On Trial.
What follows is a brief extract from the Grounds, Statement of Case, and Skeleton Argument in the following legal claim: Stuart Syvret – Applicant - vs. - Secretary of State for Justice, First Respondent - and Privy Council, Second Respondent.
This section of the claim deals with the plain and evidenced breakdown in the proper administration of justice in the Crown Dependency of Jersey and a number of mischief’s that flow therefrom – not least stark denials of Article 6 Rights to fair trials.
The section on the collapse in the objectivity of what passes as a “judicial” function in Jersey, and the plain failure of that “judicial” function to even meet the necessary “test of the appearance of objectivity”, has a number of sub-sections that deal with each of the judges / courts the applicant appeared before, and certain other matters.
The particular sub-section from the Grounds reproduced below is that dealing with Michael Beloff QC.
Stuart Syvret
An Extract from the
Grounds, Statement of Case, and Skeleton Argument; Stuart Syvret vs. Secretary
of State for Justice and Privy Council:
Commissioner Michael Beloff QC:
Reference has been made above to the attempted judicial
review made by the applicant – given judicial review was the only available remedy,
Commissioner Pitchers having agreed with Bridget Shaw that the Attorney General
was above the law, insofar as any examination of the actions of that Office (the
Jersey prosecution function) were concerned in the context of the criminal
proceedings. Commissioner Michael Beloff QC:
However – Commissioner Pitchers having been selected – in spite of already being the criminal trial judge - by his directly conflicted dining partner - former Attorney General Michael Birt - to hear the judicial review application – then decided that the Attorney General was also above the law in any civil sense by rejecting the judicial review application. The applicant appealed that decision.
The appeal-court was lead by Michael Beloff QC. A long-standing member of the Jersey bench and long-standing friend of Philip Bailhache, Michael Birt and William Bailhache.
Those conflicts of interest – Beloff’s long-standing friendship with, and involvement with those key, centrally conflicted parties, renders him wholly unable to lawfully be involved in any judicial capacity in any matter involving them, and/or the applicant. Any and all involvement of Beloff was, and is, not compatible with Article 6, nor older English jurisprudence.
The resultant decision of the Jersey appeal-court was – as is increasingly apparent in certain other Jersey appeal-court cases – simply corrupt.
It is a basic principle of the rule of law – that no person or entity – and no public authority – is above the law.
"Be you never so high, the law is above you," as Dr Thomas Fuller wrote in 1733. An opinion famously endorsed to universal approval by the much respected late Tom Bingham, in his book The Rule of Law.
That principle applies to the Office of Attorney General in Jersey. That public authority is bound by the law – and answerable in law for its actions.
Not – however – according to the Jersey judiciary.
A judiciary comprised of lucratively rewarded friends of the Jersey Attorney Generals - past & present – men such as Philip Bailhache, Michael Birt and William Bailhache - and chosen and appointed by them.
In neither the malicious, corrupt, politicised criminal actions taken against the applicant – nor in a civil action – has the vires of the actions, conduct and policies of the Jersey Attorney General been able to be challenged.
This outcome is against all established administrative law case-law – and all relevant ECtHR case-law.
The questions have to be these:
“Does all English jurisprudence – and all relevant findings of ECtHR law - have it wrong – and – uniquely – Jersey’s judicial apparatus have it right?”
“Does this sleazy, lawless, tax-haven secrecy-jurisdiction lead the way in a correct interpretation on the laws of accountability and conflicts of interest?”
It does not seem likely somehow.
For example, a foreign national – Raj Bhojwani - whose business interests conflicted with those of British establishment and military interests – was prosecuted in Jersey, convicted and jailed for supposed “money laundering”. A very considerable sum of money was then seized and placed into the unregulated, non-publically accounted “Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund” – which is administered by the Jersey Attorney General, and from which sums are “spent” on various activities – including “court and case-costs” – which involve the employment, commissioning – and other emolumentations - of various clerks, lawyers and judges.
In spite of the fact the key action upon which Bhojwani was convicted – occurred two years before the relevant legislation was introduced – thus making his actions “criminal” retrospectively – the Jersey court of appeal – under Michael Beloff – upheld the conviction – notwithstanding its plain incompatibility with Article 6 of the ECHR, and several other Articles. Retrospectivity of the kind involved can never be compatible with basic justice, no matter what the legislation purporting to confer the retrospectivity might say.
Can it be remotely lawful for a judicial apparatus – and an accompanying incestuously and personally entangled prosecution apparatus – to be exercising powers as “public authorities” - when both authorities are so closely entangled as to axiomatically abdicate their exclusive powers, each to the other, via such inescapable personal and professional “interests”, entanglements and conflicts?
Moreover and in particular – can it be lawful - when the entangled systems and the actual individual prosecutors, lawyers and judges themselves benefit personally from funds seized into the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund? Certainly, if the standards of English administrative law are applied – no.
In the case of the appeal that was made by the applicant, against the irrational and bizarre decisions to deny all possible remedy against the Office of Jersey Attorney General, the judgment that was given by Commissioner Beloff and colleagues was so extraordinary, as to not even be compatible with rudimentary logic and rational thought.
