Between the Nursing & Midwifery
Council
And Jersey’s Crown Prosecution
Service:
Three Key Evidential Exhibits
Explained.
This brief posting quotes from three key evidential exhibits
in respect of the malfeasant conduct of the NMC, and the criminal enterprise
that is the Jersey prosecution system.
The exhibits are:
1: An extract from an e-mail exchange of questions and answers between
Stuart Syvret and the Nursing & Midwifery Council, which took place over 11th – 22nd
October 2010.
2: A letter to the NMC, dated 28th May 2010, from Jersey prosecution
Advocate Stephen Baker.
3: An extract from the official court transcript of the 3rd November
2010, of the prosecution against Stuart Syvret.
I shan’t write any great exposition – as, really, you know –
this stuff speaks for itself.
Loud and clear.
1: Excerpts from
E-mailed questions to the NMC, from Stuart Syvret, written on 20th October
2010:
[Relevant replies
from Peter Pinto of the NMC, written on 22nd October 2010, below.]
Questions from Stuart Syvret (October 2010):
1: Why has the NMC been
corresponding with, and allowing itself to be influenced by, Jersey's wholly
conflicted Law Officers' department in respect of the case?
4: Why have I been misled by the
NMC in respect of the Data Protection and Freedom of Information requests I
have made - in that evidence of direct relevance to my complaints - and
evidence in respect of the contacts between the NMC and the Jersey authorities
and/or their agents - has been improperly hidden from me?
Answers from the NMC (October 2010):
“1: You state that the NMC has
been influenced by the Jersey law officers. I am not aware of any evidence to
support this assertion. Please provide further details.”
“4:
You assert that you have been misled in respect of your request for information
under DPA/FoI. You assert that the NMC has had dealings with the Jersey
authorities in respect of this case. I am not aware of any evidence to support
your statement. Please provide further details.”
That exchange – which took place in October 2010 – must now
be compared and contrasted with the following letter – only disclosed by the NMC to me on
the 7th November 2012:
2: Letter to the NMC,
dated 28th May 2010, from Jersey prosecution Advocate Stephen Baker.
Note that this letter – from the Jersey Law Officers’
prosecutor, Advocate Stephen Baker – was written to the NMC on the
28th May 2010 – five months before the NMC were
categorically denying to me the existence of any such correspondence:
“BAKERPLATT
Professor Weir-Hughes
Nursing and Midwifery Council
23 Portland Place
London
WIB 1PZ
Nursing and Midwifery Council
23 Portland Place
London
WIB 1PZ
Sent by e-mail and post
28 May 2010
Dear Professor Weir-Hughes
I am the Crown Advocate who is
retained by the Attorney General of Jersey to prosecute a number of
allegations against Stuart Syvret, who is a local politician in Jersey. The
case against Mr Syvret concerns two alleged offences committed by him contrary
to the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005. In brief outline they arise from a
particular posting he made upon his internet blog in March 2009 and what he
said in that about [REDACTED] The trial of these matters is due to commence on
29th June 2010.
[VERY SUBSTANTIAL REDACTIONS]
concerning a letter that you
received from Mr Syvret, which set out a number of concerns
[VERY SUBSTANTIAL REDACTIONS]
will not be completed before Mr
Syvret’s trial in June.
[VERY SUBSTANTIAL REDACTIONS]
As part of my duty as Crown
Advocate I am required to make disclosure
to Mr Syvret of any matters which may be relevant to
his defence.
[REMAINDER REDACTED.]” (Emphasis added.)
The above-cited letter proves, when contrasted with the
answers from the NMC, that the NMC were acting in bad faith – and lying to me –
when that public authority wrote to me in October 2010, and falsely claimed
that there had been no intercession with the NMC by Jersey prosecutors.
However – in addition to the evidenced lying by the NMC – it
is also evidenced that Jersey prosecutors were lying in respect of the same
issue.
3: Extract from the
official court transcript of the 3rd November 2010, of the prosecution
against Stuart Syvret.
