17
Feb
14

Stuart Syvret repost – letter from exile #17

LOOKING INTO THE MICROCOSM
FROM REALITY.

Blanche Pierre –

The Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity.

Part 3.

“Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the powerful in favor of the weak. Historical law subverts it at every turn.”

The Judge.

Cormac McCarthy
Blood Meridian

At present, Jersey is not capable of governing itself.

It is an utterly lawless jurisdiction.

Jersey is an environment under the grip of a wholly criminal regime.

So absolute – and absolutely corrupted – is all meaningful power in Jersey – that the island possesses less scrutiny and fewer checks and balances than a Balkan state.

In the former Yugoslavia, there are at least, organised oppositions – and the scrutiny of human rights organisations – and the close oversight of the U.N.

The broad population of Jersey possesses no such protections.

Lawlessness – overt criminality – and political oppression – all are openly practised with absolute impunity – taking place, as they do, protected from acknowledgment by a kind of emperor’s-new-clothes exercise in collective denial.

A climate of fear exists to ensure the public don’t state the truth. And that terror is maintained through the exemplative harassment and oppression of their occasional ‘renegade’ elected representatives.

And rather than there being any arm of the state to which people can turn – or even any less formal check and balance, such as might be found within the Fourth Estate of most countries – all such embodiments of power as exist within Jersey – and even those external to it, within British governance – are bent instead to the protections of the status quo.

Consider – in which functioning democracy do you find the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, the media and the prosecution system – all working so closely together in cahoots – against the common interest of the public good?

Where else would you find – in the democratic world – all such institutions striving collectively to conceal decades of child abuse – as is happening so evidencedly in Jersey?

You think I exaggerate? Perhaps even greatly so?

View the situation from the perspective of the victims of child abuse in Jersey.

There are dozens upon dozens of abuse survivors – of all ages – in Jersey; the victims of many different crimes, committed and concealed over many decades.

Sadly – nothing unique in that circumstance. One comes across similar examples throughout the world.

However – eventually, in civilised countries at least, such crimes get exposed – the guilty get punished – and the institutions responsible for failing to protect the children are held up to condemnation – are required to publicly face their failings, and to apologise. Even the Catholic Church in Ireland – and even the Pope – have not been able to avoid such confrontation with reality.

The Jersey survivors must have felt optimistic. For from 2007 onwards – not only were they being listened to and finally taken seriously – but the people who were believing them could not have been better-placed – or more powerful.

No longer was it just the occasional whistle-blower who was supporting them. Now their cause had the ideal champions.

A dedicated police investigation – Operation Rectangle – being led by a tough, no-nonsense, hard-bitten cop, used to combating paramilitary murders in Northern Ireland and gang-land killings and organised child-abuse in London.

A politician with the highest electoral mandate in Jersey, the senior Senator – who was a member of the cabinet – in no less a position than being the Minster with responsibility for Social Services.

And a strong Chief Constable of the Police Force – of impeccable professional record – nationally respected – and holder of the Queens Police Medal.

Three stronger, better-placed and more appropriate authority-figures could not have been wished for.

What could possibly go wrong?

If Jersey were a functioning, law-abiding democracy – with effective checks and balances – or even dutiful external scrutiny – by no conceivable means could the atrocities and cover-ups of the past withstand the proper attentions of such a leadership of the Police Force and of the Social Services department.

Yet – here we are.

Three years later.

The Senior Investigating Officer retired – and was immediately subjected to a highly organised and publicly funded campaign of disinformation, spin and lies, questioning his competence; a smear-campaign enthusiastically embraced by all of Jersey’s media.

The politician was sacked for “undermining staff morale” – for becoming the first ever Jersey politician to state publically that the island’s child protection systems had failed. And because the politician continued to fight the Culture of Concealment he has been subjected to constant unlawful harassment by the Data Protection Commissioner, illegal surveillance, corrupt and lawless police raids, arrest, searches without legal warrant, prosecution without effective legal representation and denied admissibility of the evidence he needs to make his defence.

