases against me.


297. 10: Many, many examples of the unlawful concealment of child abuse; not least, certain cases of concealment involving the Attorney General and his Law Officers’ Department itself.


298. To cite just briefly three examples of the brazenly unlawful failures to bring to justice those who have – evidencedly – unlawfully concealed child abuse.


299. Firstly, I have touched upon the case of the Maguires above.


300. So many public authorities, employees – and the prosecution system – have been involved in concealing the abuse committed by the Maguires that only the Judicial Review hearings will furnish sufficient time to examine all that evidence.


301. Secondly, the persistent child abuse that was taking place at Victoria College was knowingly – and pro-actively – concealed by a number of senior individuals. For example, Piers Baker, Jack Hydes, Commissioner Frances Hamon and now Jurat John Le Breton. The case that those individuals should have been prosecuted for concealing child abuse is massive and simply overwhelming.


302. None have ever been charged.


303. The Attorney General at the time who failed to bring these people to justice was Michael Birt – now the Bailiff.


304. Thirdly, many of the cases of child abuse that I began to discover when Health & Social Services Minister were pro-actively – evidencedly – unlawfully concealed by many senior individuals – to greater or lesser degrees of involvement – for example, Marnie Baudains, the Directorate Manger of Social Services, Bill Ogley, the Chief Executive, William Bailhache, the then Attorney General and Emma Martins, the Data Protection Commissioner.


305. It is of the utmost significance that not one – I repeat, not one – of the very many extremely well-evidenced examples of the unlawful concealment of child abuse and concealment of child protection failures, has been prosecuted. Indeed, many charges of overt failures to protect children – as defined in both the Children (Jersey) Law 1969 and the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 could have, and should have, been prosecuted.


306. Indeed – many charges of misconduct in a public office should have been brought on similar grounds.


307. Not one has.


308. And at the very heart of that conundrum – is the Office of Jersey Attorney General, the Law Officers Department – and – at least – the last three incumbents of the post – Michael Birt – William Bailhache – and Timothy Le Cocq.


309. There are a variety of unlawful characteristics, policies and actions which give the causes of action in this application. However, I will next concentrate on the central unlawful characteristics of the powers, roles and functions of the Attorney General and the Office he holds.


310. To truly understand just how great a concentration of power resides with the Jersey Attorney General – and to understand why that Office is invariably so politically contaminating, it is necessary to understand how the prosecution system of Jersey functions.


311. Jersey does not possess regional Crown Prosecutors, overseen by a central Director of Public Prosecutions. There is thus an immediate absence of a sufficiently broad and distanced check and balance within Jersey’s prosecution system itself, with the Attorney General, Solicitor General and Crown Advocates being closely known to one another. Indeed, often being friends, and colleagues in previous roles.


312. The Attorney General and his Law Officers’ Department stand hopelessly and irredeemably beset by manifestly incompatible interests, powers, functions and conflicts.


313. It is also worth noting – as a further example of the extraordinary concentration of power the Office holds, that in Jersey it is not possible at law to mount private prosecutions for alleged criminal acts.


314. It should also be noted – most strongly noted – that the role of Attorney General in Jersey is, effectively, a political role.


315. The post-holder enjoys an automatic, non-voting, but un-elected and speaking seat in Jersey’s parliament, where the custom and practise is for the Attorney General to make both political and legal speeches and interventions, thus exercising great influence upon proceedings in the assembly. Many, many such speeches, interventions, answers and opinions – covering a period of many years – are there to be read in the States of Jersey Hansard.


316. Further – the Attorney General also enjoys an automatic right of attendance at all meetings of the legislature’s Privileges and Procedures Committee, where the post-holder dispenses “advice”, contributes to discussions and makes recommendations, this in addition to providing written “legal” advice. This role of the Attorney General frequently leading to the anti-democratic oppression of minority, ‘opposition’ members.


317. Of even greater conflict in the role of Attorney General in Jersey is the fact the post-holder enjoys an automatic right of attendance at all meetings of the island’s cabinet – the Council of Ministers – where he participates in the political discussions of Jersey’s executive – in addition to acting as the legal adviser to the said body.


318. The Office of Attorney General and the Law Officer’s Department, over which he presides, is also responsible for legal advice to individual Ministers and departments of the States of Jersey.


319. The politicised and conflicted nature of the prosecution system in Jersey has the effect of denying to the public the protections of one of the very fundamental checks and balances that respectable, modern democracies have traditionally enjoyed: the objective and impartial enforcement of the law.


320. The prosecution system of Jersey is politicised.


321. Both in structure and in practice it is entwined with, and shares interests with, the executive and the legislature.


322. Such a status renders it incapable of carrying out certain prosecution functions lawfully.


323. The prosecution system of Jersey is self-interested – being conflicted – in having its own malfeasances to hide; a status that continues to drive further unlawful decisions and actions by the Office.


324. The fact that the Attorney General’s Office and the Law Officers Department over which he presides, is a public authority which carries an amalgam of overlapping, often conflicting, and mutually exclusive powers, is not disputable, such structural arrangements being openly admitted in the Department’s own public description of its duties as a public authority.


325. Equally, it is the case in law – and on the authorities – that such a concentration of disparate – and frequently conflicting – powers, cannot reliably be exercised in a manner that is lawful, if the exercise of those powers and public law responsibilities render the public authority in question to be conflicted, to appear conflicted, to be in a position of acting inconsistently, to act unfairly, to act against the public good, to be in a position of acting in – or being seen to act in – its own interests, and of exercising statutory powers for purposes for which they were not intended.