Consider: the applicant was seeking disclosures of evidential material in respect of the decisions of the conflicted Jersey Attorney General’s Office to prosecute him for exposing the failure of that Office to properly investigate serious crimes; Michael Beloff & colleagues’ judgement, at paragraph 55, said this:
“We do not consider that there is any prospect of any such material emerging in the foreseeable future that would have a material impact on the arguments available to Mr Syvret; we could not sanction an adjournment of a criminal matter on a merely speculative basis.”
The question of the disclosure – or non-disclosure – of evidence was central to the entire case. Not only had 90% of the disclosure requirements stated by the defence been refused – it was also, by the time of this appeal, clear - from such factors as the inadvertent confession of the prosecuting lawyer - that key material sought for disclosure had not even been read.
We thus had a situation in which the prosecution – by its own admission – had confessed to having lied on a repeated and sustained basis throughout the entire proceedings in respect of the proper assessment and disclosure of evidence.
How, then, when the prosecution confesses to have not considered available evidence for disclosure purposes – can it be acceptable for Commissioner Michael Beloff - and colleagues - to dismiss a defence application for disclosure as “merely speculative”?
The statement in the judgment delivered by Commissioner Beloff cannot be regarded as a rational statement – nor a statement of law.
How can any credible court come to such a key decision – based upon a “finding” of “we do not consider”?
Why do they “not consider” that there is no prospect of any relevant material emerging?
Do those three members of the Jersey court of appeal possess second-sight?
Did they – using some hitherto non-disclosed psychic power to “channel” into the entire e-mail, letter and decision-making data-base of the Jersey Attorney General – assess the existence of potential evidence?
Did they hold a séance – and run the entire data-base through their minds – and rely upon a “cosmic-vibe” to gauge whether any of the evidence might be helpful to the defence – or support the defendant’s human rights?
Maybe they used a ouija-board?
Perhaps at one of Philip Bailhache’s, Michael Birt’s or William Bailhache’s convivial dinner parties?
It is – manifestly – an absurdity to come to a key – perhaps the key – decision in a legal judgment – on the basis of a guess. Indeed – calling it a guess is too charitable.
The finding and assertion in the judgment is an example of manifestly corrupt bias.
It is so absurd – it could not even be charitably ascribed to a legal “mistake”; people like Commissioner Beloff are experienced lawyers – and would not include wholly irrational assertions in judgments by “mistake”.
It is plain – even on the application of the most basic logic – that the Office of Attorney General will hold various communications, files, records, decisions etc – both directly and indirectly in connection with the actions taken against the applicant - and the closely related matters.
Even before one gets to the stage of assessing whether those records might assist the defence – it is already plain that such records and information do exist. Why, then, should there be “no prospect of any such material emerging”?
The plain fact is that such material did exist – such material does exist – such material is of relevance, both to the charges – and to the abuse-of-process arguments - made by the applicant; such materiel is of relevance to his human rights – and the assertion of Commissioner Michael Beloff QC is biased and absurd and corrupt.
And it is no mere speculation that such relevant material may exist – because certain items of just such evidence have – subsequently – come into the applicant’s possession.
Were Jersey’s judicial apparatus not a biased and corrupted enterprise – all such material would have been disclosed to the defence – when the defence first made the disclosure applications.
In July - 2009.
Some Brief Legal Discussion:
It is not necessary at this section to examine in great detail the arguments concerning objectivity and apparent and actual bias in judicial and quasi-judicial functions and the controlling English and ECtHR jurisprudence; those matters of principle and established law are focused upon in section 4 of this document. However, when reflecting upon the role and conduct of Michael Beloff QC, it is worth being briefly reminded of some key facts and established principles.
Firstly, let us again be reminded that a key – in fact the key – public official in Jersey, with the very highest possible stake in the outcome of the data protection prosecutions against the applicant, is Michael Birt – the person who as the Attorney General (sole prosecuting authority in Jersey) made the key decisions, and who was expressly and directly and seriously criticised by the applicant in the applicant’s public interest disclosures.
Since being Attorney General (a structurally conflicted and ultra vires Office in Jersey, not least because of its overt politicisation and close involvement with the executive, combined with being the sole prosecution authority in the island) Michael Birt has progressed up the traditional career-path to become, first “Deputy Bailiff”, and then “Bailiff”; anachronistic and ultra vires Crown-appointed posts that see the incumbent as the active, unelected “speaker” of the legislature – and as an active judge, and head of the island’s judiciary.
Such is the evidenced nature – and gravity – of the matters involved in the public interest disclosures made by the applicant – that were his concerns to be shown to be publicly justified, such an outcome could not other than result in the complete annihilation of the career of Michael Birt.
But yet – in his capacity as Bailiff, Michael Birt has selected - and appointed - every single judge – in every single Jersey judicial setting – before which the applicant has appeared.
This has included Michael Birt’s long-standing colleague, friend and business-associate, Michael Beloff QC.
Were there not allready substantive grounds for seeing apparent bias and actual bias in the performance of Michael Beloff – the mere fact he is personally known to – and is selected by – and appointed by - the public official with the most to lose should the applicant have been exculpated, amounts to the most gross and offensive assault upon objective justice.