And the Chief Constable has been criminally suspended from his post – in what is manifestly a brazen conspiracy to pervert the course of justice – has been denied proper due process – failed by what passes for a judicial process in Jersey – and subjected to a repeated and Kafkaesque moving of the goalposts by profoundly conflicted politicians, Crown Officers and civil servants.

And all of the above has been enthusiastically and unquestioningly endorsed and promoted by what passes for the “accredited” media in Jersey.

Jersey: an utterly lawless jurisdiction.

But what, then, of external scrutiny?

The “connections” between power in Jersey – and power in London have been very carefully cultivated over a period of centuries. That fact is highly visible in at least four grounds.

Access: The relevant authorities in London – be they the Whitehall mandarins or the relevant politicians never – ever – entertain meaningful direct contact with the ordinary people of Jersey, nor even their elected representatives. Audience is only ever granted to a few select Jersey oligarchy politicians. Even then – to all practical purposes – liaison between London, and power in Jersey is conducted through the island’s Crown Officers. The unelected and unaccountable “Government within a Government” – as identified by Graham Power.

Meetings and contact with the London authorities and mere plebs – or – heaven forefend, opposition politicians in Jersey, just never occurs.

Thus the powers-that-be in London ensure that nothing too vulgar or problematic should ever intrude into their purview.

Deliberate pseudo-investigation of any complaints: No complaint – and I am aware of many – ever made to the authorities in London concerning the conduct of their appointees in Jersey – for example, the four Crown Officers – is ever investigated. Likewise – any complaints to the effect that the rule of law, or of good governance, have failed – are ever properly considered.

All that happens, is that any letter of complaint to the authorities in London, is merely sent back to the very authorities in Jersey that are being complained of – with a covering letter to the effect, “tell us what we need to say to make these dreadful plebs bugger-off, there’s a chap.”

Then – after the inevitable airy dismissal of the complaint has occurred – the Jersey oligarchy are left to then oppress, and wreak their vengeance upon whoever the complainant was.

The illegitimate ‘framing’ of the terms of engagement: It can be observed in any discussion of, or communication concerning, the Jersey oligarchy and its power and status – that both parties – London and the Jersey establishment – are always careful to refer to ‘”Jersey” says this’ – ‘”Jersey” wants that’ – ‘the “Crown Dependency’s” wishes have been taken into account’ – ‘we are protecting and respecting the “interests of the Crown Dependency” and “its views”‘.

Such phraseology is, of course, mere propaganda and code. For, in truth, what they’re saying is – “the interests of Jersey’s traditional ruling elite are being taken into account”; “the position and power of the entrenched Jersey oligarchy is being protected.”

A very – very – different thing to the broad interest of the Jersey population as a whole being safeguarded.

Connections: Should the above fail to protect the Jersey oligarchy’s traditional vice-like grip on power – and some kind of cosmetic inquiry become unavoidable – not to worry. One of “our chaps” will do it.

My readers – an astute bunch – having recently coined the phrase “Ourchap Reports” to describe this phenomenon – so startlingly well-evidenced and visible is it.

It is one of the oldest tricks of power in the democratic age. You are an authority facing some kind of scandal – some kind of disgraceful crises?

Step one: agree how serious it is. So serious, in fact, that you’re going to establish an “independent” “inquiry” into the matter.

There. You see how seriously you’re taking this scandal? So seriously – you’ve made sure that the inquiry is established to your terms of reference – and is being conducted by one of your chaps. And, you’ve done so with sufficient determination and speed, to head-off any danger of an actual meaningful and independent investigation taking place.

Which brings me to the subject of Lord Carswell.

The Lord is – of course – a text-book example of an “Ourchap”.

In order to deflect from there being a real investigation into the wholly conflicted and unsustainable position of Jersey’s London-appointed four Crown Officers – the Jersey oligarchy reluctantly agreed that they would support an “inquiry” – but ensured it would be of their choosing, and working to their terms of reference – thus ensuring the requisite “Ourchap Report” is produced as the final product.

If there should be any doubt about that, consider – what would any serious inquiry Chairman be doing – even agreeing to take on an investigation – into a question that was settled by history – 250 years ago?