326. One of the centrally important matters raised by this judicial review application is the question of the reviewability of prosecution decisions. The Office of Attorney General – at present – claims, no matter how erroneously, that its decisions on prosecution matters should not be subject to judicial review. It is a point that merits some scrutiny at this stage.


327. In asserting a defence of ‘non-reviewability’ the Attorney General has pointed to extant case-law, principally from other jurisdictions, where the courts have held against judicial review of prosecution decisions, in all but the rarest of circumstances.


328. A number of legitimate and powerful arguments against the position of the Attorney General can, and will, be adduced. However, one point merits especial attention at this stage.


329. When considering the case-law and authorities from, say, England, in respect of attempts to judicially review prosecution decisions, the prosecution decisions that the courts have been asked to scrutinise, have been made by uncontaminated public authorities – whose sole function is the determination of, and conduct of, prosecutions. The Crown Prosecution Service – and the Director of Public Prosecutions – exist to fulfil those specific functions.


330. That prosecution apparatus is thus free from other considerations – free from contaminating and conflicting roles and functions. Therefore the reluctance of the courts – in all but rare circumstances – to intervene in the exercise of a discretionary power – as exercised by a dedicated public authority, is understandable.


331. However, when considering the prosecution apparatus of Jersey, we are not considering an independent structure – a dedicated apparatus – free of contaminating and conflicting powers, duties and functions – whose sole remit is to consider the merits of prosecutions and to conduct those prosecutions.


332. Instead – in the case of the Jersey Attorney General and his Office, we are dealing with a public authority – which is the sole authority for determining and conducting prosecutions – but yet also carries a variety of other direct powers and responsibilities. For example, providing legal advice to individual departments of the States of Jersey, individual Ministers, to the executive as a whole, the Council of Ministers itself and to the States assembly.


333. Such diverse duties, responsibilities and powers invariably place the Attorney General, his Office and his decisions in close, partisan alignment with other public authorities and, effectively, commit the Office of Attorney General to de facto political positions.


334. But – if the Office of Attorney General – in the peculiar context of Jersey – is able to act in partisan, political ways – is able to adopt and support particular courses of action by other agencies – is, effectively, aligned with public policy actions of arms of the executive – then, in acting in such ways, the Office of Attorney General must be susceptible to judicial review – because it is acting as a ‘public authority’ in a broad sense, so – like other public authorities, the lawfulness of its actions, use of its powers and its decisions must be susceptible to judicial review.


335. It is, of course, argued that it is possible to compartmentalise the roles and powers of the Office of Jersey Attorney General. It is propounded that the Attorney General may routinely take part in meetings of the cabinet – the Council of Ministers – where he participates in discussions and advises the said body – but then, one week, be expected to make apparently and actually impartial decisions as to whether to mount what may be prosecutions directly against substantial parts of that very same executive apparatus he has been routinely advising.


336. It scarcely requires stating, but such an arrangement is not capable of satisfying the established legal requirements upon public authorities – in this case the Office of Attorney General – that they act impartially, be seen to act impartially, do not act in self-interested ways, act in the public interest and act fairly.


337. Nor can such an arrangement satisfy the legitimate public expectation that there will be the objective and impartial rule of law, and that the law will be objectively enforced upon the executive and public departments should they break the law.


338. However – an even greater problem besets the Office of Jersey Attorney General. Given the Office and the post-holder do play an active and important role within and amongst executive public authorities – a role that does overlap and impinge upon prosecution powers – can it be right for the Office to suddenly claim immunity from judicial review – immunity from the oversight and scrutiny of the courts – when the Office’s de facto political / executive involvements are challenged?


339. The Jersey Attorney General and his Office cannot play an involved, partisan legal role, in pro-active support of the legislature and the executive on a week-to-week basis – happily enmeshed in, and allied to, the world of public authorities, advising and guiding them – and then suddenly run for cover, behind the carapace of a ‘prosecutors usual non-reviewability’ – when it suits the purposes of the Office to be sheltered from the proper scrutiny and oversight of the courts.


340. In Jersey – for good or ill – the Office of Attorney General – in addition to being the Crown Prosecution Service of Jersey, and its Director of Public Prosecutions – is – unlike those services in England – also closely involved in partisan, pro-active political work with the executive. The Office therefore cannot pick-and-choose when it will – and when it will not – be susceptible to judicial review.


341. That is doubly – and even more inescapably the case when – as in the extant application – the legal and political enmeshments of the Jersey Attorney General’s Office with the executive, involves overtly politicised, biased, unfair, inconsistent – and even corrupt – decisions in respect of who will – or will not – be prosecuted.


342. The arguments advanced above are not theoretical.


343. A variety of profoundly disturbing prosecution actions and decisions have been described above.


344. These being decisions to initiate police surveillance, investigations and raids, and to prosecute on the one hand – and to refuse to investigate and/or to prosecute on the other.


345. It is accepted that decisions on prosecutions are usually regarded as ‘discretionary’, and that a degree of lee-way is permissible; that prosecution public authorities are granted the power to exercise discretion.


346. However, public authorities that possess discretionary powers owe various basic duties, the breach of any of which can justify the court’s intervention.