Originally expressed as the rule ‘No man a judge in his own cause’ (Nemo judex in re sua), no tribunal that has the presiding Office-holders chosen and appointed by an interested-party can ever approach the requisite standards of lawful objectivity.
In the case of Michael Beloff QC, the applicant expressly sought from him in open court a statement of his knowledge of any interested parties, and a declaration of any conflicts of interest that might be seen to afflict him in his involvement as the key figure in the tribunal. Beloff flatly refused to make any such declaration.
The applicant sought recusal from him, and, in similar fashion, Beloff refused to recuse.
The general expectation is that a judge, who realises that there are grounds on the basis of which a party might legitimately consider apparent bias may arise, should disclose that interest. Indeed, a failure to disclose has in some cases been thought to contribute to an appearance of bias. As Kirby J put it in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy: “In some circumstances, failure to disclose … an interest will … lead to a sense of disquiet, and perhaps the suggestion that the want of disclosure has an improper or sinister explanation”. Lord Bingham’s view in Davidson v Scottish Ministers (No. 2) was that “the fact of non-disclosure in a case which calls for it must inevitably colour the thinking of the observer”.
Thus it is that Michael Beloff appears to be conflicted in the case – carries the appearance of bias – has plainly exhibited actual, real bias – and all of the said conduct of Beloff stands in direct opposition to established, current English jurisprudence.
So, does then, the objectivity and appearance of objectivity of judicial tribunals, simply not apply in Jersey – as though the island were some parallel-universe?
Is the Secretary of State for Justice, and the Privy Council entitled – in law – to do as they plainly have done and continue to do – and permit the Crown Dependency of Jersey to ignore the objectivity of the administration of justice – as though it were some form of ‘outré, new fangled imposition’ by European foreigners?
It is plain that even without reference to the European Convention on Human Rights, the resultant ECtHR case-law, and the domestic effect of the HRA - there exists in English law an unassailable expectation and right to the impartial administration of justice, and an objective court-of-law.
And – such is the central place of that foundation-stone of the good administration of justice – the right and expectation to impartiality is not even limited to those cases where an actual, testable, objective bias or conflict-of-interests arises – but does, in fact, extend in law to even the “appearance” of bias.
Thus it is – unassailably – established in English law that courts must not only be objective and impartial – they must also meet the test of “appearing” to be objective and impartial.
Indeed, 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 a 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 [1924] 1 KB 256.
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 – in what is, perhaps, the most famous statement of that principle arising in English jurisprudence - 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 interference 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, one of the Law Lords who sat to determine whether the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was able to be charged and prosecuted.
Lord Hoffman – it was revealed later – was a supporter of the human rights organisation Amnesty International. This mere appearance of bias was sufficient to cause the decision to be set aside.
Generally complainants avoid making submissions of actual bias even where there would appear to be good cause to do so. A clear recent example of this sort of reticence is the case of Howell v Lee Millais. It appears clear that had the CA been invited to find that Smith J was actually biased, they would have done so. Yet, the parties shied away from such a submission, even in such an extreme case.
Notwithstanding such acknowledged fear and intimidation that afflicts parties and even the most experienced of Council, the applicant, throughout all of the “judicial” proceedings in Jersey has maintained his right to objective and lawfully impartial treatment from Jersey’s public authorities. The applicant’s insistence on doing so often lead to even greater levels of overt hostility and bias against him.
In fact, at one point in the applicant’s attempts to secure justice in the face of the corrupt, politicised proceedings carried-out against him by those friends of Michael Birt - William Bailhache and Tim Le Cocq – Bailhache’s dining-acquaintance, Commissioner Christopher Pitchers, lost his temper and said to the applicant words to the effect “You just want to destroy everything!” (It is assumed, from this, that by “destroy everything” Commissioner Christopher Pitchers was in fact referring to the “necessary” emperor’s-new-clothes hallucination, required to sustain the delusion that the manifestly ultra vires “gentlemen’s-club” patrician nature of the prosecution/judicial apparatus in Jersey, somehow, amounts to the lawful administration of justice?)
We can profitably return again to the words of Lord Hewart CJ, R v. Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthy, where the learned gentleman said:
“Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice. Speaking for myself, I accept the statements contained in the justices' affidavit, but they show very clearly that the deputy clerk was connected with the case in a capacity which made it right that he should scrupulously abstain from referring to the matter in any way, although he retired with the justices; in other words, his one position was such that he could not, if he had been required to do so, discharge the duties which his other position involved. His twofold position was a manifest contradiction.”
If one “twofold” position is fatal – a “manifest contradiction” - what, then, do we make of two-twofold positions – in compound and amplification?
We are faced with Michael Beloff QC – in the twofold position of long-standing friend of Michael Birt – and, as appeal-court judge in a case that – had it concluded favourably for the applicant – would have been instantly professionally terminal for Beloff’s friend Michael Birt. Yet – upon that “twofold position”, we have a second “twofold” position – of Michael Birt – in being the most centrally and directly conflicted public official in Jersey – whilst also then choosing and appointing the appeal court judge (a friend of his), to hear the applicant’s case, which would have been terminal to Birt, if the applicant succeeded.