The evidenced fact of the letter, cited above, from Jersey
prosecuting lawyer, Advocate Stephen Baker, written to the NMC in May 2010 –
must now be compared and contrasted with an excerpt from the official court
transcript from the 3rd November 2010, of the prosecution against me.
Particular note should be taken of this passage:
“DEFENDANT:
Well, on the basis of what this witness has told to me, I’m assuming
then that the intercession that has taken place with the NMC has not come from
the States of Jersey Police force and that it has come from the Prosecution.
CROWN ADVOCATE:
There's been no intercession by the Prosecution with the NMC.”
That Crown Advocate is, in fact, Stephen Baker – the man who
wrote the intercession letter to the NMC. Six months earlier.
Oh dear.
Oh dear, oh dear.
Well; where that does that leave us?
I mean – it isn’t every day your entire prosecution system
ends up being exposed – as a fraudulent, perjuring, justice-perverting criminal
enterprise – by wholly damning, clinching evidence – supplied by a separate,
external public authority – and its own lies.
I mean – well; it doesn’t look too good – does it – for her
Majesty’s Crown Prosecution system – to be lying and conspiring to illegally
fit-up opposition politicians?
Well, we can take heart; perhaps today is – in some small
way – a moment of Armageddon – a beginning of the end – for a decadent regime
of sleazy old gangsters and their vassals?
I mean, one doesn’t need to be terribly in tune with the
basic requirements of the proper rule of law – or constitutional
considerations - to draw the obvious extrapolations
from these facts; this set of circumstances – in order to see how it ends.
Or, at least, see how it ends – if the reputation of the British
Crown has any real meaning and substance.
Sometimes, “the system” has to defend itself – show to the world
that “the system can work” – as in the reckoning of Watergate.
In the mean-time, do e-mail me the contact details of your insurers,
eh, Stephen, there’s a chap.
Stuart Syvret
Posts
56 comments:
Thanks for excellent Xmas pressie here.Good luck,seasons greetings & THANK YOU for ALL your sacrifices.
Stuart.
Was it part of the same case where Advocate Baker told the magistrate's court (after you asked for disclosure) that he had read the former Chief Police Officer's (Graham Power QPM) 62,000 word interim defence case to the Wiltshire allegations and that there was nothing relevant in that document to your case where the magistrate agreed with (believed) advocate Baker and the document was not disclosed to you?
The same Advocate baker, some weeks later, proclaimed in the Royal Court that he had not read Mr. Power's 62,000 word interim defence case?
Now having read Mr. Power's 62,000 word interim defence case, in your opinion, is it relevant to your case?
We know that managing editor of the discredited and disgraced BBC Jersey branch, Jon Gripton, was given Mr. Power's 62,000 word interim defence case on September 22nd 2011 (because you gave it to him) and despite reporting on the prosecution case against Mr Power has not, indeed refuse to publish any of the defence case.
With this latest revelation of what appears to be collusion between the NMC and Advocate Baker has anybody from BBC Jersey, or any of Jersey's finest "news" editors shown any interest in running this story?
This is about as blatant EVIDENCED corruption as you will ever see but don't hold your breath waiting for the jersey state media to report on it.
Yes.
The same case.
The same Crown prosecuting Advocate, Stephen Baker.
The same judges - wholly and unlawfully conflicted - in so many ways.
Not least by the fact they're personal associates of directly and centrally conflicted parties to the action - and were chosen and appointed to hear the case by those same conflicted parties.
Like Michael - FIMOCA-Ogiers - Birt.
The 1999 Attorney General.
But, you know, do we really need to carry on re-visiting these known, stark and plain facts?
The Jersey judicial / prosecutory / legal nexus has been in a Wizard-of-OZ situation now for at least the last five years. The curtain is pulled back - and the silly and inadequate little men stand exposed, desperately jerking away on the levers - trying to maintain the fiction.
The difference is - whilst all thinking people can see it - the wizards and their protectors in London think they can carry on - if they just pretend the curtain still veils them.
Stuart
What can be done with this new evidence that has come to light when the judiciary looks after its own?
Could readers please note - that references that identify a specific case can't be published.
Another one of Michael - FIMACO-Ogiers - Birt's friends - Charles Gray - could - hypothetically come along and have me imprisoned again.