347. Such basic duties include, inter alios, the duty to act in the public interest; to act in good faith; to act reasonably; to act proportionately; to promote the legislative purpose; to act fairly; to act lawfully, for example, not cause and maintain breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights.


348. The Attorney General and his Office have breached all such duties insofar as the matters complained of in this application are concerned.


349. A closely related means of expressing the legitimate expectation upon a public authority is that the authority in question should only exercise the powers conferred on the authority for the purposes envisaged by the legislation granting the powers in question.


350. The Attorney General and his Office have breached that legitimate public expectation. For example, the powers vested in his Office have been misused for the improper and unlawful purposes of protecting criminals, and oppressing me in my attempts to expose criminal activity.


351. The present – profoundly conflicted – nature of the role and Office of Attorney General in Jersey is not lawful.


352. It is not capable of meeting established standards of objectivity.


353. It is not capable of fulfilling – nor being seen to fulfil – those requirements that are placed upon a prosecutory authority through the practical application of the ECHR as applicable to all public authorities.


354. It is, therefore, against that background that the police surveillance mounted against me and my former partner, the massed police-raid on her home, my detention in a windowless police cell for the best part of seven and a half hours – and the search of the property from top to bottom – without a search warrant – must be viewed as a matter of fundamental public importance.


355. That unlawful police activity – and the subsequent unlawful conduct of the prosecution – have been driven, overseen, advised and conducted – by Jersey’s Attorney General’s Office and his Law Officers’ Department – a public authority that is – effectively – little more than the legal-enforcement wing of the island’s entrenched, political establishment.


356. In short – the police action – and the conduct of the prosecution against me – are – under these bizarre Jersey circumstances – impossible to safely view as objective and impartial – and can only be credibly viewed – given the disproportionality involved – as the gross misuse of law enforcement powers for the improper and illegitimate purposes of the straight-forward political oppression of a senior opposition politician; a political ‘dissident’.


357. This is doubly the case – given the direct, active and central involvement of Jersey’s sole prosecuting authority in the very heart of the island’s political executive and in its legislature.


358. It is clear that a culture of graft, bribery, corruption, misconduct in a public office, cronyism, and blackmail, abuse of powers and culture of concealment is so entrenched in the local business, political, media and legal environment, and is readily accepted in those circles. It is so entrenched, the island has its own name for the practice, “The Jersey Way”.


359. The general laxity shown towards a variety of ingrained criminal conducts demonstrates a prosecution system heavily geared towards the improper and politically motivated protection of Jersey’s governing and administering class.


360. Additionally – the stark and remarkable contrast in the approach and conduct of the Attorney Generals’ Office between, on the one hand, protecting people such as senior civil servants who have evidencedly criminally concealed child abuse – and on the other, engaging in massed police raids, unlawful imprisonment and unlawful searches without a warrant against me – at the time the senior elected member of the House – demonstrates clear illegality.


361. That support for the protection of public employees who have – prima facie – acted criminally exists is there to be seen in the extraordinary supports and protections that have been afforded to overt and obvious criminals – in an attempt to assist them in disguising their – and consequently the States of Jersey’s – own malfeasant and criminal conduct – and instead depict the criminals as “innocent victims” – and, by way of contrast, to persecute those like me and other whistle-blowers who have sought to expose wrongdoing – and to depict us as villains.


362. The defence case.


363. Throughout these proceedings it has been the position of the defence that the actions taken against the defendant are an abuse of process, and, additionally, that no offence has been committed given the unambiguous statutory defences described in the DPL, in respect of justifiable disclosure on the grounds of public interest to prevent and detect crime, and, further, the publication of information in respect of journalism.


364. The defence has been unlawfully obstructed by the Attorney General’s prosecution in being able to obtain and adduce evidence that goes to both the abuse of process arguments – and the public interest disclosure arguments.


365. Further – and as described above – it is now very, very strongly my belief that the unlawful police surveillance, unlawful raid, arrest, detention, search without a warrant, and charging with the four charges – were all a priori components leading up to what is a malicious prosecution.


366. In my defence I am therefore, now adding malicious prosecution to the arguments.


367. To be clear – there are – so far as I can tell, being legally unrepresented – three main features to the defence case. These are: –


368. 1: Malicious prosecution.


369. 2: Abuse of process.


370. 3: No case to answer on grounds of public interest disclosure, journalistic work and artistic expression.


371. (A fourth element arises – which is hypothetical at this stage – which is that in the event of conviction, a person has a right to the disclosure of evidence that would show mitigating factors, and which would have an impact on sentencing. There is very well-established ECHR case-law on this point. In the hypothetical circumstances of conviction – much of the evidence which has not been disclosed during trial would have to be sought in any event for the purposes of mitigation and sentence reduction.)


372. Arguments 1 and 2 have been massively and improperly obstructed by Attorney General and his agent. Having said that – it is acknowledged the malicious prosecution is a new argument, only able to now be made due to the acquisition of some further evidence – but the point remains. Both arguments place upon the defence, the burden of proof. The defence has been unable to run, even the abuse of process defence – because of the unlawful refusal to disclose evidence by your conflicted agent, Advocate Stephen Baker.


373. Of all of the many and evidenced unlawful components in the conduct of the prosecution against me since charges were laid – the most harmful, improper and damaging has been the refusal to properly disclose evidence necessary to the defence arguments.


374. These immensely obstructive and damaging denials of disclosure have been the decisions of the highly conflicted – and thus unlawfully involved – Advocate Stephen Baker.