(It is also worth being reminded at this point, that Michael Beloff QC was also asked to “recommend” – for Michael Birt to appoint – yet other judges in matters involving the applicant, and in which matters – in any favourable outcome for the applicant - Beloff’s friend Michael Birt would be professionally destroyed.)
Hewart CJ, in the case already cited, said: -
“It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the notes of the evidence in case the justices might desire to consult him, the justices came to a conclusion without consulting him, and that he scrupulously abstained from referring to the case in any way. But while that is so, a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
Here – in the case of the Jersey justices – whilst all splendid fellows, no doubt, and worthy of being members of the most exclusive of gentlemen’s clubs – they have known each-other for many years - actually socialise with one-another – dine with one-another - employ one-another – recommend one-another – appoint one-another – and sit in judgment on one-another’s cases - and do so in cases in which a victory for a lowly pleb applicant would result in the career-annihilation of one or more of their number.
Whilst no-doubt, certain people wish we could return to a simpler, more civilised age - in which a gentleman’s word and reputation was all the guarantee one required - the applicant remains unaware, in spite of relevant research, of any ECtHR jurisprudence that endorses being a “stout-fellow” or a “clubbable-chap” as satisfying the “positive obligations” upon the contracting state to secure the “procedural” and “substantive” measures required to secure the “effective” delivery of Article 6.
[The above-quoted text is a short extract from the Grounds, Statement-of-Case, and Skeleton-Argument in Stuart Syvret vs. Secretary of State for Justice, and the Privy Council.]
Stuart Syvret
Posts
57 comments:
Very cleverly done, Mr Syvret, very cleverly done indeed. A lot of your readers may not grasp the sub-text here; the fact you are in a win-win position, and the Jersey "Establishment" (and "protectors") are in a lose-lose.
It is interesting that of all the different judges you could have chosen to focus on from your statement-of-case, you chose the comparatively (in Jersey at least) anonymous Michael Beloff. You clearly know the wisdom of the old saying, 'if you need to kill a snake, cut it's head off'. The snake in this case, being the 'thing' that the Jersey judiciary has become during the last 2 decades or so.
Many legal brethren would have considered Beloff far too smart to have dug himself into such a hole, but I imagine so many years exposed to the lunatic hubris of the Bailhache Brothers must be catching.
Beware the smart and determined pleb and beware hubris.
Jersey Conservative.
Oh, that's merely limbering up.
If you really want to see some bloody preposterous pleby effrontery, just wait until you read my explanation to Jonathan Sumption QC of the principle of stare decicis.
Something he, apparently, never recalled from his legal training.
Though that's not altogether surprising, if he spent as much time gazing at the ceiling and picking his nose during lectures as he did when presiding.
Stuart
Here's a question for you, Stuart, as I'm no expert on legal training: did Jonathon Sumption ever attend lectures in Law?
It is clear that his Oxford degree was a BA in History, 1970, whereafter he taught the subject as a Fellow of Magdalen College for five years. Then he was called to the bar, presumably undergoing legal training which, as far as I know, could have been quite informal.
So goodness knows how he was taught to pick his nose.
I trust the pleb with nothing to loose. I don't trust the legal friends of the Bailhache's.
Good luck Stuart, there are many Jersey plebs behind you, and judging from blog comments over the last year, there are some posh legal types supporting you too because they can see you're right.
Of course, being morally right won't automatically result in your victory when the powerful Jersey Way (tax payers money no objective) is out to screw you. (and please, please, take care on those cliffs).
One hopes in 2013 the Jersey rulers will see the error of their ways and adopt the proper rule of law. However, judging from their past performance, I suspect they're going to keep digging a bigger hole for themselves.
Good luck all the same.
The irony is, that if the Jersey oligarchy, or more likely London, was edging closer to finally giving Jersey people effective checks and balances via a separation of powers - the wholly extraordinary events of the last five years make that prospect a more and more difficult change to embrace.
I mean, look at the consequences; such a change being introduced would be a fundamental confession that the current system was, and had been, structurally unlawful (which it plainly is) thus demonstrating and declaring that people like me, Graham Power and Lenny Harper had been right.
It would also - of course - mean taking down off the shelf - and then properly investigating - all of the many manifest and evidenced acts of overt criminality that the system hitherto had refused to investigate and prosecute.
Such as various conspiracies to pervert the course of justice - and examples of misconduct in a public office. For example - the activities of the criminal William - "So Be It" - Bailhache.
Not to mention dozens upon dozens of other - most serious crimes.
Including heavily evidenced charges against certain serial-rapists - and the various corrupt officials who have protected them and prevented them from being brought to justice.
Oh yes - guys and girls.
It is all filed, logged, archived - and just waiting for that inevitable day - that day in a year - two years - four maybe - when the rule-of-law arrives in Jersey.
We do not forget.
In this age of massed record keeping - none of it is going away.
There is no hiding-place.
Events await - their inevitability.
Calm - like a bomb.
I know a significant number of officials and others in Jersey are just waiting for the day they can 'turn Queen's Evidence'.
A number of others would be well-advised to join them.