And one never knows when these clowns will stop.
I mean, that's a man who - without apparent embarrassment - writes in a judgement that the Jersey police force make the decisions on charging & prosecution - "so the system must be trustworthy & reliable therefore" - the notion of police corruption being an alien concept to him. Which would almost not be so bad - if he at least, in fact, knew that the States police do not make charging & prosecution decisions. It's an exclusive power of the sole prosecution authority in Jersey - residing with consistently politicised, incompetent and failed Attorney Generals.
You know?
Like the former one who might - hypothetically - choose and appoint Charley Gray - to hear some - hypothetical - case. One which could even - hypothetically - be conducted in camera ex parte?
But like I said - it doesn't do to talk.
Not in Jersey
Stuart
Stuart,
This may be difficult, even impossible for you to do given the circumstances, but could you please explain - without risk to yourself - why Stephen Baker was contacting the NMC and what he required from them?
"so the system must be trustworthy & reliable therefore" - the notion of police corruption being an alien concept to him.
He should watch the UK media at the moment regarding police,Cabinet Minister set up,Hillsborough & more!
Stuart.
The Nick Pollard Report into the discredited and disgraced BBC with a little FOOD FOR THOUGHT
VFC, you ask:
"Now having read Mr. Power's 62,000 word interim defence case, in your opinion, is it relevant to your case?"
Of course it is.
I was going to say "was" - silly me; must stop referring to the case in the past-tense.
But, yes - so many, many parts of Mr. Power's statement are of the most serious relevance; relevance to precisely the kind of issues now exposed and evidenced.
Namely routine, malfeasant abuse-of-process and corrupt politicisation of the Jersey prosecution system.
The lying, justice-perverting concealing of the Graham Power statement from the defence - and thus the prevention of the defence being able to fully evidence the abuse-of-process arguments - is a gross and stark breach of Article 6 of the ECHR.
And they just keep accumulating.
Don't they.
Stuart
I think this is what is called 'bang to rights' Mr Baker!
Stuart.
Surely you must be making progress, you being personaly in London, and you showing the relevant ones, this stark evidence?
Thank you Stuart for doing another post.
Apart from it's excellent content it bring the number of comments down to below 200 and allows me to use my quick reference bookmarking system to (i) check up whether any further comments have been made since I last looked, and (ii) if so, jump straight in to the top of the additional comments.
A very short, but very sweet precis of even more corruption, excellent!!!
1how impartial is jerseys judiciary?
Stuart,
The Attorney General who is the Jersey equivalent of the UK's Crown Prosecution Service has not put Stephen Baker in the dock for perjury, how can that be as it is evidenced.
Why was Stephen Baker Crown advocate interfering in a case between a nurse and the NMC when it was for them to decide without the Jersey courts becoming envolved.
If there is true Justice in Jersey as is claimed, Mr Baker will be appearing in the dock, but not in Jersey as his boss an work fellows including Judges are all conflicted.
Annon said:
Why was Stephen Baker Crown advocate interfering in a case between a nurse and the NMC when it was for them to decide without the Jersey courts becoming envolved.
Because Stephen Baker was, and still is, deperately fighting for his professional future.
Oh, Steven Baker has a future; just not as the Clown Advocate..
The Beano is not the Rag
I hear someone we're all familiar with might be getting a little Christmas present.
Stuart
http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-plemont-debate-final-blog-on-this.html
My final take on the Plemont debate
BBC
Stuart.
Any clues to who might be getting a little Christmas present?
Stuart and all the anti child abuse/political corruption bloggers, I hope you all have a happy Christmas
The festive TROLLING extravaganza!
Merry Christmas Stuart. I think your blog is excellent. Thanks for all the hard work you put in, both behind the scenes and on your blog so us Jersey plebs are kept informed as to the real facts around the child abuse 'scandal' and the Jersey government cover up. I hope next year sees the proper exposure and therefore inevitable downfall of the Jersey gov. officials in their child abuse cover up. Similarly I hope next year is a year the survivors can move on agreeing that justise has finally been served in Jersey. Finally I hope the year brings proper recognition by the Jersey authorities that what's been said by people such as yourself on blogs is infact true, thus causing the local MSM to start back peddling quickly and their dopey readership to wake up.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you.