375. It is quite bad enough that I have been denied effective legal representation of my choice – contra Article 6 of the ECHR, thus causing me to have to defend myself; it is many times worse when what is already a grossly uneven playing field – in which I have no equality of arms – is further massively tilted against me by unlawful refusals to disclose information necessary to the defence arguments.


376. In the case of an abuse-of-process argument – the burden of proof lays with the defence.


377. The defence must produce the evidence which proves the abuse of process claim.


378. The defence can never hope to succeed in mounting what is an entirely legitimate and proper argument – if the very public authority at the heart of the abuse of process alleged – which holds the evidence which would prove its culpability – can simply decide to refuse to disclose that evidence.


379. That is – precisely – what has happened in this case.


380. Advocate Baker has repeatedly – and unlawfully – refused to disclose evidence, arguing that the evidence sought was “not relevant to the charges”; a statement of itself highly disputable. But – nevertheless – the evidence sought most definitely is of great – absolutely central – importance to the defence abuse of process argument.


381. And argument of which – as the authorities show – the burden of proof lays with the defence.


382. But – at risk of repetition – in a catch-22 situation – the defence can never hope to meet that burden of proof – when evidence known to exist, is unlawfully withheld from the defence by a culpable and conflicted prosecution.


383. A prosecution which cannot hope to meet the test of evidenced bias, the appearance of bias and of being disinterested in the outcome of the decisions.


384. But then – turning to the malicious prosecution argument – an even greater test is placed upon the defence.


385. The authorities show that a high threshold of evidence is required to be met in order to prove malicious prosecution.


386. Some evidence to that effect is already in my possession.


387. However – I am aware of the existence of much further evidence which would – without question – before any civilised and impartial court – enable the defence to prove malicious prosecution.


388. The defence – which has not even been able to obtain known evidence that goes to the abuse of process argument – and has been faced with repeated examples of perjury by the unlawfully conflicted Advocate Stephen Baker – will have zero chance of securing disclosure of that evidence for as long as such a disastrously and hopelessly conflicted public authority remains involved in the prosecutions against me.


389. Let there be no mistake about this – the instant case against me – the alleged unlawful public exposure of an evidenced serial killer that the Jersey prosecutory authorities failed – evidencedly and unarguably failed – to properly investigate – the covert and unlawful police surveillance – the inextricably and heavily entwined issues of multiple child abuse cases and failures to prosecute, and consequent unlawful concealments – the unlawful police raid – the conduct of the prosecution against me – and many of the senior individuals closely involved in the above actions – renders the prosecution system of Jersey – itself – irredeemably and catastrophically conflicted in respect of the actions against me.


390. Conflicted in ways which are fatal.


391. THE prosecution authority and apparatus of Jersey IS the PARTY who’s MALFEASANCES I was attempting to EXPOSE.


392. For example, I offer some detail in connection of the case of Nurse M, the case I am being prosecuted for, in an attempt to conceal the past malfeasance of the Office of Attorney General.


393. A serial killer male nurse: Michael Birt abandons the investigation.


394. Nurse M is a Nurse, registered with the NMC. He is a text-book example of a psychopath, satisfying – on the evidence – virtually every criteria for diagnosing psychopathy.


395. He is a deeply manipulative liar; obsessed with violence, firearms and death; has a record of savage violence, especially towards women; a serial rapist; a thief; controlling; capable of appearing charming, or acting in a way to elicit sympathy, when to do so suits his purposes.


396. In early May 1999 – following a complaint from a former girlfriend – he was convicted of stealing drugs from Jersey’s hospital.


397. However, when investigations of Nurse M began, the police very rapidly realised they were dealing with an extremely dangerous psychopath. The following passages are taken from a 1999 secret police report, made public following refusals of the authorities to re-open the case.


398. Quotes from Police Report of May 1999: –


398.1.1. “On Thursday, 1st April, 1999, Police Officers attended the home address of a female who disclosed that[Nurse M] a Staff Nurse on Corbiere Ward, had stolen and stored drugs at her home address. The female, an ex-lover of [Nurse M], produced to the officers, drugs in the form of Valium and Hypnoval, together with a syringe containing clear liquid and several packets of Coproxamol. These have since been identified and their content verified. Hypnoval is more commonly known as a ‘date rape’ drug. Enquiries confirmed that the drugs were from the hospital and indeed had been sent from the Hospital Pharmacy to Corbiere Ward, where [Nurse M] worked.


A check on the Firearms Register held at Police Headquarters, revealed that [Nurse M] had possession of several firearms, and that his Firearms License had expired in October, 1998. The female who handed the drugs to the Police confirmed that [Nurse M] had attended at her premises with a loaded firearm.


[Nurse M] was arrested on returning to the Island on the 17th April, 1999, and, armed with a Warrant, his home address was searched. During the search, the following property was recovered.


1. One lump of brown cannabis resin, tablets and scales.


2. Knuckle-duster.


3. A Police Philips radio (in working order).


4. Bag containing various medications.


5. Eleven syringes with a clear liquid within, and other medication, including


two bottles of potassium chloride.


6. Six firearms, with large quantity of ammunition.


7. One expired Firearms Certificate.


[Nurse M] was interviewed concerning the medication found, and at first suggested that the insulin in the eleven syringes was intended as an aid to body-building. He later changed this story, in that he intended to kill himself with the medication, by marching down to the Cenotaph in military dress, where he would inject himself with a lethal dose of insulin and potassium chloride.”