As though there was still some doubt – some question or argument that needed testing – concerning the concept of a separation of powers and effective checks and balances?

And to test my suspicions concerning this exercise – I took the trouble to submit my views in writing – to the effect that the present arrangement of Jersey’s Crown Officers is manifestly absurd, and should be changed immediately in order to ensure effective checks and balances.

I went further – and made sure my submission was very solidly backed – by a raft of hard evidence.

That was on the 31st March.

At time of writing – 5.00 a.m Monday 12th April – there is precisely zero sign of any reference to my terribly inconvenient written, evidenced submission – on the Panel’s web site.

Lots and lots of other submissions, to be sure.

Just not mine.

All of that terribly inconvenient hard evidence of the complete breakdown in the rule of law in Jersey. Yet – 95% of the published submissions on the web site amount to nothing more than – “everything in the garden is rosy – no need to change anything – the plebs and peasants love it – and we’ve always done it this way.”

Jersey: less scrutiny and fewer checks and balances than a Balkan state.

So if one wishes to apply scrutiny to the situation that exists in Jersey – upon who – or what – should one focus?

I once heard one of Jersey’s more noted Advocates – Richard Falle – remark that the history of governance in Jersey, was the history of the place’s lawyers.

How true.

He – I imagine – would naturally see that as a good thing.

It most certainly isn’t.

One need only consider the state of crazed, nihilistic folly that power in Jersey has come to – to see that decadence was long ago allowed to take too strong a grip.

When something over-ripens, we say that it has rotted. And if rot develops un-checked – it infects everything.

It is such a rot that has irredeemably gripped the Jersey oligarchy. For in the final analyses – the ‘paradise’ of lawyers’ untrammelled power has become spalted with canker – as inevitably happens to all absolute power.

Were that not so with the Jersey situation, there would have been cool heads available – wise council – people ‘on-side’ – players for the establishment team – who would have said – “hold on.”

“Look – not only is this wrong – this attempt to carry on concealing child abuse – it also simply won’t work. This is the 21st century. The days when our chaps could pull the shutters over this kind of thing – ended long ago. The plebs have the internet now. We no longer control what the public get to know.”

“Now – as embarrassing as this is – the best thing we could do – in 2008 – is face up to the inevitable; take the moral high-ground. Accept that things went disastrously wrong in years gone by – take it on the chin – but now we will see that the system is fixed.”

But – amongst all of Jersey’s plush comfort of lawyers – there were none to offer such council.

Instead – incapable of resisting Groupthink – folly has been heaped upon folly.

A decorated, nationally respected Chief Constable has been criminally suspended.

Widely known manifest child abusers have not only escaped justice – they’re actually protected still; often in public posts.

Police raiding-parties have been sent around to arrest the senior Senator in the island’s parliament – turn over the house from top to bottom – without a search warrant – whilst he’s locked in a windowless police cell for seven and a half hours – as though Jersey were Zimbabwe. And if that wasn’t bad enough – the police steal his parliamentary privileged communications with his constituents – and he gets refused effective legal representation – and then denied the admissibility of the evidence he needs to defend himself.

Yet – still the madness continues.

No wise council prevails; instead – bigger and bigger sticks are reached for.

And to illustrate that point – we can turn to the first item of evidence which accompanies this posting.

It is a letter I received – via e-mail – on the 26th March –from Jersey’s Data Protection Commissioner – Emma Martins; daughter of Bergerac TV actor John Nettles.

Aside from being manifestly unlawful in several regards – for example, the letter being an attempt to intimidate a witness – me – in a criminal case, and, most of the people cited as complainants, possessing precisely zero locus against me under any aspect of the data protection law – the letter is unremarkable.

It is all-of-a-piece with the continuous unlawful harassments Ms Martins has subjected me – and other whistle-blowers to, at the behest of William Bailhache – for around two and a half years now.

The only thing that compensates the tedium of showing it, is the illustration of the banality of evil.

The letter is very brief. It didn’t need to be long. All it had to do was fulfil a certain pseudo-legal function – and, more significantly, intimidate and harass me.