Stuart,
Wishing you a very happy holiday season and a successful 2013. You have truly earned that and much more. May your powerful truth be finally and fully heard everywhere and set free to do its work on behalf of the abused and silenced.
Elle
Happy Christmas and more importantly a very happy new year may every thing come right for you and the those that suffered abuse under the Jersey Goverment god bless take care
Thanks to readers for the various e-mails & messages of support & season's greetings I've received.
As many of you have observed, both Advocate Stephen Baker - and more significantly, the Jersey - Crown endorsed - prosecution function - cannot leave this evidence, these facts, unresponded to.
The question is: is a lawful response - a mea culpa - likely?
Or - will it be yet another case of the Jersey oligarhcy merely reaching for "The Bigger Stick"?
As students of the Jersey polity will know - "never underestimate the stupidity of the Jersey oligarchy".
As I wrote to a national journalist a few days ago - "sooner or later, the Jersey oligarhcy will engage in retaliation against me for this."
I expect the police raids, the various harassments from officialdom, the court-orders, the oppressive defamation proceedings, the corruptly politicised courts, to be swung into action - at any minute - of the day or night.
Jersey is like the former East Germany.
It's simply a case of 'when' - not 'if'.
But - let's look on the positive side. It all now goes to the various imminent and accumulating UK legal proceedings.
The real - and quite fascinating - question - is just how many more UK-based public authorities - and senior individuals therein - can be persuaded to suicidally "hitch their wagons" to a pair of frankly deranged individuals in the form of Philip and William Bailhache?
Which is, let's face it, all that the madness of joining-in with the protection and cover-ups of the Jersey corruption boils down to.
It isn't even as though the clowns who have been, and will be, suckered into supporting the criminal enterprise have anything personally to gain from it. On the contrary - they stand to lose. Massively.
Stuart
Stuart
I'd like to echo what Elle said above.
She and I can at least testify that the outside world, wherever that is, are watching and are behind you.
You are quite right to point out that the idiots are raising the stakes even when they have clearly lost the game.
It is this madness that makes them so dangerous. Watch your back in 2013 and I hope that year brings you the success you deserve, justice to the creeps, and justice and closure to the proud survivors.
http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/12/end-of-year-blog-part-2-jersey-child.html
rs
Stuart.
VFC News Review 2012 PART ONE
You know, the great irony is that the Jersey oligarchy - that whole "system" - could almost certainly have continued quietly on its path for decades - had it not been for the plainly deranged Bailhache brothers.
There was that great fixity - the kind of inertial mass that pins a system, no matter how stagnant and corrupt, into place. But of course the problem with mass, is that once it starts moving, the movement becomes immensely difficult to stop.
The avalanche is starting now.
The question is, how many people will flee its path, and how many will remain to be engulfed - having hitched their wagon to the criminal and quiet clearly mad enterprise of Philip & William Bailhache and their vassals?
Even a majority of Jersey's legal profession are fervently praying - in private - for the day the rule of law is finally restored by London, and the two neo-feudal barons are removed from public office.
Stuart
Bailhache, the ENEMY of Democracy
"The avalanche is starting now."
Does this solely relate to your case in London, or do you have evidence of a more general shift in the legal community's attitude towards the system, absent the rule of law?
Which case in London?
There are so many - on the starting-blocks.
You know, I love this shit; I really do.
You couldn't have asked for better "material" to work with.
I'm almost thinking that - secretly - Phil, Mick and Bill have always been fifth-columnists, intent on the destruction of the ultra vires "environment" of the Jersey mafia.
Really. You just couldn't have paid for these kinds of fuck-ups.
Stuart.
I was talking about your newly issued case against the NMC although it does not surprise me that you are talking of "cases" rather than "case".
My main query related not to the weight of evidence that you have accrued against the family, but instead whether you had first hand knowledge of local prayers for reform from those actors who have, to some extent, been forced to put up and shut up.