398.1.2. The report continues:


398.1.3. “Police Surgeon Dr. Michael HOLMES first expressed concern when he viewed the drugs recovered, in that a combination of insulin and potassium would be very difficult to detect in the body. Added to this, the amount of drugs in the possession of [Nurse M] cast doubt on his account, in that he had several lethal doses of drug. If a person with a serious medical history were to be injected with the combination of drugs found in the possession of [Nurse M], the cause of death would not be clearly apparent. His possession of such drugs was therefore regarded as suspicious.


398.1.4. “Enquiries have continued over the last three weeks, and have established that [Nurse M] has had several affairs with either patients or relatives of patients at the General Hospital.”


398.1.5. The report goes on to state:


398.1.6. “Incident 1 – an elderly male admitted to Corbiere Ward (name unknown) suffered a heart attack which was further complicated when his insulin levels became abnormal. He was placed on a glucose drip, which is the normal procedure. The drip had been inserted correctly, and was working fine when Nurse A checked the patient on the previous evening in question. Nurse [M] handed over to a nurse on the ward, just prior to Nurse A arriving for duty (the am. shift). On this occasion, [Nurse M] had not worked with Nurse A and the normal team. As normal, the nurse checked on her patient and discovered, to her horror, that the glucose drip had been disconnected from the patient, and a bung put into the base, preventing the substance from leaking. The patient was unconscious and close to death. The nurse reconnected the drip and the patient recovered within about ten minutes.”


398.1.7. The report further states:


398.1.8. “Incident 4 – A young girl was admitted to Corbiere Ward, following an overdose. [Nurse M] found her attempting to hang herself in the toilet on the ward. The patient was transferred to the APU, where it is alleged that the young girl disclosed to a member of staff that [Nurse M] had offered to show her how to commit suicide correctly.”


398.1.9. In reference to a statement from a former girlfriend of [Nurse M] from the time when he worked at Basingstoke Hospital, the report says this:


398.1.10. “She explained that they had experimented with [sexual activities excised], with her permission. This had, however, progressed to [Nurse M] becoming very violent, and he had on one occasion, thrown her over his shoulder and placed his knee on her chest, asking her if she wanted to die. She suffered a fractured sternum on this occasion. She alleges that the violence progressed to rape, and on one occasion, she was tied up on a table, naked, when he put a poker in the fire, took it out, placed it in water and ran it along her body at the time. Nurse B is very scared of [Nurse M], and she was spoken to by her line manager, after sporting a black eye and cut lip at work.”


399. For a short time after May 1999, the police investigations continued, and even more disturbing evidence came to light. However, against the strong, professional wish of the officer leading the investigation, Barry Faudemer, Michael Birt and his then agent, Crown Advocate Cyril Whelan and the then Police Chief decided the investigation was to be dropped.


400. Following the public interest disclosure of the 1999 report, in 2009, I was subjected to a banana-republic type massed police raid and arrest, authorised and driven by Michael Birt’s successor as Attorney General, William Bailhache.


401. Obviously – the publication of the report – revealing as it did the Jersey prosecutory authorities – on that occasion, Michael Birt – to have abandoned the investigation into a Harold Shipmanesque medical mass-murderer – essentially, to “avoid a scandal and the bad publicity” was devastating to the Jersey establishment.


402. There, it is well evidenced and illustrated that the actual prosecution apparatus of Jersey is directly and immediately conflicted – in seeking to oppress me – in order to stop me from exposing the extremely dangerous, past malfeasances of the Office of Attorney General.


403. The killer and serial rapist, meanwhile – [Nurse M] – remains at liberty and has – since 1999 – frequently worked in various private-sector nursing homes.


404. It is entirely feasible he has continued to kill; he could have murdered dozens upon dozens of frail, elderly people.


405. The man the then Attorney General, Michael Birt let off – in order to protect the Jersey authorities from a political scandal.


406. A further powerful example of the unlawful conflictedness of the Jersey prosecutory authorities in respect of me is to be seen in the case of the child abusers, the Maguires, as referred to above.


407. Jane and Alan Maguire: two evidenced child abusers.


408. This is the case of Mrs Jane Marie Maguire and Mr Alan William Maguire. The Act of Court – quoted below – records that the prosecution was abandoned on the 20th November 1998.


408.1.1. “Her Majesty’s Attorney General declared that he abandoned the prosecution against Alan William Maguire and Jane Marie Maguire on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to support it.


408.1.2. The Court therefore discharged the said Alan William Maguire and Jane Marie Maguire from the prosecution and, by virtue of Article 2(1) (c) of the Costs in Criminal Cases (Jersey) Law, 1961, ordered the payment out of public funds of the costs of the defence”.


409. The assertion made by the then Attorney General, Michael Birt in the above statement to the court in respect of the abandonment of the prosecution of Jane and Alan Maguire constituted straightforward perjury – on two clear grounds.


410. The battery, torture and abuse of children, as committed by these two, formed a significant part of the subject matter of a BBC Panorama program, which was broadcast on Monday 31st March 2008.


411. The Maguires were routinely beating, abusing through grotesque punishments, neglecting and treating with great cruelty many of the children that passed through the ‘Blanche Pierre Group-Home’ they used to run for the then Education Committee, which body had responsibility for child “protection” at the relevant time (1980s to mid-1990s).