What can be drawn from this letter which is more significant – are the identities, the statuses – and the shared objectives – of the seven complainants and Ms. Martins.

If you are resident in Jersey – bear in mind – as you read these few – fragmentary lines – two things:

1: This letter – and, in particular, all of the underlying legal “work” – has cost you many hundreds of thousands of pounds.

2: All seven of the individuals named in the letter as complainants have acted both criminally – and with gross professional incompetence. You have either employed, or still are employing them; you are still paying for their pensions. And the letter represents them and their corrupt allies oppressing and thwarting you – through the oppression and harassment of your elected representatives. You are funding this:

“THE OFFICE OF THE
Data Protection Commissioner

Strictly private & confidential
By email only:
st.syvret@gmail.com; st.syvret@gov.je

Senator Stuart Syvret

26th March 2010

Dear Senator Syvret

Application for assistance under Art.53 of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 (“the Law”)

I have received applications from the following individuals seeking assistance from mc under Art.53 of the Law;

1. Mrs Linda Dodds

2. Mr Richard Jouault

3. Mrs Rose Naylor

4. Mr David Minty

5. Nurse M

6. Mr Piers Baker

7. Mrs Marnie Baudains

In each case I have determined to provide assistance.

I write therefore in accordance with my statutory obligations to inform you of that decision.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Emma Martins

Data Protection Commissioner.”

Did you enjoy that?

Did you appreciate Ms Martins undertaking so enthusiastically the instructions of her Jersey oligarchy Boss – William Bailhache?

Do you consider that to be a fine and worthwhile use of your hard-earned taxes?

If you do – let me council you to reserve your judgment; for in three or four weeks – I will microscopically itemise the crimes and/or gross malfeasances of those seven individuals.

That’s just in case you haven’t been paying attention – and can’t yet see for yourself the utter atrocity taking place.

But – for today – let us focus upon the even broader question; greater than those seven individuals using and abusing your resources to shelter themselves from accountability.

Instead – let us consider the democratic implications – of people like Ms Martins – her puppet-masters in the Crown Officers’ department – and lots and lots of very, very expensive lawyers – the whole crew, paid for by you – using your money, to criminally harass and oppress your chosen elected representatives.

I suppose I could recount just how such monstrous threats are gross breaches of the hard-won rights of parliamentary democracy – of your right to be freely represented – for which our forefathers have laid down their lives.

I could also belabour the point that, to receive such a letter from Ms. Martins – especially in the name of her and certain those complainants – is a straightforward criminal act of witness intimidation during the course of a criminal trial; but that much is too obvious already – so brazen is it.

However – what is worth focusing upon – because it is a genuinely mystifying question – one that I have striven – unsuccessfully – to obtain an answer to from Whitehall mandarins on behalf of my constituents, is – just who do we complain to?

In Jersey – as already adumbrated above and before – we are – undeniably and starkly confronted with nothing less than a complete breakdown in the rule of law – the proper administration of justice.

But – given the Police under David Warcup – the Attorney General’s office under these Crown Officers – and the Judiciary under Michael Birt and William Bailhache – are all the very corrupt and criminal entities we wish to complain about – to who or what – do my constituents make their criminal complaints?

You begin to see the problem?

And it’s not as though there is any reasoning with these Jersey authorities.

On the contrary.

For example – I responded by e-mail to the manifestly anti-democratic, intimidatory and unlawful letter from Ms. Martins – stating the obvious objections to what she was attempting – and warning her that she was threatening me even though I am the primary witness in an on-going criminal trial.

What occurred next – well – you just couldn’t make it up.

I received a reply – not from Ms Martins – not even from the Crown Officers’ department – but from a private sector legal firm.

And, no – not 7 Bedford Row.

But, rather – from a Jersey legal outfit – that, today at least, goes under the name of Appleby Global.

Now, let me tell you something absolutely fascinating about Applebys; they’ve evolved over the years – as legal firms are wont to do. But not evolved – in this case – from any old legal firm.

Oh no.

Appleby’s evolved from a legal firm – regular readers will be there ahead of us – called Bailhache Labesse.