So, they had better be quick in giving Bill his Gong then.
Yes, of course there is first-hand knowledge. But Jersey being an utterly lawless and oppressive environment - with the biggest and most toxic, dangerous crooks at the very top - to the extent they control the local legal trade - and the "success" or "failure" of those operating in that market totally - and they are the prosecution function, and the judiciary - and everyone lives in utter fear of them - you will not find any of the sources speaking out publicly.
Especially given the wholly corrupted and abusive nature of what passes for the financial regulator in Jersey - the Jersey Financial Services Commission - which has the "power" of granting either millions upon millions of dollars (with a blind-eye turned) or enforcing bankruptcy, prosecution, imprisonment and ruination - should you upset them, or the occasional bent, perjuring ex-cop - or serial-rapist oligarch with a lot of dirt on others - involved in the JFSC.
But, you can do you own research. Provided you know the right people to speak to.
Just don't bother trying the JFSC member lawyer - who got the job by shagging Bill.
Stuart
Perjuring ex-cop.
That's you - Barry Faudemer.
You fucking crook.
The train is coming down the tracks.
Stuart
I am pleased to read that you are having a little curse Stuart, it is good to offload all this corruption as it will take it's toll if you don't vent it :)
Good on ya fella....
Comes-a-time when the simple, plain statements - say all that is needed.
Stuart
And that time is now.
Stuart
"to the extent they control the local legal trade - and the 'success' or 'failure' of those operating in that market totally"
"and everyone lives in utter fear of them - you will not find any of the sources speaking out publicly"
By this I take it you have received positive confirmation from one or more lawyers that they themselves operate under the regime in fear. It is said by many that the family has something on perhaps one of the most fervently critical local lawyers in recent local history. It is difficult to say whether this is true or whether it is just a case of that lawyer becoming exhausted by the family's tactics.
The current legal regime operating in Jersey makes the presentation of any case before its courts inherently unpredictable. I do not doubt, therefore, that there are lawyers that loath the prospect of trying a case before the Jersey courts.
"But you can do you own research. Provided you know the right people to speak to"
The "right people" implies sympathisers of the "plot" to restore the operation of the rule of law in Jersey. I am sure there are many and that all would wish to remain anonymous. But I do believe that some mechanism for quantifying and qualifying them in some way would be helpful ...
Stuart, so if the perjuring ex-cop is Barry Faudemer, who is the serial-rapist oligarch?
But, really, does anyone familiar with the true nature of power in Jersey not know the answer to that question already?
We must suppose the real question is for how much longer does London think it is credible to carry on staying its hand?
Honest Silk
As I wrote yesterday – you just have to love this shit.
This is an extract from the official court transcript of 2nd November 2010, of what, I suppose we must refer to as the “prosecution” against me, for making public interest disclosures.
At this point key prosecution witness Barry Faudemer was asserting that a mere “questionnaire” – and, at that, issued only to one narrow cohort of potential witnesses – amounted to a proper investigation of the matter I had exposed.
Naturally enough, the fresh and novel assertion by the prosecution required examination by the defence – so I asked for the script of this “questionnaire” to be disclosed.
What follows is self-explanatory.
The splendid thing – is that this is one of the less-insanely Kafkaesque passages from the whole proceedings.
Still – mustn’t grumble.
As other current legal proceedings have made these matters “live” issues again, so to speak – its second-bites at the cherry – all-round.
Stuart
DEFENDANT: In that case, Madam, I have to ask through you for the disclosure of the script and of the interviews because there is a dispute of fact here.
CROWN ADVOCATE: Madam, I don’t accept that the detail of the investigation to this extent is relevant to this case. I’ll have a look for the script to see if it’s there, but I don’t accept that it’s relevant to this detail of investigation.
MAGISTRATE: I said to you before, Mr Syvret, I do not accept either that the detail of this investigation is crucial to this case ..., relevant
DEFENDANT: Well, with all due respect, Madam, the Prosecution spent a great deal of time yesterday repeatedly -----
MAGISTRATE (interrupting): You said that to me before yesterday, Mr Syvret. I gave you my answer yesterday, and my view has not changed.
