AND OPPOSITION TO IT
BY JERSEY’S OLIGARCHY AND ITS MEDIA – AND THE AUTHORITIES IN WHITEHALL
[Up-date – 27.08.2016; – first written in the 05.08.2008, this post is an important part of the historic record and will give great insight to child-abuse survivors, whistle-blowers and campaigners as to just how conflicted, corrupted – unlawful – judicial processes can be in the British Isles – conflicted, corrupted juridical processes actively protected and supported by UK authorities in Whitehall. What you read of below was reported to the UK authorities – but they covered it up – they shielded a system manifestly incapable of delivering a lawful prosecution, policing or judicial system to abused Jersey children – or the UK children trafficked to Jersey for abuse and torture. For greater detail, read this Report to the then UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw – a Report which was unlawfully ignored.
Jack Straw and the Illegal Jersey Child-Abuse Cover-Up.
These were the illegal actions of UK authorities – aiding and abetting the torture and rape of children. If IICSA refuses to take evidence relevant to the UK authorities corrupt, child-abuse concealing conduct towards Jersey – then we’ll know IICSA is a fake. Read below of the judicial corruption which runs Jersey – then ask yourself of the fate of local children – and those trafficked – in one way or another – to Jersey from England.]
Do you think the administration of justice apparatus in Jersey is capable of reaching the standards expected in modern, established functioning democracies.
Read the judicial principles below – read why the Jersey oligarchy can’t meet those principles – then have a good, long think – maybe for the first time in your life- as to what Jersey really is.
And I would also be very interested to receive any opinions from lawyers – as to whether my interpretation – as described below – is correct or wrong?
I’m happy to use this forum to debate the issues with any lawyer who wishes to identify themselves.
When writing last night’s post, I promised a more detailed deconstruction of the frankly cretinous leader comment produced in yesterday’s Jersey Evening Post.
Whilst I will take a closer look at some of the barking-mad assertions contained in the comment, I though it would be more useful to take a closer look at the underlying issues, and the principles of the good administration of justice.
I will explain those principles – and place them within the Jersey context – in the post below.
As I have remarked frequently, one of the most startling features of this whole, disastrous situation has been the sheer stupidity and incompetence of the Jersey oligarchy. Even trying to look at things from their, perverted, perspective, it can be seen that they have continuously made the most crass blunders.
The objectives of the Jersey oligarchy are plain; and always have been.
I told, last year, some of the survivors and whistle-blowers I was working with that the establishment’s prime and overriding objectives would be:
1: Protect their prestige, power and wealth.
2: Protect their “image”.
3: Pretend that we didn’t really have a disastrous failure to protect vulnerable children on our hands.
4: Pretend that our systems of public administration worked just fine.
5: Gloss over any problems
6: Protect and preserve the lucrative status quo.
7: And – in order to support and further the above 6 objectives – to do absolutely everything in their power to minimise the scope and scale of any charges, prosecutions and civil actions arising out of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.
I told the people I was working with that these 7 objectives would be pursued with implacable determination by the oligarchy of this island.
And I told them this before any of us were even aware of the covert police investigation.
Was I right? Or was I right?
The entrenched Jersey oligarchy – in all of its corrupt, decadent hubris, has rabidly pursued those 7 objectives.
Even to the point of crassly stupid obviousness; I mean, let’s face it, you would expect the average establishment trying desperately to sweep appalling crimes under the carpet to go about such evil tasks with a degree of discretion and subtlety.
Yet the Jersey clowns and gangsters have been so stupid as to engage in such machinations on an openly practised basis.
Following my discovery of the child abuse disaster, usurping my position and my initiative, in a futile attempt to prevent the truth coming out, to call in an independent, external investigator.
Senior civil servants, like Marnie Baudians – the Directorate Manager of Social Services, no less – writing letters demanding my sacking on the fantastical grounds that it was not acceptable for me to speak-out publicly about child protection service failures.
Fast-tracking the dismissal procedures against me – and providing less than 24 hours notice of the “case” against me.
Deputy Bailiff Michael Birt – he of child abuse cover-up infamy – giving a ruling that it was acceptable for the Council of Ministers to abandon due process, as described above.
The States of Jersey becoming the very first ever jurisdiction in the democratic world to sack a social services Minister for whistle-blowing.