412. The concealment of the crimes of the Maguires was just one of the many cases that were drawn to my attention when then Health & Social Services Minister by whistle-blowers during 2007.


413. The accumulated evidence – which was drawn to the attention of the police – was in two substantial lever arch files and one smaller ring-binder file. The evidence contained in these files was absolutely compelling – and horrifying. Many witness statements, affidavits of victims, statements from other members of staff, an “internal” report from 1990 by the Children’s Service – all of which concluded that the actions complained of were happening. The documented evidence was, essentially, a catalogue of utter savagery against the children.


414. Notwithstanding a plain and evidenced conclusion of rampant abuse, reached in 1990 – 8 years before the police came to know of the crimes – the Children’s Service of the day failed to inform the police of the abuse – instead allowing Mrs McGuire to “retire” from running the group-home – and instead to go and work in the Family Development Centre.


415. Purely through happenstance, the States of Jersey Police became aware of the abuse episode – 8 years later – in 1998.


416. The Maguires were investigated and charged.


417. Yet the Office of Attorney General, asserted, as in the record of court quoted above, that there was “insufficient evidence” to continue the prosecution.


418. But the files of evidence described many children being routinely – over a period of years – beaten with fists, implements and other items which were used as weapons against them. They were frequently made to eat soap. They were held down and made to drink Dettol. One child had his head smashed violently against a bunk bed frame. One of the part-time support staff witnessed “Big Al” Maguire throw a three-year old child a distance of about 7 feet across a room to impact against the wall because the child was not tidying up to Maguire’s satisfaction. Psychological and emotional cruelty and abuse were routine. Female child residents were regularly sexually abused by Mr Maguire.


419. Most of these offences were evidenced, many witnessed by former victims or junior staff members – and yet the then Attorney General, claims to have had “insufficient evidence” to carry through a prosecution.


420. The decision of the Attorney General to not proceed with the prosecution was utterly perverse.


421. Clearly – to have prosecuted the Maguires would have been to expose to outrage and contempt a States of Jersey department for permitting the abuse to continue for a decade – the 1980s – and to have acted unlawfully in not informing the police the instant the abuse came to the department’s attention. Further, the department would have been viewed with even greater contempt and disgust by the public when it became known that Mrs Maguire was kept in employment by the department for some years afterwards – working in the Family Development Centre! It would also have meant exposing to contempt and disgrace a Jersey Establishment icon, Iris Le Feuvre, then President of the relevant Committee, who happily went along with the cover-up in 1990 and, moreover, wrote a quite sickening letter of “thanks” to the Maguires upon their “retirement”.


422. It is plain that the failure to see through the prosecution in this case represents a complete breakdown in the Rule of Law. An abandonment of justice in order to protect the “reputation” – such as it is – of the States of Jersey, and the island’s establishment in general. The victims of the Maguires were denied justice.


423. Very significantly, the Attorney General’s statement as recorded in the Act of Court quoted above, was also perjured in that it failed to mention – thus mislead the court through omission – that the – supposed – “ill health” of Maguire did, in fact, play a significant part in the internal discussions of the prosecution, when seeking reasons to abandon the prosecution.


424. The fact is, however, that no actual medical evidence of any kind, to justify Maguire’s claims of “advanced terminal cancer”, could be located by the police when they re-opened the investigation in 2008.


425. Not so much as GP’s sick-note.


426. In many ways, it could be argued that the abandonment of the prosecution of the Maguires serves as the most singular and well-evidenced example of both the malfeasance the then Attorney General, and of the contaminating, political imperatives that beset the Office of Attorney General in Jersey.


427. So overwhelmingly clear was the criminal case against the Maguires that the police – when re-investigating the case in 2008 – produced several internal, confidential studies of the events surrounding the two investigations.


428. To this day the many victims of the Maguires are still struggling to cope with shattered lives – and have been denied justice.


429. Denied Justice because of the clear politicisation or the Office of Attorney General.


430. It is also worth observing that the unlawful abandonment of the prosecution of the Maguires by Michael Birt, serves as a powerful example of the syndrome of inherited contamination of the Office of Attorney General.


431. Because the original – unlawful and improper – concealment of the crimes of the Maguires was undertaken by one Attorney General – Michael Birt – the same cover-up had to be continued and maintained by his successor, William Bailhache – ten years later.


432. Because had the reopening of the investigation by the police in 2008 been allowed to succeed – as it should have done – the result would have been not only the destruction of Michael Birt – for having improperly abandoned the first prosecution – it would also have destroyed the reputation and credibility of the present, dysfunctional Jersey system, which lacks a separation of powers, an independent DPP and any effective checks and balances.


433. The case of the Maguires should not be forgotten; it should serve as a central, powerful example of the politicisation and failures in Jersey’s prosecution and judicial systems.


434. I also draw to the attention of the court in this affidavit the fact that the conflicted role and powers of the Attorney General have given rise to unlawful breaches of the my rights and protections when a States member.


435. Article 47 of the States of Jersey Law 2005, which states: –


435.1.1. “A person who blackmails or attempts to blackmail or who offers any threat, assault, obstruction or molestation or attempt to compel by force or menace any member of the States, member of a committee of inquiry established under standing orders or officer of the States in order to influence him or her in his or her conduct as such member or officer, or for, or in respect of the promotion of or of opposition to any matter, proposition, question, bill, petition or other thing submitted or intended to be submitted to the States, the Council of Ministers, the Chief Minister, any other Minister, an Assistant Minister or any committee or panel established under standing orders, or who is a party to such an offence, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of 5 years and a fine.”