DEFENDANT: Well, yesterday both the Prosecution and I questioned the witness at length of these very issues in connection with the quality of the 1999 investigation and this was an issue that was effectively opened, as it were. The stable door was opened on it by Advocate Baker in his opening prosecutory address. Now, he having done so, and chosen to introduce, in a very substantial way, the quality of the 1999 investigation, I’m afraid that’s ..., It’s simply tough. He can’t now roll back the clock. He’s introduced it as a ..., a central plank of his arguments in this case and I must be allowed to rebut it.
MAGISTRATE: Mr Syvret, you have heard my ruling on this. I am not prepared to adjourn this case for further disclosure.
DEFENDANT: Can I be clear what your Ruling is? Your Ruling is that the Prosecution are allowed to make an argument and I am not allowed to respond to it. That is effectively your Ruling.
To clarify the respective arguments, the prosecution was presumably suggesting that no public interest defence could be raised against the prosection on the basis that the matter had been investigated, at length, by the Police whereas you were saying that the investigation was not conducted properly which gave rise to a public interest defence with the object of promoting a proper investigation?
Your allegation, now, is that the prosecution withheld documents and information relevant to your defence and that this renders the grounds for these subsequent proceedings (which I understand/presume to be super-injunctive in nature) questionable?
Oh, both.
Both of those perspectives - and several others besides - come into effect.
Both an evidenced - very, very strong - in fact, overwhelming - public interest defence.
And - the prosecution - in what was an entirely criminal act - concealed a variety of evidence and witnesses from the defence. It's called perverting the course of justice.
The prosecution - and indeed, the preceding ilegal massed police raid - without a search-warrant - and all of the associated oppressive criminality by Her Majesty's appointee William - "So Be It" - Bailhache - was based upon - and had to be based upon - a fictitious assertion that the public interest disclosure provisions in the statute have no effect.
So the Jersey oligarhcy generated what is - by their own admission - an argument unique in the entire established democratic world - to the effect that no public interest disclosure can ever by justified by reference to evidenced fact.
But - on the other hand - the prosecution are to be allowed to carry on asserting that "there was no evidenced justification" - even though there plainly was - many times over.
What isn't conveyed in that small transcript quote - is the fact the lying criminal Stephen Baker - of the Jersey gangster outfit, Baker & Partners (formerly Bakerplatt) - having agreed with the magistrate that my entire defense case of evidenced public interest disclosure be deemed "not relevant" after two months work as soon as they read my expert-witness reports and realised they'd lost - actually then went on to base the entire prosecution case - two thirds of his opening address - on assertions that the 1999 investigation was "perfectly good".
That was the prosecution case. I was not allowed to answer it.
And like I said - that one tiny extract from the transcript, is actually one of less-insane, and milder passages.
Now there are going to be lots - lots and lots - of "subsequent proceedings".
There are the served - and yet further to be served - legal proceedings against the NMC in London.
And - plainly - I have a right to go to court and have the data protection convictions overturned on the plain and evidenced grounds of prosecution conspiracy and corruption.
And - of course - there are the now imminent legal proceedings against the Justice Secretary and Privy Council - for having permitted an utter collapse in the proper rule of law, good administration of justice, and denials of human rights in Jersey.
Naturally - that action has to be pursued in London - before I can lodge any action relevant to the Jersey courts. Because there being no functioning, objective judiciary in Jersey - there is no lawful court for me to seek justice before in the island. I mean - at the moment - who would I appear before?
Another of Michael Beloff's friends and Michael - "FIMACO/Ogiers" - Birt's appointees?
That would make a lot of fucking sense.
Like I haven't accumulated and endured enough naked and undisguised corruption at the hands of what passes for a "judiciary" in Jersey already?
But as far as "super-injunctions" are concerned - well, those are your speculations. Not mine. There are ample proceedings tabled, or in the offing - without such hypothetical considerations.
Stuart.
It would be interesting to uncover, at some point, the power structures that subsist in this Island. Is it an overt enforcement structure, or a consensual compliance-based structure? Interestingly, of the two structures the latter is likely to be the more resilient and difficult to investigate: concert behaviour is some of the hardest to prove.