Unlawfully stopping my Christmas speech in which I was attempting to express recognition and empathy for abuse survivors.
The very first time any States member had ever stood in the assembly to recognise the truth of what victims have suffered. And the States stopped it.
Attempting to smear Lenny Harper.
Frank Walker, showing his true colours by shouting abuse at me and saying that I was “trying to shaft Jersey internationally.”
In the midst of the crisis, calling a political press conference for the sole purpose of attempting to smear me.
Making utter damn fools of themselves in front of the assembled world media pack.
The politician now responsible for child protection, Senator Ben Shenton, pro-actively attempting to smear and rubbish the police enquiry.
Just taking that last point – can it be imagined that in any respectable, functioning democracy, you would find THE politician, legally and politically responsible for child protection – pro-actively rubbishing a major police investigation into child abuse?
Then, of course, we get to the fact that the States of Jersey Police Force has 5 suspects, with well-evidenced cases against them – who they are ready and willing to charge – but which they have been pro-actively prevented from charging by Jersey’s Attorney General, William Bailhache, either directly, or via his agents, such as Crown Advocates and UK based Barristers.
This last example of unethical and moronic nonsense drove the Police Force into the unprecedented step of issuing an international press release explaining how they had been prevented from bringing the suspects to justice.
How often – in democratic countries – are police forces driven into publicly explaining – to the world’s media – the obstructions being placed in their way by the authorities of the state? I’m not even aware of the Italian police having taken such extreme measures.
So – there we have a brief description of the rank stupidity of the Jersey establishment; a catalogue of gross blunders so crass they could only be the product of an oligarchy which has been absolutely corrupted by power and the resultant sense of invulnerability.
And it just doesn’t stop.
The Jersey Evening Post:
So let us briefly return to the cracker-barrel ramblings of The Rag – before getting on to intellectual matters.
The Rag speaks of “Pressure on an old relationship”.
Just what – do they imagine – might be responsible for the current tension between Jersey & the UK?
What has caused this “pressure on an old relationship”?
In the world of The Rag and its oligarchy paymasters, though it isn’t stated explicitly, the causes of such ‘pressure’ are the anarcho-commie agitations of a few off-the-wall extremists like me – who are hell-bent on “trying to shaft Jersey internationally” (© F. Walker.) and “rocking the constitutional boat”.
Look, JEP editors, subs and hacks – I know this is difficult for you to get your collective head around – but the cause of the constitutional pressure is the sustained, decades-long, cruelty, battery, abuse, torture, rape and sodomy of vulnerable children.
The cause of Jersey’s problems is that such atrocities were permitted to take place – and that 95% of such crimes were concealed.
That justice has been denied to the survivors.
That even elements of the island’s judicial apparatus have participated in the culture of concealment.
Those facts are the CAUSE of our oligarchy’s present woes.
Not the victims, not the whistle-blowers, not the national media and not me.
The cause IS The Atrocity.
The Rag then says:
“Why disturb Jersey’s relationship with Britain, which was established eight centuries ago and has been robust and satisfactory enough to survive not only massive social and political change but also the English Civil War and occupation by Nazi Germany?”
Yet another example of embarrassing self-humiliation by the oligarchs and their lickspittles.
I’ve already explained “why” we have to “disturb” the relationship with Britain – namely it’s the only way the victims will get justice. I’ll return to this point later.
A relationship which was “robust and satisfactory enough” to survive “the English Civil War and occupation by the Nazis”.
Take a good look at that phrase – and marvel at it.
You couldn’t pay for stupidity of that calibre; only centuries of an incestuous and unopposed monopoly of power could breed such cretinism.
For The Rag blithely uses such phrases in the obviously deranged belief that such references support their case.
In the English Civil War, very large numbers of the local population were on the side of the parliamentarians. Not, however, the oligarchs of the day – who – just like today, in fact – were very keen to maintain a lucrative and advantageous status quo.
This fact may not be immediately clear from ‘official’ history books.
What else would the robber-barons, land-lords, merchants, privateers, and slave-traders do other than side with the Crown – upon which they relied for authority and some kind of “legitimacy” to enable them to exploit and abuse the local peasants?