Now – where have we heard that name before?

Bailhache Labesse was, of course, the law firm that so catastrophically failed the young victims of the Blanche Pierre Atrocity – back during 1998/99.

Back when THE Senior Partner of the firm was one Advocate William Bailhache.

That being THE William – Barking Bill – Bailhache who has not only been instructing and directing Emma Martins in her various oppressions of me and other whistle-blowers during the last two and a half years – but who has also been evidentially instrumental in pro-actively obstructing and thwarting the Police in their efforts to extradite and charge and prosecute Jane and Allan Maguire – for the criminal offences they so obviously committed against their young victims.

Young victims who were utterly betrayed and failed – by Bailhache Labesse – back in 1998/99.

Is it not remarkable – how those young victims were not able to take a civil case forward?

Is it not amazing – that what atrocious “advice” – such as they received – concerned the “possibility” of suing the Maguires – rather than the far more obvious – culpable – and legally guaranteed defendant – the States of Jersey?

Is it not sickening – that so disengaged and morally dysfunctional were Bailhache Labesse/Applebys – that the only note-worthy thing they ever did in respect of the young victims of the Blanche Pierre Atrocity – was to send them a bill?

I did – of course – attempt to point out to William Bailhache – during 2008 – when matters concerning the Blanche Pierre atrocity and the abuses by the Maguires were due to be determined for extradition and prosecution – that he, in his capacity as Attorney General, was hopelessly conflicted in the matter – and that he should recues himself.

He – of course – would have none of it, and instead pressed on – with all of the crazed hubris that so defines the Jersey oligarchy. And to this day – he consequently remains dammed – utterly so – by his own actions and misjudgements.

But to return to Bailhache Labesse – in its 2010 incarnation – as Appleby Global – and its politically oppressive, unlawful and anti-democratic actions – as evidenced in their letter to me.

As explained above – I received the highly intimidating and prejudicing letter from Ms Martins – which I was so frightened and disquieted by, I had to respond, pointing out its manifest illegality.

In response, I received this:

“APPLEBY

E-mail:

dbenest@applebyglobal.com

dblackmor@applebyglobal.com

Direct dial:

Tel + 44 (0) 1534 818 101777

Fax + 44 (0) 1534 837 778

Your ref:
Appleby ref: 204644.0002\DVB\djb

30 March 2010

By Email Only: st.syvret@gmail.com
Senator Stuart Syvret

Dear Senator Syvret

Data Protection Commissioner

I write further to your letter dated 26th March 2010 as addressed to the Data Protection Commissioner, Mrs Martins, and which she has passed to us for reply.

Under Art.53, the Data Protection Commissioner may provide assistance if she determines that it is appropriate to do so in all the circumstances and that the relevant statutory test has been met. She has agreed to accede to the requests of certain individuals who have made applications to her, and whose names have been provided to you.

Pursuant to Art.53 of the Law, where she has made the decision to provide an individual with assistance, she is obliged to inform you, the data controller, of that decision. That she has done. Her letter does no more than that and to frame it as intimidatory is wrong.

She is not obliged to and will not provide to you the reasons for her determinations to provide assistance. This is for no other reason than that the matters contained within the individual applications for assistance, and which form the basis of any determination, are confidential. She has taken advice regarding her powers under the Law and she is satisfied that she is acting properly in acceding to the requests, which she has approached in an entirely impartial manner.

As a direct result of the requests made to her and her decision to provide assistance in relation to the applicants, she has instructed this firm and we are now in the process of considering each individual case and the appropriate way in which to take the matter forward.

It has also been noted that your letter to Mrs Martins appears littered with allegations of misconduct and criminality. Whilst not wishing at this stage to engage in litigation by correspondence, it should be noted, for the record, that each allegation in this respect is expressly denied.

Yours faithfully

David Benest”

Predictably – my honest effort to defend myself against Martins’ attempts to frighten and intimidate me in my capacity as a defence witness in the course of the prosecution, elicited only further and greater oppression from the Jersey oligarchy, as evidenced in the letter above.