436. I was – in respect of several important aspects of my duty as a States member – and in respect of my statutory duties as the then Minster for Health & Social Services – subjected to threats, obstructions, molestations, attempts to compel by menace – in order to influence me in my conduct – in respect of propositions, questions, bills and other things submitted, or intended to be submitted to the States, the Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister.


437. The committing of these criminal offences against me has caused me hardship, suffering, harm and loss.


438. I have not received the proper protections of the law in respect of these unlawful acts against me, given the exclusive power of the conflicted Attorney General’s Office to authorise prosecutions.


439. In general, it appears to be the case that prosecuting authorities are often allowed to draw a narrow boundary around that evidence they consider to be relevant, and thus disclosable.


440. Given that the exercise of such discretion by the prosecution to determine what it considers to be relevant – or not relevant – it is doubly important in the interests of justice that any prosecuting authority or agent exercising such power should be absolutely free of any form of personal or political conflict.


441. The decisions arrived at by a prosecutor as to which evidence they will disclose, will often have a profound impact upon the course of a trial. It is, therefore, extremely difficult to over-state just how important and dramatic a power is being exercised.


442. Indeed, the power of prosecuting authorities to largely determine for themselves what they will, or will not, disclose has been frequently supported by courts, with case-law existing.


443. Given the immense difficulty – the very high hurdles a defendant faces in challenging prosecution decisions on disclosure, it is of absolutely fundamental importance – in law and in the interests of natural justice – that the original decisions by the prosecution in respect of what it deems relevant evidence to disclose are taken with objectivity and professionalism – and exhibit no risk of actual or apparent bias – and nor involve the prosecuting authority in a conflicted interest in the outcome of the decisions at issue.


444. If bias and conflicts of interest exist at that early stage – for example, pre-trial disclosure – a defendant may well be denied justice throughout the entire procedure because a prosecutor has made tainted decisions in respect of disclosure of evidence.


445. The role of Attorney General in the island of Jersey embodies a variety of conflicting roles, of a kind that are rare, if not unique, in modern, Western democracies.


446. However, of particular relevance to this application is the following legislation:


447. The Magistrate’s Court (Miscellaneous Provisions (Jersey) Law 1949, as revised to 1st January 2006.


448. In particular, I refer to PART 4: –


449. PROSECUTION OF PROCEEDINGS


449.1.1. 14 Proceedings by a legally qualified prosecutor


449.1.2. The conduct of proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court may, with the approval of the Attorney General, be undertaken on behalf of the prosecution by –


449.1.3. an advocate; or


449.1.4. a solicitor or a person who has been admitted –


449.1.5. to the degree of the Utter Bar of one of the Inns of Court of


449.1.6. England and Wales, or


449.1.7. as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature of England and Wales, and who is employed in the Law Officers Department.

449.1.8. 15 Role of the Magistrate

449.1.9. In proceedings conducted in accordance with Article 14, the Magistrate shall perform only a judicial role.

450. The passage quoted above establishes that the Attorney General is responsible for the “proceedings” that are conducted in the Magistrates court, by the “legally qualified prosecutor” who the Attorney General has so approved to conduct the proceedings in question.

451. Paragraph 15 is also of significance. It establishes that where a criminal prosecution is being conducted by the professional prosecutor, as approved as his agent by the Attorney General, the presiding Magistrate shall perform only a judicial role; that being as opposed to performing an inquisitorial role.

452. It is therefore established in law that the professional prosecutor possesses very significant powers concerning the conduct of proceedings in the Magistrate’s court, with the Magistrate unable to engage in inquisitorial functions.

453. Admittedly my knowledge of such matters is not extensive, but from those researches I have been able to undertake, I have not been able to discover a case before Jersey’s Magistrates’ court in which the dominance, control – indeed – overt direction over the Magistrate – by the prosecuting lawyer – has been as staggeringly overt and brazen as it has been in the case as conducted against me by Advocate Stephen Baker.

454. Being originally denied effective legal representation – contra Article 6 of the ECHR – I have had to attempt to defend myself throughout the proceedings; a burden which has been immensely harmful and damaging to me. I left school at the age of fifteen with no academic qualifications, so attempting to defend myself against Jersey’s leading criminal lawyer has been extremely taxing. Doubly so when the lawyer in question is – on the evidence of the transcripts – running the court – and is personally conflicted thus improperly motivated – and who has regularly committed demonstrable perjury during the preliminary proceedings.

455. The above statements are readily demonstrable as fact, as having to represent myself did deliver one advantage, in that – after some argument – I was able to secure the production of transcripts of all of the hearings concerning my case.

456. The evidence of those transcripts is quite remarkable.

457. So frequent – and startlingly overt – are the “directions” and “guidance” and “advice” offered to the presiding Magistrate – Bridget Shaw – by Advocate Baker – and as equally staggering is the Magistrates passive acquiescence to such direction – that it is quite impossible – even with a willing, but honest, mind – to conceive of the court in these proceedings as constituting an impartial and objective tribunal.

458. Further facts become clear upon a close study of the transcripts.

459. For example, several examples of brazen perjury by Advocate Baker.

460. To cite one example, Advocate Baker denied I had been subjected to some form of long-term police surveillance. I discovered – through sources – that not only was Advocate Baker’s statement a brazen lie – I also discovered the identities of two of the police officers who had been assigned to the task of the surveillance, namely Mark Cane and Julia Jackson.