The Jersey oligarchy – having won then – as they always have – did as do all victors – and wrote the history.
You’ll read much of how Jersey was “loyal to the Crown in those troubled times”. But you’ll have to read a little more widely to learn that at one stage, when the Royalist leadership were ensconced within the walls of Elizabeth Castle, they would occasionally fire cannon balls into the town in the hope of hitting the peasants at market in what is now the Royal Square.
Then we come to The Rag’s allusion to having been “robust” enough to “survive” occupations by “the Nazis”.
You know – things have come to some new threshold Kafkaesque absurdity when an establishment and its relationship with its customary sources of authority can boast of having come through – unchanged – occupation by Nazis.
As though it might be imagined that this was, somehow, a good thing. A stamp of approval.
A famous old anti-establishment Jersey politician, Norman Le Brocq – who was one of Jersey’s unsung heroes of the marginalised local resistance movement – would often remark, with weary disbelief, that of all the jurisdictions occupied by the Nazis during WW II – the only places where precisely the same political and judicial establishments remained unchanged – before, during and after the war – were the Channel Islands.
The evidenced fact is that things rocked along very nicely indeed for the local oligarchy during those years of occupation; a very profitable time, it was. The local shysters embraced the Nazis with open arms – seeing not some monstrous evil which should be fought to the death – but instead – in customary Jersey fashion – a lucrative business opportunity.
Ah, yes – The Jersey Evening Post.
Indeed, the power-arrangements of those occupation years – the established order of things – were indeed sufficiently “robust” to enable The Guiton Group – and its Rag, the Jersey Evening Post – to carry on minting it throughout the Occupation by very profitably churning out propaganda on behalf of the occupying Nazis.
A very “robust and satisfactory” arrangement – for the owners of the Jersey Evening Post.
In fact, the main reason for the “relationship” with Britain proving to be so robust after the occupation is perfectly clear.
Such was the truly monstrous scale of collaboration, treason, profiteering, abuses of power, racketeering by the local shysters – and the enthusiastic support for such things by the island’s supine political and judicial authorities – that to have openly faced the truth would have been to the most profound embarrassment and shame of Britain. That British territories – British leaders – had behaved in such ways.
The relationship with Britain “robustly” survived that era – essentially because Britain gritted its teeth and held its nose whilst making cosmetic noises about “our beloved Channel Islands”.
That is why our oligarchy’s arrangements survived the war – uniquely across occupied Europe.
Because Britain needed to avoid the appalling shame.
Had the truth been faced by Britain in the wake of WW II, a very significant number of the local spivs would have simply been hung.
Executed for treason and collaboration.
People like the war-time Bailiff, Alexander Coutanche – the infamous ‘Ja, Ja Man’ – would have been hung from the nearest yard-arm. Instead he was given a peerage – and the only way in which he was hung is in portrait-form in Jersey’s Royal Court.
And joining him on the gibbet would have been the owners and editors of the Jersey Evening Post. All people who would have richly deserved the same fate as that other British propagandist for the Nazis, “Lord Haw Haw.”
On the gibbet long with a load of other Jersey spivs and shysters.
The Rag then goes on to refer to: “unacceptable threats to our ….. judicial…. autonomy.”
It goes on to say that the “insistence” of campaigners like me –
“that UK judges and prosecutors must officiate when abuse cases come to court strikes at the heart of our right to operate an independent judicial system and therefore at one of the foundations of our constitutional position.”
Let us, at that point, leave our amusing diversions at the stupidity and amorality of The Rag and its owners, because this assertion of theirs leads us neatly into the important stuff.
The basic principles of the good administration of Justice and the rule of law.
The Good Administration of Justice – and Why Jersey cannot deliver it.
I’m going to explain a few basic legal issues; principles which are simple, easily understood and can be expressed in plain English.
And again – I say if any Lawyer wants to challenge the interpretation I produce here, identify yourself in a comment; I’m ready and willing to debate the issues.
Whatever the precise details of individual cases – it is clear that Jersey has sustained – and failed to prevent – a child abuse disaster of international scale.
There is – obviously – a need for the deployment of a prosecution service – and a judicial apparatus to determine any cases – criminal or civil – which will come before the courts.
That much is inescapable.