Stephen Baker appears to have picked up quite alot of work in the criminal sphere following your case and his involvement in the Curtis Warren case: both prosecuting and defending. For my part, I would be reluctant to appoint Stephen Baker as an advocate for the defence simply because of his involvement in your case. I would be concerned that, having conducted himself in the way that he did against you (perceptible underhand tactics etc), you would have no guarantee that defence tactics had not be choreographed with the prosecution beforehand. Unless, that is, there was substance in the allegations which means that dirty deals may be helpful.
It's another symptom of the undisguised corruption of what passes for a "judiciary" in Jersey, that vulnerable women, other individuals, and I, can be subject to drunken psychotic abuse by inadequate thugs like haw-haw - we all know who I mean - and he is protected by the "law" in the island - whilst threatening others with "death" - and threatening to throw "caustic soda" in women's faces - and threatening to go to people's house and "punch them in the face".
Such are the "champions" and allies of the Jersey oligarchy - Emma, Bill, Tim, Sean, Ben and Charlie.
By your allies - you shall be known.
That's you too - Your Majesty.
Stuart
I'll go with that one :)
Upon hearing about your original charges stemming from your bizarre warrantless detention, search and seizure, outsiders sometimes think the issue is just you vs. the police and courts in establishing guilt of an inarguably violent health care worker.
It seems important to remind those new to this series of related cases why this is about so much more. The fact that an urgent investigation was seemingly dropped for purely political (and almost certainly illegal) motives, is easy to overlook. There was never any determination of the suspect's innocence established by Jersey, because the investigation was called off before all the needed evidence could be gathered, and before most essential witnesses could be interviewed.
Considering that no one has officially tried to clear this man of understandable suspicion, it is even more ridiculous that you are not legally permitted to expose GOVERNMENT wrongdoing in the public interest. That was the responsibility you were elected to carry out.
New readers should not be diverted by the spin that you were simply trying to indict a dangerous man outside of the courts. This case is compelling in ways which reach far beyond the establishment of the suspect's level of danger. It asks whether or not an elected representative has the right to protect the innocent public.
Elle
You know, as a bit of a treat, I think tomorrow I'll start posting a few 'select' excerpts from the statement of case against the Secretary of State for Justice, and the Privy Council.
Excerpts from those parts that deal with what we must refer to as the supposed "judiciary" in Jersey.
I was especially entertained by the section on Michael Beloff QC.
Well, I mean, come on Micky - it's been a good run for the money.
Stuart
1.14 DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING THE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS OF JERSEY COURTS:
Question
“Are Jersey’s courts legally bound by the:
(a) European Convention on Human Rights;
(b) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
(c) Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and the
(d) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights?
How do the French language statutes comply with Jersey's courts’ legal obligations under the above mentioned international Human Rights laws?”
Answer
The international instruments listed in the question have been ratified on behalf of Jersey and are therefore binding on the government of Jersey as a matter of international law.
However, with the exception of the ECHR, they are not capable of being directly enforced nor do they confer directly actionable legal rights on persons in Jersey. They may only be relevant in a legal action in Jersey where reference to their provisions might assist the court with interpreting a Law or the customary law, the meaning of which is unclear, so as to determine the basis upon which the court’s discretion should be exercised (i.e. in a way which is compatible with Jersey’s international obligations). Only the ECHR, most of the provisions of which are given further effect in Jersey under the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 (the HR Law) can be said to have the force of law in Jersey.
The second (part of the) question does not identify which of the human rights might be engaged, but I do not think in any event that there is any issue of incompatibility with the ECHR or any of the other human rights instruments by virtue of the fact that certain legislation in Jersey is written in French.
Hi Stuart,
What do you make of PB's latest Plemont campaign statement?
What statement?
Sorry - just haven't been following it.
Stuart
PB`s latest statement just shows exactly the kind of man he is, used to getting his own way, extremely upset when he does not,(reported to be incandescent with rage)
He lost a democratic vote, he cannot accept it!
Post a Comment