Stuart
Hi Stuart
We no your the good guy.
Happy new year.
AP of St Clements
Stuart, out of curiosity, how did Johny Sumption's judgement fail to respect stare decisis? I'm not doubting you, just asking.
The legal way is the correct way, I am starting to understand your aims Stuart when eventually you put your case, or should that be Jersey's case in front of an honest judiciary they will see clearly that looking after their mates and helping themselves to exaggerated wage packets is all the leaders in the judiciary of Jersey care about.
Let us hope that the good lawyers in Jersey forward relevant and useful information for the cause of integrity and honesty and to make it impossible for the culprits to escape through a legal technicality.
You are a strong man Stuart, may you have a healthy and successful new year.
James C.
Stuart, keep up the fight and perhaps we can look forward to a happy and just 2013! Phil
Stuart.
As we have no challenging, or independent media (other than Bloggers) on the island one guesses you haven't been contacted by any of the State Media concerning these latest revelations on what looks remarkably like a break down in the rule of law?
Goog job we have Bloggers to publish NEWS
That's correct.
Not one single journalist - from any of Jersey's mainstream media - have attempted to contact me - even once - in connection with this imminent legal action - nor even the now extant legal action against the Nursing & Midwifery Council.
As will be obvious to all but complete halfwits - quite regardless of whether I'm right - regardless of whether they like me or hate me - regardless of what Jersey oligarchs and their tax-payer funded spin-doctors say - these two stories are of the utmost and dramatic public significance for Jersey.
You would, therefore, expect Jersey's traditional media to be interested enough - so as to inform their audiences - to at least contact me.
Even if only to then have an excuse to peddle more lies against what we're fighting for.
But - no.
It is the proverbial deafening silence from the Guiton Group.
And let's stop playing games, eh?
All of Jersey's media - IS the Guiton Group.
That commercial interest - all it represents as the propaganda rag of the Jersey oligarchy - all of that customary power - has long pursued a strategy of making certain it "owned" all of Jersey's media.
And it does - in that metaphorical, gangster-empire fashion.
I mean, as well as "ex"-Guiton Group employees de facto running BBC Jersey and Channel Television - they're also running the Chief Minister's propaganda department - sorry, "Communications Unit".
Stuart
The latest failing of BOWRON & BIRT
The reason why no media (either local or national) media have contacted you is that they know this is all nonsense, and is likely to have an identical outcome to all of your previous vexatious attempts. And don't you know it, even if you are able to quote a few basic legal terms to pull the wool over the eyes of your little gang of acolytes
All the best for the New Year Stuart.
Great posting.
The Judicial System is what keeps this toxic entity alive.
Take off its head and the rest will follow
rs
As ever Stuart you are disingenuously critical of our glorious and revered Jersey Mainstream Press.
BBC JERSEY for most of today were running as their top story
'No animals abandoned at Jersey shelter over Christmas'
QED as we used to say.This is no joke , check it out on
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-20578212
A reader says:
"The reason why no media (either local or national) media have contacted you is that they know this is all nonsense,".
Who said the national media hadn't contacted me?
Your sources are as poor as your intellect.
Why, I think you'll find - even if there are sections of the said national media hostilely disposed towards the anti-oligarchy policies we're pursuing - they're going to find it pretty difficult to not report the cases.
After all - they're not "nonsense".
Rather, they're simply questions of plain fact.
Did the most conflicted public official in Jersey - the man who would be professionally annihilated if I were to have won any of the Jersey court-cases - appoint his friends - as the judges - to hear those court cases?
If Michael Birt did not do that, then that aspect of my claim would be "nonsense".
But if he did do that - then its game, set & match.
Did William Bailhache say to Jersey Police Chief Graham Power, "So be it" - after having failed to illegally coerce Mr Power into dropping the investigation into planning corruption?
If William Bailhache did not say that - then that aspect of my claim would be "nonsense".
But if William Bailhache did say that - then, not only is it game, set & match - but additionally the Crown is ultimately going to have no choice other than to take control of the law enforcement apparatus in Jersey - a la Turks & Caicos - so that Bailhache & co can be investigated, charged and prosecuted.
Simply questions of plain fact.
And as far as the other - profoundly serious - underlying factual backgrounds to the cases are concerned - things don't come much more spectacular.
And, of course, after the last 12 months or so - when all of traditional power in the UK has been shamed and exposed in one way or another - Orgreave, Savile, Hillsborough, phone-hacking etc - it's hard to imagine the exposure of despicable corruption, and associated cover-ups - being buried, as in days gone by.
Stuart.
Stuart...you are our family's hero and a wonderful man, please continue to fight against all this corruption and injustices by the judiciary /states members / lawyers and top civil servants. it used to be brown envelopes but those are too small now, its more like black bin liners. we love you Stuart such a great man.
The SCUM OF JERSEY in 2012 :)
Stuart, you know I am a Christian and not allowed to hero worship anyone apart from Jesus Christ, and I know you wouldn't want any of us to anyway,but like anonymous I also think you are a wonderful man. Thank you so much for what you have done, for exposing this network of white collar gangsters.