So having established a clear need to deploy the judicial apparatus – we must then ask the following question:
“Can the Jersey prosecution and judicial systems be regarded as competent and safe to deal with any such matters arising from the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster?”
The answer to that question is plainly:
Why should that be so?
Let us look at some well-established – and utterly fundamental legal principles.
“Justice must not only be done – it must be seen to done”.
What is meant by this phrase is that the credibility and authority of any respectable judicial apparatus depends upon that apparatus being seen to be objective and impartial.
It is not sufficient for judicial processes to be objective – they have to be seen to be objective.
Absolutely no taint of conflictedness or partiality can be permitted to enter the process.
Not even the merest suspicion – no matter how unjustified – of partiality or conflict.
The very instant any such appearance or suspicion arises – the merest whiff of conflict – those involved in the judicial proceedings – judges, court officials, jurors etc. – must declare themselves conflicted and “recuse” themselves from any involvement in the case, or cases, in question.
And what makes the position of the Jersey oligarchy so manifestly disastrous is that the above-described legal principles are not some ‘loony-left’ invention of ‘crypto-anarchists’, as the Jersey establishment like to depict me.
Instead, the principle of the need for any judicial process to appear to be objective is well-established in British case-law.
It is well-established in all respectable jurisprudence that the administration of justice must be both impartial – and appear to be impartial.
Any person appearing before a Court should be able to have faith in the fact that the judge is independent of Government and equally that the judge is independent of the parties.
Historically a person has a right to an audi alterem partem, or a fair trial, meaning a trial which is independent, impartial and timely. This has long been a common law entitlement.
The fact that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done has been given specific judicial approval in the English case of R v. Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthy  1 KB 256, from which I quote below.
In this case, a solicitor, whose firm acted for a defendant in a civil action for damages, had also sat as a clerk to the Justices in respect of the criminal aspect of the case. Whilst it was not suggested that the solicitor/clerk had been biased – the mere appearance of conflict was unacceptable.
Lord Hewart CJ said:
“A long line of cases shows that it is ……of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done ……. Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper inference with the course of justice.”
Should there still be any doubt about the absolutely essential nature of the appearance of objectivity – simply consider the case of Lord Hoffman. He was one of the Law Lords who sat to determine whether the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was able to be charged and prosecuted for crimes against humanity.
Lord Hoffman – it was revealed later – was a supporter of Amnesty International. This mere appearance of bias was sufficient to cause the decision to be set aside.
The all-powerful and inescapable need to meet the test of the “appearance” of objectivity is thus well-established as a very key-stone of British jurisprudence.
But the authority for that principle does not end there.
These fundamental principles are further described and enforced in the European Convention of Human Rights, to which Jersey is a signatory – via the United Kingdom.
“Article 6 – Right to a fair trial
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law….”
So in addition to British jurisprudence – we also have the European Convention on Human Rights to guide us in these matters.
In the case of any civil matter or criminal matter – every person is absolutely guaranteed fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.
Given all of the above – it is therefore demonstrated beyond credible argument that the administration of justice has to meet a test of the appearance of impartiality and objectivity.
Not even a suspicion of conflict can be permitted to enter the equation.
So, can the Jersey prosecutory and judicial systems hope to even get close to meeting that test? Of clearing that hurdle of the appearance of objectivity?
Not a prayer.
In the context of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster, the Jersey apparatus and its present incumbents are not even close to being on the radar-screen of appearing objective.
Indeed, so plain and obvious is that fact – that it speaks volumes about the present incumbents that they can attempt to maintain a position which flies in the face of all respectable, established jurisprudence and authority.
So how and why are the Jersey authorities conflicted – and therefore simply not competent – to deal with any matter arising from the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster?
Having established that even the appearance or suspicion of conflict renders a judicial process invalid – let’s look at just a few of the conflicts which contaminate the Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus.
Jersey’s Chief Judge, the Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache.
Not only is this man the most senior judge in Jersey – he is also the head of the judiciary – and he is speaker of the Jersey parliament.
And this is a crucial point – so mark it well – under present arrangements, no judge, for example UK judges, sit in Jersey’s court unless chosen and appointed to do so by the Bailiff.
So even if the Jersey oligarchy could be made to see the writing on the wall and accept the inevitability of UK judges hearing any case – those judges would have to be appointed by Phil Bailhache.