It is also dismaying that Appleby Global – nee Bailhache Labesse – and their clients – seem able to draw limitlessly upon untold quantities of Jersey tax-payers’ money – in order to engage in such anti-democratic and manifestly criminal enterprises.

However – to say that, is to state the obvious.

Let me inform readers – and I’m struggling here – for a new cliché – if that isn’t an oxymoron – of something that Kafka couldn’t have made up – on a drunken night out with James Joyce.

In late 2007/early 2008 – one of the Blanche Pierre survivors – the atrocities they suffered having been opened to re-investigation – was attempting to obtain the file of her case – as held by Appleby – formerly known as Bailhache Labesse. But – in her attempts to obtain their file – she was being obstructed and thwarted at every turn.

Eventually – this young woman asked me, as her elected representative, to accompany her at a meeting with Appleby, which she had had to finally insist upon, in order to demand her files.

We attended the firm’s offices, where we were ushered into a small room, and sat waiting. After some delay, a lawyer eventually came into the room and peremptorily asked me to leave.

I asked why? He responded that that was nothing to do with me – he wished to speak alone with my constituent.

She asked why? He – growing agitated – said he just needed to speak with her in private.

I turned to her and said that I was perfectly happy to leave, if that was her wish; that it was her decision.

She chose to say ‘no’, and insisted upon me remaining – and told the lawyer that whatever he had to say, he could say with me present. I reinforced this by saying that I was present to represent my constituent, and if she wished me to be present, I would remain.

The lawyer – losing all control and going red in the face by this stage – barley avoided shouting, and snapped –

“Very well then! I must say to you that you should not trust Senator Syvret! You should not be discussing your case with him! He does not have your best interests at heart! He does not care about you! He is just using you for his political purposes!”

I sat there and took this tirade of dishonest abuse with the equanimity I’ve developed over the years. Took it, on the surface at least. I turned to look at my constituent, her concerns uppermost in my mind, and again said, it was her decision – and I had no problem at all if she wished me to leave. She did not.

I don’t mind saying now – just how personally demoralising to me that attack was – just how wounding.

I had cast aside my career to stand by these constituents – to do what was right. I had received nothing but hell from all quarters of the Jersey oligarchy for doing so; yet – here I had to sit – calmly listening to this animal denigrate me – the only person in authority who had ever striven to do right by these survivors. Unlike anyone from Bailhache Labesse/Appleby Global.

The lawyer was David Benest.

The same lawyer who authored the letter above, on Emma Martins’ behalf.

This being David Benest of Appleby Global – which firm was – and is – striving to support and continue the cover-up – the Culture of Concealment, in which their forebears – Bailhache Labesse (Senior Partner, William Bailhache) – were so dismally culpable.

Appleby Global – who are being paid with significant sums of Jersey tax-payers’ money – in order to continue oppressing me – for striving to attempt to represent the young victims they so disgustingly failed – twelve years ago.

It must be a remarkable feeling – being paid huge sums of money – to engage in the cover-up – of one’s own despicable malfeasances.

A reader when commenting under Part 2 of this series of postings, introduced us to an old Mexican curse:

“May your life be filled with lawyers.”

Though – God knows, I’m justified – it’s not a fate I would wish upon my worst enemies.

And if it is not yet clear enough why that should be such a terrible thing – read below the concluding item of evidence – for this posting, at least.

In Blanche Pierre – Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity, Part 2 – we considered the States of Jersey Police chronology of the events of 1998/99 – when the administration of “justice” – and even their own lawyers, Bailhache Labesse – failed, utterly, the young victims.

The evidence reproduced below is a further States of Jersey Police chronology – this time – prepared contemporaneously – in an effort to enable the Police to understand just what on Earth was happening in 2008 – and why – again – when the case was even more powerfully evidenced and established – the Jersey Crown Officers – and 7 Bedford Row – and the Attorney General, William Bailhache – were still doing everything in their power – to prevent the Blanche Pierre abusers – Jane and Allan Maguire – from facing justice?