May God bless you and continue to keep you safe and well. ps if you want a New Year treat (and God knows you deserve one) go and see the Life of Pi, I went today and it is a great film.
Like anonymous @21.05 said-
Our extended family loves you too Stuart, especially the females!
-thats 2 generations with the little ones learning fast. Currently they think you're Jersey's 'real-life' Harry Potter in a nasty 'war' fighting the baddies. They know it's not a war with guns, but a long 'writing' war and the 'cleverest side wins.' We told them despite the odds you'll win because;
1- it pays to be honest and you have been truthful all the time AND we know the baddies have told lies 'cos policemen said so.(Owning up and truthfulness are ethos' we're keen to instill).
2- you're fighting to help make it better for adults and children who've had bad things happen to them. They see this as a really really good thing to be doing.
Somewhere along the line they're convinced you're ALSO the best EVER 'thumb' war champion. We've said we're not sure about this but it's probably true. Is it? Watch out, our daughter wants to take you on!
We ALL wish you every success in 2013. No-one deserves it more.
Yeah.
Look out.
To those who think I'm scary & tough already - you haven't yet seen my thumb-war abilities.
Since I've been doing weights & climbing again, not even 10 year olds can beat me!
Be careful what you wish for.
The bad guys might have picked on the wrong person.
Stuart
A happy new year to you Stuart and to also those in positions that are helping behind the scenes.
The Beano is not the Rag
I think the bad guys may already know they've picked on the wrong person. You have tenacity, courage, honesty, intelligence, heart and soul. I'd take that any day over their weapons of money, cowardice and propaganda.
May you have a truly happy 2013. You deserve that, and so do those abuse survivors whose cause you have bravely and steadily championed.
Elle
This is worse than justice not being "seen to be done" - there isn't even the appearance of any meaningful justice.
Stuart, I hope you will forgive me veering somewhat off-topic, but there is a rather fascinating example of how the media works as a propaganda tool going on in the UK right now.
You will, of course, know that the last UK government successfully introduced a law banning hunting with dogs in the UK.
You will also know that this caused a huge amount of spluttering, purple-faced fury amongst the landed gentry, who essentially see the law of the land as being something designed to keep the great unwashed in their place, and not curtail their enjoyment of cruel 'sport'.
Since the introduction of the law, many fox hunts have just carried on regardless, with many pillars of the community viewing the legislation as simply too plebian to apply to their lofty personages.
The police have generally done very little or nothing to investigate and prosecute these flagrant breaches of the law, presumably because it would embarrass the senior police officers if they had to arrest their chums among the local gentry.
As a result of this police indifference to law-breaking, the RSPCA recently brought a private prosecution against a number of English hunts for multiple breaches of the law. These prosecutions were successful.
One might assume that the judge in the case would congratulate the RSPB for the painstaking work it had undertaken, and pointedly ask why a charitable organisation was forced to do the job of the police force in upholding the law.
Oh no! Rather, the judge made pointed reference to the cost of bringing the prosecutions (in the region of £350,000) and questioned whether it was money well spent. Personally, I find this quite remarkable. Clearly the judge came from the same social set as the hunters and was also of the opinion that they ought to be above the law.
In short order, a gaggle of Tory MPs wrote to the charity commissioner questioning whether the RSPCA had acted lawfully in spending its money bringing a private prosecution for offences involving animal cruelty. The commissioner's response was effectively "Are you retarded?", although I think he worded it a bit more politely.
Now, in the last few days, I have noticed two articles in the Daily Mail (online, don't worry I don't buy it) criticising the RSPCA. One headline was about how it puts down half the animals it takes in. Another was about a man whose dog was left with them for 2 weeks while he moved house, and was inadvertently put down. There was also an article about how many zillions of salt-of-the-earth yeoman types turned out to see some good old-fashioned cruelty on Boxing Day.
Now even allowing for the fact that these stories are probably complete bollocks anyway, it is very clear that a media vendetta has begun against the RSPCA. It is obvious that the Countryside Alliance, which is very well-funded and well-connected, is in full spin mode and is in cahoots with rags like the Daily Mail.
What does this have to do with Jersey? Specifically, nothing, but in general terms it is a blatant example of how the media is used as an opinion-management tool to further certain agendas.
The more I ponder the mess in which this island wallows, the more I see the JEP as being the real culprit. It really never did quite recover from the shock of losing its Nazi overlords, did it?
Hi Stuart
Saw you at St. Catherines this morning. Wow, how you've shaped up!
Happy New Year to you. May 2013 be the year of your victory and the long-awaited downfall of Jersey's dispicable oligarchy.
Best of luck to you and all your 'named' supporters. I hope this year my family and I find sufficient strength to overcome the fear of the Jersey Way. By this I mean, we loose the mask of anonymity and be seen to support you, as we always have quietly.
From Le X Family, northern parishes.
So, blog-readers, what's the betting for the next few days:
Jersey oligarhcy - or more likely, protectors in London - finally come to their senses?
Or - do they again simply reach for A Bigger Stick?
We can be guided in making that assessment by the following axiom:
"Never underestimate the stupidity of the Jersey oligarchy."
You know, whilst I can't say I would have chosen to endure all this oppression - some time ago it started to possess a certain grim, intense pleasure. A bit like winter mountaineering.