461. When confronted with this information through correspondence and at a later hearing, Advocate Baker was forced to concede that, yes, such surveillance had, in fact, taken place. He quoted from a note written by officer Mick Gradwell, which accepted that the surveillance had taken place – and that I had correctly identified the two officers in question.

462. However – in what – in many respects is one of the most alarmingly revealing statements of the entire unlawful saga, Gradwell’s note (which Advocate Baker has – unlawfully – refused to disclose to me) stated that these many months of targeted, covert police surveillance against me – had been conducted – supposedly – “because there was a ‘concern’ I might be writing defamatory comments on my internet blog”.

463. Whether words appearing on my internet blog may be defamatory is a civil law question – with the established and customary remedies available to anyone who feels they have been defamed.

464. When I last examined the situation – the Nazis had been ejected from Jersey in 1945.

465. I was not aware we retained some taint of a regime that considered it the right, and power, of the state – to abuse criminal law and the police – to act for those in favour with the government, in order to oppress those who may be saying disagreeable things about them.

466. The entire concept of the stretching, abusing and misapplication of the Jersey DPL – by the state – to, essentially, suppress criticisms, and oppress critics of the government and its agents, is not only manifestly unlawful – it is little short of an all-out assault on free, democratic society, which – if allowed to succeed – would render the strong scrutiny and effective criticism of government and public authorities in general, all but impossible.

467. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the prosecution being mounted against me – a prosecution which has unlawfully driven me from elected political office, is a matter of substantial public importance.

468. The prosecutory proceedings being run by the Attorney General and his agent, Advocate Baker are unlawful – and have been from the outset.

469. They are further unlawful – because they were initiated by the profoundly conflicted former Attorney General – William Bailhache.

470. There is an entirely unhealthy and closely overlapping conflicts of interest amongst and between all of the state powers in Jersey; there is no effective separation of powers. This situation is further compounded by the often extremely close personal friendships and acquaintances of the individuals involved in the apparatus.

471. The Jersey Crown Officers and their immediate circle are the prosecution system – they are the Court – they are the Court of Appeal – they are the friends and colleagues of many legal practitioners – they are the political allies of many senior politicians – they are answerable to no power, nor subject to oversight of any accountable authority in Jersey. It is a system that could have been designed to generate and entrench a Culture of Concealment – and of cronyism.

472. As an illustration of the incestuous nature of power and promotion in the Jersey prosecutory and judicial systems, it is useful to note the fact that Michael Birt qualified as an Advocate with the law firm Ogier & Le Cornu in 1977, where he practised until 1994, until then becoming Attorney General.

473. In 2007, a new Solicitor General was chosen – one Timothy Le Cocq; a person who has now followed the predicted course, and become Attorney General.

474. Before becoming Solicitor General, he too practiced at Ogiers.

475. At the time, Ogiers boasted of this fact on the firm’s web site, saying this:

475.1.1. “Tim Le Cocq appointed Her Majesty’s Solicitor General for Jersey.

475.1.2. One of Ogier’s Jersey partners Tim Le Cocq, has been appointed as Her Majesty’s Solicitor General for Jersey with effect from the retirement of the current Solicitor General, Stephanie Nicolle Q.C., at the end of March 2008.

475.1.3. Tim qualified as a Jersey advocate in 1985 and has been a partner in Ogier since February 1992. He will retire from the Ogier partnership at the end of January 2008 and is expected to be sworn in as Solicitor General in April 2008.

475.1.4. With Tim’s appointment, we see a continuation of the Ogier tradition of public service. Michael Birt and Julian Clyde-Smith, both former Ogier partners, currently hold the offices of Deputy Bailiff of Jersey and Commissioner of the Royal Court of Jersey respectively.”(Emphasis added.)

476. Added to that picture of the Birt, Le Cocq, Clyde-Smith clan, originating from Ogiers, it should also be noted that the recently retired Bailiff, Philip Bailhache, is the brother of the former Attorney General, now Deputy Bailiff, William Bailhache.

477. That information illustrates how the most powerful and publically important posts in Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus usually end up occupied by an incestuous amalgam of friends, colleague, former colleagues, quasi-political allies and even siblings.

478. As a further example of the inability of the administration of justice in Jersey – as presently structured – to meet modern, lawful requirements of impartiality, it can be noted that Michael Birt has extremely close professional and personal links with the Barristers who work from the Chambers of 7 Bedford Row. When Attorney General he began to funnel a great deal of the Jersey Law Officers’ department’s work to the occupants of 7 Bedford Row; a flow of work that, by now, must have attracted combined fees of many millions of pounds. A custom and practice that was continued by Mr. Birt’s successor as Attorney General, William Bailhache.

479. Indeed, it is worth noting that the recently recruited Solicitor General, Howard Sharp, was recruited from 7 Bedford Row.

480. For the all of the above reasons, the applicant strongly contends that the variety of actions taken against him – ostensibly in the name of the prosecutory and judicial apparatus of Jersey – cannot be safely viewed as objective and impartial and free of improper motives.

481. A judicial review is unavoidably necessary for the public law, public policy and public interest matters arising.

Sworn before me:


Stuart Syvret

at St Helier Jersey

This 24th day of September 2010

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.