Another very well-established legal principle is that “no man can be a judge in his own cause.”
In practice this means not only can a person not sit in judgement on a matter in which they have an interest – neither can they appoint those who will sit in judgment. For if they did so, the principle of the appearance of objectivity as described above is manifestly breached.
So why is Sir Philip Bailhache conflicted – and not remotely capable of approaching the objectivity test?
In addition to being speaker of the Jersey parliament – an immediate conflict – he has always been a deeply politicised individual.
In addition to exhibiting extreme political bias against anti-establishment States members, he is also in the habit of making public, political pronouncements.
All of which are invariably in defence of the Jersey oligarchy and the status quo.
In the context of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster alone, he has made at least three, specific – and deeply biased and partial interventions.
1: Unlawfully stopping my Christmas speech of recognition and empathy for abuse survivors.
2: Giving a lengthy political interview to the Jersey Evening Post in which he made pro-establishment assertions concerning the child abuse disaster.
3: Hi-jacking Jersey’s Liberation Day annual holiday to deliver the most extraordinary, biased and profoundly ill-judged speech imaginable.
In that speech he said the following things:
“Yet many journalists continue to write about the Island’s so-called child abuse scandal. [emphasis added]
He went on to make even further, frankly deranged, assertions.
“All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal. [emphasis added.]
Remember – these are the words of a man who is leading the judiciary which will – unless those in London can be made to come to their senses – hear all matters – civil or criminal – arising form the child abuse disaster.
And even if external judges are brought in – as things stand they will be appointed by Phil Bailhache.
“So called child abuse”.
“The real scandal is not the child abuse – the real scandal is the denigration of Jersey”.
You just couldn’t make it up.
But things get worse than this:
For Sir Philip Bailhache himself is directly conflicted in child protection matters.
Let us remember, this is the man who, when he was Jersey’s Attorney General, permitted a convicted paedophile to become an honorary police officer, who then went on to commit further offences against children.
This is the same man who was a member of the Board of Governors of Victoria College –when that institution was suppressing and concealing complaints of child abuse.
The same man who sentenced an elderly paedophile, who had been grooming three teenage girls with a view to raping them, to 2 years probation – largely on the grounds that the victims must have ‘been asking for it’.
The Jersey judiciary – under the leadership of this man – capable of meeting the appearance of objectivity?
Absolutely – no – chance – whatsoever.
Again – I make the challenge to any lawyer who disputes my analysis to identify themselves and debate the matter.
So that is why – ultimately – the Jersey oligarchy and its Rag are so profoundly wrong as to have clearly reached some final blind-alley of hubris and decadence.
Were this not the case – were these people possessed of even a microscopic amount of wisdom – they would have simply accepted the fact that they are conflicted, and cannot meet the appearance of objectivity test. And would have done so back in November 2007 – when I first wrote to them explaining these points.
Before I was even aware of the covert police investigation.
‘Well’ – you may ask – ‘OK, that’s the Bailiff personally conflicted – but surely he is just one man – the rest of the Jersey judicial apparatus is still competent to meet the appearance of objectivity test?’
Sorry – no chance.
The rest of the established Jersey judicial apparatus has about as much chance of appearing impartial and disinterested as I would have of beating Joe Calzaghe in a fist-fight.
Actually – if you’re out there, Joe – stop ducking me. I’ll take you on at light-heavy or super-middle weight. You choose.
Look – it’s a less crazy idea than the Jersey judicial apparatus being able to hear any matters relating to the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.
In my next post I will explain the insurmountable conflicts which encircle the rest of the prosecutory and judicial apparatus in Jersey.
Not that further evidence is real necessary.
So plain, so obvious, so basic, so fundamental is the jurisprudence, and the appearance of conflict which possesses Jersey’s judicial system that – were they not largely a load of ethically bankrupt shysters – Jersey’s lawyers would have written to Phil – just quietly advising him ‘look – this time, the game is over.’
But instead of some sensible decisions and actions – we are going to have to witness the spectacle of Jersey’s Attorney General – Phil Bailhache’s brother, William Bailhache – standing up in the High Court in London – and arguing in the teeth of all accepted and well-established jurisprudence and authority – that “The Jersey Way” is the right way.