The Police began to formulate their own views as to what had, and was, taking place – as we will examine in Part 4 of Blanche Pierre – Anatomy of an On-going Atrocity – in the next couple of days.

In the meantime – I have to say my thanks – to those constituents – for trusting, and standing by me – in the face of such evil.

Stuart.

STATES OF JERSEY POLICE CHRONOLOGY
IN RESPECT OF MAGUIRE ABUSE INVESTIGATION – 2008.

Telephone: (01534) 612612

POLICE HEADQUARTERS
P.O. Box 789
JERSEY JE2 3ZA

REPORT for Attention of SlO

Submitted by: D.C 3961 HOLMES

Date: 6th August 2008

Subject: Chronology of Events and Legal Contact Linked to Maguire Investigation.

Sir,

As requested, below is a chronological list of events and meetings linked to the re-investigation of Jane and Allan Maguire. All entries are taken from documents held within the enquiry or from Emails held within the States of Jersey Police computer system. I have attached and appendix of documents where relevant or included HOLMES numbers to assist with location of documents.

18/03/2008 Statement obtained from [Male 5] S135 who attended Police HQ wishing to make a complaint against Jane and Allan Maguire. Allegations of physical and sexual abuse.

26/03/2008 Statement obtained from [Female 2] S113

27/03/2008 Attended Law offices to recover copy tiles of evidence for Maguire trial in 1998. Informed they were with the Attorney General who was not finished with them. (PNB DC Newth pg 92).

27/03/2008 Meeting with OIC of initial investigation Barry Faudemer.

28/03/2008 Witness [Female 1] contacted HAT enquiry stating she had been informed by SKY TV that the Maguires were to be re-arrested.

31/03/2008 Panorama TV program broadcast.

08/04/2008 Original case files for trial in 1998 recovered by investigating officers and exhibited.

10/04/2008 Court transcripts of committal hearing collected from the Magistrates Court. Exhibit DH/1.

14/04/2008 Statement obtained from [Female 1]. S117.

14/04/2008 Statement obtained from [Male 3] S190 by officers from HAT in the UK.

16/04/2008 Statement obtained from [Male 2]. S181.

22/04/2008 Statement obtained from [Female 3]. S216.

23/04/2008 Statement obtained from [Male 4] S220.

23/04/2008 Statement obtained from [Male 3] S226.

28/04/2008 Reviewing officers’ files of evidence containing all new statements and officers recommendations (Appendix A) for re-instigation of proceedings against Maguires along with exhibits Ph/7 and PH/8 submitted to legal advisor Simon Thomas.

12/05/2008 Statement obtained from [Female 4]. S248.

20/05/2008 Statement obtained from [Female 5].S256.

20/05/2008 Meeting with Simon Thomas attended by investigating officers and DS Smith. Issues raised included requests for new statements, chronological list of events, time line of residence for witnesses at Blanche Pierre, obtain all files for residents at Blanche Pierre and in particular the subject of Abuse of Process was raised with 8 particular points that had to be addressed by the investigating officers.

21/05/2008 Statement obtained from Joyce Symons. S240.

29/05/2008 Email (1) from Simon Thomas requesting further info into a point raised concerning [Female 2]. Reply sent the same day.

30/05/2008 Investigating officer’s report concerning abuse of process submitted to Simon Thomas (Appendix B) with additional comments appended from SIO. Also submitted was folder addressing most of the other items raised by Simon Thomas at previous meeting.

03/06/2008 Email (2) from investigating officer with query regarding next meeting.

04/06/2008 Further Email (3) from investigating officer regarding meeting and further paperwork for his attention.

04/06/2008 Email reply (4) from Simon Thomas re: Emails (2+3) stating he had no recollection of a meeting but as was meeting Crown Advocates to update them on the Maguires’ case he thought that would take priority. Also investigating officer’s reply sent the same day.

06/06/2008 Email (5) from Simon Thomas requesting information on possible deceased witness.

07/06/2008 Email (5 reply) from investigating officer in reply to Email (5) delay due to investigating officer being out of the island for weekend.

10/06/2008 Email (6) from investigating officer re exhibits recovered.