Stuart
Re. Jersey Sea Cadets
I came across
http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2012/12/29/new-year-honours-for-three-islanders/
"A British Empire Medal will be presented to David Moody, chief petty officer in the Jersey Sea Cadet Corps, for services to the organisation of which he has been a staff member for 50 years."
and Comment #2 by Siobhan Gallichan :
"Good grief!
‘Chief Moody, Chief Moody, going bald is nothing to be scared of’…
The terror of the armoury gets recognised. Good on him."
----------------------------------
any background on this ?
Jersey Sea Cadets have been strongly linked to child abuse - is Chief Moody good , bad or unknown ?
is Siobhan's comment genuine and unedited be the JEP/state censors ?
It stands to reason that the Jersey oligarcy are in one hell of a predicament.
Never in their wildest dreams did they think that a hugely intelligent and talented person would still be fighting fit after all the opression they have put him through.
The protectors in London, at this present time, will no doubt be looking long and hard at this unique character who is in the right place at the right time....
And has nothing to loose and much to gain!?
Stuart.
Independence for Jersey EXPLORED
Bridget Shaw gets to taste some of her OWN MEDICINE....
"A little bit of corruption never did anyone any harm" remind me again where I read that?
~~~~~Jersey oligarhcy - or more likely, protectors in London - finally come to their senses?
Or - do they again simply reach for A Bigger Stick?~~~~~
Haven't they tried to buy you off?
"Haven't they tried to buy you off?"
No. They haven't.
Not once - in any shape or form.
Not even hinted at it.
And let us not speak falsely - for they do say everyman has his price.
And we see just where crazed hubris leads, when we look at the catastrophic terminal hole the Jersey oligarchy are in, to be ever so foolish as to imagine ourselves above human fallibility.
So, yes, I must suppose that I too have a price.
But the reason this is Total War - is that I know - and they know - and I know that they know - and they know that I know that they know - that my "price" is not monetary.
My price is a modest thing.
The rule of law.
And - all of the unavoidable consequences that must flow therefrom - in light of the recent history of Jersey.
Which is not a price that anyone associated with the Jersey oligarchy can even begin to contemplate.
Stuart
That they have not even attempted to buy you off is your badge of honour. Even these wicked scoundrels have to acknowledge that you are a man of integrity.
You have opened a locked door by going into the Parliament and steadfastly refusing to join in the corruption. You have opened a locked door on the rule of law by doing that. You've suffered so much for doing it, but it has shown everyone what a corrupt bunch of gangsters are running the show.
May God continue to bless and keep you safe from all harm Stuart. May every attempt to hurt and destroy you continue to be thwarted.
"Saw you at St. Catherines this morning. Wow, how you've shaped up!" You certainly have. I saw you in town the other day and I have to say you are looking buff!! All this litigation must be keeping you fit.
X from all your shemale fans.
Don't start; my climbing friends have already asked if had become gay. (The answer's 'no', by the way; sorry to disappoint;-)
But, I have to confess, you're not the first to have made that speculation during this last year. You know, it really doesn't say much for straight men, that it's regarded as so rare for one to get fit and try and get a bit ripped & toned, that the automatic assumption is that he must be gay.
Though I do confess - I've had coaching - which might explain things. A gay friend of mine, who I was talking to about fitness regimes when I started training early in 2012, and to who I was bemoaning my lack of a girl friend gave me some 'make-over' advice - "It'll be just like "Queer Eye for a Straight Guy!", he said.
So blame him for the biceps, tight t-shirts & moisturiser.
Stuart.
A reader above asks:
"Stuart, out of curiosity, how did Johny Sumption's judgement fail to respect stare decisis? I'm not doubting you, just asking."
Sorry for not responding sooner; forgot.
Well, where to begin?
It is settled law that a person has a right to access potential remedies at law.
Not - according to Sumption.
You see, I was suing Jersey Ministers, and various other public authorities in Jersey for the various corrupt actions, torts, bad-faith, misconduct in public offices, fraud, conspiracies, oppressions and abuses of my human rights.
Jonathan Sumption and his Jersey oligarchy friends and paymasters faced the irreducible - and permanent - and insurmountable catastrophic problem that they will now forever face - in respect of any of these issues and corruptions and the legal challenges to them. Namely - the instant any of them reach the stage of a full trial of the matters - based on the evidenced facts - in open court - with witnesses cross-examined under oath - the entire criminal racket that is the Jersey polity implodes. There and then.
So - they have to find - and they have to continue to find - forever and ever now - excuses for "striking-out" all such actions and claims that we attempt to bring before court - in order to prevent a full-trial.
There are now so many examples of the plainly corrupt misuse and abuse of "strike-out" by the Jersey oligarchy in order to maintain the cover-ups in recent years that I've almost lost count.
Just for example, another of Michael Birt's appointees, Sir Charles Gray - striking-out - thus denying me remedy (in Jersey at least - thanks Charley) a civil claim against the Attorney General - notwithstanding the evidenced gross corruption of that Office.
Returning to Sumption - he and they had to be able to settle on some faintly plausible excuse for the strike-out of the earlier claim. The "clever" stunt they alighted upon - was to "set up" my case as a "straw-man"; to falsely depict my claim as something it was not - and to then ascribe arguments to my case, that I was not making.
So it was - that 24 hours before the strike-out hearing - I received a Jersey oligarchy argument based upon the false premise that I was asking the court to intervene into the internal affairs of the legislature.
I was asking no such thing.
Had I been - then of course the claim could be struck-out - on the grounds the court could not go into the realm of parliamentary privilege.
So - I worked through the night - and produced a very detailed, extensive - and very good - rebuttal of this brazen attempt to falsely depict my claim, and thus have it struck-out on false premises.
Well - it must have been good.
Because a plainly raging and vicious Sumption had to abandon the simple "parliamentary privilege" ground for the strike-out - and instead - at the last moment - invent some entirely novel and new "law".
Which amounted to "the claimant is not a human being".
I paraphrase - but that was the gist of Johnny Sumption's judgement.
You know - now I think of it - I'm adding him to the witnesses I am subpoenaing in London.
I mean - what more relevant and apposite witness could you call - in a case that - at heart - is addressing the overt, undisguised judicial corruption in the Crown Dependency of Jersey - than "Britain's Cleverest Man" - and a Supreme Court Justice?
Why, what a splendid idea!
I just love stare decisis.
Just bleedin love it, gov.
Stuart
Hmm.....
I glance something faintly from the corner of my eye. It is in the far, far distance. It appears, then disappears in the Turneresque skies. Fogs and clouds and fiery sunsets hide it. I turn away. Then I glance again, quickly, and briefly it is there. It is still so far away, but this time I thought it was approaching. The distance slowly closing. I think when it arrives we'll see it is a black swan.
Dear Oh Dear....EVEN MORE CORRUPTION!!!
Stuart.
What do you think is the likelyhood of a response from the London Parliment/Courts,this week?
Or do you think they will be taking a bit longer sussing you out?
Ullo. My comment on the Rag was genuine. I think that the abuse was apparently happening when I was there - between 79 and 84 - however I didn't know anything about it. Which is a source of some little guilt as I was one of the senior cadets towards the end of that time, and I just wish I had known and could have tried to do something.
So, saying that, I have nothing to accuse Moody of. I do know that he took a lot of stick off us cadets, and seemed like a good bloke.
Mind you, I always thought Andre Bonjour was a good bloke too.... How wrong I was there. A sense of sadness that someone I looked up to could turn out to be rotton to the core.
Tel me, Barking Bill - how's it going?
Do you hear that train 'a coming?
Stuart
Is now a good time to revisit BBC Radio Jersey's high point of the last decade ?
http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2012/11/bbc-radio-jersey-interviews-blogers.html
The bloggers holding the moral high ground - not hard when you hold the facts and a track record for reporting them.
Was this programme just a flash in the pan by the local media ?
Do we still need to rely on mainland and foreign media for occasional coverage of local issues that is honest and balanced ?
You know, this just gets more and more entertaining.
Its reached that kind of phase.
Things are crumbling now - by the day.
I'm going to really enjoy 2013.
Even if I do spend most of it in Jersey's prison at the hands of the local mafia.
Stuart
Can you tell us any more?
I'm looking at my well-read copy of the Judicial Review Handbook - and I'm thinking - "so you wanna play rough, eh? Say hello to my little friend."
Stuart
http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-jersey-judicial-system-real-power.html
The Real Power in Jersey
rs
Stuart.
Can you please keep us informed. If you possibly can
Nah, no need.
Everyone reading this blog - who's vaguely in touch with the issues, and events - knows what the score is.
This where it goes down.
Stuart
Stuart.
Nice to hear you sounding so positive. It surely sounds as though "The End Of The Beginning", is moving into the middle phase....
Or, is it all advancing better than expected?
Curiouser and curiouser.
My instincts have proven to be absolutely correct.
So - how does "the system" abstract itself from this apocalyptic mess?
"What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."
If I get subjected to harassment by officialdom - or arrested - or imprisoned again - or have some "unfortunate accident" in the coming days or weeks - we needn't be surprised.
Like I said - this is where it goes down.
Stuart
Well, some of us are praying for you Stuart. May God continue to keep you safe and well, and a thorn in the side of the wicked.
I'm going to need more than prayers.
Stuart
If they arrest, or imprison you again, there will no doubt now, be a public out cry. And the Jersey oligarchy know this.
But as you say:
"Never underestimate the stupidity of the Jersey oligarchy."
Bridget Shaw gets to taste some of her OWN MEDICINE Part 2
"I'm going to need more than prayers.
Stuart "
Of course you do, and you know I have bust a gut to try to do my bit to expose these wicked people. I have been writing and researching and campaigning for years, same as you have, to get to the very heart of why systematic institutional abuse is being allowed to happen in these British isles, despite my handicap of not always being very well because of PTSD (caused by the systematic abuse and cover up of Pindown)
Please don't despise my faith and prayers. You know I have been pulling my weight, trying to. I might not be as clever as you Stuart but I try my best to pull my weight, don't despise my prayers and simple faith please.
Post a Comment