16/06/2008 Email (7) from investigating officer requesting advice regarding the approach to potential defence witnesses.

18/06/2008 Email (8) received to investigating officers via SlO containing communications between SlO and Simon Thomas and Stephan Baker. The genesis of the communications would be that the legal advisors would advise the Attorney General within 7 days of the 18/06/2008.

26/06/2008 Email (9) from investigating officer asking for update as to Attorney General’s advice and asking for a copy for records and also to enable enquiry to be focused to the recommendations.

27/06/2008 Statement obtained from witness Audrey Mills. S281.

27/06/2008 Email (10) from Simon Thomas in reply to Email (9) stating he will reply to my request next week.

02/07/2002 Statement obtained from [Witness W]. S301.

02/07/2008 Email (11) from Simon Thomas re: update on diaries from Blanche Pierre and investigating officers reply sent the same day.

02/07/2008 Email (12) from Simon Thomas acknowledging Email (11) and requesting further information regarding [Male 4]. Also investigating officers reply sent the same day.

03/07/2008 Statement obtained from witness Sue Doyle. S313.

07/07/2008 Email (13) series of Emails between Simon Thomas and investigating officers concerning various enquiry topics and investigating officers replies.

07/07/2008 Email (14) further Email from investigating officer addressing point raised by Simon Thomas.

08/07/2008. Email (15) further emails from Simon Thomas concerning exhibit problems and officers reply sent the same day.

08/07/2008 Email (16) from investigating officer to Simon Thomas addressing further points raised and asking for a meeting to tighten up the focus of the enquiry and to avoid investigating officers wasting time on lines of enquiry not to be pursued by legal team.

08/07/2008 Email (17) from investigating officer with more information regarding exhibits.

09/07/2008 Telephone call received by investigating officer from Simon Thomas. It was stated that the recommendations had not gone to the Attorney General but that it was very close to completion. Delay was explained as due to the complicated nature of the case he wanted everything correct before submission to the Attorney General. He also stated a copy of the advice would not be supplied to the enquiry team. Simon Thomas also requested copies of further statements. Conversation documented in Investigation Log Book D1449 immediately after call terminated.

11/07/2008 Email (18) series of Emails from Simon Thomas requesting collection of original files and exhibits from his office and officers replies sent the same day.

14/07/2008 Documents requested by Simon Thomas dropped at St Helier office by investigating officer.

16/07/2008 Statement obtained from witness [Witness V]. S317.

18/07/2008 Statement obtained from witness Dorothy Wood (Ingliss). S320.

28/07/2008 Statement from witness Graham Jennings. (Statement number not allocated at time of writing.)

29/07/2008 Meeting with Simon Thomas and DC Holmes. This took place at Broadcasting House following a meeting between Simon Thomas and deputy SIO). Simon Thomas stated that the Attorney General wished to clarify to the investigation team that the decision to drop the charges against the Maguires in 1998 was based purely on an evidential standard. Investigation team criticism of the fact that too much weight was placed on the purported terminal illness of Allan Maguire as a factor in the decision to dismiss the charges was ill founded. Documents held by the enquiry concerning this issue were badly worded and the AG wished to clarify that the decision was evidential based not public interest based. Simon Thomas also stated that criticism from the enquiry team as to the fact there appeared to be no record of a meeting between council, police and children’s services prior to the decision being made was also incorrect. Via the AG Simon Thomas stated that a meeting did take place. Copy tapes of interviews with certain witnesses also requested. When asked about update as to decision with the Maguires, Simon Thomas stated it is with the law officers and he has seen paperwork from them so they are looking at it.

Contents of this meeting immediately past to deputy SlO and its conclusion and recorded in investigation log book D1449

06/08/2008 Copy tapes of interviews requested by Simon Thomas supplied.

Enquiries into the Maguire’s are still ongoing however to date the enquiry team has received no indication from any source as to what possible charges are being proposed or even what the views of the legal team or the Attorney General’s office are.

SIGNED…….DC 3961 HOLMES.

Advertisements

0 Responses to “Stuart Syvret repost – letter from exile #17”



  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: